DOCSLIB.ORG

Oxnard Course Outline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oxnard Course Outline Course ID: PHIL R110 Curriculum Committee Approval Date: 04/12/2017 Catalog Start Date: Fall 2018 COURSE OUTLINE OXNARD COLLEGE I. Course Identification and Justification: A. Proposed course id: PHIL R110 Banner title: Philosophy of Religion Full title: Philosophy of Religion Previous course id: PHIL R110 Banner title: Philosophy of Religion Full title: Philosophy of Religion B. Reason(s) course is offered: This course is a Philosophy AA-T required elective, and satisfies G.E. Humanities credit for IGETC, CSU and A.A. degree. C. Reason(s) for current outline revision: Update per five-year review cycle: textbooks, minor corrections from previous outline; etc. D. C-ID: 1. C-ID Descriptor: 2. C-ID Status: Not Applicable E. Co-listed as: Current: None Previous: II. Catalog Information: A. Units: Current: 3.00 Previous: 3.00 B. Course Hours: 1. In-Class Contact Hours: Lecture: 52.5 Activity: 0 Lab: 0 2. Total In-Class Contact Hours: 52.5 3. Total Outside-of-Class Hours: 105 4. Total Student Learning Hours: 157.5 C. Prerequisites, Corequisites, Advisories, and Limitations on Enrollment: 1. Prerequisites Current: Previous: 2. Corequisites Current: Previous: 3. Advisories: Current: Previous: 4. Limitations on Enrollment: Current: Previous: D. Catalog description: Current: This course provides an introduction to fundamental concepts exhibited in the world's religions, as well as a critical exploration of reasons for and against widely held religious doctrines. Topics include: the attributes of God, arguments for and against God’s existence, the nature of religious experience, mysticism and miracles, the problem of evil, the possibility of life after death, the contrast between faith and reason, and religious pluralism. Previous, if different: E. Fees: Current: $ None Previous, if different: $ F. Field trips: Current: Will be required: [ ] May be required: [X] Will not be required: [ ] Previous, if different: Will be required: [ ] May be required: [ ] Will not be required: [ ] G. Repeatability: Current: A - Not designed as repeatable Previous: A - Not designed as repeatable H. Credit basis: Current: Letter Graded Only [X] Pass/No Pass [ ] Student Option [ ] Previous, if different: Letter Graded Only [ ] Pass/No Pass [ ] Student Option [ ] I. Credit by exam: Current: Petitions may be granted: [ ] Petitions will not be granted: [X] Previous, if different: Petitions may be granted: [ ] Petitions will not be granted: [ ] III. Course Objectives: Upon successful completion of this course, the student should be able to: A. Identify key religious terms, concepts and and uses of religious language. B. Identify goals, methods, issues and problems associated with philosophy, religion, and philosophy of religion. C. Identify the primary attributes of God and the divine. D. Contrast and critique the arguments for and against the existence of God. E. Assess, using standard philosophical methodology, the nature and value of religious experience. F. Describe the difference, similarity, and interrelationship between faith and reason. G. Recognize and discuss the profound difficulty in resolving the problem of evil. H. Compare and contrast belief in supernatural miracles with views expressed in terms of scientific naturalism. I. Evaluate and contrast claims regarding life after death and immortality. J. Analyze the similarities and differences among current, as well as previous, worldwide religious traditions. IV. Student Learning Outcomes: A. Students will demonstrate improved critical writing skills using philosophy of religion subject matter as the basis. B. Students will identify the major issues and arguments in the philosophy of religion. C. Students will develop the ability to think critically, objectively, and carefully about religious claims and issues. V. Course Content: Topics to be covered include, but are not limited to: A. Philosophy, Religion, and Philosophy of Religion B. What is religion? 