Midterm

4. What is your real name?
Philip Laffin

5. What is your "user" name?
P_laffin

6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
P_laffin@yahoo.com

7. Name and address for your website.
Phil8—Critical Thinking
http://plaffin.blogspot.com/

8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?
Yes

9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
Yes, except “Ken Miller on Intelligent Design” did not work.

10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for thisclass (you can copy and paste them)

“What is Cold Reading”

I found this article humorous because it is so true. People get caught up in wanting to believe these people that they will take whatever they say and run with it. It’s obvious from the little bit that I have seen, whether on TV or elsewhere that the so called “psychic” is starting with the most general statements and allow the client to say just enough for them to say another fairly generic statement to find out more about the clients situation or problem.

I think if someone who truly believes in this sort of thing would actually reason their way through the idea of psychics and astrologers could come to the obvious conclusion that there is no truth to it. It is just people that can read someone else’s body language and then show confidence in the statements they say. I have found that you can convince people to believe complete lies if you do it with confidence. If you can earn the trust of someone or come to them as a person of authority in a subject you can make them believe anything you want them to because they don’t know any better. Most of the information and knowledge that we have today comes from trusting others. For example, the “common knowledge” that the earth is round is something that is taken for granted by most if not all people. How many people have actually seen the curvature of the earth or been lucky enough to actually see earth from space with their own two eyes. Very few can say they have but everyone believes it without evaluating it for themselves and coming to that conclusion on their own. I’m not implying that the earth is flat, I’m just taking my argument to the absurd. How much of our common knowledge do we really understand and how much more is just faith in words of someone else?

“Cargo Cult Science”

This article brought up some interesting points. It seems like in the world today many “scientific” studies have political backing and funding. This causes the study to become interesting in proving something to be true to prove another group of people wrong regardless of the quality of the research done. The experiment will be done with pre existing biases and will do it until they reach the conclusion they want or the study will be said to be flawed or be redone until the desired result is found in order for someone’s political position to be “proven” right.

I know this is not the case for all experiments and there are many quality studies that are being done with integrity and without bias. I think this article makes it seem like all experiments are done as described above. It is true that some are but it is also true that many are not done that way. I think he needs to do a study of his own, a study into the amount of experiments are done with scientific integrity and those that have a bias. It would be interesting to find out what the statistics on that would show.
Another thought about this is how much integrity is possible. Can you really have absolute control over an experiment especially one involving animals or humans, which are both unpredictable and uncontrollable at times? Is it possible to have a social experiment that is reproducible? People react differently based on past experience and it is impossible to reproduce and exact reaction to a situation because the pervious reaction with have an impact of subsequent ones. At what point do you accept the results as they are with the possibly of an incorrect or inconsistent result? Is true scientific integrity even possible?

Bertrand Russell on Clear Thinking

I think he has a hard time getting his point across simply because he is hard to understand. He does not use common language, he uses too much jargon and is not speaking to the layman. I think he is trying to say that if you are thinking clearly you will make better choices in life than if you are not thinking clearly. To think clearly you need to remove all distractions from your mind and your surroundings.

Distractions can be everything from problems with the people around you to noises and even to substance abuse problems. With these distractions you cannot stay focuses on what you are doing. This is very true of substance abuse. When someone is addicted to drugs they can get to a point where all they think about is drugs and they will not be able to make good choices and all the choices they do make will be made with the intention of getting more drugs. This then adds to the problem making it worse.

The Pleasure of Finding Things Out —Richard Feynman

I like the way he starts out by describing the way he was taught things by his father. It is interesting to think of how many things we are taught in school and throughout life that we don’t really understand. We know the names of things or the words to things but we don’t know what they mean. We cannot explain what they really are and because of this the knowledge is useless. It is just knowledge and not wisdom.

Knowledge is knowing what something is and wisdom is knowing how to apply and use that knowledge. There are many people with a lot of knowledge but there a few with wisdom. There are few people that understand the knowledge they have and are able to apply it to life and to the real word in a way that makes having the knowledge useful. Like Feynman said, it doesn’t matter if you know the name of a bird. You still don’t know anything about that bird and the knowledge you have about it is useless. You have to understand more about the bird, its behavior, before you can say you have an understanding of what type of bird it is. The knowledge of its name does not make you a wise person, it rather makes you a person full of useless information.

Beyond Belief—Session One—Steven Weinberg

Weinberg seems to have a problem with the idea that people can have a belief in a devine being or higher power. I think some of this stems from his own arrogance and unwillingness to be wrong. He seems to want to understand and to explain everything he can so much that he is not willing to say that God is responsible for anything because that does not allow him to figure something out and explain the world through natural means.

His approach does not appeal to many people, especially those of the religious community because he is so wrapped up in saying they are completely wrong and need to forget everything that they have based their lives on. This is something that most people have a hard time with. As humans we become comfortable with the beliefs we have and the only way to have us change our beliefs is slowly and over time. His approach seems to be demeaning to religious people. It does not sound like he is trying to educate others but rather show how smart he is and how wrong other people are. He might be right but his approach will only offend people and will not allow him to educate them, which should be his goal.

Beyond Belief—Session One—Laurence Krauss

I enjoyed the way the Krauss approached his lecture and how he approached science. He comes to it with complete ignorance and tries to find out what is true. He does not come to science with the purpose of trying to prove the absence of God but rather says that it does not matter. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. This is how scientific research and studies should be conducted.

People get so wrapped up in the conflict between God and science that it becomes an argument. From a scientific standpoint it does not matter if God exists, because science is still there and you can learn as much as you can to try to understand the world that we live in. From a religious standpoint, God created science and to further understand how the world works is to further understand God. It should not be an argument anymore. Science is important and is has nothing to with whether God exists or not.

Beyond Belief—Session One—Sam Harris

Sam Harris did not do much more that bash religious people and call them stupid for believing in God. He did not talk much about science and how it relates to God. Many Christians are very intelligent people and have a strong understanding of science. To say that these people are lunatics because they believe in God is a very ignorant statement. It is a completely non-scientific statement. Science has to leave the possibility that all things are possible. There is nothing in science that is 100% true. There has to be the possibility that a theory or law is wrong. To say that something is undoubtedly true is juxtapose to science.

All religious people have doubts in their own beliefs and that is something that Harris does not seem to understand. He just looks at religion and says it is lunacy because he does not understand it and is not willing to accept the possibility that it is true. This is something that should not be done in the scientific community. Until something can be proven beyond doubt, which religion cannot be, it should not be thought of as impossible.

Beyond Belief—Session One—Michael Shermer

I liked the way that Michael Shermer expressed the relationship between God and science. That God can use science and it is perfectly fine for science to exist with God because He created it. Many scientists seem to want to remove God from the equation just because popular science has a history of conflicting with religion and God. The two of them can coexist without problems.

He made a good point that the main issue is not the existence of God but it is what people are trying to accomplish with what they are given. Some scientists want to get people to become atheistic and stop believing in God. The problem with this is that most religious people have so much of their lives revolving around their beliefs that this is too much to ask of someone. The better approach is to show the truths of science and if those truths convince someone to change their beliefs then so be it. If they do not change their beliefs but rather fit in to them, that is alright as well. The end result is that science is embraced and knowledge is increased.

Beyond Belief—Session Two—Neil deGrasse Tyson

This was a very interesting speech. I don’t think that when a scientists gets to a point when he is having difficulty understanding something and cannot explain it he should stop and say it is God. That is not the scientific way of doing things. The best reaction is to look back on your research and find out what is being done wrong. To give up on research and stop trying to find answers is not what should be done.
However, say that because a scientist believes in God is a horrible thing and a problem is an ignorant statement. Believing in God is not rejecting science, rather it can be a way to encourage more scientific research in order to gain a larger understanding of the universe that God made. To waste time trying to figure out why some scientists believe in God is counterproductive in that the time spent doing that could be spent on trying to understand nature and the world around us.

