Download File - Gyasti Averia

Gyasti Averia
Professor Meier
ESL 33B T/Th 1.00p
Reading Questions 3
1. Why does science writer John Horgan (1) believe that the claim humans have souls is not
only an illusion but also a dangerous idea. What makes many people believe that they
possess a soul, a “ghost in the machine”? Using the excerpt below “The Problem of
Ghosts and Souls: They Go Against the Laws of Science,” as well as your understanding
of how science works, why cannot ghosts or souls exist, given what scientists know about
biological and physical matter? What does Horgan mean when he calls humans “meat
machines”? What does Harvard psychologist Daniel Dennett say about the soul in this
lecture called “Soul Searching with Daniel Dennett.” Believe for the moment, as Horgan,
Crick and Dennett do, that people have no soul, that they are controlled by a 3.2 pound
computer or “necktop” called the brain composed of trillions of neurons, tiny robots as
Dennett refers to them, and nothing more. How would people’s lives change or be
different from how those lives are lived now?
John Horgan, an American science author, argues that human doesn’t have souls; therefore
human’s body has only been controlled by nerve cells in the brain. Horgan mentioned Francis
Crick’s argument to support his claim, which said that human soul occurs only an illusion that
exists only if people believe in the existence of the soul itself. Horgan explained that instead of
soul, what controlled human body exists to be neural code that neuroscientists have discovered.
The so-called neural code produces perception, memories, decisions, emotions, and other
consciousness from the transmitted electrochemical pulses in human brain. This recent
knowledge not only will proved the non-existence of soul and other supernatural belief, but also
will give people solution to alter the nature and control our genetic selves. Ending his essay,
Horgan concluded that human would neglect their belief towards immortal souls once people
realize they could programmed their minds through neural code.
People’s belief in souls originated from their belief of God and its religious texts. The texts
explained the reasons why souls exist, and the religious people didn’t have any choice but to
believe in their religion and its merits. Another reason being that the laziness of uneducated
people to explain things they don’t understand, thus they believe in souls. The basic reason of
people’s belief in souls came from the idea of immortality of the soul. Many people want to be
immortal, and by believing in souls they somehow feel that they’re immortal.
Ghost stories vary from culture to culture and change from time to time. Usually ghosts can
only be proved by personal experience, ghost stories. A ghost came from the spirit of deceased
living beings and appears visibly to the living or in other manifestation. All the matter and
energy in the universe are bound by physics law, ghosts in the other hand, cannot be proven
scientifically because its ever-changing form from stories to stories.
John Horgan argued the existence of the soul, and stated that humans are meat machines
controlled by programmed nerve cells in the brain. The meat machine term came from Horgan’s
idea that ghost in the machine didn’t exist and what’s left in human body reverted to only mass,
or meat in his term.
Daniel Dernett, a Harvard psychologist, declared that souls in the dualistic term are hopeless
and wrong. Instead, Dernett believes that soul exists from the interaction of tiny robots or
neurons in human brain and created an “I”, a soul that makes human lovable, responsible, and
respectable. Dermett’s theory enlightens how our mind, made of neurons, differentiates from
other people’s minds. Culture plays a big part in forming human mind. Culture, such as ideas and
memes, infest human minds and turn them into a functional arrangement and programmed the
brain like a software programmed a computer, so the computer can do what the computer
originally can’t.
People’s belief in soul and other religious belief limit their ability to accept the knowledge of
science and the scientific explanations of everything related to their consciousness. So with
releasing their binding belief in soul, people’s lives can advance by learning scientific
explanation of neurons, brain, and genes. If people educate themselves in the sense of their own
mind and consciousness, then the religious beliefs will be neglected. Once people don’t bound
with their religious belief anymore, their lives will be more free and changed in a better way.
2. Where westerners believe that they possess a soul, an unchanging ghost-like essence that
sometimes hangs around a while before it ascends to heaven—or elsewhere--the people
of India believe that cows possess a god-like quality, sometimes even a soul of a
reincarnated ancestor. Marvin Harris in the chapter “Mother Cow” (11) explains the
materialistic (economic) reasons for cow worship. Explain the reasons the Indian people
worship the cow as well as present Harris’s explanation for cow worship.
Indians worship cows as their mother of life, the symbol of all the living, and respected
because of its provision. Indians think cow as the living thing that gives most and take least. The
cow gives its milk generously, and sustains Indian people’s lives. According to Ahimsa, cow
symbolized dignity, selflessness, endurance, maternity, and strength. And in the Vedas,
Hinduism’s religious text, cow represents joyful and healthy life.
