Final Exam

1. Be sure to place your entire FINAL on your website and when you
are finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@yahoo.com (don't send
it to any other email address, except that)
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other
authors please be sure to quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be
tolerated and you will receive an "F" automatically for the examination.
3. The test is due NO LATER than April 17th.
3a. Each answer should be at least three paragraphs long, if
possible.
4. What is your real name? Nakita Young
5. What is your "user" name? Mskb08
6. What is your email address that you use for this class? mskb08@yahoo.com, mzflynflashy@aim.com
7. Name and address for your website.
2 B Or Not 2 B
8. Have you done all the reading for the entire class?
Yes
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
Yes
10. What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revised
midterm grade? Working on that solid B :) Provide a LINK to your midterm. http://neuralsurfing.blogspot.com/search/label/Midterm

11. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this
class (you can copy and paste them. ALL SIX WEEKS OF POSTINGS.)

Week 5
Expert Lecture:
It’s no secret that Religion has been the cause for many bloody battles throughout the ages. From the Crusades to the terrorist attacks on September 11. Religion has always been the justification for blood and war. Professor Juergensmeyer has illustrated that. Religion affects society in virtually every aspect, including politics as the Professor emphasizes. As a Professor of Sociology, he is well aware of the powerful connection that Religion has to society.
Being that there are so many divisions and different views, disputes are unavoidable. People will never see eye to eye on many different topics, especially when it comes to their Faith. They are required to believe fully in their beliefs and strong convictions could lead to violent outbursts to another group who opposes their beliefs. This has been seen many times throughout history. Unfortunately, after these bloody disputes, a underlying hatred is formed and prejudice is born out of this. For example, after the terrorists attacks of 9/11, there were many hate crimes committed to middle eastern people in America, even if they weren't Muslims. We are now at war because of this also. I agree with the Professor that the "War on terror" is inappropriate, but unfortunately that’s how it shall remain as long as Religion holds such an important part in society.

Assigned Readings:
Critical Thinking
I definitely agree with Mr. Schafersman when he says that critical thinking should be indoctrinated in the classrooms. I also believe it’s not only necessary, but essential to the students. Not only academically, but in everyday life. Mr. Shafersman knows that critical thinking will make students more immune to a lot of the ignorance that blankets our society on a daily basis. In a time such as now, when information is constantly changing and adapting at an immense speed, critical thinking should be a tool given to the youth coming up, to better prepare them for the complexity of independence.
"We should be teaching students how to think. Instead, we are teaching them what to think", this is one of the quotes that Mr. Schafersman uses in his article from Clement and Lochhead. This quote is the epitome of what Mr. Schafersman is combatting in the school systems. Reasonable, reflective, responsible, and skillful thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do, this is his definition of critical thinking and I think those are the ingredients to success. How can you not want to merge this kind of thinking to the sciences? It would only be beneficial. As he says, most exams like multiple choice ones only require memorization skills, it’s not necessary to think and examine the question. This is why the statistics of our educational systems are going down. Hopefully in the near future, this will be realized and implemented

BS Edgar Cayce
Edgar Cayce is a man that I believe knows the power of persuasion. Johnson has pointed out that he has many readings that have been inaccurate in the past. Yet that has not dwindled the number of followers that he has attained. Edgar Cayce a long with many guru's that we have seen, uses the power of magic and mystery to please the minds of their believers and leave them awe struck in a fantastical world, feeding the appetite of the human imagination. When people are blinded by the veil of mystique, they seldom tend to seek reality.
Johnson is right with how Edgar's expert application of his trade keeps his reputation as a great psychic alive. He doesn't overly exert his ability but he can stand his ground when it comes to defending his skill. I guess a man of his profession would have to be good in what he does in order to thrive the way he does. If you cannot learn how to step over the land mines of evidence, or side step the arguments of reason, then your persona will ultimately be short lived.

Fubbi Gakko
I commend Professor Lane for speaking not only his mind, but speaking the truth. I admire his tenacity at revealing the truth behind this pseudo-cult groups, that are nothing but a bunch of frauds and take advantage of the weak minds or the less observant. I just laugh at a man such as Paul Twitchell who fabricates his own life and takes works of others and proclaims it as his own. A man like that needed to be exposed and revealed for what he was, it’s sad when you are a writer and have no respect for other peoples hard work. I would love to have the opportunity to have a conversation with David Lane, I think it would be an enlightening experience.
I understand why the interviewer wanted to join though. Eckankar was like a big social club. Most people are vulnerable when they feel lonely with no self-worth, so when they come across a group like this, that seems to extend their arms and welcome you and your flaws, it’s very inviting. But nonetheless, when truth pulls away the cloak of lies to something you held dear, it’s not as special as it was before. Eckankar was a business and it was a business built on the foundation of other ideas of men, manufactured by a visionary fraud and a gifted financially motivated organizer, like Lane said "anything could happen". But truth cannot be denied, no matter how much you wish to deny it. I do respect the fact that David Lane limited his exposures to major aspects of Eckankar and didn't set out to bash Paul Twitchell personally and desecrate his character. This was a very interesting read and I enjoyed the reality of it.

Required Book
"Truth Lies" is an engrossing piece of work. An almost magnetic approach when you start reading it because of the truth it entails. I particularly enjoyed when he spoke of independence and how few of us are indeed independent. Many people are not built to face the risks of going against the grain of society. He says people that follow the herd of human existence already face danger; imagine those who choose NOT to march to the same beat? That is a truth that many people would not want to accept, which to me makes it truer.

Countless times in society has lies been cloaked in truth. Society buys into it because of the authorities that enforce it. In the time of strong Christianity, when the power of the church was unquestionable, can you imagine the strength and courage of a man to sway away from Religion? Nietzsche says that us being human beings, when it comes to things that we do not understand, we tend to believe whatever explanation is provided as long as it makes a little sense. If worded right and a hint of logic is presented in the explanation of something not understood more than likely people will believe it to be true, even if its fabricated. Sometimes it is hard to compete with your own brain.

