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
