Studies in Philosophy of Religion, Essay Example

Choose one argument for the existence of God. Explain the argument, and describe why you think it is a strong or weak argument.

The Design Argument

This argument is based on the analogy that if one was to pick a watch, they would naturally be inclined to conclude that the watch had a maker or designer. It would be absurd to think that the watch came into existence owing to its complex design and function. This is widely referred to as Paley’s Watchmaker (Knavig). This argument is extended towards finding the source of life and existence. Humans are very complex creatures with a stratified internal body structures, such as the respiratory and blood system, that perform specific and specialized tasks. It is only logical to explain that these systems had a designer.

I believe that this argument is weak and probably false. This is because the argument is founded on an analogy that is not applicable to finding the source of life. The argument is based on the analogy of the origin of a watch. This argument fails to consider that the source of watches is already known (Pojman and Rea). However, the source of life is unknown. This argument is therefore based on a fallacy that the source of life is already known. This clearly a fallacy that begs the question and is circular in nature. The conclusion that, “the source of life is already known” is included in the premise of the argument. This is a logically inherent argument as the assumption in the argument is much engrained, and in the mind of the author, has been taken as a given. The author has assumed that the point that is under discussion, the existence of God is real as are the designers and/makers of watches, is true.

Pick either the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Milgram Test. Describe the experiment in as much detail as you can, and discuss its relevance for philosophers.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

This experiment sought to uncover the psychological side effects of living as an inmate or prison guard. The experiment, conducted at Stanford University. The experiment was of particular interest to the Marine Corps and US Navy as they wanted to discover the causes of conflict between prisoners and military guards.

The experiment involved a group of 24 randomly selected male students in the Stanford psychology building basement (Zimbardo). The experiment was a huge success as the participants adapted to their roles better than expected. This led to the guards subjecting the prisoners to psychological torture and, interestingly, at the request of the guards, some of the prisoners were willing to inflict this torture to their fellow inmates. The scientist leading the experiment, Zimbardo, was also affected by the experiment as superintendent.

This experiment was relevant to psychology as it helps to understand the true cause of conflict in a prison. While this experiment was largely within strict confines as the experiment had to be within ethical boundaries, it clearly illustrated “cognitive dissonance theory” and what an individual with authority can do with little to no consequences to their actions. This experiment was particularly designed to favour the situational attribution of behaviour as opposed to dispositional attribution. This means that the experiment was widely based on the external environment of the subjects at the time of the experiment (Pojman and Rea). This represents numerous unaccounted for variables that, if factored in, would produce numerous possible outcomes to the experiment.

Works Cited

Knavig, Johnathan L. Oxford studies in philosophy of religion. Volume 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.

Pojman, Louis P and Micheal C Rea. Philosophy of religion : an anthology. Boston: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.

Zimbardo, Phillip G. The Stanford Prison Experiment. Austin: Austin ABC, 2000. Print.