Critical Thinking Midterm

4. What is your real name? Nancy Burlace

5. What is your "user" name? theburlaces

6. What is your email address that you use for this class? theburlaces@yahoo.com

7. Name and address for your website. http://www.chasing2rabbits.blogspot.com/

8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks? Yes, not as in depth as I would have hoped but I did manage to get it all done.

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

10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for thisclass (you can copy and paste them)
1-1 I love Richard Feynman, and I think I love his father even more. If only moreparents took the time to teach their children how to notice things andappreciate them and understand them the way he did maybe there would be lesspressure on teachers to be the ultimate authority on the way we view andperceive the world. Even if more teachers were willing to approach their subjectmatter this way, rather than sticking to a dry, state-mandated curriculum withlittle room to explore and wonder, we could surely reach new levels ofachievement in our fundamentally flawed education system. Teaching a child toappreciate the aesthetic as well as the scientific beauty of a flower, how tofind physics in the simple fun of watching the ball roll back and forth in yourwagon, embracing and promoting the awe and wonder that we carry as a childrather than deeming it a waste of time and encouraging them to look at the blackand white of the matter and grow up already.I really appreciated Feynman's observation of the important difference betweenknowing the name of something and knowing something. What a simply brilliant(and brilliantly simple) way of explaining how education, and life in general,should be approached! There have been so many times in my life when my thirstfor knowledge has gone unquenched because the answers were simply not goodenough. I always wanted to know more, rarely caring if it was what I wanted tohear or not. Feynman's discussion of calculus reminded me of my Senior yearcalculus class when I asked the teacher why a certain formula brought about aparticular result and her answer turned me off to calculus completely, she saidthere is no why, we just memorize the formulas because that is the way to findthe answer. Well, that did it. I just could not grasp the concept of somethingso concrete not having a reason. I understand that some things can never fullybe known but I usually reserve those few exceptions for arguments about theuniverse and life and death and the quest for meaning.
1-2 How does one teach common sense? When common sense is not so common andcritical thinking and reasoning skills take a back seat to tried and truepractices it is easy to see how the art of thinking outside the box is slowlydisintegrating. While practical life skills such as basic car repair, homeeconomics, personal finance management and job interview skills are clearlynecessary for one to become a well-rounded and functioning individual, they arenot the only skills one should focus on when forming the foundation for aneducation or curriculum. It is interesting to note the sociological theory ofthe hidden curriculum here in relation to Jones' discussion. It has beenobserved that schools associated with lower income communities and working classfamilies tend to be more structured and their academic goals somewhat lower thanin upper-middle class neighborhoods. The emphasis seems to be more onmemorization, following directions and the details of the procedures involved incertain tasks rather than the critical thinking, curiosity and application ofabstract principles to solve problems which makes for a truly bright andindependent thinker. As Feynman put it, they have invented a set of rules tohelp one reach the answers without ever having to truly understand thequestions.In many instances teachers and employers place more emphasis on completing atask according to specific instruction rather than applying one's own ideas andthoughts to the task at hand. I recall quite a few times in my educational andoccupational careers when asking the question "why?" was considered to be taboo.This problem infiltrates the family structure as well; "but why mommy?"…"because I said so." This answer, whether given in a classroom, an office or aliving room, demeans the asker and offers no real opportunity for thedevelopment of true understanding and critical thinking ability. We shouldstrive to be honest in our answers and even more so, in our questions. If we canreach this agreement amongst ourselves, reaching for full awareness of what weare asking and why and be sure that we really wish to know the answer and on theother side, being willing to answer the question honestly, even if the ultimateanswer is that we do not know.
1-3 Karma is such a nice notion. If only people really did get what theydeserved. It seems to be an extension of "do unto others as you would have themdo unto you" but with a little more fear attached. If karma and other similarsuperstitions actually affected our lives and our world, there would be farfewer "bad guys" and more people trying to help one another and do the rightthing.It is unfortunate that most of us live our lives with the notion that ourgood deeds will be rewarded rather than being satisfied with the thought thatdoing the right thing is its own reward. Being able to sleep peacefully atnight, waking up each morning with a clear conscience, not worrying about whatwe may get in return tomorrow, or next week, or in "the afterlife." Human naturestill prevails over any idealized views of life and society but in my opinionthe closest thing one can hope for, in terms of karma, is that if we behave acertain way and treat people a certain way, is that we will mostly* be treatedwell in return, but if we are not, it is not the re3sult of some cosmicretribution for mistakes in a past life, it could very well be that someone justhad a bad day. Bad things happen to bad people, bad things happen to goodpeople, bad things happen, period. As do good things. Such is life and whileevery avenue has a consequence or a reaction, it is illogical to believe that itis based on a culmination of our deeds, choices or actions. No one is sitting upthere keeping score.
1-4 Religious Visions and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man made me giggle. I foundmyself nodding and shaking my head at the same time. I nod because I agree and Ishake my head because of the ridiculous ideas some people hold onto and attachsuch significance to. Throughout my reading I thought of a number of examples: Ayoung lady in Mexico discovers the image of the Virgin Mary in a tree and peopleflock to it and light candles and cross themselves and rejoice at this "proof"of divinity. More recently, Jesus manifested himself in a bruise and this wastaken as a sign that he himself had set his hands on this young man to heal him.Even Michael Jackson made an illustrious appearance in a tree stump on the dayhe died, according to a family in Stockton. What I find even more humorous isthat these images of Jesus and Mary are not even true depictions based onphotographs but rather representations that had been created by EuropeanRenaissance artists that had never actually met them!Another aspect that I love is how religious individuals can justify andexplain anything away. "Oh, I prayed every day and God finally answered myprayers...." and then in another instance, "Oh, things didn't go the way I hadhoped? It's God's will." Well, there is just no way for us secular folk to winis there? When you can turn any argument in your favor, it provides an unfairadvantage and makes most rational people throw their hands up in the air andwalk away defeated. After all, how can you reason with faith?It appears to me that religion can only be rationalized as a completelyindividual experience with no two people having exactly the same idea of God,heaven, hell, what it means to be a good person, what it means to be a goodChristian... It is as if I were to say to you, "My dreams are real. The thingsthat happen to me while I am sleeping are actually happening to me but yourdreams are just figments of your imagination and manifestations of yoursubconscious." Well how can you argue with me? You are not there in my dreams.You cannot convince me that what is happening to me while I am sleeping is notreal. I am the only one who knows the truth. You, on the other hand, are sillyif you believe that the dragon that chased you through the streets of Londonlast night was real. I mean, seriously... If you want to start having realdreams like me you better start praying to your mattress every night andsprinkling your pillow with sugar....I like to poke fun at religions but having taken a World Religions class Iunderstand that this is a very important subject for a lot of people and mostwould take a lot of offense to anyone trying to diminish or break down theirentire belief system, but I just have to laugh at how even the most intelligent,articulate, educated individuals can throw common sense out the window when itcomes to questions of faith and religion.
1-5 Lane’s writing style is as entertaining as his speaking style. He leaves you smiling, laughing, nodding, sitting at the edge of your seat, and turning pages until the wee hours of the morning. His writings on Ken Wilber and Da Free John were humorously astute. Lane is critical of Wilber and his exaggerated praise of Da Free John. He accuses Wilber of gross, spiritual exaggeration (something Lane does not claim to be completely innocent of himself). He describes Wilber’s tendency to inflate, exaggerate and hype those things which are not yet knowable. His work is fundamentally tainted by these exaggerations, especially in matters of ultimate importance. Wilber goes on and on about the greatness of Da Free John. Wilber claims that The Dawn Horse Testament is the greatest spiritual book of all time, which he cannot possibly know to be factual. This is a matter of opinion being touted as fact. Lane suggests that instead Wilber may have more accurately stated that it is the best book he has ever read- a statement which cannot be argued since it is simply a matter of opinion. Lane goes on to explain that just because one writes well does not mean that by extension he is an embodiment of the highest truth or realization. Wilbur repeatedly confuses the message with the medium. He is naïve in thinking that writing is somehow reflective of one’s inner attainment.


