Final Exam for Religion and Science Class
Jennifer Granneman
curiousdiver
http://curiousdiver.blogspot.com/
Classes missed: 1 (but I was at my grandma’s funeral L) Classes late to: 0
Midterm grade: A
Posts:My grandmother died today. All around me my family says "She's in a
better place." All of a sudden this whole not believing in God (and
an afterlife) thing hit hard. Is death really the end? Is there
really nothing more? I understand why it is so tempting to cling to
religion...
- Yes, I have read all of the required reading books completely. However, I did not read the books that were free online.
- My favorite reading so far is the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Although he comes on a bit strong against religious people, I can appreciate his depth of knowledge on the subject he speaks on. His book cleared up many vague points for me on why religion is not only unacceptable, but detrimental to society. His arguments cemented by own reasons for rejecting religion and I enjoyed it immensely.
- Friedrich Nietzsche’s transvaluation of values is the idea that a complete rethinking of the philosophical and religious traditions that produced the traditional values we now have today need to be re-evaluated. He suggested that the old values suggest a “life-denying” outlook on life that gives rise to a “slave morality”, in which people adopt a herd mentality and view themselves as bound by the fixed lines of good and evil. These views are represented by Christiantity, the philosophical tradition, and also due to science. He suggests that this is true because values of love, humility, and self-sacrifice as supported by Christianity kill the human spirit and do not allow us to truly master ourselves. This seems like an unrealistically harsh skepticism in my opinion. Instead of the traditional values, Neitzsche suggests the development of “life-affirming” values such as those founding the pagan religions and philosophies of ancient Greece. Nietzsche suggests that if we were to adopt more irrational and passionate values this would give rise to “master morality” and “hero mentality” which obviously sounds much more appealing. These new values would supposedly allow us to freak out of the conventional ways of interpreting right and wrong (is that a good thing?) and encourage the greatness of the human spirit to be expressed.
3a. After Nietzsche left his family life and small Christian town to study theology at the
- In an essay entitled “Why I Am Not a Christian” (see this website for the complete essay: http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html) Bertrand Russell summarizes a number of arguments for the existence of God, pointing out the faults in these arguments along the way. Although it is apparent that he feels strongly about the mistakes in these arguments, it is in his final discussion on the defects in Jesus’ teachings and his moral character that it becomes obvious the real reason Russell rejects Christianity. Russell first points out that many of Christ’s main moral teachings were already well known during the time he lived and in fact were not revolutionary at all. Furthermore, he suggests that the maxims that Christ proposes, such as “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor,” are excellent in theory, but in practice are a little difficult to live up to. Another problem Russell has with Christ is whether in fact he existed at all. However, the main problem Russell has with Christ lies in the fact that Christ believed in hell (that is if he existed at all). Russell feels that anyone who could possibly believe in eternal damnation is not really humane. He concludes with the fact that religion, especially Christianity, relies on fear and terror and Russell does not support that type of belief system. I agree with Russell on this point as religion does seem to rely much to heavily on manipulating people’s emotions and making them fear death and consequently hell. Although Russell might find the idea of hell personally disagreeable (and who doesn’t?), I don’t think that is necessarily a reason to reject the religion outright. Who is he to say that there is no such thing as hell just because it doesn’t sound pleasant? A more scientific argument is needed here to reject Christianity. Russell seems to be reacting to the argument from fear with an equally emotional response.
- If C.S. Lewis were alive today and I told him that I believe Jesus was a great teacher and probably a good guy overall (despite his beliefs in hell), but that I just couldn’t accept his claim to be God, here is what he would probably say, “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” This quote is from his book entitled Mere Christianity, which was voted the best Christian apologetics books of the twentieth century by Christianity Today in 2000. The argument proposed by C.S. Lewis is often referred to as “Lewis’s trilemma” or alternatively as “Lewis’s false trilemma” by those who do not agree with the argument. Critics of this argument, which include professional theologians, biblical scholars, and atheists alike, claim that there are other alternatives besides the three proposed by Lewis that are not addressed. There are so many alternatives to the three presented by Lewis that I will just list them here: Jesus as a myth, monophysitism, miaphysitism, dyophysitism, unitarianism, and adoptionism.
