Final Exam

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 entire class?
Yes I have.

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

10. What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revisedmidterm grade? Provide a LINK to your midterm.
I earned a B on the midterm.
http://plaffin.blogspot.com/2007/09/midterm.html

11. Please place here all of the postings you have done for thisclass (you can copy and paste them. ALL EIGHT WEEKS OF POSTINGS.)

“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, saying 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.

Beyond Belief Session 6—Susan Neiman

There were a few things that I did not agree with in her speech. First, Abraham did not give God ethics lesions. She stated that since Abraham tried to talk God down from finding 50 righteous people to 10 righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah that he was showing God how to be merciful. This is untrue, however. God knew that he would not be able to find even ten righteous people so it did not matter if he lowered the number. Then it would be asked, then why did God start at 50 and not 10? God knew that Abraham would not be comfortable with God destroying a city and this “bargaining” would make him feel better. God did this to allow Abraham to accept this that understand how despicable these cities were.

Second, she states that religion teaches that if you are good and follow God’s commands you will go to heaven and if you don’t you will go to hell. Christianity does not teach this. It is known that you will not be able to go without sinning. It is a part of life and God understands that. All that is required is that you believe that Christ is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead and you will be saved. It is true that God wants you to follow his commands, but He knows you will ultimately fail at this. This is where God’s grace comes into play. He does not give you the punishment that you deserve. That punishment was paid for by Christ on the cross.

Edgar Cayce and the Skeptic

I liked how the author was unbiased in his assessment of this topic. He makes it clear that he does not think that Cayce has any paranormal or psychic abilities but does recognizes the impact his work made on people’s lives. It is important that we look to the physical empirical evidence when trying to explain something that seems paranormal at first. This, most often, can be done and a logical explanation can be made in regards to these events. When things cannot be empirically explained then it is left unexplained with a possibility of paranormal activity.

Although something that many people believe to be paranormal can be explained in a normal way, there is still an effect it has on people that believe in the paranormal. This cannot be overlooked. People have life-changing and spiritual experiences that are very important to them. Is there something more than the normal explanations at play in these situations? Is a supernatural or paranormal entity using the natural or normal world to accomplish a goal or make change in a person’s life? These are questions that cannot be answered. There is no physical evidence to support or deny them. All that is known is that there is a true change in people’s lives and perspective in response to these incidences.

Beyond Belief Session 7—Mahzarin Banaji

This was an interesting lecture. I liked the demonstration she did with the picture of the table. Even after she showed that they were the same size, when looking at them I did not want to believe that they were the same size. My mind would not agree with what my eyes saw. It is strange that when we know something to be true we can still believe it false based on the perspective we have on it. We get things engraved in our minds and are unable to change what we believe without working at it for a long time.

The demonstration she did with the gender biases was interesting. It is amazing how we can believe we are not biased but when we are put to a simple test like that one it will show that we are biased in that way. I found it interesting that the females in the room had the same conclusion as the males in the room. It shows how much society has an impact on the way we think and the biases that we have. We all have them as much as we do not want to admit that they are there.

Beyond Belief Session 7—Richard Dawkins

I still don’t see how the charity and the compassion that is in the world today fits in with Darwinian evolution and survival of the fittest. How is it beneficial for me to send my hard earned money to someone on the other side of the world to help them out? If anything it is unfavorable for me to give up something that will help me to better survive. Dawkins states that it is a mistake made by evolution. But isn’t the whole point of evolution is that mistakes that are not advantageous are removed from the gene pool because of that very reason.

I think, if the evolutionary theory is correct, that we, humans that is, are done with the evolutionary process on a large scale. Our behaviors and consciousnesses are no longer shaped by evolution but rather by the society around us. We have come to the point that we are able to fabricate so many things that can help us survive that we no longer need to evolve to extend out survivability. Fitness is not longer what it used to be. You no longer have to be the strongest but rather the smartest to survive.

Mark Juergensmeyer—Terror in the Mind of God

What is the mind of God? What does God really think about what is going on in the world today? No one can answer that question and I think that is the most important message in the speech. It is something that people need to take into account before they do things that have a lasting effect on the lives of the people around them. When people decide that God is telling them to kill other people, are they really sure about that? Is that something that God really wants them to do? Does that fit in with the teachings of the Bible, Koran, or other religious work?

Many people get the wrong idea about religion based on the actions of extremists within that religion. For example, the suicide bombers, or self martyrs as they call themselves, of Islam believe they are fulfilling the will of God. Who knows the will of God? No one but God. These people do not represent the mainstream Muslim belief. They do not have the same convictions and beliefs that most Muslims have today. Most of them would not say they think murdering other people is what God would want to be done. We need to look at the foundations of religion and not the extremists when we evaluate religion.

Steven D. Schafersman—An Introduction to Critical Thinking

It is important that people learn how to think critically. Too many people today believe what they are taught by others in authority positions, whether that be a teacher, a boss, or a mentor. People need to learn to think for themselves and not always trust the words of others around them. This is a huge problem in the world today. People have been raised with media bombarding them with information that is supposed to be true but in many cases it is uninformed or only part of the story.

