Final

Name: Brian Ridenour

User Name: wt4god98

Email address: wt4god98@yahoo.com and bcridenour@gmail.com

Website: http://noverimte.blogspot.com/

Reading: I did not read all of the Nietzsche Channel and I have a little left to go in The Antichrist or The Gospel of Unbelief. I will probably finish it before you grade this test.

Movies: I could not get the audio working on the Thakar Singh clips. Beyond Belief session 6 stopped after 1hr15min a couple times I attempted to watch it (just when Beth Loftis begins to speak). I didn’t have time to watch all of Session 9, but I definitely will plan on it because the conference was intriguing.

Mid-term grade: B/B+

11. Posts – http://noverimte.blogspot.com/

12. Mark Juergensmeyer believes that acts of terrorism are used by religious zealots because of the common teaching in religions that there is a battle between good and evil going on constantly. For Christians, for example, the battle is commonly found in the battle between the flesh (evil) and the spirit (good), and our fight to act fully in the spirit. For many zealots, this battle between good and evil is brought into the everyday life in things like the government and politics and their fight is therefore in the same physical world. If they see the government and evil, their battle is to destroy the evil so that good will prevail. It is a war between good and evil and the zealots use terrorism to “open the eyes” of the everyday people. Unfortunately, most people focus their eyes on the evil of the terrorist act and not the message they are trying to send.

His proposition to mitigate such attacks in the future is to take a moral high ground. Ghandi showed the world how this is done. We are not to fight to win, but we are to fight with integrity and purity which preserves who you are. When we fight them on their level and using their tactics, we only prove that we are just like them. Doing so does two things, 1) it gives them more reasons to fight forward against the “evil power” that is against them, and 2) it in no way proves us better than they. We are not to just fight against them, but we are to fight them as we are, not conforming or changing who we are in order to fight against them. This is the way to fight correctly and with purity, and this is what will open their eyes one by one to see what evil they are doing to good, innocent, pure people.

13. We cannot say that there is sufficient evidence to prove the Edgar Cayce was a psychic. Neither can we there was sufficient evidence to say that he wasn’t. What can be said is that what he did, whether it was or wasn’t psychic, had an important and positive impact on many lives. This can be proven and is important. But apart from that, there is no evidence to prove that he did or did not have psychic powers, but from what we know it certainly appears that he could have.

The problem of verifying it is not falsifiable. We can prove that he sometimes was wrong, but when he was right there is no way of saying how he knew. There is a great many ways he could seem to have psychic powers, and many could only be proven by he word. We would have to simply believe his claim that he has the powers, because there is no way to test the tangibility of psychic powers. This makes it an impossible claim to test. Based on the ability to repeat his “paranormal powers” many times, and that there had been no evidence proving he received the messages otherwise, could only give us a hunch, as Professor Lane says, that his psychic powers were indeed paranormal.

14. My professor is very critical of cults because he wants people to know everything they can about what they are accepting. He uses the example that people are very critical when buying a car. They examine the car, pop the hood and check the motor; they want to know everything there is about the car before they buy it. But when it comes to religions, he makes the point that many people just accept them blindly. And when there is a problem they just look past it and turn a blind eye. If he can put material out there so that people can know all there is to know about a group, or cult, then they can take all the information, the plagiarisms, the lies, the good and the bad, and they can make a decision based on all the material. He wants people to be wise, logical, and reasonable when making a decision about something that could be the most important decision of there life.

Apart from all that he also likes the pleasure of finding things out, like Richard Feynman says. He enjoys the ability to play detective and look into things and find out what is really going on. In a way it is a lot of boys dreams to play detective and find things out.

15. Sai Baba proves himself a hoax. Thanks to the video that was captured, we see him slyly exchanging something from one hand to the other, only to make it “appear from nowhere”. This guy is just a deified magician or illusionist, but he isn’t even good enough to be a Copperfield. It is clear that the “paranormal” powers that Sai Baba possesses are merely normal powers through a normal sleight of hand.

What is disturbing is the number of people who follow him and adore him as a man with paranormal powers. He is abuses people by misleading and hoaxing them into believing he is something he is not. There are more and more cases of “gurus” and spiritual leaders who discredit any possibilities that there may be a supernatural or metaphysical or paranormal. Does this mean that there isn’t? No, it simply means that Sai Baba did not possess it.

16. I was never able to get the sound working on these videos. I tried to on 3 different computers and on five different occasions. Though there was no sound, it seemed to me that Thakar Singh was trying to get the children to perfect the practice of meditation. I am not sure that the method is the best way, but it seems as though he feels forcing the children to meditate is the best way to better them in this ritual. It is cruel and an abuse of children’s rights.

17. John Polkinghorne believes in science for logical reasons that come from the facts presented. Being a physicist he dedicated 25 years to science and research and he fully believes in it. His research in physics has allowed him to learn more about the details in the universe and the incredible constants that allow life to sustain itself. Things like the delicate balance in the nuclear reactions within a star which allows it to delicately make carbon, and the reaction that makes the star burn at the right temperature for the right amount of millions of years which are necessary for the sustainability of life.

Along with these constants, the universe is also rationally beautiful and transparent in its rationality. The fact that Newton can find a law which can be applied universally shows the rationality in the universe and how we are able to learn about it for our survival. There is a kind of mathematical beauty to nature, the way that everything is linked mathematically. These two things lead him to believe in religion, or better said a type of mathematical God or mind from which came the universe.

But it is a personal encounter with God which allows him to come to know the persona of God. As a Christian believer he has experienced God in his religious daily experiences like reading Scripture, prayer, and meditation. But it is difficult to deny the religious encounters that other religions experience, that they truly have had an experience with the sacred. These are the reasons why John Polkinghorne believes in both religion and science.

18. Nietzsche critiques religion, mostly Christianity, on a few grounds. One of which is that it is a sacrifice of “all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit; at the same time, enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation”(Beyond Good and Evil, Part 3, 46) He goes on about how religions create the very thing they serve for in humanity. Kind of like an anti-virus program, if there are no viruses there is no need for the program. Therefore, in order to keep it living viruses need to be kept alive. Christianity for example uses “sin” to keep people at a level where they need to be brought out of this condition.

He says he doesn’t agree with religion, but he seems to have a special spot for Buddhism. There are things in Buddhism that to him make a lot more sense, like the getting rid of a god and focusing more on the self. Nietzsche himself felt that we needed to think higher of ourselves and not be belittled by the lowering of our status that religions put on humanity. But the fact that Buddhism deals with the status of suffering and not of sin, among other things, really got a soft spot in his heart. Either way, he wants no part of religion, and he believed that the day we got it out of the way and out of our minds and hearts, would be the day that mankind would begin to advance because it would have the self-esteem and audacity to take the necessary steps.

He further goes on to speak of how unclear and incapable God is of communicating. He says “he does not hear – and if he does hear he would not know how to help”, referring to his belief that God does not understand our feelings to hate, anger, revenge, etc. How can God know how to help a situation which he does not comprehend? This Nietzsche asks indirectly. In the end he thinks that it will one day come to an end, he says, “Perhaps the day will come when the most solemn concepts which have caused the most fights and suffering, the concepts “God” and “sin,” will seem no more important to us than a child’s toy and a child’s pain seem to an old man” (Beyond Good and Evil, Part 3, 57).

19. Dr. James Watson believes that genes hold the secret to understanding human behavior. He believes that through the research already done we have been able to understand more about how we as humans behave and why. His specific studies lately are on the genetic reasons for autism. Studies have shown that there is a large coincidence between an autistic child and both their parents who are systematical”) and mathematical (they have “male minds. There is a peculiar coincidence that parents of autistic children have an average IQ of 112.

Apart from autism, Dr. Watson has studied many cases. His thoughts on our human behavior are that we are who we are by “nature and not nurture”. Basically what he is saying is our behavior is caused by our genetic makeup and not our environment, our society, or our parents. He does not deny that they are an influence, but the reasons for our behavior lye in our genes. There are so many aspects to our “nurture” that it would be much easier to find genetic makeup of people and then compare their behavior to others with the same or similar genes. This way it would be a lot easier to see what part of the genes effect human behavior and therefore find out how their nurture plays a part as well.

