Final
By: Ambra Bourne • February 13, 2007
FINAL EXAMINATION: Winter 2007, Critical Thinking
Professor David C. Lane, Ph.D. • neuralsurfer@yahoo.com
4. What is your real name?
Ambra Bourne
5. What is your “user” name?
Lawgirl
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
law1girl@gmail.com
7. Name and address for your website.
http://criticalthinking-mtsac.blogspot.com/
8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?
yes
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
yes
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this class (you can copy and paste them. ALL SIX WEEKS OF POSTINGS.)
Assignment #1
By: Ambra Bourne • February 13, 2007
FINAL EXAMINATION: Winter 2007, Critical Thinking
Professor David C. Lane, Ph.D. • neuralsurfer@yahoo.com
4. What is your real name?
Ambra Bourne
5. What is your “user” name?
Lawgirl
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
law1girl@gmail.com
7. Name and address for your website.
http://criticalthinking-mtsac.blogspot.com/
8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?
yes
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
yes
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this class (you can copy and paste them. ALL SIX WEEKS OF POSTINGS.)
Assignment #1
By: Ambra Bourne • January 14, 2007
Post 1: “Reaction piece to the expert lecture”Richard Feynman and Critical Thinking in Physics
Richard Feynman talks about several topics, ideas and theories in his expert lecture “Richard Feynman and Critical Thinking in Physics”. One topic being the inner structure and neutrons, electrons, protons, and anti-neutrinos. Feynman was an American physicist known for expanding the theory of quantum electrodynamics. Even though I know very, very little about physics, watching the piece on Feynman taught me a great deal about science. I’ve learned that through processes like a bird, you can know the name that people or a society assign to it, but still know nothing about the bird. You do not know the color of the bird, what the bird likes to eat, where or when it sleeps, all you know is the name, which means in fact nothing truly about the actual bird. Feynman assisted in the development of the atomic bomb and was awarded the Nobel Prize for work on quantum electrodynamics. Feynman enjoyed physics, not because it was important to him, but because it was fun. Feynman feels that honors or prizes are not genuine, he believes that the real prize is the understanding of the theory, like understanding the bird, not simply knowing the name assigned to it, his interest in science is to find out about the world. Eventually, Feynman decided to work at the California Institute of Technology, where he had a great deal of success teaching using discussions for gaining perspective on problems and issues. He was surprised to learn that the same teaching devices did not apply for his daughter.
Bertrand Russell on Clear ThinkingUnlike the previous expert lecture “Bertrand Russell on Clear Thinking” was short and simple. Russell focused his lecture on clear or exact critical thinking. The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy. Inexact thinking is thinking where one is not knowing, where anything can happen. Russell attaches significant value to forming one's own opinion, which betrays a confidence in a person's ability to avoid dependence on expert knowledge.
Post 2: “Substantial questions or elaborations or rebuttals to the required reading”
The four assigned readings Cargo Cult Science, Agnosticism / Atheism, Viruses of the Mind and Critical Thinking in an Online World made me think about issues I would have otherwise never cared about. Reading these articles I was able to expand my knowledge on different aspects of various subjects.
Learning that a cold reading occurs when, presumably, the reader does not know anything about the client in advance, this can be contrasted with a "hot" reading which is made when the reader does have advance information about the clients. How often a cold reading is actually a hot reading is unknown. This is a subject that I would have never researched under the circumstances. Also, I found interesting that there are many people who promote themselves as psychics or clairvoyants, and who claim that their powers enable them to read your character.
In the article on Critical Thinking in an online world I see how gradual the World Wide Web is rapidly taking the place of the traditional library. There has been numerous amounts of advances towards mechanical gadgets and computerized equipment. Ten years ago there was no mention of “online classes”, now they are the key essential for the student on the go, someone far away from the campus, or for whatever reason they may have that would allow them to take classes without having to commit to a classroom as often as the traditional college course.
Post 3: “Discuss issues or ideas raised in the critical thinking films”
NUMINOUS AWARD: KARMA & CONFERENCE PRESENTATION Sections 1 & 2
In review of the two films Karma and the Conference presentations, again I learned a lot about subjects that I would never have studied. A famous explanation of Karma would be “What goes around comes around”. Karma has quite karma. In Indian philosophy, it is total of all of an individual’s action, good or bad. These actions will then determine the future state of that individual. Some may believe that Karma is the same as destiny or fate. Karma is, fundamentally a series of causation, going all the way back to the perpetuity of the past and designed to go into the perpetuity of the future.
The Conference presentation talked a great deal about the tension between science and religion and the theory of revolution. In the film, one speaker stated that about 62 percent of Americans do not believe that humans evolved from the earlier life forms. Because of the conflict of science and religion, some believe that humans have evolved from earlier life forms, yet others figured that life must have originated in other ways.The film also touched on Christians United for Israel and how about half of the population is anticipation the end of the world. The film brought on about how science can explain the world in a good way from faith also. Christians United for Israel is an American Lobbying group comprised of Christian and Jewish communities. It is focused on communicating the need to defend Israel, in light of their interpretation of the Bible.In the film it also discussed Sir Isaac Newton and his work of the Principia. Newton conducted work on gravitation and its effect on the orbits of planets. With the Principia, Newton became internationally recognized. He acquired a circle of admirers.
Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the universe as a mere machine. In the film it states that Newton did not reference God in his discovery of gravitation because he understood the theory and the physical explanation of the laws of motion and gravitational forces. In the earlier days no one understood the theory and could not explain the reasoning, so they gave attribute to God. Because Newton was able to explain gravitation and its effect on the planets, he earned the privilege for naming rights on the theory, being that he was the first to explain it and he was able to do it correctly, similar to the films example of the postage stamps. The British was the only country that did not apply an origin on their stamp, simply because they are the ones that came up with the idea first.Similar to all the readings and films, I would not have even read about these subject matters, yet I find it extremely interesting to learn about the different theories and how the fact that religion and science can be so parallel, yet so different at the same time.
