REL101(WI): World Religions Reflection Paper #2 The Problem of Evil The most formidable challenge a believer in God must face is known as “the problem of evil.” This problem, which goes back to ancient times yet is no less distressing today, asks about the relationship between belief in God and the existence of evil in the world. If God is truly good and cares for us, why do bad things continually happen to good people? How can there be so much unmerited evil and suffering in the world if an all-powerful and all-loving creator governs the universe? Like many other faiths, Judaism has had to confront such questions head on. While much of Jewish history is full of pain and suffering, nothing has tested the Jewish faith like the mass slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust (or Shoah). Given God’s covenantal promise of a blessed existence and God’s declaration that the Jews are his “chosen people,” many wonder today how they can possibly square the extermination of 6 million such people with belief in a deity who is said to be both compassionate and just. For this second Reflection Paper, you are asked to weigh in on this conflicted debate. Before you begin to write, consider the discussion of Judaism in class, read carefully the article “The Problem of Evil” posted under “Course Materials” on Blackboard, and research at least two other articles of your choice that address this topic. Then, in your paper, expand this difficult issue to all of the Western religions and offer your best insights on the ongoing attempt to make sense of the problem of evil. If you are a believer, how do you reconcile your belief in an all-powerful, all-loving God and the immense evil that surrounds us? Which of the many solutions to the problem of evil (officially known a “theodicy”), do you find convincing? If you are not committed to a religious belief, what is your opinion about the problem of evil? Is this problem great enough to lead one to atheism, as many have argued? Is one of the counterarguments presented in this discussion particularly powerful? The Problem of Evil Introduction: The Great Problem We live in a world in shadow. It’s a fact, noted by every religion and belief system throughout history, that suffering plagues the human condition. Some of us experience far more pain than others, but it’s something we must all face during our lives. Possibly even worse than the existence of suffering is the randomness with which it strikes—often in the lives of people who have done nothing to deserve it—and our too-frequent powerlessness to help the afflicted innocent. The great and terrible fact of suffering has been humanity’s constant companion. Our history as a species is a long, slow climb up from the darkness, punctuated by much faltering, backsliding, and frustration. For thousands of years of human history, every day was a struggle to stay alive. Plagues and epidemics swept continents like wildfire. Natural disasters led to the collapse of great empires..

1. REL101(WI): World Religions
Reflection Paper #2
The Problem of Evil
The most formidable challenge a believer in God must face is
known as “the problem of evil.” This problem, which goes back
to ancient times yet is no less distressing today, asks about the
relationship between belief in God and the existence of evil in
the world. If God is truly good and cares for us, why do bad
things continually happen to good people? How can there be so
much unmerited evil and suffering in the world if an all-
powerful and all-loving creator governs the universe? Like
many other faiths, Judaism has had to confront such questions
head on. While much of Jewish history is full of pain and
suffering, nothing has tested the Jewish faith like the mass
slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust (or Shoah). Given God’s
covenantal promise of a blessed existence and God’s declaration
that the Jews are his “chosen people,” many wonder today how
they can possibly square the extermination of 6 million such
people with belief in a deity who is said to be both
compassionate and just. For this second Reflection Paper, you
are asked to weigh in on this conflicted debate. Before you
begin to write, consider the discussion of Judaism in class, read
carefully the article “The Problem of Evil” posted under
“Course Materials” on Blackboard, and research at least two
other articles of your choice that address this topic. Then, in
your paper, expand this difficult issue to all of the Western
religions and offer your best insights on the ongoing attempt to
make sense of the problem of evil. If you are a believer, how do
you reconcile your belief in an all-powerful, all-loving God and
the immense evil that surrounds us? Which of the many
solutions to the problem of evil (officially known a “theodicy”),
do you find convincing? If you are not committed to a religious
belief, what is your opinion about the problem of evil? Is this

