Analysis Of The God Delusion Debate

Analysis Of The God Delusion Debate For The God Delusion Debate, Gayathiri and Sandra chose to listen to Dr John Lennox because the two of us personally believe there is a God while Len Jin and Jerome chose to listen to Professor Richard Dawkins because the points brought forth by Dawkins has more relevance to them personally. There were 6 main thesis that was being debated between Lennox and Dawkins: 1. Faith is blind and science is evident based 2. Science supports atheism, not Christianity 3. Design is dead otherwise one must explain who designed the Designer 4. Christianity is dangerous 5. No one needs God to be moral 6. Christian claims about the person Jesus were not true, alleged miracles violates the law of nature The main points of Lennox are summarized as follows: He believes that faith is supported by rational evidence. Science is limited but anything beyond science is not irrational. Religion is the driving force for science. Atheism undermines science. Science is possible is because God is responsible for our mind. Scientist needs faith to believe in the rational intelligibility of the universe. Darwinism does not explain life and the existence of replicator. God is not created because a created God is delusional. Simplicity is not the only criteria of truth. Everything comes from the mind of the planner. Perpetrators disobeyed the explicit command of Christ. Atheism commits intellectual murder. We cannot know the foundations of being good without God. If there is no good and evil, we cannot talk about the good of atheism. Morality obtained elsewhere is of no use. History proves Christianity. Dawkins got his information from an anaesthesiologist and not a theologian. Laws of nature only describe what normally happens. Human beings believed in the existence of science because science also believed in the existence of the universe. From the debate, we think that Dr. John Lennox was an excellent debater based on a few reasons. Firstly, he respects the criticism Dawkins made about Christianity even though he is supporting theism, which is the belief that there is a God in the debate. He listens to all the points that Dawkins has against Christianity with a calm nature. He does not make facial expression that shows he is angry or disturbed even though the some of the comments made by Dawkins were indirectly insulting Christianity. Secondly, most of the points presented by Lennox was very strong, not only in because of how he phrased his points nor the words he use to put forth his points but the points he stated to support Christianity was very logical and is very reasonable. For instance, Lennox made mention that Dawkins denied the concept of good and evil. If what Dawkins believed in was true, there would not be justice and terrorists would escape from punishment! The third supporting statement would be that Dr. Lennox was very familiar with Dawkins literature because he was very confident with each and every argument values that he has given while Dawkins was blabbering to the overall conversation. Dr. Lennox also seemed very prepared with his opposing points toward atheist. Moreover, Dr. Lennox also agreed that science is based on faith at some point and that atheism undermines science. The world needs to believe in faith and religion in order to live morally as religion teaches us to live with moral values. Dr Lennox also gave an overview of both sides and a reasonable conclusion. The existence of the designer is also showed as evidence in the bible and also the creation of beautiful universe for the human beings to live in. And finally we must say that Lennoxs end speech was argumentative and as well as inspiring for the younger generation to have more faith in the existence of god. Dr Lennox gave an expressive and distinct speech on Christian faith. As much as Dr. John Lennox was a good debater, we found a few weaknesses in him during his debate. Firstly, Lennox could not finish putting forth his points in the time given which was 5 minutes. From this we can say that Lennox did not do a very good job in making sure his points were straight to the point so he could make sure that everything he has to say will be able to be presented in the 5 minutes given to him. Secondly, Lennox used the time given for the particular thesis being debated at that time to continue debating in the previous thesis. These are seen as a weakness by us because Lennox has a little time management issue. Lennox also seemed to be going off from his points as he was very much interested in opposing Dawkins points. There were also lack of evidence in Lennox arguments and universe is not evidence due to its existence. Lennox could actually define faith in a more reasonable and elusive manner. In conclusion, Lennoxs statements are much more supported and reli able rather than it was opposed. The main points of Dawkins are as follows: Religion nulls the impulse to understand by putting everything in gods hands. Science is the opposite by explaining how a lot of incidents happen based on hard evidence. Science initially describes that reality is between rationalism and superstition of the existence of god. The idea of science and reality does not overlap with religion. The speculation that god is the designer is flawed. If god was complex enough to design the universe, surely it would require an even more complex design in its own right. Faith is evil as it requires no justification; people can just use faith to justify terrible acts. People should use rationality and common sense instead of blindly following faith. It is unnecessary to distinguish good and evil from the bible, since we already know what is good and evil, and also we are making logical choices of our own. Fundamental incompatibility between complex sciences and some deity that can simply bend the laws of physics at its will. According to the video of debate, Dawkins say that God is merely an illusion and God does not exist. His theory was fully opposed by Lennox who has faith in God. Throughout his debate, the 1st strength that we think Dawkins had is the fact that he stated that sciences are based on evidence while faith is nothing but trust. He stated that We are overwhelmed with beauty and the complexity of the world, and have a desire to worship something. Science emancipates us from this feeling. This point of his is part of his strength because it is true that no one has ever seen nor touched God before. What is God? It is just our beliefs and what can God do if we do not intend to believe in him? During the ancient times, God may just be a highly intelligent being compared to the people then. He may be using the law of sciences to perform miracles. During that time, people would believe in him because people have not yet discovered science. Through the ages as science and technology keeps improvin g, people tend to ignore the existence of God because people now tend to be more civilized and more intelligent. According to the anthropology text book written by ember, God exist because of the fear of human being during the ancient time. They do not know why earthquakes or floods or any other natural disasters happen and hence they think that there is a God which is controlling all these things because God is angry. For the second strength, Dawkins stated that If God made everything, who made God? A designer god cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any god complex enough to design anything would require a complex design in his own right. Or could it be other things that created us rather than God? As stated above, God exist because we are uneducated. When science comes