Marvin Harris has his own take of cow love in his book, Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches,
which includes his materialistic explanation on why cow love exist against the pressure of
modern agriculture. Even though often misunderstood as unfavorable to the agriculture industry,
cow love actually benefits Indian farmers in a way that using cow provides less energy
consuming and more economical solution for crop processing. Since most Indian farmers
couldn’t afford tractors, they use their cow to plow their farm, and by not killing their cow they
can take benefit from the cow to the last bit of their cow’s life. By keeping the traditional aspect
of agriculture system, India delays their agribusiness development and would able to keep many
people earning money from small-scaled agriculture business.
Another benefit Indians took from having large amount of cows came from the cow dungs
produced. Since India doesn’t have extensive coal and fuel production and already experienced
major deforestation, using cow dung as their cooking fuel became a clear solution. Cow dung
costs next to nothing or even free, and burns slowly with minimal amount of fire produced, so
the women of India could cook slowly while also taking care of their children. Cow dung also
can be made into paste and used as floor-cleaning product. Because of this benefits, farmers
collected cow dungs carefully everyday and turn cattle dropping into a branch of their business.
Cow love protects farmers from making irrational short-term decision during famine season
and drought. Farmers will be intrigued to sell their cow to slaughter house or kill their cow to
feed the family in drought season, indeed this would increase their nutrition short-term, but if
they survive the drought, which they will anyway, they won’t have cow to plow their rice fields.
Cow love protects the welfare of Indian’s farmer by keeping their business from turning into
meat production. The laws of thermodynamics explains how raising beef production will not
only mess up the ecosystem order but also will raise the price of food that can worsen the
standard of already poor living families in India.
3. Yale professor of Psychology Paul Bloom (4) states that possessing a soul, “something
immaterial and immortal, something that exists independently of the brain,” contradicts a
person’s belief in “personal identity, free will, and consciousness” because the above
qualities change with age as we become weaker in memory and stranger in personality.
The immortal, immaterial soul, however, cannot change because this soul existed before
were born and will exist after we die, meaning that the soul is immortal and cannot
change or have free will. Therefore, Bloom claims that the soul is nothing more than our
consciousness, the product of our mind. For neuroscientists, having a soul makes no
difference—and most do not believe in a soul. They are concerned only with how the
brain works and how behavior is controlled by both the brain and its interaction with the
environment. In fact, most brain researchers argue that mind (soul) and brain (material)
are one and the same: they reject the idea of soul. Summarize Bloom’s argument for
rejecting the soul. But, according to Bloom, religious people need to believe in a soul
because having a soul separates us from animals and gives us the basis for morality.
However, Bloom, as well as other scientists, reject the reasoning of religious people that,
without souls, we could not be moral. Summarize Bloom’s response to this claim in his
Youtube video “ A Lecture in Psychology: Religion, Morality, Evolution.” Now,watch
these lectures by Michael Shermer on the origins of morality. If, according to Shermer,
god and religion do not form the foundations for morality, where, then, does morality
come from? What is his definition of provisional morality? What is his answer to the
question that, if god does not exist, then neither can morality exist. What, according to
Shermer, are moral principles that can be derived without god?
Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University, argues that accepting the non-existence of
soul dangers people with its consequences. Accepting that soul doesn’t exist means accepting the
difference between human and animals only exist in superficial level. Therefore many people
stood to believe in soul exist to protect their dignity and priori over other creatures. Believing
soul doesn’t exist also compromised how people perceive science and its research, such as stem
cell research and human genome, and also people’s outlook towards abortion, cloning, and
cosmetics psychopharmacology. To consider everything people do are based on the human brain,
the legal realm, which reason a difference in actions that one does and the brain does, will be
implicated and using mental illness as defending strategy in court will be dismissed. The worst
consequences according to Bloom caused people to re-think about their whole believe in life
after death, heaven or hell.
Because most of the people living on earth posses some kind of religious belief, Paul Bloom
tries to make connections between people with religious belief and how their religious belief
affect their tendency to do morally good behaviors. In his extensive experimental research,
Bloom concludes three result concerning religion and religious belief’s effects on people. First
research shows that religions affiliate with moral goodness behaviors, such as people with
religious belief give more charity and tend to be happier; people with religious belief also lean
towards honesty and generosity. The second result, contrary to the first, shows that religious
belief doesn’t affect people’s tendency to do morally good behaviors. In religious countries the
rate of murders, suicide, sexual harassment crimes committed more than in other countries.
Experts argues that instead of bringing good moral quality, religion in religious countries
increase racial discrimination, lower tolerance of other people’s religion, and even increase the
approval of violence behavior. The results that counter one another prove that religious belief
didn’t affect people’s morality, and people can be good morally without religion.
Bloom’s third result clarifies that all the behaviors and acts people picked up from religious
belief, both good or bad, didn’t come from the religious belief itself, but came from the things
associated with religion. Bloom provided an example of religious community; people involved in
religious community tend to do more moral goodness. But the idea that religious belief doesn’t
matter or doesn’t affect people will set them in outrage, and that’s why religious belief
continuously exists within people even though moral action relates to religion instead of its
belief.
