Final Term

Definitely won't be as hilarious/useless this time. No cats sorry.

Sean Flanagan
lolphilosophy.blogspot.com
Attendance: Missed two classes
Posts: you're looking at them

1. Yes. All of the pages for The Language of God and The God Delusion, and the first 30 or so pages for Rational Mysticism.
2. My favorite book was God Delusion because it is an entertaining read and has several good points.
3. Nietzsche's transvaluation of values basically states that all "morality" is subjective and that a law of morals is created not necessarily because it is "good" or "moral", but because someone will gain a benefit from that law's creation. Moral laws are flipped on their heads and are shown to be something far, far different than most people expect. For a great example, check out this film:



3a. Nietzsche is so critical of Christianity and its moral system which he called "contempt of man." Christianity in his eyes inverted so many laws of natural law. For example, upholding chastity and degrading sex, the very thing where human life comes from. Also, eschewing this life and focusing on the afterlife. In these among several other examples Christianity has turned the world of "morals" completely upside-down according to Nietzsche.

4. One thing some people believe to be incredibly "moral" would be martyrdom in the name of God. Nietzsche would argue that this is silly; the person is not dying for "God", he/she is dying for the ends of another person in charge. In essence, he/she is being used. Nietzsche would say that this is the only thing we know for certain we have, so wasting it on shaky promises of eternal life is incredibly perverse and flips natural law on its head.

5. From the words of Bertrand Russell: "Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes....A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men."

Russell is not a Christian because he believes that Christianity is a major obstructive force in moral progress. He notes something very interesting: He states that Jesus is evil, because he preached about the concept of hell and eternal damnation. Russell said that the belief in things like this was beyond immoral.

9. Science, although being the product of human discovery and innovation, has to be constantly analyzed and re-checked throughout the ages. Feynman would argue that all too often a "scientific" discovery is mere pseudoscience and its persistence in modern thought in ivory towers is more akin to religious canon/ignorance than to pure scientific thought which is supposed to be free to open reason and constant reevaluation. The pseudoscience often lacks enough hard evidence to back up its claims and instead relies on rhetoric or wild speculation to promote its ideas, which is beyond unforgivable in Feynman's eyes.

10. Feynman would critique the intelligent design, in my opinion, by using two main points: a) the lack of hard evidence, and b) the lack of experimentation possible in relation to intelligent design. Intelligent as far I understand it is the mindset that evolution and the destiny of all life on Earth (including sentient human beings) was planned out and guided carefully by a omniscient and omnipotent Creator. There is little to no way to experiment scientifically with this theory and thus Feynman would label it as "pseudoscience". And obviously, there is little to no hard evidence for the metaphysical guiding hand of all life on this planet. The "beauty" and "apparent structure" of all we see today is better explained by theories involving large permutations of numbers and natural selection.

11. Honestly, I think the main reason (as convincing and empirical I consider many of their arguments to be) that these authors are attracted to non belief stems from psychological roots. It's empowering to convince yourself that you are separate, or "free" from the rest of the "sheep" who are so "deluded" in their ways. The idea of a religious superpower in the sky may irritate these thinkers deeply because of their notion of a mind free from otherworldly forces and constrictions.

12. As discussed in class a couple weeks ago, religious people need to start doubting more. In order to believe more, you must doubt more. It sounds a little ridiculous superficially, but it makes plenty of sense. Most religious people did not choose their religion at birth. It is simply a caste that they are born into. I'm not saying that everyone who is religious is deluded and follows his or her religion blindly. Honestly though, most "religious" people today are religious simply because it feels good to think that there is more to life than just "three pounds of glorious meat". I highly doubt that most people truly believe without a shadow of doubt all the dogma of their particular faiths. But to those who have doubted themselves, doubted their religions, maybe even left them to discover more, some of these people come back to their old faiths with greater understanding, a new appreciation, and even stronger faith. Religion in the new world will need less brain-washing, less "la la la I can't hear you" (with the hands over the ears) and more understanding of the natural scientific world. Thus they can view their religion in a new light, though not always negatively, and apply it to a better balance of scientific/spiritual existence.

14. The main reason that certain fundamentalists have problems with evolution stems from the very axis of their existence/sustainment. Religions, by their very nature, must have an authority source(s) in order to regulate religious dogma/doctrine and make sure their followers are pleased/actively participating in the religious group. In the example of Christianity, Darwinian evolution seems to trump several Christian beliefs handed down from old biblical scripture. Roman Catholics have a way around it however. The authority source in Catholicism is not necessarily the bible, but the papacy. When the pope (who is in the direct line of Peter) comes out and proclaims that evolution works within the religious throes of Catholicism, the religion is saved. Meanwhile, fundamentalist protestant groups can't and mustn't accept most ideas of evolution because it contradicts several literal passages in the bible, and because this book is the main authority source of their religious belief, it is perfectly natural for them to reject evolution on a fundamental level.