1. Religious language 2. Methods of studying religion/s 3. Religion in contrast with religions 4. Differing conceptions of divinity a. Eastern Religions i. Taoism ii. Hinduism iii. Buddhism iv. Confucianism b. Western Religions i. Judaism ii. Christianity iii. Islam c. Indigenous/Pre-literate traditions 5. Rituals and practices (worldwide) C. Divine attributes/God’s attributes 1. The nature of God’s power a. Omnipotence b. Omniscience c. Omni-benevolence d. Omni-presence 2. Multi-cultural perspectives on divine attributes 3. Time and eternity a. Cyclic conceptions of time b. Asymmetric conceptions of time D. Non-Western Proofs for God's Existence 1. Buddhist conceptions: Negation and emptiness 2. Hindu conceptions: Whence consciousness? E. Arguments for God’s existence: Ontological Argument 1. The Ontological Argument/s: St. Anselm 2. Critique/s of the Ontological Argument: Immanuel Kant F. Arguments for God’s existence: Cosmological 1. The Cosmological Argument/s: Aquinas “The Five Ways” 2. Critique/s of the Cosmological Argument G. Arguments for God’s Existence: Teleological (Arguments from Design) 1. The Argument from Design 2. The Watchmaker Argument: William Paley 3. Critique of the Argument from Design: David Hume 4. Darwinian evolution 5. Critique of evolution: Richard Swinburne H. Religious Experience 1. Indigenous experience and animism 2. Eastern perspectives 3. Revelation: e.g., William James, “Varieties of Religious Experience” 4. Miracles: e.g., Richard Swinburne 5. Critique of miracles: David Hume, “Against Miracles” 6. Feminists, Philosophers and Mystics I. Faith and Reason 1. Fideism 2. Existentialism 3. Rationality and justified religious belief 4. Pragmatism 5. The verification problem 6. Hinduism: intellect and intuition J. The Problem of Evil 1. The theodicy problem 2. Critiques for and against the theodicy problem 3. Mencius: Human nature is good 4. Global perspectives on the nature of evil K. Death and Immortality 1. Life after death (life after life) 2. Resurrection 3. Reincarnation 4. Critiques of theories of the afterlife L. Religious Language 1. Symbols all around 2. Metaphorical theology 3. Does "God-talk" make sense? 4. Divinity as pre-analytic/pre-reflective M. Religious Pluralism 1. Varieties of religions 2. Arguments for exclusivist religious beliefs/traditions 3. Arguments for inclusivist religious beliefs/traditions 4. The future of religion? N. Religion and Ethics 1. Moral/religious private life 2. Popular religion and Liberation theory 3. African-American Revolutionary Christianity 4. Confucius/Analects 5. Religion and Human Rights VI. Lab Content: None VII. Methods of Instruction: Methods may include, but are not limited to: A. Lecture (e.g., on Aquinas’ view of God’s power) B. Text Analysis (e.g., comparison of passages from Anselm’s “Ontological Argument” with Hindu perspectives on intuitive proofs of divinity) C. Class discussion (e.g. on the question of religious tolerance and social and/or governmental restraint) D. Multi-media presentations (including computer-based presentations, video review, actual demonstrations, etc.) combined with interpretation and analysis (e.g., reviewing a web page on religious issues in science or watching a film that explores the occurrence and practice of ritual prayer and/or spiritual meditation) E. Small group discussion: (e.g., small groups discussing the interrelationship of reason and faith in their own lives) F. In-class student presentation: (e.g. a student reporting on unique views regarding life after death, e.g. perspectives on reincarnation) G. Guest speakers: (e.g. a panel of guest speakers, from both Eastern and Western religions, addressing the issue of the problem of evil and issues related to tolerance and compassion) VIII. Methods of Evaluation and Assignments: A. Methods of evaluation for degree-applicable courses: Essays [X] Problem-Solving Assignments (Examples: Math-like problems, diagnosis & repair) [ ] Physical Skills Demonstrations (Examples: Performing arts, equipment operation) [ ] For any course, if "Essays" above is not checked, explain why. B. Typical graded assignments (methods of evaluation): 1. Critical essays a. Students should demonstrate how to "do" philosophy, (i.e., how to use philosophical methods of investigation and analysis) in their treatment of religion. b. Student essays should adequately identify and explain and appropriately compare and analyze significant issues from the history of the philosophy of religion. c. Students should develop and rationally defend positions of their own, which should be responses to issues, theories, and comparisons made within the philosophy of religion. 