Assignment #2
By: Ambra Bourne • January 14, 2007
By: Ambra Bourne • January 14, 2007
Post 1: “Reaction piece to the expert lecture”
John Maynard Smith and Evolution
Maynard Smith was remarkable for the span of his contributions to biology, including his radical application of game theory to understanding evolutionary strategies, and his clear definition of the major transitions in the history of life. Maynard Smith was always enthusiastic about new data sources and continued to be a driving force in the use of molecular data to answer biological questions, he was one of major figures of 20th evolutionary biology. Maynard was a Professor of Biology at the University of Sussex. He remained active in original research until his death, working on the evolution of animal behavior, and practical issues such as tuberculosis in cattle. This lecture was hard for me to follow, but I was shocked when he said that he was an atheist.
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
Ken Miller is a biology professor and is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design movement. Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, based on the premise that certain natural features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Some claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal grounds as evolution and faith. Miller raises a question of if we evolved from apes and considered the comparison of chromosomes in the DNA of humans and apes. This comparison made me think if we really have evolved from another mammal or if we were just created starting out as human beings. Miller saw no evidence of design, and their philosophy as to how evolution works is the same, yet Dawkins follows that evidence and declares the world is without a designer and Miller believes there is a designer. Miller apparently, l holds to his religious beliefs on faith, yet also believes to a certain extent of science. His belief is that one cannot choose between faith and science, you need both.
Post 2: “Substantial questions or elaborations or rebuttals to the required reading”
In this weeks reading, The Physics behind Four Amazing Demonstrations was very awkward. It teaches how to perform various demonstrations, mind you demonstrations that can be quite painful in a way that is not painful. The author also explains that in order to catch a person’s attention it is best to use cathy phrases, I think I would have to agree with him on this one.
In the reading, Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion? It talks about how the relationship between science and religion has engendered heated controversy. It has indeed caused a great circus, the belief is that in religion we must believe with no proof, go off the sense of faith, yet in science nothing is assumed without proof, there is no room for faith in science. I feel that there would be chaos if there was faith given in the study of science, everyone would believe in UFO and other mysterious theories. Yet, when it comes to religion without faith, there would be not religion because it is impossible to provide proof of everything that religion advises to have faith on, one cannot prove a miracle, which is the sole meaning of a miracle, something that happens without explanation. Religion has no room for uncertainties, and science has no room for faith.
A transformative UFO encounter is when an individual allegedly sites a UFO, but the encounters are symbols emerging from a separate ground of consciousness, like a dream or other realm of consciousness. The author of the Himalayan Connection does entertain the idea that UFO’s may be real, but as far a sure thing, he feels that the encounters that have happened so far a merely satellites, beam reflections, or other scientific explanation, excluding the possibility of UFOs or extraterrestrials. The author feels that most people that site the UFO have simply been misidentified, but continues to quest for the truth.
Post 3: “Discuss issues or ideas raised in the critical thinking films”
The film eleven was extremely harsh, it was about a group of people that went on a spree of racially motivated violence in which having killed people out of revenge. It teaches that taking the law into your own hands is not necessarily the right way to do things. The goal of the group was to rid the world of terrorist threats, so they set out to rid the world of all Muslims by killing them. How asinine is this? I feel that the author of the film was trying to convey this to all the people that would watch it, that it is completely and utterly foolish to target a group of people because they have some bad seeds. It is nothing more than a hate group, the leader of the group lost his dad to terrorism, in return he became the same group that took his fathers life, he became part of the same group he was trying to get rid of, yet he changes nothing, his dad will still be gone, there will still be terrorist, and there will be a large amount of innocent people that would have lost their lives. The creation of this group will not be successful in completing its purpose because there will be an abundant amount of innocent people that will suffer, and these acts of killing all Muslims will not even rid the world of terrorist threats, the bottom line is that you cannot rid evil with evil.
I found this presentation very interesting, there were a number of opinions that all made sense, yet were so diverse. Joan Roughgarden promotes acceptance through learning, I enjoyed listening to Roughgarden’s speech, because she motivated me. Roughgarden asks, and tries to answer, all the big questions about sexual diversity among humans and animals. She talked about people in gender sexuality society and sex roles. Roughgarden argues that principal elements of Darwinian sexual selection theory are false and suggests a new theory that emphasizes social inclusion and control of access to resources and mating opportunity. Neil deGrasse Tyson argues that Roughgarden for using citing sexism influence to generalize what needs to be fixed with science, but feels that she is only looking at the smaller scope, yet needs to look at the broader scope of science.
Dawkins feels that religion is overtaking science and that evolution is under threat because of religion. Dawkins argues that religion is very similar to child abuse in that a child’s parents mold in their brains their religious beliefs, which results in the child believing in something with no proof. Dawkins states that there are many people that do not believe in religion, yet believe in the belief of religion which is the group of people that are too intelligent to believe. I thought that this was very interesting, I never thought of belief in that sense before and I feel that is an excellent way to interpret how one feels that does not believe in religion. Carolyn Porco stated that religion and belief in God are two very different meanings. After the unsuccessful endeavor to practice the religion she was born into, Catholicism, she turned to science.
Assignment #3
By: Ambra Bourne • January 31, 2007
Post 1: “Reaction piece to the expert lecture”FREEMAN DYSON
Freeman Dyson is a mathematician, prominent for his work in quantum mechanics and search for extraterrestrial existence. Dyson wrote several books, one being about the question is life could survive indefinitely. Dyson started to study mathematics then later applied mathematics to work in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, as explained by Dyson is precise and clear in the language it is made for, mathematics, and is not capable of being explained with words. Unlike many of the other speakers that I have heard from recently that professed to true atheism, Dyson confesses to be agnostic. An agnostic does not deny the existence of God, but believes that one cannot know for certain whether or not he exists. Because science cannot explain the existence of the universe and things that happen in it, Dyson does feel that there is reasoning behind it and that God means something, yet is still skeptical about the concept of God.
