Saturday, August 9, 2008
yao ming and Lin Hao
Hey did you hear about the story about the little kid who was running with yao ming in the olympics? Lin Hao ( 9 year old boy)? something like that. Awesomee! Does anyone know more about the story?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Final
REAL NAME: Nathaniel Fu
USER NAME: Nathaniel_fu
Website address: http://thoughtsbynate.blogspot.com/
Name of your movie and some details concerning how you made it:
N/A
Attendance: how many classes missed? how many classes tardy?
I have missed zero classes and been tardy to zero classes. Yay!
MIDTERM GRADE: what grade did you finally get on the midterm? C
POSTS: list all of your posts.
Tuesday Feb 12th 2008 Post
Random thoughts on lecture
With much talk about string theory/M theory as well as Quantum theory, there was very little mentioned during the lectures of how String theory effects the study of quantum electrodynamics and quantum theory in general. Granted observation of String theory would be even more impossible, but the theoretical understanding of strings would open many doors to understand the quantum world in ways we would never have dreamed. To what extent will the understanding of String theory open up the mystery in QED (quantum electrodynamics)? Thoughts? anyone?
-Nate
Tuesday Feb 19th 2008 Post
Big Bang
Big Bang..So how did it start?
There seems to lots of talk about the femtoseconds right after it started where all physics that we know today goes down the drain but what about 1 seconds before? Personally I don't really buy the 2 different vibrating dimensions of M-theory collided each other and blew up. I haven't really had the time to fully research it but it seems like pure guesswork to me. Anyone else know some good theories or wants to contribute a new theory of their own?
-Nate
Tuesday Feb 26th 2008 Post
Behe and hand out
Anyone else read the handout in class? Personally I didnt really find it to destory irrduceible compelxity. Would the example cited in the handout be considered an evolutionay stepping stone for the flagellum? With the mention of a most likely paraelle or post evolution it wouldnt seem so.
Ok time to sleep. it's like 9am i need to go to bed. I dont know if what i just wrote made any sense as it is very late and the sun is already up. sleeeeeeep
-Nate
Tuesday March 11th 2008 post
Hybrid theory anyone?
Here's a random what if..
It seems that every time something that was once perceived as "could only be made by God" is explained by science, then God no longer had a part in it. What if God was explainable though science. What if every action that God did was explainable though science? Would the explanation God's works or God take away God's existence? It would seem that depends on the perception of the viewer. Maybe I'm just sleep deprived. Thoughts? anyone out there?
-Nate
Monday Apr 7th 2008 post
Re: Midterm Exam - Utilizing the Message Board for Open Discussion
umm when is it due? the paper says the 11th. i thought it was due
tmw.. confused.. i think i'm going to go with the paper says.. cant go
wrong with that. the 11th it is!
-Nate
Satuarday April 12th 2008
I cant remember but there was a part 2 of something that i wanted to
watch but I'm not sure what it was... Does anyone remember what we
talked about in class about part 2 of some video? cant remember..!
-Nate
---------------------------------------------------
1. Did you read all of the required books for this class? Be
specific about how many pages for each book, etc.
I bought all the books and I've been jumping around different books reading parts at a time. I pretty much have book ADD whenever I read but overall I've read a little over half of the overall content of all the books.
2. What was your favorite book and why?
My favorite book was The God Delusion because I've heard a lot about Dawkin's ideas but this was the first time reading them for myself.
3. What does Nietzsche mean by the transvaluation of values and what
does this idea have to do with our concept of morality?
3a. Why is Nietzsche so critical of Christianity?
When talking about the transvalution of values Nietzsche is referring to the way Christianity has both inverted and taken over morals in western part of the world. He is asking us to re-evualate everything we know about morality. Acts that are moral by Christian standards seem to be in opposition to human being's natural desire. Nietzsche argues that this flip that has taken place is not only unnatural but also a danger to life. Our concepts of morality growing up in a predominantly Christian nation have been in sense been brain washed by one perspective. It seems Nietzsche wants us to remove our own biases which we have been overwhelmed with since growing up and objectively view what we think morality really is. Nietzsche is critical of Christianity because he believes Christianity is danger to being human or rather experiencing being human to the fullest. He sees Christianity has a control system that oppresses who we really are.
4. Give one specific example of what some may regard as morally
right or good and then argue how Nietzsche may argue the opposite.
Be sure to pick an example that would correlate with Nietzsche's transvaluation of values.
Many people see having pity on the poor as a good virtue. But Nietzsche sees pity as one of the worst human emotions. He would argue that instead of being a kind act, pity elevates the person who is giving pity onto a petal stool as if they were looking down upon someone who is less of a person. It could be seen that pity is really just pride in disguise, thinking that our way of life is somehow better and if only they too could have what we have.
5. Why isn't Bertrand Russell a Chrisitian? Substantiate your
argument.
Bertrand Russell wrote a book called Why I am not a Christian, where he critiques different Christian arguments and responds. He is not a Christian because he looked at the major ideas and arguments of Christianity and finds fault in each one. He finds fault in the First Cause argument. First if everything must have a cause then God should also have a cause. Second if there was no cause for God, being that he has always existed then why couldn't the world or some cause for the world beside God always existed. He continues and responds to everything from the natural law argument for morality. He claims that natural law can be explained though probability and that Paley's watchmaker argument can be explained by enough time and evolution. He claims morality cannot come from God because then how would God define right and wrong. This seems be an evolution of the argument from the "Euthyphro dilemma" in which Socrates tries to find out if something is pious because the gods love it or is it loved by the gods because it is pious. Russell especially has a problem with Hell and the nature of God in the Old Testament. He cannot see how a benevolent God could possibility be reconciled with what is written in the Bible.
6. How would C.S. Lewis answer those who argue that there is no
evidence for a God, particularly a Christian one?
In his book Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis uses the morality argument that humans are born with a knowledge of right and wrong that is consistently throughout different cultures and that this kind of universal morality can only come from God. I believe he sees this referring to the Christian God because Christianity encompasses morality from the major religions of the world.
7. How does evolution help us to better understand WHY science arose in the first place? And why religion arose in the first place?
Evolution helps us better understand how science came to be though the idea of survival of the fittest. Any slight advantageous modification or in this case better understanding of how things work is an advantage in the real world. Advantages lead to higher rate for survival and therefore an understanding of science (being an advantage) is carried on and developed in slow progressive steps.
There are two ways to look at religion and why evolution may help us understand how religion arose. On one side there is the Dawkin's view of religion being a virus of the mind. Where religion came to be as simply a good replicating idea, and slowly though time evolved to adapt and become stronger. Another way to look at it is that religion gives purpose in life and purpose is better than no purpose. Therefore it serves an evolutionary advantage. In this theory, it would be possibly that religion simply a result of the benefits of having purpose in life.
9. What is science according to Feynman? How does his definition differ from more normative explanations?
Science according to Feynman is about skepticism and though rechecking, we do not just accept the past as right but rather experience that is it right for ourselves. This idea is different than normal definitions where we see science more in the light of an understanding of the world though observation and testing. Feynman believes we should doubt research instead and continue to doubt and though this rechecking process we doing science.
