FINAL EXAMINATION: SUMMER 2008, CRITICAL THINKING,
C. Lane
Due AUGUST 1 at
Instructions
1. Be sure to place your entire FINAL on your website and when you are finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at nerualsurfer@yahoo.com
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other authors please be sure to quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be tolerated and you will receive an "F" automatically for the examination.
3. The test is due NO LATER than April 19th at midnite.
3a. Each answer should be at least three paragraphs long, if possible.
----------------------------------
4. What is your real name?
William Lee
5. What is your "user" name?
supwilliamlee
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
7. Name and address for your website.
William Lee’s Blog (http://supwilliamlee.blogspot.com/)
8. Have you done all the reading for the entire class?
yes
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
Some of the links did not work for me, but otherwise, yes.
10. What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revised midterm grade? Provide a LINK to your midterm.
I never received a midterm grade. Here’s the link: http://www.supwilliamlee.blogspot.com/2008/07/midterm.html/
11. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this class (you can copy and paste them. ALL SIX WEEKS OF POSTINGS.)
Karma
Many people believe karma to be a black and white concept. If you do good, you are rewarded; if you do bad, you are punished. However, there is a gray area not limited by that way of thinking. Karma is indefinite. There are no fixed outcomes for one's actions. Students get away with cheating on tests, con artists get away with swindling people's money, and that caring neighbor, who never sinned once in his life, is filing for bankruptcy because of business problems. I feel that the video shows mixed feelings about karma.
The creator of the video seems to wants to believe in karma, but feels that karma is nonexistent at times. The guy who gets hit by a car after robbing someone shows that karma exists. On the other hand, the guy who gets away after beating up another guy shows that karma does not exist. The girl who won the scratch card and the guy with the crazy girlfriend both lay in the gray area. Why should that one girl win a game of chance over thousands of others who are morally good and decide to play as well? Why should that one guy get shot for overreacting to anger, when his family might be more accustomed to violence? These questions cannot be answered simply with karma. In the end of the video, I feel that the main character is trying to get the message across that one cannot
predict karma.
Furthermore, the whole concept of good and bad is a socialistic issue. People who think themselves as good people are just following what their society deems as "good."
Cargo Cult Science
Richard Feyman's views in Cargo Cult Science strike a peculiar message about conformity in science. While it might be a good idea to stick with the norm when in doubt, some scientists take it too far when they discourage the practice of repeating experiments for newer, more accurate results. Even more disappointing is the fact that this method is accepted by authority figures, such as teachers and professors. Feyman rings up a good example with the Cornell student. It's a shame that potential scientific breakthroughs are being held back by the fact that certain scientists feel that redoing experiments are a waste of time.
The Young experiment acts as an excellent counter-example to cargo Cult science. Mr. Young discovered valuable information regarding experimenting on rats. His work should be appreciated by other scientists, yet it is greatly ignored because of the fact that there is already a standard procedure on experimenting with rats. If this mindset persists, future scientific experiments will remain limited in results and discoveries.
Freyman's message is clear and should be acknowledged by both established science organizations and the scientists themselves. Science should not be so deeply entwined with money and position.
The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
Richard Feyman uses many simple, yet interesting stories to explain an intriguing way to think critically. After listening to the many examples, I feel that I have some sort of gist of what he's trying to convey, which is to think critically, one must think beyond their initial thoughts. He wants people to consider different perspective on everything that exists, from processes to objects to people. In simpler terms, he talks about thinking beyond the names of things, and instead turn to what makes them unique, in order to fully understand them. He talks about imagining every possibility that can lead to a certain outcome. He brings up an example at one point about chess, where there can be so many different ways a bishop can arrive at a certain position on the board.
As a person who values thinking, I have practiced Feyman's ideas a couple times when I'm evaluating certain things. Feyman takes it to a new level by suggesting that people use his way of thinking for just about everything. The use of this method in everyday life does provide some interesting enlightenments. One can start appreciating the simpler things just by allowing them to provide critical thinking.
John Maynard Smith and Evolution
The John Maynard interview gave me an in depth overview of
One thing that was interesting was Smith's views on the human consciousness. He simply did not have an answer or explanation for it. He says that such a thing that gave us all our instincts was difficult to believe in, yet there was not evidence against it. He has a similar view on religion. I felt that he gave a good answer when asked about religion by saying that he would be an atheist, but since he couldn't prove religion wrong, he would rather be considered agnostic.
Another interesting point was when they started talking about the continuing evolution of humans. Considering that we have been constantly evolving since back when in the Neanderthal days, one can wonder if humans will develop into an even more advanced species sometime in the distant future.
Critical Thinking in an Online World
In our society today, the internet has the biggest impact on everyday life. The internet can provide interaction between people around the globe, give people the chance to conduct financial operations online, and, most importantly, allow people to access any information at any time. The internet is quickly replacing the obsolete library. In a couple years, we might not even need a library in every city anymore. However, is the internet going to cause the downfall of critical thinking? I don't think the internet will cause people to stop thinking critically. With the internet, people are able to access information on all sides of an argument, at any given time. With that access, those who want to practice critical thinking, are able to do so more than at a library.
In this article, Debra Jones is saying that librarians need to invoke their methods of finding information onto everyone else. For the most part, I agree with this if critical thinking is to survive this online revolution. However, I find there will always be narrow-minded people in this world, regardless of whether or not librarians and critical thinkers decide to step up and attempt at getting others to think critically.
What is Cold Reading?
