CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION:
RATIONALITY & BELIEF IN GOD
I. Basics
Meeting time: Tuesday/Thursday 3.40-4.55P
Meeting place: BEC 301
Professor: E.J. Coffman
E-mail address: ecoffma1@utk.edu
Course website: http://online.utk.edu
Office: 816 McClung Tower
Office Hours: Thursday 1.30-3.30P; by appointment
II. Texts
A. Louis Pojman and Michael Rea (editors), Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, 5th edition
(Thomson Wadsworth, 2008)
B. Course packet at Online@UT (UT Blackboard [Bb]) [http://online.utk.edu]
III. Course Overview
A. Our goals
1. Explore 5 issues bearing on the question whether any of us can rationally believe in God
2. Continue honing our critical thinking, reading, discussion, and writing skills
▪ Here, ‘belief in God’ is shorthand for (roughly) ‘the belief that there’s a supernatural creator of
the universe who is perfect in power, knowledge, and goodness’. So understood, belief in God is
central to (at least) Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But while we’ll be focusing on the rational
acceptability of a claim central to those three religions, we won’t spend much time on the details
of these—or any other—particular world religions (as you would in other religion-focused
courses offered by other departments). Again, our central question is this: Can anyone rationally
believe that God exists? Can belief in God have a good intellectual status for any of us? That’s
our big question.
▪ We can go a long way toward reaching a well-reasoned answer to our big question by exploring
five key “smaller” questions it raises:
Q1: What would God be like?
Q2: Are there any good arguments for God’s existence?
Q3: Can belief in God be rational absent good arguments for God’s existence?
Q4: Does our knowledge of worldview diversity, human psychology, and/or evil make belief in
God irrational?
Q5: Can we rationally believe Naturalism (i.e., there are no supernatural entities
whatsoever)?
1
▪ We’ll be working to understand and critically assess some of the most important contemporary
work on the above questions. Here are the main things we should have a better understanding of
at the end of this course:
▫ the nature and implications of certain key “divine attributes”—specifically:
omnipotence, perfect goodness (moral perfection), and omniscience;
▫ strengths and weaknesses of contemporary versions of the main arguments for God’s
existence;
▫ some main considerations for and against the proposal that belief in God might have a
good intellectual status for you even if you lack a good argument for God’s existence;
▫ strengths and weaknesses of main arguments that our knowledge of worldview
diversity, human psychology, and/or evil makes it irrational for us to believe in God;
and
▫ strengths and weaknesses of main arguments that we can’t rationally believe Naturalism
(i.e., the thesis that there are no supernatural entities whatsoever).
B. Our methods
1. In class: Interactive lecture; group discussion; 2 essay exams (20% each = 40% of
final grade)
2. Outside class: Reading assignments; 10 Critical Notes (20% of final grade); 1 paper
[8-10 pages] (40% of final grade)
▪ Reading assignments
Our readings will come from two sources: (1) an anthology of readings edited by Louis Pojman
(United States Military Academy, West Point [deceased]) and Michael Rea (University of Notre
Dame) called Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (5th edition, 2008); and (2) an online course
packet (available at our course’s Bb site). Taken together, the anthology and course packet
contain many of the most important historical and contemporary essays on our main questions.
As usual, you have three main goals when reading assigned material: (1) Identify the main claims
the author is arguing for (“What are the author’s main conclusions?”); (2) Understand how the
author argues for those claims (“What are the author’s main arguments for her/his main
conclusions? How, exactly, are those arguments supposed to go?”); and (3) Evaluate the author’s
arguments (“How strong are the author’s main arguments for her/his overall conclusions?”). The
online course packet includes three of my favorite essays (ones I still find helpful) on these
fundamental skills. As we start our course, please have a look at the essays under the heading
‘Preliminaries’ in the reading schedule below.
▪ Critical Notes (10 @ 2% each = 20% of final grade)
This requirement is meant to: (1) help you achieve the three reading goals mentioned above; (2)
help prepare you to contribute to class discussion; and (3) strengthen your ability to clearly and
concisely question and/or object to all sorts of arguments.
