Lectures: Tuesday/Thursday; 2:00-3:15 Teasley Lecture Hall
Professors: Dr. Chris De Pree Dr. Mark Douglas
Agnes Scott College Columbia Theological Seminary
(404) 471-6266 (404) 687-4650
cdepree@agnesscott.edu DouglasM@ctsnet.edu
Office Hours: Tues 1-2 PM Tues/Thurs 3:30 – 4:30 PM
Wed 11 AM – 12 PM or by appointment
or by appointment
Course Description: The sciences and the Christian tradition provide narratives about the end of the world. Yet how do these narratives relate? How do we evaluate them? And what are the implications of the narratives for the way we live and think today? This course, taught by a professor of astrophysics and a professor of religious ethics and offered jointly by Agnes Scott College and Columbia Theological Seminary, takes up those critical questions and provides students from both schools with opportunities to study widely, think critically, and learn respectfully in a cross-disciplinary setting. To encourage imaginative thinking, sources of study for the course will be a combination of speculative fiction novels, movies, and selections from other books and articles (to be made available in a course packet and on Angel or BlackBoard).
Required Texts: Recommended Texts:
Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything David Grinspoon, Lonely Planets
Orson Scott Card, Ender’s Game Alan Weisman, The World Without Us
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Cormack McCarthy, The Road
Mary Doria Russell, The Sparrow
Various Authors, Reader Packet (see below)
(additional texts for CTS Students):
Paul S. Fiddes, The Promised End Kelton Cobb, Theology and Popular Culture
Hans W. Frei, Types of Christian Theology
Movies:
12 Monkeys
Deep Impact (All movies are on reserve at both ASC and CTS.
A.I. Each movie will also be available for screening at
Sunshine 1:00 p.m. on the Monday of the week the movie
The Matrix will be discussed)
Science, Religion, and the End of the World
AST 150 (ASC) and HD 675a (CTS)
Fall, 2008
Requirements:
1. Attendance and participation. This class is driven by weekly discussions about readings, lectures, and movies. The livelier the discussion, the better the class. (15% of grade)
2. Reflection papers. Over the course of the semester, you will turn in six brief (2-3 page) reflection papers on topics described in the syllabus below. (35% of grade)
3. Journal on speculative fiction readings and movies. These journals will be used to generate questions and ideas throughout the semester. (15% of grade)
4. Final project. Students will work in groups of 3-4 to prepare a final project with an associated oral presentation to the class. Each group will include both ASC and CTS students. These groups will be arranged on November 6. Details will be forthcoming in a detailed project assignment. Projects should show evidence of critical and appreciative engagement with the required texts. Creativity is encouraged for both the project and the presentation. (35% of grade)
Course Packet Contents (in order of their appearance in the syllabus)
Walter M. Miller, A Canticle for Leibowitz (Bantam, 2007), 190-197.
Gregory Benford, Deep Time (Harper Perennial, 2000), 1-29.
Robert John Russell and Kirk Wegter-McNelly, “Science,” The Blackwell Companion to Modern
Theology (Blackwell, 2004), 512-556.
The Bible (NRSV), various passages
Richard Mouw and Ted Peters, “Where Are We Going? Eschatology” in Essentials of Christian
Theology, ed. by William C. Placher (Westminster-John Knox Press, 2003), 329-365.
Paul Boyer, “The Foreordained Future: Apocalyptic Thought in the Abrahamic Religions,” The
Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary Society 10.1 (Spring, 2008), 60-75.
Krishan Kumar, “Utopia on the Map of the World,” The Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on
Contemporary Society 10.1 (Spring, 2008), 7-18.
Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, The Life and Death of Planet Earth (Holt, 2004), 11-24.
Albert Borgmann, “On the Blessings of Calamity and the Burdens of Good Fortune,” The
Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary Society 4.3 (Fall, 2002), 7-24.
Langdon Winner, “Are Humans Obsolete?” The Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on
Contemporary Society 4.3 (Fall, 2002), 25-44.
Science, Religion, and the End of the World
AST 150 (ASC) and HD 675a (CTS)
Fall, 2008
Date Topic Readings/Movies
Part I: Introductions
August 28: Introduction to class none
What is Theology?
Sept. 2, 4: Further introductions Miller (packet)
(T) Time, Distance, & Size in Astronomical Context Bryson, 9-78
(Th) Theological Interpretations of Culture Benford (packet)
Reflection Paper #1, due Sept. 4: Complete (and then expand on) the following sentence:
“I chose to take this course because . . .”
Part II: The End of the World
Sept. 9, 11: (T) End of the World Scenarios Card, Ender’s Game
(Th) Scientific and Theological Narratives Scripture (packet)
Sept. 16, 18: (T) Theologies of Science 12 Monkeys
(Th) The Life and Death of Planet Earth (I) Russell and Wegter (packet)
Bryson, 189-235
Reflection Paper #2, due Sept. 18: You are sitting around with a group of friends in a coffee house one day and get into a conversation about belief. One of them, whom you don’t know especially well, says, “The Bible is an archaic book written by people who didn’t understand the way the world really works. Science has taught us better. Instead of reading old books, we should be reading the latest editions of Science magazine.” How might you respond to that friend?
