4. My real name is Ysabel Medina.
5. My user name is Ysabel.medina@yahoo.com at the yahoo group. My other user name is ymedina@ucsd.edu at blogger.com.
6. My email address is ymedina@ucsd.edu.
7. My name for my website is ymedina. My address is http://ymedina1.blogspot.com at blogger.com,
8. Yes I have done all the readings.
9. Yes I have watched all the fims.
10. Week 1:
With Intelligence should come Good Will.
In an interview Huxley says that two essential values a human being must have is intelligence and charity, or good will. He says with intelligence comes charity. However this is not always necessarily true. It is ideal that with intelligence you get good will, but that depends on your definition of intelligence. Some believe that intelligence is the knowledge of all things, the meaning of life, the ability to apply skills, others might say the ability to think rationally and logically. It is the person’s definition of intelligence that will either guide them to charity or ill will.
A person who genuinely loves the gift of knowledge does so because they want to be able to make an impact on society. That person should apply his wisdom to benefit humanity. However morality is not taught in most schools, with the exception of private schools. It might be discussed, but most students at public schools are never taught ethics or morality in a straightforward manner. Most children learn morality from their parents. But what happens to the child’s morality if the parents are uneducated? The child might learn moral values through life experiences, or continue to acquire vices. Therefore I don’t agree with Huxley when he says, “with intelligence comes well-being.”
Knowledge begins to evolve at the point of the unknown
It is natural for humans to be curious about the unknown. We are all born with the ambition to gain knowledge. We feel as if the more we know, the greater advantage we have towards life. Take for example, the number. As Nicholas of Cusa said, “the number encompasses everything comparable.” The more we learn about the number and its abilities in mathematics, the greater advantage we have at life. So many abilities came from mathematics such as; houses, maps, cars, economy, electricity. The educational evolution of the number evolved into an infinite amount of possibilities.
So, if knowledge of the known progresses into an infinite amount of possibilities, what will become of the unknowing? Most assume that only speculation and theory could come of the unknowing. However many of these theories and speculations lead human beings to many institutions. Take religion for example. Over 2,000 years ago people didn’t know much about science. They didn’t know that much about nature or anything about evolution. From this unknown they created stories, or fables, about the beginning of creation. Catholicism has the story of creation in 7 days. Greek Mythology has the story of creation that evolved from love into light and day into earth. Islam’s Qur’an tells the story of creation by god in 6 long periods of time. From the unknown we are able to explore our intellect and creativity. When we theorize from the unknown the possibilities are endless.
How did Socrates Die?
Is an avenged death justifiable? Of course an eye for an eye leaves the world blind. But what of Euthyphro’s father? He punished his servant for killing another in an act of drunken passion. However he had no intent to kill but only to neglect. Therefore, was the father’s action immoral? Is it immoral for Euthyphro to condemn his father?
It is only immoral for Euthyphro to condemn his father if the murder that the father committed was not intentional. It would also be immoral if the son knowingly let his father live without punishment if the father purposely committed murder. However it is hard to determine if the father’s action was an act of murder. He punished the servant for wrongdoing. It is his role as the master to punish the servant for any bad behavior. However it is also his role as the master to look over his servant for that is his property. Therefore the father created an offense while neglecting his servant. The servant was in need of a punishment. However that punishment lead to his death. The father’s careless of the servant’s welfare is therefore an immoral act.
The Socratic Universe
If human beings have a level of consciousness that is not understood, how is it possible to say that there is no life after death and there is no God? Each human being has the ability to make a moral decision. However, when the wrong choice is made, guilt comes into effect. Guilt proves that we have a level of consciousness that is unexplainable. Our level of consciousness also enables us to have thoughts, beliefs and feelings of our own. Each human being is unique. It is impossible to think that creations like us began simply through evolution. If that is true then what came before evolution started? What was the universe before the big bang? Who or What existed? Is it logical to say that we are here just simply because of evolution through time?
Many of the Philosophers in The Socratic Universe believed that there is no God and no life after death. They use scientific evidence as a basis for their answers. How could a philosophical answer be so simple? Many of the philosopher’s answers to “Is there life after death?” were simply no. Most of their explanations were that your body decomposes. Therefore there is nothing that survives spiritually. So does our human consciousness then cease to exist because our bodies are no longer alive? Some answered that our beliefs and goodness survive through our loved ones. However that still denies the fact that there is nothing after death.