Many people have a hard time believing that we are just bundles of DNA because it takes away from “who we are” in terms of importance and purpose. We are just glorious pieces of meat as Patricia Churchland would say. If this is the case there would be very little reason for our existence and many people would have a real hard time with life and why should we live. Believing that we are more than that gives us hope to keep going on when things are not good. Believing we are more gives us a purpose to live and an importance of being. Who would want to give that up for a bundle of DNA?

20. ID is regarded as “junk” science by most evolutionary biologists because there is so much stacked up against it scientifically. There are even Christians who go out and teach the fallacies in the ID theory. The main advocates of ID, Behe and Dembski, have put forth quite a few arguments to prove ID and/or disprove evolution as a fact. But there are two big problems, 1)they do not use facts to prove ID, but rather they use facts to suggest another possibility, and 2)the scientific arguments they use have been proven false, unreliable, or mistaken. Instead of finding evidence for proving ID, the find weaknesses in the evolution theory, “the problem is that even if they prove evolution to be false they do not improve the credibility of ID” (http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html). Behe’s irreducible complex system theory and Dembski’s improbable theory have been debunked by biologist and mathematicians alike. Nothing they have brought forth has scientifically proven ID in any way, it has only brought doubt to evolution and natural selection or suggested that there could be another explanation, either way ID has no scientific credibility.

21. The underlying theme behind the movie ZAHIR is that what may seem to be a magical object, something that seems to be very special, could actually be the source of our worst nightmares. A simple 20 centavo coin, common and ordinary, affixes itself in the mind of her beholder because of an inscription. This common object takes hold of the mind of its owner, and even though he tries to be rid himself of the coin, it has ownership of his every thought. What seemed to be something special has now taken control of him.

Sometimes we think we have found something special in our lives and in turn it becomes the worst thing. It begins to take control of our mind, our thoughts, and our every moment. We cannot escape what was thought to be something magical and it ruins us.

22. Though some things seem to be at a standstill, they appear to be something, they are really in constant movement and constant change. The universe is not what it seems to the common eye, but rather it is something that is in constant movement. Even ice is in constant jiggling motion and this jiggling causes pressure and as the pressure goes up with temperature, it pushes out of its “box” and begins to “unfold” into another shape, this we call melting. All of this is really just a bunch of atoms jiggling around at a high rate. This tells us that the universe is really a whole bunch of jiggling things that can change according to their temperature. But more importantly it tells us that the universe is built up in this order and the more we can understand this, the more we can understand the universe.

23. Fundamentalism is a mental disease because the mind of the person does not believe facts that are presented to them. Any logical, reasonable person could believe in a fact when it is proven to them, but in the case of fundamentalist that put the believe in something that has no facts, and disregard the facts the are provided to them in order to believe a statement contrary to what they believe. This is clearly a mental setback.

24. 1) Red Herring or Guilty by Association

In many congregations and Christian groups, there is a correlation between alcohol and the negative consequences that sometimes result from drinking too much. Because of these negative consequences of alcoholism, domestic violence, child abuse, etc. many Christians look down on other Christians for drinking even though there is nothing wrong with drinking according to the Bible. The Bible does speak about not getting drunk, but nothing about not drinking alcohol. I myself enjoy drinking wine and beer, and I have found myself explaining to Christians and non-Christians alike what it is the Bible actually says and why it is not wrong to drink even though there have been many people who have done many horrible things because they were drunk.

2) Fallacy of Propositional Logic

I was speaking with someone in my church who wanted to lead worship, he was a good man but I told him that he couldn’t lead the worship because he wasn’t baptized. A young man overheard our conversation and later came to me and said that he had been baptized therefore he wanted to lead worship. The problem was that this young man was known for getting drunk and doing drugs, therefore he couldn’t lead worship because there were more requisites to leading worship than just being baptized.

3) Argumentum and Hominem (Poisoning the well)

Being from the United States and living in Peru, sometimes it is said that I couldn’t know what I am talking about when it comes to Peru, because I was not born and raised here. There is definitely a fact in that I do not share the same experiences, but that has nothing to do with what it is that I am saying. If a Peruvian were to say the exact words would they then be logical? It does not matter who says the argument, it matters what the argument says.

4) Begging the Question (Loaded Words)

I have a friend who when he shares the Gospel of Jesus with others sometimes he tends to use a lot of “Christian” words and lingo. This overload of uncommon terminology often confuses the listener into accepting everything he says. I have told him that the Gospel is simple and there is no need to speak so much and use so much terminology, and that if he really believed what he was sharing he only need present it simple and easy to understand.

5) Non Causa Pro Causa

We were planning what we were going to do with a group of North Americans that was coming down to Peru for a couple weeks and someone mentioned doing a presentation in a plaza. Someone else in the group made the rebuttal that the presentations no longer work based on the fact that the last couple of years people were not coming to the church after doing presentations. What she did not realize was the bad quality which we were doing the presentations at a very low quality level and we were no longer doing any follow up.

6) Appeal to Nature

Nietzsche argues that Christianity nooses what is natural in humans. This is an argument to prove that Christianity and its morals are bad, but it is based wholly on the fact that our natural instincts are good.

7) Loaded Question (Complex Question)

I was speaking with a small group of Peruvian men when one of them asked, “Is your church still harboring bombs and weapons in the basement?” I was more than shocked by the question, and upon my answer of no he fired back another series of questions about where we took them, when did we get rid of them, etc. If I hadn’t been able to talk to the group afterwards, they would have all assumed that we store or had stored weapons and bombs in the basement of the church.

8) Tu Quoque

A local radio station here in Tacna, Peru is known for its morning program which finds things that are wrong and they report them publicly on their station. The local government responded to some of the accusations about how they were misusing the money by stating that the radio program only stirs up trouble within the community and never suggests a solution to the problem. They did not address the situation at hand, and did not explain why they were using (or misusing) the money in the way they were doing it. Instead they simply spoke of the bad influence the radio station had on the community, avoiding the allegations altogether.

25. The war on terrorism can be broken down on a few levels. First, lets look at the moral choice that each side made. Osama Bin Laden believes 100% that the United States is the great evil and that it is his moral duty to do all that he can to destroy this evil. President Bush believes that Osama Bin Laden and his group, and the acts they are performing are evil. He feels that the killing of innocent people in the Twin Towers, the numerous bombings, etc are all acts that go against what are his beliefs of what is good, correct, and democratic. He does go on and on about the goal of each state to have a democratic government which allows people to be free. Looking at it in this way, both these men are acting according to what there conscious and thoughts tell them is correct, moral, and good.

From a strategic level. I think that Osama Bin Laden and President Bush are not thinking it through very well. Osama says that he wants the American government to stop meddling in middle eastern affairs and that they need to stay out of Iraq. He and other terrorists also say that they do what they do to open the eyes of the people to see how wrong it is for them to support such a bad government, and also so that the people would see how evil the government is. Strategically he is not very wise because each time he kills an innocent man, a family, a child, he is only creating hatred in the people for him and others who act alike. Attacks on the Pentagon or other armed forces locations at least keep the war a war and they keep as many innocents out of the danger as possible. Likewise, Bush needs to do some changes in his strategy. If he thinks that he is proving that we are better than the enemy who kills innocents, but then turns around does the same, he is only making himself and our country out for fools and shows some of the reasons why Osama might be partially right. For us to fight on the high ground, like Ghandi says, with character and dignity, we cannot act the same way the enemy does. If our soldiers are acting up and doing things that they shouldn’t be, the government should be even harder on them because they are representing our country to the rest of the world; likewise with politicians. Instead the president is vetoing congressional bills which would not allow torture as an interrogational tactic. This would at least keep our character clean in the way we go to war.

As for taking action and going to war, I agree. If someone of some country attacks us, the government is established to protect us from such attacks. It is the responsibility of the government to protect the people, likewise of the people to do the same. In the same way that a murderer needs to be tracked down and brought into custody, an international terrorists need to be tracked down and brought to justice for the sovereign freedom to exist from the rest of us. All acts of tyranny and terrorism must be confronted and fought, but done so with dignity, honor, and character; even when those acts come from the established government.

26. The Beyond Belief conference was very thought provoking and insightful into some of the great secular minds today. The speakers spoke on the impact of religion in the past, and the place for religion in the future. It was very interesting to hear the input from physicists, professors of human thinking and feeling, biologists, etc. all from their distinct fields of study providing input on the subject of the riddance of religion in society. There can be no doubt that there have been positive and negative impacts of religion throughout history. Many of the speakers spoke about scientific truths that have been found and how evolution and these proofs push God aside when it comes to logical and reasonable truth. But other speakers, like Prof. Ayala of UCIrvine, also made the important points of the billions of people who find so much meaning to life in religion and help in times of need, and it would be wrong to take that away from them.

