June 30th Quiz
A reductio ad absurdum argument concludes:
Bill did not run the red light. What can you be
absolutely sure is a premise of the argument?
Bill ran the red light.
What's the best characterization of Hume's
objection to the design (teleological) argument?
(Be sure to read all the options and choose the
best one.)
Given the rather poor design of life, the
intelligent designer is definitely not a "30" God.
A good criticism of the design argument could
NOT start as follows:
The conclusion - the universe was produced by
an intelligent designer - is false. Let me explain
why...
An inference to the best explanation
Starts with a fact and then concludes that the
best explanation for that fact is true (or
probably true).
If the premises of Anselm's ontological
argument are true, they support the existence of
a God that is:
The premises of Aquinas's cosmological
argument are intended to support the existence
of a God that is:
the greatest possible being.
A proposed solution to the problem of evil says
that there is no unnecessary suffering because
apparently unnecessary suffering brings about
Benefit B.
Could God have created Benefit B without the
suffering? If yes, God is not omnibenevolent. If
no, God is not omnipotent.
If the premises of Leibniz’s cosmological
argument are true, they support the existence of
a God that is:
A necessary being
Which is the best description of the problem of
evil? (Be sure to look at all the options)
No "3 O" God would permit unnecessary
suffering. But there is unnecessary suffering.
So a "3 O" God does not exist.
If the premises of Paley's teleological
argument are true, they support the existence of
a God that is:
An intelligent designer
the first cause of the universe.
Match the argument and the philosopher to a
central idea behind the argument
Anselm – X is greater if it exists in reality
Aquinas – An infinite chain is impossible
Paley- Abduction, abductive argument,
interreference to the best explanation
Leibniz
-Principal of sufficient reason
because God is "3 O." And his reasoning ran as
follows:
If X is an imperfection - something that makes
this NOT the best possible universe - then God
would remove it.
Here's the logic of this argument (Match up the
premises and conclusion):
God would know x is an imperfection because
– he is omniscient
God would be able to remove x because- he is
omnipotent
God would remove x if he knew it was an
imperfection and he was able toomnibenevolent
Therefore, there can be no imperfections in the
universe- Conclusion
False
Marine mammals (dolphins, whales) and fish
live in the ocean. And yet marine mammals
appear much EARLIER in the fossil record
than fish.
A theory of the history of life on earth should
explain bio geography for example it should
explain why most native marsupials species
live in Australia.
True
A theory of life on earth does NOT have to
explain homologies – the patterns of
similarities across different species (both
genetic and anatomical)
False
A theory of life on Earth Should explain the
pattern of fossils found in the fossil record –
Both the first appearances and why older strata
contain more extinct species
Any explanation for life on earth does not have
to explain animal diversity for example it does
not have to explain why there’s so many darn
beetles in the world
True
Order the fossils in terms of the first
appearance in the fossil record:
Oldest/5th youngest – Marine Invertebrates
Older/4th youngest - Fish
False
Middle/3rd youngest- Amphibians
Younger/2nd oldest- Reptiles
Youngest- Mammals and birds
If you organize the geological strata from
oldest to youngest, here are all the organisms
you’ll find in the middle (3rd youngest strata)
Marine invertebrates
Amphibians
Fish
June 29th Quiz
A reductio ad absurdum argument is an
argument that:
assumes the opposite of what it wants to
prove and shows that it leads to a
contradiction (an absurd result).
For the defender of the traditional Western
conception of God, what is a definite
advantage of Anselm's ontological argument
over Aquinas's cosmological (first cause)
argument?
Correct!
Since it defines God as the greatest possible
being, it concludes that a God exists that is
plausibly a "3 O" God.
The main problem with Pascal's Wager that
we considered last class was:
We can construct similar wagers for why you
should take steps to believe that a "3 O" God
does NOT exist.
Which of the following is NOT a PREMISE in
Leibniz's cosmological argument.
The existence of the universe must ultimately
be explained in terms of a necessary being.
(God)
If the premises of Aquinas's cosmological
argument are true, they give us some reason
to believe in:
a first cause(s) of the universe.
The principle of sufficient reason says:
Every fact has an explanation.
When assessing an argument, the way to
assess whether the premises support the
conclusion is to do the following:
Correct!
Pretend the premises are true and then see if
they give you a good reason to accept the
conclusion.
