Rhetoric 3302 Questions

These comments are the comments on "God Under a Microscope". I agree with what Collins is talking about there is not one thing that I do not agree with!! He puts his article together very well, well enough to get my attention at least!! His views on religion and science are kind of were I'm standing!! There is no reason why scientists should hate people with religion and religion should hate people who are scientists and do not believe its just a circle that keeps on turning around!! Will people ever stop argueing about a subject like this or will they keep this crucade going until humankind is no longer here!!?? It just does not make sense to me why people fight over this I believe everyone should have an open mind to new ideas and new ways of looking at things in soemone elses perspective!!

This is commenting on "Is Religion Opposed to Science?" I believe that the religouse people should be willing to let science look into it and see if theres any possible way that God is real and if whats in the Bible really did happen I think it would be interesting to know personally!! Scientists are able to reasearch all of science and experiment to see if things are possible!! The Bible I don't think shows the true science yes I believe in the Bible but tis not science its a belief!! Isn't science when you can study it and do tests on it and religiouse people do not want the Bible to be tested on whether its true or not? Isn't Science and Religion totally different in a sense? I think that they have there differences from each other but they simalar in a way too. I believe that science and religion are both true in there own ways they both have a truth to them!! Scince you can explain with reasearch and religion you can explain with the Bible and other documents of faith. They both have some kind of truth to them!! They contact with each other for the fact that they both judge there own hypothesises with one another!! These are my comments and questions that I have so yeah there you go!!

"Is religion opposed to science") I would have to say that out of the four methods, the "contact" approach provides the most accurate and ideal depiction of the relationship between science and religion. Rather than religion completely rejecting science (or vise versa), it at least tries to find some common ground. Since both science and religion have so much to offer in the spectrum of how the world exists, I think it would only make sense for them to try and stand on a common ground. However, the article goes on to say that this will ultimately lead to hostility between science and religion - and that by trying to conform the two views would cause havoc. I understand that some people take their beliefs seriously - but if someone tried to see the similarities between science and religion - and conformed both ideals into one - would that really cause hostility?? Although there would be differences of opinion - to me, the opposing views of science and religion are nothing to get hostile over. On a different note - there was a statement in the article that really stood out for me; it said that: ".....because the universe and God are always too colossal for the human mind to encompass, our thoughts in both science and religion are always so open to correction." I think this statement is very true. Every day, things change and we are allowed to look at our lives from a different perspective. Therefore, the debate between science and religion will probably never be solved, because there will always be a new perspective to understand and learn from.

"God under a Microscope") I had always wondered about the "religious" experiences that people have while they are in the hospital. I've heard many stories of people being able to "see the light" or "feel the presence of God." But is it really true? I honestly think that if we are capable of hullinations to the extent where we can vivdly see insects or other creatures while under the influence of a certain drug - then we are more than able to "unconsciously" PRETEND that we are experiencing God. Since the brain has the ultimate power and control of what we think or do, one little inhibiting factor (a drug, mutation, etc.) would have drastic effects on our memory and perception. Therefore, people may THINK they saw God, but in truth, it was probably just a figure of their imagination.

In the article, "God Under the Microscope", the writer seems to be once again, disproving religion with science. I'm sorry, but it is not possible. The things he talked about made sence. People being in a hospital and having seizures, and reporting to experience God, could just be a medical problem. But who's to say God didn't change something in their minds so they were able to experience him? Science can not disprove something that is not tangible. Furthermore, statistics show that large portions of society believe in God, so why mess with something so many people believe in.

In "Is Religion Opposed to Science?" I can see how each of the four points are valid viewpoints. Some people can't see science and religion coexisting, some people see it as two different topics, etc. However, I don't think that science and religion can peacefully coexist. Well, not in a way that allows both ideas to come together equally. Science and religion are two different approaches to the same question. The way that I like to think about it is that with science, anyone can experience it or "see" it. With religion, you sort of have to experience it on your own. And I don't think that can happen to everyone. It is for that reason that science and religion are going to continue being different and distinct and can't exist without conflict. You can't force someone to have faith and you can't force someone to give up their faith.