God, in his terms, has gone to a scale beyond his realm and understanding and leaves it at that. Dyson believes that life does not make sense unless you believe in a purpose. He believes that science is a skill of trade much like Richard Feynman believes that you do, it is not connected to deep thoughts, and is done for fun. Dyson believed that life is able to be spread from one planet to another, and that religion and science are compatible, they are just two different windows that are intended for different viewing purposes. Dyson suggested the use of, heat radiation to view the sky in addition to regular telescopes to search for aliens. This shell or sphere was to be used as a system of orbiting solar power satellites to completely encompass a star and capture its entire energy output. Dyson believed that this sphere would uncover the enduring survival of new life forms, and projected that evidence of the existence of such structures might lead to the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life.
Post 2: “Substantial questions or elaborations or rebuttals to the required reading”
The reading of Why I Am Not a Christian caught my attention. There has been a great deal of religion and faith in the readings and lectures, so it did not necessarily shock me when I read the article. The article goes on to explain how the term Christian is not properly defined and is being used too loosely in today’s age. It touches on how religion is based upon fear.From this and the other readings, Religion is made to seem like a dense subject matter, specified for unintelligent people who make it a practice to follow with no questions asked to "blind faith. It is said that most the people that follow faith go off of general interpretations of the bible that are commonly misinterpreted. I do understand the reasoning in logic that the speakers and writers are coming from, it has only made me wonder as well about the connection to faith, religion and science.
Post 3: “Discuss issues or ideas raised in the critical thinking films”
THE SECRET OF FAQIR , NICHOLAS OF CUSA &CONFERENCE PRESENTATION Section 5
This weeks films were very different, like the others. I feel that the secret of Faqir was interesting, to me it seemed like the film was trying to focus more on the center piece of religion and reject, or to take away all of the other influences that come to play in religion, like symbols and worship objects. It was a change in preaching, or studying of religion.
The Conference presentation also dealt a lot with religion and the battle between religion and science. Religion is a system of thought that is considered to be sacred, it is a way of life. Many of the speakers have felt that it is a way of life that most people with faith are living that is foolish. Paul Davies, a physicist believes thatr the universe moves to a designed form with a higher being or machine, he feels that doing science means to figure out what is wrong with the world. Davies states that scientists assume that many things are acts of faith, such as the sun rising everyday, we do not know how it does it, but we assume, on faith that it will continue to rise. He states that the laws of physics cannot explain science, yet our minds have inherited evolutionary status and is able to solve certain problems.Steven Nadler talks about religion & morality and the myth of Spinoza. Nadler feels that the bible is not truly the words of God. Patricia Churchland, a professor of philosophy at UCSD spoke of Nero philosophy. Churchland spoke of how we get to a moral point of view and that the view of morality being handled by religion is not correct in thinking. She feels that evolution sets the style and that experience in a culture will shape the style into specific habits and preferences. What we care about ascts as a framework for what we value.
Assignment #4
Assignment #4
By: Ambra Bourne • February 14, 2007
Post 1: “Reaction piece to the expert lecture”
Professor Mark Juergensmeyer – Terror in the Mind Of God
The film Terror in the Mind of God is a comparative work on religious terrorists and explores the use of violence by religious groups. The Terror in the Mind of God looks at common themes and patterns in the cultures of violence. Juergensmeyer asks the questions about the reasoning of the United States in Iraq and why do religious believers commit such violent acts in the name of faith and religion, take the lives of innocent people, and terrorize people.
Juergensmeyer described suicide bombers as a temporary struggle with God, in which the good will prevail, and how the attack on the World Trade Center was not at all successful because it did not fall down like the terrorist wanted it to.
Juergensmeyer states that that religion is the cure for religious violence, we must recognize that we are not God and that we do not know everything and need to be tolerant of others and open to public things. He concludes with suggestions for the future of religious violence that are certain to be controversial, arguing that "the cure for religious violence may ultimately lie in a renewed appreciation for religion itself" and in acknowledgement of religion in public life. The same religion that causes grief is the same religion that causes destruction.
Post 2: “Substantial questions or elaborations or rebuttals to the required reading”
AN INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING By Steven D. Schafersman
The Reading Edgar Cayce and the Skeptic talks about Edgar Cayce and weather or not his alleged psychic abilities were genuine. Cayce is known to be a great psychic by many of his followers, they claim that he has been able to draw into higher awareness.I feel that he himself, as well as his follower may feel that there were psychic abilities present in Cayce’s being. As far as actually in fact being real, I have my doubts. To me, I feel that there must be proof beyond any type of doubt to prove something as unparalleled as psychic abilities. There is too much room for doubts in the review of Cayce’s psychic abilities.
The reading CULT-BUSTER by DAVID LANE Talks about the debate and deputes amongst David Lane and the religious group Eckists. Lane feels that the cult organizations teach a type of brainwashing method. He states, “Instead of asking people to be really skeptical of things it's asking them to believe almost anything." This type of teaching causes the member to follow on blind faith allowing the group leader the ability to mold the group into whatever they see fit for the organization, eventually it is to the point where a member no longer questions anything the leader may so or ask to have done, no matter how outrageous the act may be.
Post 3: “Discuss issues or ideas raised in the critical thinking films”SAI BABA ,Thakar Singh and the Downfalls of Gurudom & Beyond Belief Film Sessions 6 & 7
Sai Baba is seen standing on a stage. He has an object in his left hand that is said to have been transferred from that hand to his right hand. He then makes a circular motion and produces a necklace from his right hand. From what I see there is no evidence of any kind of spectacular event taking place. I simply see him transform papers from one hand to another then showing a necklace that was balled in his right hand.I feel that he put his two hands together under his papers and then placed the necklace into his right hand where he held it there inconspicuously until he revealed it at the end of the film.The video SAI BABA shows a recording that focuses on a hand movement of Sai Baba which is open to different interpretations. I personally do not see any for of magic here weather the poor picture quality or lack of faith, but I am open to the possibility. Having evidence of this tape alone I feel that one cannot come to a conclusion as to if this is a valid magic trick or not.
