The Pleasure of finding things out and Clear Thinking...

1. Be sure to place your entire midterm on your website and when youare finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@yahoo.com

2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use otherauthors please be sure to quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not betolerated and you will receive an "F" automatically for the examination.

3. The test is due NO LATER than October 20th at midnite.

4. What is your real name? Gabriel Mares

5. What is your "user" name? Archangel703

6. What is your email address that you use for this class? Angelgabriel79@yahoo.com

7. Name and address for your website.

8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks? No, the Readings for the books are incomplete but the readings for everything else is 100% complete.

9. Have you watched each of the films that were required? Yes

10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for thisclass (you can copy and paste them)

The Pleasure of finding things out and Clear Thinking...

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and "not knowing, I think itsmuch more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers whichmight be wrong." Richard Feynman (43:12)This is the worldview of Physicist Richard Feynman in a nutshell andbecause of this approach it allows him to observe the world aroundhim in a "hybrid" vision (so to speak) not only observing the outerbeauty of the world around him but always remaining aware ofthe "inner" beauty as well. But not in a spiritual sense, I would sayin a more "complex" natural physical sense.For example early in the video he gives an explanation regarding aflower and how he and anyone can recognize the beauty in it. Hedescribes how his friend who is an artist can hold up the flower andstate that it is "beautiful" but if taken apart it becomes dull andboring. Feynman feels differently. Feynman states that not only isthe flower beautiful on its own but also when analyzed down to thecellular level the actions of the cells themselves and everythingthat makes up the flower possess its own beauty that shouldn't bedisregarded.Feynman seems to make much of his reasoning in a "scientific manner"with a sort of "mathematicalequation to everything that was happening around him. He takes avery "Natural" and "Physical" approach in developing his worldview.Looking through the history posts on Occam's Razor a User by thename "gjertime" stated that …" Richard Feynman was basically sayingthat you have to look past your intitial opinion and look deeper intothe idea to find more out about it. By looking at the idea with adeeper perspective you will very well change your thoughts from yourinitial opinion."I agree that in a way this also reflects the views of Feynman and theteachings of his father. Although it was interesting to note thatthere seemed to be a strange disconnection when it came tothe "beauty" or "analysis" of the "human aspect" It seemed that thereis an emphasis given to the beauty and complexity of a flower on thecellular level, the name of a bird in different languages, thepleasure of ultimately finding things out instead of receiving anaward for it but when it comes to "people showing reverence to thepope" People building bridges in Hiroshima" and the fact that Feynmanseems to basically brush off "Theological/ Sociological" humanstudies as inferior and less important than physics, Feynman seems tobe missing the inner beauty of his very own Humanity.For example If one were to take Feynmans approach and analyze thepeople honoring the Pope, one discovers that that particular momentalso exhibits its own beauty and is part of a long complex evolutionthat has evolved over centuriesand is significantly more complexthan "The Pope merely having a uniform on" Regardless of the beliefsof different religions, whether they are wrong or right is irrelevantto this point. But to ignore the beauty and the development ofsuch "human" things and label them so simply puts Feynman in somewhatof a contradictory position.It places him in the position of the artist in the very first minutesof the film who thinks that looking past the flower makes it boringand dull. For Feynman's father to state that the honoring of thepope, or for Feynman to think so little of "the building of bridges"it makes him seem as if at those moments him and his father wereunable to "look past the flower" and see the beauty of it because oftheir own bias.This connects to what Bertrand Russel was saying in his short lectureon Clarity and exact thinking. He states that our "Clear thinking" isaffected by our own prejudices and biases and doesn't allow us totruly think clearly because of them. This seems to be the case inthese certain instances with Richard Feynman. He has inherited in away his fathers biases and developed his own as well.This is why it is ultimately important when forming our own worldviewwe all gather pieces of information from multiple sources. Not even aNobel Prize winning physicist has all the answers as he himselfreadily admits. We take pieces of knowledge and add it to our pieceof "knowledge pie" to learn and shape our worldview.I agree with Richard Feynman when he states "A very fundamental partof my soul is to doubt…" (42:50) but unlike Feynman I am frightenedby existing in this universe without having any purpose. For Feynmanhe has come to terms with this as he has concluded that "this seemsto be the case."I personally don't have a problem holding the idea in my mindthat "Everything is possibly wrong" (42:30) but at the same time Iwish I could know what is right.For me the "doubt", the "fear" the "not knowing" "biased and clearthinking" all add to the pleasure of finding things out...

Cargo Cult Science and Cold Readings...

"Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must begiven, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you knowanything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If youmake a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, thenyou must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as wellas those that agree with it". –Richard FeynmanThis is understood as the opposing view of faith and religion. And aswe read in this article on Cargo cult science it can also be appliedto the Sociological/ psychological sciences as well. These particularpractices generate heavy debate and discussion because there islittle agreement on what works, why it works and how we can duplicatethose results on a mass scale for everyone. Far from the nearuniversal agreement on Physics and mathematical calculations,these "ology's" Philosophy, Theology, Sociology, Pscyhology (in noparticular order) often find themselves at odds with each other andwithin themselves.One thing that I would not do though is dismiss them entirely. Asmuch as Feynman would like to blur them all together with the likesof "witch doctors and People who claim they can bend Keys with theirminds we must not ignore the phenomenon that they do in fact existand have in many ways contributed to the growth of our humankindcivilization. It can also be argued that they have also contributedto holding back advancements in Science as well but each case must betaken individually to examine that claim..What we see here is something very human. We have, in humans whatseems like this built in desire to "want to believe" and that causesconflict in our minds with our ability to (as Betrand Russel wouldsay) "Think clearly".On the Contrary, I see these conflicting and contradicting ideas as anecessary part of our "Self" in order for us to function properly. Ifwe have some sort of balance with these conflicting thoughts it seemsand tends to be for our benefit. If we lean to one extreme,dismissing entirely our "faith" and "Desire to believe" for apurely "logical" and "analytical" mind we become too narrow in ourviews and understandings. Likewise if we dismiss the "Logical"and "analytical" thought process for pure faith we can be lead tobelieve in anything as we read in the "Cold readings" articleAn example of what can be described as psychological manipulation,can occur when one throws out the "logical" and "analytical" parts ofour brain."You have been told that you, as an individual, are actuallyconnected to our entire cosmos. You are told how mysterious forces inthe universe around us, far greater than ourselves, work to shape ourintimate destinies. You are told relatively flattering things aboutyour character and life, and in the end you are naturally pleasedthat someone cares about you. In the hectic and generallydisconnected modern society, you feel connected - both to anotherhuman being and to the world around you". –article Cold reading-This brings us back to the built in human desire to "believe".Perhaps its an evolutionary quality that has developed for survivalreasons so that we can cope with the hectic and cruel world around usas some people have described here in relation to Karma. Maybe it's atrait that was one time necessary in our evolutionary development butnow is no longer is a positive attribute for our survival.Maybe it's a bit of both.Either way this desire we have is many times manipulated for thebenefit of others. (mostly financial) Here we see in thisarticle "Cold readers" manipulate people into believing that theypossesses unnatural powers to read into their past, future and advisethem on their present situations based on that knowledge. Inactuality they use common and generic problems that plague everyone.For example, Financial problems, relationship issues, the loss of aloved one…etc..etc.This brings us to the wide range of disagreements we find in circlesof the previous mentioned "Ology's" We know that Theology claims tohave an answer to fill this need and because of that it can be arguedthat it is making the boldest claim of the bunch. Theology also hasthe widest spectrum of disagreements.So where does this leave us? Can we trust any of them? Is physics theonly stable science we can trust? Should we pick and choose what welike and don't like from each of the sciences? Then what next? Bydoing so, do we, ourselves become our very own cult leaders of Cargocult science ready to infect others who are willing to listen withthe Viruses of our mind?In fact I'd say that we all have a little "Cold reader" in us. Webase many of our conclusions on the events in our particular livesthat are often nothing like the person sitting next to us. Weconstantly offer generic advice based on that experience, we offersolutions to problems the way we've dealt with them and the way wehave been taught to deal with them. None of these methods wouldprobably hold up scientifically but yet they have worked enough thatwe trust them.In the end what really makes us any different from a Cold readingPsychic? The fact that we don't charge the people around us forour "general advice and information" ?

