Syllabus

Lectures: M, W 11:35-12:25; LORIA 258 (changed Feb. 1);
Discussion section: W 4:00-4:50; Phelps Hall, room 312

Sections: A section will  be scheduled for 4:00-4:50 on Wednesdays. Students can attend that section or can instead stay after lectures for discussions.

course web page: https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/phil114

 

Short Course Description.  An examination of attempts to reconcile the evils of this world with the existence of a perfectly good God, with special attention to proposed solutions to this problem that appeal to human free will in explaining why God allows evil. Discussions of the relation between such appeals to human freedom and other attempts to solve the problem of evil, the special problem posed by truly horrendous evils, the appeal to human freedom to justify doctrines of hell, and the nature of human freedom.

 

Expanded Course Description.  The “Problem of Evil” is actually a group of related problems, all concerning the difficulty of squaring the existence of a God (having some of the properties often ascribed to God in the major monotheistic religions) with the evil and suffering that we find in the world. One form of the problem, the “logical abstract” form, as it has sometimes been called, alleges that there is an outright contradiction between supposing that God exists and that there is any evil (on a broad construal of “evil”) whatsoever in the world. While we will discuss that form of the problem, our focus will be on a much more jarring form of the problem, the “problem of horrendous evil,” which, true to its name, takes as its basis not just that there is some evil or other, but rather takes into account how horrifically bad some of the evils of this world are, and also how much of this horrendous evil there is, and alleges, not a contradiction between those facts about the evils of the world and the existence of God, but that the former count as very strong evidence indeed against the latter (on some versions, strong enough evidence to render belief in the latter irrational). We will seek to identify and evaluate the most promising ways for theists to achieve some relief from this, perhaps the thorniest of their problems.

For  reasons we will consider, relief has traditionally been sought by attempting to provide reasons God (even an omnipotent and omniscient God) might have for allowing evils. We will consider the charge (made forcefully by Trakakis) that when you consider some of the horrendous evils of this world, it is downright evil to even try to formulate reasons for that might justify God in allowing them. We will also consider the case (made forcefully by Wykstra) that given our cognitive limitations (especially relative to God), we should not expect to be able to even begin to discern God’s reasons for allowing these evils, even if God had such reasons, and so the existence of evils so awful that we cannot even begin to see why they might be allowed should not (on a strong version of Wykstra’s argument) count at all against belief in God.

But we will look at greater length at some of the reasons for why God might allow such evils that have been proposed. One of the great traditions in attempted theistic explanations for evil are appeals to the value of human free will, and the inherent chance of it being used wrongly, in explaining how evil might occur in a world governed by God. We will look at the limitations of a simple “Free Will Defense,” but then consider the prospects of accounts that combine appeals to the importance of human free will with other considerations in attempts to explain what values the seeking of which might explain why God might allow the evils in question. In connection with this, we will consider what one has to accept about the nature of human freedom and what the world is like in order to make such free-will-involving explanations possible.

We will also take a look at the “Problem of Hell,” which can be viewed as a particular form of the Problem of Evil, where the evil in question is the consigning of people to hell (to everlasting torment, on some traditionally popular accounts of hell). Why might God cause or allow that, perhaps the most horrendous of all evils, to occur? Appeals to the importance of human freedom have played a large role in many attempts to answer that question, and while we will be interested in the Problem of  Hell in part for its own sake, we will also be interested in what those appeals can teach us about the role of free will in answers to the general problem of evil.

 

Important Dates:

• Feb. 5 (by noon): first short assignment due*
• Feb. 12 (by noon): second short assignment due*
• Feb. 19 (by noon): third short assignment due*
• Feb. 24 (Wednesday): in-class test
• March 8 (by noon): slightly longer short assignment due
• March 30 (Wednesday), by the start of class: paper proposal due
• April 20 (Wednesday), by the start of class: course papers due
• April 20 and April 28: list of questions for the final sent out, first in partial and  preliminary form, then in final form
• May 11 (Wednesday), 2:00: Final exam; LC 103

One of the three assignments marked * should be skipped: Do just two of those three

 

Written Work – specifications and descriptions (papers and short writing assignments should be typed and double-spaced, with normal margins and normal-sized fonts):

 

