All Comments (618)

To Pam -- brilliant response to TTW---. Keep it up. even if he/she never gets it, others reading here will.

From E Fave - eternal optimist.

Arminius – reminder – are you going to get back to me on how questioning strengthens your faith?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
Jackie:
“RELIGION IS NO BODY’S BUSINESS?”

IRT:
“… a part of a political campaign demonstrates how far we have wandered from the basic tenets of our system. When the Republican party got "into" kowtowing to the right-wing religious vote, they lost me.’’

ANS:
Jefferson said, “To whom do we seek for our moral exigencies if not the Church?” In addition, Jefferson wrote “"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to p. H. Wendover, 1815. Me 14:283

Further, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever"--Thomas Jefferson. We should know what the candidates’ convictions are about God.

You might try looking at what happened to the Dem Party when they thought religion should be banned from the Public Square. The basic foundation for all Civil Laws went out the window when the Court banned the Ten Commandments and all displays of our duty to God from the Public Square.

Hence, the Dems gave birth to the Sexual Revolution, and the Culture of Death. Human body parts have become a commodity on the open market. Loma Linda Hospital was keeping encephalitic little new born on respirators to keep them alive long enough to harvest their organs when needed.

Two doctors, some time back, wrote in the AMJ that we should test the Swine Flew Vaccine on the invalid orphans in New York orphans home. They wrote that these invalid children served no legitimate purpose to society.

You should familiarize yourself with the writings of a Godless madman, Dr Joseph Fletcher, who chaired the Ethics department at the University of Virginia. He believed it was morally ethical to murder children up to the age of reason (about seven years old) and to eliminate anyone who proved an embarrassment to society.

Hitler thought anyone a burden to society could morally be murdered. Both Fletcher and Hitler believed in neither God nor Christianity.

So in the end, religious belief in politics does matter, and it mattered to the Founding Fathers who wrote that all men are CREATED equal by a God who endowed all men with their inalienable rights.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
Jackie:
“RELIGION IS NO BODY’S BUSINESS?”

IRT:
"The TV show on examining the faiths and belief systems of Senators Clinton and Obama was appalling. I thought we had a government of separation of church and state."

There is no separation of Church and State; that’s a fictitious manipulation the Court used to transgress the laws of the Constitution. You cannot separate religion and morals from government. The Clintons tried by claiming they had a political moral life and a private moral life. We know what that wrought.

Thus, they argued what they did in their private lives didn’t matter in their public lives. On the one hand, they could lie, steal, commit perjury, rape and molest women, and ignore their oath of office if they acted in private. The Dems defended their ignominy.

Hence, the Dems argued that it was licit to be a Jekyll and Hyde. To the contrary, man, unless insane, is an individual responsible for all his acts both public and private and they bear upon his moral integrity private and public because man is the same both private and public.

IRT:
“What business is it of any American to know, let alone dissect the very personal beliefs or lack thereof of a candidate?"

ANS:
The Constitution was based upon our Judeo-Christian heritage. In the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers wrote that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. They are not given by man but by God. If you think they aren’t, remember what man gives man can take away.

Now I think that it is a good idea to know does the candidate believe in God and if he doesn’t, then he’s not fit to be President.

There are many godless nations and their consequences are opprobrious and nefarious. These tragedies are personified in Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, and Hinduism, Buddhism and all other materialistic paganistic beliefs that are proffered as truth.

We have a Court that has legalized the murder of the unborn, making it a Constitutional right. Now one might not care that over 48 million unborn have been murdered by abortion, but the children that were murdered in the womb did.

Unfortunately, many of the mothers regret their abortions, only it too late after abortion. A mistake made in abortion is irretrievable.

Though in some botched abortions, the child survived to have the butcher doctor drown the child in the mother’s blood or strangle it to death.

A slippery slope is being visibly proliferated by those who do not believe in the sacredness of human life. From abortion, we've justified partial birth abortion, euthanasia, the murder of the defenseless, and the comatose. Newborn invalids are left to die in hospital utility rooms. The old and senile are injected with overdoses of drugs to cause their death, and was admitted to by some 35 percent of anonymous doctors in one survey.