Beyond Belief...

"Misguided biblical literalism is what causes the problem with theview of certain Christians and Evolution.. The conflict can beresolved by recognizing different scopes for science and religion"(7:19)This is correct, for example Christian fundamentalism has taken astance opposed to Evolution and understands Genesis as a literalcreation account happening exactly as it is read. Also the Church ofthe Latter Day saints (Mormons) have an entire book (The book ofMormon) that deals with supposed historical events that aren't ableto be verified by archaeology or anything scientific. These bothcause conflicts with those types of Christianity and Science.The intention of the Holy ghost is to teach us how one goes to heavennot, how heaven goes. He was quoting a Catholic Cardinal. –Galileo.7:40…The speaker talks about an old opinion stating as long as werecognize the seperate magisteriums of Science and religion we haveno problem and that Science deals with facts, Religion deals withValues. But the Speaker believes that the problem with Science andreligion goes deeper than Biblical literalism and that they cannot bereconciled in any manner.Religion as a system of belief (11:26) States that Science hasdowngraded humans from center stage by showing that the earth is justone of many planets. Evolution treats human beings as another animalspecies that has developed to be what it is just like any otheranimal and not as part of a "divine plan" Science see's less andless signs of human beings in any plan the more we find out.The speaker argues that science Downgrades humans from a centralrole, and that science makes religious explanations unnecessary.The speaker states that The power of this kind of reasoning has beenrecognized by a Catholic cardinal, July 2005 and reads an excerptfrom an Article that concludes with the following points, "Neo-Darwinism, and the multi verse hypothesis invented to avoid theoverwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modernscience." The Catholic church will again defend human nature byproclaiming the eminent design evident in nature is real. 18:53The problem with this reasoning I feel, even while being a Catholicis that we are constantly trying to project on to God, if there issuch an awesome omnipotent being how he created everything.We understand that it should be a "Certain" way that we imagine itbeing like.This, to me is flawed thinking. To only think that everything has toshow a design in order for that to "prove" a creator isn't and can'tbe the only standpoint to argue from. Evolution in all its supposedrandomness can very well be part of a bigger picture that comes froma design that is part of an even bigger picture that is pure chaos.Either way, if there is a super powerful "being" or "thing" thatis "God" outside of time and space beyond our comprehension, then itis plausible that this "God" did it this way.(28:02) I think the world needs to wake up from it's long nightmareofreligious belief. And anything that we scientists can do to weakenthe hold of religion should be done and may in fact in the end by ourgreatest contribution to civilization."It doesn't get anymore biased than this last statement made by thespeaker. How completely foolish and blind to ignore all the good andscientific advances that were made in the name of religion and byreligious people. It's as if he ignores centuries of Scientificprogress existing alongside religion in favor of promoting hisagenda. The speaker is trying to divorce the two from each other asif they are bitter enemies. For example, He ignores the fact that theCatholic church was at the forefront of science for many centuries aswell as advancements made in Muslim Countries. Still, this doesn'tprove that Science is better off when religion is involved it justmeans that this speaker seems to be pushing an agenda and overlooksthese facts when its convenient to do so.Watching the Intelligent design vs. the Evolution debate for me islike watching two people argue over how my HDTV, came to be in myliving room. Was it created over a slow process? instantly? Did itjust appear there? Did someone bring it in the house? Did it evolvefrom the carpet since some of the same chemicals in the carpet can befound in the make-up of the TV? Whatever side figures out how to turnon the TV first does not make their side `"right automatically".That's all that seems to be going on here.At the 33:44 mark the speaker states that a fear of science, thefact that Science doesn't mention God makes it immoral. Thereforemust be wrong and is against God. So we have to change the wayscience is done." While this may be true for some over zealouslyreligious people it isn't the same for everyone and religion as awhole. For example, when I'm learning how to play a new video game,learning a new song on the guitar or expanding my vocabulary from thedictionary I don't think to myself "Since none of what I'm doingright now is mentioning God it must be immoral therefore must bewrong and against God…" This is an absurd overgeneralization.Steven Weinberg is quoted as stating…"Science does not make it impossible to believe in God it just makesit possible to not believe in God. 34:45 and that's reallyimportant." And this is true to an extent because without scienceeverything is a miracle. Then again this brings us backto "Ourselves" projecting on to God what is a miracle and what isnot. Must a miracle have no possible explanation in order for it tobe a miracle? Can it be considered a miracle that in this huge vast"multiverse" it coincidentally happens that someone's prayer isanswered in such a way that can be explained scientifically… but thefact that it happened right then and there is the miracle itself?The speaker talks about the Catholic priest Lemaitre, who was thefirst to identify the Big Bang. Lemaitre wrote to the Pope and saidnot to say that Science proved God because we are unsure of thecauses behind the big bang. The speaker seemed to see this as proofof the shakiness of religion. What I see here again is the promotionof an agenda that is not purely scientific but an ideology that wantsto promote science and ban the idea of "God" from it.At the 54:45 mark the speaker states that half of Americans believeJesus is coming back in their lifetime. In attempt to throw themajority of Christians into a big black pot of "nut cases".Thanks to the Rapturist dispensationalism movement the speaker usesthis information to show that this type of thinking is dangerous toscience. Which I agree it is, but what the speaker doesn't mention isthat in the Worlds largest and oldest Christian organization theCatholic church, the message isn't apocalyptic at all (well in thesense of Rapture theology) and is and has been for centuries a greatpromoter of science and ethics in science.At the 1:03:25 mark the speaker quotes an example of the Catholicstandpoint which states "the Secular society that denies Goddisorients the correct conscience of Man." The speaker states thatthe claim is that Human beings really do get their Morality fromReligion. And religion in some sense is the only sense of Morality."He then goes on to state that "Legions of child rapists coming out ofthe priesthood would have given him some pause before making thisclaim…"This is a very bold and dishonest statement. First off, therearen't "Legions" of child rapists coming out of the priesthood Nomore than there are legions of atheist scientists raping children.(although the Kinsey institute for research in Sex, Gender andReproduction swallows nervously hard when asked permission to quotefrom their namesake's work's on sexuality that involved the sexualabuse of children for the "sake of science")The only difference is that in religion (specifically the Catholicreligion here that was targeted by the speaker) there is Right andwrong, black and white and in godlessness there is only what you wantor what the majority wants right or wrong to be.For the religious,( Catholicspecifically), God is reality and his truth is an objective truth.It is true that In the "Godless" world there can be morality and noreligious person in their right mind would or should automaticallycondemn an atheist as doomed to immorality.But one thing that is clear is that in this "godless world"setting, "Morality" would and could change from one person to thenext.Ultimately it would be decided by the majority what is "wrong"and "right" and that could change with the majority vote. Or thedictatorship at hand.In an atheist world, raping children can in fact be made "right"where as in the "Catholic" world This can never be right. Whether ornot "Catholic people" commit these crimes is not the debate. But thefact remains that just as Catholics believe Faith in Christ isabsolutely necessary for Salvation and are closed off to the ideathat Jesus was just a man. Catholics are also closed off to the ideathat raping children can never be right and will never waiver in thatstance…It's about moving beyond the belief that all religion is a bad thingand is contrary to the development of science because it reallyisn't… We know from observable history that the mentalityof "developing science at all costs" has brought about disaster forour human race.In fact as a Catholic I'd argue from an Evolutionary standpoint thatreligion and faith are an integral part of our being and like thedesire to eat makes us "eat" food it's helped us survive.Faith is why I am here typing this and you are here reading it…These Scientific ideas don't throw God out of the Equation at all inthe slightest…

John Maynard Smith and Skeptical inquiry required for religion...(and Science)

