Assessment Brief: Philosophy of Religion Essay

Course Information

• Course: Philosophy of Religion
• Level: Undergraduate (Year 2–3)
• Assessment Type: Written Essay
• Assessment Weight: 30%
• Due Date: 28 February 2018, 20:00
• Word Length: 2 pages (approx. 1000–1200 words)

Context and Overview

This assessment requires you to engage critically with classical arguments for the existence of God, with particular attention to the idea of person-relativity in philosophical proofs. The cosmological and teleological arguments are central to natural theology, but their force is often contested. George Mavrodes’s notion of “person-relative” proofs suggests that whether an argument succeeds can depend on the epistemic situation and background beliefs of the person evaluating it. You are expected to explain the person-relativity argument in general terms, then apply it specifically to the cosmological and teleological arguments, assessing how this affects their strength as proofs of God’s existence.

Task Description

Write a 2-page essay (approximately 1000–1200 words) that:

1. Explains the concept of person-relativity in philosophical proofs, drawing on Mavrodes’s account.
2. Summarizes the cosmological argument and the teleological argument in their standard forms.
3. Applies the person-relativity framework to these arguments, showing how their persuasive force might vary for different individuals.
4. Evaluates whether person-relativity undermines, qualifies, or supports the claim that these arguments provide objective evidence for God’s existence.

Requirements

• Use a clear academic style with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
• Define key terms (e.g., person-relativity, cosmological argument, teleological argument).
• Engage with at least three scholarly sources, including at least one focused on person-relativity or Mavrodes.
• Cite sources consistently using APA 7th Edition or MLA (check your institution’s preference).
• Adhere to the specified page length; minor over- or under-length may be penalized.
• Include a reference list or works cited page (not counted in the page limit).

Marking Criteria and Rubric

1. Compose a 2-page philosophy of religion essay explaining the person-relativity argument and applying it to the cosmological and teleological arguments for God’s existence, with clear definitions, critical evaluation, and scholarly references.
2. Write a 1000–1200-word essay analyzing how person-relativity affects the force of cosmological and teleological proofs, including summaries of each argument and an assessment of their objective evidential value.
3. Philosophy of religion assignment: person-relativity, cosmological argument, teleological argument, Mavrodes, critical evaluation, references.

Sample Answer Excerpt

Person-Relativity and Classical Theistic Proofs

George Mavrodes introduces the idea of person-relativity in his work Belief in God, arguing that whether a proof succeeds can depend on the epistemic situation of the person considering it. A proof, in this sense, is not merely a formal derivation but an argument that rationally moves a particular individual from doubt or ignorance to belief. Mavrodes suggests that the same argument might function as a proof for one person but not for another, depending on background beliefs, prior evidence, and psychological dispositions. This view challenges the assumption that classical arguments for God’s existence, such as the cosmological and teleological arguments, possess an objective, universal force independent of who evaluates them. Instead, person-relativity implies that their probative value is partly indexed to the cognitive and cultural context of the reasoner.

Person-Relativity and the Cosmological Argument

When applied to the cosmological argument, person-relativity highlights how different metaphysical commitments shape its reception. The cosmological argument, in its simplest form, reasons from the existence of the universe or contingent beings to a necessary first cause, often identified as God. For someone already inclined toward theism, the argument may appear compelling, reinforcing the intuition that contingent existence requires an ultimate explanation. For a naturalist, however, the same argument may seem question-begging or metaphysically extravagant. Person-relativity thus suggests that the cosmological argument’s force is not purely logical but also psychological and contextual. It may function as a proof for those whose background beliefs align with its premises, while failing to persuade those who reject those premises or who find alternative explanations (such as brute contingency or eternal physical laws) more plausible.

Person-Relativity and the Teleological Argument

The teleological argument, or argument from design, infers an intelligent designer from apparent order and purpose in nature. Person-relativity becomes especially salient here, as assessments of “design” often depend on prior assumptions about natural processes and chance. For instance, someone who accepts evolutionary explanations for biological complexity may find the teleological argument less persuasive than someone who sees such complexity as prima facie evidence of design. Mavrodes’s framework suggests that the teleological argument’s status as a proof is person-relative: it may rationally convince individuals whose background beliefs make design inferences natural, while leaving others unmoved. This does not necessarily invalidate the argument, but it underscores that its probative force is mediated by the epistemic context of the evaluator.

Follow-Up Paragraphs

Epistemic Context and Religious Proofs

Person-relativity raises deeper questions about the nature of religious knowledge and the role of argumentation in faith. If proofs are person-relative, then religious belief may depend not only on logical coherence but also on lived experience, community, and prior commitments. This aligns with broader trends in epistemology that emphasize the situatedness of knowledge and the role of testimony and trust in forming beliefs. Person-relativity thus invites a more nuanced view of religious arguments, recognizing that their force is often cumulative and context-dependent rather than purely deductive.

Common Misconceptions and Study Points

Students sometimes misunderstand person-relativity as a form of relativism that denies objective truth. However, Mavrodes’s account is better understood as highlighting the variability of rational persuasion, not the absence of truth. Another common error is to treat the cosmological and teleological arguments as if they were intended to compel belief in everyone, regardless of background. In fact, many classical theologians saw these arguments as supportive rather than coercive, functioning within a broader web of reasons and experiences. When studying these arguments, it is helpful to consider how they might function differently for believers, agnostics, and atheists, and to reflect on the limits of philosophical argument in religious life.

References / Learning Materials

Use the following sources as a starting point for your research. They are real, verifiable, and relevant to the topic.

• Loke, A. (2022). The Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments Revisited. Springer. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/7fdd13ea-056e-413c-9104-293f951f125b/978-3-030-94403-2.pdf
• Mavrodes, G. I. (1970). Belief in God: A Study in the Epistemology of Religion. Random House. (No DOI; widely cited in philosophy of religion.)
• O’Connor, T. (2021). “Cosmological Arguments for Theism.” In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument
• Ratzsch, D., & Koperski, J. (2020). “Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence.” In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments
• Wainwright, W. J. (2018). Reason and the Heart: A Prolegomenon to a Critique of Passional Reason. Cornell University Press. (Explores subjective dimensions of religious reasoning; relevant to person-relativity.)

~~~

 Assignment: Week 3 Discussion Post

Course: Philosophy of Religion
Assessment: Discussion Post (Week 3)
Word Length: 300–500 words

Description: Building on your essay on person-relativity and classical theistic arguments, post a 300–500 word reflection on how person-relativity might apply to religious experience arguments (e.g., William James’s varieties of religious experience). Consider whether religious experiences can function as person-relative proofs, and how this compares to cosmological and teleological arguments.

Requirements: Define key terms, engage with at least one scholarly source, and respond substantively to at least two peers’ posts. Use APA or MLA citation style as specified by your institution.

The post Person-Relativity in Classical Theistic Arguments appeared first on EssayBishops.