10. How would Feynman critique the current "intelligent design" movement? Be specific and see if you can relate Feynman's notion of science in your critique.
Feynman might first like "intelligent design" due to that Behe's arguments started out as rechecking. However soon Feynman may start to disagree because there seemed to only be one initial rechecking process. Feynman would not call "intelligent design" science because it stopped rechecking in light of new evidence. A good example of this is Behe's decade gap between Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution where the supporters of ID stood behind their position despite new evidence that may be able to explain irreducible complexity. Feynman would also have a problem with the ID's God of the gaps argument because of the assumptions that it makes. Feynman's view of science is practically the antithesis of assumption.
11. Why is agnosticism or even atheism so appealing to authors like Dawkins, Russell, and Nietzsche? What is the lure of non belief?
Dawkins was interviewed about how he would respond if one day died and meet God. Dawkins responds with something along the lines of "If God was real and I meet him, I would ask him why he tried so hard to hide himself" For Dawkins, Russell and Nietzsche I believe they find atheism so appealing because they have search for God and found no evidence. In their quest for truth they believe that the "lies" of religion are harmful to our society and life is better without religion. Though wars, social movements and moral influence religion has indeed had a great impact on our world and in eyes of Dawkins, Russell and Nietzsche it has had an impact for the worse.
The lure of non belief for me seems to be freedom to experience a world in a new way. The bounds of ethical codes and rituals fade away and many feelings of guilt are alleviated. Pressure to act and fit into the mold of religion are diminished and a system of control is gone.
12. How can religion, according to your teacher (and the lecture that dealt with this), survive the onslaught of reason? What does religion have to do to "win" the science-religion battle?
Religion can survive the onslaught of reason by not trying to play the science game. Religion cannot win by explaining itself though today's scientific theory because tomorrow it may change. Instead religion has to revert back to the core of what religion used to be. Religion needs to stop trying to reenact experiences though ritual and become experience. If this happens, religion will survive because people believe in their experiences over scientific theories. The best thing religion can do to win the science-religion battle is to leave and instead deal with the unobservable, the unprovable. Another way would be if somehow there was a proven miracle that completely defied the laws of nature. And yet another perspective, religion could "win" by mass ignorance and propaganda because religious people are very ready to believe anything that is shows as evidence for their religion despite other evidence that may contradict.
14. Why is evolution such a contentious issue among certain fundamentalist religious groups. More precisely, what is the core issue that upsets certain religious devotees?
Evolution upsets the denominations following the protestant reformation by Martin Luther. This is because the reformation set the Bible as the authority instead of the church. In doing so some dominations take all the of Bible literally and six days to make the world means six days. This is a problem because the theory of evolution requires a very long time to work. Millions of years. However many fundamentalist Christian groups still believe that the world was created six thousand years ago because of what the Bible says. The core issue is that the literal interpretation of the Bible, everything from Noah's Ark to the Tower of Bable contradicts evolution. There are other issues like the implications of our lives as mere accidents and the our existence as just random chance.
15. In your opinion, where can science help religion?
Science can help religion in a few different ways. If religion is true then science may eventually come up with evidence to support the claims of religion. In a different flipped perspective science is creating persecution within religions. In the past this kind of persecution (even to the point where proving religion wrong) has only caused believers to find it's core and band together even stronger than before. Science's attack on religion may actually make religion stronger.
16. In your opinion, where can religion help science?
Religion has helped science greatly in the past. Many great founders of science sought the truth of science as a way of seeing God's glory in making this world. Today religion is giving science a gambling table where the loser could end up in Hell. Finding the truth of all of this is just as important as ever and scientific research is the contemporary path to truth.
20. How would Stephen Wolfram critique William Paley's argument (derived from his famous watch analogy) about intelligent design ora creator of complexity? How would a believer in such a God or a Creator critique Wolfram's argument?
William Paley's argument claims that because of the immense complexity of our world today and us as humans, there must have been a creator. The original argument was, if you found a watch in the forest, a person would immediately assume there was a creator because of how complex the watch was. Stephen Wolfram would counter that there was no intelligent designer for the complicated watch. According to Wolfram complexity is not only possibly from simpler beginnings, mathematically it is inevitable. Wolfram had set up computer simulations that over time started out simple and became very complex. Evidence to Wolfram that led him to write the book A New Kind of Science
A believer might critique Wolfram's argument by using the second law of thermal dynamics where things naturally move to the lowest energy state over time. Wolfram claims that over time things become more complex however this would seem to contradict second law of thermal dynamics where things become more simple over time. A believer's critique may be that Wolfram's theories work on a computer simulation and in theory but not in this material world.
21. Taking Plato's apology as your key, how do you think Socrates would resolve the current impasse between science and religion?
Socrates is famous for his wisdom in unknowing and his speech in the Apology upholds thats view. Socrates might continually ask questions to a scientist and finally conclude that we don't even know what we are made out of. Then he might continually ask questions to a theologian until they have to say the special words: "I dont know" After realizing neither side really knows what they are talking about I think Socrates would instead look into the purpose for each one, Religion dealing the with questions of ultimate purpose and why vs the scientific search for observable truth. Then he may separate them into searches for for different kinds of truths that don't contradict because they are dealing with different things.
26. Is Francis Crick correct that we will never find the soul because it doesn't exist?
Francis Crick is wrong that we will never find the soul because it doesn't exist because we cannot prove it does not exist. Crick may be right in that we may never find the soul but it's also possible that we may one day find it, hanging out in another dimension floating like a graviton particle. Who knows?
29. In the future, how can we have a more fruitful and a more civil conversation on the subject of science and religion? What should be the guidelines, if any?
I think we can have much more civil and fruitful conversations about science and religion if we stop to give the other side's point of view a chance. Instead of trying to change people's beliefs and convert them, we should just give out other perspectives. If we don't approach the subject of science and religion as a conversion battle then we may finish the conversation and actually learn something.
The only guideline I can think of would be to listen as much time you talk. And actually listen, not just hearing.
31. What was the most intersting thing you learned this semester? What was your favorite film?
The most interesting thing I've learned this semester is the theory of different levels of consciousness and finding states of higher awareness. I also enjoyed the stories about India and your religious experiences.
My favorite film was on the atom. I think. Not sure. Thanks for a great class, I've learned a lot and now have many more questions.
USER NAME: Nathaniel_fu
Website address: http://thoughtsbynate.blogspot.com/
Name of your movie and some details concerning how you made it:
N/A
Attendance: how many classes missed? how many classes tardy?
I have missed zero classes and been tardy to zero classes. Yay!
MIDTERM GRADE: what grade did you finally get on the midterm? C
POSTS: list all of your posts.
Tuesday Feb 12th 2008 Post
Random thoughts on lecture
With much talk about string theory/M theory as well as Quantum theory, there was very little mentioned during the lectures of how String theory effects the study of quantum electrodynamics and quantum theory in general. Granted observation of String theory would be even more impossible, but the theoretical understanding of strings would open many doors to understand the quantum world in ways we would never have dreamed. To what extent will the understanding of String theory open up the mystery in QED (quantum electrodynamics)? Thoughts? anyone?