The opening portion of the video with John Maynard smith evolutionarybilogist, immediately caught my attention because I deal with thistopic frequently in discussing with different people about Scienceand faith. When questioned by the interview he explains that(paraphrasing) "He didn't feel that his religion would allow him tofollow through his thoughts to the end" He states that he had aguilty conscience prior to leaving his faith toward a moreatheistic/agnostic approach. He then goes on to explain that he's anatheist but that the "term" agnostic fits him better because hedoesn't like to claim to be too sure of anything. The interviewerasked him if he missed the sense that there is some larger purpose inthe universe to which Maynard replied that at first it was hard butonce he got over his fear of giving up his faith he was happy.In reading other posts by other classmates commenting on this earlierportion of the video one person stated"I believe many people who ponder about life, evolution and scienceoften run into this problem. Religion in some ways can handicap themind."I agree partially with this statement that certain beliefs and typesof religions can handicap the mind if you hold them and areunwilling to be corrected even if they are proven factually wrong. Acouple examples from the assigned article titled "Should SkepticalInquiry Be Applied to Religion?" cover these topics. The example ofthe young earth Creationist who believes the earth is 10,000 yearsold despite the fact that we can view stars that are billions yearsold is a good one.But then we have another example in the article regarding the Shroudof Turin we read…"Extraordinary claims that violate naturalistic causal regularitiesshould require strong evidence. I don't see how anyone can protestthat his beliefs ought to be immune to the standards of objectivehistorical investigation, simply by claiming that they are held onthe basis of faith. A good case in point is the alleged burial shroudof Jesus, the Shroud of Turin. Meticulous carbon-14 dating by threerenowned laboratories has shown that the cloth is approximately 700years old and therefore most likely a forgery. The fact thatbelievers may seek to shield their belief by proclaiming that theyhave faith that the Shroud is genuine does not make it any more true."I agree with this statement and would further conclude that if thiswere the whole evidence one should dismiss their old belief as provenfalse. The believer who once believed that the shroud of Turin was infact the burial cloth of Jesus should simply let go of that beliefbased on the evidence.Allow me to continue discussing the opening statements of theMaynard video and the comments regarding religion being a blockade toskeptical inquiry in the article and by comments made by classmatesbecause i'm going to tie them together.It's interesting to note that the evidence provided in this articleon skepticism is a bit outdated regarding the carbon dating resultsand the latest information regarding the shroud has proven that thereis actually evidence that may prove that the portion tested wasperformed on a medieval "re-weaved" area that was dyed. The shroudcan very well be much older than the date given for the Carbondating.An agnostic retired scientist and engineer named "Ed Brior"commenting on the shroud is quoted as saying"When I first heard the allegation that the Shroud sample used bythe three labs in the radiocarbon dating might have been from arewoven portion of the cloth and not original, I was extremelyskeptical. However, the results of numerous studies on this question,as well as some presentations at the recent Ohio Shroud Conferenceand the new book by Raymond Rogers convinced me that the Shroudradiocarbon sample was not representative of the Shroud---and may bepartly or completely a nearly invisible reweave performed at someearlier time in the Shroud's history. Only further testing can answerthis question…"Either way the verdict is still open on that very issue and it wasprecisely skeptical inquiry sparked by "religious belief" that hascarried the investigation further.So we see it's not always a case of "religion holding science back orbringing a handicap to the mind" I would argue that in many wayscertain religions or religious beliefs can challenge science to beeven more skeptical and critical of itself.So, yes, Skeptical inquiry should be required for religion...and Science.

Intelligent Design and Critical Thinking

"Irreducible complexity.""The reason we know that a creator designed it is because all theparts have to be present together because in the absence of any ofthe components the blood will not clot. Only when all the componentsare together" - statement from video on the position of I.DUltimately it seems that the conflict between evolutionary scienceand advocates of Intelligent design is not really a question ofscience and experiments regarding proving which side is right. Itseems to be a philosophical question.How did this all come about? Where did we and everything come from?In the minds of intelligent design advocates it seems they want tofind this point in time where things just "leaped" or "Warped"forward without any explanation what so ever so that they can invokethe need for a God. Some have labeled this thinking the "God of thegaps". This means that anything that we cannot explain scientificallyautomatically means that it is attributed to God.Here we find multiple problems, one of them being that when you tryto attribute something we do not yet understand to somethingunknowable and mystical you automatically are projecting your limitedmindset on to "God" (if there is such an entity). How many times inthe history of our world did we hear that "We would never be able toaccomplish things that we now take for granted?" If we could travelback in time and tell the people in the 16th century or even the 18thor 19th that we could fly in the sky with giant vehicles that aren'tmade out of "light feathery" material, that actually weigh thousandsof pounds, carry hundreds of people and can travel across continents,They'd gasp and think it was ridiculous and that we were lying. Yetairplanes are in the sky every second of every day.We heard these doubts about harnessing light for electricity in thelight bulb, breaking the sound barrier, splitting the atom, travelingto space… and the list goes on. Yet we've accomplished all thosethings.All of this brings us back to the point of the video though. Is itreally a question of science? Or is it a question of Sciencedeclaring that "all of this happened" (Evolution) and therefore thereis no God.Who's the winner in the hypothetical scenario where two Greeks arearguing over the existence of Zeus and the non-believer points outthat it was not Zeus who was throwing lightning and rain down fromthe clouds but it was the scientific understanding of Precipitationand atmospheric discharge. Does that prove that Zeus doesn't exist orthat the believers understanding of Zeus was limited by theirknowledge of science?The second Science declares that anything happens because there is noGod, I would argue, It has taken a religious stance. This is whypartially; I don't know what the opponents of ID are worried about.If they are merely worried about fundamentalism inserting itself intoScience textbooks then I'd have to agree that that is great cause forconcern because I am also against that. However if they are botheredby the challenge that ID presents then they should re-assessthemselves as "scientists". I think the problem arises in the factthat there is a blurry line here in this debate because like, Maynardin the film on Evolution, many of these scientists areatheists/agnostics, and some are unwilling to give up their own "lackof belief" and they also become uncomfortable and even angry whenchallenged on their lack of belief.Interesting enough in a sweet twist of Irony, this particular videolecture opposing Intelligent design opened up with a prayer and isbeing led by a Roman Catholic. But that just goes to show you thatalthough the line of non-belief and belief in God is somewhat blurredin this debate it is ultimately about a Philosophical question. Theright to say that "No a God didn't and couldn't have done this"or "Yes a God could have done this and we should show how we thinkhis design is apparent in all of this in classroom textbooks"Either way, what I am not against is ID's intellectual challenges toEvolution. ID existing helps to keep the Evolutionary team on it'sfeet. The More claim's ID makes as it searches the "edge ofEvolution" like the title Michael Behe's book, The More challengesand opportunities the Evolution camp gets to embark on. They get tomake this information public and research it even more in depth. Howcan this be a bad idea?Right now it seems that the Evolutionary camp has the upper hand inthe fact that ID has conceded that It is technically not "Science"and to include itself in science it would have broaden the term toinclude such practices as "Astrology". It admits in many ways that itis more of a philosophical Question. Where the ID camp has the upperhand is the fact that the "Evolutionary" Camp is absolutely no wherenear in declaring "Why or How" Everything came to be and declaringthat there is no God because of it.And this is what makes Atheist scientists uncomfortable.The fact that they know they can't declare this.Just like the scenario earlier when the non-believing Greek uncoveredthe real reasons behind the rain and the lightning from the cloudsdoesn't disprove God at all (Or Zeus in that hypothetical scenario),it simply showed the limits of the "believing Greek's" imagination ofGod's power. (If there is Zeus or a True God)…