Thakar Singh believed in blindfolding children in a greater attempt at brainwashing. A child’s mind is an easier objective to accomplish this drastic goal of brainwashing. This brainwashing of children leads to blind following of a religious belief, cult practices, or anything the leader may request of a follower. Subjects that are easiest to influence are usually young, trusting, gullible, and non-critical people from protective backgrounds or people who may be particularly vulnerable because of some recent unsettled transition.Those who are blind followers tend to lack critical thinking skills. Individuals who have a high level of critical thinking skills are those who easily articulate, balance information, as well as those who are self-centered, street-wise, and highly critical. Some religious followers that lack critical thinking skills are more vulnerable to the mind control tactics the religious group sets to have followed. Mind control is used to deceivingly influence members. Nothing is easier to accomplish this goal than to start with children.
Assignment #5
Assignment #5
By: Ambra Bourne • February 16, 2007
Post 1: “Reaction piece to the expert lecture”JOHN POLKINGHORNE
John Polkinghorne worked for many years as a physicist. He soon resigned from the study of science to focus more on the divine and become a Reverend. Polkinghorne believed in the natural theology which he states is to find evidence of divinity. It is the endeavor to find evidence of an intelligent designer without option to a so it is said supernatural revelation. Polkinghorne states that science tells us how the world works but does not tell us everything about the world. For these missing gaps we must focus on religion. Religion shows us that the world is not mechanical.Polkinghorne states that both religion and science has a tremendous impact on the actions of his life, they are both part of who he is and makes him who he is. For this reason Polkinghorne feels that there must be both the science and religion.
Biology has made a large discovery in DNA, other sciences also believe that they have explained many things regarding life and feel they can explain everything about it. Polkinghorne does not feel this is possible, he feels that we are more than our genes and that there is more to explain about the creation beyond the science stages of life. Polkinghorne states that God is a mysterious being and that it is better to call God the father rather than to call him a force. The universe is a part of God.
Post 2: “Substantial questions or elaborations or rebuttals to the required reading”The Nietzsche Channel - Beyond Good and Evil
The nine sections of the Beyond Good and Evil talks about the progress of philosophy. It brings down the injustice of his time, looks for a new direction for philosophy. He feels that philosophers should be free and try different things, they should use religion, critical thinking to come to conclusions. He defines a genuine philosopher as original as opposed to following blind faith.
This reading was very complicated to read. Nietzsche makes me question the reality of the world, it focuses a lot on critical thinking. It makes the reader think about his thought process.Nietzsche brings about great emotions in his view on religion. He believed that a person should have their own opinions. He does not disregard the position of the teacher or leader, but he also felt that the teacher must let go at a certain point. He feels that if this does not happen then the follower will then begin to follow on blind faith, rather it be religion, education, or any matter where one is being taught.
Post 3: “Discuss issues or ideas raised in the critical thinking films”Philosophy in Less than Five Minutes: Films 1- 5 Beyond Belief Film Sessions 8 & 9
I found these short films very entertaining. One talked about Jorge Bore and his Zahir coin with the year 1929 and sketched with the letters NT and the number 2. The coin is meant to signify our free will. It tells us that we all have the power to choose our own destiny.Our world is also made up littler things that jiggle according to Richard Feynman. I feel that he interprets the world as a composition of “little things”, technology, religion, education, physics, and together they make up the universe that we come to call the world. The film also shows a nuclear fusion in space with neutrons and electrons flying all around symbolizing some of the many things that the universe is made of.
I found the film Survival of the Sufficient by Darwin Redone to be my favorite because it was short and simple, yet in was loaded with critical information about life. The film talked about how as people we come in contact with people that continue to edit us. These people can be anyone, our neighbor, mother, wife, mailman, anyone that we come in contact with in our lives. The film restates that the Darwinian theory is not the survival of the fittest but the survival of the sufficient, which basically means that we may not be the strongest, but as long as we are sufficient enough to get by we can either team up with one that is stronger to help survive, or wing our way about where we are able to survive with ones own strength.
The film talks about how deception is natures method to make sure that we all have room to compete and how nature uses this competition to edit us. There is still a sense of survival of the fittest, but not as much as in the earlier days of human life. I feel that this relates more common to animals than human beings.
Assignment #6
Assignment #6
By: Ambra Bourne • February 16, 2007
Post 1: “Reaction piece to the expert lecture”James Watson and DNA and the Brain
James Watson figured out the structure of DNA and that it continues to make models of itself. He believes that genetics holds the secret for understanding human behavior because DNA is what makes us unique, without regard to this life and people would all be the same. We can read DNA message in our chromosomes and study human behavior. Watson feels that we cannot study nature so we do not know if this aspect of life makes us different, yet we can study DNA and genetics which has proven that it plays a major role in our behavior. To Watson, the key in understanding humans is in our DNA.
Watson feels strongly about the idea of nature vs. nurture. He sides with nature because we can study nature in our DNA, yet still feels that nurture is important it is just the fact that we cannot study nurture. For example, Watson states that we will learn and do better in school because of our genes over learning from a teacher.Because we are unique from our DNA cells, Watson feels that you should never be the smartest person in a room because then no one else can help you, I find this funny, but believe that because we are all made up of different DNA structures that you can be smarter than someone, yet still be able to learn from them.
Post 2: “Substantial questions or elaborations or rebuttals to the required reading”
I felt the reading on the intelligent design very interesting. Most evolutionary biologists regard intelligent design as junk because they feel that the theory of intelligent design cannot be proven. They feel that the concept that God created the universe may in fact be true, but if it is the case, intelligent design still cannot explain the actions that take place after the creation of the earth.The potato chips did not create themselves nicely arranged to spell a phrase. They were put there, there is an explanation for it, as for everything else that happens in life, evolutionary biologists feel that to go on chance and faith alone does not suffice in explaining the actions of the world. This theory is not good enough to go on to teach future generations.