In schools today many people are taught facts about nature and science but they are not taught how to analyze data. This analysis is how we come up with the facts that are now in the textbooks. We need to teach students at a young age how to think critically. It has only recently become mandatory at the college level and this is usually too late in people’s lives to change the way people look and think about things to make them be skeptical and analyze the information that they are given.

Eckankar by Dodie Bellamy

It’s amazing how many people can follow a religious movement that has been shrouded with lies. It is unfortunate that people get wrapped up in these cults and devote themselves to something that someone conjured up one night. I wonder how people felt when they read Lane’s book on the fallacies of their “religion.” To be shown that something that you whole heartedly believe and follow is no more than a compilation of plagiarized works from other beliefs. It is more amazing that so many people still believe in it knowing how deceptive its origins are.

I found it humorous the number of other cults that were stated as branches off of Eckankar, especially Jerry Mulven’s story. Someone that joked about starting a cult and getting people to follow him who actually went through with it and got people to follow after him. I guess it’s not that hard to get people to believe you when they are searching for something to believe in. I think that is where most of these followers come from. They are people that do not want to follow the mainstream religions and do not feel connected to them but want something to believe in. They search out and find these cults and find a community that will accept them and take them in. I wonder if I could start a religion?

John Polkinghorne

I liked this video because it showed the other side to the belief of a God. All the videos we have watched in this class so far have been about how there is no possibility of God existing. It was nice to see the other side of the coin, so to speak, and analyze more than just the “scientific” view. Polkinghorne is an intellectual person that has been in the scientific community for a while yet still holds on to his belief in God. He is able to see the workings of God in science and see how He fits into the natural world that we live in.

One of the topics brought up was of some interest to me. It was the belief some hold that everyone will go to heaven regardless of their beliefs. They would argue this is because of God’s love. However there is no evidence whatsoever in the Bible to support that type of belief. It is clear that some people will go to hell. It is necessary to believe in God and believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that He is God and that God raised Him from the dead. This is what the Bible teaches; people who do not believe this will go to hell. This is not meant to be cruel to people it is to continue giving them what they had during life; a life separated from God.

Beyond Belief Session 8—Harold Kroto

Another person that pulls soundbites and video clips that make religious belief seem ignorant. I am starting to get tired of watching this video because it is the same thing over and over again just with a different voice saying the same thing. The videos he shows are of people that many people would call ignorant. For example the video with senator Lott shows the ignorance of this man. I understand and agree with some of what he was saying in that we need to focus most of our study on what we need to be successful in the career path we chose. However, I think it is ridiculous to say that it is unnecessary to take math and science classes. This is important to become a well rounded person.

The example he brings up of the religious schools in Ireland and the religious racism between the protestant and catholic religions. He takes two quotes from teenagers and makes a statement regarding all protestant and all catholic in the world. He makes a major generalization that is completely inaccurate and ridiculous. He puts up strawman arguments that are easily taken down. There are no strong religious arguments being made or brought up that are debated over. Only these unsubstantiated arguments are used.

Beyond Belief Session 8—Charles Harper

This speech brought up some interesting points. He states that scientism is not real science. It is simply the religion of science. In my observation of this conference so far it is full of scientists that practice scientism. All the speeches seem to be the same thing over and over. First the speaker states what type of science they do then they try to show how smart they are. They say why they are right and how scientific their research has been. They show how they have proven that other people are wrong and what is wrong with what they said.

After they say this they religiously state why religion is wrong. They point out all the faults of religion and the problems that it has brought about is society today. They do not speak of the ideologies of these religions but just of the problems that the followers of these religions have. They talk about the problems that people bring to religion and do not show at all the religion has brought any problems to people. They state that science should be the only thing that is taught and that anything that has no physical, empirical proof has no place in the school system or in everyday life. However there is more to life that just the physical. There are things like love or joy or pain or depression that are not physical and do not have a scientific basis but they are real. They are things that have more impact on people’s lives than many of the things of science.

Beyond Belief Session 9—James Woodward

Some on the things that Woodward brought up needed to be said at this conference. Most of the speakers said that religion is the reason for bad things happening in the world today and because of that we need to get rid of religion. There is no empirical evidence to support this. It is true that some religious people have committed unspeakable acts. However these acts are not condoned by the religions that these people follow.

Then to say that because there are some bad people that have a religion that we should get rid of religion all together and look to science for all of our needs is ridiculous. First, as stated above, religion is not the root of the bad things that are happening in the world. These problems most often come out of political differences and do not have to do with religion. Removing religion will not remove the political differences in the world. Second, would science fix these problems? No it would not. As I just said the problems are not in the beliefs they are in the political views. Science is not a political view and will not have an effect on the way society behaves.

Beyond Belief Session 9—Melvin Konner

Some of his statements are ridiculous and unjustified. He states that all testable claims of religion can be proven false however he does not give one example. This is probably because there are none. It is true that many claims of religion cannot be tested, so this statement is of no importance. He also states that religion has caused great harm. What harm has religion caused? People that have religious belief do commit horrible atrocities but those actions are not condoned by their religion. Religion does not cause harm it is the people that cause the harm.

