Reflections 4

Question 1 10 pts

What is McKim's (week 10) main point? Is he right? Why or why not?

McKim’s main point for week 10 revolves around the epistemology of religious belief. As such, he embarks on a quest to find out how people get religious truths, the justifications of the processes with which they acquire said truths, and also the validity of their beliefs. In addition to that McKim explores the delicate interaction between science and religion. He is right in his arguments especially because he affirms the influence of societal values, social, and ethics on religious worldview. His arguments affirm the relativism of religious views which come as a result of influences from science, morality, and many other philosophies.

Question 2 10 points

In section C The Stability of Agnosticism, Draper argues against two very different stances one might take about God's existence given ambiguous evidence. What are those two stances? What is Draper's take? Which of the 3 stances do you think is preferable, and why?

The two stances that Draper argues against include theism and atheism. Theism is the belief in the existence of God. On the flip side, atheism is the belief that there is no God. While Draper presents theism and atheism as two very interesting stances supported by a lot of valid premises, he eventually dismisses them. This he does on the basis that the human mind is not capable of understanding the subject of God and metaphysics at large. Draper's take leans towards agnosticism. Agnosticism revolves around the belief that there is either the existence of a God or the entire nonexistence of God. I prefer theism of the three stances because the world is characterized by good deeds to fight evil. Overall I believe there is a God in Heaven and a devil in the depths of Hades.

Question 3 10 points

Defend the agnostic from Colbert's charge of their lacking, shall we say, testicular fortitude. (If, in the end, you disagree with your defense of the agnostic, explain why.

Colbert, in accusing agnostics of lacking testicular fortitude, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nuanced stance that the discipline embraces. Agnosticism is simply an acknowledgment of human limitations when it comes to understanding the subject of God. Agnostics are simply stuck on making a decision on the validity of the premises presented by theists and atheists. While I understand where agnostics are coming from, my inclination is towards theism. I perceive agnostics as people who are stuck in purgatory and need to make a decision on where they would fit; be it on the side of atheists or on the side of theists.