2-1 I found myself nodding away (not to be confused with nodding off) as I readKurtz article regarding skeptical inquiry. He managed to state, far morearticulately than I ever could have, many of the exact thoughts and questions Ihave had regarding religion and experience with the paranormal. I like toconsider myself a naturally logical person, I have trouble with many"faith-based" or evidence-less claims. I find myself often asking for moreproof, even regarding arguments that have withstood basic analysis. I sometimeswonder if there is such a thing as being too skeptical or if it just amounts tobeing realistic and practical...One major issue that I find myself frequently encountering as far asreligion goes, is that it can never truly be reconciled. In fact, as time goeson, the number of religions continues to grow exponentially, with a new branchstarting up every time a difference in belief or interpretation surfaces.Religion is an intensely personal, individual thing masquerading as communitybelief. Each individual views God, what is expected of them through theirreligion, their concept of heaven and hell, the power of prayer, thejustification of God's will differently. This does not just vary betweenreligions but also within religions. As soon as there is a discrepancy regardingany aspect of a religion, the individual becomes free to dismiss or disregardthis part and apply only what works for them at that particular moment. It is anever-evolving belief system, constantly revised and justified to suit presentsituation. As Kurtz so poignantly states, "religion does not give us knowledgeor truth; instead it expresses mood and attitude."
2-2 Lett's argument was very well organized, precise and easy to understand. In AField Guide to Critical Thinking, Lett outlines the information needed in orderto fairly and reasonably evaluate evidence. By applying the rules ofFalsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability and Sufficiencywe can make sure that our arguments and beliefs are well-founded and logical, atleast until additional evidence surfaces that may lead us to believe otherwise.This is probably why I have had a hard time sticking to any particular set ofbeliefs. Throughout my life, as my scope of knowledge, level of understanding,ideas regarding morality and ethics and views regarding the world, have changeddramatically and I cannot imagine being 'locked into' any set of beliefs andbeing made to hold onto them even when I have clearly outgrown them. I comeacross that often, people who have clearly realized how ridiculous some of theirbeliefs are, and yet they refuse to let go of them because either their family,or their church, or their culture, would shun them because of it. We areterrified to go against the grain so we will set aside logic, rationality andreason, even if it persists in every other aspect of our lives, just so that wedo not have to feel the discomfort that goes along with changing one's beliefs.One aspect of Lett's article that resonated with me was his comment about"government conspiracies." I find most conspiracy theories to be quiteentertaining, and quite a few of them tend to hold more water than mostreligious arguments that I have heard! The world conspiracy brings up a lot ofnegative connotation but in reality, it is my opinion that these theories havejust as much plausibility as any other theory out there. We cannot deny thatthere is a possibility and/or a motive that the government or the military wouldwant to keep certain operations out of the public eye and may try to throwthings off or cater to "human interest in the absurd" and allow people'simaginations to run wild and wreak havoc on the truth. Realistically, I think alot of the time we do not know the truth and the evidence presented to us astruth does not tell the whole story and often appears holey (not holy) andincomplete (much like religious claims). My point is that labeling something asa "conspiracy theory" should not exempt it from being susceptible to the sameset of rules of evaluation that Lett argued should be applied to any beliefs. Iam always willing to be proven wrong when the evidence is there to support it!
2-3 The movie Eleven is about a young reporter trying to tell the story of the youngSikh man who was mistaken for a Muslim and murdered by a group callingthemselves ELEVEN. This group appointed themselves to rid the world of terroristthreats starting with the Muslims. The reporter, upon leaving the mosque aftergathering reactions to the man's murder, was himself mistaken for a Muslim andmurdered. The reporter candidly states that his dream came true, he made thefront page but in the process lost his life. Jones, the head of ELEVEN hadconvinced himself somehow that he was righting the wrong of his father's deathin the Twin Towers on September 11th. Clearly, this was an emotional battle andnot a rational one. He was a young man, angered at his father's death andlooking for someone to take it out on. He mistakenly equated all Muslims withterrorism and in his ignorance took the life of a young man wearing a turban anda young man leaving a mosque, neither of whom were Muslims, or terrorists forthat matter. When we jump to conclusions and let our cloudy emotions direct ouractions, we are bound to do things that do not make sense to others and later,that do not even make sense to us. Jones himself became a terrorist.
2-4 Lett made this point well by stating that, "if you are willing to be selectivein the evidence you consider, you could reasonably conclude that the earth isflat." Along the same lines is the concept of honesty when evaluating ourclaims. As I stated previously, we must be honest with ourselves about theresults of an examination and be prepared to abandon belief in a claim thatproves to be invalid or unsound. This is easier said than done. Even whenoverwhelming evidence is presented to us, it is easy for our ego and our priorconvictions to be resistant to this shattering blow. It is never easy to admitthat something we held to be truth, and perhaps even based many of our lifedecisions on or our value structure or our understanding of the world, isunfounded, illogical or just plain wrong, but as critical thinkers andintelligent, reasonable human beings, we must be willing to concede and evolveour thinking in light of the evidence. What affected me most from this sectionof Lett's article was the mirror he held up to me when asserting that neutralityand agnosticism are no better than credulity and faith. For most of my adultlife I have considered myself to be agnostic in all aspects of religious andparanormal belief. I do not know and I was comfortable with the fact that I didnot know, until Lett explained that basically, that is a cop out answer and weshould not be willing to stop at I don't know, but should dig deeper intoourselves and the evidence regarding a particular claim and not be wishy-washy.If there is nothing, admit that at this point in time, in light of the evidencepresented, there is nothing, until someone can provide solid evidence of thecontrary.
2-5 Huxley does not intend for a scientific education to be solely based in science. In fact, he feels that this would be as much of a disservice as a liberal education. He begins by reasoning that the improvement of natural knowledge whatever direction it has taken has instilled practical benefits on men and has profoundly altered their modes of thinking and their views of right and wrong. What Huxley means by education in general is learning the rules of this “mighty game.” Education is the instruction of the intellect in the laws of Nature, including things and their forces, men and their ways and learning to move in harmony with those laws. A scientific education, according to Huxley includes teaching the elements of physical science and also the elements of the theory of morals and of political and social life. He suggests the teaching of history and geography as a chapter in the development of the history of civilization. He believes we should devote a large portion of time to the careful study of the models of English writing as well as dedicating time to the instruction of art, music or painting; something for the development of the aesthetic side of the mind. He also places importance on the study of other languages.

3-1 Lane defines pretext as that unit which is rudimentary to the book but which isnot yet readable as a text. While initially we can say that reading or viewingsomething in terms of pretext is not useful since. What good are all of theseletters if they are not conjoined together into some larger meaning? However,Lane makes a valid point in stating that the more one grounds her self inpretext the more secure the formation will be when one moves up to textualunderstanding because there will be less confusion of word or sentenceformation. A strong vocabulary, a high level of comfort with reading in generaland a knowledge of the fundamentals of reading comprehension are all importantin order to be able to take the next step to textual understanding. Textualunderstanding is the larger complex which words, sentences and paragraphsdevelop. There are times, in this class especially, when I feel like some words,even some concepts, go over my head. However, I consider myself to be a goodreader with a decent vocabulary and above average comprehensive skills. So byreading the whole book, paper, article, etc. I can generally grasp the main ideaand step away knowing/understanding more than I thought I had, and even beingable to go back and say, Oh I get it now. Similar to the first time one watchesthe Sixth Sense, not in the intellectual sense but in the sense that therevelation that comes at the end almost compels the viewer to watch it again tobe able to pick up on the clues earlier and see if anything was there that wedid not see the first time that would have made the conclusion more obvious. Byreading the text we can get a fairly decent sense of what the author is tryingto convey. However, there are certain things around and beyond the text whichare necessary for better comprehension. This is referred to as context. Contextis the larger arena by which any text, formed by any pretext is understood. Inanalyzing a book or argument we cannot simply look at any of these partsindependently of the others. We must have an understanding of each aspect andits role in the process of analysis and comprehension.
3-2 It was interesting to learn that Kant, a critical thinker and true skeptic,could still manage to put aside all rationality to believe in the religiousmaxims he had learned since he was a child. This is truly insightful into thepower of religion and can be related to the transmission of memes that Dawkinsspeaks of. The Adam Sandler movie, the Water Boy seems to strike me as a validexample of this. Here is this man, who has only ever been educated by his motherand has clearly been misguided on much of the information that she transmitted.On a broader scale, I can think back to my Christian elementary school and theindoctrination that occurs from day one. You are not allowed to disbelieve, toquestion, to instigate debate or discussion, in essence, critical thinking wasessentially forbidden. Perhaps this is an exaggeration of my memory but I recallit being taboo to ask too many leading questions about the contradictoryelements of the bible. We were not allowed to pick and choose what we wanted tobelieve, it was an all or nothing kind of deal.
3-3 The underlying spiritual message and the transmitting medium who conveys it,though related, are two distinct entities. To throw a carton of eggs awaybecause of one rotten one is silly and wasteful. If we confuse the message andthe medium we ignore the fact that a corrupt religious group can present genuineteachings or that an authentic spiritual discourse can have an illegitimateexpression.There are many actors whom we may respect as masters of their craft yet whom wemay not know or care for on a personal level. Some people even go so far as toboycott an actor's movies because they dislike decisions he is making in hispersonal life (think Mel Gibson after his racist outburst or Tom Cruise afterhis scientology rants). If we can learn to separate the message from the mediumwe can allow ourselves complete access to anything that may assist us on our ownpersonal paths to spiritual understanding and enlightenment without ever havingto put ourselves and our beliefs into a box and thus, limiting our potential forknowledge and maximum benefit.
3-4 This article by Russell was the most challenging for me to fully grasp. I appreciated his encouragement of a form of logic in looking around the world that was separate from the metaphysical but I found myself reading and re-reading the same paragraphs over and over again for clarity. He defines metaphysics as the attempt to conceive the world as a whole by means of thought and calls it a union of two opposing human impulses, mysticism and science. Upon further dissection, he explains that mysticism is little more than certain intensity and depth of feeling in regard to what is believed about the universe. We tend to make the mistake of demanding that the world conform to our desires and this is evident in many of the “truths” that we base our life decisions and beliefs on. Russell writes of Heraclitus the empiricist and Plato who tends to reside more in the realm of mystic philosophical thought. He discusses Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and the pain and discomfort associated with the search for truth. While Russell himself finds the philosophy of mysticism and the belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge based in insight and intuition as opposed to sense, reason and analysis to be somewhat lacking, he does admit that there is an element of wisdom to be learned from the mystical way of feeling. However, he insists that this should be viewed as an attitude toward life and not a creed about the world.
3-5 Dyson argues that a scientific view of the world is inconsistent with the idea that the universe has a purpose. He believes that the universe is purposeful and that humans should feel at home in it. He states that living life serves a purpose and argues that human life is deeply meaningful and of profound importance to the universe. The more he examines the universe and studies its details the more evidence he claims to find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming. He views the Earth as a self organizing, regulating system and teaches that Evolution is not just a matter of natural selection but self perpetual spontaneous action implying consciousness and a choice of survival and adaptation.

