Dr. Alexandru Manafu alexman@yorku.ca  I prefer direct communication over email. If you must email me, then do it from the same email address that's associated with your EClass/ York account.

Office hours: By appointment, 414A Ross South (appointment link on eClass)

This course investigates the extent to which the available scientific evidence supports the materialist view of the world over the theistic one. The questions addressed include: Does the scientific evidence concerning the origin and nature of the Universe, or of life and biological species better support scientific naturalism, or theism? Do the current cosmological models eliminate the need of a transcendent cause of the Universe? Is the Universe fine-tuned for life? Does life exhibit “irreducible complexity”, as the proponents of Intelligent Design have claimed? Do claims of miracles or anomalous psychological processes, as well as religious or mystical experiences (including near-death experiences) pose a theistic challenge to scientific naturalism? Do scientific explanations of religious experience and behaviour pose a naturalistic threat to theism? Are miracles compatible with the laws of nature, particularly with the law of conservation of energy? Is the scientific enterprise committed to, or even compatible with, scientific naturalism? The readings are from the philosophy of science (philosophy of physics, biology, and cognitive science), as well as from scientifically informed philosophy of religion.

Mandatory meetings in person

No textbook. A selection of readings available electronically from the York U library, that will be made freely available on EClass, in pdf.

Participation: 15%

Ten critical reflections on the readings: 10%

Presentation: 15%

Essay outline: 15%

Final essay: 45%

NOTE: The grading scheme will be respected strictly.

Participation involves attendance, but also sharing personal viewpoints, bringing up questions, answering questions, making connections, making observations, and in general being active in the seminar. There will be 12 seminar sessions in total, and you must attend at least 8 to pass the course.

Before every seminar session you will have the opportunity to submit a critical reflection piece (250-500 words) based on that week's readings (or only on one/some of them). In your reflection you must specify on which reading(s) you are referring to. You are free to approach your reflections as you like, but here are some possible questions to consider: What do you think of the ideas or arguments presented in the readings? How did they intersect with your own intuitions, experiences, or questions about the topic? What struck you as persuasive, puzzling, or even unsettling? Did the reading surprise you in any way, or challenge your assumptions? You can also raise an objection to a philosophical idea expressed in the reading; explore some implications of the idea, make connections/comparisons with other ideas, etc. Well-written reflections treat the readings as food for thought and foster personal engagement with the material. Please do not use AI for the reflections, as not only this would be missing the point, but it would be not allowed.

Good or great reflections = 1%. Mediocre = 0.5%. Superficial = 0%.

Late coursework

The presentation is mandatory, and it must take place in person, at the time convened upon. Signing up for a presentation and failing to deliver it at the agreed-upon time will result in losing the presentation marks.

No late critical reflections will be accepted. After you have submitted your critical reflection it is not possible to revise it or to submit another one. Click "submit" only after you have decided you are happy with your work. You can submit a maximum of 10 reflections overall in this course.

Late penalty for essays or essay outlines: 5%/ day.

Seminar in person

By the end of this course, you will:

• Understand and explain the following ideas and interpret their relevance for the naturalism-theism debate: Big-Bang, singularity, multiverse, fine-tuning, irreducible complexity, intelligent design, religious experience and behaviour, miracles and laws of nature, miracles and conservation of energy, etc.
• Analyze, summarize, and critically evaluate scientifically-informed arguments relevant to the naturalism-theism debate, as well as the relevant empirical evidence from cosmology, biology and cognitive science.
• Articulate your own philosophical standpoints and arguments concerning the scientific evidence relevant to naturalism and theism, as well as express them cogently, both orally and in writing.
• Recognize the empirical and philosophical assumptions present in your own beliefs about naturalism and theism, as well as in the beliefs of others; be able to reflect critically on these assumptions, and engage constructively with opposing viewpoints.

Academic Honesty Policy
All essays will be submitted electronically, through eClass, and they will be subjected to a Turnitin plagiarism check.

