EML stands for Exploring the Meaning of Life ( you can find it attached for questions 1-8)

For question 9 I will the attach the reading for it.

QUESTION 1

Look at the William Lane Craig article (pp. 153-171 in EML) at the “Assessment” portion starting on p. 158. Assume, for purposes of argument, Craig’s assertion spelled out on pp. 158-159) that a naturalistic worldview entails the non-existence of both God and immortality. Now, look at the section entitled “The absurdity of life without God and Immortality (pp. 159-161, EML).

1. Does Craig think that God and immortality alone would be enough to keep life from being absurd (i.e., meaningless)? Why or why not?
2. How does Nagel differ from Craig concerning the value of God’s existence for life’s meaningfulness in his article “The Absurd” (pp. 236-244, EML).

QUESTION 2

The following is a question about your own views, not Craig’s. Feel encouraged to speculate wildly.

1. Would personal immortality require the existence of God?
2. Give the best reason you can think of for claiming this is or isn’t the case.

QUESTION 3

Referring back to the material covered by question 1, as well as to the summary section of the section of the William Lane Craig article, “The Human Predicament” (pp. 169-171, EML), pose the following questions to yourself. (Note that this is a question about your own views, not Craig’s.)

1. Do you think that without God and immortality, life is absurd (i.e., meaningless)?
2. Why or why not? In addressing this question, you must take a stand regarding and defend your answer to the following question: would the existence of God and immortality add anything to life to make it meaningful in a way that it wouldn’t be otherwise?  (In your answer, reference at least some of the material covered in this course).

QUESTION 4

Now consider the issue of morality. As in the following passage, Craig recurrently claims that the “atheistic humanist” is hopelessly inconsistent: “Turn now to the problem of value. Here is where the most blatant inconsistencies occur. First, atheistic humanists are totally inconsistent in affirming the traditional values of love and brotherhood. [They] have been rightly criticized for inconsistently holding both to the absurdity of life and the ethics of human love and brotherhood. The two are logically incompatible.” (p. 165, EML). 

1. Why does Craig think, as in the above passage, that “atheistic humanism” and legitimate moral values are inconsistent?
2. Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

QUESTION 5

In Jeffrey Gordon’s article, “Is the Existence of God Relevant to the Meaning of Life” (pp.138-151, EML), Gordon examines the so-called “Euthyphro” argument.

1. What is the argument?
2. How does it bear on Craig’s claim that only the existence of God could render our value judgments legitimate?

QUESTION 6

Evaluate the above-described Euthyphro argument for plausibility. That is,

1. Do you find it convincing?
2. Explain why or why not?

QUESTION 7

Consider an argumentative theme that is indirectly referenced by Craig and much more directly referenced by the reading we have looked at by Lewis (“On Living in the Atomic Age”, pp. 133-137, EML) Lewis presents this as an argument for the claim that a “naturalistic conclusion is unbelievable” (p. 136, EML).

1. Reconstruct the argument that Lewis has in mind.
2. Critically assess this argument. (Say, whether you think this argument shows what it purports to show and explain your answer.)

QUESTION 8  

Consider an argumentative theme indirectly referenced by Craig and much more directly referenced by Haught (“Is Nature Enough,” pp. 173-181, EML,). Haught presents an argument for the claim that “scientific naturalism” (as defined on pp. 177-78) is not “reasonable.”

1. Reconstruct Haught’s argument (starting on p. 178 of EML).
2. Critically assess this argument. (That is, say, whether you think this argument shows what it purports to show and explain your answer.)

QUESTION 9

Extrapolating from Aristotle’s account, we explored the idea that what’s required for a meaningful life is incorporating it into a larger meta-narrative provided by one’s culture or society.

1. What do you think about this idea? A good thought experiment through which to approach this question is the following: could you have a meaningful life even if you were stuck alone on a desert island until you die?

Question 10

I have represented Nietzsche as an extreme deflationist in metaphysical matters. In particular, I have depicted him as someone who eschews the existence of both free will and distinct selves (when understood as immaterial souls or Cartesian egos).

Read Thus Spake Zarathustra https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm (I am not asking

you to read the whole book, though that is well worth doing. However, I suggest you look at the following

text sections).

Thus Spake Zarathustra, First Part

Zarathustra’s Prologue

I. The Three Metamorphoses

IV. The Despisers of the Body

XIV. The Friend

Thus Spake Zarathustra, Second Part

XXV. The Pitiful

XXVI. The Priests

XXVII. The Virtuous

XXVIII. The Rabble

XXIX. The Tarantulas

XXXIV. Self-Surpassing

XXXV. The Sublime Ones

Thus Spake Zarathustra, Third and Final Part

LXVII. The Ugliest Man

LXXIII. The Higher Man

On first reading, you should only expect to make a little out of Nietzsche’s prose. I recommend reading it for

enjoyment and getting what you can out of it (I find it best to read Nietzsche’s stuff aloud to get the cadences

right).

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm

I assume that most of you have already seen the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you still need to, you can get it

from some streaming service (though it seems out of stock on American Netflix). If you have yet to see it (or want

to spend less than two and a half hours watching it), you can read the Wikipedia entry describing its plot and

themes. Or you can read the novel, which is much more precise and less ambiguous. There are also numerous

movie reviews you can find online to help you do this if you would like to use them. Just run a search for “2001 and

Nietzsche” or some such to see them.

In any case, after watching or researching the movie in one or more ways, try to identify Nietzschean themes and

references in the film. This is a loosely structured exercise, so I don’t want to put a lot of constraints on it. But

questions you might ask yourself

1. In your view, is this account compatible with the Nietzschean program of self-perfection through which we are supposed to turn our lives into works of art?
2. Explain your answer.

QUESTION 11

I am asking this question to better gauge your situation. If you give a sincere answer that makes it apparent that you aren’t simply blowing the question off, you will receive full credit.

1. Has anything we have read or talked about so far in this course led you to change your mind about something significantly? You only need to deal with one changed belief here. Explain. If you haven’t changed your mind about anything or think the entire course has been a crock, that’s OK. Just say a little about why. Maybe mention concerns that you wanted the course to address that it didn’t. This will be equally helpful to me when I teach the course again.