11. Why does Richard Dawkins consider religion a "virus" of themind? Do you agree or disagree?Substantiate your view.
Dawkins relates memes first to computer viruses then to biological viruses and diseases and finally to religious beliefs. These hidden “mind viruses” are difficult to detect and even easier to deny. No one wants to admit that they are the victim of brainwashing or that their system of beliefs does not hold water. Dawkins however, explains that there is little difference between the way a computer virus works and the way a mind virus works. Most of the time you do not know where a particular “virus” or belief came from, how long it has been there, what effect it is having on the machine as a whole and if there is any way to disentangle it from the rest of the program. The difference it seems, at least from what I can deduce is that computer viruses tend to be inherently harmful to your system, not many would argue against that, while mind viruses are rarely viewed as harmful to the infected individual. Religious individuals, much like conspiracy theorists, paranormal enthusiasts, astrologers, etc. are all perfectly content with their fantastical beliefs and views and would rather not have the rug pulled out from under them. One can equate it to a child’s belief in Santa Claus. Granted, a child does not generally possess the critical thinking skills or deductive reasoning ability to realize that it is logistically impossible for one man to deliver presents to all the children of the world. And as they grow and start to put two and two together they begin to ask more detailed questions until alas, the treasured story unravels and they are left feeling betrayed, deceived and disillusioned. Some adults reach this point in terms of religion as well; suddenly realizing that what they always believed may not have any basis in fact. These people are not the ones we worry about. They are not necessarily the ones that Dawkins was referring to because the “disease” is not yet terminal. They, like alcoholics, have taken the first step and admitted they have a problem. The real ‘threat’ to a healthy and scientifically founded society are the individuals who refuse to see the truth regardless of the evidence presented before them. These are the people that Dawkins seems to refer to as being afflicted with a virus of the mind. These viruses, transmitted culturally, are very hard to track and even harder to unravel. One may ask, what is wrong with letting them hold onto their beliefs? Who is it hurting? Well it hurts the intellectual fabric of our society as a whole. I loved Dawkins’ example of the improper us of the word “literally” and how if we allow it to be misused then soon all of its meaning will be lost. We must strive to look below the surface and honestly evaluate our beliefs along scientific standards without offering such baseless answers as faith, mystery, god’s will, and the power of prayer.

12. Give an example of a "cargo cult" belief and critically analyzeit from a scientific perspective? Hint:think of something that people believe in that lacks overwhelmingevidence to support it.
What exactly is overwhelming evidence? There are times when I have been presented with evidence and still not believed something because I feel like one should always consider the messenger’s agenda and what they stand to gain from getting you to agree with them. For example, clinical studies that are funded by the pharmaceutical companies that stand to gain profits and stockholders are not reliable sources as far as I am concerned, and I have trouble taking their results at face value. Usually I look to the other side of the argument to see what they have to say and then by evaluating both sides I can usually pick out the relative truth, at least for the moment. A couple of years ago all we heard about was how sugar causes hyperactivity in children, and then suddenly “they” said we were wrong and that sugar in itself does not cause hyperactivity, the activities relating to an abundance of sugar laden treats is what leads to the hyperactivity. Who do we believe? We must find unbiased (which is easier said than done) scientific research that is not funded by the Sugar companies, conduct our own educated observations, and ascertain as many facts as possible before we draw any reasonable conclusions. The same can be said about the Vaccine bandwagon. Many criticize me for choosing not to vaccinate my children but this science is so new, and the side effects are so elusive that it is hard for me to blindly accept their safety. I don’t know if these chemicals do or do not initiate autism, ADD, neurological disorders, immuno-suppressive responses, I do not fall to the extreme and say it is a population control conspiracy, as some do. What I do know is that I do not know and until I do know, I choose to air on the side of caution. Realistically, we take a risk with the vaccines and with the diseases, but I would rather my child have chicken pox for 4 weeks than a neuro-lapse that lasts a lifetime.

13. How does one do "science" according to Richard Feynman. Why isthis form of science so important tohuman beings? How can such a view of science help enrich one'sappreciation for beauty? Be sure to giveYOUR own example of Feynman's point (no "flowers" allowed). Feynman used the example of the flower to teach that science does not take away from, but adds to the beauty and appreciation of the flower. If religious individuals could accept this notion, rather than constantly being on the defensive as if science is trying to steal something from them. Well, some scientists and some atheists may very well become bullies and enjoy running around telling Christians how stupid they are and how there is no way that what they think is true could actually be factual. This example is akin to the scientist who has lost the ability to see the beauty in the flower and can only see its imperfections and its particulate makeup. There is a way for science to act as a magnifying glass toward the beauty and wonder of the world. It does not have to be mysterious to be beautiful. In fact, much beauty can come from discovering the answers. Feynman’s father taught him to notice things. He taught him that knowing the name of something is not the same as knowing something. Feynman wants us to “do” science rather than just reading it. He urges us to teach our kids interesting things about the world. To explore and find out as much as we can about it. We are encouraged to just look around without pre-deciding what we are looking for.

14. Give your interpretation of the movie "Karma." Karma is such a nice notion. If only people really did get what they deserved. It seems to be an extension of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but with a little more fear attached. If karma and other similarsuperstitions actually affected our lives and our world, there would be farfewer "bad guys" and more people trying to help one another and do the rightthing.It is unfortunate that most of us live our lives with the notion that ourgood deeds will be rewarded rather than being satisfied with the thought thatdoing the right thing is its own reward. Being able to sleep peacefully atnight, waking up each morning with a clear conscience, not worrying about whatwe may get in return tomorrow, or next week, or in "the afterlife." Human naturestill prevails over any idealized views of life and society but in my opinionthe closest thing one can hope for, in terms of karma, is that if we behave acertain way and treat people a certain way, is that we will mostly* be treatedwell in return, but if we are not, it is not the result of some cosmicretribution for mistakes in a past life, it could very well be that someone justhad a bad day. Bad things happen to bad people, bad things happen to goodpeople, bad things happen, period. As do good things. Such is life and whileevery avenue has a consequence or a reaction, it is illogical to believe that itis based on a culmination of our deeds, choices or actions. No one is sitting upthere keeping score.

15. Explain, in brief, Darwinian evolution and why John MaynardSmith's contribution is important inthinking differently about survival of the fittest. Darwinian processes are the central organizing force that give rise to complexity. Natural selection produces behaviors and questions regarding why things are the way they are. Smith applied Darwin’s evolutionary theory to his Game theory but revised it, arguing that certain traits do not keep along the lines of the theory. Aggressiveness in Darwin’s studies was seen as a positive trait, akin to dominance and hence survival for another generation. However, this led to the conclusion that passiveness was weakness which is where Smith argues that passivity is actually a sign that a species can avoid conflict and therefore survive, procreate and thrive.

16. What are Freeman Dyson's views on the "design" of the universeor the purpose of humankind? Dyson argues that a scientific view of the world is inconsistent with the idea that the universe has a purpose. He believes that the universe is purposeful and that humans should feel at home in it. He states that living life serves a purpose and argues that human life is deeply meaningful and of profound importance to the universe. The more he examines the universe and studies its details the more evidence he claims to find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming. He views the Earth as a self organizing, regulating system and teaches that Evolution is not just a matter of natural selection but self perpetual spontaneous action implying consciousness and a choice of survival and adaptation.

17. What IS the "secret" that Faqir Chand discovered about religionand its founders? Faqir realized that NO guru, savior or angel is external. He discovered that all visions emerge from our psyche and are related to the impressions and suggestions that have already appeared in his mind. He told his followers and the people of other faiths that their real helper is their own self and there own faith and that they are badly mistaken if they believe that somebody comes from without to help them. Faqir stated simply that there is No Baba, No Krishna, No God, No Jesus, No Goddess, No Dalai Lama, No angels, No Virgin, No Buddha, No mother Teresa. This was the change that he felt he was ordained to bring about. To teach people that even religious founders had selfish agendas in mind when they led their followers to believe that they actually did have some power to physically appear to them or help them and that it was anything more than the impressions and suggestions ingrained in their mind through faith and beliefs.

18. Explain the movie Eleven and what is YOUR interpretation of it?In other words, what is the underlying message that thedirector is trying to convey? The movie Eleven is about a young reporter trying to tell the story of the young Sikh man who was mistaken for a Muslim and murdered by a group calling themselves ELEVEN. This group appointed themselves to rid the world of terrorist threats starting with the Muslims. The reporter, upon leaving the mosque after gathering reactions to the man’s murder, was himself mistaken for a Muslim and murdered. The reporter candidly states that his dream came true, he made the front page but in the process lost his life. Jones, the head of ELEVEN had convinced himself somehow that he was righting the wrong of his father’s death in the Twin Towers on September 11th. Clearly, this was an emotional battle and not a rational one. He was a young man, angered at his father’s death and looking for someone to take it out on. He mistakenly equated all Muslims with terrorism and in his ignorance took the life of a young man wearing a turban and a young man leaving a mosque, neither of whom were Muslims, or terrorists for that matter. When we jump to conclusions and let our cloudy emotions direct our actions, we are bound to do things that do not make sense to others and later, that do not even make sense to us. Jones himself became a terrorist.

19. Why is distinguishing the message from the medium so important?Use the Da Free John article as your context. We must realize the importance of distinguishing the message from the medium because we may miss out on a lot of valuable insights that may not be transmitted in the best way and we may fall prey to faulty reasoning because of articulate delivery. Not unlike the phrase, “don’t shoot the messenger,” we seem to have a hard time separating the point from the … pointer. Simply because one communicates the ultimate truths well does not mean, by extension that he is an embodiment of that highest realization. The Da Free John article names a number of examples on individuals who write or speak convincingly and articulately about spiritual truths and Nirvana but who are still not free of the human vices and weaknesses that afflict many of us. A mistake that many students of religion make is that they believe that the guru and the message are inseparable so they are willing to dismiss the benefit of the message because they dislike the messenger. An example of this from the article is the section regarding the essence of the Christian faith and how its roots actually promote a beneficial way of life- moral, loving, and self sacrificing. We may choose to dismiss all of these when we observe the number of hypocrisies that have occurred throughout the ages. This would be a mistake. Huston Smith’s book paints a beautiful picture of each religion intending to highlight its beauty and intention and core values. Upon reading this, I found admiration and respect for a number of different religions and the messages they were trying to convey. The idea behind each of these was beautiful, and then along came Man to muddle things up and misinterpret, over-exaggerate and ignore some fundamental aspects, namely concerning peace, tolerance and kindness.
The underlying spiritual message and the transmitting medium who conveys it, though related, are two distinct entities. To throw a carton of eggs away because of one rotten one is silly and wasteful. If we confuse the message and the medium we ignore the fact that a corrupt religious group can present genuine teachings or that an authentic spiritual discourse can have an illegitimate expression.
There are many actors whom we may respect as masters of their craft yet whom we may not know or care for on a personal level. Some people even go so far as to boycott an actor’s movies because they dislike decisions he is making in his personal life (think Mel Gibson after his racist outburst or Tom Cruise after his scientology rants). If we can learn to separate the message from the medium we can allow ourselves complete access to anything that may assist us on our own personal paths to spiritual understanding and enlightenment without ever having to put ourselves and our beliefs into a box and thus, limiting our potential for knowledge and maximum benefit.

