I thought this was very amusing and some of you might like to see it.

The Most Astounding Fact

At the request of Tina and Professor Berry, here is the video that was played in the 2:20 section. The words Tyson used are quite poetic.

The Sparrow and Science, Religion, and Pop Culture

The Sparrow, written by novelist Mary Doria Russell, is a book that, I believe, is written in a manner that forces the reader to learn to love it. The story starts out dense and rather slow, and, if you promise to devote it its due time and cognitive capacity, will attach itself to your mind and heart, and feed off human's basic desire for understanding and explanation. At times, I found myself getting caught up in its beautiful use of lengthy descriptors, or dense paragraphs surrounding the complex science behind the methods employed in the discovery of and journey to Rakhat, but if you were able to look past that and instead focus on the core themes of the text, it was easy to identify some major themes that we previously discussed in class.

One of the first works we analyzed for homework, and in class was Ian Barbour's "Ways of Relating Science and Religion." This work talked about the four approaches to dealing with science and religion: Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration, some of which are represented in The Sparrow. The first one I picked up immediately is Integration. Jesuits are inherently in favor of integration, as demonstrated in Emilio, the Jesutit priest's interest in the Aribeco telescope. Integration is also present in Emilio's idea that the mission to Rakhat was to meet and learn to interact with "more of God's children," and the somewhat uncommon crew came together through God's selection and good will. Are any more of these lenses present? In what ways? Is integration present in any other circumstances?

Even larger, however, I believe is the way in which Russell's characters are made to find, question, and lose their faith throughout the novel. While this class was not intended to be a class in which we discover our personal faith, I believe each one of us would be lying if we did not incorporate personal belief and experience into our class contributions, and the challenging material we were given to read and analyze in class did not succeed in shaping or refining our own view of religion and what it means to be religious. In The Sparrow, there are characters that find their faith (like Anne Edwards,) and people who question their faith, and come close to losing it all together (Emilio Sandoz.) These characters are faced with incredibly taxing situations, both mentally and physically, that stretch the boundaries of what is and isn't conceivable by God's hand. Can you think of any instance, whether in class, for homework, or during research where sometime seemed so inconceivable, but could be proven in some way by God? I know when researching for my WPII, I was looking into the possibility for panic attacks to be controlled using belief in a higher power. While the case in my film was an exaggerated extreme, my research led to the conclusion that the perception of a slowed, controlled reality was in fact possible. Also, throughout the novel, Emilio admits to believing that the circumstances leading up to the arrival on Rakhat, and the events that took place there were determined by God. Has this book, or any other readings we went over in class, made you believe that events that may seem circumstantial can in fact be very targeted acts from a higher power?

The Tree of Life

This time watching The Tree of Life again, I was struck by the dichotomy that Jessica Chastain’s character makes at the beginning of the film between nature and grace. In a sense, she is articulating an old theological battle. But what I find interesting about the film is that it seems to acknowledge the dark aspects of nature, death and selfishness being primary among them, but also seems to clearly suggest that it is through nature that one comes to know God. The characters prayers are always accompanied by visual imagery of nature, sometimes as in the long sequence near the beginning, with the origins of the universe and images that show the creation of the earth and the process of evolution. So my sense is that Terrance Malik is attempting to say that this division we place between nature and grace is in some ways false. Nature is graced. It is the means by which we learn of God. St. Bonaventure, in the Catholic tradition, has a similar idea when we called nature “the book of creation” that we had to read as if it were another, and our first, bible. One does not need to look too deeply into Native American religions as well to see nature as somehow connected to a higher power. And I think this is what is so striking to me about this film. It is not a choice that we make between nature or grace as the film initially suggests. Rather it is that nature is graced, in spite of all of its pain and tragedy and impenetrable suffering, and this film, without a doubt does not gloss over that suffering. In many ways, suffering and pain are the heart of this film. It is not incidental that it opens with a quotation from The Book of Job, a text from the bible immersed in the question of suffering and the problem of evil. And I think that is also what I like about it. Malik could have made a happy film about how nature reveals the divine and it would have been sappy and we would have hated it  and thought it banal (maybe some of you hated it anyway J). Instead, he chose to confront the nature of pain and death head on and still say, somehow, that this glorious, troubled universe reveals something of God to us, and that maybe, part of that revelation is in our own experience with suffering…and so with healing and redemption. And yet suffering and death are never pretty, never anesthetized here. The oldest boy fights with God over the drowning of a friend and over a boy maimed in a fire…and the mother keens for her dead son.

