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.