Group Presentation Research

Here are some helpful starter links on your topics for your group presentations. I don't expect you to read them all, but you should at least browse them to see what you might be interested in specifically regarding your topic.

Team Personal Identity (1st on Wednesday, 12/8/10)
[intermediate] [advanced] [summary of "A Dialogue on Personal Identity & Immortality"] [identity in general] [Ship of Theseus] [personal identity & ethics]
Anthony, Eric, Karly, Matt C., Richard, Viviana

Team Meaning of Life (2nd on Wednesday, 12/8/10)
[intermediate] [religion links] [Camus's "Myth of Sisyphus"] [Nagel's "The Absurd"] ["Love and Death"] [42?]
Chloe, James, Kassandra, Kelsey, Sam, Sierra

Team Ethics (to be specified) (3rd on Wednesday, 12/8/10)
Alicia, Austin, William

Team Confucius (1st on Monday, 12/13/10)
[intermediate] [advanced] [The Analects (free online translation)] [What is De? (part 1) (part 2)] [Neo-Confucianism] [Chinese ethics] [Confucius from a Japanese perspective]
Brian, Delilah, Kevin, Matt E., Michael, Zach

Team Immortality (2nd on Monday, 12/13/10)
[death] [resurrection] [summary of "A Dialogue on Personal Identity & Immortality"]
Lisa, Melissa, Remy, Sung

Team Aristotle (1st on Wednesday, 12/15/10)
[read excerpts from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics: pages 269-277 of the textbook] [intermediate] [advanced] [Aristotle's virtue ethics (intermediate) (advanced)] [virtue ethics] [Aristotle's ethics (audio)] [Aristotle on happiness (audio] [Aristotle on virtues (audio)]
Katherine, Lexis, Marissa, Olivia

Team Faith and Reason (2nd on Wednesday, 12/15/10)
[intermediate] [nonevidentialism] [evidentialism: intermediate, advanced] ["Believing Without Evidence"] ["The Ethics of Belief"] ["The Will to Believe"] [Flew, Hare (reply), & Mitchell (summary)] [lots of links]
Dana, Dawn, Josh, Nancy, Robin

Group Presentations

Here are the group assignments. If you're not in a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you in one.

Team Personal Identity (1st on Wednesday, 12/8/10)
Anthony, Eric, Karly, Matt C., Richard, Viviana

Team Meaning of Life (2nd on Wednesday, 12/8/10)
Chloe, James, Kassandra, Kelsey, Sam, Sierra

Team Ethics (to be specified) (3rd on Wednesday, 12/8/10)
Alicia, Austin, William

Team Confucius (1st on Monday, 12/13/10)
Brian, Delilah, Kevin, Matt E., Michael, Zach

Team Immortality (2nd on Monday, 12/13/10)
Lisa, Melissa, Remy, Sung

Team Aristotle (1st on Wednesday, 12/15/10)
Katherine, Lexis, Marissa, Olivia

Team Faith and Reason (2nd on Wednesday, 12/15/10)
Dana, Dawn, Josh, Nancy, Robin

Also, I mentioned this in class, but just in case...

Attendance is mandatory for the group presentations on Wednesday (12/8/10), Monday, (12/13/10), and Wednesday (12/15/10). It's the only time I'll be a stickler for it. Basically, I want you to show respect for the other groups presenting.

If you don't attend on either the days your group isn't presenting (and your absence isn't excused), your own personal presentation grade will drop. Each day you don't attend will lower your grade by a full letter grade.

One last thing: be sure to keep the presentations under 15 minutes. A 10-minute presentation is ideal, so we can have time for a short question-and-answer session afterwards.

Like a Machine, Only More So

Here are some links on the design argument for God's existence.

• Here is a nice explanation of the design argument, along with an explanation of the wacky arg for god's existence that we could've studied.
  
• Here is an audio interview on Hume's criticisms of the design arg.
  
• One philosophers' take on the debate between evolution and intelligent design.
• Is our universe fine-tuned for life? Maybe not.
• Wait, can science even judge religious claims, or are they talking about different things? Maybe an inference to the best explanation can help us...
  
