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

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.

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 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

Midterm Resubmitted

1. Be sure to place your entire midterm on your website and when you
are finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@yahoo.com
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other
authors please be sure to quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be
tolerated and you will receive an "F" automatically for the examination.

3. The test is due NO LATER than

4. What is your real name?
Young, Nakita

5. What is your "user" name?
Mskb08

6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
mzflynflashy@aim.com or mskb08@yahoo.com

7. Name and address for your website.
2 B Or Not 2 B neuralsurfing.blogspot.com

8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?
Yes

9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
Yes

10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this
class (you can copy and paste them)

Cargo Cult Science Wk1 Post5
Richard Feynman shows a vast understanding with his article "Cargo Cult Science". Its a relevant topic that most people might ignore for fear of leaving their comfort zone. More so the ones who have PhD's and wear lab coats. Society at large are made to think that scientists and all the other authorities that control major aspects of the social network have all the answers. That their methods are unquestionable because us as laymen trust in their diligence and scrutiny. They execute their ideas and since they go unquestioned, its tough for us to realize what mistakes they have done, after all, we are not the experts, they are. Its uneasy thought.

Is modern day science represented by Witch Doctor's with degrees? No, I don't think so. What is lacking is true scientific integrity as Mr. Feynman says in his article. That extra push to explain something in detail, so that there will be less "Why's" and "How's", less confusion. I also understand being in the times that we are now, everything is better fast stronger. We as a human race are advancing at an alarming rate, or so it seems. Most people don't want to bother with the details, they just want answers. Results. Its what we're used too nowadays. I believe it goes in all aspects of our lives, not just the scientific. To conduct experiments using scientific integrity means more work, more complex notes and slower results. Will that be acceptable in the eyes of the titans that run our civilization? Who knows. But it would be nice to have complete and accurate results from the people we regard as professionals and experts in our view. In my opinion, Cargo Cult Science will be around for a long time.

Cold Reading Article WK1 Post 4
Its not a wonder that us as human beings need to be nurtured and reminded that
we do play a role in this vast world that we live in. Reading this article about
the art of these "readers" put more of this concept in perspective. I am a
skeptic of their psychic abilities and thought of them as frauds. I too didn't
like the fact that they would try to deceive people with their phony acts, but I
thought worst of the people who actually bought into it. After reading this
article, my thoughts against the reader and the clients are less harsh. It seems
more like a therapy session now, instead of an act of trickery by the reader and
gullible reactions of the client.

When its put in that way, I think that it just might be necessary to have them
around. I mean, I understand that some people might be hesitant to go talk to a
therapist, a complete stranger who wants to hear all your intimate details.
Going to a "reader" will quell that feeling of uneasiness. Its more mystical,
the client is not the one telling them their lives (or so they think) but the
"reader" is. The "reader" as well as a "spiritual" force is digging within them
and fetching their lives details and answers. The whole thing is just a surreal
therapy session. Sigmund Freud with a dash of gypsy magic. If thats what people
need to feel better, then I'm all for it. All of us seek different remedies to
cope with existing problems, if wagons and drapes with beads do it for you, then
so be it. Who are we to judge?

Karma Film Essay Wk1 Post 3
Karma has always been a thought-provoking concept for me. To actually receive the same level of malevolence or righteousness or more, that you have done to some one else prior. This film portrays that in an interesting way. As the young man walks around and he passes a few individuals, he can visualize what will happen to them. He can sense what kind of karma they have coming their way. Some are good, some bad. The way is depicted in the film is accurate for the most part, because every individual has different actions and not everybody is good
or bad, but its safe to say, as the film portrayed, you'd probably find more bad than good.

I like the fact that the protagonist in the film looks troubled. As he's passing all these individuals, he can see the upcoming events in their lives, you would think its a good thing, but is it really? I mean, do you tell someone that you know they're going to rob somebody? Or that they're gonna be shot if they slap their girlfriend? And even if you do wanted to tell them, do you think they
would believe you? I can imagine it being an uncomfortable situation, faced with a moral decision like that. Asking yourself if silence is the right way to go about things. The film was true to reality and it said a lot, without saying nothing.


Reaction To Expert Lecture by J.F. MacDonald Wk1 Post2
I agree with J.F. MacDonald, clear thinking is what today's society is missing the most. I think you can say that about every generation actually. When a group of people conjure up a philosophy, it can be used to rationalize Racism, Classism, Prejudice,and Sexism, etc. Justifying its practices. With clear thinking, you can assess the situation for what it is. Just reality and present actions without being bias or judgmental because all that you are thinking about is the facts. Many problems could be avoided and even prevented with this form of thinking.


Imagine a man who grew up in a racist environment. Growing up listening and learning that every other race besides his own is inferior. Adults telling him that they are at the top of the pedestal, with "relevant facts" to back it up. He may encounter another man one day who is of a different race in another place. Suppose the man just helped him out, the man who grew up in the racist environment might feel resentful that someone inferior to him has helped him. But if he were to use Clear Thinking, then he would be grateful and thankful for that man's help. Because regardless of race, religion or creed, he is a man just like him, and that's all that he sees, another man who helped him out. Clear thinking is definitely something that today's world needs the most.


Reaction to expert lecture by Richard Feynman -- Wk1 Post 1
The expert lecture by Richard Feynman was an interesting piece. I agree to the theme of the whole lecture, which seems to be that intelligence is not knowing the name of a thing or action

but to understand what it is and how it operates. As Mr. Feynman said about what his father told him, you can see a bird and know the name of it in a multiple languages, but that doesn't mean you know what the bird is and its function and habits as a creature. If we all took that approach of seeing things more in depth and understanding how it operates we would see a lot of things differently. This way of looking at things can also be used in looking at human nature. For example, when Mr. Feynman's father was asking him why all those people were bowing down in front of the pope. The uniform and credentials made other people honor him, although he is just a human, just like you and me.




