Blindness

I imagine that if our country was suddenly struck with a blindness epidemic, people would react like they do in the book. Even though we have faced epidemics, they were not the same as having everyone going blind. Other epidemics involve people getting sick and dying; a blindness epidemic keeps everyone alive, but completely changes their lives. Eventually it would change all of society and how it functions, and we wouldn't know what to do. In my critical thinking class, we talked about who responds best to emergency situations, like the one in Blindness. My professor talked about a book (or maybe an article—I don’t remember) that analyzed people’s reactions to the famous War of the Worlds broadcast. The author was interested in finding out how we deal in situations like that. Who panics? Who is calm and takes control? Our professor told us that those who had been trained for emergency situations were the least likely to panic. Even though their training did not include what to do during an alien invasion, a nurse, for example, would still know to go to the hospital. People felt better when they knew that they had a role in case of a disaster.

In Blindness, no one really had a role. It ended up being a kind of disaster because people had no idea what to do. The best thing they could think of was to round up all the blind and get them away from everyone else. Of course, they did that to help stop the spread of blindness, but also because they were scared. Getting the blind of out plain sight would help people deal with it, because it would be easier to avoid. I think that simply not being able to see something makes it easier to deal with. Being in the quarantine seemed almost worse for the doctor’s wife because she could see everything that was going on. She could see the awful state of things around her, and things like the thief’s face and skull blown apart by the gunshots. Even though the blind could imagine what had happened, it would still be different than actually seeing it. They had to spend their time figuring out to do basic things, rather focusing on what was happening to society while they were there. And most likely, things probably weren't working out too well.

BLINDNESS

Here is the video that I didn't have time to show today. It isn't really informative but it just seemed interesting how these people came to their conclusions about the novel and how they reacted to the novel's messages so emotionally.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tf2BAhXEgOc

As I watched “An Inconvenient Truth,” featuring Al Gore, one quote particularly affected me. Gore stated, “I don't really consider this a political issue, I consider it to be a moral issue.” When talking about global warming, its effects on our population and world, Gore, in my opinion, made a great point with this statement. Even though the majority of his societal fame comes from politics, people should not relate this cause to the same category; this is much larger. Gore later continues with, “You see that pale, blue dot? That's us. Everything that has ever happened in all of human history has happened on that pixel. All the triumphs and all the tragedies, all the wars all the famines, all the major advances.....it's our only home. And that is what is at stake, our ability to live on planet Earth, to have a future as a civilization. I believe this is a moral issue, it is your time to cease this issue, and it is our time to rise again to secure our future.”
My chemistry professor is very adamant about letting people know about the near future affects of global warming and how we are our world’s only hope. He, however, does not present his information with the same type of sarcastic wit that Gore does. No matter how the material is explained, or how the facts are presented, this is real. I thought this movie was wonderful in its ability to motivate our young population and inform everyone of what awaits us if we do not change.
-- I had made arrangements with my chemistry teacher to take my exam late (during the time you watched the movie as a class), and I had to watch this by myself. So, I am very interested on everyone’s opinions on how the movie (or if the movie) motivated you.

The Church of Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche was one of the most influential thinkers of the modern world, but was also one of the most controversial. His writings in Morality as Anti-Nature explain his beliefs on how religion (notably Christianity in this writing) restricts human emotion and natural desires. He says that Christianity destroys passions and condemns sensuality and hostility. The four great errors of Christianity recorded by Nietzsche are the error of confusing cause and effect, the error of a false causality, the error of imaginary causes, and the error of free will. He uses these four points to prove that Christianity is oppressive to the human race.
It can be argued that religion condemning hostility and sensuality is a good thing, and that these things are dangerous to condone in society, but in the case of Christianity in modern America these things have proven to be detrimental. One example of this is the gay marriage issue. A literal interpretation of the bible by right-winged conservatives in America has lead to the condemning of gays because of their sensuality. This has been taken to a political level by turning the issue into one of gay marriage and not of homosexuality alone. Many of the people leading the fight against gay marriage are conservative ministers and housewives that meet together for brunch and discuss the abominations that their children are being exposed to. The fight has nothing to do with politics or even with marriage, but rather with the bible suppressing the passions of humans trying to live their lives peacefully and personally.
Another issue is that of stem cell research. Stem cells can be used by scientists to help in finding cures to serious diseases, but almost solely because of religion stem cell research is illegal in the United States. Politicians and citizens alike can argue the general morality of the issue, but most of them openly say that they do not approve of stem cell research because it goes against their Christianity. Not only is religion restricting humans in their personal lives but also indirectly through laws passed like the one’s dealing with stem cell research.
It cannot be denied that Christianity has a huge impact on our society and on our lawmaking process, and one must examine this and realize the impact that it is having on the country. Despite what one believes about religion, infringing upon the freedoms of others who are causing no harm to anyone, or stopping scientific research that can save thousands of lives is the real immoral act.

Speaking of Faith....

God, Sex and the Meaning of LIfe!

This is pretty big stuff! :D

I just wanted to invite you all students, TA's and professors, to an important
talk that is coming this Thursday (the 29th) to BGSU's Student Union Ballroom.
I'm sure a lot of you have seen flyers up around campus and have probably received
invitations in the mail to this. However, I would like to personally invite all
of you to go to Christopher West's "God, Sex, and the Meaning of Life".

This is not just a message for Catholics or even just Christians, but it is a message
that all men and women should hear. Basically, it's about Life and how we live
it. It is not just a sex talk where someone just tells you not to have it and why
it is evil. If anything, it is the exact opposite. Sex is good. Our bodies are good.
They're not just good, THEY'RE HOLY!

At this talk, Christopher West will be speaking about John Paul II's Theology
of the body. I really hope you all can make it. I know that we've been bombarding
you with signs and such, but it is only because we really believe in what this message
contains and how it has changed our lives and (not to sound cheesy) it can really
change yours too.

Thank you for giving my your valuable time and I hope to see as many of you as possible
there. If you have any questions for me, please feel free to e-mail me. I'd
be more than happy to answer any of your questions. If I don't know the answer
(which I may not) I will certainly look for it. Thank you again!

check it out at....

www.creedoncampus.com/sex

-Jessica Haupricht

"God, Sex, and the Meaning of Life"
Student Union Ballroom
March 29 from 8:00-10:00pm

Nietzsche's arguments

After the discussion of Nietzsche today, I believe that he came to some pretty odd conclusions. What I mean to say by this is that he comes to the exact conclusions as Christianity, or borrows a conclusion from Christianity, and portrays them negatively when religion portrays them positively. I actually had a hard time reading this piece and understanding him correctly because I didn’t know where he acquired his adverse opinion.
The biggest example I found of Nietzsche’s coming to the same conclusion of Christianity was at the end of paragraph 2 where he said, “But an attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life.” I will say that as far as I see it, that yes, the Christian religion is designed to be hostile to this life and it is perfectly fine with being that way. Now is a life full of sin and sinful desires and what is most important is preparing for eternal life after death.
Another similar point is one mentioned in class, that anti-morality seeks understanding and not judgment but that Christianity also, in its interpretation as following the life of Jesus, teaches not to judge others but to accept them.
I just found this to be a strange observation that both Nietzsche and the Christian religion argue from the exact same position most of the time but argue in very different directions.

Global Warming

After viewing of the film “An Inconvenient Truth,” featuring Al Gore, the concept of global warming in my life has really been enlightened. However, because people conduct themselves on a day-to-day basis, the problem will continue increasing in magnitude.
After seeing this movie, people walk away saying, “Wow, someone should really do something about this,” only to proceed with their daily schedule. In today’s day and age, with so many people in the world, it is not difficult to assume someone else will solve the world’s problems. After all, most people have their own issues to worry about; problems that do not even compare to issues of global warming in which can hardly be solved anyway. So it is this concept, in addition to the procrastination of the human race that prevents us from dealing with such a problem. The common mindset of most people is “We will worry about it when the time comes.” This may sound great for the time being because it gives society an excuse not to make any progressive moves in stopping such a scenario. But in reality, once the time has come where the human race needs to worry about global warming, it will be too late, and potentially millions of lives will have been destroyed, not to mention plants and other creatures. So it is a sad realization: global warming is indefinitely a topic of huge concern among future generations; a topic that will most likely bring dismay to people who’s lives have been compromised by their elders’ carelessness.

