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:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)