Name: Jessica Henley
Username: Treelubr
Website: http://befree42.blogspot.com/
Movie description: My movie is titled Take One Minute To Be with God. I took some short clips and photos from archive.com and strung them together with text. I also included some mellow background music. The finished product turned out to be a short meditation film, allowing the audience to slow down and focus outside of the hustle and bustle.
Attendance: 5 absences/ No tardy
Midterm Grade: A
Posts:
Username: Treelubr
Website: http://befree42.blogspot.com/
Movie description: My movie is titled Take One Minute To Be with God. I took some short clips and photos from archive.com and strung them together with text. I also included some mellow background music. The finished product turned out to be a short meditation film, allowing the audience to slow down and focus outside of the hustle and bustle.
Attendance: 5 absences/ No tardy
Midterm Grade: A
Posts:
charan the guru
I believe the exposition of human nature in any person following a rigorous spiritual lifestyle, especially a guru, is essential in teachings. How could anyone learn and relate to a "teacher" that shares nothing in common with them? How could a teacher describe his/her path to enlightenment, salvation, acceptance, peace (whatever you want to call it) without mentioning the demons they had to face. If I came across a God or guru floating off the ground and claiming to have reached the heavens or nirvana, but had no understanding of greed, jealousy, hatred, envy, loneliness, dishonesty, vanity, etc. - I would have no interest in following that individual. I mean, I would be stoked for them - but not likely to just hang around and watch 'em float. I loved the analogy of the guru entering a brothel and all but one of the disciples leaving. It is by accepting imperfection that one can find perfection.
The difference between Spirituality and Religion
I was brought up in a Christian family. My dad is a Lutheran and my mom claims to be a "non-practicing Catholic" (whatever that means). I went to Catholic school K-8th grade and by the time I entered high school I started questioning my faith. I started wondering how so many religions can truly believe that their way is the only "right" way. I mean, dont you find this a little odd? I do believe in a higher power but I try not to label myself as one kind of religious believer. I pick and choose areas of tradition and ritual that I believe bring me closer to God. I guess I tend to practice a spiritual lifestyle rather than a religious one. I try to "feed" my spirit by being helpful to others, and believe that whatever brings good into people's lives is of the divine. I have always been confused by the distiction between a spiritual lifestyle and a religious one? What are your opinions as to the difference between spirituality and religion?
Richard Dawkins and his levels of atheism
In Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, he breaks down atheism into different levels. I have never thought of atheism in this way. Atheism to me was simply the complete lack of belief in a supernatural power. But according to Dawkins, people can sort of not believe in God. He raises the point that scientists can choose not to believe in God based on the lack of evidence, but they do not have the means to entirely disprove the notion of God. This is completely true - among all the theories and laws of the universe and how it works, there isn't anything to disprove the existence of God. With this awareness atheist scientists are as guilty as religious fundamentalists when it comes to putting the blinders on. I tend to gravitate towards Francis Collins and his idea that religion and science do not always have to be at odds with each other. He uses his scientific background and knowledge to prove the awesomeness of God.
Morality and Religion
wrote: > > Listening to the lecture about the nature of morality, and where > exactly it comes from, really opened my eyes to the truth of it all. > I believe that human beings have an innate sense of morality, whether > its living in the deep forests of Africa, or in New York city. Now, > to ask if eachother's morals were different, well, that's something to > talk about. > It was interesting to correlate religion to "creating morals," or > having a great impact on what exactly is right or wrong. But, I don't > think that religion has been the basis of what people think is right > or wrong. But, that opinion is all based on what you believe. As for > me, I don't believe that the Bible set the rules for mankind, on how > we should act and how we shouldn't act. Lane said it perfectly: who > knows if jealousy, gluttony, greed, and anger did in fact, help humans > evolve into the beings that they are today. Now, is that such a bad > thought? Absolutely not. That just goes to show that the "bad" > morals are in some ways, good. Lane also said something that has > stuck with me. Has the morals that the Bible has put into writing > been created in order to "control" our inhumane way of living? Does > God really think we're all that bad? Why is it that religion always > has to be the answer to everything? > Morals are innate and natural. It all depends on your upbringing. If > you were raised in a very conventional Muslim household in > Afghanistan, there is a very good possibility that your morals will > differ from someone who grew up in Brooklyn, New York. We all have to > do things to survive...so why should morals be the deciding factor in > what we do? We have to do what is right for us, and not rely on some > book to tell us otherwise. Hope that makes sense...I feel like I > blabbed a little. K thanks! > --- In sciencereligion@yahoogroups.com, "bored0education" > wrote: > > > > With knowledge come ethics and laws that create a false sense of > > morality disconnected from the natural state in which man is born. It > > is not enough to be a human machine, blindly trailing a set of rules > > that promise eternal happiness. Ethics and morality are nothing if we > > do not have the ability to choose to say no. > > Without an option to deny it, morality is meaningless. > > Happiness is a product of knowledge; the knowledge that the good and > > the bad will both meet at the same end. Death is the final equal and so > > far, no proof has been offered that choosing to be bad is inferior over > > the choice of good. To suggest that morality is a required element of > > existence is absurd. In the end, whether people are good, bad or > > indifferent, no one will be in any better or worse shape then any > > others. It is meaningless to do; however, the only choice any of us can > > make is to live a moral life. > > > > GZ > > > " name=message>
I really enjoyed your post. This past class session was by far my
favorite, because I could actually follow the topics being
discussed.