There were two speakers who were least persuasive to me, and both were for different reasons. Stuart Hameroff had a real hard time convincing anyone what he was trying to present. Unfortunately, the field of study he is in is relatively new and he himself let everyone know that what he was saying was just ideas that were being recently tested and no one really knows. He was just kind of giving a couple of options to think about. What he presented was lacking evidence, reason, and facts. Sam Harris was the other speaker who seemed to be forgetting a lot of facts. The last speaker in the conference, Jim More (I didn’t hear his name very well) touched on the error throughout the conference, including Sam Harris’ approach; that being a lack of empirical evidence to back up his claims. Sam made comments like “religion is leading us to the edge of something terrible”, the celestial teapot rebuttal, religion allows for violence based on fairy tales, etc. He should be well aware of the majority of organized religions that do not condone violence. He himself showed the kind of compassion on Buddhism that Nietzsche showed, because of the fact that Buddhism does have such positive effects on people and the society. He is not being logical to claim that all religion needs to be done away with because of the negative violence, yet concede that the Buddhist are the most compassionate people he knows of. The two statements contradict themselves. He would be correct to say that some extreme religions and fundamentalist of certain religions should be done away with because of the negative impact they have, but to say all of religion. It would be like saying all the police force should be removed from the streets because there have been various beatings and shootings unjustly done by them. It completely forgets all the good in order to attempt to persuade. They are red herring arguments attempting to make all religion guilty by association to terrorist attacks.

The most persuasive and instructional of the conference I believe was Mahzareem Banaji. She presented a lot of very well prepared material to a lot of doctors and scholars who had no idea. The irony of it all is that she was teaching them that we really have no idea what we really think sometimes. Though our mouth says one thing our mind really thinks another. Because of politically correctness, and I am sure that peer pressure as well, we often say things with conviction that our minds really do not fully accept.

But Lawrence Krause and Michael Sherman were definitely persuasive in one very important thing they said, that of the approach the group was taking in the religion vs. science confrontation. Both of these men noticed the unattractive appeal the speakers had to believers and the public with the direct attacks on the stupidity and non-sense in their form of thinking. All the information presented in the conference was helpful to learn more about the subject matter, but these two especially touched on a point that Mark Juergensmeyer spoke about in “Terror in the Mind of God” when he spoke on how we should combat our enemies with dignity, honor, and character. If one wishes to win over his enemy he cannot fight at his enemies level, he must stay on the high ground.

27. I enjoyed the ability to read and learn the other side of the story. I have been a Christian for almost 10 years now, just out of high school, and I have always heard things from one side. This class has allowed me to hear things from the other side, in their purity and not filtered by some Christian who uses only the parts that are convenient. This has allowed me to question things and it has forced me to find answers or at least begin to look. There is nothing more important to me that finding out the truth, and seeing how that truth changes my life. It is good to be challenged and it is good to hear and study things that are against what you believe. This allows us to purify what we do believe with other facts by changing parts, adding parts, or totally removing parts. There will always be things that we will learn, and this class has shown me how to listen to it all critically and to take from it what is logically correct.

The ability to hear thoughts and lectures straight from the experts was enlightening. I also really enjoyed the short films; their messages, music, and creativity.

Religion and Medicine

Should religion and medicine intertwine? I know that there is proofs that religion has helped many people to have better health and a better life, and if that is what people have found works for their health who can tell them to do otherwise. It is working and that is what people really want in the end. But should doctors be prescribing religion to their patients, that is just absurd. To tell them to do some religious practices like meditation or yoga is in fact suggested physical medicine, just with a different name. We know that these exercises do in fact help with circulation and oxygen to the muscles, therefore they are indeed religious exercises and medical ones, just like stretching before a game. There must be a distinction between the things in religion that are medical and those that aren't. Then there can be a distinction between what can be prescribed, that which is medical like yoga and meditation. We cannot tell people to pray to this God or that in the medical field, because that isn't medicine, and it isn't legal. Plus, doctors are not trained in all the different fields of religion and medicine to be able to say which god will be better for each situation. There clearly can be some things that can cross over, but it must be understood that just because a religion practices something that it is medicine; and that there are some religious exercises that are medically proven to be healthy.

Mental Disease

Fundamentalism is definitely a mental disease. Like that guy who went off and wrote the 50 page post on the occamsrazor site, mental! Whenever we simply take something as is, because we feel it or someone has told us so, we are truly closing our minds to the inability to find truth. If I were to tell you that my head is actually the head of a cow, or something absurd like that, and everyone did everything they could to show me and prove to me logically and scientifically, and I stubbornly said, "No, I know that it is true and there is nothing you can say to prove it to me", we would all agree that I have a mental disease (well, maybe "I" wouldn't, but I would). Likewise, when someone turns into a Fundamentalist and believes everything literally and acts illogically because of those beliefs, we agree that they have a mental disease.

Sadly, there are many fundamentalist who do many irrational things like kill doctors at abortion clinics even though the very sacred scripture that they read says "Thou shalt not kill". And sadly there are other fundamentalist who bomb buildings and public places to send a message that the enemy is bad and evil, but they do not see the evil in bombing innocent people, even people who sometimes share their same convictions. These are mental diseases which block the normal, rational and logical process the brain should process information and facts in order to come to a correct conclusion.

Intelligent Design

Michael Behe and William Dembski should look into either expanding their research or conceding many of their bad theories to their opponents. The fact that these two have done so much research and ended in little should do something to their consciouses. I have not looked into finding their answers to the raised doubts, but it doesn't seem like there is much to say other than they were wrong. Dembski has some more interesting things to say, and to a point he was able to at least incite his readers to think about the chances and the possibilities. The example that was given about the hand of cards being dealt does not convince me too much about the improbability, because having the cards dealt concedes that their was a hand dealing them and that each of the cards existed and they were just placed in the same place. We can say that about every single thing that exists and how it happens to be where it is at the time it is there; there are so many possibilities that go into every single reality that we see daily.

Either way, the Intelligent Design theory has been clearly debunked as simply creationists changing their name. I don't think that anyone was fooled by this. We all know that all, or at least almost all, are Christians. But while there are parts of evolution or natural selection that are being shown as untrue we must keep researching and confirming what is right and what is wrong. And while there is still many interesting studies which suggest that there was someone or something that began the universe, we must continue to research and try to find answers.

Dr. James Watson

The research that Dr. James Watson is very intriguing. The fact that it goes against the politically correct line shows that they are not concerned with what the majority think, but with what the facts suggest. This is very necessary when trying to find the truth. If there is a higher rate of autistic children from parents with higher IQ's, then it should be looked into and an answer (either correct or incorrect) should be found. The more that we can learn about our genetical makeup, the more we will be able to understand where certain things repeat in different people. And when we understand that we can work toward finding the solutions.

The studies that Dr. Watson and others are doing in this field could be revolutionary in science, leading to breakthroughs that could change the future of society. For this reason alone they should continue and others like them. If they can cause one child and family to not have to suffer from autism it is worth it, but imagine if they find a scientific breakthrough which finds the genetical cause which would lead them to find the solution. For the suffering of each individual it is worth it. For the quest for knowledge and truth for a better future it is worth it.

Brain Burn

Very clever little video. Brain burn...kind of like heartburn...that's funny. I would definitely agree with what the video is conveying. Because of our consciousness, the awareness in our head, we have been able to think through situations like a simulator. Because we can fully see through situations and imagine their consequences, we are able to see which of the situations will give us our best results. All these things combine to give us an advantage over those who do not have a consciousness, because they must act things out in the real world and this could lead directly to the worst of results, ultimately their death. Questions arise out of our mental evolutionary needs.
Philosophies do come out of an uneasiness between what we think and what we see. Whatever questions we ask about the universe is contingent on the structure of our mind. When we are approached with a situation, an event, or maybe a crisis, these things cause our minds to wonder and ask, and our thoughts and philosophies towards such things come from the makeup of our minds. That is why so many people have different philosophies for the same questions. Their philosophy fits their mental make-up. Many philosophies and thoughts could answer the same question, and they could all have examples and/or evidence to provide a good case, but in the end it matters on the minds of each individual. And the minds of each individual is made of a lifetime of events and situations which have molded it.
Whose could be right? We must think critically and rationally to try to find out.

