1.Joseph Angel-Field
2.satchmojoe
3. http://puppyj.blogspot.com/
4.I would say that I have only missed one or two classes and when I did it was excused for a school activity (pep band). I also missed two classes directly following spring break because I was in Italy. I discussed this with Professor Lane, but I am not sure whether these qualify as excused or not.
6. UGH, working on it.
7. I read (or listened to) The God Delusion (don’t recommend it to future classes cause it was hard to quote it in the midterm without having it written). I read The Language of God. I read the Antichrist. I read 1/3 – ½ of Mere Christianity. I didn’t read the other 2 online books, sorry.
8. Francis Collins, a brilliant scientist who lead the public Human Genome Project converted to Christianity, from an Atheism that he describes as, in C.S. Lewis’ words, “willful blindness.” In Collins’ book, The Language of God, Collins intends to show the way that he culminated a, “richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews.(pg.6)” Collins’ arguments for God are keyed namely on Lewis’ argument about the Moral Law being evidence for God, and that the “God-shaped vacuum” in his life and the life of many other religious individuals as a, “pointer to something beyond us.(pg.38)” Richard Dawkins supports the idea that Moral Law can be an evolutionary development in human nature. His argument is that Moral Law is much like a vestigial organ, which was appropriate when our ancestors lived in small groups amongst family with the same genes and extended families who would reciprocate the deeds. Moral Law would have acted to further the common genes. Dawkins analogizes it with sexual lust, where it would have acted in the past to further human genes, in the present day sex with contraceptives denies the evolutionary purpose. Although Moral Law had an evolutionary purpose, Dawkins argues that it is malfunctioning and unnecessary in modern society (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-7,00.html). Dawkins also makes the argument in his book The God Delusion, that religion need not be the backbone for Moral Law. “Why not cut out the middle man,” he offers, “and go straight for the moral choice without religion? (pg.57)” To Collins’ argument about a void for God, Dawkins would reply as he often does, “it could be any of a million gods.(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-6,00.html ).” The argument for a void is not a convincing one, and could fit into Dawkins’ argument as God as a delusion, as humans often crave things that are unreal or even harmful to themselves. Also, why do some people feel a void for a supernatural God, while others like Dawkins, feel no such void? God fitting a void would be much like the “God of the gaps” that both Collins and Dawkins argue against in there books. Dawkins proposes that, “a proper understanding of the magnificence of the real world, while never becoming a religion, can fill the inspirational role that religion has historically – and inadequately – usurped.(pg.3)” He would point out that as soon as the supposed innate void for the supernatural could be filled, in nature by evolution, by evolutionary or direct morals as proposed above, and other ways, the need for a God would cease to exist.
9. Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, is an elaborate argument against the existence of a theistic God, and against popular monotheism as it exists. His book is a series of “consciousness-raisers” to help the reader see why atheism is tenable, moreso than religion. On the side of religion, Richard Dawkins states that, “the argument from improbability is the big one.(pg.113)” Being an expert in evolution, Richard Dawkins shows how Darwinian natural selection defies the improbability argument for a god, and, “raises our consciousness in areas outside its original territory of biology.” Dawkins states confidently, “the factual premise of religion – The God Hypothesis – is untenable. God almost certainly doesn’t exist. (pg.158)” Dawkins’ argument seems to be rooted in an anger that religion has interfered in the realm of science, a realm which Francis Collins argues, cannot touch the realm of God. Dawkins regularly argues that the existence of god is of paramount importance, and he adds, “I think that it is a scientific question.(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-3,00.html)” It is here that we run into our greatest difficulty between Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould’s “Non-Overlapping Magisteria”, and Francis Collins’, “richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews.(pg.6, The Language of God)” The best way to approach this divide is to use Collins’ model of worldviews. Collins’ worldview he calls BioLogos (Greek for life-word=godlife), and says, “Biologos expresses the belief that God is the source of all life and that life expresses the will of God.(203)” He believes in rational scientific endeavors, but also believes in a god who exists outside of nature and natural laws. God in his mind exists outside of time, and therefore set in motion the big bang, and exists at all times in the universe. Like Gould, Collins concludes, “science can not be used to justify discounting…religions.(169)” Collins argues, in the name of Bayes Theorem, “for the committed materialist, no allowance can be permitted for the possibility of miracles in the first place.