For some of you, it will be difficult to do everything you want to do in only 5-6 pages -- but that is part of the assignment. You may want to plan out the exam before you write it: Create an outline. Determine how much space you have for each section. Be concise. Decide what is most important.
Question # 1. The Fine-Tuning Argument in Defense of God's Existence (2-3 pages)
Present the "Fine-Tuning Argument" in defense of God's existence, making the premises and conclusion clear. Explain in detail precisely what it is about the universe that is supposed to be "fine-tuned." Take the position of the defender of the argument and do your best to make this argument seem compelling. What is so ununsual about the existence of a "fine-tuned" universe that one might think you need God to explain it? Next, take the position of a critic of this argument. Naturalists reject this argument and most argue that "Premise 4: The fine-tuning of the universe could not have arisen by chance" is false. Discuss the "Multiverse Hypothesis" objection and one of the other two objections -- pick the one that you think is the most convincing objection. Explain clearly both of the objections that you are discussing, and try to make each into a compelling case that the existence of a fine-tuned universe does not need to be explained by the existence of a divine creator. For this question it is important that you discuss BOTH the article on the fine-tuning argument and all of the videos labeled "Arg Design" in the Resources/Video section. Finally, give your OWN position on this argument. Do you think it DOES or DOES NOT provide substantive evidence in support of the truth of theism? Why do you think so? Be sure your answer includes an evaluation of both the fine-tuning argument AND the objections that you considered to the argument. Explain.
Question #2. The Place of Ontology in Worldviews: Geertz vs. Bultmann (2-3 pages)
"The number of such synthesizing symbols is limited in any culture, and though in theory we might think that a people could construct a wholly autonomous value system independent of any metaphysical referent, an ethics without ontology, we do not in fact seem to have found such a people." Clifford Geertz
In the study of worldviews, we have seen that our theory about the ultimate nature of reality - about what really exists (what we call "ontology" or "metaphysics") - undergirds and justifies how we treat other people ("ethics" or our "moral principles") and it informs and makes sense of our whole way of life (what "rituals" we perform, the "ethos" and "aesthetic" character of our lives, the "symbols" that inspire us). The "myths" of our worldview are those rich, compelling stories that reveal ultimate truths about reality ("ontology"). In the quote above, Geertz seems to suggest that ontology is the foundation upon which all the other elements are built. If that is true, then he seems to be saying that if people stopped believing the ontological theories about the nature of reality, then they would no longer be motivated to obey the ethical principles, the symbols would no longer have any deep meaning for them, and they would stop performing the rituals because they would become empty of meaning as the mythical stories from would be rejected as false.
Rudolf Bultmann, an ordained Lutheran pastor and famous theologian of the first half of the 20th century, provides an interesting case to consider in light of Geertz's remarks. Bultmann rejects many of the central ontological claims of Christianity. In particular, he rejects all of the claims of miracles in the Bible, including all of the miracles attributed to Jesus (walking on the water, feeding the 5000, raising Lazarus from the dead, etc.). Most centrally, he rejects the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and his ascension into heaven. Bultmann still believes in God - so that part of the Christian ontology remains. But he denies the divinity of Jesus and he re-interprets the role of Jesus in the solving the "human dilemma" -- Jesus no longer "pay the price for human sin" but he is only an inspiration for living an "authentic" human life.
You are to do the following:
1. In your own words, explain Geertz's position on the relationship between ontology (what he sometimes calls "worldview") and the other elements like ethics, ethos, myth, symbols, etc. How are they interconnected? How does ontology support and ground the other elements?
2. Rudolf Bultmann's version of Christianity is to abandon much of the Christian ontology, but to keep the ethics, ethos, rituals, and symbols. Explain Bultmann's worldview including his "existentialist" interpretation of what it means to say "Jesus rose from the dead" on Easter Sunday and what it means to say he "ascended into heaven." To help understand this "existentialist" interpretation be sure to focus on the short handout with quotes from Norman Perrin (who is committed to Bultmann's position and trying to explain it). Another helpful example of an "existentialist" approach is found in the handout of quotes from D.Z. Phillips that we discussed in class.Try to explain this existentialist way of being a Christian.
3. Does Bultmann prove that Geertz is wrong? Does the existence of churches with a theology similar to Bultmann's demonstrate that it IS possible to have ethics-symbols-myths-rituals-ethos without an ontology to ground it? Give reasons to support both a "Yes" and "No" answer to that question. Then give your own view. To what extent do you think Geertz is right or wrong? Your answer is not likely to be a simple "yes" or "no" regarding the truth of Geertz's claim. The question we are really asking is to what extent is it psychologically possible for most people to be passionately commited to the myths, rituals, symbols and ethics of a worldview but to believe that the ontology on which it was originally built is simply false. It is obviously possible for some people to give up the ontolgy but to be actively committed to the rest of the worldview -- Bultmann, Perrin and Phillips have apparently done it. And the new reading for this assignment -- the New York TImes blog with Gary Gutting interviewing himself (g.g. asks questions of G.G.) -- has a professor at Notre Dame (the country's most famous Catholic University) who may fit this description as well -- a practicing Catholic who doesn't believe in God (he is an agnostic). On the other hand, it is not possible for everyone, or even most people. Explain why you think this would be very difficult or impossible for many people to do? Do you think you might be able to do it? Have you already done it? NOTE: It is important that you not interpret the question as asking whether someone should or ought-to have a worldview without an ontology. You are not to make a moral judgment about whether it is right or wrong to do such a thing. Only about the psychological challenges to doing it.