-Nate
Tuesday Feb 19th 2008 Post
Big Bang
Big Bang..So how did it start?
There seems to lots of talk about the femtoseconds right after it started where all physics that we know today goes down the drain but what about 1 seconds before? Personally I don't really buy the 2 different vibrating dimensions of M-theory collided each other and blew up. I haven't really had the time to fully research it but it seems like pure guesswork to me. Anyone else know some good theories or wants to contribute a new theory of their own?
-Nate
Tuesday Feb 26th 2008 Post
Behe and hand out
Anyone else read the handout in class? Personally I didnt really find it to destory irrduceible compelxity. Would the example cited in the handout be considered an evolutionay stepping stone for the flagellum? With the mention of a most likely paraelle or post evolution it wouldnt seem so.
Ok time to sleep. it's like 9am i need to go to bed. I dont know if what i just wrote made any sense as it is very late and the sun is already up. sleeeeeeep
-Nate
Tuesday March 11th 2008 post
Hybrid theory anyone?
Here's a random what if..
It seems that every time something that was once perceived as "could only be made by God" is explained by science, then God no longer had a part in it. What if God was explainable though science. What if every action that God did was explainable though science? Would the explanation God's works or God take away God's existence? It would seem that depends on the perception of the viewer. Maybe I'm just sleep deprived. Thoughts? anyone out there?
-Nate
Monday Apr 7th 2008 post
Re: Midterm Exam - Utilizing the Message Board for Open Discussion
umm when is it due? the paper says the 11th. i thought it was due
tmw.. confused.. i think i'm going to go with the paper says.. cant go
wrong with that. the 11th it is!
-Nate
Satuarday April 12th 2008
I cant remember but there was a part 2 of something that i wanted to
watch but I'm not sure what it was... Does anyone remember what we
talked about in class about part 2 of some video? cant remember..!
-Nate
---------------------------------------------------
1. Did you read all of the required books for this class? Be
specific about how many pages for each book, etc.
I bought all the books and I've been jumping around different books reading parts at a time. I pretty much have book ADD whenever I read but overall I've read a little over half of the overall content of all the books.
2. What was your favorite book and why?
My favorite book was The God Delusion because I've heard a lot about Dawkin's ideas but this was the first time reading them for myself.
3. What does Nietzsche mean by the transvaluation of values and what
does this idea have to do with our concept of morality?
3a. Why is Nietzsche so critical of Christianity?
When talking about the transvalution of values Nietzsche is referring to the way Christianity has both inverted and taken over morals in western part of the world. He is asking us to re-evualate everything we know about morality. Acts that are moral by Christian standards seem to be in opposition to human being's natural desire. Nietzsche argues that this flip that has taken place is not only unnatural but also a danger to life. Our concepts of morality growing up in a predominantly Christian nation have been in sense been brain washed by one perspective. It seems Nietzsche wants us to remove our own biases which we have been overwhelmed with since growing up and objectively view what we think morality really is. Nietzsche is critical of Christianity because he believes Christianity is danger to being human or rather experiencing being human to the fullest. He sees Christianity has a control system that oppresses who we really are.
4. Give one specific example of what some may regard as morally
right or good and then argue how Nietzsche may argue the opposite.
Be sure to pick an example that would correlate with Nietzsche's transvaluation of values.
Many people see having pity on the poor as a good virtue. But Nietzsche sees pity as one of the worst human emotions. He would argue that instead of being a kind act, pity elevates the person who is giving pity onto a petal stool as if they were looking down upon someone who is less of a person. It could be seen that pity is really just pride in disguise, thinking that our way of life is somehow better and if only they too could have what we have.
5. Why isn't Bertrand Russell a Chrisitian? Substantiate your
argument.
Bertrand Russell wrote a book called Why I am not a Christian, where he critiques different Christian arguments and responds. He is not a Christian because he looked at the major ideas and arguments of Christianity and finds fault in each one. He finds fault in the First Cause argument. First if everything must have a cause then God should also have a cause. Second if there was no cause for God, being that he has always existed then why couldn't the world or some cause for the world beside God always existed. He continues and responds to everything from the natural law argument for morality. He claims that natural law can be explained though probability and that Paley's watchmaker argument can be explained by enough time and evolution. He claims morality cannot come from God because then how would God define right and wrong. This seems be an evolution of the argument from the "Euthyphro dilemma" in which Socrates tries to find out if something is pious because the gods love it or is it loved by the gods because it is pious. Russell especially has a problem with Hell and the nature of God in the Old Testament. He cannot see how a benevolent God could possibility be reconciled with what is written in the Bible.
6. How would C.S. Lewis answer those who argue that there is no
evidence for a God, particularly a Christian one?
In his book Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis uses the morality argument that humans are born with a knowledge of right and wrong that is consistently throughout different cultures and that this kind of universal morality can only come from God. I believe he sees this referring to the Christian God because Christianity encompasses morality from the major religions of the world.
7. How does evolution help us to better understand WHY science arose in the first place? And why religion arose in the first place?
Evolution helps us better understand how science came to be though the idea of survival of the fittest. Any slight advantageous modification or in this case better understanding of how things work is an advantage in the real world. Advantages lead to higher rate for survival and therefore an understanding of science (being an advantage) is carried on and developed in slow progressive steps.
There are two ways to look at religion and why evolution may help us understand how religion arose. On one side there is the Dawkin's view of religion being a virus of the mind. Where religion came to be as simply a good replicating idea, and slowly though time evolved to adapt and become stronger. Another way to look at it is that religion gives purpose in life and purpose is better than no purpose. Therefore it serves an evolutionary advantage. In this theory, it would be possibly that religion simply a result of the benefits of having purpose in life.
9. What is science according to Feynman? How does his definition differ from more normative explanations?
Science according to Feynman is about skepticism and though rechecking, we do not just accept the past as right but rather experience that is it right for ourselves. This idea is different than normal definitions where we see science more in the light of an understanding of the world though observation and testing. Feynman believes we should doubt research instead and continue to doubt and though this rechecking process we doing science.
10. How would Feynman critique the current "intelligent design" movement? Be specific and see if you can relate Feynman's notion of science in your critique.
Feynman might first like "intelligent design" due to that Behe's arguments started out as rechecking. However soon Feynman may start to disagree because there seemed to only be one initial rechecking process. Feynman would not call "intelligent design" science because it stopped rechecking in light of new evidence. A good example of this is Behe's decade gap between Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution where the supporters of ID stood behind their position despite new evidence that may be able to explain irreducible complexity. Feynman would also have a problem with the ID's God of the gaps argument because of the assumptions that it makes. Feynman's view of science is practically the antithesis of assumption.
11. Why is agnosticism or even atheism so appealing to authors like Dawkins, Russell, and Nietzsche? What is the lure of non belief?