I also lean toward the notion that morality is something that humans
are naturally born with. Religion is not necessarily the creator of
the moral lifestyle. If you think about it, human beings are the
creators of religion, so in order to create a structured, moral
environment we must have been born with the sense of right and
wrong. I guess one could counter argue that religion is divinely
inspired and thus not the result of human actions, but rather God
working through humanity - like it was stated before it just depends
on what you believe. But God would still be utilizing a being that is
made with faults such as jealousy, greed and hatred - and faith
along cannot rid human beings of these traits.
Lane brought up the idea that morals, such as the ten commandments
have been used as a way of controlling people. I do not reject this
idea either. We tend to forget that humans run religion and the
history of religion is not squeaky clean. I remember being 5 years
old and sitting in an office in St. Mary's Catholic church with my
mom. The priest told us that we could not attend church unless we
made a monthly donation to the church. At the time my mom was a
single parent trying to make ends meet and we did not have the funds
to contribute monthly payments to the church. So the priest denied
us worship due to the lack of money that we had. From that moment on
I have been a skeptic of organized religion. I still believe that
religion can influence society on micro and macro levels positively,
but any form of power can be abused. I think it is healthy to doubt
ones faith and continue to evolve in ones faith of a supernatural
power.
Gingerich - a scientist with faith
Owen Gingerich is a very interesting man. He believes the very complexity of the universe is pure proof of a divine desinger. I find it intriguing that a man so active in the scientific world can continue to hold on to a background of faith. I guess I've always believed that one must choose to be either a scientists or a theologian; there is no middle ground. Gingerich shattered my assumption. Knowledge and faith can be personalized to fit one's own belief system.
Gingerich discusses the anthropic principle in generalities. He touches on the absence of a stable mass of 5 in the periodic table and also some of the constants that are essential in the make-up of our planet for life to be present.
My science is a little rusty so it is hard for me to follow most of the scientific topics discussed, but what I did get from this conversation is that many elements and conditions have to be "just right" in order for life to be present. Many qualities of our planet were specifically designed to harvest new lifeforms. Now the real question is - was there a supernatural mind behind the make-up of our world? Gingerich would say - yes.
I agree. There is a reason why the universe is so complex, and there is a reason why we have the capability of understanding it on some level.
The complexity suggests divine intervention.
Hawkings - Big Bang Theory
This film comments on deep questions. Has the universe always been around? Who created the universe? What created the universe? Are we expanding? I like how it discusses these large questions that are approached by people from both religious and scientific backgrounds. I found it most interesting that the individual who proposed the big bang theory turned out to be a Catholic priest! I can only imagine what Einstein's initial reaction was once finding out that the big bang theorist was of a religious background.
1. I read most of what was assigned, although I only skimmed through The Autobiography of a Yogi and The Apology by Plato. I ran out of time with all the demands of my other classes to give them both a thorough reading. Which bums me out, because the Autobiography of a Yogi is something I would have dedicated much time to.
2. I enjoyed all of the books that we were assigned this semester. The Language of God was my favorite until I read Feynman’s book – The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. He has the ability to talk about matters scientific without loosing the heart. Let me expand on that – Feynman is a brilliant scientist who has the ability to offer his experience of scientific discoveries. He does not talk in purely scientific jargon. For example, when he discusses his first experience with building the atomic bomb, there is a sense of naivety and ignorance that exudes from his writing, until he reveals the weight he felt once the bomb was put into use. Feynman’s transition from ignorance to awareness humanizes this glorified physicist; it reminds the audience that even scientists, among their brilliance, are human.
3. Nietzsche believes that morality is merely a manipulative technique to control masses of people. He introduces the theory of “slave-morality”, the idea that the concepts of “good” and “evil” were constructed by slaves and less fortunate people in order to gain power from those who were wealthy and powerful. They do this by claiming “charity” and “piety” to be “good”.
Despite Nietzsche’s “far-out-ness” with this theory, upon further investigation I find his understanding of morality to be accurate. Whoever makes up an ethical boundary gains power from it. Like Nietzsche, I asked myself – who benefits from this set of morals? The lawmaker continuously benefits.
It’s extremely ironic to view morals as immoral, but this is the angle that he presents us. He has a strong desire to rid of all contemporary understandings of morals, and reconstruct a “naturalistic” set of ways. Nietzsche states, “All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses” (1). Thus explaining why he looks only to science to formulate a moral compass. He speaks of “transvaluation of values” in The Antichrist, stating that we, as free-thinking human beings, should decipher what is virtuous from within, not from forces outside of self.
3a. Nietzsche does not like Christianity because it embodies the concept of morality in which he most despises. As stated above, according to Nietzsche, morals should come from within self, not from without self. And Christianity is a moral pressure outside of self.
He goes so far to say, “After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands” (1). This statement is shocking because humans tend to think that a “religious man” is the holiest of them all. But Nietzsche strongly disagrees and is not worried about shocking people. My guess is Nietzsche would recommend a good dose of voltage to zap out our old ideas on virtue.
