Religion and Science midterm

Keven Sandoval

November 2010

Religion and Science

Midterm

1. NAME: Keven Sandoval

2. USERNAME: kevensandoval1@yahoo.com

3. Web site (or blogger) address: http://kevensandoval.blogspot.com/

4. Attendance: how many classes have you missed? How many have you been late to?

I have not missed nor have been late to any classes.

5. LIST all of your posts (you can copy and paste them here, if you wish, or
provide a link to all of them)

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.

6. Have you watched all of the required films/lectures, etc., so far?

I’ve watched over two thirds of all the required films and lectures.

7. Did you do the required reading? Did you partially read them? If so, how much?

I’ve at least partially read all the required reading, most of them in their entirety.

8. How would an atheist critique a theist's argument the existence of God? Be
specific and be sure to reference your chosen reading.

Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion is a very popular source of contemporary atheist ideology. Dawkins calls religious belief in God (the God hypothesis) a delusional virus like notion. The belief in God is a completely false belief that persists even though it is challenged by strong conflicting evidence. In Dawkins previous book The Blind Watchmaker he uses the theory of evolution by natural selection to explain the apparent design quality of the universe. Dawkins places an emphasis on arguing against the intelligent design idea. He states that attributing a designer to the world only changes the question to who designed the designer.

An earlier philosopher, Bertrand Russell, conjured up the analogy now known as “Russell’s teapot.” This analogy can serve as a critique on the existence of God and is mentioned by Dawkins. The teapot analogy states that one can not ultimately disprove the existence of a teapot in space, but such a claim would be considered ridiculous unless it was taught in Sunday schools to children and backed up by ancient texts. This correlates with the idea of religion as a virus. Russell’s analogy has become very popular and has spawned alternate versions.

Stephen’s Hawking’s latest book The Grand Design doesn’t necessarily have an atheist agenda, but it basically states how all the important questions of humanity regarding the universe and the origin of life can already be explained through science. An atheist can argue against the existence of God by constantly referencing science.   

9. How would a theist argue against the atheistic notion that a belief in God is
delusional? Again, be sure to reference your chosen reading.

Gathering from the notes I have taken in class, there are several ways a theist can go about arguing against the atheistic belief in God as a delusion. One such way is the idea of the “remainder.” In science, especially when dealing with astronomy or quantum mechanics, there is always a remainder left unexplained. In quantum mechanics for example, once scientists begin to study the structure of the atom, it gets to a point where they can’t quite answer the questions relating to what really small things are made of. All particles are made up of even smaller particles, an idea that could be considered infinite. In astronomy a theist can continuously ask “well what happened before that?” A theist would say that God is precisely that remainder. There will always be a remainder that can’t quite be explained, and that is God or “baby Jesus” as we have humorously called it in class.

Another way a theist can go about it deals with the idea of multiple dimensions. The concept of consciousness possibly being multi dimesional can not be disproved and the theory of multiple universes in quantum mechanics remains a possibility. Given these prospects, a theist can argue that science is perfect in trying to explain the world that we believe we perceive, but is rather useless when it comes to other possible dimensions; dimensions were God is completely real.    

10. How does Littlewood's theory of large number help explain miracles or
supposed divine coincidences?

Littlewood’s law is based on the theory of truly large numbers which states that if you have a really large sample size, extraordinary events will occur. In Littlewood’s A Mathematician’s Miscellany he goes on to define a miracle as something that occurs at a rate of about once every one million events. He defines an event rather loosely by saying humans experience one every second. With this unique definition of an event, he goes on to conclude that at this one event per second rate, humans should encounter a “miracle” once a month since it takes approximately 35 days for a million events to happen. The theory of very large numbers is useful in explaining how likely extraordinary events actually are.   

11. Discuss in this essay the pseudosciences: what are a couple of reasons
people turn to them and what are some key problems with them? Take two or more
pseudosciences and apply Ockham's Razor (define the term first) to them.