Michael Shermer believes that morality applies to all human species rather than only being a
personal trait of some individuals, because morality created by evolution. People inherited
morality from their ancestors and then fit and suit their culture and apply the morality according
to their circumstances.
Provisional morality, according to Shermer, explains that moral principles are not ablosute,
meaning they differ from culture to culture and from individual to individual, neither are moral
principles relative, meaning the principles depend on the culture. Shermer claims that the same
morality will apply to most people most of the time in most circumstances. Because morality
exists outside of the human minds, morality doesn’t depend on religion and the existence of God.
Because if God didn’t exists, the principles that people perceived as immoral would have stayed
immoral.
People can derive morality without the existence of God since morality exists within every
human being. Shermer provided three principles that people can use to determine whether some
actions are moral or immoral. The ask principle suggests people to ask themselves whether they
wouldn’t mind received the same doings from other people that they would do the deed to in the
first place. If asking straightly wasn’t an option, people need to sought other’s opinion close to
that person’s mind whether the measure considered moral or not. The happiness principle
suggests people to seek happiness for themselves and with other people’s happiness in mind, also
avoiding seeking happiness that leads to someone else’s unhappiness. The third principle, liberty
principle, gives people freedom to pursue happiness and make decision for themselves to achieve
happiness. Liberty principle forbids people to seek happiness where other’s liberty of happiness
becomes compromised.
4. Summarize Rodney Brooks’s essay (27). In other writings, Brooks states that, if god
exists and if we are her only creation, then he has wasted a lot of space called the infinite
universe. Or if god exists and if the universe is filled with other life forms, then humans
are really not god’s primary concern, nor are the stories of the bible, Koran or any other
holy book that special and important. Let’s assume (so that you can answer this question)
that neither god nor any other supernatural being exists: would your life still have a
purpose? What would you do differently with your life (if the above claim is true)?
Would you still transfer, get married, have children, work hard? Now, reverse the
question, god exists: how would your life be different? Would you not transfer, get
married, have children, work hard? If the answers to these questions are the same, then
what is the reason to believe in a supernatural creator?
Rodney Brooks, the director of the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory, frets that human stands alone in the universe. Brooks believes a sudden discovery of
life in other planet happens to be very unlikely. The aloneness of human in the universe fears to
be the reason that drive people hopeless and seek redemption in religion.
If God doesn’t exist in my life, my life would still have a purpose. People constantly seek for
purpose in doing something, and if a purpose disappears, then they would find redemption in
other. So if God doesn’t exist, I would find purpose in other, such as my parents or myself.
Because transferring, achieving goals, and getting married are the things I’m doing for myself for
the purpose of happiness. I would keep on doing my life as how I’m doing me right now,
because the future keeps getting nearer and I feel like I’m in the right path.
If God exists, then He would be the added purpose in my life and I wouldn’t change anything
I’m doing right now. The reason I believe in God caused by the premise of an after life, the
premise of heaven and hell. My belief in God doesn’t affect my desire for success in my life,
because my ambition for the future stands separated from my ambition to go to heaven. By
praying, doing my religion’s rituals, and doing well for others, I redeem myself for the heaven’s
sake.
5. Scott Sampson (29) does not believe that life arose with any supernatural intervention. In
fact, he argues that life is a complex chemical reaction. What, in his argument, is life’s
chemical purpose, and how does he support this claim? However, explain his meaning
when he also says that life can still have a purpose, even if, at its base level, life is
biochemical. (You have probably already answered this question in an earlier question,
but expand on the answer now)
Scott Sampson, an American paleontologist, believes life has chemical purpose to disperse
energy from the sun, and in process also increase the complexity of life itself. Nature resents
gradient, which in this case indicates the gap difference of something, so nature using the 2 nd law
of thermodynamics constantly changing through slow metabolic cycle to reach a certain halfway
mark or equilibrium. With his claim, Sampson mentioned various nature’s phenomenon, such as
lithospheric plate motions, the Gulf Stream flow, and deadly hurricane to prove that nature does
manifested on the 2nd law. Photosynthesis, the plant’s process of turning solar energy to food,
acts as the core process of life’s dispersal energy purpose. Other living organisms then consume
these plants and created the energy cycle within the ecology system.
Sampson’s claim that the purpose of life only aims to keep energy flowing and only as
temporary checkpoint of solar energy provokes religious field to re-think about the whole
purpose in life other than being a biochemical agent. Sampson’s claim only concerned the
naturalistic purpose of life without any deeper existential meaning. Therefor, people’s religious
belief and they’re purpose of life in that category weren’t compromised. But with deep
understanding and extensive comprehension of life’s role in dispersing energy, people could
connect to their vital aspect, or nature, in their history.
6. According to Keith Devlin (33), life is an accident of biochemical reactions and nothing
about life seems designed. Summarize his essay. Of course, this claim goes against what
most people, poorly educated in the sciences, believe. Watch this video by Neil deGrasse
Tyson where he argues that the universe shows no supernatural design but instead shows
a universe randomly or accidently designed, based on physical and biological conditions.
In fact, he argues that, if a supernatural designer does exist, then this designer is stupid,
ignorant and certainly evil! What is deGrasse Tyson’s evidence for natural, rather than
supernatural, design—that the universe has not been made for humans and really does not
care whether we survive?
Keith Devlin believes that human species and all nature happened because of an accident and
human lives serve no other purpose in life. Many people would deny this idea because they
didn’t want their lives to lose its purpose, or religious purpose to God. But Devlin believes that
with this discovery, people should be more appreciative towards their life because they only have
their life, literally. And the idea that no life exists other that their life should not affect the way
people lives, because having no purpose of their existence for the universe doesn’t mean their
life become completely meaningless to them.
Neil deGrasse Tyson considered the theory of intelligent design to be false because of flaws
that the universe, the earth, and the human have seem to prove otherwise. The stupid design, as
Tyson called it, put one too many flaws in the design of the universe, such as the instability of
most planets’ orbit, and inhabitable planets caused by heat, cold, or radiation. The earth itself has
design flaws that danger the life of human species such as natural disasters, earthquake, volcano
and tsunami that killed millions of people. Other than natural disasters, mass extinction of 93%
of species that had lived on earth derived from lethal diseases and climate change. Adding the
list of reasons why intelligent design considered to be not so intelligent after all, humans were
born with many weaknesses such as, genetic inherited diseases, the decay of human’s senses as
they grow old, and the liability of human in their daily life because of the need to sleep, and
constantly eat.
Tyson refused to use God as an explanation of things people don’t understand. If scientists
stop discovering, then the future economics that relies on innovation and science discovery as
foundation will end. Tyson then started to provide data that shows 85% of intelligent community
don’t believe in God, and the other 15% do. Tyson then asked his audience to not question why
most of them didn’t believe in God but rather why the 15% still does.
7. Francis S. Collins, the former director of the Human Genome Project, turned from
atheism to embrace Christianity. Summarize his religious conversion using this interview.
Francis Collins grew up being aware of church since he went to Episcopal Church but his
only purpose was to learn music and nothing else. Then at college, he realized he didn’t have any
faith after listening to his friends argued about their faith in God. Going to grad school at Yale
and studying quantum mechanics made him more certain that God didn’t exist and science could
answer everything about the universe.
After a while, realizing his passion diverted from quantum mechanics, Collins decided to go
to medical school, and at this point he began his journey in discovering his faith in God. Dealing
with many patients in his residential years, Collins found out their faith in God got them through
their worst time as their comfort and reassurance. Collins realized that he had been rejecting faith
without knowing exactly what he rejected. That realization led him to seek clarity, so he went to
Chapel Hill speaking to a Methodist minister. The minister then introduced Collins to C.S.
Lewis’ work, Mere Christianity, and surprisingly compelled with Lewis’ argument about God’s
existence. Even though as a scientist, Collins felt like he didn’t need to know God and
experiencing denial at first, he came to conclusion that faith comes from his own rational
thoughts and his thoughts made him believe in his own personal God.
Francis Collins also agreed to Lewis’ argument about moral law stating that finding God
within our hearts leads the way to figure out what’s right or wrong. God stands not as a
philosophy but rather a relationship between Him and us. There will not ever be scientific
explanations to God, since science studies natural occurrences, and God Himself remains
supernatural.
8. Summarize Michael Shermer’s essay “Why I am an Atheist”
Michael Shermer considers himself as an atheist in the sense that he didn’t believe in God,
but instead of labeling him with the bad adjectives associated with atheism, Shermer prefers to
be considered skeptic. Atheists seem to be stereotyped in America but Shermer claims to not be
one of them in a way that he believes every person owns the opportunity to be different. And
Shermer deems himself as fiscal conservative and social liberal.
Shermer does not believe in the existence of God and an afterlife, and his lack of belief
pushed him to think that everything he does in life matters. How people treat others, and how
people treat the planet matters because people will think about the earthly consequences rather
than how their actions will affect their afterlife. In America, people need to do the right thing and
do well for others because people have values and reputation of themselves and by doing the
right things, simply will make us better individuals.
Growing up as a Christian, Shermes later found himself in science and turned science as one
of reasons why he converted himself into atheism. Science changed the way he thinks, with logic
and probabilities Shermer felt no need to justify universe as an act of God. Science provides the
explanation to all the natural forces, and Shermer consider science as his religion somehow. And
maybe God creates the law of nature, maybe He is the Mother Nature but that only speculated
Shermer’s theological theory, not science.