I also found it interesting when he was asked was the Nobel prize worth it. He didn't care about the honors and the praise. The satisfaction comes from the actual discovery of knowing what you didn't know before. People in the intellectual groups that he came across were pompous and arrogant in their intelligence and achievements. They spent a lot of time assessing who was good enough to be among them, instead of discussing and taking in the pleasure of finding things out, as he says. I think when you appreciate the knowledge that you gain from things, the more desire you would have to keep finding things out on a more personal level, for an inner satisfaction. If most of the world would grasp this concept, I think we'd have more advancement in a good way.


Eleven Film Essay Wk2 Post 5
This was a powerful film. Honest in depicting what happens when people in their ignorance feel like they are doing the right thing, act in the most horrid of ways. Blinded by rage, "Patriotism" justifies their immoral wickedness. 9/11 brought many criticism to the people of the middle east, stereotypes heightened. Many innocent people were persecuted, fear and anger took control of a few who expressed it in "righteous" violence. Some people dared to stand in the way and defended the ones who were treated unjustly. Joshua Williams should be remembered for trying to expose this story, because its only when people understand in depth of these actions is when they realize how malicious and wrong it is to act in such a fervor clouded by ignorance and fueled with hate. This is a compelling film.


A Field Guide To Critical Thinking Wk2 Post 4
"FiLCHeRS" is the way that all human beings should approach things. With this way of going about different topics and theories, there wouldn't be any chance given for mediocre claims or theories to reach popularity and be treated as fact. I think most people involved in the paranormal, U.F.O's, etc., don't apply this method because their beliefs would surely be shattered when it comes to a meticulous form of thinking and finding the evidence to support the theories presented. In all honesty, I believe most skeptics use a less tenacious form of "FiLCHeRS" because, skeptics like myself, are not ready to just believe something without having at a minimum one pertinent piece of evidence. People are intrigued by the unexplained and amazed by the mystery behind things and want to believe, proven or not, that there's something more to the world they live in. As James Lett writes "Skepticism means: to believe if and only if the evidence warrants"


The Physics Behind Four Amazing Demonstrations Wk2 Post 3
David G. Willey has the right idea in my opinion. Anything is easier to learn if that particular person finds the topic interesting or fun. Especially in a subject such as Physics. It takes a keen understanding and imagination to truly enjoy this technical subject. Its very interesting, but it could become a little confusing and dull if its all just words on paper and mundane diagrams. By not only presenting the concepts of Physics in real time out of the text books, but also getting himself involved in these demonstrations, he is capturing 100% of the students attention and igniting their interest to another level. These demonstrations are dangerous, but are able to be pulled off by a person who is knowledgeable in Physics. By proving these amazing performances are able to be done by the very concepts that these students learn every time they are in class, it is most likely to keep them involved and see physics in a whole new light. It becomes real because its not just tons of words in a text. With this style of learning, it is tangible and evident that the subject is truly astounding.


Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied To Religion Wk 1 Post 2
I understand why a lot of people in society, especially those in religious positions, would not want scientific inquiry to be involved in Religion. There is a large mass of people who rely on religion as a way of life. Religion is their whole basis for living. Imagine if there was a breakthrough, where inquiry disproofs a major aspect in a certain religion. It would change their whole outlook in life,not necessarily for the better. Some might not be able to handle it. There would be an uproar in many communities. Its like telling a small 4yr old child that Santa Clause doesn't exist...of course on a larger scale of society in a metaphorical sense. For those faint of heart, I am in no way comparing God to Santa Clause, I'm just trying to convey the shock of truth if it were to happen.

If I can be frank also, many religious institutions rely on their millions upon millions of followers from all walks of life to stay the powerhouse that they are now. Followers include people from the poorest slums to the highest position of influence. If religion was compromised in any way, then its only natural that the power of the church will dwindle. Who would want that? Its not a coincidence, just as the author says, that Scientific inquiry could investigate the paranormal, ufo's, psychics and other areas of occult topics without any backlash. It is because those areas don't play an instrumental role in society and, lets be honest, doesn't make the kind of money that the mainstream religions do. Its not just moral and social aspects that the religion advocates are trying to protect, they're also protecting their assets. It just seems to make more sense to me, Paul Kurtz made it clear why it makes sense to do so. Of course not recklessly, but to do it correctly. In my opinion, It should definitely be done and it makes sense to do so. If scientists and the religious both are interested in the beginning of our species and our natural world, what would trying to get the facts and evidence of theories hurt?


Reaction To Expert Lecture Ken Miller Wk2 P1
I could not believe that Georgia schools would actually put warning signs on Biology text books, that really made me snicker in disgust. As Ken Miller pointed out, that warning sticker is wholly misleading to a young student who's reading it. I like how he pointed out that Theory's and Facts are not opposites, that in fact Theory's are on a higher plane because they explain facts. For example, when Mr. Miller made a mock warning sticker for "Gravity" how it is just a theory and not facts because its something that none of us has never seen it physically. Obviously we never seen gravity, but we do know it exists because its how we are able to stay on the ground as well as any other object, its proven. He makes excellent points.

I must say though, I don't completely reject "Intelligent Design". I definitely believe in Evolution and Natural Selection, the evidence is there. But I think "Intelligent Design" is more suitable for the universe itself, the "Big picture" so to speak. I believe here, on Earth, evolution is the key, but I think its due to what has happened in the universe that has made evolution capable on Earth. All in all the lecture was very interesting and to see arguments on both sides of the "Intelligent Design" subject. These are all sensitive subjects and should be taken with an open mind.


