This is an article about how 85 percent of physicians polled believed that religion and spirituality can have a positive influence on health and recovery. I find it interesting because I want to become a physician someday and ever since I can remember I have been watching medical documentaries about how physicians mentioned that their patients miraculous recovered from an incurable disease without any logical explanations. I feel that this is relevant to our course by how we discussed the topic of "Neurotheology" a few lectures ago.
Can Prayer Heal the Sick?
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Juliet Schor, A Plenitude Economy, and Ecology
This is a short piece about the relationship between our economy, consumption, and ecology. I thought you might find it interesting.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Would the world be better off without religion?
This is the title of an Intelligence Square U.S. debate on November 15th. NPR has a short introduction to the debaters as well as the full audio of the debate. I have not had a chance to listen to this yet, but I thought that you might find it interesting.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
It's not official until it's Facebook official.
Hey Everyone,
I used the filter bubble on youtube to find this video about the social media giant in which we all call "Facebook." I thought this video would be relevant to our class discussion this morning because how we mentioned how relationships and friendships on Facebook has gotten to a point in which it can sometimes spew over into the "real world," or how we can see emotions when someone choose to friend (de-friend) us on Facebook. ENJOY!
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Artifical intellegence.
First off, for clever bot, I had huge expectations and was disappointed. We don’t have to worry about the terminators any time soon. Sometimes when I was talking to clever bot he would say the most random things, or just not make any sense grammatically. For the article, Liking is for Cowards. Go for What Hurts. By Jonathan Franzen, he spoke about techno consumerism, and its relation to Christmas and the other holidays. Each add can be interpreted as if you love someone you have to buy them things. How do you feel about that message? He then moved onto Facebook and the like button. What’s your opinion on the like button, like it, love it, or hate it?
--Nathan Chan
--Nathan Chan
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Is Civilization a Bad Idea?
I just read this article from NPR on our exact topic from class today. Here is what I mean:
"We became self-conscious, creating art, culture and tools of far greater complexity than anything that had come before. When the ice pulled back yet again, we eventually took a step of even greater consequence. We domesticated ourselves and put the Earth to the plow.
With agriculture came surplus and with surplus came new social arrangements. Eventually, we built cities and far-ranging empires to support them. Human beings began building civilization. In doing so we set ourselves and the entire planet onto a new trajectory.
But did anyone ever stop to ask if it was a good idea?"
This reminds quite a bit of Postman's argument and Bryan's comments in class. Here is the rest of the article, if you feel like reading the whole thing.
"We became self-conscious, creating art, culture and tools of far greater complexity than anything that had come before. When the ice pulled back yet again, we eventually took a step of even greater consequence. We domesticated ourselves and put the Earth to the plow.
With agriculture came surplus and with surplus came new social arrangements. Eventually, we built cities and far-ranging empires to support them. Human beings began building civilization. In doing so we set ourselves and the entire planet onto a new trajectory.
But did anyone ever stop to ask if it was a good idea?"
This reminds quite a bit of Postman's argument and Bryan's comments in class. Here is the rest of the article, if you feel like reading the whole thing.
More on Technology
First, thanks for a lively conversation today and good discussion. We'll keep going with technology on Thursday when we discuss AI. In the meantime, here are a few things that I talked about in class:
You can see the scene I was discussing from 2001: A Space Odyssey here.
And you can see the book I mentioned, World Made by Hand here.
I also wanted to add these few paragraphs from the International Committee of the Red Cross. As they speak about nuclear weapons, they make the point that I was trying to make in class: this particular piece of technology is not morally neutral, which means that some forms of technology are not morally neutral. Also, notice that they cite an advisory opinion from 1996 in which the International Court of Justice declared the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons to be illegal.
You can see the scene I was discussing from 2001: A Space Odyssey here.
And you can see the book I mentioned, World Made by Hand here.
I also wanted to add these few paragraphs from the International Committee of the Red Cross. As they speak about nuclear weapons, they make the point that I was trying to make in class: this particular piece of technology is not morally neutral, which means that some forms of technology are not morally neutral. Also, notice that they cite an advisory opinion from 1996 in which the International Court of Justice declared the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons to be illegal.
"In 1996 the ICRC welcomed the fact that the International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion on nuclear weapons, confirmed that the principles of distinction and proportionality found in international humanitarian law are " intransgressible " and apply also to nuclear weapons. In applying those principles to nuclear weapons the Court concluded that " the use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the principles and rules of international humanitarian law " . It was unable to decide whether, even in the extreme circumstance of a threat to the very survival of the State, the use of nuclear weapons would be legitimate.
