Final Examination: Fall 2007, Critical Thinking

FINAL EXAM IS NOW ONLINE

FINAL EXAMINATION: FALL 2007, CRITICAL THINKING, Professor David
C. Lane, Ph.D.

OCTOBER 18TH IS THE DUE DATE

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 neuralsurfer@ yahoo.com (don't send
it to any other email address, except that)
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other
authors please be sure to
quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be
tolerated and you will receive
an "F" automatically for the examination.
3. The test is due NO LATER than October 18th at midnite.
3a. Each answer should be at least three paragraphs long, if
possible.

------------ --------- --------- ----

4. What is your real name? Jeny Dayanira Gil
5. What is your "user" name? oc_cuti3
6. What is your email address that you use for this class? oc_cuti3@yahoo.com
7. Name and address for your website.
“The Mind is a Powerful Tool.” http://www.jendaygil.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? Yes
10. What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revised
midterm grade? Provide a LINK to your midterm.
My midterm grade was a B.

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

Week 1, Expert Lecture Richard Feynman
I found the expert lecture by Richard Feynman on the topic of Critical Thinking in Physics, absolutely interesting because he used the example of the flower and its beauty. He stated that beauty is available for everyone to see but it takes that one person to seek further on the beauty of the flower and what it consists of. It is amazing to understand the background of a flower if one actually stops to analyze it not just for its beauty but also what is physically behind the flowers characteristics. As I was viewing the lecture on Mr. Feynman, he seemed to be very critical on what he was going to say. For example, when he was drawing a sketch of the woman sitting on the chair, he analyzed and stopped to think of what was beautiful of her personal features but as well as the environment that surrounded her and then proceeded to draw every detail extra carefully. Mr. Feynman focused on the important characteristics on his drawing to show what he personally was seeing through his own eyes. I'm thinking that he was critical of all the details because if he was not, than it was not a true exact representation of what he was visualizing. For example, the details in the flower; many people do not stop to think what the foundation of a flower consist, because it is not part of our daily analyses and for many of us it does not matter what a flower consist of, just that flowers are beautiful and they smell good. After reviewing Mr. Feynman view, now I understand that we need to focus more on our surroundings to understand why things are the way they are and not jump to conclusions without studying them more thoroughly.

Week1, Expert Lecture Bertrand Russell on Thinking Clearly
The expert lecture by Bertrand Russell was also interesting and because he feels that clarity is important for all mankind because one's prejudices are one's biases. I feel that it is true in some way, because we as human beings tend to jump to conclusions without being clear on the current situations. Instead we judge and focus in situations that may be hurtful to others or we just do not look ahead and think clearly before we talk or give our opinions. On the other hand, the truth is hurtful, but sometimes it is better to know the truth to improve our experiences instead of always trying to avoid the reality. Prejudices and one's biases are important, but to some extent. For example, when we plan to do something to improve our lives or to turn in an important exam for a course, one's prejudices and biases help to take the proper decisions, but if prejudices and biases are used to get revenge on others or criticizes people, without getting to know them first, than I agree that clarity is important. We need to use critical thinking to guide our judgments before making prejudices and judgmental references to others. Even though the lecture was difficult to understand, because the audio was not working properly, the couple of statements that Mr. Russell made were understandable and clear.

Cargo Cult Science week 1
Wow, Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feynman, was an interesting article to read. I sometimes find myself in the same situations that he experienced. I sometimes wonder if people are for real or if they are full of crap. Is it human nature to want people believe on false statements rather than on factual evidence? Feynman states "…the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contributions; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another." One example that I can think about is weight loss pills and infidelity. Advertisement on weight loss pills will promise the impossible to the consumer, but the reality is that many of these dietary supplements will produce side affects to the consumer or they will simply not work at all. As a consumer, he or she must first research the product or just let nature run its course if the product will actually work. I'm not sure if this is what he means by Cargo Cult Science? For example, he questions and investigates what people believe in and the knowledge of how to educate others. He uses the example of teachers who have some good ideas of how to teach the students how to learn how to read, but the districts or school systems have a different approach with out acknowledging what the teacher has to offer on the table. I agree in his example because back in the days when I was in elementary, the teachers would teach their students to take an easier approach to learn subjects in school. For example, learning how to work on a math problem was easier to understand before because the teachers were presenting the math problems to the student by introducing it with on hands training and learning. Now, the subjects are being introduced with limited review and very little practice for the students to learn. Is this because the school systems want high numbers to compare with other schools in the nation or because they feel that this is for the best interest of the child?

Beyond Belief Session 1 week1
I also notice that Mr. Harris was not too polite in the issue of respecting other people's beliefs. He continually attacked the morals and beliefs that people had with their religious preference. Even though he is a professional, he did not really seem to show his professionalism because he called Christian believers ignorant. In order to receive respect, you must first respect others and what ever each person decides to believe or not believe in is that person's problem. My question to Mr. Harris would be what makes him believe that science is the only possibility for outcome and religion does not play any role? So does that mean that human beings are part of the ancestors of monkeys, since he believes that only science is the only aspect that we should believe in? His beliefs may be different to mine or to anyone else's, but that does not mean that I'm going to criticize his beliefs or change his mind from one day to the other. He did too much talk and did not make any sense because he did not relate science or God in any way. The first session Beyond Belief was interesting to watch and see the many different opinions that people have with religion and science. For example, Michael Sherman explained the similarities that God and science can be combined with. God is the creator of the universe and everything that is in it, but if science did not exist, than how would man kind be able to know what was beyond the outside of earth. Of course, I totally do not agree that science should replace the existence of God nor God should replace the existence of science because both work together in one way or the other.

Week 1, Karma
The film on Karma was interesting to see, but a bit disturbing. This film reminded me of a music video I saw a while back in which the singer could foresee how many hours, minutes and seconds the people that surrounded him had left to live and how they died. I can't remember the name at this video but if you have seen it please refresh my memory. Is Karma such a bad thing or should we relate Karma as being a positive thing? Can Karma be a religious belief, or is just a vibe that can impact our lives? "What goes around comes around..." is a powerful phrase, especially when unexplainable things happen to us or to those around us. I sometimes wonder if Karma or the aura that we have around us can lead us to fall into situations that we don't want to be in. For example, my husband and I have been going through some tough times for the past 2 years and I stop to wonder if it's because we got married or is it because someone just cast a spell on us. We try to live a healthy and religious life along with our kiddos and are not interested in others personal problems. My point is that regardless of what we do, we tend to receive either good or bad in return. I can't say that I'm a believer in Karma, but I cannot say that I ignore it because I know that good things happen to good people and vise versa.

Week 1and2, Virus of the Mind
The example that the author used to explain this dilemma was the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, in which the wine turns into the blood of Christ. This statement can mean many things for many different people, but the reality is that it is a mystery that only those who were there to witness this revelation can testify. Faith also plays an important role and we only follow what we have been taught from our ancestors. We can only read and let our minds do the job. Human beings like to learn what is interesting and we enjoy to be humored, by others. A virus that attacks the mind to do harm should immediately be quarantined, but a virus, Trojan or spy ware that is just hanging around lost and confused because its not sure if It should do good, should be cleaned or deleted from the memory file. I found the article on "Virus of the Mind" by Richard Dawkins kind of interesting. I was intrigued to continue reading after the first paragraph because in a way, I am a gullible person like the six year old child. I tend to believe everything that anyone tells me and I sometimes feel that being gullible makes me a target for others to enjoy my weakness. Can our thinking skills be attacked with malicious viruses? I believe so. The mind is a powerful tool and unfortunately the mind is susceptible for negative and positive attacks. Especially when others tend to use their own viruses they have created to attack and convince others. I agree with the author that successful mind viruses are difficult for their victims to detect and are sometimes ignored because it does not benefit the person.