(pg.50)” In the interview with Times, Collins points out again, that Dawkins presumption of the supernatural is zero. Collins’ worldview is not that science and religion are separate realms, but rather, complementary worldviews that help him operate in the world. Although Dawkins grants in his book, “we can all agree that science’s entitlement to advise us is problematic, to say the least,” he contends how can religion contribute to the Moral discussion with, “the fact that it has nothing else to contribute to human wisdom.(pg.56)” This, of course contradicts his arugment later in his book that, “an atheistic world-view provides no justification for cutting the Bible and other sacred books out of our education,” something he goes on to call a “treasure heritage.(pg.344)” This is not Collins argument, just a weakness I found in The God Delusion. Neither of these two men buy into NOMA, and yet both have to reconcile spiritual and scientific worldviews in their life. The significant difference is that Collins’ overarching belief is that in God, so that his scientific worldview is still rooted in a belief in a supernatural God of everything. For Richard Dawkins, science and evolution is his overarching worldview, so that he must put any supernatural deity into his worldview of science and comes up with Atheism as his only choice. Collins puts it eloquently, “the God of the Bible is also the God of the genome.” He accurately points out that any battle between science and religion is futile, and as humans started such battles, “only we can end them.(pg.211)”
10. Littlewood’s theory of large numbers shows that with a gigantic set of possibilities, a small amount of extraordinary events is bound to occur merely by chance. The hypothetical monkeys on typewriters, given an infinitely large amount of monkeys and an infinitely large amount of time, infinite complexity like the complete works of Shakespeare or the Bible is bound to arise in the frame of Littlewood’s theory. In the context of one’s life, amidst a huge amount of insignificant events, seemingly miraculous or “divine” events are bound to arise on occasion. Chance and coincidence fully capture the causation of such events, but when our miracles are compared to everyday insignificances, they appear to be too miraculous to be the result of chance. We ignore the humongous number of times our lotto ticket amounted to one-dollar-less in our pocket when we finally win one jackpot, something IFTF calls flawed logical perception (http://future.iftf.org/2004/09/littlewoods_law.html). When we believe that a miracle is like this is a result of prayer, we must remember the great number of people who probably prayed for this event to occur to them in vain, posits Francis Collins, a believer (Language of God, pg. 52). It is however a problem to call Littlewood’s theory a law, as it cannot be absolutely applied as an explanation for all extraordinary phenomena, it is merely a standard by which miracles and everyday life can be evaluated and compared by.
11. Pseudosciences are, as the name suggests, is a false science. This is not to say that every pseudoscience is wrong, but rather that the claims that they are scientific are false, as they do not measure up to the scientific method. Sometimes a pseudoscience simply cannot be tested scientifically, as in the example of super-string theory. Pseudosciences are, like all sciences, on a theoretical level, just explanations for things in life. People turn to them to explain things in the world in a way that they see fit, or perhaps explain things that science cannot explain, or has not explained satisfactorily to the believer. When applied, a pseudoscience becomes more questionable as it makes decisions with a lack of rationality. In these cases, the believer is looking for changes and actions that sound scientific, but are outside the rules and boundaries of science.
Ockham’s (or Occam’s) Razor is a standard by which multiple explanations are measured up to one another. The hypothesis is that the simplest answer is the one that makes the fewest assumptions and depends on the smallest amount of hypothetical causes. According to the Razor, the best answer is the simplest one that shaves off the aforementioned. (Wikipedia – Occam’s Razor)
Astrology is a popular example of a pseudoscience, shrugged off by many and followed by many others. Astrology is a study of galactic bodies and how they effect the lives of human beings based on their positions. Astrology has a foundation in science where it was once linked with astronomy. Astrology accurately charts the courses of planets of stars. Astrology’s biggest assumption is in the belief that celestial bodies will directly effect the events in one’s life on earth, and that it will effect everyone born within a certain grouping of birth times in the same way. The latter provides for the most amusing assumption of astrology, as a 19 year old like myself might look at a star reading for the month, and hear lots of advice on what to do with my job (I don’t have one), my wife (I don’t have one), my finances (I don’t really have any), and so on. If one day a link between celestial bodies and human life could be substantiated scientifically, astrology would no longer be dependant on hypothetical circumstances and would pass the test of Occam’s Razor.
