SCIENCE AND RELIGION: FINAL EXAM
spring 2008
Be sure to answer each question fully. Place your test and answers on your website and send me an email copy of your final exam to me at neuralsurfer@yahoo.com no later than midnite May 18th
REAL NAME: Francisco Rodriguez
USER NAME: flatlineronduty
Website address: http://hydroborator.blogspot.com
Attendance: 2 Missed, 0 Tardy
MIDTERM GRADE: None yet, but you can give me an "A".
POSTS: list all of your posts.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2790
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2791
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2793
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2816
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2866
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2873
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2907
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2966
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2967
---------------------------------------------------1. Did you read all of the required books for this class? Bespecific about how many pages for each book, etc.
All 145 pages of Joan Roughgarden’s Evolution and Christian Faith; all 291 pages of Sam Harris’s The End of Faith; 179 pages of John Horgan’s Rational Mysticism. I read all the Lulu required books on the website, but only skimmed through them.

2. What was your favorite book and why?My favorite book was Nietzsche’s The Antichrist because it provided a critique of Christianity that is very unusual. Commonly, you hear Christians say that society’s values are going down the drain because we have lost the religious zeal past generations had. Nietzsche also thinks decadence pervades society, but instead he would put the blame on Christianity for bringing to an end the life-affirming culture of the ancient Greeks and replacing it with values for the weak. I had never seen it that way before.

CHOOSE 16 QUESTIONS FROM THE FOLLOWING (3 TO 30):

3. What does Nietzsche mean by the transvaluation of values and whatdoes this idea have to do with our concept of morality? According to Nietzsche, morality, and Christian morality in particular, is a system that appeals to the herd instinct of the masses in order to subjugate them to an elite, i.e. the priests. In effect, this slave-morality is a denial of the self, exalting that which benefits others at the expense of achieving one’s own goals. It has taught people that fulfilling one’s own desires and seeking power is evil, but Nietzsche remarks that in history, it has been those who had the determination to take what they wanted and explore their potential to the maximum who succeeded, and they did so without society’s approval. Humility, inaction, turning the other cheek, and altruism should then be eschewed in favor of ambition, drive, and fearlessness in order to rise above the common man and attain one’s goals.
3a. Why is Nietzsche so critical of Christianity? Nietzsche contrasts Christianity with Buddhism to show why he has so much contempt for the Abrahamic religion. Although he thinks Buddhism is also a decadent philosophy because it instructs its adherents to forgo desire, it is much milder than Christianity in its assault against human nature. Whereas Buddhism strives for the end of suffering, Christianity wants to put an end to man’s natural impulses which it calls sin. To do so, it implants unwarranted guilt and fear in the believer’s mind, and invokes the promise of life in a supernatural realm to cure the same negative feelings it implanted in the follower in order to accommodate to the rest of society. Nietzsche called Christianity "Plato for the masses" because it gave the common man Heaven in order for him to live safe and in accordance to expectations of the crowd, but since man now had this new celestial realm, the value of this world, the very one he can be certain about, paled in comparison.
http://prism-perfect.net/archive/nietzsche-buddhism/
http://sdcc13.ucsd.edu/~jcsung/ethics/posts/08.html

4. Give one specific example of what some may regard as morallyright or good and then argue how Nietzsche may argue the opposite.Be sure to pick anexample that would correlate with Nietzsche's transvaluation ofvalues.
Asceticism, the practice of renouncing one’s worldly desires, especially sexual one’s, is seen in Christianity as a virtue because it shows that the person is not controlled by instinct, but has great determination and dominion over his/her body. Conversely, Nietzsche shows great disgust at this practice. For Nietzsche, this is a depravation that consists of suppressing one of our most fundamental needs from which life itself originated, our sexual urges. It is an extreme case of self-denial out of servitude to someone else, namely a capricious deity whose edicts preach that everything mundane should be pitied, and does so by suppressing creativity, downgrading self-aggrandizement, and, in essence, making man subordinate to a moral code external to his desires.