Week 1and2,"What is Cold Reading?"
According to the article "what is Cold Reading?' It means people who know what they are doing are able to make use of a procedure known generally as "cold reading," involving a "reader" who is able to convince a second person that they know all about the client's personality, problems and life." as stated in the first page of the article. The author uses the examples of psychics, astrologers and mediums who believe that they have unexplainable powers to fore see others destiny's and fortunes. I am a non believer in cold reading only because I feel that some of these people use this tactic for the use of propaganda and financial gain. There are those lucky few that are able to foresee the future and that is a gift from God that no one can take away from them. I don't agree with those who trick innocent people who make them believe that they are not successful because they inherited that luck from their ancestors, or making them believe that they have a terminal ill disease when it is not true. I do believe that there is an unexplainable mysterious world after death that has not yet been discovered. This article made me think about my mother in law because she is so devoted to this lady who is sort of a fortune teller – psychic. She constantly goes to get her tarot cards read and so forth, but instead of telling her something good, the fortune teller always tells my mother in law that she is sick or that something horrible is going to happen to her. I honestly do not know why she trust this lady, but I constantly remind her that if she continues to believe this lady she will never find out what in reality is wrong with her. I'm a true believer that if you're not feeling well and you know that there is something wrong with you, seek professional medical advice. I find this a bit disturbing because there are many people out there who seek medical attention from non-professional license people, who only base their readings on the person's facial expressions, movements and how big their check books look. Cold reading is a wonderful tactic for those who are willing to help others, but without personal gain and interest.


Week 1and2, Beyond Belief Session 2
Neil de Grasse Tyson introduced a an interesting topic about the "Perimeter of Ignorance," and what different famous scientist and philosophers believed on the topic of science and religion many years ago. He stated that he believed that Sir Isaac Newton was and is the most brilliant person that has ever existed because he shares the same beliefs as he does. Newton believed "that the mere mechanical causes can only be perceived from the counsel and dominion from an intelligent human being" which simply means that the universe, sun, moon and other surrounding orbits are the creation of scientific knowledge and not from the grace of god who created them. He also discussed the issue of the Naming Right in which he gave an excellent example of the 9/11 tragedy. I was surprised to know that there are tons of Arabic Star names in the universe, but yet Islam has never been acknowledged for their intelligence. He stated that President Bush, in order to distinguish them from us, Bush said "Our God is the God that named the stars." But the reality check is that Islam did have naming rights traceable 300 years back, but were not acknowledged since their collapse in the year 1100.My favorite part of session 2, was toward the end of the film, only because Steven Weinberger stated that we need to be honest to ourselves and enjoy the beauty that life has to offer. He also mentioned that even though science does not agree much with religion, it is difficult not to live without religion for many different reasons. I think that people can not be converted to chance the irreligious beliefs from one day to another, simply because scientists want for society to change. It's up to the individual to decide to take that step in their lives and if not so be it. The mentality of people has changed drastically over time, that maybe it would be easy to convince those to change their religion preference, but in doing so I feel that there has to be enough supporting evidence to do so and to really analyze the impact that it can cause to those who decide to take the initial step, regardless if it's a negative or positive experience.

Week 3&4, Expert Lec. John M. Smith
I didn't find this film interesting at all only because I had a difficult time understanding Mr. Smith and also the topic of Evolution does not interest me much. He did state that after reading Darwin's pieces in school, he changed his beliefs in religion and he states that it was an "escape from religion because he felt it did not allow him to follow his thoughts to the end." He is content to be an atheist because it allows him to explore beyond the situations without involving any aspect of religion and putting his own theory and knowledge to examples such as Game Theory, Natural Selection and design. He applies Game Theory to genes and the growth of plants to apply it to humans. For example he used the example of frequency dependency selection in which an average of men and women are paired and are expected to have an average of children in their lifetime. The idea that the selection in favor of something depends on the frequency of the population is a bit confusing only because he is comparing the growth of plants to apply it to humans.

Week 3and 4 The physics behind four amazing demonstrations
The article named "The Physics behind four amazing demonstrations "was very interesting to read. David G. Willey uses four dramatic demonstrations to prove physics theory. He walks on a bed of broken glass, has a concrete block broken on him while lying between two beds of nail, dips his fingers in molten lead and finally picks up an orange hot piece of space shuttle tile. The article basically explains the procedures for David G. Willey to introduce physics in a much more interesting way to the student. I think it is a wonderful way to make physics an interesting subject to learn. Definitely more students would not be intimidated by taking a difficult course such as Physics. I agree with David G. Willey that in order for a subject to be interesting for the student, the professor or instructor should first grab the audience attention and interest before proceeding to teach the principals and meaning about any given topic. In this case it would be about the theory of physics. I have had similar experience as Mr. Willey, in which the instructor or professor talks for the entire class hour and does not even acknowledge the student. That is great the he /she are able to introduce the topics to the students because they know their stuff, but it's not any help to the student when the student can't ask questions and make some sort of contact with the instructor. I believe that a person that enjoys teaching would try to make the course interesting for the student instead of making the course difficult to understand because at the end the student would have no choice but to drop the class because he / she was never given an opportunity to ask or have a visual presentation so the subject would be better understood. I also think that Mr. Willey way of using dramatic demonstrations is for students to realize that the mind is a powerful tool that humans have and that anything is possible to do with adequate precautions and instructions on how to do experiments like he did. That is a great tactic that Mr. Willey uses to make students want to attend class on a daily basis.

Week3and4, Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied To Religion?
Paul Kurtz made a strong point that the topic of science and religion is a topic that has many issues to be dealt with but in order to put the final dish on the table, skepticism should be applied in order to emphasize doubt and impossibility of knowledge and to focus on the genuine possibility. He believes that religious claims should be investigated for the purpose that religion belief is based on faith.(pg 2of7) Kurtz stated “David Hume's arguments against miracles indicate all the reasons why we should be skeptical of ancient claims because they lack adequate documentation, because the eyewitnesses were biased, and so on."(pg.3of7). www.csicop.org The example that was used to prove his point was the shroud worn by Jesus. He states that the cloth has gone through extensive research and it has been proven that the cloth is 700 years old and a forgery. But my question is, so if that is the case, then can there be a possibility that the shroud does not exist and the shroud worn by Jesus was not there to begin with. How about the mantel that Juan Diego wore and the reflection of the Virgin Mary, is that also a forgery? I would than argue that in order for me to believe on my catholic religion I would want some kind justifications to tell me that I can believe in my religion without having any doubts on it. I know that there has been some kind of research on this shrouds and mantels, but my question is on what evidence do they base their final outcomes? If the scientist claims that Jesus shroud is forgery, then how come they haven’t changed all the religious believers to think that it isn’t real? I’m a true believer that God works in mysterious ways and that he has given each and everyone of us the choice to believe in him or not.

Week3and4, "Eleven"
Wow, what can I say? This film is a powerful film that really made me think. As I began to see the film I didn't expect it to lead to that extent. At first I thought it was going to be about how Joshua Williams accomplished his dream to be on the A-list and in the front cover of the newspaper because he had written an awesome documentary about his finding, but I was absolutely shocked that he made the from cover because he was murdered for being at the wrong place at the wrong time just trying to do his job as a reporter. He was sent to interview people to get their opinions on the murder and attempts of Muslim believers, but he never stopped to think that he was going to be put in the same situation as Malik Sheri. He was mistaken as a muslim like Malik Sheri. The name "Eleven" is referred to the group that Samaya Jones had created to rid the world of terrorist threats and his first targets were Muslims. He named his group "Eleven" in memory of his father who was killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York. I found it a bit disturbing because Samaya didn’t think clearly and took matters into his own hands by using racial profiling to take get rid of terrorists. Just because a person is walking by a mosk, it doesn't mean that the person is a Muslim. In Joshua's case he was only doing his job, and was murdered for coming out of the mosk. Samaya's anger and rage against Muslims reminded me about the situation that Muslims or people who looked Middle Eastern were experiencing after the attempts had happened on Sept. 11, 2001. These people were judged because of what other people had committed and were not given a chance to let people know that not all Muslims were alike. Joshua's dream did come true to make it on the front cover, but it he made the front cover for being murdered and for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Week3and4, A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
James Letts guide to critical thinking using the six simple rules to follow when considering any claim are helpful for one to begin to practice critically, especially when one is not used to think beyond the boundaries. For example, names these rules "FilChers" which each letter represents Falsifiability, logic, Compnsiveness, Honesty, Replicability and Sufficiency. He states that if these rules are applied to any evidence that offers a claim, than no one will be able to steal ones belief. He calls this the Filch-Proof. I found this article helpful in my situation, because I’m not a critical thinker, only because I’m afraid that people will judge me for thinking differently than others. Im not sure if it is because I'm afraid of saying something wrong or if it is because I don’t want to be wrong so I can make people feel better. Maybe that is why it has taken me so long to take a critical thinking class. As long as I have proof and evidence to back up my claim. As I was reading the article, I found that I use one of the rules constantly in my math class. For example, the rule Logic, states that any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be found. The author used counter example, which a claim is true if and only if it’s true in all cases. Hopefully I can learn to retain Mr Letts rules to help me use my critical thinking skills without doubting if I’m wrong or right.