• Short writing assignments: The amount of reading assigned for this course is light. The idea is to assign few pages, but to have you read carefully, and engage with, the small amount of material you are assigned. To promote that, there will be three short writing assignments. These assignments will not be evaluated with a letter grade, but with a simple evaluation of “check”, to designate the assignment was satisfactorily completed, or 0 if it was not satisfactorily completed, with perhaps occasional marks of “check-plus” to designate especially good work or “check-minus” to designate work which, while acceptable, is sub-par.  In addition to (hopefully) getting students to engage with the course readings, these assignments serve two other ends. First, they can and typically will help the grades of those who do them all on time, getting at least a “check” on all or almost all of them. Such a performance will only help your grade, even in going for a straight A in the class, and these assignments can only hurt your grade if they are turned in late or consistently in sub-par shape. The key here is not to stress about these assignments. If you’re not ready to do a great job, still write it up it, and get your check; this can only help your grade. (The course can only be passed if all the written assignments are turned in, so if you do stress out, or for some other reason don’t get one in on time, still get them all turned in by the end of classes, so you don’t fail the course.) The other goal they serve is to warm you up to writing your course paper. They assignments should be submitted by email attachment. Write “Phil. 114” in the subject line of the email, and send it to the course instructor at  keith.derose@yale.edu).
  • Two of the three short assignments will be “weeklies.” For the three consecutive Fridays beginning Feb. 5 (so these are Feb. 5, 12, and 19), short (2-3 page) writing assignments will be due (by noon on Friday, though they can be submitted earlier in the week). But each student gets to choose one of these assignments to skip, and so you will do two of these weeklies. The exact specifications for these assignments will be given on the Mondays before they are due. They will focus on readings we are about to, or will soon, cover in class, so they will make you engage with the material before we discuss it together. Each of these assignments will consist of between 1-1/2 and 2 pages of summary of a reading, and between 1/2 and 1 page of critical commentary on that material or ideas or questions you have about it.
  • Your third short assignment will be due on Tuesday, March 8 (by noon). Everyone will do this one. This will be slightly longer, 3-4 pages, and will focus on critical commentary on one of the past readings for the course, engaging in exposition/summary of the reading only insofar as that is necessary to make sense of your critical points. This assignment can be on one of the same readings you have already written a weekly assignment on, now focusing more on critical commentary, or it can be on one of the other readings.

• In-class test: This will stress essay questions (and may well consist entirely of essay questions), and will be on the material covered in class before the day of the test (Feb. 24).
• Paper proposal: a 1-2 page long paper proposal is due by the start of class on Wednesday, March 30.  This should also be turned in by e-mail to the same two addresses to which you sent your earlier written assignments.  It will not be given a letter grade, though the quality of the proposal will be taken into account in determining your course grade, and the course cannot be passed without completing the proposal.  Its purpose, in addition to prodding some to start work on (or at least to start thinking about) their course papers, is to give us a chance to check whether your proposed topic is sufficiently relevant to our course, and in some cases to suggest additional reading you might want to consult in writing your paper.
• Course Paper: The course paper itself is to be 2,100-2,800 words long (about 6-8 pages, typed, double-spaced, normal margins and fonts), and is due by the start of class on Wednesday, April 20.  A description of acceptable topics along with other information about the paper will be distributed and discussed in class, some time in late February or early March.  The paper can be, and often will be, on readings you have already written about in your short writing assignments. This paper should also be submitted by email attachment to the same two addresses.
• Final Exam: Wednesday, May 11; 2:00-5:00; in LC 103. You will have to answer three essay questions in the blue books provided. A list of about eight questions, from which actual questions asked at the final will be taken, will be sent out on April 20 (in partial and preliminary form) and April 28 (in final form). There will be some choice in which questions you answer, so that you can safely neglect to prepare an answer to one of the questions distributed beforehand.

 

Grading: Attendance at class meetings is mandatory for all students, and section attendance is mandatory.  All written work must be submitted, and a minimally satisfactory job must be done on all written work, to pass the course.  Supposing that attendance is not a problem and that all written work has been satisfactory, grades will be based roughly on the following formula, though adjustments (which can be quite considerable) will be made for insightful classroom participation and for marked improvement over the course of the semester: Test: 17%; Course Paper: 35%; Final Exam: 23%; Ungraded work (weekly writing assignments, course proposal): 25%.

 

Email: All emails concerning this course from students, including especially those used to submit assignments, should include “Phil. 114” in the subject line of the email.  (This is to avoid being weeded out by my sometimes overactive mail filters.)

 

Readings. (The list of readings below is subject to change; there will probably be about 15 readings when complete.)  Most of these are available via the links provided from on-line subscriber sites, free from Yale internet connections. A few readings will be available to students in this class in the “Resources” or “Reserve” readings for this class of the classes server.  Please do yourself a big favor and print out copies of all the readings, so you can mark and take notes on your copies, and so you can take those papers to our class meetings, which will sometimes be focused tightly on the readings. Or if you’re one of those who don’t like dealing with paper, download all the readings onto your computer early on, so you’re all set to go, and so you can find out early if you have trouble accessing any of the readings.

 

1. J. Hick, “Soul-Making and Suffering”*

 

2. K. DeRose, “Might God Have Reasons for not Preventing Evils?” [https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/files/2015/12/Problem-of-Evil-Ch1-zerprb.doc]

 

3. D. Lewis, “Evil for Freedom’s Sake?” [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/05568649309506401]

 

4. P. Unger, “Free Will and Scientiphicalism”

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2002.tb00180.x/abstract]

 

5. R. Adams, “Middle Knowledge and the Problem of Evil” [http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009657]
6. M. Adams, “Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God” [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106922]

 

7. S. Wykstra, “The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments from Suffering: On Avoiding the Evils of ‘Appearance'” [http://www.springerlink.com/content/k15051gr0666n473/?p=be4c0b8611164f6796fab4ea62b2139f&pi=0]

 

8. N. Trakakis, “Theodicy: The Solution to the Problem of Evil, or Part of the Problem?” [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11841-008-0063-6#]

 

9. Marilyn McCord Adams, “The problem of hell: A problem of evil for Christians”*

 

10. D. Lewis, “Divine Evil”*

 

11. C.S. Lewis, “Hell”*
12. R. Adams, “Existence, Self-Interest, and the Problem of Evil” (Nous, 1979), available here:
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/2214795