This brings me to the next article, "God Under a Microscope". So Francis Collins had a religion experience that caused him to accept Jesus as his savior. So what. So Francis Collins is a biologist with strong religious beliefs. Big deal. I almost find it offensive when he says that scientific and religious approaches are "profoundly dangerous. Both deny truth. Both will diminish the nobility of humankind. Both will be devastating to our future. And both are unnecessary." So I guess everyone else is wrong, and Francis Collins is right. There are some things on which science and religion directly conflict, for example, virgin birth, resurrection, the list goes on. From what science tells me, sperm + egg = baby, you can't have it any other way. So to me, if different parts of the Bible seem false to me, I naturally have to question if the whole thing is false. Collins doesn't do this, he believes a little bit of the Bible and he believes in a little bit of science and puts them together in a way that minimizes conflict.

”Is religion opposed to science?”

I found this article to be quite long and somewhat dull, with considerable repetition within it. However, I did find that his four ways of viewing the science-and-religion debate covered the full spectrum of viewpoints. Some of his random tidbits, such as his discussion of “scientism”, were interesting to read. He argues that the belief that science is the only realiable guide to truth is sort of a religion of its own. I did find Haught’s discussion of the “confirmation approach” to be somewhat unsatisfying. He states: “religion’s claim that the universe is a finite, coherent, rational, ordered totality, grounded in an ultimate love and promise, provides a general vision of things that consistently nurtures the scientific quest for knowledge and liberates science from association with imprisoning ideologies”. I don’t know that “religion” (e.g. a belief in an almighty creator and spiritual ruler) is or was necessary to lay the foundation for scientific pursuit. Theories of rationality and the search for truth could have started in the absence of religious notions. The idea that religion somehow liberates science from association with “imprisoning ideologies” seems somewhat odd, considering many view religion as the ultimate imprisoning ideology when it comes to science.

“God under a microscope”

As there seemed to be a couple articles called “God under a Microscope”, I read the one found at http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/God-under-a-microscope/2005/03/01/1109546864819.html. Whether or not this is the “correct” one to read, I don’t know.

Anyway, I thought it was a very interesting article exploring the origins of religious belief. Whether it came about as a result of direct evolutionary selection or as a “side-effect” of other evolutionary occurrences such as improved cognitive ability, the idea that our brains are ‘designed to believe’ is worth considering. Though this notion can’t prove or disprove religion’s validity, it does raise some questions about our motivation for belief. If religion bound communities together such that their odds of survival were increased, then in that sense religion is a historically good (maybe even necessary) factor in the development of the human species. If it is simply the side-effect of other developments in our brain structure and chemistry, it is somewhat a ‘side-story’ in our evolutionary maturation.

After reading the article, "God under a microscope", I thought the article brought up a lot of interesting points. One of the points Boyer said was, "When you're in a belief system, it's not that you stop asking questions, its that they become irrelevant. Why don't you ask yourself about the existence of gravity?" These questions really made me think about it. So why does it become so irrelevant? I think that we just become immuned to it. For example, I grew up as a Catholic. Every Sunday, since I was little, I was told to go to church. Along with church, I also had religion classes. Sooner or later, you learn everything in your religion, and you believe its all true, because that is what the priest, the bible, and your family members say. If you are always around it, you just become immuned to it. Even if you are always having a good day, nothing bad ever happens, you get to the point that everything seems to be working, so you just don't question your belief or faith.
Another point that was brought up was: "Many scientists, while stressing that they have set out to explore religion rather than disprove its basis, say that no matter what they uncover about the nature of spiritual experiences, mass religious belief will continue." Do you think it will? I think its hard to say. Some people may believe so strongly, that they won't accept the scientific discovery, just as if scientists don't accept the religion point. Overall the article made some interesting points about science and religion.
In the article,"Is Religion Opposed to Science?" by John Haught, I was actually very interested in reading how there are at least four distinct ways in which science and religion can be related to each other. In most articles we have read in class, there is a constant stand that there is no way that science and religion are related to each other. Out of the four ways that science are religion are related to each other, I would have to say, I agree with a lot of what he said about "contrast". When he talked about playing games, he commented on how science and religion "do not belong on the same playing field together, there is no point in comparing one with the other...we should not place them in competition or conflict with each other." I think this holds true. Science is something that is more concerned with what is going on in nature, rather than religion is more in something we believe and hold our faith in. Don't you agree? But when it comes down to it, because argue that science made this in the world, while others say God did. I guess its what you hold your belief and faith in. Whether its the aspects of science or religion that one more strongly believes in. One of the other distinct ways was "Confirmation", which was unique to read about. Confirmation went on to explain that religion "supports and nourishes the entire scientific enterprise". In other words, it went on to describe that faith is what helps us support our scientific evidence. I think if you see and believe it, thats good evidence. No matter what, there will always be some conflict with religion and science.