Super-string theory is a new idea in scientific thought trying to shift ideas about fundamental physics to change ideas about quantum physics and dimensionality. Thus far, no scientific tests have been created to test the theories of super-string. On the small level the theory suggests that particles are not 0-dimensional points but rather 1-dimensional “strings” extending infinitely. On a larger level the theory tells us that there are a multitude of extra-perceptional dimensions existing in other universes. Since this theory cannot be disproved it can claim to be theoretical science, but the only proof for the theory comes in assuming that the theory is valid. If we use the Razor to shave off assumptions, we break down the complete theory on its level. Until the hypotheses of super-string theory can be tested, it will have to remain a pseudoscience.
Occam’s Razor can effectively rationalize and measure the validity of things both theoretical and applied that claim to be science. Occam’s Razor will never be able, nor try, to disprove any pseudoscience, but will rather point us in the direction of rationality allowing the critical thinker to see what is believable and what is far-fetched.
12. Darwinian evolution is both a simple and complex concept about how life on earth has shaped and changed and grown. Richard Dawkins reduces it to one sentence: “the non-random survival or randomly varying codes” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx5RsxHbiZg). Darwinian evolution depends on the fact of mutation in animal life, and a theory called natural selection, sometimes called “survival of the fittest”. As exact as DNA replication can be, we know and see on a regular basis, examples of small mutations that affect an individual. We can call this a result of the same chance as Littlewood’s law of small numbers. While most mutations can be a one time occurrence and quickly routed out at the death of the carrier of the mutation, certain mutations provide for an advantage to that animal. Survival of the fittest is often misconceived as a mutation that causes that creature to outlive its fellow species. This is not far from the truth, but the true factor here is what mutation is passed on to the most fertile offspring, who will be able to pass it on in turn. Sometimes a long life provides for more procreation, other times it will be a reproductive mutation, and sometimes it will be seemingly irrelevant to the process. Over a long period of time, on rare occasions there is a jump, these mutations will work into the species until eventually it becomes a normal characteristic of the species who has now changed and evolved. Darwinian evolution provides for events of chance in the universe, and basic laws of nature to determine the future of animals. This fills in a space where god once existed for people, as the creator of the universe and all the plants and animals on planet earth. The creation theory of popular monotheism (Judeo-christianity) provides for an earth that has been around for approximately 6000 years. Using only the theory of evolution, we see that the earth has been around for significantly longer to cause the amount of evolution that has occurred. In creationism, god specifically planned out all the animals on the earth and put them on the earth as we see them, but the evidence shows that every creature has evolved leaps and bounds from its origins, which probably lied in countless ancestor species that lie before it. Atheism has many definitions and varieties, but is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods as described by the many religions of the world. Atheism does not, generally, outright reject god, but simply states that the lack of evidence for such a being is conspicuously unavailable. Henry Drummond coined the term “god of the gaps” to refer to the believers who put god in a realm above the explanations of science. As more and more explanations exist for nature, god’s role as creator dwindles (Wikipedia – God of the gaps). Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion proposes a model for ethics and morals as a part of Darwinian evolution. Should this explanation be valid god and religion’s usefulness is significantly drawn away. As the science takes away god, atheism as a scientific stance of doubt becomes more tenable and more respectable. Although the world has not shown this shift in census, it is becoming clear that atheism is creeping into the rationale and worldview of many individuals who might call themselves religious.
