PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

Order Description

Answer the following 5 questions below in an essay form. Clearly label the questions that you have answered. Answers should all be in clear, concise, logical, essay format ?You may use any books or Internet sources you wish as long as you work alone ?Use APA citation style when you refer to an author in your answer ?Answers are limited to a minimum of 300 words and a maximum of 500 words each.

Answer the questions below

1) .Life after death brings up issues of whether such a thing can occur. Using Plato and Russell, answer the question of which is more likely?we can survive physical death or we cannot. Explain these authors? positions, describe the strengths and weaknesses of each, and then defend one as having the better position.

2.) Life after death also brings up issues of how such a thing can occur (even when assuming there is life after death, you can ask the question of how its works. Contrary to Plato, Olen and Baker both argue that to survive death we will still need bodies?though we don?t need the bodies we started with. What do you think of their position? Do we need bodies to survive or are disembodied minds possible? To answer, explain the basic arguments of Olen and Baker, describe at least two strengths and two weaknesses of each argument, and then make your own argument as to whether bodies are needed for the afterlife.

3.) Christianity is classified along with Judaism and Islam as a monotheistic religion. However, both Judaism and Islam have trouble thinking of Christianity as thoroughly monotheistic given the doctrine of the Trinity. What do you think? Regardless of your own beliefs on whether or not the Trinity is true, should Christianity be classified as just as monotheistic a religion as Judaism and Islam? Or should it be classified differently?

4.) Pluralism claims that different religions actually work toward the same end and seek to understand the same truth, although in different ways. That suggests that all religions can be understood to be right, in their own way. Exclusivism claims that different religions do not understand the same truth but have incompatible positions. That suggests that all religions cannot be right, even in ?their own way?. Explain Hick?s defense of pluralism and Plantinga?s defense of exclusivism. Which do you think has the stronger argument and why? Give your reasons.

5.) Whether religions are really after the same thing theologically or not, there is still the question of whether they can get along. The Dalai Lama argues that religions will never merge into one world religion because they each have unique features that cannot be changed without changing the religion. However, they can realize they do share some goals in common and can work together in some ways. That means that interfaith dialogue is practically useful. What do you think? Is having dialogue with other religious believers useful? If not, why? If so, why?

philosophy of religion

Respond to an article written by an actual atheist. This article titled “On Being an Atheist,” was written by H. J. McCloskey in 1968 for the journal Question.
2.    The response paper is to be a minimum of 2,000 words (not including quotes) and should be written as a single essay and not just a list of answers to questions.
3.    The basis for your answers should primarily come from the resources provided in the lessons covering the philosophy of religion unit of the course (Evans and Manis-Philosophy of Religion Chapter 7, and the presentation) and these sources should be mentioned in your paper. You are not merely to quote these sources as an answer to the question—answer them in your own words.
4.    You may use other outside sources as well, as long as you properly document them. However, outside sources are not necessary. Each of the questions can be answered from the sources provided in the lessons.
5.    While the use of the Bible is not restricted, its use is not necessary and is discouraged unless you intend to explain the context of the passage and how that context applies to the issue at hand in accordance with the guidelines provided earlier in the course. You are not to merely quote scripture passages as answers to the questions. Remember this is a philosophical essay not a biblical or theological essay.
6.    While you may quote from sources, all quotations should be properly cited and quotes from sources will not count towards the 2,000 word count of the paper.
7.    You may be critical of McCloskey, but should remain respectful. Any disparaging comment(s) about McCloskey will result in a significant reduction in grade.
8.    Please note that all papers are to be submitted through SafeAssign, which is a plagiarism detection program. The program is a database of previously submitted papers including copies of papers that have been located on the Internet. Once submitted, your paper will become part of the database as well. The program detects not only exact wording but similar wording. This means that if you plagiarize, it is very likely that it will be discovered. Plagiarism will result in a 0 for the paper and the likelihood of you being dropped from the course.