Dawkins was interviewed about how he would respond if one day died and meet God. Dawkins responds with something along the lines of "If God was real and I meet him, I would ask him why he tried so hard to hide himself" For Dawkins, Russell and Nietzsche I believe they find atheism so appealing because they have search for God and found no evidence. In their quest for truth they believe that the "lies" of religion are harmful to our society and life is better without religion. Though wars, social movements and moral influence religion has indeed had a great impact on our world and in eyes of Dawkins, Russell and Nietzsche it has had an impact for the worse.
The lure of non belief for me seems to be freedom to experience a world in a new way. The bounds of ethical codes and rituals fade away and many feelings of guilt are alleviated. Pressure to act and fit into the mold of religion are diminished and a system of control is gone.
12. How can religion, according to your teacher (and the lecture that dealt with this), survive the onslaught of reason? What does religion have to do to "win" the science-religion battle?
Religion can survive the onslaught of reason by not trying to play the science game. Religion cannot win by explaining itself though today's scientific theory because tomorrow it may change. Instead religion has to revert back to the core of what religion used to be. Religion needs to stop trying to reenact experiences though ritual and become experience. If this happens, religion will survive because people believe in their experiences over scientific theories. The best thing religion can do to win the science-religion battle is to leave and instead deal with the unobservable, the unprovable. Another way would be if somehow there was a proven miracle that completely defied the laws of nature. And yet another perspective, religion could "win" by mass ignorance and propaganda because religious people are very ready to believe anything that is shows as evidence for their religion despite other evidence that may contradict.
14. Why is evolution such a contentious issue among certain fundamentalist religious groups. More precisely, what is the core issue that upsets certain religious devotees?
Evolution upsets the denominations following the protestant reformation by Martin Luther. This is because the reformation set the Bible as the authority instead of the church. In doing so some dominations take all the of Bible literally and six days to make the world means six days. This is a problem because the theory of evolution requires a very long time to work. Millions of years. However many fundamentalist Christian groups still believe that the world was created six thousand years ago because of what the Bible says. The core issue is that the literal interpretation of the Bible, everything from Noah's Ark to the Tower of Bable contradicts evolution. There are other issues like the implications of our lives as mere accidents and the our existence as just random chance.
15. In your opinion, where can science help religion?
Science can help religion in a few different ways. If religion is true then science may eventually come up with evidence to support the claims of religion. In a different flipped perspective science is creating persecution within religions. In the past this kind of persecution (even to the point where proving religion wrong) has only caused believers to find it's core and band together even stronger than before. Science's attack on religion may actually make religion stronger.
16. In your opinion, where can religion help science?
Religion has helped science greatly in the past. Many great founders of science sought the truth of science as a way of seeing God's glory in making this world. Today religion is giving science a gambling table where the loser could end up in Hell. Finding the truth of all of this is just as important as ever and scientific research is the contemporary path to truth.
20. How would Stephen Wolfram critique William Paley's argument (derived from his famous watch analogy) about intelligent design ora creator of complexity? How would a believer in such a God or a Creator critique Wolfram's argument?
William Paley's argument claims that because of the immense complexity of our world today and us as humans, there must have been a creator. The original argument was, if you found a watch in the forest, a person would immediately assume there was a creator because of how complex the watch was. Stephen Wolfram would counter that there was no intelligent designer for the complicated watch. According to Wolfram complexity is not only possibly from simpler beginnings, mathematically it is inevitable. Wolfram had set up computer simulations that over time started out simple and became very complex. Evidence to Wolfram that led him to write the book A New Kind of Science
A believer might critique Wolfram's argument by using the second law of thermal dynamics where things naturally move to the lowest energy state over time. Wolfram claims that over time things become more complex however this would seem to contradict second law of thermal dynamics where things become more simple over time. A believer's critique may be that Wolfram's theories work on a computer simulation and in theory but not in this material world.
21. Taking Plato's apology as your key, how do you think Socrates would resolve the current impasse between science and religion?
Socrates is famous for his wisdom in unknowing and his speech in the Apology upholds thats view. Socrates might continually ask questions to a scientist and finally conclude that we don't even know what we are made out of. Then he might continually ask questions to a theologian until they have to say the special words: "I dont know" After realizing neither side really knows what they are talking about I think Socrates would instead look into the purpose for each one, Religion dealing the with questions of ultimate purpose and why vs the scientific search for observable truth. Then he may separate them into searches for for different kinds of truths that don't contradict because they are dealing with different things.
26. Is Francis Crick correct that we will never find the soul because it doesn't exist?
Francis Crick is wrong that we will never find the soul because it doesn't exist because we cannot prove it does not exist. Crick may be right in that we may never find the soul but it's also possible that we may one day find it, hanging out in another dimension floating like a graviton particle. Who knows?
29. In the future, how can we have a more fruitful and a more civil conversation on the subject of science and religion? What should be the guidelines, if any?
I think we can have much more civil and fruitful conversations about science and religion if we stop to give the other side's point of view a chance. Instead of trying to change people's beliefs and convert them, we should just give out other perspectives. If we don't approach the subject of science and religion as a conversion battle then we may finish the conversation and actually learn something.
The only guideline I can think of would be to listen as much time you talk. And actually listen, not just hearing.
31. What was the most intersting thing you learned this semester? What was your favorite film?
The most interesting thing I've learned this semester is the theory of different levels of consciousness and finding states of higher awareness. I also enjoyed the stories about India and your religious experiences.
My favorite film was on the atom. I think. Not sure. Thanks for a great class, I've learned a lot and now have many more questions.
Friday, April 11, 2008
R/ST Midterm
1: NAME: Nathaniel Fu
2: USERNAME: Nathaniel Fu
3: Website: http://thoughtsbynate.blogspot.com/
4: Attendance: how many classes have you missed? How many have you been late to?
I have not been late or missed any classes.
5: LIST all of your posts.
Tuesday Feb 12th 2008 Post
Random thoughts on lecture
With much talk about string theory/M theory as well as Quantum theory, there was very little mentioned during the lectures of how String theory effects the study of quantum electrodynamics and quantum theory in general. Granted observation of String theory would be even more impossible, but the theoretical understanding of strings would open many doors to understand the quantum world in ways we would never have dreamed. To what extent will the understanding of String theory open up the mystery in QED (quantum electrodynamics)? Thoughts? anyone?
-Nate
Tuesday Feb 19th 2008 Post
Big Bang
Big Bang..So how did it start?
There seems to lots of talk about the femtoseconds right after it started where all physics that we know today goes down the drain but what about 1 seconds before? Personally I don't really buy the 2 different vibrating dimensions of M-theory collided each other and blew up. I haven't really had the time to fully research it but it seems like pure guesswork to me. Anyone else know some good theories or wants to contribute a new theory of their own?
-Nate
Tuesday Feb 26th 2008 Post
Behe and hand out
Anyone else read the handout in class? Personally I didnt really find it to destory irrduceible compelxity. Would the example cited in the handout be considered an evolutionay stepping stone for the flagellum? With the mention of a most likely paraelle or post evolution it wouldnt seem so.