Some have cited specific, narrowly defined scenarios to support the view that nuclear weapons could be used legally in some circumstances. However, the Court found that " ...The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or tim e (...). The radiation released by a nuclear explosion would affect health, agriculture, natural resources and demography over a very wide area. Further, the use of nuclear weapons would be a serious danger to future generations... " . In the light of this finding, the ICRC finds it difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with the rules of international humanitarian law.
The position of the ICRC, as a humanitarian organization, goes – and must go – beyond a purely legal analysis. Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, in the risks of escalation they create, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity. The ICRC therefore appeals today to all States to ensure that such weapons are never used again, regardless of their views on the legality of such use."
Monday, November 14, 2011
Gaudium et Spes
From this reading I found the page 36 parts 55 and 56 the most intriguing. It shows how Pope John Paul VI understood that people understand the importance of their actions on the world as a whole. Pope John Paul has a very optimistic view on mankind. He maintains that more and more people are recognizing their importance to the morality and of the human race. John Paul addresses the fact that people are smart and capable of understanding a lot. He highlights that this is both a good and bad thing as people must be able to discern and relate their new ideas to those of old. He talks about how people run into contradictions that they must be able to discern truth from. Another thing that he thinks could hurt humanity is uncontrolled expansion at the hands of science and technology. He ponders how old conventions can be combined with new discoveries and even other cultures to strengthen religion. Do you think this is possible or that other cultures and discoveries in science can only butt heads with religion as it is now.
Nathan Chan
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Problem Science has with God...
Philosophy Professor & Student conversation in class...
An atheist professor of Philosophy was speaking to his class on the problem Science has with GOD. He asked one of his new Christian Students to stand and . . .
Professor : You are a Christian, aren't you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn't. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can't answer, can you ? Let's start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does satan come from ?
Student : From . . . GOD . . .
Professor: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, super heat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it is, were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class was in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
(The class broke out into laughter. )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir . . . Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
P.S.
By the way, that student was Einstein.!
moments of stories.....
An atheist professor of Philosophy was speaking to his class on the problem Science has with GOD. He asked one of his new Christian Students to stand and . . .
Professor : You are a Christian, aren't you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn't. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can't answer, can you ? Let's start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does satan come from ?
Student : From . . . GOD . . .
Professor: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, super heat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it is, were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class was in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
(The class broke out into laughter. )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir . . . Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
P.S.
By the way, that student was Einstein.!
moments of stories.....
Colbert. Enough Said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJPSPauGV0
This is the interview with 'the father of intelligent design.'
This is the interview with 'the father of intelligent design.'
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
John Haught and Making Sense of Evolution
Some of you might be interested in this:
Making Sense of Evolution:
Darwin, God and the Drama of Life.
A lecture by Dr. John F. Haught
(Georgetown University)
At The Catholic University of America
Caldwell Hall Happel Room
November 15th 6 pm
Reception to follow
Co-Sponsored by the GSA and STRSSA
To learn more about the GSA, please visit http://Graduatestudents.cua.edu
Making Sense of Evolution:
Darwin, God and the Drama of Life.
A lecture by Dr. John F. Haught
(Georgetown University)
At The Catholic University of America
Caldwell Hall Happel Room
November 15th 6 pm
Reception to follow
Co-Sponsored by the GSA and STRSSA
To learn more about the GSA, please visit http://Graduatestudents.cua.edu
The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
A friend of mine just recommended this book to me:
and it seems relevant to our class discussion. I think that is obvious from the title. What struck me was that this book is written by a scientist who is also a secular Jew, and so himself is not a religious person. I have one of his books on calculus on my book shelf. Now, I haven't read this book so I can't recommend it outright. I can only share it with you and mention that I am rather intrigued.
Here is a link to the author's website if you are also intrigued.
and it seems relevant to our class discussion. I think that is obvious from the title. What struck me was that this book is written by a scientist who is also a secular Jew, and so himself is not a religious person. I have one of his books on calculus on my book shelf. Now, I haven't read this book so I can't recommend it outright. I can only share it with you and mention that I am rather intrigued.