2. problem great enough to lead one to atheism, as many have
argued? Is one of the counterarguments presented in this
discussion particularly powerful?
The Problem of Evil
Introduction: The Great Problem
We live in a world in shadow. It’s a fact, noted by every
religion and belief system throughout history, that suffering
plagues the human condition. Some of us experience far more
pain than others, but it’s something we must all face during our
lives. Possibly even worse than the existence of suffering is the
randomness with which it strikes—often in the lives of people
who have done nothing to deserve it—and our too-frequent
powerlessness to help the afflicted innocent.
The great and terrible fact of suffering has been humanity’s
constant companion. Our history as a species is a long, slow
climb up from the darkness, punctuated by much faltering,
backsliding, and frustration. For thousands of years of human
history, every day was a struggle to stay alive. Plagues and
epidemics swept continents like wildfire. Natural disasters led
to the collapse of great empires. People lived on the edge of
starvation and a season of bad weather that disrupted the
harvest could lead to thousands of deaths. Today such tragedies
are produced by random accidents, by genetic disorders that
afflict every function of the human body, by infectious diseases
that attack it at every point of vulnerability, and by devastating
geological and meteorological events that affect every
community on the planet.
And as if these natural evils weren’t enough, human beings have
never lacked either the will or the ingenuity to invent new ways
to inflict horror and cruelty on their neighbors. Throughout the
ages, war and all it entails have been a constant reality. The
vast majority of people throughout history have lived in poverty
in totalitarian societies ruled by elites more concerned with
perpetuating their own power than doing anything to lift up the
people they governed. Whole civilizations have been eradicated

3. by warfare, diseases brought on by foreign conquerors, and a
trade in human lives. In the present day, though a relative
minority in the industrial world live in luxury, billions of others
are desperately poor, largely uneducated, lacking in the basic
necessities of life, and besieged by war, sickness, famine, and
drought.
In the battle against suffering, humanity has won some
significant victories. We have far more power to control our
own destinies than people of past ages. Some of the diseases
that once ravaged us have been wiped out or nearly so. The
ideals of democracy and human rights have spread across the
globe, however flawed and imperfect they may be in practice.
And our ability to repair the human body continues to improve,
promising greater things that seem to lie just beyond the
horizon. Still, when one considers the scope and weight of
suffering and evil in the world, one is inevitably struck by how
incomplete our victories have been, how partial, and how much
we have yet to accomplish. There are many evils against which
we’re powerless; there are many more that we have the ability
to combat, but from which most of the world still suffer.
The Problem of Evil and God
The existence of evil and suffering in the world obviously has a
direct bearing on religion and belief in God. If God is all-
knowing, as our Western religions teach, then he is aware of
people suffering everywhere. If God is all-powerful, then he has
the ability to eradicate evil and suffering. If God is perfectly
good and loving, then he would want to do this. Yet evil and
suffering persist.
The “problem of evil” (sometimes also called “the problem of
suffering”) is one of the most enduring and potent concerns of
religious thought. “Why is there evil in the world?” “Why is
there suffering?” “Why do bad things happen to good people?”
Believers in God have long found it difficult to explain how an

4. all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good God allows so
much evil and suffering to exist. As the Greek philosopher
Epicurus wondered over two thousand years ago:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, then he is
not omnipotent.
If he is able, but not willing, then he is wicked.
If he is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil?
If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God?
More recently, the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz
reasoned that if God was all-powerful and all-loving, then this
must be the best of all possible worlds, for such a being would
never create anything less than perfection. To many, the logic
of this view makes sense. But to many more, this is plainly not
the best of all possible worlds. Radical evil and suffering
abound. Therefore it follows that there is no being that is both
all-powerful and perfectly loving. In other words, there is no
God as traditionally imagined by Western monotheism.
Given such arguments, it is no accident that the problem of evil
is often called “the rock of atheism.” This observation by Hans
Kung is not hyperbole but a realistic assessment of the most
formidable objection to theism. The Christian apologist William
Lane Craig has likewise admitted that the problem of evil is
“atheism’s killer argument.” The three major monotheistic
religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) affirm that there is
an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being that
created, sustains, and interacts with the world—and yet
suffering, catastrophe, wrongdoing, injustice, and a host of
other negatives exist in the world. Religions involving theism,
therefore, face the problem of reconciling evil with their
concept of deity.