Ok time to sleep. it's like 9am i need to go to bed. I dont know if what i just wrote made any sense as it is very late and the sun is already up. sleeeeeeep
-Nate
Tuesday March 11th 2008 post
Hybrid theory anyone?
Here's a random what if..
It seems that every time something that was once perceived as "could only be made by God" is explained by science, then God no longer had a part in it. What if God was explainable though science. What if every action that God did was explainable though science? Would the explanation God's works or God take away God's existence? It would seem that depends on the perception of the viewer. Maybe I'm just sleep deprived. Thoughts? anyone out there?
-Nate
Monday Apr 7th 2008 post
Re: Midterm Exam - Utilizing the Message Board for Open Discussion
umm when is it due? the paper says the 11th. i thought it was due
tmw.. confused.. i think i'm going to go with the paper says.. cant go
wrong with that. the 11th it is!
-Nate
Satuarday April 12th 2008
I cant remember but there was a part 2 of something that i wanted to
watch but I'm not sure what it was... Does anyone remember what we
talked about in class about part 2 of some video? cant remember..!
-Nate
Satuarday April 12th 2008
Miterm?
Here's my midterm.
http://thoughtsbynate.blogspot.com/
Did u want an attached file version too?
-Nate
6: Have you watched all the required fllms/lectures, etc. so far?
Some
7: Did you do the required readings? Did you partially read them?
I jumped around though the book but in the end I started reading other books.
8: How would an atheist (in your chosen book) critique a theist’s argument (in your chosen book) the existence of God?
Be specific and be sure to reference your chosen reading. I chose The language of God by Collins and God Delusion by Dawkins. Collins believes that morality is from God and not a product of evolution. Dawkins would probably counter Collin’s moral law argument saying that we do not need a God for there to be moral law. That moral law is another form of natural selection which serves the common good of the group therefore the individual.
9:How would a theist argue against the atheistic notion that a belief in God is delusional? Again, be sure to reference your chosen reading.
Dawkins believes there is very little evidence of God yet people choose to rely on a blind faith and accept what they’ve been told. Collins would argue that God is not on a blind faith but rather logical and scientifically acceptable. He combines the theories of science and the Bible to pieces together what would be explainable by science and what can only be explained by God. He pulls ideas from from Behe's irreducible complexity, Dembski's mathematical improbabilities and many other to show that there is evidence to give reason for faith.
10: How does Littlewood’s theory of large number help explain miracles or supposed divine coincidences?
Littlewood's theory of large numbers says that with the occurrence of many events at least one in million or so should seem so improbable that it looks like a miracle. Basically miracles are just that one in a million chance that we take notice for because it's so out there. Littlewood says not only are miracles explainable by this law but that they should be happening all the time (relativity) given that there are so events happening at any one moment throughout the world that are witnessed by humans. Happened to me in skateboarding. Long story short. I told my friend I could do this trick that was pretty much impossible. Premo double varial flip back to Premo. I've never done it but all my friends showed up and I tried it and landed first try. Keeping in mind I was definitely lying when I said I could do it. I was relaying on the fact it looked like I could do it to convince them. Looking like I can do something and being able to = huge difference. It was a miracle. Or maybe finally my millionth time that I had tried. The inevitable one in a million just at the right time.
11: Discuss in this essay the pseudoscience: what are a couple of reasons people turn to them and what are some key problems with them? Take two or more pseudoscience and apply Ockham’s razor (define the term first) to them.
Wiki says this: "Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,[2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status." I believe wiki. People turn to them because people want to believe in something amazing. More interesting that just a scientific explanation and their experiences usually confirm their belief so they believe it more. Plus pseudoscience comes with cool communities where we can relate to others and talk about nonsense. Problems include they are probably nonsense and there just to make money off people that buy into them. If we used Ockhams razor on Astrology & Horoscopes, we have the choice that months of the year and stars have some determinating factor on how on personalities will turn out or it's just vague enough to relate to whoever buys into it. We can use the same on scientology and dianetics. On one side Ron Hubbard found an revoultionary magic change in way we should live because scientogy will solve everything from your bad job to your bad wife. Well not everything... the metally insane can help the metally insane, scientogy has no hope for them. Or on the other side, Ron publish 6000 copies of Dianetics and found out everyone bought into it and Ron decided to cash in on his ideas and make a religion. Enough said.
12: Why does Darwinian evolution make atheism both respectable and tenable? Why was Charles Darwin agnostic about God and Christianity?
Darwinian evolution makes atheism respectable and tenable because Darwinian uses logical scientific thought to explain a world without God. And has produced results from medicine to predicting behaviors. It's also a seemingly simpler theory and using OC, simple is better. It makes belief unnecessary. Wiki says Darwin was agnostic about God and Christianity because his daughter Annie died.
13: Why does Richard Dawkins believe that religion is a virus of the mind? Be specific in explaining meme theory and also explain why Dawkins’ theory contradicts certain revolutionary religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam?
Dawkins belives religion is a virus of the mind because religion is not necessarily the best idea but rather the best at replicating itself as an idea. Which is what a virus is good at doing. Replicating itself. Dawkins talks about meme theory which refers to transmitted and retransmitted ideas from one mind to another though words or repetitive actions. Some ideas will be less successful and die and others will do well, spread and maybe mutate. Just like a virus. Contradicts certain religions because those religions believe the ideas spread because they are from God. Dawkins says it's just a good replicating idea.
14: How would a religious believer respond to Richard Dawkins’ notion that religion is more akin to a mind parasite than an accurate description or approach to reality? Clue: think of Owen Gingerich or Freeman Dyson, etc.
I'm guessing different types of believes would say really different things but one believer might say reality is based heavily on the experiences they have had and their experiences say that God is real and that it is not a parasite because it has been confirmed though experiencing God. Not sure what Gingerich would say but probably along the ideas that it just makes more sense to have purpose.
15: Here is the topic: How did the world come to being? In other words, how was the universe created? Present two different set of answers to that question based on a creationist who believes in intelligent design (even if partially evolutionary) and one based on probability theory (think Wolfram, for instance) and evolution. Be sure to be accurate to each perspective and be sure to document your summaries. Finally, who do you think would present the most persuasive argument?
On one side, we are just one of too many universes, (Wolfram would say the lucky one), sides effects of dimensions smashing into each other. Bang. Split. Matter goes left, antimatter decides to go right. Neutrinos do weird things. Gravity helps out and Stanley Miller makes some amino acids and all of a sudden we have overclocked Quad core computers doing our homework. (ok fine not very comprehensive however maybe we can mutually agree that less is more. Especially when theres a deadline and moments away.) Another side, Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) says God made everything. Eve steals a rib from Adam, hyperbolic atmosphere creates lots of plants and big people. God made everything Sheets of ice fall down. Animals run into a boat. Giant flood compresses carbon into oil and yay for upside down stone trees. God made everything Grand canyon part of aftereffect. Quahhh! all done in 6000 years. God made everything. Well looking back I think my choice of writting about Hovind's ideas on creation may have given the advantage to Wolfram. Maybe I'll use Dembski's or Behe's arguments next time.