20. What are Bertrand Russell's reasons for NOT being a Christian?Do you agree or disagree with him? GIVE RATIONALARGUMENTS FOR your position (pro or con). Russell begins to assemble his argument by first defining Christianity and asserting that Christians generally agree that there is a God, there is such a thing as immortality, and that Christ was at the very least, the best and wisest of men. He goes on to explain that he does not believe any of these things and proceeds to tell us why. He de-bunks the First Cause argument since if there had to be a first cause for the world, then it follows that there has to be a first cause to God and if there is none, then why is it possible for God to have no cause but not for the world to have no cause? He finds no reason why it should not have always existed. I enjoyed Russell’s critique of the natural law argument as a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations. He goes on to discuss the argument from Design and shakes his head at the absurdity of such a principle. Living creatures are clearly adapted to their environment and not the other way around. It was not that this world was made perfect for us, it is that over time we have adapted ourselves and our world to a level of comfortable function that suits us. One of Russell’s most compelling points is his question regarding the flaws and defects present in this world being the absolute best that omniscience and omnipotence can come up with in a million years of time. He writes so profoundly, yet so bluntly and admits that if people were to accept the truth that this world is just a rock that is following the natural course of evolution and will one day, millions of years from now, be just another cold, dead, lifeless rock like the moon, they would not lose the urge to live, as many propose. This goes along the lines of Russell’s moral arguments against the fact that all morality would be lost as well if there was no God. It was interesting to learn that Kant, a critical thinker and true skeptic, could still manage to put aside all rationality to believe in the religious maxims he had learned since he was a child. This is truly insightful into the power of religion and can be related to the transmission of memes that Dawkins speaks of. The Adam Sandler movie, the Water Boy seems to strike me as a valid example of this. Here is this man, who has only ever been educated by his mother and has clearly been misguided on much of the information that she transmitted. On a broader scale, I can think back to my Christian elementary school and the indoctrination that occurs from day one. You are not allowed to disbelieve, to question, to instigate debate or discussion, in essence, critical thinking was essentially forbidden. Perhaps this is an exaggeration of my memory but I recall it being taboo to ask too many leading questions about the contradictory elements of the bible. We were not allowed to pick and choose what we wanted to believe, it was an all or nothing kind of deal. Anyway, I digress. Russell then turns to another common argument used by religious individuals. If there is no Heaven and Hell then how can there ever truly be justice to right all of the injustices of the world? The trouble with this rationality is that it assumes that there must be justice. This is like the philosophical argument about the essential goodness or the inherent evil present in man. Is man born good and later succumbs to evils or is he born with the selfishness and self preservation as his prime motivators and has to learn how to be good and moral? Russell goes on to criticize the idea of Jesus’ supremacy and perfection. He points out flaws in his character that reveal themselves numerous times through out the scriptures. He highlights the defects in his teachings and the fact that Jesus often alluded to the fact that the second coming would occur during his lifetime which alerts us that he was not, in fact, all knowing. Russell makes a valid point in stating that if we are looking for a character to model ourselves after, we would be better off looking toward the Buddha or Socrates rather than Jesus, who appeared to have a hot temper and a vindictive fury, often threatening people with everlasting punishment if they did not follow him. What does that say of his character??
Moving on, I couldn’t help but chuckle when Russell pokes at the fact that one of the main arguments in favor of religion is that religion makes men virtuous. Russell admits, “so I am told; I have not noticed it.” In fact, I wanted to stand up and applaud after he pointed out that the Christian religion has, in fact, been the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. He urges us to break the slavish chains of religion and the fear it imposes and look at the world frankly in the face, accepting it for what it is, good bad or other, making the best of it through knowledge, kindliness and courage.

21. Give a summary of Jim Lett's field guide to critical thinking (inyour own "300" words, no more). Don't use quotes but write it like aletterto a friend explain how to think critically in light of Lett'snumerous points. Why is it that critical thinking is not emphasized in early education? Do educators not realize the importance of being able to think critically in every aspect of life? Some may do it better than others but all should be given the tools they need to be able to understand what critical thinking is, as well as how and why we should apply it in our lives. Could it be a great ‘conspiracy’ to keep the general population ignorant and under-educated in order to have better control of the direction of affairs? Could it be laziness on our part? Could it be that critical thinking is an art that is difficult to explain let alone teach? Jim Lett outlines his breakdown of critical thinking and explains how he, as an educator teaches his students how to evaluate evidence. He simplifies this process through a series of six rules to follow when considering any claim. The first aspect of the claim examined should be its falsifiability. What this means is that in order for a claim to be true, there must be the possibility of being able to prove it false. If there is absolutely no evidence that could possibly falsify this claim then the claim is meaningless since it is impossible for any claim to be true no matter what. This is the problem with many religious and paranormal claims. The explanation that follows the claims are usually unarguable because there is always an excuse or justification that cancels out any rational argument. After we have established that the claim is falsifiable we must be able to examine it through Logic. All premises put forth in the argument must be valid and sound. A claim is said to be valid if its conclusion unavoidably follows its premise, and it is said to be sound if it is valid and if all the premises are true. Once we can agree that the claim is valid and sound, we must dig a little deeper and ask ourselves if it is comprehensive. All available evidence must be considered before we can make a decision about the claim. We often see one sided arguments, where someone ignores opposing evidence and shines a bright light on the evidence that supports their case. This is not the way critical thinking works and we must be able to honestly assess whether our desire for the claim to be true slants our view in any way. Lett made this point well by stating that, “if you are willing to be selective in the evidence you consider, you could reasonably conclude that the earth is flat.” Along the same lines is the concept of honesty when evaluating our claims. As I stated previously, we must be honest with ourselves about the results of an examination and be prepared to abandon belief in a claim that proves to be invalid or unsound. This is easier said than done. Even when overwhelming evidence is presented to us, it is easy for our ego and our prior convictions to be resistant to this shattering blow. It is never easy to admit that something we held to be truth, and perhaps even based many of our life decisions on or our value structure or our understanding of the world, is unfounded, illogical or just plain wrong, but as critical thinkers and intelligent, reasonable human beings, we must be willing to concede and evolve our thinking in light of the evidence. What affected me most from this section of Lett’s article was the mirror he held up to me when asserting that neutrality and agnosticism are no better than credulity and faith. For most of my adult life I have considered myself to be agnostic in all aspects of religious and paranormal belief. I do not know and I was comfortable with the fact that I did not know, until Lett explained that basically, that is a cop out answer and we should not be willing to stop at I don’t know, but should dig deeper into ourselves and the evidence regarding a particular claim and not be wishy-washy. If there is nothing, admit that at this point in time, in light of the evidence presented, there is nothing, until someone can provide solid evidence of the contrary. Along the same lines as presenting partial evidence or only accepting one side of an argument is faulty experimentation. Any result can be achieved once, but if it cannot be replicated then it can and should be considered, a fluke, an error or fraud. This is Lett’s fifth principle of critically examining claims. The claim must be replicable. The final step in evaluating the weight of a claim lies in the sufficiency of the evidence presented. It is not enough to simply say that because we cannot prove that something is untrue then it must be true. There are a number of things that exist within the realm of possibility but should not unquestionably be administered as truth. In order to truly validate a claim there must not only be the absence of disconfirming evidence but the presence of confirming evidence. By applying all of these elements to rational analysis of claims we can establish a fairly safe means of making sure that our beliefs are well-founded, at least in light of current evidence. We should not be so bold as to assert that this is absolute truth and cannot ever be re-evaluated, we must always be flexible enough to admit that there exists somewhere the possibility that we are still wrong.

22. Why does Kurtz believe that skepticism should be applied toreligion? Do you agree or disagree? Kurtz believes that religion should not be exempt from evaluation by the scientific principles that we use to explain behavior, human nature, and nature in general. Kurtz points out that paranormal claims as well as religious claims purport to be exceptions to natural laws. The reason skepticism needs to come into play is because anything that claims to be an exception to a natural law should be scrutinized. A law of nature by definition, should not have exceptions, and definitely should not have unexplainable exceptions. If this were the case then calling them laws would be arbitrary. If the law of gravity did not always present the same result then it would not be called law. If something defies the laws of gravity then there must either be a scientific explanation for this or the law must be revised to account for the exception. Many biblical scholars, other religious accounts and paranormal accounts refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a naturalistic explanation. The trouble with this, especially in reference to the bible, is that these accounts were recorded thousands of years ago, before our present understanding of science, geography, anatomy, physics, psychology, astronomy etc. If we refuse to revise our thinking about these “historical events” and place them in context of time period, culture, and location we run the risk of falling victim to faulty reasoning and illogical arguments.