week3and4, The Himalayan Connection
This article was interesting to read only because the topic of UFO's is a topic that brings different opinions to the table. Some people believe in the phenomenon of UFO's and others believe it's all in the mind of the person who reports these incidents. I personally do not believe that UFO's exist because there is no evidence that anyone has seen them up front and close. I think that people who report that they have been abducted are not thinking clearly. For example, all the videos that have recorded UFO sightings, but yet when the images are reviewed the images are not clear and are not believable. How about Area 51 located in Nevada, is that true or is it just a bunch of publicity to hype up the society? Why can only authorized agents or federal official are able to go in there and yet a common person like me can't? What are they hiding that society can't know about? The author in his article describes the three classifications or divisions that UFO's have been reported, first, the translative, transformative, and transfusive. Each of these stages has a different approach in looking into the state of mind. For example, translation is described by the author as experiences of natural phenomena within the consensus reality that have yet to be named and identified correctly. Transformation is based on experiment variable through conscious and transfusion is the connection between translation and transformation which eventually leads to confusion. Overall, I think that the topic of UFO's need to be researched more closely and if they actually exist, that something should be said to ease the minds of those who have encountered them and for those who are yet to encounter them.

Week 3and4, Beyond Belief session 3
Where should I begin? I found this session not interesting like session 1 and 2. The reason is because the first speaker which was Joan Roughgarden didn't know what she was talking about. I felt like she took her argument about religion and science out of context. For example, the passage she read from the bible to make her point clear in evolution was no where near the real meaning of the mustard seed and its significance. I’m not too familiar with the passage, but I asked someone who is more familiar with it and he basically claims that the mustard seeds refers to the faith that one has and the reason why it is spread through out is to spread the passages of the bible. Roughgarden refered the spreading to having children. I found her unpleasant to listen too and also extremely boring. I also found Caroline Porrco extremely confusing only because I thought that her speech didn’t really go with the main topic, which is religion and science. This was a tough session to listen too but as well look at only because their speeches were not interesting and therefore, I lost interest and found myself bored and lost and a bit irritated by Richard Dawkin views about religion. I feel he over exagerated his negative views and made me dislike him even more. This convention is based solely on the efforts to provide people with more information on a topic that requires attention, but I do not agree that all this bashing against religion should be made, especially when people are attending this convention open minded.

Week 3and4, Beyond Belief session4
Okay, as I view this conference, it seems that religion and science is not being focused as planned. The first gentleman, which I was not able to get his name, was using to much terminology that in reality didn't make sense and therefore made it difficult to understand. He stated that the brain equals mind and the mind equals computer. Now forgive me for being a bit dumb, but how can my mind be considered a computer? As far as I know, I don't have a computer chip implanted in my brain, telling me how to maneuver my body and yet tell me how to think...I found his speech out of context and I for sure did not find it within the topic that needed to be discussed. He based his speech on slides rather than what he actually felt or was there to argue for. I did find the second speaker (Rama) more interesting and I give him credit for not bashing religion like most of the other speakers have done through out the conference. He was funny. The only thing that I do not agree with him is that he states that a personal god does not exist. It may not exist for him, but for people like myself, I believe in a personal God and I'm a true believer that God does work in mysterious ways. I also believe that in order for one to receive good one must give back. I don’t consider myself to be in denial, but I do consider to be a believer that God is watching over me to guide me through the right direction.

Week 5, Freeman Dyson
He claims to be a religious person without any isms. He describes himself as being a Christian without the theology. He states that when theology is taken away of Christianity, it is left with a "community of people in the church who are taking care of each other. There is a great deal of beautiful languages, music and its art form is much more than a philosophy." I found him very pleasant and a bit entertaining only because he seems to get amused by the fact that his works are taken out of context and in reality are interpreted in a totally different way. He describes his work as poetry that has some truth in theory, but are not proven scientifically. His opinion about science and religion is that they are compatible, but that his science is just a trade that is not connected in any way to religion. He also talked a bit about how society has changed drastically overtime. In the 1930's the world was faced with many disadvantages and through out the years, society was able to overcome it. He stated "we survived that era, and then certainly we can survive our problems now." I think that with what we are going through now, is going to be tough for us to get out of because its gotten out of hand. If we would be fighting for a good cause, I would understand our presence in another country, but our presence is just making things worse and issues not getting solved. I do hope that this era overcomes its obstacles. Freeman Dyson state "you need a bit of religion to be able to live," and I absolutely agree with him.

Week 5, Bertrand Russell
This piece on "Why I am not a Christian," was interesting to read. He used many passages from the bible to argue his claims and I didn’t find him disrespectful in any way because he made me think for awhile. He does not believe in God or in immortality and questions whether Christ was the best of the wisest of men? For example, he states "There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that he believed in Hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment." I read this and it really made me think on this issue. If Hell actually exists than does it mean that all these criminals who have committed a crime will be judged and taken to hell or will God forgive them? Is hell only for those who do not believe in him or is it just a way to scare the believer? Bertrand Russell notes "that the idea that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked." I agree with him in the sense that some people claim to be true believers in God and attend mass on a regular basis and claim to live a moral, honest and religious life, but yet talk behind peoples backs, or are living in sin. If that is the case than why would they consider themselves to Christian? Is it because they do live with God's presence or is it because it such sounds nice for others to hear? I honestly do not understand why some people would consider themselves Christians if it is only going to last for an hour once a week. I've questioned this topic many times and yet to this date I have not arrived to a rational conclusion. No harm intended, but the reason why I question this is because I know many people who claim that they are devoted to their religion and yet are committing adultery and still swear that they are faithful Christians and do not live in sin....should this be blamed on religion or is it cause some people do not get the concept of what religion really means?

Week 5, Faqir Chand
I have sometimes wondered if our lives are just a dream when we pass on to the other world. I question if everything that we are living is a dream or is it possible to predict our death? I found it interesting to read that Faqir Chand also began to question the authenticity of his inner visions like I have questioned mine. Before my grandmother passed away a couple of years ago she was determined to come and see my mother, sister and me before she was going to pass. She suddenly became extremely sick and insisted that she wanted to return back home to die in her house, because she accomplished to see us before she passed away. My mother and decided to return her back home after two days of being here in California with us. The weirdest thing was, when the airplane landed on the soil that she had raised her family in, she collapsed and died in the airplane. We received the heartbreaking news that my grandmother had passed away in the airplane and yet we still wonder if she was just trying to say goodbye to us because she sensed that she was going to leave us. I find it interesting to read that Faqir Chand said " When I come back, it will be a black box"; reason I say this is because my grandmother before she took board on the airplane, she told my mother ," I will take care of you no matter where I am at." Can this really be possible? My question is can we actually sense when our time will come or is it just an illusion of our conscious that is provoked? Can our lives here on earth only be a dream?