2. Exams: (ex. Identify key terms and concepts employed in the philosophy of religion and compare and contrast respective worldviews/theories/solutions with one another, e.g., Religious experience, East and West: What does it prove?) 3. Term papers: (ex. Research and report on social scientific contexts surrounding religious belief systems: e.g., ethics, culture, politics, economics, etc.) 4. Quizzes: (ex. Identify both strengths and weaknesses of one of the main proofs for the existence of an ultimate reality) 5. Class participation: (ex. In-class discussion of a current topical issue in religion, for example, indigenous religious worship and governmental involvement and/or interference) C. Typical outside of classroom assignments: 1. Reading a. Samples of primary source readings: i. Aquinas, “Is God’s Power Unlimited?” ii. Anslem, “The Ontological Argument” iii. Sri Aribindo, "Whence this Consciousness?" iv. Kant, “A Critique of the Ontological Argument”
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Theodicy: an Overview
    1 Theodicy: An Overview Introduction All of us struggle at one time or another in life with why evil happens to someone, either ourselves, our family, our friends, our nation, or perhaps some particularly disturbing instance in the news—a child raped, a school shooting, genocide in another country, a terrorist bombing. The following material is meant to give an overview of the discussion of this issue as it takes place in several circles, especially that of the Christian church. I. The Problem of Evil Defined Three terms, "the problem of evil," "theodicy," and "defense" are important to our discussion. The first two are often used as synonyms, but strictly speaking the problem of evil is the larger issue of which theodicy is a subset because one can have a secular problem of evil. Evil is understood as a problem when we seek to explain why it exists (Unde malum?) and what its relationship is to the world as a whole. Indeed, something might be considered evil when it calls into question our basic trust in the order and structure of our world. Peter Berger in particular has argued that explanations of evil are necessary for social structures to stay themselves against chaotic forces. It follows, then, that such an explanation has an impact on the whole person. As David Blumenthal observes, a good theodicy is one that has three characteristics: 1. "[I]t should leave one with one’s sense of reality intact." (It tells the truth about reality.) 2. "[I]t should leave one empowered within the intellectual-moral system in which one lives." (Namely, it should not deny God’s basic power or goodness.) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • An Atheistic Argument from Ugliness
    AN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM UGLINESS SCOTT F. AIKIN & NICHOLAOS JONES Vanderbilt University University of Alabama in Huntsville Author posting. (c) European Journal of Philosophy of Religion 7.1 (Spring 2015). This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version is available at http://www.philosophy-of- religion.eu/contents19.html This is a penultimate draft. Please cite only the published version. Abstract The theistic argument from beauty has what we call an ‘evil twin’, the argument from ugliness. The argument yields either what we call ‘atheist win’, or, when faced with aesthetic theodicies, ‘agnostic tie’ with the argument from beauty. 1 AN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM UGLINESS I. EVIL TWINS FOR TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS The theistic argument from beauty is a teleological argument. Teleological arguments take the following form: 1. The universe (or parts of it) exhibit property X 2. Property X is usually (if not always) brought about by the purposive actions of those who created objects for them to be X. 3. The cases mentioned in Premise 1 are not explained (or fully explained) by human action 4. Therefore: The universe is (likely) the product of a purposive agent who created it to be X, namely God. The variety of teleological arguments is as broad as substitution instances for X. The standard substitutions have been features of the universe (or it all) fine-tuned for life, or the fact of moral action. One further substitution has been beauty. Thus, arguments from beauty. A truism about teleological arguments is that they have evil twins.
