- Does divine omniscience undermine free will?
- Does pascal succeed in showing that having religious belief rationally optimal?
- Is there any way to understand Clifford’s dictum that ‘it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence’ so that it is both true and non-trivial?
- Explain and evaluate Buchak’s account of faith.
- Can people reasonably agree to disagree over religious matters?
- Someone might agree as follows: To interpret religious language with dour literalism is part of a general reductive attitude to the richness of religious practice. What is left is an impoverished and bloodless conception of religion as mere dogma, which strips away all that is culturally and personally significant about religion.
Does this kind of argument give us good reason to be non-literalists about religious language? How might the literalist respond?
Write a research essay about 2500 words. you can check the guidance and grade descriptors.
Sample Solution