Nietzsche can be seen as Toto from The Wizard of Oz. He has pulled the curtain on Christianity.
1 Nietzsche, Fredrick. The Antichrist, 1888. (http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm).
4. One example is church. People who are Christian are strongly urged to attend church every Sunday. There is a specific time set aside for baskets to be passed around so that money can be collected from the congregation. At first notice, this action seems harmless, but upon further investigation the way in which this is done does not seem “right”.
The baskets are passed publicly so that everyone can see you either put in a dollar or not put in any money at all. I have been subject to this pressure before. Why does this donation have to be publicized? When I do offer up a dollar or two, I almost want to hold it in the air and show it off; look at me everyone I am contributing! But when I don’t have any money to give, I feel guilty and pass the basket quickly in hopes that no one will notice. My self-worth is attached to the amount of money that I donate to the church. Why and how did this happen?
Nietzsche would answer this by saying the holy men wrote up the service this way to play upon your moral code. They turned this action of “giving” into a public affair to manipulate your moral code and used the feelings of guilt and shame as means to control you and force you to financially contribute to the church.
5. Bertrand Russell did not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a good man, nor did he believe that religions, including Christianity, are helpful to the human race in the least. Jesus preached of a God that was by virtue loving, but would send anyone to eternal hell if he/she did not believe. Russell believes that religion promotes dependency and fear.
In his essay Why I Am Not a Christian Russell comments, “Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. […] A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men” (1). I believe Russell is stating that he sees religion as a crutch; something that we feel we can rely on. Something that we feel that we need based on fear of going to hell.
1 Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays. 1957. (http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)
I believe the exposition of human nature in any person following a rigorous spiritual lifestyle, especially a guru, is essential in teachings. How could anyone learn and relate to a "teacher" that shares nothing in common with them? How could a teacher describe his/her path to enlightenment, salvation, acceptance, peace (whatever you want to call it) without mentioning the demons they had to face. If I came across a God or guru floating off the ground and claiming to have reached the heavens or nirvana, but had no understanding of greed, jealousy, hatred, envy, loneliness, dishonesty, vanity, etc. - I would have no interest in following that individual. I mean, I would be stoked for them - but not likely to just hang around and watch 'em float. I loved the analogy of the guru entering a brothel and all but one of the disciples leaving. It is by accepting imperfection that one can find perfection.
The difference between Spirituality and Religion
I was brought up in a Christian family. My dad is a Lutheran and my mom claims to be a "non-practicing Catholic" (whatever that means). I went to Catholic school K-8th grade and by the time I entered high school I started questioning my faith. I started wondering how so many religions can truly believe that their way is the only "right" way. I mean, dont you find this a little odd? I do believe in a higher power but I try not to label myself as one kind of religious believer. I pick and choose areas of tradition and ritual that I believe bring me closer to God. I guess I tend to practice a spiritual lifestyle rather than a religious one. I try to "feed" my spirit by being helpful to others, and believe that whatever brings good into people's lives is of the divine. I have always been confused by the distiction between a spiritual lifestyle and a religious one? What are your opinions as to the difference between spirituality and religion?
Richard Dawkins and his levels of atheism
In Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, he breaks down atheism into different levels. I have never thought of atheism in this way. Atheism to me was simply the complete lack of belief in a supernatural power. But according to Dawkins, people can sort of not believe in God. He raises the point that scientists can choose not to believe in God based on the lack of evidence, but they do not have the means to entirely disprove the notion of God. This is completely true - among all the theories and laws of the universe and how it works, there isn't anything to disprove the existence of God. With this awareness atheist scientists are as guilty as religious fundamentalists when it comes to putting the blinders on. I tend to gravitate towards Francis Collins and his idea that religion and science do not always have to be at odds with each other. He uses his scientific background and knowledge to prove the awesomeness of God.
Morality and Religion
wrote: > > Listening to the lecture about the nature of morality, and where > exactly it comes from, really opened my eyes to the truth of it all. > I believe that human beings have an innate sense of morality, whether > its living in the deep forests of Africa, or in New York city. Now, > to ask if eachother's morals were different, well, that's something to > talk about. > It was interesting to correlate religion to "creating morals," or > having a great impact on what exactly is right or wrong. But, I don't > think that religion has been the basis of what people think is right > or wrong. But, that opinion is all based on what you believe. As for > me, I don't believe that the Bible set the rules for mankind, on how > we should act and how we shouldn't act. Lane said it perfectly: who > knows if jealousy, gluttony, greed, and anger did in fact, help humans > evolve into the beings that they are today. Now, is that such a bad > thought? Absolutely not. That just goes to show that the "bad" > morals are in some ways, good. Lane also said something that has > stuck with me. Has the morals that the Bible has put into writing > been created in order to "control" our inhumane way of living? Does > God really think we're all that bad? Why is it that religion always > has to be the answer to everything? > Morals are innate and natural. It all depends on your upbringing. If > you were raised in a very conventional Muslim household in > Afghanistan, there is a very good possibility that your morals will > differ from someone who grew up in Brooklyn, New York. We all have to > do things to survive...so why should morals be the deciding factor in > what we do? We have to do what is right for us, and not rely on some > book to tell us otherwise. Hope that makes sense...I feel like I > blabbed a little. K thanks! > --- In sciencereligion@yahoogroups.com, "bored0education" > wrote: > > > > With knowledge come ethics and laws that create a false sense of > > morality disconnected from the natural state in which man is born. It > > is not enough to be a human machine, blindly trailing a set of rules > > that promise eternal happiness. Ethics and morality are nothing if we > > do not have the ability to choose to say no. > > Without an option to deny it, morality is meaningless. > > Happiness is a product of knowledge; the knowledge that the good and > > the bad will both meet at the same end. Death is the final equal and so > > far, no proof has been offered that choosing to be bad is inferior over > > the choice of good. To suggest that morality is a required element of > > existence is absurd. In the end, whether people are good, bad or > > indifferent, no one will be in any better or worse shape then any > > others. It is meaningless to do; however, the only choice any of us can > > make is to live a moral life. > > > > GZ > > > " name=message>
I really enjoyed your post. This past class session was by far my
favorite, because I could actually follow the topics being
discussed.
I also lean toward the notion that morality is something that humans
are naturally born with. Religion is not necessarily the creator of
the moral lifestyle. If you think about it, human beings are the
creators of religion, so in order to create a structured, moral
environment we must have been born with the sense of right and
wrong. I guess one could counter argue that religion is divinely
inspired and thus not the result of human actions, but rather God
working through humanity - like it was stated before it just depends
on what you believe. But God would still be utilizing a being that is
made with faults such as jealousy, greed and hatred - and faith
along cannot rid human beings of these traits.
Lane brought up the idea that morals, such as the ten commandments
have been used as a way of controlling people. I do not reject this
idea either. We tend to forget that humans run religion and the
history of religion is not squeaky clean. I remember being 5 years
old and sitting in an office in St. Mary's Catholic church with my
mom. The priest told us that we could not attend church unless we
made a monthly donation to the church. At the time my mom was a
single parent trying to make ends meet and we did not have the funds
to contribute monthly payments to the church. So the priest denied
us worship due to the lack of money that we had. From that moment on
I have been a skeptic of organized religion. I still believe that
religion can influence society on micro and macro levels positively,
but any form of power can be abused. I think it is healthy to doubt
ones faith and continue to evolve in ones faith of a supernatural
power.
Gingerich - a scientist with faith
Owen Gingerich is a very interesting man. He believes the very complexity of the universe is pure proof of a divine desinger. I find it intriguing that a man so active in the scientific world can continue to hold on to a background of faith. I guess I've always believed that one must choose to be either a scientists or a theologian; there is no middle ground. Gingerich shattered my assumption. Knowledge and faith can be personalized to fit one's own belief system.
Gingerich discusses the anthropic principle in generalities. He touches on the absence of a stable mass of 5 in the periodic table and also some of the constants that are essential in the make-up of our planet for life to be present.
My science is a little rusty so it is hard for me to follow most of the scientific topics discussed, but what I did get from this conversation is that many elements and conditions have to be "just right" in order for life to be present. Many qualities of our planet were specifically designed to harvest new lifeforms. Now the real question is - was there a supernatural mind behind the make-up of our world? Gingerich would say - yes.
I agree. There is a reason why the universe is so complex, and there is a reason why we have the capability of understanding it on some level.
The complexity suggests divine intervention.
Hawkings - Big Bang Theory
This film comments on deep questions. Has the universe always been around? Who created the universe? What created the universe? Are we expanding? I like how it discusses these large questions that are approached by people from both religious and scientific backgrounds. I found it most interesting that the individual who proposed the big bang theory turned out to be a Catholic priest! I can only imagine what Einstein's initial reaction was once finding out that the big bang theorist was of a religious background.
1. I read most of what was assigned, although I only skimmed through The Autobiography of a Yogi and The Apology by Plato. I ran out of time with all the demands of my other classes to give them both a thorough reading. Which bums me out, because the Autobiography of a Yogi is something I would have dedicated much time to.
2. I enjoyed all of the books that we were assigned this semester. The Language of God was my favorite until I read Feynman’s book – The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. He has the ability to talk about matters scientific without loosing the heart. Let me expand on that – Feynman is a brilliant scientist who has the ability to offer his experience of scientific discoveries. He does not talk in purely scientific jargon. For example, when he discusses his first experience with building the atomic bomb, there is a sense of naivety and ignorance that exudes from his writing, until he reveals the weight he felt once the bomb was put into use. Feynman’s transition from ignorance to awareness humanizes this glorified physicist; it reminds the audience that even scientists, among their brilliance, are human.
3. Nietzsche believes that morality is merely a manipulative technique to control masses of people. He introduces the theory of “slave-morality”, the idea that the concepts of “good” and “evil” were constructed by slaves and less fortunate people in order to gain power from those who were wealthy and powerful. They do this by claiming “charity” and “piety” to be “good”.
Despite Nietzsche’s “far-out-ness” with this theory, upon further investigation I find his understanding of morality to be accurate. Whoever makes up an ethical boundary gains power from it. Like Nietzsche, I asked myself – who benefits from this set of morals? The lawmaker continuously benefits.