Post 3: “Discuss issues or ideas raised in the critical thinking films”Philosophy in Less than 5 Minutes (5-10) Beyond Belief session 10
As always, these short films were rather entertaining. The film Flam On, Morality Reconsidered talked about homosexuality and how homosexuality is in general a bad thing. The film fundamentalism is a mental disease states that creationist believe that the creation and being of God does solve any problems when talking about the bible, God does not explain anything, it is all a mystery.
When talking about the intelligent design they cover up the events that they cannot explain or relate to God, they say that it is a concept beyond our realm and instead they bring in faith. Creationism is taught only by those who cannot think, those who cannot look for explanations farther than just chance, or faith. However, evolution liberates us from this lame way of thinking. With evolution God does not have to explain anything that happened in the world, it will all be self explained thru the evolution.
11. What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revised midterm grade? Provide a LINK to your midterm.
11. What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revised midterm grade? Provide a LINK to your midterm.
Midterm Grade: B+
Midterm Link: http://criticalthinking-mtsac.blogspot.com/2007/01/midterm-by-ambra-bourne-january-26-2007_31.html
12. Why are certain religious zealots prone to use terrorism, according to Professor Mark Juergensmsyer? What does Juergensmeyer believe we should do in the future to mitigate such attacks?
Juergensmeyer states that the key point of terrorism is to prove that the government is the root of all evil, that the terrorist tries to bring light on the struggle that is already going on inside of the government. Juergensmeyer interviewed Timothy McVeigh along with other terrorists who stated that their purpose for terrorism was to shed light on the government’s evil actions, that the world is in war between right and wrong and the government is the enemy.
Juergensmeyer states that the key point of terrorism is to prove that the government is the root of all evil, that the terrorist tries to bring light on the struggle that is already going on inside of the government. Juergensmeyer interviewed Timothy McVeigh along with other terrorists who stated that their purpose for terrorism was to shed light on the government’s evil actions, that the world is in war between right and wrong and the government is the enemy.
Juergensmeyer states that that religion is the cure for religious violence, we must recognize that we are not God and that we do not know everything and need to be tolerant of others and open to public things. He concludes with suggestions for the future of religious violence that are certain to be controversial, arguing that "the cure for religious violence may ultimately lie in a renewed appreciation for religion itself" and in acknowledgement of religion in public life. The same religion that causes grief is the same religion that causes destruction.
The cure for terrorism is to combat it without letting it destroy you. We must fight with a purity, integrity that is non violent and preserves ones honor. We must not give in to injustice, we must fight, but find ways of fighting that keeps ones moral values. We should fight from moral high ground, to fight with violence will otherwise bring us to the level of the terrorist.
13. Is there sufficient evidence to support the claim that Edgar Cayce was psychic? Use your critical thinking field guide to substantiate your answer.
I feel that based on the readings that there is not sufficient enough evidence to support the claim that Edgar Cayce was a psychic. The text states that Johnson did not believe he has a valid conclusion on Cayce's psychic abilities. To prove a psychic ability takes a lot. To me, I feel that there must be proof beyond any type of doubt to prove something as unparalleled as psychic abilities. There is too much room for doubts here.
Johnson states that he don't see anything whatsoever in the Edgar Cayce readings which suggests that something truly psychic or supra-mundane was happening. This does not mean that Cayce is a fraud or trying to deceive anyone, he may believe himself to be psychic with special abilities, but the question of weather or not if he truly is produces a question that is merely to hard to prove.
As mentioned before, I feel that a psychic ability should be quite simple to prove in any circumstance. Johnson states that based upon his reading of Cayce, that there is nothing paranormal happening. There may be another reasoning behind Cayce’s abilities, but as far as psychic talents, I feel that it is not valid.
14. Why is your professor so critical of cults?
I feel that my professor, David Lane is so critical of cults because he holds a strong belief about following on blind faith. Lane is a strong critic of Eckankar and believes that Twitchell plagiarized a large majority of his work. He feels that the religious group has lied in numerous amounts of activities regarding the faith. Following faith is about following without knowing, but holding a belief that what is being taught or trained is in fact true. Lane feels that following a leader on faith that is not telling the truth is illogical.
Lane feels that the cult organizations teach a type of brainwashing method. He states, “Instead of asking people to be really skeptical of things it's asking them to believe almost anything." This type of teaching causes the member to follow on blind faith allowing the group leader the ability to mold the group into whatever they see fit for the organization, eventually it is to the point where a member no longer questions anything the leader may so or ask to have done, no matter how outrageous the act may be. Sometimes the leaders of cults are so hyped up in getting the followers to accept that they are the ultimate being, sometimes they convince themselves that there is no other that is above them.
The key against blind faith is to have ones own opinion, to have ones own research abilities, do not take all of what a person says at face value if one has any other feelings regarding the issue.
15. What do the films reveal about Sai Baba’s claim for paranormal powers?
Sai Baba is seen standing on a stage. He has an object in his left hand that is said to have been transferred from that hand to his right hand. He then makes a circular motion and produces a necklace from his right hand. From what I see there is no evidence of any kind of spectacular event taking place. I simply see him transform papers from one hand to another then showing a necklace that was balled in his right hand.I feel that he put his two hands together under his papers and then placed the necklace into his right hand where he held it there inconspicuously until he revealed it at the end of the film.
The video SAI BABA shows a recording that focuses on a hand movement of Sai Baba which is open to different interpretations. I personally do not see any for of magic here weather the poor picture quality or lack of faith, but I am open to the possibility. Having evidence of this tape alone I feel that one cannot come to a conclusion as to if this is a valid magic trick or not.
16. Why did Thakar Singh believe in blindfolding children? Why do some religious followers lack critical thinking skills?
Thakar Singh believed in blindfolding children in a greater attempt at brainwashing. A child’s mind is an easier objective to accomplish this drastic goal of brainwashing. This brainwashing of children leads to blind following of a religious belief, cult practices, or anything the leader may request of a follower. Subjects that are easiest to influence are usually young, trusting, gullible, and non-critical people from protective backgrounds or people who may be particularly vulnerable because of some recent unsettled transition.
