FINAL EXAMINATION IS NOW ONLINESCIENCE AND RELIGION: FINAL EXAMspring
REAL NAME: Travis Cheney
USER NAME: TravCheney
Website address: www.virtuososo.blogspot.com
Attendance: how many classes missed? how many classes tardy?
0 absences, 0 tardy. Only class I didn’t miss once this semester.
MIDTERM GRADE: what grade did you finally get on the midterm?
1. Did you read all of the required books for this class? Bespecific about how many pages for each book, etc.
Finished The God Delusion and Rational Mysticism, only made it half way through God’s Universe but skimmed the rest.
2. What was your favorite book and why? The God Delusion. I always knew I was an atheist but never really had the right arguments to explain myself when talking to friends
3. What does Nietzsche mean by the transvaluation of values and whatdoes this idea have to do with our concept of morality?
Nietzsche’s transvaluation of values takes a look at Christianity and discusses how it distorts one’s mind into doing evil, unnatural things then what ones stimuli would naturally cause one to do. Stating that the Christian religion is full of revenge, he analyzes how sex is the very fundamental affirmation of life, for it being the very process by which human life is created though the bible condemns it in many cases. Nietzsche is trying to show that christianity is trying to tell you to avoid anything thing that would lead to “sin” when in actuality humans behave more moral when acting on their organic notion. Nietszche explains his view of the transvaluation of values caused by christianity best in this quote “I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty -- I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind...
3a. Why is Nietzsche so critical of Christianity?”
Nietzsche believed that the teachings of Christianity influence one to act more immoral then one would without religion. He shows how Christianity instills hate, revenge, and greed into ones brainwashed head. He believed these values will “kill the human spirit” and “cause modern man to forget how to dance.” Christianity was not seen as life-affirming, but rather, life denying.
4. Give one specific example of what some may regard as morally
right or good and then argue how Nietzsche may argue the opposite.Be sure to pick an example that would correlate with Nietzsche's transvaluation ofvalues.
A strict Christian who takes the bible very seriously would find breaking the rule of the 10th commandment (Thou shall not covet) to be a sin. But when broken down “covet” basically means to desire. Nietzsche could argue how religion had flipped this meaning, and that it is natural for us to desire. I desire to own a house within the next 10 years, because of this I plan on getting my MBA and finding a job that pays well enough to afford my desires.
5. Why isn't Bertrand Russell a Chrisitian? Substantiate yourargument.
It seems that Bertrand Russell is not a Christian for the same reasons most as most non believers; he analyzed the religion too much. Bertrand went much deeper in explaining his argument than most people would. His first argument came after reading John Stuart Mills Autobiography where he started analyze “Who made me?” he then started to realize the fallacy of First Cause and the idea of if god created everything, who created god realizing the problems with this thinking he stated “There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.” Bertrand then goes on to argue against design and show how there is statistical evidence for most things that are considered acts of god stating “The whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws.” He then goes on to break down the character of Christ and how his work is not so miraculous. Although Bertrand calls Jesus a good man he does not find him extraordinary and compares his style of teaching; of scaring people into belief by the thought of everlasting punishment to modern day preachers.
6. How would C.S. Lewis answer those who argue that there is noevidence for a God, particularly a Christian one?
Lewis tries to delicately provide skeptics that proof of a God does exist. Almost in the same way an atheist would argue how religion leaves out scientific facts, Lewis claims that skeptics fail to recognize the proofs out there that in fact there is a supreme being. He does this by starting broad by removing the intellectual barriers of a belief that there is no god, so he can eventually lay down the foundation for a belief in a Christian God. Lewis then almost tries to differentiate Christian believers from skeptics saying that a believers faith is a form of loyalty, trust, allegiance, and commitment which is not reducible to evidence. While all unbelievers have to rely on is scientific principle alone.
7. How does evolution help us to better understand WHY science arosein the first place? And why religion arose in the first place?
After Darwin released the theory of evolution it was no longer necessary to imagine that every kind of animal or plant had been specially created, or that there is any conscious purpose behind the evolutionary process. Darwins theory was so powerful that it made society realize that Man is not a finished product incapable of further progress and that the few thousand years of recorded history are nothing compared to the million years during which man has been on earth. Evolution can also give an explanation as how religion arose in the first place. Assuming that we evolved from primates our brains, and ability to reason became more and more powerful. As our brains continued to evolve we started to obtains feelings like, fear, anger, curiosity, and desire. From these emotions came the opportunity to think and reason. Religion then arose as a biologic reaction of mind in reaction to a curiosity of a higher power. And just as humans have evolved so has religion with new thoughts, ideas, and outlooks on the meaning of life.