It’s extremely ironic to view morals as immoral, but this is the angle that he presents us. He has a strong desire to rid of all contemporary understandings of morals, and reconstruct a “naturalistic” set of ways. Nietzsche states, “All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses” (1). Thus explaining why he looks only to science to formulate a moral compass. He speaks of “transvaluation of values” in The Antichrist, stating that we, as free-thinking human beings, should decipher what is virtuous from within, not from forces outside of self.
3a. Nietzsche does not like Christianity because it embodies the concept of morality in which he most despises. As stated above, according to Nietzsche, morals should come from within self, not from without self. And Christianity is a moral pressure outside of self.
He goes so far to say, “After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands” (1). This statement is shocking because humans tend to think that a “religious man” is the holiest of them all. But Nietzsche strongly disagrees and is not worried about shocking people. My guess is Nietzsche would recommend a good dose of voltage to zap out our old ideas on virtue.
Nietzsche can be seen as Toto from The Wizard of Oz. He has pulled the curtain on Christianity.
1 Nietzsche, Fredrick. The Antichrist, 1888. (http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm).
4. One example is church. People who are Christian are strongly urged to attend church every Sunday. There is a specific time set aside for baskets to be passed around so that money can be collected from the congregation. At first notice, this action seems harmless, but upon further investigation the way in which this is done does not seem “right”.
The baskets are passed publicly so that everyone can see you either put in a dollar or not put in any money at all. I have been subject to this pressure before. Why does this donation have to be publicized? When I do offer up a dollar or two, I almost want to hold it in the air and show it off; look at me everyone I am contributing! But when I don’t have any money to give, I feel guilty and pass the basket quickly in hopes that no one will notice. My self-worth is attached to the amount of money that I donate to the church. Why and how did this happen?
Nietzsche would answer this by saying the holy men wrote up the service this way to play upon your moral code. They turned this action of “giving” into a public affair to manipulate your moral code and used the feelings of guilt and shame as means to control you and force you to financially contribute to the church.
5. Bertrand Russell did not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a good man, nor did he believe that religions, including Christianity, are helpful to the human race in the least. Jesus preached of a God that was by virtue loving, but would send anyone to eternal hell if he/she did not believe. Russell believes that religion promotes dependency and fear.
In his essay Why I Am Not a Christian Russell comments, “Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. […] A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men” (1). I believe Russell is stating that he sees religion as a crutch; something that we feel we can rely on. Something that we feel that we need based on fear of going to hell.
1 Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays. 1957. (http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)
6. C.S. Lewis believes that all human beings are inherently born with moral law. That is - the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. God instilled this sense of knowing in ALL human beings. Lewis argues this internal compass cannot be dissected by scientists; that it is beyond the scientific world. Thus the name “internal”, it can only be recognized from within, not by external observation. This serves as proof of God for C.S. Lewis.
Scientists would argue that all nature is observable and dissectible. As Dawkins says, even though the nature of all things has not been discovered yet, does not mean it can’t be discovered.
C.S. Lewis would rebut with the argument that God created nature. Thus the brilliance of nature is proof of God.
Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. 1943. (http://www.lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt).
7. Evolution explains that whatever traits and beliefs that humans possess in present time have all served the human race. Anything working against the progression has been or will be weeded out in natural selection. This goes for religion and science as well. If religion and science didn’t give humans some advantage for survival, than we wouldn’t have latched onto them.
Religion brings meaning into people’s lives. It explains patterns, and gives many people a reason to live. For example, Christianity promises a glorious afterlife for those who believe and accept Jesus Christ into their hearts. Christians thus have hope; although things aren’t peachy on earth, at least I have eternal bliss to look forward to. With Hinduism – certain practices resulting in good karma can have a positive influence on your present life, and also into your next rebirth.
These truths bring hope and motivation that benefit the survival of human beings. Eliade refers to our species as homoreligious – we have an inherent need to practice a religion. If this weren’t true, we would have ditched religion a while ago.
Science is a practical tool that helps explain the unknown. Our species is driven to figure out how things work. Somehow this gives us an advantage to survive. We become more efficient.
We have a prime directive to duplicate ourselves, and whatever facilitates this duplication is supported by evolution. Science and religion are two aspects of human life that happen to assist our growth.
8. Feynman believes that there are many cargo cult sciences that imitate science without “established knowledge” (187). This definition would include pseudosciences such as phrenology, astrology and aromatherapy. These sciences are based on partial evidences.
Phrenology believes that bumps on an individuals scalp can point to certain personality traits. This “science” is based on a non-established belief that the bumps directly correlate with the brain and can be used as prediction.
Astrology is based on the non-established belief that the position of the stars on an individual’s day of birth can predict personality traits and predispositions to life.
Card reading is a “science” based on the non-established belief that the chance of picking up specific cards leads to a message the universe is intentionally sending in order to see into the future.
These cargo cult sciences are based on beliefs that have not been properly observed.
9. According to Feynman, science is “the result of the discovery that it is worth while rechecking by new direct experience and not necessarily trusting the race experience from the past” (185). This is not a normal definition because Feynman shys away from normal definitions. He does not claim that they are not useful, but he does claim that people tend to teach definitions rather than the substance behind the definition.
Much of his understanding of the scientific world relates to the experiences he had with his father while growing up. His father would try to teach through observation rather than dishing out definitions.
