6. I have watched most of the films/lectures thus far.
7. I read about 75% of Dawkins, all of Collins and most of the required online texts.
7. I read about 75% of Dawkins, all of Collins and most of the required online texts.
8. In Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, he comments on the anthropic principle and how it is misinterpreted by religious communities. He states, "I think the confusion arises in the religious mind because the anthropic principle is only ever mentioned in the context of the problem that it solves, namely the fact that we live in a life-friendly place" (Dawkins, 136). He goes on to explain that the principle does not, in the least, support the notion of an intelligent designer. He views it as an "alternative" to the God idea. Further more, a counterargument to those who mistake it to be evidence of the existence of God.
Francis Collins is clearly a subscriber to the idea that the principle is pure and unshakable evidence that God is real. To Dawkins, Collins is one of those "religious minds" who has got it all wrong.
Dawkins, being an atheist, would reject Collins faith as he does reject any kind of faith at all in a supernatural being or beings. He believes "believers" are ignorant and too concerned with protecting the "holiness" of their doctrines, rather than finding a reasonable explanation for things. On the topic of evolution (another touchy area between scientists and fundamentalists) Dawkins says, " I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence.. Books about evolution are believed not because they are holy. They are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence" (Dawkins, 282). This is how he would approach Collins as well. Dawkins would ask for evidence.
9. In response to Dawkins request for evidence in the existence of God, Collins would hold strong to the belief that the anthropic principle is enough evidence. In Collins' book, The Language of God, he gives three possible interpretations of the anthropic principle. The third, in which he has subscribed to, states " There is only one universe, and this is it. The precise tuning of all of the physical constants and physical laws to make intelligent life possible is not an accident, but reflects the action of the one who created the universe in the first place" (Collins, 75). The chances are so slim for our existence, there must be a God.
Collins would also ask Dawkins for "overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence" against the existence of God. In Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, he creates a spectrum of believers to non-believers, from strong theists to strong atheist. He claims to be a part of category six which is explained as a "De facto atheist: ' I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." Since Dawkins claims that religious minds live on the assumption that God exists, Collins would rebut that Dawkins' also lives on the assumption that he is not certain .
10. Littlewood's theory of large numbers states that through probability when dealing with large numbers, miracles naturally happen without an intervention of a supernatural power. He even goes on to state that through this probability, every human being should expect to have at least one miracle per month.
The definition of a miracle, "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause", suggests that these coincidences are beyond "natural powers", out of the ordinary and always due to divine intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littlewood%27s_law). Littlewood's theory debunks this whole idea, and explains that if numbers are large enough, miracles are actually quite common.
A good example of this is the lottery. The lottery deals with such slim chances that winners automatically attribute this miracle to be within God's plan. According to Littlewood, the number of participants is so high, based on his theory, someone has to win eventually.11. Pseudosciences are theories and methodologies that pose as sciences without actual, concrete scientific evidence. Two examples of pseudoscience include acupuncture and astrology.
Acupuncture is a Chinese medicine that claims healing through pressure points. These pressure points are throughout the body and and are pinned by small needles that are assumed to release compacted energy and thus induce healing. Astrology is,"based on the theory that the movements of the celestial bodies—the stars, the planets, the sun, and the moon—influence human affairs and determine the course of events" (http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Astrology). This is where horoscopes are derived, through the position of celestial bodies on the day of your birth.
Acupuncture is a Chinese medicine that claims healing through pressure points. These pressure points are throughout the body and and are pinned by small needles that are assumed to release compacted energy and thus induce healing. Astrology is,"based on the theory that the movements of the celestial bodies—the stars, the planets, the sun, and the moon—influence human affairs and determine the course of events" (http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Astrology). This is where horoscopes are derived, through the position of celestial bodies on the day of your birth. Occam's razor states "plurality should not be posited without necessity" (http://skepdic.com/occam.html). Meaning, over-developing of theories by attaching assumptions is not condusive to real results. The simpler the explanation, the more likely it is to be true.
Pseudosciences, incuding the ones stated above, are mostly based on assumptions and according to Occam's razor should not be trusted. The American Medical Association commented on these alternative methods - "There is little evidence to confirm the safety or efficacy of most alternative therapies. Much of the information currently known about these therapies makes it clear that many have not been shown to be efficacious. Well-designed, stringently controlled research should be done to evaluate the efficacy of alternative therapies." (http://physiciansnews.com/commentary/997dv.html) William of Occam would most definitely agree. Pseudosciences push the limit and go beyond natural laws and physical constants that true science needs as a foundation to all its discoveries.
12. Darwinian's evolution makes atheism both respectable and tenable because it is the first explaination of the emergence of life without the need for supernatural powers. Atheistic individuals finally had some evidence to support their belief that intelligence was not necessarily due to divine intervention, but a natural progression through evolution. Natural selection and survival of specific mutations within our internal framework (genes) has led us to become who we are - an intelligent species.
Even though Darwin laid down the foundation of all atheists, he is still considered to be agnostic about God and Christianity - why? There are a few facts that can explain this phenomena - Darwin's daughter passed away at a young age and also his wife was a strict Christian. The influence of his upbringing and his wife's faith must have contributed to his agnostic side. Plus, he must have reached out to something upon the death of his daughter.
13. Richard Dawkins believes that religion is like a virus; a parasite that is not easily removed. Furthermore, he believes that religion does not benefit the advancement of mankind, but rather is a deterrent to the ultimate goal of separating oneself from the "crutch" of religion. He explains this through his meme theory. According to Dawkins, religion is like a meme, "a unit of cultural inheritance", and can be passed down inherently like genes (Dawkins, 191). Thus religion is so embedded in our "make-up" that it passed down as a parasite through generations, and nearly impossible to get rid of.
Dawkins' theory removes the "magical" element of certain revelatory religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism that claim that God has revealed the truth through their doctrines and practices. Dawkins would say no, you have been wired to believe in such nonsense.
14. Many religious believers, as you can imagine, "poo-poo" Dawkins notion as nonsense. Owen Gingerich, a scientist who also believes in intelligent design, would think that Dawkins approach to the universe discredits its complexity and the intelligence that created it. As a cosmologist Gingerich believes, "there is a God as a designer, who happens to be using the evolutionary process to achieve larger goals — which are, as far as we human beings can see, self-consciousness and conscience”(Floyd Interview). In this case Gingerich believes that God has created religion to improve, or induce growth, in the human capacity of intelligent design. To religious believers, religion is beneficial not destructive to the advancement of human beings.
(Chris Floyd. "Eyes Wide Open: An Interview with Owen Gingerich. Science and Spirit. Accessed Sept. 23, 2006. )
16. Stephen Jay Gould attempts to reconcile the neverending war between science and religion by introducing the NOMA principle. He believes that religion and science have the capability of getting along, as long as they stay in their own realms. The NOMA principle is explained in detail in his book, Rock of Ages - "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty" (Gould, 6). Thus meaning religion has an expertise in some areas, and science has an expertise in other areas; there is 
no need for either religion or science to attempt to explain all things.
no need for either religion or science to attempt to explain all things. Dawkins most definitely disagrees with Gould's NOMA principle because he believes that everything can be explained by science, including religion. Even unknown areas will eventually be explainable by science. Science to Dawkins is all encompassing. He also asks, "does the fact that science cannot answer it imply that religion can" (Dawkins, 56)? This question does not admit to Gould's theory that there are some things that science cannot answer, but to shoot down the ego that Gould has given religion as an expert in everything beyond science's reach.
I believe that Dawkins wins the debate because he gives a real answer. Gould seems to be living in a la-la land, beyond the reaches of conflict and confusion. The truth is science and religion will never stick to their own territory. Dawkins at least recognizes it, and then goes on further to substantiate his belief that science is far superior than religion.
(Stephen Jay Gould, 1999. Rocks of Ages. Ballantine Books)
(Dawkins, Richard, .The God Delusion. Bantam Press. Great Britian. 2006.)
17. Ontology is the study of the spiritual state of being, and neurology is the study of the physical state of being. When you say that these two studies should not be confused, in a way you are presenting a Gould approach to ontology and neurology. Neurology needs to stick to the physicality of being, and ontology needs to stick to the spirituality. So often, neurology tries to explain everything. But it is incapable of doing so. It can show brain activity, but not explain the personal experience. Experience and spirituality is beyond neurology's realm.
18. I do not believe that a reconciliation between quantum physics and theology will ever be possible, unless theology claims God's plan to be beyond their understanding. Obviously chance and randomness cannot reconcile with purpose and design, at least it is beyond our comprehension.
19. There are some people incapable of having spiritual experiences, and others that are more prone to having spiritual experiences. Faqir Chand is a sage who explains this phenomenon by 
stating that those who have dissociative disorders are less likely to have spiritual experiences. Some individuals just do not have the necessary hardware. He also explains that an individuals surrounding directly effects the kinds of visions that one has. This is because a vision is a bi product of our own mind, it isn't beyond our physicality although it may seem this way.
stating that those who have dissociative disorders are less likely to have spiritual experiences. Some individuals just do not have the necessary hardware. He also explains that an individuals surrounding directly effects the kinds of visions that one has. This is because a vision is a bi product of our own mind, it isn't beyond our physicality although it may seem this way. Sociologically, religious experiences tend to occur during times of high stress or despair. Religion can be used as a helpful funtion within society.
20. Nietzsche presents the idea of the here and now as the only eternal consequence. He presents the idea that there is no heaven and hell and the life that we are living right now is the only life we will live over and over and over into eternity.
He comments on the belief in afterlife in The Antichrist, "the pathetic thing that grows out of this condition is called faith: in other words, closing one's eyes upon one's self once for all, to avoid suffering the sight of incurable falsehood. I unearth this theological instinct in all directions: it is the most widespread and the most subterranean form of falsehood to be found on earth". He believes that looking beyond the here and now is like pissing on the here and now.