Those who are blind followers tend to lack critical thinking skills. Individuals who have a high level of critical thinking skills are those who easily articulate, balance information, as well as those who are self-centered, street-wise, and highly critical. Some religious followers that lack critical thinking skills are more vulnerable to the mind control tactics the religious group sets to have followed. Mind control is used to deceivingly influence members. Nothing is easier to accomplish this goal than to start with children.
17. JOHN POLKINGHORNE believes both in religion and science. Why?
Polkinghorne states that science tells us how the world works but does not tell us everything about the world. For these missing gaps we must focus on religion. Religion shows us that the world is not mechanical.
Polkinghorne states that both religion and science has a tremendous impact on the actions of his life, they are both part of who he is and makes him who he is. For this reason Polkinghorne feels that there must be both the science and religion.
Biology has made a large discovery in DNA, other sciences also believe that they have explained many things regarding life and feel they can explain everything about it. Polkinghorne does not feel this is possible, he feels that we are more than our genes and that there is more to explain about the creation beyond the science stages of life. Polkinghorne states that God is a mysterious being and that it is better to call God the father rather than to call him a force. The universe is a part of God.
18. How does Nietzsche critique religion? What are his main arguments against a belief in God?
Nietzsche feels that religion hinders its followers. He brings about great emotions in his critique on religion. He believed that a person should have their own opinions about views. He does not disregard the position of the teacher or leader, but he also felt that the teacher must let go at a certain point. He feels that if this does not happen then the follower will then begin to follow on blind faith, rather it be religion, education, or any matter where one is being taught. He critiques religion in this way where he feels that religion is being followed in blind faith, without the followers truly knowing what is going on, they are not able to think critically.
19. Why does James Watson believe that genetics holds the secret for understanding human behavior? Why do some people resist believing that we are just bundles of DNA?
James Watson figured out the structure of DNA and that it continues to make models of itself. He believes that genetics holds the secret for understanding human behavior because DNA is what makes us unique, without regard to this life and people would all be the same. We can read DNA message in our chromosomes and study human behavior. Watson feels that we cannot study nature so we do not know if this aspect of life makes us different, yet we can study DNA and genetics which has proven that it plays a major role in our behavior. To Watson, the key in understanding humans is in our DNA.
Watson feels strongly about the idea of nature vs. nurture. He sides with nature because we can study nature in our DNA, yet still feels that nurture is important it is just the fact that we cannot study nurture. For example, Watson states that we will learn and do better in school because of our genes over learning from a teacher.
Because we are unique from our DNA cells, Watson feels that you should never be the smartest person in a room because then no one else can help you, I find this funny, but believe that because we are all made up of different DNA structures that you can be smarter than someone, yet still be able to learn from them.
20. Why is intelligent design regarded as “junk” science by most evolutionary biologists?
Most evolutionary biologists regard intelligent design as junk because they feel that the theory of intelligent design cannot be proven. They feel that the concept that God created the universe may in fact be true, but if it is the case, intelligent design still cannot explain the actions that take place after the creation of the earth.
Biologist feel that intelligent design should be able to prove what happens after the phenomenal design of the universe, like why the sun comes up and down, or why the stars twinkle. According to the text, Intelligent design is derived as an anti-evolution belief that asserts naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes. Biologists feel that every aspect needs to be able to be proven. The text gives the example of potato chips on the cough, you cannot leave something this major up to chance alone, there is a reason things happen and we need to know why.
The potato chips did not create themselves nicely arranged to spell a phrase. They were put there, there is an explanation for it, as for everything else that happens in life, evolutionary biologists feel that to go on chance and faith alone does not suffice in explaining the actions of the world. This theory is not good enough to go on to teach future generations. So the problem with Intelligent design comes with there being no proof, everything is left up to chance and this is where intelligent design is considered “junk” .
21. What is the underlying theme behind the movie the ZAHIR?
This short film was about a man named Jorge Bore and his Zahir coin with the year 1929 and sketched with the letters NT and the number 2. The coin took his dreams and free time away, he tried to will the visions of this symbol of materialism away by thinking it away. The coin is meant to signify our free will. It tells us that we all have the power to choose our own destiny.
22. How can little things that jiggle reveal the universe around us (hint: think of the movie of the same title).
The world is a composition of “things” that jiggle, technology, religion, education, physics, together they make up the universe that we come to call the world. Nuclear fusion in space with neutrons sand electrons. Smaller men making up the larger man. Just like discussed before on how Richard Feynman feels we as humans can do “science”. In the film a group of people are looking at the stars as if they can actually touch them. We all know that stars are far away and that they look nothing like they do to us when they are closer. That is the beauty behind doing science. The smaller stars that we can see from earth are part of the larger picture of the world.
23. Why is fundamentalism a mental disease, according to the movie of the same title?
Fundamentalism is a mental disease because through the belief in Intelligent design one is diseased into believing that things in the universe happen by chance. The film states that creationist believe that the creation and being of God does solve any problems when talking about the bible, God does not explain anything, it is all a mystery.
When talking about the intelligent design they cover up the events that they cannot explain or relate to God, they say that it is a concept beyond our realm and instead they bring in faith. Creationism is taught only by those who cannot think, those who cannot look for explanations farther than just chance, or faith. However, evolution liberates us from this lame way of thinking. With evolution God does not have to explain anything that happened in the world, it will all be self explained thru the evolution.
24. Name eight common fallacies when arguing for a position. Be sure to give examples, perhaps drawn from your own life, for each of them.
A fallacy is an invalid form of argument, an instance of incorrect reasoning. I have provided a list of eight common fallacies when arguing for a position found at http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm.
1. Affirming The Consequent - A fallacy of the form "if A, then B; B, therefore A". Example: "If Smith testifies against Jones in court, Jones will be found guilty. Jones was found guilty. Therefore, Smith must have testified against him." Jones could have been found guilty without Smith's testimony.