The final grade you get on the (P) assignments
in this class will be determined by:
Bishop's judgment about whether you
participated and were a good teammate
In a good argument, it's ALWAYS the case
that (choose all that apply):
the premises support the conclusion.
The premises are true or likely
Which of the following is not a premise in
Anselm's ontological argument?
God (the greatest possible being) exists.
If I have more than 2 excused absences that
explain why I couldn't write the daily essays,
Bishop will give me extra drops (that is, he'll
allow me to drop more than 2 daily essay
grades)
False
A crucial premise in Anselm's ontological
argument is:
God is the greatest possible being.
Suppose you have two excused absences that
explain why you couldn't complete a daily
essay, and then you decide not to write a third
daily essay. How many "0" scores due to
missed assignments will be counted toward
your final daily essay grade?
1
A serious problem with Pascal's Wager that we We can construct similar wagers for why you
considered in class was:
should take steps to believe that a "3 O" God
does NOT exist.
Premise: God is the greatest possible being.
This is a crucial premise in the ontological
argument. If you try to argue that it's false or
implausible, what would Stich & Donaldson
say in reply?
Anselm's ontological argument as it is spelled
out by Stich & Donaldson is a (pick all the
correct answers):
Identify the premises and conclusion of
Pascal's Wager.
This is Anselm's definition of the word "God."
He's free to use the word "God" however he
likes.
reductio ad absurdum
If you believe in God, you have a chance at an
INFINITELY POSITIVE payoff (if you're right)
or a small negative payoff (otherwise).
Correct!
If you don't believe in God, you have a chance
of an INFINITELY NEGATIVE payoff (if you are
wrong) or a small positive payoff (if you are
right).
Correct!
It is in your interest to take steps so that you
end up believing in God.
Correct!
God exists.
Premise (shorter)
Premise (longer)
Conclusion
Not a part of Pascal's argument
After playing poker for 25 years, George finally Good arguments can have false conclusions.
(FINALLY!) drew 4 Aces! Consider the
following argument:



Premise 1: George just drew a
poker hand.
Premise 2: Drawing 4 Aces is
extremely unlikely.
Conclusion: Therefore, George
didn't draw 4 Aces.
Note that the premises are true and the
conclusion is false. The lesson to draw from
this argument is:
Pascal's wager is a practical argument
because:
it's conclusion recommends an action - that
you take steps to try to believe in God.
A good criticism of Aquinas's first cause
argument CANNOT start as follows:
The conclusion of the argument (there must
be a first cause, God) is false because...
Consider the following argument. (The
premises are both false. The conclusion is
true.)
Bad arguments can have true conclusions.

Premise 1: Joe Biden is a chicken.


Premise 2: All chickens have lips.
Conclusion: Joe Biden has lips.
What is the right lesson to draw from this
argument?
Suppose you want to give a reductio ad
absurdum argument to the conclusion:
Moriarty did not eat the bread pudding. You
know for sure the following premise would be
part of such an argument:
Moriarty ate the bread pudding
July 1st Quiz
If you organize the geological strata from
oldest to youngest, here are ALL the
organisms you'll find in the older (4th oldest)
strata:
fish
Leibniz thought that because God is
omniscient, omnipotent, and
omnibenevolent:
We live in the best of all possible worlds.
What's the best characterization of
Hume's objection to the design (teleological)
argument?
Given the rather poor design of life, the intelligent
designer is definitely not a "30" God
According to Stich & Donaldson, which of the
following are completely implausible answers
to the problem of evil? (Answer all that are
correct.)
Suffering isn't real.
The oldest organisms that appear in the fossil
record are:
marine invertebrates
An inference to the best explanation:
A good criticism of the design
argument could NOT start as follows:
marine invertebrates
Evil (suffering) is the privation of good
(pleasure).
Divine goodness is completely different from
human goodness.
Starts with a fact and then concludes that the best
explanation for that fact is true.
The conclusion - the universe was produced by an
intelligent designer - is false. Let me explain why...
Marine mammals (whales, dolphins) appear in
the fossil record at roughly the same time as
large fish.
False
What's the most serious challenge to the Free
Will theodicy that we considered in this class?
(Don't choose as an answer something that
the proponent of the Free Will theodicy would
agree with.)
Could God have given us free will and made us better
(kinder, more generous, wiser) people? If so, he's not
all good. If not, he's not all powerful.
