religion and science final

REAL NAME: Keven Sandoval

USER NAME: kevensandoval1@yahoo.com

Website address: http://kevensandoval.blogspot.com/

Name of your movie and some details concerning how you made it:

 The movie was not required.

Attendance: how many classes missed? how many classes tardy?

I was never absent or late. 

MIDTERM GRADE: what grade did you finally get on the midterm?

I got an “A” on the midterm.

POSTS: list all of your posts.

message #3733 Re: response to richardwang1989 about digital language

yeah its like when the cave man discovered fire. Where it came from he didnt
know but he knew how to use it untill he got burned.

--- In sciencereligion@yahoogroups.com, "kevensandoval1" <kevensandoval1@...>
wrote:
>
> Awesome take on the digital world! What strikes me as ironic and hilarious is
that we ourselves created this digital language and yet we do not fully
understand it. Not only can we not explain nature (ie. wood) but we can't even
explain the things we create ourselves. So maybe creation doesn't require
complete knowledge of what is being done, therefore making things happen
accidentally. So then everything that happens, is in a way, an accident.
>

message #3918 I was driving earlier today and I saw an ad on a bus that contained a bible
quote. I'm not exactly sure of what the ad was about since the bus was driving
away, it had something to do with some humanist group, but the quote seemed very
interesting so I looked it up once I got home. It was 1Timothy chapter 2 verses
9-15. It talks about the role of women and some ethical concepts. Here it is:

"9Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and
discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10but
rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to
godliness. 11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire
submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over
a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then
Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell
into transgression. 15But women will be preserved through the bearing of
children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."

Isn't this a rather strange quote?! Is there a rational explanation for this?
Maybe something got lost (or added) in translation here because it seems to be a
pretty blatant sexist notion.

RESEARCH PAPER: provide link.

My research paper is titled Scientology, Dianetics, and the E-Meter: A Scientific Deconstruction. I have sent it to you as a Word document because it isn’t in a practical format for blogspot.  

Write a 500 word or more essay critiquing a religious or paranormal
claim using the tool of science. You may also wish to critique a
scientific claim using religion.

---------------------------------------------------

1. Did you read all of the required books for this class? Be specific
about how many pages for each book, etc.

I read most of the books, magazines, and articles in their entirety. I did skim through a select few that didn’t appeal to me that much, but I still made an effort to read enough so I at least understood the gist of them. Both the midterm and the final forced me to look over any material that I had overlooked. 

2. What was your favorite book and why?

While surfing through the world of the neuralsurfer I came across a discussion on Occam’s razor and there was continuous mentioning of the book Rational Mysticism by John Horgan, so I ordered it on Amazon for one cent. I must admit that I haven’t got through the whole thing just yet since I’ve been incredibly busy with school work but it is truly an amazing read. There are so many wonderful short stories and awesome descriptions of experiences. I guess I really like the fact that Horgan tries to incorporate everything as he searches for meaning and analyzes the clash between science and religion. Horgan talks about many religions and incorporates many scientific theories, and there is even a part on meme theory. I love the collection of interviews with many different kinds of religious people. This worldwide perspective on the matter of science and religion really demonstrates how humans collectively approach the subject. 

CHOOSE8 15 QUESTIONS FROM THE FOLLOWING (3 TO 31a):

3. (question 1) What does Nietzsche mean by the transvaluation of values and what
does this idea have to do with our concept of morality?

Nietzsche approaches the concept of morality and values through a philosophical approach that is ultimately concerned with ethics. His transvaluation of values idea says that every moral value began as immoral; religion is the force that dictates the positive or negative nature of a specific moral value. According to Nietzsche, these interpretations of values by religion (“morality”) are instituted to make human action (a very unpredictable precept) as predictable as possible, therefore making people beneficial to them as they see fit.

What does this have to do with our concept of morality? Nietzsche once stated: “there are no facts, only interpretations,” therefore our concept of morality is a filtered perception. Our concept of morality is the product of our mental conditioning and linguistic limits.

4. (question 2) Give one specific example of what some may regard as morally right
or good and then argue how Nietzsche may argue the opposite. Be sure
to pick an example that would correlate with Nietzsche's transvaluation of values.