I like to know what is a candidate's religious view of human life and how do they perceive God, as a pantheist, an agnostic, or are they atheists.

Obama is an unmitigated abortionist. So is Hillary. Every one should know if they believe in the First Commandment, a belief in God, the Fifth, laws against murder, in the Ninth and Tenth, do not covet one's wife or goods?

Are they against adultery? Do they believe in the Seventh and Eighth, against lying and stealing, and the Fourth, the honor of family?

Are they against the undermining of the tradition family and do they believe in Homosexual Marriage? Our nation depends on these principles; they are the basis that America’s greatness was built on.

Maybe to you, it’s not any of your business that the Court under the tutorship of Justice Stephens, wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that traditional moral values served no legitimate purpose to the State, but they are my business.

“Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,” ante, at 17.

What has the Court done? Justice Scalia replies, “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision [that rejected Bowers].

Scalia: “This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review—Scalia."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“Clinton, Obama, McCain: Human Beings, Not Moral
Paragons “
IRT
“I cannot imagine any political process less suited to finding out whether a candidate is either honest or trustworthy than the American way of running for the presidency in an era when "character" is defined by shrinking sound bites and endless video loops on blogs.”

ANS:
Nor can anyone with the least modicum of intelligence comply with that definition. Those who subscribe to that definition are either shallow, disinterested, lazy, and irresponsible or all the foregoing.

Moreover, there is no reason that such a definition be acceptable by the vast majority when there is so much available information out there as web sites that will give you the records and answers on any active politician that is running for office.

However, sound bites and blogs are getting their succorance from the liberal left-wing media, like the NY Times, Newsweek, LA Times, the Boston Globe, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and the Miami Herald.

The dumbing down of public education figures as another factor. How many lower grade schools and high schools teach Civics?

How many college students can’t read or write on a 5th grade level? I saw a report on TV some time back that checked the knowledge of college students. At Florida State University over half the students couldn’t find Florida on a world map. of course, any one can watch the questions asked on the street by Jay Leno about who are Cheney, Rice, or Reid and get blanks.

http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2003-4.html#uhs
A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE:
"Bemoaning the decline in U.S. educational standards has become a popular public sport. American students' embarrassing ignorance of world geography, basic science and math, and declining literacy is the profitable subject of government committees, philanthropic foundations, corporate think tanks, armies of consultants, and educational bureaucracies, who all continually demand more resources and money even as the problem worsens.

"Perversely, it seems that the severity of the problem has become proportional to the amounts of money and effort devoted to studying and "fixing" it.

“Until very recently, I believed that the quality of herbal education, as well as of general and university education, was merely a function of determining the right curriculum and teaching methods and then convincing the proper authorities to adopt them.

"Only in the last few years have I gradually come to the conclusion that the system of American public education itself is so deeply and irreversibly flawed that it cannot be fixed”

The Respected Senator John McCain would “Never,” even consider such an absurdity “the MAN is a US War Veteran,” and Senator Obama you could learn a thing or two from John McCain.

Citizens living in Hawai’i are having fits “absolutely outraged,” writing endless letters and commentaries (Comments) to both the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star Bulletin since they printed that the appointed junior Senator is coming to Hawai’i possibly giving a speaking engagement inside Punchbowl National Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. It’s a Veteran’s National Cemetery not Obama’s personal “Soap Box,” to stand on and rant; it’s a place for those resting in peace. The people of Hawaii are angry at the thought of this and have every right to be at the report he’s planning this – it’s a disgrace. Punchbowl would NOT be a "wonderful backdrop." Talk about crass -- speechifying in a national cemetery during a political campaign. Imagine this: thousands of enthralled Obama supporters rushing around the cemetery to get close to the man, trampling over the graves of men and women who've given their lives in service to their country. The reactions posted in Comments still, when the idea of a Punchbowl speech was first floated are from angry families whose loved ones rest in peace. National cemeteries are no place for political speeches. Makes you wonder about the maturity and integrity of the people who proposed such a preposterous idea in the first place.