Viruses of the Mind—Richard Dawkins

There are a few assumptions made by Dawkins that are not always true concerning religious people. Not everyone follows all the strict and seemingly ridiculous doctrines of their religion. Furthermore, not all religions have outlandish rituals or beliefs. To claim that they all do is make an argument that has no leg to stand on.

In spite of that, many truths are mentioned in this article. Most people are brought up believing what their parents believe. However many of those people do their own research at a point in their lives and come to their own conclusions, whether that is to continue to believe or not. Many intelligent people have faith. And if this faith is called a virus, what kind of virus is it. Is it one that is damaging to the person infected by it? Many times it is the opposite, it is helpful. It offers a hope for something more. It gives a purpose for life. It give comfort to those in need and. It gives motivation to those lacking it. Call it a virus if you will but infect me with it. How much joy can be found in living a hopeless, purposeless, unmotivated life with nothing to look forward to? Why work your whole life just to die and cease to exist? What is the point? Why continue struggling through life?

The Physics Behind Four Amazing Demonstrations—David G. Willey

It is interesting how many seemingly impossible or dangerous things can be done if you understand the physics behind them and what is actually going on. I have heard of some of the demonstrations and how to do them before but not all of them. Walking on glass sounds like it is very easy but can also be very painful if you do not prepare properly for it. The nail of beds looks like it would be uncomfortable to lay on but not necessarily that painful. Getting hit by a sledge hammer does sound like something I would not want to try just because the chance of being hit too hard and being punctured by the nails.

I have not heard of the other two demonstrations. The molten lead still sound like it would be a dangerous demonstration to do and I still don’t fully understand it. How long do you keep your hands in the lead and how wet do you need to have your hands in the first place. I would not want to risk my hands to try to impress my friends. Picking up a orange hot piece of space tile sounds like it could be a fun trick. I would like to be able to take one of those tiles and try this one out. I wonder how quickly the tile will lose its orange color since it cools off so quickly.

Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion?—Paul Kurtz

I agree that historical religious claims need to be investigated. This is important not only for the scientific community but also the religious community. It is important to the scientific community because it is a field that is a major part of most people’s lives and it has a great deal of material that can be studied. It is important to the religious community because it will either confirm their faith or show them the error of their ways. Either way the truth will be shown.

There are some aspects of religion that cannot be studied from a scientific aspect and they require faith alone. Issues like the Trinity, the virgin birth of Jesus, and his resurrection cannot be proven scientifically because of their nature. Although there are many historical documents pertaining to these events, there is no hard evidence that is available to be studied. These are areas that the scientific world needs to stop criticizing because it will only lead to an unending argument. There is no hard, physical evidence one way or the other. To debate over them is futile and serves no purpose.

Eleven

This film shows how ignorant some people can be. To blame 9-11 on Muslims is ridiculous. Yes it is true that a group of Muslims planned and executed the attacks of 9-11 but it is not true that all Muslim’s hold to the same beliefs as that extremist group did. Most Muslims are harmless and just as moral as people of any religion. They are just like anyone else, and should not even be referred to as “they” or “them.”

Groups like these are one of the reasons for terrorism and themselves are terrorists. They have no justification for their actions. Some of these people have to have some psychological problems to be able to think that what they are doing is right. People like this deserve to be shot. They call themselves Americans and fighting to make things right and how they should be, when they are actually making things worse and creating more problems that they are solving (which is none).

The Himalayan Connection

This article was very difficult to read. The language was definitely not geared towards the layman. I still do not know what “apiano coverseness” means. The language of this requires that you have prior knowledge of this subject. It made it difficult to understand and stay interested in because I was frustrated that I did not understand what was trying to be said.

With that said, I did understand some of this article. I find it interesting the idea that many so called UFO encounters can be explained as dreams or hallucinations caused by some outside source. This would very well explain what most close encounters are. And the other UFO sightings can usually be explained as natural phenomena or simply manmade objects that appear to be something else to the untrained or ignorant eye.

John Maynard Smith on Evolution

The topic of consciousness was interesting to me. I like that Smith is willing to say that he has no intelligent information to say regarding it and that there may be a simple explanation that someone else might come up with in the next fifty years. This tells me that he is not arrogant to the point that since he is unable to even begin to understand something, that others may not be able to have a lot greater understanding of that subject. It shows that he is humble in the knowledge that he has.

How can consciousness be explained by an evolutionary standpoint? I think it is the reason that we are the way we are today. The reason we have so much technology and are as advanced as we are. With consciousness we are able to contemplate problems and to try to think about what will work the best. This is different than most animals in that they function on reflexes and when a situation is past there is no need to think about it and contemplate how it could be done differently or better. Unfortunately there are not genes that bring about consciousness and no evolutionary evidence to the origin of thought and consciousness. There is, at this time, no evolutionary explanation for consciousness.

Beyond Belief Session 3—Joan Roughgarden

The illustrations she took from the Bible to try to show evolution in the Bible were taken completely out of context and would not help her in starting a dialogue with a religious person. Her illustration of the mustard seed being spread is not even in the Bible; she took two stories and combined them together. The mustard seed story refers to the amount of faith someone has. The story of seeds being spread has to do with spreading the gospel and not having children.

Her comment on the fallibility of science was something that needed to be brought up. Most of the speakers so far have seemed to talk about how science is perfect and has no faults. Science has been proven to be wrong many times in the past and to discount the possibility of anything is unscientific in itself.

It was difficult to watch this speaker because she is a very dry and boring speaker. I noticed many of the people in the audience were falling asleep while she was speaking.
Beyond Belief Session 3—Richard Dawkins

His rant against the religious community seems to come from such a biased and unjustified basis. He is religious in his hatred of religion. By removing religion and the guilt that Dawkins states it brings opens up a door to a less moral community. If there is no reason to be moral and life on earth is all that there is then why be good. Why try to be a good citizen? Why do anything other than try to advance your position in life?

Having a community that has no religion and no beliefs leads to chaos. There would be no reason the be honest. There would be no reason to be compassionate. There would no reason to look out for the needs of anyone other than yourself, because that is all that matters. In the end we would all be in the same place… no where.

Beyond Belief Session 3—Carolyn Porco

How is being a particle suppose so substitute for the religious belief of eternal life? The particles that make up my body do not make up who I am. When I cut my hair I do not think that I am living forever in the parts of my hair. This was an absurd and ridiculous claim. The religious claim of life after death does not necessarily refer to what my body does but what my mind and my spirit does.

I don’t think that she should have spoken at this conference. She added nothing of value to the topic and just wasted time that could have been spent on something that was relevant to the rest of the conference. I liked her pictures but that was about it. Her speech had nothing to do with the relationship between science and religion.

Beyond Belief session 4—Stuart Hameroff

What??? This speaker is very knowledgeable but uses too much jargon without explaining what it means in laymen’s terms. It sounds like he was trying to say that we perceive things and consciously realize them just after they actually happen. So the world around us is actually already in the past and our consciousness is just behind time. But does this mean that we don’t really have consciousness and it is just our brain computing what just happened.

I don’t think so. This does not account for thoughts and contemplations about what is going on. It may be true about our reflexes. We do not have conscious control over them because they happen before we have a chance to think about them. But not everything we do is reflex. We can and do think about things. These are things that take time and are not reflexes. I don’t think we are just spectators of our world.

Beyond Belief session 4—VS Ramachandran

The temporal lobe epileptic hypotheses didn’t really say that much in relation to God. He only stated the four hypotheses and did not really have any conclusions on them. He only really talked in depth about one of them and did not state what the real conclusion was. By stating that some people get stimulated by religious symbols does not say anything scientific about the possibility of God.

It was interesting when he was talking about the people with split brains. I wonder what that persons personality would be like and if they would actually have two of them. Is there any connection between the two half’s of the brain? Can they communicate with one another? They would have to work together to do simple tasks such as walking or even seeing. Is there really two separate brains?

A Field Guide to Critical Thinking—James Lett

This is a good tool to use to decide whether a claim is true or false. It covers a wide range of issues that can be overlooked when evaluating a claim. The most important point is that we have to humbly evaluate our evidence and make decisions based on evidence and not let personal biases or beliefs get in the way of the truth. This is probably the hardest part for most people to do when evaluating something that they have believed for years, especially when the evidence points towards them being wrong about their beliefs.

