The document discusses several topics relating to philosophy, religion, and science: 1) It examines Socrates' claim that "the unexamined life is not worth living" and asks the reader to consider what this means, whether they agree, and potential challenges to this view. 2) It discusses two readings on the value of philosophy - by Bertrand Russell and Rebecca Newberger Goldstein - and asks the reader to identify a point from each that resonates with them. 3) It addresses arguments for and against God as the origin of the universe, asking which argument is most/least convincing. 4) It discusses how evolution, religion, and intelligent design are commonly misunderstood

1. #1 The Life Unexamined
One skill emphasized in the study of philosophy is critical
thinking, in brief, thinking objectively and rationally about
ideas. An important way of doing this is to examine claims that
are presented to us rather than assuming them to be true. In the
Apology Socrates says "the unexamined life is not worth
living." First, explain what you think Socrates means by 'the
unexamined life' (it might help to think about what an examined
vs. an unexamined life might be). Then answer the following:
Do you agree with Socrates that the unexamined life is not
worth living? Why or why not? Can you think of any challenges
to Socrates’ claim (in other words, could you defend the claim
‘the unexamined life IS worth living?’)?
#2 The Value of Philosophy
Unlike many other disciplines, philosophy is one that students
are often unclear about. They aren’t sure what to expect, what
they will learn, or what the benefits will be (in contrast to
courses in math, history, and government, for example). By now
you should have completed the reading by Bertrand Russell
called "The Value of Philosophy.” His text could be described
as a very ‘philosophical’ response to the question ‘why study
philosophy?’. Read Why Study Philosophy? 'To Challenge Your
Own Point of View' by philosopher Rebecca Newberger
Goldstein, which deals rather differently with the same
question, and then respond to this thread with 1 point (feel free
to quote it directly) from each reading that resonates with you
about the value of ‘doing philosophy.’ Make sure to explain
WHY the points you discuss stood out to you.
Works Linked/Cited:

2. Newberger Goldstein, Rebecca. “Why Study Philosophy? ‘To
Challenge Your Own Point of View’”. The Atlantic. 27
February, 2014. www.theatln.tc/2HOFCRi. Accessed 30 April
2018.
#3 God and the Origin of the Universe
Chapter 2 discusses the major ideas and arguments relating to
God and the origin of the universe. Which of these arguments
do you find most convincing? Explain why. Which do you find
least convincing? Explain why.
#4 Evolution, Religion, and Intelligent Design
Many people mistakenly believe that a belief in evolution
precludes a belief in God or intelligent design; in other words,
some people falsely think that one must be an atheist or
agnostic to believe in evolution and the Big Bang. The Catholic
Church is one example of a religious institution that has long
held the view that evolution and the Big Bang explain ‘how we
got here.’ Read the below article from the Catholic Herald, and
then answer the following questions: Why do you think so many
people are mistaken about the ability to believe in God as well
as evolution and the Big Bang? Do you find anything
problematic about combining religious and scientific
explanations of the universe? Explain.
NB: In this discussion, students often misuse the word ‘theory’,
saying things such as “the Big Bang/evolution are ‘just’
theories.” But to say this is a misuse of the word 'theory' as it

3. applies to scientific theory. Many people misunderstand the
word as it is used in the realm of science, thinking it to mean a
guess, a hypothetical, untested idea. However, in science,
'theory' means something different. Please read the article
below:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-
misused-science-words
Article from the Catholic Herald
By Patrick Cusworth October 31, 2014
Pope Francis's comments on the Big Bang are not revolutionary.
Catholic teaching has long professed the likelihood of human
evolution
Perhaps it was inevitable that Pope Francis’ comments on the
Church’s position on scientific theories such as the Big Bang
and evolution would cause a stir. In his address to the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences, the Pope cautioned against the image of
God the creator as “a magician, with a magic wand”, arguing
that belief in both theories around the beginnings of the
universe and the birth of humankind are consistent with the
Catholic faith.
“The Big Bang, which is today posited as the origin of the
world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it
requires it”, he stated. Similarly, he argued, “evolution of
nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because

4. evolution pre-supposes the creation of beings which evolve.”
Yet despite further murmurings that Pope Francis was beginning
(yet another) revolution in Catholic doctrine, it must be pointed
out – the Pope’s declaration on either theory has not broken
with established Catholic belief in the slightest.
The Big Bang theory, originally hypothesised in 1927 by Jesuit
priest and physicist Georges Lemaître, is based on the central
proposition that the universe is continually expanding. As a
preposition, the universe was originally contained within a
single point, in a highly intense state of heat and density. As the
universe began to expand it cooled, allowing the formation of
subatomic particles, which began a series of physical
cosmological processes, which led eventually to the known
universe. While this has become the most commonly accepted
explanation for the beginnings of the universe, many scientists
have previously expressed an instinctive opposition to the
notion of a beginning point, since this would represent a
question which science could not answer – as Professor Stephen
Hawking concluded in his autobiography, “One would have to
appeal to religion and the hand of God to determine how the
universe started off”.
Turning to Pope Francis’ comments on evolution, Catholic
teaching has long professed the likelihood of human evolution –
albeit with the proviso that this takes place under the guidance
of the Creator, and that special creation of the human soul is
performed directly by God. As Pope Pius XII stated in Humani
Generis (art. 36): “the teaching authority of the Church does not
forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human
sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions… take
place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it

5. inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-
existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to
hold that souls are immediately created by God”.
Pope John Paul II specifically endorsed this position in his own
address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996,
declaring that since publication of the latter encyclical, “new
findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more
than a hypothesis… The convergence in the results of these
independent studies constitutes in itself a significant argument
in favour of the theory”.
While it is refreshing to see the Pope’s pronouncements upon
matters scientific reaching and being welcomed by individuals
not generally well disposed toward the Church, the implicit
suggestion that Pope Francis has somehow brought about a
radical change in the Vatican worldview is a misleading one.
The Church has a centuries-long history of promoting scientific
inquiry – long may it continue.
Works Linked/Cited:
Cusworth, Patrick. “Pope Francis's Comments On the Big Bang
are not Revolutionary. Catholic Teaching Has Long Professed
the Likelihood of Human Evolution”. Catholic Herald. 31 Oct
2014. www.bit.ly/1wQ8QQG. Accessed 30 April 2018.
Ghose, Tia. “’Just a Theory’: 7 Misused Science Words.”
Scientific American. 2 April 2013.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-
misused-science-words/. Accessed 22 August 2018.

6. #5 Children and Evil
One solution often given for the problem of evil is that evil is
part of a divine ‘plan’ or ‘harmony’ that we cannot see. In 1734,
Alexander Pope expressed this view in his poem “An Essay on
Man: Epistle I”:
“All nature is but art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction, which thou canst not see;
All discord, harmony, not understood;
All partial evil, universal good:
And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,
One truth is clear, Whatever is, is right.”
For some, however, this answer is unsatisfactory. Evil against
children is one example given as a counterargument to this
position: why would an all-loving god allow innocent children
to suffer? The character Ivan expresses this view in Theodore
Dostoevsky’s 1880 novel The Brothers Karamazov:

7. “I want to be there when everyone suddenly understands what it
has all been for. All the religions of the world are built on this
longing, and I am a believer. But then there are the children,
and what am I to do about them? That’s a question I can’t
answer. For the hundredth time I repeat, there are numbers of
questions, but I’ve only taken the children, because in their case
what I mean is so unanswerably clear. Listen! If all must suffer
to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it,
tell me, please? It’s beyond all comprehension why they should
suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony.”
Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and philosopher, addresses this
problem in a debate with Dr. William Lane Craig at the
University of Notre Dame. Watch the video below, and then
respond to how Harris addresses this specific aspect of the
problem of evil, evil against children. What argument does he
make in this debate? What is your response to his argument?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuPsxFklxaw#action=share
Works Linked/Cited:

8. Craig, William Lane. Biological Sketch. 2018.
www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/. Accessed 30 April
2018.
Harris, Sam. About Sam Harris. 2018.
www.samharris.org/about/. Accessed 30 April 2018.
Pope, Alexander. An Essay on Man: Epistle I. Poetry
Foundation. no date.
www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44899/an-essay-on-man-
epistle-i. Accessed 30 April 2018.
Sam Harris - God is Either Impotent or Evil. YouTube video
file. [11:05]. Skepthick. 2014, March 30.
youtu.be/QuPsxFklxaw