ANY ESSAY WITH A TURNITIN PLAGIARISM SCORE ABOVE 15% WILL BE INVESTIGATED. Depending on the case, the essay will incur a penalty and/or the Course Director together with the Undergraduate Program Director will open a formal AH (academic honesty) case. Following the investigation of your essay, any point above a 15% Turnitin score will be translated into 5% penalty. For example, an essay with a Turnitin score of 17% will incur a penalty of 10%, so that the new maximum grade for this essay will be 90%. As a result of the AH case that will be opened you risk EXPULSION FROM THE UNIVERSITY.

If your essay has a Turnitin score of 15% or more you can revise your essay and resubmit it, as long as the deadline has not yet passed. Note that the Turnitin system does not generate your similarity scores instantly; sometimes, at least 24 or 48 hours are needed. Therefore, if you want to check your similarity report and then revise and resubmit your essay, the initial submission should be done at least 48 hours before the deadline.

The Turnitin report on the use of AI in your essay will be treated separately. In case you have chosen Option 1 (write your essay without AI assistance, see Course Policy on AI below) and Turnitin detects that you have indeed used AI, your essay will be investigated. Given enough evidence, this may result in the Course Director together with the Undergraduate Program Director opening a formal AH (academic honesty) case and you risk expulsion from the university.

Course Policy on AI

You are welcome to use AI tools judiciously throughout the course to help you better understand the material. This includes:

• Reading Support: Use AI to work your way through textbook chapters, articles, or assigned readings.
• Concept Clarification: Ask AI to help you understand theories, definitions, or complex ideas.
• Tutorial Preparation: Use AI to generate questions, explore discussion topics, or clarify tutorial content.
• Peer Conversations: Use AI to help you prepare for or reflect on conversations with classmates.
• Study Aid: Use AI to quiz yourself, brainstorm study strategies, or organize your notes.
• Explore and Play: Philosophy is full of wild ideas and thought experiments. Feel free to chat with AI to explore imaginative scenarios, test out strange hypotheses, or just have fun thinking deeply and creatively.

Important: These uses are allowed only for learning and preparation. For the reflections you are not allowed to use AI, as this would be missing the point.

When it comes to writing the essays, you must follow the specific guidelines below.

You have two options for completing your essay, and you must specify which option you choose:

Option 1 – Without AI assistance
You will write your essay entirely on your own, without the use of AI tools.

Option 2 – With AI assistance
If you choose to use AI tools at any stage of your writing process, you must include an addendum (added section at the end of your essay). There is no length requirement for the addendum, and it does not contribute to your essay wordcount. This addendum should describe:

• which AI tools you used
• at what stage(s) of the process you used them
• for what purpose, what were the problems that AI helped you solve
• how you used them (including key prompts)
• in which parts of your essay you used AI and for what
• how they contributed to your work
• the limitations or shortcomings that you’ve perceived in working with them

To create your addendum, please refer to the table below, which specifies (some of) the actions associated with different levels of AI use in your essay. Your addendum must be honest, revealing, comprehensive, informative, well-structured. It will be evaluated as part of your submission and will influence your essay mark.

Levels of AI use in essay writing:

How much AI are you allowed to use in your essay? It’s a spectrum: from Level 1 (Superficial) which is absolutely OK, to Level 5 (Ghostwriting) which is absolutely NOT OK. The higher the level of AI use, the less authorship you can claim over your essay.

The greater your reliance on AI, the higher the expectations will be for the scholarly rigor, originality, and critical engagement demonstrated in your essay.

You are permitted to use generative AI tools for your essays in this course, but you must accurately declare any such use. Falsely stating that you did not use AI when you did constitutes a misrepresentation that may violate York University’s Senate Policy on Academic Honesty, which forbids falsely claiming credit for ideas or work not authentically your own and defines such misrepresentation as a form of cheating or plagiarism (Senate ASC Statement on Academic Integrity and AI Technology). To fulfill your obligations under this policy, the use of AI must be transparently disclosed on the first page of your submission (under wordcount). Please also consult York’s comprehensive Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures, which further elaborates on breaches of academic integrity and associated sanctions.