Critical Thinking Film Faqir Wk3 P5
What Faqir Chand states in this film, makes much sense to me. When I think about his claims that nobody manifests themselves to help you in your personal matters, that it is actually yourself, I start thinking about people who create alter egos. People often create alter egos of themselves to portray how they really want to be, in making this alter ego, they live vicariously through them. Envisioning the alter ego as somebody else when in reality it is them. I think the same can be applied to religious figures who are said to appear or provide help to a individual with a lot of faith. I can imagine that many people would disagree, but what's harder than to convince yourself otherwise when its your own mind thats playing tricks on you?...Interesting concept.
When you think about it, the importance of significant figures in religion have been created by people themselves. Whether they're characters from the bible or whether an "enlightened" person was proclaimed as a higher being, these are things that people themselves have created as a source of help. Their faith and their own knowledge makes the power of these symbols more powerful, therefore making the symbols represent their own thought process. They get so used to depending on these symbols that they forget that they are the ones who are actually helping themselves, sometimes not even forget, they never know and give the credit to the deity's or representatives. I wonder how many people would accept this.


Pretext #2 Wk3 P4
It is very difficult to explain the origin of what makes us beings. In this article, David does a good job of explaining how basic we can go to explain ourselves, but we can only go so far. I do agree that every level of is connected to the prior and to the next level. There's no doubt about that, you take one level away and like David's example using "The Great Gatsby", the whole structure would collapse. I don't think we would ever know what's under the "spirit".

To know if there's an actual astral plane or not, in my opinion, the only way to find that out is actually death. But there's no coming back from that is there? Its just one of those things that will always debated. Especially between the spiritual and the scientist. The makings of a soul and the transcending past the brain and body will always be debatable topics. One could talk about these subjects for hours and at the end of the day it would all just be educated guesses, like David said "We can't even explain--in terms of physiology--how we grow hair on our arms...".


Reaction To Expert Lecture By Freeyman Dyson Wk 3 P3
I can't even imagine the complex knowledge that Freemason Dyson possesses. A person with that much technical knowledge, is not a surprise to me that he is not all the way religious, that is, there are some things in religion that does not believe in. He says he describes himself as a "Christian without the theology". Religion is a way of life and not a matter of belief in his opinion. I would have to agree with that, it was very well put. Mr. Dyson does a good job in separating his religious belief with his scientific knowledge. He basically keeps all the morals of the religion and blends it with the factual information of his career. A well balanced approach.


It is an interesting concept the "Three models of mind". The human mind, the molecular mind and the universal mind. I asked myself when I heard this, if the universe could have a "mind", would that point more to "Intelligent Design"? He says that it may not be true, but plausible, I wonder what his position would be on "Intelligent Design". He calls "God" as the "Mind" of the universe, but not the "God" of religious conviction. Also, he says that Science has a sort of restriction, that it cannot explain the universe. That also seems to point to "Intelligent Design" to me. This was a very engaging interview.


Pretext #1 Wk3 P2
David's article was very informative. I never thought of reading in terms of "pretext, text and context". It put a different perspective to literature for me. I think you can see this kind of process when people try to learn another language. Before they can speak the words of the language, they must first learn what each alphabetic unit represents phonetically. After they do, they can move on to texts and say words and understand their meaning. Once that is done, they can put the words together, creating context in sentences, then to phrases till finally they can speak the language in a conversation. Its a necessary process if you want to be successful.

Its interesting how you can apply this process to our own being. I also agree strongly that every discipline should look to the basis of their own domain in order to maximize their understanding of whatever field they're in. If they stray to other forms then it will not work. "Sociobiology" sounds like an interesting concept, I wonder if they'll implement that one day. I'd like to read more into this topic.


Why I am Not A Christian - Bertrand Russell Wk1 P1
As soon as Bertrand Russell said that you have to believe in God and immortality to be a Christian, I agreed. Those are two very important concepts in Christianity, without that how can you be a Christian? I too remember thinking about the concept of the First Cause Argument and almost unhinged my mind asking who made the universe, if God, then who made God. It just goes too deep to even imagine the beginning of a beginning of a beginning and so on. It is also true that the role of God does change with the times, due to advances in modern science and intellectual enlightenment, therefore changing the impression of "Natural Law". When these concepts are put under more scrutiny, they seem to be more fallacious.


Bertrand Russell has unmistakably gone in depth in most aspects of Christian arguments and came up with reasons to dispute those arguments. Of course if you believe in something and there's a reason to dispute that, then those beliefs don't seem as strong anymore. Once you start to question your beliefs then its the beginning of losing the position you once held as your perspective changes. He does this without attacking Christianity, instead he's just writing the reasons he is not a reason and I can't say that I blame him. All of the points that he has mentioned are valid. He is definitely not a Christian.



11. Why does Richard Dawkins consider religion a "virus" of the
mind? Do you agree or disagree?
Substantiate your view.

Richard Dawkins compares human minds to that of a sophisticated computer. Which is basically what the human mind is. He states that the human brain is as susceptible to "mind viruses" as computers are susceptible to viruses. I would have to agree with Richard Dawkins on this. When we are young, we are shaping our own identity and thought processes and in order to do this, we depend on adults to tell us whats what till we are old enough to do this on our own. At this stage our minds are sponges of information. There are no filters and we are not ready to distinguish what a "Mental Virus" is or not, so we may get "infected" with certain ideas. Since our source of information are the adults, they can stream any information they seem fit to us, such as religion. The adults are "infected" with the "virus" and replicate that "Virus" through us. It becomes part of us, we become a host of religion. As we get older, we start to try to "infect" other people around us, try to make them a host of our religion so that the "virus" could spread. Once we have children, we'll replicate the "virus" through them and they will repeat the same process. Religion spreads just like a virus would. Some might take offense to this comparison, but the similarities between the two are undeniable. Its not the negative connotations that make this comparison within reason, but its the nature of the concept of how they grow that makes it a feasible correlation.