But somehow, even through those bits of nature that are loss, the conversation with God keeps going.

Jesus and the "Hunger Games"

Just found this and figured I'd share - Jesus in the Hunger Games.

Thoughts on Reality TV

Akshay:I don't think there's much reality in reality TV. The contestants, or what ever you want to denote them as, are more like characters than the actors in a sitcom. It's much easier to relate to the cast of How I Met Your Mother than the cast of Jersey Shore or Mob Wives. Characters in a sitcom are created to be real, to be relatable. They are scripted to ignore the camera, where as in reality TV the camera and the director are characters too, picking and choosing what footage is present in the final edit to suggest a certain message. Survivor isn't just a random compilation of people chilling on an island, but rather hones in on specific story lines within the characters, brewing conflict and giving life to the show. Characters in a reality TV show are supposed to just be themselves, but with a camera watching your every move, just how much of yourself are you going to reveal?


Nate: I agree with what Akshay said. Although they say certain TV shows are reality shows, there are people in front of the actors when shooting who give directions and words to say in order to make the audience laugh or to create suspense. On the other side, though scripts are given to the actors in sitcoms or dramas, the actors interpret the script in their own unique ways and also uses ad-lips to make their character more realistic and alive. Thus, I believe that reality TV shows are not realistic. Rather, sitcoms or dramas are more realistic in that each actors make their own characters with what is given.


Pete:Reality TV is somewhat silly, in my opinion. As soon as people are isolated by an array of cameras and producers any semblance of reality leaves the building. People stop acting like themselves and start acting like who they THINK they are as soon as they're in front of a camera.

May the odds be ever in your favor!

In preparation for tomorrow's grand event, this is a review of Hunger Games from the Austin-American Statesman (and also written by a good friend of mine). What I like about this review is that Joe does a great job of telling the story but also explaining the film elements, many in relation to other films and cultural experiences.

sound + vision

Hope y'all are having a grand spring break.

A friend posted this article to Facebook from the blog io9. This is actual footage NASA released of the rocket boosters from the Space Shuttle. Watch and listen! And then remember-- this is real. 2001 was shot on a soundstage!

The Dalai Lama on Buddhism & Science

A friend of mine posted on Facebook a quote that was attributed to the Dalai Lama. It read, "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." Immediately skeptical, I did a quick Google search to see if any other sources could verify the quote's authenticity. To my amazement, I found an editorial in the New York Times written by Tenzin Gyatso that contained this exact statement (for those who don't know, Tenzin Gyatso is the name of the 14th Dalai Lama). So, here we have a rough equivalent of the Buddhist Pope saying that religion must bow to the authority of science. What a statement!

The conclusions we can draw from this are endless - The Dalai Lama isn't saying that Buddhism will adapt with science. He is, quite literaly, suggesting that science is superior; he is suggesting that traditional Buddhist doctrine would instantaneously be wrong if science found itself in disagreement with the faith (Could you image the Pope suggesting that?).

There are a great deal of reasons why I find Buddhism to be so fascinating, but chief among them is the Dalai Lama. Not only is he a religious leader (I believe) who is before his time, but I think that we'll start to see more religious leaders begin following his example by embracing science rather than staunchly opposing it at every turn. If not, as I've said before, I think we'll see religion begin to change on a fundamental level, unrecognizable from its current form.

There are other supremely interesting quotes from the same editorial:

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

"The goal here is not to prove Buddhism right or wrong - or even to bring people to Buddhism - but rather to take these methods out of the traditional context, study their potential benefits, and share the findings with anyone who might find them helpful."

"You see, many people still consider science and religion to be in opposition. While I agree that certain religious concepts conflict with scientific facts and principles, I also feel that people from both worlds can have an intelligent discussion, one that has the power ultimately to generate a deeper understanding of challenges we face together in our interconnected world."

Also, this last quote plays into the discussion we are having over AI: "Just as the world of business has been paying renewed attention to ethics, the world of science would benefit from more deeply considering the implications of its own work. Scientists should be more than merely technically adept; they should be mindful of their own motivation and the larger goal of what they do: the betterment of humanity."

If you want to read the whole editorial, here's the link: Our Faith in Science By Tenzin Gyatso.

Hope you're all having a wonderful break!

