Midterm Exam

1. Be sure to place your entire midterm on your website and when you are finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@yahoo.com (don't send it to any other email address, except that).

2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other authors please be sure to quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be tolerated and you will receive an "F" automatically for the examination.

3. The test is due 4/15/2010.

4. What is your real name?

My real name is Joshua Isami Kawate.

5. What is your "user" name?

My "user" name for the philosophy group is josh.kawate.

6. What is your email address that you use for this class?

The email address that I use for this class is josh.kawate@rocketmail.com.

7. Name and address for your website.

The name of my philosophy website is The Posteriori Argument. It's address is joshkawate.blogspot.com.

8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?

Yes, I have done all of the reading for the first three weeks.

9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?

Yes, I have watched each of the films that were required.

10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this class (you can copy and paste them).

Week 1/2, Post 1: Expert lecture Aldous Huxley Part 1

Aldous Huxley is the writer of Brave New world this novel that he wrote predicted that our entire world would live under a dictatorship. This was written a while ago but still applies and I agree with him on some levels. In a way we are being dictated to by technology. We are being told that if we are not technologically savvy we are illiterate and don't know what is going on in this world. So in this case we are being forced I feel to jump in the deep end of the technological world. Therefore we are being dictated to sink or swim. So who or what are our enemies of freedom in the United States? This is the first question Mike Wallace asks Aldous Huxley in this interview. Huxley believes that there are a number of impersonal forces that are pushing in the direction of us having less freedom. The two main forces he thinks are overpopulated and over organization.

Personally I don't understand and can't comprehend Huxley's meaning on these. But I guess he does have a point, the more we populate the world the more the government does have to control how things work and are run. Huxley also says that there are devices that can take away our freedom. One device is propaganda. How it was used by Hitler over the radio was his example. I kind of see what he is saying, the radio is able to get messages out faster, but people still have their own free choice on whether to listen or not. So how does this really take away our freedom? Personally I don't think it does at all.

Week 1/2, Post 2: Expert lecture Aldous Huxley Part 2

In the second video, Aldous Huxley states that the totalitarian regime he foresaw in Brave New World would likely come to American shores. He said that political principles and plans of action are no longer as important as how well the politicians are marketed to the public. Also, marketing and advertising has diminished individuality in American children, thus bypassing the rational side of man and appealing to the unconscious. The American system, so dependent on the forces of conscious decisions and logical choices, is in danger of collapse because of this.

I think that this part of his nightmare about a totalitarian regime has actually come true. If we look at the past election between Barack Obama and John McCain, it is clear that image is definitely more important than actually policies. Obama offered many campaign promises without actually backing them up with facts and his status and image as a great orator and first African American president drove many voters to vote for him in record numbers. On the other hand, McCain's nomination of Palin as his vice president had little to do with her policies but rather than image and the chance she would steal several women voters from the Obama camp. This is clearly not a good pattern for America's future.

Week 1/2, Post 3: Expert lecture Aldous Huxley Part 3

In the last video of Mike Wallace's interview with Aldous Huxley, he poses an interesting question: "Why is it the right people will not use the instruments of power in a good way?" He then answers: "Power is very dangerous and it is extremely important for one person or small group to have too much power for too long." He then goes on to talk about how the good of the state overtaking the good of the individual is perhaps the most important aspect in the first steps of creating a totalitarianism regime. Later, he goes onto talk about how maintaining individual freedoms are important in being productive and creating memorable works.

I happen to disagree with Huxley's assertion. Throughout history, there are many examples of lasting works and productive societies without having freedom. Much of the world prior to the nineteenth century operated primarily in this manner. In fact modern democracy did not take hold throughout much of the world until the 20th century, and there were many productive empires and lasting works before then. So, while I do believe freedom helps increase productivity, it is not essential.

Week 1/2, Post 4: Francis Fukuyama

In this video, Francis Fukuyama discusses why the world did not descend into socialism and stayed as a capitalist society and why this became the end of history. He says the reason why Communism failed was because they got the nature of human kind wrong. He says that humanity was not built to live in a Communist society, where everything is equal and goods and services distributed equally.

