Reference no: EM132326753

1. Neil deGrasse Tyson put out an idea of a virtual country for all people on Earth. This virtual country would be called Rationalia. The most important idea of Rationalia would be that the weight of evidence should dictate how policies are carried out. Evidence is the biggest role that Rationalia will base everything on. Rationalia's constitution is the most interesting because even now in many countries around the world, evidence is not the only factor that is part of a system of justice and many times, it turns out that decisions are not just. I think that having evidence as the factor of policies and is what Rationalia's constitution is based on is a smart idea. The reason for this is because, as the article states, theres many ways of putting it into use. My favorite example of this is that in Rationalia, citizens would look down on news outlets or newscasters that use opinions more than they do facts. Citizens of Rationalia would also have an enhanced ability to recognize false or exaggerated information. This is very important because today, many people are easily manipulated by the news. There are many news outlets that use their own opinions to address different matters instead of providing their audience with facts. Another idea that I appreciated about Rationalia was the idea that people would learn from young ages how to analyze information and obtain evidence through this process and be able to use that information. This is one of the most important points for me because Rationalia is based solely on evidence and so being able to analyze information from a young age and be trained in drawing conclusions from that, many people will be critical thinkers and it would go hand in hand with proposing reasons why we want to fund particular schools or increase production in certain areas.

In Stephen Jay Gould's Nonoverlapping Magisteria, he explains how Pope Pius XII has made a statement about how Catholics may support the idea of evolution but to also accept the "divine infusion of the soul". After this, John Paul II has stated that Christians may now fully accept evolution because it is a proven fact and it is a part of who we are. Religion is an important part of many people's lives, but I feel that a pope's acceptance of certain scientific views is just as important as well. There are many things that we do not understand in religion alone, or in science alone, so I think that this acceptance from the Church gives a leeway in figuring out the secrets of our origins and possibly go further back before humans and find out the origins of life itself.

Comment: (200 words)

2. In the reading of Clayton's religion and Science, we learn about the theories of mind and how it affects our brain. This creates a discussion of how our emotions and thinking occurs. Some of the questions that were raised in this particular topic is how emotions are acted on whether it's something that comes naturally or our brain gives us a hint and then we act. I believe that the brain plays a huge role in everything that forms our body including what and how we think. Usually when you want to move a part of your body, you receive a signal to the brain so that it can move. The first theory of mind is eliminativism and this mostly means that the brain is either justified by the physical state of the person or the mental state. This emphasises that both these ideas cannot explain how the brain works but just one of them. Some of this can cause confusion because as mentioned in the article, things that we aspire does not fit in this equation. The second one is epiphenomenalist and it relates to mentality and thoughts of the person are there but it is not something in real life. I would assume that this is connected to when you imagine things one way but reality is contrary to your thoughts. The third one is emergentist and this theory has to do with who you are as a person and for you to believe in something greater than humanity. This would involve going through something in your life and depending on that image for guidance and help. The last one is dualism and it is similar to eliminativism which creates a distinction between two ideas which is the mental and physical state. All of them serve a certain area that is important when considering modern science and religion. The one that I found to be the most attractive would have to be the epiphenomenalist. The reason I say this is because it's mostly based on how the physical and mental position of the body can coexist with each other. The feelings that we have on the inside wouldn't really affect what our body does on the outside. This can be understandable because if you feel a certain emotion, only our gestures would be able to explain what kind of feeling your having. Therefore, that's what makes this very interesting and an eye catcher.

Comment: 200 words

3. I found this chapter to be quite an interesting read. We are now reading more in-depth about what is spirituality and how it relates to science and religion. Can any of these theories explain the reasoning, necessity, and presence of the soul or provide substantial evidence of consciousness? I found myself bouncing back and forth from the different theories like eliminativism, dualism, etc. Granted, some of these theories were difficult to comprehend. There were a few points that I liked and agree with and then there were some that I did not find myself interested in. If I had to a theory of mind that I am attracted to, it would be the emergentist. From what I have gathered into my understanding of what this theory meant is that our consciousness plays a role in the mind. It is a more complex and dynamic way of thinking, which introduces the ‘emergent phenomena'(115) I would say I would lean more toward the emergentist theory because it can be openly interpreted in many ways by people who are religious or nonreligious. If you feel that you are more spiritual, it either can come from religion or other factors such as your upbringing, any sort of traumatic or personal experience that you have had in your life that may be influencing your mentality. In my opinion, I feel that the emergent theory comes across as very systematic in its approach to understanding the mind. I kind of like this concept because you are not secluded in one category. You can choose religion, science or they can choose some other mentality or belief. I appreciate that it gives that sense of freedom to choose instead of placing a classification on the subject. In the chapter, it mentioned "the level of interacting persons, or at the level of cultural beliefs and practices." (116). I have mentioned this quote to strengthen my agreeance with the emergentist theory because like I had stated, you would have to consider the factors in the individual's spirituality and where their morality may lie, whether it came from their culture their upbringing, etc. The mentality of a person that was not brought up religiously differs greatly from someone who has a strong religious background. Does their consciousness dictate whether they can provide judgment if someone acts "justly or unjustly"? (116) Personally, I thought these were important questions to consider.

Comment: 200 words