Personal beliefs keep many people from analyzing information accurately because they only want to prove their beliefs true and do not want to find out that they are wrong. If the evidence does point to their beliefs being wrong they will try to find some excuse to justify their beliefs and will stop looking for the truth. To turn your back of beliefs you have had the most of your life, even though they are found out to be false, is a very difficult for many people to do. It is more comfortable to ignore the facts and live in ignorance.

Pretext Part 1

I think some people try to understand things so much that they get to the point that they don’t understand anything because they have too much information to comprehend. Why you break down everything into its simplest form you lost sight of what you were looking at. However the opposite is also very true. Many people try to understand things without looking far enough into the workings of it and they end up with a distorted view of reality. You have to find a happy medium between the two to understand what you are observing.

This can be seen with medicine. To understand how a drug works you have to look at how it affects the body on a molecular level. At this level you can understand how a drug interacts with the nervous system to create a desired effect. If you took reductionism too far and looked at an atomic level there would be too much information to understand. It would be like going to a movie theater and sitting one foot from the screen. You would not be able to understand what is going on because you don’t have the proper perspective. On the other hand, if you just looked at the cells you would not be able to understand what was going on and the reason the cells act the way they do in response to the medication. In reference to the movie illustration, it would be like watching a two inch screen from the back row of a movie theater. You would not be able to see what was really going on. This is why it is important to know what you are looking at and how deep your understanding of it needs to be to have the be idea of what is going on.

Pretext Part 2

Where does consciousness come from? Can it be described through pretexts, texts, and contexts? I don’t think so. By looking at the brain, then the neurons, then the cells, then the molecules, etc. you do not come to a place where you find the origins of consciousness. If you compared the “physiological pretexts” of the brain of a normal person and a comatose person the structures will be the same. There is something more to it than the physical, but what?

The spiritual, or soul, could be used to explain this. However, this cannot be explained with pretext, text, or context because it is not physical. This cannot be found in the body. But this consciousness can be broken down into something more basic, life. Unfortunately, life cannot be explained by science. Why do I have life and a rock doesn’t? We are both, at our most basic, made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. What gives life to a group of these particles? This is something that we have yet to find out and have not been able to explain scientifically, but it is something that is real. It is something that we will continue to question and wonder about. I don’t think we can begin to understand consciousness until we understand life.

Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russell

This article is full of misquotes and ideas looked at way out of context. I will try to work my way through the article and point out some of the flaws. I will not be able to go into depth on each subject simply because it would take a long time. The First Cause argument uses sciences stand that one thing comes from another in our universe. To say that God would have to be created by something else is inconsistent with Christian theology which says that God created the universe and is not himself a part of or subject to the universe and its laws. This also discounts the argument regarding natural law, because God is outside of this law. The argument of design has a few problems. First, the strawman argument that no Christian theologian would make about a nose being made for glasses is ridiculous and I don’t even want to discuss it anymore. Second, all the misery in this world created by people like the KKK does not make God the bad person. It shows that God has given us free will and we have made the misery that we live with. The argument for the origins of morality will lead nowhere and cannot be proven one way or the other, there is simply a lack of evidence either way.

Now on to the character of Christ. Saying that Christ was not the first person to say turn the other cheek does not invalidate the truthfulness behind the claim. When it comes to judging people, the Christian view on this is that you can and should judge a person based on a legal standpoint just not on a personal basis or on their salvation. His arguments that most Christians do not follow all of the teachings of Christ is invalid because no one is perfect and everyone will make mistakes and appear to be a hypocrite. The teachings of Christ section has a major flaw. Russell must think he can read the mind of Christ by some of the claims that he is making. Some of the statements quoted do not refer to the second coming but rather to his ascension into Heaven. When it comes to the moral problem Russell just takes certain verses and leaves out others that show the desire God has for all to go to Heaven but his desire to allow us to have free will allows us to chose to be apart from him. I can go on about the problems with Russell’s arguments and go into further depth but time prevents me from doing this.

Beyond Belief session 5—Paul Davis

This was an interesting speech. I found it somewhat humorous that he would discount the possibility that God exists when physics and science end at the same place. Theistic people would say that God created the universe while scientific atheistic people would say that a universe generating mechanism created the universe. But this universe generating mechanism cannot be explained scientifically and does not fit in with scientific reason at all. It seems to me that this universe generating mechanism has a shorter name…God.

He made a good point that when this debate occurs it ends the same, with everyone saying their “superturtle” is better that someone else’s. It comes to a point where science cannot explain itself, at least not at this time. Scientists have to have just as much if not more faith than a theistic person to believe in science that cannot be explained. As Davis said, logical science is based upon the absurdities and illogical nature of physics.

Beyond Belief session 5—Steven Nadler

Is God required for morality? No, I don’t think so. It can be rationally explained that people do things that are “good” because they are beneficial to them. We do things that will allow us to survive and to thrive. Even though it may not be something we want to, like helping someone else out. By doing so, we work with society to make it hospitable and comfortable to live in, again, making our life better.

One can argue that these things would not be considered moral and would not be beneficial if there was not God to make them that way. This is something that cannot be proven wrong, but it cannot be proven right either. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. With that said you cannot know if morality is a result of God. The only thing we do know is that there is morality and it is something that we live by. Arguing about the origins of it leads nowhere.

Freeman Dyson and the Mathematical Universe

I agree a lot with what Dyson stated about the relationship between science and religion. He does not believe that the two of them have any real relationship to each other. Science has to do with the physical world and religion has more to do with the social world. He leaves the possibility of a designer of the universe based on the sophistication and ingenious design of life and physics and the way that some atoms act and seem to have a mind.

Dyson made some interesting statements about what God could be. He stated that “God is a mind on a scale beyond our comprehension.” That God is something that we will never understand and we should accept that and be okay with it; that there is more than meets the eye. He compared science and religion to two different windows looking out over the universe. You cannot look out of both at the same time be they both look at the same thing and they both coexist.

Nicholas of Cusa

“The unattainable is attained by is unattainment.” Does that statement really mean anything? This can be reworded to do nothing is to be successful at nothing. I guess this is the easiest way to achieve success. The best way to reach your goal is to set the bar really low. This isn’t the best way to go about your life. If you live by this motto you will undoubtedly have a very unproductive life. But will you be happy? That depends on how much you can convince yourself that you are happy with be successful in your endeavor to accomplish nothing. If you can trick yourself into saying you have succeeded in everything you have attempted to do in life, without feeling bad about not attempting anything, then it can be an easy way to be happy in life.

“Man’s last and highest parting occurs when, for God’s sake, he takes leave of God.” This can be interpreted two ways. First that when you finally remove the belief in God you open yourself up to a world with fewer limitations and you can find the truth of life in reason and understanding. Or it can be interpreted that when you stop believing in God your life comes to an end. You will no longer reach the place you were before in life and you life is now over, ending in a horrible existence in hell.

The Secret of Faqir

Faqir Chand says that you have to look to yourself to find the answers to your questions or problems. You should not look to a God or a higher power but rather to yourself. This is because you cannot find any answers through these sources but you can only find them in yourself. When looking to these outward sources you will not be able to get an actual response from them but the response actually comes from within. The best answers are already in you, you just have to search for them within your own mind. Outward sources only lead you to the answer that already resides within you.

I don’t think I completely agree with this statement but there are some valid points that can be made from this. Many of the problems that people have can be solved without the help of others if time is taken to think about the problem and what the solution to the problem could be. Many times when someone goes to someone else for help they will listen to the advice of the other person and will realize that they already knew that but did not want to accept that answer or wanted to hear it from someone else before they would accept that as the answer they conclude with. Most advice is usually affirming something someone knows rather than insight into something new that was not thought of previously.

Faqir Chand Meets the Tibetan Book of the Dead

Chand seems to understand one thing very well; his lack of understanding. He thinks that many things in life are created by our minds and come from within. He believed early in life that he had visions of Gods, or gurus, that helped him through his life. However, after realizing that they had nothing to do with it he came to the conclusion that these visions were all creations of his own mind. He wanted help and the answer was in his mind all along, he just chose to reveal them to himself in the form on something or someone else.

