answer short answer question, use the book

Description

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? 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 sceptic can give me a good reason” for doubting that religious experiences are veridical. Do you think that Loftus and Sinott-Armstrong provide good reasons for doubting all religious experiences? If not all religious experiences, do you think that they provide good reasons for doubting some religious experiences? What sorts of 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). 4. William Alston asks if religious experiences are ever, or significantly often, genuine experiences of God. What is his answer? Briefly state his reasons for thinking this, including the implied reasons from his answers to objections. What do you think of this argument? Science is an empirical study that relies on data examined by sense experience. If Alston is right then rejecting the principle of credulity entails that ‘we can have no sufficient reason to trust any experiential source of beliefs.’ Would a rejection of the principle of credulity undermine beliefs formed through the experience of scientific experiments?  How would that affect arguments against the genuineness of religious experiences? In conclusion, what are your thoughts on the credibility of religious experiences?