FINAL EXAM IS NOW ONLINE
FINAL EXAMINATION: spring 2007, CRITICAL THINKING, Professor David
C. Lane, Ph.D.
Instructions
1. Be sure to place your entire FINAL on your website and when you
are finished send a link of your
test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@yahoo.com (don't send
it to any other email address, except that)
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other
authors please be sure to
quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be
tolerated and you will receive
an "F" automatically for the examination.
3. The test is due NO LATER than April 21 at midnite.
3a. Each answer should be at least three paragraphs long, if
possible.
--------------------------
4. What is your real name? Kristine Van Buskirk
5. What is your "user" name? april61977
6. What is your email address that you use for this class? kdv1977@gmail.com
7. Name and address for your website. Kristine’s Page; kdv1977@blogspot.com
8. Have you done all the reading for the entire class? Yes
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required? Yes
10. What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revised
midterm grade? Provide a LINK to your midterm. A
http://kdv1977.blogspot.com/2007/04/midterm-examination.html
11. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this
class (you can copy and paste them. ALL SIX WEEKS OF POSTINGS.)
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Critical Thinking Films; Week 6
These films were interesting. Some a little too cartoony, that I lost the meaning. But the ones that stuck out to me were video #6 and video #8.
In video #6, I disagreed with the things said. Everything was putting my beliefs in God as something so silly to believe in. It said, that believing in non-sense makes more sense. That's why we believe in God. That's not my reasons. I think believing in God makes total sense. But scientist's who don't believe in God would find believing in something you can't prove, wrong. Also saying, "Man would have to invent God even if such a being didn’t exist." So, no matter what, we need something to believe in, so lets invent some outer space being to put our trust in. Wow. That's a twisted way to look at believing in God. My beliefs are much more deep, than just some idea we needed to exist or some non-sense idea. After watching videos and hearing opinions like these, it strengthens my beliefs and gives me to support to say I'm following the right path. The non-believers must have a hard time enjoying or even understanding the fullness of life.
In video #8, it had some good points. Some of it, again, I disagreed with. But I like the part when quoted by S.K., "Old age realizes the dreams of youth; look at Dean Swift; In his youth he built an asylum for the insane, in his old age he was himself an inmate." What a thought. When Swift built the asylum, I wonder if he ever thought he'd be in there someday. That one made me laugh. The philosophy from Kierkegaard, "we do this or that. So do it, because whether you do this or that, you'll regret both." That concept was funny to me, because it was kind of "duh." Of course we have a choice between this and that. That's like saying an elevator goes up or down. Of course. But his logic in choosing, because we'll regret it, is just sad. I would like to think that making choices helps us get to happier results rather than regrets. I know we have all made regrets, but not all choices are regretted. I don't regret getting married, or having my daughters. I don't regret going back to school, even though, because of my kids, it's harder and more challenging. Just because something turns out bad, doesn't mean it's a regret. I think of those situations as learning experiences and not regrets. Without my "bad" choices, I wouldn't have the knowledge and experiences to make the right ones.
Required Reading; Week 6
The readings this week were great. The first reading was not one that I agreed with. The statement that stood out to me was in Richard Dawkins first paragraph. He says that thinking that God has always existed is a lazy way out. I absolutely disagree. While reading all the different views on evolution I have come to a conclusion of my own. Religion is based on faith. It's very hard for a scientist (who does not believe in religion) to follow this concept. He has to have everything proved. You can't prove "faith." The definition of faith is to believe in something without seeing. A scientist who has to have everything proved will have a hard time with faith. That's not a logical answer. That, to me, is what makes religion so special. It's based on something that we have to put our full trust in, something that we can't see or even get all the answers to. Faith is something, to me, that really makes religion stand out from evolution. What an amazing concept to have faith.
On the second reading, Richard Dawkins gave an explanation for "why the purpose of evolution." He said, "no purpose." What a horrible life. To think this life has no meaning. That everything I do on this earth has no purpose. Then why are we punishing the "wicked?" Why do I choose to follow the laws? If this life doesn't matter, then why live at all? What a depressing thought. I know he wasn't referring to life on earth, but he was referring to gene survival. But if genes survive on their own, then our existence doesn't matter. I'm just some random collection of genes. Luckily they got together, so I could be here. ha ha
My favorite reading was about the fallacies. I realized that in every argument, we have some sort of fallacy. The list was so long. It would be hard to have any argument and not use some form of fallacy. My favorite fallacy was the celebrity one. I have always thought that, when I see a celebrity endorse a product, that person must need work. I don't fall into the "celebrity" fallacy. I never believe them. I always question if that celebrity actually uses the product, or did they just try it for a week and decide to endorse it. The best are the celebrities who endorse political things. Like they have any "expertise" in politics to support it. They have their opinion just like me. Just because we recognize their face, doesn't give them the "knowledge" to support their actions. I always research their background before I take their views on politics.
James Watson; Week 6
I found this video very informative. I loved hearing his insight on his own passions; DNA. What an amazing man to have such an insight to something so complex, and at such a young age too. When I was 23, I was having a baby, not developing something that would change the world and it's views on everything. To be able to think so deeply is so amazing to me.
One of the many things he said, that stuck out to me the most, was "never be the brightest person in the room, because then no one can help you." That was great. Here is a man who has helped us in understanding "creation" of living things, and he tells us to ask for help. He gave a lot of credit to those that he worked with, which shows a very humble man. There is not one thing developed without many people involved. Teachers, parents, friends, leaders. All things around us influence our lives. And here is a great man who made sure he mentioned those who helped too. He didn't take all the credit.
I really enjoyed his speech. He was funny, which kept things light, and yet he gave so much information. I really enjoyed the things he said. I would have loved to be there for that seminar. I guess I don't have to worry about being the brightest person in the room, I'm always asking questions. The more things you ask, the more you learn and then the more you KNOW.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Required Reading; Week 5
The reading was so poetic at times; it was a little too "wordy" for me to understand. I will definitely be reading some parts again. The part that did stick out for me was the idea of our virtues. "If we should have virtues we shall presumably have only virtues which have learned to get along best with our most secret and cordial inclinations, with our most ardent needs." I think this is interesting. Do we do things, in a deeper sub-conscious way to get our way? Do we pick our virtues? The ones that suit our life better? I had a friend growing up who was asking me about my religion. When I explained my ideas on the after life and the way we might be spending our time (to sum up our conversation in one sentence), she said, "You mean I can live the way I'm living now and not go to hell?" That sounded so great to her. Now, this friend was working at a strip club at the time. So this idea was great to her. I thought it was a very positive out look on the life after. (Even though I think she missed the point of our conversation) But I think we do choose, sometimes, our virtues that fit our life style the best. A true believer would do as Jesus said to give up everything and follow Him.
So I question my virtues and the reasons behind them. Am I following what I'm supposed to be, or am I only choosing what I like "best." I would like to think I'm being true to Jesus and following Him correctly, but I will be thinking of this whenever I have to make a choice. Interesting thought.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Critical Thinking Films; Week 5
These five films were very interesting.
Myth of Eternal Recurrence: What a thought! This film made me do a quick evaluation of my life and really ponder, "Would I do it all over again? Even the good and the painful?" I really think I would. I have had trials and heartaches, but my life has really been good to me. So, I would like to think, yes I'd do it again. But what an incredible thought.
The video on the "Zahir" was a little confusing for me. I think if I understood more about the Zahir, I would have enjoyed it more. Was the theory behind the Zahir that it's a powerful coin? I think I should look up the idea and then watch it again.
Little Things that Jingle: This was another "thought" provoking video. I liked the quote, "Science is vision multiplied." It's true that science does examine everything more closely and basically, under a microscope. Sometimes when we look so closely at something, we lose the bigger picture. I agreed with the quote from Abraham Pais, "To make a discovery is not necessarily the same as to understand a discovery." Just because we got a result, doesn't mean we understand how. It's going back and figuring out the "how" that makes science so valuable to life.
An Overture of Consciousness: This was a little more of a visual video. The thought that stuck out in my mind was, that we are not in charge of our bodies. But our bodies, kind of, run us. We go to bed at night because our bodies tell us we are tired. We wake up because our bodies tell us we've had enough sleep. And so on. What an idea. That made me realize even more, that there is a higher God that rules the earth and has created us. Neurons and other scientific “ideas” couldn't have created such a detailed body that can "rule" itself. Interesting!
And last, Darwin Redone: I agree that everything is "editing" you. It's how you handle the things around you and what you do with that knowledge that matters for our eternal existence. Just because you grew up in a bad neighborhood or bad living conditions, doesn't give you the reason or excuse to be a "bad" person yourself. There are many people who grew up in those situations, and even worse situations, and rose above the bad things and aspired to do great in their life. So many times we blame our "situation" and we lose the accountability that we make our own choices. I agree that, "Survival of the fittest is wrong. It's survival of the sufficient." What we make of our lives and situations is what matters.
JOHN POLKINGHORNE; week 5
I really loved what John Polkinghorne had to say. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that he believed in a lot of the same things as I did. It's much easier to listen to someone when you agree with what they say. He explained so simply the reasons for believing in God. I liked when he said we should question the "unexplainable" things that happen, the "miracles." His idea of a God is, "a God who interacts with the world, but doesn't over rule the world." I agree. The God I believe in oversees everything, but allows us to have free agency and learn from our choices, whether good or bad.
I also liked when he said that how interesting different religions and traditions relate so much to each other. It's interesting to think that we are all, pretty much, following the same ideas and plan. We have had different ways of learning it, so some of the ideas are different, but we are all after the same result, to figure out how to become like God and live eternally with Him. I also agree with the idea that God is a very kind and understanding God, and he won’t deny they people the chance to live with Him, just because they never had the chance to learn of Him or follow His ways. I believe that we will have a chance to learn and grow in the after-life as well. We learn what we can here on earth and then continue to learn here after. What a horrible idea that eternity would be spent so dull and boring, and not learning and growing. I liked his views on the resurrection and our "goals" of doing the same, also. He was a very good speaker and very easy to follow. I really appreciated his ideas and views on the eternal perspective.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
MIDTERM EXAMINATION
MIDTERM EXAMINATION
Spring 2007, Critical Thinking
Professor David C. Lane, Ph.D.
Instructions
1. Be sure to place your entire midterm on your website and when you are finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@yahoo.com
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other authors please be sure to quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be tolerated and you will receive an "F" automatically for the examination.
3. The test is due NO LATER than April 3 at midnight.
----------------------------------
4. What is your real name?
Kristine Van Buskirk
5. What is your "user" name?
april61977
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
kdv1977@gmail.com
7. Name and address for your website. Kristine’s Page; kdv1977.blogspot.com/
8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?
yes!
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
yes!
