Goodbye to Yesterday...

Your grades are now posted. Enjoy the rest of your summer, Mt. Laurel class!
So long, Willingboro!

I'll leave you with a little rant on a favorite topic of mine: intellectual honesty. A simple goal of this class was to get us all to recognize what counts as good evidence and what counts as bad evidence for a claim. I think we got pretty good at that. But it's not clear that we wound up caring about the difference once we figured it out.

Getting us to care was the real goal of this class. We should care about good evidence. We should care about it because it's what gets us closer to being correct. When we judge an argument to be overall good, THE POWER OF LOGIC COMPELS US to believe the conclusion. If we like an arg, but still stubbornly disagree with its conclusion, we are just being irrational.

This means we should be open-minded. We should be willing to let new evidence change our current beliefs. We should be open to the possibility that we might be wrong. This is how Todd Glass puts it:


Here are the first two paragraphs of a great article I read in the Fall on this:

Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."

I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind.

Ironically, having extreme confidence in oneself is often a sign of ignorance. In many cases, such stubborn certainty is unwarranted.

It Pays to Believe?

Here are some links on Pascal's Wager:

• Links to several articles on the argument.
• Here's an audio interview on the argument and Pascal's entire work Pensées.
  
• NOTHING TO LOSE? Is there really not much to lose in this wager? This cartoon thinks otherwise.
• WHICH GOD? With so many religions out there, which God should we believe in? This cartoon dinosaur has the most practical solution.
• More on decision theory, the branch of math Pascal uses to argue that belief in God is a good bet.
  
• Some related entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: evidentialism vs. nonevidentialism, religious versions of nonevidentialism (or fideism), other pragmatic arguments for believing in god, and Pascal's other contributions to philosophy.

Final Extra Credit

Your last extra credit assignment is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, August 5th, for the Mt. Laurel class, or Thursday, August 6th, for the Willingboro class. Your assignment is to write a reading response (about 250-500 words) on the following topic:

Explain and evaluate your thoughts on God now that we've gone through the philosophy of religion section of the course. In particular, focus on any changes in your thoughts. Have you changed your beliefs about God? Have you revised your reasons for your beliefs? Why or why not? Ultimately, do you think doing philosophy is a useful method in exploring this topic? Why or why not?

This assignment is potentially worth the value of half a reading response (up to 25 points).

Also, just a reminder: the 4th reading response is a freebie. You don't have to write one, and everyone will get full credit for it. You're welcome!

One more gift: some pictures of my kittens! The light-furred kitten's name is Sugar, and the dark-furred kitten's name is Cupcake. They alternate between these two states:

Final Exam

Just a reminder: the final exam for the Mt. Laurel class is Wednesday, August 5th, at 6:00 p.m. in our normal classroom.

For the Willingboro class, our final is 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 6th, in our normal classroom.

Bad Things to Good People

Here are some links on the problem of evil.

• There is a collection of resources all about the problem of evil, including criticisms of several different responses to the problem. I mean, wow.
• I'd like to highlight one article in particular: a discussion of the "God works in mysterious ways" response: do we have enough evidence to believe that there is a reason for all the suffering in the world, but humans aren't smart enough to understand what that reason is?
• Well-known contemporary philosopher (and ordained priest) Marilyn McCord Adams offers some insights into the problem of evil in this audio interview.
• The NPR program Fresh Air has an audio interview with Bart Ehrman on the problem of suffering.
• Here's even more audio from a few philosophers on the problem of suffering.
  
  
• Thoughts on everyday evil and the Holocaust.
  
• Does everything happen for a reason? This cartoon dinosaur has an interesting take on that question. (T-Rex also occasionally wonders why bad things happen to nice people.)
• Finally, here's Stephen Colbert's take on evil:

he Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - The Unbearable Lightness of Supreme Being
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Tasers

Like A Watch, Only More So

Here are some links on the design argument for God's existence.

• Here is a nice explanation of the design argument, along with an explanation of another wacky arg for god's existence.
  
• Here is an audio interview on Hume's criticisms of the design arg.
  
• One philosophers' take on the debate between evolution and intelligent design.
• Is our universe fine-tuned for life? Maybe not.
• Wait, can science even judge religious claims, or are they talking about different things? Maybe an inference to the best explanation can help us...
  
• What about all the "design flaws" in nature? Are they evidence against a supreme designer?
  
• Well, recent research might show the appendix serves a purpose, and so wouldn't count as a design flaw.
  

I also have a little music for you. Here's the source of the "more so" phrase:

John Gorka - I'm From New Jersey
"I'm from New Jersey | It's like Ohio | But even more so | Imagine that"

Knowledge Wrap-Up

And now, some final links on knowledge.

• A new book called The Philosophical Baby by philosopher & psychologist Alison Gopnik is coming out next week. It's loaded with cool insights on the rationalism-empiricism debate. Here's an excerpt of the book, and here's a review.
• I recently interviewed a philosopher for my Owning Our Ignorance club (which anyone is welcome to join!). He's a bit of a skeptic, claiming that we should have far fewer opinions than we think. Here's the audio interview.
  
  

God Stuff

If you've read a good article on god stuff, recommend it to us by emailing me or posting the link in the comments section of this post. In the meantime, I have something for you.

The National Public Radio show Fresh Air ran a pair of interviews with two scientists talking about whether God exists. (Since they're not trained philosophers, some of their arguments aren't the best. Try to spot their mistakes!) The conversations touch on a lot of things we've been discussing in class.

• Richard Dawkins pushing atheism
  
• Francis Collins pushing theism
  

Hey, where's the interview with an agnostic? The media are so biased toward those with opinions.

Extra Credit #3

In case my in-class explanation was confusing, here's the extra credit assignment:

On pages 342-345 the textbook, Hume presents four separate criticisms of the design argument (the textbook labels them A1, A2, A3, and B). In your own words, I'd like you to briefly explain each criticism.

This is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday (Mt. Laurel) or Thursday (Willingboro).

Reading Response #3

UPDATE: Reading Response #3 is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, July 29th, for the Mt. Laurel class, and Tuesday, August 4th, for the Willingboro class. Here is the assignment:

What best explains the seeming complexity, order, and functionality of naturally occurring objects in and aspects of the universe? In other words, explain and evaluate the abductive version of the Design Argument for God's existence.

• First, briefly explain the abductive version of the Design Argument. Describe the relevant evidence that needs to be explained. List the possible explanations of that evidence. And choose the best explanation among those explanations.
  
• Then, evaluate this argument. Is an intelligent designer the best explanation of this evidence? Or is there another, better explanation? Tell me your opinion. Do you think the abductive version of the design argument is a good argument or a bad argument? Why? Be sure to defend your opinion with reasons.

The response is loosely based on the design argument section of the textbook (section 4.2). However, it's NOT based on William Paley's version of the design argument specifically. Instead, it's based on your understanding of the abductive version.

NOTE: We haven't discussed the abductive version in class yet and it isn't in the textbook. I'm asking you to try to figure out the abductive version on your own. Like the other reading responses, you won't be graded on your opinion. You'll be graded on how well you DEFEND your opinion.