16: According to Stephen Jay Gould, religion and science can indeed get along. Dawkins suggests the opposite. Elaborate the Gould/Dawkins debate and who do you think wins the discussion?
Gould says it's non-overlapping magisteria. Religion deals with the mystical and science deals with the world that we can see. He say each should stay in their separate bubbles. Dawkins disagrees and says we should be able to find evidence for religious claims. He continues and claims that if there was scientific evidence for God then religious groups would throw away the ideas of non-overlapping magisteria and parade their evidence for everyone to see. I think that Stephen Jay Gould wins because everyone is happier that way.
17: Why does your teacher repeatedly argue that it is naive (and most often wrong) to “confuse neurology for ontology.” Explain and give a specific example to back up your essay.
Neurology is about the physical, about our brains and synapses while Ontology is about natural states of being and concepts of reality. When talking about not confusing brain state with real estate I believe we often find ourselves in a surreal states of mind and take from those states of mind, the meanings of the universe when they are really just a bunch of neurons going places doing weird things to our brains.
18: Quantum theorists have discovered that the only accurate way to describe the subatomic world is by probabilities, particularly as outlined by Werner Heisenberg and his principle of uncertainty relations. How can a physical understanding of the world based on chance/randomness/chaos be RECONCILED with a theological view that the universe was designed and displays purpose? Or, is such a reconciliation impossible? Substantiate your argument.
I don't believe such a reconciliation is possible. Because if at the base of everything is chance then how can there be purpose and design. I can't see it working out. How can a God plan and know what is going to happen if it's all chance. However I believe it's reconcilable in a matter of perspective. Where chance is what we see and think we understand yet to creator it's all planned out and nothing is chance. I also think string theory changes everything. But thats a whole other thing.
19: In what specific way does Faqir Chand help to explain WHY certain people have religious experiences and others do not. How does Faqir Chand’s view of religion underline or buttress a purely sociological view of religion as meaning function?
In light of Faqir Chand, I would say it kinda like the reason why some people have religious experiences and others don't is kinda like hypnosis. You have to really belief it for it to happen to you. I don't quite get the part 2 of the question but it seems like religion gives meaning to people who are in need. And to create more meaning, more experiences comes.
20: What is Nietzsche’s notion of the myth of the eternal return and how could such an idea potentially transform one’s day to day life? In what ways is it competently contrary to religious notions of an afterlife?
Nietzsche notion of eternal return is that everything we see will be recreated in the next universe and over and over again forever. Every day we live and everything we do will happen over and over for eternity. This will make people really think about what they do instead of treating life like a one time use paper plate. This will make people start caring about this life that we live in where as religion makes us care less about what happens in this life. This is contrary to religious notions of afterlife because generally in the afterlife, we have a new body, a new perfect life and everything in the past is in the past.
21: Why is Edward O. Wilson arguing for a consilience between the humanities and the sciences?
Edward O. Wilson wanted to bridge the gap between the sciences and the humanities and that they have a common goal to give purpose to understanding that we are in a world of order and natural law.
22: How would Freeman Dyson and Owen Gingerich respond to skeptics in the Beyond Belief Conference? If I had watched this confrence I would probably write something about religion and science and this and that. But instead I ate some bubble gum. Bazooka bubblegum and life was happy. So instead I have a question for you. Where are the baby pigeons? I haven't seen one yet. or where teenage pigeons? I haven't seen those either.
23: If biological life can be understood reductively, as Watson and Crick have suggested, what necessity is there to posit a belief is a Supreme Creator? Be sure to back up your argument with pertinent references and/or quotes. Outsourcing the origins of life to somewhere else does alleviate some of the major issues ID proponents raise against Stanly Miller's experiments. However I feel the issue of probability is still a problem and the complexity of even the simplest forms of life leaves us in the same place whether we outsource life or not. ( I have no clue if i answer this question) It's getting late.
24: So far, what is your favorite reading and why?
I've read a little bit and still reading of the Varieties of the Religious Experience, or something like that. It seems interesting. Language of God was ok. Not amazing. Let me read the 25 more times then I'll get back to you on this question.
25: Is there anything that science cannot explain? Give one example and substantiate your views.
I'm pretty sure with a little stretch science can explain pretty much anything within this universe. As of now there seems to be some limits to explaining Quantum Electro dynamics. And if string theory doesn't work as a unified theory then we have plenty of more problems.
26:What is the favorite thing you learned so far?
I enjoyed learning about Quantum theory. That was fun.
1: NAME: Nathaniel Fu
2: USERNAME: Nathaniel Fu
3: Website: http://thoughtsbynate.blogspot.com/
4: Attendance: how many classes have you missed? How many have you been late to?
I have not been late or missed any classes.
5: LIST all of your posts.
Tuesday Feb 12th 2008 Post
Random thoughts on lecture
With much talk about string theory/M theory as well as Quantum theory, there was very little mentioned during the lectures of how String theory effects the study of quantum electrodynamics and quantum theory in general. Granted observation of String theory would be even more impossible, but the theoretical understanding of strings would open many doors to understand the quantum world in ways we would never have dreamed. To what extent will the understanding of String theory open up the mystery in QED (quantum electrodynamics)? Thoughts? anyone?
-Nate
Tuesday Feb 19th 2008 Post
Big Bang
Big Bang..So how did it start?
There seems to lots of talk about the femtoseconds right after it started where all physics that we know today goes down the drain but what about 1 seconds before? Personally I don't really buy the 2 different vibrating dimensions of M-theory collided each other and blew up. I haven't really had the time to fully research it but it seems like pure guesswork to me. Anyone else know some good theories or wants to contribute a new theory of their own?
-Nate
Tuesday Feb 26th 2008 Post
Behe and hand out
Anyone else read the handout in class? Personally I didnt really find it to destory irrduceible compelxity. Would the example cited in the handout be considered an evolutionay stepping stone for the flagellum? With the mention of a most likely paraelle or post evolution it wouldnt seem so.
Ok time to sleep. it's like 9am i need to go to bed. I dont know if what i just wrote made any sense as it is very late and the sun is already up. sleeeeeeep
-Nate
Tuesday March 11th 2008 post
Hybrid theory anyone?
Here's a random what if..
It seems that every time something that was once perceived as "could only be made by God" is explained by science, then God no longer had a part in it. What if God was explainable though science. What if every action that God did was explainable though science? Would the explanation God's works or God take away God's existence? It would seem that depends on the perception of the viewer. Maybe I'm just sleep deprived. Thoughts? anyone out there?
-Nate
Monday Apr 7th 2008 post
Re: Midterm Exam - Utilizing the Message Board for Open Discussion
umm when is it due? the paper says the 11th. i thought it was due
tmw.. confused.. i think i'm going to go with the paper says.. cant go
wrong with that. the 11th it is!
