PHILOSOPHY 321
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
Spring 2015
Hans Zorn
Office: West 315
Phone: 375-2024 (O); 989-1890 (H)
Office hours: MW 2:20-3:20
TTh 3:00-4:00
E-mail: zorn@roanoke.edu
The problem of evil is perhaps the greatest challenge to religious belief, raising questions about
the nature and rationality of belief as well as traditional ways of thinking about God. This course
looks at different ways of formulating the problem and different attempts to address the
challenge it poses.
Course outcomes: students will be able
to articulate and evaluate approaches to the problem of evil;
to articulate and evaluate arguments in the philosophy of religion;
to articulate, research, and write a paper on a topic of their own choosing.
Requirements:
Attendance and participation in class discussions
2 short (ca. 3 pp.) analysis papers
Seminar paper
Final paper (12-15 pages)
Final examination
20% of total grade
10% total
15%
40%
15%
Class discussions on the texts assigned for each day will be the main avenue toward
understanding the material. Everyone will do two short (2-3 pp.) papers analyzing
specific arguments in the texts. In addition, each student will be assigned to be a resource
person for a portion of the reading by choosing a reading from the syllabus for a given
day as the topic for an expository paper about 4-5 pages in length. The paper will
provide a critical summary of an important point in the reading, and will be presented to
the class to serve as a starting point for discussion. Papers will be due on the date the
material is discussed in class.
The research paper should be about 12-15 of closely-reasoned text on a topic of the
student’s choosing. The topic could ideally be the subject of an earlier paper, which will
then serve as the first stage in the research for the term paper. The term paper should be
an argumentative paper and make use of multiple sources. A proposal, rough draft, and
several conferences during the research and composition process are expected.
All papers will be evaluated on their clarity of expression and cogency of argument. In
general, an “A” paper is clearly organized, both at the paragraph level and overall, uses
English properly at the sentence level, and has a clear thesis with a well-reasoned
argument to support it. It goes beyond what is required by the assignment in the depth
and thoroughness of its analysis. A “B” paper meets the assignment by critically
2
engaging the material and arguing effectively. Its thesis may be less well-defined, and
the argument s not as rigorous or thorough as that of an “A” paper; often it has less
effective organization and use of language. “C” papers also meet the assignment, but are
not well-organized, often lack a clear thesis, and tend to have problems at the sentence
level. “D” papers are seriously deficient in all areas, while an “F” indicates that the
author has not understood the material or has made no effort to analyze it.
In addition, papers that are seriously deficient in grammar and/or spelling will be marked
down; grammatically incoherent papers will need to be re-written to receive a passing
grade.
Papers are due at the beginning of class on the dates noted in the syllabus. Late work
will not be accepted except under exceptional circumstances. If there is a compelling
reason to turn work in late, e.g., violent illness or a death in the family, arrangements
should be made with me in advance if at all possible.
Students are expected to abide by the Roanoke College Academic Integrity Code at all
times and for all work. As members of a community of scholars we draw on the work of
others, but simple justice as well as intellectual integrity requires that we acknowledge
the work of others by properly citing sources. If you have any questions about what to
cite or how, you should talk to me.
The Writing Center @ Roanoke College, located on the Lower Level of Fintel Library,
offers writing tutorials focused on written and oral communication for students working
on writing assignments/projects in any field. Writers at all levels of competence may
visit the Writing Center at any point in their process, from brainstorming to drafting to
editing, to talk with trained peer tutors in informal, one-on-one sessions. The Writing
Center is open Sunday through Thursday from 4 to 9 pm. Simply stop in, or schedule an
appointment by going to www.roanoke.edu/writingcenter, where our schedule of writing
workshops and creative writing playshops is also posted. Questions? Email
writingcenter@roanoke.edu or call 375-4949. Like our Facebook page for updates!
The Office of Disability Support Services, located in the Goode-Pasfield Center for
Learning and Teaching in Fintel Library, provides reasonable accommodations to
students with identified disabilities. Reasonable accommodations are provided based on
the diagnosed disability and the recommendations of the professional evaluator. In order
to be considered for disability services, students must identify themselves to the Office of
Disability Support Services. Students requesting accommodations are required to provide
specific current documentation of their disabilities. Please contact Rick Robers, M.A.,
Coordinator of Disability Support Services, at 540-375-2247 or e-mail
robers@roanoke.edu.
Texts:
Adams, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God
Phillips, The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God
Rowe, ed., God and the Problem of Evil
Tentative schedule:
3
I. Overview of the Issues
Jan.
Feb.
13
Introduction
15
Leibniz, from Theodicy in Rowe
20
Adams, “Must God Create the Best?”
22
Hume, from Dialogues concerning Natural Religion
Argument analysis due
27
Pike, “Hume on Evil”
29
Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence”
3
Plantinga, “The Free Will Defense”
5
Plantinga, continued
Argument analysis due
10
Howard-Snyder, Bergmann, and Rowe, “An Exchange on the Problem of Evil”
.12
Schellenberg, “Stalemate and Strategy: Rethinking the Evidential Problem of
Evil”
17
Draper, “Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists”
19
van Inwagen, “The Problem of Evil, the Problem of Air, and the Problem of
Silence”
24
Swinburne, “Some Major Strands of Theodicy”
26
Hick, “Soul-Making Theodicy”
SPRING BREAK
II. A Theological Response
Mar.
10
Adams, Part One: Deconstructing a Problem
12
Part One, continued
17
Adams, Part Two: Conceptual Enrichments
Final Paper proposals due
19
Part Two, continued
24
Adams, Part Three: Resolution and Relevance; Conclusion
4
III. Reformulating the Problem
Apr.
26
Phillips, Part I: Our Problematic Inheritance
31
Part I, continued
2
Phillips, Interlude: Where Do We Go from Here?
7
Phillips, Part II:
9
Part II, continued
14
Part II, continued
16
Paper presentations
Final papers due
24
Final Examination
2:00-5:00