He then states that science can explain most things. Why can’t science explain all things? Can religion explain all things? No, it can’t either. Does the fact that science can explain many things negate the fact that religion can explain many things as well? No it doesn’t. Most mainstream religious beliefs have no conflict with scientific studies and beliefs. Just because science can explain many things doesn’t mean God does not exist. If God created science then science should be able to explain things, as it can. Again, this is another example of scientism. Even though they deny they practice scientism, all of their statements follow with scientism to the tee.

Nietzsche

Nietzsche feels that Christians are only religious to escape from the reality of the world that they live in. They believe only to hide that fact that they are not in a desired position in life. It gives them hope that they will not always be at the bottom of society and will someday be free of their problems. They believe because in God’s eyes all men are equal and that makes them feel better.

He also feels that you have to be miserable in order to follow a religion as it requires. You have to sacrifice everything you have. “The Christian faith is a sacrifice: a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit; at the same time, enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation.” You have to give yourself to God and deny your desires. You have to give up what makes you human.

Thakar Signh

Thakar Singh sounds like he has a lot of problems. This man is a fraud and has deluded the minds of his followers with ridiculous claims. First, to blindfold children for the first five years of life to allow them to become good meditators is absurd. How can that do any good to a child? That will leave them dysfunctional and unable to recognize the world around them. It seems like it would make them have to rely on Singh to function at doing anything because they would not know what anything around them is. Second, the abuse he does to women is horrible. I don’t understand why he hasn’t been brought to court by some of these women that he molested.

The man in one of the videos has clearly been brainwashed. He called Thakar Singh God and is willing to give his life for him. You can see in the way this man speaks that he is not all there. He has fallen into the delusion that Singh is God so much that he is unable to see past the atrocities that Singh is accused of committing. He looked like he was on drugs. He had a smile on the whole time saying it would be easier for him to die and follow Singh than lo live and follow him. I just want to go to him and slap him in the face and try to wake him up to the reality of what is going on around him and the lies that he has believed.

“DNA and the Brain” Dr. James Watson

Watson believes that the DNA shapes everything that makes us who we are. He does not believe that the way we are brought up shapes the personality or type of mind we have. All that makes up who we are is written in our mind and in our DNA. He thinks that if we continue to research and study our genes we will be able to see what variations or mutations cause different problems. He focuses much on autism and the recent DNA studies that have been made in regards to it.

He thinks that the autism is rooted in certain genetic mutations that are most likely made when two people with similarly “male” minds conceive. He describes a male mind as one that is more concentrated and better at math and computation. A female mind is one that is more compassionate and caring. It has be thought in the past that autism was caused by a mother that does not pay much attention to her child. Watson believes that the truth is that the child is autistic because of the genes that he has been given. However it is also true that most mothers of autistic children have “male” minds and are therefore less compassionate because of that.

Beyond Belief Session 10—Richard Sloan

Richard Sloan seems to have done a lot of research on the relationship between religion and medicine. I was surprised that he discounted some of the evidence that he said was sound. He looked at 89 articles that were about the benefits of religion in terms on physical medical health. He came to the conclusion that only 4 articles had sound studies done without flaws in the research. However, he discounts these articles just because they are in the minority of the articles. What are in these 4 articles and what evidence so they show? Just because there are only a few studies that were done correctly, there is still the evidence from those well done studies. The evidence is still there and still valid.

This brings up the issue of the quality of science done. When you have some evidence pointing to the truth of something, although it may be a small amount of evidence, you should not discount the evidence. There should be more research done on these issues to find out what the truth is. The few studies that were done correctly should be repeated to see if the result is the same. You should not discount empirical evidence just because it a small amount of evidence. This is not good science.

12. Why are certain religious zealots prone to use terrorism,according to Professor Mark Juergensmsyer? What does Juergensmeyerbelieve we should do in the future to mitigate such attacks?
Many religious zealots are prone to use terrorism because they feel that there is a religious war going on. There is a “war between religion and irreligion” according to Mark Juergensmeyer. They believe that they have to do something in order to preserve their way of life and their religion. Terrorism is a way to wake people up to what is going on around them; to make them see what is happening to their society. They want to send a message to the world that the government is the enemy. That they are destroying the way of life for many people. They want to embarrass the government.

They also know that what they are doing may not be successful in their life time or even the lives of their grandchildren, but they believe they will be successful sometime because this is a war that God is fighting. They cannot lose because God is on their side, it is God’s war. At this time their efforts look like they may be futile but over time, they believe, they will begin to have a larger effect on the outcome of events. They are not willing to just stand by and watch their way of life be destroyed. They have to do something and violence is the way that they feel is best to accomplish their task and do something for their society.

Mark Juergensmeyer believes the way to mitigate and reduce these attacks through religion. By bringing back to society the morality and goodness that religion is and should be based. By regaining the sense of community that religion is based on. Many times we get caught up in modern society and lose the authenticity of who we really are. We forget about God and where we came from. When we try to live in a world in which we are treated the way we should be, with respect and with love. The solution to the problem of religious violence is, in a strange way, religion.