Beyond belief but not beyond Bias

There is an awful lot of bending over backwards to be nice toreligion going on… (32:35) –Richard Dawkins"When we've lost religion as I hope one day we shall. We shall havelost the appalling guilt that afflicts people brainwashed as peopleinto being religious. We shall have lost the brainwashing of childrenwhich indeed labels them as sharing the same religious opinions astheir parents…a form of Child abuse (33:15)- Richard DawkinsI've highlighted these first 2 quotes here because I want tohighlight the thought process of this man Richard Dawkins and I wantto show how easily men and women of great stature can use theirauthority and their persuasive power to infect others withtheir "Memes" as Richard Dawkins coins the term. The problems is thatmany of these "memes" are complete unsubstantiated opinionated biasriding on the wave of their intellectual prestige.It is important that we all understand that just because oneconsiders themselves an "Intellectual" or a "Bright" as RichardDawkins and Sam Harris arrogantly tout, that they too, are not immunefrom spreading nonsense and false information that would never makeit past their own scientific critiquing standards. Yet it happensfrequently. In fact in the first 4 beyond belief sessions alone, notone half hour segment goes by without an unsubstantiated, biasedopinion that gets thrown in the mix. Still those "unscientificopinions" stand proudly side by side with the speakers "Scientificinformation."I cringe everytime I read or hear someone use the blanket statementthat "Religion blocks intellectual thought or blocks advances inScience, education and Medicine." Because this is such a horribleinaccurate blanket statement in much need of further investigation.Richard dawkins again states..."We shall have lost the subversion of science which comes fromteaching children that faith is a virtue. Faith meaning beliefwithout evidence." (33:20) -Richard DawkinsIn Betrand Russel's "Why I am not a Christian" he states"There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, thechurch, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality,inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessarysuffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part anopponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways thatdiminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label asmorality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothingto do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that oughtto be done because it would make for human happiness, they think thathas nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happinessto do with morals? The object of morals is not to make peoplehappy." –Betrand Russel (why I am not a Christian)Never mind the thousands of Catholic hospitals across the world,never mind the thousands of Catholic schools and colleges as well.Just to name an example of the worlds largest Christian organization.Never mind the fact that for centuries the Catholic church led theworld in scientific studies which included astronomy and medicine. Itseems that all these "intellectuals " can remember is "Galileo orthe Crusades and Inquisition". But not only that, they only knowthe "Black legend" version of these tales taught in the extremeradical fundamentalists Chick publications, which in an ironic twistof fate also gets promoted as "facts" in books like Richard Dawkin'sGod delusion and Sam Harris "End of Faith".Both of these books and authors are revered in the "Beyond Belief"sessions.It seems that in their imaginary world, Religious inquisitions onceupon a time killed millions on top of millions of people just fordisagreeing with the Church. Science was destroyed and suppressedbecause it caused doubt in God. Galileo was ruined because hechallenged the bible with his "Heliocentric" views and the SpanishInquisition was the greatest religious atrocity in the history of theWorld killing millions of people. And Luckily protestant Christianitycame along with it's susceptibility to reason and willingness tocompromise it's beliefs for Science.Never mind the fact that secular historians investigating the SpanishInquisitions 125,000 cases have found that, 1.8% were executed (2,250people) over a period of 350 years with most of these deathsoccurring in the first decade and a half of the Spanish Inquisition'shistory. Never mind that between the 16th and 17th century less than3 people per year were put to death by the inquisition making theinquisition less lethal than Bicycle accidents in the United statesbetween the years of 1987-2002 (www.safekidsnebraska.org/fact-sheets/Bike facts.pdf)Never mind that the protestant induced war that occurred right afterthe Spanish inquisitions killed more people than the inquisitionitself and that the societies built around the new splinteredChristian faith lagged behind their Catholic counterparts who weresupposed to be void of reason.. Never mind any of that. These factsare ignored.Never mind the fact that Galileo wasn't ruined for holding aheliocentric view but because he was going against a prevalent viewof the Scientists of the time and trying to force the church to bendto his scientific view which modern science has proven partiallywrong. Nicolaus Copernicus was a Catholic cleric, who's heliocentricview paved the way for Gallileo's work.Never mind that his views were not suppressed by the church and thefacts that he delayed publication of a book regarding hisHeliocentric view, not for fear of the church, but for fear of hisscientific colleagues at the time.Never mind any of that…"Religion is Evil, it blocks science and teaching it to your childrenis child abuse!." So preaches Richard Dawkins.Sounds like the close minded Radical fundamentalist preaching wherethey label everything "The Devil" that contradicts their thoughtprocess."Religion is The Devil" But teaching your children the ideologyof "Atheism" is not child abuse because if you don't believe in Godyou are a true "intellectual" a "Bright". You have been awakened bythe great "awakening"…Never mind that the so called "Great awakenings" that have occurredin the history of world societies dwarf the death toll of everyreligious war, inquisition, crusade combined by millions of lives.Never mind any of that.If you're a prominent physicist, biologist or philosopher and you sayit.It must be true.I respect everyone's scientific views and their accomplishments intheir respective fields of science but when they start teaching andinterweaving wrong ideas like these with their work I callit "nonsense riding on the wave of intellectual prestige."Don't get me wrong. I'm all for them being able to express theiropinions and points of view. It interests me to hear and study themwhether I agree or not. Ultimately, It's up to us viewers and readersto decipher what is fact and what is fiction.Though these great minds can claim that they are "beyond belief" It'sclear to me that they are far from being "beyond bias".