I believe that Fukuyama is correct in his thesis. Modern human thought has encouraged humanity to be individual and unique, and also putting the needs of the individual over the needs of the state. It is this state of mind, grown and built upon since the Enlightenment, that does not allow Communism to be implemented as a successful state of government.

Week 1/2, Post 5: Stoicism Lite

Stoicism Lite is a catalog of the sayings of Epictetus. Stoicism is the belief that actions should not be taken on the belief of the emotions, rather based on logic. Stoicism lite is a softer version of stoicism. The example in the foreword is if you fail, then try again, rather than feeling rejected or sad about it. The author then goes onto say that stoicism enables one to feel more relaxed and peaceful.

Stoicism, in my opinion, is an unreachable goal. Humans feel emotions, and emotions are often what decisions are based upon. It is unhuman to suggest that all actions can be made based upon logic. Perhaps a mixture of the two is more realistic, but, nonetheless, it still has some emotions to it.

Week 1/2, Post 6: Survey of Philosophy

To summarize the history of philosophy article on Wikipedia, it states that it is the study of philosophy throughout time. It then goes on to talk about how all cultures throughout the world have had some form of school of philosophical thought, each discovered independently or through social interaction. Many of these thoughts have come from different start points, and it is the goal of historians of philosophy to catalog each and all of these viewpoints and schools of thought.

Several questions I have regarding the history of philosophy are: did each school of thought have a basis from an individual point in time? As we know, humanity had a common ancestor in Africa, and I wonder if that ancestor had some influences on each of his/her offsprings. Another question I have is why is the school of thought between the Western world and the Far East completely polarized? It is my understanding that the Western world emphasizes individuality and uniqueness while the East promotes the good of all over the individual. It is my hope through the course that I will come to understand the answers to these questions.

Week 1/2, Post 7, How Did Socrates Die

The book How Did Socrates Die raises the points about how Socrates poisoned the minds of the youthful through refusing to worship the Greek gods. He goes by saying that those minds were actually poisoned by those that envy him. He says that they should look not at how good his oration skills are, but by the truth.

This story was about how one can defend their ideals and positions. This belief that one should base their defense on the truth and not oration skills is truly ahead of his times. Socrates' says that they should be speaking the truth with wisdom, and actually defends himself well, although it seems he dies anyways at the end.

Week 1/2, Post 8: THE LIFE OF PYTHAGORAS

Pythagoras was a Greek philosopher that traveled widely throughout his lifetime. He was also a mathematician who's ideas would later greatly influence mathematics. According to the book, he was born on the island of Samos. When he was older, he would later, travel to Egypt and Sicily, where he would learn about the Egyptian geometry. In Italy, he would set up his on sect, which literally worshiped mathematics. He died after starving himself to death.

Pythagoras formed the Pythagorean theorem, which stated that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 in a right triangle. This was the basis for geometry later on. He had a great deal of influence on the later philosophers of Greece.

Week 1/2, Post 9: Java Philosophy

In the film, Java Philosophy, the film shows many contradicting ideas and viewpoints. I think one of the main ideas brought up in the film is that while there is free will and the power to do whatever you want, you are still confined within a certain parameter, the cards that life handed you. I think this means while you can do whatever you want, you can't do everything. For instance, while we have the power to steal whatever we want, society restricts us from actually stealing it. Consequences are what restricts us from doing whatever we want.

Another viewpoint I got from the video is that if we want to do something, we actually have to go and do it without regretting our decision. Praying or hoping for miracles will not get us what we want to achieve. So being lazy is not an option, although, again, we have the right to be lazy, we'll have to deal with the consequences of it later.

Week 1/2, Post 10: Nicholas of Cusa

In the video, Nicholas of Cusa, it talks about two points: how numbers encompass everything, and how the more someone realizes how ignorant he is, the more learned he is.