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this class (you can copy and paste them)
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Required Reading; Week 4
This weeks readings were very good. My favorite was the readings on our own David Lane. Incredible story. Dodie Bellamy was a great writer and kept my attention the whole time. It was very "story" like and I felt like I was there. I found it very interesting that Lane would continue to study and try to prove false writings, even to the end. Even though Lane said he's doesn't know what religion he is, his drive to find truth was very refreshing and honest.
I think we should always have that same approach to any, and even, our own religions. Then we would understand them more and even believe in them more strongly. You can never know ANY religion fully and completely. There are always new interpretations on scriptures and counsels. As we live our lives and go through different experiences, the interpretations of scriptures or other studies will affect us differently. We should always continue to study and never think we know it all or even enough. Religion and beliefs should be living with us and always treated with humbleness and respect. All religions and beliefs. I think Lane does a great job at doing just that. He has a great respect for beliefs and is just trying to find truths like the rest of us.
Critical Thinking Films; Week 4
These films were very interesting. The films about Sathya Sai Baba and his "miraculous" hand were interesting, but not sure what it was about. I think it needed sound, or to see it in fast motion. What I got out of it was the idea that someone whom we trust and think is a "higher" leader and we look to for answers, can have ways to trick us into believing them. We think he is of God and then when we slow down and think about the miracles, and the trick is seen. The people of the audience, who looked like believers and followers of him, were so convinced by his miracles of producing things, they thought, were from God. It's sad to think they were fooled and tricked. It makes us think of the leaders we follow. I hope that I'm following a leader that (I'm sure we all hope) doesn't use tricks to fool us into believing them. I try to use my own sense of the spirit to judge for my own beliefs and my beliefs in my leaders.
The films on THAKAR SINGH were very disturbing and made me very mad. To think that people actually follow such cults! I could not imagine sending my children to such a place. If my religion asked such things, even before I found out that they were molesting children or hurting them, I would question my faith and my leader. After I found out what they were doing behind closed doors, I would do everything in my power to shut them down. Children are so innocent and they believe everything their parents tell them. To think of them being subjected to such tortures is appalling! It makes me so angry and also sad for those poor children. The problems they will have as adults, I can only imagine. Children are so sacred in the eyes of God, it says so repeatedly in the scriptures. "Be like unto a child," or the scriptures that talk about Jesus taking the children into his arms and saying, "Bless the children," and so many more. Why would he want such things for His children? That is just horrible! The parents and followers of that cult should be afraid of their destiny with God. I wouldn't want to be there on their judgment day!
Mark Juergensmeyer: Week 4
I really loved hearing what he had to say. He had seen so much on site with the Sept. 11 happenings. It was such a great view and perspective on the situation that day. He talked about how religion guides most people in their everyday lives. Which is very true. I agree with him, that religion should teach us and guide us, but our common sense, and hopefully our knowledge of right versus wrong, will help lead us to make correct choices for our religion.
Killing innocent people, I believe, would never be a choice for the Lord. How can we justify that we are doing something right, when taking someone else's life is that choice that we're making. Whatever higher ruler we believe in, they should never ask us to kill. It was them that gave us life, so why should we have the right to take it away.
I'm sure we all agree that that day should never have happened. So many innocent killed. Innocent is the key word. Why did they feel they could take away the lives of INNOCENT people? I couldn't imagine dying myself, for my religion. I would die before I DENY my religion, but I would not commit suicide and then take other people down with me. That just does not seem to fit with the higher law or principles that my God teaches me. I know I don't know much about other religions, but that does not seem to agree with God's plan.
But the best comment was when the guy from the audience had the gall to ask him if his daughter was married to the guitarist of the Foo Fighters. This man had an hour (I'm sure more) of intelligent things to say about the "Terror in the Mind of God," and he asked such a "simple" question. It did get a great laugh though.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Assigned Readings; Week 3
The assigned readings were interesting. I really loved reading about the "pretext/text/context" ideas. I am very "math brain," and trying to figure out the puzzle of the alphabet was fun for me to think about. The idea that it's not letters, but tiny dots forming the letters was a cool concept. I found the first 2 reading assignments interesting. The others were a little harder for me to follow, but that might have to do that after reading the first 2, my mind was still trying to figure out the alphabet theory. I think that drew most of my attention.
The reading about the "Tibetan Book of the Dead,” I found it crazy to think of having that much free time to meditate. "Faqir left a detailed account of his some seventy plus years of meditation (ranging from 3 to 12 hours daily) which led up to his enlightenment." That's some serious meditation. Sometimes I think that kind of serenity and peace might make me a better mom. But then I just remember the book "5 Minutes Peace" and that sums up the life of a stay home mom. For you mom's out there, a great children's book to make you laugh and sympathize. ha ha.
I, too, think about what it's going to be like when I die. What really will happen and have I really followed the right paths. But, not knowing those answers makes life (to me) exciting. I love not knowing when or how I will die, or what awaits me. I live my life the fullest now, and make the best choices I can. I am a good example (hopefully) to my daughters and hope that I've taught them well. I think if we worry about death or think of it too much, it can consume us and take over "life." It's best to live and learn, then wait and lose out on our best years of our lives.
Secret of Faqir and Nicholas of Cusa
First, the "Nicholas of Cusa" video was crazy. I never fully understood the whole boat thing. Not sure it had any "real" meaning. It's like those art pieces in a gallery, that you would swear was made just so people would ask questions, no real meaning behind it. Maybe I'll watch it again, and I'll understand more. ha ha.
The "Secret of Faqir" was well done. I didn't agree with it though. (I seem to not agree with a lot of the videos. Stubborn in my own ways, I guess.) I thought the idea, "Your real helper is your own self and your own faith," was a good thought. I do agree with that. We are accountable for our own selves and we should be concerned about our own futures, and not judge others. But the next statement I didn't agree with, "You are badly mistaken and believe that somebody without to help you." I think that there is a higher being that guides and directs us. That's what makes us accountable for our own actions, knowing there will be a judgment for them. To say there is no one out there to help us or judge us seems to be a thing to say when you're hoping you won't be accountable for your own actions. It makes me question what they don't want to be judged on. (hum?) This video seemed to be (to me) correct in giving ourselves our own accountability, but wrong (again, to me) to say we have no higher accountability. If that were true, then why punish prisoners, if not to make them accountable for their actions. Isn't that exactly why we do what's right or follow laws and rules, if not to be judged "well" in the next life?
Freeman Dyson
Okay, I have to agree with others, that it was a very hard interview to follow. He used words and terms that were unfamiliar to me. He never seemed to make any sense. I know that I disagree with his ideas, and actually I was never convinced that he fully understood them himself. It did seem that he believed in his ideas, because (to him) they made more sense than believing in God, but he didn't seem to understand the ideas himself. I have to admit, I was very confused most of the time and it was hard to keep my focus. (Again, possible "children in the room" problem. ha ha) He seemed like a nice man who really wanted to be convinced some way. But I was never fully convinced he, himself, was convinced either. But, like I said, I had a hard time following, so I will need to watch it again, (when children in bed) and try to follow his ideas more. The interviewer seemed confused at times, as well. But the interviewer handled everything very well
Expert Lectures with Smith and Miller; Week 2
I really loved these interviews. Even though I absolutely disagree with Smith, I thought his interview was very well done. I thought the interviewer didn't quite agree either, but he handled the interview very well and professional. Smith was a very cute old man who, you can tell, really believes what he said. I found it interesting that he was raised with a faith and because of his nature, he couldn't grasp it and looked somewhere else to get the answers he needed. He, you can tell, has to have complete answers, not the "faith" answers. He didn't like that the religion theory had not real solid structure except for journals and testimonies of others. He needed some solid proof and he, in his opinion, found that through evolution. He is definitely an expert in this area, (obviously) and it would be inevitable to convince him other wise. Even though he found the answers he was looking for, I found his theories and reasons hard for me to believe. If I could have been there in the interview, I would have questioned some of his theories. Such as his thoughts on the creation or his ideas of our creation. What he found logical, I found inconceivable. Again, even though I disagreed with him, the interview was very informative in what the evolution theory is. I haven't studied it, but I do know my own beliefs. And I still feel I am in the right direction, versus evolution.
In the Ken Miller video, I found this very entertaining. He was an excellent speaker and kept my attention the whole time. I loved all his visuals and stories he had to tell. I don't know if it's because I agreed with what he said, but I enjoyed this speech much more than Smith's. Miller really seemed to know how to connect with his audience. I liked his ideas about religion versus evolution. I loved that he said, "We should teach both sides." It's true. We should allow everyone the right to hear all sides and then discern for themselves. I am a complete "religion" believer and I enjoy hearing all sides of all religions and cultures. It helps me with my testimony of my own religion choices and actually confirms my beliefs even more. That is a great thing about this country, the freedom of religion. By limiting what our children are learning, because we don't believe it, makes our future generations more ignorant and uneducated in all things. We should expand our children's minds and teach them your own beliefs at home. If what you believe in is true, as you feel it is, then there should be no denying that your child will choose the "right" as well. Let them govern themselves and they will choose righteously. The parents of today have a backward idea of forcing things and ideas on their children. Even so much, that they over protect and the children of today are turning out weaker. Because our generation hasn't had to "fight" like some previous generations, we take it for granted and over protect our children. I agree with Miller, that we should teach both sides, all sides, and let the next generations have a better and a more expansive education.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Required Reading Week 2
I found the reading more interesting this time than the last. I liked the different ways of thinking about physics. I really loved the first reading assisgnment, by David Willey. I loved his views on teaching. I think it's important for all learners to have some sort of visual to help us understand the things being taught. Even the logical learners learn from visuals. I liked reading the different ways to creating the illusions of the magician. I hope we don't all try to do these things now. ha ha.
In reading Paul Kurtz's work, I liked his idea about skepticism. I think it's important to always keep an open mind. I know my husband thinks I'm a very big skeptic, but that's because I don't like to accept what others tell me, without learning for myself. Especially when it seems so far fetched to believe, like the UFO sightings paper. I think we should study religion with science, because they can really help eachother out in furthering both ways. Science has helped religion when they have recovered old artifacts, like the dead sea scrolls. Science has helped in understanding what's written on them. Science and religion can really work together. The problem we come in contact with is when we lose the faith we need to believe our religion, because science is trying to disprove it. That's where the line should be drawn. We shouldn't try so hard to disprove religion, but let the believers do that for themselves as they discover their own beliefs and what they feel is true or not. Religion doesn't try to disprove science, as much as the other way around. That's why religion is so important in life, because you will never disprove it. There's something bigger to it than that.
Critical Thinking Film
This video was very good. I was fully inthralled. I wasn't sure how it was going to go, and the end part was not what I expected. Great use of creativity having it narrated by the someone who becomes the victim. Then we find out what happened to him. Very well thought out.
