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.