Week 5 , Da Free John
I found this article interesting and in a way a bit weird to read, only because I'm still not comprehending why people would go about believing a human being who believes that he is a messenger from God and supposedly has the ability to spread message to men and women about their out of body experiences. First of all, I do not agree that a medium who claims that he is sent from God would require money in exchange for its followers to believe in him and yet believe everything that he may have to say. I think that anyone who has that gift to do what Da Free John claims to say he is able to do, would not do it for financial gain but instead would do it for a spiritual insight to benefit others. Of course everyone is entitled to believe in mediums if they please too, but I would suggest first investigating and re searching the individual before going on further. According to Goerg Feuerstein "One need not accept everything a spiritual movement offers because it has a single gleam of authenticity," and I agree with him because not everything that a medium reads or tells you will be factual and true. I would question in what circumstances that he conclude his readings too and what kind of evidence does he have to prove his writings in natures realities.

Week 5, Pretext, Text, and Context
This article was interesting to read because it helped me understand that in order for one to understand one's soul and personal being, one should look at their lives as a book and dissect it by every piece possible to understand our beliefs and self understanding. Until I read this article, I never thought of using these three steps to understand what I am made of and why I think and feel the way I do. After reading this article I have learned that life is like a book, one can make it interesting or one can simply make it boring and not interesting. In the beginning I was a bit confused as I was reading it, but it took a second reading for me to better understand what the author was trying to say. I will definitely see things in a different perspective and I will definitely be more critical in the way I view things.

Week 5, Film, The Secret of Faqir
I must admit that the music was fascinating to listen too, while I was viewing the film. I had to view the film like 3 to 4 times, cause it was pretty fast, but the Secret that Faqir stated in the film is "Your real helper is your own self and your own faith." He also states "this entire game is that of your impressions and suggestions which are intergrated upon your mind through your eyes and ears and your faith and belief." I agree with him because we learn by experience and only we can determine and judge what is best for us. Regardless of what religion one may be or not, we are responsible for our actions and we have to admit that our conscious may not always lead us to decide what is good or bad for our souls. Therefore, I agree with him.

Week6, Thakar Singh/ sexual abuse
OMG, I found this film very disturbing. I can't believe that someone
such as Thakar Singh who is supposed to be a protector and a leader
would commit such a crime against these children and followers in their
cults. Cindy Elmer was the first to come out and tell what was going
on within the cult and bad behavior that Thakar Singh and his sectaries
did. How stupid can one be and think that he can get away with what he
did? I’m sorry, but this film infuriated me to the extent that I had to
step away for a moment and gather myself. I just hope that Cindy Elmer
and the other innocent followers were able to recover from such a
traumatic abuse that they endured. How can someone consider themselves
a peoples God when they can get away with a crime such as abusing of
innocent children. If I were God, I would be disgusted and insulted,
but since I'm not God, I just hope that Thakar Singh is paying for his
crimes where ever he may be at.

Week 6, Eckankar
Even though this article was intensely long to read (27 pages), I
found it very interesting to read. I must say that I was a bit
confused in the beginning because I was not apprehending what
Eckankar meant. Eckankar is a cult that "teaches each individuals
Soul inhabiting a human body. Soul, being a spark of God, is on a
journey to finds its way home to God or the Sugmad" states the
author. In order to get rid of bad vibes in an individual's lifetime
and be released from death and incarnation, Eckerist practice the
detachment their souls from bad. I was so surprised to read that
David Lane was being harassed in such a way that even led to the
breaking of his apartment and goods taken away from his home just to
cover up the findings that he had researched about the plagiarism
that the late Paul Twitchell had committed. Lane
discovered "Twitchell plagiarized whole chapters from Radhasoami
texts, lied about biographical details, and commenced vast cover-ups
concerning the true origins of Eckankar's doctrines." Lane also
found "400plagiarized paragraphs" in Twitchells work. But what I
find more interesting is that someone who is a founder of a church
would commit such a crime against someone who doesn't share the
beliefs that he may have, but also for speaking his mind. I think
everyone is entitled to speak and say as they please as long as no
one is hurt. But it doesn't work that way. No wonder Lane
states "the people who scare me are John Roger's people, not
Eckankar's."

I agree with lots of what David Lane is saying in his interview with
Dodie Bellamy. For example in page 19 out of 27, he is asked by
Bellamy if he doesn't feel like the Great White Hunter attacking the
endangered rhinoceros. And he states "If you want to go and follow a
group in which the founder lies to you point blank at every turn, the
sources of his information and his books, well fine. " In other
words, I agree with him in the sense that in order to know the
qualities of an organization, one must first know investigate,
research, and get some sort of background and history behind the
organization. I agree with David Lane in many different areas that
he discussed in his interview. I also found him humorous and
determine to find out the truth behind the plagiarism that was done.

Week6, Sai Baba
Sathya Sai Baba transfers a white envelope from his left hand to his
right hand. But what I'm questioning is, how did he suddenly make a
necklace appear on his right hand? I think he just used a magic trick
to produce the necklace. I think that the necklace was in the envelope
and he slipped the necklace through a gap in the paper. I found it
interesting that he has many followers in the background. I was very
impressed how his followers were from young to old and from different
kinds of ethnicities. Why is it that when he makes this necklace
appear, it is considered a "miracle?" I just think it's another magic
trick that Sai Baba learned and is using this trick to make it seem
like he is gifted. I also think in order for an individual who
considers being a messenger from God, does not need to use magic tricks
to convince their followers. They should be honest and loyal to what
they claim to be and not just make people believe in something that
they are not. No disrespect for anyone who follows these beliefs, but
I would reconsider the principle to the individuals purpose and what he
is trying to perceive or put on the table.

Week6, Edgar Cayce and the Skeptic
I had to read this article three times in order for me to understand
what Prof. Lane is trying to say, and I have to admit that I still cant
understand what is going on in this article. Since the first day of
class, I was wondering what Occam Razor meant, since I interpret it as
Prof. Lane's user name. Duhhhh....!!! David Lane states, "this entails
is "shaving" down the extraordinary claims surrounding Cayce's readings
and attempting to discover a more ordinary explanation." hummmm....Does
this mean that in order to see and use skepticisms I would fist have to
view the basics in order to continue on further or does it just mean
that even Edgar Cayce readings can be a bit unreal and not
justifiable?

David Lane states "Edgar Cayce has become a religious figure, and as a
religious figure he serves as a fulcrum for people's yearning to
connect with the mystery of being, the sacredness of life, and the
wonder of creation." So does this mean the Edgar Cayce is identified as
an apostles from God that is trying to guide its followers into the
right direction, or is he just another "Guru" who meditates and basis
his knowledge on what he feels is sacred and unsacred? I had trouble
understanding this article and maybe I’m just not making any sense
Week6, Mark Juergensmeyer
I found myself agreeing with Prof. Mark Juergensmeyer because he
states that in order for this era to find an answer to all these
problems going on in the world, religion is required for an answer.
His speech is based on the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Oklahoma
bombing, and a series of interviews he was able to do with the people
that had some kind of knowledge to these events. I found it
interested to hear that in his findings everyone who he interviewed
commented that the government is the enemy and not religion. For
example, he mentioned Erik Rudolph, the person who put the bomb in
the Atlanta Olympic Games, gay and lesbian bars and abortions
facilities stated that the reason why he did what he did was
to "embarrass the government and to show that they are the enemies."
I think every nation on earth feels strongly that the United States
is the enemy because the United States wants to know everything. I
agree with this because the current administration has gone beyond
taking care of business. This ridiculous war that we are currently in
has no meaning or point to what the actual circumstances. Can the
United States be the enemy rather than the hero? I believe so. I
also think that this current president has tarnished the image of the
United States and has made the American people look like fools. What
makes him think that the people or society of Iraq will ever change?
There conflicts have been going on for hundreds of years and yet he
feels that he will change things by pointing fingers and sending our
innocent troops to fight a war that doesn't make sense.