It's sad to think that these things happen. In all different places. There are so many different "cults" that think they are incharge of "controlling" the world. There are all kinds of gangs that think they need to "rule" society. Let's hope that "karma" comes around to them.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Critical Thinking Films
I found the arguments of the speakers very interesting. I liked hearing the points of view of all the speakers. What I didn't like, was how intense those who were opposed to the "religious" theories were. They were very harsh on those that believe in a "higher" being. Being a religious person myself, I found their theories wrong. I don't believe in God because I have proved it, but because I have faith and have felt a spirit testify to me of the truths. That can never be proved with experiments or tests, and they seemed to have a hard time with that thought. They seemed to want to PROVE everything and not excepts things with faith. You can't prove religion to be true, but you can look at evidence and suspect that it might have some truths. A lot of religion has been taught down through generations and through journals and other people's testimonies. We can't prove those to be wrong or right.
I did like when, I think it was Russell, said that "science is no enemy to religion." Religious people can except science, but scientist have a hard time excepting religion and feel they have to "challenge" those that don't believe in the science side of evolution. There will always be those that have to try to change all the religious believers. To change their ways of thinking, but that argument will never end or be determined which is right, at least through theories and science, until the end of the world and we all watch to see who's right. (I think it's the religion. ha ha)
Required Reading
I have to say some of the reading was a little hard for me to follow, because it was a little boring for me. I had a hard time keeping focus. But it doesn't help that I have 3 daughters under the age 8. So, they like to take my focus.
The few things I did enjoy reading was on the "Nature of Critical Thinking." I liked the definition that John Dewey gave on the nature of reflective thought, as "active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusion to which it tends." I believe that all our knowledge we gain, whether it's from experiences or books or school, etc., we have to take in thought of how these things pertain to us and how we gained that knowledge. Everything we learn is from someone else's "theories" and "experiences" and we have to learn from our own choices. We have to except all areas of thought. We don't have to "believe" it or agree with it, but there are NO complete answers, only theories.
Another thing I picked out that I liked was, in the "An Instructional Design Project," it gives us some criteria for critical thinking to follow. I liked the ideas of: -differentiate between fact and opinion - be flexible and open minded as you look for explanations, causes, and solutions - stay focused on the whole picture, while examining the specifics. I think these ideas pertain to many things in life as well. We have to know that "my" way is not the ONLY way of thinking. I think that beliefs in religion are completely different. That has to do with faith. But if we look at life that we ALL have opinions, then we might find life a bit more enjoyable and less argumentative.
Expert Lectures
I really found Richard Feynman's interview the MOST interesting. I have a lot of the same
views to thinking. As a child I was curious how our little TV worked, so I took it apart and
saw how the inside looked and how the cables ran, etc. I then learned how to put it back,
when my parents freaked and I got into some trouble. But I have always learned from
figuring it out. My husband calls me a skeptic, but I like thinking of it as Feynman did. I
was just learning about things instead of excepting what other people told me. I have 3
daughters and I love how Feynman's father taught him. It was such a great way to teach.
Not just "because" answers, but teaching ABOUT the bird or other things. My oldest
daughter has always asked questions like this and I hope I have taught her as well as
Feynman's father did. I love that he encouraged the expanded thinking and not just telling
him, "it's a ...thrush."
Bertrand Russell was also an interesting interview. Although a little hard to understand
him, I think his main idea was good. I think, as others have stated also, that you can't
have a true "clear thinking," because you have been influenced by those things and people
around you, whether you know it or not. You can have your own opinions and ideas, but
they are influenced by your life lessons and experiences.
The Karma video was very odd, but very creative. It gave a good view on Karma. I don't
believe we can predict Karma, but we can, after the event occured, see the patterns and
see how a situation could have related to Karma. I do believe that "what goes around,
comes around," but unfortunately, we don't always get to see the results. Such as the
bullies in school or others who may have hurt you, or even who you may have hurt. But
this video did, without any words, (aside from lip reading) show how some perceive
Karma.
11. Why does Richard Dawkins consider religion a "virus" of the mind? Do you agree or disagree? Substantiate your view.
Dawkins considers religion a “virus” of the mind because it was created by humans and religion, like a virus for a computer, controls our minds. Like a computer virus, it controls our ways of thinking and doing things and can shut down the computer to destruction. I, absolutely, disagree with this. Maybe because I am a religious person, I don’t want to think that my religion has taken over my mind and control. My religion gives me freedom and guidance to make me a good person. It gives me choices and I get to choose what I do or how I act to the teachings given to me. My religion teaches me about free agency. It teaches us, from an early age, that agency is ours from the beginning and we have the choice what to do with it. My children now, I teach them the same things. I teach them to be accountable for their actions, like hurting their sister or friends. Life has to have rules so everyone can have a fair chance. Naturally we need structure and schedules. From infancy, children need these things. If a parent doesn’t give structure and schedules to their infant, the baby grows up with false ideas about how to live life. By scheduling my children, as infants, it gave me freedom to do what I needed to do, and gave them the strength to adjust to life more easily. My children slept through the night (14 hours) by 4 weeks, were on a regular schedule of eating and sleeping. My religion taught me how to be a better mom through agency. It might seem that I took away my children’s agency by scheduling them, but by giving them “standards” to live by, helped them to adjust to life here on earth. My religion doesn’t “take over” my mind, but teaches me how to live a life I can be proud of.
12. Give an example of a "cargo cult" belief and critically analyze it from a scientific perspective? Hint: think of something that people believe in that lacks overwhelming evidence to support it.
My favorite “cargo cult” is the people believing in UFO’s. There are such people out there who follow this stuff around, religiously, and there is no solid proof of any existence. There is a lot of speculation that the government is hiding information. How easy it is to blame something that there is no way have proving. Every time you hear of an “encounter” it’s always somewhere where there are no other witnesses, some sort of field, and it always seems to happen to the people who are desperate for attention. Now, I haven’t studied fully on this “cult,” but what I’ve read about or seen on different television programs, it’s all too hokey to me. I’ve found these theories very interesting, so I have seen a lot of programs on this topic and I have read different articles about this. But anything I’ve ever heard about, there is no found “base” to support these allegations about UFO sightings. These people are too eager to find truths in the unexplained and settle for something that can never be proven.
13. How does one do "science" according to Richard Feynman. Why is this form of science so important to human beings? How can such a view of science help enrich one's appreciation for beauty? Be sure to give YOUR own example of Feynman's point (no "flowers" allowed).
Feynman found science through hands on experiences and experiments. He learned through figuring out how things worked. One of my favorite stories he told was the way he learned about inertia and the way his father explained it to him. Watching a ball in his wagon roll to the back whenever he moved forward and then when he stopped it went forward. What a visual example of science. Figuring out how things worked without using a book. It is so important and more valuable to gain these experiences. We learn through experience and gain a clearer understanding and a stronger knowledge of it versus just studying a book. When we look around we can see everything we want to see, but we don’t “know” what we are seeing. But if we look deeply and intensely at something and figure out the depths of its creation, we get to truly KNOW it. My example is (no, not the flower, even though that really was a good analogy) from my childhood. When I was about 9 years old I wanted to know how the TV worked. I knew that when I twisted the knob (yes it was that long ago) it turned on, but why? So I took the cover off and discovered the wires and cables that make up the inside of the computer. I got to “know” the TV instead of just staring at it. Ever since then I realized that there is more to “things” than first appearance. My family calls me the “gadget-girl” because I still love to figure out how things work. If we learn to dig deeper into all areas of life, then we will gain a better appreciation and love for those things around us.
14. Give your interpretation of the movie "Karma."
Karma is the answer we give when things happen, as if they happened for a reason. Such as life getting back at us for something we’ve done in the past. The movie plays on that by insinuating that the bad things happened to those people, like hit by a car or killed by the girlfriend, because of the bad things they did themselves. Such as stealing or beating the girlfriend. A lot of people commented that the guy walking around wasn’t treated nicely by those people, that’s why bad things happened to them. But I got the impression that he was seeing the future of what was going to happen. For example, when he passed the guy that beat his girlfriend and then we see the girlfriend shooting him, he is still alive when he meets up with the guy walking around. I got the impression that, maybe, the guy knew the bad things that would happen to them, because of the way they treated him. For example the girl who was nice and smiled ended up winning the lottery. That was my interpretation. He was for-seeing the future of what “karma” was to follow because of the character of each of the individuals.
15. Explain, in brief, Darwinian evolution and why John Maynard Smith's contribution is important in thinking differently about survival of the fittest.
Darwinian Evolution believes in a few different things. They believe in natural selection, where organisms strive for perfection and survive from strength and for pure existence. To produce the greatest number of offspring possible and to understand the reasons behind the way things are. It deals with mathematical notations and not on faith. John Maynard Smith contributed to this by his studies in mathematical notation and the reasoning behind things. He took a logical stance in objects instead of the pure faith of existence. He said, “a designer makes something and we know it was his design. But why does natural selection create something, such as a bird’s wing?” Smith gave up his faith that he was raised in at an early age and has no regrets since. He said when he accepted Darwinism, he was truly happy. He believes that people create their own meaning of things and not from a higher figure. He has always loved nature and said, “pleasure comes from the natural world and Darwinism explain the natural world.” By his studies of natural selection, it has given Darwin followers’ explanations for organisms and other things to recreate themselves. He stood firm in his beliefs and, even though I don’t agree with him, he gave a really good argument and truly believed in his theories.
16. What are Freeman Dyson's views on the "design" of the universe or the purpose of humakind?
Dyson had a different idea about the purpose of life than I had heard of before. He talked about “self-replecating molecules: and the natural selection molecules have. He talked about how we remake ourselves so we don’t go extinct. These were very different ideas than I had thought of before. In chemistry we do learn that molecules do replace themselves. That’s a very interesting idea. But, for me, I believe there is a higher purpose for “replacing” ourselves. Yes, to replenish the earth, but I feel it’s a natural feeling to want to create a being of your own. Kind of “science/robot” like, it seems. But, in views of God, I think that’s why we “replace” ourselves. Dyson had said, “religion is an observance not a belief.” I don’t agree with this. I am the way I am, because of my beliefs in my religion. I don’t act this way because I am told to “observe” to certain standards. I am this way because, through my religion, I believe that this is the way God would like me to be. But, I do have to say, this statement made by Dyson, really made me think about why I act and do things the way I do. A very compelling thought.
17. What IS the “secret” that Faqir Chand discovered about religion and its founders?
Chand discovered that “Your real helper is your ownself.” This I also don’t agree with. It’s a very selfish way of thinking. It’s not giving any credit to the higher law that should be the direction of our actions. We should always be grateful for the “help” we receive in our everyday lives. By not giving the appropriate thanks for our everyday “blessings,” we are not truly being grateful. This way of thinking is to believe that we can make it on our own, without any help from a “higher” source. I make sure I am thankful for my God that helps me and keeps me and my family safe everyday. When I miss an accident by inches from my bumper, I know it wasn’t my great driving skills that saved me. I can’t deny my blessings everyday. But in the ideas of a “guru” or some other temporal leader, I do believe they can only guide you and it’s how you choose to take and accept that guidance that helps us in our own lives. So in that sense, I do agree that “our real helper is our selves.” No one can make you choose the right, we have to decide on our own paths. Making sure credit is due where it truly belongs.