Why I am a Christian and pray before I eat my food

Reading through Betrand Russel's writing on "Why I am not aChristian", Listening to Carolyn Porco's speech in one of the Beyondbelief sessions and reading quite a few posts from fellow classmateson the conflict of religion and science I decided to write thisgeneral response to some of the points brought up.Critical thinking is all about putting yourself in the other "pointof views" shoes. And when we stand in those shoes it us vital tounderstand this "other" point of view because if we don't, we maymiss the other point entirely. And that's what I see going on herefrom some classmate posts to the intellectuals in the beyond beliefsessions and assigned readings.Carolyn porco at the 1:25.00 minute mark describes how practicing theCatholic faith she grew up in just "didn't do it for her" She goes onto state"I was engaged in asking the questions of wonder. What are we doinghere? Why are we here? Why am I personally individually here. Iturned to astronomy in order to understand the greater theatre inwhich life has unfolded. Being a scientist and staring immensity andeternity In the face everyday is as grand and awe inspiring itgets." –Carolyn PorcoAnd then she goes on to say later regarding science without religion…"The answer to these questions, with absolutely no hype, haveproduced the greatest story that's ever been told. And there isn't areligion that can offer anything better." –Carolyn PorcoThis is where I'd like to begin with my point of view…It's a long summer day and there are four very different lookinggentlemen sitting down together in a Mexican restaurant about toenjoy their food. Most notable, 3 of the four gentlemen are coveredin Tattoos, arms sleeved and the neck area. One who is bald even hasthem on his scalp where his hair would be if he decided to grow itout. Another is wearing a bandana and has a Mohawk. Another has notattoos and is dressed casual In shorts and a T-shirt. 3 of the fourgentlemen are of Mexican ethnicity and the fourth is a mixture ofCreole and African. He has long dreadlocks is wearing shades and hasthe appearance of a R&B or Rap artist getting ready to film a musicvideo.At the table there is much conversation going on, loud laughter,joking at times, some moments of serious exchanges and intense talkbetween the four young men.The waitress walks up to them with their food and you can see it intheir eyes that they are happy to be served. One by one she placestheir food before them and they each go through a quick scrambling ofmaking room for their plates, getting rid of gum, situating theirsilverware…The waitress warns them of their hot plates, smiles and she walksaway.Then it begins…The bald guy begins a peculiar ritual.first as he lowers his head…He quietly signs himself with his right hand…"In the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit…"The guy in the shorts with no tattoos closes his eyes and he tobegins to pray to himself as well..Then the guy in the bandana and Mohawk…lastly the guy with dreads joins in quietly…The whole ritual lasts about twenty seconds at most and then theconversations and joking resume with haste….What I've just described here are myself and my friends. I went intodetail on the way we look because I want to make a few points. Iwanted to highlight that we come from very different worlds thoughsome of us share the same ethnicity. A couple of us are familyrelated but still we have walked very different paths in our life.The guy in the shorts is me. The Mohawk guy with the tattoos on hisneck is my cousin James. The bald guy with that tattoos on his headis a good friend named Jude and the Guy with the dreadlocks is a longtime neighbor and friend, Jeffrey.I Myself, am a student and currently looking for a new job and Iassist teaching Catechism classes at a local church. My cousin Jamesand friend Jude are Tattoo artists and my neighbor Jeffrey actuallyis an R&B artist for the Warner brothers record label.What we all share in common beyond our friendship and blood ties isthat we are all Catholic.Classmate jasonni86 wrote something that I wanted to highlight for mynext point.Jasonni86 wrote…."However, when i see people praying before eatingmeals, i find it funny, because in my opinion god didn't give you foodto eat. you or your parents or family worked hard for you to get $$ toget that food. I for one, don't thank Buddha for "giving" me food toeat. I have to work to put food on my plate. And also when people prayfor good things to happen to them, or improve their luck on certainthings."- Jasonni86At the restaurant when our discussion was interrupted by the arrivalof our food we all stopped and prayed quietly to ourselves. At themoment we did that we could feel the eyes from the surrounding tablesbearing down upon us. The people around us suddenly had this look ontheir faces like they just saw something so strange and weird. Likeif all of a sudden we turned into ghosts or stood up and screamed inthe middle of the restaurant. It was clear that our praying before weate had stirred something awkward in the room.Perhaps they too as Jasonni86 described thought we were funny becausewe prayed before we ate. Perhaps at that moment they suddenly feltintellectually superior than us. Deeper thinkers than us. Maybe evenjust flat out better than us.Who knows what they were thinking and why the strange looks wentaiming in our direction.The bottom line is that It was all perfectly fine because wecontinued with our food un-phased by the strange looks. We reservedour personal opinions about them because we didn't know enough aboutthe people surrounding us to make a judgement upon them. We didn'tknow what books they've read or what life experiences they had beenthrough that would cause them to arrive at their conclusions.It was possible that some of them hadn't even thought beyond whatthey had been taught to form their point of view. We knew like somany other people (which includes the grand scientific minds we'vewatched in the "Beyond belief" sessions) that they probably hadmissed the point completely of why us four men prayed before we ateat the table.They simply missed the point.Now I want to analyze our little prayer ritual.So why did we do it?Did we think that it would make our food taste better?Did we think that God was in the back kitchen preparing our food forus?Did we think that God would get mad at us if we didn't thank him forthe food we were about to eat?Did we not understand that it was our money, our work and the Chef'sin the back and Waitress bringing the food to us that allowed us toeat this food?No… of course not. We prayed exactly because we were thinking beyondthat limited view of realityAt the table we were laughing and joking of course but during themoments of intense talk we were talking about life issues and socialissues. Politics, family and friend problems. We were also talkingabout physics and the Universe as well on how there are some planetsout there that are so huge that our Sun could crash into them and itwould just be swallowed up like a small comet dissolving in theearth's atmosphere.We talked about how at the atomic level Scientists have theorizedthat everything moves in waves and how its so strange that theseatomic "objects" can be in two places at once. How 99% of the densityof an atom is in it's nucleus and how the orbiting Electrons wouldreally be about 2 miles away from the Nucleus if the "Nucleus" of anatom was observed on the scale of the nucleus being the size of aBasketball.We prayed that twenty second prayer because we acknowledged that onceupon a time billions of years ago when the universe began from asingle point and exploded into chaos and uncertainty an amazing thinghappened. An extraordinary event happened to a small tiny planet thatallowed life to grow on it. This planet we call earth brought forthhundreds of thousands of living organisms which may have evolvedfurther and grew more complex than the imagination could grasp. Andafter millions of more years humans came along which had aconsciousness even more complex than the hundreds and thousands ofprevious species almost all who were wiped out and had becomeextinct..These humans, that arrived much later developed complex codes ofcommunication, transportation and "agriculture" (which aided inbringing about our food at the table) And after generations andgenerations of successful reproduction which also accounted fortrillions on top of trillions of uncountable unfertilized "egg cellsand sperm" that died and never made It out of the gene pool, Somehowthrough out all of that chaos of billions of years, uncertainty, andthe horrible odds against us…Us four men, survivedWe somehow made it to that table to eat..We existed….And We had the grand opportunity of sitting at that table talkingabout it all…Conscious of it all…In awe of it all…We sat at that dinner table staring "immensity and eternity in theface, Inspired." As Carolyn porco describes In the beyond beliefvideo…There we were "Glorious pieces of meat" as Pat churchland describes…And we prayed because we were thankful for it all…We prayed because we were Thrilled that we were about to experiencethe taste, touch, look and smell of the food before us.How was the food even sitting on the plate in front of us holding itself together? There's no such thing as a "Bean and Cheese" atom.There's no such thing as an "orange" or "Brown" atom either. Whatdoes that even mean?Yet there we were, holding all those contradictory thoughts in ourmind but still being able to function. Enjoying the moment at 186,000miles per hour, yet frozen in place understanding that if there is aGod then he most certainly provided food for us to eat.And given what we know about physics it is entirely plausible thatGod provided our food for us at the exact time God heard our prayersat the restaurant… Instead that God already heard our prayersBillions of years ago, before the big bang ever even happened.That is why I am Christian and pray before I eat my food…

11. Why does Richard Dawkins consider religion a "virus" of themind? Do you agree or disagree?Substantiate your view.

Richard Dawkins considers religion a parasite of the mind outlined in 4 major points he puts forward in his mock medical textbook portion of his essay. He states that

1. The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as ``faith.''

2. Patients typically make a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakable, in spite of not being based upon evidence. Indeed, they may feel that the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the belief (see below)… Once the proposition is believed, it automatically undermines opposition to itself. The ``lack of evidence is a virtue'' idea could be an admirable sidekick, ganging up with faith itself in a clique of mutually supportive viral programs.

3. A related symptom, which a faith-sufferer may also present, is the conviction that ``mystery,'' per se, is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility.

4. The sufferer may find himself behaving intolerantly towards vectors of rival faiths, in extreme cases even killing them or advocating their deaths. He may be similarly violent in his disposition towards apostates (people who once held the faith but have renounced it); or towards heretics (people who espouse a different --- often, perhaps significantly, only very slightly different --- version of the faith). He may also feel hostile towards other modes of thought that are potentially inimical to his faith, such as the method of scientific reason which may function rather like a piece of anti-viral software.

Prior to these 3 points Dawkins describes the mind as being susceptible to viruses like a computer and that like a computer it would be hard to detect. He ultimately considers religions a “virus” because a virus is a negative connotation for “infection” for information that is designed to break down the organism or computer. It replicates itself trying to spread at the expense of the host.

I partially disagree and agree with Dawkins being experienced with unhealthy forms of cultic apocalyptic religions and others that are actually helpful and social studies have shown are helpful to the individual. Just like Dawkins describes Science as a Healthy “Computer” program I would propose that there are religions that are healthy and stable programs if used correctly. Any idea or “program” can be abused and used for what it’s not intended for. The same goes for religion or any ideology.

It would be an incorrect blanket statement in need of further investigation to just say “Religion is a virus and that’s that”. It’s crucial that we look past that limited thinking and acknowledge that all religions are NOT the same. Theologies vary on a wide range of topics that affect the quality of life of the individual that adheres to it. The same can be said for any Atheist who has no religion but forms their own “worldview” that could very well be much more menacing, unhealthy and even more dangerous to themselves or the surrounding people than even the most radical Islamic Fundamentalist.

So in conclusion, I’d like to say that Richard Dawkins’ blanket statement Idea that “All religion” is a Virus is just as much a “Virus of the mind” as the close minded faith he is trying to highlight and replace with his own infection.

12. Give an example of a "cargo cult" belief and critically analyzeit from a scientific perspective? Hint:think of something that people believe in that lacks overwhelmingevidence to support it.
I’m certain that the number one answer to this question that comes to everybody’s mind is “Astrology” It never fails. Although I believe its not so much a cargo cult science more than it is just a cultural phenomena. Everywhere you go, every day someone says something about their “sign”. Behaviors are excused with “Oh I’m a Leo” or “Oh it’s because I’m a Gemini”. However there are some people who are caught in between the wonder if it could be true or not. It reminds me of that Phrase that goes something like “If enough people repeat the same lie at some point it becomes true”. It seems that this idea has propagated itself so much throughout our culture that even the people who claim to not believe in it all have this certain wonder in the back of their minds that it might possibly have some truth to it.