Dr. Rantici stated "people in America should understand that our
struggles are not about land or property, but about pride, honor, and
dignity." He also states "this is God's war and we cannot loose." I
totally agree with Dr. Rantici because only God is the one capable of
stopping this war because only God has the answer. So why is our so
called president trying to be God??? If he were God than why isn't he
solving important issues for his nation such as education,
homelessness, medical care...etc? What will he do in order to assure
me that my children will be free when I'm not here anymore? Will
generations down the line have to worry about serious global warming
or should they just think that humanity has no hope? These are the
questions and possible future problems that the United States
president is required and is expected to worry about. Instead of
pointing the finger at other nations for our problems, he needs to
first analyze and reconstruct all the negative decisions he has made
to make our government look like the worlds enemy.
Week6, Beyond Belief 6
Susan Neiman is asked if there can be a science of morality and she
feels that science is a wonderful thing that humans have created but
doesn't feel it's better or worse than the arts of humanities. She
feels that saying morality is part of science is demeaning. She also
commented that religion focuses on teaching its followers to live as
good religious people in order to go to heaven because doing wrong in
this life will only take the individual to hell. I disagree with her
in the sense that all religions teach its followers to try to follow
the bibles scriptures in the best way that they can, but just because
one has committed a sin, doesn't mean that the person is
automatically going to hell and therefore no remedy is considered. I
am a true believer that God doesn't punish us, but instead tests our
ability to let us decide whether we want to be good or just plain
bad. God is the creator of everything and he has the ability to snap
his fingers and make his own creations disappear. No one has the
ability to think like he does and its up to human kind to determine
whether living a religious life or simply not believing is right for
them. God has given us the ability to think and use our brains, but
it's up to us whether we want to misuse our thinking or put it to a
good cause. I think that morality is based on what one learns and is
raised within their values and beliefs and it is definitely not part
of a science.

The other speaker that came to interest was Beth Loftstiffs. The
only problem is that only part of her lecture was muted. As a child
growing up in a catholic family, my mother always used to remind me
that God was watching my every move and that where ever I may be at,
he was always taking care of me. I encountered some situations in my
young life (which I can't say, because they are very personal) that I
would constantly ask God why he was allowing others to hurt me. I
remember that I cried and prayed that it would be over soon. I never
lost my faith nor disregarded the fact that he was looking over me
just like my mother always mentioned. Now that I'm an adult, I know
that he was there for me, because I was able to overcome those
situations in my life. The weirdest thing is that now, I always tell
my children what my mother use to tell me and that is that God is
watching over them to protect them, but it's up to them to be
thankful to have their parents to protect them when God is busy
protecting the rest of human kind.

Week6, Beyond Belief 7
I found the lecture presented by Mahzarin Banaji interesting because
she sends her point across by demonstrating the images of the two
tables. Basically what she is trying to get across is that the human
mind will only believe and can only believe in things and issues that
are common and we are comfortable with. For example, the
demonstration about the tables is that the table on the left looks
completely different to the table on the right, but in reality both
tables are the same shape, size and color, just that the illusion is
not allowing the mind to think and identify them as being the same.
Banaji states "minds operate in ways of being biased." I think that
the human mind can definitely be extremely biased in many areas,
especially in the areas of identifying humans. Just because someone
looks totally different from someone else, does not mean that they
should be labeled as different. The color of our skins does not make
us different from being Caucasian, Mexican, and African Am, Asian or
any other races out there. We are all human beings and yet society's
biases get mixed up and confused. We all have the same type of
blood running through our veins and it's composed of the same
elements.

I think in order to view issues such as biases, people need to think
outside the bubble to realize that being different is not so bad
after all. So why is religion and science such an important topic of
discussion? I think it is important because biases are commonly used
and neither one wants to accept that they are related in someway to
one another. There is a possibility that both can probably come to
an agreeing conclusion that religion and science work the same way,
just with different ideas and theories.

Week6, An Intro to Critical Thinking
I actually enjoyed reading article because it tells the reader step by
step how to use critical thinking skills in coursework but as well as
in daily life situations. I agree with the author in which he states
that many of the high school students coming out of high school donot
know how to use critical thinking skills and never the less do not know
how to solve real life sitautions. For example, my youngest sister is
17 years old and she does not have any critical thinking skills what so
ever. She thinks that the world revolves around her and no one else.
But what my questions is, is it because the parents fault also, that
many students aren't able to comprehend between not knowing and
knowing? I can't recall critical thinking skills being a requirement
when I graduated from high school, but I do agree that it should be a
requirement for student now. I think it would be a great experience
because the student would be more critical about real life situations
and would be a course that students would not dread to take in college.

I like the way the author makes this manual easy to understand and
basically wrote it in kindergarten style. Im for sure going to retain
this manual for future classes but as well to share it with my nieces,
nephews, sister and as well as my own children.

Week7, John Polkinghorne
John Polkinghorne is a distinguished scientist who became ordained into
the Christianity community as a pastor in 19997. I want to say that I
enjoyed his lecture because be is the first person who did not demeanor
God but instead explained that God all mighty is the creator and
science is helpful in some ways but is not totally responsible for
everything. For example he states "that the difference between the
creator and creation: the religious belief is the problem of evil and
suffering in the world. The more you identify God with the world the
more intense the problem becomes. Many things happen in the world that
are contrary to Gods world but are allowed to happen because the
creator is separated from creation which is allowing creation to be
itself and makes itself. The more you make God identical to connect with
creation the more puzzling it becomes." I think he clarifies this to the
point because God already knows what he has planned for each and
everyone of us, but the problems that have occurred or are occurring,
are solely caused by human nature. We can’t blame everything on God
because he gives us the intelligence to use our decisions wisely. If
we are constantly pointing the finger at God for every bad situation,
than there must be something wrong.

Of course, science is necessary to a certain point. It has helped
scientist to identify issues such as DNA, cancer, AIDS and so forth,
but God has given them the ability and gift to catch these things
before it gets worse and has given them the knowledge to help others.
I agree that "God can do what God wishes to do, but there are many
things that God can't do and wouldnt wish to do," which is science. I
enjoyed his lecture because many of us can agree with him without
disrespecting religion or science in any way. This lecture was
different than all the other expert lectures because he is an
intelligent person who is a professional but as well as a religious
person.

Week7, The Nietchez Channel
I must say that this is a long article and kind of difficult to
understand. I found myself jumping back and forth trying to figure
out what the author was trying to get across to the reader. There
are so many quotes that it would be difficult to write about all of
them, but the quote that stood out the most was in part4 stanza 169.
It states "To talk about oneself a great deal can also be a means of
concealing oneself." The way I interpret this quote is that one who
talks too much about themselves is a person who requires help and
guidance in order to find themselves. For example, I have a friend
who is constantly talking about herself and feels that the world only
revolves around her, but for some reason I always feel like something
is bothering her, but the only problem is that she does not know how
to approach her dilemmas. In order for people not to notice her
personal problems, she ignores her reality and focuses on talking
about herself, but in reality it is a scream for help. I know what
the problem is, but it is up to her to realize that she is the only
one who can resolve her personal issues. I can lend her a shoulder
and maybe some advice, but it's up to her to determine what is right
or wrong. Overall, I think Nietzsche points out many issues that
human beings encounter, regardless if they are about religion,
philosophy or personal matters.

Week7, Philosophy in less than five minutes
I enjoyed watching Electric Surfing. The dancing monkeys are kind of
distracting but fun to watch. This film is based on how the entire
universe is composed of matter and is demonstrated in four lessons.
The other short film that I viewed what Beliver versus Skeptic. It
is about a crop circles and if they really exist. I personally agree
with Dr. Lane that in order for these geometric circles to be
considered real, one must first analyze the data and be sure that
they are actually coming from somewhere else. Dr. Lane asked a
question "Can these geometric circles be drawn with a pencil and with
the right kinds of instruments in a paper?" I say they can. I don’t
think that aliens come from outer space because there is no
scientific proof that they exist. I think that somebody just has too
much time on their plates that creating crop circles is a way to make
people believe that such unknown things exist. My question is, if
aliens existed, and these so called space ships that arrive on earth
and make this crop circles when landing, why is it that no one has
proof to back up the claims that these crop circles are made by
aliens? This is a discussion that requires a lot of attention, so the
truth can come out.