In my opinion, the first point reveals that western philosophy is based upon numbers and not words. The philosophers of the past showed that numbers could explain a great many deals of things that words could not. Also through numbers, simplicity, or less numbers, makes things easier while a great deal of numbers, increases complications. And thus a great deal of things cannot be understood independently of numbers.

The second point is that one someone becomes learned in something, he or she realizes that there is much more to learn. Even science cannot answer many questions that we have today, and thus when one realizes that he or she ignorant, then they are more knowledgeable about life itself.

Week 3/4 Post 1: Owen Gingerich

Professor Owen Gingerich talks about how in the moments leading to the Big Bang, there was a missing +5 molecule that forever altered the fate of the universe. Because of "God's goof", the abundant elements of the universe changed to carbon, oxygen and helium. Due to this, the basic building blocks of life were formed and thus life was able to flourish. He then goes onto talking about God and agnostics. He says that people haven't thought enough to decide what religion they were. Later, Gingerich discusses about the Big Bang and time.

I think that his lecture was extremely interesting. I found that perhaps thelack of the +5 molecule is a strong indicator that there is some creator of theuniverse. I think that maybe it wasn't a goof, but a purposeful action that led to life throughout the earth. However, I found that his assertion that people haven't thought enough about their religion to be a little condescending. Still, I found this lecture to be enlightening.

Week 3/4 Post 2: Richard Dawkins

In this video, Richard Dawkins talks about how science is extremely strange. He gives over twenty two minutes of examples of how science is extremely strange ,starting with how we perceive the world is way different than it's actuallity. For example, he started off with how the sun looks like it is spinning around the earth. He then goes on to talk about impenetrability in rocks. Rocks are actually full of empty space, but we perceive them to be unbreakable because how the affect humanity is equivalent to how we perceive it.

I thought that this lecture was extremely interesting. Richard Dawkins raises some interesting points about perception and reality. I think that he is right about perception because to most people, it doesn't matter that the air is full of empty space. The only thing that matters to them is its functionality and usage. It seems that he is pushing that reality is stranger than fiction/perception, and he is absolutely right.

Week 3/4 Post 3: Survival of the Sufficient

This video talks about how Darwin's notions of survival of the fittest was wrong, rather the world is all about the survival of the sufficient. The species that do sufficient things to maintain their ways and survive will in the end prosper. Also, there are many editors of the species. For example, the editors of the people are their parents, friends, teachers, priests, lovers, ex's and food. Everything edits the person, who's main goal is to produce enough copies to introduce him or herself to a new generation.

I think that this notion of survival of the sufficient is an interesting one. I think that the video is right and the world is not about survival of the fittest, because there are many species which are not atop the world chain yet manage to prosper and grow as well. If the law of the land was survival of the fittest, there wouldn't be enough species to roam the earth, as competition would bring about the end of the world.

Week 3/4 Post 4: Truth Lies

The video claims that Darwin's theory of evolution is not successful because it requires people to believe on faith, but because it allows for so many paths of discovery. It led to antibiotics and explained why bacteria continues to thrive even though we have the means to eradicate them. Also, it says our brains evolved to the point to absorb the truth. The consequence of our increased brain mass allows us to comprehend more complicated understandings. However, we still
can't understand the random chaos from which the universe was born from.

I think that the point the video raises is extremely interesting. The fact that Darwinism is so fluid in its beliefs is unique, compared to the hard rocks of religion or other sciences. Also, the increased brain masses of humans meant that we could understand more things and the universe at large. But, since we still can't understand the chaos, I agree with the video that God was a necessary invention.

Week 3/4 Post 5: Mental Disease

The video starts off with the saying "Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease." He states off by comparing it to the Trojan Horse. The video then goes on to saying creationism is only taught by those that can't think. Later, the video worships natural selection by saying its the greatest idea ever to permeate the world and that evolution is the liberation of the world from false gods and designers.

I feel that the video was very biased but mostly correct with its analysis. The videos main point was basically fundamentalism is stupid while evolution is smart. And I happen to agree with this. There is no fundamental scientific proof that fundamentalism is correct, while there are countless examples proving evolution, even if there are many holes in its arguments.

