I'd like to highlight one article in particular: a discussion of the "God works in mysterious ways" response: do we have enough evidence to believe that there is a reason for all the suffering in the world, but humans aren't smart enough to understand what that reason is?
This is indirectly related to what we're discussing in class. It shows the degree to which our mind actively constructs our understanding of reality around us. Here's neuroscientist Jill Bolte Taylor's TED talk on her experience of having a stroke:
Reading Response #3 is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 3rd. Here is the assignment:
In a 250- to 500-word essay, explain and evaluate the Design Argument for God's existence.
First, briefly explain a version of the Design Argument--whichever version you prefer--in your own words.
Then, evaluate this argument. Is an intelligent designer the best explanation of this evidence? Or is there another, better explanation? Be sure to consider objections to the argument. Tell me your opinion. Do you think this version of the design argument is a good argument or a bad argument? Why? Be sure to defend your opinion with reasons.
The response is based on the design argument section of the textbook (section 4.2). Like the other reading responses, you won't be graded on your opinion. You'll be graded on how well you DEFEND your opinion.
Just a reminder that the midterm will be held at the beginning of class on Thursday, November 12th. It's worth 25% of your overall grade. You'll have 90 minutes to complete it.
There are a variety of questions on the midterm: some multiple choice, some short answers, a variety of argument evaluation, a mini-essay, and extra credit. It covers everything we've gone over in class so far:
Philosophy -Definitions -Doing philosophy
Arguments -Evaluation: Check the structure and the premises -Types: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive
Knowledge -Definition: True belief + ????? -Skepticism -Descartes: uncertain of childhood beliefs, senses, and reasoning; certain he's thinking and he exists -Rationalism: reason is the main source of our knowledge -Plato's rationalist arg for innate ideas -Empiricism: sense experience is the main source of our knowledge -Locke's empiricist arg against innate ideas -Hume's empiricism
God Stuff -Evidentialism vs. nonevidentialism -qualities typically included in definitions of 'god' -Cosmological Argument: Aquinas's version, abductive version, Taylor's version
Also, I expect you to stick around after the midterm, because we WILL be learning stuff in class after it's done.
The National Public Radio show Fresh Air ran a pair of interviews with two scientists talking about whether God exists. (Since they're not trained philosophers, some of their arguments aren't the best. Try to spot their mistakes!) The conversations touch on a lot of things we'll be discussing in class.
But again, why read when you can watch a video? With that in mind, here's Pinker's appearance on The Colbert Report:
Pinker has a few books on this stuff, and a lot of other interesting articles, too. Not everyone agrees with Pinker, though. Here's an article about a South American tribe that might be a counterexample to the claim that there are innate aspects of language development.
Reading Response #2 is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, October 15th. Here is the assignment:
In an essay of around 250 to 500 words, explain and evaluate your thoughts about God.
First, explain what it is you believe about the existence of God. Do you believe there is a God? If so, what kind of God or Gods? Do you believe that there is no God? Do you not have a belief one way or the other?
Next, explain why you believe whatever it is you believe about God. What reasons do you have for believing what you believe? Figure out your argument in support of your belief (even if your belief is "I don't know," explain why you don't know!).
Finally, philosophically evaluate your argument for what you believe. Do you think these are good reasons, or bad reasons? Why?
The response isn't based on any specific reading from the textbook. Instead, it's more of a chance for you to think about your own opinion before we discuss God stuff in class over the next several weeks. You won't be graded on your opinion. You'll be graded on how well you EXPLAIN and EVALUATE your reasons for your opinion.
The quiz will be held at the beginning of class on Thursday, October 1st. You will have about 25 minutes to take it. There will be a section on evaluating deductive arguments, and 4 or 5 short answer questions on the topics we discussed in class so far:
philosophy in general
doing philosophy
understanding and evaluating arguments
types of arguments: deductive, inductive, and abductive (inferences to the best explanation)
Here's a few dumb things about the arguments we discussed in class this week. First, inductive arguments. Here's a video of comedian Lewis Black describing his failure to learn from experience every year around Halloween:
And here's a stick figure comic with a bad inductive argument. What's bad about it? (Let us know in the comments!)