Neitzsche

Nietzsche is very harsh in his beliefs against religion and morality. I think he takes it to an extreme that somewhat demeanors the quality of his writings if we take them as a whole. It is important not to judge everything based on a few points that might not be correct, or maybe exaggerated or illogical. Nietzsche seems to have a hatred toward religion, especially towards Christianity, that leads me to believe that there is a further reason behind it, maybe an event in his life that traumatized him, or maybe his parents forcing religion into his life. Many people are turned off by religion because of those fanatics who try to force religion into someones life instead of presenting it to them and allowing them to decide.
Nietzsche's thoughts that Christianity's morals and commandments restrict human nature are based on one of two things, that being that 1)our human nature is good and therefore should be allowed to express itself as it pleases, and/or 2)the rules and morals written in scripture have not proven to be good in the lives of people and in society. The truth is that there are millions of testimonies throughout history that speak of how God and scripture have changed there lives for the better. Nietzsche would say that these people are weak and that is why they need religion. But it takes great strength and self-discipline to be able to control the "natural desires" of ourselves, which lead us to make many mistakes. Our nature attracts us to women (speaking as a man), but we know the effects that a womanizer has on the psyche of children, the negative impact it has on their upbringing, their misunderstanding about the role of a father, etc. We can see how many children and families are in trouble financially, psychologically, in unity, etc. Therefore, we can see the importance of there being a rule of thumb of how we should act for the good of society, families, and individuals. Though we have the desires to do things without limit, a limit is what we need to keep everyone and everything orderly for the advancement of our being.

John Polkinghorne

Being a Christian I find it hard not to enjoy listening to John Polkinghorne's studies, thoughts, and conclusions. He comes off as a very well educated man with a good balance in his specific studies in physics, but also in religion, history, and science. He has some interesting insight into the historical egotistic mindset of scientific sub-groups after a very important discovery, such as the physicists after Newton's discoveries. I think that before we start claiming that religion should be extinct, we should be smart and rational and wait things out a little bit. Too many times we think we know everything and we make huge decisions on the small amount of information that we actually have. There is too much information which points us towards the importance of both science and religion, and John Polkinghorne has been able to see the importance of both and he clings to both. They are both very important things in his life, two of the most important. He has studied many years and has seen incredible order and balance in our universe. The example of the 10 marksmen standing there waiting to fire and upon the order you find you are not dead. The improbable and nearly impossible possibility of it happening calls for an explanation.
Moreover, the idea of quantum physics allows us to begin to open up our minds to understand that there IS more to this universe than our eyes and logic allow us to understand. The testing and understanding of quantum physics needs a different rationality and logic, therefore our rationality and logic is illogical in the quantum world. If it is illogical there, where else, and what else do we not have any idea. We should not be so quick to discard things like religion and God until we can disprove that which leads us to believe it to be true. We must keep ourselves open to the possibility if we are not believers in God, even if that means we put almost all our believe in the fact that there isn't. Keeping a possibility open allows us to never restrict the possibilities of our results.

Faqir Chand - Inner Visions

Faqir Chand has an interesting approach to where the inner visions, dreams, and deep sleep modes of consciousness come from, that is that they are from within our own minds and they are unreal. I have thought much about his comments to try to better understand what it is he is saying exactly. He also says that "whosoever remembers God in whatever form, in that very form he has helped his devotee". I wonder how it is that in one of these visions the future can be predicted in detail. There have been many such visions and dreams which have revealed truths to others to encourage them, help them, or even save them from a fatal mistake, as was the case with Faqir Chand's vision from his guru. I must hear more on his take on this subject, but from what I have gotten from this video and the other information we have read and seen about him it doesn't answer some of the evidence that calls for explanations. I wonder why a former pastor of mine could have a dream that two members of the church (of around 5000 people) were going to have twins, and they did. Or why Faqir Chand received a vision from about the future which saved his life and many others.
When I compare these events with his statement about remembering God in whatever form, it leads me to think he is saying that God helps us his devotees through whatever form the vision or dream comes to us. If I am not mistaken he is saying that he, Faqir Chand, didn't appear to them, but rather God spoke to his devotees through a vision of Faqir Chand. If that is the case, if I have understood him correctly, Faqir Chand is a very wise and humble man. He could have used these visions for his personal well-being materially or otherwise, but instead he sought to find the truth in these visions and the truth led him to a better well-being.

Religion and Morality

Susan Kneeman made the statement that religion doesn't need ethics and ethics doesn't need religion. This statement is false. Religion is a set of beliefs, including the supernatural, but also about how we are to live, or our social conduct. The definition of ethics is a "set of principles of right conduct" (Houghton Mifflin dictionary). This is at the foundation of religion, mostly due to a god saying what it correct to do and not to do. In whatever way it is told, the fact of the matter is that religion is built upon a belief, and coming from that belief is a set of principles of right conduct, or ethics.

Can ethics exist without religion? That would definitely be possible, but I doubt it. We cannot deny the impact that religion had on ethics. We could even argue the origin in ethics coming from religion and not evolution, or both if we consider religion as part of the evolutionary process. I think that it is possible to have ethics "without religion", but it would then be a religion on its own, would it not. The god being the ones who decide what is correct and what is not correct moral conduct. The definition of religion includes a "set of beliefs, values, and practices"(Houghton Mifflin dictionary). If I decide what are my beliefs, values, and practices, I am my spiritual adviser and the god of my religion, my-anity or me-ism (coined phrase of mine). Therefore, though we cannot yet say for certain that ethics can exists without religion, everything mentioned here leads me to believe that it is not plausible.

Morality from Science

Morality cannot come from science. Science is about how the world is. Susan Kneeman made the point that morality is as apart from science as art or music or sports. It does not make one better than the other, the are separate from each other. Her use of Kant to explain how even he didn't tackle this subject straight on, but rather used a parable. We all know parable can be interpreted in many ways. I also liked her point about how we need the use of heroes to show how and why morality is good and correct. They are not facts in themselves, but rather experiences which lead us to understand what is true and moral. There is no science to it.

But she also made mention that there is a type of experience and process to come to understand that some things are not the best. Her point being that it is from the understanding that there is a better way of doing something leads people to moral breakthroughs does not seem to solid. She herself used the torture example as one that there are people who can always take one case as an example to show how it does work, therefore it should be applied. Even though there may be hundreds that go against it.

These heroes that we see as our examples of what we should do because it is morally correct, seem to be those few who lead us into a future in the moral zeitgeist. Their insight and conviction to what they believe is right opens the eyes and minds of the public to see what is moral and it leads us to have that consciousness within us to do what is right in the future. Like Ms. Banaji said about our human minds, we cannot deny the impact that things have on our mind, and sometimes our mind and our mouth are not in agreement. When we come to realize what is the better thing to do, because we have heard about it being done and we could intrinsically know it to be true, that impression stays on our mind and in time, maybe generations, the moral standard that was stamped in our minds comes to be the moral norm. This is on a smaller scale, but a population is made up of individuals, and so the process unfolds.

The Survival of Religion

Loyal Rue (I don't know how to spell his name) made some important points to the survival of religion, and it almost sounded like an evolution of religion. I would not argue that point to much. But I would suggest that it is more than a change in a story to adapt to the naturalistic and evolutionary cosmology, but rather a better understanding of the very story and belief in which we partake. I will explain my case a a believer.

In Christianity there are many scholars studying the ancient texts in their original languages and many trying to interpret them into our language, our case English. Sometimes there are many things lost in a translation, as was noted in the acknowledgments by the translator of Nietzsche's Antichrist. Some people translate very literally and some very loosely, therefore in one translation we lose the turns of phrases and cultural settings to what is being said behind the text, and in other translations we lose the literal meanings in the text. When we learn things about nature for example, sometimes that allows us to better understand what something meant in the scripture. For example, in the story of Lot and his family leaving Sodom and Gomorrah Lot's wife is said to have turned to stone upon turning around to see the cities being destroyed by the wrath of God. But many scholars have taken this as a metaphorical saying to explain her inability to take her eyes off of the power and awe in what was being down. We cannot ever know for sure. But what if one day archaeologists uncover a pillar of salt in the form of a woman in the same region that Sodom and Gomorrah were, we would then know that this was a literal saying and we would better understand our text.