Here is a link to the author's website if you are also intrigued.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Our God is a Green God
Perhaps the most striking, and perhaps the one that sums up the message of the relationship between Ecology and Theology best is from the Oxford handbook where it states:
Environmental well being refers here to the good of the earth as a whole, as the setting of life. Ecological well-being refers to the good of the species living interdependent and interrelated lives in the ecosystem, particular earth places characterized by the integration of specific species...Development of Catholic thought will be considered in three stages: caring for the common good...concern for creation in crisis...and creation concern and community commitment.
This three-pronged summation of Catholic thought looks to explain our relationship within the broader creation, and our role as stewards. If we are to say that we are for "life" how far must that extend to the entire spectrum of an ecosystem?
If we are to believe in a respect for all creation, must this extend to all forms of life on earth as well? As White points out, "What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them."
So in short, here are the questions we raise. If we know that an environment is in crisis and this crisis affects life, do we have a MORAL obligation to respond? If we are truly to care about the common good, creation in crisis and community commitment, how far must we go to act? Is that same moral responsibility left open for those who are not religious?
Environmental well being refers here to the good of the earth as a whole, as the setting of life. Ecological well-being refers to the good of the species living interdependent and interrelated lives in the ecosystem, particular earth places characterized by the integration of specific species...Development of Catholic thought will be considered in three stages: caring for the common good...concern for creation in crisis...and creation concern and community commitment.
This three-pronged summation of Catholic thought looks to explain our relationship within the broader creation, and our role as stewards. If we are to say that we are for "life" how far must that extend to the entire spectrum of an ecosystem?
If we are to believe in a respect for all creation, must this extend to all forms of life on earth as well? As White points out, "What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them."
So in short, here are the questions we raise. If we know that an environment is in crisis and this crisis affects life, do we have a MORAL obligation to respond? If we are truly to care about the common good, creation in crisis and community commitment, how far must we go to act? Is that same moral responsibility left open for those who are not religious?
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The New Atheism
The readings for this class are all very interesting, and I would like to begin the discussion with some things I liked from the Armstrong reading. First of all is the idea that God is too often a simplistic idea. We pray for our sports teams, good weather, and our country. 'God is on my side.' I would contend that it if God is really so omnipotent and omniscient then it is simply presumptuous to claim that one can define and comprehend God.
Some would say that humans were intelligently designed in God's image. I am of the personal belief that God was intelligently designed in our image. For the sake of full disclosure I will say right up front that I am an atheist and as such have a certain bias and interest in this discussion, and am most certainly open to critique and commentary, as I would hope that were I to critique and comment on religion (as I have been known to do) that it would be well received in the spirit that it was meant. That being said, I will now address the interviews with Harris and Dawkins.
It should be prefaced that Harris and Dawkins are two of the most outspoken and radical atheists. They do not represent many atheists in the harshness of their rhetoric, yet at the same time make a number of uncomfortably poignant arguments. The first point I will draw from Harris is one of the more extreme, where he condemns moderates for "[providing] the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed." In short, religious moderates are enablers. While they themselves may do good and give a good name to religion and faith, it is those very deeds that religious extremists use as a shield. I would be interested in the discussion this claim could generate. What do you all think of that idea?
Next I just wanted to comment that like Harris, I find faith and spirituality to be much less harmful or negative as organized religion. While this view earned Harris some criticism from a number of atheists, I agree with him to a certain extent. While I might not share his belief in telepathy or mysticism, I would assert that organized religion has caused exponentially more harm than any sort of personal individualized faith.
Another issue to touch upon is the idea of the Bible as a recipe for religious intolerance. While the bible has many great teachings that any atheist can appreciate in the same way one appreciates Aesop's fables, "There's no document I know of that is more despicable in its morality than the first few books of the Hebrew Bible." Comments?
While there is certainly more to be said on Harris I think we can get to that in class as I would like to turn to Dawkins. He paraphrases a quote that I enjoy, from I want to say Voltaire. "I would contend that we are both atheists. I simply believe in one less God than you do. You will understand why I deny your God when you understand why you deny every other God."
I think this is quite enough to go off of for now and I will add further questions and comments as the thread progresses. This should be an animated discussion!
Some would say that humans were intelligently designed in God's image. I am of the personal belief that God was intelligently designed in our image. For the sake of full disclosure I will say right up front that I am an atheist and as such have a certain bias and interest in this discussion, and am most certainly open to critique and commentary, as I would hope that were I to critique and comment on religion (as I have been known to do) that it would be well received in the spirit that it was meant. That being said, I will now address the interviews with Harris and Dawkins.