Expanding the Definition of Religion

The OED defines religion as a state of life bound by religious vows; the condition of belonging to a religious order. Do you think this definition is accurate? We believe this definition is basically arbitrary since it uses religion in the definition twice. If this is not the definition what definition can you come up with? Must every religion fall under your definition? We feel that there are too many religions out there, and some may be secular that does not fall under the typical definition, so what do we do then? What criteria can be used to define a religion? In class we discussed possible religions in our culture today such as democracy, capitalism, and scientism. Do you believe these could be religions? If these are religions do sports and playing video games also count as religions? Finally, we discussed the possibility of a definition of religion that can always be changed and extrapolated. For example at one time the world was predominately polytheistic and monotheism could not have existed without polytheism. So at the time monotheism technically was not considered a legitimate religion because it did not fall under the definition of religion for that time. Christians were even called atheists. So meaning the definition varies over time depending on the era and ideologies bouncing around at the time. So concerning if science has become a religion, it is definitely not too absurd of an idea, you would simply have to expand your understanding and definition of what religion is to have it fit under the umbrella of religion.

Jamie and Wale  

Science As A Religion?

One of the biggest focuses of this class has been to define things that are simply hard to define. But how do we go about doing that? Is the Oxford English dictionary the supreme authority on words? Some would argue yes, because there must be an authority. Personally, however, I’ve never put much stock in “authority.” I also believe that it’s contrary to the English language to set anything in stone. If Shakespeare had played by the rules, his works wouldn’t have been half as brilliant, half as well remembered, or half as beautiful. The English language is constantly evolving, so setting it in stone is contrary to its very nature. The question we’re being asked to answer is asks, “What criteria are you using to define religion?” And that’s a question that should be answered; but also consider if the definition of religion is changing, or if it might have changed already.

You can only ask the question, “has science become a religion,” if you define what a religion is. In the 2:20 class, I (Luke) said that I thought that science was more of the “Holy Scripture” of atheism and/or agnosticism, which could be thought of as religions (the criteria used at that point was: an external practice of some sort, and holding some sort of metaphysical belief) So this is something else to think about, if science is not a religion, what role does it play in what you are defining as a religion?

Professor Berry brought up the possibly use of money or capitalism as potential “religions” in our society. Do any of you buy into that concept or do you think that our society has another ‘religion’ altogether?

--Chase and Luke

Marilynne Robinson on "Imagination and Community"

"In the stack of magazines, read and unread, that I can never bring myself to throw away, there are any number of articles suggesting that science, too, explores the apophatic—reality that eludes words—dark matter, dark energy, the unexpressed dimensions proposed by string theory, the imponderable strangeness described by quantum theory. These magazine essays might be titled “Learned Ignorance,” or “The Cloud of Unknowing,” or they might at least stand beside Plato’s and Plotinus’s demonstrations of the failures of language, which are, paradoxically, demonstrations of the extraordinary power of language to evoke a reality beyond its grasp, to evoke a sense of what cannot be said." 

This is one of the paragraphs from a beautiful article by Pulitzer Prize winning author, Marilynne Robinson. You can find it here if you'd like to read the entire thing...which I strongly recommend.

UW Writing Conference

I attended a conference about Comics and Feminism. Both of the speakers had topics that ended up relating to one another quite a bit. The first speaker made a presentation on the way women are portrayed in video games and how it affects both sales and men's view towards women. I thought this topic was super interesting, and was enlightened by what she had to say. She stressed that for a final project topic you should pick something that you are interested in...which was a very good point.
The second speaker wrote about how the "She-Hulk" is exhibited in comics. I thought this was cool because I had never heard of She-Hulk. Both presentation had strong feminist tones.
I think the most important thing for me to remember when writing and picking my final project topic will be to choose something that I am interested in and something that has a lot of information available on it.

Is It Human Error Or Computer Error?

Is It Human Error Or Computer Error?

Danqing:

A Space Odyssey is quite different from other movies I have ever seen. I almost regarded it as a documentary film instead of a science fiction movie at first. The sound of the movie is filled with music a lot. That is also why we feel different about it. The gorgeous scenes in the earth, in space, and inside the aircraft give me extremely real feelings that it may be a true history of human-beings. However, it turns out to be a story for that there is still a story line in this movie. Human-beings have to finish a Jupiter Mission. HAL 9000 computer, the sixth member of the Discovery Crew, is a intelligent computer and central nerves system of the ship. It was considered to be able to perfectly behave like a smart human without mistakes or emotions. However when I was watching it before the tragedy happened, I had some bad feeling about it. Not only because that the number Six and the red light from its eyes reminded me of the scary human-look Number Six in the movie Battlestar Galactica, but also the pungent music, or noise with the scenes.

