Humanities 343/Philosophy 205: Philosophy of Religion
Spring, 2007
Instructor: John Longeway Office: Greenquist 201
Office Hours: MWF 11:00-12:00, 3:00-4:00; Tuesday by Appointment
Time: 1–1:50 MWF Room: Mol D132
Office Phone: 595-2062 Email: longeway@uwp.edu
Philosophy Department Website: www.uwp.edu/academic/philosophy
This is a General Education course that satisfies a Breadth-of-knowledge (BOK) requirement in Humanities and the Arts. It addresses the following General Education competencies:
1) Communication—Literacy: Reading and writing for understanding and effective communication. Learning Goals: At the end of this course students should be able, in the course of reflection on the justification of religious beliefs and practices, to state their arguments and views clearly, in writing that is grammatically correct and stylistically appropriate.
2) Reasoned Judgment—Critical Thinking: Applying logic and reasoning to problem solving. Learning Goals: At the end of this course students should be able to form a clear grasp of both thesis and argumentation in complex discussions of the justification of religious beliefs and practices, and to assess the quality of the argumentation.
3) Social and Personal Responsibility—Social Equality: Understanding and questioning the social, political, economic, and historical conditions that construct diversity and inequality. Learning Goals: At the end of the course students should be able to display an understanding of the variety of defensible views and practices in religion, and engage in fair and reasoned discourse about them.
Class Routine: In general, I will lecture, and expect to be interrupted when there are questions or objections. Sometimes I will question a class, especially to introduce a topic or problem, and sometimes to start a class discussion, and then I may well call on a few individuals if things are too quiet—just say you have nothing to contribute if you don’t want to talk.
Work and Grades: There will be five papers, 4-6 pp. each, and a term paper, 12-15 pages, in place of the Final Exam. The shorter papers will each count 10% of your grade, for 50% in all, and the Term Paper will count for 40%. Topics will be handed out for shorter papers two weeks ahead of time. The term paper will be done in stages, and you must have a topic by Spring Break. I will hand out a collection of possible topics, but you can develop your own if you want. The papers must be typed, and proofread properly. I expect spelling and grammar to be perfect. In the essays, you should expect to have to lay out and discuss positions and arguments discussed in class and the readings, but no reading outside the book will be required, though you may go outside if you wish, of course. I am not looking for a pile of accumulated facts, but rather for reasoned argument establishing some interesting point, while taking into account and answering whatever plausible arguments might be brought against your point.
If a paper is turned in late, I will drop its grade one notch (for instance, B- to C+) for each day it is late. If you don’t have your paper ready in time for class, you can hand it in at my office later in the day. Do not skip class because you don’t have your essay ready. If you can’t make it in to school at all, you can email your essay to me as an attachment. (I will only count it as handed in only if I actually receive the email with a working attachment, so don’t mess it up.)
If, in a paper, you draw more than three consecutive words from a source, they must be put into quotation marks or indented, and footnoted. Not only outside sources, but the articles in your book, and any websites you use, must also be footnoted. If you do not mark your quotations as such, that is plagiarism. If you have someone else do your work, that is also plagiarism. If you plagiarize, I will give you an F on the paper, and no rewrites will be permitted. If you do it twice, that’s an F in the course.
Extra Credit: I will not accept extra credit work.
Daily Quizzes: There will be a brief quiz, 4 or 5 objective questions at the beginning of each class period. These quizzes cannot be made up. 10% of your grade will be taken from the cumulative score on the quizzes. The quizzes will cover the reading for the day, and the lecture in the previous class.
Class Comportment: It is rude to come to class late or leave early. Private conversations in class are also rude. While in class, turn off your cell phone and beeper or put them on ‘vibrate.’ If you must be available by beeper (it is required for your work, or in case of emergencies at home), then leave class quietly when you need to answer a call. (If you know you may be paged, sit near the door, where your leaving will create minimal confusion.)
Schedule of Topics and Readings
Most readings are from Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach and Basinger, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press (PHRB). In addition, on my website, accessible through the Philosophy Department website, you will find other readings, and my own notes.
Topic I: The Nature of Religion
I. January 17: What is Philosophy? On Religions of the Book and philosophy.
January 19: What is Religion? Read: PHRB Introduction and Part 1.