He believed that we get to attached to things in life and let them interfere with our lives. All of our dreams, visions, or apparitions are just manifestations of our minds attachment to other. To better understand the truth we need to free ourselves from the attachment to others. But where will this lead us to when we die? This is one thing that he was unable to understand or explain. All he knew was that he did not know what was to come. Whether it would be cessation of existence or it would be dreams of things he was attached to in life or it would be something completely different. He did not know.

The Paradox of Da Free John

Some of the statements about Da Free John make him seem like he is schizophrenic. He believes that he is God realized. It sounds like he has delusions of grandeur that are typical with schizophrenia. Now this may be a bold statement to make with the limited information I have about him. I have never met or read the articles by him. Al I have to go off of is this article that I just read. But someone that considers himself to be God is someone that I would have to question the sanity of. This is a large claim to make and one that will have major skepticism about.

It is amazing that some people can get caught up in some of the cults that are around today. I don’t understand how someone can fall into these “traps”, but at the same time I have a very skeptical mind and will not trust the claims of other unless they can substantiate their claims and it makes sense to me. It is unfortunate that some people can become brainwashed to the point that they will do anything for someone who claims to be God or understand more about God than anyone else can or does. Especially because these new cults come up with some outrageous claims. When the majority of the world looks at a group you are part of and says you must be crazy to believe any of that, I would think most people would have to see this and seriously question whether they believe what they are being taught or not.

11. Why does Richard Dawkins consider religion a "virus" of themind? Do you agree or disagree?Substantiate your view.

Richard Dawkins considers religion a virus of the mind because it compels you to spread or pass on your religion to other. By passing religion on to children you further continue the practices and beliefs of the religion. A religious person will try to spread their religion just as a virus tries to replicate itself and spread to other hosts. However, he makes it sound like this is a bad thing that is detrimental to people’s lives when it can actually bring great joy and happiness. I would agree that religion acts like a virus at times but so does the science that Dawkins religiously practices. He tries to spread his beliefs to others and get them to follow his ideas. He tries to “infect” others with science. He comes close to being a scientific religious extremist with his hostility toward theistic religion. So I would agree that religion is a virus, just as much as I agree science is one as well. This is not meant to put down religion or science but merely describe one attribute they both consist of.

12. Give an example of a "cargo cult" belief and critically analyzeit from a scientific perspective? Hint:think of something that people believe in that lacks overwhelmingevidence to support it.

One cargo cult that is prominent today is the psychics on TV, such as John Edwards. People believe that he is able to communicate with the dead. He does not do anything that is spectacular and is usually so vague in his descriptions that he lets his followers do all the work for him. He starts by saying he feels something in one area of his audience and lets people lead him to information about their dead relatives. This was actually parodied on the cartoon Family Guy and they have his guessing the first letter on someone name, starting with A and working his way up to the right letter, in this case P. The audience member became amazed at how “gifted” he was. Although this takes it to the absurd, it is a representation of how people act around these people.

13. How does one do "science" according to Richard Feynman. Why isthis form of science so important tohuman beings? How can such a view of science help enrich one'sappreciation for beauty? Be sure to giveYOUR own example of Feynman's point (no "flowers" allowed).

To do science according to Feynman’s example is not always easy but it is necessary. You have to follow the scientific method and not break away from it. This means coming into your research without any biases and strictly to look for the truth no matter how that can affect your personal beliefs. You have to take all the variables into consideration and create a true control. This can take some time and hard thinking to remove all the variables to make a true control that will be consistent throughout. There are many variables that can be overlooked and it is necessary to have more than one person involved in searching them out. The reason this is so important to humanity is that it is the only way to come to the truths of our world. If you do not follow this method then you leave too much room for error and false truths being believed. This can enrich one’s appreciation for the beauty of the world we live in. For example, the beauty that can be seen in the night sky. You can understand all the celestial sites that you are looking at and appreciate the beauty of them.

14. Give your interpretation of the movie "Karma."

This movie showed how every bad deed does not go unpunished. The idea of Karma is, as commonly stated, what goes around comes around. I think this movie over exaggerated and took this idea to the absurd. However, it did do a good job explaining the idea of Karma and what it means. Sometimes you have to take things to the absurd to explain them well.

15. Explain, in brief, Darwinian evolution and why John MaynardSmith's contribution is important inthinking differently about survival of the fittest.

Darwinian evolution states that when an organism has a mutation that is an advantage it will be more successful at creating more offspring and passing on the trait. As more advantageous mutations occur the more evolved a species becomes and the more advanced it becomes. We came to be by all the mutations of previous generations. John Maynard Smith added that sexual diversity balances out over time. It is because of evolution that there is an equal balance between the number of men and women. If there were too many men then some would not be able to reproduce and would die off, helping to balance the difference between the two. Survival does not just depend on having an advantageous trait but also on finding a mate to pass that trait on through to the next generation.

16. What are Freeman Dyson's views on the "design" of the universeor the purpose of humankind?

Freeman Dyson seems to not have a very defined view of the universe and its design. He does see elements of a mind in the universe, such as in the way that atoms behave and seem to decide when to carry out an action. He also believes that “God is a mind on a scale beyond our comprehension.” In other words, we cannot, if he exists, understand God and trying to will lead to failure. Dyson does believe that humankind has a purpose in life. He feels that without purpose, life you be miserable and not worth living. That purpose is unknown however. Will we ever know it? Does it matter that we know it? Not really as long as we know that there is a purpose to life and existence.

17. What IS the "secret" that Faqir Chand discovered about religionand its founders?

Faqir Chand discovered that religion and its founders do not play an active physical role in the life of their followers. Meaning, no spiritual or supernatural experience really happens but it is all in the mind of the person having them. He believed that the person having these visions is not being visited by something outside of themselves. He claims to have had these experiences and with further study and meditation has come to the conclusion that the advice he received was really from himself and not from someone else. Religion is nothing more than a reflection of your mind. The founders of religion may have had good moral teachings but they are not divine and do not appear in vision. The visions are just someone’s way of dealing with a problem and finding the answers they have in their mind.

18. Explain the movie Eleven and what is YOUR interpretation of it?In other words, what is the underlying message that thedirector is trying to convey?

This movie was about an anti-terrorist terrorist group. In other words, a group of people that terrorize, and murder, terrorists. However the idea they have of a terrorist in any Arabian person. This includes those who have nothing to do with terrorism and have done nothing wrong. It is horrible that things like this go on today. The underlying message that the director is trying to convey is that not all, but only a few people from Arabian decent are terrorists. There is too much racism that is going on in this country that is aimed at them and this should not be.

19. Why is distinguishing the message from the medium so important?Use the Da Free John article as your context.

It is important to look at the content of a message before making a decision about the validity of it. By just looking at the cover, so to speak, you do not get a real understand of what is going on inside. That can be seen in the case of Da Free John. He appears, on the outside, to be a crazy guy with outlandish claims and beliefs. Many people would not even give his ideas a second thought based solely on his outward appearance. He may have many insightful and meaningful things to say but these ideas were not conveyed because of the biases people had against his appearance. We need to be open the possibility of wisdom coming from seeming absurd places. We make too many irrational decisions bases on our first outward impression of something. We need to look at the content of the message and not the medium it comes through.

20. What are Bertrand Russell's reasons for NOT being a Christian?Do you agree or disagree with him? GIVE RATIONALARGUMENTS FOR your position (pro or con).

Bertrand Russell breaks Christianity into parts and stated why he doesn’t believe them to be true: God and the nature of Christ. He does not believe in God because there is no physical evidence for the existence of God. There is no need for him in regard to natural law and there is, according to Russell, no intelligent design in the world today, sighting disease and extinction as examples. He does not believe that Christ was a perfect person. He states that his teachings were not original and inaccurate. I do not agree with Russell in this regard. There may not be physical evidence for the existence of God but there is no evidence for the origin of the universe with science. There are some theories but none of them have evidence about the start of the universe and how it happened. His statements regarding Christ are inaccurate and irrelevant. Just because Christ said something that someone said previously does not take the morality or truth out of it. The quotes of Christ have been debated for years that the true meaning when he says death can refer to spiritual death instead of physical death.

