A Defense of Atheism, Ernest Nagel (short paper)

Discussion Board 3: The Existence of God
1515 unread replies.1515 replies.
SHORT PAPER #3
Assignment directions:
Formalizing arguments is a helpful skill for presenting a philosopher’s argument in a concise, easy-to-read format. For instance, consider the following argument:

Rich people work just as hard for their money as poor people. Yet, poor people don’t get taxed at the same rates as the rich. But in order for taxation to be fair, everyone should be taxed at the same rate. Therefore, our tax system is unjust.

We can formalize this argument in the following manner:

Premise 1: Rich people work just as hard for their money as poor people.

Premise 2: Rich people get taxed at higher rates than poor people.

Premise 3: Everyone should be taxed at the same rate in order for taxation to be fair.

Conclusion: Our tax system is unjust.

When we formalize the argument like this, we can more readily see its strengths and its shortcomings. For instance, it seems like the first premise is completely irrelevant to the other premises. Also, it seems like in order for the conclusion to logically follow, we need another premise: Injustice is the same as unfairness.

In his essay, “A Defense of Atheism”, Ernest Nagel considers three classical arguments for the existence of God. They are the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the argument from design.

Your task:

Section 1: Summary: For the first section of your paper, you should read Nagel’s essay, paying close attention to parts 1 & 2. First, pick ONE of the three arguments for God’s existence and formalize that argument. This means that you should list, clearly and concisely, its premises and conclusion. Choose the one you find either most compelling or most controversial. You should clearly indicate which of the three arguments you are summarizing. Second, you should explain what the argument means using an example. If you use Nagel’s examples, you should definitely remember to cite him.

Section 2: Evaluation: First, you will explain one objection that Nagel raises to the argument that you chose. Second, you will offer a possible response to Nagel. Explain whether or not you think the objection you considered succeeds or fails and why.

DO NOT FORGET: ONCE YOU SUBMIT YOUR ESSAY, YOU NEED TO COMMENT ON ONE OTHER STUDENT’S ESSAY.

Formatting, length, style, and other guidelines:
Your reply to a classmate is worth 5 of the 20 points. Make sure your reply is substantive and critical (provides an objection to their evaluation). This means that you need to say more than “good job, but I disagree”.If you find yourself making a comment that could easily be copy/pasted into every reply of the semester (because it is not specific), then you need to know that comment will not receive any points. Furthermore, make sure you are objecting to the view that your classmate expresses in his/her evaluation section, and make sure it is someone with whom you disagree. So if, in the evaluation section, your classmate says: “X is the case”, your reply should be “X is not the case, and here’s a reason why…”
Your paper should be 300-600 words (about 1-2 pages)
Your paper should have two sections. Label them Section 1: Summary and Section 2: Evaluation.
The title of your paper should be Short Paper 3: The Existence of God.
Think through this on your own. Dont use outside sources.
As for the level of discussion: a good rule of thumb is to imagine that you are explaining this argument to a smart peer in the class who is otherwise up-to-date on the course readings, but has not read the chapter.
Clarity: Use simple, direct language; avoid complicated, elaborate prose. Explain key concepts. Use examples where appropriate. Avoid metaphor and figurative language. Dont use rhetorical questions; instead, state and defend your claims.
Concision: Dont use many words where fewer will do, and avoid redundancy. Do NOT include an introduction, its a waste of space in an paper this short. Just immediately begin answering the assigned prompts. Likewise, there is no need for a conclusion that merely sums up your short paper.
Relevance: Stay focused, and avoid generalities. The point of this essay is for you to explain and evaluate a specific argument given by a philosopher. Stick to the point; avoid tangents; everything in your paper should be organized around the prompts.
Charity: Avoid distorted presentations of the arguments (or anyone elses). Give every argument you discuss the strongest, reasonable interpretation.
Deadline and how to submit:
Due Sunday by 11:59 pm. The paper can be written in a separate word processor, then copy/pasted into the ‘reply’ text box. Or, less ideally, you can type it directly into the text box. DO NOT SUBMIT FILES.

here is a picture of it https://gyazo.com/9cb912006ee97cafa04d12aed7c1e834