This idea of reversing morality perceptions through Nietzsche’s transvaluation of values notion is interesting in the sense that, if carefully analyzed, any seemingly good moral concept can be effectively deconstructed. The concept of divorce is an excellent example. Divorce is now generally conceived as a fundamental right for anyone that is married; the freedom to divorce and get out of a marriage that an individual deems unworthy is perceived as practically right and ultimately moral, but this is a rather recent phenomenon. Divorce has had a long history of being immoral and unlawful. Changes in perception of morality are directly correlated with social, educational, and sometimes even scientific development. The concept of Robin Hood is another example, since it can be argued that it is a way justifying stealing. During class, David Lane talked about the book Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens which completely dismantles the moral and philanthropic image of mother Teresa who is certainly a personality that is never associated with immorality. The fact that anything can practically be dissected and argued against in terms of morality demonstrates the overall precision of Nietzsche’s notion of morality as pure interpretation.    

5. (question 3) Why isn't Bertrand Russell a Christian? Substantiate your argument.

            Bertrand Russell wrote an article titled Why I am not a Christian where he explains why he doesn’t believe in God and the concept of immorality. Russell first talks about the theist arguments for the existence of God and finds rational counterarguments that he believes need to be mentioned. The part of the article that really seems to explain why he truly isn’t a Christian is the section on morality and the section on emotion. Russell argues that Jesus’ belief in eternal damnation or hell is completely immoral. Russell delineates the defective nature of Christianity’s moral code. He concludes by summarizing his views and outlines the overall picture of Christianity and its erroneous role in the world. He ends the article very eloquently stating that the world “needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.”

6. (question 4)  How would C.S. Lewis answer those who argue that there is no
evidence for a God, particularly a Christian one?

According to C.S. Lewis, the existence of God is evident through the idea of a universal morality, that is, as human beings; we have an innate understanding between right and wrong. This is primarily evident (presumably) through the idea that a very similar ethical code is present throughout the world: a general ethic congruence that differs only through specific cultural variables. Lewis believes that this moral code could not be self-evolved through natural selection or other scientific interpretations; therefore this universal awareness has been implanted in us.  Thus, if god did not exist, it would be impossible to transfer this moral consciousness.                  His argument for the existence of a Christian god is grounded on the (in my opinion) weak rationale that God must be real since he was willing to die for his beliefs. Essentially, the only two ways to explain Jesus is that he either told the truth or was a lying, and since he was willing to sacrifice his life, he must have been telling the truth. This argument fails to consider that our beliefs are not always based on the truth: just because people fight for something does not mean that it is correct, and there is a fundamental difference between fighting for the truth and fighting for what we think is the truth.

7. (question 5) How does evolution help us to better understand WHY science arose
in the first place? And why religion arose in the first place?

More and more evidence is being gathered around the idea that we are pre-designed and have evolved for meaning systems: we are designed to project. This is why religion arose and has always existed.                                                                                                                                      Science arose because it enhances humans’ chances of survival when competing within different cultures and communities. Those who are more scientifically sophisticated are better competitors. In class, David Lane stated that one could also go so far as to argue that without science, we could not exist. It is our inclination to test and experiment our limitations and capabilities that allow us to learn and live. Relying on religion rather than reason in our everyday lives would pose a life threatening problem.

9. (question 6) What is science according to Feynman? How does his definition
differ from more normative explanations?

            Feynman believes that science is not exactly only about proving things right, but about leaving a trail of erroneous data caused by experimentation. This differs from normative explanations which infer that this data shouldn’t exist or should be discarded in some way. David Lane made the analogy of the current state of education. He said that education would be more effective if the students were allowed to fail, that is, the true stance of their knowledge was open to the instructor. There should be no hiding of data that doesn’t seem to fit the hypothesis. The data that doesn’t correlate well with the hypothesis should be published and ultimately considered one of the most important parts of any experiment. Feynman believed that that should be the spirit of true science: the ability to be wrong.

10. (question 7) How would Feynman critique the current "intelligent design"
movement? Be specific and see if you can relate Feynman's notion of
science in your critique.

The problem with intelligent design (originally called “biblical creationism) is the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with science although it tries to pose as so. The proponents of intelligent design are ultimately trying to push forward Christian doctrine. Feynman would say that intelligent design could in fact be a science if it continuously tried to prove itself wrong. Feynman would ask the intelligent design proponents to test their own claims and observe results empirically; he would ask them to be continuously skeptical of their own hypothesis.

11. (question 8) Why is agnosticism or even atheism so appealing to authors like
Dawkins, Russell, and Nietzsche? What is the lure of non belief?

            Uncertainty and non-belief is becoming more and more appealing, and practically accepted amongst the newer generations. “Atheism is a pelvic thrust to Christianity:” it is the rebellious notion that lets you do what you want to do. People who are raised religious are fundamentally restricted in many ways; to be completely against that restrictive quality of religion is a very alluring prospect. Authors like Dawkins, Russell, and Nietzsche are naturally inclined to rational thought and the seeking of knowledge; non-belief is extremely alluring to people with these qualities.

