Question 1

Which of the following best captures the "proportionality problem" that Kaufman raises with the idea of karma as a theodicy?
A) It is hard to believe that so many people have done such horrible things as to deserve the kind of suffering that we see in the world.
B) Because we cannot remember past lives, karma requires that in each life, we suffer for all of bad things we have done in all of our past lives.
C) Since karmic punishment must be spread out over indefinitely many lives, we each suffer only a portion of what we deserve in this life.
D) It is not always possible for karma to inflict on people what they have inflicted on others in their past lives.

Accepted Answer

The "proportionality problem" refers to the difficulty in reconciling the immense suffering observed in the world with the idea that this suffering is a result of bad actions in past lives. It questions the fairness and balance of karma by highlighting the challenge in believing that such a vast amount of suffering is deserved based on past actions.

Question 2

According to Kaufman, why isn't it possible to understand karma as delivering an "eye-for-an-eye" kind of justice?
A) The kinds of suffering that people bear change from one generation to the next.
B) People often do not remember harming others in ways that they are harmed.
C) People suffer in ways that they could never have imposed on anyone else.
D) "Eye-for-an-eye" does not fit with our actual practices of punishment.

Accepted Answer

Kaufman argues that karma cannot be understood as "eye-for-an-eye" justice because people often suffer in ways that they could never have imposed on others, indicating that karma is not a simple reciprocal justice system.

Question 3

The "infinite regress problem" for karma is supposed to show that
A) it is impossible for all suffering to have been caused by past misdeeds.
B) anyone who accepts karma must admit that the process of rebirth does not extend infinitely into the past.
C) making children suffer for misdeeds in past lives leads to an infinite cycle of misbehavior and suffering.
D) it is incompatible with the idea of a creator who is the uncaused cause of a universe with a definite beginning.

Accepted Answer

The "infinite regress problem" for karma suggests that if all suffering is due to past misdeeds, this chain of cause and effect must extend infinitely into the past, which is logically problematic. It implies there can never be a 'first' instance of suffering caused by a misdeed, challenging the coherence of karma as a moral system based on causality.

Question 4

Which of the following is NOT one of the reasons that Kaufman rejects the claim that death is not an evil?
A) Release from rebirth is less of a reward than eternal life without suffering.
B) We would only deserve eternal life if we were infinitely good.
C) Death typically involves physical and emotional suffering.
D) Karma could reward and punish us without death and rebirth.

Accepted Answer

Kaufman argues that the notion of deserving eternal life based on infinite goodness is not a valid reason to consider death as not being an evil. Instead, he focuses on the implications of death itself and the potential for suffering it involves.

Question 5

How is Kaufman's example of the terrorist supposed to show that karma is incompatible with the idea of free will?
A) Whether the terrorist's bomb kills any particular victim depends not only on the terrorist's choices, but also on facts over which the victims had no control, such as whether they got stuck in traffic near the bomb.
B) The terrorist's freely willed act of detonating the bomb is a bad action, and so should lead to him being punished, but it only directly leads to the suffering and death of his innocent victims.
C) Either the terrorist's victims are fated to be killed by his bomb, in which case the terrorist is fated to detonate it, or the terrorist detonates it of his own free will, in which case his victims do not deserve their suffering.
D) If the terrorist detonates the bomb, then he is determining the victims' fate, rather than karma, and karma requires that each person's past deeds determines his or her fate.

Accepted Answer

Kaufman's example illustrates the incompatibility between karma and free will by presenting a scenario where either the terrorist's actions are predetermined (thus negating free will) or the victims suffer without deserving it (contradicting the principle of karma that suffering is a result of one's own past actions).

Question 6

Do you agree with Pascal that if one finds it hard to believe in God on the basis of his argument, then one should adopt the religious way of life as a means to inducing this belief? Explain.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Do you agree with Pascal that if...

Question 7

Is believing in God on the basis of Pascal's argument in any way problematic? Explain.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Is believing in God on the basis...

Question 8

Pascal claims that reason shows us that we should believe in God.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Pascal claims that reason shows us that...

Question 9

Pascal thinks that belief in God is supported by his argument.

Accepted Answer

Pascal's argument, known as Pascal's Wager, suggests that it is better to believe in God because if God exists, the believer will be rewarded in the afterlife, and if God doesn't exist, the believer loses nothing. Therefore, Pascal thinks that belief in God is supported by his argument.