Now there are some people who are very literal in all things and would say that it says this so it is this, literally, no budging. But then a fact will come out that will prove they are wrong. They would then have to reject reason and logic and the fact that is presented, or they would have to change their story to adapt to what has been found. I find that when religions are not will to be open to the very meaning to some of the open-ended texts they have, their religion will either not exist very long or they will be inconsistent in the beliefs and doctrines. This has happened in the Catholic church a lot because they take the word of the pope as the word of God himself, whatever he says is divine. This does not allow them to recognize the many errors and contradictions in their sayings that people like Martin Luther pointed out to them. And when they do change it is a huge deal around the whole world. No one can say exactly what a certain historical text says when there it is layered in metaphors and stories. There are times that things are clear and there is no need for thinking to much about them, but I am not referring to such cases here.

Dawkins Moral Zeitgeist

The Moral Zeitgeist is an idea that has been well formed. With quite a few examples from moral leaders of their time like Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Henry Huxley, Dawkins lays out how throughout time morals seem to be evolving and improving. This moral zeitgeist shows us how people like Hitler seem so evil to us because they lived in our century, even though people like Genghis Khan did far worse things than Hitler. The difference was that our morality has grown since the time of Genghis Khan and we now see things differently than the world did in his time. Hitler had moved on in the moral zeitgeist and the was more expected from him morally.

My question is can we really apply the moral zeitgeist to the whole world evenly. Dawkins made the point that a good historian doesn't judge the contents of a paper in the past on moral values of today. But what do we do in places where the country has not advanced the same level as say Europe or North America. There are places in the world where there is not education of this century, where people seem are still raised in an old cultural setting. Here in Peru in parts of the mountains and the jungle the people have a totally different way of looking at things, ways that we in the states would say is further back on the moral zeitgeist. These people would have to be judged in their own cultural setting and according to the moral zeitgeist of the time in history of their culture. Would they not? If morals are a work in progress, how can we expect a people who are further back on this timeline to live according to our standards? It is like expecting a man who has never seen a computer to have the skills to work one. It is an irrational thing to ask. Likewise, how can we expect someone who has never heard of the concept that a woman is equal to a man to act on those principles. It is irrational. More so, to ask him when everything and everybody around him tells him otherwise.

Dawkin's Child Abuse

Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man and his contributions to the Evolution Theory have been very thorough and thought out. With that being said, I think that he should stick to doing what he is best at doing, speaking about the things he has thought out in advance. His comment about child abuse by calling them Christian, Muslim, or whatever religion to which a family pertains were rational on one hand, but not on the other. If a child is brought up under a faith he/she is being taught what is believed by that family, he practices the religions rituals, he believes the religion's story, etc. If he looks like a dog, barks like a dog, and acts like a dog, he's probably a dog. There could be a point when the child grows and decides if it is what they want or no.

When someone is born in the England, they are English. They are raised English, taught English, they learn to have English pride. These are the circumstances in which the person was born. When they grow up they can decide to take on another citizenship and leave their English citizenship. It is their choice, but they will still be raises that way and they will be considered English as well. Is it wrong to say that a child is English because he was born on one piece of land and not another? On one side of a man made line and not on the other side? Why if he didn't choose to be born there? Well, because those are the circumstances he was born into and that is the way he was raised.

For the billions of Christians it isn't wrong for a child to be called a Christian because Christianity is the truth for them. For all the Muslims it is okay for a child to be raised Muslim because the Muslim beliefs are true to them. To an atheist, it is perfectly fine for someone to raise a child atheist because it is the truth to them. For each one it is okay if it is in agreement with their own beliefs, and rightly so. I think it is more okay, if i can say that, that a Christian or Muslim do it than an atheist, for the examples given. For these religious people they are not dealing with just someones choice, they are dealing with their eternity and the religious person does it for their love for the child and the good of the child. If that child chooses otherwise when they are older, they have chosen on their own and the parent can no longer do anything about it.

Edgar Cayce and the Skeptic

Johnson did a great job looking into the case of Edgar Cayce. He looked into if Cayce's predictions were fact or fiction, then even when Cayce made mistakes historically, what types of spiritual truths could be found. His study looks more toward what truths can be found in all of it, rather than the errors. We as humans should know that there should always be room for human error, and I think Johnson took this into account with Cayce's study. Whenever there is someone of Cayce's importance and apparent spiritual insight, there should be more study done into the truths they claim and find. In cases like Cayce, his importance to people was more than just if he was historically accurate, he helped people in their lives, which is where religion is most important to everyone.
Dr. Lane makes the right assumption, or hunch, that Cayce's experiences are paranormal. He make sure to make it a hunch, because even though there is no other answer for them there also isn't any hard proof that they are paranormal. This allows future research and researchers to look into finding the source with facts, whether the source be paranormal or some other material form.
Whatever it comes to be, the truth is that Cayce impacted many lives in a positive way and that cannot be proven any other way. This truth makes the source of Cayce's abilities not as important to finding out, because whether they be paranormal or not, for the people who lived them with him, they were all they needed.

Terror in the Mind of God - 2

Mark Juergensmeyer spoke of a little Christian woman who just tore apart a Muslim leader in their meeting. He made sure to show that she showed him that women should have rights and that there have been many advances in woman rights in the Saddam regime and after the US invasion as well. What was most interesting is that she used the Koran to show him his fallacies.

This is the most crucial point of his talk. He made the point that he thinks religion is the very means to the necessary fix to the religious fanaticism which has caused so damage and pain and destruction. If we are to show them correct ways of thinking or the error in their own, we are to use their texts to show them where they are in error. The texts are the base of the beliefs, the source of what is true (to them), and everything else is based in such text. If we attempt to approach them from another view, the will simply reject us at our cornerstone. This little Christian woman did very well in showing the Muslim his error in thought through his own source of truth. In was in this way that he receded to the fact that he did not know.

Terror in the Mind of God

Mark Juergensmeyer has had much personal contact with Muslim terrorist leaders, members, and groups and he offers us some insightful information about why they act in the ways that they do. There have been many terrorists who in the end have come out heroes. The founders of our country were traitors and today they are examples of standing up for what is right, even if it costs their life. The Muslims performing terrorists acts feel the same way. Like the one who so clearly understood that it was God's war and even though they may not win in his lifetime, or his children's lifetime, or even the lives his grandchildren, they will win. He believes he is fighting for what is true and honorable and his life is dedicated to it.

I think the way to work with these men is not to convince them that they are freaks or terrorists, but rather that their approach is not the one they should take. I know that we can all find many thoughts of theirs about our government, for example, that we are totally in agreement with, such as the odd intentional intrusion into Iraq. Why would they need to do such a thing? The majority of the USA isn't okay with the troops being there, and they wouldn't have been if they knew the truth instead of the reasons the government presented to the public. But to show our disapproval we march and have protests, that is the way people's voices are heard here. The militant leaders of the Islam groups must learn to teach to our culture in our culture and not through the means they like. Likewise we must learn to teach them in the best way that they learn and not through our mind's way of learning. This takes much thought and much time dedicated to learning the culture and the people whom we wish to interchange thoughts and ideas, and maybe even teach.

Eckankar

I found it fascinating how David Lane has so easily researched and found such astonishing plagiarisms of great quantity and the fraudulent activity. What was kind of funny was how such a “truthful” religion could steep to such low grounds and do things like break into someone’s house to steal the research done on them. But then this only shows the truths that they wished to hide from the public eye. What I am not so sure about is the fact that David Lane did not publish the worst of the evidence he found. I think that on it is a responsible action to reveal to the public all that a “religion” hides and allow the public to know the truth. I would like to know why he would not do so. When we hear that the truth is being withheld we automatically begin to wonder why? Why would someone not want to bring to light the helpful truths for the public to be able to know all there is to know about a falsity, being the Eckankar religion.

As I ponder why one would do so, I also understand the respect the researcher has for persons. He has shown more than enough for the public to understand the falseness in the originality of the Eckankar documents and creeds, but it seems he is not out to make the public hate the founders of such religion. From this point of view I find it very respectful and humane on the part of David Lane. But I also think that justice should be done and they should be revealed for who they are and what they do.

Thakar Singh

How about this guy, huh? I really have had to think about the setting from which the people we are reading about come from to get a better understanding of why they would do some of the things they do. I wondered if Thakar thought he was really doing something normal, or something that isn't that bad. Did he think because of his "holy" status that he could do whatever entered his mind, because he was good? This is like the question of if something is good because God says so or does God say so because it is good. Were the atrocities he was doing good to him because he wanted to do them, and he being the enlightened figurehead means they must be good? I also wonder if he had grown up in a similar setting. Many people who act in these ways have been influenced by their parents, culture, and ambient whom have shown the same actions and attitudes.