Senator sell your socialism opinions on Capitol Hill, Hawaii’s questioning and lost respect for the “so-called,” junior appointed Senator who’s turned into another Washington D.C.*Wanna-bee* just allot of talk nothing more. You’d make a great car salesman NOT A PRESIDENT you seem to sell plenty of B.S. to those not wise enough to read between the lines of a script written performance; every word out of your mouth is written by a paid staff member whose worked the D.C. circuit for years like the well known Mr. Rove,” Yes, he too, could write a good speech and America bought it; just look at our current sitting “Bobble head,” in the oval office.

Webster’s Fourth Edition describes Barack Obama as a “HYPOCRITE,” His own Pastor taught Trinity Church words of hate and racism while the Senator and his air-head-of-a-wife passed the tithe platter not giving even as 20 year members. He doesn’t support any causes really, not even his own Church “just the views of Reverend Wright’s anti-White; anti-Israel; anti-American points of view. A “greedy,” Senator is described in the Bible as a “HYPOCRITE,” as well. He’s a Racist Elitist Marxist or the Antichrist reading his well written speeches. the *Wanna-bee* Washington Politician has in less then 12 months become a disgrace to Christianity– He’s not a Christian man of his word; a poor excuse for one.

The Punchbowl National Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii is a sacred place for the many lying in Peace, Those US Military young and old, Men and Woman who gave their lives to this country will turn over in their graves at the sound of Obama’s political performance if he speaks there. Punchbowl Cemetery it’s not a place for a campaign rally “The Senator should keep his political performances with its Washington Socialism undertones to an area more suiting for “HYPOCRITES,” Senator your always welcomed to rant at Neil Abercrombie’s headquarters, but Punchbowl Cemetery is a resting place of peace and should remain so for those who rest there, - not an arena for your personal political agenda; Show some decency and class moron.

The TV show on examining the faiths and belief systems of Senators Clinton and Obama was appalling. I thought we had a government of separation of church and state. What business is it of any American to know, let alone dissect the very personal beliefs or lack thereof of a candidate? The arrogance of people to even suggest that this be a part of a political campaign demonstrates how far we have wandered from the basic tenets of our system. When the Republican party got "into" kowtowing to the right-wing religious vote, they lost me. Now, I hear Hillary speaking out of both sides of her mouth on the subject of "pro-choice."
Not for her, but, but, but...... She panders......and the saddest part is she probably "has to" to ever have the slimmest chance of elect ability. It seems "no one" in the news speaks to this melding of religion in our country. Europe long gave up trying to moralize after the horrors of WWII. How could a god let the atrocities happen? As a middle age white woman, born and raised a Catholic, this makes me wince. What I believe in or what spirituality brings me comfort is so profound and personal is none of anyone's business. Where are you America????

Gerry wrote "There were big laughs here!"

That is suppose to be the purpose of the book - to solicit laughter. But I didn't expect the dumb would find it funny too. That's an indication that it could be a best seller. Thanks for the encouraging comment. I could be laughing all the way to the bank. HAHA

DILTD:

This is in reply to your post on the previous thread.

Thank you so much for your comments. The book you mention sounds very interesting. Can you give me the title?

Basically, what I am trying to say you have said.

As for the Bible, what I'm saying is that there is, as you know, biblical scholarship. It involves, arcaheology, text studies, mythology, linguistics, etc. It has raised many questions about the Christian Bible (OT/NT). However, the "scentific" study of the Bible is contentious. It has also left questions unanswered. Yet, people with various agendas grab at what's handy to make premature cases.

Another point is that "science" does not proceed in a vaccuum. What gets funding, i.e., atomic weapons, what does not, is often not in control of scientists. The ability to replicate findings is often hampered, and all too often the "scientific" community accepts them prematurely for various reasons. Etc. I am not against science, just to its deification and the notion that it is purely cognitive in nature.

As we have both noted, scientists, mathematicians, Nobelists think otherwise.

I enjoy reading your posts as well. This last one, the parts on intuition, I would like all my fellow atheists to read. Perhaps, you will paste it on this thread.

Yours,
M. Anonymous

Thanks, Anonymous, for the comment on Spiderman's "stupid" and "intelligent" answers! A double confirmation of my little limerick. There were big laughs here!