18. Explain the movie Eleven and what is YOUR interpretation of it? In other words, what is the underlying message that the
director is trying to convey?
The movie Eleven was about a guy who wanted to become famous one day and through the bad actions of other men, he became famous, I’m sure, not the way he originally wanted. This movie, to me, was an eye-opener to how awful racism and biased views can be. The horrible people that beat up innocent victims, just because they felt they were doing a “higher” justice, is just sickening. We should never take someone else’s life because we don’t agree with what we “think” they believe in or the things we “think” they do. The actions of others, like the people who killed innocent victims on September 11th, do NOT account for the actions of others who may follow the same religion or belong to the same culture. People have a natural tendency to stereotype others, and that’s unfair and wrong. We should be concerned about our own actions and not think we have to take the law into our own hands. Those guys who killed the innocent reporter, I hope got justice upon themselves.
19. Why is distinguishing the message from the medium so important? Use the Da Free John article as your context.
When trying to find truths in a message, particularly from a medium, it is easy to be swayed to the wrong direction. One, who is searching for answers, is usually gullible to believe anything, just to have his/her concerns or problems solved. It is easy to mix the medium and the message, when you can’t separate the two. When you receive a “message” it’s usually because you’re looking for an answer. If you are following a guru or leader, and they give you the answer you want to here, then you might be believing the medium instead of getting the correct answer. You should be following a leader or guru because of the teachings, not because he is attractive or has given the impression that he/she is a true prophet. Think of the followers of Thakar. They believe in his bizarre teachings and can’t see him for the real “crazy” he is. A medium can be the same thing. Many people, like in religions, look to mediums for answers to their problems. It’s the same for all these types of people. Make sure you are being true to the faith and not being succored into believing a person who is leading you astray just because you like what they are saying.
20. What are Bertrand Russell's reasons for NOT being a Christian? Do you agree or disagree with him? GIVE RATIONAL
ARGUMENTS FOR your position (pro or con).
Bertrand Russell’s reasons for NOT being a Christian is a very long list. Some major points are his belief that there isn’t a higher being controlling the world. He questions, “If God created man, then who created God?” He found lots of defects in Christ’s teachings as well. If you find faults in Christ, then you can’t be a Christian. A true Christian is a full believer in Christ. He didn’t like the idea that Christ threatened with Hell. He seemed to find Christ as a hard man, instead of the kind teacher. I think Christ taught with compassion for others eternal progress. It’s like a mother who teaches their child the consequences to their actions instead of letting them live through the experience and getting killed when they jump in front of a car. I disagree with Russell. I am a firm believer in Christ. I know, through my experiences and faith, that he was a true prophet. He taught about goodness and mercy. How can someone who teaches us how to be better people be a bad thing? Yes, some people think he was a good teacher and nice man, but not a prophet. But how can someone do miracles and teach about God and not be a prophet? And he wasn’t a prophet doing bad things to others on the side or asking for anything, besides their faith. No money or anything, but their love. Christ was seen doing many miracles (and not the ones like Baba’s miracles). We have testimonies of many people witnessing to that. I know the “FLCHRS” theory says we can’t base our claims on testimonies, but in the case of Christ, that’s all we can really go off of. It was so long ago; we can’t really prove things otherwise. I believe that we do have a purpose here on earth. As we learn and grow from our experiences here, we are gaining more knowledge to become perfect as God is. We won’t be perfect, that’s the natural man, but we TRY to BECOME so. I believe in everlasting punishment. How can someone who kills people or is such a horrible person and could care less about their “salvation” be in the same “state” as a person who tries their whole life to do good, doing service or educating their minds with good things? Does Russell feel his hard work here on earth was for no reason at all? I would hate to think that this life, here on earth, was for no reason at all. What a wasted thing. I believe that the “bad” people of the world will get their punishment due, and even for the small “bad” things I’ve done, I will get my judgment as well. I believe that we will all be judged according to our own accountability. Thank goodness for that. Those murders (I know) will get what they deserve in the after life!
21. Give a summary of Jim Lett's field guide to critical thinking (in your own "300" words, no more). Don't use quotes but write it like a letter to a friend explain how to think critically in light of Lett's numerous points.
The basis of Jim Lett’s guide to critical thinking is through his acronym “FLCHRS” calling it “Filchers” (leaving out the vowels). It stands for F-Falsifiability; is there any evidence to prove the claim false; just like the saying “innocent until proven guilty,” can prove by any means that it’s false? L-Logic; is the theory logical? Does it make sense theoretically? Not that you have proven it true, but could it possibly be? C-Comprehensiveness; your must think about all evidence given and consider everything. H-Honesty; you have to examine all evidence and be honest in your findings and not what you “hoped” would be concluded. Don’t argue and fight for something you know to be false. R-Replicability; if you find the evidence to be coincidental, plan on repeating the tests over again. This gives you a better ground for proving your theory. The more tests and positive results the better the possibility of “truth” in the theory. S-Sufficiency; be prepared to except the results for any and all tests given. To find truth in a theory, you must be ready to except the “burden of proof,” some people may demand more evidence, depending on the greatness of the claim, and don’t expect people to believe you on pure testimonies. Be ready to prove points. After following these steps, and you can’t answer any of these questions false, then you can say that your theory or claim could possibly be true. Just like in a court of law, you give no reasonable doubt that it isn’t true. If you can find some of these things false, then you have to claim your theories false.
22. Why does Kurtz believe that skepticism should be applied to religion? Do you agree or disagree?
Kurtz believes that skepticism should be applied to religion, because “Not to do so is to flee from an important area of human behavior and interest and is irresponsible.” Religion is so freely based, now, with churches and organizations coming out everywhere that we should be skeptical to what we believe in. Who’s to say who is right if we just blindly believe? How can we say a church is true if we haven’t done the research behind the religion, leaders, or the teachings? Yes, I agree with this. I’m a very skeptical person, anyways, so I think that we shouldn’t believe everything we see or hear until we have proven it OURSELVES. People, in general, have the tendency to lie. So, who’s to say they aren’t lying to you? The believers of Baba believe he does miracles when we have all seen his “slight of hand.” The believers of Thakar follow him religiously (no pun intended) and he’s molesting children on the side. How can we blindly believe without being skeptical to what we are being taught? I am very skeptical in everything I do and my religion is the same for me. If they start changing beliefs or doing things I don’t agree with, I will do my own research into this faith and find the truths or falsities myself. My religion is very open and teaches me to study everything, and to do just that. They teach us to not believe it because someone else told you, but because you have found out for yourself.
23. Why are pretext, text, and context important in analyzing a book or an argument? Provide your own example.
When analyzing a book or an argument, you have to consider everything. You can’t “prove” your theories without all the knowledge. By analyzing with pretext, text and context, we are understanding everything about it, instead of the words alone. It’s like I tell my daughters, don’t just hear my voice, but listen to my words. You can hear someone talking, but if you’re not “listening” you will not KNOW what he or she are talking about. You have to understand all aspects in order to have a full understanding of anything! I liked when someone from the class said their teacher said, “to read the book to understand it, not just to read it.” You have to understand it all in order to get the full concept of the book or argument or anything else for that matter.
24. What is a "transformative" UFO encounter and does the author of the Himalayan Connection really believe in UFOs as genuine exraterrestials?
A “transformative” UFO encounter is when there isn’t any physical proof for a UFO encounter, but “there are symbols emerging from a separate ontological ground of consciousness.” Basically, one can’t explain their sighting of a UFO but believe it’s a symbol for the unknown. I believe, from the readings of Himalayan Connection, that the author does not believe in UFO’s. He states several times that there has to be an explanation for the things seen, such as; “satellites? Beam reflections? Too much curry?”
25. How does one think more critically when using online sources? (hint: think of one of the required articles). Substantiate your views.
“Critical thinking is generally agreed to include the evaluation of the worth, accuracy, or authenticity of various propositions, leading to a supportable decision or direction for action,” as quoted from the reading of “Critical Thinking in the Online World” by Debra Jones. When you use online sources, verifying the sources of information is much harder. You can’t always document what you find on the Internet. When going into a library and using the systems there, you have a better and more accurate source of truths. In order to publish a book that goes into a library, you have to go through many steps. Such as an editor, people to verify your findings for your book, or someone to check with your sources of information. When putting something on the Internet, well, no one is checking your sources and you can say whatever you want. There aren’t substantial truths to everything you read on the Internet. Think of how many false e-mails we get everyday telling us to petition something or help save a lost child, or “if you don’t forward this, you’ll receive bad luck.” These things are not always true, and yet they get circulated through thousands of people who believe these things. So, when using sources on the Internet, we should really analyze everything that we read and try to find the truths of all our sources before we believe them.
26. What are Steven Weinberg's views on religion? Do you agree or disagree?
Steven Weinberg had a very open-minded view on religion. It was hard to tell, at first, if he believed in religion or evolution. He talked about how science deals with facts, while religion deals with values. He was a true scientist and liked things to have explanations, but he never disregarded God. He said, “scientists don’t have prophets, they have heroes.” I liked that. Science isn’t attached to religion, but that doesn’t mean they can’t work together. Here is a man who was trying to figure out science at the same time as figuring out God. Some of the other speakers were so angry about religion and determined to change the views of the religionist. But Weinberg never felt he had to change anybody. He was busy trying to keep an open mind and peace between the speakers. He said, “I don’t have much respect for religion, but it’s necessary not to disrespect them all equally.” With this statement, I don’t like the idea of not respecting religion, but I do agree that every religion is different and they deserve different kinds of respect. The guru, Thakar, I hate to say; I would have no respect for. But for other religions that are trying to follow a higher law and are trying hard, like me, I would have to respect them. All religions are different, and so deserve different levels of respect. I agree, that we shouldn’t try to change people’s minds, but worry about our own beliefs. What people believe in is their own business, and I expect others to give me the same respect about my religion, as well.
27. Why is Sam Harris an atheist? Explain his reasons. Can you argue against his views? If so, how?
Wow! Sam Harris seemed angry and appalled about religion. He couldn’t understand how people could believe in something that obscure. He was so intense. He was determined to change every person in that audience to be an atheist. He said, “no one is certain of God, and they discount people who are certain as propaganda.” Wow! I agree with the idea that no one really KNOWS God, but to say we won’t listen to other ideas, as if we are being ignorant, is completely hypocritical. He was the one not listening to the religion side of things. Because it was something he couldn’t understand or comprehend, he wouldn’t listen and was appalled that anyone else could believe such outlandish things. The other speakers, even the atheist ones, were looking at both sides. Larry Krauss said to him right after he spoke, “a rational world is the best world, demonstrated through rationality, rather than attacking irrationality. Leading by example is best.” You could tell he was a little blown by Harris’ speech as well. I just wanted to say, “Sheesh. Take a breather and let me believe what I want to believe.” Just like Krauss said, by him being so harsh on religion believers, it only makes me more determined to follow my path of life than except his ideas. As far as arguing against his views, he made good points, but he missed the most important point to religion believers, faith. We know we won’t ever receive all the answers here on earth, but one day all things will be made clear and we’ll be glad we kept out beliefs and didn’t fall into the “need-to-know-now” category.
