Deck 7: God

Question 1

Summarize the cosmological argument. Then present and respond to one of the criticisms that Nagel raises of this argument. Do you find the criticism persuasive? Explain.

Answer 1

good essay will:
State the reasons and conclusion of the cosmological argument (the first-cause argument).
State one of Nagel's criticisms of this argument.
Assess the plausibility of this criticism in your own words, demonstrating its weaknesses and/or strengths.

Question 2

What is the problem of evil? Does it raise a serious problem for the theist? Explain.

Answer 2

No Answer

Question 3

Do you think that the Darwinian theory of natural selection is a plausible alternative explanation of that offered in the argument from design (the teleological argument)? Explain.

Answer 3

No Answer

Question 4

The problem of evil is about the incompatibility of human freedom with the existence of evil in the world.

Question 5

Nagel finds several theistic arguments convincing.

Question 6

The Darwinian theory of natural selection is a rival explanation for the phenomena that concern the ontological argument.

Question 7

Kant argued that it is a necessary condition for the moral life that one posit the existence of God.

Question 8

The psychology of mystical experience provides good evidence that God exists, according to Nagel.

Question 9

The cosmological argument depends on the claim that

A) Existence is a predicate.
B) An infinite series of causes is conceivable.
C) An infinite series of causes is inconceivable.
D) An inference from the analogy from a clock.

Question 10

Kant criticized the ontological argument because

A) Existence is not a grammatical predicate.
B) Existence is not an attribute that belongs to the nature of any thing.
C) Both a and b
D) Neither a nor b

Question 11

Nagel criticizes the cosmological argument because

A) Existence does not specify an attribute.
B) If God can be self-caused, the world can be self-caused as well.
C) There are plausible alternative explanations for how the world came to be.
D) The world is not a watch.

Question 12

Kant's argument for the existence of God is that

A) God is a necessary condition for moral life.
B) God is a sufficient condition for moral life.
C) Religious experience justifies belief in the existence of God.
D) God is self-caused.

Question 13

The problem of evil challenges the compatibility of evil with

A) The existence of a finite God.
B) The existence of love.
C) The existence of a fallible God.
D) The existence of an all-powerful, perfectly benevolent, omnipotent God.

Question 14

Summarize the ontological argument and the criticism Nagel presents of it. Which do you find more persuasive-the argument or the criticism? Why?

Question 15

What is the teleological argument? What is its main weakness? Explain.

Question 16

Consider one solution to the problem of evil. Do you think it succeeds? Explain.
Why God Allows Evil
Richard Swinburne

Question 17

What is a theodicy? What are the main elements of Swinburne's theodicy? Do you think it is a convincing response to the problem of evil?

Question 18

What do you think of Swinburne's treatment of animal suffering? Is it convincing? Explain.

Question 19

Swinburne does not think that the problem of evil raises any serious challenges for the theist.

Question 20

An example of moral evil is an earthquake.

Question 21

According to Swinburne, it is not logically possible for God to give us free will and ensure that we always use it in the right way.

Question 22

Swinburne claims that God does not have the right to allow for unlimited evil in this world.

Question 23

Swinburne claims no connection between free will and natural evil.

Question 24

A moral evil, according to Swinburne,

A) Is caused by deliberate action or negligence.
B) Is not allowed by human beings to occur.
C) Includes animal suffering.
D) Includes natural disasters that cause human pain.

Question 25

The possibility of moral evil follows from

A) The promise of hell.
B) The reality of suffering.
C) God's giving human beings free will.
D) A deterministic view of human behavior.

Question 26

A natural evil, according to Swinburne,

A) Is deliberately caused by human beings.
B) Is not deliberately caused by human beings.
C) Includes human and animal suffering.
D) Both a and b

Question 27

According to the "free-will defense," God

A) Could give us free will and ensure that we always use it the right way.
B) Could not have free will Himself without allowing evil.
C) Could not give us free will and ensure that we always use it the right way.
D) None of the above.

Question 28

According to the Swinburne, God allows evil

A) Because it is logically impossible for Him to do otherwise.
B) For the greater good of free and responsible choice.
C) Because He would be less than perfectly good if He created a world without suffering.
D) All of the above.

Question 29

Were you convinced by Swinburne's theodicy? If not, what about the fallback of the claim about an afterlife? Explain.

Question 30

Do you find the free-will defense convincing? Explain.

Question 31

Do you find Swinburne's account of natural evil convincing? Explain.
Pascal's Wager
Simon Blackburn

Question 32

What does Blackburn identify as the crucial flaw in Pascal's argument? Do you agree that it is fatal to the argument? Explain.

Question 33

What is Pascal's wager an argument for? Do you think that this is an interesting conclusion? Explain.

Question 34

Do you think that we lack metaphysical knowledge of God? Explain.

Question 35

Pascal claims to lack metaphysical knowledge about God.

Question 36

Blackburn finds Pascal's wager compelling.

Question 37

Blackburn thinks that the payoff matrix Pascal specifies is oversimplified.

Question 38

According to Pascal, we are incapable of knowing whether God exists.

Question 39

Pascal argues that we have reason to believe that God exists.

Question 40

According to Blackburn, Pascal's Wager is an argument

A) For the truth of religious belief.
B) Based on metaphysical premises.
C) For the utility of believing in God.
D) All of the above.

Question 41

Pascal's wager provides for a choice between

A) Two options.
B) Three options.
C) Four options.
D) Five options.

Question 42

Pascal claims that if there is a God, He is

A) Incomprehensible.
B) Unknowable.
C) Without limit.
D) All of the above.

Question 43

According to Blackburn, the scenario imagined in Pascal's wager

A) Specifically describes Christian beliefs.
B) Refers generally to all religious beliefs.
C) Requires prior metaphysical knowledge.
D) Both a and b

Question 44

According to Blackburn, the flaw in Pascal's wager is that

A) It does not take account of eternal damnation.
B) It contradicts the claim to metaphysical ignorance.
C) It does not provide the right kind of reason to believe in God.
D) It is blasphemous.

Question 45

Explain Pascal's wager in your own words. Do you find it compelling? Explain.

Question 46

Explain Blackburn's critique of the argument. Do you find it compelling? Explain.

Question 47

What is Pascal's advice to those who find it difficult to believe in God on the basis of his argument? Do you think he is right in the advice he gives? Explain.
Pascal's Wager: An Assessment
Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski

Question 48

Can one choose to believe? Are there some things that one can choose to believe, but not others? What would Pascal say? Do you agree?

Question 49

Why does Zagzebski conclude that Pascal's wager is not for everybody? Who is it for, and who is it not for?

Question 50

Is it morally acceptable to try to make yourself feel something for reasons of self-interest?

Question 51

According to Zagzebski, only theists take issue with Pascal's wager.

Question 52

According to the "many gods" objection, Pascal's wager only makes sense for Christianity.

Question 53

Some people object that Pascal's wager expresses a low view of religious faith.

Question 54

Pascal thought we could change our beliefs just by deciding to.

Question 55

Pascal thought that believing out of self-interest was just as good as sincere faith.

Question 56

Pascal argued that if you act as if you believe, you may end up believing.

Question 57

Some people hold that it is not morally acceptable to try to make yourself feel something for reasons of self-interest.

Question 58

According to Zagzebski, objections to Pascal's wager come from

A) Theists.
B) Nontheists.
C) Both a and b
D) Neither a nor b

Question 59

The many gods objection points out that Pascal's wager is between

A) The existence of the Christian God and no God at all.
B) The existence of the Christian God or all the many other Gods.
C) The existence of any God at all or many Gods.
D) The existence of many Gods or no God at all.

Question 60

If you are considering whether to believe in the God of a religion other than Christianity,

A) Pascal's wager may not apply to your situation.
B) Pascal argues that you should try to believe in the Christian God anyway.
C) You can make an analogous version of Pascal's wager.
D) You are not faced with a forced wager.

Question 61

If you are choosing between atheism as well as more than one religion,

A) You can make another version of Pascal's wager.
B) Pascal's wager may not apply to your situation.
C) Pascal thinks you should try to believe in the Christian God.
D) You can choose based on rationality.

Question 62

What Zagzebski means by a "live option" is

A) Something you could really believe.
B) A belief that you could really live by.
C) A belief in the eternal afterlife promised by God.
D) A reason that makes it worthwhile to believe.

Question 63

Zagzebski suggests that Pascal's wager is not for everyone. Specifically, it is for people who

A) Already believe in a God who promises eternal life.
B) Are already atheists but want to believe in God.
C) Would consider more than one religion a live option.
D) Are struggling to choose between one religion and atheism.

Question 64

According to Zagzebski, some critics claim Pascal's wager presupposes a low view of God or faith because

A) Pascal assumes that all believers are Christian, which shows lack of tolerance.
B) Pascal encourages people to believe for motives of self-interest, which is not sincere faith.
C) Pascal starts out with the idea that atheism is a live option, which is repugnant.
D) All of the above.

Question 65

Pascal argued that taking up his wager was

A) Just as good as real faith.
B) A way to try to acquire real faith.
C) Better than nothing if you couldn't have real faith.
D) Probably not good enough to get you to heaven.

Question 66

According to Zagzebski, the person who takes up Pascal's wager is intending to

A) Try to come to a sincere belief in God.
B) Try to get into heaven without sincere belief.
C) Try to get a good reputation for being pious.
D) Try to figure out the real truth about God's existence.

Question 67

Accepting Pascal's wager is

A) Sure to result in sincere faith sooner or later.
B) Likely to result in sincere faith sooner or later.
C) No guarantee of acquiring sincere faith, but at least it's an attempt.
D) Unlikely to ever result in sincere faith, since the motives are self-interested.

Question 68

According to Zagzebski, Pascal might respond to the objection that we cannot change our beliefs simply by making a choice by arguing that

A) You can change your beliefs instantly if you apply force of will.
B) You can change your beliefs instantly if you are rational about it.
C) If you act as if you believe, over time, you may end up believing.
D) All of the above.

Question 69

Zagzebski gives an analogy written by James Cargile about a billionaire jazz lover to show that

A) You wouldn't really learn to love jazz, just as a self-interested faith in God would be fake.
B) You might be able to come to love jazz, just as you could come to believe in God.
C) Pascal's wager makes no sense, just like this silly billionaire's idea.
D) Religion has no point; it's basically just an art form like music.

Question 70

Zagzebski gives an analogy about a wealthy man who proposes to a poor woman to show that

A) You can't buy love.
B) You can't make yourself love someone.
C) It's morally bad to make yourself love someone for any reason.
D) It's morally bad to make yourself love someone for self-interested reasons.

Question 71

Zagzebski gives the analogy between the wealthy man/poor woman story and Pascal's wager because she is wondering

A) Whether it is morally bad to make yourself believe in God for self-interested reasons.
B) Whether it is morally bad to try to change your beliefs at all.
C) Whether it is possible to make yourself believe in God.
D) Whether God is trying to "buy" worshippers.

Question 72

Compare this reading to the previous one by Simon Blackburn. How do Zagzebski's and Blackburn's opinions of Pascal's wager compare?

A) Blackburn agrees with Pascal, whereas Zagzebski criticizes him.
B) Blackburn criticizes Pascal, whereas Zagzebski agrees with him.
C) Blackburn and Zagzebski point out different problems with Pascal's wager.
D) Blackburn and Zagzebski both defend Pascal's wager.

Question 73

Explain the "many gods" objection to Pascal's wager.

Question 74

Why might one think that Pascal's wager presupposes a low view of religious faith? How would Pascal respond to that accusation?

Question 75

Zagzebski points out that you would never choose a rich person and then try to make yourself love that person. Is this similar to trying to make yourself believe in God, for reasons of self-interest? If it is similar, is this morally all right? If it is not similar, what is the difference?
Faith and Reason
Michael Scriven

Question 76

Do you agree with Scriven that there is a fundamental asymmetry between faith and reason? Explain.

Question 77

Why do agreement and strong feeling not establish the truth of one's beliefs? Do you agree? Explain.

Question 78

Why can the subject of religious experience not be an impartial observer, according to Scriven? Is he right? Explain.

Question 79

According to Scriven, reason is irrelevant to the commitment to theism.

Question 80

There is no sense of "faith" compatible with reason according to Scriven.