Which of the following objections to an
argument will guarantee that you lose points
on a graded assignment?
The conclusion is false. And that's because...
Amphibians appear in the fossil record before
reptiles.
True
Anselm, Ontological Argument
X is greater if X
Aquinas, Cosmological (First Cause)
Argument
Paley, Teleological (Design) Argument
Leibniz, Cosmological Argument
An infinite chain
Abduction, abductive arguments
Principle of sufficient reason
July 6th Quiz
Consider the following attempt to explain why
a "3 O" God would permit suffering.
Explanation: There is some benefit B that
explains the suffering.
There is a "standard move" to make against
any such explanation. Explain the move in
your own words.
Attempt to discover if you could have benefit
B without the suffering
Suppose you want to give a reductio ad
absurdum argument to the conclusion: Bishop
did not prepare for class today. Fill in the blank
with what you know for sure would be a
premise of such an argument:
Pascal's wager is a practical argument
because:
The basic idea behind an inference to
the best explanation is this:
Premise: God is the greatest possible being.
Bishop prepared for class today.
it's conclusion recommends an action - that you take
steps to try to believe in God.
The best explanation for a series of facts is (probably)
true.
This is Anselm's definition of the word "God." He's
free to use the word "God" however he likes.
This is a crucial premise in the ontological
argument. If you try to argue that it's false or
implausible, what would S&D say in reply?
What makes an argument a theoretical
argument (rather than a practical argument)
is:
its conclusion is a claim about the way the world is,
was, will be, might be.
Which of the following is NOT a premise of
Anselm's ontological argument?
God (the greatest possible being) exists in reality.
A good criticism of Aquinas's first cause
argument CANNOT start as follows:
The conclusion of the argument (there must be a first
cause, God) is false because...
A serious problem with Pascal's Wager that we We can construct similar wagers for why you should
take steps to believe that a "3 O" God does NOT
considered in class was:
exist.
All bad arguments have a false conclusion.
The problem of evil is primarily a problem
about why a God that is omniscient,
False
unnecessary suffering
omnipotent, and omnibenevolent would
permit (choose the best answer):
All good arguments have a true conclusion
False
In a good argument, it's ALWAYS the case
that (choose all the answers that are correct):
the premises support the conclusion.
the premises are all true or at least plausible.
Identify the premises and conclusions of
Paley's teleological argument (aka argument
from design).
The biological world exhibits a great deal of
design.
Premise (shorter)
The best explanation for the design in the
biological world is that it was created by an
intelligent designer.
Premise (longer)
An intelligent designer created the design in
the biological world
Conclusion
Everything has an explanation.
Not part of Paley’s design argument
Identify all the kinds of fossil you might
plausibly find in the second youngest strata.
(This will include all the fossils except the
youngest.)
amphibians
fish
marine invertebrates
reptiles
7/7 In Class Quiz
The Darwinian (VIST) History STARTS with
living organisms (birds, bugs) with variations
(different colored bugs) that can be inherited
(green bugs tend to have green bug babies;
brown bugs tend to have brown bug babies;
green and brown bug parents have one or the
other).
True
No. "VI" means you have to start a Darwinian (VIST)
It is possible for a Darwinian (VIST) History to
explain the origin of life. IOW: The origin of life History with live organisms that have heritable
variations. So there already has to be life!
is one of the FACTS Darwin's theory explains.
Darwin's theory explains the origin of the
universe.
No. Darwinian (VIST) Histories start with the
assumption that there's an existing universe with life
in it.
There's SELECTION in this population of bugs
because:
the birds eat green bugs at a higher rate than they
eat brown bugs.
Natural selection guarantees the survival of
the strongest and the smartest.
No. It's perfectly possible that the brown bugs are
dumber and weaker than the green bugs.
After some time has passed, the population
will have more brown bugs than green bugs.
(In fact, it might ONLY have brown bugs.)
True
That means this population has evolved.
Let's travel back in time to when the first brown bug
appeared in this population. It appeared via
mutation: a baby bug's genes changed in a way that
led the baby bug to be brown.
According to the standard account of the theory of
evolution, how should we understand this change
that turned out to be beneficial to this baby bug?
This is not part of the website, but it's
something for you to know independently:
When a population of sexually reproducing
organisms has evolved to the point where the
NEW organisms can't interbreed with the OLD
organisms (that is, they can't have fertile
offspring), then the NEW organisms are
counted as a new SPECIES.