23. Why is pretext, text, and context important in analyzing a bookor an argument. Provide your own example. Lane defines pretext as that unit which is rudimentary to the book but which is not yet readable as a text. While initially we can say that reading or viewing something in terms of pretext is not useful since. What good are all of these letters if they are not conjoined together into some larger meaning? However, Lane makes a valid point in stating that the more one grounds her self in pretext the more secure the formation will be when one moves up to textual understanding because there will be less confusion of word or sentence formation. A strong vocabulary, a high level of comfort with reading in general and a knowledge of the fundamentals of reading comprehension are all important in order to be able to take the next step to textual understanding. Textual understanding is the larger complex which words, sentences and paragraphs develop. There are times, in this class especially, when I feel like some words, even some concepts, go over my head. However, I consider myself to be a good reader with a decent vocabulary and above average comprehensive skills. So by reading the whole book, paper, article, etc. I can generally grasp the main idea and step away knowing/understanding more than I thought I had, and even being able to go back and say, Oh I get it now. Similar to the first time one watches the Sixth Sense, not in the intellectual sense but in the sense that the revelation that comes at the end almost compels the viewer to watch it again to be able to pick up on the clues earlier and see if anything was there that we did not see the first time that would have made the conclusion more obvious. By reading the text we can get a fairly decent sense of what the author is trying to convey. However, there are certain things around and beyond the text which are necessary for better comprehension. This is referred to as context. Context is the larger arena by which any text, formed by any pretext is understood. In analyzing a book or argument we cannot simply look at any of these parts independently of the others. We must have an understanding of each aspect and its role in the process of analysis and comprehension.

24. What is a "transformative" UFO encounter and does the author ofthe Himalayan Connection really believe in UFOs as genuineextraterrestrials? A transformative UFO encounter is one that has already been verified through our own consciousness. If someone were to tell me about their extraterrestrial or paranormal encounter, I, being an individual who has never had such an experience; I have never seen a ghost, a UFO or an angel, I have never felt God’s presence, and can barely have dreams that extend too far out of my realm of ‘reality’, would probably nod and listen intently, but in my mind I would likely be picking apart their argument, trying to apply natural phenomena or alternative theories to their experience. The trouble is, when someone has had a transformative experience, there is little anyone could do or say to convince them that there is any other explanation for what they felt and saw. They have already convinced themselves. Lane’s connection brought to my mind some concrete examples of this. Let us say, that there is an extreme weather phenomenon (similar to what we are presently experiencing). A scientist may examine meteorological evidence and statistics and data and formulate a hypothesis regarding why and how this intense storm pattern occurs. A Christian on the other hand may see it and believe it to be a sign from God, a biblical event, straight out of Revelation. A shaman who worked with talismans and ‘magical’ elements may believe whole heartedly, or at least may tell people whole heartedly, that this rain is a manifestation of a series of actions that he had been performing for the past few weeks. An astrologer may liken it to an Earthly reaction to Mercury going into retrograde. Each of these people can believe, without a doubt, that this is PROOF of whatever it is that they believe. This is a transformative experience. It is very difficult to unravel a belief once our consciousness has decided it is true.
The author does not really believe in UFO’s as genuine extra terrestrials although, he does not deny the possibility of their existence either. Many unidentified objects have actually been mis-identified as extra terrestrial rather than remaining in the unknown category.

25. How does one think more critically when using online sources?(hint: think of one of the required articles). Substantiate yourviews. It is challenging to find authentic, valuable online sources. In Critical Thinking in an Online World Jones explained that in order to think more critically when using online sources we must first learn how to evaluate the quality of our sources. We must gain an understanding of the difference between primary and secondary research as well as the difference between popular vs. scholarly publishing. We must understand the potentials and limits of information technologies. As Jones reminds us, technology supports knowledge construction but it does not define it. School age children are facing a new challenge that we did not really have when I was in elementary school (at least not as available). They have to choose the topic for their paper and rather than just go to the library and find books which have already been fact checked for accuracy, they are using online resources more and more, a lot of the time not even being prompted ahead of time on the danger of trusting information online. I love technology, I am addicted to the internet and I could not live without my blackberry as a constant connection ready and willing to answer any question that I may have about the world, from what was the name of the actor in that movie to what year was the first Nobel Prize awarded, I generally do not have to leave any question marks hanging around for long. However, I have learned, over time and past errors, to be discerning about the information I find online and to verify the information with a number of sources before I go around spouting it as fact. Young students, while more internet savvy than any prior generation, must still be taught that online research is not the easy way out. In fact, it takes more skill to pick apart an infinite amount of information than to be limited to the 6 or 7 books they have in the library pertaining to a specific topic. Critical thinking must be taught and applied in respect to appropriate researching, gathering of information, discerning valid sources from biased or unfounded websites as well as in formulating the correct search parameters to the information you seek so as not to end up with an overwhelming amount of information, much of which is useless anyway.


26. What are Steven Weinberg's views on religion? Do you agree ordisagree? Weinberg believes that the world needs to wake up. He states that scientists have a responsibility to remove the hold that religion has on the world. While I do agree that it would be nice to not feel like the only one who is awake out there, and for people to do good things because they are good things and not because they are expecting a reward at the end of the game, I feel like, in general, morality and ethics are closely tied to people’s inherent fear of eternal damnation. Now this is not a good excuse for remaining in the dark, mind you, however, if people are inherently selfish, self serving individuals programmed to survive above all else, I think it will be an ugly (uglier) place to live. Unfortunately this logic of mine seems to run along the same lines as parents who preach to their children about Santa Claus who knows when you are sleeping, when you are awake and if you have been bad or good, and that he rewards the good children with gifts and the naughty children with coal.
Weinberg points out that science has made religious explanations unnecessary. This is something I have never understood. Who, in their right (rational) mind holds onto beliefs because of tradition even when those beliefs no longer have any connection to the truth or reality as we know it? Most major religions have these traditions, beliefs that were either put in place because of an ancient need; pork is unclean- well, yes, maybe in ancient times when we didn’t have the FDA and quality control and refrigeration and preservation techniques, pork was in fact unclean, but now this belief seems arbitrary and when you ask a Muslim why he does not eat pork he is likely to respond by saying it is written in the Qur’an (a book that was written thousands of years ago when the way of life and the understanding of the world and science and health and nutrition were completely different). We have successfully changed our way of thinking, way of living, working, communicating, traveling, treating disease, eating…everything!! Except, the rules of the varying religions remain absolute truth. Imagine if we were to use scientific reference from Ancient Athens, or geographical maps from a thousand years ago, holding them to still be fact and truth, we would not-so, why do we do it with religion? Why is the Bible, with its inconsistencies and simplified explanations and evocative language, stand alone in this category?
I do agree with Weinberg that the more we learn, the less we see any signs of a special role set aside for humans, the less we see the need for divine intervention as an explanation. When people look at the comfort of the world and explain it as divine intervention that is a misnomer. We have adapted and evolved and made our world comfortable and suitable for us, as all animals do.


27. Why is Sam Harris an atheist? Explain his reasons. Can you argueagainst his views? If so, how? Harris is an atheist because he sees religion as an attempt to control behavior around the world. He believes that it is intellectually and theologically bankrupt and that religious individuals submit to the moral demands of an invisible super-intelligence in order to justify their personal beliefs. Religion is a belief system, a personal representation of the world that we are foolishly allowing to creep over state and national lines and direct our lives and our behavior. Everyone is offered the freedom to believe what they want, the problem arises when people believe their ideas to be rooted in factual reality and thus attempt to impose these beliefs on others. Geopolitical conflicts stemming from differing belief systems are affecting our view of the world and the world as a whole. Harris makes a good point, that religion is the only school of thought which expects no explanation, no reasoning and no rational basis. It is fundamentally taboo to criticize someone’s beliefs but as rational human beings it is our duty to evaluate why people believe certain things to be true. “Why?” is a favorite question of ours, asked almost incessantly from about the age of 3. I appreciated the example of the man who believed there was a large diamond buried in his yard. If we were to question why he believed this to be so and he was able to give us a great, detailed account of facts supporting this belief, it would garner more respect and be more convincing than if he simply replied that this belief gave his life meaning or made him a better person.Harris deduces that whatever is true, spiritually and ethically in our circumstances has to be universal in order to be valid. We do not have Christian Physics or Hindu Science or American math because there are certain fundamental truths about the nature of the universe that all can agree on. Religion should have the same universal characteristics. In Harris’ estimation, religion attempts to inject ideas of morality where universal consideration of human suffering would better fit.
I have read Sam Harris’ Letter To a Christian Nation and while a part of me felt like he was just trying to get a rise out of people, he made some great points just as he did in the lecture regarding The End of Faith. He reasoned that hoping that something happened and believing that it happened are two different things. The difference is that believing that your thought, your proposition held in mind actually fits in to reality. Beliefs are machinery for guiding our behavior. Unfortunately, beliefs vary from person to person and from culture to culture and difference in beliefs tends to be the source of conflict for a lot of issues in the world today. Morality was intended to minimize real human suffering and instead religious dogma falsifies morality and separates questions regarding morality from those concerning suffering. It was interesting how Harris noted that it is fundamentally taboo to criticize someone’s beliefs. I wonder how this is the only area of life that we propose go unexamined. Reasons are contagious, which is why we are built to be rational human beings. We are supposed to question people’s beliefs to evaluate their reasoning. Instead religious people are free to submit to the moral demands of an invisible super-intelligence and say anything they want in the name of their Higher Power evading rational explanation because we insist that religious beliefs shouldn’t be questioned. We are not meant to be overly politically correct or to tolerate all of the absurdity in the world, we are meant to reason and to be reasonable and open to evidence.

28. Of the first five installments of BEYOND BELIEF which speakerdid you find most persuasive? Explain why. I enjoyed a number of the speakers in this series. Weinberg’s conclusion that science makes religious explanations unnecessary and that the world needs to wake up and accept scientific solutions over faith based options resonated with me. I also enjoyed Paul Davies and his survey of other countries that are passing us up because they are more scientifically driven and living post-religious lives. Davies addresses the challenge of scientists and their necessary purpose. There is more to be found, if there wasn’t, there would not be any need for scientists, but we are clearly aware that there is more to know so he urges the scientific community to keep moving forward. Davies excitedly anticipates the solving of mysteries and the discovery of new answers. I also enjoyed Lawrence Krauss (?) although I felt he piggybacked a little bit on Weinberg’s ideas. I enjoyed his clarification of the definition of science and his statement that science does not make it impossible to believe in god, it just makes it possible to Not believe in god. Science is independent of questions of purpose and belief. Even though Weinberg surprised me when he said 62% of the population do not believe in evolution, Krauss insisted that evolution happened whether or not you believe in God.