    [Show full text]
  • The Utilitarian Influence on American Legal Science in the Early Republic
    1 The Utilitarian Influence on American Legal Science in the Early Republic Steven J. Macias California Western School of Law [email protected] (rev. 9/8) In Utilitarian Jurisprudence in America, Peter King held up Thomas Cooper, David Hoffman, and Richard Hildreth, as those early American legal thinkers most notably influenced by Bentham.1 For King, Hildreth represented “the first real fruition of Benthamism in America,” whereas Cooper’s use of Bentham was subservient to his Southern ideology, and Hoffman’s use was mainly to “reinforce” a utilitarianism otherwise “derived from Paley.”2 Although Hildreth’s work falls outside the timeframe of early-American legal science, Cooper’s and Hoffman’s work falls squarely within it. What follows is, in part, a reevaluation of Cooper and Hoffman within the broader context of early republican jurisprudence. Because Cooper became an advocate of southern secession late in life, too many historians have dismissed his life’s work, which consisted of serious intellectual undertakings in law and philosophy, as well as medicine and chemistry. Hoffman, on the other hand, has become a man for all seasons among legal historians. His seven-year course of legal study contained such a vast and eclectic array of titles, that one can superficially paint Hoffman as advocating just about anything. As of late, Hoffman has been discussed as a leading exponent of Scottish Common Sense philosophy, second only to James Wilson a generation earlier. This tension between Hoffman-the-utilitarian and Hoffman-the-Scot requires a new examination. A fresh look at the utilitarian influence on American jurisprudence also requires that we acknowledge 1 PETER J.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation As Theodicy: in Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 14 Issue 4 Article 6 10-1-1997 Creation as Theodicy: In Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil Robert Oakes Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Oakes, Robert (1997) "Creation as Theodicy: In Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 14 : Iss. 4 , Article 6. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil199714441 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol14/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. CREATION AS THEODICY: IN DEFENSE OF A KABBALISTIC APPROACH TO EVIL Robert Oakes The doctrine of Tzimzum (or divine "withdrawal") occupies pride of place in the Jewish mystical tradition as a response to what is arguably the chief theo­ logical or metaphysical concern of that tradition: namely, how God's Infinity or Absolute Unlimitedness does not preclude the existence of a distinct domain of finite being. Alternatively, how can it be that God, by virtue of His Maximal Plenteousness, does not exhaust the whole of Reality? I attempt to show that, while a plausible argument - one that does not involve the idea of Tzimzum - can be mounted against this "pantheism" problem, the doctrine of Tzimzum has considerable force as the nucleus of a theodicy.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Logic of the Ontological Argument∗ X
    Paul E. Oppenheimer and Edward N. Zalta 2 by `9y(y =x)' and the claim that x has the property of existence by `E!x'. That is, we represent the difference between the two claims by exploiting the distinction between quantifying over x and predicating existence of On the Logic of the Ontological Argument∗ x. We shall sometimes refer to this as the distinction between the being of x and the existence of x. Thus, instead of reading Anselm as having discovered a way of inferring God's actuality from His mere possibility, Paul E. Oppenheimer we read him as having discovered a way of inferring God's existence from Thinking Machines Corporation His mere being. Another important feature of our reading concerns the fact that we and take the phrase \that than which none greater can be conceived" seriously. Certain inferences in the ontological argument are intimately linked to the logical behavior of this phrase, which is best represented as a definite Edward N. Zalta description.3 If we are to do justice to Anselm's argument, we must not Philosophy Department syntactically eliminate descriptions the way Russell does. One of the Stanford University highlights of our interpretation is that a very simple inference involving descriptions stands at the heart of the argument.4 Saint Anselm of Canterbury offered several arguments for the existence The Language and Logic Required for the Argument of God. We examine the famous ontological argument in Proslogium ii. Many recent authors have interpreted this argument as a modal one.1 But We shall cast our new reading in a standard first-order language.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Aquinas' Argument from Motion & the Kalām Cosmological
    University of Central Florida STARS Honors Undergraduate Theses UCF Theses and Dissertations 2020 Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument Derwin Sánchez Jr. University of Central Florida Part of the Philosophy Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the UCF Theses and Dissertations at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Sánchez, Derwin Jr., "Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument" (2020). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 858. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/858 RETHINKING CAUSALITY: THOMAS AQUINAS’ ARGUMENT FROM MOTION & THE KALĀM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT by DERWIN SANCHEZ, JR. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in Philosophy in the College of Arts and Humanities and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2020 Thesis Chair: Dr. Cyrus Zargar i ABSTRACT Ever since they were formulated in the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God have been frequently debated. During this process there have been several misconceptions of what Aquinas actually meant, especially when discussing his cosmological arguments. While previous researchers have managed to tease out why Aquinas accepts some infinite regresses and rejects others, I attempt to add on to this by demonstrating the centrality of his metaphysics in his argument from motion.