This is exactly how Feynman conducts his scientific explorations; he explores, or observes. In his definition of science he encourages people to not take scientific discoveries by face value. If any area of science is valuable it must be continually checked for accuracy. To Feynman, the best way to prove is to try your hardest to disprove, and that is what “rechecking” is all about.
10. Feynman would scoff at those supporting the Intelligent Design movement. The entire movement is based on unsubstantiated beliefs. They believe because they believe, not because there is any evidence for this theory against natural selection.
As stated above, Feynman believes that to prove anything one must try their hardest to disprove it. Those supporting the Intelligent Design movement ignore evidence against their belief. In that case, Feynman would dismiss all of their beliefs as assumptions, not truth.
Feynman, Richard. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. 1999.
11. As a culture we have become more rational, and with the rise of a new method of thinking, skeptics are more widely accepted. Dawkins, Russell and Nietzsche not only have a voice, but also a voice that is heard.
It has become their goal to debunk old ideas and induce skepticism among the masses.
12. In order for religion to “win” any battle against the onslaught of reason, it must first claim its territory. The one thing that religion has over science is experience. Religion is a first person experience, and at best science is a 3rd person experience.
Rationality, which is the domain of science, can only try to reduce a religious experience into nothing. But, religion owns the experience itself, and any assumptions made by science only turn out to be assumptions.
No claims can be made unless experience is lived.
13. Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called God is Not Great. He started having doubts at a young age when first introduced to religious environments. He believes that religion does not help society, but rather “poisons” it.
According to Wikipedia.com, Hitchens has four main arguments in his book. These arguments state that religion: “misrepresents the origins of humankind and the cosmos, demands unreasonable suppression of human nature, inclines people to violence and blind submission to authority, and expresses hostility to free inquiry” (1). Hitchens is not a fan of organized religion, to say the least.
Hitchens argument against religion as an institution demanding the “suppression of human nature” sounds very much like Nietzsche’s argument against morality according to religion. It becomes clear to me that most organized religions attempt to tame the masses by putting them against themselves. In other words, making humans feel like their nature is wrong and evil, and in order to purify – religion must be practiced.
I think that I am forever influenced my Nietzsche’s view on morality.
14. Fundamentalist groups find evolution to be such a contentious issue because it is strong evidence against many of their beliefs. Plus, evolution is now a scientific fact that is widely accepted which makes their creationist beliefs sound unconvincing.
These Fundamentalist groups also feel poisoned with doubt. If they didn’t doubt their own beliefs, they wouldn’t have an issue with evolution. If fundamentalists did not feel threatened, evolution could coexist with fundamentalism peacefully.
To doubt the beliefs you have built your entire life around is a shocking and scary experience that no one necessarily asks for; it just happens and someone has to get blamed for it. So, fundamentalists blame evolution for making them question their own truth.
15. There are many times you have mention this class is not against religion, just against bad
explanations. I too believe that most religious groups have bad explanations for their beliefs. This is where science can help religion. Science can influence religion to become more rational in their explanations.I believe the existence of God becomes more believable when there is a synthesis between scientific discoveries and faith. Francis Collins attempts to do this is his book The Language of God. The level of complexity in which nature works can be seen as proof for a supernatural power.
For example, for Christians, could incorporate the theory of First Cause, in the Big Bang Theory.
16. As far as religion helping science – God can take the blame for anything that goes “wrong” in the scientific worldJ.
Religion can broaden the horizon for science, and push scientists to think outside of the box. It could also bring humility to the scientific world; maybe there are some things that cannot be explained scientifically.
17. Yogananda dedicates much of his autobiography to the explanation of miracles. In chapter 13 of his book Autobiography of a Yogi, he mentions several miracles he has heard of, or witnessed along his journey.
One miracle includes a family member; his aunt discovers a materialized herb in her palm after meditating and fasting in a cave over the sickness of her uncle. This herb rids her uncle of his sickness.
He also speaks of Ram Gopal, who is named the “sleepless saint”, this man has performed many miracles, two of which Yogananda witnessed.
Rom Gopal is capable of seeing outside of the present moment, and beyond the boundaries of his direct environment. Prior to meeting Gopal Yogananda visit a sacred space and chose not to bow in reverence. Gopal spoke of this when meeting Yoganada, even though he was not physically present during this time.
Upon Yogananda’s departure from Gopal’s village, Gopal cures a chronic back pain that Yogananda has suffered from for many years. Gopal cured with the power of his mind.
Obviously, these miracles would be deduced to fallacies through skeptic critique. There is no way a skeptic would accept herbs materializing out of thin air. Instead the critic would deduce this experience down to self-induced malnutrition leading to the delusion that an herb materialized out of nowhere. Additionally, the uncle’s health would not be attributed to the herb.
The skeptic would also believe that Gopal’s psychic abilities are due to scouts who become his eyes around the villages, and report the happenings back to Gopal.
As far as Gopal healing Yogananda’s back, the skeptic would not accept this either. They would present other theories, such as the kink in his back was worked out through all of the walking he did through the villages, or some of the yoga positions help realign the disks in his back, or Gopal slipped some pain killers into the tea.
The Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda [http://www.ananda.org/inspiration/books/ay/1.html]
18. Mysticism is a controversial issue, among many others, that has been debated between both by science and religion. Even more specifically controversial is the perennial philosophy of mystical experience. Perennial philosophy is a belief that mystical experience can transcend the physical world and reach consciousnesses separate from one’s epistemology and ontology.