13. Is there sufficient evidence to support the claim that EdgarCayce was psychic? Use your critical thinking field guide tosubstantiate your answer.
I do not think that Edgar Cayce was a psychic. He does not have any evidence to support his claims. He does have many followers that believe in him and support him but that is not evidence for the proof that he is psychic. He has been right about some things, however, there are also times that he has been wrong about things which further supports the claim that he is not psychic.

Some of his abilities can be explained by natural means. When it comes to working with individual people he can do a “cold reading” on them. By doing this he can let the person unknowingly tell him everything he needs to know to do the reading. The person does not realize, but there is nothing psychic about what he is doing. Not everything that he does can be explained. When you run across these things you cannot assume that they have paranormal origins. You need to do further research and try to find out why. There should be a logical explanation for his claims.

There is one thing that cannot be refuted about what he did. He had an impact on the lives of the people around him. Although most of his claims can be explained away, his impact on people is real. Their lives were changes and altered by things that Cayce did. This is one of the things that can be a problem when debunking someone’s claims of having paranormal abilities. You can crush the dreams and lives of his followers. Sometimes the delusions that people have are better left intact because they make the person’s life better and more enjoyable. Although this is not scientific by any means, it does have some ethical considerations.

14. Why is your professor so critical of cults?
I think Dr. Lane is so critical of cults because he does not like seeing people get wrapped up in something that is obviously false. People will believe anything without analyzing it and finding out if it is credible. By exposing cults for what they really are he shows people where they have gone wrong and allows them to see things they way that they really are. This prevents people from spending much time and money on something that is a fraud. Some cults are made simple for someone to make money off of them. This should not be and this is one reason that he is critical of cults.

Another reason is that he enjoys analyzing things and looking into what makes them run. Cults are something that he enjoys analyzing. This gives him something to look into. It is something that is interesting to many people. It gives him a purpose to get through the day. It is a goal that he has and it is one that can be accomplished. There is a lot of reading a research that can be done. Many of it is on the paranormal which seems to be something that he is interested in and this gives him an excuse to spend a great deal of time studying and analyzing it.

I could be completely wrong about all of this however. I do not personally know Dr. Lane and this is just my educated guess based on the readings and videos that I have watched over the course of this class. I cannot read his mind and I do not claim to understand the motives he has to be critical of cults. If I could read his mind it would make this class much easier because I would know the type of answer he is looking for on this final and I would earn a much better grade on this exam, although I hope I earn a good one anyway. But to answer the main question; I think Dr. Lane in critical of cults because it is something he enjoys and is something that impacts man people’s lives.

15. What do the films reveal about Sai Baba's claim for paranormalpowers?
Sai Baba does not have any paranormal powers. I do not know what exactly he claims because that is not mentioned in the films, and I do not have any previous understanding or knowledge of who Sai Baba is. From what I saw in the video I would assume that he is a leader of some religious organization and he claims to have been given paranormal abilities from God. He appears to “miraculously” produce items like coins or jewelry for his congregation.

It is clear in these videos that Sai Baba is just placing the items in his hands with sleight of hand techniques to fool his audience into believing him. It is somewhat surprising that people in the audience do not see what he is doing. At some point from some angle, such as the one in the video, you will be able to see what he is doing. When they see things I do not know how they could continue to believe in him and in what he teaches.

I can also be argued that he is not able to always miraculously produce items and during these times he uses trickery so his congregation is not disappointed in him and his abilities. There are a few problems with this view. First, if he really did have paranormal powers he would not need to ever use trickery to fool his congregation into believing him. If he truly had the powers he would have them all of the time and would not run into this problem. Second, if he had these powers but was not always able to use, why would he need to lie to his congregation? If he was honest with them about his abilities and did not use trickery then would not be able to be proven wrong. When you have video confirming his lies it makes it difficult to believe anything that this man claims.

16. Why did Thakar Singh believe in blindfolding children? Why dosome religious followers lack critical thinking skills?
Thakar Singh believes that blindfolding children allows them to develop meditation skills at a young age. By not seeing what is going on around them they are not distracted by the world and can focus on meditation. One of the main goals of meditation is to separate yourself from the surrounding world and focus your thoughts on one thing. Children have a hard time staying focused on one thing for any length of time because they get distracted and start looking and thinking about other things. The best way to remove these distractions is to blindfold the child from a young age. This will result in the child not understanding the world that is around them and they will not be distracted by it because they will have no connection to them.

This is a tragic thing though. Children develop so much of who they are and how they will function the rest of their life during the first five years of their life. By blindfolding them will not learn how to function in normal society and will be social outcasts. They will be socially retarded. They will not be able to visually recognize the world around them. This will lead to someone that is completely disadvantaged and dependant on others. This may be one of the reasons that Singh does this. The children will have no choice but to depend on him and follow him because they will not be able to function without him.

Some religious followers lack critical thinking skills because they were raised to trust what their priest of pastor tells without question. This leads to people that do not know how to think on their own. They are easily manipulated and conned. The thought that most of them has is why should I have to think critically about what I am being taught? I have no reason not to trust my religious leader. Why would he lie to me and try to mislead me? He is a man of God, or in some cases, he is God. Why would God lie to me? Unfortunately many people fall into these traps and grow up believing things that are untrue just because they are told them by authority figures.