After reading the article, "God Under a Microscope", I was a little shocked at the statistics showing the huge amount of people that are religious today. I couldn't believe how many Islam's said they would die for their religion. To me that is just crazy. Also, I found it very interesting what Todd Murphy was talking about how the brain as evolved to depend on religion. He stated that prehistoric religious groups were "positively selected" for in the natural selection process. I also found the whole part on studying the neurological effects of religion and its association with seizers in patients with epilepsy. I don't think there is enough evidence to prove it true or not, but it does have potential.

I though the article "Is Religion Opposed to Science?" was okay. I found a lot of the statements kind of repetative like how they are saying that believers of God often don't consider all the evidence from physics, biology, and astronomy. I thought the contrast section stated it correctly by saying that they are asking two different kinds of questions, but the answers should overlap. Haught also talks about how we could use science and religion together to help deepen the faith in religion and support the ideas in science. I wish these two topics could some how come together, but I really just don't think it's ever going to happen.

God Under a Microscope Response

Okay, so yes, when people are put into a hospital and under serious conditions, many of them have drugs and something in their brain is not working. And I understand the whole amygdala and left hemisphere stuff from studying psychology. However, this does not mean that a person’s left hemisphere is making up stories because it is not working properly. And if it is making up stories, why are they not dreaming of a purple elephant, or some island, the beach, somewhere that they call their paradise. Or maybe they are dreaming of their paradise, because it is God. They believe so strongly in Him, that He comes to them in times of need. Which could also agree to points we discussed last week, about violence and disasters in the world, and how God isn’t present in lives. Maybe really He is, but only to the people who believe or are near death. Or we also hear of those that begin to believe after they have seen God on their deathbed. Maybe He has come to them letting them know they have a second chance to make their life on earth better. I would like to end that I would never say God is a part of my imagination. He plays a huge role in my life. I have a personal experience that tells me He is real, and He is here when we need Him the most. And no, I cant actually see Him, I just know He is here.

Is Religion Opposed to Science? Response

This article was interesting on making similarities between religion and science. Haught made good points on where they could co-exist in a sense, but also how they differentiate. I agree on his analogy that religion and science are like 2 games. And only with the same game can you compare and contrast. And because religion and science are 2 separate games, they shouldn’t be compared and contrasted. As he says, “there is no point in comparing one with the other. We should not place them in competition or conflict with each other”.

God under a Microscope
I think that Collins brought up some really good points, in this article. I really like the point that scientists should look at God in the same view as the human world. I really think that most scientist have this fear to agree with god, and the possibility that he exists. There is this wall that is supposed to separate science and religion, which many are unwilling to overcome. Collins brought up this point when he said that 40% scientists are religious but he never heard them. Then he brought up the good point that both religion and science are really important to the world and we should not make people choose between the two.