Being raised by Asian parents in an Asian community, I was often exposed to the art of palm reading. I remember one of my uncles claimed to be fairly decent at it and he would tell me everything from my life expectancy to my future wealth. For a long time, I believed in simple readings, because they just cannot be proven wrong until after many decades. In a sense, I think my uncle used this fact to come off as a legitimate palm reader.
Other than that, I don't think I was ever exposed to what this article labels as a cold reading. However, I did learn from the article that people are always so easy to convince. Experienced cold readers are able to prey on the emotions of happiness and fear. It's surprising how people don't tend to challenge what they hear, especially when there's so much reason to be skeptical about it.
Another thing that I got from this article was that people with a great understanding of society in general can easily influence others. If they put on a convincing act, they are able to persuade people into thinking they have certain powers. This makes me wonder if those, so called, cold readers are really just experienced critical thinkers.
Viruses of the Mind
Richard Dawkins talks about the conformity of the human mind by comparing the mind with a human computer. The main focus of this reading is that parents have the biggest influence on people's lives. This is true, because of the fact that parents mold their children's minds at a stage where the mind is still developing. Any information given to them at this time becomes engraved in their minds and has an affect on them one way or another. Dawkins explains that faith and anything that isn't definite are like viruses to a child's mind, because they are gullible to believe inexplicable things, yet they
don't do any good for the child.
Another thing Dawkins talks about, that I firmly agree with, is that the society where a child is raised has a huge impact on his or her life. In essence, the stories that are told and the way a child is brought up can greatly affect his or her future thinking. In that sense, the practice of throwing religion onto young children can potentially harm them, because of the fact that they are forced into that religion, without truly knowing their other options.
Believer Skeptic
This book was quite an extensive read and it's certainly different to read a book written by my own teacher. As a fresh out of high school graduate that never really found a preferred major, I have not read many books out of the literature and science fiction genres. This was a new experience for me to read a book on a specific study.
The first section that really caught my attention was Chapter 3 on gurus. I never realized that, excuse me for being harsh, the ignorance some people hold for their guru can be so great. I always thought people looked at gurus as some sort of gifted leader, yet here I'm reading about people who worship gurus as gods. I had quite the laugh reading some of the excuses that people give when trying to defend the "holiness" of their gurus. Upon further evaluation, I start to empathize with some of these blind followers. They are gathered together under a certain guru, so that there is something for all of them to believe in, something that gives more meaning to their lives. However, I agree with Dr. Lane's conclusion that they are much like mindless sheep caught in the crossfire of people posing as gods. It's hard to believe there can be such a lack of skepticism when dealing with followers of certain religions or gurus.
Another interesting section was Chapter 7 of Richard Feynman. I mildly enjoyed the story in the introduction about his wife's watch. In order to be a critical thinker, one must look past his or her emotions. Instead of looking for what one wants to believe is the answer, one have to look for what is indeed the answer. Another thing about critical thinking is that one has to be able to think on all sides of an argument. In order to find the truth about something, one must be willing to doubt his or her primary beliefs.
Beyond Belief (Session 1)
As an agnostic, I never doubted the existence of God, but if I were to choose between the belief of either science or religion, it would have to be science. I believe religion in a sense was created as a good thing. It allowed people to gather under a common interest and have hope for a better future during bad times. I also believe that certain groups of people under certain religions have often taken things too far. In an essence, what makes it hardest for me to believe in certain religions is the fact that people are conformed into the religion of their society. Some people never get the chance to follow the religions of others, just because they do not have access to them throughout their lives. If there was a divine being, I don't believe that being would leave so many people out of what is promised to his or her followers.
For the video, I agree with Sam Harris and his bit about how religion has no room for error. I do not like how certain religious people blindly defend their own religion and look down upon those who disagree. This point binds into what I said earlier about how not everyone has the same access to certain religions based on where they are raised.
Science is a gold mine for a thinker, because science leaves room for error. In science, people are not encouraged to blindly defend their ideas and when they are proven wrong, they must accept it. While I will agree that religion does indeed have it's strong points for certain groups of people, I believe that science is the stepping stone into the future.
Beyond Belief (Session 2)
I liked the lecture from Neil Tyson, who was talking about past thinkers such as Isaac Newton and gave a meaningful insight into past ideas. I learned that unexplainable things that cannot be clarified through science mostly fall into the element of intelligent design.
Isaac Newton defined intelligent design by acknowledging that there are boundaries that science cannot cross and that there is a threshold to what science can explain. Although he does not acknowledge that there is a higher power, he does not deny that there is one. Thus, for things that cannot be explained, intelligent design can be applied towards any idea.
Thinking Clearly
Bertrand Russell brings up the simple point that people need to start thinking clearly instead of allowing emotions and other personal feelings to get in the way. While this may seem like an obvious observation that everyone should already know, the amount of people who do not practice clear thinking is staggering. It is of a human nature to think the way that one wants to, instead of thinking in a way that allows one to see all sides of an issue. The world is full of individuals with biased thinking, which, like Russell says, is not good for mankind. Like how courts should follow the philosophy of blind justice, people should follow the philosophy of unbiased thinking and not allow prejudice to affect their decisions.
I didn't quite get the last bit of what Russell was saying. I think he's saying something along the lines of how old-fashioned philosophy does not fit in with how the world works today. The way I see it, the world today has a huge population of people and not all of them have access to teachers who can teach them clear thinking. For the rest of the people, many of them do not have the urge to think outside the little bubble that society has created for them. In that sense, old philosophy would probably have an impact on only a small percentage of today's world population.