5. Why isn't Bertrand Russell a Chrisitian? Substantiate yourargument.
Bertrand Russell does not believe in God because he considers the arguments for his existence either faulty or obsolete. He states, for instance, that if one thinks of God as the Uncaused caused that originated the chain of events, one is not really solving the problem because the question "what created God?" can still be asked. If one says that God was not created but has existed forever, one might as well say the same about the universe without the need for an additional entity for which there is no evidence. Likewise, he dismisses the Argument from Design for three reasons:
He cannot believe that people honestly think this is the best universe there can be. Evil, disease, natural disasters, etc. make this world too imperfect that he finds it implausible that an intelligent mind was behind its creation.
At the atomic level, natural laws become simply statistical averages rather than the exact relations that purportedly point to Lawgiver. Russell also comes up with Eutyphro’s dilemma of sorts, by arguing that if natural laws are the way they are because of a deity’s will, they are either a result of his whim or his attempt at making the best world possible. If the former, the reason behind their existence is something not bound to a law, and the whole logical chain is broken. If the latter, God had a reason to make natural laws the way they are, and so he himself is bound by some external principle. Therefore, Russell contends, a Lawgiver does not solve the question and merely creates more problems than there were to start with.
The apparent design found on the planet is cast into oblivion with Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
Furthermore, while Russell agrees with some of Jesus’ views, he does not consider Jesus the wisest of men because he believed in hell. According to Russell, there is nothing benevolent about hell because no matter what a person has done in their lifetime, it will never be commensurate to eternal punishment.
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

6. How would C.S. Lewis answer those who argue that there is noevidence for a God, particularly a Christian one? First, Lewis would say that religious longing is nearly universal. He questions why such a desire would have prevailed over generations if there were no way to fulfill it: "Creatures are not born with desires unlesssatisfaction for those desires exists." So, he concludes that the object of such desire must be real. In fact, the spiritual need is itself God’s mark on the human being.
Furthermore, Lewis agrees with the moral argument for God’s existence. C.S. Lewis says that those holding a subjectivist, nihilist, or relativist view of morality all contradict themselves given that at some point they assume that at least one thing is good, be it their own life, survival, society’s commands, etc. He then would say that for such a standard to exist there must be a Lawgiver, and this is God.

7. How does evolution help us to better understand WHY science arosein the first place? And why religion arose in the first place?
From an evolutionary psychological perspective, religion arose because beliefs in the afterlife and the supernatural in general helped people cope with the struggle for survival by making them feel like their lives possessed meaning beyond this world. At the same time, religion provided explanations about why the world is the way it is, and for an instinct-driven primitive human psyche, unverifiable explanations are better than no explanation at all.
Science arose because those who developed a method to objectively understand nature undoubtedly had an evolutionary advantage over those who did not. Technology could be systematically developed rather than being based only on trial and error. Moreover, with science, a human was able to confirm whether the knowledge he/she was passed on from previous generations was indeed veridical. Therefore, it is no wonder that over time science also became critical of religion.

9. What is science according to Feynman? How does his definitiondiffer from more normative explanations?
Science is to Feynman the product of the realization that discoveries about how the world functions have to re-verified empirically, instead of relying on the human notions that purported to explain the phenomenon in the past.
Science also instills the tendency to doubt, and from this stems a magnified appreciation for rationality and free thought. An important distinction is that observation and systematic analysis, while required for the practice of science, are not themselves scientific. They are merely the means by which the scientific enterprise is developed, and not its actual content.
Dictionary.com presents a more normative definition:
"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. "
As does Wikipedia: "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is the effort to understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate events under controlled conditions."
Although both Feynman’s and more normative definitions seem quite similar, according to Feynman the scientific method by which we arrive at new knowledge is not included as science.
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

10. How would Feynman critique the current "intelligent design"movement? Be specific and see if you can relate Feynman's notion ofscience in your critique.
Intelligent design posits the existence of a conscious entity - a deity in disguise – as the creator or fine-tuner of life forms existing on Earth. Richard Feynman reminds us that for a theory to be scientific it has to be grounded in direct experience. Unless the existence of such an entity could be demonstrated by experiment – and that in itself seems to be impossible – intelligent design is imitating the valid scientific method, that is to say, it is pseudoscientific. Moreover, Feynman reminds us that a scientific theory, even if it is internally consistent, has to be able to make new predictions instead of just explaining a phenomenon that could be explained without that same theory. The overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection (the fossil and geological records, molecular and genetic evidence of common descent, and neo-Darwinian computational algorithms that have accurately predicted the course of microbial evolution in the lab, etc…) cannot be rivaled by intelligent design, which not only has no evidence in its favor, but also does not make any new predictions and even dismisses information that does not support its case. True science will always report the outcome of the experiment impartially, that is, both supporting and undermining evidence should always be considered.

12. How can religion, according to your teacher (and the lecturethat dealt with this), survive the onslaught of reason? What doesreligion have to do to "win" the science-religion battle?
Religion has to embrace skepticism and rational inquiry and dismiss dogma if it is to survive the onslaught of reason. If religion has something true to say about the world, it has to rise to the challenge openly and let science and philosophy dismantle a rotten carcass to expose the genuine precious stone. By accepting scientific discoveries, religion will filter itself and only those teachings which are truly in accord with the world will survive, which, if they do exist, will most likely be the important aspects of a veridical account of the world, anyway. More importantly, by assuming this position, the only trustworthy spiritual practices that will be those that are in touch with the body of knowledge regarding our human nature qua multi-brain-state-exhibiting organisms, which will also be the only religious practices to produce honestly fulfilling changes in our minds. If religion speaks the truth, it has nothing to fear. Otherwise, its fallacies will come to light sooner than later.

14. Why is evolution such a contentious issue among certainfundamentalist religious groups. More precisely, what is the coreissue that upsets certain religious devotees?
Evolution via natural selection is able to explain the complexity and vast number of different life forms that exist on the planet without any need for a Creator. Furthermore, it does so in a purely materialistic framework. Nevertheless, one could argue that the core issue religious fundamentalists abhor about evolution is the concept of common descent. It is antithetical to a view that considers humans to have a special, separate place from the rest of creation.

15. In your opinion, where can science help religion?
Science can show which religious beliefs are dubious or completely false. Instead of damaging religion, I consider this to be a great tool because once all the nonsense has been weeded out, if any religious beliefs survive scientific scrutiny, one could have greater confidence in them being true. For example, many notions of God, such as that of a humanoid being existing in an astral plane, are simply contradictory with what is known about physics and biology (e.g., there has to be a gravitational field to have mass, bodies require space to exist, human consciousness needs a brain, etc.). However, this same knowledge enables the believer to come up with a new concept of God that would be in accord with science, either in a deistic or pantheistic fashion. In my opinion though, the only way such an approach could be successful would be if Gould’s instruction of religion and science as non-overlapping magisteria is followed thoroughly.

16. In your opinion, where can religion help science?
Religion was man’s first attempt at understanding the world; it was a primitive form of science. Religion was also the vehicle through which morality and culture developed. It would be beneficial to science to study religious morality, not just because it would provide more insight as to what function certain principles served in primitive societies, but once the environmental cues that determined the course religion took are comprehended, a greater understanding of the human psyche will obtain. This way, religion could be used as a template to study culture itself, and we could apply what we learn about our collective mind to address questions more pertinent to our modern times.

20. How would Stephen Wolfram critique William Paley's argument(derived from his famous watch analogy) about intelligent design ora creator of complexity? How would a believer in such a God or a Creator critique Wolfram's argument?
Stephen Wolfram would say that a system's complexity is inherent in the set of basic units comprising a set, given that they can combine in a myriad of ways, giving rise to complexity. In this sense, since protons, electrons, and neutrons can assemble themselves in different configurations to form elements, compounds, molecules, etc. it is to be expected that given sufficient time a vast array of biological life forms would come into existence. Thus, the watch would need no watchmaker.
The believer might contend that the very fact that the complexity is brought about by statistical averages alone suggests that there is no such thing as complete randomness. That is to say, the existence of a marked probability density can be regarded as a "law of chance", something truly contingent. One could suppose that an inherent complexity substantiates the idea that reality was indeed the result of mindful planning.

22. Are spiritual experiences reducible to neuroscience? If yes, doessuch an intertheoretic reduction eliminate the God Hypothesis? If no,what is science missing in its study of mystical states?
The most I can say is that a neuroscientific explanation can be given for any spiritual experience, so I lean to the affirmative response. This is far from removing the God Hypothesis. There will still be people who will posit the origins of moral intuition, purpose, and aesthetics, to name a few, in a Conscious Aseity. What science is missing in its study of mystical states is an attempt not just to reduce the experience to signaling cascades in the brain, but to integrate and reconstruct the pathways and compare them against the individual’s internalized experience. In other words, the second perspective should be the person’s view from the inside out as shaped by his environment and psychology.

25. In Believer-Skeptic, your teacher has a long critique of Ken Wilber. Why are Wilber's views on evolution so contentious?
Wilber misrepresents evolution by making it sound like intermediate structures are of no use whatsoever. He asks the question: "of what use is half a leg?". Meanwhile, evolutionary biologists understand that evolution is a gradual process; any improvement over a previous structure is bound to provide a cutting edge in survival and so to be passed on. To paraphrase Dawkins, half a leg is better than 49% of a leg, and that 1% could make all the difference. More importantly, Wilber forgets that a structure’s function often times is not determined from the onset, but is gradually acquired as the structure proves to be useful for a task it was not intended to perform.

26. Is Francis Crick correct that we will never find the soul because it doesn't exist?
When Crick makes a statement of that kind he stops talking as a scientist and starts injecting his own opinion on a question outside the purview of science. Nonetheless, one could certainly say that there is no indication whatsoever that a soul operates on the body. It is truly puzzling to even start to imagine how such an interaction could take place, for if the soul affected the body to produce physical results, the interaction itself would be subject to physical law, and so the soul could not be supernatural. In the end, the question of the existence of the soul remains a metaphysical question and as such may be arrived at depending on one’s assumptions about the nature of logic and the world. Therefore, it remains an open question in spite of modern neuroscientific discoveries.

29. In the future, how can we have a more fruitful and a more civil conversation on the subject of science and religion? What should be the guidelines, if any?
It will take time and for it to happen society will need to have done away with the stigma associated with alternative religions, and atheism and agnosticism. Once we have learned to value people for their behavior and values instead of judging them for their religious views, the door will be open for more amenable discussion. I think the place to start with would be the promotion of tolerance and uncensored, critical thinking. People should be exposed to the strongest arguments against their own views so that they can see their own faults, think these matters through, and either develop better arguments for their position or change their minds. For this to be possible though, the educational system would need to start paying less attention to religious fundamentalists and edgy secularists, and focus on the moderates. It is often said that moderates have lost consistency, but I do not think that is necessarily so. There are educated, scientifically-minded religious devotees, some even conservatives, (I would like I once was one of them),.as well as tolerant, respectful and insightful non-religious people in this world. It is them who are more likely to engage in civil discussion with the intent of broadening their knowledge and come with an open mind rather than convincing the world that the other side is evil, stupid, ignorant, arrogant, you name it. My two cents for what they are worth :P

______________________________

31. What was the most intersting thing you learned this semester?What was your favorite film?
My favorite interesting thing was Lane’s story about his trips to India and the guys that showed him a stone with his name engraved in Sanskrit. My favorite film was that one that Lane made with the funky music that showed the elements of the Periodic Table.