Midterm
By: Ambra Bourne • January 26, 2007
MIDTERM EXAMINATION: Winter 2007,
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?
7. Name and address for your website.
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)
Assignment #1
By: Ambra Bourne • January 14, 2007
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.
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 26, 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.
11. Why does Richard Dawkins consider religion a “virus” of the mind? Do you agree or disagree? Substantiate your view.
Richard Dawkins considers religion a “virus” because he feels that too many people use it as an excuse, or a crutch for too many things that happen in life. Dawkins feels that religion brings problems to the world, being that faith alone is not enough reasoning to allow people to act and place blame on things in life that are unexplainable. Darwin States that religion is a type of child abuse, being that a baby is not born with a set of beliefs inside of them, their parents mold certain religious beliefs on them. This “automatic” molding of religious beliefs, as stated by Dawkins, in turn makes that child grow up to have faith with no evidence or proof to validate those beliefs. I do agree with him to a certain extent, I feel that he presents sincerely compelling arguments that I have questioned myself. I have yet to be successful in finding anyone that can provide answers to my same questions Dawkins brings up, like the 9-11 terrorists, why couldn’t something happen to them that would save the innocent people that died? Why would religion make others hurt innocent people? Why is religion the blame for unexplainable problems?
12. Give an example of a “cargo cult” belief and critically analyze it from a scientific perspective? Hint: think of something that people believe in that lacks overwhelming evidence to support it.
A quality trait of cargo cults is the idea that religious beings will give priceless cargo and manufactured products to the cult members. According to Richard Feynman, “cargo cult” beliefs are beliefs that contain uncertainty, or some sense of doubt. Cargo cult science is a term that Feynman used in a commencement to describe work that is lacking scientific certainty. Feynman warned that researchers must avoid fooling themselves, they must be willing to question and doubt their own theories and investigate possible flaws in their work. Once you are able to not fool yourself, it becomes easier to present work to other people.
13. How does one do “science” according to Richard Feynman. Why is this form of science so important to human beings? How can such a view of science help enrich one’s appreciation for beauty? Be sure to give YOUR own example of Feynman’s point (no “flowers” allowed).
According to Feynman, you should do science for fun, knowing the true meaning of something adds mystery. It shouldn’t be something you do for an honor or praise. Feynman would read the encyclopedia to learn the functionality of all types of things that were going on in the world, just to know about them, the real meaning about them. He believed that all readings had translations. The difference between knowing the true meaning about something and knowing the name of something is exceptionally diverse. The example Feynman gave was that knowing the name of a bird was simply knowing the name assigned to it. In order to do science, you must know about the bird in and of itself. What does the bird eat, where does it live, etc. According to Feynman this concept is important because we need to understand how and why things function. There needs to be no room for errors, one needs to understand full a concept, in order to do this one must know how the concept functions, and not simply know what it is. As for this concept according to beauty, a waterfall. When we look at a beautiful waterfall we only see it but don’t ask ourselves how something like that came into existence so natural. We would have to investigate the geology of the area, temperature and mathematics of the water, there is a lot more involved than we see on the outside. Feynman enjoyed physics because it was fun, not because he had to, he enjoyed the task of looking beyond the outside beauty of the waterfall.
14. Give your interpretation of the movie “Karma.”
In short I feel the movie Karma was simply the common phrase “what goes around comes around”. 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.
15. Explain, in brief, Darwinian evolution and why John Maynard Smith’s contribution is important in thinking differently about survival of the fittest.
The theory of evolution was dignified by Charles Darwin. It is the understanding of the molecular mechanisms of genetics. It proves the law of gravity and evolution. Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. Evolution can be like a game of arm wrestling where the strongest man wins. “Natural selection is conceived of as a struggle for life in which only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce" is the dictionary’s definition for "survival of the fittest". The method that drives Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest, and therefore, Survival of the Fittest is the evolutionist's agent of change.
16. What are Freeman Dyson’s views on the “design” of the universe or the purpose of humankind?
Freeman Dyson is an agnostic and 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.
17. What IS the “secret” that Faqir Chand discovered about religion and its founders?
According to the text, Faqir Chand, like his lama counterparts, spent much of his life in meditation, attempting to consciously go through the dying process in order to prepare himself for his final exit, which was the “secret” that the Faqir Chand discovered about religion and its founders.
18. Explain the movie Eleven and what is YOUR interpretation of it? In other words, what is the underlying message that the director is trying to convey?
18. Explain the movie Eleven and what is YOUR interpretation of it? In other words, what is the underlying message that the director is trying to convey?