2. Anthrocentric (Human-Centered) Fallacy - This one isn't found in standard texts, but was described by John Stuart Mill in System of Logic. Consider the example of a preacher who one day takes someone supposedly possessed of a demon, throws his hand on her forehead, and shouts, "Get out! Leave this body!" Even supposing that demons exist, one might find it curious that they understand English, obey peremptory commands, and are easily influenced by incantations and rituals. The a.f. here occurs at the presupposition level: human language, reason, instincts, and desires are assumed to be the orbit around which everything else in the universe (including the aforementioned demons) revolves.
3. Appeal To Authority - Known also as the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. An appeal to authority is ordinarily one good way to buttress a line of thought. The practice becomes fallacious when one of the following happens: the authority is not an expert in the field in which one is speaking; the allusion to authority masks the fact that experts may be divided down the middle on the subject; no explicit reference is made to the authority.
4. A Priori Fallacies - From The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Under the heading of a priori fallacies Mill listed a number of natural prejudices, including the popular superstition that words have a magical power and such philosophical dogmas as that which is true of our ideas of things must be true of the things themselves; that differences in nature must correspond to our received (linguistic) distinctions; that whatever is, is rationally explicable; that there is no action at a distance; that every phenomenon has a single cause; and that effects must resemble their causes. These are all errors, but we can go further and recognize a general apriorist fallacy, which consists in trying to base knowledge of fundamental synthetic truths on anything other than empirical evidence."
5. Arguing From "Is" To "Ought"- A fallacy first articulated by David Hume (1711-1776) in which someone argues from a premise containing only a descriptive term, to a conclusion containing an "ought." Example: "There is nothing morally wrong with the institution of slavery. It has been with us in some form for thousands of years." (The fact that slavery has been with us or is with us is not moral justification of the act. What is may not be the same thing as what ought to be.)
6. Argumentum Ad Baculinum - Fallacy that occurs when threat of force is made, either implicitly or explicitly. Example: "I'm willing to discuss this in even more depth, but if you don't come around soon, there may be dire consequences." (Baculum from the Latin means "stick".)
7. Argumentum Ad Captandum - Any specious or unsound argument that is likely to win popular acceptance. (literally, "for catching the common herd").
8. Argumentum Ad Crumenam - The fallacy of supposing that a conclusion must be valid because the person making the argument is wealthy. (Crumena from the Latin means "purse".) An instance of this fallacy is when someone turns to another and says, "Well, if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" One can be both smart and poor, as indeed numerous philosophers throughout history were (e.g., Lao-Tzu, Socrates, Spinoza).
25. Provide your own critical analysis (using the terminology learned in this class, etc.) of the current “war on terrorism” as waged by the USA. Your argument can be either pro or con or both, provided that you substantiate your reasoning.
A reoccurring nightmare I have had for years is picturing the end of the world. On September 11, 12:45 a.m., I boarded a plane from New York City to Los Angeles. As I got off the plane I saw television screens and radio broadcasts talking about the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, where I had just been only a few hours ago.
As I walked throughout the airport I thought, is this it? Is it going to happen everywhere? As I walked back to my family I thought “What if I had been on that plane?"
As it was for many people, the terrorist attacks on September 11th shocked me. It forced me look at things in further perspective. I looked at the U.S. government, their values, concerns and priorities. I became angry when I learned that a group of terrorists were able to gain access to flight schools in the U.S., then capably highjack a United States aircraft and fly it into a United States government building. I questioned many things. I though this was simply unbelievable, the innocent victims and military soldiers that lost their lives. I was in a state of astonishment for days.
The September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon has changed me in a number of ways. It has changed me in a sense that I do not see the United States as unconquerable as I once did. I account that the goal of the terrorist was to accomplish this mission. An attempt to reveal that the United States is not untouchable. Yet in still I do not fear that our government is incapable, now I only understand that our government is not perfect, nothing is.
I believe that is has changed me in the way is viewed the U.S. government. I looked to the government to stop any and all things. This is impractical. Now, I realize that even throughout the hardest times, the people of the United States pulled together from all states and nationalities to show support to the victims and the government throughout the attacks. The attack did not break us; it only made us stronger.
I no longer have nightmares of the coming of the end of the world. I have no idea what the reasoning is for this. In a sense I do believe that the attacks on September 11th made many others, and myself stronger. It forced citizens of the United States to pull together and support our country and the things we believe in. If there happens to be another unwanted event of terrorist attacks, I feel that we will become stronger and closer as we did with the September 11th attacks.
26 (very important question, don’t skip it): In the Beyond Belief conference there was much heated discussion about religion and its place. Provide a 750 word or more review of the entire series. Whose arguments were most persuasive? Whose arguments were less so? BE SPECIFIC.
The Conference presentations talked a great deal about the rising tensions between science and religion and the theory of revolution. I particularly enjoyed the films Beyond Belief in the sense that it gave each speaker the chance to share their opinions about religion and science with no limits. I found this series very interesting, there were a number of opinions that all made sense, yet were so diverse. I enjoyed the fact that I was able to listen to an atheist give points and opinions on religion and being able to agree with them as well as a true believer giving their opinions with my approval also.
I feel overall the speakers that were strong on the notion that science is the key to evolution and human society like Neil deGrasse Steven Weinberg, Jim Woodward and Terry Sejnowski werre very persuasive in their speeches. I feel that the majority of these speakers would have religious leaders questioning their own faith in religion, however I also believe that they are not strong enough to ever truly admit that they also have the same doubts and questions.
One of the speakers, Sam Harris talks about religion, he is an atheist because he believes that religion is over-rated. He feels that it is wrong to accept that when something good is done, it is religion and faith that gets credit for it. He believes that people can do good things without having religious ties. Harris feels that people do not think critically about the world, religion in particular, religious people are going around on blind faith, worshiping, studying things that they have no idea if it is true, simply going on what people, imaginary people, from decades ago set forth. He feels that even religious people from different sectors are fighting each other, what is the point? As before, I agree with Harris on a number of his views.