-Nate
Satuarday April 12th 2008
I cant remember but there was a part 2 of something that i wanted to
watch but I'm not sure what it was... Does anyone remember what we
talked about in class about part 2 of some video? cant remember..!
-Nate
Satuarday April 12th 2008
Miterm?
Here's my midterm.
http://thoughtsbynate.blogspot.com/
Did u want an attached file version too?
-Nate
6: Have you watched all the required fllms/lectures, etc. so far?
Some
7: Did you do the required readings? Did you partially read them?
I jumped around though the book but in the end I started reading other books.
8: How would an atheist (in your chosen book) critique a theist’s argument (in your chosen book) the existence of God?
Be specific and be sure to reference your chosen reading. I chose The language of God by Collins and God Delusion by Dawkins. Collins believes that morality is from God and not a product of evolution. Dawkins would probably counter Collin’s moral law argument saying that we do not need a God for there to be moral law. That moral law is another form of natural selection which serves the common good of the group therefore the individual.
9:How would a theist argue against the atheistic notion that a belief in God is delusional? Again, be sure to reference your chosen reading.
Dawkins believes there is very little evidence of God yet people choose to rely on a blind faith and accept what they’ve been told. Collins would argue that God is not on a blind faith but rather logical and scientifically acceptable. He combines the theories of science and the Bible to pieces together what would be explainable by science and what can only be explained by God. He pulls ideas from from Behe's irreducible complexity, Dembski's mathematical improbabilities and many other to show that there is evidence to give reason for faith.
10: How does Littlewood’s theory of large number help explain miracles or supposed divine coincidences?
Littlewood's theory of large numbers says that with the occurrence of many events at least one in million or so should seem so improbable that it looks like a miracle. Basically miracles are just that one in a million chance that we take notice for because it's so out there. Littlewood says not only are miracles explainable by this law but that they should be happening all the time (relativity) given that there are so events happening at any one moment throughout the world that are witnessed by humans. Happened to me in skateboarding. Long story short. I told my friend I could do this trick that was pretty much impossible. Premo double varial flip back to Premo. I've never done it but all my friends showed up and I tried it and landed first try. Keeping in mind I was definitely lying when I said I could do it. I was relaying on the fact it looked like I could do it to convince them. Looking like I can do something and being able to = huge difference. It was a miracle. Or maybe finally my millionth time that I had tried. The inevitable one in a million just at the right time.
11: Discuss in this essay the pseudoscience: what are a couple of reasons people turn to them and what are some key problems with them? Take two or more pseudoscience and apply Ockham’s razor (define the term first) to them.
Wiki says this: "Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,[2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status." I believe wiki. People turn to them because people want to believe in something amazing. More interesting that just a scientific explanation and their experiences usually confirm their belief so they believe it more. Plus pseudoscience comes with cool communities where we can relate to others and talk about nonsense. Problems include they are probably nonsense and there just to make money off people that buy into them. If we used Ockhams razor on Astrology & Horoscopes, we have the choice that months of the year and stars have some determinating factor on how on personalities will turn out or it's just vague enough to relate to whoever buys into it. We can use the same on scientology and dianetics. On one side Ron Hubbard found an revoultionary magic change in way we should live because scientogy will solve everything from your bad job to your bad wife. Well not everything... the metally insane can help the metally insane, scientogy has no hope for them. Or on the other side, Ron publish 6000 copies of Dianetics and found out everyone bought into it and Ron decided to cash in on his ideas and make a religion. Enough said.
12: Why does Darwinian evolution make atheism both respectable and tenable? Why was Charles Darwin agnostic about God and Christianity?
Darwinian evolution makes atheism respectable and tenable because Darwinian uses logical scientific thought to explain a world without God. And has produced results from medicine to predicting behaviors. It's also a seemingly simpler theory and using OC, simple is better. It makes belief unnecessary. Wiki says Darwin was agnostic about God and Christianity because his daughter Annie died.
13: Why does Richard Dawkins believe that religion is a virus of the mind? Be specific in explaining meme theory and also explain why Dawkins’ theory contradicts certain revolutionary religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam?
Dawkins belives religion is a virus of the mind because religion is not necessarily the best idea but rather the best at replicating itself as an idea. Which is what a virus is good at doing. Replicating itself. Dawkins talks about meme theory which refers to transmitted and retransmitted ideas from one mind to another though words or repetitive actions. Some ideas will be less successful and die and others will do well, spread and maybe mutate. Just like a virus. Contradicts certain religions because those religions believe the ideas spread because they are from God. Dawkins says it's just a good replicating idea.
14: How would a religious believer respond to Richard Dawkins’ notion that religion is more akin to a mind parasite than an accurate description or approach to reality? Clue: think of Owen Gingerich or Freeman Dyson, etc.
I'm guessing different types of believes would say really different things but one believer might say reality is based heavily on the experiences they have had and their experiences say that God is real and that it is not a parasite because it has been confirmed though experiencing God. Not sure what Gingerich would say but probably along the ideas that it just makes more sense to have purpose.
15: Here is the topic: How did the world come to being? In other words, how was the universe created? Present two different set of answers to that question based on a creationist who believes in intelligent design (even if partially evolutionary) and one based on probability theory (think Wolfram, for instance) and evolution. Be sure to be accurate to each perspective and be sure to document your summaries. Finally, who do you think would present the most persuasive argument?
On one side, we are just one of too many universes, (Wolfram would say the lucky one), sides effects of dimensions smashing into each other. Bang. Split. Matter goes left, antimatter decides to go right. Neutrinos do weird things. Gravity helps out and Stanley Miller makes some amino acids and all of a sudden we have overclocked Quad core computers doing our homework. (ok fine not very comprehensive however maybe we can mutually agree that less is more. Especially when theres a deadline and moments away.) Another side, Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) says God made everything. Eve steals a rib from Adam, hyperbolic atmosphere creates lots of plants and big people. God made everything Sheets of ice fall down. Animals run into a boat. Giant flood compresses carbon into oil and yay for upside down stone trees. God made everything Grand canyon part of aftereffect. Quahhh! all done in 6000 years. God made everything. Well looking back I think my choice of writting about Hovind's ideas on creation may have given the advantage to Wolfram. Maybe I'll use Dembski's or Behe's arguments next time.
16: According to Stephen Jay Gould, religion and science can indeed get along. Dawkins suggests the opposite. Elaborate the Gould/Dawkins debate and who do you think wins the discussion?
Gould says it's non-overlapping magisteria. Religion deals with the mystical and science deals with the world that we can see. He say each should stay in their separate bubbles. Dawkins disagrees and says we should be able to find evidence for religious claims. He continues and claims that if there was scientific evidence for God then religious groups would throw away the ideas of non-overlapping magisteria and parade their evidence for everyone to see. I think that Stephen Jay Gould wins because everyone is happier that way.
17: Why does your teacher repeatedly argue that it is naive (and most often wrong) to “confuse neurology for ontology.” Explain and give a specific example to back up your essay.