II. January 22: Read Notes on Philosophy of Religion 1, on Longeway’s website.
January 24: Pre-literate and Pagan Religion. Read Notes... 2, on Longeway’s website.
January 26: Philosophical Paganism and Monistic Idealism. Read Notes... 3, on Longeway’s website.
III. January 29: Read PHRB Part 4: Upanishads, p. 168; Part 9: Lao Tsu, p. 467.
January 31: Buddhism. Read Notes... 4, on Longeway’s website.
February 2: Read PHRB Part 13, Dalai Lama, p. 584. PAPER 1 DUE.
Topic II: The Rationality of Belief in God.
IV. February 5: Dualism and Transcendental Monotheism. Read Notes... 5, on Longeway’s website.
February 7: Read PHRB Part 4: Hick, p. 133, Aquinas, p. 143.
February 9: Transcendental Monotheism. Read Notes... 6, on Longeway’s website.
V. February 12: The Ontological Argument. Read Part 5: Anselm, p. 176, Gaunilo, p. 178.
February 14: Defense of the Ontological Argument. Read Part 5: Plantinga, p. 181.
February 16: The Cosmological Argument. Read Part 5: Aquinas, p. 194, Reichenbach, p. 197, Mackie, p. 223.
VI. February 19: The Cosmological Argument. Read Part 5: Craig, p. 210; Part 4: Boëthius, p. 155, Wolterstorff, p. 159.
February 21: The Argument from Design. Read Part 5: Paley, p. 232, Betty and Cordell, p. 235.
February 23: Defense of the Argument from Design. PAPER 2 DUE.
VII. February 26: Science and Best Explanation, Creationism and Evolution. Read Part 12.
February 28: The Argument from Evil. Read Part 7: Introduction, p. 289, Augustine, p. 293. Hume, p. 296, Mackie, p. 304 Rowe, p. 354.
March 2: Free Will Defenses against the Argument from Evil. Read Part 7: Plantinga, p. 315.
VIII. March 5: Free will and divine action. Read PHRB Part 8.
March 7: Soul-Making. Read PHRB Part 7: Hick, p. 341.
March 9: Horrendous Evils. Read PHRB Part 7: Adams, p. 365. TOPIC FOR TERM PAPER DUE
SPRING VACATION
IX. March 19: Faith as a virtue, and Pascal’s wager. Read PHRB Part 3: Introduction, p. 89, Aquinas, p. 92, Ibn Rushd, p. 96, Pascal, p. 101.
March 21:William James and Pragmatism. Read PHRB Part 2: James, p. 35, Part 3: Clifford, p. 104, James, p. 110.
March 23: Religious Experience. Read PHRB Part 2: Introduction, p. 29, Teresa, p. 32, Alston, p. 45. PAPER 3 DUE
X. March 26: The Argument from Religious Experience. Read PHRB Part 2: Proudfoot, p. 54, Martine, P. 65, Wesphal, p. 79.
March 28: The Knowability of God: Classical Views. Read PHRB Part 4: Maimonides, p. 138, Part 9: Aquinas, p. 427.
Maqrch 30: Religious Language: Verificationism and Modern Disputes. Read PHRB Part 9: Flew and Mitchell, p. 430, Tillich, p. 435, Alston, p. 447. FIRST DRAFT OF TERM PAPER DUE.
XI. April 2: The Buddhist Account of Religious Experience.
April 4: Epistemological Arguments: Faith and Foundationalism. Read PHRB Part 6.
April 6: Miracles. Read PHRB Part 10.
XII. April 9: Faith in Kierkegaard. Read PHRB Part3: Kierkegaard, p. 118, Evans, p. 123.
April 11: Epistemological Arguments: Is Knowledge of Reality Supernatural?
April 13: Other Anti-Naturalist Arguments: Does God Explain? PAPER 4 DUE
XIII. April 16: The autonomy of ethics.Read PHRB Part 14.
April 18: Immanuel Kant’s Ethical Argument. Read Readings from Kant on Longeway’s Website.
April 20: Other Ethical Arguments. Read PHRB Part 5: Adams, p. 246. SECOND DRAFT OF TERM PAPER DUE
Topic III: Non-Monotheistic Religions.
XIV. April 23: Religious Pluralism: Reference to God and Religious Experience. Read PHRB Part 13.
April 25: Religious Pluralism: Common Aims?
