DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Week 2
RRB,
1.
religion
classical theism
reflective reason
1. What is the philosophy
of religion? Explain how approaches to
philosophy of religion are influenced by different approaches to philosophy
itself.
2. Is it possible (or
desirable) to remain completely neutral in the study of religion? What kind of objectivity should we seek in
the investigation of religion?
3. Show how some major
issues in philosophy of religion arise on the basis of certain events and
experiences in ordinary life.
RRB, 2
experience
religious experience
mysterium tremendum
1. What are the five
types of religious experience (from the perspective of the experiencer)
suggested by Swinburne?
2. If you know people who
have had a religious experience, ask them how they describe the experience.
3. What does Rudolf Otto
call his account of religious experience?
4. Describe and
illustrate Alston’s distinction between phenomenal and objective properties.
5. What is the Principle of
Credulity?
PR, pp. 35-44, from W.
James, Varieties of Religious Experience,
lectures 16 to beginning of 18, available at Google books (default edition pp.
536-617).
1. To what four marks
does James appeal to identify mystical experiences?
2. What does James say
about the authority of mystical states?
3. What is the relation
between, on the one hand, religious experience (feeling) and, on the other
hand, philosophy/theology?
Week 3
RRB, 3.
strong rationalism
prove
critical evidentialist
critical anti-evidentialist
1. Name some strong
rationalists who have been sympathetic to religion.
2. Explain fideism, and
explain the fideist’s reasons for saying that
religious beliefs cannot be rationally evaluated.
3. Describe the nature of
“faith” for a fideist.
4. Explain critical
rationalism, showing how it differs from strong rationalism and from fideism.
PR, pp. 92-101, from
Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles
Bk. I.3-7, available at http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm
; and Ibn-Rushd (Averroës),
On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy
chs. 1-2, available at http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/fasl.htm
1. If knowledge of God is
based solely on reason, what, according to Aquinas, are three consequent
disadvantages?
2. According to Aquinas,
there are certain truths of faith that we should accept even though we are
unable, by human reason, to see that they are true. What are his reasons for this view?
3. What similarities do
you see between the position of Ibn-Rushd and
Aquinas?
PR, pp. 123-30, from
C. S. Evans, Philosophy of Religion.
1. Whether it is impious
to think critically about religious belief depends on what two factors?
2. Explain what Evans
means by “critical dialog” as an approach to religious matters. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of
this approach.
Week 4
RRB, 4.
perfect-being theology
contingent
necessary being
logical necessity
1. What does it mean that
God is personal?
2. What does it mean that
God is sustainer?
3. Does it lessen one’s
appreciation of divine power to say that cannot do things which are logically
impossible, such as changing the laws of arithmetic? Is it better to say that God is able to act
in ways that are cruel and deceitful, or that God is unable to do these things?
4. Define God’s
omniscience.
PR, pp. 138-46, from
Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed,
I.53, 58-59, available at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp003.htm
; and Aquinas, Summa theologiae
Ia.xxv.3, available at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.ii.FP_Q25.FP_Q25_A3.html
1. Maimonides and other
Jewish thinkers do say that God is “powerful and knowing and willing.” Yet these are positive statements and so
(according to him) do not properly apply to God. What is it, then, that is being said about
God when these statements are made?
2. When Aquinas says that
God is omnipotent and can do “all things,” why is it necessary for him to state
clearly what is included under the word all?
PR, pp. 155-58, from
Boethius, De consolatione
philosophiae Bk. 5, available at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boethius/consolation.vi.html
1. How does Boethius
solve the problem of divine foreknowledge and human freedom?
Week 5
RRB, 5.
person-relative view of
proof
principle of causation
cumulative case
method of correlation
1. Is it necessary for
theists to prove the existence of God?
Why or why not?
2. If you believe in God,
to what evidence do you appeal to support your belief? If you do not believe in God, what evidence
would you give against God’s existence?
Carefully evaluate the arguments you give, noting the potentially
problematic premises and assumptions.
3. How is the
contemporary version of the ontological argument similar to and different from
Anselm’s version? What is one of its
strengths and one of its weaknesses?
4. What are the
similarities and differences between the analogical, anthropic,
and intelligent design versions of the teleological argument? Does the teleological argument beg the
question by assuming there is order in the universe? Does the appeal to probability helpfully
circumvent the objection?
5. Attempt to lay out
formally the moral argument for God’s existence. Then proceed to evaluate each of the premises
for truth.
PR, pp. 176-81, from
Anselm, Proslogion
chs. 2-4; and Gaunilo,
(Appendix) On Behalf of the Fool 2-6;
available at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anselm/basic_works.html
1. In your own words, how
does Anselm argue for God’s existence?