Critical Thinking
Thakar Singh

I have to say, I have no idea how people get to follow these types of cult so blindly. I mean, blindfolding kids till the age of 5? No playing, 6 hours of meditation, that is just ridiculous. I feel that anyone with common sense would see how fallacious this kind of group is. I don't think it’s surprising at all when stories of foul play and abuse arise from a congregation of this nature. It’s obviously based on control and weakening the mind of any of its followers so that they can easily be manipulated and turned into lifeless believers. To think they have over 100,000 followers is mind boggling.
I was glad to see people actually raising questions in the Town Meeting. He is no doubt a con man, but when you bombard anyone of his character with questions to explain his position or his proposition, all the holes in his claims will be revealed. "Special Powers", "Direct channel to the almighty", I guess when you're that "holy" its ok to abuse women and children sexually and physically. You can plainly see how Eric Peterson is so blinded by this man's beliefs, without question. How can people follow a man who embezzles money and abuses women? Using his beliefs to justify his actions. Unbelievable! He's the worst kind of man, taking advantage of weak or broken people. Providing them with false hope for life improvement.

Sai Baba

Its sad that a person would take advantage of people and their beliefs in such a manner. He obviously likes the attention and feeds his ego with the praises of the people he fools every day. It’s easy to see the sleight of hand when you watch a video in slow motion, but I can imagine it was very effective when he is speaking words of inspiration and his audience is distracted by their own awe of this "miracle" man. A magician without a conscience is a savvy person for making money and gaining followers, as we have seen plenty of times before. People like Sai Baba are a plague to society.

Conference Presentation
BB6
Susan Neiman has an interesting view. She says when deciding on what religion to believe in, you have to consider what is required of that particular religion. Whether it hinders your thinking or enriches it. I agree with her position. The most important thing about religion should not be the belief in a God, but it should be how it can improve you as a person. That is, will it offer you than just a set of rules to follow without question instead of the freedom to explore the main theme of the belief?

Most people only have good ethics because it is required of them in their respective religion. What would happen if the religion would allow them to act less morally with no consequence? I believe that morality should come from us first, it should not stem from religion. Religion should just further enforce it. Morals and values are supposed to be instilled in us regardless of religion or not. I think it is because of this that many heated religious disagreements lead to bloodshed. Both sides feel justified because they think its morally right to do so because they are defending their own God and religion. But at the end of the day, murder and imprisonment are morally wrong.


BB 7
Mahzarin Banaji speaks about things reminiscent of Faqir Chand's beliefs. She speaks about how we manifest things and believe them to be reality, when in actuality they're just things that we fabricated in our own minds. In the example she used to further support her position, she substantiated that our brain differentiated 2 table shapes. In our brain the shapes were of 2 different proportions but she proved that they were indeed the same shape.

Her approach to the whole way of presenting her position was very convincing because of how factual she was. Demonstrations, statistics plus her confident demeanor made what she was talking about believable. It could not be easily dismissed. She made it apparent that our brain does not always perceive things the way it should. This ties in to what Faqir Chand said about with religious manifestations and divine help. Sometimes what we see and take for what is reality is just an illustration of our own thoughts.


BELIEVER MAG ISSUE - Summary

This is an interesting topic to discuss. Of course its definitely based on perspective on which side you agree upon. I most certainly think its somebody's own manifestation as to the vision that appears before them. I think the argument that Faqir Chand brought to the table was a very insightful one. I think what he said made a lot of sense as to why people from different religions all have visions of different figures based on what their belief was, instead of all of them seeing one prophet who is perceived as "God".
What would you tell somebody who said they saw the stay puft marsh mellow man and helped him in some task? I bet he would be ridiculed, by like the author illustrated, what is the difference between Stay Puft, Virgin Mary or The Master K.H? I say whatever works. If whatever vision helped you achieve something you wanted, then it doesn't really matter what it was. What's important is that you don't get caught up in the hype as Faqir Said in "Realisation of the Reality". You could end up getting exploited for your ignorance of your situation by sly so called "Guru's" as we have seen before happen. These are gonna be one of those topics that will
Week 6
Expert Lecture

John Polkinghorne wanted Science & Religion to co-exist together. From many of our assignments, I have noticed that many of the scientists are either on one or the other. There doesn't seem to be a median between the two. I like his concept of combining the two together. Science is the "how" and Religion being the "why". He believed that there are so many unexplained things that cannot be explained without the idea of a higher being.

All elements known to man were created so perfectly, and things to fit together, and are so in tune there is no explanation. He felt that it wasn't plausible, that nothing was behind all these forces. He felt that everything was designed so beautifully down to the smallest aspect. Polkinghorn seemed confident, unlike most of the other speakers who believed in religion. They seemed very unsure, and their ideas seemed far-fetched. I really enjoyed this lecture. In my opinion this was one of the best ones.

Wk 6 Required book

Wow. Nietzsche spoke his mind, and did not sugar coat anything. He dismantled the Christian faith, and anyone who believed in it without any hesitation. He felt that religion was an embarrassment to itself and the human race. In his opinion a person should not have to follow a blind belief in order to gain values. He felt that a person should know how to right from wrong, and how to contain themselves without having to be deceived by the bible. His perception of the spoken word was false divinity and nice fables. His view was that each individual must control their own mind and actions.

Nietzsche felt that a person cannot fulfill their purpose in life being restrained by false hopes and promises given from something or someone that is not proven. His explanation of how religion corrupts a person’s mind, body, and soul. This book verbally assaulted and thrashed my faith. However I do not hold any negative feelings for Nietzsche. He was wise. Maybe he’s too intelligent for his own good. I must admit that that his points were not farfetched. As much as I wish I could discredit him, he is rational and logical.