A simplified explanation of Occam’s Razor would be: when two or more arguments are being made, both giving the exact same declarations, the simpler one is superior.

Pseudoscience refers to beliefs or claims that try to pose as science or as scientific when in fact they have no actual scientific base or proper evidence. People turn to pseudosciences because of the human tendency to find comfort in confirmation. Humans seem to have a psychological inclination towards over generalizing, therefore making many pseudosciences successful in their mission.

Astrology is a popular example of a pseudoscience. The idea that the movement of celestial bodies correlates with human lives is an old tradition. An application of Occam’s Razor could show how the simple generalizations of the astrological claims could apply to anyone or anything.

Alternative medicines are another form of pseudoscience. Homeopathy, a diluted introduction of symptoms to healthy individuals for medical reasons is a popular branch of alternative medicine. Alternative medicine is successful by making traditional medicine seem weak and medicine companies are portrayed as uninterested in health and more concerned with financial gain. The simple explanation is that medicine backed by true scientific principles is ultimately more effective than the medicine being proposed in pseudoscientific ventures.

12. Why does Darwinian evolution make atheism both respectable and tenable? Why
was Charles Darwin agnostic about God and Christianity?

Atheism was not a very accepted notion in Darwin’s time. After Darwin’s publication of the Origin of Species, atheism became more of a reasonable idea. Darwin was successful in explaining how life and the universe came to be with several elegant theories. Natural selection can basically explain anything in many fields of study. All of these theories that were providing scientific answers for questions that humans have always had changed the way atheism was perceived. A creator wasn’t a necessity anymore. According to David Lane’s lecture, Darwin was agnostic about God because of the effectiveness of his studies and because of the effect that his ten year old daughter’s death had on him. After his daughter’s death Darwin questioned the purpose of a supernatural being more and more. 

13. Why does Richard Dawkins believe that religion is a virus of the mind? Be
specific in explaining meme theory and also explain why Dawkins' theory
contradicts certain revelatory religions, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?

Richard Dawkins came up with the term “meme” to show how everything can’t be rationalized by genetics and how some traits (beliefs, traditions, customs etc.) are passed on through cultural conditioning. Dawkins states that religion is a virus of the mind because ideas can replicate in our minds the same way genes replicate within our bodies. He goes on to say that humans think differently because of the fact that our individual psyches have been contaminated or restrained by specific aspects of our culture (family members, friends, media outlets). A meme refers to a certain type of unit involving this cultural influence. Dawkins, through the idea of meme theory, believes that religious ideals are passed on by infected donors. Children are especially fragile targets since they are too young to be able to think critically about certain things and ward off any information that is ultimately not factual. A child then develops a basic foundation enriched by religious beliefs. This foundation remains and makes people irrational even in the face of truth backed by evidence.

Revelatory religions are very powerful in infecting their ideals because they are generally perceived as good. They seem to establish good moral values and keep people in a righteous path. The fact that they speak of an ultimate doom coupled with this positive image is a successful strategy in convincing people to convert. Dawkins’ meme theory suggests that these are ultimately viruses which are negatively affecting people.

14. How would a religious believer respond to Richard Dawkins' notion that
religion is more akin to a mind parasite than an accurate description or
approach to reality? Clue: think of Owen Gingerich or Freeman Dyson, etc.

Religious believers would certainly argue against the whole mind parasite idea. Owen Gingerich and Freeman Dyson are believers of God and of the importance of religion in society. They would certainly not agree with Richard Dawkins “mind parasite” idea. Dyson believes that religion is a way of life and not focused on any specific set of beliefs.  They would argue that religion is a positive aspect of humanity. They would say that religion is an entity of control, happiness, and peace in a world of chaotic tendencies. Dyson and Gingerich would probably show evidence that supports these claims. There are some studies which intend to show the positive effect of religion in the world. There is an article online under the link http://www.psychosocial.com/IJPR_11/Positive_Effects_of_Religiousness_Yeung_Jerf.html that reviews specific empirical studies which intend to demonstrate religiousness’ positive side.

