Philosophy of Religion

Course No. 4680
Professor James Hall, Ph.D.
University of Richmond
Share This Course
3.8 out of 5
77 Reviews
55% of reviewers would recommend this product
Course No. 4680
Streaming Included Free

Course Overview

Can humans know whether the claim "God exists" is true or not? If so, how? If not, why not? Questions such as these have perplexed humans since the first moment we were capable of asking them. Now in Philosophy of Religion you can explore the questions of divine existence with the tools of epistemology, the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with what we can know.

In Professor James Hall, Chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Richmond, you have an unusually qualified teacher. The son of a Baptist minister (who himself later became a university professor), Professor Hall first trained at a seminary before taking his doctorate in philosophy and embarking on a teaching career nearly 40 years ago.

He announces early in the series where he stands on these issues; this is not a course with a hidden agenda, or an exercise in polemic. (And, no, we won't let the cat out of the bag here. The story of Professor Hall's own background and philosophical journey, which he shares with you in Lecture 3, is far too interesting for us to divulge.)

AudioFile magazine's review of this course reports that "[Professor Hall] is amiable, humorous, clear, and interesting, and, thankfully, never pedantic."

Make no mistake about it: This is a rigorous course in the most positive sense of the word. One of the great joys of intellect is using it, and you do so in every lecture.

At the same time, philosophy can sometimes be needlessly abstract, and Professor Hall's ability to avoid this hazard makes this course consistently engaging. For example, he uses a memorable antacid commercial to illustrate the loss of relevance in a non sequitur argument and a classic Garry Trudeau cartoon to illustrate equivocation in language.

Clarity about Tools and Terms

The first eight lectures of the course are foundational. You establish a clear understanding of the terms "philosophy," "religion," "God," and "knowledge."

What Do We Mean When We Say "God"?

Professor Hall narrows the definition of "God" as used in this course to the God of ethical monotheism: the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is a single God deserving of worship. One by one, each characteristic of the God of ethical monotheism is put into place:

Omnipotence: There are no limits on God's powers.

Omniscience: There are no limits on God's knowledge.

Omnipresence: There are no limits of distance or separation that affect God.

Omniperfection: God must be totally without moral flaw.

Aseity: God is not limited by anything external to itself—being, itself, the limit of everything else.

Arguments for God's Existence: Ontology, Cosmology, Teleology, and Divine Encounters

The course then explores the major arguments for the existence of God, testing each with the techniques of philosophical thought.

The Ontological Argument. For this argument, famously advanced by St. Anselm and René Descartes, divine existence is entailed by the very concept of Godhood.

The Cosmological Argument. This argument, famously advanced by St. Thomas Aquinas, holds that the very existence of the world proves the existence of God, without whom there could be no first cause for all of being.

The Teleological Argument. This argument, articulated variously by the psalmist, St. Paul, and William Paley, claims that the magnificent design of the world necessarily implies the existence of a designer. Paley argued that if we walk along a beach and find a clock, we assume that a clockmaker created it.

Divine Encounter. This argument points to individuals who are said to have had direct communication with God. If their reports are true, then the other arguments are a sinful waste of time because we would have direct evidence of God.

The review and testing of these four arguments yields a "Scottish verdict": not proved.

Arguments against God's Existence: The Problem of Evil

After testing the arguments for God's existence, Professor Hall reverses the burden of proof and asks: "Can humans know that God does not exist?"

You study the argument that God cannot exist because nature or wicked humans cause innocents to suffer.

And you learn the replies (theodicies) that the major religious traditions have marshaled:

  • There is no problem of evil because the world is perfect.
  • Evil is simply the absence of good.
  • Apparent evil exists to serve a larger good: God's purposes are inscrutable to us, and evil is only an apparition caused by our ignorance.
  • Evil done by humans is a necessary consequence of free will, and autonomy given us by God. Without the opportunity for evil, there could also be no opportunity for virtue. An associated argument is that demonic forces cause evil (and this, too, may be a consequence of their freedom). In either case, God is not the cause of evil.
  • Those who suffer do so because they are being punished or elevated by suffering.