- The evolution of science is a natural progression in the refinement of intelligence. Being able to understand the physical laws of the universe and why things happen as they do gives us (the human race) an evolutionary advantage. Rather than praying to sun gods and rain gods and using mystical herbs to heal ailments as humans initially did, we can now rely on ourselves to solve the not-so-mysterious ailments of the human race. The ability to heal ourselves, predict future events, and generally understand the universe more thoroughly has numerous advantages for humans. Religion evolved initially to explain the things we couldn’t understand. For example, if we had a bad harvest it must have been that we didn’t pray hard enough to the gods. When praying didn’t work, however, humans got a little smarter and started to figure things out for themselves. Now if there’s a bad harvest we can determine the cause and hopefully find a logical solution. Historically, the development of science simply allowed those who understood the universe more thoroughly to survive to produce more offspring (excluding the case of Mormons) and this is the definition of Darwinian fitness.
- Cargo cult science was discussed by Richard Feynman in his commencement address to Caltech (http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm). He describes cargo cult science as a type of pseudoscience because it lacks “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific though that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty” on the part of the scientist. Cargo cult science is based on the concepts of cargo cults, which are any of a group of religious movements appearing in tribal societies which focus upon obtaining material wealth of advanced cultures through magical thinking and religious rituals. Feynman suggested to the future scientists in his Caltech commencement speech that in order to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, they must be willing to question their theories and results. Extrasensory perception (ESP), PSI phenomena, and UFOs are all mentioned by Feynman to be crazy ideas that are in need of further investigation. First, extrasensory perception, the ability to acquire information by paranormal means independent of any known physical senses or deduction from previous experience, is a highly controversial topic. First of all, there are absolutely no scientifically conclusive demonstrations of this ability. I think that Feynman would say in order for anyone to give credibility to this outrageous idea it is necessary to conduct double blind experiments that can be repeated to conclusively say whether ESP is possible. Astrology is the belief in which knowledge of the apparent relative positions of celestial bodies are said to be useful in understanding information about personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters. It would be a simple matter to test this belief system scientifically by looking at a specific prediction of astrology to see if it becomes reality. The numerous claims made by astrologists of course sometimes hit the mark, but testing each claim individually would most likely show the lack of validity of these claims. Finally, Feynman mentions UFOs as another source of silly things that people believe in. The validity of claims about UFOs would not be so easy to test and would require a detailed and in-depth investigation of every single UFO claim. If any of these claims could be conclusively validated, then the presence of UFOs could said to be true. However, I think this would most likely not be the case as so many UFO encounters rely on personal testimony.
- In a talk given at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association in 1966, Richard Feynman discussed the concept of “What is Science?” (http://www.fotuva.org/online/frameload.htm?/online/science.htm) He begins to answer this question by first explaining that science is after all, just common sense. He states explicitly that words and definitions are absolutely not science. For example, science is not knowing how to change from Centigrade to Fahrenheit or knowing the human-given names of species. Although knowing these things is necessary for a dialogue to take place in science, that is not science itself. Ultimately, Feynman comes to this conclusion, “Science is the result of discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the human race’s experience from the past.” The definition offered by dictionary.com states that science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. This is in direct opposition to Feynman’s definition in that his definition of science states it should not simply be a list of definitions and words to memorize.
- Intelligent design is the assertion that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Feynman’s definition of science involves a scientific method and the use of reason and logic to check past results. His definition involves a process of discovery and learning. There is absolutely no indication of any of these elements in the modern teleological argument for the existence of God that takes the form of intelligent design. Instead, this argument is based on acceptance of the fact that we are not able yet to explain everything in the physical universe. Therefore, intelligent design advocates that we simply substitute God in to explain the gaps in our current knowledge of the universe. This is directly opposed to Feynman’s proposition of science which is based on common sense, discovery, and learning and seeks always to try to explain the unknown.