It turns out to be that Hal, the computer later made the mistake and didn’t admit it was its faults. Its behavior became not adorable when it found the secret of Frank and David talked and then terminated four people’s life inside the spaceship after that. It went against what it argued before “The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information.” What do you think of this? Is computer foolproof and incapable of error? Do you think that the error is made by human brain or Hal, the machine intelligence? Do you believe machines could have genuine emotions? Do you think they should have?

UWP Student Writing Conference

The conference was really helpful especially because each presenter took us through their entire process. The first presenter wrote on a subject very unrelated to our class, yet really interesting. Her topic focussed on how the media can and does influence the public's opinion using connections between two wars. Since I am a journalism major I am really familiar with this topic. I find it really interesting that she chose the El Salvador Civil War and Iraq War to discuss the public's approval ratings for presidents. Additionally, it was really helpful when she explained that her argument changed at the last minute. I tend to have this problem a lot; therefore, now I know how to better handle it. She also explained how sometimes you cannot answer every question your topic draws. She was really focussed on method sources, which gave me some further insight on the concept of a method source.
The second presenter took Professor Berry's class last semester, so she offered so much insight. Her topic was the positives and negatives of the Catholic church's negation of contraception. I asked a lot of questions about interviewing because she had interviewed a lot of people and I know we have to as well for our final paper, so that was really helpful. Especially because she said just because someone says something does not mean it is always 100% accurate and that you should basically fact check. Also, she explained how her argument was not really for or against, but rather explaining the benefits and drawbacks. She also talked about using a lens, hers was humane vite. The most helpful piece of advice she offered was to keep an open mind when researching. This presentation really showed the appeal of writing about something controversial. I think I will definitely try to pick a topic that is controversial for my paper because papers on controversial issues always seem passionate. You could tell Jackie was really interested in her topic and she was really well informed. I would like to come out of the final paper knowing I learned something new.
The conference overall was great to get me thinking about what I may want to write about. I was especially glad I was able to hear the project of someone who took Professor Berry's class last semester.

Voyager at the Edge of the Solar System

I recently listened to Radiolab's most recent episode titled "Escape" in which Ann Druyan and the Radio Lab hosts discuss NASA's Voyager probe, which is poised at the edge of the solar system. This little probe has caught my imagination. Nothing made by humans has ever gone so far; nothing we have made has ever left our star system. We don't really know what is out there. We don't know what it will be like.

(From: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/voyager20111205.html

And the information Voyager keeps sending us continues to surprise us. The solar wind stills and we think it has crossed over, but it hasn't...though it might any minute. And, as I recently wrote to Tina it makes me feel all excited and worried about this little spaceship all at once. She replied, "I know! Fly little space ship!!!"

There is something of us reaching out beyond any place we have ever reached before. It is beautiful and terrifying all at once...perhaps as we ourselves are beautiful and terrifying all at once...and maybe even as the universe itself. I keep thinking about the old maps of the world, drawn by European hands, who stopped speculating beyond the known world and simply wrote "There be Dragons!" And I wonder what Voyager will find...and if we will know.

Voyager once sent back a parting look at earth when it had reached Neptune. The image is a pale blue dot caught in beams of solar light. It is stunning in its smallness.

(From: http://fettss.arc.nasa.gov/collection/details/the-pale-blue-dot/)

We are that small speck in an endless field, sending out such a tiny ambassador into the universe. And all I can think of is "Fly little space ship!!!"

Technological Advances, AI, and Religion

Gaby:

Artificial Intelligence, like so many other developments in science and technology, does cause some ethical and theological concern. I asked myself plenty of times while reading Tamatea's article, "is AI a good idea?", and I couldn't come up with as answer. I believe that, as humans, we are created in the "image of God," as Peterson's article states. If so, then, why AI? It's an advancement, yes. It does have some positive aspects, yes. But, how far is too far? This idea of technological singularity terrifies me a little bit, especially after having watched Battlestar Gallactica. (I had nightmares for weeks after watching I, Robot.) Though I highly doubt machines will ever evolve and try to destroy the human race, I do believe that it is dangerous to develop computers that think for themselves. In a way, it's "playing God." In a way, it's creating a life of some sort. The Radiolab we listened to about AI really helped me understand that. I remember being terrified of Furbies as a child, and until I listened to this particular radio show, I could never place why. It's because I felt that I was actually responsible for a life, even thought it was only a toy. I don't want to say that we should eliminate AI fully, but we should definitely be more cautious of it. I don't think its smart for us to create something smarter than we are. 