2. On what grounds does Gaunilo question whether he can have the understanding of God
that Anselm thinks leads to showing that God exists, and what does Gaunilo think follows from this questioning?
PR, pp. 194-96, from
Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles
1. What is Aquinas’
argument for God’s existence from motion?
PR, pp. 232-35, from W.
Paley, Natural Theology, ch. 1, available at Google books
1. What analogy does
Paley use to construct his teleological argument for the existence of a
Creator?
Week 6
RRB, 6.
foundationalism
derived beliefs
basic beliefs
properly basic beliefs
1. What is evidentialism, and why does evidentialism
tend to be opposed to religious belief?
2. Explain what strong foundationalism is, and discuss the reasons why
philosophers have embraced it.
3. Explain the Reformed
epistemologists’ reasons for saying it can be reasonable to believe in God even
with no good arguments to support it.
4. Explain Calvin’s idea
of the sensus divinitatis. Does it strike you as plausible that humans
have such a “sense” of God?
PR, pp. 261-73, from
A. Plantinga, “The Reformed Objection to Natural
Theology.”
1. What is natural
theology?
2. According to Calvin,
what impedes the sensus divinitatis?
3. What is a noetic structure?
4. What is the difference
between weak and strong foundationalism?
Week 7
RRB, 7.
moral evil
natural evil
defense
theodicy
metatheodicy
1. What is the difference
between the logical and the evidential problems of evil?
2. Explain Plantinga’s Free Will Defense against the logical problem
of evil.
3. How does Plantinga respond to the logical problem of natural evil?
4. What is Rowe’s
“factual premise,” and why is it a key point in the debate?
5. Explore some of the
standard answers for evil as well as some of the full-scale theodicies
offered by theists. Which ones do you
think are most effective? Which ones are
less effective or even unacceptable?
Investigate some of the standard rebuttals to these theodicies.
PR, pp. 292-304, from
Augustine, Confessions VII.xii-xiii; Enchiridion
(Faith, Hope, and Love) 9-16,
available at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confessions.html
; and D. Hume, Dialogues concerning
Natural Religion, part X, available at http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm#A11
1. Assuming Augustine’s
explanation for how evil occurs in the world, then what can be said about God’s
reasons for permitting it? And what can
be said about how God will deal with it in his created world?
2. In Hume’s Dialogues, what does Philo say about
human misery?
3. Reconstruct and
evaluate Philo’s case for how anthropomorphisms of God’s attributes (e.g.,
justice, benevolence, mercy, and rectitude) have implications for how a being
who possesses them would act with respect to evil.
Week 8
RRB, 8.
soft fact
hard fact
petitionary prayer
predictive prophecy
1. Describe process
theism’s account of divine power in relation to the world.
2. What is the difference
between compatibilist and libertarian freedom?
3. What is Molinism (middle knowledge)?
4. Does it seem plausible
to you that there are truths about what persons would freely choose to do in
circumstances that never actually arise (the “counterfactuals of freedom,” as
posited by Molinism)?
PR, pp. 382-93, from
P. Helm, The
1. Describe the “risky”
view of God’s providence that Helm opposes.
2. What does it mean to
say that a passage of Scripture is an instance of “accommodation?” Why does Helm believe that certain passages
must be viewed as accommodation? Does
this view of Helm strike you as plausible and satisfying?
RRB,
9.
miracle
1. Under what conditions
could a person maintain that a miracle was a historical event?
2. What Christian miracle
has received the most attention and is at the center of the faith?
3. Are the change in the
disciples of Jesus and their concomitant willingness to suffer martyrdom
analogous to the followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh?
4. Do you believe that
any miracles, as you define them, have actually occurred? Why or why not?
PR, pp. 473-81, from
Hume, “Of Miracles.”
1. What is Hume’s
“general maxim” at the outset of the discussion?
2. The reported
reappearance of a missing leg is the type of claim that Hume thinks we ought to
reject. Are there conceivable conditions
under which you would consider it reasonable to believe such a claim were true?
PR, pp. 488-96, from
J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism.
1. Why does Mackie
believe that any evidence supporting the belief that an event is really a
violation of a natural law is at the same time evidence against the belief that
the event actually occurred as reported or observed? Did you find his argument convincing?
2. What is the double
burden for those who accept that a miracle occurred, and what double line of
defense does the one denying miracles possess?
RRB,
10.
reincarnation
resurrection
re-creation
Identity Theory
1. What are the four
concepts of life after death?
2. What are the strengths
and weaknesses of the first three positions?