29. Ken Miller argues against Michael Behe's notion of irreduciblecomplexity and the notion of intelligent design in biology. Is heright? If so, explain. If not, give your reasons why not. Behe’s argument on irreducible complexity has been proven wrong. It states that individual parts have no function of their own and would not survive the evolutionary process. He argues that evolution is false because it happens gradually. Irreducible complexity asserts that God is responsible for creating complex organisms in their complete form. There exist in nature species with blood clotting factors missing, this would be fatal for humans but for puffer fish, their blood has evolved not to need the same factors. I do agree with Miller that intelligent design should not be considered in science because by nature, science must be able to be proven by theories and tests.

30. In the conference BEYOND BELIEF, which speaker did you find tobe the weakest in terms of substance? Explain. Surprisingly, this was one of the toughest questions for me to answer. I guess I could see the benefit in what each of the speakers was trying to get across, yes some did a far better job than others but overall, it was very enjoyable, informative and compelling. Joan struck me as a typical religious person of today, turning to religion only when it suited her and then putting it on the back burner the rest of the time. I think it is probably somewhat natural or common to rebel against a super religious upbringing but if you find yourself denouncing it, then you had better have good reason for doing so and be sure of your decision because when you come back to it at a later time when you “need God” then you go back to church and prayer, you wind up seeming wishy washy and a little silly. I have known many religious people who appear to be “normal” until trouble comes their way and then all of a sudden they want to pray and go to church and talk about God’s will and being a good person. That is along the same lines as the student who crams at the final hour. However, according to generally accepted Christian doctrine, one has until the moment of death to convert, repent and accept Jesus as their savior regardless of all decisions made prior to that instant so maybe Joan has the right idea after all…


31. What constitutes a scientific education according to Huxley? Huxley does not intend for a scientific education to be solely based in science. In fact, he feels that this would be as much of a disservice as a liberal education. He begins by reasoning that the improvement of natural knowledge whatever direction it has taken has instilled practical benefits on men and has profoundly altered their modes of thinking and their views of right and wrong. What Huxley means by education in general is learning the rules of this “mighty game.” Education is the instruction of the intellect in the laws of Nature, including things and their forces, men and their ways and learning to move in harmony with those laws. A scientific education, according to Huxley includes teaching the elements of physical science and also the elements of the theory of morals and of political and social life. He suggests the teaching of history and geography as a chapter in the development of the history of civilization. He believes we should devote a large portion of time to the careful study of the models of English writing as well as dedicating time to the instruction of art, music or painting; something for the development of the aesthetic side of the mind. He also places importance on the study of other languages.

32. Why is the book BELIEVER-SKEPTIC so critical of Ken Wilber and this thinking? Be specific in your answers. Lane’s writing style is as entertaining as his speaking style. He leaves you smiling, laughing, nodding, sitting at the edge of your seat, and turning pages until the wee hours of the morning. His writings on Ken Wilber and Da Free John were humorously astute. Lane is critical of Wilber and his exaggerated praise of Da Free John. He accuses Wilber of gross, spiritual exaggeration (something Lane does not claim to be completely innocent of himself). He describes Wilber’s tendency to inflate, exaggerate and hype those things which are not yet knowable. His work is fundamentally tainted by these exaggerations, especially in matters of ultimate importance. Wilber goes on and on about the greatness of Da Free John. Wilber claims that The Dawn Horse Testament is the greatest spiritual book of all time, which he cannot possibly know to be factual. This is a matter of opinion being touted as fact. Lane suggests that instead Wilber may have more accurately stated that it is the best book he has ever read- a statement which cannot be argued since it is simply a matter of opinion. Lane goes on to explain that just because one writes well does not mean that by extension he is an embodiment of the highest truth or realization. Wilbur repeatedly confuses the message with the medium. He is naïve in thinking that writing is somehow reflective of one’s inner attainment.

33. Give a review and a reaction to the three magazines that you read listed above.
Religious Visions and The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man: Religious Visions and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man made me giggle. I found myself nodding and shaking my head at the same time. I nod because I agree and Shake my head because of the ridiculous ideas some people hold onto and attach such significance to. Throughout my reading I thought of a number of examples: A young lady in Mexico discovers the image of the Virgin Mary in a tree and people flock to it and light candles and cross themselves and rejoice at this "proof” of divinity. More recently, Jesus manifested himself in a bruise and this was taken as a sign that he himself had set his hands on this young man to heal him. Even Michael Jackson made an illustrious appearance in a tree stump on the day he died, according to a family in Stockton. What I find even more humorous is that these images of Jesus and Mary are not even true depictions based on photographs but rather representations that had been created by European Renaissance artists that had never actually met them! Another aspect that I love is how religious individuals can justify and explain anything away. "Oh, I prayed every day and God finally answered my prayers...." and then in another instance, "Oh, things didn't go the way I had hoped? It's God's will." Well, there is just no way for us secular folk to win is there? When you can turn any argument in your favor, it provides an unfair advantage and makes most rational people throw their hands up in the air and walk away defeated. After all, how can you reason with faith? It appears to me that religion can only be rationalized as a completely individual experience with no two people having exactly the same idea of God, heaven, hell, what it means to be a good person, what it means to be a good Christian... It is as if I were to say to you, "My dreams are real. The things that happen to me while I am sleeping are actually happening to me but your dreams are just figments of your imagination and manifestations of your subconscious." Well how can you argue with me? You are not there in my dreams. You cannot convince me that what is happening to me while I am sleeping is not real. I am the only one who knows the truth. You, on the other hand, are silly if you believe that the dragon that chased you through the streets of London last night was real. I mean, seriously... If you want to start having real dreams like me you better start praying to your mattress every night and sprinkling your pillow with sugar....I like to poke fun at religions but having taken a World Religions class Understand that this is a very important subject for a lot of people and most would take a lot of offense to anyone trying to diminish or break down their entire belief system, but I just have to laugh at how even the most intelligent, articulate, educated individuals can throw common sense out the window when incomes to questions of faith and religion.

Adventures in the Paranormal: Does anybody actually fall for that line? A small sum can make right an ambiguous sin which you committed in a past life?? Even to make it optional in order to assert its validity seems preposterous to me! We humans have such a resilient and adaptable ego. It really does lend itself to the theory of survival of the fittest. Throughout history the ego has taken numerous blows and yet it continues to bounce back and find a way to justify its central role in humanity. It is no surprise that astrology is so widely accepted since it always refers back to an individual person. As Lane states, it is a thoroughly egotistical affair wherein the individual finds his or her place in the cosmic order of things. We have an amazing psychological ability to find personal meaning in the most general statements, whether it be a fortune cookie, a horoscope, a palm reading, a bible verse… I find that even I am guilty of picking and choosing what is relevant to my state of mind at the moment. I have a “thing” for highlighting profound statements in books and articles that I read. Now, do these statements actually contain any profundity? That is relative to how I interpreted it at the moment. There have been times when I have read through a book a second time and wondered why I highlighted a particular passage or why I failed to highlight something that seems so integral now. It is all a matter of context I suppose.

Mysticism and Logic: This article by Russell was the most challenging for me to fully grasp. I appreciated his encouragement of a form of logic in looking around the world that was separate from the metaphysical but I found myself reading and re-reading the same paragraphs over and over again for clarity. He defines metaphysics as the attempt to conceive the world as a whole by means of thought and calls it a union of two opposing human impulses, mysticism and science. Upon further dissection, he explains that mysticism is little more than certain intensity and depth of feeling in regard to what is believed about the universe. We tend to make the mistake of demanding that the world conform to our desires and this is evident in many of the “truths” that we base our life decisions and beliefs on. Russell writes of Heraclitus the empiricist and Plato who tends to reside more in the realm of mystic philosophical thought. He discusses Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and the pain and discomfort associated with the search for truth. While Russell himself finds the philosophy of mysticism and the belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge based in insight and intuition as opposed to sense, reason and analysis to be somewhat lacking, he does admit that there is an element of wisdom to be learned from the mystical way of feeling. However, he insists that this should be viewed as an attitude toward life and not a creed about the world.

Extra Credit: List any books you read from the list for extra credit. Provide cogent summaries of each.