8. Richard Feynman talked about cargo cult science and how sillynotions are often believed in without any evidence. Use threeexamples of your own choosing and demonstrate how Feynman wouldcritique such paranormal or supposed miraculous events.
Feynman talks about the difficulty of doing science well, and the temptation to take shortcuts and engage in things that look like science, but that don't advance the body of scientific knowledge. He names cargo cult scientists as people who conduct flawed research that fails to produce useful results. He stresses the need for scientist to conjures up possible flaws in their experiments and to test them. One of the best know examples is the Cult of John Frum where the people of the island of Tana experienced an influx of soldiers during WWII. During the soldiers stay they dramatically increased the standard of living for these people. After the troops had left they decided to proclaim the US Army as their messiah and have been waiting for their return for over half a century. Another example can be when scientists use computer models to predict global warming, they use these time lapsed progressions to show how the earth is now and how with the increasing temperature change how the planet will look 25 years from now. This research could be considered faulty because it does not take into account variables that could possibly change the earths climate. Another cargo cult could be peoples belief in magicians like David Blane, they see his stunts and magic in person and automatically believe that since they saw it with their own eyes it really happened when in actuality most of it can be explained by illusion.
9. What is science according to Feynman? How does his definitiondiffer from more normative explanations?
Feynman can be thought of as a purely scientistic scientist, ignoring or dismissing anything about life and the world that was not accessible to scientific method. Feynmans science is differentiated by his reliance on mathematics on explaining most everything, explaining that without the mathematics to back something up it can not be proved. He also states that scientific theories, because of the nature of scientific method, cannot specify the whole meaning of their concepts.
11. Why is agnosticism or even atheism so appealing to authors likeDawkins, Russell, and Nietzsche? What is the lure of non belief?
Darwin, Russell, and Nietzsche looked at the religious dominated society around them and realized there was something wrong with the mechanics behind all this belief. They all seem to share the same idea in religion is just a crutch to ease people minds of the depression that would come from the thought of no afterlife. This had motivated them to go deeper and break down these religions and test their teachings against science. They used their findings to show that it is not necessarily god who controls everything happening on the planet, all these things have a more logical explanation then just relying on that it was an act of god. Nietzsche seemed to explain societies reliance on religion best in this quote “Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life.”
12. How can religion, according to your teacher (and the lecturethat dealt with this), survive the onslaught of reason? What doesreligion have to do to "win" the science-religion battle?
A good point was brought up that if and when the church will fall it will come from its members and not the people who criticize it. Meaning that it will be the people of the congregation that will someday realize that “hey something is not right here.” To avoid this the church needs to redirect its principles and style of teaching. Instead of interpreting religion strictly from the words of scripture it needs to interpret its meaning into the language of modern day society. Instead of battling science on every front, it needs to find areas that both science and religion can agree on such as evolution and extraterrestrial life.
13. Why does Christopher Hitchens argue that "god is not great."?(google research required)
Hitchens looks at religion and the negative effects it has had on civilization. He states religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children." He argues how religion demands unreasonable suppression of human nature, inclines people to violence and blind submission to authority and how we will continue to embrace this kind of behavior until we relieve ourselves from the fear of dying. Hitchens continues to argue on such fronts as how religion can even be physically hazardous as some condemn the use of pharmaceuticals to fight disease
14. Why is evolution such a contentious issue among certainfundamentalist religious groups. More precisely, what is the coreissue that upsets certain religious devotees?
Religious fundamentalists often attack evolution, but rarely from a positions of really understanding what evolution is and how it works. Their main argument is that we didn’t just evolve and adapt, but rather we were created. Because evolutionary theory posited a “nonbiblical” understanding of the origin of life, particularly human life. Creationist use creation science to argue against evolution, stating that something could not just come from nothing and that there has to be some sort of intelligent design behind our solar system, planet and how we came to live on it.
15. In your opinion, where can science help religion?
I believe science could help religion if religion decided to not be so strict on the teachings of its scripture. There is a lot of stuff in the bible that even some Christians do not agree with, that could possibly be because the bible was meant to be interpreted and not taken so literal. If religions could find ways to incorporate some laws of science into their teachings I think they would be a lot better off. The Catholic religion made a huge step forward in this way in just the last week when Monsignor Corrado Balducci, a theologian member of the Vatican Curia (governing body) announcing that extraterrestrial contacts are a real phenomenon, and stating that extraterrestrial encounters "are NOT demonic, they are NOT due to psychological impairment, they are NOT a case of entity attachment, but these encounters deserve to be studied carefully." He later goes on to state that there is no reason that god being almighty would only create life here on earth.