Is religion opposed to science?
In this article the author really doesn't think that these two subjects will ever get along. You could tell in this article that that author was very much in favor of science being the more open side of the arguments. What I don't know is why there is always such a big gap between the two subjects. I would understand a smaller gap, considering the many different in the two groups, but the way it is always portrayed as being unable to even see the same on anything. The author really likes to point out the only thing religion can prove anything is through faith, and that obviously is not enough for the author while science uses proven facts. Even with the obvious viewpoint of the author I thought the four points in comparing the two sides to bring up many viewpoints I wouldn't have thought of. They were also very interesting to read about the different between two sides, and their flaws and virtues.

Is religion opposed to science:

Haught’s article was very fascinating because I have never seen the relationship of science and religion analyzed to this extent. I liked the contrast approach because I think if everyone had this view, our world would be much more peaceful. But realistically, I know that science and religion strongly relate to one another.If you learn about science, your views on religion might diminish and vice versa. If everyone devoted their lives to the content of the Christian bible, the growth of science-related fields would certainly suffer. We have already seen this take place in biology classrooms--disagreements abou t the origin of life. Excluding evolution in a biology class is irrational and a serious threat to education. A related point I wanted to touch on was the concept of critical realism, which says our thoughts in science and religion are always open to correction. I think that all religions should promote critical realism to encourage knowledge and allow people to ask questions.

God under a microscope:

The information about Pascal Boyer stood out to me the most. I agree with him when he says we all have natural biological tendencies to do the right thing, with many exceptions. Also, I have never had a run in with the supernatural, nor has anyone I know. The article seems to imply that there are other factors that play a role in these experiences.

First for the Haught reading: I object to the idea that science answers the "how" question, and religion the "why". I can see either side saying that their position encompasses both. As for 'why are we here', science's reply would be an explanation of the big bang, and the tendency of DNA to replicate itself, and the majesty of nature and natural processes of continuance. That is a good enough "why" for me. Furthermore, the differences on how religion and science could/should interact. My thoughts are this: In some limited ways, it would be conceivably possible to believe in a higher power, but once you get involved with specific ideas (such as many Christian views, including the resurrection, virgin birth, genesis, etc), you run into problems. I do not understand how people can take the position that science and religion are 2 separate things, and you can have both. Well, for lots of Christians, you just cannot reconcile your beliefs. That frankly either makes you a fool or a hypocrite.
On to God Under a Microscope: Interesting that a biologist became a theist. Like I said above, Christianity and the idea of Jesus have some actual and real differences. The point about evidence that the author makes though is good. That is why I'm agnostic. Can you prove God doesn't exist, that religion is purposeless? No. You can't. But you can prove some religious belief is simply physically impossible. Did I see the red sea part? Did I see Jesus rise up from the dead? No. No evidence. So perhaps religion and science can coexist, but only to the extent that religion doesn't arbitrarily attempt to step into the domain of reason and physical laws, and science doesn't presume to absorb things that cannot be proven or tested.

"Is Religion Opposed to Science" was a fascinating article because it dissected all the possible relationships science and religion could have. What was interesting to me was to find out that scientism and not science is actually the enemy of religion. The author made good arguments for all the relationships and it made me think about the contrast, conflict, contact, and confirmation between them. I think that these views reflect on the different views people have about the subject. I found contact to be most interesting because it saw science and religion both as pursuing the ultimate truth, even if they both do it in their own ways, there is still the goal of unexplained knowledge that we are striving for. I feel science has a place in the big picture even though it is not as revelatory as religion because it communicates truth to people on a level we can all understand. To me science has never done anything evil or wrong, sure some inventions born out science have caused great catastrophe, but that is mainly because of the human hand in it. I think science may one day explain a large portion of the whole truth, but religion is necessary to fill in the gap, because no matter how many facts you have, its never enough.