Week 5/6 Post 1: Wilson

The video about Wilson is essentially a call out to religion and science to mend their difference and collaborate to save the earth from destruction. He said combined with the wisdom of the scientific community and religion's authority, they could essentially work together to stop global warming and other major issues. He said references to the creation of earth should satisfy religious folks because it doesn't contradict what religion says.

I think this video is extremely unique. Throughout the ages both religion and science has fought a war to control the minds and the hearts of the people. On one side, the scientists fought for the truth and quests for knowledge while religion, primarily by the church sought to put them down and maintain God's will on the people. Thus, although those times are over, it still leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of the scientists and religious authorities today. While Wilson's view may be a little too optimistic, it is certainly a step in the right direction towards harmony.

Week 5/6 Post 2: Dawkins

In this video, Richard Dawkins talks about how science is extremely strange. He gives over twenty two minutes of examples of how science is extremely strange ,starting with how we perceive the world is way different than it's actuallity. For example, he started off with how the sun looks like it is spinning around the earth. He then goes on to talk about impenetrability in rocks. Rocks are actually full of empty space, but we perceive them to be unbreakable because how the affect humanity is equivalent to how we perceive it.

I thought that this lecture was extremely interesting. Richard Dawkins raises some interesting points about perception and reality. I think that he is right about perception because to most people, it doesn't matter that the air is full of empty space. The only thing that matters to them is its functionality and usage. It seems that he is pushing that reality is stranger than fiction/perception, and he is absolutely right.


Week 5/6 Post 3: Survival of the Sufficient

This video talks about how Darwin's notions of survival of the fittest was wrong, rather the world is all about the survival of the sufficient. The species that do sufficient things to maintain their ways and survive will in the end prosper. Also, there are many editors of the species. For example, the editors of the people are their parents, friends, teachers, priests, lovers, ex's and food. Everything edits the person, who's main goal is to produce enough copies to introduce him or herself to a new generation.

I think that this notion of survival of the sufficient is an interesting one. I think that the video is right and the world is not about survival of the fittest, because there are many species which are not atop the world chain yet manage to prosper and grow as well. If the law of the land was survival of the fittest, there wouldn't be enough species to roam the earth, as competition would bring about the end of the world.

Week 5/6 Post 4: Truth Lies

The video claims that Darwin's theory of evolution is not successful because it requires people to believe on faith, but because it allows for so many paths of discovery. It led to antibiotics and explained why bacteria continues to thrive even though we have the means to eradicate them. Also, it says our brains evolved to the point to absorb the truth. The consequence of our increased brain mass allows us to comprehend more complicated understandings. However, we still
can't understand the random chaos from which the universe was born from.

I think that the point the video raises is extremely interesting. The fact that Darwinism is so fluid in its beliefs is unique, compared to the hard rocks of religion or other sciences. Also, the increased brain masses of humans meant that we could understand more things and the universe at large. But, since we still can't understand the chaos, I agree with the video that God was a necessary invention.

Week 5/6 Post 5: Mental Disease

The video starts off with the saying "Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease." He states off by comparing it to the Trojan Horse. The video then goes on to saying creationism is only taught by those that can't think. Later, the video worships natural selection by saying its the greatest idea ever to permeate the world and that evolution is the liberation of the world from false gods and designers.

I feel that the video was very biased but mostly correct with its analysis. The videos main point was basically fundamentalism is stupid while evolution is smart. And I happen to agree with this. There is no fundamental scientific proof that fundamentalism is correct, while there are countless examples proving evolution, even if there are many holes in its arguments.


11. Why does Lisa Randall believe that there may be many more dimensions than we presently know in current physics? Is there any evidence at this stage for her beliefs?