It should be prefaced that Harris and Dawkins are two of the most outspoken and radical atheists. They do not represent many atheists in the harshness of their rhetoric, yet at the same time make a number of uncomfortably poignant arguments. The first point I will draw from Harris is one of the more extreme, where he condemns moderates for "[providing] the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed." In short, religious moderates are enablers. While they themselves may do good and give a good name to religion and faith, it is those very deeds that religious extremists use as a shield. I would be interested in the discussion this claim could generate. What do you all think of that idea?
Next I just wanted to comment that like Harris, I find faith and spirituality to be much less harmful or negative as organized religion. While this view earned Harris some criticism from a number of atheists, I agree with him to a certain extent. While I might not share his belief in telepathy or mysticism, I would assert that organized religion has caused exponentially more harm than any sort of personal individualized faith.
Another issue to touch upon is the idea of the Bible as a recipe for religious intolerance. While the bible has many great teachings that any atheist can appreciate in the same way one appreciates Aesop's fables, "There's no document I know of that is more despicable in its morality than the first few books of the Hebrew Bible." Comments?
While there is certainly more to be said on Harris I think we can get to that in class as I would like to turn to Dawkins. He paraphrases a quote that I enjoy, from I want to say Voltaire. "I would contend that we are both atheists. I simply believe in one less God than you do. You will understand why I deny your God when you understand why you deny every other God."
I think this is quite enough to go off of for now and I will add further questions and comments as the thread progresses. This should be an animated discussion!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Riot at the Premier of The Rite of Spring
Today in class I mentioned that in 1913 there was a riot in Paris over the music for a ballet. Here is the RadioLab episode that discusses it. It begins around minute 10:30. Enjoy!
And here is the T-shirt that I mentioned:
And here is the T-shirt that I mentioned:
Monday, October 31, 2011
Neurotheology, Fingerprints of God
This reading was quite long, repetitive, and yet interesting. According to this, many scientists now believe that "spiritual experience is a trick of the brain" caused by either of the following: injuries, brain abnormality, or applied magnetic fields. The specific area of the brain responsible for these brain simulations is the temporal lobe and it has been identified as the "God Spot". Studies have shown that alteration to this part of the brain caused a “sense of presence” or “feeling of another entity”. This raised questions such as whether religious prophets or leaders had actual visions or experienced real occurrences, or if it were merely epileptic seizures that altered their temporal lobe allowing them to feel that “presence”. The reading then explores several examples of epilepsy patients that had an increased sense of spirituality during or right after their episodes.
But, from these examples, can we deduce that temporal lobe activity determines a person's sense of spirituality or a person’s attachment to a specific belief just because there’s a clear correlation between temporal lobe activity and a “sense of presence”? According to the reading, these scientists are not necessarily saying that their studies negate the existence of God. Rather, they are exploring the option that spirituality doesn’t act alone; feelings experienced by people can be due to both brain activity and a higher power.
Personally, it is quite interesting to see that activity in a specific part of the brain can be responsible for so many things. Though the correlation is quite interesting, I, However, don’t believe nor see it scientifically possible to prove that brain activity IS the cause for belief or disbelief in God. nevertheless, it is possible that this correlation is one step forward to understanding the basics of spirituality.
But, from these examples, can we deduce that temporal lobe activity determines a person's sense of spirituality or a person’s attachment to a specific belief just because there’s a clear correlation between temporal lobe activity and a “sense of presence”? According to the reading, these scientists are not necessarily saying that their studies negate the existence of God. Rather, they are exploring the option that spirituality doesn’t act alone; feelings experienced by people can be due to both brain activity and a higher power.
Personally, it is quite interesting to see that activity in a specific part of the brain can be responsible for so many things. Though the correlation is quite interesting, I, However, don’t believe nor see it scientifically possible to prove that brain activity IS the cause for belief or disbelief in God. nevertheless, it is possible that this correlation is one step forward to understanding the basics of spirituality.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Science: What's it up to?
In light of our conversation to day about the relationship between science, religion and politics I thought that you might find this clip from The Daily Show amusing.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Neurotheology: Can we actually see God in the brain?
So what is neurotheology?
Neurotheology has been defined as "science’s attempt at explaining religion within the physical aspect of the brain using rational thought”…is a unique field of scholarship and investigation that seeks to understand the relationship specifically between the brain and theology, and more broadly between the mind and religion. Neuroscientists have found ways to detect and measure the varieties of religion experiences by using brain scanning technology but there is still one of the deepest mysteries in science which is the nature of ‘consciousness’.