There are two individuals that I researched for this topic – Steven Katz and Huston Smith. Katz is a sociologist that takes on a skeptical, scientific view of the perennial mystical experience. Huston Smith takes on the religious view, supporting the idea that mystical experiences can indeed transcend the physical world. Through these two separate view points one can see where science and religion butt heads on this topic.
Steven Katz is a firm believer that mystical experience is entirely affected by one’s epistemological background. In his article Language, Epistemology and Mysticism, Katz states that “all experience is processed through, organized by, and makes itself available to us in extremely complex epistemological ways” (Katz, 26). To him, epistemology not only consists of one’s religious background, but cultural background as well. It is the context, framework and mediate in which the experience is had.
To give an example of how “beliefs shape experience, just as experience shape beliefs”, Katz provides an analogy of a famous artist, Monet, while painting the cathedral - Notre Dame. Katz explains, “Monet ‘knew’ Notre Dame was a Gothic cathedral, and so ‘saw’ it as a Gothic cathedral as testified to by his paintings which present Notre Dame with Gothic archways” (30). The only problem is that, on close examination Notre Dame has more of a Romanesque influence with more rounded archways. So Katz’s point declares that although Notre Dame has rounded archways, Monet “saw” them as pointed, or more Gothic, merely because of the belief he had prior to the creation of this painting (Katz, 30). Monet’s belief directly influenced the image that he had. This applies to Katz theory that the ideas and influences that are collected prior to experience, create the experience that one has.
Katz is very skeptical when it comes to mystical experience, just from reading his work I get the feeling that he doesn’t even really believe in mystical experience itself. So naturally, he is unconvinced if the possibility of a metaphysical experience.
Huston Smith does not dismiss the idea that epistemology shapes the way that mystics “see”, but that “metaphysical intuition” is beyond that which influences. In other words, a mystics’ “vision” transcends all epistemology backgrounds. Smith approaches this in an article titled Is There Perennial Philosophy?. He states, “Mystics in their Introvertive moments invoke a fourth kind of knowing that rises above sensations, images, and concepts, all three” (556). Smith even directly approaches Katz argument for epistemology by stating, “Katz may not believe that this fourth mode of knowing occurs, but nothing in his argument proves that it cannot” (557).
To furthermore justify his argument he provides the reader with the analogy of hunger -”Does the fact that an Ethiopian's hunger is mediated by his African context cause it to differ from mine to the point where it throws international famine relief into question?” (558). Of course, this analogy provides some sarcastic relief, but it also strongly supports Smith’s argument. Even though two people come from opposite sides of the globe, there are some experiences that can be shared; like hunger, mystical experience transcends the social influences that surround it.
Obviously, Smith takes on the religious role. He believes in that which cannot be proved or disproved. This is polar opposite to Katz and his skeptic approach; skeptics need evidence in order to have the slightest belief.
So how can skeptics and believers find a common ground? I believe they both need to stick to their own territory, but at the same time have respect for the theories and beliefs of unknown territory. Science does not need to prove that religion is wrong, and religion does not need to prove that science is ignorant. They both need to continue and maybe one day their discoveries will connect and common ground will be found.
Katz, Steven. “Language, Epistemology and Mysticism” in, Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978)
Katz, Steven. Mysticism and Religious Traditions. New York: Oxford University Press. 1982)
Smith, Huston. “Is There a Perennial Philosophy?” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Autumn, 1987)
Smith, Huston. Forgotten Truth. (New York: Harper & Row, 1976)
There are two individuals that I researched for this topic – Steven Katz and Huston Smith. Katz is a sociologist that takes on a skeptical, scientific view of the perennial mystical experience. Huston Smith takes on the religious view, supporting the idea that mystical experiences can indeed transcend the physical world. Through these two separate view points one can see where science and religion butt heads on this topic.
Steven Katz is a firm believer that mystical experience is entirely affected by one’s epistemological background. In his article Language, Epistemology and Mysticism, Katz states that “all experience is processed through, organized by, and makes itself available to us in extremely complex epistemological ways” (Katz, 26). To him, epistemology not only consists of one’s religious background, but cultural background as well. It is the context, framework and mediate in which the experience is had.
To give an example of how “beliefs shape experience, just as experience shape beliefs”, Katz provides an analogy of a famous artist, Monet, while painting the cathedral - Notre Dame. Katz explains, “Monet ‘knew’ Notre Dame was a Gothic cathedral, and so ‘saw’ it as a Gothic cathedral as testified to by his paintings which present Notre Dame with Gothic archways” (30). The only problem is that, on close examination Notre Dame has more of a Romanesque influence with more rounded archways. So Katz’s point declares that although Notre Dame has rounded archways, Monet “saw” them as pointed, or more Gothic, merely because of the belief he had prior to the creation of this painting (Katz, 30). Monet’s belief directly influenced the image that he had. This applies to Katz theory that the ideas and influences that are collected prior to experience, create the experience that one has.
Katz is very skeptical when it comes to mystical experience, just from reading his work I get the feeling that he doesn’t even really believe in mystical experience itself. So naturally, he is unconvinced if the possibility of a metaphysical experience.