13. A meme, a term coined by Richard Dawkins himself, is a “unit of cultural information” that passes on from one mind to another in a way similar to that of genetics passing from one life to the next. Dawkins’ theory says that a meme will be passed on, not according to its beneficence to the host mind, but like natural selection, according to its ability to replicate and spread effectively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme_theory). He says in The God Delusion, “as with genes in a gene pool, the memes that prevail will be the ones that are good at getting themselves copied.(pg.196)” In his book, Dawkins describes Religion as a species, and points out that, “because Darwinian natural selection abhors waste, any ubiquitous feature of a species – such as religion – must have conferred some advantage or it wouldn’t have survived. (pg.191)” The mind’s “predilections and biases,” provide the background for memetic selection to occur. Dawkins sees religion as a viral meme, infecting minds in a negative way, and spreading rapidly through entire cultures. Religion begins as a set of simple memes, which, “survive by virtue of their universal appeal to human psychology.” The later stages of religions, he says, “are quite well handled by the theory of memeplexes – cartels of mutually compatible memes.(pg.201)” Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme_theory)argues that meme theory cannot be used to apply to “personal and intangible experiences.” Dawkins says that although, “organized religions are organized by people…the strong possibility remains that the detailed form of each religion has been largely shaped by unconscious evolution.(pg.200)” Where the Judeo-Christian religions have claimed to be the result of revelation from god, Dawkins would argue that certain memes were passed to the founders and developed into a memeplex and religion. Although they may claim to have had truths “revealed” to them, Dawkins would argue that their set of previously-held memes would set up an environment to accept, or possibly even catalyze (see Faqir chand’s sociological view of religion), the religious meme. Richard Dawkins is quoted on his website as saying, “the meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry. (http://richarddawkins.net/quotes)”
14. In a video on youtube, which I can no longer find, Richard Dawkins calls the question about god and god’s existence the most paramount question in the world. Working under this assumption, we can immediately shrug off the pacifist who wonders, “who cares?” or “why bother?” The problem with Richard Dawkins’ attack on god, is that it is a rational and scientific argument. It would only lead to an argument for one to say that god is beyond rationality and science, and yet it is the only way it can be approached. God need not exist in gaps, like places in evolution we don’t understand, or in the mysterious fuzziness of quantum physics. Looking at god must be seen like looking at an extra dimension, as described in the 1884 book Flatland. From a 2 dimensional perspective, one can only perceive things in 2 dimensions, and ventures into a theoretical world when postulating a 3rd dimension. We live in a 4 dimensional world Albert Einstein tells us; 3 spatial dimensions, and 1 constant (or inconstant) dimension of time. From our perspective, how would we be able to comprehend a god who exists in no dimensions of space and time? Or a dimension of, for lack of a better word, godliness? Freeman Dyson says god can be thought of as, “mind beyond the scale of our comprehension.” The fact that Richard Dawkins is thinking and calculating god in our universe, means he is extremely limiting god. It is no wonder, then, that Richard Dawkins comes up with a 4 dimensional god that simply does not exist. It is a cyclical argument that will continue to be swallowed up in the fact that god is beyond our perception, so skeptics will scoff, and believers will believe. Richard Dawkins has done a very fine job of picking out all the problems with human religion, much as you’ll find flaws in all things human. If nothing else, god is simply an unflawed being that is inhuman.
15. It is difficult to deny the theory of evolution by natural selection as it has presented us. The only argument the “young-earth” creationists can provide to dispel evidence for evolution, is that god is merely fooling humans with this evidence. An interesting argument, but for the sake of rationality we will shrug off young earth creationism as, irrational. To argue for intelligent design to the universe requires a leap of faith. It has, thus far, been absolutely impossible to empirically prove an intelligent designer of the universe, as we know it. Therefore, to proceed to argue for an intelligent design, one uses philosophy and analogies, as is often the most rational way to proceed in such metaphysical realms. The anthropic idea is that our universe is extremely improbable, almost to insurmountable odds. At the macro level, because no evidence exists outside the scope of our universe, it is possible to place a god outside of our universe, and believe that god was responsible for fine-tuning the quantities that make our existence a reality. Collins has also proposed at this cosmic level of theory, that because time and space do not exist in science before the big bang, theology can place a god before the big bang, even as a creator of such an event. On the level of human beings, we have already postulated the validity of evolution by natural selection. It is easy to see that we evolved from apes that evolved from less and less evolved forms, going back to the primordial ooze, and back further to the random combining of atoms. The interesting thing to note about humans, however, is their conscious, rational mind, which has not shown concrete evidence as an evolved feature, and which often leads people to a supernatural god. God has often, of late, been placed in the gaps of evolution, that god might have caused the spark from the primordial ooze to life, or that god exists where fossil records don’t, or that god can be used to explain “irreducible complexity” in certain features of nature. We simply know that this is a faulty argument that leads to problems, and although we can perhaps say that the god of the cosmos might exist in a gap, this is a problem we will discuss later. Freeman Dyson made the argument, like Owen Gingerich, that the process of DNA replication which leads to mutation and eventually to natural selection, suggests a certain decision making model. Following this model, if we are able to make decisions, and cells are able to make decisions, then we can propose a logical third decision making force, which exists on the opposite side of us from cells. Theistic evolution has used the idea that, although the world may have evolved according to Darwin’s theory, a god may still be responsible for setting up the process of natural selection as we know it, even a timeless creator, like Collins suggests, that could foresee all the implications of the seemingly random process of evolution before it happens. The difference between, I will use Collins’ term, Biologos and a “god of the gaps,” is that of the gaps. Questions of theology as we have discussed previously, and will continue to discuss, in this midterm, are outside of the range of science. God can always exist in a gap that is unreachable by science, perhaps quantum weirdness, or before the big bang, or the anthropic principle. If science will be able to disprove it, then this is a gap that god will eventually be chased away from. The question becomes, what can and can’t science do?
