1
Q
1a) State your view of divine action (6)
A
- Personal Interventionism — NO
- Personal Providentialism — NO
- Cosmological Interventionism in Origins — NO
- Cosmological Interventionism in Operations (eg, retrograde planetary motion) — NO
- Cosmological Providentialism in Origins — NO
- Cosmological Providentialism in Operations — NO
2
Q
1b) Defend your view of divine action (4)
A
- There are better explanations for what divine action “explains”
- Explaining coincidences using god is a convenient explanation, but does not provide evidence for him
- We explained retrograde planetary motion with science
- Saying god created through evolution is not necessary
3
Q
2a) State your definition of religion (6)
A
- Tremmel’s definition of religion (psychological process)
- Elements of Smart’s definition too (must contain some kind of ritual, further must be organized to a degree)
- I do NOT agree with the belief that any metaphysic is a religion (I strongly disagree when people say that being an atheist is some form of religion)
4
Q
2b) Defend your definition of religion (4)
A
- Evidence suggesting religion is an evolutionary byproduct (genes or memes)
- In my mind, atheism is as much a religion as abstinence is a sex position or bald is a hair colour
- If someone were to argue that atheism is a religion because they believe that any metaphysic is a religion though, I admit that that is LOGICALLY CONSISTENT
5
Q
2c) State your personal worldview (1)
A
Dysteleological atheist
6
Q
2d) Give your strongest reason for your personal worldview (1)
A
- There is no evidence for God and no need for him in our explanations of the world
7
Q
2e) Give your greatest weakness/fear for your personal worldview (1)
A
- The idea that your dead loved ones are all waiting for you in heaven certainly seems nice, albeit pretty unbelievable
8
Q
3a) State your definition of science (6)
A
- Science is physical, empirical, historically conditioned, and makes use of the scientific method
- It leads to metaphysical thinking, but is distinct from it
- Science only accepts as truth what there is evidence for
- Separate from religion
9
Q
3b) Defend your definition of science (4)
A
- physical b/c no evidence for anything except the physical world (assumes realism)
- historically conditioned b/c it has changed so much over the centuries (Babylonian science compared to science now)
- Sci and rel separate b/c a main component of religion is faith and belief in phenomenon for which there is no empirical evidence
- Eye witness accounts in the bible are not a legitimate source of evidence
10
Q
4a) State your model of the relationship between science and religion (8)
A
- Conflict (H) - yes
- Contrast (H) - no
- Contact (H) - no
- Confirmation (H) - no
- Conflict (B) - yes
- Independence (B) - no
- Dialogue (B) - no
- Integration (B) - no
11
Q
4b) State your thesis statement (1 sentence only) for your personal view of the relationship between science and religion (1)
A
- Religion’s requirement for faith in things for which there is no evidence is fundamentally opposed to the empirical values of science.
12
Q
4c) Defend your personal view of the relationship between science and religion (4)
A
- 90% of the Royal Society are not religious
- Faith = religion, blind belief in something based on what others have told you is not the scientific method
- argument to be made: we would be a much more scientifically advanced society if religion had not had such political power for so long
- Religious beliefs are often opposed to scientific discoveries — this can lead to bias
13
Q
5a) State your view of intelligent design (6)
A
- I do not believe in any form of intelligent design.
- I believe in “nothing but” evolution
- I align with Dawkins
- Draw diagram of dotted line between “engineered character” and “artistic character” (triangle in the middle representing that both are included in the illusion of design
14
Q
5b) Defend your view of intelligent design (4)
A
- Authority argument — Dawkins
- God is superfluous in an explanation that works without him
- It’s okay to embrace “We don’t know”
- Just because we don’t seem to be wired to understand Darwinism is not an argument that there must be more
15
Q
6) Write a letter to a young earth creationist and use Galileo’s views on science and religion in order to assist this person to realize that it is possible to accept both biological evolution and Christian faith (15)
A
- Galileo was a Christian as well
- He was using what we call hermeneutics
- Message incident principle, accommodation
- Galileo believed that we can use our understanding of the world to better interpret scripture
- “The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, and not how heaven goes.”