15. Here is the topic: How did the world come into being? In other words, how
was the universe created? Present two different set of answers to that question
based on a creationist who believes in intelligent design (even if partially
evolutionary) and one based on probability theory (think Wolfram, for instance)
and evolution. Be sure to be accurate to each perspective and be sure to
document your summaries. Finally, who do you think would present the most
persuasive answer/argument?

The theory of intelligent design basically states that specific features of the universe and living organisms are the cause of an intelligent “designer” and not a process of natural selection. Enthusiasts of intelligent design argue that the Big Bang’s initial conditions are too exact to be explained by science. Evolutionary theorists believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, but intelligent design claims that the actual conditions that allowed for it to occur are the role of an intelligent entity. For intelligent design believers, probability does not suffice in explaining the intricacy of our universe. In Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box the term “irreducible complexity” is defined as something that has a series of working parts all of which play a crucial role in the functionality of the object, therefore natural selection couldn’t have possible created a system that is irreducibly complex.

Probability theory is defined as a branch of mathematics that studies the likelihood of occurrence of random events in order to predict the behavior of defined systems” (www.thefreedictionary.com/probability+theory).  Stephen Wolfram is a proponent of probability theory and believes that it can explain virtually anything. Wolfram would say that everything could be mathematically computed. Wolfram has famously stated that the most complex systems can arise from the simplest set of initial rules. If that idea is placed in the bigger context of the creation of the world, Wolfram would say that nature is just playing out these possibilities and getting complex results. Wolfram has given many speeches and held many conferences (many of which can be found on youtube). He believes that people should open up to the idea of probability and computation as explanations for the apparent complexity of the universe. David Lane once said in class that if a set of monkeys were given typewriters, given enough time, they would eventually write all of Shakespeare’s works.

16. According to Stephen Jay Gould, religion and science can indeed get along.
Dawkins suggests the opposite. Elaborate on the Gould/Dawkins debate and who do
you think wins the discussion?

Stephen Gould does indeed believe that religion and science can co-exist peacefully, but he emphasizes a degree of separation within this coexistence. Gould believes that religion should play the role of morality while science can take care of the physical and factual terrain, so in essence, science and religion can coexist as two completely different domains. Gould called his views NOMA or non-overlapping magisteria.

            Dawkins on the other hand believes that religion and science can’t get along in any way. David Lane says that they are like pit bulls that can’t ever get along or collaborate with each other in any way. Dawkins has publicly disagreed with Stephen Jay Gould's notion of non-overlapping magisteria. In an interview with Time magazine he said: “I think that Gould's separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it's a very empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science” (www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-3,00.html).

            In my opinion Gould makes some very good points. Religion should not even be in the discussion when it comes to science. We shouldn’t expect the bible or any other ancient religious text to give us any kind of scientific answers. Religion and science have different roles for humanity. The problem is that religion and science will never be separate. It is not human nature to consciously separate these two subjects. In this sense Dawkins is completely right in my own opinion, and he wins the discussion because Gould’s ideas are essentially only valid in a hypothetical sense.

17. Why does your teacher repeatedly argue that it is naive (and most often
wrong) to "confuse neurology for ontology." Explain and give a specific example
to back up your essay.

Neurology deals with the study of the nervous system while ontology is the philosophical study of existence or reality. David Lane repeatedly argues that these two shouldn’t be confused because our neurological processes do not exactly determine our ontological state of being. Lane once argued extensively with Tom Floyd over his critique of Ken Wilbur on evolution; in this intellectual argument Lane states that “there is a potential danger in conflating our neurological states of being with ontological states of reality… There is no doubt that we have "inner" experiences, but the question that is key is how we interpret them. That I believe is still up for grabs.”