28. Of the first five installments of BEYOND BELIEF which speaker did you find most persuasive? Explain why.
I loved listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson. He had such enthusiasm. He brought out so many good people who believed in God. People that we all respect, especially in the science world. He brought up topics that can’t be explained, but answered them with the answers those great scientists gave. He quoted Newton a lot and other great men of science. He talked about the universe and it’s incredible mysteries. He kept my full attention, and the audiences too. He spoke with such energy; you wanted to be sucked right into his speech. He was very confident in his findings and never felt he had to put down science. Instead he built science up with mysteries of religion. He seemed to believe that the two could work together. Unlike Sam Harris, who was very one sided. Tyson was definitely my favorite speaker to listen to and especially watch. Very fun man!
29. Ken Miller argues against Michael Behe's notion of irreducible complexity and the notion of intelligent design in biology. Is he right? If so, explain. If not, give your reasons why not.
I do agree with Ken Miller’s views on the importance of teaching all sides and aspects to life and biology. We can’t only teach one side, but to teach all sides would be a rather large and long course to take. It is important, however, to teach about intelligent design just as important as it is to teach about evolution. He made a good point when he talked about how they put a “note” on the science books as a warning about what was being taught. To say, “beware we’re going to talk about evolution,” is so ignorant. Science is exactly that, science. It’s theories and studies that are continuously being studied and tested. Science will never be done “testing” so why limit the note to just evolution. In the science book they are teaching all kinds of theories. But, like Miller said, to include it all would be a very long note. I think we should teach our children everything possible and let them determine for themselves what they want to believe and follow. I know my religion is true. I have NO doubts. It’s not something I am ready to debate, but I teach my children values and morality everyday. I know, that since I am following the true gospel, my children will accept this gospel too. I don’t try to change other people to follow my views; I let the gospel speak for itself.
30. In the conference BEYOND BELIEF, which speaker did you find to be the weakest in terms of substance? Explain.
My worst speaker, because of his harsh words to religion was Sam Harris. He was very weak, in my opinion, because he was never validating his views, but rather knocking religion views. I’ve always hated the commercials that have to jab at their competitors just to make themselves look good. If you have a good product, it will sell itself and you don’t have to “prove” that Quizzno’s is better than Subway. (One of my worst commercials, right now.) If you are so determined that religion is SO wrong, than let people find that out on their own. Build up your own views and that will entice its followers and others to come. By showing such a hatred for religion only verifies that Harris’ ways can’t be right. They are against what God teaches about love and peace. So why should we follow someone or even listen to someone whom is doing exactly what we feel is wrong. His, instant, aggression towards religion made his views seem weak. The truth is, I don’t know why he felt his views were right, because he focused on how “wrong” religion was instead of telling us why his views were right. Very poor sportsmanship.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Required Reading; Week 4
This weeks readings were very good. My favorite was the readings on our own David Lane. Incredible story. Dodie Bellamy was a great writer and kept my attention the whole time. It was very "story" like and I felt like I was there. I found it very interesting that Lane would continue to study and try to prove false writings, even to the end. Even though Lane said he's doesn't know what religion he is, his drive to find truth was very refreshing and honest.
I think we should always have that same approach to any, and even, our own religions. Then we would understand them more and even believe in them more strongly. You can never know ANY religion fully and completely. There are always new interpretations on scriptures and counsels. As we live our lives and go through different experiences, the interpretations of scriptures or other studies will affect us differently. We should always continue to study and never think we know it all or even enough. Religion and beliefs should be living with us and always treated with humbleness and respect. All religions and beliefs. I think Lane does a great job at doing just that. He has a great respect for beliefs and is just trying to find truths like the rest of us.
Critical Thinking Films; Week 4
These films were very interesting. The films about Sathya Sai Baba and his "miraculous" hand were interesting, but not sure what it was about. I think it needed sound, or to see it in fast motion. What I got out of it was the idea that someone whom we trust and think is a "higher" leader and we look to for answers, can have ways to trick us into believing them. We think he is of God and then when we slow down and think about the miracles, and the trick is seen. The people of the audience, who looked like believers and followers of him, were so convinced by his miracles of producing things, they thought, were from God. It's sad to think they were fooled and tricked. It makes us think of the leaders we follow. I hope that I'm following a leader that (I'm sure we all hope) doesn't use tricks to fool us into believing them. I try to use my own sense of the spirit to judge for my own beliefs and my beliefs in my leaders.
The films on THAKAR SINGH were very disturbing and made me very mad. To think that people actually follow such cults! I could not imagine sending my children to such a place. If my religion asked such things, even before I found out that they were molesting children or hurting them, I would question my faith and my leader. After I found out what they were doing behind closed doors, I would do everything in my power to shut them down. Children are so innocent and they believe everything their parents tell them. To think of them being subjected to such tortures is appalling! It makes me so angry and also sad for those poor children. The problems they will have as adults, I can only imagine. Children are so sacred in the eyes of God, it says so repeatedly in the scriptures. "Be like unto a child," or the scriptures that talk about Jesus taking the children into his arms and saying, "Bless the children," and so many more. Why would he want such things for His children? That is just horrible! The parents and followers of that cult should be afraid of their destiny with God. I wouldn't want to be there on their judgment day!
Mark Juergensmeyer: Week 4
I really loved hearing what he had to say. He had seen so much on site with the Sept. 11 happenings. It was such a great view and perspective on the situation that day. He talked about how religion guides most people in their everyday lives. Which is very true. I agree with him, that religion should teach us and guide us, but our common sense, and hopefully our knowledge of right versus wrong, will help lead us to make correct choices for our religion.
Killing innocent people, I believe, would never be a choice for the Lord. How can we justify that we are doing something right, when taking someone else's life is that choice that we're making. Whatever higher ruler we believe in, they should never ask us to kill. It was them that gave us life, so why should we have the right to take it away.
I'm sure we all agree that that day should never have happened. So many innocent killed. Innocent is the key word. Why did they feel they could take away the lives of INNOCENT people? I couldn't imagine dying myself, for my religion. I would die before I DENY my religion, but I would not commit suicide and then take other people down with me. That just does not seem to fit with the higher law or principles that my God teaches me. I know I don't know much about other religions, but that does not seem to agree with God's plan.
But the best comment was when the guy from the audience had the gall to ask him if his daughter was married to the guitarist of the Foo Fighters. This man had an hour (I'm sure more) of intelligent things to say about the "Terror in the Mind of God," and he asked such a "simple" question. It did get a great laugh though.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Assigned Readings; Week 3
The assigned readings were interesting. I really loved reading about the "pretext/text/context" ideas. I am very "math brain," and trying to figure out the puzzle of the alphabet was fun for me to think about. The idea that it's not letters, but tiny dots forming the letters was a cool concept. I found the first 2 reading assignments interesting. The others were a little harder for me to follow, but that might have to do that after reading the first 2, my mind was still trying to figure out the alphabet theory. I think that drew most of my attention.
The reading about the "Tibetan Book of the Dead,” I found it crazy to think of having that much free time to meditate. "Faqir left a detailed account of his some seventy plus years of meditation (ranging from 3 to 12 hours daily) which led up to his enlightenment." That's some serious meditation. Sometimes I think that kind of serenity and peace might make me a better mom. But then I just remember the book "5 Minutes Peace" and that sums up the life of a stay home mom. For you mom's out there, a great children's book to make you laugh and sympathize. ha ha.
I, too, think about what it's going to be like when I die. What really will happen and have I really followed the right paths. But, not knowing those answers makes life (to me) exciting. I love not knowing when or how I will die, or what awaits me. I live my life the fullest now, and make the best choices I can. I am a good example (hopefully) to my daughters and hope that I've taught them well. I think if we worry about death or think of it too much, it can consume us and take over "life." It's best to live and learn, then wait and lose out on our best years of our lives.
Secret of Faqir and Nicholas of Cusa
First, the "Nicholas of Cusa" video was crazy. I never fully understood the whole boat thing. Not sure it had any "real" meaning. It's like those art pieces in a gallery, that you would swear was made just so people would ask questions, no real meaning behind it. Maybe I'll watch it again, and I'll understand more. ha ha.
The "Secret of Faqir" was well done. I didn't agree with it though. (I seem to not agree with a lot of the videos. Stubborn in my own ways, I guess.) I thought the idea, "Your real helper is your own self and your own faith," was a good thought. I do agree with that. We are accountable for our own selves and we should be concerned about our own futures, and not judge others. But the next statement I didn't agree with, "You are badly mistaken and believe that somebody without to help you." I think that there is a higher being that guides and directs us. That's what makes us accountable for our own actions, knowing there will be a judgment for them. To say there is no one out there to help us or judge us seems to be a thing to say when you're hoping you won't be accountable for your own actions. It makes me question what they don't want to be judged on. (hum?) This video seemed to be (to me) correct in giving ourselves our own accountability, but wrong (again, to me) to say we have no higher accountability. If that were true, then why punish prisoners, if not to make them accountable for their actions. Isn't that exactly why we do what's right or follow laws and rules, if not to be judged "well" in the next life?
Freeman Dyson
Okay, I have to agree with others, that it was a very hard interview to follow. He used words and terms that were unfamiliar to me. He never seemed to make any sense. I know that I disagree with his ideas, and actually I was never convinced that he fully understood them himself. It did seem that he believed in his ideas, because (to him) they made more sense than believing in God, but he didn't seem to understand the ideas himself. I have to admit, I was very confused most of the time and it was hard to keep my focus. (Again, possible "children in the room" problem. ha ha) He seemed like a nice man who really wanted to be convinced some way. But I was never fully convinced he, himself, was convinced either. But, like I said, I had a hard time following, so I will need to watch it again, (when children in bed) and try to follow his ideas more. The interviewer seemed confused at times, as well. But the interviewer handled everything very well
Expert Lectures with Smith and Miller; Week 2
I really loved these interviews. Even though I absolutely disagree with Smith, I thought his interview was very well done. I thought the interviewer didn't quite agree either, but he handled the interview very well and professional. Smith was a very cute old man who, you can tell, really believes what he said. I found it interesting that he was raised with a faith and because of his nature, he couldn't grasp it and looked somewhere else to get the answers he needed. He, you can tell, has to have complete answers, not the "faith" answers. He didn't like that the religion theory had not real solid structure except for journals and testimonies of others. He needed some solid proof and he, in his opinion, found that through evolution. He is definitely an expert in this area, (obviously) and it would be inevitable to convince him other wise. Even though he found the answers he was looking for, I found his theories and reasons hard for me to believe. If I could have been there in the interview, I would have questioned some of his theories. Such as, his thoughts on the creation or his ideas of our creation. What he found logical, I found inconceivable. Again, even though I disagreed with him, the interview was very informative in what the evolution theory is. I haven't studied it, but I do know my own beliefs. And I still feel I am in the right direction, versus evolution.