Huston Smith does not dismiss the idea that epistemology shapes the way that mystics “see”, but that “metaphysical intuition” is beyond that which influences. In other words, a mystics’ “vision” transcends all epistemology backgrounds. Smith approaches this in an article titled Is There Perennial Philosophy?. He states, “Mystics in their Introvertive moments invoke a fourth kind of knowing that rises above sensations, images, and concepts, all three” (556). Smith even directly approaches Katz argument for epistemology by stating, “Katz may not believe that this fourth mode of knowing occurs, but nothing in his argument proves that it cannot” (557).
To furthermore justify his argument he provides the reader with the analogy of hunger -”Does the fact that an Ethiopian's hunger is mediated by his African context cause it to differ from mine to the point where it throws international famine relief into question?” (558). Of course, this analogy provides some sarcastic relief, but it also strongly supports Smith’s argument. Even though two people come from opposite sides of the globe, there are some experiences that can be shared; like hunger, mystical experience transcends the social influences that surround it.
Obviously, Smith takes on the religious role. He believes in that which cannot be proved or disproved. This is polar opposite to Katz and his skeptic approach; skeptics need evidence in order to have the slightest belief.
So how can skeptics and believers find a common ground? I believe they both need to stick to their own territory, but at the same time have respect for the theories and beliefs of unknown territory. Science does not need to prove that religion is wrong, and religion does not need to prove that science is ignorant. They both need to continue and maybe one day their discoveries will connect and common ground will be found.
Katz, Steven. “Language, Epistemology and Mysticism” in, Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978)
Katz, Steven. Mysticism and Religious Traditions. New York: Oxford University Press. 1982)
Smith, Huston. “Is There a Perennial Philosophy?” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Autumn, 1987)
Smith, Huston. Forgotten Truth. (New York: Harper & Row, 1976)
19. Wilber believes only mystical religion can be scientifically justified in the post-modern era because science prior to this era was “narrow”. “Narrow Science” only accepts evidence from the lowest state of consciousness. Post-modern era introduced, “broad science” which allows evidence from mystical states. This transition from “narrow” to “broad” is a result of evolution. Not only do beings evolve, but so do their scientific and spiritual capabilities.
Wilber’s theory is not necessarily strong, although it attempts to unify science and religion by claiming they share common ground now.
I think Wilber limits his argument to claiming that any experience outside of mystical cannot be explained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber
21. Socrates would push religion and science individually to their limit and prove both are ignorant in over-confidence.
Socrates would not claim that he knows anything, and by asking question after question allow science and religion to realize they don’t really know anything either.
He would ask science, “How do you know your scientific method is the truth?” If science retorted with,” We have conducted many experiments that prove our truth.” Socrates would push the subject further by asking, “How do you know the results of your experiments are true?” Until science would realize that it doesn’t have the capability of REALLY proving anything.
This method would be used with religion as well. Socrates would ask religion, “How do you know your belief is the one and only truth?” Any answer that is given would be questioned over and over again until religion is left with the knowing that they don’t know of not knowing.
[http://www.constitution.org/pla/apology.htm]
22. I do not believe that spiritual experiences are reducible down to neuroscience. Neuroscience can attempt to explain why people feel the way they feel during spiritual experiences; it is even quite fascinating to see how technology can detect the movement of the brain. But, neuroscience is incapable of reliving the experience; technology can only be a spectator. And, neurological results can only be deduced to educated guesses.
23. The debate between D’Souza and Shermer was definitely “won” by D’Souza. This isn’t to say that Shermer did not do a good job, but in my opinion, D’Souza had a stronger argument.
I was most intrigued by D’Souza’s theory on modern science being an evolution of theology. He mentions two main points of evidence: the universe is rational because it follows the rationality of its creator (God), and the universe’s orderly behavior is comprehensible to us because we were created by the creator of the universe. This idea really grabbed my attention. I usually picture modern science and religion as polar opposites, but D’Souza unites the two with a strong argument.
He also includes the “good” that Christianity has presented to the world. These examples include gender equality, abolition of slavery, compassion and the helpful nature of western religion. Some of these were points were stretched thin, but I think he did a good job presenting them. He was speaking to the audience, not from a piece of paper like Shermer was.
Shermer did not engage the audience as well as D’Souza. He was constantly looking down at his notes and that was distracting. Shermer cracked some good jokes about agnostics; which is good to see that he can make fun of himself as well.
His main argument was a list of “bad” qualities of Christianty which included the infamous Jesus Camps, Catholic priest petifiles and discrimination against homosexuality. All of these were good points, but D’Souza’s arguments and delivery seemed more convincing.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-934934738736025284&q=shermer+dsouza+debate&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
24. I enjoyed the class in its entirety. I have never taken a class that has pushed me to think about the “real” questions of life like this one has.
Why am here? Who created me? Do I really believe in God? What makes me believe in God? etc, etc.
This class has allowed me to question my general beliefs. Honestly, I have gained a new level of awareness. I know that I don’t really know anything! Not knowing is scary, but also freeing.
This sounds completely narcissistic, but my favorite film is my own. I did not know I was capable of creating such a cool film. I really enjoy my meditation video and have been utilizing it. Hopefully it has helped individuals other than me.
No comments:
Post a Comment