Beyond Belief session 8

Sam Harris began by saying that he is not afraid of people like Jeffery Dahmer, instead he is worried about people who believe in religion. He credited Islam for having the most religious extremists. He thought it infected people so heavily they do things like the 9/11 attacks. Sam Harris believed that the Muslim religion based its beliefs from teachings out of the Koran. He believed that the Koran demanded that its followers do barbaric acts for the sake of their religion. I don't necessarily agree with that. An entire religious group did not get together fly planes into the twin towers. Everyone in the Muslim religion should not be held accountable for the actions of a few idiots. This stereotype should not be formed against EVERY1 in this belief system. My uncle is highly influenced by the Koran, and he wouldn't commit those horrible acts.

I don't know much about their religion, but I doubt that it states you have to kill yourself. I wonder why so many religions have different meanings. In Christianity it is a sin to kill yourself, yet in other places its merely a sacrifice. Have you ever thought about all religions coming together and merging as one? Finding similarities in each of them, and producing one. Everyone always say their God is my God.


Richard Dawkins believed people who belong to certain religions are stereotyped as terrorist groups, when that is not always the case. I think that religions that infer that you consider sacrificing yourself is more of a cult. They should not be in the Religious category. I think if you’re willing to kill yourself as well as other innocent people you are a terrorist hands down. An audience member stated that a scientific poling technique was applied to innocent civilians being murdered from The War on Terror and the total was 600,000. That breaks my heart if this study is true.
The story about the decapitated woman gave me a bad memory. My friend went over to Iraq when the War on Terrorism first started. I asked him what the worst thing he saw was. He told me that his convoy was driving down a street, and a little girl appeared to be hurt. The soldiers are not supposed to stop because they could be traps. My friend Mike said one of guys in his units has a child about the same age as the little girl. The guy demanded they stop. He felt so bad for the little girl, she was bleeding, and stumbling. I forgot the age of the child. Mike said the guy made them slow down, and the rest of them wanted to just leave her. The guy gets off, walks toward her, pick her up, and they both blow up. Right in front of their faces. He says he will never forget that and he has nightmares. I think that is so cowardly to blow up a child. He said the people over there would play on their sympathy. He said kids blowing up happened all the time. Mike had been home for a few years, and he still hesitates to play with children. I understand what the speaker said. However I don't agree completely. Maybe my next class will be about religion.

Beyond Belief Session 9

The main focus of this session was behavior morality. A lot of people hold religion in the place of setting boundaries. In this session, the main point for those against religion was that you don't need religion to maintain morality. The people who doubt religion felt that it was perfectly possible to have one without the other. Others felt like the two were fundamentally linker. The session began with a clip from Root of All Evil. It was about based around a pastor Ted from the new life church. The pastor seemed like he was attacking the narrator. As a pastor he should have contained himself. I am hoping that the tape was cut and edited to seem that way, and he wasn't so rude. His performance looked like a show, which I why I stay away from church. I mentioned before that it has turned into a fashion show, and who can give the most money.

In my faith, we were created by God in his image, as to fulfill the purpose he intended us for. We have an obligation to obey His commands because he is the creator. it is in the commandments. As a Christian, my mother thinks you can't go to a simple nightclub. It says Come out from among them and be holy, and separate. People who are not walking that religious walk are said to be worldlier, and pull you in. One should be righteous.
Spiritual boundaries are trusting and believing in God. You are expected to know and trust that Jesus died on Calvary for our sins. I think there is a type of contradiction because he forgives us no matter what. That's like we are expected to do wrong. Jesus then took on our sins, sickness, and disease. Jesus was supposed to take all that on, which was the reason he died for us. Yet we still suffer. We are considered to be blood brought, because he paid the price for us.

Magazine Reading

Whoa, calm down Professor Lane. I'm surprised to see you so angry. The guy I met was easy going, and laid back. You turned into F. Neitzsche in this read. I see that you strongly dislike and despise Andrew Cohen. This story is on Andrew Cohen is a self-proclaimed guru who is known for his controversial teachings. He is described as a dictator. In plain words, he is nothing more than a cult leader.

He was described in the magazine as a weak individual who was picked on as an adolescent, whom later wanted popularity. Andrew wanted to be praised. It was clearly stated that Andrew was different from other Guru's. He controlled every aspect of his followers life. Everyone in his group dressed the same, and their sole purpose is to carry out his wishes. If they don't it was said that he may lash out at them. His birth mother had very ill feelings towards him She described him as a controlling tyrant. I think that is deep when the person who brought you into the world has that viewpoint of you. His mother later went on to write a book named "The Mother of God".

Professor Lane bashes Cohen, and others of his kind. He is said to suffer from Narcissistic personality disorder. It’s a disorder described where one is excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige. Meaning he is self-centered. Mr. Lane insists that Cohen should refund all the money his followers have contributed, and read American Guru. Most of all Professor Lane thinks that he should apologize to each and every student he has come in contact with, and his mother.

Week 7
Expert Lecture
In this speech Dr. James Watson talked about how D.N.A. is structured in a précised way by how it propels the brain. He revealed that the D.N.A. had a three-dimensional structure. He said that his time in college and after, that D.N.A. did not have enough information at the time to test it out. Dr. Watson has a great sense of humor, and was very passionate about his work. He knows the ins and outs of the three-dimensional structure within one month. Dr. Watson had a very strong presence. He commanded the room. He seemed to know what he was talking about, and people wanted to listen. He wrote Double Helix. Him and Francis crick they became partners doing their best to structure these three dimensional for this project. They worked at Cambridge on the model and they did not believe in their work. Later on it became a successful phenomenon.

The experience at Cambridge helped his D.N.A. research, and magnified his intelligence. He found the correct formula to solve the crystal instruction. Dr. Watson said it was three reasons why they became famous with this project. First , was that Francis and Dr. Watson worked on the two-dimensional structure and it was too complicated. Second, they needed an answer soon, making sure that they get more info by building models and it took them eighteen months to get the answer they need. Lastly, talk to your competition. Dr. Watson needed more answers. His strategy for his project was talking to the competition. The went back and forth on their opinions. Doing that made it closer for them to find the answers that they need for this project. Dr. Watson felt that if you think that you know everything, than you will not get the help that you need to be successful. Keep your friends close but your competitors even closer because there information can compel you find the things that you need to be successful and famous like Dr. Watson.