I have read a few chapters of The Song of The Lord : Chapter one of the Bhagavad-Gita places us in the heat of battle. Krishna drove Arjuna's chariot and as they approached the 'enemy' he saw his kinsmen; grandsires and sires, uncles and brothers and sons, cousins and sons in law and nephews with friends and honored elders, on both sides of the battlefield, enemies. His heart melted with pity and he told Krishna he felt physically ill and unable to fight. He had realized that no good could come of this battle, this mutual slaughter. He felt hatred toward triumph and domination, wealth and ease. He took the stance of nonviolence and vowed never to strike a blow again. He reasoned that killing must breed anguish and that the sins of the killed will transfer upon the killer and no peace can come of that.
Chapter two begins with Krishna telling Arjuna to shake off his cowardice and resume his warrior stance. Arjuna argues that he cannot kill worshipful, honorable men and worries about the sinful reaction to his actions. He decides that it is better to live a poor life with those we love alive than to live in wealth and 'feast on their blood.' He cannot see whether it would be better to win or lose this battle. Krishna informs him that the wise in heart do not mourn for those that live or those that die. The soul which is not moved, which maintains strength and calm and takes sorrow and joy indifferently lives an undying life. He instructs him to fight and seems to talk about reincarnation and how we can never really take a life away even if we kill the body, it will just pass into a new body. Weapons cannot reach Life, nor fire or water or winds; it is untouchable, immortal, and eternal. Krishna tells Arjuna not to worry about the reaction to his actions, to put out of his mind the reward he may receive for doing right and to make doing right itself, the reward. And doing right is far less than thinking right. Krishna urged Arjuna to strive for right thinking, to make his heaven in his own mind, in his own soul.
In chapter 3, Arjuna, still trying to get out of fighting, poses that since meditation is nobler than action, he may be excused from the battle to meditate. Krishna tells him to do his allotted task and that work is more excellent than idleness. He explains that Arjuna should fight, and that avoiding sinful reactions through devotional work is better than trying to escape any reaction by renouncing work. He wants him to set a good example of duty. He tells him to fight with knowledge and detachment, to regulate his senses- to "vanquish foes and doubts--and slay what haunts in fond shapes, and would betray."
The start of chapter 8 has Arjuna asking Krishna who the Brahma is and how to find him (Krishna) in the hour of death. Krishna explains that he is the Brahma, the One Eternal God, the Soul of Souls. He tells Arjuna that since one is granted whatever he remembers at the time of death, if he remembers Krishna, he goes to him. By practicing yoga and remembering Krishna, one will go to the eternal spiritual world and not have to go through the painful cycle of death and rebirth again. Krishna describes many different yogic ways in which one may reach god but advises Arjuna not to worry about the paths of Vedic study, gifts, prayer, fasting, yoga, sacrifice, charity, or karma because the results of these would be obtained through performing devotional service which would have the same eternal reward. So then, it seems that there is one supreme god and many paths to him.
Krishna proves himself as the supreme god in chapter 11 and establishes the criteria that anyone who claims to be god must also show a universal form . Krishna shows Arjuna his extensive form and Arjuna can see, Krishna is everything wrapped into one; the gods, the creatures of earth, heaven and hell. He is time, the destroyer of all worlds and tells Arjuna that the death of all the warriors is inevitable and he requests that Arjuna become his instrument and fight. Arjuna's basic desire to renounce his warrior duty was fear of sinful reaction and Krishna explained how to transcend sinful reactions through not caring about the rewards of your activities, detaching from all material things and practicing pure devotional service. Krishna can only be known through total surrender in devotional service. Krishna tells him to always think of Him, be his devotee, act for him, worship him and offer all homage unto him. In the end Arjuna's fears and doubts leave him and he can think calm thoughts again and his heart resumes beating normally and he is ready to fight.

Pythagoras: Pythagoras sought to inspire a love of liberty and stressed the importance of ridding the body of disease, the soul of ignorance, the city from lawlessness, households from discord and opposed a lack of moderation all together. He believed that children should honor their parents and that adults should practice courtesy and encouragement in dealing with youths. He instructed that self-control/temperance should be applied universally to all matters of body and soul. He stressed the importance of education and knowledge in order to effect the improvement of the human race noting that knowledge of the universals leads to a clear perception of the nature of the particulars. He preached justice, genuine affection, the importance of listening, devotion to contemplation as well as the importance of a well-developed memory. The three evils that glide into houses are luxury followed by insolence and finally destruction, therefore great care should be taken to keep these at bay; including but not limited to, living modestly from birth and not using bad language. He believed that we should realize God’s existence and the fact that he inspects our lives frequently. He opposed slaughtering animals feeling that it led to war, legalizing it, increasing it and strengthening it. “Natural man is an animal, naturally insolent and changeable in impulse, desire and passions.”
Pythagoras should have been Jesus. What I mean by this is that aside from a mild superiority complex, he and his ideals seemed to be well on their way to becoming a religion. Even the divine oracle relayed that Pythagoras would surpass all who had ever lived in beauty and wisdom and that he would be of the greatest benefit to the human race in everything pertaining to human achievements. I can't help but wonder what the world would have been like if Pythagoreanism had had it's own St Paul to carry out the message and keep the philosophy alive as he did with Christianity. It is unfortunate that the sect began to perish as it did, I think the Pythagoreans could have really been a positive benefit to society. It would have totally changed the direction of the world. I wonder if Pythagorean schools still exist or if Pythagorean students still practice anywhere in the world... I would be interested to learn if and how they made any modern modifications to the principles so that they could still be applied today. I appreciated that Pythagoreanism, while still having a strong belief in God, also had a strong belief in values such as knowledge and education, which I don’t feel Christianity has put any substantial importance on. Oh how different the world would be if everyone valued intelligence and wisdom the way we value beauty and wealth...

Darwin’s DNA: I absolutely loved Darwin's DNA. The way it was written, the explanations, the analogies and examples all gave me great insight into the theories of evolution and natural selection and consciousness. An excellent read that really tied everything together for me. I will definitely be reading this again.I especially enjoyed The Descent of Man. The modification of intellectual powers through socialization, imitation, reason and experience was an enlightening realization for me. However, this is where my confusion as to whether these traits are considered evolutionary or adaptive comes in. Animals learn by experience and imitate the caution of others but are we saying that this is NOT something that animals have always done? That at some point in time they became observant reasonable creatures whereas before this point they were not? Is the strengthening of the intellect something which has to do with some genetic modification or is it still something that has to be taught and reinforced to future generations? If natural selection does not imply that the selective traits have to be present in the nature of the creature but instead in the tribe or the pack or the unit and then imparted on the new generations, then is it really an evolutionary inheritance or asocial, adaptive one? We do not know at what period in the course of their development man became capable of feeling and being impelled by praise or blame but we can see similar traits in dogs and other animals, they tend to develop "friendships" with other animals and care for their safety, as well as respond to blame, encouragement and praise. It appears true that a tribe including many members who have a high degree of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, who are always ready to aid one another and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes. This natural selection though seems based more on adaptive tendencies than evolutionary as all of these traits seem to be more behavioral than evolutionary.The processes that civilized humans go through to preserve human life seems to have become somewhat of an intervention in the evolutionary model of survival of the fittest. With vaccines and antibiotics and medical advancements, the preservation of All life to the last possible moment seems to have replaced the idea that the strong will survive and procreate. Now we have humans who are genetically predisposed to cancers and auto-immune disorders another general biological "weaknesses" that may not have perpetuated reproduction without some kind of medical intervention. Could this be part of the reason we are experiencing over-population? Could this also have something to do with the new strains of antibiotic resistant "mutant" bacteria and viruses that are beginning to emerge? What will this do to the evolution of man in the future? What are the consequences of "playing God" and taking life and death into our own hands?

DOUBLE EXTRA CREDIT: Give a 200 word interpretation of the required movie, Nicholas ofCusa. What do you think it actually means?

The unattainable is attained by its unattainment. What does this mean? What was the symbolism behind the ship floating in the sky? Nicholas of Cusa’s philosophy speaks about “learned ignorance” or learning to accept the fact that we do not know. Even a highly educated man will at his highest see himself as the most educated in his specific field of ignorance. The more he is unknowing, the more learned he will be. This is partly because things are difficult and unexplainable in words and that the wisdom and the seat of understanding are hidden from the eyes of the world. Nicholas teaches that the most obvious things in nature are as difficult for us to see as an owl trying to look at the sun. The fact that we cannot attain the unattainable is what makes it so. Much like the concept of learned ignorance, or ignorance that has been acquired through the realization that the more we know that we know nothing, the more learned we are. The precise truth is inapprehensible. Whatever is not truth cannot measure truth precisely. The more we understand that this knowledge can never be attained, the closer we actually are to the truth. In the meantime we are just floating around on a breeze searching for answers that do not exist.

Self Perpetual Spontaneous Action

Dyson argues that a scientific view of the world is inconsistent with the idea that the universe has a purpose. He believes that the universe is purposeful and that humans should feel at home in it. He states that living life serves a purpose and argues that human life is deeply meaningful and of profound importance to the universe. The more he examines the universe and studies its details the more evidence he claims to find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming. He views the Earth as a self organizing, regulating system and teaches that Evolution is not just a matter of natural selection but self perpetual spontaneous action implying consciousness and a choice of survival and adaptation.

Mystical Truths

This article by Russell was the most challenging for me to fully grasp. I appreciated his encouragement of a form of logic in looking around the world that was separate from the metaphysical but I found myself reading and re-reading the same paragraphs over and over again for clarity. He defines metaphysics as the attempt to conceive the world as a whole by means of thought and calls it a union of two opposing human impulses, mysticism and science. Upon further dissection, he explains that mysticism is little more than certain intensity and depth of feeling in regard to what is believed about the universe. We tend to make the mistake of demanding that the world conform to our desires and this is evident in many of the “truths” that we base our life decisions and beliefs on. Russell writes of Heraclitus the empiricist and Plato who tends to reside more in the realm of mystic philosophical thought. He discusses Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and the pain and discomfort associated with the search for truth. While Russell himself finds the philosophy of mysticism and the belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge based in insight and intuition as opposed to sense, reason and analysis to be somewhat lacking, he does admit that there is an element of wisdom to be learned from the mystical way of feeling. However, he insists that this should be viewed as an attitude toward life and not a creed about the world.

The Skeptical Believer

Lane’s writing style is as entertaining as his speaking style. He leaves you smiling, laughing, nodding, sitting at the edge of your seat, and turning pages until the wee hours of the morning. His writings on Ken Wilber and Da Free John were humorously astute. Lane is critical of Wilber and his exaggerated praise of Da Free John. He accuses Wilber of gross, spiritual exaggeration (something Lane does not claim to be completely innocent of himself). He describes Wilber’s tendency to inflate, exaggerate and hype those things which are not yet knowable. His work is fundamentally tainted by these exaggerations, especially in matters of ultimate importance. Wilber goes on and on about the greatness of Da Free John. Wilber claims that The Dawn Horse Testament is the greatest spiritual book of all time, which he cannot possibly know to be factual. This is a matter of opinion being touted as fact. Lane suggests that instead Wilber may have more accurately stated that it is the best book he has ever read- a statement which cannot be argued since it is simply a matter of opinion. Lane goes on to explain that just because one writes well does not mean that by extension he is an embodiment of the highest truth or realization. Wilbur repeatedly confuses the message with the medium. He is naïve in thinking that writing is somehow reflective of one’s inner attainment.