12. Give an example of a "cargo cult" belief and critically analyze
it from a scientific perspective? Hint:
think of something that people believe in that lacks overwhelming
evidence to support it.

I think a good example of a "Cargo Cult" belief would be that of Nutritional Science. Throughout the years people have changed their eating habits and diet plans based on what these scientists have branded as good or bad consumption. This field of science has cause a few cascades in the past. It gets to point the cascades reach a kind of critical mass and these erroneous beliefs spread throughout the fields of science, becoming self perpetuating as it reaches the politicians and the public. Once this happens it is almost impossible to correct the falsehood. The researchers in this field publicly present results that have came to be by sloppy experiments and premature evidence. They don't operate like the other higher sciences in terms of experimentation, with rigorous research and looking closely at the facts. Yet whatever they present is what most people believe with no question. One month milk is good for you, 2 months later milk isn't healthy enough. The people will listen and follow with these "scientists" unchallenged. "Cargo Cult" at its finest.

13. How does one do "science" according to Richard Feynman. Why is
this form of science so important to
human beings? How can such a view of science help enrich one's
appreciation for beauty? Be sure to give
YOUR own example of Feynman's point (no "flowers" allowed).

Doing "science" according to Richard Feynman is when you see things past its superficial value and question its being and functions. When you pry deeper than what you see with the naked eye and see what the object is made of, why it does what it does, you gain a deeper understanding of it. With that deeper understanding, you gain more insight and more appreciation of your seeing. You see the object in a different light, more holistically. You can do this with almost everything in your waking life.

I think this kind of "Scientific" approach to life is essential to human beings. Us as humans encounter so many different things everyday. If we were to go about this way, we would hold things in a higher esteem than we normally would. As a result of this higher regard, we would be more fascinated and proficient in our habits and everything else we are involved in, whether it be our careers or our social lives. Life would improve as such.

An example of how we already practice this form in our social life is this: Imagine a man who encounters a beautiful woman. He stares at her and is captivated by her beauty. She is just gorgeous, pretty face, long flowing hair, great skin and curves to top it off. He is sexually attracted and does appreciate her beauty. A conversation begins between the two. The man starts asking her questions, where she's from, her interests, and other things. He finds out where she's from. She's smart...articulate...funny, is responsible. She goes to the gym, hence the great body. As he finds out all these qualities about her, the man becomes ecstatic. Now she's not only beautiful on the surface, but she's now also interesting. He knows how she came to be, what she's interested in and other things that are to his liking. She's beautiful under the surface as well. Which only makes her that much more beautiful. The man now appreciates this woman more, passed just sexual attraction, now he's thinking a relationship. Imagine if every aspect of our lives were practiced with this logic.

14. Give your interpretation of the movie "Karma."

My interpretation of the movie "Karma" was the moral dilemma the protagonist faces everyday as he walks and senses upcoming events in people's lives. Some are good and some are bad. He seems to feel compelled to do something about it but at the same time senses that there is nothing you can do. After all, he is a stranger to them, they most likely won't believe him anyway and disregard his warning or advice. It was a good display of human nature and the inner struggles of someone who recognizes how dark it can be. As the young man walks around and he passes a few individuals, he can visualize what will happen to them. He can sense what kind of karma they have coming their way. Some are good, some bad. The way is depicted in the film is accurate for the most part, because every individual has different actions and not everybody is good or bad, but its safe to say, as the film portrayed, you'd probably find more bad than good.In the movie the characters got what they deserved.

15. Explain, in brief, Darwinian evolution and why John Maynard
Smith's contribution is important in
thinking differently about survival of the fittest.

Darwin believed that all life is related and were descendants from a common ancestor. That creatures evolve from simple forms of prior versions similar to themselves in order to aid their survival, which is natural selection. Each creature obtains a beneficial advancement (mutation) that is passed to the new breed, and from there the creature will continue to advance. After so many beneficial advances the result is an entirely different creature. John Maynard felt like Darwin was onto something, but a lot of things were missing. There were a lot of missing pieces. I think Maynard felt Darwin had a point, but that there are some aspects that are not explained. Maynard simply needed more explanation from evolution. Maynard’s contribution was important because he provided a more detailed alternative explanation. He took the survival of the fittest idea and applied it to human behavior. He explains how one person’s actions can affect another. He took a deep look into Darwin’s Theory, and applied it to explaining the increase and complexity in evolution.


16. What are Freeman Dyson's views on the "design" of the universe
or the purpose of humankind?

He believes that the Universe does not behave the way normal concepts behave. That life does not make sense unless you believe in some sort of purpose that applies to the community as well as the individual. He believes that the universe is friendly to life, and it goes out of its way to contribute. All the processes that happen in the universe seems to be a highly calculated "choice" that benefits life. Thats why he refers to the universe as a "design". One way he supported this was when he spoke of the rock that landed on Earth from Mars that was studied by scientist. They maintained that the rock stayed cool throughout its whole journey and that if it was carrying life, it would've been able to sustain it. The world is full of mysteries that leave us in awe and fill us with wonder as well. Water is beautiful, and so are all other properties in everything. Dyson believes that the universe is designed to be hospitable to life in general. He loves the amazing diversity that exists between twenty million species. He believes that the Universe is spontaneous, and everything had the freedom to change. Everything from a microscopic to human level in the universe is a collective whole.


17. What IS the "secret" that Faqir Chand discovered about religion
and its founders?

The secret is that when help is provided thru religion in the form of any deity pertaining to their specific religion it is actually self-manifestation of their doing. That it is actually themselves helping their own, but the beliefs are so great instead of recognizing they are helping themselves, it appears that religion and important figures are the ones helping them.


18. Explain the movie Eleven and what is YOUR interpretation of it?
In other words, what is the underlying message that the
director is trying to convey?

My interpretation of the movie "Karma" was the moral dilemma the protagonist faces everyday as he walks and senses upcoming events in people's lives. Some are good and some are bad. He seems to feel compelled to do something about it but at the same time senses that there is nothing you can do. After all, he is a stranger to them, they most likely won't believe him anyway and disregard his warning or advice. It was a good display of human nature and the inner struggles of someone who recognizes how dark it can be.


19. Why is distinguishing the message from the medium so important?
Use the Da Free John article as your context.

People often forget that sometimes the message and the person giving the message are two separate entities. When the author discusses Da Free John, he speaks of how much his work is commended. His writings have a pretty big following and many read his work. That is not true of Da Free John as a person apparently, who is often criticized as a person. But does him being criticized as a person nullify his message? It would be like you and a convict are both against abortion. If both of you were to speak to a large crowd of people, you would get 2 very different reactions. Your words would be more readily accepted and of course the convict would not and his words would be invalid. Yet both of you are saying the same thing. Your messages are identical, but since the convict is not what you would call an upright citizen, his position would not matter as much as yours. If people would distinguish between the medium and the message, they would be able to listen more and pay more attention to the words than to the mouth that speaks them.

20. What are Bertrand Russell's reasons for NOT being a Christian?
Do you agree or disagree with him? GIVE RATIONAL
ARGUMENTS FOR your position (pro or con).

Bertrand Russell was not a Christian because he was unsure about God’s entire existence. He believed that religion is false. That teaching religion clouds your thinking. I believe that he also hinting that Religion is the root of many problems, including War as a result of religious disputes. Which has proven to be true, it is evident with the conflicts in the Middle East. Russell said that a Christian initially has to be defined. He clearly stated that he does not believe that Christ is the best, nor was he the wisest of men. I am a Christian, and I must admit that Russell does have valid points. I do not disagree with his arguments about God’s existence. Once or twice I have wondered what if what we believe to be the spoken word was just a fictitious mass of stories written from someone that was found and assumed to be sacred. It’s possible. We will never know, until we are gone. I am a Christian because I was taught to be Christian. Have I had been raised in Belize where my father originates, I would have been Catholic. Proving Russell’s point. Religion whether it is Christian or not is simply something you choose to believe or you don’t. God’s total existence is probability. In his essay Russell said “ Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear…” I can honestly say that I am a believer because I do fear dying and living in eternal hell. How long is Forever? I was taught that if you believe you go to Heaven. If my mother ever read this she might have a heart attack, but I am pro to Russell’s agreements. They made sense, however I will keep my faith.


21. Give a summary of Jim Lett's field guide to critcal thinking (in
your own "300" words, no more). Don't use quotes but write it like a
letter to a friend explain how to think critically in light of Lett's
numerous points.

Kellz,
Since you are so gullible, I am going to teach you how to use Critical Thinking. You can’t believe everything you hear or read on the internet. Most of the minimal stuff we do know, is what someone wanted us to believe. From now on we will use “FiLCHeRS” made by James Lett. This is said to be able to be used on things that are not only paranormal, but normal things as well. Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Repliciability, and Sufficiency. You cannot make a judgment initially. If a claim is true, it cannot be proven false. Claims that can’t be falsified are meaningless. Logic- You must investigate the claim to make sure its valid, it must be sound. If a claim isn’t logical it isn’t sound or valid. Example: All dogs have fleas, Xavier has fleas, Xavier is a dog. This isn’t logical because it is proven different animals have fleas. Comprehensiveness- All of the evidence in the claim must be considered. You can’t just disreguard something because it may make your hypothesis false. Honesty- You must be honest with yourself regardless to the results. If your evidence proves truth, then it’s true. If it proves false, accept that its false. Repliciability- If the evidence is based on an experimental result. You must be able to prove your evidence more than once. You must be able to rule out coincidence. Suffiency- 1. Just because you cannot prove you claim false, don’t assume that it’s true. 2. If you make an extraordinary claim you must have evidence to prove it. 3. Evidence based on testimony/ authority is always inadequate regardless to someone’s status. Anyone can tell a lie. If you apply this, you should be able. Remember to always search for reasoning, and we can avoid error or fraud.



22. Why does Kurtz believe that skepticism should be applied to
religion? Do you agree or disagree?

Kurtz believed there should be skepticism in Religion to gain facts. Scientific research has been thru every aspect except Religion itself. Religion has tons of stories of origin and landmarks, and specific events stating that they in fact happened in history. Therefore scientific research and skepticism should be able to be allowed to study these things to confirm these events that have been claimed. I agree because I would simply like to know if what I consider to be my faith is valid.

23. Why is pretext, text, and context important in analyzing a book
or an argument. Provide your own example.

Its important to uses those processes in order to understand the subject fully. For example of you are learning a new language you would have to learn the pretext first which would be the alphabetic units. Once you learn each alphabetic unit and what each sound makes, you can understand the text which comes with formulating words and understand what each words mean. Once you understand the text you can formulates sentences and phrases which means you now understand the context.


24. What is a "transformative" UFO encounter and does the author of
the Himalayan Connection really believe in UFOs as genuine
extraterrestrials?

A transformative UFO encounter is a hallucination. I do not think that the author believes in UFO’s, although he doesn’t refute their existence because it has not been proven that they do nor that they don't exist. He's keeping an open mind to the whole subject matter. In my opinion it seemed like to be one of those it will happen if you believe it type ordeals. If you are interested in seeing one, or want to see one, then you will have higher chances of indeed seeing one. It depends on your individual mind state. It relies on your perception or views and beliefs of paranormal things. For example on the show Ghost Hunters, each episode is spent with them going to different homes all over the country to find ghosts. The tenant calls them because they have saw or heard something, and believe there is a spirit in their home. Obviously they believe. Never once have I saw an episode where the conclusion was that the home wasn’t haunted. Instead they take and analyze each and every sound or occurrence and use it towards proving the ghost is there. Why can’t they just say that’s a creak in the floor because the wood is damaged? The more these people believe in extraterrestrial sightings, the more they have the opportunity to experience one. I find this particular article interesting because as a child I was terrified at the show Sightings. Yet I remained a faithful viewer. In return every time I was outside at night, I would stare in the sky. I would see moving blinking lights, and swear it was a UFO. Now I know, years later they are planes traveling at night. I guess this Transformative encounter can be applied with shooting stars. No wonder my wishes never came true.

25. How does one think more critically when using online sources?
(hint: think of one of the required articles). Substantiate your
views.

One can think more critically online by applying FiLCHeRs. By not just accepting something they read online. You would go thru all the steps to make sure it can’t be proven false. Research the topic yourself. You would have to test the hypothesis yourself. The article that you are reading may have been copied a million times, which does not make it valid or sound. We have the access to tons of knowledge at our fingertips. This knowledge necessarily does not have to be true. Anyone can make a website, and put tons of unproven information on it. Trust me, I know. I get paid to blog about celebrities. Most of the time, half of the info I post is something I heard from someone else who heard fromthe grapevine. None of it is proven. However, I am a suggested search on Google. I hear alot of people bragging on what they learned from Wikipedia.com, I recently found out that ANYONE can go in and edit these pages and write whatever about whoever. From the little that I do know about Wikipedia, it seems to be like a new day and age Enclyopedia.


26. What are Steven Weinberg's views on religion? Do you agree or
disagree?

Steven Weinberg is not too fond of religion. He feels like it is unnecessary. He seems to really dislike all that religion stands for especially the beliefs pertaining to religion and behavior. He believes that you act based on how you want to whether it may be negative or positive regardless of your religious domination. Religions seem to set standards for its followers, do’s and don’t’s. When you follow these guidelines they produce values. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree 100% with any of it. I agree because he does have a point some people chose not to believe in a higher power, but that doesn’t mean they are any inferior to a person who believes in some type of God. Everyone has the choice to do right or wrong regadless. I can honestly say I hold back from doing certain things because of things I have learned at church. People who believe in God still do bad things. The same stuff that goes on outside goes on inside the church as well. They are still affected by cheating, gossiping, lying, and stealing etc. My mom goes to church literally six days a week, and she faces the same struggles as anyone else I know. She often tries to persuade me to attend more, but I think it has turned into a fashion show, or who can contribute the most financially. How can someone preach to me about not having sex until marriage, when their own seed that they raised has an illegitimate child?


27. Why is Sam Harris an atheist? Explain his reasons. Can you argue
against his views? If so, how?

Sam Harris is an atheist because religion lacks evidence.He feltlike if there was a god, why wouldn't he sheild the world from all of the bad things in the world. He felt like if there was a God, people wouldnt be left to suffer. I can admit to thinking that way before as a child, and although my Mom is in the church 5 or days days a week the only answer she came up with is because the devil. Now that I think about it, the devil could have just been formed for those type of questions alone. I think everyone whether they admit it or not has wondered whether it is real. I wouldn’t argue against his reasons because I wouldn’t have a valid argument against his views. To each his own. I don’t have proof that God existed, which is basically the point at the end. His existence is based on Faith, believing in him with the lack of evidence. He on the other hand does not have proof that he did not exist. I wouldn’t look at him as any less of a person, condemn him to eternal damnation or anything. He's a skeptic and he has a right to be. Between the Religious and the Skeptics, there will always be debate and discussion. My mother always said two things you don’t discuss with people are religion and politics.

28. Of the first five installments of BEYOND BELIEF which speaker
did you find most persuasive? Explain why.

Session 1 Speaker 2 was who I found to be most persuasive. I believe his name was either Larry or Aaron, it was hard to distinguish. His powerpoint presentation kept me engrossed in the subject. He talked about the conflict between science and religion. His used examples consisted of modern events, which made his presentation more distinct i.e When he spoke of Columbine and Afghanistan. He wanted to change the teaching of science itself. He wanted to provide a connection, not to disprove religion but to better understand it and increase its value as a more substantial practice. He allowed the audience to make their own assumptions because his testimony was neutral. He wants to move beyond the faith, and use science in a positive way. He said in order to teach someone you must understand where they are coming from. He used important historical and modern figures, and facts to support his position.

29. Ken Miller argues against Michael Behe's notion of irreducible
complexity and the notion of intelligent design in biology. Is he
right? If so, explain. If not, give your reasons why not.

Ken Miller based his disagreements on opinions and ideas, not necessarily facts. Being that his argument was not a solid one to me, I am going to say that he is not right. He seemed unsure. He gave more of an alternative explanation, I felt more like he was saying "what if?". I wasn’t persuaded, Michael Behe seemed more logical. Intelligent design is very interesting, however it cannot be proven or tested.


30. In the conference BEYOND BELIEF, which speaker did you find to
be the weakest in terms of substance? Explain. Joan Ruffgargen.
I really did not understand what she was trying to convey. She seemed nervous, and unprepared. She kept referring back to the books she wrote. Her presentation seemed scattered, jumping from one topic to another without any proper transition. I never got exactly what it was about, or the concept. When the video panned to the audience, they seemed even more confused. She told stories, and assumed that the audience knew what she was talking about. I think she needed to provide some background as to what she was discussing. The only thing I got from it was that she believed in religion, which is why I felt she failed making her argument even more. I should have been able to understand or relate to at least one thing she was saying.