One point I found very interesting in the IROS chapter was the last two sections. One point he made was that science and religion are not that distant from eachother as most think. He states that Science is not as exact and objective, and that religion is not as loose and subjective. Some examples came to mind when I read this. For the study of quantum physics and string theory is quite theoretical and what we do know is that randomness and uncerrtenty is a constant. This form of science becomes much less solid and muck less exact. The example I thoought of for religion and how it is becoming more respectable and logically valid is the power of positive thought. Our human mind and the influence of our thoughts are just becoming recognized by the scientific comunity. I saw What the Bleep Do We Know, and a group of scientists changed the molecular structure of water by slightly thinking about the water. This was done by placing a lable with a positive or negative word on the vile. This finding makes me question the validity of praying and being in a church comunity just because of the positive outflow of thoughts....... This posting is scatter brained..@#$ I enjoyed this reading but only remembered about it until the last minute

I thought that the article "God Under a Microscope" was interesting, but really almost pointless. It's cool to know that a scientist can have belief in god, and his story is cool and all, but really the only part of the article that held any importance to me was the final quote about the two views being profoundly dangerous. I can agree with his view here, but I don't believe the effects will be as drastic as he makes them sound. It would be nice for people on both sides of the spectrum to be able to see eye to eye, but the fact is that we're miles away from that. When the time comes I think many more discoveries about existence will be uncovered. But, the only problem we face now is the ongoing debates of the theists and atheists. I believe that the two warring with each other ocntsntly is definitely unnecessary, but shouldn't be too enormous a problem in our lifetimes.

I attempted to access the "Is Religion Opposed to Science?" article on electronic reserve, but they asked me for a password that I didn't know. SO after trying those I thought would be obvious, I gave up. I'll have to find that out. Sorry!

i would have to agree with the author of this article when he states that the "confirmation" approach to science and religion is the best way to go. That section of the article was actually the only one that sort of opened my eyes to confirmation. until recently i sort of embraced the "contact" approach in thinking. i realized after reading this that that way of thinking seems to be a way to accept defeat in the science/god debate, and allow the two to coexist w/out any conflict. this might be a comforting thought, but not so realistic on the other hand. what i liked about the confirmation approach is that it presented a very probable idea which is that religion sparked, and continues to, the interest in science and the ultimate discovery of existance. overall, i thought that the piece was very interesting and thought-provoking.

my comment was in referrence to the "Is Religion Opposed to Science?" article, by the way

Is Religion Opposed to Science?: There were two things in this excerpt I found interesting. In the conflict section of Haught's typology he discusses the idea that science has undermined the moral foundations of modern society and taken meaning out of life. This is a common argument but I have yet to see any real 'scientific' evidence that this is the case. Meaning is something people have to find for themselves any way they so choose, if they choose at all. And, frankly, if you let something as sterile as scientific theory strip you of your values then they couldn't have been very deeply held. The other thing I found odd is Haught's concept of Confirmation. I am not saying that using Religion to support Science and vice verse isn't a laudable goal but which religion? He says he wants a religion, “carefully purged of its idolatrous implications.” But it seems to me a belief like that would stop being a real religion and turn into a sort of mushy ecumenicism.

I read the God Under a Microscope that was at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/21/AR2006072100927_2.html: I am staunchly in the “good for him, but why should I care” camp. If Collins' faith helps him and doesn't hinder his job as a scientist then great. I do think he makes a relevant point when he says that scientists don't take time to explore, “these more profound eternal questions.” I think he's right, but why should they? Not everyone has to have a spiritual side, or spend time pondering eternal questions. Especially when they spend most of their time just trying to solve the material questions at confront them every day.

god under the microscope:
i thought that this article was interesting because they were discussing new scientific studies that i had never heard of or considered. the idea that people who claim to have religous experiences may in fact share a common brain malfunction was an incredibly interesting idea and also fairly humorous. i think that this is just another way that science may be able to prove it's upper hand over religion in being able to reasonably explain what was thought to be explainable. it's understandable why members of team god would be upset about these studies. i'm pretty sure that many people who fight solely for one side of the argument treat the god/science debate as a sort of competition, which is a ridiculous thought, but at the same time true. i thought that the idea of studying brainwaves of nuns and monks seemed like a sort of far-fetched attempt at breaking new ground, but an interesting approach to the topic, nonetheless.

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! htqgkjknlrrcmx