1. To what extent would you consider yourself a friend or foe of science? Are you consistent? For example, do you think of mathematicians and scientists as some of the smartest people and yet tend to reject what they say?
2. In practice, what, if any, distinction do you make between the actions of God in the world and natural "laws" such as gravity and friction? Do you think God is pulling all the strings, even the ones scientists have captured as mathematical laws, or has God created the world to a large extent to run on its own without direct involvement? Give reasons for your opinion.
3. If you had to peg yourself as a materialist, idealist, or dualist, which one would pick? Do we really have any way of picking between these options, or would you agree with those who say we have no way of knowing what ultimate reality is?
4. Of the three - commonsense realism, pragmatic realism, and critical realism- which do you find most attractive and why?
1. What is the author's definition of myth? In that light, do you agree or disagree that scientific theories are a kind of very detailed myth? Why or why not?
2. To what extent do you agree with Kuhn that science is as much about social movements and personalities as about truth? Explain.
3. Do you think a theory needs to be verifiable or falsifiable to be meaningful?
4. Do you think that evolution and Christianity are potentially compatible? Why or why not? What about process theology or pantheism? Why or why not? What do you think are the bottom-line Christian beliefs on the issues of creation? Explain.
5. Evaluate the author's proposal for critical- realistic hermeneutic. With what points do you agree or disagree and why?
1. On them in this chapter is the degree to which we can correlate thinking, emotions, the will, memory, personality, even spiritual experiences to particular regions of the brain. Alzheimer's disease and physical accidents can fundamentally change all of these faculties, showing a strong connection between our brains and these functions that since Descartes have often been attributed to the soul. In this light, what role do you think the soul might play in human personhood? Do you think belief in a detachable soul is an essential Christian belief? What do you believe about the resurrection of our bodies and how would you relate this event to the human soul?
2. What aspects of the way you think about yourself and others around you come from your cultural and family background? How distinct would you say your sense of yourself is from that of those around you? Take into consideration the fact that we can also create ourselves as a kind of "anti-self" to those around us; here our context is still creating us, only in reverse. What legitimate role, if any, might stereotype or prejudging play in our sense of ourselves and others? 3. What do you make of existentialism? To what extent would you say this movement that emphasized choice influenced the spirit of the late twentieth century---or is existentialism itself a reflection of a broader zeitgeist? To what extent would you say that contemporary atheists are unaware of the meaninglessness and nonexistence of moral norms that seem to follow logically from their position?
4. What do you make of the shifts that flowed inadvertently from Descartes' "Copernican revolution" in which he turned the focus of truth from "out there" to inside our heads? Do you think the impact of this inward turn can be avoided, once the issue of certainty is questioned? Do some research on the many voices out there that currently decry Descartes?