Module 4 Assignment

1

Jenny Student

CCCOnline, PHI 214

Spring, 2010: Essay Unit 1 According to Chapter 1, what is the difference between reflective and unreflective engagement on the matter of religious questions? How does this question help to further

distinguish between religious "believers" and "non-believers"? Is the distinction useful? Why or why not?

Genuine philosophical discussion requires a willingness to consider and engage

perspectives that may be different from our own. When the topic of God arises in conversation, it

can become challenging to keep this goal in mind, since theists and non-theists alike can become

dogmatic in their positions, and unwilling to engage the matter philosophically. However, it is

necessary to make a distinction between reflective and unreflective engagement. The difference

between reflective and unreflective engagement on religious questions is one of a willingness to

participate in philosophical inquiry, of taking the beliefs that one has and holding them up for

critical examination. The usefulness of the distinction is this: Two individuals may have radically

different views about whether or not God exists, but if they share in a willingness to practice

reflective engagement, then the potential also exists for genuine philosophical discussion and

mutually respectful participation in matters that are of “absolute concern.”

Reflective reason is absolutely essential when we wish to engage in the study of the

philosophy of religion, since reflective reason is central to the study of philosophy.

There is not much of a distinction between reflective believers and reflective non-believers

because they are both are open to scrutinizing their belief systems, and are willing to hold those

beliefs up to scrutiny by others. In order to engage in philosophy of religion or on any other

topic in philosophy, we must be able to systematically and thoroughly examine our arguments

and be able to give rational accounts for their ideas and/or beliefs. As Peterson, et al. point out:

Comment [EMH1]: You are encouraged to put your name, course, term, and assignment at the top

of your work so that if I need to print it out, I can quickly and correctly identify you as the author.

Comment [EMH2]: Be sure to always print the question you are answering at the top of your essay so that I know which question you are attempting to

answer and whether or not you have answered it

completely.

Notice that this question has two components: a) a

factual element, in which you are meant to explain content that you have read, and b) an open-ended

evaluative component, in which you are invited to

argue for your own view.

Comment [EMH3]: This first paragraph as a whole does two things: 1) It provides a concise answer to part a) of the question (the content of the

reading), and 2) It provides a thesis statement. Note

that Jenny only summarizes her answer to the question, doing so in such a way as to provide a brief

summary of how she is going to answer the question in the essay that follows.

Comment [EMH4]: This final sentence effectively provides the “thesis statement” that are

required for all your essays. A thesis statement should be evaluative (i.e., it should express your

judgment), and critical (in the sense that make a

claim that needs to be defended).

2

Philosophy is preeminently an enterprise of reflective reason, which seeks to get

beyond superficial approaches to important issues. It seeks to look responsibly at

all relevant arguments, clarify key ideas, and carefully trace out implications of

beliefs. Accordingly, we are interested here in how things look “upon reflection”

(Peterson, et al., Reason and Religious Belief, p. 11)

This does not mean agreement can be reached, but it does mean that the reflective believers and

reflective non-believers can engage in a discussion wherein they seek consistency for their

beliefs. Reflective believers and reflective non-believers are able to set aside their prejudices and

engage in meaningful discussion with those of opposing beliefs.

Non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers are not interested in having a

philosophical thought process regarding their belief system. They believe what they believe

because of a myriad of reasons, whether they grew up in a culture of belief or non-belief, and

believe what they have been told; or whether they are happy not to reflect upon their belief, are

secure and happy in their belief, and need no additional thinking upon the subject, therefore no

thought process has entered into their decision. They believe and that is that! Again, as Peterson,

et al. observe:

Clearly, many people have not seriously pondered the important questions related

to the coherence, plausibility, and truth of theism, and yet they have decided

either to accept or reject a theistic orientation. Some say that they just believe in

an all-powerful and all-good God, or that prayer is valid, or that miracles happen.

Comment [EMH5]: Take note of how Jenny makes sure to indent her block quotes, which are quotations that are longer that four lines on a page,

and require no quotation marks. Furthermore, note

also Jenny‟s method for citing the source, we call it „in-line” citation, (author(s), title, and page number),

which makes it unnecessary to use footnotes. You

may use any style of formatting you wish, so long as it remains consistent throughout your paper.

3

. . . Others claims that they do not believe in God or that prayer is pointless, or

that the idea of miracles seems silly (ibid).

What both non-reflective believers and unreflective non-believers is that any contrarian view,

whether it is the claims of theism or atheism, “is the end of the matter for them” (ibid) Non-

reflective believers and non-believers are of no use to any involved in a healthy discussion or

debate on belief and non-belief. They are not of any use because of the nature itself of non-

reflection. Non-reflection implies, and in fact, is, a state of mind in which there is no critical

analysis of any idea pertaining to their belief or non-belief, which leaves little room for

philosophical engagement.

There are many reflective believers who look for and seek to give rational reasons for

their belief in God. For example, may reflective believers understand that proof of their belief in

God‟s existence is not obvious; and they cannot point to anything physical in the real world and

say with certainty that this thing is God. Language is also problematic in terms of describing

mystical “God” experiences. If the experience is “other-worldly” (as is often claimed in mystical

experiences), and because God is an all-knowing being that we cannot comprehend within our

limited human mind, it naturally falls to reason that our language is insufficient to describe God

or the experience of God. The experiences of St Teresa of Avila, for her, simply cannot be

mediated through spoken language—they are “ineffable” (Peterson, et al., Reason, p. 19). God

is unequivocally something that is “other” than our reality, so by its nature, proof of God is an

oxymoron. In addition, because language is a difficulty in describing God the inability to

adequately describe experiences is a hindrance in and of itself to use as a proof of God/belief.

Reflective non-believers, however, will take the fact that proof of God is non-existent, and

Comment [EMH6]: Here, Jenny is clearly referring to the same page she had already quoted

above.

Comment [EMH7]: Note that this is the same text that was already cited, but the title has been abbreviated to distinguish it from the anthology

which she will use later in her essay.

4

therefore conclude that there is no God. They are using what Michael Martin has termed the

“Negative Principle of Credulity” which states that if it seems that there is no proof, then

probably there is no proof; ergo, no God (Michael Martin, “Critique of Religious Experience,” in

Peterson, et al. eds., Philosophy of Religion, 4/e p. 75f).

Before entering into another person about religious claims, it is useful to know whether

they are non-reflective believers or non-reflective non-believers. This can be accomplished

through asking a few questions, and seeing how dogmatically they hold to their opinions, and are

open to rational discussion about alternatives. Once this knowledge is established, it will be

known that they are not willing or able to have their beliefs scrutinized, whether their beliefs are

one of non-belief in a God or belief in a God is secondary to the main point of reflection. This

entails a willingness to set aside pre-conceived dogma and/or notions we have of the believer or

non-believer. However, it also entails the ability to set aside our own preconceptions in order to

engage healthily in our reflection—that is, to have a meaningful conversation. As Peterson, et

al., point out:

The instant a believer makes some sort of claim of faith, some statement about her

relation to the God she worships, she has automatically entered the arena of

rational discussion and dialogue. Likewise, anytime someone denies some

particular religious belief or rejects all religious beliefs generally, that stance is

also open to rational evaluation and discussion. Wittingly or unwittingly, the

believer as well as the non-believer has stated some intellectual beliefs, has

uttered truth-claims that are subject to being criticized as well as defended

(Peterson, et al, Reason, p. 10).

Comment [EMH8]: Note, that this is the second text that she has cited; also, note that she has included the author name, title of the chapter/article,

and then the editors names, title, page number.

Comment [EMH9]: Note that now that Jenny has discussed and developed her answer to the “content” part of her essay, she is making a transition to the

evaluative part of her essay, which (for this essay), is

about the usefulness of the distinction between “reflective” and “unreflective” engagement.

Note also that this paragraph is the first of two reasons she gives to justify her thesis statement.

5

Meaningful discussion about religious truth claims and whether or not they are “candidates for

acceptance” can only be accomplished with reflective believers and reflective non-believers.

The harmfulness of the perspectives of the non-reflective believer and non-reflective non-

believer becomes apparent when they are unwilling or unable to engage in meaningful discourse

for understanding. When people are of the non-reflective mind-set, a “hardness” sets in, and

people become set in their way of thinking. This way of thinking often leads to a development

of the idea of an “other.” Once people develop an idea of the “other,” it is very easy to demonize

the “other.” If the non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers are unwilling to

open their ideas to reflection and thought processes, there is a tendency of unwillingness to

accept the fact that there is even another way of believing.

The usefulness of the distinction between reflective and non-reflective individuals can be

seen in a second way, namely that it provides an opportunity for reflective believers or non-

believers to show the value of reflective engagement. They provide us an example of why we

must be vigilant, and prevent non-reflective individuals from creating “mayhem,” in their

unwillingness to engage in addition, understand other viewpoints (and „mayhem‟ for our

purposes will be defined as “policies, actions and words to demonize others”). Therefore, both

non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers provide us useful examples of how to

not engage in philosophical discussion about religious belief. On the other hand, they also

provide us opportunities to demonstrate the value of having meaningful discussions and

philosophical debate between other “like-minds” (like-mindedness in regard to reflectivity, not

necessarily in regard to belief or non-belief).

Comment [EMH10]: In all probability, Jenny would have been fine if she had provided only her first reason for considering the distinction mention in

the question as “useful,” but she provides a second

reason for its usefulness, demonstrating to me that she has indeed thought heavily and critically about

this distinction.

6

In conclusion, the differences between reflective and non-reflective are greater than the

differences between belief and non-belief, whether reflective or non-reflective. The usefulness of

reflective believers and reflective non-believers are of importance to us regarding meaningful

discourse and philosophical debate. There is also a paradoxical usefulness to non-reflective

believers and non-reflective non-believers, in the fact that they are both non-useful to us in

discussion and philosophical debate, and at the same time useful to us in order that we can try to

engage with the non-reflective among us.

Comment [EMH11]: Jenny does not have to use the term, “in conclusion,” it is already apparent by the content of this paragraph, and its place at the end

of the essay that she takes it to be the conclusion.

7

Bibliography

Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason &

Religious Belief, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 4/e, New York: Oxford

University Press, 2003.

Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Philosophy of

Religion: Selected Readings, 4/e, New York: Oxford University Press 2010.

Word Count: 1,595

Comment [EMH12]: Notice the method that Jenny has used in providing the (requisite) bibliography. She has included the full names of the

editors to the texts that she has used, but listing last

name first, for only the first name. She only includes the textual information, and not the page numbers.