Philosophy in Five Minutes

Truth Lies
Fundamentalism is a mental disease
Java Philosophy
Inner Visions
Flame on.
These five were very interesting. Truth lies, Fundamentalism is a mental disease, are
Some of these films stated that there was no god. The usual things we learn in the class. They went on to talk about creationalism, That people who believe in Creationalism do not know how to think for themselves. Jana Philosophy was about puppets. The puppet master being god. Innver visions aas about gurus. The ones that stuck out to me were Truth Lies and Flame On.

Truth Lies was about the human mind, and how we have the desire to have a higher being. It basically said even if it were proven God never existed, people would still find some type of way to discredit the information. I honestly can say that I know the answer and still chose not to belive. Our mind plays tricks on us. At the end of the day, truth is what you make it.

My second favorite of the five was Flame on. It was about homosexuality. In today’s age, it seems like homosexuality is no longer an issue. It is portrayed on TV, and seems like it is even accepted. The video attempted to show how you never who who is gay. Homosexuals come in all forms. It reminds me of a controversial book I read about men being on the "down low". The book talked about the different perceptions men had. Some of the men would go to jail, and sleep with men, and then come home and be straight. There was some kind of rule that it’s not considered homosexual if you are in jail. It was held like some kind of secret society. The author exposed everything. It was a good read.

Fallacies

I was unaware of what fallacies were. A fallacy is a statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference. These are considered to be bad. I am guilty of a few of them. I'm known to be very argumentative. I am right no matter what. It drives my boyfriend crazy. I will argue down to the very last point. Some of the fallacies were very easy to understand, and others flew right over my head.

My favorite one was two wrongs make a right. I believe in that strongly in my dating life. I always seek revenge. This site will be very useful for me in my other courses. It seems like most of the useful stuff is at the end of the course. Why is that Professor Lane? I could have used this assignment, Philosophy in Five Minutes, and the free inquiry critical thinking assignments in the first week. They would have been very helpful. Maybe you can think of that for a while.

12. Why are certain religious zealots prone to use terrorism,
according to Professor Mark Juergensmsyer? What does Juergensmeyer
believe we should do in the future to mitigate such attacks?

According to Mark Juergensmeyer certain religious zealots use terrorism in order to make a larger impact on their followers. The fight then becomes a religious war. More people become eager to fight for their religion, most of all their God. If a religious zealot participates the actual act of terror is seen as holy. No matter what the after affect may be, it is not seen as wrong. By using the words religious it takes the event away from being a crime, and instead something positive. The zealots and followers are fighting for what they believe in.

Religious zealots truly believe that they are doing what is right to protect their religion. They believe that they are working for God. Therefore their acts will be praised. In their mind God is on their side. They will go to any extreme to prove whatever point they are attempting to make.

Juergensmeyer believes that is people took a new approach with understanding one another’s religion, then events like September 11th could be prevented in the near future. If we knew and understood how these people thought, we would be able to accept and relate to them on a higher level. Juergensmeyer seemed concerned with the United States "War on Terror". He mentions that he did not agree with going to was with a whole nation because what a single group of people committed. I honestly don't see what the purpose of this particular war was, other than establishing a new government in Iraq. I would have rather spared all those lives lost from both sides, and persecuted those directly involved. We still haven't found Bin Laden, and I recently caught an article online where he supposedly put out a video stating if the man the US captured was put to death, more attacks would ensue. This was strange and contradicting in my opinion. The captured man could chose to take his life, and everyone in contact with him for his religious beliefs, which he was willing to do, but in his failed attempt if he is given the death penalty its wrong? Regardless to if he would put to death, or succeeded in killing himself, he is still dying for his beliefs. I think it’s the same, and killing him would only take him out of his misery. Personally, I say let him rot in jail for the rest of his entire life. I do have much sympathy for all of the families affected by 9/11, however I don't think war was necessary. In a way, it seems like George Bush became one of these zealots/ activist to prove that he would go to any extreme for his people. Agree? I don't even think the words religious and war belong in the same sentence Nor should war and terror. Whose idea was that? WAR IS TERROR. But, who am I?

13. Is there sufficient evidence to support the claim that Edgar
Cayce was psychic? Use your critical thinking field guide to
substantiate your answer

I must admit that I am particulary fond of Edgar Cayce based on what I learned in Believer Skeptic. He seemed like a very enchanting man, and I would have loved to see his work in action. I am intrigues by the unexplained and amazed by the mystery. I wish the question would have been do you personally believe Edgar Cayce was a physic, my answer would have been completely different. However, since I'm forced to use my Critical Thinking Field Guide, I must say that there was not enough substantial evidence to to prove the claim that he was a indeed a physic. On my postive side, I have to say there also was not any evidence to prove that he wasn't. I'm not sure where to stand on this answer. I think I just keep confusing myself.

Falsibility- If a claim is true, it cannot be proven false. It was infered that Johnson found SOME happenings that were fictitious.Logic- Having these abilities don't seem sound. Why would some people get them, and others don't?Comprehensiveness- You can't disregard something because you can't prove the hypothesis fake. I'm not sure if I can prove this right or wrong. I kinds understand what he was doing. Honesty- Cayce did predict some events that did actually happen. Repliciability - I don't think it could have been duplicated. Then again, Cayce had to continue to predict things because he had so many followers. Suffiency- There isn't enough evidence to prove one way or the other if he was a physic.

Using this same logic, man have not been able to provide the evidence that God existed, yet I still believe. The Bible also predicted some events that have happened. Like the 9/11 event. Things are what you make it. If you want to believe in the possibilty, you will. By comparing my evidence, I honestly don't know. I was going to say since I believe in God, I might as well believe his abilities too. But that is like saying I will believe anything anyone says because I can't prove it. So my final answer is NO. There is not enough suffiecient evidence to prove Cayce was the real deal.