In the book ‘Atoms & Eden’ , Andrew Newberg (a physician) explained how NEUROSCIENTISTS who study spirituality say that MIND COULD EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF THE BRAIN.
An interesting study was made when Franciscan nuns were praying and meditating and it was shown that important parts of their brain activated while praying. One important part was the frontal Lobe. While praying they would lose their sense of self, no longer seeing a distinction between who they are and the actual prayer process itself. Some people call this a feeling of connectedness or oneness. Another part that changes is the Parietal lobe. He did and compared different studies with meditators and other groups of practitioners… the most fascinating result was that he saw very different changes in the brain which concludes that different types of religious, practices and beliefs seem to be associated with different changes in the brain. At the end he was asked if consciousness exist outside the brain? He responded there was no answer, and it’s open to both possibilities… Do you think consciousness exist outside the brain?
An interesting study was made when Franciscan nuns were praying and meditating and it was shown that important parts of their brain activated while praying. One important part was the frontal Lobe. While praying they would lose their sense of self, no longer seeing a distinction between who they are and the actual prayer process itself. Some people call this a feeling of connectedness or oneness. Another part that changes is the Parietal lobe. He did and compared different studies with meditators and other groups of practitioners… the most fascinating result was that he saw very different changes in the brain which concludes that different types of religious, practices and beliefs seem to be associated with different changes in the brain. At the end he was asked if consciousness exist outside the brain? He responded there was no answer, and it’s open to both possibilities… Do you think consciousness exist outside the brain?
Monday, October 10, 2011
Human Origins
I hope everyone had a restful three day weekend! Unfortunately, we have to get back to work.
During the three part program as presented by NOVA, what were your thoughts on what you have seen? What did you find to be really interesting about each of the three part program?
After watching the program, where did you think that humans developed a soul as we began talking about towards the end of class on Thursday morning.
I'll get things started by saying that the introductions on all three parts were somewhat the same and that it seemed a little boring at the beginning, but as soon as the program developed it started to rise some interesting points within the program. Even though the beginning of each of the programs seemed to started out the same, I really liked how NOVA was able to piece each part together so that their audience wouldn't be to confused about what is going on. In other words, I am trying to say that NOVA somewhat followed a sequence of Human evolution by starting to talk about the human brain in Part I and how it compare to a chimp's brain. Then in Part II, NOVA began talking about Homo erectus and how they start to develop some traits of a human, such as emotions, living in society, and caring for each other. What I found to be interesting in Part III was the bottleneck effect and how everyone on Earth is basically 99% genetically related and dispute the fact that we all look differently, the reality is that as Homo sapiens, we are not that genetically diverse.
In regards to the human soul, I think that it started to develop with the Homo erectus because the NOVA program in part II stated that at this stage of human evolution, human beings started to develop a sense of emotion, caring for each other, and living in society. Another point that was rises within this part was how the longevity of living increased even though an elderly person may have lack teeth to eat and they can have someone to eat for them. It is at this stage that I think the human soul developed because personally, I think having a soul requires one to care others and try to put yourself in their position and see what that person may or may not be thinking at a certain time. In other words, I am trying to associate a sense of empathy with the human soul. Having empathy like having a soul is unique to us (humans) because with empathy, we develop emotions such as the emotion of guilt. The emotion of guilt can help define the concept of a soul because having guilt can help us moral decisions about what is right or wrong.
During the three part program as presented by NOVA, what were your thoughts on what you have seen? What did you find to be really interesting about each of the three part program?
After watching the program, where did you think that humans developed a soul as we began talking about towards the end of class on Thursday morning.
I'll get things started by saying that the introductions on all three parts were somewhat the same and that it seemed a little boring at the beginning, but as soon as the program developed it started to rise some interesting points within the program. Even though the beginning of each of the programs seemed to started out the same, I really liked how NOVA was able to piece each part together so that their audience wouldn't be to confused about what is going on. In other words, I am trying to say that NOVA somewhat followed a sequence of Human evolution by starting to talk about the human brain in Part I and how it compare to a chimp's brain. Then in Part II, NOVA began talking about Homo erectus and how they start to develop some traits of a human, such as emotions, living in society, and caring for each other. What I found to be interesting in Part III was the bottleneck effect and how everyone on Earth is basically 99% genetically related and dispute the fact that we all look differently, the reality is that as Homo sapiens, we are not that genetically diverse.