5. Granted, not all religious traditions conceive of God in the way
that the Western religions do. Therefore, while some other
religions have their own problems of evil generated by their
distinctive beliefs (the idea of karma, for example), these
problems have nothing to do with how they conceive of God.
For example, many polytheistic faiths, such as those maintained
by the Romans and Hindus, acknowledge a multiplicity of gods,
some of which are openly recognize to be themselves evil.
Likewise, dualism is another religion system with which one
can easily make sense of the presence of evil. Dualistic
religions, such as Manichaeism, espouse the existence of two
opposing powers: good and evil. Dualism believes that evil is an
independent power, neither created by the good God, nor
subordinate to it. Dualism explains that the entire universe is a
battleground between these two forces and that everything that
happens in the world is a part of the struggle. Thus bad things
happen even to good people because the world in not governed
single-handedly by a good god. There is an independent evil
power loose in the world. This evil power does bad things.
But these types of viewpoints are not available to the Western
monotheistic religions. In these faiths, there is only a single
God, and this God is conceived as being omnipotent,
omniscient, and perfectly good. Not that monotheistic believers
haven’t tried to borrow arguments from these other forms of
religion. For example, it is common to hear Christians argue
that evil is the work of the Devil, not of God. On this view the
Devil can act independently, fight against the good God, and
wreak havoc without God’s permission. Some believers go so
far as to imagine that the good God needs our help in his
struggle against the Devil.
But of course God created the Devil as he created everything
else, and, because he is both all-knowing and all-powerful, he
either should have known better or else put an end to the
Devil’s evil doings. Another way of logically solving the
problem is to argue that there is an omnipotent God who created

6. the entire universe—and he’s evil. But nobody in Western
religious history has had the stomach for such a belief.
Formulating the Problem of Evil
Since the mid-twentieth century, philosophers and theologians
have debated the problem of evil within the framework of two
broad formulations: the logical argument (which alleges a
contradiction in the joint assertion that God and evil exist) and
the evidential argument (which alleges that the facts of evil
count heavily against the existence of the theistic God). Either
one of these arguments becomes a “problem” for the theist if
she is inclined to accept its premises and wants to avoid the
atheistic conclusion. The theist, then, bears the burden of
finding fault with one or more of the premises while the
nontheistic critic must support them.
1. The Logical Argument — All versions of the logical
argument from evil have a deductive structure designed to show
that theism is somehow self-contradictory and therefore not
rational to believe. Epicurus provided the original statement of
the argument, and David Hume articulated it during the
Enlightenment with impressive dialectical force. In the
contemporary period, however, J. L. Mackie provides the most
influential formulation:
“God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil still
exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these
three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third
would be false. But at the same time all three are essential parts
of most theological positions; the theologian, it seems, at once
must adhere and cannot consistently adhere to all three.”
Mackie’s point is “not that religious beliefs lack rational
support, but that they are positively irrational, that several parts
of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one
another.” This is a worrisome contradiction.
2. The Evidential Argument — The evidential argument is now

7. thought to capture the depth and profundity of the real
philosophical problems raised by evil. Versions of this
argument cite the actual amounts, kinds, and distribution of evil
in the world as significant evidence against the existence of
God. Edward Madden and Peter Hare pioneered a common sense
rendition of the evidential argument. Wesley Salmon
constructed a probabilistic version of the argument, claiming
that the probability of God’s existence is low because few of all
possible divinely created universes exhibit the evil occurring in
ours. Yet it is William Rowe’s version of the evidential
argument from pointless evil that has become classic:
There exists instances of intense suffering that an omnipotent,
omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing
some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence
of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so
without thereby loosing some greater good or permitting some
evil equally bad or worse.
Therefore, there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient,
wholly good being.
Theodicies—
Solution
s to the Problem of Evil
Today, the problem of evil retains its full force. Natural events
such as killer tornadoes, tragedies such as sudden infant death

8. syndrome, physical deformities, and inhuman acts such as the
Jewish Holocaust highlight what seem to many to be the
incompatibility of evil and suffering with the existence of an
all-powerful, benevolent God. Nevertheless, theologians
through the ages have been unwilling to give up their belief in a
God who sustains and cares about the world he created. Many
have therefore sought to reconcile God’s goodness with a world
as imperfect as ours, asserting that God has a good reason for
causing or allowing evil.
This type of argument is called a “theodicy.” Many theodicies
have been put forth. What follows is a number of contemporary
theodicies together with the objections and counterarguments
that have been lodged against them:
1. The Justice Defense — God allows suffering because we
deserve it. The most straightforward explanation for the
existence of evil is that we suffer because we deserve to. The
Old Testament claims that the destruction God visits upon the
Israelites is in retribution for their disobedience. Christian
apologists argue that all humans inherit original sin, which
justifies any punishment God wishes to inflict on us, earthly and
eternal.
Objection: There are major problems with this explanation.
First, it fails the test of common sense; evil is not distributed
fairly. Everyone knows of instances in which the evil prospers
while the good suffer unjustly. Hurricanes harm those in coastal