Rather than re-explaining the complexities of our universe, and the simple scientific nature of evolution, we will use scientific theories here to provide a model where no intelligent designer exists. Although we have seen that the universe is extremely unlikely, probability theory has provided us an answer. Simply put, in a large enough number of chances, anything can happen. Yes, the age-old question of monkeys on typewriters comes to mind. Probability theory says that given enough time monkey and typewriters, eventually they will come up with Shakespeare’s complete works, or the Bible or The God Delusion, who knows? We do not know whether a multiverse exists, nor the expanse of time that may expand before the big bang and beyond the end of this universe, but we do know that science is not impressed by amazing complexity. Stephen Wolfram, with his work in cellular automata. He found that given a simple computer program, incomprehensible complexity was popular given enough time. If we said then, that in place of a god, a simple computer program existed that provided the complexities that made our universe exist, habitable to life, and eventually spawned us, it seems not so far-fetched. Although science has not reached all the answers of the universe, theoretical mathematics shows us that all of the most improbable things are possible just by – well, probability.
16. I will, first off, have to take a stance against the question; I do not necessarily think that Gould believes that science and religion can ‘get along.’ Gould’s idea of NOMA, is that science and religion are different realms of knowledge that exist in different planes. This is not like two subjects getting along, but two subjects coping with each one’s existence by living in separate rooms or on separate floors. Richard Dawkins, however, argues that religion and science do not exist in separate realms, and that religion should be subject to scientific criticism, as it has tried to use and manipulate and justify science. Francis Collins agrees with Gould in his book, The Language of God, quoting Gould as saying, “science can not be used to justify discounting…religions (pg.196).” He however says that NOMA, “sets up an artificial wall between the two worldviews (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-3,00.html).” Collins brings up this argument in his book, elaborating on the fact that he sees separating science and religion as an unsatisfactory way of reconciling the apparently opposing forces, as discussed in question 9. For Collins, his studying science has provided him awe in the world that he sees as divine, and religion has helped to guide him to moral and philanthropic practice of science. Richard Dawkins believes that Gould’s idea of NOMA is, “a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-3,00.html).” Dawkins has argued that if a divine god were to be proven, or disproved, those who had instilled NOMA as an idea to appease and separate the battling worldviews would throw it out. Dawkins has made the argument in his book and in numerous interviews that Religion does not practice a NOMA separation, with stories like Genesis, religious people have directly commented on the scientific realm. Miracles are also an irreconcilable issue for Dawkins, who believe they are heresy in the face of scientific rationality. Religion has also been used to oppress scientific thoughts and experimentation. This is why Dawkins believes that religion has broken down the sort of wall that NOMA would set up, and allows religion to be prone to scientific scrutiny. The Gould – Dawkins debate has raged on for a long time. Dawkins has made some solid arguments against the ideas of NOMA, but I will have to say that Gould’s idea of NOMA is a more rationally solid idea. I will refer back to Collins’ analogy of pure water in rusty cups: although NOMA should be in theory, a solid way to approach religion and science, people of science and religion alike have extended both far outside the reach of scope of the subject.
17. Neurology and ontology are simply different things, different studies in different fields. Neurology is a scientific study of the human brain, a system of neurons and chemicals and impulses interacting as a central controlling system, a central nervous system. The brain has involuntary functions such as helping us breath and making us feel pain, and the brain helps us voluntarily walk. Our brain gives us language, studied in the field of neurolinguistics, and our brain gives us memory. The most abstract job of the brain, is to think, to imagine, to comprehend, and it is here that the reach of neurology is very limited. Ontology is a philosophical field, one that attempts to describe reality. Ontology is the study of conceptions of reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology). Neurology and ontology are different fields, but there is more to be said about confusing the two. To confuse neurology and ontology suggests a misunderstanding of the human mind. Being limited within our brain’s structure, we often forget or ignore that our perception of reality is limited what our brain can take in. For an example, we can break down one of our senses, the sense of vision. The electromagnetic spectrum describes a measure of all the possible electromagnetic radiations, as we know them. They range from infinitesimally small wavelengths to gigantic wavelengths, and they exist all over our universe. Visible light is the small increment of radiations on the EM spectrum that our eye’s structure can perceive, and passes on to our brain as a visual sensation. As one can see in the EM spectrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum), what is visible to humans is a very small range, typically between 400 – 700 nm. Because we can only perceive this small visible light, we may doubt the existence of ultraviolet or infrared radiations, as they are outside the range of our eye’s physiology and our brain’s neurology. This doesn’t mean they aren’t real, and if there were some supernatural force that floated around outside of the visible light spectrum, perhaps out of the entire EM spectrum, we would not be able to comment on its reality either. This is not to postulate the existence of a god, but merely exhibit the difference between our neurology and our ontology. This is the reason that philosophers and other scholars separate the conditioned and unconditioned realities. The conditioned reality is what is perceived in the limits of the human neurology. Unconditioned reality, we assume, is extra-sensory, but our understanding of it is limited by our anatomy.