In the Ken Miller video, I found this very entertaining. He was an excellent speaker and kept my attention the whole time. I loved all his visuals and stories he had to tell. I don't know if it's because I agreed with what he said, but I enjoyed this speech much more than Smith's. Miller really seemed to know how to connect with his audience. I liked his ideas about religion versus evolution. I loved that he said, "We should teach both sides." It's true. We should allow everyone the right to hear all sides and then discern for themselves. I am a complete "religion" believer and I enjoy hearing all sides of all religions and cultures. It helps me with my testimony of my own religion choices and actually confirms my beliefs even more. That is a great thing about this country, the freedom of religion. By limiting what our children are learning, because we don't believe it, makes our future generations more ignorant and uneducated in all things. We should expand our children's minds and teach them your own beliefs at home. If what you believe in is true, as you feel it is, then there should be no denying that your child will choose the "right" as well. Let them govern themselves and they will choose righteously. The parents of today have a backward idea of forcing things and ideas on their children. Even so much, that they over protect and the children of today are turning out weaker. Because our generation hasn't had to "fight" like some previous generations, we take it for granted and over protect our children. I agree with Miller, that we should teach both sides, all sides, and let the next generations have a better and a more expansive education.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Required Reading Week 2
I found the reading more interesting this time than the last. I liked the different ways of thinking about physics. I really loved the first reading assisgnment, by David Willey. I loved his views on teaching. I think it's important for all learners to have some sort of visual to help us understand the things being taught. Even the logical learners learn from visuals. I liked reading the different ways to creating the illusions of the magician. I hope we don't all try to do these things now. ha ha.
In reading Paul Kurtz's work, I liked his idea about skepticism. I think it's important to always keep an open mind. I know my husband thinks I'm a very big skeptic, but that's because I don't like to accept what others tell me, without learning for myself. Especially when it seems so far fetched to believe, like the UFO sightings paper. I think we should study religion with science, because they can really help eachother out in furthering both ways. Science has helped religion when they have recovered old artifacts, like the dead sea scrolls. Science has helped in understanding what's written on them. Science and religion can really work together. The problem we come in contact with is when we lose the faith we need to believe our religion, because science is trying to disprove it. That's where the line should be drawn. We shouldn't try so hard to disprove religion, but let the believers do that for themselves as they discover their own beliefs and what they feel is true or not. Religion doesn't try to disprove science, as much as the other way around. That's why religion is so important in life, because you will never disprove it. There's something bigger to it than that.
Critical Thinking Film
This video was very good. I was fully inthralled. I wasn't sure how it was going to go, and the end part was not what I expected. Great use of creativity having it narrated by the someone who becomes the victim. Then we find out what happened to him. Very well thought out.
It's sad to think that these things happen. In all different places. There are so many different "cults" that think they are incharge of "controlling" the world. There are all kinds of gangs that think they need to "rule" society. Let's hope that "karma" comes around to them.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Critical Thinking Films
I found the arguments of the speakers very interesting. I liked hearing the points of view of all the speakers. What I didn't like, was how intense those who were opposed to the "religious" theories were. They were very harsh on those that believe in a "higher" being. Being a religious person myself, I found their theories wrong. I don't believe in God because I have proved it, but because I have faith and have felt a spirit testify to me of the truths. That can never be proved with experiments or tests, and they seemed to have a hard time with that thought. They seemed to want to PROVE everything and not excepts things with faith. You can't prove religion to be true, but you can look at evidence and suspect that it might have some truths. A lot of religion has been taught down through generations and through journals and other people's testimonies. We can't prove those to be wrong or right.
I did like when, I think it was Russell, said that "science is no enemy to religion." Religious people can except science, but scientist have a hard time excepting religion and feel they have to "challenge" those that don't believe in the science side of evolution. There will always be those that have to try to change all the religious believers. To change their ways of thinking, but that argument will never end or be determined which is right, at least through theories and science, until the end of the world and we all watch to see who's right. (I think it's the religion. ha ha)
Required Reading
I have to say some of the reading was a little hard for me to follow, because it was a little boring for me. I had a hard time keeping focus. But it doesn't help that I have 3 daughters under the age 8. So, they like to take my focus.
The few things I did enjoy reading was on the "Nature of Critical Thinking." I liked the definition that John Dewey gave on the nature of reflective thought, as "active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusion to which it tends." I believe that all our knowledge we gain, whether it's from experiences or books or school, etc., we have to take in thought of how these things pertain to us and how we gained that knowledge. Everything we learn is from someone else's "theories" and "experiences" and we have to learn from our own choices. We have to except all areas of thought. We don't have to "believe" it or agree with it, but there are NO complete answers, only theories.
Another thing I picked out that I liked was, in the "An Instructional Design Project," it gives us some criteria for critical thinking to follow. I liked the ideas of: -differentiate between fact and opinion - be flexible and open minded as you look for explanations, causes, and solutions - stay focused on the whole picture, while examining the specifics. I think these ideas pertain to many things in life as well. We have to know that "my" way is not the ONLY way of thinking. I think that beliefs in religion are completely different. That has to do with faith. But if we look at life that we ALL have opinions, then we might find life a bit more enjoyable and less argumentative.
Expert Lectures
I really found Richard Feynman's interview the MOST interesting. I have a lot of the same
views to thinking. As a child I was curious how our little TV worked, so I took it apart and
saw how the inside looked and how the cables ran, etc. I then learned how to put it back,
when my parents freaked and I got into some trouble. But I have always learned from
figuring it out. My husband calls me a skeptic, but I like thinking of it as Feynman did. I
was just learning about things instead of excepting what other people told me. I have 3
daughters and I love how Feynman's father taught him. It was such a great way to teach.
Not just "because" answers, but teaching ABOUT the bird or other things. My oldest
daughter has always asked questions like this and I hope I have taught her as well as
Feynman's father did. I love that he encouraged the expanded thinking and not just telling
him, "it's a ...thrush."
Bertrand Russell was also an interesting interview. Although a little hard to understand
him, I think his main idea was good. I think, as others have stated also, that you can't
have a true "clear thinking," because you have been influenced by those things and people
around you, whether you know it or not. You can have your own opinions and ideas, but
they are influenced by your life lessons and experiences.
The Karma video was very odd, but very creative. It gave a good view on Karma. I don't
believe we can predict Karma, but we can, after the event occured, see the patterns and
see how a situation could have related to Karma. I do believe that "what goes around,
comes around," but unfortunately, we don't always get to see the results. Such as the
bullies in school or others who may have hurt you, or even who you may have hurt. But
this video did, without any words, (aside from lip reading) show how some perceive
Karma.
12. Why are certain religious zealots prone to use terrorism,
according to Professor Mark Juergensmsyer? What does Juergensmeyer
believe we should do in the future to mitigate such attacks?
When Mark Juergensmsyer was researching and interviewing people, he came across some very interesting people. His speech was very moving and informative. I really liked what he had to say. Some of the reasons why people use terrorism is because “sometimes you have to fight when your religion is on the line.” That was some of the things people said. But the most profound thing and idea was, they want to send a message, that our government is the enemy. Wow. Let’s kill people and ruin lives because we don’t like the way your government works. What reasons! If we all acted on things we didn’t like, in this manner, what a scary world we would live in. Actually, we wouldn’t probably be alive. If you don’t like what someone is saying or doing, then don’t join in. Don’t let it affect your life.
His thoughts on how to change such acts was great. He talked about how once we know that we are God and that we will never know the mind of God, then we can accomplish things. He said, “To be able to affirm that there is something meaningful that holds together this fabric of society, us as humans and our human conditions, and we have the humility to know that we don’t know, then we can improve our society. When we accept other people and other visions of their own personhood, then can we live in peace.” Absolutely. We cannot have peace when we put ourselves above others. We are all humans learning and growing and striving to understand our purpose. We should accept others and their ideas. We don’t have to live their ideas and ways, but realize that we are all one trying to do what we think is right. We will never have the right to take another’s life, because we disagree. There would not be a world left if that was how we all thought.
13. Is there sufficient evidence to support the claim that Edgar
Cayce was psychic? Use your critical thinking field guide to
substantiate your answer.
Edgar Cayce was a man striving to answer people’s problems through “special powers.” In this reading, the writer gives his opinion many times that he did not have powers. Is there evidence to support the claim? No there is not evidence that he was a true psychic. Just like trying to prove religion, you cannot prove something that is in people’s minds. His believers were so willing to believe because he gave them the peace and answers they wanted.
No one, in my opinion, is a true psychic. We do not have special powers to see into the future or into someone else’s life. That would go against the divine plan. Why would God want us to know those things and lose all learning? By someone giving us the answers, we lose the goal of searching for them. People are sucked into psychics, because they need some kind of answer to a challenge in life. Those challenges are what make us strong.
People who look to psychics are usually coping with a death. They feel that someone might be able to connect them to their loved one, and so it isn’t really a loss. Some people have a hard time dealing with death. And so looking to a psychic to ease their pain, is they way they deal with it.
Is Edgar Cayce a psychic? According to his believers he is, but there is no evidence supporting this claim.
14. Why is your professor so critical of cults?
Professor Lane has had many challenges in his life, as we all have. He has a love of knowledge and discovering the truth. Through his studies he has found falsehoods in cults and that seemed to catch his attention and drive to find out more. While reading about him, I found that he is searching for truths. When he came across different cults which were false, he strived to prove them wrong.
I agree with him, that cults should be investigated and researched, before you follow them. Cults are just people hungry for power. Absolutley. They prey upon those who are weak and need guidance. Look at the followers of the Singh. Some were abused and raped. What a cult to follow. We should be critical of something that we are willing to put our hearts and minds and souls into. We should make sure that what we are following, is a truth.
Professor Lane has done good by bringing to our attention the falsities of cults. If he had not proven their wrongs, then we would be in danger of our own existence. How could you follow a cult that says they have discovered this certain way of living, and then find out they stole the idea from someone else? That would not be the cult I would want to follow. But those people, even after Lane proved them to be wrong, still believed with the stupidity of “that’s the beauty of it.” I’m sorry, but I understand my religion and that makes it even better. There’s no “beauty of it,” it makes sense, that’s the beauty.
15. What do the films reveal about Sai Baba's claim for paranormal
powers?
When watching the films about Sai Baba, his so called “powers” are revealed as pure magic tricks. He has his followers convinced that he can do these miraculous things, when we see he has the secret hidden up his sleeve the whole time. Here is a man that has his followers believe that he can do miracles, when actually they are a bunch of magic tricks. How sad for his followers.