31. What constitutes a scientific education according to Huxley?

Knowledge. If you know what you are dealing with, you have a better understanding. The more you know, the more readily you would use and apply the correct steps to better provide you with what you need to obtain your result. Also to use a critical thinking approach to all subjects, evaluate the findings properly, and to be open-minded

32. Why is the book BELIEVER-SKEPTIC so critical of Ken Wilber and this thinking? Be specific in your answers

Because Ken Wilber embellishes his assertions. The author lets the readers know that Ken Wilber is naïve when it comes to Da Free John. I took it as a warning to be skeptical of Wilber. In his reviews of Da Free John he should have acknowledged any faults Da Free John had, which to me would have made it more thorough, making it more believable as a result. I would have accepted Ken Wilber sticking to his views despite the negative points. Have he had done this, then it would have let me know that he fully understands his position, has thoroughly thought about it. That would have made him more credible . Wilber duped readers in my opinion. Later, he was asked to write an autobiography of Da Free John, and he declined.

33. Give a review and an reaction to the three magazines that you read listed above.
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 always be debated because of its intangibility. Very interesting subject though


BERTRAND - SUMMARY

I think Heraclitus and Plato achieved their height of fame because of their in depth thoughts because of their harmony between Science and Mysticism. I like how Bertrand portrayed the examples of how these two men had scientific views and then showed their ideas with roots in mysticism. It was well written and precise. Also I found it intriguing to find out some of the origins of philosophy itself. I'm a big follower of philosophy, I think it provokes a good thought process and increases awareness of life itself. I think a lot of things should be something that should be tangible, so that you can know what's real, after you established its realism with observation you then can proceed to think about it in other ways. Of course I think it can get complicated and sometimes confusing when you think too much into things, but I think with organized thought, I think its very fulfilling.

PARAMAGFINAL - SUMMARY

I have to say, I'm a big skeptic to when it comes to this kind of subject. Though an interesting read, they provided historical events and personal accounts from people like Lane, Swami Yogeshwar Ananda and H.G. Mckenzie. But as far as the reading goes, it was just a reading and it failed to convince me to actually believe in the astrological powers. I did read this with an open mind, I even have family that actually believe in astrology, but like I said, I'm still a skeptic. Maybe I should go somewhere and try to get convinced with an actual event, a social experiment I guess, just as these men did. As far as it being genuine, I have high doubts. Interesting read though.

Extra Credit: List any books you read from the list for extra credit. Provide cogent summaries of each.

Believer Skeptic-
I was always taught to be never be afraid to ask a question if I was unsure of the answer. This book taught me to reevaluate that answer, and make my own. I once heard that a teacher can tell who their students who will excell are because they won't be afraid to ask a question. Unfortunately, the teacher may not always be correct. The teacher is basing their word, and sharing their knowledge based on what someone else taught them. So we as individuals must be able to weed through the sources and come up with our own truth no matter what it is. My truth may differ some yours, yet I must be willing to listen to your theory. As a critical thinker I must take the knowledge that was given to me, and attempt to make a valid decision based on evidence which is what Dr. Lane focused on in Believer Skeptic. Believer Skeptic was a very challeging book for me to read. I opened it, and began reading, the first thought that came to my mind was oh no, what have I gotten myself into. I let my mother read some of it, and she said DROP that class now, what is he trying to teach you? I closed the window, and looked through the other assignments, which were mostly about athiesm, agnosticism, and debates about God's existence. Religion is a subject I am uncomfortable talking about, mostly because I am ignorant to 90% of it, and I was taught it was something one doesn't discuss. Which was odd, because I was also taught to stand up for what you believe in. If the believers have so much faith, why is it openly acknowledged as something you don't discuss with other people? Are we not proud of it? So I reopened the book, and approached it with an openmind. It discused so many different subjects that are brand new to me as a first time college student. I found myself defining many of the words to get a grasp of what was going on. The topics ranged from Darwin, Wilber, Richard Dawkins, Ken Wilber, Free John, Faqir Chand, Richard Feynman, and many more people that I have sadly never heard of, or know very little about. To someone who knows nothing about any of this, it is very difficult. It discussed gurus, atoms, molecules, consciousness, evolution, genetics, karma, mutations, mysticism, death, transpersonal psychology, paranormal activity, and natural selection just to name a few things. I kept wondering to myself did I miss the class before this class? Dr. Lane points out how he respected the ideas and beliefs of the these intellectuals, but by using his critical thinking he was forced to disagree with certain aspects of their work. Dr. Lane was not attempting to discredit or downplay their importance in our society. He wanted to apply some logic and reasoning to these theories. Dr. Lane just like any other effective critical thinker wanted evidence to make these assumptions fact. From doing this Philosophy Course I learned that we must accept that if its wrong, then its wrong, and move on. If its correct have facts to back it up. Dr. Lane gave us to resources and tools to make up our own decisions, and not follow something because the masses do it. He taught me that we must make our own judgements, values, and beliefs based on proven facts. If you chose not to apply these teachings, Dr. Lane won't judge you, he just wants the readers to expand their minds. He attempted to teach us that we may not all agree but be willing to accept, and acknowledge the conflicting ideas. Ironically, I view this book like the old chinese proverb by Lao Tzu " Give a man a fish; feed him for one day. Teach a man to fish; feed him for a lifetime. Dr. Lane's gift to us is doubt. Which is wonderful. We all seek the freedom to chose, yet we don't have it if you really think about it. I always find myself sayin I AM MY OWN PERSON. When if you look at it from a Critical Thinking perspective, I am what those who molded me, and taught me to be. As a professor Dr. Lane can tell us anything, he can plant any concept in our mind. We can do work on it, even memorize it for a test. Instead he doesn't want us to think a certain way about one thing or another. It doesn't matter to him whether we accept anything or not, the ultimate goal is no matter what we chose, that we took a good look into it, and question whatever it is. Also that we accept the pros and cons. That we don't just do something that we are taught or told to do, that we analyze the choices, beliefs, or values that we accept as individuals.
Chapter 1 about Edgar Cayce is something I can relate to. I can honestly admit that I question my religion. That maybe I am a believer because I fear what will happen if I don't believe. My mother believes highly in this Phrophet that goes to the church. He reminds me of Cayce's spiritual readings. Some of the things the Prohpet says have yet to come true. Just like Cayce there has been points where he failed, or was partially wrong. In chapter 2 Dr. Lane evaluated F. Crick and his scientific explanation of life. We all have questioned our purpose in life. This is a really good chapter for people searching to find themselves. Or someone like me who questions why everything works a certain way, and why things counteract. One thing I really would love to be answered is why certain races hair grow faster or longer than others. Chapter 3 was my favorite chapter. It was the simplest one. It diccused spiritual leaders and how people forget that they are human too. I learned a lot about gurus, and their differences from Gods. Some of them are held to the highest holliness as God. I think that the believers of these Gurus don't want to accept that their is faults in everyone. I guess that applies to every faith tho. The fact that no one in any religion is perfect can be displayed with this whole Catholic Priest scandal. If God's existence was disproven the world might go crazy. There would be no reason for most of us to do the right thing. Then again we can do whatever now. This chapter brought back a question I always wondered. Was God considered human when he walked the Earth? Chapter 4 was strange. It seem like Dr. Lane was fond of Ken Wilber, but then again he critisized him a lot. But as a critical thinker you may like and respect someone as a person, but you are forced to accept when something is wrong. Chapter 7 shook me up. I'm still quite confused about the watch. There are so many possibilities. By the end of the book, I know that you taught me something by not really expecting to teach me anything. You took my mind back to the beginning, before all of the negative and postive things I learned, and nourished it, like someone would do to a newborn child. You took away all the predjuces, and gave me a true freedom of choice. Like I want you to know all of this, now add it to your current beliefs, and make your own decision. In a way I feel like you concieved my soul, body, and spirit, and gave birth to a new mind. If I didn't get anything from the book, I should have at least got the REAL FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. After reading this you will definitely have new way of thinking and approaching life in general.