Neurology is about the physical, about our brains and synapses while Ontology is about natural states of being and concepts of reality. When talking about not confusing brain state with real estate I believe we often find ourselves in a surreal states of mind and take from those states of mind, the meanings of the universe when they are really just a bunch of neurons going places doing weird things to our brains.
18: Quantum theorists have discovered that the only accurate way to describe the subatomic world is by probabilities, particularly as outlined by Werner Heisenberg and his principle of uncertainty relations. How can a physical understanding of the world based on chance/randomness/chaos be RECONCILED with a theological view that the universe was designed and displays purpose? Or, is such a reconciliation impossible? Substantiate your argument.
I don't believe such a reconciliation is possible. Because if at the base of everything is chance then how can there be purpose and design. I can't see it working out. How can a God plan and know what is going to happen if it's all chance. However I believe it's reconcilable in a matter of perspective. Where chance is what we see and think we understand yet to creator it's all planned out and nothing is chance. I also think string theory changes everything. But thats a whole other thing.
19: In what specific way does Faqir Chand help to explain WHY certain people have religious experiences and others do not. How does Faqir Chand’s view of religion underline or buttress a purely sociological view of religion as meaning function?
In light of Faqir Chand, I would say it kinda like the reason why some people have religious experiences and others don't is kinda like hypnosis. You have to really belief it for it to happen to you. I don't quite get the part 2 of the question but it seems like religion gives meaning to people who are in need. And to create more meaning, more experiences comes.
20: What is Nietzsche’s notion of the myth of the eternal return and how could such an idea potentially transform one’s day to day life? In what ways is it competently contrary to religious notions of an afterlife?
Nietzsche notion of eternal return is that everything we see will be recreated in the next universe and over and over again forever. Every day we live and everything we do will happen over and over for eternity. This will make people really think about what they do instead of treating life like a one time use paper plate. This will make people start caring about this life that we live in where as religion makes us care less about what happens in this life. This is contrary to religious notions of afterlife because generally in the afterlife, we have a new body, a new perfect life and everything in the past is in the past.
21: Why is Edward O. Wilson arguing for a consilience between the humanities and the sciences?
Edward O. Wilson wanted to bridge the gap between the sciences and the humanities and that they have a common goal to give purpose to understanding that we are in a world of order and natural law.
22: How would Freeman Dyson and Owen Gingerich respond to skeptics in the Beyond Belief Conference? If I had watched this confrence I would probably write something about religion and science and this and that. But instead I ate some bubble gum. Bazooka bubblegum and life was happy. So instead I have a question for you. Where are the baby pigeons? I haven't seen one yet. or where teenage pigeons? I haven't seen those either.
23: If biological life can be understood reductively, as Watson and Crick have suggested, what necessity is there to posit a belief is a Supreme Creator? Be sure to back up your argument with pertinent references and/or quotes. Outsourcing the origins of life to somewhere else does alleviate some of the major issues ID proponents raise against Stanly Miller's experiments. However I feel the issue of probability is still a problem and the complexity of even the simplest forms of life leaves us in the same place whether we outsource life or not. ( I have no clue if i answer this question) It's getting late.
24: So far, what is your favorite reading and why?
I've read a little bit and still reading of the Varieties of the Religious Experience, or something like that. It seems interesting. Language of God was ok. Not amazing. Let me read the 25 more times then I'll get back to you on this question.
25: Is there anything that science cannot explain? Give one example and substantiate your views.
I'm pretty sure with a little stretch science can explain pretty much anything within this universe. As of now there seems to be some limits to explaining Quantum Electro dynamics. And if string theory doesn't work as a unified theory then we have plenty of more problems.
26:What is the favorite thing you learned so far?
I enjoyed learning about Quantum theory. That was fun.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Tuesday March 11th 2008 post
Hybrid theory anyone?
Heres a random what if..
It seems that every time something that was once perceived as "could only be made by God" is explained by science, then God no longer had a part in it. What if God was explainable though science. What if every action that God did was explainable though science? Would the explanation God's works or God take away God's existence? It would seem that depends on the perception of the viewer. Maybe I'm just sleep deprived. Thoughts? anyone out there?
-Nate
Hybrid theory anyone?
Heres a random what if..
It seems that every time something that was once perceived as "could only be made by God" is explained by science, then God no longer had a part in it. What if God was explainable though science. What if every action that God did was explainable though science? Would the explanation God's works or God take away God's existence? It would seem that depends on the perception of the viewer. Maybe I'm just sleep deprived. Thoughts? anyone out there?
-Nate
Tuesday Feb 26th 2008 Post
Behe and hand out
Anyone else read the handout in class? Personally I didnt really find it to destory irrduceible compelxity. Would the example cited in the handout be considered an evolutionay stepping stone for the flagellum? With the mention of a most likely paraelle or post evolution it wouldnt seem so.
Ok time to sleep. it's like 9am i need to go to bed. I dont know if what i just wrote made any sense as it is very late and the sun is already up. sleeeeeeep
-Nate
Behe and hand out
Anyone else read the handout in class? Personally I didnt really find it to destory irrduceible compelxity. Would the example cited in the handout be considered an evolutionay stepping stone for the flagellum? With the mention of a most likely paraelle or post evolution it wouldnt seem so.
Ok time to sleep. it's like 9am i need to go to bed. I dont know if what i just wrote made any sense as it is very late and the sun is already up. sleeeeeeep
-Nate
Tuesday Feb 19th 2008 Post
Big Bang
Big Bang..So how did it start?
There seems to lots of talk about the femtoseconds right after it started where all physics that we know today goes down the drain but what about 1 seconds before? Personally I don't really buy the 2 different vibrating dimensions of M-theory collided each other and blew up. I haven't really had the time to fully research it but it seems like pure guesswork to me. Anyone else know some good theories or wants to contribute a new theory of their own?
-Nate
Big Bang
Big Bang..So how did it start?
There seems to lots of talk about the femtoseconds right after it started where all physics that we know today goes down the drain but what about 1 seconds before? Personally I don't really buy the 2 different vibrating dimensions of M-theory collided each other and blew up. I haven't really had the time to fully research it but it seems like pure guesswork to me. Anyone else know some good theories or wants to contribute a new theory of their own?
-Nate
Tuesday Feb 12th 2008 Post
Random thoughts on lecture
With much talk about string theory/M theory as well as Quantum theory, there was very little mentioned during the lectures of how String theory effects the study of quantum electrodynamics and quantum theory in general. Granted observation of String theory would be even more impossible, but the theoretical understanding of strings would open many doors to understand the quantum world in ways we would never have dreamed. To what extent will the understanding of String theory open up the mystery in QED (quantum electrodynamics)? Thoughts? anyone?
-Nate
Random thoughts on lecture
With much talk about string theory/M theory as well as Quantum theory, there was very little mentioned during the lectures of how String theory effects the study of quantum electrodynamics and quantum theory in general. Granted observation of String theory would be even more impossible, but the theoretical understanding of strings would open many doors to understand the quantum world in ways we would never have dreamed. To what extent will the understanding of String theory open up the mystery in QED (quantum electrodynamics)? Thoughts? anyone?
-Nate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)