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.