In Brain Burn: states that "philosophy is the result of different
brain states an upcomings, that we ask different questions about the
world." I think this is so true because each individual thinks in
different levels based on experience. For example, a young adult can
view situations such as Global Warming as unimportant and boring,
whereas an individual in middle adulthood is concerned about what the
future may hold for earth and humanity itself. Therefore, the author
states "Philosophy is like a heart burn, something that hasn't
digested yet is a Brain Burn."

Week7, Harold Croto, Beyond Belief 8
Oh my goodness, what is up with these people who are professionals
and have something against religious views? Harold Croto's slide
show was great to view, but I just do not think that his ideas of
people who believe in a religion are made to look ignorant in his
point of view. He makes religion seem as the enemy of science. In the
sense that science is the only possible way and is the only outcome
to describe the topic and human life and the universe, is I think
incorrect. Of course he is someone who is trying to use technology
to help and teach individuals to have a better understanding about
science, but I think that demeaning religion by stating "the scale of
the problem is money, which helps these religious organizations get
ahead" Is totally wrong. I am catholic, and at no time in my life
has anybody told me that it is a requirement for me to give money to
the church because it is mandatory. If I decide to donate money to
my church, is because I wish to do so.

He also mentions that the pope believes that scientists are a threat
to religion and I would question what kind of proof does he have to
back up his claim? If scientists beliefs are that God does not exist
and there is no possibility that God is the creator of everything,
than of course I would understand why the pope would feel that
science is the enemy for religion. But it works both ways. It is up
to the individual to get educated and not just base their findings on
only one type of data, but rather many. For example, Croto disagrees
on what Senator Lott says when he is talking about the issue of
education. I agree with the senator's statement in which he says
that science and math should be a requirement if the student decides
to go into the fields that deal with science and math, such as
biology, physics, mathematics and so forth. I disagree that science
and math should be ignored since Science and math are the foundations
for students to get a better understanding of literature in the
sciences and math. But it shouldn't be eliminated. I found that his
lecture was not relevant to the real topic, which is religion versus
science; instead I found it as a broken record repeating what others
speakers have already spoke about in the other sessions of Beyond
Belief.

Week7,Charles Harper, Beyond Belief 8
Charles Harper was the second speaker in this part of the conference
and he basically talked about what the meaning of ideological science
means. He states that scientism "is the philosophy which proposed
science to be a philosophy, world views, cultural reform agenda, or
comprehensive way of life." The meaning of ideological scientism
is "the ideology which projects itself into cultural politics as being
representative of science, but does not utilize the scientific
methods." He considers attack books as rational politics that is a
business that sells the conflict between science and religion. I think
that all the scientists that have spoken in this conference believe in
scientism because they are not open minded abut the topic of religion
and only believe in what they think is accurate, which is science. I
found that this speaker was also off the topic, but defined the meaning
of science pretty well. I disagree that science blames everything on
religion for the problems that humans encounter in life, but think that
science is a remedy for the cure of problems such as cancer, AIDS, and
diseases that require the backup of it.


Week7, James Woodward, Beyond Belief 9
Wow, finally someone did his research and spoke about the real
discussion for this conference. James Woodward is an atheist who
states that he is surprised to listening to everything that is being
claimed such as God doesn't exist, the belief that God is responsible
for all the bad outcomes and the idea to convert the world to secular
humanism. Even though he is an atheist, I strongly agreed with him
that all answers to specific empirical evidences are required. He
states "you need to find factors that covary with one another and
therefore formulate and exclude alternative hypothesis."
I found this speaker very open minded to the topic and is the least
person that I found blaming religion for everything that happens. He
stated that one should not point the finger to religion but instead
look at the politic people, such as the government for the decisions
that affect everyone involved.

I agree with James Woodward that "a strategy is to try to better
understand the psychological mechanisms that underlie admirable and
immoral behavior and which are shared by both believers and the
secular." I think this statement should be reconsidered by many of
the speakers that attended this conference because many of them
believe that science is the only answer to a rational life and blame
everything that irrational to religion. I don't think scientist
should focus on religion as the enemy but instead focus on facts that
people or society will react in certain ways because they don't know
best. Ignorance plays an important role on why people commit crimes
not religion. James Woodward states "empirical information can still
be relevant to moral decision making."

Week8, Intelligent Design
This article of intelligent design was interesting to read because it
gives the point of view of the scientists who oppose it and are for
it. In one of the sections of the article it asks "should
intelligent design be taught in public school?" Some people oppose
the idea of intelligent design being taught because it is disguised
as a religious idea. The author states "there is much hypocrisy and
deceit in a movement that does not refer to God in published
documents as the intelligent designer, but opens its public
presentations with a Christian prayer and doesn't hesitate to refer
to God when alternatives such as aliens as the designers are brought
up." ID is considered to be a step to a non scientific approach by
evolution believers.

Evolutionary scientist argue that natural selection is the first
step for a better understanding of how evolution happened and
therefore assumes that evolution is a fact. Many parents teachers,
law officials, and scientist don't agree in the idea of allowing
intelligent design to be taught in school because it leads to
different biases and contradictions of how the universe and the
existence of human life happened. I agree with the author that "no
one was present when life first appeared on earth, therefore, any
statements about life's origin should be considered as a theory, not
fact." In order for something so controversial such as intelligent
design versus evolution, should be left for the individual to decide
on. If such, I agree that both intelligent design and evolution
should be given a "fair and balanced presentation when teaching about
the origins of the universe and life" because that allows the student
to understand the different ideas that people have on a controversial
topic such as the origins of the universe and life.

Week8, James Watson and DNA and the Brain
I found this lecture by James Watson interesting because he addressed
the rising issue of autism in recent years. He stated that children
who have autism " don't have any social interraction with people, have
low IQ and repetitive behavior and is a great burden for families that
have to care for an autism child." Autism is more common in boys than
girls and this may be due to the X chromosome or Y chromosome having
some kind of defect. I found it interesting to hear that if both
parents are missing in empathy, they are more likely to have a child
with autism. I find that difficult but I guess it would be a solid
argument especially if the parents have genes that are some what
similar especially when dealing with human behavior. Recently I have
been seeing an increase of attention in autism in the media and I'm
wondering if this is due to an increase of reported incidents or is it
because there are other factors rather than genes that are making these
numbers go up. I had heard that vaccines are in part at fault for the
rise of autism children. Is that true? Does autism affect any ethnicity
and any age in boys? I definitely will look into this topic more in
debt because it does bring some concern.

James Watson states that "refining the phenotype can vary from a life
course of a lifetime." He also thinks that human behavior is influenced
by environment. I thought he was funny, but a bit unclear when he was
asked questions towards the end of his lecture. Overall I enjoyed
viewing him because he seemed to be such a content individual.

Week 8, Fallacy Files
OMG, what a confusing article(s) to read. To be honest I was not even
sure where to begin only because everything seemed important. It's
unbelievable how many fallacy files there exist and for everything
unimaginable. All I have to say much about this reading is that there
is a lot of information and many different fallacies that one can
unintentionally commit. I also think that these files will definitely
help me be rational in future situations without using fallacies.
Week8, Richard Sloan Beyond Belief 10
Okay another speaker who doesn't really speak about the main topic,
religion versus science. What he really focused was on religion
versus medicine. I just find it difficult to understand how come all
these professional people who have lectured in this conference have
not been open minded about this topic. Richard Sloan, lectures about
religion being the evidence that is linked to health care. First of
all, I would like to say that religion is not and should not be
blamed for health problems that people have. It is up to the
individual to seek the health advice if they wish to, but never
accounting religion as the main problem. I have heard that there are
many cultures who seek non professional health doctors to cure
illnesses, but solely on the individual’s ignorance. I have also
heard that there are some religions that believe that if he patient
is sick or has a terminal illness, that is because God has sent this
to them and therefore one should just be able to live with it because
God sent it. First of all, we live in an era that illnesses can be
cured because we have many more resources to provide health care.
Secondly, I disagree that some people must be deprived by health care
only because they believe or think that God has sent the illness to
them and therefore, one should just learn to live with it. I do
think that God gave each and every one of us the ability to think,
speak, and use some common sense, in circumstances such as medical
attention.