This portion of the course also invites a hung jury. Atheism is no more an obvious candidate for knowledge than theism is.

Tipping over the Chessboard: Faith and Transcendence

You also study approaches that dispense with logical or empirical "proof" of God.

  • Two lectures explore religious agnosticism: faith without (or against) evidence. You examine the arguments that proof is irrelevant to faith (and the argument that the demand for proof is a barrier to faith) and their consequences.
  • You also explore transcendentalist claims that God transcends the world and everything in it, and the consequences of this argument.

Playing a Different Game: Causes versus Intentions

Logical and empirical explanations, in general, search for causes and effects. A "caused effect" is not "free" to happen and, therefore, does not have "motives" or "intentions."

But religious discourse is profoundly concerned with intentions as an explanation of life and the world.

You examine two other approaches to understanding religious claims:

  • Paradigms. Three lectures examine religious claims and stories as part of a form of life operating under an alternative paradigm that includes intentionality as one of its basic categories of description and explanation.
  • Language Games. Four lectures examine religious claims and stories as moves in one or another, possibly nondescriptive, language games, especially a game that consists of stories-told-for-a-purpose. These are stories that are not to be assessed as true or false, but as functional or dysfunctional, in terms of their life impact.

In the last lecture, you retrace the conceptual problems in ethical monotheism that urged its philosophical examination in the first place and the discoveries along the way that have led to characterizing it as we have. But, given that philosophy is an ongoing reflective enterprise, the very last point is an invitation to all who have worked through this series to carry on the reflection themselves.