Some of the philosophers believed in God because that is their faith. But most of them said that there was no God. However majority of those philosophers said that they truly don’t know. How is it that philosophers who study ideas and concepts through time, believe that God ceases to exist? Most people believe that religion is man made. That religion is based on human beliefs. But God doesn’t necessarily mean religion. God is the concept of a higher being. The idea of God has had multiple meanings over the period of time. It is a concept of the unknown and of a higher power. How is it that most of the philosophers gave a simple no instead of dwelling on the matter?
Is it possible for history to end?
Fukuyama’s definition of history is not conventional. Many of us see history as a collection of knowledge of different civilizations, nature, cultures, and religions throughout time. However according to Fukuyama, History is human nature and all the political institutions we are and have been. Throughout time, we have learned how to shape our political institutions into an effective liberal democracy. Which he believes is the end of History.
However the fact that we are currently in a capitalist liberal democracy proves that History is still continuing. The democracy we have achieved isn’t universal. So how could Fukuyama claim that History is over? His definition of History isn’t just applied towards the Western world. However History is all of human nature and all of civilization’s political institutions. If there are still countries that have not yet reached a liberal democracy, how has History ended? History, by Fukuyama’s definition, is still happening today. Its progressing in many third world countries, Europe, America, and all over the world. History will never end because as human beings we will continue to make mistakes and learn from them. With the future years to come, we will improve as a society together.
Learning is a Philosopher’s Favorite Thing
In the Socratic Universe many philosophers were asked several questions on other philosophers, ethical systems and philosophical traditions. All of their answers varied from Aristotle to Kant to Christianity. However they all share a desire that is evident in their answers. This desire is the ability to learn. Most of their answers were all directed to discover more truths or unknowns.
When asked “Which 5 Philosophical Books Would You take on a Desert Island?”, many answered that they would take books they’ve never read. Others said they would take their favorites that they still haven’t understood. Others answered with questions like “How long will I be there?’ Their answers are focused on learning more and more information. Even answering a question with a question shows the desire to learn.
When asked the question “Which Philosophers do you admire?” many gave philosophers who’s thoughts were clear and defined. They enjoy the clarity because the education they receive is straightforward, yet they are able to elaborate off their ideas. Many said Aristotle because of his knowledge of science and common sense. Aristotle is admired because he combined science and common sense and was able to come up with concepts that are still relevant today.
These answers show that most philosophers’ purpose is to learn new truths and concepts. They have an inner desire to learn something new and apply it something to benefit good. They truly want to expand their intelligence by constantly challenging themselves.
Different Languages for Different Purposes
Many of us didn’t know that there were differences in language. Words have multiple meanings and different uses. However, there are two types of language; the poetic and scientific form. Those of us who aren’t that creative mostly use the scientific language. The scientific language isn’t full of scientific terms and theories. According to Huxley, the scientific use of language is used in a literal way. In science, all scientists must use a literal language to communicate with each other. They can’t use words with multiple meanings, for the slightest complication can cause the biggest accident. Many of us use only the scientific form of language in our everyday lives. However, these same people tend to take language for granted as a whole. They take word’s multiple meanings for granted. They don’t appreciate the effects language has on others and themselves.
The poetic form of language is more creative. People use this form to express their emotions through words. They are able to express themselves without using the literal meanings of words. This form of language can be seen in songs, novels, plays, poetry, and movies. This form is appreciative of language and the ability to communicate with others. The poetic form of language is used by those who appreciate life and those around them. Only with the poetic form of language will we be able to communicate their true feelings.
Do we achieve wisdom or is it something that comes to us?
Many believe that wisdom is a virtue that only few are able to acquire. Others feel that since intelligence can be taught, that wisdom can be learned. However, wisdom is not intelligence. Wisdom is applying intelligence to reach a level of truth that is just and right.
Many people believe that wisdom is capable of all people of an intelligent mind. Many people, like Huxley, believe that with intelligence comes charity. Charity is good will. With goodwill comes the ability to be just and righteous. However in order to be wise, one must be already just before intelligence. It is a necessity to be intelligent in order to be wise because it is intelligence that enables us to find truth. Truth is the basis of wisdom. But truth can never be taught. Truth is something that we must find within ourselves before we find it in others.
