The Patrioc Act is not Patriotic!

When the United States, with our coalition partners, invaded Afghanistan, there was a direct link between who and where the enemy was. When the United States, without global support invaded Iraq, we were no longer fighting those who were responsible for 911 and in fact created more enemies than we had before. We are in far more danger of a terror attack on U.S. soil for having gone into Iraq.

The Patriot Act (who would want to vote against anything named that) was supposed to provide intelligence agencies greater investigative tools to protect U.S. citizens. But the actual content of this Act allows for the very violation of our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. The means does not and cannot justify the ends.

I do not want, for example, a suspect tortured to gleam information that may or may not protect me from another attack. What ever happened to “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Didn’t we learn that in kindergarten?

For a brief time, I worked for Dr. James Dobson when his headquarters were in Pomona. The first floor housed the largest room in the facility. It was where all the minimum-wage worker bees received and opened up correspondence, orders for material and books, and worked the phone banks receiving orders and donations.

There was an entire wall (2 stories high) that showcased happy families playing in a park, eating a meal together, and spending quality time together. Time and time again, however, management would pressure these minimum wage employees to work six days a week, Saturdays, and overtime (10-12 hour days) to keep up with the demands of the Christian public who "needed" help from Dobson's "Focus on the Family."

Almost all the employees in this area were working moms. Our morning break had been turned into a bible study and we were “encouraged” to participate. One morning, during what was suppose to be our break, our supervisor passed around a sign up set for the week's overtime. A mom with 2 kids failed to sign up and was berated in front of everyone for failing to do her Christian duty. I grabbed the sheet and pointed to the “wall of happy families” and said “Don’t you think Jesus would want this woman home with her family?” I was later counseled that I had taken “The Lord’s name in vain” and would be receiving a letter in my file. I gave my two weeks notice and left.

Nature vs. Nurture

Dr. Watson is a noble prize winning scientist who, with the help of his colleagues, discovers the three dimensional DNA double helix. He believes that genetics holds the secret in understanding human behavior because of his research into specific genes. One of his favorite authors said “The essence of life in information.” That this “information” must have the ability to be reproduced (as in scientific experiments).
In the past, there had been a resistance to the synergy of psychology and biology. The “nature vs. nurture” argument. Dr. Watson emphasizes the reality that “nurture” cannot be studied and that “nature” (DNA) can. He developed what he called the “Roma” system to identify genes. He found the chromosomal defect that is responsible for autism.
People are resistant to believing that we are “just bundles of DNA” because that belief takes the element of control out of our lives. We want to believe that we, maybe with the help of psychology, can change elements of our lives. I believe we will, in the future, find a genetic link to criminal and other deviant behavior.

Philosophy n < 5 minutes

The films "Philosophy in Less than Five Minutes" addressed a variety of issues. The classic black and white cartoons in "Electric Surfing" were pure genius. "Flame On" addressed homosexuality. The video showcases a montage of important historical figures who were berated, punished, and even killed for having been born "different." History will prove that homosexuality has a genetic component and, just as the color of our skin, is determined before our birth.
The film featuring Guru Faqir Chand was the most compelling. During a battle in 1919 Iraq he was faced with his own mortality. He had a vision where another Guru came to him and told him to save his ammunition for a later time when it would be more advantageous to win the battle. This information was spread throughout his battalion and sure enough, assisted them in winning the battle.
Months later, he would have a conversation with the Guru who had appeared to him. Much to his surprise, the Guru said basically that it wasn't him who had come to him but that his own consciousness that created this vision - that there was nothing supernatural about it. Faqir must have realized he would lose the power and status he had gained over people if he admitted his revelation was nothing more than a creation of his own mind. He seems to be a real seeker of the truth - no matter what the truth actually is.

Good Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gI2Q8luLg8&feature=related

Mr. Polkinghorne was the best, by far, speaker who articulated the concept of God and why he is a “believer.” His background in science and math lends him the credibility of persuasion. Here is a mathematical physicist from Cambridge who then studies to become an Anglican priest who coins the phase “natural theology” to explain why God exists.

He believes that his background in science gives him the proof that there is a divine force at work and that we are his (or her) creations. If for no other reason than the fact that we (humans) are too complex to have “evolved.” “Quantum mechanics does not rely on ‘common sense’ for explanation.” To him, a scientist and a theologian are one in the same.

His most convincing argument for a god is his explanation for the presence of evil and illness in our lives. He believes god gave us “free will” to accept or reject his love. And that the cost of us having free will to do good or evil is a “necessary cost” of our choice.

The first conference speaker, in Beyond Belief session #6, asks “Can we be good without God?” And “Can we have ethics without religion?” If she fully answered either of these I didn’t hear it. I think you can be good without God. There are agnostics and atheists who live good lives and are good people. Everyone has an internal sense of right or wrong don’t they?

The one thing that really struck me was the questions from the audience. One of the audience members appeared irate that even the question was asked (“Can we be good without God?”). There was a PBS.org video inserted near the end of session #6 with Alan Alda (from “Mash” fame). But there was no audio.

Sathya Sai Baba

I think history will judge Sai Baba harshly for his trickery. The
most disturbing part of the two videos was watching the expressions of
the faces of the children. It is one thing to trick an adult but quite
another to deceive a child. What does this guy get out of this? Is it
the money or the notoriety? Or both? The Children were bowing down to
him (and some of the adults) as he walked by.
It is so sad that we (including me) are so willing to give our
power up to any Tom, Dick or Harry just because we believe (without
merit) they have a special connection to the Divine. We have been
taught from birth to use our brain and ask questions - be "smart." But
God forbid if we apply this same paradigm to God, faith, or
Spirituality.

Eckankar

Dodie Bellamy, a former “Eckankar” devotee, interviewed Dr. Lane for his article, “A Former Member Revisits the Movement.” Mr. Bellamy was genuinely surprised to find out that this legendary myth buster was an unassuming surfer dude who will go to any length to find the truth. Eckankar didn’t have a chance. Dr. Lane’s investigation of this religious movement revealed its leader had been plagiarizing copious quantities of old religious texts and pushing them off as new material.

Dr. Lane, in Bellamy’s article, points out that our society uses more brains to pick out a new car then we do to pick out a new religion or spiritual path. On “Eckankar’s” website (www.eckankar.org) they state “The purpose of Eckankar is to make God an everyday reality in your life. As Soul, you have the God-knowledge within you. The teachings of ECK will awaken the knowledge and love for the divine things that are already in your heart.” The road to God is the adventure of a lifetime.” Wow! Who wouldn’t want that? But the point is how many times are we going to be duped until we become critical thinkers? It is a question I have often asked myself.

Edgar Cayce and the Skeptic

Dr. Lane's review of K. Paul Johnson's Edgar Cayce in
Context, is a thorough acknowledgment of how Mr. Johnson sought to
investigate Cayce. Whether or not Mr. Johnson is a believer or skeptic,
he approached Cayce's writing with investigative compassion. Mr.
Johnson used what Lane calls "occams's razor" to slice away
Cayce's religious and paranormal claims with scientific
investigation.

Mr. Johnson's healthy case of skepticism was very well
balanced, according to Lane, by understanding the impact Mr. Cayce has
had on thousands of people (and still continues to today). Years ago,
when I first discovered Cayce's reading's I really wanted to
believe that this man had somehow been touched by God and had real
psychic ability. Though I understand many of his readings/predictions
have turned out to be false I want to keep an open mind. Which, I
believe, is what Dr. Lane would want us to have – an open mind but
ready to question and test facts and claims.

Schafersman's "Intro. To Critical Thinking" was been the best "how
to" guide so far on functional critical thinking. Schafersman draws a
clear correlation between science and math skills with one's ability to
think critically. This would explain why so many students graduate from
high school with low grades in math and science and virtually no
critical thinking skills.
I can personally see how my own lack of math and science in my
education has affected my ability to be a critical thinker.
Schafersman's statement that we "teach students what to think not
how to think" is completely accurate. High school students are test
takers and test takers only. All emphasis is on test scores.
Schafersman provides outstanding guidelines to provide critical thinking
skills in to the classroom.

Dr. Lane v. Ken Wilber

Dr Lane's criticism of Mr. Wilber primarily lays in his tendency for "exaggerations." Wilber, in the past, has given "false impressions of what evolutionary biologists think." Clearly Dr. Lance respects Mr. Wilber as a person and as a scholar. Wilber's way of thinking, however, and his objections to natural selection "have similarity with creationists."

Checking Online Sources


One way would be to use Lett's acronym "FiLCHeRS." I enjoy the ease of using Wikipedia. But there are a lot of limitations. First of all, anyone can add to it's content. While the additions are reviewed and evaluated by Wiki, some crap could still be there. Journalists (worth their salt) use three (3) sources. That is how I approach online information. OnFriday when Indymac Bank closed their doors I ran to my laptop (I have (had) a savings account there). I first "googled" "Indymac Bank," I read a short synopsis then went to the "Yahoo" and did the same thing. Lastly, I went to the "FDIC" government page and read what they had posted about Indy. I did not go to any source or information released byIndyMac bank itself. At this point I wouldn't believe what they had to say.

U.F.O. Encounter?

A transformative U.F.O. encounter is when one believes he has experienced an event that cannot be explained (whether it is a little green man or a flying saucer). Are these experiences a natural occurrence or are they apparitions of the mind? The author, Dr. lane, uses what he calls the "Chandian Effect" to explain why smart, honest, sane people really believe that they have had an "encounter." Yogi Chand has had himself visions that have no scientific origin. Chand explains that "the nature of our consciousness (or unconsciousness) is based on our beliefs and faith in those beliefs.
Our brain, I believe, is primarily composed of chemicals that act and react to our environment, senses, and experiences (our context). In times of great stress our brain is in survival mode. We can perceive and visualize anything we want (or do not want) to see. Dr. Lane, with the assistance of Yogi Chand, explains why these "transformative" U.F.O. encounters can and do occur.
As a teenager my favorite show was "Star trek." Captain Kirk took us where no one had been before. But it wasn't the alien planets he discovered that filled us with awe. It was the beliefs and perceptions that that show changed that was transformational. The first African American had a leading role on the show. Each episode introduced up to a new and more enlightened way to think. We witnessed the first person in a drama that was in a wheelchair. There is an old adage that goes like "change your perception, change your world." Our brain is very powerful. I can only imagine what scientists with discover in the next century.

Kurtz v. Religious Skepticism

Kurtz believes skepticism should be applied to religion just as it is with science or any other issue. He argues, rightly so I believe, that religion should be able to stand up to the same "inquiry" as anything else. His correlation with inquiry and science highlights a very valid argument. Empirical evidence has shown us that science, after years of research and inquiry, has evolved and grown to disprove many theory's and facts that we have in the past believed to be true. At one time no one believed in the atom much less that we would be able to study it. The Hubble telescope has shown us the outermost edges of the universe that we could never have believe possible. A relatively recent development in M.R.I.'s (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) has allowed physicians to actually map the brain and watch (real time) brain function during surgery ( http://www.fmri.org ).
Another valid point as to why religion must stand up to inquiry and doubt is the fact, like science, it is constantly changing. For example, lets take the Pope (I was a catholic for a short time). We were taught his word(s) were the words of God. Females were required to wear head coverings (yes, I remember that) because of a verse in the bible and because the Pope said so. A couple of Pope's ago decided it was no longer necessary. Does that mean that God changes his mind as to what is and isn't right. Their recent announcement that cremation was OK would have thought to have been blasphemy 20 years ago.