In regards to the human soul, I think that it started to develop with the Homo erectus because the NOVA program in part II stated that at this stage of human evolution, human beings started to develop a sense of emotion, caring for each other, and living in society. Another point that was rises within this part was how the longevity of living increased even though an elderly person may have lack teeth to eat and they can have someone to eat for them. It is at this stage that I think the human soul developed because personally, I think having a soul requires one to care others and try to put yourself in their position and see what that person may or may not be thinking at a certain time. In other words, I am trying to associate a sense of empathy with the human soul. Having empathy like having a soul is unique to us (humans) because with empathy, we develop emotions such as the emotion of guilt. The emotion of guilt can help define the concept of a soul because having guilt can help us moral decisions about what is right or wrong.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Natural Theology, On the Genesis of Species & Barbour
I believe to sum up the fifty pages of Paley, I would summarize his argument that all complex things or a contrivance must have a contriver, & designs have designers. He goes through many examples comparing a watch to a rock and mill he also goes into depth about the similarities of a telescope and an eye and how all species eyes are similar but different due to function which leads to his main point that there is an intelligible creator and that some species adapt the original design related to function and that humans inherited the power of intelligible design to create watches and telescopes and to use fish skin too polish wood that go did not create the fish skin to be rough to polish wood. What did you think about his arguments?
The Genesis on species discusses the evolution of animals the one problem not resolved was the different evolution linage and the Geographic location and connecting species but now that we know more than we did back in 1871 that the continents and land masses are always growing sinking and moving due to the plate tectonics the evolution examined here is very plausible.
I thought that Barbour's reading was Basically what we discussed in Tuesdays class how evolution and scripture can both be accepted through not reading genesis literally. A clarification on Paley is offered explaining the theology side of natural selection that there was d. The most interesting discussion was that of Darwin's worries or thoughts with publically explaining natural selection and weather that was moral when applied to humans that we let the weak die and not reproduce and the strong prosper and produce the most offspring. But Darwin thought there was a higher morality that exempted humans from the competition side of natural selection. Do you think that humans are above natural selection?
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The Nobel Prize in Physics
Today in class I mentioned that the Nobel Prize in Physics had been announced this morning. Here is an article with more about the three Americans who won the award for their understanding of the expanding universe.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Darwin's Origin of the Species
I noticed that no one has begun the blog, so I will try to start you off with some questions. How did reading Darwin's actual text affect the ideas that you already brought into class about evolution? Did anything change? Did you discover a new insight? Did anything surprise you or was this what you expected to find? If it is what you expected, why is that so? I look forward to seeing your answers and to our convesation in class tomorrow.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
The Galileo Affair
As no one signed up to moderate and it is now quite late, I am opening up the discussion. The question will be loose and open: What in this reading most struck you and why? Did anything challenge what you already knew (or thought you knew) about the conflict between Galileo and the Church?
More on CERN
Here is an interesting article about how the researches at CERN seems to have found particles that move faster than the speed of light. If this is true, it could mean another revolutionary moment (in Barbour's terms) in physics.
And here is an article questioning CERN's findings, giving more evidence to our idea that science, like religion, happens in the context of community. It also points to the characteristics of falsifiability and skepticism necessary in science.
And here is an article questioning CERN's findings, giving more evidence to our idea that science, like religion, happens in the context of community. It also points to the characteristics of falsifiability and skepticism necessary in science.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
God and the World in Scripture: Creation, Age of Earth, Noah's Flood, Human Diversity
Genesis:
Genesis begins with the story of Creation. God created the earth and heaves in seven days, creating different creatures and parts of the world in different days. Man was created in God's image.
"Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were completed."God planted a garden in Eden where man and woman resided. Neither man nor woman was allowed to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, the snake convinced the woman to eat from the tree, and the man followed her lead. When God became aware of this, he cursed the snake, the man and the woman. Adam and Eve, which they were named, were banished from Eden. Adam and Eve have children and Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel. Cain was jealous of Abel because God favored him more, and he killed his brother. A line of descendants was later created through Adam and Eve.
God saw how evil humans had become and regretted making man. He decided to wipe out not only mankind, but also all the other living creatures, except Noah and his family, and two animals from each kind. Noah built an ark at God's command. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. When it was over, God was so pleased with Noah he vowed never to do what he had done again. God's covenant with Noah was created and his descendants.