3. What is the Christian
view of resurrection? What are some of
the problems for understanding it? What
are some theological themes of this view?
4. How does determining
the nature of humanity relate to the question of the possibility of life after
death?
5. Describe the
materialist conception of human persons.
Describe the strengths and weaknesses of this view. What are the implications of this view for
the possibility of life after death?
PR, pp. 510-20, from
R. Swinburne, The Evolution of the Soul.
1. Why does Swinburne
conclude that it is unlikely that after death souls would be able to use their
previously connected brain to function?
What follows from his view?
2. What does Swinburne
think of near death experiences?
3. What account does
Swinburne give of the possibility of life after death by appealing to the
existence and acts of God? Why does he
think that this account does not violate any natural laws?
RRB,
11.
theological statements
anthropomorphism
agnosticism
analogy of proper
proportionality
verifiability principle
1. Define Aquinas’
categories of univocal, equivocal, and analogical language.
2. What is the point of Flew’s invisible gardener story?
3. What could it mean to
criticize the verifiability principle by saying it confuses issues of meaning
and truth?
4. Explore the various
functions that language in general seems to fulfill within a linguistic
community. Explore the functions that
religious language seems to perform. Can
any one function be identified as basic?
5. Explain the feminist
case against masculine language for the divine.
Discuss feminist proposals for how we should speak about the divine.
PR, pp. 427-34, from
Aquinas, Summa theologiae
Ia.xiii.5 resp., and Disputed Questions
on Truth 2.11; and A. Flew and B. Mitchell, “The Falsification Debate.”
1. Aquinas considers how
we apply predicates to creatures and to God.
What does it mean to apply predicates to anything? What is the relation between predicates
(linguistic elements) and attributes (ontological elements)?
2. Mitchell disagrees
with Flew that nothing counts against religious beliefs but argues that
religious faith does not let anything count decisively against its
beliefs. How does his story make this
point?
PR, pp. 441-46, from
R. Ruether, Sexism
and God-Talk.
1. Describe how Ruether thinks that ancient patriarchal societies gave rise
to male monotheism, that is, a masculine concept of God. According to R., what problems has male
monotheism caused?
2. How does biblical
theology itself contradict male monotheism?
Week 12
RRB,
12.
theology
natural science
philosophy
scientific materialism
1. What are Ian Barbour’s
four models for understanding the relationship between religion and science?
2. What is biblical
literalism, and how does it conflict with science?
3. How would you define
the distinct boundaries and objects of religion and science?
4. What do you think of
the suggestion that the assumptions found within the Judeo-Christian worldview
are more conducive to science than those found in other major religious
worldviews? Or other
nonreligious worldviews?
PR,
pp. 559-62, from R. Dawkins, “Science Discredits Religion.”
1. What are some
theological teachings that have logical implications for science, according to
Dawkins?
RRB,
13.
1. What is exclusivism (include the point about ontological and epistemic
necessity)?
2. Does the fact of
religious diversity pose a problem for exclusivism? Why or why not?
3. Explain Hick’s story
of the blind men and the elephant.
4. Give two criticisms
that might apply to inclusivism. How might the inclusivist
reply to each?
PR,
pp. 584-88, from Dalai Lama.
1. Given the discussion
of the nature of religion in Part One of PR, what view of religion does the
Dalai Lama presuppose in his interview?
PR,
pp. 597-607, from K. Rahner, “Religious Inclusivism.”
1. What does Rahner mean when he claims that Christianity is “God’s
action on men?”
2. What implications does
the religious nature of human beings have for understanding those who practice
religion?
3. What is an “anonymous
Christian?”
RRB,
14.
descriptive ethics
normative ethics
virtue ethics
duty (deontological) ethics
1. What is divine command
theory?
2. Why are
presuppositions about the nature of God important in the discussion of
grounding ethics?
3. List two actions
attributed to God in Scripture that seem to be ethically questionable.
4. Considering the
problem raised by these examples, which of the responses discussed do you find
most satisfying? Why?
PR,
pp. 629-42, from J. P. Sartre, Existentialism
and Human Emotions, and Aquinas on Natural Law.
1. What does Sartre mean
when he says that life in a godless world is likely to produce anguish,
forlornness, and despair? Do you agree?
2. What is forlornness,
and how is it the “starting point of existentialism?”
3. Aquinas does not
mention the influence of culture and experience on moral beliefs. To what extent do you think moral beliefs are
influenced by these factors?
RRB,
15.
1. What distinction does
RRB draw between philosophical activity and religious faith?
2. In what ways, if any,
has studying philosophy of religion changed you and your approach to religion?