14. Why is your professor so critical of cults?

Professor Lane is so critical of cults because he is open-minded, and he has the knowledge, understanding, and resources to research topics like religion, cults, and paranormal subjects etc. All of these things are somehow intertwined to form cults. Unlike me, Professor Lane isn't scared to find out the truth and expose it. He seeks the knowledge of knowing these different subjects. I try to steer clear of these debatable things. Professor Lane takes them head on. Honestly some things are better off unknown. I've always had an if it isn't bothering or affecting me, I won't bother it type of approach in life. People who join are involved are not critical thinkers. After taking this course, and expanding my mind, I now see a lot of similarities between cults and religions. Cults are formed with people seeking the desire to find a sense of identity and security. Usually a tight knit community. I believe in something that is not proven, and so do these members of cults. If I can believe that someone walked on water and parted the sea, why can't Jim Jones be sent to save us?

It is said that people don't join cults, they are recruited. I think in my household we would call this friends and family day. To be quite frank, Professor Lane is so critical of cults because he seems to know better. Or not. LOL. By the time either of us finds out, the other person won't be able to tell about it. I will be twenty five on April 20th, and I was raised Christian. Until taking this course I never knew that God's existence was not fact. They don't teach that on Sunday mornings. I've always been under the impression that these were actual proven unquestionable facts. Talking to my mother about it would be like committing verbal suicide, so I asked my grandmother who is not too religious if she knew it wasn't proven, and her answer was no. Professor Lane has the knowledge of these "secret" things, which makes him so critical of them. People are scared of the truth, which makes finding out so fascinating. Professor Lane is not ignorant to these "minor details" they must have forgot to mention during Sunday school. At this point I might be scared to know. Is it safe to say weird crazy people join cults, and sane people join church?

15. What do the films reveal about Sai Baba's claim for paranormal
powers?

The film revealed that Sai Baba is basically an awesome magician. He was not a Guru nor did he have paranormal powers. He used sleight of hand along with cheap parlor tricks and masked them in divinity. His movements were swift and quick. It appeared like things were falling from thin air.


The advantage of technology and filming allowed others to record it and play it back slowly. When you watched the video in slow motion, you could see the envelopes in his hand. I’m not sure how he did all that without anyone catching it. His paranormal tricks were tricks that weren't able to be seen by the naked eye.

The people watched in disbelief. Sai Baba took advantage of people’s beliefs and distracts them with uplifting words as he performs "miracles" and proves his spiritual gifts. In all actuality he was switching, and flipping things around from one of his hands to another.

If you have never seen someone do something like this it is amazing. I must admit that every time I go to Las Vegas, I visit the magician shop inside Venetian. Watching the magician produce and make items disappear is fascinating to me. No matter how many times he does the same trick, I can never catch it. He explains what he is doing to me, and I still don’t catch it. I enjoy it time after time. However I am aware it is a trick. Sai Baba was wrong for duping people.

16. Why did Thakar Singh believe in blindfolding children? Why do
some religious followers lack critical thinking skills?

Thakar Singh believed in blindfolding children so that they could become in touch with their inner being. He believed they would gain the opportunity to enlighten themselves. Also a way to connect with God. By being blindfolded the children would be free from visual distractions.

I do not know much about child development, but I believe that the first five years of a child’s life is when they receive the most knowledge. If a parent gives a child a stable beginning with proper development that child has a greater chance to thrive later. From the day your child is born the parent now has the task of "building" that child's brain. The child immediately seeks emotional security and social interaction. You begin to nurture your child with language skills. These are definitely priorities. By age two your child is aware and is already becoming independent. At age three you build your relationship with you child, because he/she understands a lot more. This is the "why" stage. By age four your child’s world and social life begins expanding. Most kids know letters, colors, numbers, and simple reading. Before you know it five rolls around, and he/she is in Kindergarten. In my opinion the worst parts of Thakar Singh’s practices were that the parents had no say so in the blindfolding matter. These children were not even touched or talked with. The only thing I see these children appreciating is the gift of sight.

This seems like a form of punishment instead of enlightenment. I wonder what you can really learn being blindfolded for years. When you lose one sense, it is said that you gain another. I have always been curious to this concept. By being blindfolded, the child probably gained sharper hearing. I could see this concept becoming logical if Thakar Singh would have switched off. Like one month no sight, next month no hearing. Then possibly the child would have developed enhanced senses all around. However, I think his practice is absurd. In my mind that is like not talking to your child because you don't want them to learn how to curse. I'm not against meditation one bit, but I doubt that a child can appreciate and understand the importance of clearing away stress and tension. Thakar Singh or his followers obviously were not introduced to critical thinking. I think he handicapped the children and their parents. I wonder if anyone that went through this method ever became anything.

17. JOHN POLKINGHORNE believes both in religion and science. Why?

John Polkinghorne believes in Religion and Science because he suggests that they are connected. We as humans are able to understand the world and the universe through Science, but as to the origin of all these things, the universe, gravity, life itself, is all so amazing and so perfect that it had had to be created by a higher power. Science plays the role of answering "How?" things happen and Religion plays the role of answering "Why?" these things are there.

Polkinghorne spoke about the different things happening in the universe and how they were so well crafted. Everything seems to be so balanced and in tune. That alone gave him the impression of a greater being. Things that are unexplained still seem to have some form of order. Polkinghorne saw the complexity of how precise everything in the universe is. To him this is proof of divinity. In order for everything to work accordingly, it would be impossible without a divine mind behind it.

I completely agree with Polkinghorne. I appreciate this reading being included in the readings. This restored my faith. I think that science and religion should co-exist together. Hopefully one day there is a break thru and science can shed a positive light on religion

18. How does Nietzsche critique religion? What are his main
arguments against a belief in God?

Nietzsche's critique on religion is that when one believes in a blind faith he/she loses willpower. Instead of putting themselves first, they put religion. He believes that religion dictates rights and wrongs, and takes the joy out of life. One's freedom is limited, and there are so many restraints. You cannot be a free spirit if you are controlled by something.

As an individual, Nietzsche felt that if you believe in religion you become afraid to explore yourself. His main arguments against God were the contradictions behind religion. He felt the spoken word was out of date. Also how some of the most religious people in the history of man did horrible things to people that weren't followers. If you really think about it, they were basically bullies. The bible to him is nothing more than nice stories. Bietzche simply doesn't find a belief in god logical. Religion honestly does have a great influence on decisions I personally make.

He believed that most religions flaws were fasting, solitude, and abstinence. He considers those recipes for the destruction of life as we know it. I'm particularly not fond of fasting. There simply are too many definitions, to some fasting is a day without meat, or skipping one meal, others think it's eating just one. Matthew 6: 17_18 " When thou fastest (don't talk about it, do it in secret)". It is a spiritual experience. I don't see what exactly we are giving our body a rest from. My understanding was that food was a vital requirement in life. People fear solitude, and it causes emotional dependency. I don't see why fasting or solitude would even be applied to religion.

Sexual abstinence is rumored to also be bad for you. Having sex can aid with sleep, stave off stress and depression. The release of semen in the female body works as an antidepressant. Orgasms provide pain relief. I'm skeptical of this but it’s said that women who perform oral sex swallow semen tend to have lower blood pressure.

19. Why does James Watson believe that genetics holds the secret for
understanding human behavior? Why do some people resist believing
that we are just bundles of DNA?

I understand why people would have problems accepting that we are just bundles of DNA. This idea that James Watson presents to us creates controversy in many people’s minds. They feel that if you accept this theory, then you are also accepting that fact that you are nothing more than a step in a process. Not really made with any purpose, no divine arrows pointing us to the right direction like fate and destiny, Religion would just be stories written by talented authors, amongst many other things that basically take away from the meaning of life. It could be depressing, especially for those who are Religious and people easily disposed to depression.
Imagine thinking that science could tell us how our children would behave before they are even born. James Watson believes this is possible. By looking at our DNA, we can unlock the secrets to human behavior. He believes you can pin point the genes that cause mental disorders, such as Autism. James Watson discovered a vital part of DNA; he also formed the 3D model of DNA's structure. He believes through natural selection cells form and die, shaping our genes. The genes we possess affect how we behave as well as our environment. Nature vs. Nurture. Everybody's genes vary with our parents and their parents. I wonder what more time and study into this subject will bring.


20. Why is intelligent design regarded as "junk" science by most
evolutionary biologists?

Because of the lack of significant proof to corroborate its position, Intelligent Design is considered to be "junk" science. Evolutionary biologist does not regard Intelligent Design as a serious science because when it comes to areas where understanding is limited, they give credit to an intelligent entity, a godlike persona who created it. Being scientists of course, Evolutionary biologist will not accept this because it sounds too much like religion, propaganda to bring "God" back into science. They believe that Intelligent Design is just another form of creationism. In science the most important thing is evidence, which natural selection has plenty of, therefore is supported by scientist and these scientists have no qualms in dismissing any claims that lack evidence, particularly ones that place a divine creator as a reason for things being the way they are.


21. What is the underlying theme behind the movie the ZAHIR?

In the movie The Zahir we met the narrator inside some type of amusement park. We learn about a Zahir being a twenty cent coin. Although the Zahir was the title and the main focus, I don't think it was the underlying theme. I don't think it had anything to do with money at all. The word Labyrinth was displayed in the beginning so I went and defined it. A labyrinth is a complex system of paths which is easy to get lost. The narrator received a Zahir after paying for an alcoholic beverage. Alcohol is known to alter a person's perception, emotions, movement, vision, and hearing. I think his drinking played a significant part in this short film. The alcohol represents the character being lost and searching to find himself. He considered the many possibilities and things he could do with the coin. I think what he was really saying that God could be formed from anything. The insomnia represented the narrator being afraid of death. Death is the cousin of Sleep. The part that stuck out to me the most was when he questioned whether the coin would bring him closer to god. My immediate thought was what kind of dumb question is that. A Coin? Seriously. That's the craziest thing I have ever heard. Or is it? I pondered some more, then I thought I was taught to believe in someone NO ONE has ever seen. At least he can touch the coin and carry it around with him. People can find a higher being in whatever they chose, as long as they want to. The underlying message in my opinion is to show how easily we can be we can trick ourselves. Also how desperately we seek to have a higher being and purpose in life.


22. How can little things that jiggle reveal the universe around us
(hint: think of the movie of the same title).

I really enjoyed the creativity put into this short film. The quotes flying by so quickly would be the only change I would make. I also enjoyed the fast sounding theme song. The main focus I received from the film was astrology. My perception of the film was that everything has an explanation. One day we will find it using science. The movie shifted quickly between neurons, atoms, elements, formulas, electromagnetism, and gravity. The little things that jiggle around us may not be explained, but they work together to balance the world. If one thing is missing existence will be destroyed. Atoms probably were the little things in the film. Everything is made from atoms.


23. Why is fundamentalism a mental disease, according to the movie
of the same title?

Fundamentalism is considered a mental disease because people who hold Creationism are said not to think for themselves. They are said to just go along with whatever is told to them. These are groups of people who chose to believe in religion although these are no evidence, and still they will argue against people with opposing beliefs. Hardcore scientists no longer consider creationism arguments factual. It was inferred that only weak minded individuals suffer from Fundamentalism.

24. Name eight common fallacies when arguing for a position. Be sure
to give examples, perhaps drawn from your own life, for each of them.

1. Two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.

I am guilty of this most definitely. I use this against my boyfriend. Yet he still seems to have an argument in his defense. Recently he started having phone conversation with one of his internet friends. One night he was on the phone with her at five in the morning. I had a very funny feeling about him and her. Out of respect I don't think you have anything to say to someone after a certain time. We are young; those are "booty call" hours. Two days later I found out him and her exchanged nude pictures. I was so mad. I forgave him, like an idiot. I felt like this opened the door for other friends. So I started talking to some of my male friends. He became jealous of one in particular, and wanted to know if I had his number. I felt like he changed the rules, and getting numbers were not out of line. I still to this day haven't answered whether I had the guy’s number or not. I feel like it’s none of his business.