Reading Response #1 is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, September 24th. In a 250- to 500-word essay response, answer the following question:
What kinds of beliefs does Descartes say he cannot be certain of? (Hint: there are 3 kinds of beliefs he says he's not certain of.) Why does he believe he can't be certain of these?
What beliefs does Descartes say he can be certain of? (Hint: there are only 1 or 2 specific beliefs he says he is certain of.) Why does he believe he can be certain of these?
Evaluate his reasons: do you agree with Descartes? Why or why not?
Please paraphrase Descartes's ideas in your own words. The response is based on the Descartes reading from pages 65-71 of the textbook.
Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating deductive arguments that we did as group work in class. Perhaps I should have titled the handout "So Many Bad Args!"
1) All kangaroos are marsupials. All marsupials are mammals. All kangaroos are mammals.
2) (from Stephen Colbert) Bush was either a great prez or the greatest prez. Bush wasn’t the greatest prez. Bush was a great prez.
P1- questionable ("great" is subjective) P2- questionable ("great" is subjective) structure- valid (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B) overall- unsound (bad premises)
3) Some people are funny. Sean is a person. Sean is funny.
P1- true (we might disagree over who specifically is funny, but nearly all of us would agree that someone is funny) P2- true structure- invalid (the 1st premise only says some are funny; Sean could be one of the unfunny people) overall- unsound (bad structure)
4) All email forwards are annoying. Some email forwards are false. Some annoying things are false.
P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective) P2- true structure- valid (the premises establish that some email forwards are both annoying and false; so some annoying things [those forwards] are false) overall - unsound (bad first premise)
5) All bats are mammals. All bats have wings. All mammals have wings.
P1- true P2- true (if interpreted to mean "All bats are the sorts of creatures who have wings.") or false (if interpreted to mean "Each and every living bat has wings," since some bats are born without wings) structure- invalid (we don't know anything about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group) overall- unsound (bad structure)
6) Some dads have beards. All bearded people are mean. Some dads are mean.
P1- true P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective) structure- valid (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean) overall- unsound (bad 2nd premise)
7) This class is boring. All boring things are taught by Sean This class is taught by Sean.
P1-questionable ("boring" is subjective) P2- false (nearly everyone would agree that there are some boring things not associated with Sean) structure- valid overall- unsound (bad premises)
8) All students in here are mammals. All humans are mammals. All students in here are humans.
P1- true P2- true structure- invalid (the premises only tell us that students and humans both belong to the mammals group; we don't know enough about the relationship between students and humans from this; for instance, what if a dog were a student in our class?) overall- unsound (bad structure)
9) All hornets are wasps. All wasps are insects. All insects are scary. All hornets are scary.
11) If Sean sings, then students cringe. Sean is singing right now. Students are cringing right now.
P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false) P2- false (I'm not singing now!) structure- valid overall- unsound (bad premises)
12) If Sean sings, then students cringe. Sean isn't singing right now. Students aren't cringing right now.
P1- questionable (again, you don't know) P2- true structure- invalid(from premise 1, we only know what happens when Sean is singing, not when he isn't singing; students could cringe for a different reason) overall- unsound (bad 1st premise and structure)
13) If Sean sings, then students cringe. Students aren't cringing right now. Sean isn't singing right now.
14) If Sean sings, then students cringe. Students are cringing right now. Sean is singing right now.
P1- questionable (again, you don't know) P2- false structure- invalid(from premise 1, we only know that Sean singing is one way to guarantee that students cringe; just because they're cringing doesn't mean Sean's the one who caused it; again, students could cringe for a different reason) overall- unsound (bad premises and structure)
There is a collection of resources all about the problem of evil, including criticisms of several different responses to the problem. I mean, wow.