9. areas, not those who are the most sinful. Diseases strike the
compassionate as well as those who deserve it the most.
Newborn babies suffer horrific afflictions before they have
grown old enough to commit wrongs. Thus the
indiscriminateness and sheer randomness of suffering refutes
this explanation. Second, this explanation fails the test of
conscience. If we accept its reasoning, the logical conclusion is
that we should never try to help people who are in pain or in
need—to do so would be to undo their God-ordered punishment.
But any ethical human must flatly reject this conclusion as
unacceptable. In fact, it is flatly contradicted by the sacred texts
of most religions, which enjoin readers to help one another. It
would make no sense for God to order his followers to work to
counteract a punishment that he himself sent.
2. The Testing Defense — God allows suffering to test our faith
in him. This position argues that God uses suffering to prove
that our faithfulness to him is genuine and not just premised
upon convenience or comfort. In the Bible, such a thing
happened to Abraham, who was asked to sacrifice his son, and
to Job, who, though pronounced innocent, was subjected to
horrendous afflictions.
Objection: The major objection to this explanation is that God
is supposed to be all-knowing. Thus he should already be aware
of the contents of a person’s heart without having to test them.
A God who doesn’t know whether someone is loyal without

10. testing them is a limited God, and, a God who does know in
advance what the results of the test will be and still
unnecessarily inflicts suffering on people is evil. Adopting the
testing theodicy contradicts at least one of the fundamental
attributes that a perfect deity is supposed to have.
3. The Eschatological Defense — Suffering in this world does
not matter, because justice will be done in the afterlife. This
theodicy looks to the future, to the life beyond this one, arguing
that it will be then when the innocent will be rewarded and the
guilty will be punished, as they deserve.
Objection: The problem with the eschatological theodicy is that
it does not invalidate the reality of present pain and suffering.
Whether evil will be abolished at a later time or not, evil exists
now, and that existence needs to be accounted for. Perhaps
there’s a heaven where the righteous are repaid for their
suffering on earth, but this doesn’t answer the question of why
did God allow them to suffer in the first place? If such a being
exists, how can the claim of his goodness be reconciled with his
lack of action in the face of such present evils?
4. The Greater Good Defense — Evil and suffering are allowed
in order to bring about a goal that couldn’t exist without them.
Though God doesn’t desire the existence of evil and the pain of
suffering, the potential good that they can produce outweighs
this consideration. Evil and suffering are a necessary side effect

11. of God’s plan. Different people have proposed different goods
that might result from evil and suffering.
Objection: The general response to greater good theodicies is
that they assume a limited God. An omnipotent being wouldn’t
need to rely on intermediate causes and contrivances—yet alone
such awful ones—to bring about a desired result but could
produce that result directly. God could achieve any of the stated
goods without allowing the evil.
5. The Free-Will Defense — Suffering is a necessary
consequence of the free will God has given us. The most
common theodicy used today argues that God doesn’t want
human beings to harm each other or do evil, but even less does
he want a world of human robots who act only as they’ve been
programmed to act. God’s needed to allow for free will, and that
required opening the door to evil. Were there no evil, humans
could not choose between good and evil, and hence there would
be no free will. Likewise, desirable qualities such as love, faith,
and devotion can only exist when freely chosen.
Objection: This, however, is a non-intuitive answer that
immediately raises a host of new questions. Freedom of will
allows humans to choose evil. Many indeed choose evil and,
according to the standard religious account, this choice must
bring divine punishment in its wake. But if God knew in
advance that a particular person would use her free will to
choose evil, and that as a result she would be punished for this

12. by eternal tortures in hell, why did God create her? Moreover,
the free-will defense vanishes entirely if the suffering is the
result of a natural disaster or random accident. The free will
theodicy only accounts for moral evil. It can’t explain the wide
range of meaningless suffering for which no human being is
responsible.
6. The Teaching Defense — Suffering is a means by which God
teaches us to be better people. Sometimes also called the “soul-
making” theodicy, this view argues that the existence of evil is
a tool to perfect us. By responding to and overcoming evil,
people undergo spiritual growth that makes them better suited to
ultimately come to know God in the way he desires.
Objection: There are numerous points against this theodicy.
First, we again see the random distribution of suffering. If the
purpose of suffering is to perfect us, then all people should
suffer equally. But this is clearly not the case. Some people live
short lives full of pain and suffering, while others enjoy
tremendous luxury and comfort for virtually their entire lives.
Second, if suffering is meant to bring us closer to God, then we
can safely say that it’s a failure at that purpose, because often it
has the opposite effect. Many people turn away from belief in
God precisely because they witness the amount of pain in the
world and the absence of divine aid to those who need it most.
Third, if God is God, there is no reason why he can’t achieve