Sept. 23, 25: Utopias, Dystopias, and their Purposes McCormack, The Road
The Life and Death of Planet Earth (II)
Sept. 30, Oct. 2: Apocalypse and Eschaton (I) Deep Impact
Probabilities and the End of the World Skim Kumar (packet)
Oct. 7, 9: Apocalyptic and Eschaton (II) Mouw and Peters (packet)
Sources of Nuclear Winter Boyer (packet)
Ward and Brownlee (packet)
Reflection Paper #3, due Oct. 9: We’ve all seen cartoons of a wild-haired man carrying a sign that reads,
“The End of the World is Coming! If you were to carry such a sign, what would it say?
And why would it say that?
Oct. 14: Reflections Only Half-Way to the End
Oct. 16: Fall Break for ASC Students.
CTS Students meet to discuss Frei, Types of Christian Theology (location T.B.D.)
Science, Religion, and the End of the World
AST 150 (ASC) and HD 675a (CTS)
Fall, 2008
Date Topic Readings/Movies
Part III: The End of Humanity
Oct. 21, 23: Theological Anthropologies (I) Dick, Do Androids Dream . . .
The World Without Us
Reflection Paper #4, due Oct. 23: Answer the following questions: What are people like?
And what authorities do you rely on to help you answer that question?
Oct. 28, 30: Theological Anthropologies (II) A.I.
A.I. and the End of Humanity Bryson, 335-349; 469-478
Borgmann (packet)
Winner (packet)
Nov. 4, 6: Providence and Fate Sunshine
The Anthropic Principle
Reflection Paper #5, due Nov. 6: Answer the following question:
Is the universe essentially friendly or hostile to human beings?
Nov. 11, 13: Theodicy, Tragedy, and Hope Russell, The Sparrow
Does the Universe Need Humans?
Nov. 18, 20: What Happens After We Die? The Matrix
Summing Up
Reflection Paper #6, due Nov. 20: Complete (and expand on) the following two sentences:
Before I started this semester, these were my questions:
As we approach the semester’s end, these are my new questions:
Part IV: Reflections and Presentations
Nov. 25: Summing Up
CTS Students meet to discuss Fiddes, The Promised End (Time and Location T.B.D.)
Nov. 27: Thanksgiving Break
Dec. 2, 4, 9: Student Presentations
Dec. 11: Reflections at the End of the Class and Evaluations
Hints, Tips, and Rules for a Good Class at CTS
(for CTS Students only)
Almost by definition, classes taught by an ethicist deal with issues about which there is substantive disagreement. That is to say, if everyone agreed about an issue, we wouldn’t be discussing it here. Thus, we all need to keep several points in mind as we communicate with each other in this class. Among these are:
1. We are unified in Christ, not in opinion. There is no special reason to think that we all must agree on an issue in order to be part of Christ’s church. Christians have been disagreeing with each other at least since Peter and Paul, and there is no reason to think that will change this side of eternity. In fact, as a general rule of thumb we ought to be suspicious about any issue about which we all agree. When all heads nod in the same way, we are either exerting illegitimate control over other persons’ heads or we have stopped using our own.
2. Disagreement can be many things: intellectual, heated, productive, mild, etc. Our burden is to keep it from being destructive or splintering. Toward that end, there are three rules for disagreement within this class:
a. Always remember that the person with whom you disagree is, like you, a finite creature created in the image of God who is no more or less likely to sin than you and no more or less capable of being redeemed than you. Demonizing others based on their positions is disrespectful to persons, contrary to the Christian faith, and simply in poor taste.
b. You should be able to state your opponent’s position so clearly and fairly that your opponent would say, “Yes, that is what I mean.” Only then can you rightly give a critique of that position.
c. You have the responsibility of following your thought through to its logical conclusions. If you don’t like those conclusions, back up, figure out where you went wrong, and then either clarify or qualify your thought accordingly.
3. Although the Holy Spirit is not necessarily hindered by grammatical error, we who have the privilege of formal theological education bear the responsibility of learning how to communicate clearly and correctly. For that reason, grammar will be graded on all written work. If you are worried about the quality of your writing, I recommend a trip to the writing center and/or the use of Strunk and White’s Elements of Style.
4. The seminary position regarding inclusive language is as follows:
All members of the seminary community are expected to use inclusive language in classroom lectures and discussions, in written work, in seminary publications and official statements, and in seminary worship. While this policy expresses the expectations of the seminary, the use of inclusive language will not be a factor in the grading of students or in any person’s acceptance by the community.
The Basic Degree Student Handbook, 58.
This position will be maintained in class. However, I will grade those instances where
the generic use of gendered nouns and pronouns results in imprecise expression as
grammatical errors (e.g., use of “man” when you mean both men and women).
Likewise, instances of awkwardly employed inclusive language will be marked as
grammatical errors (e.g., improper use of the plural, gender-neutral pronoun “their” to
avoid writing “his” or “hers” when your subject is singular).
5. There are few greater joys in life than sharing in theological conversation with colleagues, and few more important conversations than those about the way we ought to live. This class can be filled with both types of conversation. Revel in it.