The question of how to read Scripture is debatable. Methods are different and each one (literally, allegorical, etc.) can result in different meanings and beliefs from Scripture. Morality might remain the same. What do you think? Do you think it is necessary to read Scripture one way or the other?
Job:
In this story, God seems angry with Job. Job has questioned God, and he tells Job he cannot understand everything. Job is unhappy because of his recent bad luck that he feels he does not deserve. God replies with instances of creation where God had ultimate power.
When Job seemed to have doubts about faith, he confronted God with anger. God's only responses were about the wonders of creation. Do you think this answers Job's question adequately? Job seemed to be content with God' answers. It is as though Job could not explain God's creation, and by this he accepted he will never know God's purpose for the things he does, but he must have faith regardless.
Maybe this example of Job has an impact on people who still have faith, despite their hardships.
The Council of Trent:
This document sets down the rules of Scripture. Not only must the Church be in control of what versions and commentaries on Scripture are to be published, but the Church also explains which books are to be known as truth. All of these books are to be taken as God's Word, whether spoken by God himself, or through his apostles.
Do you think that Church satisfies the problems at hand?
Genesis begins with the story of Creation. God created the earth and heaves in seven days, creating different creatures and parts of the world in different days. Man was created in God's image.
"Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were completed."God planted a garden in Eden where man and woman resided. Neither man nor woman was allowed to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, the snake convinced the woman to eat from the tree, and the man followed her lead. When God became aware of this, he cursed the snake, the man and the woman. Adam and Eve, which they were named, were banished from Eden. Adam and Eve have children and Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel. Cain was jealous of Abel because God favored him more, and he killed his brother. A line of descendants was later created through Adam and Eve.
God saw how evil humans had become and regretted making man. He decided to wipe out not only mankind, but also all the other living creatures, except Noah and his family, and two animals from each kind. Noah built an ark at God's command. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. When it was over, God was so pleased with Noah he vowed never to do what he had done again. God's covenant with Noah was created and his descendants.
The question of how to read Scripture is debatable. Methods are different and each one (literally, allegorical, etc.) can result in different meanings and beliefs from Scripture. Morality might remain the same. What do you think? Do you think it is necessary to read Scripture one way or the other?
Job:
In this story, God seems angry with Job. Job has questioned God, and he tells Job he cannot understand everything. Job is unhappy because of his recent bad luck that he feels he does not deserve. God replies with instances of creation where God had ultimate power.
When Job seemed to have doubts about faith, he confronted God with anger. God's only responses were about the wonders of creation. Do you think this answers Job's question adequately? Job seemed to be content with God' answers. It is as though Job could not explain God's creation, and by this he accepted he will never know God's purpose for the things he does, but he must have faith regardless.
Maybe this example of Job has an impact on people who still have faith, despite their hardships.
The Council of Trent:
This document sets down the rules of Scripture. Not only must the Church be in control of what versions and commentaries on Scripture are to be published, but the Church also explains which books are to be known as truth. All of these books are to be taken as God's Word, whether spoken by God himself, or through his apostles.
Do you think that Church satisfies the problems at hand?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking. Did God created the Universe?
So, while I was doing research for my Paper that is due next Thursday. I happened to stumble upon this YouTube Video. It is basically the interaction between Religion and Science on the origin of the universe and a few things that we have mentioned during class. I found this video to be very interesting especially towards the very beginning of the video. However, I think the argument between science and religion within this video seemed to be a one sided argument because it was shown on the Discovery Channel (science based) as well as Stephen Hawking being the host of the program. I think the program could be more interesting if the Discovery Channel actually had some Theologians arguing with Hawking within the program.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Words
For those of you interested in hearing the entire radio program that we listend to in class today, here it is. Among other things it compares Shakespeare to a chemist putting elements together to build compounds. Very interesting in light of our conversation today. Have fun.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Dr. Atomic
Here is a recording (and a few photographs) from the opera that I mentioned in class today. The aria is sung by the character of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, the main architect of the Manhatten Project, on the eve of the first testing of the atomic bomb. This is from the Wikipedia page on Oppenhiemer: "The first atomic bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945 in the Trinity test in New Mexico; Oppenheimer remarked later that it brought to mind words from the Bhagavad Gita [a sacred Hindu text]: 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' "
Here is the text of the aria as well, which is a poem by John Donne that Oppenheimer had written in his journal. In terms of our conversation, this point where religion, ethics, and science come together is very compelling and interesting.
