PHI3700 1258 Paper Assignment(s):

There will be one assigned thesis paper.  It will take the form of a critical summary and examination of an article from professional journal.   I have provided suitable options.  Alternatively, students may select others provided that they are from suitable professional venues (professional journals, professional conferences, conference proceedings, virtual professional journal, book chapters, etc.).  Students should select a recent article published within the last five years, although exceptions will be considered. 

Peer-reviewed journals contain articles by professional philosophers written for other professional philosophers. I anticipate that students will find them challenging.  Students should not be discouraged by this.  I will work with students to help them along if and when that becomes necessary.

For this assignment, you will need to select one of the following five papers:

Vol. 87, No. 3, June 2020, Special Issue: Is a Good God Logically Possible?

(Book Review?)

James P. Sterba, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.

Argues that an all-good, all-powerful God is logically incompatible with the amount of moral and natural evil in the world, particularly from the perspective of moral and political philosophy. The book challenges theistic defenses like the free will defense and proposes the existence of God is a new stage in the age-old debate about God's existence.

Divine hiddenness and the problem of no greater goods (pp. 107-123)

Luke Teeninga

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48766254

John Schellenberg argues that God would never withhold the possibility of conscious personal relationship with Him from anyone for the sake of greater goods, since there simply would not be greater goods than a conscious personal relationship with God. Given that nonresistant nonbelief withholds the possibility of such relationship, this entails that God would not allow nonresistant nonbelief for the sake of greater goods. Thus, if Schellenberg is right, all greater goods responses to the hiddenness argument must fail in principle. I argue that there are good reasons for thinking that greater goods responses do not, for the above reason, fail in principle.

Evil and the god of indifference (pp. 259-272)

László Bernáth and Daniel Kodaj

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48736921

A path to authenticity: Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky on existential transformation (pp. 81-108)

Petr Vaškovic

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48736329

Why a Christian God would permit so much human suffering Richard Swinburne

September 2025

1. Paper Abstract (Due11/6/25)

On the due date for the abstract, the student will submit an abstract of their proposed paper via Canvas.  In the abstract, the student will identify the article he or she has selected and write a brief (three or four paragraphs) general summary of the paper to be discussed.  

I will review and approve the proposed research and/or make suggestions for alternative research.

2. Paper 1 First Draft (Due 11/10/25)

This paper will take the form of a critical summary and response to a selected article from a contemporary professional philosophical journal.  In this class we are utilizing peer review writing techniques.  On the day that the Paper 1 First Draft is due students will submit an electronic version to the Canvas site for this class.  The submitted paper copy should contain no identifying information but rather be prepared for blind review. 

I will then use the feature in Canvas to redistribute the papers to peers within the class. 

3. Peer Review (11/17/25)

Each student will act as a peer reviewer for a fellow student.  Acting as a peer reviewer, each student will read a fellow student’s paper, provide feedback and fill out a rubric evaluation. With the information provided by the peer reviewer, students will then write a second, final draft of the original paper.  You will input your peer review comments suggestions and perhaps edits two (2) ways.

The 1st way is for your peer to view that and you will input that in the comments section in Canvas. (Comments to your peer.)

The 2nd way is to provide me with a document of the same comments suggestions and potential edits. That you will upload via this assignment tab in canvas. The due date for your peer review to me is Monday, April 5th. (Comments to me.)

This is the template to use to submit the comments to me.

4. Paper 1 Final Draft (11/24/25)

On the due date for Paper 1 Final Draft students will submit it through Canvas.  For this draft, students will prepare that paper for professional publication or presentation.  This means that students must

· locate a suitable venue for professional publication or conference presentation,

· research the required format for submission and

· follow those submission guidelines in this draft of the paper.

· At that same time students will also submit two additional documents:

5. Finally, on the same day your final draft is due you must submit a separate document that will be the Professional Venue Details Document (11/24/25).

For this Final Draft students will, students will prepare that paper for professional publication or presentation.  This means that students must locate a suitable professional venue for submission for professional publication or conference presentation, This means that student must research what a suitable venue would be and then, what the required format for submission and follow that format (e.g. length, citation style, etc.),

This accompanying document will identify the venue for professional presentation that the student has selected. This document will also explain

· why the student has chosen that venue,

· why it is a suitable venue for the student’s paper

· and what specific formatting was required for submission (e.g. submission guidelines, deadlines, blind review format, required citation style, etc.).

6. Selected Article Journal Information

In a separate document students will identify the journal from which the student has selected his or her paper, its current editor(s) and sponsoring institution.  The document will also list each of the authors featured in the journal edition selected. The student will list these authors, the titles of their articles included in that same volume, and a brief professional bio on each (where they studied, where they teach, their areas of expertise). 

For instance, were the student to select the article “Beginningless Past and Endless Future: Reply to Craig” by Wes Morrison.  This article appears in the October 2012 Volume of Faith and Philosophy along with six other articles.  The authors of the other articles are:

· Stephen Wykstra and Timothy Perrine

· Alexander Pruss

· Adam Green and Keith Quan

· James Montmarquet

· (Wes Morriston)

· Michael Rota

· Willaim Hasker

The student would list the articles contributed by each along with a short bio information for each.

The purpose of this assignment, aside from being the typical philosophy paper writing requirement of an upper division philosophy course, is for students to gain some perspective on the professional activities of working philosophers, those who are currently contributing in this field, and what institutions are supporting this research etc..  Students are very familiar with what philosophy professors do inside the classroom, but they are less familiar with what they do outside of the classroom.  It is these latter activities that are responsible for the advance of the discipline and most often form the basis for hiring, tenure and promotion decisions. 

The grade for this assignment will be based on the quality of the original draft, the accuracy and completeness of the work the student did as a peer reviewer for his or her fellow classmate, and the quality of the final draft, specifically the degree to which it represents a further refinement and development of the first draft.  It will also be based on the accompanying research documents (Venue and Journal Information) and the degree to which the student successfully followed the submission guidelines of the chosen presentation venue.