On a final note about the conference Beyond Belief, how come none of
the speakers that were present none of them were priest, ministers,
or pastors? Maybe this would've probably been a better discussion to
present, since we would've seen two different points of views. Rather
than just getting the points of views of people who were solely there
to defend science and downgrade religion?

Week8, Frequently Asked Questions, R. Dawkins
I found this article so boring...Its about questions composed from
different people asking Richard Dawkins what he thinks and disagrees
with. I have to disagree with Richard Dawkins that Bonobos and
Chimpanzees are exactly equally close to human beings through our past
ancestors. "I don’t think so." So he is arguing that my past ancestors
were some kind of monkey??? He states "Ot os entirely plausible that we
resemble chimps more with respect to half our features, and bonobos
with respect to the other half."

I jokily told this to my mother, and husband, and they seriously
cracked up...lol... I just don’t agree that I or anyone have some
connection related to monkeys and therefore do not agree with many of
his criticisms on evolution.

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 reason why certain religious zealots are prone to use terrorism according to Professor Mark Juergensmeyer is because these people want to send out a message that the united states government is extremely vulnerable but as well has became the enemy to the rest of the world. Prof. Juergensmeyer stated that when he had an opportunity to interview Dr. Rantici, he made it clear that “Americans needed to understand they do not perpetrate violence but instead are the victims of violence.”
According to Prof. Juergensmeyer, he believes that “all threats of terrorism are to shake up this country and wake us up to the reality on what is going on.” He also believes that “religion plays a big role in an era that we don’t know what the future can hold. The role of religion in the public life is needed to help reorganize and recenter morality and trust in the public life.” I agree with Prof. Juergensmeyer because the United States tends to be nosy in every aspect, but yet when this country encounters situations such as 9/11, other countries could care less. I do think that the rest of the world considers the United States to be the main enemy for everything that happens else where, and I don’t blame them. For example, Dr. Rantici states that “their struggles are not about land or property, but about pride, honor, dignity, and humanitism.” So why cant this countries government deal with it and understand that we are not going to be able to control a country that has been in a war for hundreds of years. The more this country puts it feet where it is not wanted, the more countries such as Iraq will retaliate against the American people and will fight for what they believe is right. It’s a win win situation.

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 is not enough sufficient evidence to support the claim that Edgar Cayce was psychic except from his followers who have a strong belief and faith on his readings. Edgar Cayce became a religious figure but without rational evidence. Cayce may be misleading, but sure knows how to convince his followers. I think that Edgar Cayce is not a psychic because the paranormal events and readings are misleading and not believable. I also think that he has trained himself to believe that he is psychic and trained his followers to believe that he had some sort of psychic power. Prof. Lane states “I agree that the readings are not convincing, but yet I do not say he is telling the truth.”

14. Why is your professor so critical of cults?

The reason why Professor David Lane is so critical of cults is because his own research into cults has affected his own beliefs. Prof. Lane states “At this stage of the game I can’t buy the crap that permeates religion, not just new religions, but religion in general. He explains to Dodie Bellamy ” The only way for him to “accept things which he can verify or considers to some what genuine.”
I don’t blame Prof. Lane especially when he was determined to find out the truth about the plagiarism committed by Twitchell. I'm sure if I were to be in his shoes I would be determined to fid out the truth, even though it would probably impact my personal life. In Prof. Lane’s situation, his home was broken in to, received death threats and basically had to protect his life against all odds. And because of his intense research he was capable to find himself but as well answer questions that he may have never thought in answering.

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

The films about Sai Baba’s claim for paranormal powers claims that he is full of crap. One must have to be very ignorant to believe that he is “miraculous,” and that he out of nowhere produced a necklace. I definitely give Sai Baba credit for knowing such a good magic trick, but I disagree that he makes his followers believe that he can do things because he is gifted. I also think that he made a slit in the envelope or paper so it would not be obvious for the spectators to see that the necklace was already in there. I'm sure if his followers would’ve had a chance to view the footage in slow motion like we have, they would consider their beliefs and trust in him.

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

Thakar Singh believed in blindfolding children because it was a way to manipulate the innocent minds of the children. By blindfolding them, it gave him the power to cynically make these children believe the scriptures of his religion and faith in order to find their inner souls. I also think he used this tactic so that the children would not know who was actually committing the abuse, yet always thinking that Thakar Singh was there to protect them. He misused the power given to him by his followers and took his authority way out of context. Thakar Singh is a person who should not be trusted and it is obvious that what ever goes around comes around because he regime came downhill. I just hope that the people that endured all the mistreatment from Thakar Singh and his leaders are able to overcome their situations and live a positive life.
I think the reason why some religions followers lack critical thinking skills is because they have never been given the opportunity to think on their own. They are so dependent on religious figures to think for them, that religious followers are made to believe that they don’t know best. I think it is a tragedy for a religious figure to take advantage of people’s ignorance and not all individuals to express or think on their own.

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

John Polkinghorne believes in both religion and science due to his own experience in both fields. He was a scientist who then became a minister for the Christian faith. He believes that the “universe is rationally beautiful with science in mind, but we should also know that the world is not in position to know how the world is going to behave, and science cant decide that, but God can.” He believes the there is an “existence of a divine mind behind the universe and a divine purpose unfolding the history of the universe.” One must have a personal encounter to believe in the reality of God. He also feels that a scientific belief and a religious belief is based on personal experience and also based on facts that don’t affect life. He states “The love of God is not going to create a universe which is God’s puppet theatre; therefore science shows us that the properties of the world can be seen in different ways.”
I think that John Polkinghorne is correct because if science would not exist in the world, human life would be out of place and also society would totally be ignorant of the existence of the universe. I am a true believer that God has given human beings a powerful tool to use which is the mind and without it we would probably be living in a different kind of world. So I do think that religion and science can work together, but in different aspects of life.

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

Nietzsche critiques religion by saying that Christians are religious to escape the world they live in by hiding reality. In God’s eye all men are created equal and they conform in thinking that its okay. He states “ to recognize untruth as a condition of life that certainly means resisting accustomed values feelings in a dangerous way, and a philosophy that risks this would by that taken alone place itself beyond good and evil.”
One of his main arguments against the belief in God is that he feels that one is required to sacrifice everything in order to please God. According to the author “The Christian faith, or pride, self confidence, enslavement, self mockery and self mutilation has been the most fatal kind of self presumption ever.”

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?

James Watson believes that genetics holds the secret for understanding human behavior because he believes that DNA shapes the individual by the structures it is composed of. He also states that enough research is required to discover genes and how mutations cause various brain disorders, such as autism.
I think the reason some people resist believing that we are just bundles of DNA is because we don’t know enough of how our body system work or what it is composed of, and yet we are taught since adolescents that our behaviors are caused by people in our environment, not by genes or DNA. Luckily as time goes by and people are becoming more educated, people are getting involved and interested in areas such as DNA. This interest will guide our future scientists to hopefully continue researching to find a cure for AIDS, cancer, and illnesses that our society is gradually encountering as the years pass by.

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

Intelligent design is regarded as “junk” science by most evolutionary biologist because “it’s hard to view intelligent design as a coherent movement in any but a political sense,” states H. Allen Orr. “Intelligent design has inspired no nontrivial experiments and has provided no surprising insight into biology, rather looks less and less like the science it claimed to be and more and more like an extended exercise in polemics.”
The author also states that in order for intelligent design to be “empirical, it should be capable of being confirmed or disproved by observation or experiment,” which lead intelligent design to not be empirical. He also argues “to explain some complex phenomenon is to explain nothing about that phenomenon’s relation to its alleged designer,” therefore an “intelligent designer theories do not illuminate anything.”