• What about all the "design flaws" in nature? Are they evidence against a supreme designer?
  
• Well, recent research might show the appendix serves a purpose, and so wouldn't count as a design flaw.
  

Midterm

Just a reminder: the midterm will be held on Friday, November 5th. It's worth 20% of your overall grade. There will be a review in class on Wednesday. It will cover the topics we discussed in class so far:

• philosophy in general
• doing philosophy
• understanding and evaluating arguments
• types of arguments: deductive, example, analogy, causal, authority
  
• what is knowledge?
• Plato on knowledge vs. true belief
  
• skepticism (specifically external world skepticism)
  
• Descartes battling skepticism
• Descartes's certainty: his arg that "I exist"
  
• Nick Bostrom's simulation arg for skepticism
• God stuff
• The cosmological argument, specifically:
• Aquinas's "first cause" version of the argument
  
• The abductive version of the "first cause" argument
  
• Aquinas's "contingency" version of the argument
  

BE THERE.

Religion Journal Guideline

Here is a guideline for the next big assignment: the journal you have to keep during our discussion of God.

Worth: 15% of your overall grade

Due Date: the beginning of class on Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

Assignment: The assignment is to keep a journal during our section on philosophy of religion. I want you to write several short journal entries about the various arguments for and against the existence of God. We’ll be going over all these arguments in class during the next few weeks. Each entry should be around two paragraphs long.

This assignment is a chance for you to do philosophy. I want you to demonstrate that you understand what we are reading and discussing. (Present each argument in your own words.) In addition to this, I want you to critically evaluate each argument we read and discuss. (Are any premises questionable? Does the argument provide enough support for its conclusion?) It is also a chance for you to give your opinion on these arguments, and defend your opinion with good reasons.

You should have the following journal entries, in this order:

1) Your first entry on your thoughts about God before discussing any of this stuff in class. Do you think there is a God? Why or why not?

2) An entry explaining and evaluating the cosmological argument (Aquinas reading).

3) An entry explaining and evaluating the design argument (Hume reading).

4) An entry explaining and evaluating the problem of evil argument (Sober, Augustine, and Hick readings).

5) A final entry where you discuss your thoughts about God after reading these philosophers and discussing this in class. Has your opinion about God changed? Have your reasons for your opinion changed?

The journal does not have to be typed. There is no length requirement. (Again, the suggestion is around two paragraphs per journal entry.)

Why Is Anything Anything?

The website Closer to Truth has a ton of short interviews with modern-day philosophers (and other smart people) on their thoughts about god. For instance, there's an entire episode on the cosmological argument titled "Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?" and an entire section titled "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" Here are some related videos:

• Theist John Leslie says God best explains why there is something.
  
• Theist Peter van Inwagen believes in God, but doesn't like this arg.
  
• Atheist Colin McGinn thinks it's a meaningless question.
• Physicist Steven Weisberg says we should wait for science's answer.
• Apatheist Master Shake uses it as an excuse to be lazy.
  

Speaking of silly jokes, here's one of my favorite responses to the cosmological argument (from Gerald Dworkin's list of philosophy quips:)

When a philosopher announced that the title of his talk was “Why is there Something rather than Nothing?” Sydney Morgenbesser said to the man sitting next to him, “If there was Nothing he would still complain.”

And here's a video on the relationship between philosophy and religion:

• Does Philosophy Illuminate Religion?

God Shtuff

If you've read a good article on god stuff, recommend it to us by emailing me or posting the link in the comments section of this post. In the meantime, I have some stuff for you.

How should we approach our discussions about god? Here's one of my favorite essays on this:

• "Reasonable Religious Disagreements" [pdf] by Richard Feldman
  

The National Public Radio show Fresh Air ran a pair of interviews with two scientists talking about whether God exists. (Since they're not trained philosophers, some of their arguments aren't the best. Try to spot their mistakes!) The conversations touch on a lot of things we'll be discussing in class.

• Richard Dawkins pushing atheism
  
• Francis Collins pushing theism
  

Hey, where's the interview with an agnostic? The media are so biased toward those with opinions.