1. Red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

I do this a lot to my boyfriend. When he makes me upset, I get him back by avoiding every question he asks. He asks one thing, and I change the subject. He gets so frustrated. I think it’s funny.

Gabe: Mami why didn't you answer your phone when I called?
Me: What did you eat for dinner?

3. Non sequitur: an inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence.

One half of my family is from Cayo, Belize. They are very superstitious. I cut my hair, and it seemed like it was at a standstill. Literally it seemed like my hair was the same length for 7 months. I mentioned it to my Abuela and she told me that my hair didn't grow back because I cut it on a full moon.

4. Meaningless question: questions include empty words such as "is," "are," "were," "was," "am," "be," or "been."

Was the cup half empty or half full?

I have an animation that says that quote.

5. Confusion of correlation and causation: invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning" (The Mismeasure of Man).

Younger people have car accidents, so older people are better drivers.

I hate having to pay higher car insurance rates because of my age. I was paying $279 dollars for insurance which was higher than my car note at that time.

6. Argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat.

My mother always threatens me by saying that if I don't go to church I won't get a good husband. The one that is promised to me by the lord. I asked her where it was written that you had to attend church, she never can produce it. She goes to church six out of seven days a week, and the man she ended up marrying isn't worth two dead flies.

7. Appeal to ignorance: appealing to ignorance as evidence for something.

I believe on God because no one can produce evidence he didn't exist.

8. Ad hominem: an arguer attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

Before my intuition was evidence I figured my boyfriend was doing something he had no business doing. I had no proof. Yet I brought it up a lot, and I would verbally attack him. I'm not proud of it, but I'm good at it. Eventually I caught him. ;)


25. Provide your own critical analysis (using the terminology
learned in this class, etc.) of the current "war on terrorism" as
waged by the USA. Your argument can be either pro or con or both,
provided that you substantiate your reasoning.

Its no secret that Religion has been the cause for many bloody battles throughout the ages. From the Crusades to the terrorist attacks on September 11. Religion has always been the justification for blood and war. Professor Juergensmeyer has illustrated that. Religion affects society in virtually every aspect, including politics as the Professor emphasizes. As a Professor of Sociology, he is well aware of the powerful connection that Religion has to society.
Being that there are so many divisions and different views, disputes are unavoidable. People will never see eye to eye on many different topics, especially when it comes to their Faith. They are required to believe fully in their beliefs and strong convictions could lead to violent outbursts to another group who opposes their beliefs. This has been seen many times throughout history. Unfortunately, after these bloody disputes, an underlying hatred is formed and prejudice is born out of this. For example, after the terrorists attacks of 9/11, there were many hate crimes committed to Middle Eastern people in America, even if they weren't Muslims. We are now at war because of this also. I agree with the Professor that the "War on terror" is inappropriate, but unfortunately that’s how it shall remain as long as Religion holds such an important part in society.

26 (very important question, don't skip it): In the Beyond Belief
conference there was much heated discussion about religion and its
place. Provide a 750 word or more review of the entire series. Whose
arguments were most persuasive? Whose arguments were less so? BE
SPECIFIC
26. I respect all of the views and beliefs of the speakers in the Beyond Belief conference. My perception of the main focus was Science vs. God. Other reoccurring subtopics were the future of science, science without God, and science with God. The thought of what made the universe function if not a higher being was discussed many times. Despite their different religious beliefs the speakers shared a common fascination and love for science. The presenters were divided into two main groups, those who were without religious beliefs, and those who attempted to be religious yet their lives revolve around science. Each speaker presented what they felt were persuasive arguments on their specific topic. They each thoroughly dissected different aspects of science and religion. One thing that was undisputable was that religion did not have supporting evidence. Science can be proven by facts which make it unquestionable.

As stated on my Midterm, Joan Ruffgarden was less persuasive in my opinion. She was one of the speakers who had scientist beliefs alongside their religious beliefs. Her points were weak, and most of the time I had absolutely no idea what she was trying to say. She never proved her point. I think what threw her off was when the announcer introduced her, he brought of the fact that she was an author, and he suggested that although she has a new book, her first book is a good read. I felt like basically he was saying in so many words that her second book was garbage. In her presentation she continued to refer to her books. I felt like she was taking up for her books more than she was making her point. Being that she believed in religion I felt like I should have understood what she was attempting to convey. She even brought up references from the bible, and her argument and presentation was still meaningless.

A few of the speakers were very persuasive, or at the very least interesting. Steven Weinberg who seems very well respected in this community caught my attention by saying the world should wake up from the horrible cloud called religion. He sure knows how to open an argument. :) He was not the opener, he was the headliner. Mahzarin B. was very persuasive. She spoke on things that were very hidden. As humans we should be more aware of ourselves and the world we live in. The sad thing about it is a lot of us go through life unaware, and have no desire to find out what this life is really about. I once heard a quote that her presentation brought back to my mind, "Are you just living or existing?” Richard Dawkins was persuasive, and felt strongly for his beliefs which are why I felt he was so upset. Sam Harris was very confident, and spoke based on facts. Richard Stone drew my interest with his discussion on religion and medicine. Susan Newman was also interesting. Her example of Abraham and the city is one of the few stories from the Bible I actually remember. The most persuasive speaker still is Speaker 2 on session 1. I still don't know his name [Larry or Aaron], but I likes him the most. He wanted to combine science and religion together. Instead of separating the two. He was the neutral speaker from the conference. Maybe I like him so much because he was indecisive for the most part.