Why I Am Not A Christian
Bertrand Russell has a similar view of Christianity as most other thinkers and scientists. He brings up many good points as to why he should doubt the religion, while not really denouncing it. He states that while Christianity could be a good thing for others, it is not for him. This article stands out from most other previous readings and lectures against Christianity because Russell thinks of it more from a reasoning and thinking standpoint, rather than directly trying to prove certain parts of Christianity to be wrong.
I enjoyed reading about the reasons people give for believing in God. I have had some previous encounters with Christianity, where all I learned was that people had a blind faith in their creator and that they assumed others were just inconvenienced. Russell breaks down all of these explanations with his deep ideas. This is my first experience in learning about the basis and creation of Christianity, rather than just the practice of it, which I am more accustomed to seeing.
I strongly agree with Russell's points about the emotional factor. Many people accept Christianity, as well as other religions, on an emotional standpoint rather than a logical one. However, I don't feel this is necessarily bad, in the sense that it allowed people to unite under a common set of morals. On the other hand, I will agree that certain church procedures and ignorant believers can often bring society down with the die-hard Christian faith.
The Secret of Faqir
This was another new insight into the whole guru concept for me. However, this guru is quite different from the previous ones I read about. Faqir Chand is probably the most guru-like of all the gurus I have read about, but that's not because he can "miraculously" solve people's problems. It is because he understands his role as a leader is to change a faulty way of thinking that his people have been blindly following. Faqir Chand's secret is that there is neither gods nor religions. There is only oneself.
In this life, the only thing you can truly rely on is yourself. People often turn to religion in order to answer their questions and solve their problems, which isn't exactly a bad thing because it can give them a more meaningful life, but in order to truly appreciate life, I believe people have to realize that they have to realize that their life is their own doing. Faqir states that he doesn't know whether he is right or wrong, yet people still blindly follow his teachings. This just proves that many groups of people around the world are in dire need of the ability to consider the possibility that their religion could be wrong. Hopefully, the true teachings of Faqir were not completely wasted.
Pretext/Text/Context
Dr. Lane provides a valid point about cheap reductionalism. When breaking things down, one does not want to take the step from analyzing into oversimplifying. This method is similar to what Richard Feynman mentioned when talking about looking past the names of things. However, Dr. Lane wants to point out the correct approach into breaking something down. The goal of critical thinking is not to simplify something, but to learn everything. In an essence, Dr. Lane's main idea for writing this article was to teach that science deals with reducing something as much as one can, without losing any information about it.
Further into the article, Dr. Lane strongly argues between simplifying things and finding information about things. One cannot make something out to be so simple that nothing can be learned from it. Dr. Lane suggests that there is a fine line in which critical thinkers must tread upon. Throughout the text, it is also suggested that pretext, text, and context are all important in thinking about things. To be honest, I didn't really like how Dr. Lane brought up this issue. I felt that he complicated what should have been a simple matter with some of his examples. However, I might just be missing a larger picture that he wants his audience to see.
Physics Behind Four Amazing Demonstrations
After my first look at this article, I was a bit disappointed. While it did provide for an interesting read, I was looking forward to something more philosophical like the previous articles. Then I thought about it for a few minutes and realized that this article was supporting a simple, yet important, rule about critical thinking. Thought should not be limited to what one first perceives. A bed of broken glass might appear to be fairly dangerous, but it can be proven by science to be harmless in a way. This goes the same with all the other examples.
David Wiley seems to be an interesting professor. I'll admit that I often find it hard to pay attention to boring teachers. In order to teach effectively, Wiley has found a way to incorporate critical thinking into his lessons. He challenges his students to doubt their perception of things, in order to learn more about the subject matter. It's enlightening to realize that science can hold so many answers to so many different scenarios.
Eleven
This short film triggers many emotions including sorrow, anger, sympathy, and confusion. The state of the world today is far from perfect. This partly has to do with the fact that people don't understand each other. They don't think outside of their own beliefs enough to try and understand why someone else thinks a certain way. This is another film promoting the evolution into critical thinking. If people weren't limited to their own thinking, then the world would be an easier place to get along with others.
For the film, the story causes a lot of finger pointing. The reporter and student were killed because of the vengeance dwelling in the heart of the guy who lost his father because of 9/11. In turn, the terrorists of 9/11 attacked
This film also brings up the issue of racism. Racism would also not exist if people learned to understand more than what they perceive. The guys who were killing Muslims didn't think outside the fact that some wore turbans and were of the same color skin as the terrorists. Emotion and perception often get in the way of clear thinking.
Freeman Dyson and the Mathematical Universe
Freeman Dyson is a rare scientist, in the sense that he believes that religion and science can coexist. He believes that religion can exist because it can be a cause for a number of things people do. Dyson accepts religion as a way of life and believes that science should not go out of its way to disprove it, but should instead strive to accept it. I like this way of thinking, because both sides have such an impact on people's lives, that why should we not just accept both of them? Critical thinking is the practice of seeing all sides of an argument, so this could just be an extreme example.
I like Dyson's philosophy that every aspect of life should be considered. Whether it be science or religion, nothing should be discredited. He is agnostic towards God, like myself, yet considers the morals and ethics of Christianity to be worth practicing. Dyson ended off his lecture talking about how life is interesting because of its mysteries. In that sense, science and religion are both huge aspects of life, because they both deal with the mysteries of life. Science is the solving of mysteries, while religion is the general belief of certain mysteries. If everyone could think the way Dyson does, the world might be an easier place to get around.