To Be Agnostic -- Clarence Darrow

I tend to stay away from subjects that I don't understand. I was taught to believe in a higher being, and that you don't question it. I now realize that I was told not to question it because Mom didn't have the answers. Which is why I was reluctant to read this. Immediately what stuck out was on the third parapgraph it said Science is inherently agnostic. That sentence alone made me curious. I honestly had a negative attitude based on the title. That sentence is so powerful, it successfully drew my attention. It was so short, and so true. Immediately I searched for the definition of Agnostic. Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of existence or non-existence of God is impossible. Its a middle between theism and atheism. This interested me. The book symbolized that there was not enough information or evidence to believe or disbelieve, which is a resonable point of view. Agnostic doesn't rule our the posibilty of God's existence. I may be wrong. What I got from the book was that agnostics are people who believe there is likely some sort of being, but don't follow the beliefs of any established religion. The author chose to reserve judgements based in knowledge, and intelligence. I think that everyone might be agnostic in some sense, because although I believe in MY God, I question other peoples. No disrespect to anyone's belief or non belief, but I have honestly looked at some cultures relgions and thought why would they listen to that? That's the craziest piece of crap I've ever heard. For example suicide bombings being sacred. WHAT?!? The same way I look at that as being obsurd, an Agnostic person may think that its crazy that my family will give 10% of everything we made to someone we've never seen. My friend once joked that religious symbols like pastors are the biggest pimps walking. I have yet to meet a pastor over a congregation with a job, yet they have luxury cars, lovely homes on top of the hills, and never wear the same thing twice, and tons of people giving them money. I stopped going to one church because I remember being smaller about seven or eight, and sitting in church, and the collection plate was going around for the church building fund. Years later at the age of maybe nineteen, I returned to that same church and they were STILL passing around the collection plate for the church building fund. Yet it looks EXACTLLY the same. I wanted to ask WHAT EXAXTLLY ARE YOU BUILDING? Sky towers? This book as you can see put a lot of my ignorant beliefs into perspective. It shined a light on what Agnostism truly is. I don't disagree with the reasongings given in this book. As a new found critical thinker this makes complete sense. Even as my Hollier than thou mothers child, I must admit that there is a possibility it may all be made up. I feel this author is very intelligent, wise, and witty.

Make your own 3 minute movie on how to be an effective critical
thinker (be creative).



DOUBLE EXTRA CREDIT:Give a 200 word interpretation of the required movie, Nicholas of
Cusa. What do you think it actually means?

Interesting video. I wonder if they used the boat as coincidence or if it was intentional, being that Nicholas Cusa's father was a prosperous boat owner and ferryman. Yes I did my research. What I take from the video is transcending from just earthly knowledge into wisdom with spirituality. The boat representing your means to gain that knowledge, the bubbles show you the subjects and the sun being that ultimate goal to reach. The boat drifting from left to right represents someone’s soul seeking knowledge. At one point, one may be close to their goal, yet so far. The open sky represents the different paths you can take, and that there is no limit. After you reach that knowledge, you come back and you can share it with the rest of the people so that they too could "Sail the boat" to that knowledge. "The unattainable is attained by its un-attainment", is an engrossing quote. I believe it means that the more you try to attain this spiritual wisdom, the less you will achieve its true potential, when you leave yourself open and receptive then you will get that knowledge. Funny how such a short film could convey so much.