Examining astrology it becomes clear very quickly that there is no concrete evidence to support it. There are no experiments and there are no peer reviewed books or studies to be submitted on the topic. One can imagine the result if such studies were actually performed on an annual basis. The results would be hit or miss. They’d be muddy and unclear much like the generalizations made during a psychic cold reading. Any experiment that could be performed over a test group would sometimes yield positive results to give the appearance of being true and other times that same test group would fail miserably to live up to expectations.
I mean how would they even conduct the test? Monitor the lives of 100 “Cancers” or “Leo’s” on the day a certain horoscope says a bunch of general and generic things are going to happen to them? Follow the fortune cookie advice that the “Cancers” are going to experience new financial stability in the upcoming weeks?

The problem with astrology is that it’s too general to ever be proven right or completely wrong. It’s set up in such a way that makes it hard to defeat. It’s like telling your Friend going through Crisis “Not to worry, because everything is going to work out”
In time, Everything may work out for your friends crisis. In fact this is probably the only option unless they themselves die. Your advice that “everything is going to work out” gives the appearance that you assured them of something you really didn’t know at all. In fact you only told them what you hoped would happen and passed it off as “certainty”.
This is a form of astrology without the names of “Gemini” and “Aquarius” being tossed around. A lot of times It seems we use these types of cargo cult sciences to get through the day. Either way these are unsubstantiated claims based on generalizations or prior experiences, hopes and other factors that can’t give consistent results and at best only a percentage of possible similar positive results.

Still, That isn’t science.

13. How does one do "science" according to Richard Feynman. Why isthis form of science so important tohuman beings? How can such a view of science help enrich one'sappreciation for beauty? Be sure to giveYOUR own example of Feynman's point (no "flowers" allowed).

As I stated in one of my prior posts “Feynman seems to make much of his reasoning in a "scientific manner" with a sort of "mathematical equation to everything that was happening around him. He takes a very "Natural" and "Physical" approach in developing his worldview with regards to science. Aside that Feynman highlights and emphasizes the importance of getting to the core of the investigation by not allowing bias to influence ones scientific work. By eliminating bias the scientist keeps themselves open to many more possibilities including the possibility that they can be wrong. This is a vital form of thought for scientists to carry because it ensures that the work done is going to be honest and true. It ensures that the work will be available for peer review, testability and scrutiny and that it will only deal with the facts presented and not one’s opinions or interpretations of the facts presented. This keeps science honest. Basically, it keeps science, Science.

The third view that Feynman expresses is the appreciation of Science in depth and not just a layered outer understanding. For example I’ll use the love of a couple in a relationship. It’s one thing to “love another” person for their personality and the things you share in common but when you also apply that as well as the idea of the complexity of what they are as human beings with an extraordinary consciousness down to the very atoms that flow through an individual it gives you a deeper appreciation of them, yourself and everything in general. It raises your consciousness to a whole new level without having to resort to some magical unsubstantiated element such as cargo cult science. And you can simultaneously hold on to a faith that something spiritual is behind the scenes as well as long as you keep your mind open that your idea of what that “spirituality” can be is something much more complicated than your mind could possibly even grasp.

14. Give your interpretation of the movie "Karma."

The first sequence puzzled me and I didn’t quite understand what the director of the movie was trying to Convey. I wondered if the person wearing the cap was meant to purposely bump into the main character on the walkway. I went back and watched it a couple times wondering if the director was implying that this person’s rude actions were meant to come off as “Rude” by the bumping and if they were somehow connected with his fate by being beaten up and dragged away.

The second clip with the girl scratching the lotto ticket seemed more of a cause and effect rather than Karma as did the clip with the Man who hit what may have been either his girlfriend or wife. The message in these two clips seemed to be straightforward. “If you do this, this may happen because of it”

The last clip that made me chuckle a bit because of its shortness but genius example of Karma. The clip of the man who robbed the individual in the parking lot then immediately got hit by a passing car was representative of what I understand Karma to be. On a side note I don’t believe in Karma as I feel that there are many things people do that never come back to them the same, better or worse. But overall the cliché saying of Karma that “ what goes around comes around” screams the loudest in the most entertaining clip of the film when the thief gets hit by the car In the parking lot.

15. Explain, in brief, Darwinian evolution and why John MaynardSmith's contribution is important inthinking differently about survival of the fittest.

In short Darwinian evolution explains that species adapt and develop over long periods of time and during this period the most fit or strongest creature of any given species will most likely be the one that passes off its genes. It will be the most likely to continue to replicate. John Maynard adds to this explanation by highlighting a theory that suggests that it is not necessarily the strongest and fittest in terms of say “strength” or intelligence for example but other factors also contribute to the survival of a species such as “rarity” or “Uniqueness” For example the Peacock tail. It is theorized that Male peacocks display their big extravagant feathers in an effort to impress the female peacocks. This is turn makes them ideal mating partners for the female peacocks and more likely to mate. The male peacock isn’t at the top of the food chain and is certainly not the most intelligent displaying his huge feathers that could also attract predators but in doing so he becomes more likely to successfully mate.

In a way you could also use human beings in this example because despite our poor eyesight, poor sense of smell, our small and fragile bodies and long infant development periods compared to other animals our intellect is what has granted us the ability to continue strong as a species.

16. What are Freeman Dyson's views on the "design" of the universeor the purpose of humankind?

Freeman dyson, Mathematician and physicist holds the opinion that both science and religion are both compatible in that they look at the world from two different lenses. That they should not interfere with each other in forms of teaching. For example one’s religious views should not skew their interpretation of scientific findings and such. There should be intellectual freedom that is free from bias. Dyson believes that these two forms of Magesterium should remain separate from each other in trying to understand things both scientific and religious. Dyson also views the existence of life as mathematically accurate. Such accuracy may imply a grand mathematician so to speak but at the same time the natural world is found full of chaos and random activity.
Dyson is under the opinion that there is an evidence of a kind of “mind” in the universe. The three types of minds discussed are. Human mind, mind residing at the micro level, sub atomic level. Macro level, universal mind, or the universe as mind.

He views this as a possible model for how things might be. “It’s not a belief as a matter of faith,” he states but an interesting model and Quite plausible. The reason being that at the sub atomic world things “act” a certain way for example, atoms seem to “make choices” and this ideas is part of quantum physics.

Dyson describes An atom that is uranium and the next day it is decayed into thorium plus an alpha particle and no one can predict when that is going to happen. It seems that the atom has the freedom to choose. It’s called spontaneous decay. This Implies in our understanding that the “atom” possibly made a choice. It is a freedom that an individual atom seems to have.
Its unknown and not settled whether quantum processes are important to the brain or even connected to them but the phenomena of consciousness that mind exists on our level as humans means that it might very well exist through out the universe and that this mind could very well be called God on a much larger scale.

Some possible explanations that the universe is “friendly” to life form Dysons worldview that there can be an intelligent designer. Dyson sees that in some sense the universe isn’t a random chaotic place. It looks like it is hospitable to life. For example the make up of water. He subscribes to a sort of Entropic idea that had there been even a microscopic change in the universe it would have been hostile to our form of life.

17. What IS the "secret" that Faqir Chand discovered about religionand its founders? In short, you can say that he realized that he didn’t know anything, or realized his own “ignorance”. The idea that the “guru” wasn’t doing anything rather it was the people themselves that were projecting the ideas in their own minds onto the guru’s claiming it was the guru helping them. All along it was them.

They were projecting their beliefs onto the individuals. This can be explained when people “give” or “project” their religious beliefs onto their own prophets, pastors, gods etc..etc. in a way to make them real, when in fact it is the self projection of their own ideas. For example the Catholic sees the Virgin Mary or Jesus, the Fundamentalist Christian see’s only Jesus, the Buddhist see’s Buddha the hindu see’s their guru or a hindu god.