Many believe that truth is something that comes to man. Truth, which is wisdom, cannot be learned. It is something we acquire through wise-passiveness. As William Wordsworth said “the eye can not choose but see, the ear can not but be still, our bodies feel wherever they be against with or without our will, nor less I deem our powers our mind impress in a wise passiveness.” Since true wisdom can only be acquired by few, it is something that is half intelligence and half given. Real truth must be seen or recieved. If real truth were something that could be taught then everyone would be wise and all knowing. Only the strong and just will see real truth and wisdom.
What defines who we are?
We are never the same person the day we die from the day we started college. Our experiences throughout our lives shape the person we are today. We are always told that we learn from mistakes, usually because of regret. We regret the previous choice we make because the outcome is never what we want. It’s natural to fear making the same mistake. But as Soren Kierkegaard said, “You will regret your choice. Always you can analyze later and always find better solutions that will no longer be relevant.” We should never let fear prevent us from defining or expressing ourselves. Fear shouldn’t prevent freedom.
Many people feel they truly can’t be themselves because they lack freedom. However, as Jean-Paul Sartre said, “Freedom is what has been done to you.” All of our previous experiences give us a sense of freedom. If you have done it before you can do it again. If you missed an opportunity you still have the chance to do it. It is never too late. Don’t let fear or the thought of the unknown prevent you from defining or expressing yourself.
Morality: Natural vs. Divine?
In his interview, Fukuyama discusses the nature of morality. He discusses that there is difference between “right vs. wrong” and moral values. As humans we have the ability to make wrong decisions. However it is our consciousness that makes us feel guilt. Morality is based on the way we feel. Fukuyama continues to discuss what morality is and where it comes from. He believes that it is based on our human consciousness. However, no one knows what consciousness is. It is a complexity that we might never understand. But is it so complex because it is not a natural state? Do we have consciousness because of a higher being or belief?
Fukuyama connects morality with religion. He believes that religion plays a critical role in truth. In most religions honesty is an admirable virtue. Most religions have moral values that distinguish between right and wrong. Religion plays a major role in morality, but not because of certain beliefs. It is the function of religion that is important. It gives people a purpose to be moral. They make moral decisions because of their beliefs and how they make them feel. Morality is not based on right vs. wrong. It is based on they way we feel. It is based on they way we treat others and how they treat us. There is an underlying truth about morality that we may never understand. But maybe we were never meant to understand.
Week 2:
Realism and philosophy compatible?
To be a realist you must be practical, logical and sensible. It is hard for a realist to imagine that the impossible might have a possibility of becoming true. The idea of gaining knowledge from the unknown is a concept that is hard to comprehend. The prisoners in Plato’s cave were somewhat realists. They knew only what they observed. They never analyzed the shadows on the wall. It didn’t occur to them that there was a purpose for them. They simply accepted the fact that they were real objects. In philosophy you question to gain knowledge from the unknown. A main concept of philosophy is to expand your knowledge. You do so by questioning the unknown, hypothesizing the impossible, or by analyzing the unfamiliar.
Is it possible for a realist to become a philosopher? Many philosophers are logical, sensible, and practical. But all are open minded to the possibility there is knowledge that is unobservable. The philosopher Descartes found a philosophical system based on doubt and logic reasoning. He believed that knowledge comes from the observable. “I can not doubt my existence since it follows that I am thinking.” However his entire philosophical system is based on the unknown, something that can never be observed, God. He believes that is our purpose here. He believes that everything exists because “God can not have deceived us.” Descartes proves that realism and philosophy are compatible. He found a new learning method that encourages realism but is based on the idea of faith.
The ultimate debate: Bohr vs. Einstein
It was known that Albert Einstein was a realist. It is a possibility that that was the reason why he spent so much time trying to correct the quantum theory. The main concept of the quantum theory is the opposite of realism. It is the idea that things are possible without observation. Quantum mechanics is a “problematic model to provide us with how an uncertain realm can yield quite predictable.” Einstein lacked the indeterminism that was needed of the quantum theory. Wherever Einstein lacked, Bohr was able to gain. His indeterminism allowed him to explore quantum mechanics further then Einstein did.