13. his goals for us without the use of suffering and evil. If God can
do anything that’s possible, and if his desire is that we be
morally perfect, why wouldn’t he just create us that way in the
first place. Finally, there appears to be innumerable moral and
natural evils that are unequivocally pointless, including such
things as animal suffering, the mass extinctions that have
occurred throughout earth’s history, and the death of infants and
children who will never benefit from any lessons their pain
could have taught them. It is highly unlikely that every instance
of suffering actually has a purpose in that it is necessary to
achieve some greater good or lesson.
7. The Contrast Defense — God allows suffering and evil
because, without them, we would not be able fully to appreciate
God’s mercy, goodness, love, and justice. The point here is that
God wants to display his positive attributes, and this would be
impossible if we have never known things to be any different.
Thus evil exists in order to more clearly show God’s goodness
by comparison, just as a bright red rose would be more obvious
in a white room than a red one.
Objection: The problem with this defense is that a being that
created evil or allowed it to come into existence couldn’t be
considered good at all. How would we judge a fireman who
went around setting people’s houses on fire so that he could
prove how heroic he was by rescuing them from the danger he
created? Furthermore, an omnipotent God wouldn’t need to

14. cause people to suffer to prove his goodness to them; he could
just do that directly. Once again, God could achieve such a goal
without allowing the evil.
8. The Unknown-Purpose Defense — God allows suffering for
mysterious reasons that only he knows. Often used as a final
resort, this theodicy states that God has a purpose for allowing
suffering, but we don’t know what it is. God ways are not our
ways, and evil and suffering are simply a mystery beyond
human comprehension.
Objection: Those who excuse God’s negligence as the result of
some mysterious purpose beyond our understanding need to
consider the logical consequences of that idea. If God’s motives
are hidden or beyond our understanding, then we have no way to
know whether God is good, evil, or indifferent. How can this be
reconciled with the idea of benevolence as an essential defining
attribute of God? Additionally, if God has an important purpose
for permitting evil, then why do we try to stop evil? How do
theists know they’re not working again God’s will every time
they vaccinate a child or give money to the poor? A consistent
follower of the unknown purpose defense would never try to
stop suffering, since any suffering that God allows must be
needed for some greater purpose, otherwise he wouldn’t have
allowed it.
In addition to the kinds of specific objections and
counterarguments offered against the theodicies just noted,

15. some people argue that there are a host of moral situations that
simply defy all attempts to reconcile God and evil. Consider
the following, admittedly awful, scenario known as “the parable
of the mysterious witness”:
Just after sunset in a quiet suburb, a little girl is playing with
dolls in her bedroom. She is being watched from a distance,
through a window, by a man who has watched her this way
before. He has studied her habits and those of her parents. He
knows their schedule. He knows what it means when lights are
turned on or off in various rooms. He is a sexual predator, and
he has decided that now is the time to act on his fantasies. He
enters her room through the window, silences the frantic child
with duct tape, and carries her to his car. In his haste, he fails to
notice a car slowing to a stop at the end of the street behind
him.
The driver of that car is an undercover police officer just
returning from work. He is attuned to spotting suspicious
behavior, and he is highly suspicious of what he has just
witnessed in the dim light at the end of the block. He is also
skilled at surreptitiously following his suspects, and he decides
to follow this one. He follows the car to a remote wooded area
and manages to stop his own car without being noticed by his

16. suspect. From a distance, he clearly sees the kidnapper leave his
car, carrying a struggling child into the woods. Although he has
a police radio, he does not call for assistance. Instead, he loads
his handgun and stealthily follows the kidnapper on foot. As he
approaches, he can hear the girl’s muffled screams. He stops
near the edge of a clearing, hides silently behind a tree, and
watches.
In the moonlight he can now clearly recognize the girl, whom he
has seen many times before. She continues to struggle and
scream for help, but the kidnapper brutally beats her into
submission and rapes her. Meanwhile, the policeman remains
silent, holds his weapon at the ready, but does nothing. He
watches as the kidnapper picks up a shovel he brought from his
car and methodically digs a shallow grave. The girl moans
quietly as he buries her alive. The sexual predator now gathers
his belongings, walks to his car and drives away, while the
policeman looks on in silence. He then returns to his own car
and drives home, leaving the little girl to suffocate. There is
one more salient piece of information about our mysterious
witness, the policeman: he is the girl’s father, and he dearly
loves her.
The crime of the sexual predator must surely be among the most
despicable imaginable. Yet readers of this story are just as

