Religion final
Style | APA |
Number of words | 1162 |
Number of sources | 0 |
Spacing | Double |
PowerPoint slides | 0 |
Final Exam
Long Answer. Respond to question 13, and then choose two others. Please be sure to answer each question fully (aim for three paragraphs or more for each question.) Check your grammar, spelling, and syntax before submission.
1. What is the “Transcendent”? Please describe and discuss two of the three signs of the transcendent which Albl mentions. What are some objections to the notion of transcendence? What is your position regarding the existence of the transcendent? Please list the reasons for your position.
2. What is Aquinas’s definition of faith? Please also explain the rationalist and materialist understandings of faith. Which of these conceptions of faith is more compelling to you and why? How does your position relate to the concept of transcendence?
3. What is theology? What does it mean to call theology a science? Is this designation legitimate? Why or why not?
4. Can one know if God exists? Why or why not? Please list two rational arguments (i.e., arguments that do not appeal to authority) for this conclusion. What objections might be raised against these arguments? If you disagree with the conclusion the arguments come to, please list the premises you think false.
5. Are natural science and theistic faith ultimately compatible? Why or why not? Please discuss the case of the “Big Bang” theory or “Evolutionary” theory. Are these theories compatible with faith? Give the arguments on both sides of this debate and then take a position. Be sure to discuss the Genesis texts.
6. Please discuss the concept of “Revelation.” What are the basic kinds of revelation? Is it rational to believe God has revealed himself? What objections might one raise against the notion of revelation? Are these objections persuasive to you? Why or why not?
7. What does it mean to say that God is a Trinity? Is this belief reasonable? Why or why not? According to All, which analogies can best help us make sense of the doctrine of the Trinity?
8. Explain Christian teaching on human nature. More specifically, does the Catholic Church teach human nature is good? What does it mean by Original sin? Is the body an integral aspect of the person? Also, are human beings superior to animals? Finally, what is your evaluation of this teaching?
9. How do Christians think about the nature of Scripture? What does it mean to say that Scripture is inspired? What does it mean to say to it is inerrant? What are some basic objections against these claims?
10. Is there a difference between the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith? If so, what does this difference amount to? If not, why do biblical scholars make this distinction? Please cite specific examples from class or from the text to make your case.
11. Why does the Catholic Church claim that it is “necessary for salvation”? What does this imply about its relationship to non-Catholic Christians and to non-Christian religions? What is your own evaluation of this claim?
12. Is it reasonable to hold that religious conviction should influence public policy? Why or why not? Whatever position you take you should list the most important objections against your view and answer those objections.
13. The central thesis of this course is that faith and reason are ultimately compatible. The truth (or falsity) of this claim will influence how we think about a whole host of other areas of inquiry— the relationship between religion and natural science, between historical study and religious readings of sacred texts, between faith and politics, and ultimately the relationship between different world religions.
An important secondary claim is that all knowledge is influenced by a tradition and comes to us by means of a tradition. The Enlightenment tradition has taught us to think of faith and reason as ultimately incompatible, departing from the pre-modern tradition (exemplified by St. Thomas) which always held them together without collapsing the distinction between them.
What do you think of these two central theses now that we have had a chance to examine their ramifications in more detail? Do you think these claims are true? Why or why not?