Batter my heart, three-person'd God, for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town to'another due,
Labor to'admit you, but oh, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly'I love you, and would be lov'd fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy;
Divorce me,'untie or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you'enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
Here is the text of the aria as well, which is a poem by John Donne that Oppenheimer had written in his journal. In terms of our conversation, this point where religion, ethics, and science come together is very compelling and interesting.
Batter my heart, three-person'd God, for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town to'another due,
Labor to'admit you, but oh, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly'I love you, and would be lov'd fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy;
Divorce me,'untie or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you'enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
Lavoisier_Newton
Both Newton and Lavoisier Provide some some rules and insights to Reasoning in Philosophy (Newton) and Chemical Nomenclature and Education (Lavoisier). Newton, who is considered to the father of modern physics, discussed "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy" with his four rules. Within these rules Newton basically explained how we are to understand "Natural Philosophy." The bulk of his discussion was centered around Rule III in regards to bodies.
In general, would you agree with Newton's method/rules in order to understand nature?
Lavoisier, who is considered to be the father of modern chemistry, discussed various ways in order to understand chemistry in a systematic way. Lavoisier begin by stating that "The Art of Reason is nothing more than a language well arranged" (Pg. xvi, Paragraph 1).
What do think Lavoisier is trying to convey to the audience with this statement? Do you agree?
Lastly, what do like most about Lavoisier and Newton's Text?
Personally, I was really interested with Lavoisier's text because taking chemistry courses for the past 2+ years. It is really interesting to see where chemical knowledge started and how it has changed significantly with more modern nomenclature as implemented by IUPAC.
In general, would you agree with Newton's method/rules in order to understand nature?
Lavoisier, who is considered to be the father of modern chemistry, discussed various ways in order to understand chemistry in a systematic way. Lavoisier begin by stating that "The Art of Reason is nothing more than a language well arranged" (Pg. xvi, Paragraph 1).
What do think Lavoisier is trying to convey to the audience with this statement? Do you agree?
Lastly, what do like most about Lavoisier and Newton's Text?
Personally, I was really interested with Lavoisier's text because taking chemistry courses for the past 2+ years. It is really interesting to see where chemical knowledge started and how it has changed significantly with more modern nomenclature as implemented by IUPAC.
Antione Lavoisier and Dmitri Mendeleev
Here is some more information on Lavoisier that I thought you might find interesting...amoung other things he was guillotined in the French Revolution.
Also, as Lavoisier's major project is nomenclature in Chemistry, he is a predecesor of Dmitri Mendeleev, the architect of the periodic table. Here is a statue of Mendeleev in St. Petersburg, Russia. I particularly like this one as you can see his periodic table behind him:
Here is Mendeleev's original periodic table:
And, in case you need a reminder, here is the modern periodic table, which, you can see, is grounded in part in the names of the elements, many of which Lavoisier coined:
And, just in case you love the periodic table of the elements as much as I do, here is a short (and entertaining) radio program about it: The Wonder of Youth - Radiolab
Also, as Lavoisier's major project is nomenclature in Chemistry, he is a predecesor of Dmitri Mendeleev, the architect of the periodic table. Here is a statue of Mendeleev in St. Petersburg, Russia. I particularly like this one as you can see his periodic table behind him:
Here is Mendeleev's original periodic table:
And, in case you need a reminder, here is the modern periodic table, which, you can see, is grounded in part in the names of the elements, many of which Lavoisier coined:
And, just in case you love the periodic table of the elements as much as I do, here is a short (and entertaining) radio program about it: The Wonder of Youth - Radiolab
Sunday, September 18, 2011
John Paul II on Faith and Reason and Barbour Readings
After reading both of the texts I come to understand that both texts are trying to establish the idea that both religion and science could co-exist. Of course there would be some difficulty with both of them co-existing but it could be possible. John Paul II believes that it would crucial for both to co-exist because with the two coming co-existing there could come a mutual understanding of one another and this would allow for big advancement of both religion and science. Though for me it really doesnt seem possible because of the fact that both try to prove one big idea that cannot be accept from on another, for me that would be the creation of the universe if science and technology would come to prove how the universe was created then what would religion have to say. I just believe that there couldn't be any real mutual understanding of one another. Even though John Paul II does explain how the differences in ideas of both religion and science may be aiming at different conclusions there could be a middle for both to go off of I just cant really see religion coming to live peacefully with what science is trying to prove.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)