The idea of uncertainty is at the philosophical basis of the quantum theory, which was the opposite of natural science. Einstein believed that if the quantum theory were correct, then it would be the end of physics as a science. Bohr felt “that everything we call real is made of things that can’t be regarded as real.” Bohr didn’t rely on classical physics like Einstein. Einstein applied classical physics and mathematics to come to many conclusions about the unknown. However, Bohr saw Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty “as a fundamental statement about what knowledge is.” In the end, Einstein sided with Bohr that the quantum theory is correct, however it is incomplete. The quantum theory is similar to philosophy in the way that the unknown is the basis of knowledge. The unknown leads to more truth.
Is God shaking our heads at us or did he die long ago?
Many people find religion to give life a meaningful purpose. They believe in creationism. They believe we were put here on earth by God. However new scientific evidence disproves the book of Genesis. Evolution is the reason why we came to be human beings. However many people still believe that there has to be a God because our development is too complex to be perfect. Of course many cellular biologists disagree. You do not have to know how something works in order for it to work. As Abraham Pais said, “to make a discovery is not necessarily the same as to understand a discovery.”
I agree with the film, Gods too Decompose, with the idea that we killed God. We are the creators of natural science. Before the concept of natural science, human beings did not know how we came to be. They turned to religion and faith of the unknown for a purpose, or an explanation. The idea that God created us gave them a purpose in life. However, during this revolution of knowledge, we now know how we truly came to be. As the film had said, we are the murderers of God. We no longer have a need to place our faith into the unknown. We are no longer searching for a truth that will never be found. Science is now our truth.
Is the quantum theory a new religion?
Religions require faith and devotion. There is no hard evidence that proves that there is a God. It requires faith and belief to know there might be a God. In the end, the presence of God will never be known. Most believers have faith that they will meet their creator in the afterlife. However many believers of science believe that there is nothing in the after life but death. We face science, our creator, through decomposition.
Science is something that can be proven. Through classical physics w can have conclusions through mathematics. Our conclusions are facts that can be proven through these equations or by observations. The quantum theory and quantum mechanics require the ability to think logically, just like classical physics. However the quantum theory deals with the unknown. The quantum theory is able to predict the unknown. In quantum mechanics you aren’t able to prove your predictions through facts, equations, or observations. In a way, quantum mechanics require faith like religion. In religion most of your beliefs will never be proven, just like quantum mechanics. The only difference is that the quantum theory is based on facts that can be proven. Whereas religion is based on how strong your faith is.
Is Gingerich a speculator like an agnostic?
Agnostics aren’t sure if there is a higher being. They accept the facts of science but are unsure of religious beliefs. Some believe that the universe is too complex to be perfect. They believe that a higher being must have had a design for the universe. However, they know that there will never be any scientific evidence to prove that there is a God.
Owen Gingerich is not only a scientist but also a believer of religion. He believes that the design of the universe must have a creator. He believes that science has purpose and design. However the examples he gives to prove his beliefs seem more like speculations. He gives an example that there is no element in the periodic table that has a mass of 5. He continues that if there were an element that size then essential elements, like Carbon and Oxygen, would not be in abundance like they are now. These elements are the building blocks of life so he feels its more then a coincidence that there is an unlimited amount of these elements. However there is no need for a reason why there is no element of mass 5. It is simply how the periodic table was built. But since he can’t give a scientific motive he turns to the only option left, God.
If he is a scientist he must believe in facts and observations. However, God will never be proven. How is it that he is a believer of God? I think he views the facts that are unexplainable in science as having a purpose behind them. However he is unable to find that purpose through mathematical equations or observations, so he turns to faith. I think the fact that he is a scientist is that he can’t accept that there is anything that is unexplainable. He can’t accept a fact unless there is a valid reason behind it. That’s why I think he turns to God for the unknowing.
11. Lisa Randall believes there are more than the four dimensions known today. Majority of her multiple dimensions theory comes from the idea that gravity is so weak. She believes that because gravity is so important of what we know today, there must be reason why it is so weak on earth. She believes that the answer may lay in another dimension. She admits that if other dimensions did exist, then they would not be visible. But as a theorist would say, just because you cannot see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
She believes in the idea that there are branes throughout the universe and dimensions. She believes that certain objects can get stuck on these branes. She gives an example of water droplets being stuck on a shower curtain. The shower curtain is in the third dimension, where the water droplets are part of the second dimension. She believes that we, and everything we know, are stuck in the third dimension. However she says that gravity can move through dimensions. That is one of the reasons why she believes that gravity is weak. She believes that gravity is stuck on another brane, the gravity brane. Most of gravity’s force is concentrated on this brane. However, gravity is able to travel to the brane we are on, but in a lower concentration.
Most of her evidence on other dimensions is theoretical. There are no mathematical equations that can prove that this is true. However she states that the idea of other dimensions can be proven. An accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, will be able to raise photons to a high energy that was never reachable before. The data collected from this experiment will be able to show if photons or particles can move through dimensions. Lisa Randall can not prove her idea of other dimensions through just scientific evidence. She states that they have all the tools needed to come to a conclusion. However in order for her to reach an answer she will need theory as well.
12. Pythagoras was a man of numbers, logic and reason. He enjoyed the idea of mathematics because numbers always led to a valid conclusion. He was able to apply math and numbers to music. He found a relationship between the two. He was able to write and listen to must through numbers.
He also applied mathematics and the concept of numbers to his philosophical views. He knew that anyone with intelligence is able to theorize. However if you are intelligent enough to apply the concept of numbers and mathematics to your philosophical theories, then you are able to reach a valid conclusion.
13. Religion and science are two different functions with two different motives. However they are somewhat similar. They both are belief systems. Science has physical evidence to prove those beliefs, whereas religion needs faith to prove beliefs. However as Prof. Dumount of Mt. St. Mary’s says, “Both rely on faith of the unknown. They are both institutions and belief systems. Good religion supports and limits the aspirations of science.”
I think that only certain religions are compatible. Traditional religion, such as Catholicism, isn’t compatible with science. The science of evolution disproves the creation story in the Book of Genesis. However an enlightened religion is more open to science in a natural way. They both share the same purpose and consequences. As Prof. Cohen of Stanford said, “Discoveries in science can console or bring people emotions just like faith and beliefs can in religion.” Or as Prof. Neumann of Claremont Scripps College says, “In reality science and religion are only man’s way of finding a reason for existence.”
14. Socrates was put on trail by Melitus. Melitus accuses Socrates of corrupting the youth with his ideas that he creates new gods and denies the existence of old ones. As Melitus said, “Socrates acts wickedly, and is criminally curious in searching into things under the earth, and in the heavens, and in making the worse appear the better cause, and in teaching these same things to others.” Melitus put Socrates on trail because he found him as a threat to the state. The youth will one day rule over the old. Therefore, Meltus felt that if he corrupts the youth not only will he corrupt the state but also the future.
Socrates had no intention to “corrupt” the youth with his ideas. He was simply teaching and learning from them. He would teach the students through dialogue. But he also learned many things through them also. He thought the young were more wise then the young. He claims he only spoke and learned the truth for he has “no particular liking for anything but the truth.” Even though he favors the truth he denies being a man of wisdom. He clams that only God could be truly wise. He defends himself by saying that a lot of youth seek him for wisdom. They often imitate him and put others to the test as he did. However this youth is unaware that he is not wise. Therefore the youth spread his sayings as if he were wise. They think that they are possessing knowledge, when in fact they are not. Therefore their assumption is not Socrates’ fault but of the youth’s.
15. There are three main types of philosophy; western, eastern, and religious. Each type involves different periods of time, philosophers, and philosophical ideals.
In western philosophy, there is ancient, medieval and modern philosophy. It is said that ancient western philosophy began in Greece. One of the key philosophers of that time was Socrates. His Socratic method was “a form of philosophical inquiry in which the questioner explores the implications of others' positions, to stimulate rational thinking and illuminate ideas.” More recent modern philosophy happened during the 19th and 20th century. One off the major philosophers of this time was Immanuel Kant who was a prominent figure in the development of ethics.
Eastern philosophy was developed in eastern countries, such as China, India and Japan. One of the oldest forms of philosophy was developed in China, Confucianism. It focuses on morality and good deeds. Contrary to western philosophy, most of eastern philosophy was developed during ancient times.
Similar to Eastern philosophy, religious philosophy was created during biblical times. Religious philosophy consists of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Islamic philosophies. Henry Corbin describes Islamic philosophy “as a philosophy whose development, and modalities, are essentially linked to the religious and spiritual fact of Islam. Islamic philosophy is the most prominent of all religious philosophies.
16. The theory of the Big Bang is the idea of how the universe came to be. The idea is that the universe was created by an explosion that came from “a primordial hot and dense initial condition.” It is not known when this explosion occurred. However time began during this explosion. This explosion created a universe that continues to expand today. The concept of an expanding universe comes from cosmic inflation, which is part of the big bang theory. It is the idea that universe is and will continue to expand exponentially.
It is important to know astronomy in order to do philosophy because the idea of an expanding universe is similar to many philosophical views. An important theory of philosophy is the unknown. Many believe that you can only know the observable. However, most of the universe is unobservable. The cause of this is that the universe continues to expand. Just because we are unable to see majority of the universe doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
17. Einstein was a realist and a determinist. He wasn’t a fan of probabilities. He liked conclusions that came from facts, observations, and mathematics. He was very curious and attempted different approaches to reach a conclusion. He was not afraid to explore new ideas that physicists never thought of. But in the end, his conclusion was only valid if it was based on a fact not theory. Unlike Einstein, Werner Heisenberg believed in probabilities. His uncertainty principle claims that the velocity and location of a particle in space is uncertain. Even though it is unknown it is still possible. He helped develop the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics with his teacher Niels Bohr. New developments that arose from this interpretation was a discovery that could not be validated by classical physics, which Einstein favored. Einstein believed that the probability aspect was “a reflection of ignorance of some fundamental property of reality.” Heisenberg on the other hand felt that indeterminism was the fundamental key to the idea of probability.
In the end, Einstein tried to disprove Bohr’s and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. He tried through his example of Einstein’s box. In this box he tried to violate the uncertainty principle by measuring the amount of energy in the box by a clock. However, Bohr disproved Einstein’s box theory by proving that the ticking rate would be uncertain if the the amount of energy was known. Einstein eventually came to an agreement with Heisenberg that the quantum theory was incomplete.
18. The meme theory s the idea that cultural ideas are spread through out time from brain to brain. These memes are spread through verbal, visual, or physical communication. I believe that this theory is plausible. Many ideas, thoughts, songs or styles all have an origin. For example, some of our clothing styles are date back to ancient Greek eras. Many religious songs come from ancient Christianity that are still sung today. Also, many architecture styles originate from early Greece, ancient Egypt, or even medieval times.
It is impossible to deny that ideas and thoughts from previous eras have no effect on our modern world today. Memes still continue to be passed on today. As long as there is human culture, memes will be continue to communicate different forms of memes from bran to brain.
19. Before biological evolution many people were fundamentalists. They believed that God was our creator and higher intelligence. Fundamentalists were unable to explore their understanding of human behavior and thought. They simply believed that God is all knowing and had a purpose for everything. According to Wilson, fundamentalism is not a testable theory. He claims that it is a strategy of thought. People didn’t theorize or explore the unknown. They accepted that God was all.
With the help of Darwin’s research, scientists and biologists are able to explore our evolution. Darwin’s then radical ideas led to his concept of natural selection. His theory of natural selection was that through evolution all species are able to adapt and modify relating to their environment. He believes that there are different individuals in different environments. This theory helps us understand that we are all different but somehow compatible.
As Dawkins said, there is more to heaven and earth than philosophy can dream of. It is not known why we have consciousness or our behavioral pattern in our brain. However biological evolution proves that we have evolved in order to survive. Our human behavior and thoughts can be understood through biological evolution. Throughout time humans have continuously evolved so that we may survive and adapt to our environment. Biological evolution proves that there is no higher intelligence guiding us through evolution. We have evolved so that we my think and behave with free will.
20. Fundamentalism is “based on the literal doctrine of a religious or political movement.” To be a fundamentalist is to follow a literal movement. There is no room for analytical thinking. The narrator said in the film that fundamentalism is a mental disease. It is a disease of the mind in the way that you don’t think. You don’t apply your own thoughts to the interpretation. You simply follow whatever is said.
In the film fundamentalism is regarded to creationism. The fundamental view of creation is that we have a creator and that is origin of our existence. However fundamentalists still believe in creationism even after the discovery of evolution. After the creation story was proved false, they thought of a defense against evolution. Their defense against evolution is that every cell is too complex to be perfect. However molecular biologists proved them wrong also. It is only those who are truly stubborn that still believe in creationism. There is no hard evidence that would even suggest that creationism might be true. Fundamentalists simply just follow a crowd’s beliefs. As the narrator said “Creationism is taught only by those who can’t think.
21. Gingerich and Wilson agree that science and religion have equal importance in our society. Gingerich believes that they both have purpose and design. Wilson believes that they should form an alliance on specific scientific events and discoveries to save the creation. However their views on a higher being and creation differ. They both are believers of evolution. On the contrary to Wilson’s beliefs, Gingerich believes that there is scientific evidence of a higher being. He is a fundamentalist. He claims that science could not have existed if there was no purpose behind it. He thinks that there are too many perfect complexities in our world to not have a higher intelligence. He gives the periodic table as an example for evidence of a higher being. There is no element with a 5 mass atom. He explains that if there were such an element then oxygen and carbon would not be in such a great abundance. Since those are the two most crucial elements for our survival, he feels that it is more than evolution.
Many fundamentalists believe that all the unexplainable in evolution point toward a higher being. Wilson, on the other hand, believes that evolution and science can be explained in terms in reductionism. He believes that life can be explained in many forms: physics, chemistry, biology, etc. However he knows that the anatomy of our brain and the presence of consciousness is unknown. He does have faith that it will be discovered one day. Unlike Gingerich, Wilson doesn’t believe that this is possible evidence of a higher intelligence. He believes that our mind is a little world with our consciousness at the core. He doesn’t see the presence of consciousness as possible evidence because he has a physicalist’s point of view. He sees no purpose of consciousness because of a higher being if we have no soul.
22. Fukuyama’s definition of history is not conventional. Many of us believe that history is a collection of knowledge from different cultures, civilizations, and humanity over the course of time. However according to Fukuyama, History is human nature and all the political institutions we are and have been. He believes that over the course of time, during many civilizations, humanity has attempted to live in a successful society. There have been many political institutions, empires, dynasties, and tyrannies that have taught humanity how to live together in a civilized society. The fact that we have reached a time where there is liberal democracy throughout most of the world leads Fukuyama to believe that history is over. He believes that we have been able to apply the past to present and reached a successful political institution.
If this is Fukuyama’s definition of history, then this definition must be applied universally. When he defines history he doesn’t speak of just the Western world. In fact he applies his definition to all of humanity and human nature. However this liberal democracy isn’t. Most countries have some form of a democratic political institution. However there are still many third world countries that are far from democracy or aren’t even civilized. History, by Fukuyama’s definition, is still happening today. I believe that Fukuyama’s definition of history will never end. It is human nature to make mistakes. Therefore we will continue to learn. We will continue to improve as a society together.
23. As Nicholas of Cusa said, “The more he knows the unknowing the more learned he’ll be.” Knowledge begins to evolve at the point of the unknown. Curiosity begins and our thought process begins to take over. Unlike the unknown, it is easy for a human being to be taught what is known. The learning process is simple. For example, to learn and excel in mathematics you must follow a repetitive process, practice. The more you practice math, the more you remember and know.
Nicholas of Cusa appreciated the unknown because he saw it as a challenge. You must apply the knowledge you already have in order to gain more knowledge from the unknown. You have to be apply to think theorically, analytically, and critically in order to come to some conclusion. When it comes to the unknown you cannot be taught. You must be able to teach and explore it yourself. When you approach the unknown the learning possibilities are unless. Knowledge is an ongoing process when it is applied to the unknown. His philosophy is that you can gain more knowledge through the unknown than what is already known.
24. Before the discovery of natural science human beings did not know how we came to be. They needed something to believe in to give them some kind of purpose. Many people turned to many forms of religion to find some explanation of why we are here. With religion they had faith in the unknown. To many religious people of this time, they felt that faith was their reason for living.
However know we know how we truly came to be, evolution. It is a known fact that we evolved from other species, which is the opposite of many religious creation beliefs. Many people began to lose faith. They saw science as their creator, not God. Most people are no longer searching for a truth that is unknown. Many now believe that science is our truth. As the creators of natural science, we are essentially the murderers of our original creation, God.
25. “Philosophy is an academic study that is devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, freedom and nature.” Part of philosophy is attempting to understand truths about who we are and why natural things occur. Physics is similar but different. Physics is the literal explanation of why natural things occur. You are able to predict or discover truths through mathematical equations. However if you understand physics you understand, to some degree, part of who we are and why natural things occur.
Even though you might know the literal meaning, it may be still hard to know the theoretical reasoning behind it. As Abraham Pais said, “to make a discovery is not necessarily the same as to understand a discovery.” When you are unable to understand the literal meaning, philosophy is used to help. Through philosophy you are able to come to theoretical conclusions, which can or can’t be proven. Even though some conclusions might not be able to reach a conclusion, it is a theory that might prove true over time.
26. There are two types of religion, the traditional and the enlighten. Traditional religions seem to be more strict and restricted. You must follow a set of rules and live your life by a certain way. If these are not followed, then the possibility of punishment after life is almost certain. Contrary to traditional religion, is an enlighten religion. An enlighten religion encourages you to find your self by guiding you through a moral life. There are no rules to follow or consequences that will follow if you misbehave. You simply live the life that you want to follow. You basically receive what you give.
In order to be free from religion, you must realize that there is no great consequence of sinning or making a moral mistake. Sure, God is all forgiving. However you are free to live the life you choose. Most traditional religions want you to fear your God in order to live a moral life. Most of us are intelligent enough to make the conscious decision to live a moral life, full of good ethics. There is no freedom in religion if there is ear. There is only freedom in faith.
27. Richard Dawkins believes that everything in this universe has a scientific purpose. He believes that each of us has evolved from the “middle world.” He believes that everything from our brains to the senses of animals evolved in the middle world so that they would be able to adapt to our world today. According to Dawkins, “middle world is the narrow world of reality we consider normal. He believes that our brain has evolved into what we need to survive. He haves a scientific reasoning for each natural thing in this world. He believes that everything has evolved from middle world so that we would be able to use it in our world today.
Since everything was created by evolution we have no creator. There is no higher being that put us on this planet. Nothing is impossible or extraordinary. For this he gives an example of an improbability scale. He believes that a miracle is an event that is something highly improbable. We consider it a miracle because middle world didn’t prepare us for the improbable. He believes that everything is possible. Therefore the idea of a higher being is delusional because our evolution prepared us for everything we need.
28. My answer to “are religion and science compatible?” was yes. The reason why I felt they were compatible was because even though they are two different institutions they serve the same purpose. They both deal with he unknown. There are many aspects in science that are still unknown. Having faith in religion is having faith in the unknown. They both serve purposes through discovery. In religion you find discovery through faith and belief. It is more about discovering yourself. In science you discover truths about nature and how they came to be.
As Professor Cohen of Stanford said “discoveries in science can console or bring people emotions just like faith and beliefs can in religion.” They both require a sense of faith. They both unlock mysteries that are an essential part of living. You would not be able to live a full life if there was no science. For you would not know how the world works. Religion opens up your mind to love and wisdom. You discover who you are and your purpose of life. Religion guides you to moral way of life that fulfills your need for purpose. They both solve mysteries to life that are essential to living.
29. Mathematics and computation are literal concepts. You use computation to prove something though mathematics. Wolfram applies this procedure to his theory of cellular automata and simple rules or programs. He believes that science allows for too much theory. The purpose of his book, A New Kind of Science, is to find a “realistic way to make science progress with computational systems.”
He develops a “new kind of science” through his realistic method. He believes that science will progress more efficiently through a more factual method. Most science now begins with a hypothesis and experimental data. From these we are able to reach a theoretical conclusion. Unlike “old” science, all conclusions derived from Wolfram’s new science have definite conclusions. Religion, or any other fundamental community, would be unable to argue with science if all conclusions came from computations. He feels that science can only progress if it is all based on mathematical facts.
30. Darwin had many turning points in his life that guided him to his theory of natural selection. One of the crucial turning points in his life was his choice in education. Darwin was originally a medical student. However he decided to study theology when he became disgusted with surgery. However he became more interested in biology while in school. He befriend John Henslow, who he would collect specimens with in the countryside. His interest in nature influenced him to board a Navy mapping expedition with Henslow.
The major turning point in his life, was while aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. During this mapping expedition, Henslow and Darwin were able to explore the Galapagos Islands. On these islands he examined and collected a variety of specimens. He noticed the different characteristics of different species that varied from island to island. These discoveries led him to his theory of natural selection. He came to the conclusion that each specie developed survival characteristics that gave them advantages in different environments. From then on, he continued to evolve his theory on natural selection. Because of his theory he became one of the most distinguished naturalists known today.