The Rules of the Game

Huxley does not intend for a scientific education to be solely based in science. In fact, he feels that this would be as much of a disservice as a liberal education. He begins by reasoning that the improvement of natural knowledge whatever direction it has taken has instilled practical benefits on men and has profoundly altered their modes of thinking and their views of right and wrong. What Huxley means by education in general is learning the rules of this “mighty game.” Education is the instruction of the intellect in the laws of Nature, including things and their forces, men and their ways and learning to move in harmony with those laws. A scientific education, according to Huxley includes teaching the elements of physical science and also the elements of the theory of morals and of political and social life. He suggests the teaching of history and geography as a chapter in the development of the history of civilization. He believes we should devote a large portion of time to the careful study of the models of English writing as well as dedicating time to the instruction of art, music or painting; something for the development of the aesthetic side of the mind. He also places importance on the study of other languages.

Worth the Weight?

In a country where poverty and deprivation are common, the words fat and prosperous are synonymous. Many people in India are still unaware that too much fat can be a dangerous thing. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “obesity-related ailments afflict more than 115 million people in the developing world, up from essentially none two generations ago. By 2030, these diseases as a group are projected to be the number one killer of poor people around the world” (Bidwai 2). In developing countries like India, this is creating a “double burden” as they continue to battle problems and disease associated with hunger and undernourishment, and they are now faced with new, even larger issues associated with over-nutrition and obesity.
The surge in urbanization and globalization around the world in the past three decades has brought economic advancement and development to many previously struggling countries. Unfortunately, this wealth has come at a price. All across the globe, obesity and diet related non-communicable disease has risen in parallel with urbanization (Hossain 214). According to the WHO, “fifty years from now, if current trends persist, obesity will be up there with climate change and water shortage as one of the biggest problems facing India”(Sukhdev 1). In the past thirty years in India, diabetes, obesity and non-communicable disease rates have tripled as urbanization and the adoption of western lifestyles has begun to dominate their culture. Where obesity used to be seen as an individual problem derived from private food choices, it is now associated with large costs to all of society.
At the end of World War II, the majority of India’s population was facing hunger, often starvation and very poor economic and social conditions (Popkin 380). Urbanization has led to rapid changes in lifestyle with more “white-collar” jobs leading to an increase in income as well as a decrease in physical activity. As incomes increased, many Indians rose above poverty level for the first time, and the newly developing country became a target for many U.S. based multi-national corporations. India resisted for some time until the promises of a booming economy and a solution to the hunger problem became too much to pass up. In 1992, the Indian government “admitted foreign soft drink manufacturers and food multi-nationals to its previously protected economy” (Patel 74). Coca Cola, Baskin Robbins, Kellogg’s cereals, McDonalds, KFC, and many others happily set up shop throughout urban Indian centers. While the hook was that these widely available, inexpensive foods could save lives by providing easily accessible food to those who had no other options, “the added values in these new foods is not nutritive, but economically added value which will only bring benefit to the multinational corporations. The people consuming these will only be further denutrified” (Bidwai 7). Malnutrition has typically been seen as a problem of the undernourished and underweight, and in the past, it was. However, malnutrition is not simply caused by a lack of food overall, but by a lack of high quality foods such as whole grains, fiber, fruits and vegetables. Since 1992 obesity and chronic health problems such as heart disease, diabetes and hypertension have increased significantly. In less than a decade, India became “the home of nearly 33 million diabetic subjects which is the highest number in the world” (Joshi 360). According to the WHO, this number is set to more than double in the next 25 years, casting a dark shadow on the health and economic future of India.
Lifestyle and food habits have changed as India’s economy has developed. More women have joined in the work force and as a result there has been a shift away from traditional food preparation and toward precooked, convenience food at home or fast food and snacks for outside meals. This has also meant a shift from diets high in fiber, vitamins and minerals toward one rich in calories, saturated fats, sugar and cholesterol. While the recent infatuation with convenience foods has clearly taken its toll on the waistlines and health of the Indian population, it is not solely to blame for the dramatic increase in diet related illness and non-communicable disease. Rising incomes and urbanization has led to “the substitution of servants or appliances for physical work around the house, while family breadwinners take desk jobs instead of plowing the fields” (Chatterjee 1). These factors also encourage more sedentary leisure activities like television watching, computer use and travel by car instead of walking or riding a bicycle. On top of this, Indian schools promote a culture of fierce academic competitiveness and leave children with no time to play or exercise. With all of these changes occurring at once, studies are showing that while these are dangerous habits for any group of individuals, they seem to be particularly harmful to the people of India. As an ethnic group, Indians seem to be more genetically prone to obesity and its health consequences. Their ancestors had genes which converted food to fat to store as fuel during famines; now however, there are no famines, no physical activity and a bad diet so everything they eat is converted into abdominal fat which leads to killer heart disease (Popkin 389).
There is a growing trend in India toward “Metabolic Syndrome.” This syndrome is a deadly combination of hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and dyslipidemia due to abdominal obesity (Joshi 359). India tops the world with the largest number of diabetic subjects and the spreading cardiac and diabetes epidemic is a major health threat for India threatening to bankrupt the nation. If they continue on the track that they are on, by 2035 “India will contribute to more than one-fifth (20%) of the total diabetic population in the world” (Hossain 1). Even more troubling are the statistics related to childhood obesity and early onset diabetes in India and what these numbers may mean for the future. The prevalence of overweight and obesity in urban children in India’s capital of New Delhi has shown an increase from “16% in 2002 to about 24% in 2006-2007” (Bhardwaj 172). Type 2 diabetes among children in India is increasing at an alarming rate and the serious cardiovascular complications of obesity and diabetes could overwhelm the developing country that is already struggling under the burden of communicable diseases.
Along with the introduction of new, cheap convenience foods, basic food costs have been subsidized up to market levels in the public distribution system, resulting in an 85 percent price increase in the past four years (Bidwai 2). What this means for India’s 380 million poor is that they cannot afford to buy the new convenience foods or the basic dietary staples that have sustained them in the past. They are spending more money to buy less food, reducing their caloric intake and approaching starvation in many cases. The poor are still starving, perhaps even more so than in the past, while the rich are getting fatter. This paradox becomes even more apparent when the local urban schools are studied for statistical purposes. In studies conducted in Kerala and Delhi, roughly 20% of school children are considered overweight with 5% falling in the obese category. Additionally, 16% were found to be underweight, leaving only 58% in the normal weight range (Unnithan 5). This statistic alone should be a red flag for the Indian government. Overweight and obese children are much more likely to remain overweight throughout their life and with health problems starting at younger ages, the life span, quality of life, level of productivity and strain on the health care system will be a considerable threat to the future of India.
As the occurrence of communicable disease has gone down, the costs of lost productivity have shifted from those associated with under-nutrition to those associated with over-nutrition. Healthcare system costs have also increased in parallel with the shift since non-communicable diseases are more costly to treat than communicable ones (Popkin 383). Alongside the burden on health in India, it is predicted that a drop in overall economic productivity and life expectancy may also be of concern when one is weighing the costs of the obesity issue. According to Josef Schmidhuber of the Economic Social Department of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “the human and economic toll could be dramatic and for many the exit out of food-poverty may be associated with a straight entry into health-poverty” (384). It is a shame that India has somehow managed to bypass good health, moving from underweight to obesity in a single generation.
Obesity and its associated diseases have an enormous impact on the healthcare system, the economy and most importantly, on general well-being. However, obesity has not made it to the Indian public health policy agenda in any significant way. Since undernourishment and obesity are occurring side by side, healthcare providers and policy makers are faced with a dual challenge in the “formulation of a broad food policy that encompasses both under- and over-nutrition [as] the only answer to India’s peculiar problem” (Sukhdev 2). While the movement toward urbanization and globalization has stimulated India’s economy with an annual growth rate of between 5 and 5.5 percent, the new economy also brings with it another western tradition, “it is $24 billion deeper in external debt, and more dependent on aid and investment package bailouts” (Bidwai 2). India has gone from completely rejecting western culture to embracing it and all of its flaws. In the generous nature of the United States, we have shared our poor dietary choices, sedentary lifestyles, debt accumulation and global monopolization of agricultural industries that used to sustain lives and communities. What we are witnessing in India is what has been occurring in the United States for the past 50 years, but in fast forward.
According to the WHO, obesity now ranks as the 10th most important health problem in the world (Loureiro 1). There are approximately 1.1 billion hungry and underfed people across the world, but for the first time in history, they are outnumbered by the number that are overweight or obese (Bidwai 7). The trend toward obesity and overweight is now shared by almost all other countries. According to Bidwai, 300 million people worldwide are obese, 750 million are overweight and 17 million of those are under the age of 5. Studies performed by the WHO show that more than half of the populations in Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Italy, Mexico, Russia and Spain are overweight. Not far behind are China, Guatemala, Papa New Guinea and Egypt (Loureiro 1). These problems and contrasts are present even in the United States. Being overweight or obese is the norm in America with 66% of the population falling into that category (Patel 73). Currently, in the United States, health care for overweight and obese individuals costs an average of 37% more than health care for people of normal weight, adding an average of $732 to the annual medical bills of each American (Loureiro 2). Obesity can no longer be viewed as an individual problem as it is now growing to epidemic proportions in India, around the world, and especially among children. Both obesity and hunger (specifically food insecurity) are serious public health concerns. Their existence sounds contradictory but those without resources to purchase adequate food can still be overweight. Awareness and understanding of this apparent paradox is necessary in order for us to tackle these parallel threats to the well-being of many children and adults. The genetic factors, the novelty of westernized living, as well as the economic state of India prior to this evolution have come together to create a problem warranting serious consideration. If India continues on this path, it will see a dramatic decline in the health and productivity of its citizens and the economic benefits will likely be cancelled out by the health and other economic costs.