1. Why does William Lane Craig say that we cannot “prove” the reality of the past and the external world? Do you think he is demanding deductive proof or inductive evidence? Contrary to Craig, some philosophers claim that we can support our beliefs about the external world using inductive arguments, such as inference to the best explanation. Is Craig correct that our beliefs about the external world and the past are “properly basic” or are there arguments that supply a rational basis for these beliefs?
2. Craig argues that religious experience can provide for the rationality of believing in the existence of God as a properly basic, “unless the skeptic can give me good reason” for doubting that religious experiences are veridical. Do Loftus and Sinott-Armstrong provide good reasons for doubting religious experiences?
3. Michael Rea says he’s interested in the theology, but not the epistemology, of religious experience and the ‘hiddenness of God.’ Explain what he means by this. What are some of the theological lessons Rea takes from the rarity of ‘knock your socks off’ religious experience? Do you agree or disagree with his reasoning? (If you are not a traditional monotheist, you can still answer this question by imagining what a traditional monotheist should conclude on the basis of their core commitments).
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]