17. JOHN POLKINGHORNE believes both in religion and science. Why?
John Polkinghorne was raised to believe in God and has a religious foundation for his life. He believes that God has a vital role in the universe and is responsible for the way it is. He also believes that God is a personal God and is involved in his life and can change the way things work out. God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. All things came to be through Him and remain in existence because He is there.

He also has a strong belief in science. He is a very smart and respected member of the scientific community. He has done a lot research in the field of physics and understands it very well. He knows much more about the way the world works and how the universe behaves than many people in this world. He understands the theory of evolution and they way that it fits in the world. He believes that it is the way that we came to be who we are today.

He holds both of these things to be true and wholeheartedly believes them. He does not see a contradiction between to two and sees how they fit together harmoniously. He believes that God created science and the rules of this universe. He put everything in motion and used science to create the world we live in today. God used evolution to create the world. He is the one that stated life and that is why it has not been explained in scientific terms, because it was a miraculous event carried out by God. With this belief there is no contradiction of terms and it explains how things are the way that they are.

18. How does Nietzsche critique religion? What are his mainarguments against a belief in God?
Nietzsche feels that Christians are only religious to escape from the reality of the world that they live in. They believe only to hide that fact that they are not in a desired position in life. It gives them hope that they will not always be at the bottom of society and will someday be free of their problems. They believe because in God’s eyes all men are equal and that makes them feel better.

He also feels that you have to be miserable in order to follow a religion as it requires. You have to sacrifice everything you have. “The Christian faith is a sacrifice: a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit; at the same time, enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation.” You have to give yourself to God and deny your desires. You have to give up what makes you human.

Nietzsche does not believe in God because he does not want to sacrifice everything that he has and is. He does not want to believe in a God that requires him to praise Him all the time. He is in a good place in his life and does not have the needs that some people have and does not need to look to some outside source for a sense of hope in life.

19. Why does James Watson believe that genetics holds the secret forunderstanding human behavior? Why do some people resist believingthat we are just bundles of DNA?
James Watson believes that the DNA shapes everything that makes us who we are. He does not believe that the way we are brought up shapes the personality or type of mind we have. All that makes up who we are is written in our mind and in our DNA. He thinks that if we continue to research and study our genes we will be able to see what variations or mutations cause different problems. He focuses much on autism and the recent DNA studies that have been made in regards to it.

He thinks that the autism is rooted in certain genetic mutations that are most likely made when two people with similarly “male” minds conceive. He describes a male mind as one that is more concentrated and better at math and computation. A female mind is one that is more compassionate and caring. It has been thought in the past that autism was caused by a mother that does not pay much attention to her child. Watson believes that the truth is that the child is autistic because of the genes that he has been given. However it is also true that most mothers of autistic children have “male” minds and are therefore less compassionate because of that.

Some people resist believing that we are just bundles of DNA because it makes us seem like robots. Its leaves us with no control over who we are and what we are. People want to believe that they way their children end up is based on the way that they are raised and not on the way their genetic code is written. This also removes the idea of a soul or spirit that makes up who we are. If everything that makes us “us” is our genes then we have no real control over our lives, it is predetermined by our genes.

20. Why is intelligent design regarded as "junk" science by mostevolutionary biologists?
The intelligent design theory tries to explain the origins of life on earth. The explanation is that an intelligent designer created life and then allowed evolution to take place and develop life as it is today. The intelligent designer is not specified in the theory. It is possible that this designer is God or even an alien from another planet. Although most supporters of intelligent design hold that God is the intelligent designer, some believers in extraterrestrial life have tried to use this theory to support their claims of intelligent life on other planets.

Most evolutionary biologists do not agree with supporters of the intelligent design theory and think that it is not true science. The reason for this is because there is no science involved in it. You cannot prove the existence of an intelligent designer, whether this be God or aliens from another planet. There is no physical evidence to support these claims. There is no scientific advantage for using intelligent design to describe the origin of life. It still leaves the question of the origin of the intelligent designer.

There is no way to prove or disprove the claims of intelligent design. There is no evidence either pro or con. It is a claim that is irrelevant because it has no leg to stand on. There possible empirical evidence. This does not mean that it cannot be true, but it does mean that it is outside the realm of science. This is why evolutionary biologist consider it junk science, if they considerate any kind of science at all.

21. What is the underlying theme behind the movie the ZAHIR?
The movie Zahir has an underlying theme of obsession. The main character is given the zahir which is a coin. He begins to think about the coin and dwells on it. He gets to the point where he is unable to think about anything else. He goes to bed at night and dreams that he is a pile of coins. He does everything he can but is unable to stop thinking about coins. He sees a therapist and is unable to find much assistance there.

Many people become obsessed with things in life and are unable to get them out of their minds. It starts with just thinking about the issue. That progresses to dwelling on the issue and you are unable to get it out of your mind. That progresses then to obsession. The issue invades you mind. You think about it day and night. You dream about it. It gets to the point that it affects your ability to function normally throughout the day because you are distracted by the issue. When you stop thinking about it you start to think about how you are not thinking about it which leads you to thinking about it again.