alive, everything just seems to have a way. Everything needs proof and evidence. What is the Galaxy? Has anyone even experience it? Somehow science came out with the width of the Milky Way but still they are not 100% sure because its just one of a theory. Apparently everyone refers God to a human being. Why? God could be in various forms. God could look like a handicap person. Who knows? And when they ask who made God? It means that everyone refers that God is also merely a creature being created. And if he is created, is he still God? For the 3rd strength, Dawkins states that we dont need religion to be good or ethical. How do you define good and ethical? Every culture is different. Hence the teachings will not be the same. Since young, we have been taught not to kill. We then get the mindset and if we practice that, we will be punished badly. But for some other culture, killing is a way to show their bravery. Hence, killing is ethical for them. If there is a God who created this world, why does the teaching of different places not the same? What our ethical means depends on our culture. We may think that it is impolite for people to burp after a meal but for the Arabians, burp after meals means they think that the food is nice. Rather than religion, there are still laws and rules to follow so that people would be as they call ethical. Hence, religion is not required to shape a good being. However, Dawkins states that religions are dangerous. He says that if there is no religion, there will be no suicide bombers killing for the sake of God, and there will be no 9/11. I think that this point is his weakness because the terrorist are just misusing these faithful people to bomb themselves. They claimed that after the suicide bombing, they get to have 72 virgins in heaven according to the Quran. Did they die just because of the virgins or do they have faith? Hence this is not the matter where religions are dangerous. It is the same where the Israelites having war with the Palestinians because they claim that they will fight for their sacred place. However, will God want them to fight? Although God maybe a delusion but think of it. War is not a joke you can practice. It makes people suffers. Not to say God, even anyone of us would not want that to happen right? We think Dawkins showed his weakness during the time where he was questioned by Lennox. Do you have faith in your wife? His whole face was red and the audience was laughing. He could not control his emotion and this shows he is angry. Hence he showed that Lennox had said something good to step on him. So, who won the debate? After considering both the strength and weaknesses of the two debaters, Dr John Lennox and Professor Richard Dawkins, we have come to an agreement that both the debaters Lennox and Dawkins won the argument in a fair manner based on several reasons. Lennox was supporting theism in the debate and we agreed that he has won the argument is because firstly the way he spoke about faith in our opinion is very strong and convincing in supporting Christianity. This can be seen in the debate when Lennox stated that faith is not blind because faith itself carries with it the ideas of believe, trust and commitment and is therefore only as rebus as the evidence for it. He also states that faith, in relativity theory is not blind because there is evidence supporting it. Faith in Christianity according to Lennox is rational and evident based, part of the evidence is objective, some of it comes from science, some comes from history and some of it is subjective coming from experience. Besides that, we think Lennox won the argument because of the way he presented his debate. He not only made the crowd laughed a couple of times, he also managed to refute Dawkins in a manner whereby Dawkins seemed as though he was speechless. This shows that the points that Lennox put forth was so strong until Dawkins could not come up with anything to defend his beliefs. The whole group also thinks that Lennox won the debate because he refuted Dawkinss claim about Christianity is dangerous really well. First and foremost, Lennox performed very well by being honest in admitting that he is ashamed of Christianity personally because of all the happenings that were caused by the crusades and so on. However, Lennox explained further by stating that the perpetrators were not followers of Christ because Christ explicitly commands us not to use physical weapons because Christs kingdom is not of this world. Lennox theory could also be supported because even though there are many types of different religion or also known as cultures that tend to have variety of beliefs, we still have the same teachings. We are trying to say that each and every religion teaches us to live with moral values and to be away from sin and it has a great impact in our lives. Thus, even though the followers are different but they tend to practice the same following. In conclusion, each and every human beings need to have faith in their god and practice their religion in order to live with compatible moral values because science can only teach us not to do certain event but it is unable to explain the reason behind it. However, we also agreed that Dawkins was a fair and evenly matched contender to Lennox as he also made many strong points in the discussion. He backed up his thesis with solid and scientific proof that has been extensively and thoroughly studied. Take for example, the renowned scientist Charles Darwins theory of evolution. Even though Darwin was not able to explain the origin of life, he was at least able to link the gap of evolution between different variations of animals of the same genre, in contrast to Lennox who was basing most of his thesis from the bible, which does not have much, if any at all, certified or standing proof. Among the other points that Dawkins was delivering, another one that came to us quite strongly is that religion and faith is still a manmade entity, not a perfect being such as god. Hence it must have its flaws, because it was not made by a perfect being. Though the ideals promoted by the writers of the holy books are intended to be righteous, others may force us to believe in something that does not make sense, or conflicts one another. For example, the Christian and Islamic religions state that people who do not embrace their god will be sent to hell. There are many other religions out there with different gods and deities. Does this mean that hell waits for people who are not Christians even though they did not commit any sin? It would be illogical and unreasonable, attributes a good god would not have. Lastly, Dawkins also argues that the problem with religion is because religions were created during the olden days, people then did not know much or anything about science. Back then, gods could have been used as a simple and easy means of explanation for many natural occurrences which can be explained through sciences. Back then, god might have been a reality for them as religion gave them something to hold on to by giving them some sort of an explanation to the unknown. Before any advance in scientific knowledge, when lightning occurred, the average god fearing individual would think that God was angry at the people for their sins, and they feel scared so they worshipped god. However, that theory is no longer applicable as we already have a logical, scientific, and rational explanation for it. Based on all the reasons stated above, once again we would like to state that we think both the debaters won the argument fairly because presented their stand point of views in two distinctive manner but both are strong and convincing.

