1. Map out and critique the evolution of Greek thought from Plato through the Late Middle Ages. Comment on and provide a critical analysis of the impact of Greek philosophy and science on both early modern science and the Medieval Church.
2. Analyze in broad terms the similarities and differences between the modern and the post-modern worldviews. Be certain to include specific examples of the similarities and differences.
3. Discuss and comment on the SR and the impact that it had on (1) the Church and (2) the philosophy of modern European culture.
4. Analyze the argument that science and religion are “complementary.” Include an analysis of faith versus reason and why/how these two ideas came to be identified as two different “roads to reality.”
5. Explain in detail what Tarnas means by the “ self critique of the modern mind.”� What is the role of the SR in this “critique?” Be specific.
6. How does the “ philosophical revolution” of the early 17th century inform and foster the SR? What is the role of both ancient and “ modern” astronomy in the development of the philosophical revolution? Be specific.
7. What is the “ crisis of modern science?” How and why did “religion and metaphysics [continue] their long and slow decline?” What is the role of Romanticism in the crisis of modern science?
In general, be certain to quote numerous specific passages in your essay to support whatever analysis or argument you are making. Since you need only refer to the Tarnas, you may simply place a page number in parentheses after the quote.
15-13; excellent work: outstanding comprehension of the subject matter, very well organized, logical arguments, well cited examples and evidence to support claims, sophisticated language, no grammar errors;
12-9; good work: very good comprehension of the subject matter, organized and most arguments are logical, some properly cited examples to support the claims, well chosen language, minor grammar errors;
8-5; average work: some familiarity of the subject matter but important key issues are missing, some gaps in organization and logical argumentation, just few relevant examples to support the claim, general or vague language, grammar errors which detract from the overall quality of the paper;
4-1; poor work: very little familiarity with the subject, confusion with the key concepts, serious gaps in organization and logical argumentation (ex. self- contradictory); generalities, no examples to support the claim, general and stilted language, serious grammar errors;
0; plagiarism or no familiarity of the subject;