18. Explain the movie Eleven and what is YOUR interpretation of it?In other words, what is the underlying message that thedirector is trying to convey?

The film is about reckless biased prejudice and how easily it can get out of hand. The film highlights a gang whose intent is to target terrorism in retaliation for the events that took place during the September 11 attacks. The problem is that this gang targets “Muslims” as terrorist and in doing so incorrectly make poor judgement on who they are attacking. Their own ignorance leads the charge as they subdue and kill an individual who wasn’t even a muslim in the first place. He was a practicing sikh. In an effort to not make that mistake the gang directly targets a mosque but in another ironic twist of fate ends up killing a Christian reporter who was visiting on a business story covering the killing of the Sikh.

The message of the video is about physical reckless, bias prejudice in extreme forms.

19. Why is distinguishing the message from the medium so important?Use the Da Free John article as your context.

Distinguishing the message from the messenger is important because the message many times itself has almost nothing to do with the messenger. Da free John as stated in the article is a victim of the bias that seems to naturally affect our willingness to listen and understand a message based on the appearance of the behavior of the messenger. As stated in the article “while many individuals are deeply attracted to the philosophy of Da Free John, they are not drawn to the man.” And the example of the alcoholic womanizing alan watts is also given. The article states also that “behind this fallacious equation of "the medium is the message" is found in the life and work of Alan Watts, the renowned philosopher of Zen Buddhism.”

I have mixed feelings about the article in the fact that Yes, it is true a messenger can be differentiated from the message delivered by the individual but wouldn’t it also be true that the messenger themselves can affect the message being delivered because of their interpretation and presentation? What if perhaps the messenger injects their bias into the message and passes it off as “the message” as we have seen many times in the Beyond belief series and other articles on varying topics written by atheist evolutionary biologists, and Physicist etc..etc.
Either way it is certain that we must learn to draw the lines between the message and the messenger themselves. Another example given in the article is the message of Christianity where as many times it’s lost in critiques of the inquisition and negative aspects of the Christian people who have been part of those historical events labeled in a negative light.

20. What are Bertrand Russell's reasons for NOT being a Christian?Do you agree or disagree with him? GIVE RATIONALARGUMENTS FOR your position (pro or con).
Bertrand Russell argues from different standpoints why he is not a Christian. Some of the examples provided that he argued against are from Catholic thought “The Argument from Design” The First cause argument other general theist arguments such as The moral arguments for deity and the arguments for a remedy for injustice. Other topics he touches on briefly are The character of Christ, the weakness of his teachings and a brief generalization of the Church “slowing or stopping progress” and basing it’s power and teachings off of fear.

I disagree with Betrand Russell on many points being a Christian Myself I would say that his arguments would not convince me partly because they aren’t good enough arguments. I’m only going to cover a few points here but first I would start off by the blanket statements that make me cringe such as “religion” or “Christianity” specifically slowing scientific progress and such. What is he talking about? Is he talking about Galileo? Is he talking about Stem cell research? The answer to these questions need to be analyzed and discussed to arrive at a consensus of what exactly does “slowing scientific progress” mean.

For a Catholic it may mean not harvesting human fertilized embryo’s because it infringes on the right of human life. For an atheist they can pick and choose what constitute someone “being worthy of life and having rights” I remember reading once a person joking on the matter stating “ I don’t consider you alive unless youre in my phonebook”. It’s worth a chuckle but the reality of the matter is that this is an issue and extremes can be found in every debate. Who gets to draw the line and why should we accept that line? These core concepts must be investigated further to understand each perspective in depth to make an intelligent decision.

Russell highlights the teachings of Christ and makes it a point that Jesus wasn’t the first person to teach such things. I’m pretty sure that even a lay person with almost no teaching on Christian theology doesn’t believe that Jesus was the first person to ever give someone a hug either but that does nothing to take away from the fact that Jesus taught a unique philosophy on love and relationships that had not been recorded prior to that time.

Another is Russells failure at understanding the teachings of Christ. He quotes a line Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." Then he says, "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom" pointing out that this implied Christ believed his second coming was upon us as in the Fundamentalist rapturist Christian understanding of the 2nd coming but at the same time he fails to mention or to understand that “Rapturist” theology and fundamentalist Christianity didn’t exist at that time and in fact the Catholic understanding that did exist at the time of that writing and still exists now has nothing to do with that understanding of those passages.

21. Give a summary of Jim Lett's field guide to critcal thinking (inyour own "300" words, no more). Don't use quotes but write it like aletter to a friend explain how to think critically in light of Lett'snumerous points.

An explanation of critical thinking includes five major points that must be met in order to evaluate the subject matter critically. The proposition must be able to be falsified. For example a claim made must have an adequate possibility of another explanation. For example the house burned down because of a gas leak. Well it could have burned down for many other possible reasons other than that. Someone could have left the stove on and it caught something close on fire, a faulty electrical outlet etc..etc. The evidence offered must be sound. There must be “Logic” to the explanation. The house burned down because an alien spaceship fried it with a laser is not sound and is less likely than a gas leak or a faulty electrical outlet. The evidence must be “comprehensive” The evidence regarding the cause of the fire must be exhaustive. If someone left the stove on, what was near the stove that was flammable? Was there anything near that could have caught fire? How long was it left unattended? Questions like that add to the comprehensive investigation. “Honest” investigation. All points need to be considered and not left out. Let’s say that you know the individual that lived their and you know them to be very careful. Just because you know that they tend to be very careful you must not let that distract the possibility that they did in fact leave the stove on and something flammable to close to the pilot. “Replicability” given what we know about similar house fires we would have to study prior cases to see if they burned in the same manner. If the damage to a certain area is more extensive than another. If the coincidental damage is related to the area and the cause of the fire enforces “replicability”. Finally the evidence must be sufficient. We know that aliens probably didn’t zap the house because an extraordinary claim would demand extraordinary evidence, and that evidence based on such a testimony would be inadequate to determine its legitimacy. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim and the investigation must be done on evidence that is logical.

22. Why does Kurtz believe that skepticism should be applied toreligion? Do you agree or disagree?

Kurtz believes that skeptical inquiry should be required for religion because of the claims that it makes are no different than scientific claims. Religious behavior can be studied and religious claims such as the historicity of the bible and the book of mormon can also be investigated. I agree that skepticism should be applied to religion for the very reason that people base their whole lives and center their behavior on religious ideas. If the religious idea proves dangerous and people can be protected from a false belief by skepticial inquiry than it is vital we look further into that religion with skeptical tests.

Anything put forward by a religion deserves to be checked out. If the book of mormon makes a claim that it is talking about civilizations that span across the america’s then there better be some remains of their cities as far as the eye could see (as described in the book of Mormon) or else their faith collapses upon itself and it is time to rethink what they thought they knew.

23. Why is pretext, text, and context important in analyzing a bookor an argument. Provide your own example.

Pretext, text and context is important in analyzing a book or an argument because you have to understand as much as the subject material as you can so that you can fully understand what it is that is being discussed or argued. However it is important that one does not reduce that material or the understanding of it to far or else the topic itself may lose it’s meaning.

For a quick example say you are giving someone a recipe to make a cake. They need all the ingredients for the recipe and the parameters that they can stretch if they want it to make it taste a little more sweet, or have a different texture. They must know all the ingredients that could be substituted for similar ingredients. However they do not need to know the chemical breakdown of each ingredient just like they don’t need to know how many molecules breakdown the water, if any they are going to use it in the recipe.

24. What is a "transformative" UFO encounter and does the author ofthe Himalayan Connection really believe in UFOs as genuineextraterrestrials?

A transformative UFO encounter is an encounter that could have taken place entirely through the individuals self consciousness. Why this happens should not be reduced by mere physical reductionism. The author believes that there should be a hiearchichal structure that involves the study of such occurrences.

The author leaves it open that though UFO’s can possibly be a part of exo-technological occurrences these transformative experiences must also be investigated for their social and psychological reasons.