celilo falls :: essays research papers

Celilo Falls Celilo Falls named after the "Si-le-lah" tribe, was located about one hundred and two miles from Portland Oregon. Today Celilo falls no longer exists because the Dalles Dam was built March 10 1957; it was covered up by what is now Lake Celilo. Celilo Falls was a very important place for Native Americans nearby. Many tribes used the falls for fishing. Fishing platforms were built next to the water and men would spend much of their days catching salmon. Since the early 1800's, Native Americans fished the spring and fall salmon runs, the water's edge, and the shore of the Columbia River. Later, small cable cars built by fish buyers linked the shore to the islands. They used two types of dip nets: one was stationary, the other movable through the water. The dip nets attached to poles ranged from 15 to 25 feet in length. There were about 480 fishing stations around Celilo Falls. Fishers built wooden platforms out over the water catching salmon that weighed up to sixty pounds. The wood platforms were very wet and slippery so the men had to be really strong. The men tied themselves with ropes that they tied around their waists in the event that they fell in the river. During the Great Depression, whites began fishing at Celilo Falls. Indians protected their treaty-reserved stations and the white people had to leave. Soon Congress approved funding for The Dalles Dam, the dam would flood Celilo Falls and part of Celilo Village. The Celilo Fish Committee, The local fisherman protested the dam in formal resolutions and in testimony before Congress. But the dam was built anyway and they lost their place to fish. When the United States government drowned Celilo Falls, it compensated the tribes for flooding their fishing sites. But it didn’t, purchase their fishing rights. Those rights, as set forth in the 1855 treaties, were not affected when the government paid for tribal fishing sites, but the tribes' economy was destroyed. The Native Americans that lived in the area that was covered by Lake Celilo were relocated to reservations. When Celilo Falls was covered up, much more was lost than a historic spot.

