At five points in the course you will be asked to hand in a one-page single-spaced critique of one or more of the chapters in Haught's book, Science and Religion.   See the course calendar for the due dates for each of these. Each is worth up to 20 points.  The same is true of a critique of Hume and Geisler. See below for instructions on this.)

Basic assignment:

In each critique, rank the four positions -- conflict, contrast, contact, and confirmation -- and give a good explanation for your ranking (see below for special instruction on Hume-Geisler). 

Summary of Connections between critiques and sections of the Reader:
    Section One:  Method.  Haught, Ch. 1.
    Section Two:  God.   Haught, Ch. 2.
    Section Three:  Miracles.  Reading from Hume & Geisler. (See instructions below)
    Section Four:  Cosmos.  Haught, Chs. 5 & 6.
    Section Five:  Evolution.  Haught, Ch. 3.

Guidelines on how to do this well:
         You need not give equal time to each of the four positions.  The positions at the top and bottom of your rankings, for example, may evoke from you fuller analyses or response than the other two.  But do give some brief evaluation of the strengths or weaknesses of each of the positions, within the limits imposed by the single-page requirement.
        The purpose of these critiques is to provide evidence that you have read and understood the chapters, and are thereby prepared to enter into intelligent and informed discussion on the topics.  Say enough to show this clearly and you have 20 points for the assignment.
        On assignments that include more than one chapter, you can condense your answer by referring to positions you have taken on previous critiques.  In that case, please attach the graded copy of your previous critiques to the current one.  In the case of the critique that covers chs 5 & 6 you do not have to give separate answers for each of the chapters but can blend the content of those chapters a bit. 

Length
As the calendar indicates, one single-spaced page is sufficient. (Exception:  for the critique on chs. 5 & 6 you may need more space, up to two pages.)  You can use 10 point type (preferably Ariel in that case for ease of reading) to help get it all on one page, or you can set the top and bottom margins to .8 each if you want more room.  But please make the side margins one full inch each (Word sometimes uses 1.25 as the default for left and right margins).

Two-page Critique on pp. 67-68 of the Reader, and on the Hume & Geisler readings, due Mon. Oct. 1.
I would like you to use this critique assignment to mull over two pages worth of background on miracles to use as a test of your reading of Hume and Geisler. Here are the questions on pp. 67-68.

A review of Reader, pp. 67-68.    This includes:
1. Explaining which form of miracles you find reasonable to believe in, of the 6 on p. 67-68 – and WHY – and which not.
2. Selecting one or more of the beliefs in the middle of p. 68 which you do not believe in–explaining WHY.
3. Stating which of the miracles listed in the middle of p. 68 you find plausible and which not – and WHY.
4. Then go back over your answers and identify explicitly any of your conclusions or beliefs that conflict in some way with “cosmological naturalism.”

A critique of Hume's analysis of the credibility of miracles and of Geisler's response.
5.  First identify the brief reason Hume gives why miracles are not easily believable in any case.
6.  Then summarize Hume's reasons why testimony to miracles -- i.e., reports about miracles made by others -- are probably not reliable.
7.  Summarize Geisler's response to Hume
8.  Briefly state which points by Hume and Geisler make sense to you and why.