16. In your opinion, where can religion help science?
There is little room for religion to help science. I believe to only way religion helps science is for atheists to utilize more science to find more arguments to disprove religion. Because religion hates skepticism but on the other hand science loves skepticism, it thrives off it.
22. Are spiritual experiences reducible to neuroscience? If yes, doessuch an intertheoretic reduction eliminate the God Hypothesis? If no,what is science missing in its study of mystical states?
They most definitely are reducible to neuroscience, though sometimes I wish they weren’t. Because I had my best friend recently pass away, there are sometimes where I truly believe he is with me or communicating with me on some level. Though I wish this were true when I break it down I realize that these experiences are probably related to the deep emotional attachment I had with him, and the pleasure I get from remembering the good times we shared
26. Is Francis Crick correct that we will never find the soul becauseit doesn't exist?
Though Francis Crick was one of the co-discoverers of the molecular structure of the genetic molecule, DNA. His theory on the human soul is one for debate, Crick stated his view that the idea of a non-material soul that could enter a body and then persist after death is just that, an
imagined idea. I believe his search for the soul is somewhat of a parody and do not really understand what he is trying to prove in his studies. Both believers and non believers alike wiill agree that the soul is not a physical part of the body
29. In the future, how can we have a more fruitful and a more civilconversation on the subject of science and religion? What should bethe guidelines, if any?
A more fruitful conversation on the subject of science and religion could happen if the debaters could actually play a little devils advocate and actually take a Feynman approach and try to figure out the flaws they have in their own beliefs.
31. What was the most intersting thing you learned this semester?What was your favorite film? The most interesting thing I learned was to not worry so much. As being an atheist before I would always think about death and the state of nothing. But over the semester I have come to realize that I am spiritual though still no where close to religion. The Big Bang
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
NAME: Travis Cheney
2. USERNAME: TravCheney
3. Web site (or blogger) address: www.virtuososo.blogspot.com www.surfandestroy.blogspot.com
4. Attendance: how many classes have you missed? How many have youbeen late to? 0 misses, 0 late arrivals. Honestly.
5. LIST all of your posts (you can copy and paste them here, if youwish, or provide a link to all of them)
Though I frequently visit the board I felt there was only one topic that reacted me to respond. It was regarding the lecture where you first began to dissect individual lectures, starting with Hinduism. This was the first class where I could actually see people getting heated and even began to look as if they were questioning their own beliefs.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2843
6. Have you watched all of the required films/lectures, etc., so far?
Yes, I have viewed them all, but not comprehended everything. The “Beyond
Belief” conference would go a little over my head at times.
7. Did you do the required reading? Did you partially read them? Ifso, how much?
Read 2 chapters of “The God Delusion” then bought the audio book, which I have listened to twice. I just started “God’s Universe” last week.
8. How would an atheist (in your chosen book) critique a theist'sargument (in your chosen book) the existence of God? Be specific andbe sure to reference your chosen reading.
Throughout Richard Dawkins novel he continually dissects every aspect of most organized religions and attempts to disprove it by pointing out how it contradicts itself or giving scientific evidence that supports his claims. There is that old saying that goes “If god created the universe, who created god?” which really invokes some deep thinking. Dawkins chooses to look at it this way, ...‘Why is God considered an explanation to anything? It's not – it's a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an ‘I dunno’ dressed up in spirituality and ritual. If someone credits something to God, generally what it means is that they haven't a clue, so they're attributing it to an unreachable, unknowable sky-fairy. Ask for an explanation of where that bloke came from, and odds are you'll get a vague, pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature. Which, of course, explains nothing.’” (Chapter 4, p. 134)
9. How would a theist argue against the atheistic notion that abelief in God is delusional? Again, be sure to reference your chosenreading.
Owen Gingerich gives argument saying “The universe is easier to comprehend if it has both purpose and design” Believing in both science and religion Gingerich takes bits and pieces from both to create his own personal beliefs. Though he believes in a lot of scientific arguments that would contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ he believes there are things that science can not prove and their for were created by god.
10. How does Littlewood's theory of large number help explainmiracles or supposed divine coincidences?
Littlewood’s law is basically broken down to “with a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen.” Stating that one can be expected to observe one miraculous occurrence within the passing of every 35 consecutive days” which means that so many “things” happen in our daily lives that can be given a title such as good, bad, exciting, pleasurable, etc. . . but out of all these events that happen one of them is bound to be a “miracle”
11. Discuss in this essay the pseudosciences: what are a couple ofreasons people turn to them and what are some key problems withthem? Take two or more pseudosciences and apply Ockham's razor(define the term first) to them.
Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. I believe people turn to these pseudosciences because they believe it somehow bridges the gap between religion and science. Astrology seems to be deeply rooted in science and tries to give explanations as why everything in the world happens which makes it a sort of religion. A great movie presented online for free is “Zeitgeist” (www.zeitgeistmovie.com) the movie spends a big portion trying to relate how most all religions on the planet were somehow formed by astrological signs. The Ockhams Razor is says the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. You can look at figures like John Edwards and the people that buy into his “psychic readings”. People actually believe he is contacting the dead when in actuality he is just a master at interpreting peoples physical emotions.
12. Why does Darwinian evolution make atheism both respectable andtenable? Why was Charles Darwin agnostic about God and Christianity?
Darwin’s “Survival of the fittest” gave meaning to everything, and to this day is hard to disprove. I believe Darwin really wanted to believe there was a higher power, but through his research found science to disprove most beliefs that Christianity is based on.
13. Why does Richard Dawkins believe that religion is a virus of themind? Be specific in explaining meme theory and also explain whyDawkins' theory contradicts certain revelatory religions, likeJudaism, Christianity, and Islam?
Dawkins points out how religion is a virus in two different ways. One how people can become so involved in their belief that they become insanely religious as in evangelicals bombing abortion clinics, and Muslim extremist flying airplanes into buildings. And also how this virus of religion is passed along so easy, whether it be a parent forcing their child to church or a Christian outreach group taking a recovering drug addict under their wing. Dawkins uses this meme theory to better describe how these religious genes infect ones head with their ideologies. When a religious meme takes over It causes ones mind to block out anything that is not capable to compete with the dominant meme.
14. How would a religious believer respond to Richard Dawkins'notion that religion is more akin to a mind parasite than anaccurate description or approach to reality? Clue: think of OwenGingerich or Freeman Dyson, etc.
Again Dawkins would point out that religion acts like a parasite, sucking the life out of the brain and infecting it. Religion can be seen along these lines, because many mainstream religions are seen by people, while other belief systems are simply ignored. Which basically describes the his meme theory in “The Selfish Gene”. While people like Owen Gingerich believes that sciences can fill in some of religions mysteries but religion is useful in our lives because it creates order in society and also gives answers to subjects that science has not yet proven
15. Here is the topic: How did the world come into being? In otherwords, how was the universe created? Present two different set ofanswers to that question based on a creationist who believes inintelligent design (even if partially evolutionary) and one based onprobability theory (think Wolfram, for instance) and evolution. Besure to be accurate to each perspective and be sure to document yoursummaries. Finally, who do you think would present the mostpersuasiveanswer/argument?
One could argue that the universe started with a tiny singular point and then the Big Bang happened - an event that formed every universe and solar systems. Then, over the course of about 14 billion years our planet cooled and evolved enough to host life and then over the last 10,000 years human beings came into existence. But even with the probabilistic chance approach there had to be something that originated first for this whole Big Bang thing to occur. That’s the one question that must puzzle every human being what was the first initial thing created out there? And what created that? A simple answer to that would be a Creationists approach; God created the universe and the world in 6 days and everything that is happen in those six days. But still if you believe that god created everything what created god. This hole concept on how everything came to be is very mind boggling, I agnostic but am always trying to find proof that there is a god out there. But at this current state science has led me to believe otherwise
16. According to Stephen Jay Gould, religion and science can indeedget along. Dawkins suggest the opposite. Elaborate on theGould/Dawkins debate and who do you think wins the discussion?
I believe the only reason Gould thinks science and religion can get along is because he has a certain idea on what religion is. In his eyes he believes that there is room for explanation in the bible that he can better interpret with science. But religion can be whatever you make of it. Just look at Christianity, there is so much diversity in that one religion. A lot of protestant churches vary on how much religion and liberalism they accept. Some believe in evolution and gay rights, and then there are religious sects like the Westboro Baptist Church which believes “God hates fags”. You had really opened my eyes when saying “Religion deals with things you can not make sense of; non sense” and how religion tries to stay away from science because it questions it, while science loves doubt because it improves from it.
17. Why does your teacher repeatedly argue that it is naive (andmost often wrong) to "confuse neurology for ontology." Explain andgive a specific example to back up your essay.