21. Give a summary of Jim Lett's field guide to critcal thinking (inyour own "300" words, no more). Don't use quotes but write it like aletterto a friend explain how to think critically in light of Lett'snumerous points.

If you are unsure if some information you are given is true or not there are six things you can do to see if they have a valid claim. First, can their claim be proven wrong? If there is no possibility that they are wrong then what they are saying doesn’t mean that much and is not valid. Second, does it make sense? If their claim doesn’t sound right and does not seem to make sense then it probably isn’t true. Third, is their claim complete? Does it cover all the bases? If it is missing information then it is most likely not correct. Fourth, are they trying to deceive you? If they are trying to trick you then don’t fall into their trap and be skeptical about their claim. Fifth, can you do the same research and come to the same conclusion? If you can’t test it again then it can’t be proven either. Sixth, do they have enough evidence to support their claim? If they have very limited evidence compared to the extravagance of their claim then you have to question their reliability. If they meet all the above criteria, then you can be pretty sure that it is a trustworthy statement. If they don’t, then be suspicious.

22. Why does Kurtz believe that skepticism should be applied toreligion? Do you agree or disagree?

Kurtz believes skepticism should be applied to religion because it is something that is a major part of people’s live and has not been critiqued in large because people are afraid to do it for fear of offending people. However there is a large body of information that can and should be studied. This can either prove or disprove many of the beliefs people have. There are so many historical stories that can be analyzed and studied scientifically. If we have information that can be studied then why do we hesitate to do it for fear of offending someone? If they are wrong then they should not be offended but should thank you for showing them the truth. Skepticism should be applied to any body of information we have available to try and find the truth about them.

23. Why is pretext, text, and context important in analyzing a bookor an argument. Provide your own example.

It is important to look at the whole picture when analyzing a book or argument. The pretext is the whole basis for understanding it. You have to put the words together to get an understanding of meaning of the text. The text is the most important part of understanding. You have to look both subjectively and objectively at the text and make an interpretation of it. Next it is important to look at the context. This is what sets the scene for the text. If you understand the text you can understand what the author is trying to convey with much more certainty and clarity. The three of these things together gets you a full understanding of what message is being conveyed. For example, when listening to a political speech you have to hear the words, the pretext, and bring them together into a concise statement and speech which is the text. This text will convey what the speaker is trying to say. However, to understand what he is saying it is helpful to understand the context of his speech. The context would be his political affiliation, his religion, his past experience, and his political history. All three of these gives you a better understanding of his message.

24. What is a "transformative" UFO encounter and does the author ofthe Himalayan Connection really believe in UFOs as genuineexraterrestials?

A transformative is UFO encounter is one that is seen and can be described as a hallucination. It is an event that has no physical evidence and is only in the mind of the person experiencing it. It is something that is described as very real and they will be convinced it is real. It appears that the author does not believe UFO are extraterrestrials and that most can be explained away by science. The ones that cannot be explained can be said to be coincidental or mistaken identity.

25. How does one think more critically when using online sources?(hint: think of one of the requried articles). Substantiate yourviews.

There are a few things you can do to think critically about online sources. First, you have to look at any online information skeptically. One thing to look at is the reliability of the source you are looking at, is it a well known web site or is it from an unknown do-it-yourself type web site. Not to say that all of the latter are not trustworthy but you have to look more critically at them. Next you need to see if they are facts of opinions you are looking at. Are there cited references? How long has the site been up? What other content is on the site? These are all important things to look at as you view online sources. There are a lot of web sites with inaccurate information on them, so it is important to know what you are looking at and if it is trustworthy.

26. What are Steven Weinberg's views on religion? Do you agree ordisagree?

Steve Weinberg hates religion. He believes that it shows the ignorance of humanity today and their unwillingness to follow mainstream scientific views. He dies not think that science and religion can coexist and that religion hampers the efforts of science. I do not agree with him. Many great and respected scientists of today and the past have had religious beliefs. To have a belief in God does not make you a bad scientist. It can make you a better scientist in that you will want to learn more about the universe we live in in order to find out more about the God you believe in. Religion does not come into conflict with science, but scientists make conflict with religion. As long as you stick to the scientific method and try to find out the truths about things there is nothing to be afraid on in terms of religion. This has been seen throughout history in the greatest minds that science has ever seen.

27. Why is Sam Harris an atheist? Explain his reasons. Can you argueagainst his views? If so, how?

Sam Harris is an atheist because he believes belief in God is lunacy. He states that there is no possible way that there can be a God and that even theists have doubts about God. He does not see an active hand of God working in the world today and has come to the conclusion that he does not exist. However, there is no evidence that God does not exist. Science has the stand that all things are possible and nothing can be discounted. You can become fairly certain that something is true with enough evidence to support it. But there is no evidence that says there is no God, therefore, science cannot discount the possibility of God existing. It is true that many theists have doubts about God, but scientists have similar doubts about the work that they do. You have to look at everything with some doubt so as to not be fooled. Doubt does not represent unbelief. I do not think that he has examined religion to the full extent that science would require before discounting something that so many intelligent people believe.

28. Of the first five installments of BEYOND BELIEF which speakerdid you find most persuasive? Explain why.

I found Paul Davis’ speech to be persuasive and interesting. The point I think I liked most was that neither atheists nor theists can fundamentally prove themselves to be right. We all get to a point when trying to explain the origins of the universe that becomes unexplainable and requires faith. Faith that there is some explanation that is beyond our comprehension at this time. The atheistic scientists does not accept the theistic view that God has always been and is outside of space and time. The theist does not accept the scientific view that accepts something that it cannot explain in terms of science. He made it clear that everything is unclear. Religion is not logical and science is based on the absurdities of physics. The truth is that we don’t know the truth and he was accepting of that.

29. Ken Miller argues against Michael Behe's notion of irreduciblecomplexity and the notion of intelligent design in biology. Is heright? If so, explain. If not, give your reasons why not.

I would love to try to answer this question but my computer will not play the video, so I have no idea how I would answer this.

30. In the conference BEYOND BELIEF, which speaker did you find tobe the weakest in terms of substance? Explain.

I found Joan Roughgarden’s speech to be boring and unsubstantiated. Her references to Biblical verses were misquoted and taken out of context. She obviously looked at the verses themselves and not the context in which they were written. She did not have much to bring to the table except for a few facts about when science has been proven wrong. Unfortunately she was demoralized by the other scientists in the room that pointed out the media and political interventions that took away the true nature of science which allowed things that had not been thoroughly researched and proven to be let out into the public as scientific facts. And, although this has nothing to do with the substance of her speech, she was a very poor speaker and I, and obviously the audience in the video, wanted to sleep through her speech.

The Paradox of Da Free John

Some of the statements about Da Free John make him seem like he is schizophrenic. He believes that he is God realized. It sounds like he has delusions of grandeur that are typical with schizophrenia. Now this may be a bold statement to make with the limited information I have about him. I have never met or read the articles by him. Al I have to go off of is this article that I just read. But someone that considers himself to be God is someone that I would have to question the sanity of. This is a large claim to make and one that will have major skepticism about.

It is amazing that some people can get caught up in some of the cults that are around today. I don’t understand how someone can fall into these “traps”, but at the same time I have a very skeptical mind and will not trust the claims of other unless they can substantiate their claims and it makes sense to me. It is unfortunate that some people can become brainwashed to the point that they will do anything for someone who claims to be God or understand more about God than anyone else can or does. Especially because these new cults come up with some outrageous claims. When the majority of the world looks at a group you are part of and says you must be crazy to believe any of that, I would think most people would have to see this and seriously question whether they believe what they are being taught or not.

Faqir Chand Meets the Tibetan Book of the Dead

Chand seems to understand one thing very well; his lack of understanding. He thinks that many things in life are created by our minds and come from within. He believed early in life that he had visions of Gods, or gurus, that helped him through his life. However, after realizing that they had nothing to do with it he came to the conclusion that these visions were all creations of his own mind. He wanted help and the answer was in his mind all along, he just chose to reveal them to himself in the form on something or someone else.

He believed that we get to attached to things in life and let them interfere with our lives. All of our dreams, visions, or apparitions are just manifestations of our minds attachment to other. To better understand the truth we need to free ourselves from the attachment to others. But where will this lead us to when we die? This is one thing that he was unable to understand or explain. All he knew was that he did not know what was to come. Whether it would be cessation of existence or it would be dreams of things he was attached to in life or it would be something completely different. He did not know.

The Secret of Faqir

Faqir Chand says that you have to look to yourself to find the answers to your questions or problems. You should not look to a God or a higher power but rather to yourself. This is because you cannot find any answers through these sources but you can only find them in yourself. When looking to these outward sources you will not be able to get an actual response from them but the response actually comes from within. The best answers are already in you, you just have to search for them within your own mind. Outward sources only lead you to the answer that already resides within you.

I don’t think I completely agree with this statement but there are some valid points that can be made from this. Many of the problems that people have can be solved without the help of others if time is taken to think about the problem and what the solution to the problem could be. Many times when someone goes to someone else for help they will listen to the advice of the other person and will realize that they already knew that but did not want to accept that answer or wanted to hear it from someone else before they would accept that as the answer they conclude with. Most advice is usually affirming something someone knows rather than insight into something new that was not thought of previously.

Nicholas of Cusa

“The unattainable is attained by is unattainment.” Does that statement really mean anything? This can be reworded to do nothing is to be successful at nothing. I guess this is the easiest way to achieve success. The best way to reach your goal is to set the bar really low. This isn’t the best way to go about your life. If you live by this motto you will undoubtedly have a very unproductive life. But will you be happy? That depends on how much you can convince yourself that you are happy with be successful in your endeavor to accomplish nothing. If you can trick yourself into saying you have succeeded in everything you have attempted to do in life, without feeling bad about not attempting anything, then it can be an easy way to be happy in life.

“Man’s last and highest parting occurs when, for God’s sake, he takes leave of God.” This can be interpreted two ways. First that when you finally remove the belief in God you open yourself up to a world with fewer limitations and you can find the truth of life in reason and understanding. Or it can be interpreted that when you stop believing in God your life comes to an end. You will no longer reach the place you were before in life and you life is now over, ending in a horrible existence in hell.

Freeman Dyson and the Mathematical Universe

I agree a lot with what Dyson stated about the relationship between science and religion. He does not believe that the two of them have any real relationship to each other. Science has to do with the physical world and religion has more to do with the social world. He leaves the possibility of a designer of the universe based on the sophistication and ingenious design of life and physics and the way that some atoms act and seem to have a mind.

Dyson made some interesting statements about what God could be. He stated that “God is a mind on a scale beyond our comprehension.” That God is something that we will never understand and we should accept that and be okay with it; that there is more than meets the eye. He compared science and religion to two different windows looking out over the universe. You cannot look out of both at the same time be they both look at the same thing and they both coexist.

Beyond Belief session 5—Paul Davis

This was an interesting speech. I found it somewhat humorous that he would discount the possibility that God exists when physics and science end at the same place. Theistic people would say that God created the universe while scientific atheistic people would say that a universe generating mechanism created the universe. But this universe generating mechanism cannot be explained scientifically and does not fit in with scientific reason at all. It seems to me that this universe generating mechanism has a shorter name…God.

He made a good point that when this debate occurs it ends the same, with everyone saying their “superturtle” is better that someone else’s. It comes to a point where science cannot explain itself, at least not at this time. Scientists have to have just as much if not more faith than a theistic person to believe in science that cannot be explained. As Davis said, logical science is based upon the absurdities and illogical nature of physics.

Beyond Belief session 5—Steven Nadler

Is God required for morality? No, I don’t think so. It can be rationally explained that people do things that are “good” because they are beneficial to them. We do things that will allow us to survive and to thrive. Even though it may not be something we want to, like helping someone else out. By doing so, we work with society to make it hospitable and comfortable to live in, again, making our life better.

One can argue that these things would not be considered moral and would not be beneficial if there was not God to make them that way. This is something that cannot be proven wrong, but it cannot be proven right either. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. With that said you cannot know if morality is a result of God. The only thing we do know is that there is morality and it is something that we live by. Arguing about the origins of it leads nowhere.

Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russell

This article is full of misquotes and ideas looked at way out of context. I will try to work my way through the article and point out some of the flaws. I will not be able to go into depth on each subject simply because it would take a long time. The First Cause argument uses sciences stand that one thing comes from another in our universe. To say that God would have to be created by something else is inconsistent with Christian theology which says that God created the universe and is not himself a part of or subject to the universe and its laws. This also discounts the argument regarding natural law, because God is outside of this law. The argument of design has a few problems. First, the strawman argument that no Christian theologian would make about a nose being made for glasses is ridiculous and I don’t even want to discuss it anymore. Second, all the misery in this world created by people like the KKK does not make God the bad person. It shows that God has given us free will and we have made the misery that we live with. The argument for the origins of morality will lead nowhere and cannot be proven one way or the other, there is simply a lack of evidence either way.

Now on to the character of Christ. Saying that Christ was not the first person to say turn the other cheek does not invalidate the truthfulness behind the claim. When it comes to judging people, the Christian view on this is that you can and should judge a person based on a legal standpoint just not on a personal basis or on their salvation. His arguments that most Christians do not follow all of the teachings of Christ is invalid because no one is perfect and everyone will make mistakes and appear to be a hypocrite. The teachings of Christ section has a major flaw. Russell must think he can read the mind of Christ by some of the claims that he is making. Some of the statements quoted do not refer to the second coming but rather to his ascension into Heaven. When it comes to the moral problem Russell just takes certain verses and leaves out others that show the desire God has for all to go to Heaven but his desire to allow us to have free will allows us to chose to be apart from him. I can go on about the problems with Russell’s arguments and go into further depth but time prevents me from doing this.

Pretext Part 2

Where does consciousness come from? Can it be described through pretexts, texts, and contexts? I don’t think so. By looking at the brain, then the neurons, then the cells, then the molecules, etc. you do not come to a place where you find the origins of consciousness. If you compared the “physiological pretexts” of the brain of a normal person and a comatose person the structures will be the same. There is something more to it than the physical, but what?

The spiritual, or soul, could be used to explain this. However, this cannot be explained with pretext, text, or context because it is not physical. This cannot be found in the body. But this consciousness can be broken down into something more basic, life. Unfortunately, life cannot be explained by science. Why do I have life and a rock doesn’t? We are both, at our most basic, made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. What gives life to a group of these particles? This is something that we have yet to find out and have not been able to explain scientifically, but it is something that is real. It is something that we will continue to question and wonder about. I don’t think we can begin to understand consciousness until we understand life.

Pretext Part 1

I think some people try to understand things so much that they get to the point that they don’t understand anything because they have too much information to comprehend. Why you break down everything into its simplest form you lost sight of what you were looking at. However the opposite is also very true. Many people try to understand things without looking far enough into the workings of it and they end up with a distorted view of reality. You have to find a happy medium between the two to understand what you are observing.

This can be seen with medicine. To understand how a drug works you have to look at how it affects the body on a molecular level. At this level you can understand how a drug interacts with the nervous system to create a desired effect. If you took reductionism too far and looked at an atomic level there would be too much information to understand. It would be like going to a movie theater and sitting one foot from the screen. You would not be able to understand what is going on because you don’t have the proper perspective. On the other hand, if you just looked at the cells you would not be able to understand what was going on and the reason the cells act the way they do in response to the medication. In reference to the movie illustration, it would be like watching a two inch screen from the back row of a movie theater. You would not be able to see what was really going on. This is why it is important to know what you are looking at and how deep your understanding of it needs to be to have the be idea of what is going on.

A Field Guide to Critical Thinking—James Lett

This is a good tool to use to decide whether a claim is true or false. It covers a wide range of issues that can be overlooked when evaluating a claim. The most important point is that we have to humbly evaluate our evidence and make decisions based on evidence and not let personal biases or beliefs get in the way of the truth. This is probably the hardest part for most people to do when evaluating something that they have believed for years, especially when the evidence points towards them being wrong about their beliefs.

Personal beliefs keep many people from analyzing information accurately because they only want to prove their beliefs true and do not want to find out that they are wrong. If the evidence does point to their beliefs being wrong they will try to find some excuse to justify their beliefs and will stop looking for the truth. To turn your back of beliefs you have had the most of your life, even though they are found out to be false, is a very difficult for many people to do. It is more comfortable to ignore the facts and live in ignorance.

Beyond Belief session 4--VS Ramachandran

The temporal lobe epileptic hypotheses didn’t really say that much in relation to God. He only stated the four hypotheses and did not really have any conclusions on them. He only really talked in depth about one of them and did not state what the real conclusion was. By stating that some people get stimulated by religious symbols does not say anything scientific about the possibility of God.

It was interesting when he was talking about the people with split brains. I wonder what that persons personality would be like and if they would actually have two of them. Is there any connection between the two half’s of the brain? Can they communicate with one another? They would have to work together to do simple tasks such as walking or even seeing. Is there really two separate brains?

Beyond Belief session 4--Stuart Hameroff

What??? This speaker is very knowledgeable but uses too much jargon without explaining what it means in laymen’s terms. It sounds like he was trying to say that we perceive things and consciously realize them just after they actually happen. So the world around us is actually already in the past and our consciousness is just behind time. But does this mean that we don’t really have consciousness and it is just our brain computing what just happened.

I don’t think so. This does not account for thoughts and contemplations about what is going on. It may be true about our reflexes. We do not have conscious control over them because they happen before we have a chance to think about them. But not everything we do is reflex. We can and do think about things. These are things that take time and are not reflexes. I don’t think we are just spectators of our world.

Beyond Belief Session 3

Joan Roughgarden

The illustrations she took from the Bible to try to show evolution in the Bible were taken completely out of context and would not help her in starting a dialogue with a religious person. Her illustration of the mustard seed being spread is not even in the Bible; she took two stories and combined them together. The mustard seed story refers to the amount of faith someone has. The story of seeds being spread has to do with spreading the gospel and not having children.

Her comment on the fallibility of science was something that needed to be brought up. Most of the speakers so far have seemed to talk about how science is perfect and has no faults. Science has been proven to be wrong many times in the past and to discount the possibility of anything is unscientific in itself.

It was difficult to watch this speaker because she is a very dry and boring speaker. I noticed many of the people in the audience were falling asleep while she was speaking.

Richard Dawkins

His rant against the religious community seems to come from such a biased and unjustified basis. He is religious in his hatred of religion. By removing religion and the guilt that Dawkins states it brings opens up a door to a less moral community. If there is no reason to be moral and life on earth is all that there is then why be good. Why try to be a good citizen? Why do anything other than try to advance your position in life?

Having a community that has no religion and no beliefs leads to chaos. There would be no reason the be honest. There would be no reason to be compassionate. There would no reason to look out for the needs of anyone other than yourself, because that is all that matters. In the end we would all be in the same place… no where.

Carolyn Porco

How is being a particle suppose so substitute for the religious belief of eternal life? The particles that make up my body do not make up who I am. When I cut my hair I do not think that I am living forever in the parts of my hair. This was an absurd and ridiculous claim. The religious claim of life after death does not necessarily refer to what my body does but what my mind and my spirit does.

I don’t think that she should have spoken at this conference. She added nothing of value to the topic and just wasted time that could have been spent on something that was relevant to the rest of the conference. I liked her pictures but that was about it. Her speech had nothing to do with the relationship between science and religion.

John Maynard Smith on Evolution

The topic of consciousness was interesting to me. I like that Smith is willing to say that he has no intelligent information to say regarding it and that there may be a simple explanation that someone else might come up with in the next fifty years. This tells me that he is not arrogant to the point that since he is unable to even begin to understand something, that others may not be able to have a lot greater understanding of that subject. It shows that he is humble in the knowledge that he has.

How can consciousness be explained by an evolutionary standpoint? I think it is the reason that we are the way we are today. The reason we have so much technology and are as advanced as we are. With consciousness we are able to contemplate problems and to try to think about what will work the best. This is different than most animals in that they function on reflexes and when a situation is past there is no need to think about it and contemplate how it could be done differently or better. Unfortunately there are not genes that bring about consciousness and no evolutionary evidence to the origin of thought and consciousness. There is, at this time, no evolutionary explanation for consciousness.

THE HIMALAYAN CONNECTION

This article was very difficult to read. The language was definitely not geared towards the layman. I still do not know what “apiano coverseness” means. The language of this requires that you have prior knowledge of this subject. It made it difficult to understand and stay interested in because I was frustrated that I did not understand what was trying to be said.

With that said, I did understand some of this article. I find it interesting the idea that many so called UFO encounters can be explained as dreams or hallucinations caused by some outside source. This would very well explain what most close encounters are. And the other UFO sightings can usually be explained as natural phenomena or simply manmade objects that appear to be something else to the untrained or ignorant eye.

Eleven

This film shows how ignorant some people can be. To blame 9-11 on Muslims is ridiculous. Yes it is true that a group of Muslims planned and executed the attacks of 9-11 but it is not true that all Muslim’s hold to the same beliefs as that extremist group did. Most Muslims are harmless and just as moral as people of any religion. They are just like anyone else, and should not even be referred to as “they” or “them.”

Groups like these are one of the reasons for terrorism and themselves are terrorists. They have no justification for their actions. Some of these people have to have some psychological problems to be able to think that what they are doing is right. People like this deserve to be shot. They call themselves Americans and fighting to make things right and how they should be, when they are actually making things worse and creating more problems that they are solving (which is none).

Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion?—Paul Kurtz

I agree that historical religious claims need to be investigated. This is important not only for the scientific community but also the religious community. It is important to the scientific community because it is a field that is a major part of most people’s lives and it has a great deal of material that can be studied. It is important to the religious community because it will wither confirm their faith or show them the error of their ways. Either way the truth will be shown.

There are some aspects of religion that cannot be studied from a scientific aspect and they require faith alone. Issues like the Trinity, the virgin birth of Jesus, and his resurrection cannot be proven scientifically because of their nature. Although there are many historical documents pertaining to these events, there is no hard evidence that is available to be studied. These are areas that the scientific world needs to stop criticizing because it will only lead to an unending argument. There is no hard, physical evidence one way or the other. To debate over them is futile and serves no purpose.

The Physics Behind Four Amazing Demonstrations—David G. Willey

It is interesting how many seemingly impossible or dangerous things can be done if you understand the physics behind them and what is actually going on. I have heard of some of the demonstrations and how to do them before but not all of them. Walking on glass sounds like it is very easy but can also be very painful if you do not prepare properly for it. The nail of beds looks like it would be uncomfortable to lay on but not necessarily that painful. Getting hit by a sledge hammer does sound like something I would not want to try just because the chance of being hit too hard and being punctured by the nails.

I have not heard of the other two demonstrations. The molten lead still sound like it would be a dangerous demonstration to do and I still don’t fully understand it. How long do you keep your hands in the lead and how wet do you need to have your hands in the first place. I would not want to risk my hands to try to impress my friends. Picking up a orange hot piece of space tile sounds like it could be a fun trick. I would like to be able to take one of those tiles and try this one out. I wonder how quickly the tile will lose its orange color since it cools off so quickly.

Viruses of the Mind—Richard Dawkins

There are a few assumptions made by Dawkins that are not always true concerning religious people. Not everyone follows all the strict and seemingly ridiculous doctrines of their religion. Furthermore, not all religions have outlandish rituals or beliefs. To claim that they all do is make an argument that has no leg to stand on.

In spite of that, many truths are mentioned in this article. Most people are brought up believing what their parents believe. However many of those people do their own research at a point in their lives and come to their own conclusions, whether that is to continue to believe or not. Many intelligent people have faith. And if this faith is called a virus, what kind of virus is it. Is it one that is damaging to the person infected by it? Many times it is the opposite, it is helpful. It offers a hope for something more. It gives a purpose for life. It give comfort to those in need and. It gives motivation to those lacking it. Call it a virus if you will but infect me with it. How much joy can be found in living a hopeless, purposeless, unmotivated life with nothing to look forward to? Why work your whole life just to die and cease to exist? What is the point? Why continue struggling through life?

Beyond Belief--Session Two--Clash of Cultures

Neil deGrasse Tyson

This was a very interesting speech. I don’t think that when a scientists gets to a point when he is having difficulty understanding something and cannot explain it he should stop and say it is God. That is not the scientific way of doing things. The best reaction is to look back on your research and find out what is being done wrong. To give up on research and stop trying to find answers is not what should be done.

However, say that because a scientist believes in God is a horrible thing and a problem is an ignorant statement. Believing in God is not rejecting science, rather it can be a way to encourage more scientific research in order to gain a larger understanding of the universe that God made. To waste time trying to figure out why some scientists believe in God is counterproductive in that the time spent doing that could be spent on trying to understand nature and the world around us.

Beyond Belief-- Session One--Clash of Cultures

Steven Weinberg

Weinberg seems to have a problem with the idea that people can have a belief in a devine being or higher power. I think some of this stems from his own arrogance and unwillingness to be wrong. He seems to want to understand and to explain everything he can so much that he is not willing to say that God is responsible for anything because that does not allow him to figure something out and explain the world through natural means.

His approach does not appeal to many people, especially those of the religious community because he is so wrapped up in saying they are completely wrong and need to forget everything that they have based their lives on. This is something that most people have a hard time with. As humans we become comfortable with the beliefs we have and the only way to have us change our beliefs is slowly and over time. His approach seems to be demeaning to religious people. It does not sound like he is trying to educate others but rather show how smart he is and how wrong other people are. He might be right but his approach will only offend people and will not allow him to educate them, which should be his goal.

Laurence Crause

I enjoyed the way the Crause approached his lecture and how he approached science. He comes to it with complete ignorance and tries to find out what is true. He does not come to science with the purpose of trying to prove the absence of God but rather says that it does not matter. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. This is how scientific research and studies should be conducted.

People get so wrapped up in the conflict between God and science that it becomes an argument. From a scientific standpoint it does not matter if God exists, because science is still there and you can learn as much as you can to try to understand the world that we live in. From a religious standpoint, God created science and to further understand how the world works is to further understand God. It should not be an argument anymore. Science is important and is has nothing to with whether God exists or not.

Sam Harris

Sam Harris did not do much more that bash religious people and call them stupid for believing in God. He did not talk much about science and how it relates to God. Many Christians are very intelligent people and have a strong understanding of science. To say that these people are lunatics because they believe in God is a very ignorant statement. It is a completely non-scientific statement. Science has to leave the possibility that all things are possible. There is nothing in science that is 100% true. There has to be the possibility that a theory or law is wrong. To say that something is undoubtedly true is juxtapose to science.

All religious people have doubts in their own beliefs and that is something that Harris does not seem to understand. He just looks at religion and says it is lunacy because he does not understand it and is not willing to accept the possibility that it is true. This is something that should not be done in the scientific community. Until something can be proven beyond doubt, which religion cannot be, it should not be thought of as impossible.

Michael Sherman

I liked the way that Michael Sherman expressed the relationship between God and science. That God can use science and it is perfectly fine for science to exist with God because He created it. Many scientists seem to want to remove God from the equation just because popular science has a history of conflicting with religion and God. The two of them can coexist without problems.

He made a good point that the main issue is not the existence of God but it is what people are trying to accomplish with what they are given. Some scientists want to get people to become atheistic and stop believing in God. The problem with this is that most religious people have so much of their lives revolving around their beliefs that this is too much to ask of someone. The better approach is to show the truths of science and if those truths convince someone to change their beliefs then so be it. If they do not change their beliefs but rather fit in to them, that is alright as well. The end result is that science is embraced and knowledge is increased.

The Pleasure of Finding Things Out —Richard Feynman

I like the way he starts out by describing the way he was taught things by his father. It is interesting to think of how many things we are taught in school and throughout life that we don’t really understand. We know the names of things or the words to things but we don’t know what they mean. We cannot explain what they really are and because of this the knowledge is useless. It is just knowledge and not wisdom.

Knowledge is knowing what something is and wisdom is knowing how to apply and use that knowledge. There are many people with a lot of knowledge but there a few with wisdom. There are few people that understand the knowledge they have and are able to apply it to life and to the real word in a way that makes having the knowledge useful. Like Feynman said, it doesn’t matter if you know the name of a bird. You still don’t know anything about that bird and the knowledge you have about it is useless. You have to understand more about the bird, its behavior, before you can say you have an understanding of what type of bird it is. The knowledge of its name does not make you a wise person, it rather makes you a person full of useless information.

Bertrand Russell on Clear Thinking

I think he has a hard time getting his point across simply because he is hard to understand. He does not use common language, he uses too much jargon and is not speaking to the layman. I think he is trying to say that if you are thinking clearly you will make better choices in life than if you are not thinking clearly. To think clearly you need to remove all distractions from your mind and your surroundings.

Distractions can be everything from problems with the people around you to noises and even to substance abuse problems. With these distractions you cannot stay focuses on what you are doing. This is very true of substance abuse. When someone is addicted to drugs they can get to a point where all they think about is drugs and they will not be able to make good choices and all the choices they do make will be made with the intention of getting more drugs. This then adds to the problem making it worse.

Cargo Cult Science

This article brought up some interesting points. It seems like in the world today many “scientific” studies have political backing and funding. This causes the study to become interesting in proving something to be true to prove another group of people wrong regardless of the quality of the research done. The experiment will be done with pre existing biases and will do it until they reach the conclusion they want or the study will be said to be flawed or be redone until the desired result is found in order for someone’s political position to be “proven” right.

I know this is not the case for all experiments and there are many quality studies that are being done with integrity and without bias. I think this article makes it seem like all experiments are done as described above. It is true that some are but it is also true that many are not done that way. I think he needs to do a study of his own, a study into the amount of experiments are done with scientific integrity and those that have a bias. It would be interesting to find out what the statistics on that would show.

Another thought about this is how much integrity is possible. Can you really have absolute control over an experiment especially one involving animals or humans, which are both unpredictable and uncontrollable at times? Is it possible to have a social experiment that is reproducible? People react differently based on past experience and it is impossible to reproduce and exact reaction to a situation because the pervious reaction with have an impact of subsequent ones. At what point do you accept the results as they are with the possibly of an incorrect or inconsistent result? Is true scientific integrity even possible?

What is Cold Reading

I found this article humorous because it is so true. People get caught up in wanting to believe these people that they will take whatever they say and run with it. It’s obvious from the little bit that I have seen, whether on TV or elsewhere that the so called “psychic” is starting with the most general statements and allow the client to say just enough for them to say another fairly generic statement to find out more about the clients situation or problem.

I think if someone who truly believes in this sort of thing would actually reason their way through the idea of psychics and astrologers could come to the obvious conclusion that there is no truth to it. It is just people that can read someone else’s body language and then show confidence in the statements they say. I have found that you can convince people to believe complete lies if you do it with confidence. If you can earn the trust of someone or come to them as a person of authority in a subject you can make them believe anything you want them to because they don’t know any better. Most of the information and knowledge that we have today comes from trusting others. For example, the “common knowledge” that the earth is round is something that is taken for granted by most if not all people. How many people have actually seen the curvature of the earth or been lucky enough to actually see earth from space with their own two eyes. Very few can say they have but everyone believes it without evaluating it for themselves and coming to that conclusion on their own. I’m not implying that the earth is flat, I’m just taking my argument to the absurd. How much of our common knowledge do we really understand and how much more is just faith in words of someone else?