18. Quantum has been described as weirdness, as spooky, as uncertain. Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty theory states that the more accurately one knows the position of a quantum object the less accurately one knows its momentum, and vice versa. In simpler terms, we cannot know both the position and momentum of a quantum object (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle). The extension is that much of Quantum physics is based on measurements of probabilities and statistics. The question is how such a scientific view of physical world (one based on randomness and chance and chaos) can be reconciled with a theological view of the world (as designed and purposeful). Simply, a theological view of the world can trump natural definitions of the world. If one poses the universe as seemingly based on randomness, it is not difficult to propose that a divine creator has a purpose/design that is beyond the abilities of the human mind and scientific rationality to perceive. It is possible to see this reconciliation as a god of the gaps, but the question becomes whether we can draw conclusions from quantum statistics or if the randomness of it is a weirdness that is natural and a fact of the scientific universe. If the randomness will always be randomness, then god can always exist in this gap of scientific knowledge. But if we draw rational conclusions from quantum statistics, then god will have to exist in a, in Professor David Lane’s words, ‘post-rational’ realm. Collins sees through the weirdness, simplicity in equation form. He quotes Eugene Wigner in reference to the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (Language of God pg.62).” He even proposes that Heisenberg was encountering the divine in quantum chaos. Collins wonders, “is mathematics…another language of God?(pg.63)” By trying to make God scientific, Collins is treading on thin ice. Such questions depend on philosophical musings and intellectual conflict, but from them we are able to better reconcile our scientific and religious worldviews.
19. Faqir Chand’s revelation about religious visions is best summed up in his own words: “This entire game [of religious visions] is that of your impressions and suggestions which are ingrained upon your mind through your eyes and ears and of your Faith and Belief.” Faqir chand postulated that because people claimed visions of him in places that he was not, that something else must be responsible for these mental visions. He came to the conclusion that these religious visions were the result of sociological mental effects, and that people projected visions based on their worldview. Simply put, certain people have religious experiences because their worldview is religious, while others don’t have religious experiences because of their lack of religiousness. The more simple analogy usually given is between two religious people, one from India and one from America; it makes sense that the person in India would see the Buddha, or Krishna, or another deity or guru, while the person in America would likely see a familiar American religious figure such as Jesus. It follows however, that the person who is not religious will simply not have a religious vision, in much the same way that a Christian would have a Christian vision and a Hindu would have a Hindu vision. This logical model fits into the sociological view of religion as a cultural force. We see how one’s culture shapes religious expressions, such as mystical visions. With regards to function, multiple examples occur throughout all sorts of religious traditions of people being cured by their religious faith, clearly a useful, even evolutionary, function of religion. The question is the manifestation of religion, and how it is both an extension of social forces as well as a personal instrument.
20. C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity presents his argument for Christianity. He was a noted scholar who converted from Atheism to Christianity in his 20’s. Lewis’ argument is framed around the idea of the ‘moral law’ as an entity of the human existence. Lewis provides us with a convincing philosophical argument about the Moral Law, it cannot be natural law because humans break it, and it cannot be a random desire as it is often against our will. Lewis postulates a greater existence in the universe that instills a Moral Law in us, as well as the free will to break it, and he notes that this is a peculiar state of circumstances. While his arguments for a Moral Law that seem to suggest a higher power, and lead him towards Christianity, the problem with his philosophy is that it is based almost completely of analogies, as is quite often the case with philosophy. Though his words are eloquent, and even seem to yield a fair amount of accuracy, we have to assume that his conditions are true, and that the analogies he makes are valid connections. Most of his arguments are a priori, and not a posteriori, meaning that instead of using evidence to prove the argument, the premises are assumed to be sufficient to prove the argument. All in all, the premise of his argument is that there is a moral law, and that it is evidence for a greater being.