Because you often see people confusing the two, when they are in fact two separate ideas. Neurology on one hand deals with the diagnosis and treatment of all categories of disease involving the central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems. While ontology is the study of being or existence and forms the basic subject matter of metaphysics. It seeks to describe or posit the basic categories and relationships of being or existence to define entities and types of entities within its framework. It is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of the objects, properties and relations in every area of reality. It seems that neurology scientific while ontology is more philosophical. Ontology deals more with what is going on with the world around us trying to figure out "What exists," "What is," "What am I"
18. Quantum theorists have discovered that the only accurate way todescribe the subatomic world is by probabilities, particularly asoutlined by Werner Heisenberg and his principle of uncertaintyrelations. How can a physical understanding of the world based onchance/randomness/chaos be RECONCILED with a theological view thatthe universe was designed and displays purpose? Or, is such areconciliation impossible? Substantiate your argument._______________________ (Don't give up now....)
I believe that it is practically impossible for a reconciliation of a chance/randomness/chaos approach with a theological view that the universe was intelligently designed. Though a theological view could agree that say God created the Big Bang
19. In what specific ways does Faqir Chand help to explain WHYcertain people have religious experiences and others do not. Howdoes Faqir Chand's view of religion underline or buttress a purelysociological view of religion as meaning function?Chand states that some people are capable of having religious experiences while others are not. On the other hand it is easy for a Christian to relate most everything in life by an action of God. Because these people believe so strongly in their God, they can actually believe that God is speaking to them in some fashion, when it can actually be their mind playing tricks. I think you best described this concept with your example of speaking in tongues. You were in a situation with so much “spirituality” around you that it seemed that you wanted to feel God. And because you were so engulfed with the situation around you when the priest touched you no clear words were able to come out.
20. What is Nietzsche's notion of the myth of the eternal return andhow could such an idea potentially transform one's day to day life?In what ways is it completely contrary to religious notions of anafterlife?Friedrich Nietzche’s notion of the myth of the eternal return is stated as the following: If I had to live this life over and over again, with every pain, every joy, with nothing new, and return to this same life for eternity, would I want this? Nietzsche causes some to think about their time on Earth, and to ponder the possibility that something of that nature could take place. This idea could, in fact, potentially transform someone’s day to day life, because it would cause them to live each moment to its fullest. This idea of living life over is contrary to religious afterlife because religion has your life already planed out. You live, you die, and if you accepted Christ you go to heaven. Rather than choosing to live life over.
21. Why is Edward O. Wilson arguing for a consilience between thehumanities and the sciences?I believe Wilsons argument is definitely gaining more ground today, especially with this whole green movement. Through scientific data it has been shown that there is a climate change, the polar ice caps are melting, species are becoming more endangered, and pollution is growing out of control. Combining this with humanities is creating awareness about our planet and allowing people to see the change that needs to be made.
22. How would Freeman Dyson and Owen Gingerich respond to skepticsin the Beyond Belief Conference?
I think that Gingerich disagrees with Wilson with the idea that Mother Nature uses simple patterns to create complex designs. Gingerich is a Christian and so he ultimately would view God as the creator who maybe creates complex designs. Gingerich did state that by looking at the universe observers could tell that the Earth was created by one being. Further Gingerich stated God is a huge concept that humans cannot grasp; they hold views on God but few seek to have a relationship with him. Gingerich says that God is a huge concept and we should seek religion before science. Science should be used to bridge things we don't understand about religion. In a like manner, Wilson suggests that people should not view religion and science as two opposing forces; instead they should view the commonalities between both religion and science, which is nature. Wilson did state that both science and religion are the two most powerful social forces in the world; by combining them together we can save the world from global warming. At the same time Wilson emphasized we should use science to prove religion.
23. If biological life can be understood reductively, as Watson andCrick have suggested, what necessity is there to posit a belief is aSupreme Creator? Be sure to back up your argument with pertinentreferences and/or quotes.Watson and Crick bring about an extraordinary question, which can be answered in every which way. Essentially, they ask the question, if science can explain everything better than religion, why need God? From my own personal point of view, I think that people lay back on the idea of God when in times of pain and depression.
24. So far, what is your favorite reading and why?I am definitely not the biggest fan of reading, it pretty much sedates me after 10 pages. But after purchasing The God Delusion audio book I fell in love. I had always considered myself agnostic but never really had the right proof to back up my beliefs. People would always asks me why I am agnostic and I just tell them I find to many problems with organized religion, they would always return with the question “like what” and I never really had scientific proof to argue with them.
25. Is there anything that science cannot explain? Give one exampleand substantiate your views.Going back to the whole something had to be created by something. The Big Bang theory is great and all and very believable. But something had to come from something. The thought is almost to much.
26. What is the favorite thing you learned so far?”Genesis says there are 2 lights one day, one night . . . when really the moon does not generate light”
“No religion believes that the world is going good right now”
“What passes for religion right now needs to be skepticised”
Sources:
The God Delusion, By Richard Dawkins
God's Universe, By Owen Gingrich
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