    [Show full text]
  • Arguments from Design
    Arguments from Design: A Self-defeating Strategy? Victoria S. Harrison University of Glasgow This is an archived version of ‘Arguments form Design: A Self-defeating Strategy?’, published in Philosophia 33 (2005): 297–317. Dr V. Harrison Department of Philosophy 69 Oakfield Avenue University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8LT Scotland UK E-mail: [email protected] Arguments from Design: A Self-defeating Strategy? Abstract: In this article, after reviewing traditional arguments from design, I consider some more recent versions: the so-called ‘new design arguments’ for the existence of God. These arguments enjoy an apparent advantage over the traditional arguments from design by avoiding some of Hume’s famous criticisms. However, in seeking to render religion and science compatible, it seems that they require a modification not only of our scientific understanding but also of the traditional conception of God. Moreover, there is a key problem with arguments from design that Mill raised to which the new arguments seem no less vulnerable than the older versions. The view that science and religion are complementary has at least one significant advantage over other positions, such as the view that they are in an antagonistic relationship or the view that they are so incommensurable that they are neither complementary nor antagonistic. The advantage is that it aspires to provide a unified worldview that is sensitive to the claims of both science and religion. And surely, such a worldview, if available, would seem to be superior to one in which, say, scientific and religious claims were held despite their obvious contradictions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Teleological Argument Looks at the Purpose of Something and from That
    The teleological argument looks at the purpose of something and Cosmological arguments start with observations about the way The Third Way: contingency and necessity William Paley (1742 – 1805) observed that complex objects work from that he reasons that God must exist. Aquinas (1224 – 1274) the universe works and from there these try to explain why the with regularity, (seasons, gravity, etc). This order seems to be the gave five ‘ways’ of proving God exists and this, his teleological universe exists. Aquinas gives three versions of the cosmological Aquinas’ point here is that everything in the universe is result of the work of a designer who has put this regularity and arguments, starting with three different (although similar) argument, is the fifth of his five ways. contingent – it relies on something to have brought it into order into place deliberately and with purpose. For example, the observations: motion, causation and contingency. Aquinas, influenced by Aristotle, believed that all things have a existence and also things to let it continue to exist. eye is constructed perfectly to see. For Palely, all of this pointed to purpose, but we cannot achieve that purpose without something The First Way: the unmoved mover a designer, who is God. In nature, there are things that are possible ‘to be’ and to make it happen – some sort of guide, which is God. Inspired by Aristotle, Aquinas noticed that the ways in which things ‘not to be’ (contingent beings) The analogy of the watch move or change (changing state is a form of motion) must mean These things could not always have existed because that something has made that motion take place.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of Non-Productivity in Victorian Contexts This Dissertation
    1 Chapter One Impossible Economies: Theories of Non-Productivity in Victorian Contexts This dissertation is about a set of key paradoxes in Victorian thought. In general terms, it defines a series of interlocking mental habits at mid-century, and maps the diverse deployments of those habits in contemporary locations of knowledge. My focus resides with several formative scientific studies that I read alongside parallel developments in the realist novel, moral philosophy, and social critique. But my main purpose in doing so is not to re-construct the lines of a distinct disciplinary formation so much as to recover a richer range of cultural confluences and epistemic patterns. More precisely, I discuss the ways in which major Victorian texts understood the shifting boundaries between the individual and the group—and, namely, the breakdown of cooperative bonds. Whereas older norms of natural explanation had emphasized the reciprocal relationship between part and whole, in keeping with the watch-like regularities promulgated by natural theology, these texts turned time after time to the function of the prodigal part--the exception that failed to signify within the larger life of the group. This emphasis held equally true in theories of human bodies, of communities, and of the created cosmos at large. To inquire into the natural order, in this context, was to note the recurrence of those elements which were wasteful or otherwise non- productive within the orderly operations of the whole. The paradoxes that emerged 2 among this state of affairs, and their relation to the formal and perspectival patterns of the novel, form my central concerns in the chapters to follow.