12. (question 9) How can religion, according to your teacher (and the lecture that
dealt with this), survive the onslaught of reason? What does religion
have to do to "win" the science-religion battle?

            There are two fundamental changes that must occur within religion in order to survive. First and foremost, religion must admit defeat on certain issues: the ideology proposed centuries ago can not possibly keep up with modern reason, and this ultimately means that religion must evolve. Evolution and adaptation is the second change that must occur. Religion does not need to win or beat reason, it just needs to survive, and adaptation is the way to do so.  

15. (question 10) In your opinion, where can science help religion?

I believe that Science could potentially help religion in several ways. In most academic arenas, science is a well respected academic source for information while religion is deemed as a series of beliefs not backed by any substantial evidence. Religion is only backed by the faith of its followers. Religion would be considered more of a reliable source if it adapted some of the empirical processes of science. If the claims of religion weren’t always demonstrated as being absolute facts, religion would be more successful.

            The problem with these ideas is that it would never happen. Religious individuals will never collectively agree to test their claims scientifically to further understand anything. Science could help religion, but it probably never will.

16. (question 11) In your opinion, where can religion help science?

I truly believe that religion can not help science in any way. I’ve searched for answers to this question all over the web and really can not find a good argument. There are several attempts online, but none convinces me. I believe that science does not have the answers to everything, and I even believe that there may be some sort of supernatural entity, but I don’t believe that any human has or has had the capability of describing this entity. There probably is no God, but if there is, no one knows what this God is like or if this God has anything to do with us, and since we do not know and probably can’t ever know, it just isn’t relevant in the present moment, which is all that really exists.

21. (question 12) Taking Plato's apology as your key, how do you think Socrates
would resolve the current impasse between science and religion?

            It must first be stated that all that is known about Socrates comes from the writings of Plato, Xenophobon, and a few other sources since he himself was opposed to writing. Some critics even go as far as to say that Socrates is a character invented by Plato. There are some generally accepted view and anecdotes on Socrates. The story goes that Socrates was proclaimed as the wisest of men not because he knew everything, but because he was aware of his ignorance. He went around town asking people essential life questions and realized that no one knew the answers, and that no one was aware of their ignorance. Socrates would resolve the impasse between science and religion by concluding that in the end no one knows anything. If both scientists and religion proponents agreed that they ultimately don’t really know, the discussion would probably be more fluent and effective.

24. (question 13) In MYSTERIUM TREMENDUM (the magazine and video presentation), your teacher argues that the science/religion conflict is mostly a linguistic confusion over the term "matter." Do you think this is true? Why or why not?

            I definitely believe this is true. This is a very interesting argument that can be expanded into many other fields. It reminded me of my studies on structuralism and post-structuralism which deal at large with the issue of language and the limitations it produces. Lane’s argument about how the scientific descriptions of matter are not in any way dull or of nihilistic quality is very interesting because it can potentially provide a bridge for science and religion. Our perception of reality is completely dependent on our linguistic capabilities, so the science and religion argument can definitely be a product of linguistic confusion.  

26. (question 14)Is Francis Crick correct that we will never find the soul because
it doesn't exist?

            No, Francis Crick is not correct about never finding the soul because it doesn’t exist. First of all, what is the definition of the soul? Many different people have different definitions of what the soul is, so this vastness in definition variability poses a fundamental problem. The nonexistence of a soul can not be proven, and it will probably not be proven any time soon because the soul might exist in another dimension, or in one of the probable multiple universes, no one really knows.

29. (question 15) In the future, how can we have a more fruitful and a more civil
conversation on the subject of science and religion? What should be
the guidelines, if any?

            This question seems to be directly correlated with the one about Socrates. A more fruitful conversation can be achieved if both sides agree that human beings are ultimately incapable of truly knowing anything completely. Once this concept is established, the egotistic and selfish notions of the science/religion argument would dissipate.

____________________

31. What was the most interesting thing you learned this semester?
What was your favorite film?

The concept of quantum mechanics was rather unclear to me prior to this class, and I was very interested in learning about it since what I had read and heard sounded fascinating. My understanding of quantum physics has grown, and more importantly, the implications of quantum mechanics are clear and really interesting to me. I also loved the lecture about evolution and how it can be utilized to understand many complexities of our world.

My favorite film was the one on Faqir Chand and his thoughts. The film is really well made and it makes some very good points about the nature of religion and religious experiences.