Lisa Randall supports her notion of a 11 dimensional universe by citing the string theory. The string theory is the unifying concept that Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum physics are interchangeable and not incompatible. The idea behind it is that the universe has vibrating strings, or brane attached to every portion within an atom that cause the properties of all matter. However, this notion was incomplete because amongst the four forces of the universe (gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetism), gravity was an relatively weak universal force. To solve this dilemma, physicists theorized that brane were attached to a parallel universe, from which the force of gravity was leaking from, creating a fifth dimension which answers all of the questions of gravity's weakness.

At this stage, there is not any conclusive or experimental proof that the string theory is real. However, some signs that point to the it's legitimacy is gravity's relative weakness and the strengthening of the multiverse movement.

12. What are Pythagoras' philosophical views in a nutshell?

Pythagoras' essentially believed that the universe could be explained through mathematical principles or ideas. This implies that he believed that underlying the chaos of the world, there is a hidden mathematical order which permeates silently, but surely. Nonetheless, despite his seemingly logical views on the world, this did not stop him from believing in the fantastic mysticism of his day. For instance, Pythagoras believed in the reincarnation of souls in both humans and animals. Still, he broke with traditional beliefs and imposed order in a world of seeming chaos.

13. Do you think science and religion are compatible? Be sure to explain your answer by GIVING THE EXPLANATIONS given by philosophers who side with your position from the Socratic Universe (cite and quote when appropriate).

I believe that science and religion are compatible. They both strive to reach the same answer: the truth about the universe. It is, however, the methods they use to reach that answers that is the source of their turmoil and conflict. Mr. Fischer from UC Riverside said it best when he stated " The main difference is in the methods. In science, methods are used proportional to belief and evidence...in religion, there is none of the same evidence. People accept on faith and not on concrete facts. Religion involves a leap of faith, accepting that it can be proved." Thus, the answer, quite frankly, is "Yes." (Neumann [Claremont Scripps College])

14. Why was Socrates put on trial? How did Socrates defend his position?

Socrates was put on trial for "corrupting" the youth of Athens and failing to acknowledge the gods and goddesses of Athens. He was also accused of introducing new deities of worship.

Throughout his trial, he defended himself by saying he only sought to impart his wisdom on the young. Nonetheless, he did not defend himself seriously and instead antagonized both the jury and the Athenian leaders, suggesting that the juries were in-fact poisoned by those whom were jealous of his knowledge and wisdom, and that the leaders were nothing more than two-faced posers.

15. Give a brief history of philosophy using just 300 words (no more). You may use an outline format, but be sure to cram as many "factoids" (facts) as possible (key names, ideas, dates, etc.). Remember, it must be your own words and not merely a series of quotes.

Philosophy is as old as man himself, developing independently throughout the world from China, to India, to Europe, to Arabia, to Africa, and to the American continent. However, traces of modern western philosophy can be found nearly 600 years before Christ, in the city state of Miletus, with a wise man known as Thales. He was the first recorded person to not accept a supernatural cause for the world around him and looked for natural causes. This question became the cornerstone of modern western philosophy for years to come. Eventually him and his students passed down their knowledge to future generations, spawning great philosophers such as Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, and/or Cicero years later. Ancient philosophy dealt with the world and its workings. Eventually, when Rome collapsed, much of their knowledge was lost in the West and was only kept in the surviving pocket of the empire in Greece. Much of medieval philosophy dealt with God and his connection to the world. Also many medieval philosophers created proofs of God's existence. Eventually, the world moved onto modern philosophy beginning after the Renaissance resparked interest in Greek and Roman thought. Much of modern philosophy dealt with the human self and their rights and restrictions. Interestingly enough, much of the modern philosophers, Spinoza, Locke, etc, made gigantic contributions in other fields, paving the way for modern science as we know it today.

16. Explain the big bang and the inflationary universe. Why is it important to know astronomy in order to do philosophy?

The big bang is the theory that everything in the universe started at a point of singularity billions of years back. Then for reasons unknown, the energy in the point burst, cause a massive explosion that created an ever expanding universe that exists today. The inflationary universe is the notion that the universe is an ever expanding place, powered by the big bang billions of years back. As the universe constantly expands, the objects within it grow further and further apart. In the future, many theorize that as the universe grows wider and wider, there won't be enough energy to sustain it. As a result, one of the two events may happen. Either the universe will have a 'big crunch' and return to the point of singularity or the universe will rip apart and become nothingness.

