PHI 224: Midterm Exam, Spring 2006

Instructions

Write well-developed, clearly organized answers to all the questions. 

This is an exam that you complete outside of class. In completing the exam, you are free to refer to the readings and your notes, or to talk with other students about your answers. In fact, you are encouraged to work together with other students on this exam. But whatever you finally turn in MUST be your OWN writing, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, expressing YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING at the time you wrote it.

Please limit yourself to 3000 words all together (typically about 8 pages).  Each question counts equally.  Submit answers printed on paper -- not electronically, and not hand-written.  No fancy stuff like plastic covers, binders, elaborate cover sheets, money stuffed between pages, etc.

bulletDO NOT QUOTE OR CLOSELY PARAPHRASE ANYTHING WITHOUT CITING YOUR SOURCE. (Not even the textbook, or course materials.)
bulletDO NOT INCLUDE MORE THAN A FEW very BRIEF QUOTATIONS OF ANYTHING IN YOUR ENTIRE SET OF ANSWERS.
bulletTHE ONLY ALLOWABLE REASON FOR QUOTING ANYTHING IS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A POINT YOU HAVE STATED IN YOUR OWN WORDS. THE PENALTY FOR ILLEGITIMATE QUOTING IS "DEATH".

If you work with another student in preparing your answers, don't draft your actual answers together, and don't agree on exactly what examples you will use, or how you will express a particular point.  When you work with someone, talk over the issues and share ideas, but don't do any outlining or writing together.  Don't show your completed answer to someone else in order to help them; there are too many cases in which the helper ends up helping too much and then there is trouble.

Advice

1.  The biggest problem with this kind of exam has been that students write answers that are too incomplete or sketchy.  Don't assume that the reader will "just know" what you're getting at; instead, assume the reader is relatively ignorant about this particular subject matter. Do not assume that the reader has been in the class!  Instead, think of your audience as generally intelligent people who know nothing specific about this subject.

2.  These questions can all be answered quite well simply by drawing ideas from our class discussions and the assigned readings.  You are not expected to go out and find more sources.  You are not prohibited from finding more sources, but if you decide to use more sources, don't get sucked into just paraphrasing something someone else wrote that you don't really understand.  The latter can be a cause of trouble; your answer will read as though you don't understand what you are talking about.  You are much better off saying what you really think and understand than trying to sound profound by half-copying from something you don't really "get".

3.  Your answers are graded on how well they answer the question that is asked.  Don't shoot yourself in the foot by going off on a tangent.  Instead, focus on giving an accurate and complete answer to the question.  Your space and time is limited.  So, be direct, precise, clear.  You have a lot to squeeze into these answers.

Questions

  1. In dealing with the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina, what strategies for understanding the destruction are open to people employing religious worldviews that are not open to people employing naturalistic worldviews?  What would naturalistically-minded individuals think about these uniquely religious strategies?  Would a religious individual necessarily reject natural explanations of the disaster?  Would they necessarily employ specifically religious explanatory strategies for understanding the disaster?
  2. What specific features of the stories found in the Genesis excerpt show that these stories satisfy our working definition of "myth"?  Assuming that there is no good reason to say the stories are historically accurate, and that there is considerable scientific evidence that they are not historically accurate, how can these stories still be read so as to tell us something important?
  3. What is soft perspectivism according to Pojman?  How would the truth of soft perspectivism make it possible for individuals with religious or naturalistic worldviews to legitimately evaluate one another's position?  If hard perspectivism is true, how would that undermine this possibility?
  4. Marx (with Engels), Durkheim, and Freud all present explanations of religious belief.  Summarize the explanations given by two of these authors.  Why do these explanations count as attacks on religious belief?
  5. Briefly summarize the views of Braithwaite, Russell, Feynman and Solomon with respect to religion and spirituality.  Explain why each counts as naturalistic in spirit.