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

I think the underlying theme behind the movie The Zahir, is that God is a powerful phenomenon and therefore one should not be afraid of situations that he/she encounter because God can be present in many different way, in this case, a coin. According to Jorge Borges “the Zahir stands for beings or things which have the terrible power to be unforgettable and whose image eventually drives people mad.” The author mentions that he was encountering a demonic influence and was not able to sleep because he was dreaming that he was a pile of coins guarded by a force. I think that many people feel the same way, especially when the individual is thinking to hard and is unsure of specific situations in life. In the case of Jorge Borges he sought some comfort within the Zahir to guide him in the right direction. I think that many people seek spiritual comfort with items such as a cross, rosary, Zahir and other emblems because it brings tranquility to the individual. It also brings questions that people don’t really think about when they are in a difficult time and don’t realize that God makes himself present in every possible way. Its up to the individual to have some sort of faith that God exists and that God is not there to harm you but instead guide one through a spiritual path. Borges states “the Zahir is the shadow of the rose and the rittening of the veil.” “Behind the coin is God.”

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

The reason why little things that jiggle reveal the universe around us is because “strong and weak nuclear forces guide matter.” In the video, is states that man became God in 1939 therefore have become the creator and destroyer of the worlds. If man had not created the atomic bomb or other mass destruction weapons the universe would have never encountered problems in the past, present or future. Some scientist feel that they can make things appear and disappear as though it were a magic trick but the reality is that God is the one with the brains and only he can eliminate what he has created. Its unbelievable how science and God always clash with one another; neither one wants to take responsibility for their actions and due to this the universe and everything that lives in it have to pay and live up to the consequences in the long run. Gustav Belvedere said “Human beings are frozen popsicles of light waiting for final illumination on meltdown.”

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

Fundamentalism is a mental disease because “creationism is to be thought by those who can’t think.” The video states “natural selection is the single idea to permeate human thought. Once you understand evolution, life and its confusion come clear.” The narrator also states “ a knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalist do.”

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.

Two wrongs make a right fallacy - This fallacy involves the attempt to justify a wrong action by pointing to another wrong action. Often, the other wrong action is of the same type or committed by the accuser. (Example: When my mother accuses my sister of changing the way her attitude is towards her because she thinks that her ex boyfriend is the cause for my sisters behavior.)
Special Pleading Fallacy - The fallacy of Special Pleading occurs when someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon an irrelevant characteristic that does not define an exception. (Example: I think this would probably be a fallacy that my husband would use, since he feels that no one else can produce and grow plants and fruit trees. He is agriculture major)
Wishful Thinking Fallacy- Wishful Thinking is an argument whose premiss expresses a desire for the conclusion to be true. (Example: I wish I were rich, so that I can pay all my debt off, but yet spend unnecessary money, wishing that some day I will become rich.)
One-Sidedness Fallacy - A one-sided case presents only evidence favoring its conclusion, and ignores or downplays the evidence against it (Example: My brother in law jumping to conclusion about family affairs.)
Appeal to Celebrity Fallacy - Celebrity endorsement of products is so common that we hardly notice it (Example: All the celebrities that are popular and are selling merchandise to become richer)
Appeal to Misleading Authority - We must often rely upon expert opinion when drawing conclusions about technical matters where we lack the time or expertise to form an informed opinion.
Appeal to Force Fallacy -As a logical fallacy, "ad baculum" or "appeal to force" applies to the use of force and, by extension, the use of threats of force to "win" a debate ( Example:
Vagueness Fallacy -Vagueness is a characteristic of language, specifically of those terms which classify or qualify objects, that is, common nouns and adjectives. Such terms divide the world of objects into those the term applies to—the extension of the term—and those to which it doesn't

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

I think that the current war on terrorism as waged by the United States is ridiculous. The reason why I think it is ridiculous is because our troops are fighting an unnecessary war due to our government’s wrongful decisions. I also think that the government jumped into conclusions before gathering all the possible data and final conclusions to determine whether 9/11 was a terrorism attack or not. Why is it that President Bush took it upon himself to take this situation out of hand and try to finish unfinished business that his father was not able to complete? I am totally against this war because there are many innocent lives being lost and I feel that the United States government is committing serious genocide against our citizens but as well as the citizens of Iraq. This war is not about religion or territory, but instead of who is the bigger and better man. Our government is blindfolding us to believe that this war was caused by terrorism and I do think that this is not the case. Recently, I been viewing documentaries on the discovery channel and the research that has been done to identify what actually went down on 9/11 is no where near to what our society thinks actually happened. It is claimed that the Bush administration was previously alerted about an attack on the United States, yet this government ignored it and waited for the right moment to sabotage the safety of its citizens. Can it be possible that our own government had something to do with 9/11? I think so and I just hope that when the truth comes out, this so called President will pay for all the lives lost. I think he is the anti-Christ disguised as the hero and therefore is not a person of trust.

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.

The conference was difficult to view because first of all it was extremely long, but also insensible to people who believe in a God. I found that many of the speakers who were presented and lectured on science versus religion were not open minded about the topic. Most of them had biased views about religion as a whole but the speaker that bothered me the most was Sam Harris. I respect that he doesn’t have a belief in any religion nor believes the existence of God, but it does bother me that he doesn’t respect others religious preference because he feels that religion is the main cause for what is happening to our universe. I find it difficult to understand that such a professional such as Sam Harris does not have the slightest clue of what people with religious believes are consisted of. He must have had such a bad experience for him to think so negative about religion. I also didn’t not agree with what Steven Weinberg who mentioned that people who believe in a God are ignorant and basically are idiots. I feel that that a person who feels so strong about different ideas that are not the same as his, is a person who really needs to define what he/she are all about. I didn’t find him persuasive in any way; he just made me get a little ticked off.
The only two speakers who I felt that were the most persuasive are the lectures presented by Mahzarin Banaji and James Woodward. Mahzarin Banaji sends her point across by demonstrating the images of the two tables. Basically what she is trying to get across is that the human mind will only believe and can only believe in things and issues that are common and we are comfortable with. The other speaker is James Woodward. I found this speaker very open minded to the topic and is the least person that I found blaming religion for everything that happens. He stated that one should not point the finger to religion but instead look at the politic people, such as the government for the decisions that affect everyone involved.
Everyone else who spoke in the conference took it upon themselves to change context around and not make sense in any way. But what I find a bit confusing is why wasn’t there a religious figure to argue and defend the religions point of view? I think that John Polkinghorne would have been a great speaker at this conference because he has been involved with both fields which is a scientist point of view but as well as a religious point of view. Overall, this was a controversial conference to view and it is interesting to see how a topic such as religion versus science brings about conflicting opinions to the table. On a final note, it is up to the individual to have a religious belief or not and it is also up to the individual to find out whether or not if science and religion are common to one another or are the total opposites.

26. What was your favorite film lecture?

I must have to say that my favorite film lecture was James Watson and DNA and The Brain. I thought he was an interesting speaker but also such an energetic gentleman. Even though he is older he had a great attitude and was not boring like other expert lectures that we previously viewed.

27. What was your favorite mini movie?

My favorite mini movie was Karma. The reason why I like this film and was of interest is because Karma can be identified in many ways, yet it can mean good or bad depending on the situation. I also enjoyed viewing the film “Eleven.” It sends out a powerful message to the audience that judging a book by its cover is not always good thing.

28. What was your favorite reading?

My favorite reading out of all the readings was “Eckankar: A Former Member Revisits the Movement.” Even though it was a long article to read, I found this article to be like a suspense movie. The more I wanted to finish reading it, the more I wanted to find out what was going to happen next and all the events that Dr. Prof. David Lane experienced and learned through his journey to find out the truth. What I'm so amazed is that I was able to meet Dr. David Lane only once and I have learned a whole lot from him. Thank you!!!!

29. What is the most unusual thing you learned this semester?

The most unusual thing that I have learned this semester is that life works in mysterious ways, and that we shouldn’t blindfold our selves because the judgments that we make can mislead us or eventually hurt us. In order to jump to conclusions we first have to make sure that there is some explanation or proof for everything that we encounter and decide on. I have to say that it’s amazing how taking a course such as philosophy can make one realize how important it is to be critical in many different aspects of life, and thanks to course, I'm able stand straight and hold my head high, because I know that it’s not a bad thing for me to think differently than others. I have definitely learned that society can be misleading but it is up to me to determine whether or not I want to be misled.