Paul Draper

Bio: Paul Draper is an academic researcher from Purdue University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Theism & Problem of evil. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 33 publications receiving 360 citations. Previous affiliations of Paul Draper include Florida International University.

Pain and pleasure: An evidential problem for theists

Abstract: I will argue in this paper that our knowledge about pain and pleasure creates an epistemic problem for theists. The problem is not that some proposition about pain and pleasure can be shown to be both true and logically inconsistent with theism. Rather, the problem is evidential. A statement reporting the observations and testimony upon which our knowledge about pain and pleasure is based bears a certain significant negative evidential relation to theism.' And because of this, we have a prima facie good epistemic reason to reject theism-that is, a reason that is sufficient for rejecting theism unless overridden by other reasons for not rejecting theism.

Diagnosing Bias in Philosophy of Religion

Abstract: Work in philosophy of religion exhibits at least four symptoms of poor health: it is too partisan, too polemical, too narrow in its focus, and too often evaluated using criteria that are theological or religious instead of philosophical. Our diagnosis is that, because of the emotional and psychosocial aspects of religion, many philosophers of religion suffer from cognitive biases and group influence. We support this diagnosis in two ways. First, we examine work in psychology on cognitive biases and their affective triggers. This work supports the view that, while cognitive biases are no doubt a problem in all inquiry and in all areas of philosophy, they are particularly damaging to inquiry in philosophy of religion. Second, we examine work in social and evolutionary psychology on religious sociality and its attendant emotions. This work establishes that the coalitional features of religion are correlated with group bias, and we contend that this bias is also harmful to inquiry in philosophy of religion. We close by offering both a prognosis and recommendations for treatment.What is the first business of philosophy? To part with self-conceit. For it is impossible for anyone to begin to learn what he thinks that he already knows.-Epictetus, Discourses, Book 2, Ch. 17I think it clearly and abundantly evident that true religion lies very much in the affections.-Jonathan Edwards, A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, Part 31. SymptomsIt is widely believed, at least by philosophers of religion, that philosophy of religion is flourishing. It is not difficult to find evidence supporting this optimistic assessment. For example, many university students at all levels are intensely interested in the subject, and philosophy of religion gamers far more attention from people outside academia than most other areas of philosophy. Also, in terms of sheer quantity of articles, books, conferences, and specialty journals, philosophy of religion compares favorably with many other areas of philosophy. This has not always been so. Philosophers of religion today, including the two of us, owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the extraordinarily talented philosophers responsible for the growth of philosophy of religion in the second half of the twentieth century. Their own careers would not have been possible were it not for ground-breaking work by distinguished thinkers like William Alston, Nelson Pike, Alvin Plantinga, William Rowe, and Richard Swinburne, to mention just a few.Having said that, our role in this paper will be that of the proverbial skunk at the garden party. For in spite of the recent expansion of work in philosophy of religion, it exhibits at least four symptoms of poor health: it is too partisan, too polemical, too narrow in its focus, and too often evaluated using criteria that are theological or religious instead of philosophical. Before we offer any diagnosis, we describe these symptoms in more detail. We do not, however, try to prove that philosophy of religion exhibits these symptoms. Instead, we assume that most philosophers familiar with the literature in philosophy of religion will easily recognize them.Partisanship is so entrenched that most philosophers of religion, instead of being alarmed by it, just take it for granted. This manifests itself in a variety of ways. For example, for the sake of balance, editors of collections on topics in philosophy of religion usually invite both theists and nontheists to contribute, assuming that they know which side each will take on the topic of the collection, even when taking the unexpected side is perfectly compatible with the authors' theism or nontheism. A philosopher of religion who is a theist, for example, could consistently admit (and even defend the view) that horrendous evil is strong evidence against theism, so long as they think, for instance, that this evidence is outweighed by even stronger evidence (whether inferential or noninferential) on the other side. …

Probabilistic Arguments from Evil

Abstract: Many philosophers have held that traditional theism can be conclusively disproved because it can be shown to be logically inconsistent with some known fact about evil. By ‘traditional theism’ I mean the statement that G. There exists an omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect person who created the universe.

Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science

Abstract: Preface 1. Evidence 2. Intelligent design 3. Natural selection 4. Common ancestry Conclusion References Index.

Ockham's Razors: A User's Manual

Abstract: Ockham's razor, the principle of parsimony, states that simpler theories are better than theories that are more complex. It has a history dating back to Aristotle and it plays an important role in current physics, biology, and psychology. The razor also gets used outside of science - in everyday life and in philosophy. This book evaluates the principle and discusses its many applications. Fascinating examples from different domains provide a rich basis for contemplating the principle's promises and perils. It is obvious that simpler theories are beautiful and easy to understand; the hard problem is to figure out why the simplicity of a theory should be relevant to saying what the world is like. In this book, the ABCs of probability theory are succinctly developed and put to work to describe two 'parsimony paradigms' within which this problem can be solved.

The Design Argument

Abstract: This Element analyzes the various forms that design arguments for the existence of God can take, but the main focus is on two such arguments. The first concerns the complex adaptive features that organisms have. Creationists who advance this argument contend that evolution by natural selection cannot be the right explanation. The second design argument - the argument from fine-tuning - begins with the fact that life could not exist in our universe if the constants found in the laws of physics had values that differed more than a little from their actual values. Since probability is the main analytical tool used, the Element provides a primer on probability theory.

Oxford studies in philosophy of religion

Abstract: Editor's Introduction List of Contributors 1. In Defense of Secular Belief 2. Two Theories of Analogical Predication 3. Nominalism and Divine Aseity 4. Meticulous Providence and Gratuitous Evil 5. Many-One Identity and the Trinity 6. Atheism and Theistic Belief 7. God, Flux, and the Epistemology of Agape Struggle 8. Wittgensteinian Quasi-Fideism 9. Semantics for Blasphemy 10. Grounding and Omniscience