Dyson brings up a good point when he compares science and religion as two different windows looking onto the same thing. Both religion and science can explain life in their own different, and seemingly opposite, ways, yet ultimately, either of them can be true. However, when you look past the way they are explaining things, in the end, they are explaining the same thing, life.
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
This lecture was set up in an intriguing way. It starts off with a prayer, which is then followed up by Ken Miller's expert lecture on the debate of evolution. I found this interesting, because Ken Miller is pro-science and evolution, yet allows a religious practice to prepare the crowd for him. Miller gives a standard argument for the science side of this debate. He argues around the idea that science is based off theories and facts. The true beauty of science is that science leaves room for correction.
Throughout his lecture, Miller uses many funny examples of how religion takes things to the extreme sometimes when campaigning against science. I find it amusing how certain schools put warning stickers onto books about evolution, when students have the access to more potentially dangerous reading. I think that stunts like these are a sad attempt from religion to downplay science. One of the biggest arguments against the Theory of Evolution is the theory, itself. People argue that evolution is not a fact. I liked Miller's use of how gravity is also just a theory to back up his argument. Miller states that, in science, theories are on a higher level than facts. Theories are thought of to explain facts.
One thing I don't like about this whole science vs. religion debate is that both sides seem to want to win. In order for this, one must disprove the other, yet why can't we just live in a world where people can accept both religion and science? Yes, they are almost like opposites in the sense that in order for one to be completely true, the other must be false. However, I think both sides are trying too hard to discredit their opponents. This interview was just another example of one side trying to win over the other.
Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion?
At first glance of this article, Paul Kurtz's questioning of this controversy allowed me to think in both a scientific and a religious perspective. Religion is all about being devoted, accepting what you believe in, and putting it into practice. Science however, seems to be the opposite of religion where seeing is believing; it is based on the study of facts and truths. Those who are religious and those who are not have the common difference of skeptical inquiry.
While the devoted are blindly faithful to their beliefs, they tend to turn away from skeptical inquiry and accept the guidelines of their religion. Those who apply the skeptical mind towards reason, however, find justification in answers that have explanation and can be proved. Although the religious are mostly born into their faith and are raised to accept their beliefs, they are also born with the right to think for themselves. If someone had to voluntarily put all their faith into something that they cannot even see, they should skeptically inquire with it before they start believing it. Therefore, I agree with Paul Kurtz and think that skeptical inquiry essentially needs to be applied.
Philosophy in Less than Five Minutes (Part 2)
Another interesting collection of videos that I have had troubles understanding. In the sixth video, I believe the message revolves around the fact that people will always want to turn to religion, even if there is no evidence proving it. They would rather believe in lies than have to face the truth. People will always think that believing in something is better than believing in nothing. While evolution holds much more truth, religion will still gain a large following with its ability to fill in the void of people’s lives.
In the seventh video, it’s a clear case of science (evolution) versus religion. Evolution, however, uses facts, while religion has no factual answer to refutes. Evolution just seems like the clear choice compared to the narrow-minded religion.
James Watson
James Watson believes that the study of one's DNA can determine their future human behavior and personality. Being the cofounder of the double helix, his studies show him that the unique genes in a person gives them individuality, which is why everybody is different. He also gave the example of identical twins, who were both indistinguishable in every way except for their genetic makeup, and their behavior. With his studies, Watson is able to conclude that the chromosomes of a person can influence his or her personality and therefore, institute their future behavior.
I believe that people find it hard to accept that one's genetic makeup determines their human behavior for the reason that they want to believe that they have the complete power to control their own actions. With Watson's viewpoint, the authority of their behavior lies in the fate of their DNA.
John Polkinghorne
John Polkinghorne is a unique individual, in the sense that he sides with both science and religion. He is a physicist who studies quantum physics, while still holding to his Christian roots, which has also played a great impact on his life. He believes, that in a surprising manner, that science and religion overlap each other often. He also believes that those who practice science do not have to automatically judge God as a false being.
After reading and listening to mostly anti-religious or pro-religious beliefs, it is enlightening to hear from someone who strides in between. I agree that this method is most likely the best one; having science explain and advance on our questions, while also having religion as an explanation to things we cannot yet explain. Faith is actually a strong tool, because it gives people a drive that they might be unable to find anywhere else. With religion and science coexisting, many things can be explained and the world can be a much more hopeful place to live. Polkinghorne also believes that everything has a divine purpose.
Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy Files
Fallacies, by definition, are false ideas. In a more detailed aspect, fallacies can be seen as the one fault that proves an argument is false. It is clear that the ability for people to see through fallacies has become essential for today’s society. There are too many groups, not only religion, that prey on the inability of narrow-minded people to see the fallacies in their claims. Part of becoming a critical thinker is the open mindedness needed to see the faults of all arguments.
People need to understand fallacies before allowing themselves to fall so deeply into their beliefs. Without that ability, it is much like a blind man walking through a labyrinth. He will be deeply lost before he realizes that he needs a seeing-eye dog. By then, it might be too late for him to turn back. Fallacies and other critical thinking tools are crucial in the growth of humans.
Philosophy in Less than Five Minutes (Part 1)
This was an interesting collaboration of films. They were quite provocative and at times I felt the creators must have been on some type of drug. The first film talked about the negative aspects of eternal recurrence. The video had a good way of getting out the message that one life is enough. I’m guessing the video is trying to convince people to live the most out of their one life instead of looking towards religion.
