Philosophy of Religion

Prof. Patrick Frierson

 

frierspr@whitman.edu

Office Hours: Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 1:30-3, and by appointment

Olin Hall East 124

 

Goals:  The primary purpose of this course is to develop your skills at thinking philosophically about religion.  For that purpose, we focus on one particular issue in the philosophy of religion: the existence of God.  The course emphasizes proofs for and against the existence of God and various critiques and defenses of religious belief in general.  Throughout, we focus on the “philosopher’s God” that emerged through philosophical reflection on the Jewish and Christian theological traditions.  This course should familiarize you with various arguments for and against the existence of God and teach you to think critically about them.  In addition, you will develop your skills at reading philosophical texts and expressing your thoughts in papers and orally.

 

Assignments:

Class Participation: Active engagement in class discussion is a crucial part of this class.  You should come to every class having read the material closely more than once and thought about it carefully.  Participation will not count for any specific percentage of your grade, but I will adjust final grades based on participation.

 

5 short papers (400 word minimum)

On the syllabus, I have printed eight questions based on the readings.  You must write short papers answering five of these.  Because the papers will be discussed in class on the day in which they are due, there are NO EXTENSIONS.  I will be glad to read papers turned in late, but they will receive an F.  If you write more than five papers, I will only count the best five.  Each short paper will count for 15% of your overall grade.

 

Presentation Option: Students have the option of replacing up to two of their paper grades with presentations.  These presentations require reading contemporary philosophers of religion who take different sides on key arguments in the philosophy of religion.  For example, students might read recent articles discussing the ontological argument for the existence of God, including at least one that defends some version of that argument and another that aims to refute it.  Or a student might read articles discussing Buddhist responses to the problem of evil, where there are either differences of interpretation of Buddhism or differences of opinion about how successful these responses are.  Or a student might read an argument for the existence of God that we do not discuss in class, along with criticisms of that argument.  All students who want to complete a presentation should talk to me as early in the semester as possible so that I can schedule them in class and work with them to find the best sources for their presentation. 

 

For each presentation, the student will have up to 15 minutes to lay out as clearly and concisely as possible the relevant arguments, with textual support.  The goal is to bring the class’s level of thinking about that particular topic to a higher level through showing further steps in an ongoing debate.  You are strongly encouraged to have informative handouts relevant to the topic, and you should also bring one or two discussion questions that the class can discuss after your 15 minute presentation.  You will be graded on the level of sophistication of the arguments you present; your engagement with relevant literature; and how clear, concise, precise, and engaging your presentation is.  I also very strongly recommend that if you choose this option, you sign up for two presentations, so that you can benefit from my comments on your first presentation in preparing your second. 

 

Procedure for turning in papers:  Papers are due at 10 AM on the day for which they are listed.  Papers must be emailed to me at frierspr@whitman.edu by this time.  If you have trouble with your email, you may turn in a hard copy of your paper in class, but you must still email me a copy by the end of the day on the day on which the paper is due.

Papers must be emailed to me in .doc or .docx (Word) format.  If you have a Mac, be sure to save your paper in a PC friendly format.  When you send you paper to me, you should save the paper with the following title format: [Firstname Lastname Paper Number].  For example, when I turn in the third paper on the syllabus, I will entitle the document “Patrick Frierson Paper 3.doc”.  Papers turned in with any other name will be considered late.

 

Final Paper (at least 1500 words)

For your final paper, you should develop and defend a standard for deciding questions of religious significance and use that standard to argue for or against belief in God, taking into account the strongest and most relevant objections to both your standard and your use of it.  Your final paper must draw on at least two of the last five figures we discuss (Freud, Darwin/Dawkins, Nietzsche, Fleischacker, Taylor), either as supports for your argument or challenges to it.  You are also strongly encouraged to draw on material from earlier in the semester.  This paper is due on the last day of class.  The final paper is worth 25% of your overall grade.

 

Grading: For all papers for this class, I will assign a number rather than a letter grade.  These numbers can be interpreted based on my grading criteria, which can be found at http://people.whitman.edu/~frierspr/gradingcriteria.htm.  If you would ever like to know the letter grade of your paper(s), and/or how you are doing in the class, just let me know and I’ll be happy to tell you.

 

Books:

David Hume, Principal Writings on Religion Including Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Natural History of Religion, trans. J. C. A. Gaskin.

Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, trans. Peter Gay. 

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.

 

 

Timeline of Readings and Assignments

 

Jan.

19

Introduction: Discussion of the relationship between faith and reason.

 

21

Read Anselm’s Proslogion, Preface and Chapters I-V.

http://www.ccel.org/a/anselm/basic_works/htm/TOC.htm (Choose the "Read Online" option and print out only the passages you need to read. YOU SHOULD BRING THESE PRINTOUTS TO CLASS.)

Mini-Paper #0 due (200-300 words): Carefully explain Anselm’s argument (usually called the Ontological Argument) for the existence of God.  Raise at least one specific objection to his argument.  (I will read these papers, give comments, and tell you what grade you would have gotten, but these papers will not count towards your final grade, and do not count as one of your five papers.)

 

 

 

 

26

Read Gaunilo’s “In Behalf of the Fool” and Anselm’s Apologetic.

Also read at least two responses from “Criticisms of Anselm’s Ontological Argument” (I recommend Leibniz, Kant, Locke, or Spinoza.  You may also use Aquinas’s criticism at http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm, Book I, Chapters 10-11.)

Paper #1 due (400-600 words).  Explain Gaunilo’s argument against Anselm.  (This will require briefly laying out Anselm’s argument.)  What is Anselm’s response?  Is there a way to salvage Anselm’s argument? THIS PAPER IS REQUIRED.

 

28

Hume’s Dialogues, Introduction and chapter 1.  For an online (and thus searchable) version of the dialogues, see

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm

Is Philo right that we should be skeptics?  If not, why not?  If so, is this a good basis for religion?

 

 

 

 Feb.

2

Hume’s Dialogues, chapters 2-3.

Paper #2 due (400-600 words): What is Cleanthes’s argument in chapter 2?  (What conclusion is he trying to establish, what premises does he depend on, and how does he argue for the conclusion?)  Does the argument work?  Why or why not? 

(In your paper, you should consider the objections of Philo and Demea.  Which of these work the best?  How might Cleanthes respond?)

4

Hume’s Dialogues, chapters 4-8.

How would you answer Philo’s question in chapter 4: if we stop and go no farther, why go so far?

Also, does Cleathes’s argument support Philo’s alternative theories about the origin of the universe?  Which theory is the most plausible?  Why?

 

 

 

 

9

Hume’s Dialogues, chapter 9, and Aquinas, Summa Theol., First Part, Question 2, articles 1-3.  Focus on Aquinas’s second and third arguments for the existence of God.  (The Aquinas can be found at:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa)

(For some tips on reading Aquinas, click here. The only thing I would add, especially with respect to this reading, is that it is important to peruse the objections to Aquinas's positions and to read closely those that seem especially important.)

Paper #3 Due (400-600 words):  Compare Cleanthes’s argument, Demea’s argument (in this chapter), and one of Aquinas’s five arguments for the existence of God.  Of these, which is the strongest argument?

(Be sure to explain briefly how the argument that you choose as best relates to the others, and give specific objections to the arguments you reject, showing why the strongest argument is not susceptible to these objections, or not to the same degree.) 

 

11

Hume, Dialogues, chapters 10-12. 

(Also review Aquinas Q2, Article 3, Objection #1 and Reply.)

Paper # 4 due (400-600 words): What implications about God can we draw from the presence of evil in the universe?  What is the best theist explanation of evil?  (A draft of this paper is due today, but you may submit a revised version by midnight tomorrow.)

 

 

 

 

16

Hume, “Of Miracles.”  Paper #5 due (400-600 words): Describe a miracle that would provide the best possible proof-by-miracle of God’s existence. Would this miracle be sufficient to show that God exists?  Why or why not?  (A draft of this paper is due today, but you may submit a revised version by midnight tomorrow.)

 

18

POWER AND PRIVILEGE SYMPOSIUM.  Full program available here.  There are several sessions dealing with issues related to being religious at Whitman; check one of these out.  (This might even be a good chance to talk to religious students about the reasons that they believe what they believe, perfect preparation for our discussion on Tuesday, but be models of respect as you do so.)

 

 

 

23

Other arguments for the existence of God: Kant and Kreeft.  We have looked at several important arguments for the existence of God.  Are there any that we missed? 

Read Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason, pp. 92-100 (focus on pp. 92-93), 103-111 (103-5), 115-116.   Paper #6 due (400-600 words): What is Kant’s argument for the existence of God?  (If you want, you might also discuss how Kant establishes the attributes of God.)  Raise at least one objection to Kant’s argument.  How might he respond? (A draft of this paper is due today, but you may submit a revised version by midnight tomorrow.)

Check out Peter Kreeft’s 20 arguments for the existence of God at http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#18.

Question to think about: Which of the arguments here that we didn’t discuss is most worthy of consideration?  Why?  (I’ll call on some of you in class to give you answer to these questions, so be prepared.)

 

25

Bertrand Russell, “Why I am not a Christian.” (https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Why%20I%20am%20Not%20a%20Christian%20-%20Bertrand%20Russell.pdf )

Also look again at http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#18.

 

Debate between Aquinas, Anselm, Demea, Cleanthes, Philo, Hume, Kant, Kreeft, and Russell:  Is there a sound proof of the existence of God?

 

 

 Mar.

1

Clifford, “The Ethics of Belief.” (http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm#ethics)

(Also review Aquinas Q2, Article 3, Objection #2 and Reply.)  NOTE: BECAUSE I WILL BE AT A CONFERENCE ON THURSDAY, YOU SHOULD DO THE READING FOR THURSDAY BEFORE CLASS ON TUESDAY.

Paper #7 due (400-600 words): Write a dialogue about religious belief between Clifford, Demea, and at least one other philosopher we have studied this semester.

3

William James, “The Will to Believe.”  NOTE: I WILL BE AT A CONFERENCE THIS DAY, SO I WILL GIVE YOU SOME GUIDANCE FOR HOW TO CONDUCT CLASS IN MY ABSENCE.

(http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm#will)

 

 

 

 

8

Pascal’s Wager (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pascal/pensees.iv.html, focus on §233)

 

10

Alvin Plantinga, “Is Belief in God Properly Basic?

Over the break, you should also look at Plantinga’s article, “Intellectual Sophistication and Basic Belief in God,” at http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth03.html.)

Paper #8 due (500-1000 words): What reasons do Pascal, James, and Plantinga give to believe in God?  Which of these provides a more effective argument for faith in the light of Clifford’s objections? What objections can be articulated against the best of these three philosophers?  (This paper is due today, but you can submit a revised version as late as 9 PM on Sunday, March 13.)

 

 

 

Spring Break

 

 

 

 

29

Freud, The Future of an Illusion, pp. 5-25.

 

31

Freud, The Future of an Illusion, pp. 25-50.

 

 

 

April

5

Freud, The Future of an Illusion, pp. 51-71.

 

7

Dawkins, The God Delusion, pp. 100-103, 137-189. 

Also read this article from the NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?ei=5090&en=43cfb46824423cea&ex=1330664400

 

And review Aquinas’s proofs for (and against) the existence of God: http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP002.html#FPQ2A1THEP1

 

 

 

 

12

Undergraduate Conference

 

14

Dawkins, The God Delusion, pp. 190-240, 241, 245-54, 259-267, 298-99, 308-309, 315-336.

 

 

 

 

19

Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Part Three (“What is Religious?”)

(https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch03.htm)

Focus on what Nietzsche’s view of the theists we have read this semester would be, and of other theists.  Come to class with a 2-3 sentence Nietzschean description of one of the theists we have read, or of some other specific theist.

 

21

Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Part Three (“What is Religious?”)

(https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch03.htm)

Focus on what Nietzsche’s view would be of Freud and Dawkins.  Come to class with a 2-3 sentence Nietzschean description of Freud.

 

 

 

 

26

Charles Taylor’s The Secular Age, pp. 1-29, 539-44

 

28

Charles Taylor’s The Secular Age, pp. 539-593.

 

 

 

May

3

Sam Fleischacker, The Good and the Good Book, pp. 45-65.

 

5

Sam Fleischacker, The Good and the Good Book, pp. 45-65; perhaps also selections from Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments.

 

 

 

 

10

Debate: Should you believe in God?  (Final Papers Due in class.)