Another speaker, Steven Weinberg feels that religion is an insult to human dignity. I agree with him on a lot of his views about religion also. I feel that Steven Weinberg brings up valid points about religion like many of the other speakers and writers that I agree with on religion vs. science. Weinberg feels that there is a lot wrong with religion, like the fact that there is no proof of any of the act that occur within the religious beliefs. I do have the same opinion with most of Weinberg’s view, yet at the same time, I feel that religion is religion as it has always been and with religion is the sense of faith, religion wouldn’t be religion without faith. Faith is the sanctuary for religion.
Richard Dawkins to me has continued to be the most persuasive speaker in this entire series. I feel that Dawkins holds the ability to turn a full believer in the faith of religion into a strong atheist by his points and persuasiveness alone. Dawkins brings up issues that I have had myself about faith and religion like why won’t God stop bad things from happening to good people? Why do bad people get away with doing bad things to good people? I feel that Dawkins is a great speaker and has compelling arguments, he is easy to understand and speaks on topic that most people think about but are not bold enough to present them to the public.
There were speakers like Patricia Churchland and Joan Roughgarden that focused on topics of religion being the key to the existence of the world, but honestly none of these speakers were convincing or as entertaining as the believers in science as the key function of life. I feel that there is more to life than merely science, yet these speakers did not do well of enough presentation to make me actually believe this in the films.
Paul Davies, a physicist believes that the universe moves to a designed form with a higher being or machine, feels that doing science means to figure out what is wrong with the world. I feel that Davies was one of the believers that did a good job in making an impression during his presentation. Davies states that scientists assume that many things are acts of faith, such as the sun rising everyday, we do not know how it does it, but we assume, on faith that it will continue to rise. He states that the laws of physics cannot explain science, yet our minds have inherited evolutionary status and is able to solve certain problems. He feels that there is more to life than science, we also need faith.
Joan Roughgarden promotes acceptance through learning, I enjoyed listening to Roughgarden’s speech, because she motivated me. Roughgarden asks, and tries to answer, all the big questions about sexual diversity among humans and animals. Carolyn Porco stated that religion and belief in God have two very different meanings. After the unsuccessful endeavor to practice the religion she was born into, Catholicism, she turned to science.
Of all the speakers in the entire series of Beyond Belief, If I only have the option of choosing one, I will continue to find Patricia Churchland to be the weakest. Again, I didn’t fully comprehend the point of her presentation because I felt that her information was all round and not focal on a certain topic. Churchlans’s presentation was boring and repetitive to me. Her speech did not make me “want” to listen to it, with the other speakers I was intrigued, I wanted to know more, the topics and views that were discussed were something that was interesting to me. Even when the topics were not something that I found interesting, it was simply the way the speaker presented their speech. I do not feel that Churchland did this. Her presentation did not stick with me like the others did, I had to rewind the video several times to get a just of what she was talking about and I found her presentation to be the weakest of the five sessions.
I still hold the belief that Richard Dawkins is the most persuasive speaker of the series. I feel that his views were convincing enough to make a true to the bone religious person question their own faith. He also questions a number of things that I know a lot of people have trouble thinking about but are too much tied into pride to admit that they have the same questions. I feel that these questions are ignored and nit focused on, in order to truly understand, I feel that these questions “why do bad things happen to good people” need to be addressed. Dawkins was articulate and brave enough to bring these questions out.
26. What was your favorite film lecture?
Of all of the film lectures, I felt that Professor Mark Juergensmeyer would have to be my favorite. I like this lecture because the film focuses on what is wrong with terrorism and focuses more on why these people are doing what they are doing as well as giving logical options in the fight on terrorism without feeding into it at the same time. Juergensmeyer asks the questions about the reasoning of the United States in Iraq and why do religious believers commit such violent acts in the name of faith and religion, take the lives of innocent people, and terrorize people.
The cure Juergensmeyer gives for terrorism is religion, we must recognize that we are not God and that we do not know everything and need to be tolerant of others and open to public things. He also gives us suggestions for the future of religious violence that are certain to be controversial, arguing that "the cure for religious violence may ultimately lie in a renewed appreciation for religion itself" and in acknowledgement of religion in public life. The same religion that causes grief is the same religion that causes destruction.
27. What was your favorite mini movie?
My favorite mini movie was Eleven. I found this movie to be my favorite because it touched on the heartache of the 9-11 tragedy and showed how you cannot fight violence with violence or even create your own punishment because you feel hurt. It teaches that one person is not above the law. It is wrong and immoral to take the law into your own hands.
The movie showed that by taking the law into your own hands you are not getting even with the people who caused you the harm, you are merely turning into those people and hurting more people in the process. The author tried, and did a good job, to convince viewers that see this film that it is unjust, immoral, illegal, and wrong on every level to take the law into your own hands, especially in a case like this group has done. The leader of the group simply turned into the people that he was trying to rid the world of.
28. What was your favorite reading?
My favorite reading was the reading about Intelligent Design. I find this to be my favorite reading because I feel that it talks in great detail about all the points of why Intelligent Design is not a good concept. This was a well written narticle and it did a great job on brining across the point of the article while using plan, easy to read language without confusing me.
29. What is the most unusual thing you learned this semester?
I have learned a number of unusual things this semester in this class. Honestly this semester in Critical Thinking was nothing like I imagined it to be. I do have to admit that I enjoyed it greatly. I learned a lot of different things about religion, thinking, science, life, human emotions, UFO’s, all in just one class. I like the fact that I was able to learn about a broad range of things in this one subject of critical thinking. I also thought it was unusual to be able to think critically in all of the different aspects of life. We use critical thinking in everyday life without even knowing. While we are watching cartoons, TV series, while we are daydreaming, sleeping, anything really that we do requires us to think critically.
I was given the opportunity to share how I felt about everything that was being taught or discussed without ever being told that I was wrong, or that I should not think that way. I truly loved this class because of that alone. I feel that this was a great experience and would tell anyone that asks the same. Thanks for the opportunity and ability of a new insight on life.