18. Quantum theorists have discovered that the only accurate way to describe the
subatomic world is by probabilities, particularly as outlined by Werner Heisenberg and his principle of uncertainty relations. How can a physical understanding of the world based on
chance/randomness/chaos be RECONCILED with a theological view that the universe
was designed and displays purpose? Or, is such are conciliation impossible?
Substantiate your argument.

Quantum mechanics is a vast subject that is comprised of many theories dealing with both science and philosophy. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle basically states that certain pairs of physical properties can’t be surely known at the same time. Position and momentum is a physical property of main concern to quantum mechanic scientists. The more accurately and precisely one property is known, the less accurately the other can be measured. The specific action of the electron is a fundamental part of quantum mechanics, and according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle it is impossible to simultaneously know the electron’s position and momentum with a good degree of accuracy

This concept means that the only way to ultimately describe the behavior of matter is through probability. The conciliation of this principle with a theological view of the universe is most definitely possible. This notion is perfect for a theological person. A theist could say that only God can understand the world without chance, and that this uncertainty principle is an example of our limits as humans; “God is alive at the subatomic level,” theists should love quantum mechanics for many reasons.

19. In what specific ways does Faqir Chand help to explain WHY certain people
have religious experiences and others do not. How does Faqir Chand's view of
religion underline or buttress a purely sociological view of religion as meaning function?

Faqir Chand believes that religious experiences are ultimately based on sociological contexts. Chand’s views remind me of Carl Jung, one of my favorite philosophers, who said that some people tend to have a connection with their collective consciousness. What they are trying to say is that some religious believers have sought and continue to seek for a religious experience, and that this search can define their experience. Some people are naturally driven to utilize concepts of religion and the religious experiences that come with them as a meaning function. Chand’s views on religion underline the sociological take on religion because sociology is the basis for why and how religious experiences occur to some.  

20. What is Nietzsche's notion of the myth of the eternal return and how could
such an idea potentially transform one's day to day life? In what ways is it
completely contrary to religious notions of an afterlife?

Nietzsche speaks of the myth of eternal return in the Gay Science and creates a generally optimistic idea around it. This myth was not actually invented by Nietzsche himself as it had been around in Eastern philosophy and even in pre-socratic and Stoic Greek philosophy, but he definitely brought it back to a permanently popular position after the spread Christianity had practically forced the idea to obscurity. The myth is now usually spoken of in conjunction with Nietzsche as Borges does when he analyzes it one of his short stories.

The myth of eternal return deals with the idea that time is cyclical and infinite, that is, that our world and lives as we know them will continuously reoccur infinitely. In the Gay Science Nietzsche first acknowledges the potential negative connotation of such an idea, but then goes on to explain how positive and beautiful such a cyclical reality could be as long as that life that is being continuously lived is a fulfilling one. This idea ties along with Nietzsche’s idea of the Übermensch or overman which deals with the idea of living a prosperous life after the death of god which could potentially cause nihilism; therefore the idea of eternal return could transform one’s day to day life by causing an awareness and consciousness that the one life you are living should be lived to the fullest in correlation with your own particular idea of “fullest.”

This idea is completely contrary to all religious notions of an afterlife because it places all the importance on the present life on earth instead of the one that some religions believe occurs after death. This concept has humanist tendencies (humanist in the antique and renaissance notion) giving man a more prominent position than god since it teaches to live life as if it were all you will always have instead of treating life as a sort of gateway to a better afterlife.     

21. Why is Edward O. Wilson arguing for a consilience between the humanities and
the sciences?

Edward Wilson believes that both the humanities and the sciences are essentially trying to demonstrate the human search for knowledge and understanding of the universe. Wilson believes that is it completely counterproductive for the humanities and the sciences to clash as if they were ultimately two completely distinct academic areas.

