1/4 Module Syllabus Alternative Conceptions of God and Religious Practice Semester Fall, 2015-16 Number of Credits 2 Time and Location Wednesdays, 13:30-15.10, Z14, 411A Instructor Philip Goff Contact [email protected] Office Zrinyi u. 14, R. 307 Office hours Monday & Thursday, 15:30-17:30 Description We can define “the divine” as the metaphysical reality which gives sense to religious practice (if there is one). Some identify the divine with the God of classic theism: a supernatural being who is all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good. However, in this course we explore non-standard conceptions of the divine, with a particular focus on pantheistic or panentheistic views according to which the divine is identical with, or encompasses, the physical universe. We will examine whether belief in the divine can be justified on the basis of religious experience, or in terms of the need to account for objective value. We will also explore alternative conceptions of religious practice, reflecting these alternative conceptions of God. Course Goals The aims of this module are twofold: first, to provide an understanding of a variety of alternative conceptions of God and of religious practice, and second, to develop the knowledge and philosophical skills required to critically assess the arguments for and against the plausibility and/or truth of these conceptions. Learning outcomes By the end of the course, students will gain: an understanding of a variety of alternative conceptions of God and religious practice, with a special focus on pantheism and panentheism. the ability to deploy the philosophical techniques and argumentative strategies that can be used to discuss those problems the ability to explain the strengths and weaknesses of different positions in this area of philosophy of religion the transferable skill of formulating and evaluating arguments for and against various philosophical positions, both orally and in writing 2/4 Weekly schedule and compulsory readings Grounds for Belief in the Divine 1. Direct Experience Plantinga, A, 1981, “Is Belief in God Properly Basic?” Noûs, 15: 41–51 2. Direct Experience James, W. 1902. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature, Longman, lectures XVI & XVII ‘Mysticism’. 3. Grounding Value Cottingham, J. 2014. Philosophy of Religion: A Human Approach, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 4 ‘Morality’. 4. Grounding Value Kitcher, P. 2014. Life after Faith: A Defence of Secular Humanism, Yale University Press. Alternative Conceptions of God 5. Russellian Pantheism Borg, M. 1997. The God we Never Knew, Harper Collins, Chapter 2 ‘Thinking about God: Why panentheism?’ 6. Process Panentheism Johnston, M. 2009. Saving God: Religion after Idolatry, Princeton University Press, chapter 7 ‘After monotheism’. 7. Process Panentheism Johnston, M. 2009. Saving God: Religion after Idolatry, Princeton University Press, chapter 8 ‘Process panentheism’. 8. Process Panentheism Johnston, M. 2009. Saving God: Religion after Idolatry, Princeton University Press, chapter 9 ‘Panentheism not pantheism’. Alternative Conceptions of Religious Practice 9. Religious Pluralism Hick, J. 1993. God and the Universe of Faiths, Oneworld Publications, chapter 10 ‘The new map of the universe of faiths.’ 10. Religious Fictionalism LePoidevin, R. ‘Playing the God game: The perils of religious fictionalism,’ in A. Buckareff & Y. Nagasawa (Eds.) Alternative Conceptions of God, Oxford University Press. 11. The Religious Temperament Nagel, T. 2010. ‘Secular philosophy and the religious temperament,’ in his Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament, Oxford University Press. 12. An Alternative Conception of Christianity Johnston, M. 2009. Saving God: Religion after Idolatry, Princeton University, chapter 11 ‘Christianity without spiritual materialism’. Requirements Regular attendance, carefully completing the assigned readings before class, and active participation in discussions will be expected from all students, whether registered for audit or taking the class for credit. 3/4 Each session will begin with a presentation by one student. This will be strictly timed at 15-20 minutes: 5-7 minutes of exegesis and 5-7 minutes of argument. If the students takes longer than 20 minutes they will be simply cut off. The student will be expected to make an argument for distinctive conclusion, as though giving a mini paper. The presenter must prepare either a handout or a powerpoint presentation (or both). After the presentation, the presenter will field questions on her/his argument for 5-10 minutes. Following this, we will broaden out the discussion for the rest of the time. Each student must submit a half page (if it’s more than one page resubmission will be requested) essay plan by the end of week 9, explaining what they will argue for in their essay assignment. Assessment For students taking the class for credit there will be an essay assignment of 2,000 words due at the end of the semester. Students are to formulate their own essay questions based on anything relevant to the topics covered in the module. Though the class grade is based on the final paper, all course requirements must be completed in a satisfactory manner in order to earn a grade for the class. Should the final essay receive a borderline mark, the student’s overall mark will be adjusted in light of the student’s in-class performance and participation. Grading criteria for final papers Quantity: Avoid going 10% over or under the required length. Writing clearly and succinctly within a word limit is an important philosophical skill. Grades will thus be partly determined in light of the student’s ability to stick closely to the word limit. The word count should include all references and footnotes (if any), but exclude the bibliography. Quality: To earn a B+, the paper must clearly and concisely address the question and must be written in good academic English. Insofar as these are relevant, the paper must demonstrate a solid understanding of the arguments from readings in the course as well as in-class presentations and discussions. Important principles and concepts should be clearly explained. The views of others should, where necessary, be accurately, charitably, clearly and succinctly reconstructed, and properly cited with a bibliography. The paper must show that you have analyzed and independently organized the material yourself in response to the question, rather than simply following the organization of in-class presentations or parts of the literature. To earn an A-, the assignment must demonstrate all the above plus evidence of genuine progress as a result of your own independent thinking, such as your own substantive evaluation and critique of the validity and soundness of the arguments of others, or your own original positive argument. If there are any problems with the exposition or arguments in the paper, these will be minor. Any obvious objections to your argument will have been anticipated and answered. Papers that earn an A will demonstrate all the above virtues to the extent that they are nearly flawless in writing style, organization, exposition and soundness of arguments. While remaining entirely relevant to the question, such a paper will be relatively ambitious in scope and will demonstrate an exceptional degree of understanding and of the topic. .