Phil 3600
Paper assignments

Tu., Sep. 18: First paper due in class.

Making informed reference to at least two of the readings we will have discussed in the classes prior to Sep. 18, write a short (four or five page, typed, double-spaced) paper on one of the following topics.

• If there is no life after death for individual human beings and no God with a Master Plan that is fulfilled in human history, are our lives absurd and meaningless? If so, does this imply that life is not worth living?

• What difference, if any, does the existence of God make to whether there there are any objective facts about what's morally good and what's morally obligatory?

• What if God (assuming that God really exists) commanded us to do something we'd ordinarily think of as absolutely terrible? Would we have a moral obligation to obey God's command? Might we have a moral obligation to disobey such a command?

Papers should be clear, well-informed, accurate in their representation of the authors discussed, and well-argued.

For more advice about writing papers in philosophy, see:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/writing-a-philosophy-paper.html

1. Consider the following argument:

   1. If God existed – and were omnipotent and wholly good – God would prevent any instance of intense suffering or terrible loss unless he had a morally acceptable reason for not doing so.
   2. But there are some instances of intense suffering and instances of terrible loss that an omnipotent, omniscient being would be highly unlikely to have a morally acceptable reason for preventing.
   3. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that either God does not exist or is not omnipotent or is not wholly good.

   Appealing to specific examples of intense suffering and terrible loss, explain why someone might find this argument quite persuasive. Then consider various responses to the argument suggested by Layman's discussion of the problem of evil in chapter seven of his book. How strong is the argument? To what degree do the Layman-inspired rebuttals succeed?

2. Layman puts a lot of weight on mystical experiences of a very powerful and good being. Describe the sort of mystical experience Layman emphasizes, explain what epistemological principles he relies on in the evaluation of these experiences and how he thinks these principles enable him to boost the “prior probability” of Theism. Do you think Layman's epistemological principles are sound? Is it legitimate to apply them to the class of mystical experiences Layman emphasizes? Do these experiences provide the kind of support for Theism that Layman supposes they do? Give reasons for your views.

3. Layman thinks that the bare fact that there are contingent beings provides significant support for Theism. How does his argument for this conclusion go, and how much support does it provide for Theism? (An alternative version of the same question: State, explain, and critically evaluate Layman's version of the cosmological argument.)

4. Layman consistently rejects the possibility that there is a God who is not perfectly – or at least very – good. He repeatedly gives the same argument for disposing of this possibility. What is this argument, and how strong is it?

PLEASE DON'T ALL WRITE ON THE FIRST TOPIC. SOMEBODY... PLEASE... TAKE ON #4. WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT MUCH IN CLASS, BUT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT. IT'S AN INTERESTING TOPIC, AND THERE'S A LOT TO WORK WITH.

IF YOU NEED HELP, JUST ASK.