27. How does the book, Darwin's DNA, explain the evolution of consciousness?

The book explains how without consciousness we cannot be self-aware. Consciousness is important for us to know ourselves and our surroundings. The eyes play a very vital role in recognizing and analyzing our environment being that they are the organs that allow us to see what is around us. Rationality would also be helped with consciousness because not only do we need to be aware of ourselves and our environment but we will also need to think correctly in order to analyze what we are processing.

28. Explain Nietzsche's transvaluation of values.

Nietzsche's transvaluation of values is his attack on Christianity. He felt religion was backwards. Transvaluation was the process one can view ideology from a higher being. His works were said to go beyond atheist and agnostic thinkers. Nietzsche was very blunt and straightforward in voicing his hatred towards all things involving religion. He wanted to go beyond traditional understanding of the boundaries followers in religion face. He felt that religion operated based on fear. In order to believe in religion you were said to be weak minded. He pities each and every individual whose faith lies behind a higher being.

Sidebar: Off the topic, but I thought it was interesting when I learned his father was a Lutheran Pastor. I wonder how their relationship was. Maybe Nietzsche hated to religion has something to do with his upbringing. Pk's (preacher's kids) are always under the spot light. Many of them I personally know act out, and in the streets you would never even know they have stepped foot in a church before.

29. What was the favorite thing you learned this semester?

My favorite thing I learned this year is that God's existence is not proven. I was completely unaware of that. I asked my Grandmother, and she didn't know that either. I have sat in church before drifting away and have wondered what if the bible was simply someone story book that was found years later. I felt bad, actually sitting in the Lord's house and questioning the Holy word. After learning this, I approached my mom, and she gave me a verbal thrashing. I have even been told if you think that you go eat at Mr. Lane's house. LOL. I didn't think your wife and family would like that too much. Mom even told me that me, you, Bertrand Russell, and whoever else can kiss her you know what. LOL. I will definitely miss these teachings, so that I could make Mom angry. LOL. She usually is so calm, and stuck up. I have found her weakness. :) I thank you for the opportunity to make my mom snap.

Learning about Religion and Science was not what I expected. I was under the impression that we would learn step by step skills to become more open minded. I think it was cool, and way harder to actually be in a class where the professor wrote the texts. I saved money on textbooks for sure, but ended up spending a lot of time reading. I'm not too fond of reading. I often asked myself does Professor Lane realize we have OTHER classes. LOL. Then I realized this was a short course. I am unhappy with my C+ grade, so I plan on taking the course again. This time I'd like prefer not to take it online. I think I will gain more by being in the classroom.
Sidebar: I’m still waiting on that cheating thing with the hand explanation in depth. 


30. Give a review and an reaction to the three magazines that you read listed above.

Magazine Reading

Whoa, calm down Professor Lane. I'm surprised to see you so angry. The guy I met was easy going, and laid back. You turned into F. Neitzsche in this read. I see that you strongly dislike and despise Andrew Cohen. This story is on Andrew Cohen is a self-proclaimed guru who is known for his controversial teachings. He is described as a dictator. In plain words, he is nothing more than a cult leader.

He was described in the magazine as a weak individual who was picked on as an adolescent, whom later wanted popularity. Andrew wanted to be praised. It was clearly stated that Andrew was different from other Guru's. He controlled every aspect of his followers life. Everyone in his group dressed the same, and their sole purpose is to carry out his wishes. If they don't it was said that he may lash out at them. His birth mother had very ill feelings towards him She described him as a controlling tyrant. I think that is deep when the person who brought you into the world has that viewpoint of you. His mother later went on to write a book named "The Mother of God".

Professor Lane bashes Cohen, and others of his kind. He is said to suffer from Narcissistic personality disorder. It’s a disorder described where one is excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige. Meaning he is self-centered. Mr. Lane insists that Cohen should refund all the money his followers have contributed, and read American Guru. Most of all Professor Lane thinks that he should apologize to each and every student he has come in contact with, and his mother.

Fubbi Gakko
I commend Professor Lane for speaking not only his mind, but speaking the truth. I admire his tenacity at revealing the truth behind this pseudo-cult groups, that are nothing but a bunch of frauds and take advantage of the weak minds or the less observant. I just laugh at a man such as Paul Twitchell who fabricates his own life and takes works of others and proclaims it as his own. A man like that needed to be exposed and revealed for what he was, it’s sad when you are a writer and have no respect for other peoples hard work. I would love to have the opportunity to have a conversation with David Lane, I think it would be an enlightening experience.
I understand why the interviewer wanted to join though. Eckankar was like a big social club. Most people are vulnerable when they feel lonely with no self-worth, so when they come across a group like this, that seems to extend their arms and welcome you and your flaws, it’s very inviting. But nonetheless, when truth pulls away the cloak of lies to something you held dear, it’s not as special as it was before. Eckankar was a business and it was a business built on the foundation of other ideas of men, manufactured by a visionary fraud and a gifted financially motivated organizer, like Lane said "anything could happen". But truth cannot be denied, no matter how much you wish to deny it. I do respect the fact that David Lane limited his exposures to major aspects of Eckankar and didn't set out to bash Paul Twitchell personally and desecrate his character. This was a very interesting read and I enjoyed the reality of it.

BELIEVER MAG ISSUE - Summary

This is an interesting topic to discuss. Of course its definitely based on perspective on which side you agree upon. I most certainly think its somebody's own manifestation as to the vision that appears before them. I think the argument that Faqir Chand brought to the table was a very insightful one. I think what he said made a lot of sense as to why people from different religions all have visions of different figures based on what their belief was, instead of all of them seeing one prophet who is perceived as "God".
What would you tell somebody who said they saw the stay puft marsh mellow man and helped him in some task? I bet he would be ridiculed, by like the author illustrated, what is the difference between Stay Puft, Virgin Mary or The Master K.H? I say whatever works. If whatever vision helped you achieve something you wanted, then it doesn't really matter what it was. What's important is that you don't get caught up in the hype as Faqir Said in "Realisation of the Reality". You could end up getting exploited for your ignorance of your situation by sly so called "Guru's" as we have seen before happen. These are gonna be one of those topics that will