2
Each Critical Note (CN) you submit will earn a grade of ‘Exemplary’, ‘Satisfactory’, or
‘Unsatisfactory’. A Satisfactory CN will be at least 150—but not more than 300—words; it will
raise either a question about or an objection to something that happens in a particular assigned
reading. An Exemplary CN will fall within the same word limits, and will raise an especially
pressing question about or objection to a central part of the selected reading. To ensure that I
understand how your question or objection engages the material you’re writing about, please
provide some context by briefly summarizing the part of the reading your question or objection
concerns. Sincere effort will usually suffice for at least a Satisfactory CN.
There are four important rules about CNs:
▫ CNs must be typed.
▫ Each CN must include a word count.
▫ CNs should normally be submitted in class.
▫ Each of your CNs must engage a different reading (no more than one CN on a given
reading).
I encourage you to draw on your CNs in class discussion: share your questions with us, try out
your objections on us, and so on.
▪ Essay exams (2 @ 20% each = 40% of final grade)
Each exam will consist of two essay questions drawn from a list of several possible questions.
The possible questions will derive entirely from material covered in class. I’ll distribute a list of
questions several days before each exam. A typical question will ask you to lay out a particular
argument, present a standard objection to that argument, provide a possible reply to that
objection, and (finally) offer your own verdict about the debate.
▪ Paper (40% of final grade)
I’ll soon distribute a detailed paper assignment that concerns issues raised in our course. You
may also write on a topic of your own choosing, subject to my approval. There’s a “re-write”
option on your term paper that works like this. After I return my comments on, and overall
evaluation of, the first draft you submit—which is due by 5pm on Friday November 20th—,
you’ll have the option of submitting a second, revised draft of your paper—which will be due by
12pm (noon) on Monday December 14th. Papers that improve significantly as a result of
revisions may rise 1 or 2 “grade levels”—e.g., a significantly improved paper that initially earned
a B may rise to a B+ or even an A-.
▪ Discussion
One of my main goals is to help us fruitfully discuss the material covered in this course. By
participating in class discussion, you can do (at least) three important things:
(1) Challenge my understanding and presentation of course material by: questioning my
explanations of arguments from assigned readings, or my evaluations of those arguments,
or my views about what’s really important in a given reading, or …;
3
(2) Gain a deeper understanding of the material this course covers;
and
(3) Strengthen your ability to participate in all kinds of rational dialogue.
I really hope you’ll take advantage of your opportunity to discuss the ideas we’ll be exploring in
this course. If you do, then in addition to benefiting in all the ways mentioned above, you’ll
position yourself to get bumped into a higher grade category should you end the course on a
“grade borderline”. (I offer this very concrete reward in order to highlight the importance I see in
taking part in classroom discussion.)
I understand that some of us find it easier to participate in class discussion than others. If you’re
especially uncomfortable with the idea of class discussion, please talk to me about that; I may be
able to suggest some relatively painless ways to get into the flow of class discussion. And keep
these things in mind: (1) Nobody here knows everything; (2) Everybody here knows something
(and so has something to contribute to discussion); and (3) Any question or point that occurs to
you is almost certainly occurring to someone else at the same time.
IV. Grade Scale
A = 95 
A- = 90 
B+ = 87 
B = 83 
B- = 80 
C+ = 77 
C = 73 
C- = 70 
D+ = 67 
D = 63 
D- = 60 
F = Anything below 60
V. Key Dates
8/20 (R): First class meeting
10/15-10/16 (R-F): Fall Break
10/20 (R): First essay exam
11/20 (F): Paper due [by 5pm]
11/26-11/27 (R-F): Thanksgiving Break
12/1 (T): Last class meeting; all CNs due
12/10 (R): Second essay exam [2:45-4:45pm]
12/14 (M): Revised paper due [by 12pm; this is optional]
VI. Very Important Illness Policy
From the CDC website (http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/guidance/guidelines_colleges.htm):
“Students, faculty or staff who live either on or off campus and who have Influenza Like Illness should selfisolate (i.e., stay away from others) in their dorm room or home for at least 24 hours after their fever is gone
except to get medical care or for other necessities (their fever should be gone without the use of a feverreducing medicine). They should keep away from others as much as possible. This is to keep from making
others sick.”
4
Please follow these directions. If you need to miss class due to illness, just send me an e-mail when you can,
and I’ll fill you in on what you missed.
VII. List of Readings (I’ll make official reading assignments in class, over e-mail, and at Bb)
Preliminaries: Terms, concepts, & methods
▪ Course Packet: E.J. Coffman, “Finding, Clarifying, and Evaluating Arguments”
▪ CP: Jim Pryor, “Philosophical Terms and Methods”
▪ CP: Jim Pryor, “Guidelines on Reading Philosophy”
Question 1: What would God be like?
▪ Pojman/Rea: Thomas Aquinas, “Is God’s Power Limited?”
▪ P/R: George Mavrodes, “Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence”
▪ P/R: Harry Frankfurt, “The Logic of Omnipotence”
▪ CP: William Rowe, “The Problem of Divine Perfection and Freedom”
▪ P/R: Augustine, “Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will”
▪ P/R: Nelson Pike, “God’s Foreknowledge and Human Free Will Are Incompatible”
▪ CP: Peter van Inwagen, “What Does an Omniscient Being Know about the Future?”
▪ P/R: Alvin Plantinga, “God’s Foreknowledge and Human Free Will Are Compatible”
Question 2: Are there any good arguments for God’s existence?
▪ CP: Antony Flew, “The Presumption of Atheism”
▪ CP: Alvin Plantinga, “The Ontological Argument”
▪ P/R: William Rowe, “An Examination of the Cosmological Argument”
▪ P/R: William Craig and J.P. Moreland, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument”
▪ P/R: Paul Draper, “A Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument”
▪ P/R: Richard Swinburne, “The Argument from Design”
▪ P/R: Robin Collins, “A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God”
▪ P/R: C.D. Broad, “The Argument from Religious Experience”
▪ P/R: Louis Pojman, “A Critique of the Argument from Religious Experience”
▪ P/R: William Alston, “Religious Experience and Religious Belief”
Question 3: Can belief in God have a good intellectual status absent good arguments for God’s Existence?
▪ P/R: Alvin Plantinga, “Religious Belief without Evidence”
▪ P/R: Michael Martin, “A Critique of Plantinga’s Religious Epistemology”
▪ CP: Philip Quinn, “On Finding the Foundations of Theism”
Question 4: Does our knowledge of worldview diversity, human psychology, and/or evil make belief in God
irrational?
▪ P/R: John Hick, “Religious Pluralism and Ultimate Reality”
▪ P/R: Alvin Plantinga, “A Defense of Religious Exclusivism”
▪ P/R: David Basinger, “Hick’s Religious Pluralism and ‘Reformed Epistemology’—A Middle Ground”
▪ P/R: Joseph Runzo, “God, Commitment, and Other Faiths: Pluralism Versus Relativism”
▪ CP: Richard Dawkins, selections from The God Delusion
▪ P/R: J.L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence”
▪ P/R: Alvin Plantinga, “The Free Will Defense”
▪ P/R: William Rowe, “The Inductive Argument from Evil against the Existence of God”
▪ P/R: Paul Draper, “Evolution and the Problem of Evil”
▪ CP: Peter van Inwagen, “The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy”
Question 5: Can we rationally believe Naturalism?
▪ P/R: Alvin Plantinga, “An Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism”
▪ P/R: Michael Bergmann, “Commonsense Naturalism”
▪ P/R: Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship”
▪ P/R: George Mavrodes, “Religion and the Queerness of Morality”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Time permitting: Ways of relating science & religion
▪ P/R: Richard Dawkins, “Science Versus Religion”
▪ P/R: Stephen Jay Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”
▪ P/R: Pope John Paul II, “Faith and Science: Lessons from the Galileo Case and Message on Evolution”
5