“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe- no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house.” This is an argument that convinced the scientist Francis Collins, and one he mentions in his book. The argument can be expanded upon but it shows us the basic weakness and strength of the argument. His analogy is strong in that it makes sense and fits rationally with ideas we have, but the premise is still “if there was a controlling power.” Lewis in one of his analogies says that despite the usefulness of a traitor, he or she is seen, “as human vermin.” The premise of his argument makes sense, and yet we do not know for a fact that the people using the traitor’s information actually see that person so lowly. Many times, the traitor is seen as a hero defending the ideas that the nation holds as true, even though the traitor is now forsaking the values of his or her home. Lewis presents a convincing argument, but is limited by the fact that philosophy can only theorize about what is real, and not prove it.
21. Friederich Nietzsche’s condemnation of Christianity comes from a perspective very different from ours. To quote him, “What is good?-whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man. What is evil?-whatever springs from weakness. (2.)” Nietzsche’s standpoint is a very naturalistic point of view, and he goes on to condemn Christianity repeatedly as unnatural. His stance is, that in the world of evolution, man must do what is must to survive and thrive: “Life itself appears to me as an instinct for growth, for survival, for the accumulation of forces, for power: whenever the will to power fails there is disaster.(6.)” It is somewhat a hard view to capture, as it is so cold and different from our own, especially clear when he espouses stratification of society, and condemns equal rights as evil and unnatural. He is also concerned completely with life in the ‘here and now,’ and sees reaching for something beyond it as false and useless. If we can vaguely look through his glasses, we can proceed with his argument. Nietzsche states in his work that Christianity is a religion for “the botched and the weak…”(2.). He sees this pity as counter-natural; where natural selection and natural stratification of society would route out these lesser individuals, Christianity embraces them and embraces an evil vice. He claims that social stratification or the order of castes, “is merely the ratification of an order of nature, of a natural law of the first rank.(57.)” He proposes that this system, where he classifies individuals in 3 ranks, 2 minority ranks as higher in intellect or brute strength, and the 1 majority rank as weak and “show only mediocrity, (57.)” as a system that progressively separates the ranks, but where the ranks mutually condition one another. In Nietzsche’s view, it is evil that Christianity rises up the meek, but even more that it instills an anarchist idea of envy and revolt in them. Nietzsche clearly has issues with theologians; he sees them as enemies to thought and to truth. He even quotes bible passages, like this one where one senses a pitting of Christianity against wisdom and might: “But God hat chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hat chosen the weak things of the world confound the things which are mighty. (45.)” Nietzsche is outraged to no end by the lies (as he sees them) of Christianity and its theologians, and its ability to tear down wisdom and natural truths. He does not explain his meaning of decadence, but continually brings it up as a rottenness of humanity, and decadence values as ones to which, “mankind now fixes its highest aspirations,” a fault of the majority of Christians no doubt. As his writing progresses on and on his arguments seem to be more and more colored by a confused rage against Christianity, but to take his views in summary: -Christianity has taken the part of all the weak, the low, the botched; it has made an ideal out of antagonism to all the self-preservative instincts of sound life; it has corrupted even the faculties of those natures that are intellectually most vigorous, by representing the highest intellectual values as sinful, as misleading, as full of temptation.(5.)
