Final

1. Be sure to place your entire FINAL on your website and when you
are finished send a link of your
test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@... (don't send
it to any other email address, except that)
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other
authors please be sure to
quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be
tolerated and you will receive
an F automatically for the examination.
3. The test is due NO LATER than OCTOBER 18TH at midnite.
3a. Each answer should be at least two paragraphs long, if not much
longer.
3b. What grade do you deserve and why?

On the final? I would say an A. Overall in the class, probably a B. This is because I didn’t focus on the readings as much as I should have, they were a little boring for me. Also, somtimes my posts were simple and boring as well. But I put a lot of work into the final.
----------------------------------

4. What is your real name?
Sean Henning

5. What is your user name?
sh_sport

5a. What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revised
midterm grade? Provide a LINK to your midterm.

I don’t know my midterm grade, you never gave it to me.

6. What is your email address that you use for this class?

sh_sport@yahoo.com

7. Name and address for your website.

http://shsport.blogspot.com/

8. Have you done all the reading for the entire class?

Yes.

9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?

Yes.

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

Fundamentalism is a mental disease:
I actually liked this video, mainly because I could understand it, lol. I'm still not sure what I think about being able to be an evolutionist and a Christian, but either way, the points were validated. It is hard to see how you can believe in both and still believe in Creationism. But I don't believe that every unit of time in the Bible is exact. For instance, I don't think that a day in creation is 24 hours, but some much longer period of time. I can see animals being put on this earth, and then adapting according to different environments, and changing certain characteristics about them, and having changes in DNA. But I don't believe that we evolved from monkeys, that's for sure.

Truth lies:
Interesting video, some thoughts I guess I haven't pondered in a while. I agree that humans most likely would make up some sort of God, in order to have purpose in life, and to make sense of creation and our meaning. But at the same time, I am still a Christian, and I do believe in faith, and just trusting that something is there, not needing to prove its truth scientifically. I hope that as the older I get, the deeper the thoughts I have are, due to the size of my cerebral cortex, haha. That would be awesome, because I don't really think too many deep thoughts these days.

Things that jiggle:
Interesting, and weird at the same time. The thing that I did like about the video is that it makes a good point for philosophers. Even with all of our knowledge of physics, we can't know everything, and we will never know exactly how we have life. We know that atoms combined with four forces are important, but not all the intermediary steps. The video needed to be more explanatory though. I'm getting tired of all these random clips and words popping up. It's freaking me out.

Inflationary theory:
Very interesting, I had never heard of this. I never thought that the world could still be expanding, but the evidence definitely makes sense. Its funny how much Albert Einstein was opposed to this at first, but then eventually gave into reason and accepted that he was wrong.
The question I have is, can the earth ever reach a point where it cannot expand anymore? Is this even possible, or will it keep expanding indefinitely? I mean, it has to run out of room to grow eventually right?

Socrates:
After reading his apology, it really makes me thankful that I can live in a world where I don't really have to worry about being put on trial for my own personal beliefs. I like the fact that he stuck to his guns, and didn't give in to the demands of the government. He believed in what he thought to be right. A lot of this writing was very difficult to read, the words were confusing. And it was LONG. So parts were definitely skimmed. But all in all, I admire his heart and steadfast belief in what he holds true.

Wilson:
I like what Wilson has to say. It doesn't really matter if he's a Christian or not, the great thing is that he is appealing to his fellow man for help in saving the earth. There is so much separation between the two parties, science and Christianity, and in reality, you can be both.
I really appreciated how he respected a Christian's devotion and emotion that they put into what they do. That's why he thought it was so necessary for evangelicals to hop on board his idea.

Lisa Randall:
Very interesting what she has to say about dimensions. I had never even known that there were four! Let alone maybe more. I like her comment that we might just not be physiologically designed to recognize all of the dimensions, we are not able to picture them, but that at some point, we may be able to identify them through experimentation. Her example of the sphere was very good, because I definitely can't picture a 4-D sphere! Crazy to think that gravity could be stronger in a different dimension. This proves Cusa's point correctly that we really know nothing! I wonder how many different dimensions there could be?

Nicholas of Cusa:
Haha, this was a great video. A little difficult to understand at times, but the message rang clear to me: we really don't know anything. I do agree with this to an extent. While it is true that a lot of the things we say we believe in can have a lot of holes in their credibility, a lot of different smaller facts that might not be true. I still believe that a lot of the things that I "know" are definitely true. For instance, I know that my heart is beating right now. And I know that blood is being pumped throughout my body, and that is bringing me oxygen and nutrients. I also know that I like women. I KNOW this. Now this last one is a little bit more difficult to believe, but I know that there is a God. I don't need to see him, or to prove his existence through science. Quite frankly, I can't. But I can feel Him, and I can feel His love, and the way He directs my life. And I know that it is real, even with out the physical proof.

Who are you?:
Well I didn't particularly like the film, but I did like the quote by Jean Paul Sartre about how we have everything figured out except for how to live. This is pretty basic, but yet so true. Once I think I know what is going on in this life and that I have a handle on everything, my world is shaken and I all of a sudden don't know anything.
I can't even begin to count how many times I have decided to choose one philosophical outlook on life, to stick with it, and then things in my life change, and I choose to adapt to a completely different one. So I've come to the realization that I don't in fact know anything, since I always seem to be wrong.
Fukuyama:
Fukuyama was kind of boring to me. I like the fact that he is hopeful, and does see history as having a direction toward good. I think he pointed out that at one point, we were more of a socialist/communist society, and now we are moving toward more of a liberal democracy, which is good. He believes that history has a direction, and it is generally toward the good.
He also pointed out that to have a true end of history you must have:
The end of human nature
An end of science, because science constantly changes the environment that people have to adapt to
This is a very good point, because science pretty much dictates our lifestyles these days.

The existence of God:
I love how Griesemer, Lloyd, McCann, and Pippin kind of dodge the question on whether or not God exists. You either believe in Him, or you don't. I also like what Dumont had to say about belief in science and religion when he said that they are both a faith in the unknown. As a science major, I agree with this statement, because there are so many things science-related that we don't understand but are forced to believe in. Such as the human brain. We know it works, and we know most of the parts that make it up, yet we still don't know exactly how it works, but it obviously works.

In response to the Socratic Universe:
Well as a devout believer in Jesus Christ, I would love to comment on this. The problem with what these philosophers are trying to say is that its not always about proving something. Sometimes its just about belief. People are always trying to explain everything, and have a fear of just trusting that it is there, without explanation. We don't like to think that we can't explain something that we believe in, but sometimes, thats just the case. For me, the proof is in my life, and the amazing things that I have been blessed with. The proof is also in the things that surround me: nature, friends, loved ones, etc. To me, that is God and His love that He has for me. There are also times when I feel His presence and know that He is real. So as a Christian, I have come to the understanding that not everything in this life needs to be explained. Sometimes they just need to be accepted.

Huxley 2:
Gosh, I totally agree. This film was all over the place. The ideas and concepts were buried in crazy photo shots and random clips that I didn't understand. I did think Huxley's outlook on pharmacology was interesting. Especially how he thinks that eventually they will find a better substitute for alcohol. As if we need one, haha. But interesting nonetheless. And who the heck is that black guy? Who is he supposed to be? Huxley? I didn't understand that. I think I need to read more on Huxley from another source, since this video didn't really explain him and his ideas.

Huxley:
I really liked the quote Huxley made about man trying to do everything, and that we can never do enough. I've noticed that it's so easy to feel in this life that we need to focus our energy on just a couple of things, such as a job and family, and we forget that there are so many options. I think we should constantly be exploring all of them.


Gandhi
What an amazing man! I have actually stood next to a statue of him in Uganda. He is such a patient man, I could never imagine resorting to non-violence for every altercation I go through for the rest of my life. It takes so long and its such a process, but I guess the end result is worth the wait. He totally mastered it. We live in a society that wants everything done and finished as fast as possible, including altercations. To have the patience to do something like that, and to be so successful, is amazing.


Harris

I actually liked what he had to say. Unfortunately. I would have like to say that his points were weak and had no evidence, but unfortunately, they are true. We often abuse our faith as Christians, and use it for our own selfish gain. We are hypocritical, and this turns so many people off to our religion. If you want to tell everyone that this is the way they should be acting, then you had better be doing the same, or else you look really stupid. It's one thing to slip up, we all make mistakes, but admitting them, and learning from them is the key, otherwise you will only be drawing negativity to your faith.

Rebuttal to Harris argument

I disagree with you man. First of all, I don't believe that everything in the Bible should be taken literally. Too many things, especially in the Old Testament, are based on that period of time, and therefore don't really apply to us anymore. During that period of time, it was customary, and that was when much was getting written. Then it just got passed down and transcribed from generation to generation. The ideas and main concepts are what we should be taking literally. And I also disagree with you on the statement about the Philippians passage. I do believe that passage should be taken literally. I do believe that I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. If there is something that I am wanting to accomplish, and I pray about it and feel that God is wanting me to pursue it, I will be successful, because of my commitment to reaching my goal and pleasing God at the same time.

Russell

Bertrand Russell says that man is free "to examine, to criticize, to
know, and in imagination to create." Man is free to do this and yet at
the end when death comes none of it matters, nothing that he has
accumulated or learned is important. He is powerless in an imperfect
world. We often worry about have much we have and what will happen to
it when we are gone, but our time will have run out and the decisions
that we worry about so much will be answered by someone else who will
think that this is all so important.

Personal thoughts on Dennett

You know, as a Christian I feel as though it is a challenge when I meet someone who is an atheist. I don't condemn them for it, however if they ask me where they are going, I will tell them. But I see it as a challenge to at some point share with them the love of Christ, whether it be through actions or words. I don't look at Dennett as a rival, as someone whom I am against, I just see him as another lost soul who needs saving, and I hope that some day he meets a Christian that is able to change his world for the better.

Daniel Dennett

This film was interesting to watch as a Christian. Dennett definitely does not believe in God. But the thing I did appreciate about him is that he isn't an atheist that tries to convince others that he is right and they are believing in something that cannot be proven. He does say that there is no way to prove a God, and that any other type of paranormal activity is bogus. He is very passionate about what he believes in, which I guess is a commendable quality. He does refer to himself as a bright, which is someone who doesn't believe in any supernatural explanations.

Pinker

Pinker talks about artificial intelligence and kinship, and I actually really enjoyed his interview. I think his goal is to understand the brain and all its complexities. He believes that the brain is a product of natural selection. This I can agree with to an extent. I definitely believe that our brains do develop over time, from generation to generation, and that the level of intelligence in the 21st century is much higher than, say, the 18th, but at the same time, everything we develop these days is based off of previously determined knowledge that men before us have discovered. If it weren't for them, who knows if computers would be around today? Some of their inventions were the biggest EVER, even compared to today's society. Bigger than going to the moon in my opinion! Like gravity and other simple laws of physics, the telephone, or even the car.

Ponderings on Cusa

I think it is silly of Nicholas of Cusa to think that we don't know anything. How can you say that? How can I say that? Especially as I am typing on my laptop, an amazing piece of technology that allows me to connect with the entire world through email. This involves A LOT of knowledge. Now it would be ignorant for anyone to say that they had all knowledge, but we all have some. The truth is, there is so much out there to learn, it is impossible to ever know it all. But that is also what is so great about life. Who would want to know everything? Then what would be the point of living if nothing was new?

Cusa

I think Cusa is telling us that we don't know what we thing we do. He is trying to relate this to questions such as whether or not there is a God, where life began, what is our purpose, and so on. The only thing we can say for certain that we know is that we know absolutely nothing. Cusa said that true wisdom lies in recognizing human ignorance. The only way to really know God is through intuition, not through the mind. I do agree with him on this. What I am not sure I agree on is him wanting us to know and understand that God does exist, but He is incomprehensible to us.

My own personal Zahir

The crazy thing is, I have actually just recently been at this point. Maybe a couple of months ago, all I could think of was my ex-girlfriend, and that was it. She was my Zahir. That was the only thing on my mind for a good 2 months. And the funny thing is, God wasn't really visible to me during this time. I would try to ready my Bible, but it just wasn't happening. I couldn't focus in prayer, nothing was working. Finally, over time, as she slowly escapes my mind, am I able to fully concentrate on my God and what I have to say to Him. It is amazing how focus on one thing can completely divert our attention from another.

Zahir

So I guess the whole message behind this video is that if we are able to look past the things in life that are constantly overwhelming us and occupying our minds, if we are able to push those things aside, we will see God. This can be anything too, whether it be money, school, a job, or even running in my case. We are worshiping things in a sense, and this is exactly the type of thing that God doesn't want us doing. Worshiping foreign objects, such as a Zahir, and thinking about it all the time. God will only be completely visible to us when we push all hindrances aside and focus on Him and his beauty.

Chand

I thought it was interesting that Chand's captain immediately believed him when he said that his guru told him not to fire because they were just picking up their dead. What kind of a captain is that?!?! To not question that, and to base such a strong decision that holds so many other soldier's lives at stake is ridiculous, even if I DO believe his decision was correct. I also find it interesting that men seemed to flock to him afterwards. It was only one small vision he had, and he had a 50/50 shot at being right! But I guess in a different culture, a vision might mean more so some people.

Posted by sh_sport at 12:28 AM 0 comments

Running trains

Interesting movie. But I liked the overall idea behind it. Or at least what I got out of it. God can appear to us in mysterious, and sometimes even weird, ways. I think sometimes He bases it off of what will be easiest for us to recognize, and other times what we will get the most out of. In this case, it seemed to be what Chand would recognize the easiest, which would be his Guru. I have had God appear to me in weird ways as well. I have been on a run and felt Him tell me something through the nature and beauty that surround me. I have also gone through a REALLY tough breakup, and found that He had a message for me through that too. He keeps it fun, I guess you could say.

Nietzche

This movie was kinda creepy, as always, but the overall idea was interesting. First of all, there is no such thing as reincarnation. It doesn't even make sense. How could we possibly be born again? It makes no sense whatsoever. Secondly, how could we ever life the exact same life over and over again, when the world is constantly changing? Things would be different when we were born again, and therefore couldn't be the exact same. If you were living in the 1920's as a teenager, you probably wouldn't have a car, because it was the depression and there was no way a 16 year old or his parents could afford a car. If you were living in the year 2007 as a 16 year old, you would most likely own a car.



Eternal recurrence

Nietzche proposes an interesting idea. Definitely one to ponder. I know that living the same life over and over again is a myth, but it makes me wonder whether or not I would want this. On the one hand, it would be nice to be living again, to experience life again, and to go through some of the great experiences that I have gone through. On the other hand, I have had some bad experiences, and I don't know if I would want to go through them again. And the other thing that would be an issue is whether or not I would have knowledge of already having led this life. If so, then it would be torture to have to go through it again, and actually quite impossible, because then I would intentionally do things differently just to make sure I didn't live the same life. All in all, even though it is a myth, I definitely wouldn't want to go through the same life again.

Homosexuality over the years

I do find it interesting how in the beginning of the film Flame On, it shows how homosexuality used to be viewed in the early 20th century. Amazing. Times have really changed. To think that they used to look down upon men being half naked in the movies and in magazines because guys might start to think about the idea? Amazing. Times have definitely changed, because now we see naked men all the time, and the topic never really comes up. I guess it will get a little better as the years go on, since it is still looked down upon by overall society, but I don't think it will ever be completely accepted. At least not as long as Christians are around. I happen to be one of them.

Flame on!

Haha, hilarious video, my favorite yet. At first, you think it is an entire movie about homosexuality and how it is looked down upon by society. Then you realize that the true meaning is that some things seem like a bad thing at first, but over time end up being really good things. I guess this is true, although somethings are bad and they always stay bad. I believe that homosexuality is gradually becoming more and more accepted by society, but I still think of it as morally wrong, and a sin. But that's my Christian point of view. That won't ever change for me, and it shouldn't really change for Christians over time. Our beliefs won't change, so how can our views on homosexuality? I am tolerant, but not embracing of the idea. But either way, the video was good, easy to watch and understand.

More on the guy

I liked what Edelman had to say about Darwin robots, and how they took on certain tasks, and no two robots did anything the same, even though they were identical. It was pretty cool how they could play a really basic form of soccer as well.
I enjoyed his description of human perception and our memory. He seems to believe that every perception that we have is an active creation and every active memory that we have is really an active imagination, which is crazy to think. It seems like our perceptions create a picture of the world that is unique to each and every one of us, and the memories that we have are unique only to us as well. The mind is truly an amazing creation by God.


Edelman

Gerald Edelman, is a very fascinating man, but can be very confusing at times if you are not a science major. Luckily I am. Parts of it were still difficult to follow. I appreciated his description of how he viewed the mind. He doesn't see it as a computer, but more of a jungle. He believes that it has structure, but also a lot of variability as the individuality of everyone's brain demonstrates so well. He gives a great description of the individuality that people possess, even if there is still similarities between the structure of one's brain with another.

Piece of meat

This video is pretty much what we have already been reading about. The idea that neurons actually make up our true conscience. Again, I don't really believe this, I believe that I have a choice in what my body is going to do, and I don't always have to give into what it may physiologically want. But I guess one can also say that that is a matter of my body choosing this for me as well. But as a Christian, we have this belief that the body is only an earthly thing, and that our souls are truly who we are. I guess this is what I believe, as much as I love my body and believe it to be who I really am.

Vegetarians vs. Christianity

Well, because I am a Christian, I believe that humans are superior to animals, we are not equals. We are called to be humane toward animals and to treat them with respect since they are part of God's creation, but at the same time, they are here on earth for our use. And part of that use is nutritional. If animals weren't killed, we would have cows, chickens, and turkeys running rampant on the streets! We not only need to eat them for our own health, but also to keep a balance of animals on this planet. I do think there are humane ways to kill an animal, and I don't think we should do it just for fun, there should be purpose to it. But we are way more intelligent and are in no way equal to them.

Why I don't eat faces

Well, this is a stupid argument. First of all, in MY opinion, this article doesn't give nearly enough evidence to support its ideas. Transhuman? That doesn't even make sense, it sounds like the author just made that up. I don't like the idea about vegetarianism being healthier than a diet with meat. If a vegetarian wants to get enough protein in their diet, they have to go to a lot more trouble to find the right vegetables to supplement meat, because the amino acids have to be there in their full shape. If not, then it is pointless. How much easier is it to just eat a piece of chicken and knock out your protein requirements for the day?

More on Searle's consciousness

I really like his take on what consciousness is. He describes it very well, and sets the boundaries for it as well. I've never really had it broken down like that before. I especially liked the point about unity, because how can one say that they are truly in a state of consciousness if they can't remember the previous statement they made? Or even the beginning of that sentence? Basically, just being ALIVE doesn't count as being conscious in his definition, because neurons aren't really firing, thoughts aren't being processed, moods aren't being associated with different states, ideas aren't intentional, and so on.

Consciousness?

I liked the fact that Searle explains what kind of consciousness he is talking about. That definitely makes a big difference in understanding the rest of his article. Consciousness isn't just being alive, but being able to sense things, to recognize yourself existing in life. I'm glad that he explained this first, because I would have been confused for the rest of the article had he not.

Crick continued......

I agree with this post because Crick is automatically eliminating the possibility of something not being real just because it can't be explained scientifically. Unfortunately, a lot of things in this world can't be proven, but we still believe in them regardless. I don't necessarily need proof that I have a soul, can't I just believe I have one?
And as far as cruelty to animals goes, I do believe that animals were put here on earth for a purpose, and I do believe that humans were put on earth to rule over animals. I think that animals are here for our use, and that may mean testing to find out things that could help the quality of human life. But as stewards of this earth, it is our job to treat all animals with respect and dignity. In layman's terms, it is okay to eat them and test with them, but do it respectfully!

Crick

Well, I don't believe in Crick's argument that we do not have souls, and that humans don't have a conscience. I am a Christain, and therefore believe that I have a soul, I make decisions based on my concience and my set of moral beliefs, and these don't necessarily have to do with neurons. I do, however, as a science major, believe that these beliefs and values that I have, some part of my conscience, are stored in my brain in different sections according to what type of memory they are. Our memory is made up of cell bodies, which can contain some level of conscience. And the decisions I decide to make based on these are carried out by neurons. At the same time, though, I do believe that as a Christian, my soul is a separate part entirely.

11. Why does Steven Pinker believe that evolution is important in
understanding human behavior? Be specific in your answer.

Pinker believes evolution is important in studying human nature because the brain is the result of natural selection, a part of evolution. We are also getting to the point where we are reaching the limitations of our own minds, they have already evolved so much. But we also have to recognize that our souls have a play in our decisions, not just our brains. He used an example of a parent going back into a burning house to save a child, a selfless act. Even though our brains have evolved over time to the point where we should be able to recognize that the best thing for self preservation would be to stay out of the building, we go in anyways.

12. In addition, why is the theory of evolution helpful in doing
philosophy?

The theory of evolution is helpful in doing philosophy because it allows us to recognize that our brains have become more knowledgeable over time, and this has allowed us to understand things about that world that we might not have 1000 years ago. The big bang theory is a prime example, or even Cusa’s point of learned ignorance. These are things that over time, we have been able to recognize thanks to the evolution of the brain. Knowing the theory of evolution helps us to prepare for future realizations we may come to learn about life.

13. Explain why Francis Crick does NOT believe in a soul.

Francis Crick doesn’t believe in a soul because it can’t be proven scientifically. He believes that it is simply a bunch of neurons that make these ethical decisions, and not some “conscience” that just happens to exist with no scientific evidence of existence.

14. What are some of the major issues behind a neuro-ethical
argument for vegetarianism? What are its strengths? What are its
weaknesses?

Some of the arguments behind a neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism are that it is healthier, economically beneficial, and by doing it we aren’t torturing animals. The article talks about animals going through a lot of pain because they also have a central nervous system, just like we do. The article also talked about transhumans vs. humans, and how this is similar to humans vs. animals.
I think most of the article was weak only because it didn’t really compare it to the other side, being a carnivore. Yes, killing an animal can be mean and cruel and painful, but there are pain free ways to do it. Also, being a carnivore isn’t necessarily more expensive than being a vegetarian, so that argument was weak. And as far as being more healthy for you, I totally disagree. It is a lot easier to get the amount of protein you need in your diet from meat than from plants.

15. How do John Searle's views differ from Ken Wilber's? Who do you
find more persuasive and why?

John Searle believes that consciousness is not the same as attentiveness or self-consciousness. He also believes that lower level neuronal processes cause consciousness, which are simply a higher level part of the system that is made up of the lower level neuronal elements. He knows that brain processes cause consciousness, but he can’t explain how. Another important point of his is that consciousness extends over more than just an instant, but for a period of time. For example, if you are talking, you have to remember how you started the sentence in order to finish it. States of consciousness are usually intentional, somehow based on something going on in the world. Also, states of consciousness are going to have a particular mood attached to them, and surrounding things have to seem familiar to us in these states. This proves that we were conscious at previous times, because we remember objects.
Wilber really breaks down consciousness into all of the different views of it based on different theories, anywhere from cognitive science to social psychology. Then he talks about his four corners of the Kosmos which break down the different types of existence, which he categorizes as intentional, behavioural, cultural, and social. Each quadrant represents a different type of ‘language’, so to speak. Each quadrant also has a spectrum of consciousness, so he believes there are also different levels.
I find Searle more persuasive just because he seems to break down consciousness into a more precise form, and he doesn’t really have different quadrants of it. There is only one type of consciousness, which makes the rest of his argument much more valid as opposed to making the idea of consciousness very broad. Unfortunately, he doesn’t really explain his believe in higher levels of neuron processes making up consciousness, but I still liked his argument better.

16. What is the theme behind the little movie, a GLORIOUS PIECE OF
MEAT? How would a religious person argue against it?

The theme of this movie is whether or not we control our consciousness. We would like to think we do, but is it just neurons firing that is allowing us to think that we are controlling our consciousness? As a religious person, I would argue that we do have a soul, and we do have a conscience, and these things allow us to make certain decisions based on what we believe to be morally right or wrong. For example, I don’t always just do something that I really want to do, sometimes my conscience tells me that I need to show self restraint. My body might desire something physiologically, but I don’t give in because of my conscience, and my morals and beliefs which make up my soul. As a Christian, I believe that my body is only an earthly representation of me, and the true me is my soul.