The film provides a possible “cure” to this problem; think about the issue so much that it becomes meaningless. By doing this you focus on thinking about it rather than trying not to think about it. The more you think about it the less meaning it has. This is going off the principal that is most commonly noticed with smells. The reticular activating system in the brain senses the smell at first but the more you are exposed to it your mind stops thinking about it and you no longer notice the smell. In the same way thinking about something for long enough can lead you to forget about it. However, this does not always work and can make the problem worse.

22. How can little things that jiggle reveal the universe around us(hint: think of the movie of the same title).
Little things that jiggle make up everything in the universe. The little things that jiggle are atoms. All things are made of atoms. Their behavior can explain everything around us. If we can understand why atoms behave the way they do and what makes them do it we may be able to answer many other questions as well.

What makes something live and another thing not? This may someday be explained by looking more into what atoms are made of: the quarks and gluons and whatnot. What are these things made of and what makes them act the way they do? Is there something within the atoms of a living thing that is not with the atoms of a nonliving thing? The more we understand atoms the more we will be able to understand what makes things act the way they do.

This has been proven true in the medical field already. For example, organophosphate poisoning is something that can kill very easily but can be treated when you understand the way it works on the molecular level. An organophosphate binds to acetylcholinesterase in the nerve synapses. Acetylcholinesterase normally pulls acetylcholine out of receptor sites, however when it is bonded to and organophosphate it is unable to do this. This results in a continuous nerve impulse from acetylcholine, which causes massive parasympathetic stimulation that can result in death. Knowing this medical personnel can give a drug called atropine that will plug up the acetylcholine receptors preventing acetylcholine in. However, if all the receptor are blocked then atropine cannot work. To overcome this a drug named pralidoxine chloride (2-PAM chloride) is used. This drug breaks the bond between the organophosphate and acetylecholinesterase which allows it to pull acetylchole out of the receptors which then allows atropine to do its job. This results in stopping the parasympathetic overstimulation and saves the person’s life. If we did not how the molecules worked then we would not know how to treat this person and would be unable to save their life.

23. Why is fundamentalism a mental disease, according to the movieof the same title?
Fundamentalism is a belief that the whole Bible is literal and true. Form the story of creation in seven days, to the flood, to Christ’s resurrection, to the story of the rapture. They believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and it is infallible. Fundamentalists have a unconditional and blind faith of God and His word in the Bible. This is different that some Christian beliefs that the Bible is the true word of God but that some of the stories are not meant to be taken literal and are parables as to what really happened.

The movie states that fundamentalism is a mental disease. A disease is something that is wrong with the body and is not how it naturally should be. This means that fundamentalism is something that is wrong in the mind. People that believe this are have something unnatural with the way they are thinking. The reason for this is there is no empirical evidence to support some of the claims of the Bible. There is no evidence that the earth is only six thousand years old, but there is evidence to the contrary of this that points to the earth being millions, even billions of years old. There is also no empirical evidence that Christ was risen from the dead, or even that he actually existed at all.

I do not believe that fundamentalism is a mental disease. There is empirical evidence to support many of the claims of the Bible and many archeologist look to the Bible to decide where to look for artifacts. Almost all the historical claims of the Bible can be supported by archeology. Although there are some problems with the creation story, there are many people that believe that story is analogous with the story of evolution. That the days do not refer to a literal twenty-four hour day but rather to a longer period of time while the earth was being formed.

24. Name eight common fallacies when arguing for a position. Be sureto give examples, perhaps drawn from your own life, for each of them.
Fallacies can be broken down into two different categories, formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are more logical and deductive in nature and informal fallacies are non-logical and non-deductive in nature.

There are four formal fallacies I would like to discuss. The first one is the bad reasoning fallacy. This one states that if an argument is unsound then its conclusion is false. For example, I might argue that someone always lies so I can’t ever believe them. No one always lies so it is not true that I can never believe what they are saying. The second one is improper transposition. It states that if a is true then b is true, therefore if a is not true then b is not true. For example, if I go to the store then I will have food, therefore if I don’t go to the store then I won’t have food. This is not necessarily true and therefore is a bad argument. The third on is illicit conversion. This one states that all a are b, therefore all b are a. For example, all Christians are theists, therefore all theists are Christians. This is obviously not true. The fourth one is the undistributed middle term. This one states that all a’s are c’s and all b’c are c’s, therefore all a’s are b’s. For example, all trees are growing and all people are growing, therefore all trees are people. This is not true.

There are four informal fallacies I would like to discuss. The first one is Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. This states that if a happened just before b therefore a caused b. For example, dogs bark before earthquakes, therefore dogs barking causes earthquakes. The second one is the gambler’s fallacy. This states that since a happened so many times in a row it is less likely to happen on the next round. For example, in roulette if the ball lands on black ten times in a row then it is much more likely to land on red the next time. This is not true because the odds are the same for every spin of the wheel. The third one is the bandwagon fallacy. It states that if idea a is popular then idea a is true. For example, most people believe in God, therefore God exists. This is a popular belief but it is not necessarily true. The fourth one is guilt by association. This state that person a accepts idea b, therefore idea b is wrong (assuming person a is someone that is disliked). For example, Hitler believed in God, therefore believing in God is wrong. These fallacies were taken from the Fallacy Files web site (www.fallacyfiles.org).