Virtual Dinosaurs

Here's a more advanced version of the Nick Bostrom article we've discussed in class about the potentially high probability that we're actually living in a Matrix-like virtual reality. If you get really into Bostrom's argument, there's a whole website devoted to debating it (including a FAQ written by Bostrom).

Of course, T-Rex has read this article, too:

I'm Certain I'm Doubting

Here are some links related to our discussion of René Descartes and skepticism from class.

• Optical illusion time! Here is a pair of collections of Julian Beever's sidewalk art that looks three-dimensional when viewed from a certain angle. That's a picture of one of his creations above.
  
• The search for truth is tough. Let's get the FBI on the case!
• Here's an audio interview about Descartes's famous argument that he's certain he exists.
  
• Can we be abolutely certain of math claims like 2 + 3 = 5? This cartoon dinosaur says we can't!

By the way, if you have any links you think I or others in class might find interesting, let me know. And feel free to comment on any of these posts.

Skepticism and Other -isms

If you're looking for more stuff on external world skepticism for the first paper assignment, this entry on skepticism might be helpful. It's a bit more accessible than other entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and it includes several attempts to combat arguments for skepticism, including the fallibilist and contextualist strategies we discussed in class.

We're All Skeptics Now

Here are some links related to our discussion of knowledge and skepticism from class.

• What are the philosophical implications of the movie The Matrix?
  
• Here's a summary of a cool argument (pdf) for an interesting version of skepticism I call "unsettled debate" skepticism. There's also an entire book on it.
  
• I recently interviewed the author of that book for the Owning Our Ignorance club. Here's the audio interview.
  

Paper #1 Guidelines

(Want tips on writing a philosophy essay? Check out here and here!)

New Due Date: at the beginning of class on Wednesday, October 13th, 2010 Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

Worth: 50 points (5% of final grade)

Assignment: Write an argumentative essay on external world skepticism: the claim that we do not know anything about the physical world beyond our immediate sense experiences. In particular, choose one of the topics below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 300-600 words long. Write down the word count on the first page of the paper.

Possible Paper Topics
1. Criticize skepticism of the external world. Describe what you take to be the best argument for external-world skepticism. Then evaluate this argument. Exactly how is this argument bad? Be specific: what is/are its flaw(s)? How can we avoid giving in to the skeptic’s arguments that we don’t know anything about the world?
[NOTE: For this option, you don’t have to present a positive argument for the existence of the external world. Just explain why the skeptical argument you focus on is bad.]

2. Tell me why you’re not a skeptic: Present and defend an argument for the claim that we can know that there is an external world beyond our sense experiences. Be sure to consider and respond to objections to your argument that a skeptic would likely offer.

3. Defend external-world skepticism. Present an argument for external-world skepticism. Then consider and respond to objections to this argument. Pay special attention to your conception of knowledge: defend the conditions you believe are required for knowledge.

4. Explain and evaluate Nick Bostrom’s argument in “Do We Live in a Computer Simulation?” Do you think Bostrom makes a good case for external-world skepticism? Why or why not? Be sure to fully explain your evaluation of his argument, and defend your opinion.

5. Write something else on skepticism. (Sean must approve this topic by Wednesday, October 6th.)

Am I a Jerk Because I Annoy You, or Do I Annoy You Because I'm a Jerk?

Socrates has a reputation of being a bit of a jerk. The following robot reenactment of one of his dialogues does little to dispel this reputation:

K = JTB?

I wonder whether Plato would agree with T-Rex's analysis of knowledge:


In panel 5, Utahraptor is bringing up a Gettier case counterexample to the claim that knowledge = justified true belief. If you're looking for FUN TIMES, ask me about the Gettier problem in class!

Quiz

The quiz will be held at the beginning of class on Wednesday, September 30th. You'll have 25 minutes to take it, and it's worth 10% of your overall grade.

The quiz is on our tiny textbook (A Rulebook for Arguments). There will be a section on evaluating deductive arguments, and a section on evaluating the other kinds of arguments (example, analogy, authority, cause). Basically, the quiz will look a lot like the group work we've done in class so far.