It is important to know astronomy to do philosophy because without astronomy, there would be no knowledge about the stars, the galaxies and the universe, and subsequently no logically sound ideas about the origins of life or what exists and what doesn't exist. For instance, many ancient religions believed in some form of sky deities. Without modern astronomy, we would be stuck believing that Zeus and his Olympians rule the sky and/or that Gaia and Uranus created the universe.

17. How do Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science DIFFER from Einstein's? How are they similar?

Heisenberg believed philosophically that the universe was ruled by uncertainty, shown by his famous uncertainty principle within quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principle states that both momentum and location cannot be precisely known. In other words, if momentum is calculated, then the exactly location is unknown and vice versa. However, Einstein disapproved of the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics in general. He put this rather plainly when he infamously said "God does not play dice." Therefore, it is safe to conclude that Einstein, like many others, believed that the universe was operated through order and laws, and had a system implemented that could not be broken.

Nonetheless, despite their many differences, they both had many similarities. They both worked on the levels of atoms, significantly contributing to atomic research and development. Also, they both worked on nuclear research and advanced particle physics greatly.

18. What is meme theory and do you find it plausible? Explain your reasoning.

The meme theory is the suggestion that all knowledge and facts is passed through imitation, writing, and other forms of media. However, the theory is not all about direct imitation (although this can be seen in pop culture). It also suggests that people imitate someone then use it as a cornerstone to become the person whom they are, rather than directly imitating others.

I find this theory entirely plausible, because it can be seen in pop culture today, where most youths use the same lines, wear the same clothes, and listen to the same music. Also, the ideas about the building blocks can also be seen throughout the stereotypes in life. The mere fact that groups of people can all fit under one stereotype, reinforces the notion that humans do copy one another.

19. Why is understanding biological evolution so important in understanding human thought and behavior. Be sure to cite Wilson and Dawkins and Darwin when appropriate.

Understanding biological evolution is so crucial in understanding human thought and behavior because each and every natural instinct and behavior can be linked with our ancestor's struggle to survive early on. Those traits that form modern homo sapiens either eased their toil or assisted in avoiding death. Darwin understood this when he wrote that humanity had evolved to adapt to new environments and survive.

20. In one of the films you were required to see, the narrator argued that fundamentalism was a mental disease. Why? Do you agree or disagree and please detail your rejoinder.

I agree that fundamentalism is a mental disease. It forces humans to think illogically and accept beliefs that are not logically sound. This causes progress to halt and the logical part of the brain to shut down. A fundamentalist is often intolerant of other beliefs and can be encouraged to do extreme acts that would seem illogical by others. Progress halts because the fundamentalist will adhere to his or her beliefs til the end, even if a better way was found. Unfortunately, the safety net and order from which fundamentalism creates is sadly an appealing option that is growing in our chaotic world today.

21. Where do you think Owen Gingerich "parts company" (fundamentally disagrees with) Edward O. Wilson? Who do you think is more persuasive in their reasoning about religion, Owen or Edward? Explain.

Gingerich parts company with Wilson when he says that religion and science can work together and accomplish great things. I think that Wilson is more persuasive in their reasoning because in the modern day, we have seen a level of cooperation not seen before between science and religion. While both still have many disagreements with one another, they both strive to find the truth, and perhaps, one day, they'll be able to save the planet together, hand and hand, like what Mr. Wilson says.

22. What does Francis Fukuyama mean by the "end of history." Do you agree or disagree? Explain.
Francis Fukuyama stated that man reached the end of history because he believed that democracy was the best form of government possible. He then would go on by saying that a war between two democracies has never occurred and that it was likely that the era of major wars were over. Also, he stated that society was essentially settled forever, in stark contrast to Marx's beliefs that the working class would overthrow the ruling class.