17. Why is Sam Harris so critical of religion? Give his strongest
arguments and where do you think his argument fails? Or, if it
doesn't fail, where does it succeed?

Sam Harris is totally against religion. Some of his strongest arguments are that he believes that our country is becoming really ignorant and believing in anything these days, people often use the Bible as leverage to get what they want, religion is often used to gain political power, and the fact that you could go through the Bible and find some passage supporting whatever you want, or not supporting something that you are against. These were the main arguments that I found, and I actually believe his argument to be successful, unfortunately. As Christians, we often give OURSELVES a bad name by doing these things and being so hypocritical. I think he succeeds in pointing out our total misuse of our faith and using it to fulfill our own selfish needs.

18. Explain the essence of Nietzsche's genealogy of morals. You can
outline your answer here.

The main essence of this is that we are ignorant about ourselves and don’t even know who we are.

19. Why does Gandhi believe in ahimsa?

Gandhi believes in ahimsa because "Nonviolence affords the fullest
protection to one's self-respect and sense of honor, but not always
to possession of land or movable property, though its habitual
practice does prove a better bulwark than the possession of armed
men to defend them. Nonviolence, in the very nature of things, is of
no assistance in the defense of ill-gotten gains and immoral acts." He believes it’s a more powerful weapon than the biggest gun or largest army. He also violence as a clumsy weapon that created mor problems than it solved, and it also left a trail of hatred and bitterness that most likely couldn’t be reconciled.

20. What is Nietzche's notion of the myth of eternal recurrence? Be
sure to use the film as your guide.

Nietzche’s notion of the myth of eternal recurrence is the idea of having to live our lives over and over again, and going through the same things again and again. Of course, this is a myth. I wouldn’t mind this so much if I didn’t have any memory of already living the life.

21. What is the ironic theme in the movie Flame On? Hint: what is
the movie REALLY trying to say?

The true theme of the movie Flame On is that something that is considered wrong in society right now could turn out to be right in the future. There are ideas that seem morally wrong in our culture today, something that brings guilt to some people, something that may make someone feel ashamed about because of the public’s negative view of it. These things may in the future be revered by society and seen as a very good thing. Who knows, maybe homosexuality in the future will be seen as a really good thing, even though it isn’t right now. That would be ironic.

22. Why does Daniel Dennett favor calling himself a bright ?

Daniel Dennett calls himself a bright because he rejects supernatural explanations. They most likely don’t believe in God, and toss out the notion of life after death, ghosts, and any other paranormal activities that cannot be explained by science.

23. Outline Bertrand Russell's a FREE MAN'S WORSHIP.

This essay deals mainly with religion and we created God just from the idea of worshiping him. So man created God. The essay has a lot of different metaphors, and it talks about how a man worships God, and all of the moralities that follow. I think Russell wanted us to understand that we created God to outline our rights and wrongs. He believes that we are only here for a short time, so we should enjoy all of the little things in life, and not worry about what is going to happen to us afterwards. Obviously I disagree.

24. What is the overall theme of the movie INNER VISIONS AND RUNNING
TRAINS?

The overall theme seems to be that our minds can play tricks on us and convince us of something that didn’t really happen. In this instance, Chand originally thought he saw his guru, when in fact it might have just been a way for God to relay His message. Sometimes God chooses unexpected pathways to reach us, ways that we might relate to easily.

25. What does Nicholas of Cusa mean by learned ignorance ? What are
its implications for your own life?

“Learned ignorance” to Cusa means that all the knowledge we apparently take in only
contributes to the fact that we will only know even more that we know absolutely nothing.
Its implications in my life are pretty weak, because I know that I have some knowledge. If it teaches me anything, it is that the knowledge I have doesn’t even touch the amount there is to learn in this world. The room for intellectual growth is astounding.

26. What does Gerald Edelman mean by Neural Darwinism and Second
Nature?

Neural Darwinism means that as we go through life and have new experiences, our brain adapts to what are surrounded by. In other words, our brain, more specifically the neurons, will grow based off of what we are learning. This way, some task that we have to do several times will get easier as we go along, just because our brain has adapted to the idea. But if we don’t do the task for a while, we will lose some of our ability because it has been a while since we have done it, and neurons die all the time. So we would have to build up that area of the brain again, and adapt ourselves to performing the task again. By adapting our minds to certain tasks and creating new neurons that enable us to do them easier, we making them Second Nature.

27. Why turn vegetarian?---according to the film you saw. What
arguments are there against vegetarianism? You may need to do a
google search here.

One argument is that we are killing animals that have a central nervous system and can feel pain just like we can. Another is that it isn’t right to take the life of a living creature. The way animals are killed these days is like torturing them. It is healthier to eat a vegetarian diet. These are all some of the basic arguments for not eating meat.

28. What was the turning point in Ramana Maharshi's life?

The turning point in Ramana Maharshi’s life was at the age of 16. He was alone in his uncle’s house, in perfect health, and all of a sudden he had this fear of death. He wasn’t afraid, but just asked himself what this concept meant. He put himself in a position that he felt represented death, so he laid down and made himself look like a corpse. He thought his body was dead, but at the same time, his spirit was still there and separate from his body. This was a big turning point, because he learned that the spirit can transcend the body.

29. What was your favorite expert film lecture this term?

Owen Gingerich.

30. What was your favorite movie this term?

Flame On.

31. What was your favorite reading?

The Astonishing Hypothesis, Francis Crick.

32. Most unusual thing you learned this term.

Anything about Aldous Huxley, the guy was a freak.

Gandhi

What an amazing man! I have actually stood next to a statue of him in Uganda. He is such a patient man, I could never imagine resorting to non-violence for every altercation I go through for the rest of my life. It takes so long and its such a process, but I guess the end result is worth the wait. He totally mastered it. We live in a society that wants everything done and finished as fast as possible, including altercations. To have the patience to do something like that, and to be so successful, is amazing.

Harris

I actually liked what he had to say. Unfortunately. I would have like to say that his points were weak and had no evidence, but unfortunately, they are true. We often abuse our faith as Christians, and use it for our own selfish gain. We are hypocritical, and this turns so many people off to our religion. If you want to tell everyone that this is the way they should be acting, then you had better be doing the same, or else you look really stupid. It's one thing to slip up, we all make mistakes, but admitting them, and learning from them is the key, otherwise you will only be drawing negativity to your faith.

Rebuttal to Harris argument

I disagree with you man. First of all, I don't believe that everything in the Bible should be taken literally. Too many things, especially in the Old Testament, are based on that period of time, and therefore don't really apply to us anymore. During that period of time, it was customary, and that was when much was getting written. Then it just got passed down and transcribed from generation to generation. The ideas and main concepts are what we should be taking literally. And I also disagree with you on the statement about the Philippians passage. I do believe that passage should be taken literally. I do believe that I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. If there is something that I am wanting to accomplish, and I pray about it and feel that God is wanting me to pursue it, I will be successful, because of my commitment to reaching my goal and pleasing God at the same time.

Russell

Bertrand Russell says that man is free "to examine, to criticize, to
know, and in imagination to create." Man is free to do this and yet at
the end when death comes none of it matters, nothing that he has
accumulated or learned is important. He is powerless in an imperfect
world. We often worry about have much we have and what will happen to
it when we are gone, but our time will have run out and the decisions
that we worry about so much will be answered by someone else who will
think that this is all so important.

Personal thoughts on Dennett

You know, as a Christian I feel as though it is a challenge when I meet someone who is an atheist. I don't condemn them for it, however if they ask me where they are going, I will tell them. But I see it as a challenge to at some point share with them the love of Christ, whether it be through actions or words. I don't look at Dennett as a rival, as someone whom I am against, I just see him as another lost soul who needs saving, and I hope that some day he meets a Christian that is able to change his world for the better.

Daniel Dennett

This film was interesting to watch as a Christian. Dennett definitely does not believe in God. But the thing I did appreciate about him is that he isn't an atheist that tries to convince others that he is right and they are believing in something that cannot be proven. He does say that there is no way to prove a God, and that any other type of paranormal activity is bogus. He is very passionate about what he believes in, which I guess is a commendable quality. He does refer to himself as a bright, which is someone who doesn't believe in any supernatural explanations.