Hide Full Description
36 lectures
 |  Average 30 minutes each
  • 1
    What is Philosophy?
    We examine philosophy as a practical matter, dispensing with a variety of misconceptions and then focusing on a variety of subjects for, and methods of, inquiry, allowing actual philosophy to be "done" in the lectures to come. x
  • 2
    What is Religion?
    Because there are as many ideas of religion as there are societies—and perhaps even people—we narrow the definition, for the purposes of this course, to "ethical monotheism," the core of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, contrasting it to other ideas and bringing its most salient features into clear relief. x
  • 3
    What is Philosophy of Religion?
    Notions of what philosophy of religion is are as varied as the definitions of religion itself. This lecture narrows the playing field, so that the best way in which philosophical analysis and synthesis can be brought to bear on religious belief and practice can emerge. x
  • 4
    How is the Word "God" Generally Used?
    This lecture examines the presuppositions and implications of the common religious claim that there is or are one or more gods and offers close examination of the word itself and how it is used in a variety of settings. x
  • 5
    How Do Various Theists Use the Word "God"?
    The focus is narrowed from the polyglot of religious contexts explored in Lecture 4 to the use of the word in ethical monotheism, identifying presuppositions, internal logic, and the implications that are woven into this particular way of thinking. x
  • 6
    What is Knowledge?
    To ask what can be known in religious contexts, and especially about the existence of god(s), requires being clear about what it is to know anything at all. We examine a wide array of things one might know, believe-but-not-know, doubt, disbelieve, or flatly deny as we begin an exploration of the traditional understanding of knowledge as "justified true belief." x
  • 7
    What Kinds of Evidence Count?
    If evidence is what makes the difference between mere belief and real knowledge, then it is important to discover what kind(s) of evidence work, as well as what quality of evidence is required for effectiveness in a given setting. x
  • 8
    What Constitutes Good Evidence?
    Even after identifying what kinds of evidence are preferable (e.g., firsthand experience over hearsay, coherent inference over free association), we still need to figure out the characteristics of evidence of a given kind that enable it, in a context, to move us from disbelief to belief, from opinion to solid knowledge. x
  • 9
    Why Argue for the Existence of God?
    This lecture introduces the cosmological, teleological, and ontological patterns of argument, illustrating the function of argument when one is trying to explain everyday events, and enumerating a few caveats to keep in mind when weighing the merits of the theists' arguments. x
  • 10
    How Ontological Argument Works
    Is divine existence entailed by the very concept of godhood? To assert so is to argue ontologically, and this lecture focuses on arguments to that end put forth by both St. Anselm and Descartes—including a brief foray into geometry—to explain how ontological arguments work. x
  • 11
    Why Ontological Argument is Said to Fail
    Several classical lines of argument hold that a priori arguments about matters of fact are generally sterile and that ontological arguments for the existence of God thus fail as well. An examination of these arguments prepares us for possibly more profitable efforts to infer the existence of God from the occurrence and/or nature of the world, rather than the meaning of a concept. x
  • 12
    How Cosmological Argument Works
    We examine the principle of explanation known as "sufficient reason" and its use in basing a case for divine existence on the existence of the world itself—the cosmological argument—as well as its use in everyday settings. x
  • 13
    Why Cosmological Argument is Said to Fail
    What happens when "Ockham's Razor," a classical principle of philosophical restraint, is applied to sufficient reason and the cosmological arguments for divine existence? This lecture lays the groundwork for the consideration of a more sophisticated "sufficient reason" argument. x
  • 14
    How Teleological Argument Works
    Is divine design apparent in nature itself? St. Paul thought so, as did William Paley. This lecture explores the use of "sufficient reason" arguments to claim that the detailed characteristics of the world and its commonplace events demand the inference of an obviously divine external cause. x
  • 15
    How Teleological Argument Works (continued)
    Some teleological arguments offer God as the best explanation for not only the mere occurrence of the world and its general events, but for the occurrence of works that are special or even miraculous. Granting for the sake of argument that the events in question do occur, this lecture traces from them the inference of divine existence. x
  • 16
    Why Teleological Argument is Said to Fail
    This lecture looks at a number of reasons why skeptics have found the teleological argument wanting, whether for what might be called "explanatory overkill" or for selective bias. x
  • 17
    Divine Encounters Make Argument Unnecessary
    The failure of ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments to make their case for a god is of little concern to many ethical monotheists, who cite historical claims of "direct awareness" of God through "encounters"—a notion fleshed out in terms of both contemporary and historical experiences. x
  • 18
    Divine Encounters Require Interpretation
    Continuing to assume the good faith of those who claim to have experienced divine encounters, this lecture focuses on a two-step line of rebuttal to the notion that direct, non-inferential knowledge of divine existence occurs in such encounters. x