Only through exploration can truth be found. One must have an enduring and steadfast drive if any real answers are to be sustained. In Rachel Carson’s article “The Sunless Sea,” this exact idea is explained through the example of the vast oceans on earth. Carson states that the earth is mostly covered by miles of lightless water that humankind has yet to explore. We, as the human race, are unsure about all the details within this vast, unexplored area. This gives a good argument for the exploration of scientific truth within the marine world, along with urging an overall exploratory attitude in regards to every aspect in life. Again, if we never have the drive to search, we will never find.
Many facts, whether it be about the marine kingdom or not, have been revised due to exploration. For example, it was once thought that the bottom of the ocean was uninhabitable. We, as humans, could never survive down there; we still cannot reach the very bottom of the deepest part of the ocean (cameras will before we will). Therefore, the thought process was, how could anything else possibly survive in such conditions. Through exploration, this has been disproved. We know that many creatures, from bacteria to fish, live in such conditions. This has taught us a lot about evolution, development, etc. How does this tie in with Charles Darwin? Without his drive to know more about this very topic of evolution, we would essentially be “in the dark” about ideas we believe to be facts at present time.
A better understanding of the unknown will spark new drives, and therefore, new truths. We need people like Darwin, Carson, etc to keep the drive alive. Carson inquires, why aren’t we continuing to explore everyday for new discoveries? We should concentrate more on understanding our surroundings than destroying them through our current lifestyles. This is a very interesting article that convinced me to start seeing my surroundings as beautiful and uncharted.

The Idols

Bacon writes about the four idols in which people view things, the tribe, the cave, the marketplace, and the theater. The idols of the tribe deals with human understanding of the world in general. For example, what people want to believe is true they will. The idols of the cave refer to people forming opinions off certain scientists and beliefs. Sometimes they can compare one thing one another and oversimplify it or think to into it according to Bacon. The idols of the marketplace refers to kinds of words used. Words can be easily confused and mean different things to different people. Lastly, Bacon talks about the idols of the theater. There are three forms of these called false philosophy which includes, the sophistical, empirical, and superstitious view.

I found Bacon’s piece very interesting. I do believe there are different idols in which people could be classified in. I look at the tribe as one seeing and believing what they want; its like an individual. I think the cave is like a group of people. Kind of like the saying, "you are what you hang around". Because one hears and learns from others, they tend to take up the same belief that person does. The marketplace makes me think of advertisement. One is trying to plant their thoughts and idea onto another. However, a person is free to make what they want of certain words, phrases, or ideas. As for theater, I see this false philosophy referring to schooling, work, and then the unknown. For sophistical, its what one learns. However, it is very possible that one may learn a different version of the subject then another leading people to believe one or the other is wrong. The empirical refers to having experiments and getting results but once again this can lead people to come up with different conclusions. As for the superstitious, that is the unknown knowledge people have within themselves but choose not to explore or the infprmation they reject without even giving it a chance. This is how I viewed the piece. I may have looked to much into it but that was what I made out of Bacon’s essay and how I view the four idols. Sometimes, I think people are to narrowminded and won’t accept anything different from what they want it to be.

The idea of expanding one’s horizon would be a good idea. Taking in all possible knowledge, not being judgmental of anything, and then forming your own opinion of that certain case. I personally think that the tribe causes the most trouble because it refers to the individual who usually doesn’t want to accept any view but his or her own. As for the marketplace, Bacon says words can be misinterpreted or defined differently, I look at it like words are just words. One is free to define a word anyway they want they just need to make it clear to another that is their view and that person doesn’t have to agree. The contemporary connection that was given for this piece was freedom of speech. A question asked was does the government take over the parenting roles by banning certain shows, music, and etc. I have a hard time taking a side on this. I think sometimes the government steps in to much but at the same time why do people think they can sing or broadcast certain things and think its ok? The problem doesn’t lie within the government or parents, it lies within the individual themselves. Something went wrong for that person to want to be so explicit in my opinion.

Nonmoral Nature

Gould writes about how nature is nonmoral therefore it cannot teach any type of ethical theory at all. Some of the main points he stresses is that animals cannot feel as humans because they do not have the same mental capacity as men. We as humans try to inflict our feelings and emotions or beliefs onto animals. For example, some acts which animals commit we see as evil but Gould says there is no evil in nature we just perceive such acts as evil. Nature is nature we should not view our morals and beliefs in nature. Gould does a good job at explaining how the theologian view of God creating everything in nature is fine but the idea that nature is moral is wrong.

I found Gould’s piece very interesting. I don’t believe that animals can feel as we do or realize certain actions they make are wrong or evil. Evil, goodness, badness, and feelings like that cannot be found in nature. Of course as humans we see certain actions as immoral because in our eyes it is wrong. Animals may feel as we do but it is not the same at all. They may suffer in pain from a broken leg other problems but we do not know what they feel for sure. Another idea, is that animals killing one another is evil and how could God let such a thing happen. I see it as survival of the fittest. Certain things must happen in nature for nature to continue to grow and for us humans to continue to grow as well. If nature did not take its course who knows what the world would be like. We could be very over populated. However, if we see nature as immoral and animals have no feelings we run into the problem of how unjust or cruel animal testing can be or killing animals for food and fur. I think that, killing animals for food is just life’s course. It has to happen in order for us to grow as a whole. As for killing an animal strictly for its fur and such I see that as a luxury and rather cruel but once again that is my own opinion or belief. And I view animal testing as, if it is going to save human life so be it, just don’t be extremely cruel to the animal in the process. It kind of can relate to Darwin’s natural selection. Just let life takes it course and don’t prevent what is meant to happen in nature. As humans we see nature having a certain role so be it.

Kaku and "The Mystery of Dark Matter"

Michio Kaku discusses many complex ideas dealing with science and physics in “The Mystery of Dark Matter.” He focuses on dark matter and the scientists that discovered it, and what research is going on today to further our knowledge about particle physics and dark matter. He explains that dark matter has weight but cannot be seen, and it makes up at least 90 percent of the matter in the universe. Basically, without dark matter, research shows that galaxies in the universe would fly apart because the gravitational pulls would not be great enough to hold them together without it. This was discovered by a few scientists, starting with Zwicky who found that using two different methods of weighing galaxies, the results came out very differently, and this lead him to suspect the existence of dark matter. After Zwicky came Ostriker and Peebles, who showed that the standard idea of a galaxy should fly apart unless there was other matter (dark matter) we could not see. Kaku spends a great deal of time discussing Dr. Vera Rubin and her research and difficulty in the scientific community because she was a woman. Rubin found that the velocity of outer stars in a galaxy really did not vary much from the velocity of inner stars, as previously thought. This lead to the assertion that they should fly apart unless held together by the gravitational pull of dark matter. It took Rubin decades to receive recognition for her research and findings and while this is shocking to me coming from the science community.
I thought this was especially interesting about Rubin’s struggles in science. I have known for a while that women are often underrepresented in science for whatever reasons, but it is interesting that the few women in science can be so largely ignored as Rubin was. She struggled her whole life to succeed in science (as Kaku explains) probably working harder than many men in the field just to get to the same level in her education and knowledge. I find it especially interesting that Rubin faced such discrimination because of the discussions we have been having in class lately about science. Science seems to be a field that tries to remain individual from any cultural, religious, or governmental influences at that time. For example, science tries to do its research regardless of a group’s religious values. In this way, I find it interesting that science would allow the cultural stigma against women to invade its advancements. It also makes me wonder why there are not more women in science today, considering the great strides our country has made in women’s rights. Why don’t more women seem to be interested in a career as a physicist? I am a Middle Childhood Education major concentrating in Reading/Language Arts and Science, and in my own observations I have noticed that it seems like there are many more women in my English courses while my science courses seem to have more men.
Overall, Kaku presents us with some very interesting findings on dark matter and particle physics, but perhaps more interesting is his focus on Dr. Vera Rubin and her struggles as a woman in science.

Into the Dark

I found Rachel Carson’s article “The Sunless Sea” to be incredibly interesting.In the beginning of this article, Carson first explains that about half of our world is covered by miles deep of lightless water that has not been explored fully. She then adds that “this region has withheld its secrets more obstinately than any other” mainly because our technology is not developed enough to withstand the thousands of pounds of pressure in the deeper depths. Then throughout the rest of the article, Carson gives us several interesting examples of newly found discoveries and how they go against what we used to believe about the dark waters. For example, it was once believed that there was no life at the bottom of the ocean until the ships Bulldog and Challenger found life miles deep by using nets and ropes. The examples Carson uses shows us that by studying the ocean more closely we can find the real truth about it. Carson also provides the audience with interesting facts about the ocean throughout her article, like the living cloud in the water, to show that there is a lot in the ocean to still learn about. All these ways Carson uses helps develop a stronger understanding of why we should explore the dark waters of the ocean.
The idea that I found the most interesting was the way Carson shows that the world is still unknown by providing facts about the deep ocean. The pressure and darkness that the creatures survive in, the living cloud of an unknown creature, and the many fish that match the colors of the water they live in are a few examples of these interesting tid-bits. Carson provides interesting facts that have been discovered already and then provides that these facts are only the tip of the iceberg. Half the world contains these deep waters and if we discovered so much already, what else could we uncover with more exploration? The assumption people make in society today is that we have already explored the entire ocean and know all of its secrets, but Carson shows that is not the truth and we need to explore it more.
Another interesting idea Carson has is that some of the facts we though were once true can change by more exploration. By observing more we can get to know the real truth better. The way Carson explains this is by providing examples of what we once thought about the deep ocean and then what facts change by more exploration and observing. Some examples Carson used was the belief that there was no living creatures at the bottom of the ocean and that the ocean was silent. Then over time and development of new technology we discovered that these previous facts were false, there is life at the bottom of the ocean and the ocean is definitely not silent. Furthermore, the idea that Carson gets acrossed is that more exploration can ultimately lead to the real truth, not only in the ocean, but in other aspects society today.
Overall, I found this article very interesting and informative. Carson explains many interesting facts about the vastly unknown ocean and how more exploration can bring about a more clear understanding of the deep ocean or any other region in the world. She also provides that the truth about a region can never be certain until more observations are provided and examined. I found that the dark part of the ocean was a great example that Carson used in expressing the ways that nature can be misunderstood and forgotten about by people.

PS- if anyone has any questions or comments about sciencey stuff of religion or any combinations about the two, I love talking about this kind of thing so feel free to email me: aherald@bgnet.bgsu.edu

Gould and Darwin

I have definitely enjoyed reading this section of our book as well as the discussions that follow. Most of the pieces in this section incorporate two of my biggest passions in life—religion and science. I thought the most interesting essay was Stephen Jay Gould’s “Nonmoral Nature.” Gould’s essay was based off of the question (and history of the question) if God is so benevolent, why does the animal world exhibit such cruelty and pain? The main subject of examination was the ichneumon fly. This insect has a somewhat eccentric way of feeding. The mother will insert her ovipositor into a living creature so that when the larvae need to feed they are already surrounded by food. The main part of concern with this method is that the larvae will eat the creature’s nonvital organs first, leaving the heart, lungs, brain, etc for last and therefore prolonging the caterpillar’s life as long as possible. The people studying this saw it as cruel, but is it really? Do we even have a right to classify the “cruelty” of nature? There are so many of Darwin’s theories that can be incorporated into this piece. First of all, we must remember survival of the fittest. If the wasps are more equipped for survival than the caterpillar, then they will survive. At this time it appears that the wasps have the upper hand in this situation. But let’s think for a moment what the next step is. Basically, one of two things may happen next. First, the caterpillar could develop some means of protecting itself against the wasp. If this happens, then the wasp must either find some new form of food or die off. Second, if the caterpillar does not develop a way of defense, then the wasp may eat all of the caterpillars and, consequently, need to find some other form of food. If the wasp cannot find food, then its population will decrease in number. If this happens, then the caterpillar population may rise.
I think what some people do not realize is that nature is always shifting to adjust from changes. Ok, time for the off the wall analogy. I see it as trying to walk on a water bed. If you take one step, the entire surface shifts in response. Each movement is altered depending on the movement next to it. If you stop walking (no changes are made) the bed will calm down (not as drastic of changes), but it isn’t really ever perfectly still (stable). Everything in nature is cause and effect. This species of wasp has survived because of its superior method of protecting its young.
Gould also brings up a good point when he turns the table and presents and argument that focuses on the good aspects of the wasp (efficiency, protecting and providing for young) rather than on the suffering of the caterpillar. This just goes to show you that determining what is good or bad, fair or unfair, often depends on which angle you are looking from.

Here you can get a close up of what the ichneumon fly looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCLYCpSo6sI
Here you can see one drilling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA25evZKBLk

Gore's testimony yestersday

here's some clips if interested

Stephen Jay Gould discusses something that most people have wondered about at least once in their life. The question was if God is good and benevolent, then why does he allow creatures to suffer. This question proved to be quite a problem for nineteenth century theologians to answer. Gould uses the example of the ichneumon wasp using a caterpillar to lay its eggs and then the larva eats the caterpillar from the inside out, keeping it alive until the very last minute, to prove a point. People would think that this is an evil act God is allowing to happen, but according to Gould, nature is non-moral, so there is no good or evil. Humans commonly think that other creatures feel pain, and Gould disagrees with this. He feels that they do not have the mental capacity to do so and many times humans try to apply their morals to situations that happen in nature.

First, I wanted to try to offer an answer to the question that nineteenth century theologians could not answer. Last semester, I took a philosophy class and we examined this very question. One answer is that God allows evil acts to happen because he gave creatures free will, when they were created. This means that the creatures are choosing to do bad things that God has no control over. Believing this answer also depends on a persons view on whether creatures have free will or not. Another answer that was commonly given was the God allows certain evils to occur, only to prevent a greater evil from happening. Going back to the wasp and caterpillar example, the wasp species would not be able to survive if it did not use the caterpillar. In nature, most creatures are dependent on other for survival, so if none of the animals were eating other ones, then they would all starve to death, this being the greater evil.

The second point I wanted to make is in relation to the point Chad made about religious leaders blaming our society for natural disasters, like Hurricane Katrina. This relates to Gould’s point about how human consistently view nature as having good and evil qualities. The religious leaders say that God is punishing people with natural events because he is unhappy with the way they are living their lives. Hearing this in class made me think of the Westboro Baptist Church. This church is famous for protesting soldier’s funerals and for their hatred of the gay community. This same church was going to protest the Amish funerals of the children that were killed during the school shooting. The church claims that god was responsible for the crashing of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Their web address is actually http://www.godhatesamerica.com/ . These people disgust me. I have no problem with people not supporting the war, but protesting soldier’s funerals, with signs about how god hates them, is absolutely horrible. I guess freedom of speech is not always used for good causes. They also blame Hurricane Katrina on our society and throughout their website, they refer to America as the “fag nation,” and they feel this is the primary reason Katrina happened. The last time I checked, hurricanes were not the result of Americas somewhat acceptance people being choosing an alternative lifestyle. Today, people should realize that trying to explain nature with religious reasoning just does not work.

Gould explains how we should look at nature. He feels that humans should look at nature and natural events as being non-moral. He means that they are not a reflection of a higher powers feeling towards people on earth. Events in nature are difficult to explain and trying to use religion to do so creates further problems. Gould brought up the point of nature being non-moral, and I had never heard this argument before. After reading his piece is agree with what he has to say. Humans have tendency to believe that everything has the same moral and ethical code that they do and this distorts their view of nature and how it functions. Religion plays an important role in many lives, but it needs to be left out of scientific explanations.

Nonmoral Nature

Stephen Jay Gould presents Creationism as purely religious and not scientific in any way. As humans we try to inflict our moral and ethical beliefs on nature but this is unwise because nature is "nonmoral." Religious readings of nature are inaccurate. Gould does not believe that animals feel pain because they do not have the necessary mental capacity. As I hope to show, this is a questionable claim.

Gould's piece got me thinking about a proposed culling of thousands of elephants in South Africa. The country has about 20,000 elephants; the population is growing at a rate of 5% each year and is expected to double by 2020. The cull may be necessary because the elephants pose a serious threat to the environment with their breeding and large appetites. A single grown elephant can eat several hundred pounds of grass and leaves each day.

Last year South Africa postponed resuming a cull at Kruger after opposition by
conservationists who said the practice, which involves rounding up and shooting
entire family groups, was cruel.

Something interesting to note is that elephants possess abilities that even some primates do not. For example, in 2001, scientists discovered that elephants can recognize themselves in a mirror, something only humans, great apes, and dolphins are able to do. It has also been shown that elephants grieve the death of a family member. They go to the bones of their dead and gently touch the skulls and tusks with their trunks and feet. In fact, some scientists believe that elephants are more advanced than chimpanzees when it comes to mourning death. Elephants are highly likely to visit the bones of relatives who die within their own home range and they are able to recognize the ivory and skulls of their own species. Taking all of this into consideration makes the decision in South Africa even more difficult.

The piece also got me thinking about mixing science with religion. Gould seems to advocate keeping the two separate and distinct, but as I wrote in another post, there are many scientists balancing religion and science. Here is one good example. The paleontologist in the article is a young earth creationist. He believes in the Bible and that the earth is somewhere around 10,000 years old. He caused quite an uproar within the scientific community after he submitted his thesis because some scientists want him to practice what he preaches. Or the other way around. But to Dr. Marcus Ross, it doesn't seem like much of a problem.

For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one
''paradigm'' for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the
paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely
appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view
just means, he said, ''that I am separating the different paradigms.''

Is this a big deal? Should the contradiction not bother us if it does not bother the individual? It seems like a touchy subject to me but I enjoy hearing stories like this one mainly because scientists like Dr. Marcus Ross are breaking new ground and pursuing scientific research while still maintaining their spiritual belief systems.

Bacon, Nature, and American Colonization

Today in class, Chad mentioned how theologians used to view nature as something that needed to be conquered by religion. They believed that people should be entirely separate from nature. This reminded me of my cultural pluralism class, when we spent a great deal of time discussing the early colonization of America and the European perception of Native Americans. One of the issues surrounding the approach to colonization was whether they viewed the Indian culture as a result of nature or nurture. The colonies in the south, who usually settled for commerce, tended to view Native Americans (and other races) as people needed to be taught to be “be white” so that they could be more like Europeans. In the north, Europeans were typically more religious (like the Puritans) and tended to view the Native Americans as savage by nature and unable to be civilized. When we were discussing this, my professor said that in around the time of early American colonization, European writers and philosophers had introduced concepts that greatly influence this type of thinking. She mentioned Sir Francis Bacon as being one of the major influences.

When we were discussing the four idols, I could see how a more scientific approach to reasoning and thinking could influence Europeans’ perception of Native Americans. It’s not necessarily that most Europeans even knew anything about Bacon—I doubt most of them were sitting around and discussing the four idols and how the Native Americans exemplified each of them. I think that they saw the Native Americans, in general, as being people who were incapable of scientific understanding. Their culture was based on nature, but they did not attempt to “conquer” nature, as the Europeans wanted to do with religion. This perception of Native Americans would have made it easier for Europeans to justify taking their land. I think that Bacon’s work (at least what we read) was intended to be used mostly as a way to improve science. I just think it’s interesting how people can use an influential idea to justify what might seem unrelated.

Nature & Humans

Stephen Jay Gould explores the thoughts of 19th century theologians, by exploring their question regarding why God would allow suffering/pain/torture in nature. Gould concludes that nature has no morals and that nature should be kept distant and separate from religious thought. In class, the following question was discussed, “Why does God make nature unmoral?” However, wouldn’t the appropriate question read, “Why do humans act unmorally in nature?” While there are various food chains and feeding patterns in nature, it is when humans start interfering with these patterns that “unmoral” events start to occur.

Personally, one of the most vivid examples I have seen of man interfering with nature was at a carnival one summer, where a huge female lion was kept in a cage, comparable to a shoebox. People could either take a picture by the lion or feed its cubs milk with a baby bottle. As Gould pointed out, when humans “humanize” animals, then our concept of nature becomes problematic. However, humans cannot be totally ignorant of nature and one must be respectful of it. For example, when using animals for food, they should not be “engineered” to meet the high demands of restaurants and grocery stores. Animals do suffer and as humans, we pride ourselves in holding values, hence when dealing with nature one should not let those values be disregarded because we are dealing with a raw environment.

Idols of the Marketplace and Frank Collin: American Nazi Party leader

I know we talked about Bacon and the four Idols last Wednesday, but I’ve still been thinking about those Idols and which one I believe presents the most dissention within a society. In class I offered my opinion that the Idols of the Cave would present the most problems, but I would like to retract this and instead offer that the Idols of the Marketplace present the most conflict between people in societies and between different societies themselves.

I believe that the Idols of the Marketplace would initiate the most problems because almost everything that our country is founded on, for example, is just a bunch of statements and ideas in the form of a Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Words themselves do not have meaning—it is the people that interpret those statements and apply them to every day life that give them meaning. The Bill of Rights, for example, can be considered very ambiguous, but because of the judicial system we have in place and a sound police force to enforce those judicial rulings, we have an idea of what exactly those rights entail. We know, for example, that our government cannot come into our lives and force us to adopt a certain religion. We know that the government cannot come in and censor our ideas and our “freedom of speech.” We know that we have the right to stand out on the sidewalk with signs saying “Bush sucks” or even “This country sucks” because we all have a common definition in our minds as to what our rights entitle us to do.

Where the problems begin to arise, however, is when an individual is not on the same page as everyone else as to what our laws and ideas mean. I recently watched the History Channel and found a perfect example of this misunderstanding of definitions that I really wanted to be able to tie in to one of our readings. The History Channel did a story on Frank Collin, the leader of the National Socialist Party of America (US Nazi Party) and his various rallies and organizations that he held in Chicago. He became well known when he tried to organize a Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois, a Jewish suburb outside of Chicago after he was banned from speaking publicly in the city. With Skokie being home to a high number of Holocaust survivors, it was no surprise that the village refused to let Collin march. This launched a huge legal battle, with Collin declaring that he was exercising his right to free speech guaranteed him by the first amendment. Eventually, the courts ruled that Collin would be allowed to march, yet he and his group would not be permitted to show or wear swastikas. Yet before the actual march took place, the city of Chicago withdrew the ban they had laid on the organization and Collin moved the rally back into the city.

I think this is a perfect example of the Idols of the Marketplace—all the different meanings and definitions a single sentence can have, and its impacts on so many different people. Here, Collin argued that the first amendment protected his right to march where he wanted and say what he wanted even though he and everyone else knew that it would cause and uproar. And, as a result of this uproar, the judicial system (and those watching on TV) had to step back and analyze what they thought that first amendment really meant. Through dramatic examples such as these, it becomes apparent just how significant a common understanding (or single differing understanding) of a few words can be. Who knows what could have happened if Collin’s Nazi party did march through Skokie? More than likely it could have resulted in violence—things could have even turned fatal. When it comes to the Idols of the Marketplace, words and individual understandings can mean life or death.

Here Collin defends his march in a press speech. He says some very interesting things, check it out!