15. In my opinion, science can help religion in a way similar to my notion above of having stronger doubt in order to create stronger belief. If the religious person is keeping a open mind, it allows his/her religious beliefs to be "purer" and more infused with reason and understanding, rather than a person who will never read a Stephen Hawking book because "it's the devil's work!"

16. In my opinion, religion can help science by making most hardcore, "scientific free-thinkers" to realize that there is a great deal of mystery in the universe and that we will most likely never discover all there is to know. In fact, the more most educated people attempt to learn about the world, the more confused and "unknowing" you become. When you get your questions answered, it just leaves you with more questions. Religion can help science in seeing that perhaps the unknown is to be respected and mystified in order to prevent us from becoming naturalistic robots, and that having complete fool-hardy proof for everything is besides the point of having "faith" in anything beyond your realm of understanding.

20. Basically, the notion of the "watchmaker" is ridiculous to Wolfram. There need be no watchmaker at all! His argument is that inherent complex systems or structures can arise from mere probability, or in essence, a simpler beginning. The traditional viewpoint is that in order to have something complex, something even more complex must have spawned it. But through large probabilities of numbers and events throughout time, and the meticulous workings of natural selection, the "complex" is simply a result of an algorithm given enough time. The watch was millions of years of randomness eventually becoming lucky, and we stare at its "complexity" and wonder who or what made it. A critic of Wolfram might argue that even with the theory of large numbers and the probability made possible over a large or infinite period of time, it is a natural occurring event and thus not complete chance. Henceforth the watchmaker could using probability as his tool to make the final product.

21. Socrates often talked about ideas way ahead of his time. Even in a world without the internet or instant communication, Socrates knew all about information overload. In the current impasse between science and religion lies this overload and the millions of "junk" ideas that float around our world. Both religion and science are fighting over ideas and both empirical and rhetorical language. Socrates taught: "A fool believes himself to be wise, a wise man knows himself to be a fool." In the current overload, one needs to analyze his own life values and wade through all the chaff. We need to understand that we are all idiots; Nietzsche was an idiot, I'm an idiot, and your teacher is an idiot. Doing this allows us to think more more rationally and be able to cut through the useless information. It would also allow for more honest and appropriate discussions between religion and science, since it would be from a clean slate.

22. Consciousness, as several people have put it, is the last "mystery" of the natural world. As it stands, religion has a stranglehold on the "seat of the soul" and is holding on to it dearly. As we get nearer to the future, I feel that science will be able to define human consciousness in completely physical terms (meaning: a brain and all that defines a person's sentience could be reproduced by machine parts). I don't believe that this will destroy the God hypothesis because we have all seen the resistance of organized religion in the past to similar scientific revelations. One could argue that higher states of consciousness, such as a supposed metaphysical "afterlife", is beyond physical limitations and that a higher power could be working through this supposed "natural" system of neurons in our heads.

26. When Francis Crick is making speculation about something too metaphysical as a soul, so we can't necessarily make scientific claims about it. Whether we will find the soul or not is not a matter of science in my opinion; not that the thing doesn't exist, because I have no idea. But the fact of the matter is that the notion of a "soul" resides in a realm of ideas that is swamped with speculation, theories, and not enough hard evidence.

27. William James states that the nature of religious experiences comes from the direct experience itself, or rather, the experience should be studied more than the institutions or "sacred halls" of the religion itself. Psychology should also be a strong factor in analyzing the experiences one has with religion. But most importantly, he believes that religious experiences are still beyond the scope of scientific explanation, but that there is some sort of force guiding them. Just as a liver operates either under healthy or sickly conditions and has direct effects on one's physical state, there could be a thing that effects our "spiritual side".

29. In my opinion, the most fruitful way for civil discussion is to understand where the other party is coming from. It sounds simple, but hell, if everyone did this, we probably wouldn't have so many wars throughout history! I'm not stating that it's impossible to rectify the situation, but history tends to repeat itself and most people love to act the same way they always have. I would suggest that each party viewpoint bring forth his/her goals, experiences, reasons. This would aid with helping others to see their take on the world. All of this would be done without resorting to accusations or slander of the other's view.

Although I think the debates can certainly be more civil, and that science and religion can be peaceful on some terms, I agree with the teacher in one of his earlier lectures: science and religion cannot fundamentally ultimately get along because they are both fighting over the same space: the intellectual/worldview real estate of each and every human's brain. And that, sadly enough, must result in conflict.

31. As stated before in an earlier post, I think Nietzsche's myth of eternal return is an amazing idea and always inspires me to create a better life for myself. A more detailed explanation of the idea can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return#Friedrich_Nietzsche