First, it is important to note several things. This is an excerpt of a philosopher's article, and thus is not complete. This should not be taken as a stylistic criticism of Mackie's work. However, for instructional purposes, pretend it is a student paper, and consider whether it achieves the goals as such. Remember: students have to be more careful. Academic philosophers have earned the right (through previous publications) to move more quickly over certain issues.
1. Has the author clearly stated a thesis (conclusion)?
As presented here, I do not think so. Is the conclusion that religious beliefs are irrational? What, exactly, will be disproved? That religious beliefs are rational or the existence of God? That evil exists? That God is not omnipotent or not wholly good? It seems that Mackie is trying to say a lot of claims follow from the argument he presents.
If this were a student paper, the student would need to clearly state what she thought would be the ultimate conclusion of her paper. Pick one claim (the claims above are not equivalent) and make that claim the thesis. State it clearly, e.g.,: "In this paper I will demonstrate that belief in the Judeo-Christian God is irrational."
2. Has the author clearly stated the premises that will establish his conclusion?
In one sense, yes. But if this was a student paper, no. In this selection, what exactly the premises are is, in an important sense, spread out over the several paragraphs. Do not make your audience work in order to understand your premises. Assume the audience is smart (they can think critically), ignorant (they have no idea what your brilliant insight is), and extremely hostile. They will use any opening to rip the reasoning apart. Don't give them the opportunity. After stating your thesis, you should then declare what you must establish in order to demonstrate your thesis. So you might then claim something like the following: "In order to show that belief in the Judeo-Christian God is irrational, I will argue that certain statements the theologian believes lead to a contradiction. The statements are: God is wholly good; God is omnipotent; and evil exists. Once I have clarified exactly what I take these statements to mean, I will use them as premises to establish my conclusion." This might seem stilted and tedious. But a student should move very slowly in order to make sure her audience stays with the argument. Moreover, the premises are now clearly premises.
3. Has the author clearly stated a version of the problem he is addressing?
I think we can give a qualified 'yes' to this question. Though to fully understand what the problem is, one would need to pull together the issues brought up in paragraphs two and three, the statement in paragraph three is clear enough.
In a student paper, the student would further expand on paragraph two, and would need to provide a lot of extra support for the claims in paragraph three. But basically the problem is quite clear: there are three propositions the theologian must simultaneously hold that are inconsistent with each other.
4. Has the author clarified any terms and justified his premises?
Yes and no. In paragraph four, Mackie does clarify terms and claim the theologian already would agree to the premises. But, again, for a student paper, assuming the excerpt is close to a complete student paper, there will need to be further justification for the understanding of the terms. In fact, it would be a good exercise for you to read Mackie's entire article and decide if he eventually does adequately support his understanding of the terms in question.
5. Has the author considered objections to his arguments?
Yes and no. (He actually does consider more serious objections to his argument in the next section of his paper, which is not reprinted here.) The objections raised here, as Mackie points out, are objections raised by theologians to the traditional formulation of the problem of evil, and have no bearing on the logical strength of his argument. So he is quickly brushing aside what he takes to be an inadequate criticism.
The student would need to further clarify why the objections listed here are inadequate and justify the clarification. A more telling objection (one that Mackie does discuss later) might be that theologians do not actually hold the statements 'wholly good' and 'omnipotent' as defined by Mackie. Again, it might be instructive for the student to read the actual article and see if Mackie adequately supports his use of the statements.
6. Has the author established his conclusion through careful reasoning?
Again, yes and no. Yes, if we remember this excerpt is from an established philosopher. No, if we are considering this an almost complete student paper. The student would need to clearly specify how the statements lead to the conclusion and what the actual contradiction is. (See the reading section debriefing of the same excerpt for a quick look at how the argument might be outlined and the reasoning tied together. A student paper would need to be more detailed than that, but the structure is much more transparent in that analysis than in the excerpt itself.)
|