The second film was the hardest for me to understand. In the end, I think it gives a message that religion fills in the spaces of things people don’t understand. Instead of continuing to have that void, people want to believe there is an explanation for everything, but instead of science, they turn to religion. I felt as if I didn’t understand the third video either, even though the music and sound effects were catchy. In a sense, it could be showing the developments of science and how it continues to develop. It also gives sort of a small physics lessons. I had some mixed feelings about the last quote comparing humans to frozen popsicles, does it mean that science is our enlightenment or that science is unnecessary?
The fourth film was kind of a tacky video portraying the ability of deception to keep everyone happy. Sometimes in order to live in a peaceful world, the truth can be ignored. This must have been a pro-religious video. The fifth film was confusing. I think it was getting at the fact that while people are seemingly in control of their lives, they are actually only in control of small percentages of it.
Gospel of Unbelief
Nietzsche again criticizes religions, especially Christianity, in the 3rd piece of work I have read from him. Both Christianity and religion have a large following for beliefs that have yet to prove many of their claims. Nietzsche believes that religious followers are narrow-minded and damage society as a whole. They should be able to see through the fallacies of religion, yet they blindly hold onto their faith. Those same people should be using their given intellect to pursue, what is in reality, the truth. However, they let the religious sects doctrine their lives, telling them what is moral and what is immoral.
Nietzsche believes that all ethics and moralities can be discovered without the help of any religion. People just need to realize that they can think outside the box on their own. They don’t need an unnecessary guideline called religion in their lives. On top of that, Nietzsche also believes that not only is religion useless, but it corrupts the mind in a sense that it diminishes the ability to think critically.
Intelligent Design
Intelligent design is essentially the religious-based counterpart to the science-based theories of evolution and natural selection. By definition, intelligent design is the belief that humans were created by a higher being, such as God. Many supporters of this belief, mainly Christians, argue that humans are much too complex to have been able to evolve from a subspecies. They believe that the only sound explanation for the complexity of human beings is intelligent design.
This article provides many fallacies about the argument for intelligent design. For one thing, the Bible is used as its main evidence. Another thing is that most of its abdicates tend to try and find errors in natural selection as a basis for argument, instead of finding evidence that proves intelligent design. Religion has always been less about facts and more about beliefs. Intelligent design is just an excuse for religion to keep up with the modernization of science. Their arguments against science and evolution are, at the most, futile.
The Nietzsche Channel
Nietzsche is one of the most anti-religious philosophers that I have personally read about. He feels that religion is not only unnecessary, but also a blight on society. Nietzsche also holds philosophy with the highest regard. He feels that religion is the heart of all prejudice, while philosophy provides the fundamentals of science and life in general. In a sense, Nietzsche believes that God and religion were created by humans to give themselves a purpose. They act as substitutes to the truth that humans are afraid to see. They also give meaning to lives that made no sense before. However, humans have come a long way from the religious era and Nietzsche believes that it should soon be over.
Like in his book, Nietzsche again brings up the fact that people don’t want to hear the truth. They would rather hear lies, no matter how much they say they can handle the truth. Religion is portrayed as a lie that people turn to when they cannot face the truth. Nietzsche also talks about true nobility lying with the philosophers and scientists who can face the truth, even when they can be, many times, incorrect at first.
Beyond Belief (Session 6)
This session started out with a woman named Susan talking about her views of the tactics that science uses against religion. Susan believes that those who just strike out at religion are going about things the wrong way. She believes that religious thinkers need to be persuaded and argued against by facts rather than wishful thinking. She also believes that religion has no direct connection to ethics. This leads to a debate on morality in an empirical sense. There was a good point brought up about how even though torture did not work out, would it be considered moral if it indeed allowed people to learn things they could never learn otherwise? This is just the age old debate of “do the ends justify the means?” Susan argues that self-interest and moral-interest often intertwine, but they are not completely dependent on each other.
There was another speaker who talked about how in a sense, all religious traditions are essentially narrative story telling. The stories link together cosmology and morality. In a sense, he believes that the mixing of the two has turned those religious stories into myth over time. People use religion to promote morality and in that ways it can flourish in a society where there are no clear rules on morality. In general, the speaker believes that society does not need religion, if society learns to come together as a community and develop morals.
Truth Lies
Nietzsche seems to be a devout anti-religious philosopher. More so, he is strongly against Christianity. He feels that Christianity, and also religion in general, is purely nonsense and a waste of time. He also feels that religion is for people that are narrow-minded and not on his level of thinking. He may come off as quite arrogant about philosophers and quite harsh towards religion, but it is interesting to read about someone so strongly against religion.
Throughout this book, Nietzsche connects philosophy to the basis of science. He believes that science, especially philosophy plays, an important role in people’s lives. Compared to religion, science is not definite and provides room for correction. Science provides not truths, but merely explanations that could be further questioned. The beauty of philosophy lies in its ability to push those questions into the unknown. Nietzsche believes that religion claims to tell truths, but people should not have to be controlled by its lies. In a sense, Nietzsche believes that “truths” are not always the truth, because people’s mindsets are always changing. He even finds that immorality is not all that bad, because society’s idea of morality is not that accurate.
The Guru File
Some people just hold too much power in this world. People like Thakar Singh, who prey on believers, disgust me. Singh has been getting away with sexual abuse and child abuse by holding on to his false pretense as a God. I’m not sure if Singh had first intended to turn out this way, but it’s clear that he has been tempted by power. That much power does not mix with a corrupt individual. However, the fault cannot fully lie with him. It’s surprising just how easy thousands of people could believe someone just because he has the nerve to claim something. If his followers truly wanted to be skeptical about him, then they would discover his lies in almost no time at all. People just don’t want to be open minded about everything; they would rather accept lies, in order to believe in something.
One thing I learned from this is that cults have no place in this world. They denounce open mindedness by trying to conform. In an essence, they are trying to get rid of originality. The creators of religion may or may not have been trying to do this at the start, but the existence of cults is truly a plague on critical thinking.
Another thing I learned is that people should be careful in who they choose to give power; especially power that involves the blind conviction of its followers. It is important to learn everything about potential candidates in order to judge their qualifications.
Sai Baba
It is mind-compelling how far a man can get with simple parlor tricks. Granted he is preying on those eager to believe, it is still an unbelievable feat. This reminds me of the old “quarter behind the ear” trick I used to pull on my sister when she was 5. What’s sad is that she discovered it was a trick after only a week. What’s even sadder is that many of Sai Baba’s audience haven’t been 5 for almost a century.
Discoveries like this prove how much critical thinking is needed in this world. There are too many people out there that are narrow-minded enough to believe in almost anything that is thrown at them. I start to understand why so many people are anti-religion, because it slows down the growth of society worldwide. It has become a necessity for believers to willingly become skeptical.
Unauthorized Eckankar
This reading was the most interesting thing I read all summer. The story seems like a fiction, yet it’s supposedly a real story. This was one of the few articles I read for this class that easily kept my attention the whole way through. Before I analyze my thinking on the story, I would like to comment that this one chapter in Dr. Lane’s life was more exciting than everything I have imagined for my own life. It was truly like reading one of those fiction novels I can’t keep my hands off.
About the article, it was really exhilarating keeping up with Dr. Lane’s obsession. I’m not too sure if that’s how critical thinking was intended to be used, but his drive was unparalleled to anything I have personally experienced. The main focus of this story has already shown me something I had never thought possible, the getting away of plagiarizing religions. The thought of thousands of followers blindly following a fake religion is baffling. However, the pseudo-religion Eckankar was able to do so by copying Radhasoami text.
Many of those who choose to be believers, rather than skeptics, or religion often prove themselves to be narrow-minded and ignorant. However, it is somewhat understandable, because as Dodie Bellamy had explained it, religion can be there for people when they feel that nothing else suffices. Religion is like a guiding light and even though they cannot see anything else besides it, they leave themselves no choice but to follow it.
An Introduction to Critical Thinking
The ability to think critically is sufficient for future generations. Those who don’t learn critical thinking will soon be left behind. The main reason for critical thinking lies in the quote by Clement and Lochhead, “[w]e should be teaching students how to think. Instead, we are teaching them what to think.” In an essence, today’s education does not adequately teach students, because it fails to teach them how to think effectively. It only teaches students the subject matter. However, the capability to think critically is important for young people to grow into responsible adults.
Without critical thinking, people would come to quick conclusions. They would not be able to approach a problem in the most efficient way. This could end up hindering their efforts or causing more damage than necessary. People need critical thinking to make all the important decisions in their lives. They cannot rely on just textbook thinking. I agree that the teachers and professors need to take it upon themselves to pass on this knowledge to their students. Teaching only "what to think" is just not good enough anymore.
Edgar Cayce and the Skeptic
Kenneth Paul Johnson’s use of open mindedness should be an example to all thinkers, especially people who want to refute other people’s ideas. I especially admired how he had the insight to also think about what type of role Edgar Cayce played for his followers and the possible psychological aspects the man had. Often times, critical thinking is done one-sided, or narrow-minded. Instead of just denouncing Cayce’s paranormal abilities, Johnson opens his mind enough to explore Cayce’s side.
With open mindedness, people are able to discover the most about a certain subject or thing. People that are narrow-minded and biased towards something will never be able to see the bigger picture. It’s like someone focusing their sight on a particular object, instead of using their peripherals. I think all thinkers should learn to tread between the sides of the believer and the skeptic.
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?
The Mark Juergensmsyer interview is currently unavailable to me. I started these 3 weeks assignments late due to a relatives wedding in
Personally, I believe that religious zealots turn to terrorism, because their words aren’t heard otherwise. From what I’ve learned,
After reading a review on one of Juergensmsyer’s books, I have concluded that Juergensmsyer relates terrorism to a religious war. He believes that without these religious misunderstandings, there will be no need for terrorism. In a sense, Juergensmsyer believes that if we show more appreciation and respect towards other religions, terrorism can be avoided.
13. Is there sufficient evidence to support the claim that Edgar Cayce was psychic? Use your critical thinking field guide to substantiate your answer.
There was not enough evidence to prove that Edgar Cayce was a psychic, yet there was also not enough evidence to prove the contrary. On one side, there’s the discovery of inaccurate readings, which tilts the scale towards the non-psychic side. However, that’s not to say that he didn’t have paranormal abilities that were faulty from time to time.
If I learned anything from the excerpt on Cayce, it was to not jump to conclusions. Just because someone feels that there are faults to Cayce’s claims, doesn’t mean that they still can’t be true. A critical thinker must leave his or her mind open to all sorts of possibilities, no matter the outweighing evidence (if the evidence is not 100% accurate).
14. Why is your professor so critical of cults?
Well the first reason I would give is that as a Critical Thinking Professor, who has been constantly teaching his students to open their minds, he would feel that cult thinking holds the opposite to his beliefs. Cults teach their members to become narrow-minded, resulting in the mindless belief of everything the cults say. I would feel that Dr. Lane promotes the exact opposite of that mentality and uses his critique of cults as the perfect example to teach with.
After reading about Dr. Lane's adventure with Eckankar, I also believe that is so critical towards cults because of the harassment he received from them. When Dr. Lane found some incriminating evidence towards certain cults, they panicked and threatened him to be quiet. Dr. Lane must have found this sign of weakness as a sign of power for himself. The power quickly turned into obsession and, now, critiquing cults has turned into one of his favorite hobbies.
15. What do the films reveal about Sai Baba's claim for paranormal powers?The films on Sai Baba reveal that he was a petty parlor magician. It was ridiculous to see how large of a following that a simple man could acquire with a simple trick. The films show that people are quick to believe those who claim to have powers. The only powers that Sai Baba had were the powers to exploit and amuse.
I found it ludicrous how such a man could hold such influence over such a large, diversely-aged group of people. The unwillingness of believers to show any signs of skepticism is truly holding back society. I don't know if paranormal powers actually do exist in this world, but people need to start opening their mind when dealing with obvious fakes.
16. Why did Thakar Singh believe in blindfolding children? Why do some religious followers lack critical thinking skills?
Thakar Singh believed that by blindfolding children, they are rid of all distractions. This allowed the children to focus on their spiritual and religious beliefs. His process actually involved having children blindfolded from their birth to the age of 5. In a sense, Singh is just forcing religion onto children at a young age, so they would grow up to be devout followers.
Religious followers have always lacked critical thinking skills, because they fail to see, or want to see, anything other than what their religion is telling them. Even when faced with facts, many followers would still cling onto blind devotion. They just don’t want to deal with a truth that seems so different from what they are familiar with.
17. John Polkinghorne believes both in religion and science. Why?
John Polkinghorne is a rare type of person. Throughout his life, he had the fortune of being strongly influenced by both religion and science. Even though he was a physicist studying quantum physics, he still held onto his religion of Christianity, and later become a priest when he retired.
Polkinghorne is able to do this, because he is open minded enough to see the possibilities of both sides of the spectrum. On one side, he understands that science proves facts that were unknown before and will continue to develop society. On the other side, he realizes that religion could possibly be the only answer to many unanswered questions and that having faith towards a religion does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. After all, having faith is what gives many people around the world a drive to live and succeed.
18. How does Nietzsche critique religion? What are his main arguments against a belief in God?
Nietzsche regards religion, especially Christianity, as a plague on society. He feels that religious followers are narrow-minded for believing in, as he puts it, something so useless. In his opinion, religion does nothing more than to control how people think. He believes that religion acts as shackles to the potential of the human mind in certain aspects such as philosophy and science, matters he holds with the highest regard.
Nietzsche believes that if there were a God, then he would be promoting free thinking, instead of control on beliefs and ethics. Because of this, Nietzsche is strongly against religion’s place in this world.
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?
Genetics, in a metaphorical sense, are the blueprints from which humans are designed. Essentially, a study on a person’s ancestral genetics can lead to discoveries about certain types of behaviors he or she may have. James Watson takes it a step further by believing that the chromosomes of genetics can cause some of a person’s future behavior.
The DNA from chromosomes could potentially give human’s certain personalities derived from his or her genes. People will always be resisting the belief that we are just bundles of DNA, because that reveals the simplest side of us. Humans think of themselves as beings too complex to be stripped down so simply.
20. Why is intelligent design regarded as "junk" science by most evolutionary biologists?
Intelligent design can be bluntly called as the opposite of evolution. By definition, intelligent design is the popular Christian belief that that humans were created by a higher being and are too complex to be derived from evolution and natural selection. However, most evolutionary biologists consider intelligent design as “junk” science, because it offers no evidence but the Bible.
Also, supporters of intelligent design would often attack the evidence of natural selection instead of providing evidence to intelligent design. It seems like just a futile attempt for religion to keep up with the modernization of science. Methods like can contribute to the lack of validity of certain arguments.
21. What is the underlying theme behind the movie the Zahir?
I honestly did not understand what the movie was about, but I’ll try to throw some ideas out there. One thing I got at the end of the movie was that people will try to see religion in everything. Even a small coin could become someone’s connection to a higher being out there. Even the most unlikely things start to become probably in the minds of the religious.
My second conclusion is that people often turn to religion when they are sad or when they do not know what is happening. The man seemed to be stuck in a state of indifference in his life and his subconscious self would turn him towards Zahir. I’m guessing the underlying theme behind this movie is that religion can fill the empty spaces of people’s lives.
22. How can little things that jiggle reveal the universe around us (hint: think of the movie of the same title).
This was another abstract film that I had difficult understanding. My first impression is that it wanted to portray the message that the world is always changing and that science can explain it. The film then goes into a sequence of events that seem to be one discovery leading to another which leads to yet another. In that sense, the little things that jiggle, such as molecules and atoms, have a direct link to everything going on around us.
I also have a small hunch that the “reveal” part of the title could refer to revealing the fallacy of religion. Because those “little things” play a part in evolution and science, they are revealing a large part of the universe around us by proving religion to be false.
23. Why is fundamentalism a mental disease, according to the movie of the same title?
In a mental disease, the inflicted would not be able to perceive what is obviously wrong. Even if shown facts, a mental condition would limit the person’s ability to see the truth. Imagine asking someone who was crazy to see all the reason in the world, they wouldn't be able to because there is something wrong with their mind.
In fundamentalism, the same situation occurs, except the person is not diseased, the person is just religious. When given facts that prove fundamentalism is wrong on all accounts, fundamentalists would still blindly hold onto religion as if they were mentally diseased in some way. Religion also provides unnecessary feelings like a mental disease.