  • 19
    Why is Evil a Problem?
    The occurrence of evil in the world has long been a basis for dismissing teleological arguments as inconclusive. But the presence of evil has another implication as well, not as grounds for rebutting teleological arguments for theism, but as grounds for affirming dysteleological arguments for atheism. x
  • 20
    Taking Evil Seriously
    We continue to examine why evil constitutes such a problem for ethical monotheists, grouping into categories the arguments about evil that are said to lead to the conclusion that no god exists, and laying the groundwork for the rebuttals to those arguments that will be presented in the next four lectures. x
  • 21
    Non-Justificatory Theodicies
    Rebuttals to the argument from evil are called theodicies. Most try to justify the evils that occur. This lecture explores the more radical notion that no justification is required, either because no evils occur, or because those that do occur don't have anything to do with God or are logically unavoidable (and, hence, nobody's fault). x
  • 22
    Justifying Evil
    Theodicies that attempt to justify evils usually do so by claiming that they are necessary for the fulfillment of one or another greater good. This lecture lays the foundation for this line of argument, which will be further examined in the next two lectures in terms of both "natural" and "human" evils. x
  • 23
    Justifying Natural Evil
    Clearly, bad things happen in this world, often with no discernible human involvement, lack of involvement, intention, or negligence. These "natural evils" provide ammunition for those who say the world's designer (if it has one) cannot be deserving of worship. This lecture examines four of the theodicies used to rebut such arguments. x
  • 24
    Justifying Human Evil
    The most widely cited theodicy for human evil (and, many claim, the most effective) relies on the idea that the possibility of such evil is a necessary precondition for human freedom and autonomy, which are of such great value that they balance out whatever evils their occurrence requires. Explaining and appraising this theodicy is the primary target of this lecture. x
  • 25
    Evidence is Irrelevant to Faith
    Does faith allow one to move beyond evidence and arguments? Are evidence and arguments, in fact, impediments to faith? This lecture examines several classical approaches to this line of thinking, with a preliminary look at a postmodern version that suggests religious faith constitutes its own paradigm, immune from external applications of evidence and argument. x
  • 26
    Groundless Faith is Irrelevant to Life
    We explore the way the notion of relevance works, showing that if the events that occur are irrelevant to the truth value of a claim, than the truth value of that claim is also irrelevant to the events that occur—a reciprocal relationship with important implications for the questions raised in this course. x
  • 27
    God is Beyond Human Grasp, But That's O.K.
    The most radical disconnect between divine existence and the rules of ordinary cognition is voiced in the claim that God transcends the world and everything in it. This lecture explores three notions of transcendence and the implications each of them carries for knowing whether God exists and, if so, knowing God. x
  • 28
    Transcendental Talk is "Sound and Fury"
    This lecture considers the implications of the "verificationist" contention (by Logical Positivists and others) that talk of God is vacuous because claims of a truly transcendent God can be neither proved nor disproved, as well as what such verificationism might have overlooked. x
  • 29
    Discourse in an Intentionalist Paradigm
    An introduction to paradigms and how they work prepares us to compare the paradigms with which ethical monotheism and natural science operate and consider how their respective inclusion and exclusion of intentionality as a category of understanding separates them. x
  • 30
    Evaluating Paradigms
    If a paradigm is important in coming to grips with the world, it is important to use one that works. This lecture explores the criteria for assessing paradigms and then offers examples of how those criteria can be used to assess some sample paradigms in concrete applications. x
  • 31
    Choosing and Changing Paradigms
    There is no doubt that paradigm shifts occur, but there are several possible answers to the question of "how?" This lecture looks at whether one's paradigm can be "chosen"—an important issue that speaks to intentionality. x
  • 32
    Language Games and Theistic Discourse
    This lecture introduces Wittgenstein's notion of "language games" and explores its role in theistic discourse. x
  • 33
    Fabulation—Theism as Story
    This lecture begins an analysis of religious discourse as fabulation: the telling of stories—myths, parables, fables, etc.—for a purpose; laying out the conditions for purposeful storytelling in everyday settings; drawing on familiar stories for examination; and examining religious discourse itself as purposeful storytelling. x
  • 34
    Theistic Stories, Morality, and Culture
    We examine the hypothesis that the primary functions of ethical monotheists' stories are to identify, give weight to, and motivate moral behavior, as well as to underwrite the core culture of their societies. We also consider the counterhypothesis—that such stories, in fact, have a far different result. x
  • 35
    Stories, Moral Progress, and Culture Reform
    The priestly and prophetic dimensions of ethical monotheism and its stories are added to the mix identified in the previous lecture, with interesting implications for the debate. x
  • 36
    Conclusions and Signposts
    This lecture summarizes the philosophical reasoning undertaken through the previous lectures—and the conclusions this reasoning supports—and suggests some issues that invite continued philosophical reflection. x