But with that being said, he was aware that what he was doing is wrong. Living here in Peru I have seen and spoken with many people who say that it is normal for a man to hit his wife. Their fathers did it, their grandparents did it, and their neighbors do it. Almost all have been Peruvians native to the mountain areas around Puno. Their culture has kind of taken that stance. But when you begin to talk to them about it, really get into the details of who is human and how we should treat each other, speaking to them about how they hated seeing their mother being beaten when they were children, they begin to understand and they can't even look you in the eyes. Their is something in us all when we really begin to evaluate our thoughts and when we learn from others, we know that this is wrong. We know that Thakar Singh has committed a wrong and he knows it as well. He had international attention, his followers were aware of it (they reported him), therefore he was also in the same ambient and culture as them who knew it to be wrong. I was not able to hear or read what happened to Thakar Singh in the end, but I hope that justice was done and he received the punishment for his crimes.

Extra Credit - When Gods Decay

When Gods Decay is a short book which lays out for us the steps we take in life and how we can easily move to and from religions based on our mentality at the time. We go through processes of rationality, just like religions go through processes of birth, change, and split, leading to rebirth. We are all moving and changing, and we find ourselves led to religion from an intrinsic psycho-social makeup in ourselves.

Religions will always exist, but they will always die, change, and split (re-birthing). This is what has happened for years and years and Nietzsche himself recognized the inability for humanity to cope with life without meaning and purpose. This is why religion is so important to humanity. But for religions to survive they must adapt with the times. As science, mentalities, and “cultures” change a religion must adapt partially so if it is to stay alive and be accepted. For acceptance and growth it is important that it is relatively simple to present and not to extreme so that man will not be deterred. It is utterly important that a religion be easy to replicate or such a religion will not live long nor grow.

For us as humans we are also growing and our ideas are changing. In the process we find ourselves confronting many questions that religions seem to answer for us at the time. But as we move along and our minds continue to move along as well, we start thinking in other forms, more rational and scientific sometimes, and we begin to lose our religion. As Nietzsche said, “God is dead…and we have killed him.” Our God no longer fits us and we kill him off. But we don’t kill off all gods and religions, but we take up a new one which fits our needs most.

“God is dead and we have killed him…but look! God is resurrected and he seems a little different. I like this God and I will embrace him.” As so it is as we move forward and change, us and religion(s).

Double Extra Credit - Nicholas of Cusa

This short film was very indirect and ambiguous, but I think that is the point. If we are to truly find meaning in things, find the truths, we must not go into to something with everything already made up in our minds. We should have no presuppositions. Like the scientists who work hard to make their data come close to the data of previous testers, they were not honestly just testing and researching. They had previous ideas and thought that they had to build off of them. If we are to find truth, we cannot make something be an unchangeable factor, there should not even be a something. We should seek with great ignorance. When we do so, we will be able to find the truths as they really are, not as we perceive them or as they coincide with what we already think and believe. But when we come to learn that we also should not hold into it, but rather enter the process again in total ignorance so that we may again receive pure truth as it is revealed.
In the film the ship seems to be moving around with no real straight forward direction until he comes in contact with a planet, then he quickly keeps moving on with no specific direction. This is how we are to seek, going with total ignorance and ended up where we end up, then we will find these planets as they are and where they are. But we are not to take these bits of knowledge and make them our base for everything else, but rather we are to go out again and seek pure honest truth with no prejudices.

Midterm

11.

Richard Dawkins believes that religion is a virus of the mind because it is embedded in the minds of people from childhood. It is a condition which impedes us as humankind in our evolutionary process towards the future through science. This virus called religion is the very weakness in humanity which simply makes us believe what is not true, causing us to believe that a distant god is the maker of it all and instead of searching out why and how things work, we simply take them for what they are and attribute it all to this god. Richard Dawkins cannot stand religion and he believes with all his conviction that it is a problem and impediment in our future. They come into us and teach us that the most foolish of things are virtuous. As Dawkins puts it, "Any wimp in religion could believe that bread symbolically represents the body of Christ, but it takes a real, red-blooded Catholic to believe something as daft as the transubstantiation. If you believe that you can believe anything, and (witness the story of Doubting Thomas) these people are trained to see that as a virtue." These are simply ignorant brain-washings of people from childhood led to believe that the most absurd of all things, when believed, is the most noble. This has no logical point or reason at all. It is this kind of thinking that will ultimately make us dumber and dumber. Thus, religion is a virus of the mind.

I definitely would not agree totally with Richard Dawkins idea. He speaks so badly against teaching these principles to children because it is "brainwashing them", yet the very thing he desires to do is the same, but with his "dogmas". He is set on his way of thinking, with reason and logic (which are good things) that he simply closes his mind to a possibility which he hasn't found any proof for, but neither has he searched very hard. There is simply too many phenomenas and unexplainable "spiritual" events and things that have happened to simply brush the thought of something transcendent under the rug. Do I think religion is a virus? Because of the positive it has contributed to the world and life I would say no. Because it is put into the minds of children from an early age, I would have to say all things taught to children would need to be put into the same category, and that would be ridiculous.


12.

I live here in Tacna, Peru and there are many animistic beliefs and black magic. Because of these two things there are many many beliefs. One of the more unbelievable beliefs the people have here is that witches and shaman (chaman they call them here) can turn into dogs or wolves and stalk people. There is no evidence that anyone has been able to show or explain me other than "so and so" said they heard a story of someone doing it. Or sometimes we will be walking down the street at night and someone will say, "that dog right there is one". When I ask them how they know they simply say they can tell. The biology, physics, and the theory of evolution make it clear that a person cannot physically change into a dog and vice-versa, especially in such quick time span. All the people I have talked to about this have never actually seen it happen, but only heard stories. There are no documented sightings, no video, no photos, no physical evidence at all that could lead us to believe this is true or even possible. Furthermore, a dog does not have the consciousness to stalk a person for reasons of vengeance. The belief is absurd, untrue, illogical, and scientifically impossible. Another good cargo cult could be the belief that war is the path to peace. But that enters into many fields of thought and I don't want to make you read too much.

13.

According to Richard Feynman, when doing science one should do all things with integrity. All results should be published, both the good and the bad so that further studies can know exactly what they are looking at beforehand. Scientist should not be so worried about making things fit so that they can be right, but rather simply looking for the honest truth in all things. We should not work hard to make our results reflect the results of others, but rather we should do all things thoroughly and simply study and report the results as they are. Integrity cannot be underestimated in science if it is to be done correctly and for the good of science and humanity. But the most important of all is that one should do science because one simply is curious and wants to know. When a scientists simply enjoys and takes pleasure in finding things out, he works hard, diligently, and honestly to find the answer. He has no motivation in fame, money, societies. He simply has the desire to know. When we learn about the intrinsics in things we can enjoy them more thoroughly by enjoying the very beauty of something from the inside and out. When we know more about something it doesn't take away from its beauty, but rather it adds to it. If I look into the sky at night I can appreciate its splendor even though I might know why each star shines and glitters. If I look at a crystal vase I can enjoy it for its beauty. But when I understand the long hard process in making that vase what it appears to me today I understand and appreciate all that goes into that vase. Either way, knowing more or not about our sky or a vase does not take away the beauty we can see and experience by being there with them.

14.
The short film Karma portrays the belief that what goes around comes around. If you do something morally wrong, according to the Hindu and Buddhist teachings, it will come around to you in the end. Their teachings are more based on the reincarnation and where you will end up next, but it has come to be accepted that what you do here and now will come back to you in this life.

The concept of good and bad cannot be denied. We are all affected on a daily basis of by things that happen to us on both ends of the spectrum. But does one really have to live in fear of something inevitably bad coming back to them when he has done wrong to another? The rich don't seem to need to live up to this belief. I find it hard to accept that there is a force of good and evil, with no conscience state, which dictates all the is going to happen both good and bad. I do believe, based on our human instinctive (could this be that force?) that causes us to want to return evil with evil and good for good. If he treats me this way I will treat him likewise. But there are too many people who live based on religion, of which their religion teaches not to pay back evil with evil, but to win evil with good. Ghandi and Jesus are good examples of these teaching. Therefore these people would not be living according to this Karma (in this life). Ghandi and Jesus were both beaten and killed, but they did not live practicing evil.