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) Race Generalizations – “Jim is Asian, Asians are not popular, and so Jim cannot be prom king.”
2) Best of All Time – “Albert Einstein is the smartest man in history.”
3) Human Instincts – “He’s not going to be able to resist the food after not eating for a whole day.”
4) One-sided Relationships – “She is definitely my friend.” (but does she feel the same way?)
5) Area Generalizations – “He has to be a Lakers fan, he’s lived in LA his whole life.”
6) Historical Minds – “George Washington definitely loved
7) Right-Wrong – “He’s wrong, so my ideas were right all along.”
8) Habits-Emotions – “She usually wears green when she’s happy, she must not be happy today.”
25. Provide your own critical analysis (using the terminology learned in this class, etc.) of the current "war on terrorism" as waged by the
I am generally against the war on terrorism.
I think the way
America failed to think clearly. I don't think such an important nation should act on angered emotions rather than clear thinking. Personally, I found it revulting that a terrorist hype was used to invade Iraq, for arguably financial reasons (oil). I've also learned about the way that the "9/11 heroes," who arrived on the scene to help, were treated. It involved being virtually ignored by the government. Overall, I think America made poor judgment calls throughout the whole 9/11 ordeal.
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.
Honestly, I couldn’t put up with listening to many of the speakers. Many of the speakers had an air of arrogance that I just couldn’t stomach. One of those speakers was a woman named Susan who talked about the lack of connection between religion and morality. She stands out as my least favorite speaker. However, I do remember earlier in the conference, there was this lady who tried to promote an alternative idea of evolution as opposed to Darwinism. I remember she didn’t do too well in getting her points across and could easily be the less persuasive. I remember she also handled retorts poorly and sort of fell apart. Richard Dawkins was probably one of my favorite speakers, just based on his ideas. He argued against the forcing of religion upon younger children. Just because they are easily influenced, doesn’t mean parents should take advantage of that in a religious way. The child should be left the choice in future years whether or not he or she would like to follow a religion. Another speaker that I liked was a man named Scott who spoke out against Susan. Even though he didn’t really talk about anything in particular, he spoke out against the people in the conference who talked about certain things without actually knowing the exact information. I was amused by the nerve of the man to speak out against the other intellectuals with such arrogance. In a sense, he was trying to shut the arrogant people up, so it was quite a hypocritical display. For me, it was just a comedic relief to an intense debate in which I had trouble paying attention and understanding.
In general, I’m the type to support the “science over religion” argument, but I really enjoy hearing people that support the coexistence of both science and religion. Even though I felt so strongly against religion at first, with all the study on people who abused their religious powers, I have come to see that religion could fill the holes that science cannot explain. At one point, I even started to get mixed feelings about intelligent design versus evolution. Even though I stand strong with the notion of facts over lies, the whole idea of intelligent design was just more appealing. In the end, I stuck out with evolution, because you can’t really argue against facts. I won’t leave out the possibility of intelligent design though, anything is possible. However, I still feel that the supporters of intelligent design need to find a different approach than attacking natural selection without first supporting their own evidence. In that way, it seems like religion’s futile attempt at keeping up with the modernization of science.
I also liked learning the fact that Galileo, considered a top scientist of this time, was also a firm believer that religion and science could coexist. It seems that many great past thinkers were not so against this notion as many of the great thinkers today. It could be that they were scared of the church’s influence back then though. However, many of the scientists, from today, just denounce religion right when they start practicing science, because they think that they are opposites (or rivals) and cannot exist together. I don’t think that this is the right way to think about the whole religion-science puzzle, but then again, many religious people probably feel the same way about science. Then they are stuck in this finger-pointing cycle until one of them admits the other is correct. Or until someone is able to convince everyone that science and religion can exist synonymously (go Dawkins!).
There were also some talks about the necessity, or lack of necessity, for religion in general. Many believe that religion is good because it teaches morality and ethics. However, this was discussed during the conference and I’d have to agree that religion should not be imposing any ideas on individuals. They can choose to believe in what is good if they want, but there shouldn’t be a hell for sinners to promote morality. In that sense, even thought ethics are promoted, open mindedness is closed off, which is a bad thing if you’re thinking about the future of critical thinking. Religion should be a hope and drive for people who are lost and for people to help others find a path, but the way religion forces ideals upon people has got to stop.
27. How does the book,
In order to help the human race in its survival, consciousness is said to have survived natural selection itself. Like anything else, consciousness continues to evolve down its generations. There is an implication that the conscious mind will only continue to get stronger.
28. Explain Nietzsche's transvaluation of values.
Nietzsche had this idea that being moral wasn’t always a good thing, so he decided to proclaim himself as immoral. His transvaluation of values involved seeing morality from a “higher” viewpoint. He often felt that people had morals and ethics for the wrong reasons, mainly due to religion and its threat of sinners going to hell. Nietzsche took a step further out the way and had his own transvalutation of morality and ethics.
29. What was the favorite thing you learned this semester?
The favorite thing I learned from this class was Dr. Lane’s story involving his dealings with Eckankar and John-Roger Hinkins. While not as provocative as the ideas of certain other philosophers, the story caught my attention all the way through. It felt like reading a mild thriller where I just couldn’t stop reading. I enjoyed reading about the small adventure that a
Overall, I learned a lot about opening my mind and seeing things in all sorts of perspectives. Most of the material was just religion versus science, but I still had a good time reading and listening to those arguments. I have changed my views on certain arguments many times throughout this course of six weeks.