25. Provide your own critical analysis (using the terminologylearned in this class, etc.) of the current "war on terrorism" aswaged by the USA. Your argument can be either pro or con or both,provided that you substantiate your reasoning.
The Iraq war has many varying views on it. It is a huge political issue today that is more complex than many people think it is. One issue is why we are there. The current administration states the reason is because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and they were a threat to the free world. Iraq supports terrorist groups and terrorist activities even committing government sanctioned acts of terror on its own people. There was a possibility that Iraq could supply a terrorist organization with a nuclear weapon that would be used on America. It was better for us to go in and remove the possibility of that happening. However we never had hard evidence of WMD in Iraq. They said that they did not have any but the current administration did not believe then and went off the assumption that they had them without getting the proper evidence. This leaves us in a war that is, at this time, unjustifiable with regards to WMD in Iraq.

Another theory as to why we are in this war is the issue of oil. Iraq has an enormous supply of oil that would be very beneficial for America to have a stake in. Many of the people close to high ranking political positions are in the oil industry and would greatly benefit from America changing the political state of Iraq. It has been argued that this war is more about money that it is on terror. However, all the control of the oil is now in the hands of the Iraqi people and not in the hands of the United States.

One more theory is that Bush had a hidden agenda to go into Iraq and finish what his father was unable to do while he was in office. He could have used 9-11 and the possibility of WMD in Iraq as justification for going into Iraq. This does not seem like a very plausible argument for the reasons for going to Iraq. I would hope the president would not risk the lives of thousands of American soldiers to take care of a family issue.

All three of these reasons have some valid points and some flaws to them. I think the truth lies in between all of these theories. There is not on easy answer as to why we are in Iraq. It is a complex combination of many different issues that resulted in American entering war with Iraq. It is an issue that will not be able to be answered for many years. When this war is over we may be able to go back and analyze all the events leading up to the war, the war itself, and the ultimate outcome of the war. There is little that can be done to fully understand this issue today. Time will be our guide and will reveal the answers to our questions.

26 (very important question, don't skip it): In the Beyond Beliefconference there was much heated discussion about religion and itsplace. Provide a 750 word or more review of the entire series. Whosearguments were most persuasive? Whose arguments were less so? BESPECIFIC.
The Beyond Belief conference was very interesting, but very one sided. There was only the view of the scientific community expressed at the conference. There was a lot of hostility towards the religious community shown by many of the speakers. Richard Dawkins believes that teaching religion to children is child abuse. I think child abuse is a slightly hyperbolic term to use when describing this. The parents of these children believe in God and believe what they are teaching their children is the truth. They are raising their children with strong morals, ethics, and values. Abuse is something that a parent does to punish and degrade their children, not something they do to try to make them a functional member of society. For those parents that have a strong belief in God it would be “child abuse” not to raise them to believe. In the eyes of the parents, if their child did not believe then the child would end up going to hell when they die. How can a loving parent stand by when they believe that they will go to hell if they do not believe in God?

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Steven Weinberg are all somewhat hostile towards people that have religious beliefs. They are so wrapped around the disbelief in God that they will not do the scientific thing and leave a possibility for the existence of God. They all state that they are followers of scientism but they fir very well into that mold. They think that everyone should be raised in a society that is founded on science and has no belief in God. They are religiously a part of scientism.

There were a few speakers that I enjoyed listening to and found their arguments much more persuasive than other. One was Laurence Krauss. He held the belief that it does not matter if scientist have a belief in God as long as they are doing good science. There does not need to be a discrepancy between the two. Religion and science fit together, the only problem arises when someone like Dawkins has something personal against a belief in God. There is no reason that a good scientist cannot believe in God. It would give the scientist something to strive after, the more he could learn about the universe the more he could learn about God’s creation and the way that God made it. Religion lies outside the realm of science. There is no necessary conflict between the two.

Paul Davis made an interesting point about the foundational beliefs held in science compared to the foundational beliefs of religious people. Religious people believe that God created the all time and space and is outside the bounds of both of them. This is something that has no empirical evidence and cannot be proven either way. The scientific stand is that some “universe generating mechanism” created the universe. However, they are unable to explain what it is and where it came from. Also the physics that science is based on has no reason for being the way that they are. They are completed absurd, according to Davis. Neither science nor religion can prove the foundational element of them.

Steven Nadler brought up the issue of morality and pointed out that there is no need for a belief in God. Many religious people will say that morality is a result of God and would not exist without Him. This is not the case however. Morality helps us get what we want in life. I will be kind to you in order to get something out of you and in hopes that you will be kind to me at the same time. I will not kill someone in hopes that others will not think it is alright to kill me. Morality stems from selfish desire but results in caring for the needs of others. God is not needed for morality.

James Woodward stated some things that were in juxtaposition with speaker like Dawkins, Weinberg, and Harris. He said that religion is not the reason that bad things are happening in the world. It had been mentioned that religious zealots commit terrorist act and kill other people in the name of their religion, such as with 9-11. However these are not reflections of the teaching of the religion that they follow. These are people that are deranged and angry but are not justified in what they do. Most of the work done by religious groups is for the good. When there are natural disasters religious groups do fundraisers to help support the victims. Religious organizations help feed the hungry and house the homeless. They provide services to all of mankind that they would not otherwise receive. You never hear about a scientific organization raising money to help African children. Almost all humanitarian aid is given through religious organizations. If we did not have religion, as some would like it, we would not have these groups and we would have a lot more people in need of assistance without anyone there to help them.

This conference was informative about some of the beliefs of the scientific community. I think it would be more beneficial to have scientist that are also religious speak at the conference in the future. This would offer a much more balanced experience about the question of religion and science. I enjoyed hearing some of the arguments but at the same time they became somewhat redundant and almost childish at times. I would like to attend one of these conferences just so I could input some of my thought into the conversation. It is so much of a one sided conversation that it become annoying at times. Overall it was an educational experience to watch this conference.

26. What was your favorite film lecture?
I enjoyed the film lecture on John Polkinghorne. I liked this video because it showed the other side to the belief of a God. All the videos we have watched in this class so far have been about how there is no possibility of God existing. It was nice to see the other side of the coin, so to speak, and analyze more than just the “scientific” view. Polkinghorne is an intellectual person that has been in the scientific community for a while yet still holds on to his belief in God. He is able to see the workings of God in science and see how He fits into the natural world that we live in.

One of the topics brought up was of some interest to me. It was the belief some hold that everyone will go to heaven regardless of their beliefs. They would argue this is because of God’s love. However there is no evidence whatsoever in the Bible to support that type of belief. It is clear that some people will go to hell. It is necessary to believe in God and believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that He is God and that God raised Him from the dead. This is what the Bible teaches; people who do not believe this will go to hell. This is not meant to be cruel to people it is to continue giving them what they had during life; a life separated from God.

27. What was your favorite mini movie?
I liked the videos on Thakar Singh. They were informative into the type of things that some people do while they are in cults. It also shows one of the types of people that lead some of these cults and the problems that they have. It was an eye opener into the amount of influence that someone can have on another and the consequences of this.

Thakar Singh sounds like he has a lot of problems. This man is a fraud and has deluded the minds of his followers with ridiculous claims. First, to blindfold children for the first five years of life to allow them to become good meditators is absurd. How can that do any good to a child? That will leave them dysfunctional and unable to recognize the world around them. It seems like it would make them have to rely on Singh to function at doing anything because they would not know what anything around them is. Second, the abuse he does to women is horrible. I don’t understand why he hasn’t been brought to court by some of these women that he molested.

The man in one of the videos has clearly been brainwashed. He called Thakar Singh God and is willing to give his life for him. You can see in the way this man speaks that he is not all there. He has fallen into the delusion that Singh is God so much that he is unable to see past the atrocities that Singh is accused of committing. He looked like he was on drugs. He had a smile on the whole time saying it would be easier for him to die and follow Singh than lo live and follow him. I just want to go to him and slap him in the face and try to wake him up to the reality of what is going on around him and the lies that he has believed.

28. What was your favorite reading?
I liked the reading called “The Physics Behind Four Amazing Demonstrations.” It was different that most of the readings that we did in this class. Most of the reading and videos have to do with religion and science and the debate between the two. It was nice to read an article that was not on this topic. It was more entertaining to read this one and it was informative as well. I enjoyed learning about these things and how to do them.

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 an 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.

29. What is the most unusual thing you learned this semester?
The most unusual thing that I learned this semester was that so many people get caught up in personal biases and beliefs that they blind themselves from looking at the facts of what is going on around them when making decisions. This does not just related to the religious community but also to the scientific community.

The religious community does not want to question their religious beliefs when it comes to believing in other things. Religious people do not want to look at some of the views of the scientific community because it is in opposition to some of their beliefs, such as with the theory of evolution. Many religious people are afraid to even consider the possibility of evolution being the way that the world got to the point it is today because it is in opposition with the story of creation in the Bible. However, there are many truths to the theory of evolution and it can fit in with the story of creation. It just means they have to look at the creation story in the bible as non-literal and analogous to the theory of evolution.

The scientific community is guilty of the same thing at times. They do not want to accept the possibility that God exists. They get so wrapped up in the traditional scientific view that everything can be explained by natural means. They never stop to consider that maybe God created science and is what put the whole thing in motion. He might be the “universe generating mechanism” that many scientists believe in but are unable to understand or begin to explain. I think they need to consider the possibility that there is more to the world that meets the eye.

It is important that people look at things critically. We need to try to leave out biases and beliefs out of things when we are trying to discover the truth. We need to leave the possibility for anything to be possible and not discount anything until we have done enough research and studying on the subject to come to that conclusion. People are too apt to jump to conclusions without thinking about it at all.