25. How does one think more critically when using online sources?(hint: think of one of the required articles). Substantiate yourviews.

Fortunately and unfortunately we live in an age where information has been democratized and has been made readily available for average lay person. Gone are the massive Alexandrian libraries, Gone are the chained bibles to a towns single cathedral and even the great scholars and intellectuals of our time who speak from podiums around the world find themselves being questioned and their ideas challenged by the guy behind his computer drinking a coke and eating chips. Welcome to the age of the internet, where those ancient gigantic libraries of the past are now only a small fraction of the information that is available at anyone’s fingertips with an internet connection. Barne’s and noble .com and amazon.com or the local borders bookstore have every book that is practically in print and if it’s no longer in print someone has it on ebay has. No one order Encyclopedia Britannica’s because If they did, the next week that the volumes came to their doorstep the information found in a 50 volume set would already be outdated. Rather it is much easier to save your money and turn online to Wikipedia and run a search on any given topic.

The freedom of information that we have available is massive and it’s growing everyday. But this also creates a problem. The information is so free and so available that anyone can add their 2 cents into the pot of information as well. This creates a problem because we have to decipher what is fact and what is fiction. We have to do our homework when reading a piece of literature online. Who is the author? Is the article linked to any other reputable sites? Has the article been peer reviewed? Who did the review? Who is critical of them and so on.

26. What are Steven Weinberg's views on religion? Do you agree ordisagree?
Steven Weinberg views religion as a blockade to the advance of science and that both religion and science cannot be reconciled as far as recognizing two different magisteriums. That both claims are very different. He explains that science downgrades humanity in the eyes of religion as making the human a side event in a much grand scheme of things and that humans are just another animal species. Science makes religious explanations unnecessary.

He respect those views of others who state that they Don’t want to damp down the argument and those who do not want to talk about religion as conflicting however his quote in the video states his perspective quite clearly.

(28:02) I think the world needs to wake up from it's long nightmare of religious belief. And anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in fact in the end by our greatest contribution to civilization.” –Steven Weinberg

I feel that it is blind to ignore all the good and scientific advances that were made in the name of religion and by religious people. It's as if he ignores centuries of Scientificprogress existing alongside religion in favor of promoting his atheisticagenda. The phrase “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done” sends chills down my spine as to what that “anything” could mean. We’ve seen what happens in our recent history when atheistic states lived by this statement made by Weinberg.

Weinberg tries to divorce the two from each other asif they are bitter enemies when this is not true. For example, He ignores the fact that theCatholic church was at the forefront of science for many centuries aswell as advancements made in Muslim Countries. Still, this doesn'tprove that Science is better off when religion is involved it justmeans that he is pushing an agenda and overlooks the facts of religion and science working together because it’s convenient for him to do so to promote his agenda.

27. Why is Sam Harris an atheist? Explain his reasons. Can you argueagainst his views? If so, how?

There are multiple reasons that Sam Harris is an atheist but I would like to highlight that ultimately the reason I feel he has chosen atheism is because the limited views of God that he has frequently dealt with. I too, would probably be an atheist If all I dealt with only the religious cases, stories and information that Sam Harris has dealt with.

I found myself agreeing with harris multiple times and even reading through some of his works a couple of books titled “A letter to a Christian nation” and “The end of Faith” I could see exactly where he was coming from on many points.

At the same time I feel that Sam Harris bases too much of his worldview In regards to religion on the fundamentalisms of different faiths. He makes the same mistake of making blanket generalizations on a wide range of religious topics. In an effort to debunk creationists who believe in an all powerful God he points out that there is suffering and that people get sick, that the eye couldn’t have been designed because there are some eyes that lose their vision or people have defective eyesight.

The problem with this fallacious thinking is that Sam Harris as intelligent as he is doesn’t seem to think twice that even a hard nosed creationists has to already acknowledge that we “get sick” that our bodies physical break down and we ultimately die because of it.
Sam Harris it seem’s ultimately bases his atheism off of the limited views of God that has been presented to him.

28. Of the first five installments of BEYOND BELIEF which speakerdid you find most persuasive? Explain why.

I found Richard Dawkins to be the most persuasive not because I believe he gives the best case or because I agree with his reasoning but I base it on his demeanor. When he delivers his information he doesn’t hesitate he isn’t subtle or nice. He confidentally declares what it is that he is going to declare. When someone is of the opinion that we should be “nice” to religion, Richard dawkins asks “Why?” with a tone that suggests “how could you even think that?” or “Why would you even think that?” Dawkins is confident in his beliefs and he feels strongly that the science he studies supports his views.

The many conflicting reasons I would debate with him aside It all comes down to his delivery. He’s confident about his stance.

29. Ken Miller argues against Michael Behe's notion of irreduciblecomplexity and the notion of intelligent design in biology. Is heright? If so, explain. If not, give your reasons why not.

Michael Behe spends his time searching the “Edge of Evolution as one of the titles of his books is called. He is always trying to find the limits of Darwinism and I appreciate this and sometimes I wonder if t he or the ID movement didn’t exist would the Evolutionary biologists or actually the “Athiest” evolutionary biologists remain on their toes about these issues.
I think the existence of the ID movement has helped to further make public teachings on Evolution that otherwise would have not been known.

"Irreducible complexity.""The reason we know that a creator designed it is because all theparts have to be present together because in the absence of any ofthe components the blood will not clot. Only when all the componentsare together" – statement that was made from video on the position of I.DUltimately it seems that the conflict between evolutionary scienceand advocates of Intelligent design is not really a question ofscience and experiments regarding proving which side is right. Itseems to be a philosophical question.How did this all come about? Where did we and everything come from?In the minds of intelligent design advocates it seems they want tofind this point in time where things just "leaped" or "Warped"forward without any explanation what so ever so that they can invokethe need for a God. Ken miller calls this thinking the "God of thegaps". This means that anything that we cannot explain scientificallyautomatically means that it is attributed to God.

Evolutionary biologists have claimed to have a handy theory for such questions regarding irreducible complexity and I feel that they have adequately explained how they can have such a theory but I do not believe that it explains everything and that there couldn’t be an alternative explanation.

30. In the conference BEYOND BELIEF, which speaker did you find tobe the weakest in terms of substance? Explain.

Steven weinbergs “ I think the world needs to wake up from it's long nightmare of religious belief. And anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in fact in the end by our greatest contribution to civilization.”
Is what won him the weakest in terms of substance for me. Weinberg constantly admits that his supposed scientific view he was providing alternative to the religious view he would contrast (not even including the fact that some of the religious views he contrasted with his scientific views are not representative of religion as a whole) were not universally accepted as “thee alternative” and “thee scientific” answer.

In the end I find this line of reasoning flawed and even dangerous if loosely interpreted or placed into the wrong hands.

31. What constitutes a scientific education according to Huxley?
Huxley primarily believed that a scientific education would explore a wide range of topics that included math and sciences as its center in order to understand and appreciate the other parts of education that should not be excluded but highlighted by the focus on the sciences.
Huxley taught that experience was crucial to a scientific education and that this was critical in understanding our lives and the meaning of the natural world around us. By understanding the laws of nature it would help to make the world a much more complete environment with a broader understanding.

32. Why is the book BELIEVER-SKEPTIC so critical of Ken Wilber and this thinking? Be specific in your answers

When Wilber makes such extraordinary claims such as “The Dawn Horse testament is, in essence, the greatest spiritiual book fo all time” the fact of the matter, the book’s author argues, Wilber does not know this and he cannot know this. I would add that this is a purely subjective claim. The same as one saying “I have the most beautiful wife in the entire world, no one has ever had a wife as beautiful as mine!”

Well, that’s great that you believe you have the most beautifully wife In the world and that no one has ever had a wife as beautiful as yours but how in the world could we possibly measure your subjective standards with our own?

It’s thinking like this that will cause a whole writers ideas to be brushed aside and rooted in emotional philosophies. This is the same thinking that keeps fundamentalist Christianity believing the world must have been literally created the way the book of Genesis describes.