Survey of Mathematical Methods

One of the most important things a buyer must do before making a purchase is to review any and all of the statistical research on a product. According to Bluman (2005), Statistical research is used to provide knowledge and information in order to enable us to make intelligent decisions about our health and welfare† (p. 680). Although this information is very important to us, we must also be skeptical of the results. There are many types when the results cannot be reliable. According to Bluman (2005), â€Å"statistics can be misrepresented in the following ways: Suspect Samples, Ambiguous Averages, Detached Statistics, Implied Connections, Misleading Graphs, Faulty Survey Questions, Asking Biased Questions, Using Confusing Words, Asking Doubled-Barreled Questions, and Using Double Negatives† (p. 680-685). The following are example of misuses of statistics. 4. In many ads for weight loss products, under the product claims and in small print, the following statement is made: â€Å"These results are not typical. What does this say about the product being advertised? Detached Statistics and/or Implied Connections. This statement is telling the buyer that the results for some will not be the same results for all. In many ways, the results that are shown on the product could be exaggerated in order to get buyers to buy the product. The reason those words are included now days are because of new guidelines by the Federal Trade Commission. In the end, i t is basically telling the buyer not to expect the results. Furthermore, there are no results shown on the label to compare it to. 14. â€Å"How often do you run red lights? † Asking biased questions and/or faulty survey questions. The reason this question might lead to an erroneous conclusion is because it is taken into consideration that someone has a driver’s license. It can be asked in order to manipulate the overall results. If you were to answer the question, you could be opening yourself up to admitting guilt or showing that it is a common practice for you. The two above assignment question are examples of misuses of statistics. They can both be taken in many different ways. It is very important to ensure that you read each and every label and/or question very carefully. If you do not, you risk buying or answer something that may end up getting you in trouble or wasting money. This assignment was very informative for me to complete because it gave me better insight into the misuse of statistics. I will continue to use this information throughout my educational experiences.

Chinese Whispers Essays

Chinese Whispers Essays Chinese Whispers Paper Chinese Whispers Paper Inform your response with reference to the novels narrative structure, James use of language to characterise the governess and your knowledge of the texts historical, cultural and critical context This essay will argue that neither the governess nor her narrative is reliable. This essay will argue its case by looking at the narrative structure, Henry Jamess use of language to characterise the governess and will also refer to other historical, cultural and critical opinions of the novel. Through all this, the essay will show how the story we are reading is not an ideal source of true events and then by looking at the psychological state of the Governess, this essay will show why she shouldnt be believed either. The story starts of with a man named Douglas telling a story to guests at a dinner party. It is from a manuscript passed down to him by the governess before she died. The manuscript tells us the main story of the governess. The story is set in the late 19th Century and is about the governess who is now in charge of the care of two orphans. Although the children seem to be well behaved and affectionate at first, she becomes more and more uneasy as she starts to see ghosts of her predecessors * The first point this essay will pick up on is the narrative unreliability. As the essay has briefly explained already, we are not getting that story directly from the governess. Instead the Turn of the Screw is one of the guests at the party, telling us the story which Douglas gave him which came from a manuscript given to him by the governess, which she wrote about her experience at Bly over twenty years ago, phew. Douglas said it was long ago Because this story has gone through so many people, there will probably be a Chinese Whispers effect, meaning that parts of the story have been subject to change since the events happened. Douglas also says that this narrative is from an extract of my own much later. This means that the story has been prone to alteration by the people passing it on and so we are probably not getting the true story of events. This greatly undermines the narrative reliability as its structure indicates that some parts of the narrative have been altered while others have been forgotten. The governess also wrote this as a retrospective account of events. She comments on her dreadful liability and how her story is true enough. The manuscript was written by the governess after events had occurred. She also says that I scarce know how to put my story into words. This is another example of how parts of the actual series of events are missed showing how we cant rely on this narrative to give us the true and exact series of events. Not only could parts have been forgotten, but parts could also have been added. There are examples where you can tell the governess has added parts to her narrative. She will often come up with massive long speeches that give the impression that she is in control: No, never from the hour you came back. You seemed so perfectly to accept the present. She also includes signposts in her narrative e. g the separation of the governess and Miles from Mrs Grose and Flora Mrs Grose and Flora had passed into the church We were for a minute alone If parts have been added to cover up her mistakes, then perhaps other things may have been removed disproving her claims. This therefore undermines the narrative reliability. The perspective in which the governesses story is written also undermines the narrative reliability. As it is written in the 1st person by the governess, the entire narrative is subject to the governesses influence and her influence alone. She uses plenty of 1st person pronouns I remember it which proves this is her personal account of events. She refers to her story with the words the strings of my invention This gives the impression that this story is her puppet and she has full control over it. We should not trust this story as it is heavily subjectivised and therefore it is unlikely that it will be entirely correct. There is only one other character in the story who could give us an extra perspective on events: Mrs Grose. However, Mrs Grose is being manipulated by the governess throughout the book. The governess admits she had formed the habit of keeping Grose well in hand. There are also examples where Mrs Grose takes on the governesses reasoning after being pressured by the governess Lord how I pressed her now. We only get the governesses perspective and any interjections from the interlocutor Mrs Grose are likely to be influenced by the governess. It also seems that the other characters in the book cannot be relied on for the truth.