Lecture Titles

Clone Content from Your Professor tab

What's Included

What Does Each Format Include?

Video DVD
Instant Audio Includes:
  • Download 36 audio lectures to your computer or mobile app
  • Downloadable PDF of the course guidebook
  • FREE audio streaming of the course from our website and mobile apps
Video DVD
DVD Includes:
  • 36 lectures on 6 DVDs
  • 184-page printed course guidebook
  • Downloadable PDF of the course guidebook

What Does The Course Guidebook Include?

Video DVD
Course Guidebook Details:
  • 184-page printed course guidebook
  • Photos and illustrations
  • Suggested readings
  • Questions to consider

Enjoy This Course On-the-Go with Our Mobile Apps!*

  • App store App store iPhone + iPad
  • Google Play Google Play Android Devices
  • Kindle Fire Kindle Fire Kindle Fire Tablet + Firephone
*Courses can be streamed from anywhere you have an internet connection. Standard carrier data rates may apply in areas that do not have wifi connections pursuant to your carrier contract.

Your professor

James Hall

About Your Professor

James Hall, Ph.D.
University of Richmond
Dr. James Hall is the James Thomas Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus, at the University of Richmond, where he taught for 40 years. He earned his B.A. from Johns Hopkins University, his Master of Theology from Southeastern Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. At the University of Richmond, Professor Hall was named Omicron Delta Kappa Faculty Member of the Year (2005) and...
Learn More About This Professor
Also By This Professor