- Two books model
- They must go hand in hand
- We cannot deny the physical realities of our world — if we believe them to be god’s work, then they must be as true as scripture, and we can reinterpret scripture more easily than the world around us
- “Scripture’s intention is salvation, not science”
16
Q
7a) List insights from the history of geology and the biblical flood that you find are important for understanding of the relationship between science and religion (3)
A
- Flood accounts exist all over the world in ancient communities in regions susceptible to flooding
- The sequential order of strata
- Archeological evidence of the Hebrews appearing in the ANE
17
Q
7b) Defend why the insights in 7a are important to you (3)
A
- Worldwide flood accounts are not accounts of Noah’s worldwide flood, just due to the common experience of floods around the world
- The layers are never out of sequence, they would be haphazard and random if a worldwide flood had happened
- A small, new tribe among larger communities would likely adopt their legends and reinterpret them
18
Q
7c) State your interpretation of the biblical flood (1)
A
- It was recycled and reinterpreted
19
Q
7d) Defend your interpretation of the flood (3)
A
- ANE literature like Gilgamesh suggests that that culture already had a flood account
- A small tribe (Israel) takes from the large cultures around it, not vice versa
- Destructive floods would have been perceived by ancient people as judgements from god, survivors tell stories, stories become ingrained in the culture
20
Q
7e) State your view on whether or not Gen 6-9 is made up of different sources (1)
A
- It is made up of different sources
21
Q
7f) Defend your view of whether or not Gen 6-9 is made up of different sources (3)
A
- The reassembled P and J make sense on their own
- P flood and P creation — the language is the same
- J flood and J creation — they’re the same
- The conflicts of events — times don’t match up
22
Q
7g) State your view on whether Noah was real (1)
A
Nah
23
Q
7h) Defend your view on whether or not Noah was a real person (3)
A
- I don’t believe God is real, so by extension I don’t believe he chose anyone (someone made this up/reinterpreted another story)
- He is the result of thousands of years of oral tradition and written translations — easily morphs a potentially real person into what he is now thought of as
- There is no concrete evidence for his existence, so I choose to believe that he did not
24
Q
8) Write a letter to Dawkins regarding his well-known statement that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Make use of Darwin’s actual scientific and religious views. (Outline Darwin’s religious views) (15)
A
- use of “Darwinism” is a misnomer
- Darwin was not not a dysteleological atheist
- For much of Darwin’s early life, he was a theist
- Darwin may not have fully grasped these beliefs; may have simply inherited them from the culture at the time
- Darwin was influenced by the likes of William Paley
- Later in life, he was known to reject the Bible as well as the concept of miracles
- But he said he was never an atheist in the sense of denying God
- In his autobiography he defines himself as an agnostic
- The Horrid Doubt Problem (how can the mind of a human be trusted to make grand conclusions?)
- While it is tempting to claim a mind like Darwin as an atheist, doing so is historically inaccurate
25
9a) List your foundational hermeneutical principles for interpreting Gen 1-11 (6)
* Message incidence principle
* Accommodation
* Different literary genre
* Literalism
* Scope of cognitive competence
* Combo of P and J sources
26
9b) * Defend your foundational hermeneutical principles for interpreting Gen 1-11 (4)
* Can’t take it literally because scientifically inaccurate
* The redactor tried to historicized P and J
* When viewed as a different genre, the message of faith can be separated from the incidental history
27
9d) Defend your interpretation of the creation week in Gen 1 (3)
* No evidence for a literal week of creation; overwhelming evidence for evolution of life
* Theories of planetary creation make sense scientifically
* Gen 1 is a convenient answer to an etiological question
28
9e) State your interpretation of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve (1)
Allegory
29
9f) Defend your interpretation of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve (3)
* Convenient answer to etiological questions (how did we get here? why is there evil?)
* Scientifically inaccurate
* Different literary genre than the rest of the Bible
30
9g) State your interpretation of the genealogies in Gen 4, 5, 10, and 11 and the Tables of Nations in Gen 10 (1)
* Not historically accurate except for maybe Gen 11 genealogy.
* Possible to difficult to tell
31
9h) Defend your interpretation of the Genealogies in Gen 4, 5, 10, 11 and the Table of Nations in Gen 10 (3)
* Stylistic numbers used — real genealogies do not unfold symmetrically
* IF Abraham was real, it stands to reason that some others in his genealogy may also have been real
* Because it is largely retrojective and based on oral accounts, it may not be entirely accurate
32
10a) State your view of origins (1)
Dysteleological origins
33
10b) Defend your view of origins (3)
* Scientific concordism does not work
* No evidence for God
* Lots of dysteleological scientists
* There are scientifically viable theories for origins — God is not necessary
34
10c) State your view of human origins (1)
* Dysteleological evolution
35
10d) Defend your view of human origins (3)
* Overwhelming evidence for evolution
* Scientific concordism fails
* Evolution is a simple, parsimonious explanation
* God is not a necessary part of the equation — no evidence for him
36
10e) State your view of the Cosmic Fall (1)
Not a real historic event
37
10f) Defend your view of the Cosmic Fall (3)
* Almost all origins accounts have a Lost Idyllic age motif
* Adam and Eve were almost definitely not real people
* I do not believe sin is any more than a label for certain actions determined by humans, lest it be something that can be passed down through generations
38
10g) State your view of the Doctrine of Original Sin (1)
I don’t believe in it
39
10h) Defend your view of the Doctrine of Original Sin (3)
* Doesn’t make sense historically — Adam is a retrojective conclusion of the immutability of living organisms
* Doesn’t make sense scientifically — doesn’t work with evolution (there was no “first human”)
* Makes more sense that it was just an allegory to get people to join the religion
40
10i) State your view of whether Adam was a real person (1)
Nope
41
10j) Defend your view about Adam (3)
* He was the result of ancient taxonomy - the belief that living organisms were immutable
* There was no “first human,” we know that species evolve and we know that humans evolved too
* Genesis 1-11 is not historically concordant
* He was more likely an incident that got caught up in the spiritual message of scripture
42
11a) State your view on the problem of evil (4)
* No such thing
* The notion is created by humans, as are most of the actions
* If there were a God, his unwillingness/inability to stop evil would stop me from worshipping him
* Just because we can find a silver lining to negative events does not necessarily mean that their happening is a net gain
43
11b) Defend your view on the problem of evil (6)
* The universe exhibits the properties we would expect if there was nothing but pointless indifference
* Rationalizing evil so that God can still be good
* There is no silver lining to some things — e.g., the death of millions from cancer or malaria does not justify advancement in medicine
* A lot of evil exists because of our actions, but a lot is random
* A god that allows child trafficking is no god I want to believe in
CHRTC 350
flashcards
Decks in class (3)
# Cards