NOTE: BOTH OLD and NEW organisms might
still be around.
How can "speciation" happen? Lots of ways.
Here are a few:
It arose by chance. It was pure luck that this change
happened to be "useful" to this bug.
True
You should think of speciation (new species
arising via evolution) as a BRANCHING
process: One species of organisms is around. A
subset "breaks off" and evolves (changes). But
the old species is still around. Eventually, the
change is the sort of change that causes
speciation.
True
Now you have 2 branches. And EACH branch
can "create" new branches.
You should NOT think about speciation as a
METAMORPHOSIS process where an ENTIRE
POPULATION changes ALL AT ONCE into a new
species.
Group of answer choices
Let's look at each element of the Darwinian History
(VIST).
True
True
Variations: Pre-Darwinian biologists who accepted
the Design Argument knew all about variations in
populations. This wasn't news.
We should accept the "V" in VIST.
Inheritance: Most biologists in Darwin's day
knew very little about how inheritance
worked.
In fact, one of the great objections to Darwin's
theory was based on the notion of inheritance.
Here's how the objection went: Inheritance
works by BLENDING. Some examples:


A brown bug and a green bug will
usually have a baby bug that's a
mix of the two colors.
A BIG brown bug and a small brown
bug will usually have a baby bug
that's medium sized.
Suppose there's some mutation that leads an
organism to be bigger and this is
advantageous. In the case of sexual
Any high school bio textbook will tell you about
dominant and recessive genes. Inheritance doesn't
work by "blending." Darwin gambled. And he turned
out to be right.
reproduction and inheritance by blending, this
advantage will disappear after a few
generations.
Therefore, the "I" in VIST is false: Variations
get lost in future generations. They don't get
passed on.
OMG! Darwin was wrong!!
Question: What happened with science since
Darwin's day w/r/t the "I" in VIST?
Darwin assumed that variations could be
inherited. But he didn't know how genetics
worked. This was a GAP in his theory.
fecund (fruitful)
In the 160+ years since Darwin put forward his
theory, the GAP has been filled with genetics
and molecular biology.
Kitcher would say that this means that
Darwin's theory has been:
Selection: Even before Darwin, people recognized
that "beneficial" characteristics SOMEHOW got
"selected" in nature. And breeders knew all about
"artificial" selection.
True
So the "S" in VIST is reasonable.
Group of answer choices
The Sun doesn't burn like gas or coal. It's powered by
Time: Darwin knew that for his theory to work, nuclear reactions. Physicists now estimate that the
he needed evolution to work for a LONG time. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Once again,
But the greatest physicists of Darwin's day
argued that Darwin's theory contradicted
physics. How? They knew the mass of the Sun.
And they knew how long something that size
could burn before it ran out of fuel. (Because
they thought of the Sun sort of like a massive
chunk of burning coal.)
Darwin gambled. And the physicists of Darwin's day
were wrong.
Since 1859, what have we learned about the
Sun and the age of the universe?
Darwin assumed that the Earth was
VERY old. But he couldn't explain why. This
was a big GAP in his theory.
fruitful (fecund)
As physicists learned more about how atoms
and stars work, they filled in this GAP in
Darwin's theory with some pretty amazing
science (nuclear physics, astronomy).
Kitcher would say that this shows that
Darwin's theory has been:
So if we look to see why we should accept
VIST, here's what we find:




independently testable.
V: Supported by centuries of the
study of biology and ecology.
I: Supported by molecular biology.
S: Supported by ecology.
T: Supported by physics.
A hypothesis that can be tested using lots of
different (and pretty awesome) "auxiliary"
hypothesis is:
Question 1
0 / 1 pts
Leibniz's cosmological argument for the existence of God assumes that (choose all that apply):
Correct!
God is a necessary being.
Every fact has an explanation.
Question 2
1 / 1 pts
For Leibniz, what is a contingent being?
Correct!
Something that could have not existed.
Question 3
1 / 1 pts
The main difference between Aquinas's cosmological argument and Leibniz's cosmological
argument is:
Correct!
Aquinas argues for a first cause of the universe, Leibniz argues for an ultimate explanation for
the universe.
Question 4
0 / 1 pts
Proponents of the free will theodicy admit that it cannot account for:
You Answere
natural evil
Question 5
1 / 1 pts
A hypothesis or explanation is UNIFIED when (read ALL the options before answering - choose
the BEST answer):
Correct!
it explains a lot of facts with a few specific principles.
Question 6
0.5 / 1 pts
Which of the following replies to the ontological argument have some chance of showing that
there's a problem with the argument? (Choose all that apply.)
Correct!
Even if we grant the premises are true, they don't give us much reason to accept the conclusion
because...
Anselm believed in the existence of God because he feared death, so we have no reason to
take his argument seriously...
The conclusion that God, the greatest possible being, exists is false because....
Correct Answer
The premise that something that exists in reality is more perfect than something that exists
only in the mind is false because...
Question 7
1 / 1 pts
An inference to the best explanation:
Starts with a fact and then concludes that a pretty good explanation for that fact is true.
Takes the best explanation for something and infers that there's no better explanation for it.
Assumes that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.
Correct!
Starts with a fact and then concludes that the best explanation for that fact is (probably)
true.
Question 8
0 / 1 pts
According to S&D, a serious problem with Skeptical Theism (the view that we cannot
understand God's Plan for allowing us to suffer) is that:
You Answered
It leads to paralysis about what to believe about the world.
It makes God too alien and impersonal to be easily worshipped.
Correct Answer
It leaves us paralyzed about how to be morally good.
It involves "bait & switch" (or "BS") because it involves changing the normal meaning of our
words.
Question 9
0 / 1 pts
A hypothesisis INDEPENDENTLY TESTABLE when:
You Answered
it can be tested using lots of different assumptions that are independent of all bias.
it can be tested in lots of different and independent laboratories.
it can be tested by lots of different people who are independent of each other.
Correct!
it can be tested in lots of different ways - with different (and good) "helper" hypotheses.
Question 10
5 / 5 pts
We've considered the following arguments. Your job: Match the argument with the objection
to it.
Correct!
Aquinas's cosmological argument
Maybe an infinite causal chain is possible.
Correct!
Leibniz's cosmological argument
Maybe not every fact has an explanation
Correct!
Anselm's ontological argument
Maybe existence isn't a perfection
Correct!
Pascal's wager
Maybe there's a God who sends us to hell for believing in the traditional "3O" God
Correct!
Paley's design argument
Darwin's theory
Question 11
4 / 4 pts
A proposed solution to the problem of evil says that there is no unnecessary suffering because
suffering that APPEARS to be unnecessary actually brings about Benefit B.
The proponent of the problem of evil has a Basic Strategy against any such solution. It is to
argue as follows:
Could God have created Benefit B without the
[ Select ]
["universe",
"suffering", "benefit"]
? If yes, God is not
[ Select
]
["omnibenevolent", "omnipotent", "omniscient"]
. If no, God is
not
[ Select ]
["omniscient", "omnibenevolent", "omnipotent"]
.
Answer 1:
Correct!
Benefit B
Answer 2:
Correct!
suffering
Answer 3:
Correct!
omnibenevolent
Answer 4:
Correct!
omnipotent
Question 12
0.4 / 2 pts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Youngest
A Bit Older
Older
Really Old
Oldest
Pretend you're looking at layers of Earth (strata). Choose ALL the organisms you see in the
Youngest (#1) strata.
Correct Answer
fish
Correct Answer
reptiles
Correct!
mammals and birds
Correct Answer
marine invertibrates
Correct Answer
amphibians
Question 13
2 / 2 pts
Match the argument with its definition.
Correct!
Pragmatic argument
gives reasons in favor of doing something.
Correct!
Theoretical argument
gives reasons to think something is true.
Correct!
Abductive argument
starts with a fact and infers that the best explanation for the fact is true
Correct!
Reductio ad absurdum
starts with the denial of the conclusion, and show how the denial leads to a
contradiction.
Question 14
0 / 2 pts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Youngest
A Bit Older
Older
Really Old
Oldest
Pretend you're looking at layers of Earth (strata). Choose ALL the organisms you see in the
Oldest (#5) strata.
You Answered
amphibians
Correct!
marine invertibrates
You Answered
fish
You Answered
reptiles
You Answered
mammals and birds
Question 15
2 / 2 pts
Choose all that are contingent beings, according to Leibniz.
Correct!
Me
Correct!
You
God
Correct!
The universe
Correct!
Tallahassee
Question 16
0 / 2 pts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Youngest
A Bit Older
Older
Really Old
Oldest
Pretend you're looking at layers of Earth (strata). Choose ALL the organisms you see in the
Really Old (#4) strata.
Correct Answer
marine invertibrates
You Answered
mammals and birds
You Answered
amphibians
Correct!
fish
You Answered
reptiles
Question 17
2 / 2 pts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Youngest
A Bit Older
Older
Really Old
Oldest
Pretend you're looking at layers of Earth (strata). Choose ALL the organisms you see in the
Older (#3) strata.
mammals and birds
Correct!
marine invertibrates
Correct!
fish
Correct!
amphibians
reptiles
UnansweredQuestion 18
0 / 2 pts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Youngest
A Bit Older
Older
Really Old
Oldest
Pretend you're looking at layers of Earth (strata). Choose ALL the organisms you see in the A
Bit Older (#2) strata.
Correct Answer
amphibians
Correct Answer
fish
mammals and birds
Correct Answer
reptiles
Correct Answer
marine invertibrates
According to Kitcher, Darwin's theory is fecund (fruitful) because
it had gaps that were filled with some pretty amazing theories
According to Kitcher, Darwin's theory is unified because:
It explains the fossil record, homologies, animal diversity, and biogeography with a few specific
principles (VIST).
Question 1
4 / 4 pts
In a Darwinian History, what does VIST stand for?
Your Answer:
Variation, Inheritance, Selection & Time
Question 2
1 / 4 pts
What 4 facts does Darwin's theory explain? (A word or 2 per fact is fine.)
Your Answer:
individuals of a species are not identical
traits are passed from generation to generation
more offspring are born than can survive
and only the survivors of the competition for resources will reproduce
Question 3
7 / 7 pts
Skeptical theism is the view that a "3O" God has a good reason (a Divine Plan) for permitting
the suffering that occurs in our world, but we have no way of understanding it. S&D raise a
worry about this view. Your task is to help George explain the objection by choosing the right
words in the following passage.
Suppose I'm walking past a child who is trapped beneath a fallen tree branch and is suffering. I
have the power to prevent the child's suffering. But so does God since He is omnipotent .
God is not preventing this child's suffering, so this child's suffering must be part of God's Divine
Plan , which (according to Skeptical Theism) I totally don't understand .
If I am really totally in the dark about the Divine Plan, I am paralyzed about what to do: Is it part
of God's plan that I help the child or that I *not* help the child ?
Of course, in this situation, being the good person that I am, I will help the child . But when I do
this, it sure seems like I'd better be pretty confident about at least part of God's Divine Plan namely, that it's a good thing for *somebody* to help this suffering child !!
Answer 1:
Correct!
God
Answer 2:
Correct!
omnipotent
Answer 3:
Correct!
God's Divine Plan
Answer 4:
Correct!
totally don't understand
Answer 5:
Correct!
help the child or that I *not* help the child
Answer 6:
Correct!
help the child
Answer 7:
Correct!
at least part of God's Divine Plan - namely, that it's a good thing for *somebody* to help this
suffering child
Question 4
2 / 2 pts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Youngest
A Bit Older
Older
Really Old
Oldest
Pretend you're looking at layers of Earth (strata). Choose ALL the organisms you see in
the Oldest (#5) strata.
Correct!
marine invertibrates
fish
amphibians
reptiles
birds & mammals
Question 5
2 / 2 pts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Youngest
A Bit Older
Older
Really Old
Oldest
Pretend you're looking at layers of Earth (strata). Choose ALL the organisms you see in
the Youngest (#1) strata.
Correct!
marine invertibrates
Correct!
fish
Correct!
amphibians
Correct!
reptiles
Correct!
mammals and birds
Question 6
1.5 / 2 pts
Suppose a proposed solution to the problem of evil says that there is no unnecessary suffering
because suffering that APPEARS to be unnecessary actually brings about Benefit B.
The proponent of the problem of evil has a Basic Strategy against any such solution. It is to
argue as follows:
Could God have created Benefit B without the unnecessary suffering ? If yes, God is
not omnibenevolent . If no, God is not omnipotent .
Answer 1:
Correct!
Benefit B
Answer 2:
Correct Answer
suffering
You Answered
unnecessary suffering
Answer 3:
Correct!
omnibenevolent
Answer 4:
Correct!
omnipotent
Question 7
0 / 1 pts
According to Kitcher, Darwin's theory is fecund (fruitful) because
Correct Answer
it had gaps that were filled with some pretty amazing theories
You Answered
it led to great practical advances in medicine and technology
mangoes are delicious
Question 8
1 / 1 pts
Darwin's theory explains the origin of life.
True
Correct!
False
Question 9
0 / 1 pts
According to Kitcher, Darwin's theory is unified because:
Correct Answer
It explains the fossil record, homologies, animal diversity, and biogeography with a few specific
principles (VIST).
You Answered
Its explanations can be tested in lots of different ways (with independent auxiliary hypotheses).
It explains the origin of life in terms of the survival of the fittest.
Question 10
1 / 1 pts
The free will theodicy holds that God gave humans free will, and some human suffering is the
inevitable result of free will. This theodicy does not account for "natural evil" - human suffering
that is not the result of free human actions. But the proponent of the free will theodicy can
argue that this explains why a considerable amount of human suffering that we see is
consistent with a "3O" God.
Correct!
True
False
Question 11
1 / 1 pts
Darwin's theory explains the origin of the universe.
True
Correct!
False
Question 12
1 / 1 pts
A theory like "stuff happens" seems very unified because it's simple - it uses one explanatory
strategy ("stuff happens") to explain everything. And yet Kitcher thinks it's not unified. Why?
Correct!
It's not specific in the sense that it can explain anything and everything.
It's not independently testable.
It doesn't use auxiliary ("helper") hypotheses.
Question 1
Not yet graded / 2 pts
In one sentence, explain why Darwin's theory does not explain the origin of life (that is, how
the first living organism came to exist). It's possible to explain this in a very short sentence.
Your Answer:
Darwin's theory explained how animals, species, and even humans evolved but did not start his
theory at the beginning of time.
Question 2
5 / 5 pts
We've considered objections to all the arguments we've looked at. Your job: Match the
objection to the argument.
Correct!
Aquinas's cosmological argument
Maybe an infinite causal chain is possible.
Correct!
Leibniz's cosmological argument
Maybe not every fact has an explanation.
Correct!
Anselm's ontological argument
Maybe existence isn't a perfection.
Correct!
Pascal's wager
Maybe there's a God that sends us to Hell for believing in a traditional "3 O" god.
Correct!
Paley's design argument
Darwin's theory.
Question 3
5 / 5 pts
Order the fossils in terms of their FIRST APPEARANCE in the fossil record.
Correct!
Oldest / 5th Youngest
marine invertibrates
Correct!
Older / 4th Youngest
fish
Correct!
Middle / 3rd Youngest
amphibians
Correct!
Fairly Young / 2nd Youngest
reptiles
Correct!
Youngest
mammals & birds
Question 4
1 / 3 pts
Kitcher would claim that Darwin's theory is fecund because even though Darwin's theory had
the following "gaps" when Darwin first proposed the theory, those gaps have been filled up
with some pretty amazing theories that ended up supporting Darwin's theory. (Check all
correct answers.)
Correct Answer
Darwin didn't know how inheritance worked
Correct Answer
Darwin didn't know how the Earth could have been millions of years old.
Correct!
Darwin didn't know that continents moved [ANSWER THIS ONE - IT'S CORRECT!!]
Question 5
3 / 3 pts
Which of the following are signs that you might be prone to being conned and that you might
be passing along propaganda?
Correct!
Your errors tend to be "skewed" in favor of your biases.
Correct!
You allow emotions to interfere with your ability to give good arguments.
You tend to get emotional (angry, frightened) about political matters.
You believe some things that are false and you make mistakes.
Correct!
You become very confident in your views very quickly - before your confidence is warranted by
the evidence.
You tend to have some extreme views.
Question 6
3 / 3 pts
A proposed solution to the problem of evil says that there is no unnecessary suffering because
suffering that APPEARS to be unnecessary actually brings about Benefit B.
The proponent of the problem of evil has a Basic Strategy against any such solution. It is to
argue as follows:
God is not omnipotent if God
[ Select ]
["could", "could
not"]
have created a world with
[ Select ]
["the suffering",
"Benefit B"]
but without
[ Select ]
["Benefit B", "the
suffering"]
. God is not omnibenevolent if God could have created a world without the
suffering and with
[ Select ]
["Benefit B", "the suffering"]
.
Answer 1:
Correct!
could not
Answer 2:
Correct!
Benefit B
Answer 3:
Correct!
the suffering
Answer 4:
Correct!
could
Answer 5:
Correct!
the suffering
Answer 6:
Correct!
Benefit B
Question 7
1 / 2 pts
Which of the following facts will Darwin's theory explain?
You Answered
mutations
Correct!
animal diversity
Correct Answer
fossil record
the origin of life
the origin of the universe
Correct!
homologies
Correct!
biogeography
why humans are superior to other organisms
Question 8
1 / 1 pts
You're worried about your friend, Porfirio. You think he might be an alcoholic. Once you start
to look, you see lots of signs: Porfirio can't stop drinking once he starts, hides his drinking, has
empty bottles all over his room, gets sick a lot, misses classes, etc. Given the evidence you
have, Kitcher would say that your hypothesis that Porfirio is an alcoholic is fairly _____ (give
the best answer):
Correct!
unified
independently testable
fecund
Question 9
1 / 1 pts
You're worried about your friend, Porfirio. You think he might be an alcoholic. While this
hypothesis explains a lot of facts (as in the previous question), you want to make sure before
staging an intervention. So you decide to give Porfirio a breathalyzer while he's sleeping.
Kitcher would say that the main thing you're trying to by giving Porfirio the breathalyzer is
increase the ________ of your hypothesis. (You can make a case for all 3 answers, so choose
the best answer.)
fecundity
Correct!
independent testability
unification
Question 10
1 / 1 pts
The free will theodicy is the view that:
Correct!
Some suffering is the result of people using their free will. And it's better that we have free will
(and suffering) than no free will (and no suffering).
God gave humans free will because God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
Free will only makes sense in a world in which God gives us the power to transcend natural law.
Free will is inconsistent with a deterministic universe. So God created a universe that is not
deterministic.
Question 11
1 / 1 pts
According to the working definition of propaganda we adopted, which of the following are
true, a person who creates propaganda:
tries to convince people to do something that is bad.
Correct!
designs something manipulative and deceptive.
tries to convince people of something false.
Question 12
1 / 1 pts
If a polling organization or a news source makes a mistake that hurts a political candidate or a
political party, that shows that this polling organization or news source is guilty of propaganda.
True
Correct!
False
Question 13
1 / 1 pts
If you tend to get emotional about what you think are bad or unjust policies or practices, that's
a good sign that you've fallen for propaganda.
True
Correct!
False
Question 14
0 / 1 pts
We rejected the definition of propaganda on the Propaganda Critic website. Instead we
adopted a the following working definition of propaganda we adopted was: Propaganda is a
persuasive technique (e.g., arguments, images, videos) that
commits you to a bad argument.
affects emotions such as anger, hate, vindication, or a sense of identity.
Correct Answer
is designed to manipulate and deceive.
You Answered
aims to convince you to accept something false.
aims to convince you to do something irrational and against your best interests.
attempts to influence perception and affect behavior in ways that further the desired
objectives of the propagandist.
Question 15
1 / 1 pts
If you have some extreme views - that is, if you're not (almost) always among the moderate
majority - that's a very good sign that you've fallen for propaganda.
True
Correct!
False
Question 16
1 / 1 pts
The basic idea behind an inference to the best explanation is this:
Correct!
The best explanation for a series of facts is (probably) true.
The best explanation is better than other explanations.
The best explanation for the design and organization of life on Earth is the existence of an
intelligent designer.
The best explanation to be inferred from a series of facts is a function of a person's cultural
background.
Question 17
0 / 1 pts
According to the working definition of propaganda we adopted, a person who falls for
propaganda and passes it along:
intends to be manipulative and deceptive.
You Answered
intends to convince people of something false or irrational.
Correct!
might be perfectly sincere and believe what s/he's saying.
Question 18
0 / 1 pts
According to S&D, a serious problem with Skeptical Theism (the view that we cannot
understand God's Plan for allowing us to suffer) is that:
You Answered
It leaves us paralyzed about how to understand and the nature of God's goodness.
It leads to paralysis about what to believe about the world.
Correct Answer
It leaves us paralyzed about how to be morally good.
It involves "bait & switch" (or "BS") because it involves changing the normal meaning of our
words.