In the contemporary digital age of information society seems to be inclining towards the sciences because its practical characteristics seem to be more productive and impacting on the world. I was personally rather stunned when reading Stephen Hawking’s latest book The Grand Design because he says that philosophy is dead on the first page. He may have been using this hyperbolic notion to further emphasize how much science has advanced as of late, but the fact that he decided to attack philosophy in such a way is another demonstration on how the humanities are under attack nowadays. The humanities are extremely important! The humanities keep the empirical sciences on their toes. The creativity, imagination, and pure talent that emanates from the humanities is essential to humanity and it can’t be measured empirically because it transcends the physical laws of the universe. Both the humanities and the sciences compliment each other, and they should coexist harmoniously. 

22. How would Freeman Dyson and Owen Gingerich respond to skeptics in the Beyond
Belief Conference?

Dyson and Gingerich would sure have their hands full at the Beyond Belief Conference. They are both proponents of religion as a positive and important aspect of society. They would highlight the positive ideals of religion and how it has to do more with a specific way of life and not just a series of beliefs. They would probably question the reasoning behind skeptics and their goals. David Lane mentioned “why would you try to make someone fall out of love.” They would also question the ultimate validity of the claims made by skeptics. 

23. If biological life can be understood reductively, as Watson and Crick have
suggested, what necessity is there to posit a belief is a Supreme Creator? Be
sure to back up your argument with pertinent references and/or quotes.

According to the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science “A reductionist believes that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts. An account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. An antireductionist believes that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. There are holistic properties that cannot be described in purely constituent terms” (http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/104.asp).

This is certainly an appealing description of complex systems, but a proponent of religion would debunk this prospect and claim that it is a cheap and minimal explanation of the complexity that is our world. A reductionist approach to the big bang for example, could be criticized as being a cheap description since there is a big gap in terms of the initial conditions of the big bang that are better explained with a supernatural creator. There are always gaps and remainders that allow for the belief in the necessity of a supernatural entity.

23a. How can the movie, A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, be explained in light of
evolutionary theory and consciousness as a virtual simulator?

The film A Matter of Life and Death  can certainly be explained in light of evolutionary theory and consciousness as a virtual simulator. The fact that the protagonist Peter survived a major accident is predicated by the events that happened between him and Jane as the plane was falling. Evolutionary theory states that the laws of the universe want us to stay alive and reproduce. Peter stays alive because he fell in love with Jane. David Lane gave examples of near-death experiences in class. In all stories of near-death experiences, the person does not die and the image they see prior to regaining consciousness has to do with something they really love or want. This is basically what happens to Peter. He does not die because he loved Jane and it was something to live for. Peter’s virtual simulator displayed Jane in his mind and kept him alive and away from the other world where he now supposedly belongs.

24. Who won the Einstein-Bohr debate about quantum theory and its implications?
How does J.S. Bell figure in the outcome?

The Einstein-Bohr debates dealt with quantum theory and its interpretations and implications. Bohr ended up winning the debate since the Copenhagen interpretation he supported is now the standard. The Copenhagen interpretation claims that the particle’s state before it is being observed and measured is unknown and completely dependent of the observer. The unmeasured particle is simultaneously in multiple states.   

Albert Einstein discovered the EPR paradox which demonstrated the connection between quantum theory and relativity. J.S Bell then resolved the inconsistency with his own theorem now called “Bell’s theorem.” The theorem states that “no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem). These studies proved to be very significant because they proved that all quantum theories must contravene, “either locality or counterfactual definiteness.” Bell’s experiments point to the idea that that quantum theory isn’t locally causal and it can’t be rooted into local causal theories.

25. In the article "Is My I-Phone Conscious?" how can it help justify a belief
in higher forms of consciousness beyond the rational mind?

