post 1-4 wk 4

Post 4 WK 4
In the Beyond Belief Conference, Susan Newman raised questions about morality. She began her lecture with stories about Abraham from the Bible and how he “bargained” with God before he destroyed the city. However, she made a point that this man was willing to bargain with God to save some innocent people, but when asked to sacrifice his son he did not hesitate. Then bargaining with God Susan said that the Bible writes it in a way that demonstrates Abraham speaking in fear. She goes on to discuss the different interpretations there can be in reading the Bible. She says that there is the fundamentalist and then there are the rationalists. She continues her lecture with questions. One was is everything absolute and she quoted a mans name who I did not get but his answer was a surprise for those who asked. These people were waiting for a solid answer and instead they got something along the lines of truth is the matter of the world and how it is.
Before coming top a closing Susan stated the question can there be a science of morality and her answer was no. She goes on to state the distinctions about morality and science. I think that she is right about there cannot be a science of morality. Morality is not something that can be proved. Morality is more then just an action it is almost a belief. Morality is like the action that is based off of ones belief. I know from my own experience that my morality stems from my being raised in a religious environment. Religion weather it is real for others or not does help with those morality issues. As for science it is all about something that can be proven and supported by facts. But if we used science instead of morality or combined the two our inner conscious, our ability to use our sensitivity in our decisions would be impaired.
Post 3 WK 4
Wow, I read a paper that was written about David Lane and how he began to investigate religions. It began with a school paper and continued despite the opposing persistence of Ekankar. Ekankar is a “religious” group Mr. Lane has proved to be a fake. He proved that a Minister named Paul Twitchell of this group plagiarized a large amount of his teachings from the text of Radhasoami. He also lied about where he came from and where he had been. Besides learning about Mr. Lanes dedication in investigating cults and religions; I have learned that he is more important then I had initially though. The man that was doing the interview even said that Mr. Lane had changed his life. This man was only one in the thousands that followed the Ekankar. Because of Mr. Lanes research, this man was able to walk away from this religion that may not have been in his best interest. Sometimes believing in something, especially when you are already looking for it, can make it even more difficult to see the truth. Just like love, belief can put “blinders” on people. And for many they don’t even know that they are there. Mr. Lane even though I have only read of this man so far I am sure that there are thousands more you have helped. I am sure you have helped these people to pull the blinders of, and I commend you for this. As you have mentioned in the initial class session that there were a lot of threatening calls and letters; it is not an easy task.
Post 2 wk 4
David Lane reviewed “Edgar Cayce and the skeptic” book that was written by Paul Johnson. Paul Johnson’s book was on Cayce’s psychic demonstrations. He wrote about how they were flawed and to some extent how they could have more meaning then what they portrayed. In other words Mr. Johnson may have believed that Mr. Cayce may not have had any physical psychic abilities but maybe he had some cognitive ones. Mr. Lane went through Mr. Johnsons reading and found that there was no clear evidence that neither promotes nor denies Mr. Cayce’s psychic abilities. Mr. Lane also state’s that Mr. Johnson is a rarity because he not only stated thing in a critical matter but also stated thing that demonstrated he had a “spiritual empathy”.
Though there was nothing really about Mr. Cayce I could write about, but I found that the search for truth alone was enough to get my mind rolling. It’s incredible, the amount of research that it must take to go through Mr. Johnson’s book in an effort to separate fact from fiction. I commend you Mr. Lane because I know that this is not the book or person that you have reviewed. It must have not been easy. As you mentioned in the paper you have to be careful in entering a project like this and try not to be so “cynical or dogmatic”. How is it possible to find a balance being open-minded and skeptical? How does a person know when to ask why? Something I believe can be obviously questionable but what about the rest? You also mentioned that you could sense that Mr. Cayce was not what he seemed. I could relate because yes there is the obvious, but there are other things that don’t seem right. Those are the things that you can tell that need to be questioned. I guess what I am trying to say is that analyzing things such as this can be more difficult then anyone probably realizes.
Post 1 wk 4
There were a couple of films done on Sai Baba who was some type of religious man. He was caught during a couple of his ceremonies presenting necklaces to a child and a woman. There is nothing to interesting about that except that he pretended to be getting these necklaces from a high being. In the film it was clearly seen that the necklaces were taken from the opposite hand before presenting it to each person. No one in the audience even noticed what that he was tricking them. Each person in the audience was too fascinated with the man to even care to notice.
It is interesting that no one noticed that he had pulled the necklace from his other hand before presenting it. I think this could be because no one had ever doubted this man. They believed in him, what he said and even his necklace miracles. After each little film there was a short paragraph that described what was being seen. At one point it was written that even though this man wasn’t being truthful he wasn’t presenting any harm. This man was misleading. He had people believing everything that he was saying and doping. What if the necklace thing wasn’t the only thing that he was lying about? Would the people still believe in him if they new he was only pretending to get the necklace from a higher being when he gave those necklaces away? Belief is a strong word and if the truth came out about the necklace I’m sure there would be some people that would believe no matter what.