22. Richard Dawkins paints an elaborate picture of god as a harmful delusion. He proves that god is unscientific, irrational, and unnecessary. Owen Gingerich is a brilliant research professor at Harvard University, who alongside with a great knowledge of the universe, integrates a strong Christian ethic in his life and conscious. His argument involves both the anthropic principle on the macro level, that without certain fine-tuned quantities in our universe, it would be impossible for our kind of life to be sustained. In his interview with Robert Wright, he brings up Martin Rees’ famous book, Just Six Numbers, which gives six quantities in our universe that make life possible as we see it in our world. Atheistic scientists like Dawkins would argue that this is not proof of a design but merely an infinitely improbable event to occur much like under Littlewood’s Theory or Wolfram’s theory of computational complexity. One argument people refer to here is the multiverse, in which our universe is one of any number of universes that all exist with the different variations on the six numbers, but because we are here living as we do, we must be living in the (at least) one universe that got the quantities right. This, however, is impossible to prove, and has led to cyclical arguments much like an extra-perceptional god. Gingerich does not claim that this proves a god, but points out accurately that it suggests a possibility of god, and one he is inclined to take. On a smaller level, Owen Gingerich is of the opinion that the DNA replication errors that lead to mutations and evolution are much too magnificent to be merely chance, and suggest, much like the fine-tuned numbers of our universe, that there exists a possibility and place for god in this universe. Freeman Dyson, a British-American physicist and mathematician, places much less effort on combining scientific fact with religious theology. He considers religion something much more than theology; religion is a moral and ethic code, an artform of beautiful literature, art, and music, and a form of community gathering. Unlike Owen Gingerich who sees Christianity as the only possible religion for him, Dyson recognizes that he is affected by sociology and could just as soon be any other religion based on where and to whom he was born. Freeman Dyson for the most part, separates religion and science in his life, calling science merely tinkering around with numbers and laws of nature, and religion being a structure for living. He does not attempt to combine the weirdness of quantum mechanics that he works with, with a model of a mysterious creator or suggestions of higher meaning in the universe, saying rather that, “it is probably only making it (the nature of the ultimate material fabric of the universe) more obscure.” Dyson’s models for religion are all hypothetical, like his idea of the 3-minded universe. He proposes that natural selection on the micro level suggests a decision-making ability for DNA to decide where errors should be made (recall Gingerich’s argument on this). Since we know that on our human level we have consciousness and the ability to make decisions, and Dyson believes that below our consciousness there is another kind of mind making decisions, he proposes a higher mind than ours, with super-human consciousness. Dyson’s favorite analogy of science and religion is one of two separate windows, “that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside.” While Dawkins insists that religion must exist within the constrains of our newly scientific society, Dyson proves that it can be separate (like Non-Overlapping MAgisteria), and that religion can provide a useful way to live in this universe. In response to Steven Weinberg’s stab at religion, one that Richard Dawkins uses in The God Delusion, that, “for good people to do bad things- that takes religion,” Freeman Dyson points out that while a small portion of good people do bad things in the name of religion, a portion of bad people repent and do good things in the name of religion as well.
23. I think I’d have to say I enjoyed the taped lecture of Freeman Dyson most of all. He did not inundate me with hard to swallow facts, but rather told me where he stood. He is clearly a bright man, and rather than closing himself, he clearly has a very opened worldview. I liked his philosophical models for the universe, including the 3-minded universe and the idea of gaia, but even more because he accepted that they are only theories of the mind, and not scientific fact. He provided for me an enjoyable thought exploration, as well as exhibiting an ideal reconciliation of religion and science.
24. Hmm, Mere Christianity was a great exploration of philosophy. The Antichrist was a little abrasive, but terrifically interesting, and provided a good insight on a different worldview. The Language of God, had problems: too much about Collins, commenting outside his scope on the validity of the gospels, etc. I think however that the thesis of The Language of God, of Biologos, was a very satisfying and plausible model for life. Although Dawkins was a bit aggravating and abrasive with his arguments against religion, I think his book was my favorite, as it provided the sort of paradigm shift that I love so much. Although he may or may not be right, providing people with an opposing idea that might open the mind is a noble cause, and it is clear in an age with growing fundamentalism that opened minds are increasingly necessary. Unfortunately, Dawkins tends to become a little fundamental himself. As is it is easy to see, The God Delusion is a campaign by Dawkins for Atheism. Although I might disagree with his purpose, I can understand the cause, even necessity, for his campaign, and I think he did a good job with it.
25. Metaphysical “shit.” If I have not already made this point enough, science and religion both have limits. Science is out of its element when it tries to extend itself to questions of unconditioned reality. Admittedly, religion and metaphysics fails to match up to experimentation, making its factuality questionable. Professor Lane provides a good example of where science cannot comment in his model of the “Waking” state. Like the multiverse, we can no more prove it than disprove it. It however provides fertile ground for philosophical thought and metaphysical practice. Science cannot disprove Buddhist enlightenment, perhaps comparable to the Professors model of the waking state and death. Enlightenment cannot even be proven to practitioners of Buddhism, but like death, you’ll know when you get there.
26. As far as learning, I would say the biggest thing I learned was evolution. I already knew the theory of evolution, but the class provided me a much better understanding of theory of evolution, and its implications, manifestations and expressions. But rather than learning, what I have enjoyed most in the class has been the brain busting exercise of battling religion and science within my mind and the mind of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment