God, Physics and the Human Prospect
Final Exam 2017
N202, April 21, 6:00 - 8:30 pm

 

The final exam will consist of two parts:

  1. a short answer part based on ideas developed in the course and in McGrath's text Science and Religion as well as Midgley and others.
  2. an essay based on your choice of one of the following questions

You will have 2.5 hours to complete the exam.

God, Physics and the Human Prospect

Final Exam 2017 Essay Questions

 

Part 2: Essay Questions

 

Please choose ONE of the following THREE essay questions to respond to in the booklet provided. Specific and abundant reference to course materials—readings, lectures, discussion—is important in your response.You have a maximum of 2.5 hours to complete the exam (including the first short answer part) so manage your time accordingly! 

  1. Consider the following two claims (from different sources). Drawing on a wide range of  material from this course (lectures, textbooks, essays, handouts) discuss these two claims in relation to that material, in relation to one another, and ultimately in relation to your own understanding of God, theology, and science as it has been shaped by this course.

    1. “The pathos of modern theology is its false humility. For theology, this must be a fatal disease… If theology no longer seeks to position, qualify or criticize other discourses [e.g., scientific, sociological], then it is inevitable that these discourses will position theology; for the necessity of an ultimate organizing logic…cannot be wished away.”
    2. “There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Science is the discourse of truth; it describes the real world as it is. Religions supply that world with human meanings.”
  1. Merely to talk about science and religion may inadvertently legitimize the myth that these are two monolithic entities crashing into each other. “Oh, but they are knowledge-producing institutions, battling to describe ultimate reality”  some say. What is your reasoned response to these two statements? What are the valid points of each statement but what are other ways to understand this “religion and science” thing? You may draw on Midgely, social science, theology, Dawkins, Barbour and McGrath to discuss.
 

  1. The American philosopher Alvin Plantinga asserts that "there is a superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion and a superficial concord but deep conflict between naturalism and science". What does Plantinga mean by that and how could you use this assertion to help explain why it makes perfectly good sense for Christians to be engaged in science. (Note: Mdigley may help you here but you would be well served to check out Plantinga.)