This is an excellent article that provides several possibilities regarding higher forms of consciousness beyond the rational mind. The Ramana example is quite powerful stating that “The dream is happening because of the waking state brain (in another realm) not the apparent dream brain which looks to be generating awareness from itself and from its extended environment. Ramana’s ultimate point is a very simple one. While it may seem to overwhelmingly clear that the dream brain causes the dream world, the fact is that a transcendent state of being is its real cause and origination” (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtc2FjbWFnYXppbmVzfGd4OjFmNDRlODdiYzZlYjFhNmE).

There is an interesting anecdote about the flexibility of our consciousness and how that may ultimately point to higher forms of consciousness beyond. We have never experienced these higher states of consciousness therefore we must “adopt a stance of honest humility and openness than succumb prematurely to absolute statements or theorizing which in the end causes much more harm than good.”

26. How does the article "The Voyage Within" give credence to the argument that
inner visions are sophisticated hallucinations?

The article “The Voyage Within” basically explains how our “inner visions” are a result of our brain recalling or portraying our own experiences. There is a prime example on how these inner visions are just sophisticated hallucinations. A study was done where subjects were put under the influence of drugs. The subjects were then asked to meditate, and after the meditation process 26 people went on to say that they saw the same vision. It was a vision of an eye and a number. The researchers then noticed that this image was in a slide of the powerpoint presentation they had given prior to the commencement of the experiment. They then concluded that these visions were mental projections of something that had been previously demonstrated.  (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtc2FjbWFnYXppbmVzfGd4OmYzOGFiYTNhNDIyYmFiZg).

27. Is Consciousness physical? Explain your reasoning with pertinent quotes.

As far as I know, consciousness is definitely physical. In Francis Crick’s 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis Crick states that "a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them." Consciousness is an idea that is usually left for Philosophers and religions to explain, but it has now become a scientific concern. If Occam’s razor is applied, it is much simpler to affirm that consciousness is physically based. While doing some research on the matter I found an intriguing quote by David Lane that talks about a personal experience that triggered some thoughts on the physical nature of consciousness. He loss his sense of smell because of surfing and says: “Now, while my olfactory experiences seemed to border on the numinous… the fact remains that it was a purely physical event that triggered them. “…it felt as if my experiences were not at all physical in the mundane sense of the term. The experience seemed to transcend it neuronal and nostril origins. Yet, I know that all such experiences were generated from physiological structures within my own body” (http://www.integralworld.net

/lane4.html).

28. So far, what is your favorite reading 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. 

29. Is there anything that science cannot explain? Give one example and
substantiate your views

There are many things that science cannot explain, and good scientists would agree that certain things are not completely understood yet. Essentially, things that are either really small or really big can’t be fully explained by the sciences. In quantum mechanics for example, many aspects of it aren’t fully understood. Matter is understood through probabilistic notions, and not definitive ones. M-theory is a series of theories that practically try to explain everything, but there is always that remainder that will always exist. When it comes to astronomy and the vastness of our universe, there is no way science could ever explain things that are way beyond our reach and we seem to be limited by the speed of light. If multiple universes and dimensions exist, how can the science of this world ever explain anything that’s going on in those other worlds. As Socrates famously said, we ultimately don’t know anything, religions included.   

30. What is the favorite thing you learned so far?

My favorite thing so far is probably the way that natural selection can explain so many seemingly sophisticated characteristics of our world. I had never studied natural selection in this light. Natural selection is usually explained through certain species and other scientific ideals, but it is much more interesting when you analyze the subject in terms of sociology, psychology, and other disciplines. The complicated nature of our world (at least it seems complicated to us) seems to diminish when studying natural selection in this way; it is a very enjoyable approach.  

EXTRA CREDIT:
31. Why was Clarence Darrow agnostic?

Darrow once said that “the fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom. The fear of God is the death of wisdom. Skepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom.” Darrow had an issue with humans believing in things that can’t be mentally perceived. Darrow seems to define reality as mental perception, and since God can’t be accurately perceived (what is perceived are images created by man), he must not be relevant. Darrow was a proponent of having an open mind, and believed that religious beliefs are dogmatic and narrow-minded.