- Although I feel like I cannot exactly speak for Dawkins, Russell, and Nietzsche and why they are attracted to non-belief, I can speak on my own behalf. These people are all truly “scientifically” minded and as a future marine biologist I would like to think that I somewhat fit into the same category. I believe that the lure of non-belief is just the idea of not having to believe in something that lacks any type of scientific evidence or support. Perhaps we are all wrong and there is a God out there. However, there is no proof, there is no evidence, there is only “faith”. I find this unacceptable and until there is evidence to the contrary, the only other alternatives are throwing up your hands and saying “I don’t know” (agnosticism), or saying, “There is no God” (atheism).
12. According to the teacher, there are actually two things that religion must do to survive the onslaught of reason and win the science-religion battle. The first thing that all religions must do is to be completely honest and open up entirely to all criticism. According to the teacher, one of the best things that has happened to the Roman Catholic church is the recent priest pedophile accusations. This has brought out into the open an issue that has existed for centuries, but was simply kept quiet. If religions “puts all the cards on the table” so to speak, then it will be easier to determine if they are bluffing. So much of religion lies on mysticism, lack of understanding, and general confusion. It is essential that this confusion be cleared up and properly dealt with to determine if there is anything to religion besides confusion. The second step that must be taken is for religions to appeal to personal experiences. The personal, intimate experience of religion is something that cannot be taught or experienced within the traditional context of say, a Roman Catholic mass. These traditional services are so incredibly dull and boring (I should know!) and most likely do not at all resemble what was initially experienced by the founders of the religion. If religions instead focused on the personal experiences of their followers, perhaps religion might have a chance.
13. Christopher Hitchens’ book entitled, “God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything” addresses his criticisms of religion, focusing on four main points. The first point is that religion misrepresents the origins of humankind and the cosmos. To substantiate this argument, Hitchens points out the flaws in the argument from design and goes into detail about why the metaphysical claims of religion are false. For example, he explains that we no longer need God to explain things as we can explain them perfectly well ourselves by using science. The second argument he makes is that religion demands unreasonable suppression of human nature. Hitchens shows that Christianity simply makes people feel like sinners and the fact that a creator cares about them makes religious people feel better because they are “saved” and have a sense of self-importance. This argument sounds remarkably similar to Nietzche’s criticisms of the morality of Christianity. Thirdly, Hitchens proposes that religion inclines people to violence and blind submission to authority. Finally, he concludes that religion expresses hostility to free inquiry, which is somewhat similar to the third argument.
14. The development of
15. Although it may initially appear that science is only a hindrance to the aims of religion and cannot possibly help it in any way, there are actually a few ways in which this might be accomplished. First, as was previously discussed, the mysticism and “fog” surrounding religion needs to be cleared to reveal whatever is left. Although religions themselves need to actually do this, science can help by calling religions out on this issue. Science can help by playing “devil’s advocate” (no pun intended) and forcing religion to put all of the confusion behind. Second, it is possible that science may someday find some proof of the existence of God. Although I cannot think what form this proof might take, it is not inconceivable and thus it cannot be ruled out that this may happen. The last way that science may help out is not with religion itself but with religious people. Science may help by allowing religious people to reach a more complete understanding of the universe by rejecting the delusions of religion and instead accepting the more harmonious explanations provided by science. Ultimately, I would prefer a somewhat-incomplete understanding of the universe that is concrete and justifiable to a deluded view (which is certainly not concrete or justifiable) that “explains” everything.
16. I honestly cannot see any way in which religion may help science. Religion will not help future scientists to discover a cure for cancer. Religion offers no rigorous explanations for the universe as it is today. The only possible application of religion to science is in its use as a model of what not to do as a scientist. It demonstrates what happens to those who cannot think critically and do not apply the scientific method
- Crick’s “astonishing hypothesis is that, “A person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them." Crick proposes that the study of consciousness is now within the scientific realm and states that this may lead to the realization that, "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." I think that as we begin to study the brain we will see that we do not have souls, simply consciousness as a result of nerve cells firing away.