Reviews

Philosophy of Religion is rated 3.7 out of 5 by 77.
Rated 2 out of 5 by from Flecks of Gold in a Slow, Muddy, Meandering Stream There is some wisdom hidden in this course. I imagine it would appeal to those who enjoy fishing or panning for gold - time passes slowly, but every now and then a thing of value is hauled in. (Full disclosure: I do not enjoy fishing or panning for gold.) The first three lectures actually provide a well-done introduction. Then the essentials of the philosophy of religion, at least with respect to the so-called ethical monotheistic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are covered. These include the traditional arguments for the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, and teleological) as well as their counter-arguments; the persuasiveness, or lack thereof, of claims of direct encounters with God; and the power of the problem of evil as an argument against God's existence, itself countered by the so-called theodicies, or explanations for evil in a world under the sovereignty of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good being. This is followed by a consideration of whether evidence is even needed for, or relevant to, faith, and a discussion of the seeming contradiction of why an ultimate and transcendent God should care about insignificant little us at all. The final section concerns religion as story-telling with a purpose (although I found it hard to understand what this has to do with philosophy). All of this is fascinating, valuable, and worthwhile material. But Professor Hall's presentation of it could readily have been accomplished in one third the time, with room to spare. (This is not hyperbole.) Unfortunately, the majority of our time is spent sitting through a fairly comprehensive course in how not to teach. Examples here may sound trivial, but they are repeated so incessantly as to make the experience, at least for me, difficult to bear and impossible to recommend. These negatives include: Unhelpful self-referential comments. ("I'm being facetious." "I can't even keep a straight face while I say it." "I'm a great believer in laying my cards on the table.") Irrelevant personal history. (Our professor likes mathematics but doesn't understand imaginary numbers. He had french fries for lunch with lots of salt, which were delicious, but which his doctor would be mad at.) Constantly and pointlessly using different phrases for the same idea, ("...little machines, automatons, little devices...) as well as often repeating the same words. Irrelevant digressions, and irrelevant digressions from irrelevant digressions. (He is often kind enough to indicate when we are about to go on one of these excursions by stating that he is adding a "footnote.") And perhaps most off-putting, the lectures (with the exceptions of the first three introductory talks, and the final summary session) are unfocused, poorly organized and almost stream-of-consciousness. It is primarily this last problem which results in the course being three or four times its ideal length. As others have noted, Professor Hall comes across as a very nice guy who would make a fine dinner companion. And he speaks beautifully, and would be a pleasure to listen to if what he was saying were more to-the-point. But, given all of the issues noted above, and the fact that the negative overwhelms the gold, I cannot recommend this course.
Date published: 2019-07-23
Rated 2 out of 5 by from Oh... My... G-d...! As another reviewer said, Prof. Hall seems like a very nice guy, so I hate to trash his course. But I have no choice. This is not the worst TTC course I've listened to (don't buy Prof. Stearn's Brief History of the World) but it's a not too distant second. (OK - not fair. It is, in fact, a very distant second.) This course could have easily accommodated all of its useful material in a twelve lecture series, with plenty of room left for improvement. He spends way to much time telling anecdotes about his past and too little time actually talking about the subject. I have to quote a student review of Prof. Hall's class at Richmond: "Hilarious old man. Very straightforward teacher with lots of random stories. Impersonal, big class, and he won't learn your name, but a nice time to zone out and still get a decent grade with not too much effort. Counts for math requirement!" I have to admit to feeling the same way after making my way through all 36 lectures. The best thing that can be said is "Counts for math requirement!" So far, this is a totally unfair review. What is it about the class that makes it so uninspiring (and so uninformative)? Lectures 1-6 "explore" in turn philosophy, religion, philosophy of religion, G-d, G-d (again), and "knowledge". Three hours that could easily have fit into 15 minutes. Most of these lectures are ammunition for those who believe that practitioners of philosophy are engaged in advanced navel-gazing. And that's as boring to listen to as it sounds. 7 and 8 are good, solid lectures on what kinds of evidence we should count and how we should evaluate claims of religious "knowledge". 10 and 11 explore the "ontological" argument for the existence of G-d. Personally, I don't understand how anyone could use a definitional argument to try to prove the existence of G-d. Apparently philosophers have, so fair game I suppose. But he never explains how, since definitions are conventional, we can't just change the convention. There must be more to the argument than he puts forward, but we don't hear it. He then spends five lectures on the cosmological and teleological arguments (which I'm hard pressed to distinguish even after listening to the course). Here's one of his worst failings. Even in 2002, the argument from design was far more advanced than he gives it credit. I still think it fails, but because he presents such a truncated and simplistic view of the argument from design, it's a straw man that falls apart at the first touch. He spends his time on the 18th century philosopher that argued that G-d gave us opposable thumbs and nostrils that are directed down rather than up. Of course Darwin has no trouble explaining those very simple "designs" so Prof. Halls washes his hands of the whole enterprise. Argument from design, of course, merits a far more thorough discussion and refutation, and Prof. Hall fails on all counts. Six lectures are then spent on the problem of evil, and I will say that he does a fair job explaining the problem of evil and then does a half-reasonable job of religious apologetics on the topic. However, the theological responses are better than he gives them credit for here. All he says, in the end, is "Scottish verdict - Not proved". (A phrase he overuses to the point of tedium.) Granted, theology is trying to defend itself here, not play offense, so no amount of discussion of apologetics is going to prove the existence of G-d. But I would have expected better, even if it doesn't directly advance the self-described purpose of the course (i.e., proving or disproving the existence of G-d). Then we get five lectures on philosophical paradigms. Now we're back to the navel gazing, and it was all I could do to get through these lectures. Very little here relates to the thesis of the course, whether G-d can be proven to exist or not. Now we're in the realm of "can theists talk to non-theists?". And if we don't start with that assumption, there's no point in listening to his course. So five lectures on the question seems a bit excessive. (This is much more about the history of philosophy, not the history of the philosophy of religion. So I think it's out of place.) Finally, as others have complained, we get three or four lectures on his personal approach to being a better human being. Nice, but not relevant. Overall, he spends too much time repeating himself, too much time telling personal anecdotes, and too much time navel gazing for this to be a decent course. I feel bad writing such a negative review, but it may reflect my bad attitude about philosophy in general as much as it does Prof. Hall's course itself. (Though, then again, it may not. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.) Unless you love philosophy as a discipline, don't buy this course. If your interest is religion, there are lots and lots of good courses out there for you. This is not one of them. (For completeness, and to disclose my personal biases: I, like Prof. Hall, am agnostic at best (and a suspected atheist to boot). So I don't think my animis is generated by a different worldview from Prof. Hall's.)
Date published: 2019-03-18
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Even the Great Courses knew this one was a stinker I bought this course on audiotape when TTC/TGC released it in 2003. TTC/TGC has subsequently eliminated the audiotape format and should also eliminate this course, as Hall’s presentation could not be worse. Through each lecture, Hall rambles from subject to subject, stopping with annoying frequency to spin some folksy anecdote or another, resulting in the listeners’ complete confusion. It is apparent that TTC/TGC realized the disaster they had on their hands during the recording of these lectures because at the end of each one, voice-over announcer Tom Rollins comes on to give an “executive summary.” I know of no other TTC/TGC series that requires an “executive summary,” which I believe is an index of how sloppy Hall’s presentation is. Even more infuriatingly, Hall spends a goodly portion of the final lectures standing on a soap box, berating social and theological conservatives regarding “marriage equality.” Thank you, sir, for this virtue signaling. In return, you get the infamous one-star rating. I also own Hall’s “Tools of Thinking” course, which is slightly less odious than this one, but still not good. I recommend that TTC/TGC consign these works to the “out of print” category and re-record the subjects with better professors.
Date published: 2019-03-15
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Confirmation Years ago, I came to the conclusion that the only proof of the existence of a deity is one's own personal faith. At the time, this was more intuitive than rational. By examining several arguments, their structure and counter arguments purporting to "prove" the existence of God and justifying a conclusion that all of them failed to do so, this course has provided a solid rationale for what I had only guessed at then.
Date published: 2018-09-06
Rated 2 out of 5 by from Missing the point in great, self-satisfied detail Philosophy of Religion is one of my favorite subjects. I came into the course with a lot of background information, but hearing subjects taught over again wouldn't bother me. It's hearing the lecturer miss the point, or misstate the point, over and over, that bothers me. As another reviewer (an atheist) writes, "For what it's worth, I don't think he argued forcefully enough for theism either. Even devoting two lectures to it, he could have done a lot more justice to the teleological argument, for example." I would add to that: His discussion of the ontological argument would leave you wondering, "Why would anyone with a brain ever even think about this anymore?"--not that the argument is so bad, but that he doesn't do justice to it. Same with the cosmological argument. Same with the teleological argument, which he continually conflates with the argument from design. (By the way, his argument against Paley's design argument was the best and most incisive part of the course, so I am not just writing this because I am a Christian.) I am just a podunk professor at a small community college in the Midwest, but even I could have done better with the other arguments. And I really got put off with the continual refrain (after a deep, heart-wrenching sigh, as if it hurt him badly to say it), "This argument just fails to reach closure." Basically, this course should have been titled, "If You Are a Skeptic or Agnostic, Here's an Overly Long, Pedantic Way to Remain So." If you are really interested in philosophy of religion and what the arguments really can sound like, run do not walk over to Thomas Williams' lectures on "Reason and Faith in the Middle Ages," which deserve about seven stars.
Date published: 2018-08-13
Rated 1 out of 5 by from I love TGC! This is its worst course. Every lecture is nearly as substantive as this one: the second lecture on teleological arguments consists of Prof. Hall describing three miracles (without any philosophical commentary) and, after each one, saying something like, "some argue for the existence of God by saying that it is the only way to explain a miracle." That's the whole lecture. There's nothing about the history of teleological arguments, what might be said against them, or anything other than three ten-minute narrations that could have been kept to one. Very disappointing.
Date published: 2018-06-29
Rated 4 out of 5 by from New subject matter for me Professor Hall does a nice job of presenting a new subject matter (new to me at least)..I was afraid it would be pretty dry, but the Professor does a great job of keeping the subject matter interesting and understandable.
Date published: 2018-06-26
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Insightful and Intriguing This thought-provoking course is mainly focused on answering the question of the existence or non-existence of the Judeo-Christian Islamic god. The goal of the Professor is not to make believers or atheists out ot its listeners. Instead, the Professor wants you to come away with a deeper understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the Abrahamic religious traditions. It was a worthwhile course for me to take after having listened to so many of the religion and theology courses and It would be worth your time.
Date published: 2018-03-09
  • y_2019, m_9, d_21, h_6
  • bvseo_bulk, prod_bvrr, vn_bulk_2.0.13
  • cp_1, bvpage1
  • co_hasreviews, tv_2, tr_75
  • loc_en_US, sid_4680, prod, sort_[SortEntry(order=SUBMISSION_TIME, direction=DESCENDING)]
  • clientName_teachco
  • bvseo_sdk, p_sdk, 3.2.0
  • CLOUD, getContent, 42.72ms
  • REVIEWS, PRODUCT

Questions & Answers

Customers Who Bought This Course Also Bought