I disagree with his assessment. Despite the liberalization of the world, the gap between the rich and the poor has continued to grow and there are many rumblings in the lower class about the great influence the rich has on the government, as we can see today from the Tea Party and American anger over the bailouts with the banks. I believe that at some point in human history, society will once again change, for the better or the worse, because the only thing that never changes is change itself.

23. Explain Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness."

Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of unknowingness states that the more someone becomes learned in something, he or she realizes that there is much more to learn. Even science cannot answer many questions that we have today, and thus when one realizes that he or she ignorant, then they are more knowledgeable about life itself.

24. According to Nietzsche, how did we actually "kill" God? Think before you leap on this one.

I agree with Nietzsche that man actually killed God. Many of God's spoken words and the beliefs that Christians, Jews, and Muslims have followed for over three centuries have been proven false beyond a doubt by science. Also, whereas God used to be the center and focus of man, He has been pushed away. We no longer seek wisdom from the almighty and thus, no longer have any use for Him.

25. In the movie, Little Things that Jiggle, physics is explained by a series of slogans. Why, then, is physics important in the study of philosophy? Substantiate your answer..

Physics is important to the study of philosophy because it is the basis of all things. To paraphrase and butcher my professor's quote: "...without physics, we can't understand chemistry, without chemistry, we can't understand biology, without biology, we can't understand sociology, and without sociology, we won't be able to understand psychology, and lastly, without understand ourselves, how could we understand philosophy?"

26. How do you explain the following line, "To have freedom OF religion one must also have freedom FROM religion."

This means that in order to choose religion, one must be free from a religion's influence. If one is under the influence of another religion, then it is likely that they will choose that religion, giving them no chance to explore the others and their philosophies. Religion blinds people from making rational choices, thus it hard to choose another religion once under the influence of a religion.

27. Why does Dawkins believe that believing in God is delusional?

Dawkins believes that believing in God is delusional because there is so much evidence to the contrary against his existence. He states that people's tendencies to cling to religion despite the growing logical arguments against it is borderline insanity and leads down the path of fanaticism and fundamentalism, which earlier we established were a sort of disease.

28. Can science offer a sense of mystery comparable to what certain religions offer?

Yes, I believe that science can offer a sense of mystery comparable to what religions offer. Infact, science probably offers greater mysteries than religion. In a way, the classic saying "truth is stranger than fiction" holds true. The revelations of the 11 dimensions or the numerous amounts of universes boggle the mind. Perhaps the strangest thing of all is the string theory, which sounds more like science fiction invention rather than a real life theory.

29. How does an understanding of celluar automata suggest a "new kind of science".... according to Stephen Wolfram.

The understand of celluar automata suggests a new kind of science because the simple programming of the ancient computer programs is akin to the early stages of life. He argues that these simple programs also have the ability to mimic any form of complex life. Thus, this suggests a new kind of science, studying things just for studies sake, to enhance our knowledge.

30. What were the key turning points in Darwin's life?

The key turning point in Darwin's life was when he went out on his five year journey. Upon that five year journey, he discovered many fossils and undiscovered creatures in the world. He began to ponder why many of the creatures had similarities to one another and eventually he began to form the important theory of natural selection, from which he concluded that all forms of organisms were evolved from a simpler form for survival purposes.

31. What is spooky physics? And who do you think won the Einstein/Bohr debate? Explain your reasoning.

Spooky physics is when two atoms become entangled. Once entangled, they send instantaneous messages to one another and react to everything in the same way. I think Bohr won the debate because quantum mechanics has become the norm in today's world. Einstein's belief that God does not play dice has been proven wrong in recent times by emerging scientific theories and laws.

32. What is evolutionary philosophy and how can it best explain the emergence of self-reflective awareness?

Evolutionary philosophy is the relationship between evolution and sociology. It attempts to related evolution to how we live, how we interact with society and our existence. It explains the emergence of self-reflective awareness because there is no longer a God that gives us a purpose in life. Without God, questions about our purpose and our destiny arise, and what happens after life.