Guidance: Please provide reasonably thorough answer below
questions well in 4-6 substantive/meaty paragraphs, in the
perspective of religion/theology study, no citation/reference
needed. If rely on readings, please rephase them into own word.
(Topic related reading/articles will be provided)
Roughly 500 words for each question, 6000 words max total for this
paper.
1.Assess the following claim from Richard Dawkins: “More generally it is completely unrealistic
to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf,
restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a
fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is,
inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific
claims.”
2. Can science sensibly address the question of why a world like ours exists (where by “world” I
mean all of contingent reality, which may or may not be limited to the stuff that resulted from the
“Big Bang”)? Can religion? Do we have any reason for supposing that there is an answer to this
question, or is it more reasonable to suppose that the existence of this world is just a “brute
fact”?
3. Describe the fine-tuning argument for a designer and explain and assess one of the more
promising objections to the argument.
4. Does the hypothesis that there is a multiverse provide a strong non-theistic/non-teleological
explanation of the apparent “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the
universe? Why or why not?
5. “If every (concrete) thing in the universe and all causal powers are ‘reducible’ to the sorts of
entities and causal powers described by the laws of physics, then we do not have free will and
are not truly responsible for our actions.” Explain why someone might think this claim is true. Is
it?
6. What is “materialism” and what is “dualism”? Explain the Zombie “conceivability” argument
against materialism (in Chalmers’s article “Consciousness and its Place in Nature”). Describe
Carroll’s response to the argument (see especially pages 358-62). How do you evaluate the
argument?
7. Briefly explain Type A Materialism, Type B Materialism, Type D Dualism, Type E Dualism,
Type F Monism, and Type I Monism. (One sentence for each is all that is needed; see
Chalmers’s article “Consciousness and its Place in Nature.”) Pick one position that you think has
significant plausibility and briefly identify some considerations that speak in its favor.
8. Briefly explain three ways that a contemporary scientific understanding of evolution and
natural history may be thought to pose problems for a traditional theistic outlook. (The challenge
may pertain to theism more generally, or to the teaching of a particular theistic religion.) Choose
one of these problems and consider whether there is a viable response on behalf of the relevant
theistic outlook.
9. Explain the basic idea behind Plantinga’s “Divine Collapse-Causation” view of divine action.
Then describe one other account of how God’s intentions could have been realized in the course
of cosmic and evolutionary history. Which view is philosophically and theologically preferable,
and why? (Notes: In asking you to consider which view is “theologically” preferable, I do not
assume that you are a theist. But you might consider what sort of view aligns well with whatever
version of theism you think is most plausible or attractive, whether or not you endorse it. Also, in
addition to Plantinga, see Koperski for some ideas about relevant alternatives.)
10. What is transhumanism? Drawing on O’Connell’s book (and perhaps also on Chalmers’s
piece on the singularity), assess transhumanism as a whole or some particular manifestation or
aspect of transhumanism (e.g., some particular goal, whether radical life extension or mind
uploading; or perhaps the means by which some such goal is being pursued). Whatever the scope
of your evaluation, consider at least one consideration that might be offered by someone whose
evaluation of transhumanism is very different than your own.
11. Consider the following two passages:
“Both our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox
Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecologic crisis can be expected
from them alone. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must
also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not. We must rethink and refeel our
nature and destiny.”
Lynn White, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”
The way Lackner sees things, the key to avoiding “deep trouble” is thinking differently.
“We need to change the paradigm,” he told me. Carbon dioxide, in his view, should be
regarded much the same way we look at sewage. We don’t expect people to stop
producing waste. “Rewarding people for going to the bathroom less would be
nonsensical,” Lackner has observed. At the same time, we don’t let them shit on the
sidewalk. One of the reasons we’ve had such trouble addressing the carbon problem, he
contends, is the issue has acquired an ethical charge. To the extent that emissions are seen
as bad, emitters become guilty. “Such a moral stance makes virtually everyone a sinner
and makes hypocrites out of many who are concerned about climate change but still
partake in the benefits of modernity,” he has written. Shifting the paradigm, he thinks,
will shift the conversation. Yes, people have fundamentally altered the atmosphere. And,
yes, this is likely to lead to all sorts of dreadful consequences. But people are ingenious.
They come up with crazy, big ideas, and sometimes these actually work.
Elizabeth Kolbert, Under a White Sky (pp. 152-153). (Quoting Klaus Lackner,
founder of the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions.)
How do you evaluate the (apparently) contrary outlooks and sensibilities expressed in these two
passages? Explain the reasons behind your view.
12. Explain a question that you had never thought to ask but grips you as important and worthy
of further exploration in the scope of science and religion, etc. (pick one from Alvin Plantinga’s
argument between science and religion)