    [Show full text]
  • Theological Utilitarianism and the Eclipse of the Theistic Sanction
    Tyndale Bulletin 42.2 (Nov. 1991) 226-244. THEOLOGICAL UTILITARIANISM AND THE ECLIPSE OF THE THEISTIC SANCTION Graham Cole Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy ‘is essentially English’, and, ‘constitutes the largest contribution made by the English to moral and political theory’, according to Oxford philosopher John Plamenatz.1 Although there were similar philosophies on the Continent at the time, for Plamenatz the four great utilitarians remain Hume, Bentham, James Mill and his son, John Stuart Mill. (What the Scot David Hume may have thought of being included amongst the English, Plamenatz does not pause to consider). Still others have pointed out that utilitarian moral theory is of no mere antiquarian concern, but represents a living philosophical tradition.2 Indeed, Alan Ryan describes it as ‘the best known of all moral theories’.3 Theological utilitarianism, on the other hand, is not a living philosophical tradition. Its last great exponent, William Paley, died in 1805. If it is mentioned at all by scholars and its history rehearsed, then the object is to set the scene for Bentham and Mill. After that the category becomes otiose. Indeed some scholars do not employ the expression ‘theological utilitarianism’ at all in their discussions of the period, and others, if they do, they do so in a highly qualified way.4 However, as a tradition of moral thought 1John Plamenataz, The English Utilitarians, (Oxford 1949) 1-2. 2Anthony Quinton, Utilitarian Ethics, (London & Basingstoke 1973) for a useful account. 3See his introduction to Utilitarianism and other Essays: John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham (Harmondsworth 1987) 7. 4The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy provides a good illustration.
    [Show full text]
  • Divine Utilitarianism
    Liberty University DIVINE UTILITARIANISM A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Masters of Arts in Philosophical Studies By Jimmy R. Lewis January 16, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction ……………………………...……………..……....3 Statement of the Problem…………………………….………………………….3 Statement of the Purpose…………………………….………………………….5 Statement of the Importance of the Problem…………………….……………...6 Statement of Position on the Problem………………………...…………….......7 Limitations…………………………………………….………………………...8 Development of Thesis……………………………………………….…………9 Chapter Two: What is meant by “Divine Utilitarianism”..................................11 Introduction……………………………….…………………………………….11 A Definition of God.……………………………………………………………13 Anselm’s God …………………………………………………………..14 Thomas’ God …………………………………………………………...19 A Definition of Utility .…………………………………………………………22 Augustine and the Good .……………………………………………......23 Bentham and Mill on Utility ……………………………………………25 Divine Utilitarianism in the Past .……………………………………………….28 New Divine Utilitarianism .……………………………………………………..35 Chapter Three: The Ethics of God ……………………………………………45 Divine Command Theory: A Juxtaposition .……………………………………45 What Divine Command Theory Explains ………………….…………...47 What Divine Command Theory Fails to Explain ………………………47 What Divine Utilitarianism Explains …………………………………………...50 Assessing the Juxtaposition .…………………………………………………....58 Chapter Four: Summary and Conclusion……………………………………...60 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..64 2 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Statement of the
    [Show full text]
  • The Design Argument
    The design argument The different versions of the cosmological argument we discussed over the last few weeks were arguments for the existence of God based on extremely abstract and general features of the universe, such as the fact that some things come into existence, and that there are some contingent things. The argument we’ll be discussing today is not like this. The basic idea of the argument is that if we pay close attention to the details of the universe in which we live, we’ll be able to see that that universe must have been created by an intelligent designer. This design argument, or, as its sometimes called, the teleological argument, has probably been the most influential argument for the existence of God throughout most of history. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is noting that things we observe in nature, like plants and animals, typically act in ways which are advantageous to themselves. Think, for example, of the way that many plants grow in the direction of light. Clearly, as Aquinas says, plants don’t do this because they know where the light is; as he says, they “lack knowledge.” But then how do they manage this? What does explain the fact that plants grow in the direction of light, if not knowledge? Aquinas’ answer to this question is that they must be “directed to their end” -- i.e., designed to be such as to grow toward the light -- by God.
    [Show full text]