Could the Karma of our next life be real? I personally do not believe so. But as for this short film, I think it is more based on the newer thought of Karma in this life and not on the reincarnation basis it is rooted in as a teaching.

15.
Darwinian evolution is in a nutshell survival of the fittest through adaptation evolution. We adapt to our environments to survive and advance. As the evolutionary occurs the fittest of all the species will continue to live and the weaker will die. John Maynard Smith's Game Theory and the idea of a payoff plays an important role in understanding differently the idea of survival of the fittest. Understanding that a fight until we die mentality is not good for either of us, we will do everything we can to avoid it. We all want to come out ahead with the least amount of pain and confrontation as possible. This would allow both parties to resolve the problem by "measuring up"to each other and the stronger and bigger would win, thus confrontation on the fighting level is not necessary nor wanted because it would cause harm to both sides of the confrontation. We see this in our everyday lives when we much rather avoid confrontation because it leads to problems when not handled correctly.

16.

Freeman Dyson believes that there is a God, but it is more like a universal mind. The universe seems to be designed for a few reasons. It is life friendly. We have easily been able to adapt to this earth and evolve. It has to have been life friendly at some point or the evolutionary process could never have taken off. Also, the universe seems to be make decisions. It reflects a universal mind because atoms and other parts of the universe seem to just make decisions to connect or stay at a distance or whatever it may be. These things suggest that there is something more out there that moves it all, something bigger. This leads us to look for our purpose because it seems with the way that the universe is, that there is something more and there is a reason why we are here, on this earth, living and growing and continuing. We seem to be moving towards some goal.

17.

Faqir Chand came to understand that all visions come from within and not from without. They are not a vision that come from some other person or place, but rather a manifestation of what is in us and our minds. Thus religions and their founders, which are based on visions, cannot possibly be the answers we are all looking for, but rather the manifestations of the people who had the visions. We cannot ever know the absolute truth about it all, so we should not put our absolute faith in it.. Or as Faqir puts it, “How can I make a claim about my attainment of the Ultimate? The truth is that I know nothing” (Faqir Chand Meets the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Chapter 9).

18.

I think there are two main points made in the short film Eleven. One being that we can never claim that "they" are all the same. The fact that a handful of Muslim terrorists did a horrific act does not mean that they are all terrorists and they are going to repeat the same type of horror. The Oklahoma city bombing is just one of many examples. The fact that there are many Muslims who detest and hate what was done is clear and solid proof that they cannot all be put on the same level. Generalizing a "people" and believing that they are all the same in all aspects is just stupid. Not saying that the people who act this way is stupid, but rather this ignorance and mentality is stupid and needs to be fixed.

The second main point brought across in the film was in our extreme actions to stop the extremist, we become that which we hate. The founder of the gang Eleven wished to be rid the country of terrorist threats, because it was after all the terrorists who took the lives of so many innocent people, one of which was his dad. But in the process he became so focused on the fact that they were Muslim that he closed his own mind to think of the many innocents in that "category". The two victims that were mentioned were not even partakers in the Muslim faith.

19.

If we confuse the message with the medium we might lose some very insightful and true teachings. It would be like never considering buying a Mercedes Benz because you’re the owner of the company is a drunk and polygamous. The fact that he has that lifestyle does not mean that the car is a bad car. If we link the two completely we could be missing out on one of the finest cars that exists. Likewise, if we do not take into consideration certain teachings which seem to be true just because the one who teaches them is wreck, we could miss out on some of the finest teachings there are today. Ghandi is a good example. He was not a Christian but he took some of the teachings of Jesus and made them the pillars of his life and political movement to free India. If he would have disregarded the teachings of Jesus because those who taught them were hypocrites, he would have never done what he had done (we can assume).

20.

Bertrand Russell was not a Christian. He reasoning comes from the fact the he says the he cannot rationally believe in the existence of God and immortality, and that Christ was the best and wisest of men and the son of God. He argues against the five main arguments for the existence of God are not sound arguments, thus debunking the existence God and therefore the fact that Christ is his son. He also claims that Christ was not even the best and wisest of all men because he spoke so much on hell to put fear into the people so that they follow him. He did not use rational thinking or some other way to convince people that his way was the correct way. Therefore, using emotions to sway people does not prove him to be the best and wisest of people.

I would disagree with Bertrand Russell on a few of the points he makes. In the fourth argument which he wishes to debunk is the Moral Argument for Diety. He states among his thoughts, and this one being the most logical I believe, that good and bad exist, therefore a higher being had to put them here. Therefore, good and bad have to be apart from who God is, meaning that God is not good. My rebuttal would be to argue that if God himself is good, in his essence (which many religions claim), that which is not of him would therefore be bad. His very existence would be the definer of what is good and bad, therefore good, bad, and God all exist and coincide.

My second rebuttal, or skepticism it could be said, is on the Remedying of Injustice, the fifth argument Mr. Russell argues against. My argument is more towards what most evolutionist and scientist claim, that religion is not necessary for morals, because morals are/can be/have been developed through the evolutionary chain. If injustices are a part of the universe as Bertrand Russell leads us to believe with the example of the crate of oranges in his rebuttal against the necessity of God to remedy injustice, then injustices are simply a part of what has come about through evolution so that each of us can assure our own good, our own survival. Only the fittest will survive no matter the cost, right? We do not call it injustice that an octopus devours a crab or that a lion easily hunts down a zebra. We call it nature and natural. But when a person cheats or does some type of injustice (based on our basic human moral code) we see that as not right...unjust. How can we have morals that come from science and evolution, and also have injustices as a natural part of our world? The two ideas seem to contradict.

Lastly, on Christ. I would have to argue that Christ was in the best and wisest of men. First, if we take what the gospel of John says about Jesus that he “did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (Chapter 21, verse 25). Jesus did in fact do many more miracles and good things than were recorded in the Bible. In the same gospel of John (Chapter 20, verse 30&31) it states that the things that were recorded were recorded so that those who read it might believe in Jesus and have eternal life. And if we give the fact that hell is a real place and a real consequence, it would be correct to warn someone about the dangers of their decisions, actions, and beliefs, would it not? It would be a very cruel person who knows that a house is on fire inside and they do not tell the people who are heading up to the front door.

21.

In order to think clearly and critically we need to keep some things in mind. To start off we need to have a basis to build off of, something needs to be able to be proven false. In other words, if we are trying to find out if something is true there should be certain criteria which if not met would mean it is false. If these criteria are not proven we could then know that this could be true. If it is impossible to prove to be false there is no way of knowing if it is true or not. From there we can test logical arguments using all of the evidence and testing we have available to see if it is actually true or false. We need to be careful not to be trying to prove something true for our own good, but rather we should be honestly trying to find the truth without twisting or manipulating anything. If it does prove to be true we should be able to test it again and again and it will always come out to be true. But it needs to be taken into account that the harder it is to claim something true the more evidence and testing is required to prove beyond doubt that it is true. The burden of proof is on the one who claims something to be true. When these things have been tested and proved beyond a reasonable doubt with sufficient evidence through ample testing, then and only then can we reasonable claim something to be true.

22.

Kurtz believes skepticism should be applied to religion because there is no reason that science should simply cop-out of looking into studying the facets of religion that can be studied. Anthropology, sociology, and psychology all touch on some of the religious claims, but other fields of science should look into studying more. Physics, biology and other field can attempt to broaden their fields to look into the claims of miracles. Science should look into finding ways to scientifically and skeptically seek to prove true or false the claims which religions put out there. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the one who claims it true, but the burden of science is to seek out truth and knowledge without limiting their field of study because of personal biases. There are certain things that obviously cannot be studied with our current science, but things like the form of human behavior and the transcendental (that which transcends human reason or experience) in religion can be looked into, and should.

I think that scientists are hypocritical when they say religion closes our minds and doesn’t allow us to seek more knowledge, but then turn around and say that we shouldn’t study religious claims because they are false. I agree with Kurtz, we should seek to broaden the field of study to include all that we can. If there is something which we cannot understand with the methods currently available, we should seek to find new methods to seek and explain that which we are studying.

23.

