musings at the intersection of science, art, and religion
"Except for the point, the still point, there would be no dance, and there is only the dance." ~ T.S. Eliot in "Burnt Norton"
Sunday, April 21, 2013
In light of our recent
discussions on ecology and theology, we wanted to further explore the example
of the Keystone Pipeline. Please watch the follow news clip, and consider the
following discussion questions.
2. Do you believe its
implementation is for the common good?
3. Do you think the
Pipeline should be allowed to be built?
4. Which do you think
is the more significant outcome, the potential environment ramifications, or
the ability to provide cheaper oil for citizens, and lessening our dependence
on the Middle East?
5. Do you think the
construction of the Pipeline falls in line with Catholic Doctrine?
Please read the
following article concerning Pope Francis and the environment and consider the
following discussion question.
6. Moving forward, how
do you think Pope Francis will play a role in environment issues such as this?
Monday, April 8, 2013
In our class discussion on the New Atheist movement, we have seen polarized views spanning from the "delusions of grandeur" put forth by Richard Dawkins to the Karen Armstrong's opinion that the New Atheist movement is based on "poor Theology," or the lack of religious education.
In this video, we see the opinion of another New Atheist, Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, who primarily focuses on questions of cosmology, evolution and galactic astronomy. (You might recognize his face from the video a few weeks ago- "Reflecting on Battlestar Galactica!") However, in this particular video, we see him commenting on the relationship between religion and science.
How does DeGrasse Tyson's argument correlate with the arguments of New Atheist thinkers? How does it depart?
Do you think his idea is idea is correct that "we would've never left the cave" without scientists questioning religion?
Dr. Andrew Newberg is the author of
"Principles of Neurotheology," and he is the director of research at
the Myrna Brind Center of Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University
Hospital and Medical College.He
studies the relationship between the brain and religious experience. In his
research, he scanned people’s brains while they are meditating or praying and
then he compared what was going on in their brains at that point to what is
happening in their brain when they're at rest. He approached that by using SPECT imaging techniquethat requires putting in a small
intravenous catheter in a mediator’s arm. During meditation, he infuses a small
amount of radioactive material in order to process images of the brain while
meditating. Dr.Newberg found that people who engage in religious and spiritualpractices have more active areas in
their brains. He also found that during meditation “blood flow increase in the
frontal cortex, the place where we are focusing on problems, and decrease in
other areas of the brain”. These changes “help to lower the level of anxiety
and depression and make us feel better”. They also help us to stay calm even
after the meditation.
What do you think of his finding?
For people who meditate or engage in religious practices have you experience
the same outcome (feeling calm, positive or energetic after mediating) ?
Sunday, March 10, 2013
We spent last class watching Creation, a film depicting the life of Charles Darwin. One very important aspect of the film was Darwin’s struggle to reconcile science with religion. He faced push-back from the church, his friends, and his devout wife. These conflicts are minor when compared to his own internal struggle as a man of faith. The following scene between Darwin (Paul Bettany) and his wife (Jennifer Connelly) illuminates that very struggle.
The readings that were assigned to us before break discuss the idea that evolution does not contradict the biblical idea of creationism, but rather enforces it in many ways. Paley and Mivart go to great lengths to argue that evolution can be viewed as a mechanism of divine creation.
Which of these teachings (creationism or evolution) has been reinforced most in your schooling, home life, and social life? Have the readings persuaded you to believe that evolution and creationism can be reconciled? Why or why not?
About one year after being assigned to watch the pilot movie
of Battlestar Galactica, I’ve finally finished the entire series. That, my friends, was a fun ride.
I’m
a tough critic – I always have been. It takes a lot to impress me, but even
less for me to deride a series or movie’s writers and their scripts as inept
or, frankly, stupid. Season One is remarkable in so many ways. But the second season of BSG heralds a rapid decline in
quality writing. By the third season, the scripts have become abysmal; the plot is convoluted, directionless, and confusing. Characters lose their … well,
character … and the cylons stop being terrifying/awe-inspiring and became
too human (not in a positive, constructive, way that develops depth - but in a
way that indicats the writers were desperately trying to add melodrama where
none belongs).
Despite
it all, I powered through the weaker episodes and emerged in the fourth and
final season with renewed vigor. The writing improves - characters solidify
again, the plot begins to move in a single direction, and the desperate need to know
and understand the cylons reemerged in my stomach.
When
the credits finally rolled on the last episode, I was heartbroken. I really
wished it wasn’t over.
What makes the fourth season so extraordinary is the script’s return to what makes
the first season extraordinary.
Questions like, “Are you alive?” become a driving theme again. Theological
debates rage (and not superficially, as they do in seasons 2 and
3). Gaius Baltar asks a question that pierces to the heart of the discussions
on faith – “What if God doesn’t create good or evil? What if He just creates?” And
always the idea of immortality… and what it means to be human.
I
won’t talk too much more – I know that readers of this blog are still being
exposed to BSG, and I don’t want to spoil anything. But below are two videos -
similar in content but starkly different in tone – that help describe the
(eventual) main antagonist’s motivations. And why he simply refuses to believe
in God. One is, obviously, from the fourth season, and the other is a lecture
being given by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
“I don’t want to be human!”
I don't want to provide any spoilers here, so I'm avoiding discussion on some of the things I'd love to talk about ("Are the cylons human," anyone?) - but based on the two videos above, I pose two questions - how intelligent is intelligent design? What can we extrapolate from our deeply flawed physical design?
In his book "Religion and Science", Ian Barbour states four possible relationships between "Religion" and "Science" -which we have identified and defined extensively in our coursework and online discussions. In his brief accounts of the life, discoveries, and struggles of Galileo Galilee, Barbour touches on these four possibilities again, outside his primary order of definitions, by referencing original discourses between the 16th century "father of modern science", the scientific community of his time, and religious leadership, namely of the Catholic Church. Of the four relationships between science and religion, Barbour offers evidence which narrows "The Galileo Affair" to a case of "Independence" and/or "Potential Conflict" (14). Intent is the reason for the case of the former - the nature and right method of Science aims at answering the mechanical questions of "How?" while the nature and right theological interpretation of Religion i.e. Scripture aims at discovering a Divine purpose or "Why?" Literalism is the source for the later case - Scripture uses empirical language and symbols which do not translate as accurate according to modern Scientific standards. While Barbour categorizes Galileo's "Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems" as an example of conflict due to its negative reception Catholic leadership in 1632, the content of the piece suggests that Galileo's intention was not conflict as it is commonly characterized. Rather, Galileo's allegorical work suggests what Barbour defines as the conveniently-named relationship "Dialogue" with science and religion acknowledging truth as a product of their distinct methods and common goals. Rather than seeking conflict as popular accounts depict, perhaps Galileo was searching for a mutually agreeable compromise. While his lack of study in theological practice of science does not lend itself to Barbour's definition of harmony between Science and Religion i.e. integration, Galileo's work and actions seem to accommodate a separate and supplementary relationship between Science and Religion.
Given what else we've read in class, take a minute to check out this clip from the movie "Angels and Demons" where the Camerlengo Patrick addresses the Cardinals in conclave about the actions of the Illuminati.
A friend posted this to my Facebook page the other day. It made me think about our conversation about the anthropomorphism of God, which was such a great conversation in class the other day. So, I thought I would post this for you guys. Several of you asked if we could take that conversation up again. There will be space for it throughout the semester, but we can begin class on Tuesday talking about this video in order to have another place to discuss it.
Aristotle in his day presented the causes of being in part due to an effort to address the reasons for which existence has come about. Aristotle's suggestions entailed four causes: the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause. The material cause represents that from which a thing is created. The formal cause refers to the pattern by which a thing is created. An example of the formal cause could be the stencil used to create a work of art or the stitching pattern used to knit an article of clothing. The efficient cause is the source or creator of a thing. Lastly is the final cause, which refers to the final cause, considered the purpose of the created thing or the reason for which it was created.
During our discussion of John Henry Newman's "The Philosophical Temper First Enjoined by the Gospel," we approached a text which was written during a transitional period for the Catholic Church. Newman was one of many Catholic philosophers who accepted the task of studying this concept of evolution in order to better address it and the Catholic approach to it. Newman simultaneously criticized the literalism of some theologians as well as the lack of humility on the part of scientists. Does science fulfill any of the aforementioned causes of being? Does religion?
Last class we learned about the 4 ways you can divide the argument between religion and science. They are grouped into conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. In the video clip below all four are easily seen. Lisa clearly views the two in conflict, and that neither can be accepted. She even says that "two different ideas cannot coexist'. Lisa's mom Marge disputes this by saying "two incompatible things are both true" which takes the view of integration. This is because they both work together as one. The school starts teaching the children that "God did it". In class we learned is also called "God of the gaps" which is categorized under dialogue. Lastly when the Reverend is confronted by Ned he replies saying, "Ned you have to take these things with a grain of salt" by saying this he is inferring that the bible should be taken seriously but not literally. This falls into the group called independence. Video: Simpsons Evolution vs. Creationism http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/45786/detail/
Questions: 1) Should creationism be taught in our schools? 2) Do we need to be more open to the possibility that both creationism and evolution are true? 3) Is it possible for creationists to accept evolution and vice versa? Should they? Lauren M, Stephanie P, Tiba T
Each morning this week, NPR has discussed various aspects of the fact that many young Americans (1 in 3) are abandoning organized religion in a series called "Losing our Religion." As we have been discussing the definitions of words like ”religious” and “spiritual” and “devout” in class, I wanted to link you to this serial radio discussion in order to further enhance that conversation. It is not a class requirement that you listen to this, but I thought you might all find it interesting, so perhaps you’ll listen to it while you fold your laundry or some such thing. As a scholar of religious studies, particularly in the American context, this is incredibly interesting especially in what it might mean for the future of American religion. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, whether here, where you are welcome to post in the comments section, or in class. You'll have an official blog assignment this weekend as well and that discussion will be lead by your classmates. This is just something that I found interesting and relevant and hope that you will as well.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
For years movies have been depicting robots with artificial intelligence. Some AI robots are depicted with human characteristics. The video below depicts "The Uncanny Valley", a spot where robot features become too close to human ones. 1. Why do people get scared of robots that have AI with human features but like the AI robots with non-human features? 2. Do you believe this is true? 3. Cartoon AI robots are considered "cute" but scientists strive to make AI robots that look very much like humans. Does this mean that we are trying to create them "in our image" like God created us? 4. Is this arrogant of us to believe we can recreate humans? 5. Also do you believe that we will ever be able to have a fully automated robot that thinks and acts like a human would? 6. What are the repercussions of this happening?
Please watch the video below that explains more about "The Uncanny Valley" and have fun discussing.
in Oregon that was deserted after the mine closed.
According to Lynn White in her article, “The Historical Roots
of the Ecological Crisis,” the word ecology did not appear in the English language
until 1873. This was during the
beginning of the Industrial Revolution, which introduced a litany of new issues
and questions into society that are still being addressed today. At the core of these issues, we must
challenge the conception that humanity has sovereignty over the Earth.
According to both of the class readings, theological belief may have part in
humanity’s lackadaisical attitude toward the environment. While Christianity
may have encouraged a dominion of humanity on Earth I don’t think it’s accurate
at say, as White does that Christianity is at the helm of the ecological
crisis. I don’t deny either that there
is something to the attitude of entitlement that surrounds the ecological
crisis that seems latent in some aspects of religion. As White points out, Pagan traditions were more
outright considerate of the environment while Christianity seems to put the
Earth completely at man’s disposal. That
said, I think it’s important to raise the following question: Is the attitude
of human dominion that theological belief (consider Catholicism especially) has
encouraged responsible for the ecological crisis? To what extent has science teamed with this
aspect of theological belief in its pursuit of industrial and technological
advancement? Also consider the
opposite—are scientists who are searching for ways to help the environment
operating under theological ideals or are they following a moral compass devoid
of religious influence? Does science need some aspects of theological belief be
motivated to save the planet?
Neurotheology:
“The attempt to explain religious experience and behavior in neuroscientific
terms.”
In the series
“Through the Wormhole,” Morgan Freeman features a study being preformed by
neurotheologists whom are attempting to explain the “correlations between
neural stimulation and spiritual experience.” Called ‘The God Spot,’
neurologists believe they have specified a part of the brain that, when
correctly stimulated by magnetic energy, will provide users with experiences
that are comparable to the spiritual and out of body experiences usually
associated with God intervention.
To research
‘The God Spot,’ Stanley Koren, a member of Laurentian University’s Neuroscience
Department, created a helmet with the directions of Dr. Michael Persinger, that
containing magnetic coils that are strategically aimed at the right temporal
lobe. Many test subjects claim that when wearing the Koren Helmet they
experienced “out-of-body feelings, apparitions floating around them, sensations
of weightlessness, and many other strange phenomena.” Throughout all the
testing, scientists discovered that about “80% of test subjects experienced
remarkable visions and some sensed the presence of something else in the
chamber.”
Now the big
question is are these visions truly visions of God? The right temporal lobe,
the area that the Koren Helmet stimulates, is responsible for auditory
perception, processing of speech and vision, and language functions. It seems
that the feelings the test subjects encountered may be false. This could be
because parts of the brain related to the experiences of the test subjects are
being more intensely activated. The inquiry scientists put on the table when
debating this experiment is whether or not the "God-Spot" is a region
of the brain that evolved so that humans can communicate with a higher power, or
a simply region we developed to create a "comfort blanket" for ourselves
amidst the violence that we experience in the world.
Other
Questions:
What causes
some of the test subjects to relate their encounters to a godly like occurrence?
Is ‘The God
Spot’ a spot that creates the illusion of God or is it the spot that
allows communication with god?
Merriam-Webster
Dictionary has defined the definition of evolution as:
A
theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other
preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to
modifications in successive generations
It also defines
creationism as:
A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the
various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described
in Genesis
Charles Darwin,
one of the founding fathers of evolution, explained the means of evolution in
his Origin of Species.His evolution theory is a premise on natural
selection, which is based on survival of the fittest, random variations, and
struggle for survival.This finding over
time has become, widely known as Social Darwinism, a major attack on
Scripture.This challenges God as the
designer and the status of humanity.
Here are the
counter-arguments from non-creationists:
Creationism is
based on the religious belief that there is an intellectual designer of the
universe, humanity, and Earth.The
prominent group of these believers is Christian Fundamentalists, who
specifically believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.They target against the theory of evolution.
William Paley
introduced the watchmaker analogy in his Natural
Theology, which stated that there is an intelligent designer.Creationists often use this analogy to
support their claims against the theory of evolution.
Here are some
questions for you guys to consider:
1.What
is your view on the controversy between evolution and creationism?
2.Is
Evolution just a theory? Does Creationist have solid evidence to argue against
Evolution?
3.Scopes
Trial led to the questioning of the teaching of evolution as being part of the
public school curriculum.What is your
take on this matter?Should just
evolution, creationism, or both be taught in the public school system?
4.Earlier
we’ve read John Paul II’s address on the need for a dialogue relationship
between religion and science, which maintains both identity and integrity.Do you agree with this? If not which one of
Barbour’s taxonomy would you classify the two?