When believing in a “prophet” you put your whole heart into them. You believe everything they tell you, because you believe that they are a man of God or some special guide here on earth. How can someone, knowing you’re lying and cheating others, continue to do such wrongs to your “followers?” They trust you and you care less and continue to take their money, precious things, and trust. I wonder if any of his followers ever caught on to his tricks and left him. I wonder if any of them ever saw these videos of him.
The bottom line about Sai Baba is he is a fraud and a fake and doesn’t deserve any followers. He should be punished for taking advantage of people who were so desperate for a leader that they trusted him. Those people should be told everything about him. He should be exposed. (Hopefully he already has been.) Those poor people who were so trusting have, hopefully, seen his “errors” and moved on to a more TRUE religious leader.
16. Why did Thakar Singh believe in blindfolding children? Why do
some religious followers lack critical thinking skills?
Thakar Singh believed that children need, at a young age, to learn to meditate. He believed that by blindfolding them they would get in touch with their inner self and learn to channel their thoughts to God. By blindfolding them, it taught them (according to Singh) to listen and hear the answers from God. They would learn to be more focused on God and not on the childish ways and irreverent play as most kids do.
What a bunch of bologna. When I watched the videos, the children weren’t metidating, but trying to stay awake. Children need to learn through play and actions. They should be free to explore the world (with rules and guidelines, of course). As you watch the video, you see women walking around the room shaking the children to keep them from falling asleep and then falling over. Those poor children.
Religious followers sometimes lack in critical thinking, because they are so desperate for a leader to follow. So, when a “leader” tells them something that sounds like it could be true, they latch on and get sucked into a following that leads them wrong. As you watch the videos with the testimonies of people who were in the cult, you hear more and more of the cruel things they did to the children, especially rape. I felt such anger for those adults who allowed those things to happen to those children. I also felt mad and also sad, for the people still defending Singh. They accused the women who were raped of being so confused with their spirituality that they didn’t understand what really happened. I’m sorry, but you know when you are raped. It made me so mad at those people, who should be protecting them from such terrible things. Religion is meant to save and protect you from those cruel acts, not actually cause them.
Those videos were very hard for me. I have 3 young daughters and if something like that happened to them, especially in my religion, I would, first leave the religion, and then with all my power try to bring down those people that did, or allowed, those things to happen. Children should not have to go through such tortures. Those memories will never leave them, their entire life. What a horrible nightmare!
17. JOHN POLKINGHORNE believes both in religion and science. Why?
John Polkinghorne was a great speaker. I agreed with most he said. I can’t really think of what I didn’t agree with. He was very insightful. He explained the reasons, he believed, why we are here and how we got here. He talked about the eternal plan and our goals here on earth. He spoke with such confidence, that it almost felt like he might have known something that the rest of us didn’t know. He seemed very at peace with his ideas. (Unlike some of the angry speakers from “Beyond Belief.” I will discuss later.)
John talked about how we need to explain the unexplainable, the “miracles.” He gave the example of a man with a bandana over his eyes, ready to be executed. They shoot and you survive. How do you explain them missing and you surviving? There are so many things in the universe that science can’t explain. He talked about he great things that science has figured out. About our discoveries in space and our understanding how things grow and reproduce. We have gained so much from science, but he also says we should not forget the higher source that helped us get to those results and who designed them in the first place.
He said, “My idea of a God is a God who interacts with the world, but doesn’t over rule it.” What a great statement. I believe that’s exactly what God does. He guides us and helps us, but we are free to make our own choices. John explains how science and religion worked together, because they are both trying to find out the way things work and explain the world. He studied as a physicist for years and he learned a lot there, but then realized that there is more to life than the explainable.
I agree with him. We need science so we can learn and expand our knowledge of everything we can. What a great world we live in and we shouldn’t take advantage. We should appreciate it and study it everyday. But we should, also, not forget the person who created it and put it all together so perfectly. John said that everything works together so delicately. Nothing or no one can create something so intricate, detailed, and so “delicate,” except a higher source of creation.
18. How does Nietzsche critique religion? What are his main
arguments against a belief in God?
Nietzsche was not a believer in God. He said that God does not exist. He claimed that God has died. He seemed a bit angry with the idea that people still search for answers to God. He repeated many times that God is dead. He claimed that people didn’t believe in God and the religious people have changed their ways of living from moral ones. He seemed to be a bit “Hitler-like.” He believed that the weak people should be removed. What a terrible world it would be if we weren’t all different. Weak and strong, we work together.
He, like other non-believers, claimed that people have changed their views on religion. How could one believe in such an absurd thing. I had a hard time reading about him. I’m not sure if I was tired or just uninterested. He just seemed to be bitter and confused about the existence of God.
19. Why does James Watson believe that genetics holds the secret for
understanding human behavior? Why do some people resist believing
that we are just bundles of DNA?
James Watson was a great interview to watch. He discovered the structure of DNA. First off, what a brilliant man to think so deeply and then come up with something so amazing. And at such a young age too. He said something I loved, “Never be the brightest person in the room, because then no one can help you.” What a thought. We don’t know everything. It’s only through experiments and others ideas that help us with our own thoughts. Here is a man, who I would love to teach me, tell us to always ask for help and learn from others. You would think he’d always be the brightest person in the room, but he was so humble that he is willing to learn for those around him.
He believed that it’s important to understand DNA, because it hold the information to us. It holds the information to understand humans and all those things around us. When we fully can understand DNA, then like the movie “Things that Jiggle,” then we can learn about the things even smaller that make up DNA and so on. Our existence is so much more than we will ever know and by dissecting it and learning more, we can gain a broader idea of “us.”
Some people have a hard time with this, because they can’t think that deep, or don’t want to believe that we can be broken down. By “breaking” us down, they possibly believe it will eliminate us. I think that by understanding DNA it will give us a deeper connection to God and how he created us. What a genius!
20. Why is intelligent design regarded as "junk" science by most
evolutionary biologists?
Many evolutionary biologists think of intelligent design as “junk,” because they believe that it’s a falsehood that shouldn’t be. The “believe” that there is no proof of intelligent design, and there for it’s the wasted part of our lives. The junk of our lives that we spend looking for answers in God. They cannot prove there is a God, and therefore there is not one. They are lacking in faith. They cannot prove faith, and that is hard for them to believe. When we look for answers about or in God, then we are wasting our time, because there is no such being (according to them).
To consider our thoughts to God as “junk” is a very sad thought. When we are learning about how to be better people, through love, charity, honor, service, and many more, how can that be “junk?” They believe it’s junk, because there is no proof, therefore it isn’t worth studying and learning about. It’s the wasted time, like staring at the TV.
21. What is the underlying theme behind the movie the ZAHIR?
In the movie ZAHIR it tells us of the myth of the Zahir and the obsession behind it. It uses the coin as its obsession. I think the movie portrays to us that we all have an obsession that can control our lives. For a lot of people it’s money. Some people eat and sleep of ways they can be rich. Then they find themselves lost and lonely.
The Zahir represents something that we obsess about and it controls our thoughts and lives. It eventually will confuse us of reality, because we have focused our thoughts and sleep to our obsession. If we let our obsession control us, that’s exactly what will happen. We will die with it and it will never be resolved and we will never be happy.
22. How can little things that jiggle reveal the universe around us
(hint: think of the movie of the same title)?
This video was very interesting. I loved the music and graphics. It was very vintage and “old comic book” like. It made a lot of good statements about earth and life here. “Gravity is geometry realized,” “Electromagnetism is energy liberated,” “Science is vision multiplied.” These are a few of my favorites. That’s what science does, for the good, for us here on earth. They have taught us so much about this earth. For me, it has proven more and more that a higher being is involved. How could all these incredible things come together without some higher purpose.
“To make a discovery is not necessarily the same as to understand a discovery." Just because we come to a conclusion, doesn’t mean we understand why. That’s why we keep researching and studying and discovering. We cannot assume that we know enough. We have so much more to learn about how and why we are here. When we read a book a second or third time, don’t we gain more understanding to the book? We find more details and underlying stories in it. That’s the same as the universe. The more we study, the more we’ll know. We’ll never know it all.
“Thing are made of litter thing that jingle.” That is how the video ended. It tells us that all things are eternal. It’s like infinity numbers. No matter how small you study an atom and so on, we’ll never get to the bottom. Everything is made up of smaller things, which are made up of even smaller things, and so on. What a very interesting and compelling thought.
23. Why is fundamentalism a mental disease, according to the movie
of the same title?
In the film, “Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease: Creationism vs. Evolution,” it goes through time and how it has changed its views on religion. It states, “Creationism is taught by those who can’t think.” What a powerful statement. How hypocritical. That statement does exactly what it’s accusing. It’s not “thinking” about how the believers might be thinking. That statement is just a judgment rather than being open to possibilities. If one cannot think, than how can one reason, study, and then teach something?
Fundamentalism, according to the video, is a false idea “dressed up in sheep’s clothing.” The video states that Intelligent Design is “another chance to shoehorn God back into biology, because Evolution takes a devastating look at Genesis.” It said that the bible and God do not work when it comes to science. This video was definitely not FOR fundamentalism.
This video was so harsh on the idea of fundamentalism and religion. It was four minutes of bashing any idea that God “could” exist. In any video that I watched I noticed that people who opposed religion were so angry and appalled by people who did. But those who believed in God could see both sides. Very interesting that one side is so one-sided, and then the other is open to both sides. I find that those who are willing to accept other ideas have a wider range of knowledge and thrive to learn more.
24. Name eight common fallacies when arguing for a position. Be sure
to give examples, perhaps drawn from your own life, for each of them.
I loved this reading. It was so informative about how when one argues, they have to make sure to back up their arguments. I will use this lesson when I get into my next argument and ask the other person “where did you get your information?” Not too many times when we are arguing, do we actually study and look up the subject before we decide to choose a side and fight for it. We always use other people’s studies and knowledge and accept it as fact for our own arguments.
My first fallacy is the “informal” fallacy. When arguing we use our own personal judgments about someone to credit or discredit something. When I get into an argument with someone that is not quite my “best friend,” right away I put up a wall of defense, because I don’t want to believe what they tell me and I take the opposing side. By doing this, I’m “judging” the other persons statements by the way I feel personally about them.
My second is “argument authority” fallacy. When I’m at the doctors office and my doctor diagnoses me, I trust them, because they have a degree on the wall. They have proven themselves by their study and hard work. But when I see a commercial with a “doctor” on TV and they are supporting a type of medicine, I always look at the bottom for the words, “not a real doctor” or “paid actor.” Those commercials always make me laugh, because why should I believe them when I don’t even know if they actually trust the product themselves. An example they used in the reading was, “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV…” and they are recommending a brand of medicine. Those are the best commercials. It’s like the Trident commercials that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident. Where do they get these statistics?