All books and arguments are based on pretexts and lead to conclusions. It is especially important to understand what is the pretext, the text, and the context of everything we analyze because it is here that we will find its validity as a text. It is utterly important that the pretext is solid because everything comes from them. Without the pretext the text cannot be put together, and the text cannot be used for its function, in the case of a book to lead us to understand the point. Take a remote control for example, or any electronic device for that matter. It is composed of many little plastic, metal, and information processing parts, these are the pretext to remote control. Without them the remote control cannot be put together, but on their own they do not allow the control to change the channels or turn on and off the apparatus. So it is with books and arguments. They are put together with little facts, truths, or reasonable evidence (the pretexts), and they lead us to better understand something. If the pretexts are incorrect, the foundation of the text is not solid and is easier to be brought down. The context is that which influences the receptiveness of the text, be it our mood, our biases, our presuppositions, etc.. Take our remote control for example. Say we are far away from the apparatus. The remote control won’t work for us. Likewise, if there are elements which influence the ability of the text to be clearly taken in and without prejudice, we will be able to better analyze and reason with the text that is presented to us.

24.

A transformative UFO encounter is when it seems to the one encountered that it was a real actual event. Their senses have taken the encounter as an event sometimes more real than the world we consciously live in daily. Because there is no real physical evidence to support what has taken place, the event seems to be only a “empirical-sensory” event. The fact of it happening or not is limited by the language that is being used. For the person encountered, they feel they were encountered because they consciously sensed what had happened to them. There can be no empirical evidence for or against it because it is reduced to their sensory experience.

The author of the Himalayan Connection does not believe that we have been visited by extraterrestrials, but rather the unidentified flying objects were misidentified flying objects and misconstrued psycho objects highly influenced by our culture.

25.

Thinking critically is important in studying anything, but now in the online era it is ever more important. There is so much information out there that one needs to be able to discern what it true and based on good evidence and what is not. For someone who is reading something online it is very important to understand the concepts learning and studying. We must take into account the very things that are being said and analyze them to see if they are built on true solid facts. Hearsay, commentaries, and things simply stated are not grounds for coming to a conclusion. We must be able to clearly identify the basis from which the arguments are brought forth. These arguments need to bring us to the conclusion that is being presented to us. We need to be able to distinguish the value of the content we are reading, based on the sources of the material, and then evaluate if what is being presented can rationally and logically lead us to believe what the material suggests.

26.

Steven Weinburg believes that religion is an impediment to the future of the economy of the United States, to scientific discoveries, and to the advancement of humanity. He concluded his lecture at the Beyond Belief conference saying, “Anything to be done to free the world of the religious nightmare we are in I embrace. Perhaps it will be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

I disagree strongly, but not totally with him. If religious extremist are to influence the scientific world I think that they need to be put in chains (figuratively speaking). We cannot allow anyone or anything, except the law, to get in the way of anyone’s freedom to pursue anything. If science wants to continue to seek and discover more things, so be it. If religion wants to continue to study science or teach their beliefs or help out the world with humanitarian projects, so be it. To take away the freedom of anyone, especially in the United States (which was a point that he spoke on), would be against the very foundation of our country. It makes no sense to infringe on science because religion says so (which is Weinburgs fear), and then say it is okay to infringe on religion because scientist say so.

Apart from that, history has proven that belief in a deity has been the very motivation of many of the major scientist. Newton, Einstein, Galileo, and others all believed that there was something more out there (referring to a god), and this did not stop them from seeking to understand more about our planet, nature, and the universe.

27.

Sam Harris says he is an atheist because of certain factors in religion. He states that religious claims are not based on evidence and that religion has been sheltered from criticism. He says that what would otherwise be the most illogical and unreasonable of statements are taken as truth and virtuous because they are under religion. He further goes on to say that the more illogical and unreasonable it is to believe, if you believe it it is a virtue because you are having much faith.

The majority of his points are logical. I do not think I would put say the case was closed with Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapots metaphor because there are not unexplainable events taking place because of people who believe in celestial teapots. There are not billions of people whose lives have been changed and who have claimed to have contact on some level with the celestial teapot. I would also say that religion is not too sheltered from criticism and skepticism because those who believe and those who don’t believe both look into the possibility of the phenomenal claims that are made and have been made. When scientist make theories that cannot be tested, like Einstein’s E=mc², we call him a genius and because of his record in science we assume that he is at least going in the right direction. When a major religious figure, like Jesus or a current one, does a miracle that cannot be explained with science, we take their word for how they have done it. There are some things that can’t be reasonably or logically explained like a tumor disappearing from within a person, or a man being healed instantly of a life long condition. There are cases that can be explained, but there are many which cannot be explained. To simply throw those out the window and say “one day we will know” isn’t sufficient for me or the billions others who believe in a God. It would be wiser for him to be agnostic, because scientifically speaking he cannot close the door on something until he knows it is false. Proving where miracles come from would definitely be one of those points that could allow him to do so.

28.

I found Michael Sherman to be the most persuasive in his presentation. He was not the one with the most information or the most slides and quotes, but I found him to be the most reasonable and logical of all the speakers so far. The majority of the speakers spoke on what could be in the future, or why we need to kill religion in the world today because of a couple extreme situations in Latin America and in the Islamic world centuries ago. But Michael Sherman presented clear, logical, and easy to understand points based on historical patterns and evidence. He explained how billions of people believe in religion, simply because it gives them what they need to deal with life, something which science has not been able to provide them. He also showed how illogical it was for scientist to go on this continual tirade to abolish religion from everything, because it only shuns the religious away from science instead of showing them why science should be embraced. It is just like those religious fanatics who try to force religion down someone’s throat, the end result is the person being totally turned off by the idea of religion. If science is the ultimate truth or not, Sherman shows the illogical means by which they are trying to achieve the end, the total replacement of religion with science.

29.

Michael Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity is rejected by Ken Miller and the scientific community at large based on the argument of ignorance. Ken Miller shows us clearly shows us that the examples brought forth by Behe have been proven wrong. The blood clotting cascade for example was said to need 10 proteins to clot correctly, but some jawless fish are successfully able to do it with just six of the proteins.

I can say that he Ken Miller is right in proving Michael Behe’s argument to be false. Could we say that he is right in proving evolution to be true? Not quite, but we can say that he proves that it is definitely very possible.

30.

I found that Stuart Hameroff had the least substance in his presentation. Due to the fact that he speaks mostly on quantum levels, they are more just ideas thrown around than theories based on physical evidence and facts. The field he works in is relatively new and does not have as much in depth studies and proof. He brought up some interesting ideas about the conscious, things which were not touched on at all by anyone. In the future he might be able to speak on more solid ideas after extensive studies have taken place to deduce more reliable ideas and concepts. Until then he has spoken mainly on very broad quantum ideas that have no scientific foundation.

31.

A scientific education according to Huxley is that of a well balanced education. It should have science, its methods, and logic as a cornerstone. It should be well rounded and include history, the arts, and it is very important to study ones own language well. When studying ones language it is also important to learn it scientifically, not just the grammar, but why it is the way it is. Where the rules come from, and if it is possible a couple more languages should be added to help the student understand the concept of a word and not just the word in its common day use. Learning another language helps us to better appreciate words and to better understand their root meanings, and to better understand our own language.

Huxley stressed very much the importance of science in education. He felt that science was the new method of learning and that we should put special importance on it if it does in fact come to be the best and only proper way of learning.

32.

The author of BELIEVER-SKEPTIC criticizes Ken Wilber for a number of reasons. First, Ken Wilber’s claims of Da Free John as being the greatest guru to have ever lived and his writings to be the greatest books ever written are simply illogically exaggerated. For him to truly argue this point, he would have had to have read every book written, which we know is impossible in a life’s span. His second unreasonable point made is the greatness of this guru. He later admits that Da Free John is a f#*k up, but does not back down from his claims as the greatest guru of all time. His life does not reflect his teachings, on that argument alone his claim loses validity.

Secondly, Ken Wilber argues ignorantly for things which have already been scientifically invalidated. When he speaks about the mutations that take place in the evolutionary process, he says that the theory viewed in a new way. But the widely known evolutionist and most read authors on the subject like Dawkins and Gould openly speak contrarily. To openly and clearly speak incorrectly about the current evolutionary theory is simply speaking out ignorantly.

The author makes the important point that if Ken Wilber builds off of these pretexts, his arguments are going to be fallible and we will not know which things to take correctly and which to throw away as rubbish. The author also makes the point that Wilber has many good and valid points to convey, but if he continues to use these manners of study and presentation it will diminish what he is trying to do.