- William James viewed the varieties of religious experiences as a unique opportunity that could be utilized by psychologists to show use the normal processes of things and represent the closest thing to a microscope of the mind. James suggested that mystical and religious experiences only hold true for the person experiencing them and can hold no claim to truth for others without the personal experience. In his book, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature, James suggests that the academic study of religion has been largely neglected by science. In this book he first suggests that the study of the origin of religion should not hinder the study of the separate question of religion’s value itself. To study mystical experiences, James proposed that there are four criteria which an experience must meet in order for it to be called “mystical.” These criteria are the following: (1) it defies expression, (2) it is a “noetic quality”, (3) mystical states are transient, and (4) subjects are passive with respect to them. William James suggested that religious experiences are only true insofar as it works. For example, he suggest that the statement that “prayer is heard” may work on a psychological level but (a) will not actually help to bring about the things you pray for (b) may be better explained by referring to its soothing effect than by claiming prayers are actually heard. Ultimately, James suggested that the significance of religion and mystical experiences lies within the experience of the individual. He proposed to study religious experiences through what he termed “radical empiricism” which confined itself to only the facts of experience and demanded science not ignore any aspect of reality if it could, in fact, be experienced.
- In order to have a meaningful dialogue between religion and science, it is essential to recognize first the differences between each of them and how they work, etc. It is necessary to realize that science and religion occupy two different realms of thought and knowledge which may or may not be reconcilable. In order to have a more fruitful conversation between the two different realms, the limits of what such a discussion can resolve must be established beforehand. For example, it would be unrealistic to claim that these two fields of thought can ever be reconciled. However, it would be realistic to discuss how evolution may be taught in the classroom based on the two different viewpoints of these fields of thought. Therefore, guidelines as to what may be accomplished in such dialogues are necessary to establish before the discussions begin.
- I think the most interesting thing I learned in this class was how to think critically about the claims of both science and religion. My favorite film was the beyond belief conference film because the end was hilarious. Who doesn’t love to see a cat fight between well-respected scientists?
- Response to Beyond Belief Conference: Sir Harold Kroto’s Talk
While Sir Harold Kroto is not a particularly engaging speaker, he did have a few interesting bits of information (and strong opinions) which made up for this lack of enthusiasm. Overall, it seemed that the goal of his presentation was to encourage the audience to take a negative view of religion in general, and more specifically of the Templeton society; as well as presenting the merits of using the internet to teach science worldwide to children. Kroto strongly believes that religious dogma can be easily hard-wired in childhood, which is an opinion that Richard Dawkins also shares, and the best way to prevent this hard-wiring is to have children learn to think critically by teaching science at an early age. He describes the efforts of Global Education Outreach, an organization founded and run by him, to reach both young people and teachers through the internet. Primarily, he focuses on the supposed attempts of the Templeton society to blur the line between science and religion and claims that the Templeton foundation bribes scientists to lend credibility to their organization. The most interesting part of the talk is during the question and answer session during which a number of scientists get into practically a yelling match over the credibility of the Templeton society. I think it’s interesting that despite the fact that Kroto posted the following quote from Thomas Paine during his presentation, “He who denies to another this right (his own opinion) makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it”, Kroto in fact is strongly opinionated and one might even say a “slave” of this opinion. To be fair, Kroto admits that he might not be entirely right about the Templeton Society, but then seems to take back this statement several times. One member of the audience brings up the point that the Templeton society has published a study refuting the power of prayer in healing and Kroto seems unable to address this fact. At least we know that Kroto follows the advice of Dante, which he also quoted during the presentation, “The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who, faced with a moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” The scientists will certainly not be described as neutral in their opinions.