My interpretation of the film eleven was that it is very wrong and immoral to try and take the law into your own hands. No one human being has the right to take another person’s life, no matter what they have done. Not only did this group take the lives of people they felt were the root of their hatred, but also of innocent people that do not even practice terrorism. If even they were successful in targeting one single terrorist with their acts of attempting to kill all Muslims, which I highly doubt, they were not the ones that committed the act that killed the leader’s father, nor were they able to have a fair trial before they died. I feel this group was wrong on many levels to take the law into their own hands. I feel that the author is trying to convey this point also in his documentary. He is trying to convince the people 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.
19. Why is distinguishing the message from the medium so important? Use the Da Free John article as your context.
It is important to distinguish the message from the medium because, according to the Da Free John article, in religious circles there is a tendency to confuse the message with the medium, a person may agree, or accept certain view, but that person may not be a part of that group that held those same beliefs. The text states that there is an important distinction between authenticity and legitimacy, and the medium and the message. A great explanation of this thought that the article gives about distinguishing the message from the medium was found in the life and work of Alan Watts, the renowned philosopher of Zen Buddhism. Watts was a brilliant articulation of philosophy. Some of his readers felt that he was a genuine Zen master, yet, he was not an enlightened guru. Watts suffered from a number of human frailties, including alcoholism and womanizing. Though Watts wrote exquisitely about Nirvana, his writings do not entirely reflect his own condition.
20. What are Bertrand Russell’s reasons for NOT being a Christian? Do you agree or disagree with him? GIVE RATIONAL ARGUMENTS FOR your position (pro or con).
Bertrand Russell’s reasoning for not being a Christian is because he feels that religion is dense, 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 agree with him in the sense that religion is strictly about having faith, there is no room for doubt because religion in all aspects has no room for anything to be proven. I also agree that science and religion are two very distinct subject matters. In religion nothing can be proved, the belief is on faith, and in science everything must be proven to be accepted.
Bertrand Russell’s reasoning for not being a Christian is because he feels that religion is dense, 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 agree with him in the sense that religion is strictly about having faith, there is no room for doubt because religion in all aspects has no room for anything to be proven. I also agree that science and religion are two very distinct subject matters. In religion nothing can be proved, the belief is on faith, and in science everything must be proven to be accepted.
21. Give a summary of Jim Lett’s field guide to critical thinking (in your own “300” words, no more). Don’t use quotes but write it like a letter to a friend explain how to think critically in light of Lett’s numerous points.
Dear Friend,
A college professor named Jim Lett wrote an article called, A Field Guide to Critical Thinking. He talks about how children in this generation cannot “think critically” because of what the educational system, media, and society are teaching them. He goes on to state how they are teaching children how and what to think without allowing them the chance to make up their own reasoning and logic. I personally would have to agree with him, I feel that a lot of children in today’s society are being brainwashed into the correct answer way of reasoning, they tend to go more with what the mass majority goes with. For example is someone asks you what 2+2 equals, you know in your mind that it is 4, but everyone else in the room says that it is 5, you will actually question yourself and think there is something incorrect with you and not the other people that answered incorrectly. I feel that this is a major problem because people are not going to be able to have their own opinions, or look at concerns in an individual logically fashion. How do you feel about this?
Dear Friend,
A college professor named Jim Lett wrote an article called, A Field Guide to Critical Thinking. He talks about how children in this generation cannot “think critically” because of what the educational system, media, and society are teaching them. He goes on to state how they are teaching children how and what to think without allowing them the chance to make up their own reasoning and logic. I personally would have to agree with him, I feel that a lot of children in today’s society are being brainwashed into the correct answer way of reasoning, they tend to go more with what the mass majority goes with. For example is someone asks you what 2+2 equals, you know in your mind that it is 4, but everyone else in the room says that it is 5, you will actually question yourself and think there is something incorrect with you and not the other people that answered incorrectly. I feel that this is a major problem because people are not going to be able to have their own opinions, or look at concerns in an individual logically fashion. How do you feel about this?
22. Why does Kurtz believe that skepticism should be applied to religion? Do you agree or disagree?
Kurtz believes that skeptical inquiry should apply to religion as it does to science because he feels that to not to do so is to flee from an important area of human behavior and interest and is irresponsible.
People insisted that science could not apply aspects of human experience-political, economic, social, or ethical behavior, the arts, human psychology, sexuality, or feeling, these areas have already been applied to science, now, Kurtz feels that it is time for a new regime, religion. Kurtz agrees, as do I that science and religion are two entirely different matters, yet you can combine the two to deal with various aspects of life. I do agree with Kurtz in the matter of applying skepticism to religion, I feel that a lot of questions may be answered with this method. There will not be so many doubts, uncertainties that there are now.
Kurtz believes that skeptical inquiry should apply to religion as it does to science because he feels that to not to do so is to flee from an important area of human behavior and interest and is irresponsible.