17. appalled at the behavior of the mysterious witness. How can one
possibly rationalize his utter failure to rescue this poor little
girl, his own daughter? It is so implausible as to be completely
unbelievable as a story. And yet, for the believer in the
omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent personal God, every
horrendous act of evil in the real world, every natural disaster,
every injury, illness, and genetic defect that causes senseless
suffering has just such a mysterious witness: God himself.
Now reread the list of theodicies given above and try to use
each of these rationalizations to justify the behavior of the
mysterious witness in the parable. For just a moment, ignore
that character’s role as a metaphor for God and think of him as
a real human being, an off-duty policeman who followed a
kidnapper into the woods. Can any of the theodicies, or any
other conceivable rationalization, excuse his failure to rescue
his daughter? Better yet, imagine that you were there instead of
the policeman, crouching behind a tree with a loaded handgun,
watching a sexual predator beating, raping, and methodically
burying alive your own child. Can you imagine any line of
reasoning that would keep you from coming to your child’s
defense? If you believe in a God infinitely more powerful and
loving than you, then how could he possibly qualify for an
excuse that does not apply to you?
Conclusion: Retrospect and Prospect

18. Throughout the centuries, the problem of evil has been the
dominant intellectual objection to theistic belief and a major
support for atheism. It is not difficult to understand why this is
so, since the problem, even in its more formal expressions, is
rooted in our deep sense of what it is like to be alive and in our
perplexity at the conditions of our existence. After decades of
intense discussion in theology and the philosophy of religion,
replete on all sides with important arguments and profound
insights, the problem persists.
Atheism, of course, doesn’t have to confront the problem of evil
in the same way that theism does. An atheist has no reason to
expect things to be any different than they are. The universe is
what it is: a vast, majestic, but implacable place governed by
natural laws that don’t make allowance for our desires and are
indifferent to our suffering. So, while on the one hand it is
notoriously difficult for critics to use the problem of evil to
deliver a fatal blow to the intellectual credibility of theism, on
the other hand it is extremely challenging for theists to dispel
the problem in a way that is intellectually and morally
satisfying.
The debate over God and evil will certainly continue as a
crucial part of the human search for meaning. The best

19. contributions—whether theistic or atheistic—will be ones that
carefully probe the deeper realities in which we are involved in
order to achieve a greater measure of understanding. This task
inevitably leads us into the arena of worldview assessment.
Although there will never be final agreement on the evidential
import of evil, pursuing the issue in this larger venue will bring
about some of the more promising work in future religious
studies.
PAGE
8
· Use writing to learn course content
· Engage in a process of drafting, revising, and editing
· Select, analyze, and evaluate information
· Draw valid conclusions
Toward these ends, each student will carefully craft five two-to-
three page papers. These papers correspond to each of the major
modules of the course (the introductory material and the five
religions covered) and are based on a question provided by the
instructor and a special reading meant to prompt thinking.
Papers will be graded based on the degree to which they meet
the four goals stated above (see grading rubric below).It is
important to make a distinction between the acts of “learning to
write” and “writing to learn.” Ultimately, this is not a
composition class; rather, it focuses on the act of writing as a

20. significant way to reflect more deeply about the subject matter
of the course. The primary goal of these papers is to foster
critical thinking about big religious themes that directly impact
personal and social life.However, because developing basic
writing skills is a part of the WI program, these papers must
fulfill a set of specific requirements. The topics for the papers
were selected, in part, to help you succeed. In addition to the
goals stated above, each paper must conform to a specific four-
part structure:
· Introduction — Begin the paper with an opening paragraph
that introduces the subject of the paper in an interesting way.
· Thesis Sentence — The introductory paragraph must end with
a sentence that explicitly states the main point/goal of the
paper. Each paper should try to make only one central point.
Pick one position you want to defend and make that the sole
focus of the paper. The thesis should clearly define this
position. The thesis sentence should read something like: “This
paper argues that . . .”, or, “This paper intends to show that . .
.”· Body — The body of the paper, the next five or six
paragraphs, should be used to describe, support, and defend
your thesis. Typically, each paragraph of the body raises a
different argument and presents evidence to support it. It is
important to also address counterarguments that a reader might
use to challenge your thesis.· Conclusion — End the paper with
a closing paragraph that restates the thesis sentence,

21. summarizes the arguments used throughout the body, and
finishes in an interesting way.
Additionally, each paper must be double-spaced, written in
12pt. type, be at least between two and three pages in length
(though longer papers are acceptable), and begin with a title
page that lists name, paper title, class, and date. (Do not repeat
these on subsequent pages.) You will be expected to draw on
material used during the module, including readings, lectures,
and discussion, as well as any outside sources deemed useful to
your argument. Proper citation (MLA, CMS, APA, etc.) of all
sources of information and ideas is required.If writing academic
papers is new to you, here is a short list of tips for success:· Be
a “planner” not a “plunger” — Writers can often be divided into
two types: plungers and planners. Plungers are those who start
writing before they know what they are writing. Planners start
writing only when they know what to write. Writing takes time,
in preparation and in actually writing. Take the time necessary
to do the research, organize thoughts, and outline the order of
the paper before you start writing.· Editing is part of the writing
process — Good writing does not just happen in the first
attempt. Too often students let their brain spill onto the page
and then submit their masterpiece. However, the writing process
is not linear. All work needs to be drafted, revised, and edited.
One helpful strategy is to print out what you have written, wait
or few hours or even a day, and then read it again with fresh

22. eyes. Pay renewed attention to everything from the flow of the
arguments and sentence structure to grammar, spelling, and
punctuation.· Writing is meant to be shared — Written work is
obviously destined for a final audience, but it should also be
read while in process. While self-editing is important, it is also
true that “every editor needs an editor.” If you don’t know that
something is weak or wrong, then obviously you can’t improve
or fix it. Feedback shouldn’t just come from teachers but from
peers, preferable before a grade is assigned. Let someone else
see your work before turning it in. Inevitably they will identify
errors that, once corrected, will improve the final product.
Requirements, Writing Tips, and Grading Rubric for Reflection
Papers
1
Grading Rubric for Reflection Papers

23. Category
Exceeds Standard
At Standard
Below Standard
Knowledge
Demonstrates a clear recognition of the vocabulary, concepts,
and themes presented in the readings, lectures, and videos by
utilizing concepts presented in various materials throughout the
paper.
Demonstrates recognition of some of the vocabulary, concepts,
and themes presented in the readings, lectures, and videos
through incorporating certain of these in the paper.
Demonstrates inadequate recognition of the vocabulary,
concepts, and themes presented in the readings, lectures, and
videos by incorrectly using or omitting the previously
mentioned subjects.
Comprehension
The paper illustrates a thorough response to the assignment
questions and instructions by providing appropriate
explanations and analysis of the major concepts in the
materials; and by providing appropriate supporting evidence
from the materials.
The paper illustrates an understanding of material presented in
the assignment question and instructions by providing one of
the following: explanations of the major concepts in the

24. materials, descriptions of the materials, examples from the
materials that relate to the assignment instructions.
The paper illustrates a clear misunderstanding of the assignment
instructions or the materials by failing to provide the major
concepts in the materials, descriptions of the materials, or
examples from the materials that relate to the assignment
instructions.
Analysis
The paper exemplifies the student’s mastery of the concepts and
issues through clearly articulated comparison and critical
analysis of the materials in relation to the module emphasis,
cultural conditions, and religious beliefs and practices.
The paper exhibits the student’s ability to compare and
differentiate concepts and issues in the materials in relation to
the module emphasis, cultural conditions, and religious beliefs
and practices.
The paper does not adequately illustrate the student’s ability to
make comparisons and distinctions between key concepts and
issues in relation to the module emphasis, cultural conditions,
and religious beliefs and practices.
Mechanics
No grammar, sentence structure, spelling and punctuation
mistakes. Sources are cited properly.
Only insignificant grammar, sentence structure, spelling and
punctuation mistake that do not detract from argument. Some

25. improper citation of sources or missing citations.
Frequent grammar, sentence structure, spelling and punctuation
mistake that detract from argument. Numerous improper or
missing citations.
Length
2-3 pages
2 pages
Under 2 pages
Knowledge: / 5Comprehension: / 10Analysis: / 10Mechanics,
Length: / 5Total Points: / 30