Jim Lett

Jim Lett’s “Guide to Critical Thinking” is an invaluable tool in our crazy, sensationalistic, and “faith based” society. The core of his critical analysis is coined in an acronym – “FiLCHeRS.” When evaluating an issue we need to take into account the falsifiability, logic comprehension, honesty and its reproducibility. It is an easy way to evaluate almost anything from a book or newspaper article to a statement made by crazy Uncle Harry.

A good critical thinker must have the ability to stand back (uninvolved) and evaluate an issue. We can think of it as slowly pealing away the skin of an apple and then cutting it into sections. I wish I had read his guide at the beginning of my collage education which, by the way, began a mere 19 years ago. It would have saved me a lot of heartache and money (Tarot Cards, psychics and palm readers are not cheap!)

One of Mr. Lett’s pet peeves is our thirst for sensational mass media – 24 hours a day. The more bizarre the story the more air time it seems to get –“French toast with picture of Jesus being auctioned on EBay!” The most disturbing trend, I believe, is the media to go live during a police pursuit.

Mr. Lett is most of all concerned with our public school system. As he should be. The primary emphasis at the school district I work for is test scores – period. I have high school senior students who test well but are clueless in so many ways:

• Unable to compose a simple story
• Drive a car
• Believe every rumor on the internet
• Lack honestry and steel money from their parents
• Think “Myspace” is the true source of information

Mr. Lett’s guide should be required reading for all high school students, newly naturalized citizens, ELL students, teachers, professors, and parents.

Pretext, text and context

Pretext, text, and context can be viewed as three kind of lenses we look through. For example, I have a female friend who is a deputy sheriff. She is of Hispanic origin (but looks Asian). When she is working out in the field, it is not uncommon for Asians to run up to her and start speaking mandarin, Vietnamese or another Asian dialect. The poor girl doesn't even know how to speak Spanish much less an Asian dialect. Her pretext would be her outside shell that can appear Asian. Her text is she is an English speaking deputy who must assist the non-English speaking citizen who needs her help. She would call for a translator and handle the situation. The context of this paradigm is that while she is on duty, she IS the Sheriff's Department. She is no longer a female Hispanic deputy sheriff. What every she does or says reflects back to all of law enforcement.

Faqir's Secret (film)

What a wise man who tells followers seeking his counsel look no further than inside yourself. I would have loved to have met this great man. It sounds so simplistic but yet is so profound. On "U2"'s Joshua Tree album, one of my favorite songs is "I still haven't found what I am looking for."
My generation (including me) is obsessed with the search for "meaning." Guru's, shrinks, religious leaders and mothers are quick to give advice and even quicker to make you feel guilty for not following the advice. It's time to take control of our lives, give ourselves meaning and create our own destiny!!!!!! I felt so impowered after watching that film - thank you!

da free john

The only article during this week’s reading was an article you (Dr. Lane) wrote. The only reference to “Da Free John” was his fictitious involvement in a discussion involving other philosophers. I could be way out there but the only thing (from that reading) that comes to mind is that the “message” or information being disseminated should stand on its own merit. Who or where the information is coming from should not dilute nor add credence to the message.

Bertrand Russell's reasons for not being a Christian

If God made me than who make God? Christianity “is not logical.”

The arguments for a God have changed over time.

Nature (i.e. animals, etc.) were not “designed” by God because they have and continue to evolve.

The reason most people believe in God is because they were taught to from infancy.

If there were a God why would there be injustice in the world.

Fear “is the foundation of religion.”

Mr. Russell is correct or at least makes sense on half of his arguments; however, his deductions on three are flawed:

Reason # 4 is very weak. For example, I was raised a right-winged Republican (my parents had a picture of President Nixon in their den well after he was impeached) and a hell fire and brimstone evangelical. Today, I am neither.

Reason # 5 makes no sense. Just as man has the capacity to do good, he has the free will to do really bad things. Even Adam and Eve had a choice. Besides, if you are a Christian, justice is reserved for the afterlife.

Reason # 2. Of course “the arguments for a God have changed overtime” just like our knowledge of the earth (when it was flat) has changed. We as a society are constantly evaluating and reevaluating our beliefs. Science and technology have grown (and changed) exponential in the last 50 years (thank God {no pun intended})

Freeman Dyson

Mr. Dyson, a mathematician and Quantum Physicist, has a very unique view on the compatibility of science and religion. He used a powerful metaphor describing two windows on a wall side by side (Religion and Science). You can't look out of them at the same time. He firmly believes that there is a God and views him (or her) as a kind of "master mind" that created the universe.
I really liked his view that religion is "a way of life, not an 'ism'" (Buddhism, Catholicism). Our purpose he believes is to live a good and kind life. It's our actions, he says, not our beliefs that connect us with this universal mind of God. I really liked the fact that he identifies as an agnostic. Because, as he put it "you just never really know." Bravo!

Shaving off the false

In Dr. Lane's "Believer-Skeptic" he attempts to give the reader the right tools to find the truth - whatever the truth maybe. He believes the greatest tool or quality we can have is our ability to doubt. Which, of course, goes against every fiber in our being. When I would ask a spiritual question growing up the response was "Don't doubt - believe, have faith." Or don't be a "Doubting Thomas. He was humiliated in front of Christ." Doubt was akin to a character flaw.
I was surprised to find out that Faqir Chand was a believer in Edgar Cayce. I have read all of Cayce's books and found his altered states fascinating. But I never really knew what to make of it. I just thought that we humans are so desperate to believe in spirituality and life after death it's easy to believe in what we can't explain away.

11

The short film, "Eleven," was well done, thought-provoking, and tragic. Like every American, I too was pissed off after 911. But unlike Samia, I did not take my anger and kill. How ironic that his hatred was so blinding that the victim of his hatred was not even a Muslim. When Samia decided to "fight terrorists" and start at the local mosque, he failed to realize that he himself had become a terrorist.
The narrator and journalist of the piece was searching for the truth regarding the first incident/hate crime. The common theme that runs throughout the film is, as Mahatma Gandhi once said, "an eye for an eye just makes two people blind." Anger and hatred harms the barer of these destructive emotions. "Eleven" is a cautionary tale of how man can destroy mankind.

Faqir Chand's secret about religious experiences

"Religious visions are not due to outside or disconnected forces
(although exterior stimuli can act as a catalyst for it), but to the
internal process of concentration. A force that for approximately
sixteen hours a day enables one to see the everyday, common sense,
lawful world, and for another several hours at night can allow one to
fly to the moon, converse with unknown people, and create incredible
panoramas. Consequently, the appearance and duration of such visions is
intimately related to consciousness and focality."
Out perception of what is creates our reality. Can it be that easy
that EVERYTHING is just a matter of perception? Maybe so.....Faqir's
argument is very compelling (and very believable)

Ken Miller on "Intelligent Design"

Ken Miller's seminar on "Intelligent Design" was right on the money. "Intelligent Design" is neither. As a prominent scientist and researcher, he breaks down the aspects of this new theory being pushed by Christian evangelicals. The problem is this new paradigm is not based on any kind of scientific fact. It is purely a religious argument made to appear as an alternate theory of evolution. While evolution is not perfect is dose explain our reality accurately.
Our forefathers were adamant about a separation of church and state. "Intelligent Design" violates that edict. If you want to learn about God and religion you should go to a Church, synagogue or another house of worship - not a public school. No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig it is still a pig. "Intelligent Design" is a religious theory - period.

Darwin & John Maynard Smith

Like Smith, Darwinism was contrary to my religious upbringing (the term "Blasphemy" was used quite a lot). Also like Smith, after studying evolution and Darwin, I was so relieved to find out that I was not going to hell. I loved how Smith answered the question as to weather or not he was a Christian, Agnostic, or Atheist. He said "I am an Atheist but I don't want to be sure about anything so I will identify myself as an agnostic."
"Natural Selection" or "Survival of the Fittest" makes so much sense to me. There are no spiritual explanations for nature and animals. Spiritual texts just say "have faith" or "God made everything in 7 days." Every time I go on a hike and look closely at the fauna, birds and surroundings any and all questions I have can be answered scientifically.
Interestingly enough, Smith believes that the "electronic organisms" we have created (computers) will most likely evolve and gain intelligence as animals have done. He kiddingly said we should be "nice" to our computers. He's right.

Beyond Belief

The conference on "Science vs. Religion" could have been a seminar entitled "Science is flawed. Religion is solid. The first speaker went to great lengths to quote important historical figures to prove his point. "Science deals with facts but Religion deals with values." Ergo, if you don't have blind faith in faith, you don't have values? The speakers documented time and time that science has been "wrong" in the past. After all, didn't scientists at one time believe the earth was flat?
No one, however, pointed out that science, like knowledge, evolves as we learn new information and have better technology to support any findings. Prior to 1804, there was no proof or knowledge that a waterway existed connecting the new America to the Pacific Ocean. But we learned that after Lewis and Clark discovered one (via the Missouri river) and mapped the route, there was in fact a way.

Religion is a virus that spreads and permeates thought our brains and can affect every aspect of our lives – for good or for bad. Dawkins analogy of a computer virus was outstanding. I was taught from birth that “sin is bad and separates you from God and family.” I, however, loved to sin. I did everything my pastor father (and God presumably) said I should not do (i.e., drink, smoke, swear and fornicate). So of course I was miserable and thought God hated me. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I have studied world religions and hung out with Jews, Hindus, Catholics, Buddhists and Muslims. There is a common theme that runs through almost all religions – ‘If you have questions, you lack faith’ – bad. Without faith, no matter what the religion, you are bound for hell. I have come to believe in a kind and loving God/Goddess who welcomes all who seek.

Cargo Cult

One example of a “cargo cult” is the belief in Unidentified Flying Objects. I do believe people have seen U.F.O.’s but as to what they are exactly is still a mystery. There have been many theories over the years of U.F.O.’s. Scientific researchers have shown that many of these U.F.O.’s are nothing more than weather balloons, hoax - sters, foreign aircraft (not from the U.S.) and/or secret military aircraft.

Researchers who have identified themselves as “U.F.O.” experts cannot look at unexplained flying objects with any kind of clarity. They have too much vested interest in the outcome (financially or otherwise). How can they be really honest with themselves or others if there findings contradict what they believe to be true. True scientific researchers must have "blinders" on with the goal of finding the truth – whatever the truth may be.

Richard Feynman, Ph.d.

The thirst for knowledge and inquiry are, I believe, in our DNA. Feynman’s constant questioning of his environment and things that interested him led to research, development and finally, discovery. When I go out at night at look at the stars I can say “How beautiful those lights in the sky are” and leave it at that. Or I can go further and use a telescope to get a closer view.

This process of learning can go on and on ad infinitum and lead me to the study of astronomy. The more I learn of those “beautiful lights in the sky” the more I am in awe of how our solar system works. After looking at pictures that the “Hubble” telescope was able to give us, I have a whole new respect for the field of astromny and am astonished at what “those beautiful lights in the sky” really comprise.

“Karma” was disturbing on so many levels. If that was the point than it succeeded. I believe Karma if a real and natural cosmic force akin to gravity. What goes around comes around. The video depicted scenes of robbery, assault, and murder. These actions did not appear to me to come back to haunt the perpetrators. There was nothing “karmic” about it. It is hard to critique a video like that after taking 911 calls for 22 years and having to deal with the victims of these acts of violence. I could not understand one word of the music (I am probably grateful I didn’t hear any of the words).