Question 10

Zagzebski discusses three common objections to Pascal's wager. Explain one of those three objections, along with Zagzebski's suggested response to it. Do you find her response convincing? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Zagzebski discusses three common objections to Pascal's...

Question 11

Give an example, other than one discussed by Zagzebski, of an intentional process by which you could get yourself to adopt a particular belief. Is the process by which Pascal wants you to develop religious faith similar to that process? If so, how? If not, why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Give an example, other than one discussed...

Question 12

Zagzebski suggests that Pascal's wager might be similar to "foolhardy" parents who advise their children to find the richest people they can and them make themselves fall in love with those people. Do you agree with that comparison? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Zagzebski suggests that Pascal's wager might be...

Question 13

Zagzebski argues that Pascal's wager faces decisive, insurmountable objections.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Zagzebski argues that Pascal's wager faces decisive,...

Question 14

According to Zagzebski, Pascal's wager can be modified to show that you should accept Christianity over every other religion.

Accepted Answer

Zagzebski does not specifically argue that Pascal's wager should be modified to favor Christianity over other religions. Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument that suggests belief in God is a rational choice, but it does not inherently prioritize one religion over another.

Question 15

Zagzebski argues that there are some people for whom Christianity and atheism are the only real live options, and that for those people, Pascal's wager can provide a good reason to accept Christianity.

Accepted Answer

Zagzebski argues that for some people, there are only two options - Christianity and atheism - and that for those people, Pascal's wager can provide a good reason to choose Christianity.

Question 16

According to Zagzebski, Pascal's wager is supposed to encourage people to develop genuine religious faith, rather than just act as if they believed in God.

Accepted Answer

According to Zagzebski, the purpose of Pascal's wager is to motivate people to develop genuine religious faith rather than just pretending to believe in God in order to avoid punishment or gain reward.

Question 17

Zagzebski thinks it is impossible to for Pascal's wager to get someone to develop genuine faith in God.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Zagzebski thinks it is impossible to for...

Question 18

Zagzebski's primary goal in this chapter is to
A) suggest some responses to three well-known objections to Pascal's wager.
B) convince you that Pascal's wager gives you a good reason to believe in God.
C) convince you that Pascal's wager does not give you a good reason to believe in God.
D) criticize the common responses to objections to Pascal's wager.

Accepted Answer

Zagzebski's primary goal in discussing Pascal's wager is to address and suggest responses to three well-known objections to it, rather than to persuade the reader to accept or reject the wager as a valid reason for belief in God.

Question 19

The point of the "many gods" objection to Pascal's wager is that
A) Pascal's argument needs to be supplemented with a ranking of all different religions.
B) you ought to work through Pascal's argument repeatedly, once for each religion.
C) Pascal's argument does not provide a good reason to accept Christianity over, e.g., Islam.
D) Pascal's argument actually shows that you ought to believe that all religions are true.

Accepted Answer

The "many gods" objection points out that Pascal's argument does not provide a sound reason to accept Christianity over other religions, such as Islam or Hinduism, which also propose the existence of a deity or deities. Therefore, it challenges the premises of Pascal's wager and weakens its persuasive power.

Question 20

For which of the following people, according to Zagzebski, would Pascal's wager be most likely to provide a good reason to accept some form of Christianity?
A) an agnostic teenager in a large American city with friends of many different religions
B) the pope
C) a devout Muslim in Saudi Arabia, where conversion from Islam is illegal
D) an agnostic teenager in a small Midwestern town where everyone is a Christian

Accepted Answer

Zagzebski suggests that Pascal's wager would be most compelling for those who are uncertain about their beliefs and are in a position where the potential rewards and punishments of belief in Christianity are most salient. In this case, the agnostic teenager in a small Midwestern town where everyone is Christian would likely feel the most pressure to conform to the dominant religious beliefs in their community, making the potential rewards of belief more salient. Additionally, they may feel more isolated and anxious about their uncertainty, making the comfort and community of Christianity also more attractive.

Quiz 5: Religion

Which of the following best captures the "proportionality problem" that Kaufman raises with the idea of karma as a theodicy?

According to Kaufman, why isn't it possible to understand karma as delivering an "eye-for-an-eye" kind of justice?

The "infinite regress problem" for karma is supposed to show that

Which of the following is NOT one of the reasons that Kaufman rejects the claim that death is not an evil?

How is Kaufman's example of the terrorist supposed to show that karma is incompatible with the idea of free will?