Third “wishful thinking” fallacy. When we really want something to be true, because it agrees with our desires, we are using the “wishful thinking” fallacy. I’m am trying to get pregnant right now, and because it’s something that I “desire” I feel the symptoms of the pregnancy, and think maybe I’m pregnant. For example, feeling nauseous. When I feel sick after dinner or after taking a drive, I’ll think maybe I’m pregnant. Then when I’m not, I realize that I’m falling into the “wishful thinking” fallacy category.
Fourth “loaded words” fallacy. I have been in many arguments with people and they use “big” words. It confuses me and I get a little lost in the argument. But when you break down their words, you realize it isn’t that strong of an argument after all. Many lawyers use this tactic. They use words like “beat” for “hit” or “verbally abused” for “yelled.” The words make the statements feel stronger and more threatening, in order to portray the story or situation into a certain way. I’m sure we all use this fallacy when arguing in order to exaggerate and strengthen our argument.
Fifth “loaded question” fallacy. This goes along with the “loaded words” fallacy. Lawyers use this one a lot too. It’s when you take someone’s words and twist them around and change their statement with an accusing question.
Sixth “fake presicion” fallacy. People use this fallacy when they “treat the information as more presice than it is.” These people will usually use a lot of numbers. A lot of people are intimidate by numbers, so they use numbers and that makes the person believe because they can’t find faults with numbers. Unless they can throw back their own numbers in defense. It’s hard to argue with numbers, unless you know the numbers and can prove your own.
Seventh “bandwagon” fallacy. This is a common one that we, I’m sure, have all used. We will use the studies that are in favor of our beliefs or views and use them to support that. Many times when we are arguing we’ll say, “but that’s not what so-in-so said.” We jump on the “bandwagon” to verify our views and hope to give them support.
And, finally, my favorite fallacy, “appeal to celebrity.” These are my favorite, because they are used the most on TV. How many celebrities do we see on TV supporting some type of item in order to get higher sells. When I see this, I instantly think “that actor must need work.” Do those celebrities really use the products they are indorsing? It’s such a funny thing that people really do fall in to. Seeing June Allyson selling Depends. First, I don’t want to know that, and also, just because she uses them, that’s supposed to mean they really do work? Maybe if the actor wasn’t getting paid, then maybe I’d think they actually use the product and truly support it.
25. Provide your own critical analysis (using the terminology
learned in this class, etc.) of the current "war on terrorism" as waged by the USA. Your argument can be either pro or con or both, provided that you substantiate your reasoning.
My views on the “war on terrorism” are still the same as they were before. It’s obvious that it’s an abominable thing and those involved (the terrorists side) have so much learning to do. I do have to say, that after listening to Prof. Mark Juergensmsyer, I have realized that he’s right about how to solve peace.
We cannot have peace until we accept others for who they are. We are all different. We are all different pieces to the puzzle. We all bring in different strengths to life. Until we can live with that, there will never be peace. I liked his thoughts on “humans knowing the mind of God.” We will never know the fullness of God. We are all learning and striving for the same thing. We all want to understand God. So we should not be so critical of others and their thoughts and ideas.
Just because we don’t like the way people do things, or run things, such as a country, does not give us the right to get rid of them. We can’t just get rid of the things we disagree with. Otherwise I might have to get rid of Richard Dawkins. (ha ha) With everyone’s differences, that’s what makes us grow and learn. We learn from each other. To quote James Watson, “Never be the brightest person in the room, because then no one can help you.” If you think you have all the answers and everyone else is wrong, then you miss out on the learning of life. We can all learn from each other, whether right or wrong.
26. (Very important question, don't skip it): In the Beyond Belief conference there was much heated discussion about religion and its place. Provide a 750 word or more review of the entire series. Whose arguments were most persuasive? Whose arguments were less so? BE
SPECIFIC.
In the Beyond Belief conference, there were many arguments for and against religion. To give a quick review, it was opened with Steven Weinberg, who discussed the facts with science and the possibility that there is a God. Larry Krause followed with his views against the existence of a God. Sam Harris was after Larry, and he was really angry with the believers and couldn’t understand how people could believe. We then heard from Michael Shermer, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Steven Nadler, and Patricia Churchland who ended the day with a fight for God and his existence. Then we heard from Susan Neiman, who said, “Truth is the way the world is, morality is a matter of the way the word ought to be.” Loyal Rue argued that religion is not about being sacred. It’s about therapy and political and personal goals. Rue explained the resurecction by comparing it to when we fall. You fall and dust yourself off, that’s like resurrection. What a horrible example. To me resurrection is so much more. We then heard from Richard Dawkins, who claimed religion was brain washing and a form of child abuse. (I will get into that later.) Carolyn Porco gave a great review of astronomy and it’s beauty, but ended with the reason for religion were social. For some people, I absolutely agree. Stuart Hameroff, Terrence Sejnowski and VS Ramachandran spoke next. (I can’t quite remember what days and videos the speakers were in. I just took notes continuously.) Paul Davies asked, “Where do physics come from?” Elizabeth Loftus followed and the Mahzarin Banaji. She gave a great look into the study of “studies” and how we are biased in most things we do. Richard Dawkins spoke next, this time prepared with a speech. Sir Harold Kroto followed with cold fusion; Charles Harper and Ann Druyan were next. Sam Harris spoke again, then James Woodward, followed by Melvin Konner, who didn’t understand how one could say, “God is love.” Paul Churchland spoke, then Richard Sloan, then VS Ramachandran again, ending the conference with Neil deGrasse Tyson again.
That was my quick summary of the conference. I have to say I learned a lot about evolution versus religion. “If not God, then what?” I think this statement was never answered. There was so much debate and things went back and forth. The evolutionists were very angry and disturbed that one could believe in religion. I found these thought contradictory to science. These are people who study the unknown all the time. How could they be upset for those who are trying to figure out the same thing, the “unknown?”
My favorite arguments were Neil deGrasse Tyson and also Patricia Churchland. They were in favor of my beliefs, so I think that’s why I drew to them. But they were also entertaining and kept my attention. They have strong facts about the universe and our natural ways of nurturing. They talked about how small we know about earth and how much we can learn from God. I loved all the ideas of the universe and how it’s come to be, and yet Neil believed that God was involved and created it. Patricia talked about the natural ways that we nurture and how it’s not just by accident. I really loved these two speakers most. My computer cut out on Patricia’s so I am in the process of trying to download it from the website of the conference.
My least favorite speakers were Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Even though they were against everything I believe in, they were great speeches to listen to. I think because I felt they were so wrong. Richard talked about the child abuse in teaching your child to follow God. How can that be child abuse to teach a child about love, charity, service, and all positive things that go with it? I’m abusing my children because I teach my child to tell the truth, work hard and love all people? What a bizarre thought. He called is “supernatural rubbish.” This man was so bitter; I think he missed out in learning to love others and their ideas. You don’t have to believe or follow them, but accept others for who they are. Sam Harris was in the same boat as Richard. He was so angry and upset that people could follow God. He said many times that he didn’t understand that. These two speakers were my least, because they were so against my beliefs.
I believe that we should accept all things. It’s what we do with them in our lives that matter. We should live with a daily task to learn everyday. We should never accept what we know as “everything there is to know.” We have to continually learn and study. By hearing what all these different scientists, in all different sciences, have to say, I have learned a lot. It has strengthened me in my own faith. It has given me courage to voice my own feelings and beliefs in God. I know that by teaching my children about God and his teachings, I am doing what’s right. Thank you to those speakers who have enlightened, me even more, in my pursue of life.
27. What was your favorite film lecture?
My favorite film lecture was one of the first. It was the one with Richard Feynman. He was such an intelligent and interesting man. He made me think deeper into things. I loved his sweet nature and innocence to life, as a child. He, from his youth, was given a special gift to discover things in a different way, than most people do. He was blessed with a great father who helped him develop such discoveries and ideas. When a 5 year old boy wants to know about inertia, you have a very special child.
My daughter, who is now 8, has always asked us questions just as Feynman did to his parents. She has always asked us why and we, her parents, have always given her the correct answers. We never answered with “because.” We felt if she was smart enough to notice and ask about it, then she deserves the full answer. Her questions kept coming and now, she is in the gate program. She entered in at Kindergarten. Now, I know that’s not because she’s brilliant (even though we think she is), it’s because she always wants to learn. Too many times parents assume their child is too young to understand, and so they blow them off with “childish” answers. If we would, like Feynman’s father, give them the full answers, they will learn so much more and have a desire to learn more. Not just think they don’t deserve to know.
Richard Feynman was a brilliant man who served his life well. He also served his country and us here on earth well. We have learned so much from him, all because he asked questions as a child. I hope we all answer our children as Feynman’s father did. Children are not stupid they just haven’t learned it yet. So, let’s teach them what we know.
28. What was your favorite mini movie?
My favorite mini movie was Eleven. It was such a great story and very cleverly played. They start off by gaining our interests with a narrator and his dreams. There are some dramatic parts that open your eyes to racism. After more drama we find in the end that our narrator was just portraying a story, because the real “narrator” was a victim of racism.
This was such a sad story, but very true and close to all of us. We all know of people who are treated with disrespect, because of their skin or because people “think” they know about someone. Unless you talk to a person and get close to them, you will never TRULY know someone. We all have our pasts. Even my best friend doesn’t know everything about me. The old cliché “never judge a book by it’s cover” will always hold true.
29. What was your favorite reading?
My favorite reading was about the fallacies. There are so many. I went through so many, and yet didn’t even dent how many more I could have looked through. I’ve already written about my favorite eight.
Can we ever get into an argument and not fall into one of these categories. It really make arguing harder. We all use them, and yet they are so true. Do we ever really KNOW enough to argue a certain point? When I get into my next argument (thank goodness I don’t argue like I used to in high school. Ha ha) I will think of these things and try to back up my argument.
30. What is the most unusual thing you learned this semester?
I’m not sure it counts as “unusual” but I have learned so much about Intelligent Design versus Natural Selection. I actually had to look up these ideas and find out what they were. How ignorant of me. Here I am, 30 years old, and so stuck in my own ways that I didn’t even know these terms.
I have learned more about my strengths in my own religion and have gained an even stronger view of God. Hearing and reading about all the different views and studies about both sides, has given me a question and answer that there is a higher design and order to things. I have always had a testimony of God and his exsistence. I never doubted that. But now, I see that there has to be a God, because of the details of the universe. People like Richard Dawkins, argue that it doesn’t make sense. But it really does. How could earth, the universe, and every little detail in it, be created by “accident?” If we “accedentily” came to be, why now and why aren’t there any other evidence of more like us out there in the universe?
The thing I came to realize is that the scientists opposed to religion were lacking one thing, faith. Faith is something they could never be explained. And because faith can’t be explained, then it cannot be, according to people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. That’s what is so great about God and religion. It’s based on faith. We have faith and trust in something we cannot and will never know 100% about. What a challenge. Of course scientists don’t agree with this. They like to “prove” everything, but faith cannot be proved. This idea gives me more faith to know that my God has given me more knowledge and “faith” to understand why I am here and what my purpose in life is. What a great world we live in!
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