April 27: PAPER 5 DUE
XV. April 30: The Religious Self: Self and God.
May 2: The Immortal Self. Read PHRB Part 11.
May 4: The Meaning of Life.
May 9, 1:00 PM: FINAL EXAM; TERM PAPER DUE
Advice to Students
Expectations from students: (1) Information to be absorbed: One should be able to state the different positions that can be taken on each question discussed, as well as the question itself and names of the positions or people holding them. One should be able to give the arguments presented for and against each position. Mere ability to recognize the arguments or positions is not enough. You need to be able to state them yourself, and discuss them after laying them out.
(2) Skills to be acquired and demonstrated: (a) Writing. Besides making it understandable and grammatically correct, you should develop some sensitivity to the precise meaning of what you say. You need to distinguish among the various things that could be said and make it clear which you intend. You also need to clarify the consequences of what you say, and clear up possible misinterpretations of what you are saying by distinguishing it from similar positions you don’t hold. You also need to learn the correct use of any technical terms introduced in the course, but for the most part fancy technical language should be avoided as long as you can say what you mean clearly without it. (I’ll try to do that, myself, but your readings won’t always try, and you will get annoyed sometimes when they don’t.) (b) Argumentation and exploration of issues: You should present reasons for your views, show an understanding of alternative views (this is really important), and why people have held those views (also really important). This means learning the moves made in defense of the various views presented in your readings and in class. You should know when an argument is valid, and how to undermine an invalid argument, making its invalidity clear to the reader. If you disagree with the assumptions of an argument, you should be able to say what assumptions you reject, show how your rejection undermines the argument, and explain why the assumption is to be rejected. In defending your own view you need above all to anticipate and respond sensibly to what may seem reasonable objections to it.
You will observe all this stuff being done in your readings as well as my discussions. Try to imitate. It’s the best way to learn.
Grading of Papers:
C—Coherently expressed and organized. Presents a view on a defined question at least closely related to the question presented in the topic. Identifies and rejects alternative views. No mistakes about the views presented in the reading and class discussions assigned for the paper due to simple inattention or not having read or listened carefully.
B to A- —In addition, gives the arguments for the view presented in class and the textbook, more or less clearly and completely stated, in your own style and words. All the pieces I ask for in the assignment are there, and they make some sense. Gives the views presented in readings and class correctly even where there is some difficulty understanding them.
A- to A+—In addition, presents new argumentative moves, which are more or less plausible, and deals fairly with opposing views. or Criticizes in new and plausible ways arguments presented in class or readings. or Presents a new view, not considered in class, that answers some problems we have discussed with the views that are presented. or Finds a compromise view between two extreme views discussed in class, establishing that it makes more sense and presenting its advantages.
Reading and lectures: You need to read and listen carefully, making sure you understand each point before going on. Don’t just run the words through your head. If it is making no sense at all, this means you need to slow down and work through it more carefully. Possibly, you understand well enough, but have no sympathy with the author’s position. In that case, you don’t need to agree with the author, but you do need to try hard to understand, and try to work out honest replies to what the author has to say. You may be assigned a reading by someone who gets all or part of it wrong, but you won’t be assigned a reading by someone who is stupid. Learn what you can at least about why someone might be tempted to adopt the wrong view. Especially, attend to the arguments presented. If you can’t answer the arguments, don’t say the author is stupid.
In reading and listening to lectures, first of all, get the central facts straight. In philosophy, this means, among other things, being able to define any terms of art that come up, being able to state the various positions described on an issue accurately, differentiating them from other possible positions, and being able to state the arguments made and reasons given. This last is extremely important. Don’t look for the list of facts that are known in the field in a philosophy course. You are unlikely to find it.
Study habits: To accomplish all this you have to work. Your Professor can’t possibly cause you to understand just by being really interesting in class. You have to take an interest, not passively hope that it will turn out interesting. You have to go over the material and learn it. This means, first, going over your notes, organizing and rewriting them, after class, and rewriting them in such a way that any intelligent person will understand them. You should also take notes on your readings. The best approach is to try to work out what you think on each topic for yourself, and why you think it, and then see how the Professor does in lecture. If he changes your mind, all right. If he fails to respond to points you had thought important, bring them up. If he makes arguments that seem wrong, try to explain to him why they are wrong and see how he responds.