Tara:

I think that there are legitimate ethical and theological concerns about AI. In my opinion, one of the primary concerns is that computers will soon be as intelligent as humans, also referred to as the “singularity.” I think this gives rise to concerns about human’s ability to control technology. The idea of the “singularity” reminds me of the movie Eagle Eye when the supercomputer at the department of defense begins blackmailing certain individuals with the intended goal of killing the president and his cabinet. Do you think that it is possible that technology could advance past that of human intelligence in a similar manner as to what happened in Eagle Eye? Also, should AI have rights if it does gain the same level of intelligence as humans?

William Bainbridge suggests that as AI progresses there will be no more gaps for God to fill, creating an increase in religious resistance. I think that this is clearly a theological concern for AI because as technology progresses, religion could become viewed as less important and for lack of better words, believable. Do you agree with Bainbridge’s opinion that AI will lead to an increase in religious resistance?

Weaver:

There are multiple issues that certain technological advances, such as Artificial Intelligence, bring to the table. I found the difference in Buddhist and Christian responses to be symptomatic of the broader incoherence of opinion regarding technological advances in general. For example, the Amish responded to technological advances by functionally saying, "Actually, we don't want to continue advancing technologically. We think everything is perfect just the way it is." Yet many people, religious and nonreligious alike, view technological advancement as the main goal of the human enterprise. After all, advances in agricultural technology or infrastructure are what allowed the human race to flourish and develop. There are many opinions on the subject, and they are not necessarily dictated by a person's religion. What are your opinions on technological advances in the field of Artificial Intelligence? Is it possible that if computers/robots became too intelligent the result could be a Terminator-like apocalypse? What about all the predicted benefits that will come in the fields of medicine or transport?

I also had some thoughts regarding the conversation at the end of class on Thursday, in which we discussed the fact that technological advances require our participation and, to some extent, our willingness to sacrifice. I saw an interested documentary the other day about advances in Quantum Physics which discussed the possibility of teleportation. The narrator explained that teleportation is possible, but that it involves disassembling an object or person and reassembling it in a second location. He went on to address the question that arose from this discovery: Is the person or object the same  person/object when it is reassembled? The narrator believes the answer was yes, because it was the exact same composition of particles as the original. However, this does raise serious religious and philosophical questions. For example, if the object is really the same just because its particles are assembled in the same way, is there still room for the idea of a soul? I found this discussion ties into Bainbridge's belief that advancing technology could have serious negative impacts on religion. What are your thoughts on the subject?

"America's Darwin Problem"

I thought this was an extremely interesting article written by a biologist at Brown University. It is quite clear the position of conflict that he takes and assumes other people take as well.

--I do realized that it is the Huffington Post, if you look past the journalistic bias the author made some interesting points.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html

Ash Wednesday

Today is Ash Wednesday in many Christian churches and the juxtaposition of this against our visit to the Human Origins exhibit last Friday and our conversation about human “specialness” struck me today. Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, holds that humans have been made “in the image of God.” There is no theological consensus on what that means, though there are lots of ideas ranging from our ability to love and have relationship to our ability to reason to our capacity for self-awareness. But how “the image of God” is defined is not really what I want to talk about here. Instead, I bring this up to say that in Christianity there is a deep understanding that because humans are made in the image of God that we are special and somehow different from the rest of creation. But what struck me today is that there is a balance involved in this. On Ash Wednesday as the priest puts ashes on each person’s forehead (an ancient Jewish symbol of repentance) he also says to each person “Remember you are dust and to dust you shall return.” What struck me is that in a religion that holds to a deep distinction of humanity from the other animals, there is also this very profound reminder that we also came from the earth and our connected to it, a reminder of our own origins, and, I think, a call to be humble in spite of what may make us special. Because maybe we are made “in the image of God” whatever that might mean, but we are also made of the same dust, the same matter, that makes up everything around us, and Christianity thinks that is important enough to remind its followers once a year both with words and with symbols marked upon their bodies, made from this same dust.

Here's a short video explaining the practice a little more:

Monty Python's Philosopher Soccer Match

This came up in another class that I teach and since so many of you are writing about philosophers I thought I would share it with you (though many of you are writing about the English philosophers). Anyway, this is one of my favorite things in the world. Enjoy!