Unbiased and Biased Estimators

Unbiased and Biased Estimators One of the goals of inferential statistics is to estimate unknown population parameters. This estimation is performed by constructing confidence intervals from statistical samples. One question becomes, â€Å"How good of an estimator do we have?† In other words, â€Å"How accurate is our statistical process, in the long run, of estimating our population parameter. One way to determine the value of an estimator is to consider if it is unbiased. This analysis requires us to find the expected value of our statistic. Parameters and Statistics We start by considering parameters and statistics. We consider random variables from a known type of distribution, but with an unknown parameter in this distribution. This parameter made be part of a population, or it could be part of a probability density function. We also have a function of our random variables, and this is called a statistic. The statistic (X1, X2, . . . , Xn) estimates the parameter T, and so we call it an estimator of T. Unbiased and Biased Estimators We now define unbiased and biased estimators. We want our estimator to match our parameter, in the long run. In more precise language we want the expected value of our statistic to equal the parameter. If this is the case, then we say that our statistic is an unbiased estimator of the parameter. If an estimator is not an unbiased estimator, then it is a biased estimator. Although a biased estimator does not have a good alignment of its expected value with its parameter, there are many practical instances when a biased estimator can be useful. One such case is when a plus four confidence interval is used to construct a confidence interval for a population proportion. Example for Means To see how this idea works, we will examine an example that pertains to the mean. The statistic (X1 X2 . . . Xn)/n is known as the sample mean. We suppose that the random variables are a random sample from the same distribution with mean ÃŽ ¼. This means that the expected value of each random variable is ÃŽ ¼. When we calculate the expected value of our statistic, we see the following: E[(X1 X2 . . . Xn)/n] (E[X1] E[X2] . . . E[Xn])/n (nE[X1])/n E[X1] ÃŽ ¼. Since the expected value of the statistic matches the parameter that it estimated, this means that the sample mean is an unbiased estimator for the population mean.

MGMT 670- STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

MGMT 670- STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT - Assignment Example The possession of a very strong brand name as well as image, which will boost the company’s growth and the reach to the customers. The establishment of a very good supply chain management capability, which will help the smooth inflow and outflow of the retail products along with good customer service. The presence of a very good and attractive customer base and a global presence through a wide global network, that is ready to buy the products available in the retail outlet. The possession of the capabilities and also the competencies by the organic foods retail outlet, which very well matches the key success factors of the industry. The five competitive forces that are the weakest in the Organic foods retail industry are: Product differentiation from those of the rivals. There is no need for the possession of superior technological skills amongst the different competing organic food retail outlets, since they are not in the process of manufacturing products but are involved on ly in the selling of the finished products. Joint ventures with the other firms for possession of superior technology is not required in this case, since the organic food retailers only requires good marketing and advertising skills that are needed for selling the product.

SOCIETY, IMMIGRATION in United States Movie Review

SOCIETY, IMMIGRATION in United States - Movie Review Example The film introduces Sam’s wife, Eva, and then his son Jules and then gradually the whole family. There arise problems for the family as time passes by. Sam and his brothers later get to start their own business selling televisions. The business is a profitable one and lets the businessmen make good money. Television is the newest fad in the market then. The shift from person to person storytelling and newspapers to television marks the transformation in the American society which of course affects the Krichinsky family too. The Jewish family had migrated from Europe and brought with them their old and inherited values and morals without knowing that soon the very things they consider more or less sacred to themselves will be challenged by the American life style. The consumerism of the American family is pictured differently in Avalon as it discusses the early period of development in technology which gave way to the inventions of the television. The emphasis is laid on the fact that the presence of a television set in every American household has caused a serious change in family life, social life and the youth of the country. The family business profits from the television business but it brings with it problems for the Kirchinsky family. The societies are different. The one from which Sam has migrated and the one to which he has willingly migrated. The American dream of prosperity, freedom, justice and equality is beautiful enough to attract people from thousands of miles to the land of opportunity but it does not promise a healthy social and more specifically family life. The Kirchinsky family undergoes several hardships in the new country and finds itself in problems related to the joint family systems. The cultural clash between the Kirchinsky and the Americans signifies the differences between the two when it comes to morals, tolerance and values. The family experiences disagreements, fights and politics when Sam’s wife refuses to