This is a writing assignment on applying the skill of steel-manning to one of the religious arguments we’re learning this Unit.
This is a short writing reflection based on the following prompts:
1. We’re studying two arguments this Unit: the problem of evil, and Pascal’s wager. Which one of these arguments do you disagree with the most?
(Your answer to #1 only has to be one or two sentences.)
2. Explain your main reason why you disagree with this argument. Why don’t you think it is a logically compelling argument? What is your criticism of it? Focus on only one, main criticism of it.
(Your answer to #2 is expected to be about one paragraph.)
3. Now, try to explain this argument you just criticized as fairly and charitably as possible. Just like we did in the Unit 2 Discussion Board, try to steel-man this argument: figure out the best version of this argument, and defend this argument as much as possible.
(Your answer to #3 is expected to be about one paragraph.)
4. Consider this steel-manned version of the argument. Does your criticism still apply to it? Why or why not? If it still does, consider how a fan of the argument could respond to your criticism. What logically compelling point could they say to defend the argument in response to your criticism?
(Your answer to #4 is expected to be about one paragraph.)
55 Points
CSLO 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.4