Specifically, you should address the following questions in your paper:
1.    McCloskey refers to the arguments as “proofs” and often implies that they can’t definitively establish the case for God, so therefore they should be abandoned. What would you say about this in light of my comments on the approaches to the arguments in the PointeCast presentation? I will attempt to download this presentation.
2.    On the Cosmological Argument:
a.    McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being [i.e., a necessarily existing being].” Using Evans and Manis’ discussion of the non-temporal form of the argument (on pp. 69–77), explain why the cause of the universe must be necessary (and therefore uncaused).
b.    McCloskey also claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” In light of Evans and Manis’ final paragraph on the cosmological argument (p. 77), how might you respond to McCloskey?
3.    On the Teleological Argument:
a.    McCloskey claims that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.” Discuss this standard of “indisputability” which he calls a “very conclusive objection.” Is it reasonable?
b.    From your reading in Evans and Manis, can you offer an example of design that, while not necessarily “indisputable,” you believe provides strong evidence of a designer of the universe?
c.    McCloskey implies that evolution has displaced the need for a designer. Assuming evolution is true, for argument’s sake, how would you respond to McCloskey (see Evans and Manis pp. 82–83)?
d.    McCloskey claims that the presence of imperfection and evil in the world argues against “the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose in the world.” Remembering Evans and Manis’ comments about the limitations of the cosmological argument, how might you respond to this charge by McCloskey?
4.    On the Problem of Evil:
a.    McCloskey’s main objection to theism is the presence of evil in the world and he raises it several times: “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.” The language of this claim seems to imply that it is an example of the logical form of the problem. Given this implication and using Evans and Manis’ discussion of the logical problem (pp. 159–168, noting especially his concluding paragraphs to this section), how might you respond to McCloskey?

philosophy of religion

Respond to an article written by an actual atheist. This article titled “On Being an Atheist,” was written by H. J. McCloskey in 1968 for the journal Question.
2.    The response paper is to be a minimum of 2,000 words (not including quotes) and should be written as a single essay and not just a list of answers to questions.
3.    The basis for your answers should primarily come from the resources provided in the lessons covering the philosophy of religion unit of the course (Evans and Manis-Philosophy of Religion Chapter 7, and the presentation) and these sources should be mentioned in your paper. You are not merely to quote these sources as an answer to the question—answer them in your own words.
4.    You may use other outside sources as well, as long as you properly document them. However, outside sources are not necessary. Each of the questions can be answered from the sources provided in the lessons.
5.    While the use of the Bible is not restricted, its use is not necessary and is discouraged unless you intend to explain the context of the passage and how that context applies to the issue at hand in accordance with the guidelines provided earlier in the course. You are not to merely quote scripture passages as answers to the questions. Remember this is a philosophical essay not a biblical or theological essay.
6.    While you may quote from sources, all quotations should be properly cited and quotes from sources will not count towards the 2,000 word count of the paper.
7.    You may be critical of McCloskey, but should remain respectful. Any disparaging comment(s) about McCloskey will result in a significant reduction in grade.
8.    Please note that all papers are to be submitted through SafeAssign, which is a plagiarism detection program. The program is a database of previously submitted papers including copies of papers that have been located on the Internet. Once submitted, your paper will become part of the database as well. The program detects not only exact wording but similar wording. This means that if you plagiarize, it is very likely that it will be discovered. Plagiarism will result in a 0 for the paper and the likelihood of you being dropped from the course.

Specifically, you should address the following questions in your paper:
1.    McCloskey refers to the arguments as “proofs” and often implies that they can’t definitively establish the case for God, so therefore they should be abandoned. What would you say about this in light of my comments on the approaches to the arguments in the PointeCast presentation? I will attempt to download this presentation.
2.    On the Cosmological Argument:
a.    McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being [i.e., a necessarily existing being].” Using Evans and Manis’ discussion of the non-temporal form of the argument (on pp. 69–77), explain why the cause of the universe must be necessary (and therefore uncaused).
b.    McCloskey also claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” In light of Evans and Manis’ final paragraph on the cosmological argument (p. 77), how might you respond to McCloskey?
3.    On the Teleological Argument:
a.    McCloskey claims that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.” Discuss this standard of “indisputability” which he calls a “very conclusive objection.” Is it reasonable?
b.    From your reading in Evans and Manis, can you offer an example of design that, while not necessarily “indisputable,” you believe provides strong evidence of a designer of the universe?
c.    McCloskey implies that evolution has displaced the need for a designer. Assuming evolution is true, for argument’s sake, how would you respond to McCloskey (see Evans and Manis pp. 82–83)?
d.    McCloskey claims that the presence of imperfection and evil in the world argues against “the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose in the world.” Remembering Evans and Manis’ comments about the limitations of the cosmological argument, how might you respond to this charge by McCloskey?
4.    On the Problem of Evil:
a.    McCloskey’s main objection to theism is the presence of evil in the world and he raises it several times: “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.” The language of this claim seems to imply that it is an example of the logical form of the problem. Given this implication and using Evans and Manis’ discussion of the logical problem (pp. 159–168, noting especially his concluding paragraphs to this section), how might you respond to McCloskey?