People insisted that science could not apply aspects of human experience-political, economic, social, or ethical behavior, the arts, human psychology, sexuality, or feeling, these areas have already been applied to science, now, Kurtz feels that it is time for a new regime, religion. Kurtz agrees, as do I that science and religion are two entirely different matters, yet you can combine the two to deal with various aspects of life. I do agree with Kurtz in the matter of applying skepticism to religion, I feel that a lot of questions may be answered with this method. There will not be so many doubts, uncertainties that there are now.
23. Why is pretext, text, and context important in analyzing a book or an argument. Provide your own example.
Pretext, text and context is important in analyzing a book or an argument because a book or argument needs a complete focus of reasoning and logic. The pretext gives the audience an outline of what is to come. The text is the concrete source of meaning in what is being stated, and the context is the interpretation of what is being stated. To be able to gain a full focus and comprehension of an argument or book, you must have a clear focus on what is being stated, without this there is confusion and misinterpretations. With pretext, text and context all of this is avoided and there is a clear understanding with all parties involved.
An example would be: “A Criminal Trial”
Pretext – Opening Statements from both defense and state
Text – Questioning of all witnesses from both sides to state what happened in the case
Context – the final verdict by the jury decided upon by the interpretation of what happened from analysis of the pretext and text.
24. What is a “transformative” UFO encounter and does the author of the Himalayan Connection really believe in UFOs as genuine extraterrestrials?
An example would be: “A Criminal Trial”
Pretext – Opening Statements from both defense and state
Text – Questioning of all witnesses from both sides to state what happened in the case
Context – the final verdict by the jury decided upon by the interpretation of what happened from analysis of the pretext and text.
24. What is a “transformative” UFO encounter and does the author of the Himalayan Connection really believe in UFOs as genuine extraterrestrials?
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.
25. How does one think more critically when using online sources? (hint: think of one of the required articles). Substantiate your views.
One thinks more critically when using online sources because there are numerous amounts of resources to turn to, so many different opinions, it allows you to think of all the possibilities, there is not one person telling you one thing, there are many people that have either the same or different information that allows you to come up with you own logic. According to the text, Teaching the learner how to think critically means more than critical analysis of webpages or comparison of search engines. Both are the medium of the information, not the meaning. Prescribing a checklist of criteria to look for or steps to take will leave the learner unprepared when technology changes. Knowledge is transferred when it is embedded in a more general understanding of its entire structure and contextualized into the content familiar to the learner. Therefore, teaching evaluation of information resources is best taught within the learner's knowledge base and developed into a network of meaning as charted by the learner. Inquiry based instruction with real world applications in a collaborative setting presents the best opportunity for transferable knowledge. Examples of this approach could be a collaboratively designed and taught research class with instructors from specific discipline areas proposing content related problems that the students, instructors, and librarians jointly solve. I also feel that thinking critically online allows the learner the ability to a large range of topics on the subject matter, it allows for the ability of agility from various resources.
26. What are Steven Weinberg’s views on religion? Do you agree or disagree?
Steven Weinberg feels that religion is an insult to human dignity. I agree with him on a lot of his views about religion. 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.
27. Why is Sam Harris an atheist? Explain his reasons. Can you argue against his views? If so, how?
Sam Harris 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? I cannot argue against him, because his views are true. It is true that the different religions are in conflict with each other, if they all believe in God why are there so many conflicts within each of the different faiths, why are there so many different faiths? If religion is all good, why do some religions hold the practice of killing in certain events? Why do bad things happen to good people? It is hard to disagree with Harris’ view on religion.
28. Of the first five installments of BEYOND BELIEF which speaker did you find most persuasive? Explain why.
Of all the speakers in the first five installments of Beyond Belief, I found Richard Dawkins to be the most persuasive. I feel that his views were on point and they were valid and convincing enough to make a true to the bone religious person question their own faith. 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? He talks a lot about the unexplainable aspects of faith that should have a clear explanation. I feel that Dawkins is a great speaker and have 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.
29. Ken Miller argues against Michael Behe’s notion of irreducible complexity and the notion of intelligent design in biology. Is he right? If so, explain. If not, give your reasons why not.
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. Miller argues against Michael Behe’s notion of irreducible complexity by presenting classification of the case. According to the text, Miller claimed that irreducible complexity is refuted if a separate function can be found for any sub-system of an irreducibly complex system, outside of the entire irreducible complex system, suggesting the sub-system might have been co-opted into the final system through the evolutionary process. I do not feel that Miller is correct in his argument against the irreducible complexity because based on the text, Miller’s characterization does not mention that irreducible complexity is defined by testing the ability of the final system. The text also states that Miller ignored the fact that any evolutionary explanation of a system must account for much more than simply the availability of the parts.
30. In the conference BEYOND BELIEF, which speaker did you find to be the weakest in terms of substance? Explain.
Of all the speakers in the first five installments of Beyond Belief, I found Patricia Churchland to be the weakest in terms of substance because 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. Churchland’s 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment