The Causes of Being

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?

Devilution?

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

NPR: Losing Our Religion

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.

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.

-Carrie W, Patrick C, and Chris S

Sins Against the Planet: Is Theology Responsible for the Consequences of Science?

Photo: An abandoned church in a mining town

 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?

The God Spot / Koren Helmet

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?

LINK TO YOUTUBE VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y02UlkYjSi0

LINK TO ARTICLES

http://questional.com/blog/74-dr-michael-persingers-koren-helmet-the-god-experience/
http://www.darksidecollective.org/GodHelmet.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/the-god-spot-revisited-spirituality-as-evolved-brain-function_b_1779667.html

Evolution

Evolution vs. Creationism

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8&feature=related

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?

     Happy discussing!

     -Khulan, Riley and Ryan 

·