It is the antithesis to all religious notions of afterlife. This life is it! Live it and stop worrying about the consequences, because you have lived it before and you will live it again. It takes the pressure off; this mentality urges me to chill out.
(The Antichrist by Friedrich Nietzsche [http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm, Chapter 9)
21. Edward O. Wilson attempts to reconcile humanities and science to create a new realm of sociobiology; this synthesis is called consilience. Wilson explains his notion of consilience in is his 
book - Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, "most of the issues that vex humanity daily - ethnic conflict, arms escalation, overpopulation, abortion, environment, endemic poverty, to cite several most consistently before us - cannot be solved without integrating knowledge from the natural sciences with that of the social sciences and humanities". Wilson believes that in order to solve some of the world's most trying issues - the synthesis of humanities and science must converge. This convergence will not only benefit our physical environment, but also social environment.
book - Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, "most of the issues that vex humanity daily - ethnic conflict, arms escalation, overpopulation, abortion, environment, endemic poverty, to cite several most consistently before us - cannot be solved without integrating knowledge from the natural sciences with that of the social sciences and humanities". Wilson believes that in order to solve some of the world's most trying issues - the synthesis of humanities and science must converge. This convergence will not only benefit our physical environment, but also social environment.22. Dyson and Gingerich would take all of the scientific information that was presented in the Beyond Belief Conference and use it as evidence for the argument for intelligent design. With Gingerich as an astronomer, and Dyson as a mathematician they could twist the limited odds for intelligent beings as proof that God must of intervened and made it possible for us to exist.
23. Watson and Crick are two of the great scientists that together founded the double helix of 
DNA. So if I know that biological life can be understood reductively, why is the purpose of believing in a supernatural being? The answer is quite easy when tied into Francis Collins explaination of the wonders of genetics. Collins believes that DNA and genetics are insights into God's ultimate plan and sacred code of life. In his book The Language of God Collins mentions that this discovery gives us the ability to "peek into evolution's lab notebook and see what went on there". If one believes that evolution's notebook is also God's notebook - then the belief in a supernatural power becomes very important.
DNA. So if I know that biological life can be understood reductively, why is the purpose of believing in a supernatural being? The answer is quite easy when tied into Francis Collins explaination of the wonders of genetics. Collins believes that DNA and genetics are insights into God's ultimate plan and sacred code of life. In his book The Language of God Collins mentions that this discovery gives us the ability to "peek into evolution's lab notebook and see what went on there". If one believes that evolution's notebook is also God's notebook - then the belief in a supernatural power becomes very important. 24. My favorite reading in this class, thus far, has been The Language of God, by Francis Collins. 
Of course it is an easier read than Dawkins, but I really enjoyed it because of the experience he shares as a scientist who also has faith in God. He struggles in a highly atheistic work setting, as a main leader in the Human Genome Project. I have been able to relate to his experience as an individual interested in both the scientific and spiritual world. He gives hope of a world where science and religion/spirituality will benefit each other, rather than contradict. Although he does not provide any concrete evidence or methods to truly harmonize science and religion, outside of his own beliefs, I still enjoyed reading his wishful thinking and see it is a charming novel.
Of course it is an easier read than Dawkins, but I really enjoyed it because of the experience he shares as a scientist who also has faith in God. He struggles in a highly atheistic work setting, as a main leader in the Human Genome Project. I have been able to relate to his experience as an individual interested in both the scientific and spiritual world. He gives hope of a world where science and religion/spirituality will benefit each other, rather than contradict. Although he does not provide any concrete evidence or methods to truly harmonize science and religion, outside of his own beliefs, I still enjoyed reading his wishful thinking and see it is a charming novel.25. This question relates to number 17. Science is an extension of the senses, but this extension can not always explain the change in states of consciousness, or "states of being" known as 
ontology. Science uses neurology as a means of peeping into the brain to view its activity, but it cannot explain the state of consciousness that the brain enters. For example, a neurological test can be done on an individual who has mastered meditation. The test can show that in this state the brain activity has decreased significantly, but cannot explain the experience of the state that the brain has entered.
ontology. Science uses neurology as a means of peeping into the brain to view its activity, but it cannot explain the state of consciousness that the brain enters. For example, a neurological test can be done on an individual who has mastered meditation. The test can show that in this state the brain activity has decreased significantly, but cannot explain the experience of the state that the brain has entered.26. The most interesting thing that I have learned thus far in this class is how naive our culture is when it comes to technology. It is true - we are entertaining ourselves to death! I was sincerely scared after the GPI lecture. We are becoming a transparent world filled with psychic beings. We jump to the opportunity of sharing information about ourselves over the Internet; this can be seen with the popularity of myspace, facebook and other bloggers. Even I am guilty of nursing my myspace page to death, I try to personalize it as much as possible. But I never stopped to think of what I really am participating in. We forget, at least I do, that things are irreversible once posted on the Internet; everything I've done, searched, posted is permanently accessible to the public. And soon there will be a super, hand-held device that can compile all this information and assign profiles, making "private" information, public. And, everyone will have the chance to "see through" people before properly meeting them.