Dear Spiderman

I had 51 credits of math in college, which is more than most math majors. But that does not prove anything about our arguments, just that you do not know anything abould the people that you belittle.

Perplexed wrote "There are engineers and then there are engineers".

True. Iam an engineer and you are not.

Daniel den "Spiderman could just as easily doubt that the earth is round".

That was before I became an engineer. Evolutionists are more inclined to believe that the earth is flat because upto now, Paleoanthroplogists are not taught the relationship between the roundness of the earth or moon to gravity.

Fate, it's not called medical discovey based on evolution. It's simply called discovery thru experiments.

Everett, what do you not understand in the phrase "many factors"?.

Fate, how did kangaroos hopped to australia? I like that question and I'll ponder on that. But Im very sure bacterias didn't turn into kangaroos coz if that were true, there would be lots of kangaroos in your head by now. Remember , you said that your brain came from a bacterias.

Daniel Den, had you encountered algebra or any math field? I really wonder how you passed it if you had. Science is not Intuition. do you understand that?

HOW DID SOIL TURN INTO BRAIN? Guys, you disappointed me.

Merry Anonymous

I like reading your posts, because you seem thoughtful, but I am still not sure what you are meaning.

For example, even though I was raised in a Christian family, and I was raised on the Bible, and know it pretty well from beginning to end, I do not know much about this kind of Biblical scholarship that you are referring to. Bascially, all of the references are unknown to me.

Perhaps this demonstrates that even though there may be many intelligent people posting here with many intelligent and valid things to say, we all have such utterly different backgrounds, experiences, and interests that it is sometimes difficult for us to understand each other.

You said that science posits false beliefs and does not correct itself for centuries. I am aware of this. That is why scientific truth should not be thought of as objective truth, but it should be thought of as the consensus of opinion among scientists on scientific matters. And then, it is wise, not to have blind faith and trust in this consensus of opinion, but to try and understand the reason behind this consensus of opinion.

You also mentioned the intuitive aspects of science. I am also aware of this. So it is said, and I believe, that Isaac Newton had a sudden insight into gravity and the laws of motion, and then he sought to prove them. It is also said, that Albert Einstein had a sudden insight into the nature of "relativity," that an absolute speed of light implies weird things happening to space and time. Louis deBroglie was not even a physicist; his brother was; but he chimed in with his insight about the wave-particle duality of matter, and won a Nobel prize for it. Archimedes had his sudden insight on how to measure the mass of something by the water it displaces, while he sat in a bath-tub, and then jumped up and yelled, "eureka;" meaning, "I've got it."

A few years ago, I read a book which referred to this moment of insight as "metanoia" which the author described as "a sudden restructuring of thought." So, I believe, that most of the great scientific innovations in the way that we think about the world came not from the "scientific" method, but from this strange metanoia, in which, for a moment, a single person, is able to perceive some fundamental aspect of reality, that other people cannot see.

That is why I say putting together a picture of the world is really more of an artful judgement, and not necessarily so methodical as people may idealize science to be.

I had a bunch more things to say here, but they have all suddenly slipped my mind (reverse metanoia).

PaganPlace:

I wasn't thinking of you when I mentioned false idolatry. (I prefer "idoling.") I was thinking of the last four or five hundred years. And, really, have no fear that I see religion and science as equivalent.

I thought I had made that clear in my posts. Certainly, I do not see them as interchangeable. On the other hand, it is hard to argue with Adorno (at least for me) in his argument that myth already contained enlightenment, enlightenment myth.

Nothwistanding the huge critiques mounted against Cartesian tninking by Adorno and others, I do maintain that the "commandment" to doubt is of lasting importance. That goes to Science, as well, however, to the myth that we are somehow evolving. As I look around, I fear we may evolve ourselves into extinction.

I don't know if I'm being clear. "Scientifically," we are in one place, morally, culturally, in another. Also, as an atheist, I have watched other atheists talk to those who believe in different religions as if they were benighted morons. THe one does not necessarily follow from the other. Moreover, one can quite easily be benighted and an atheist, as I'm sure you know.

And then too there is the complexity of religious belief. In speaking with Christians, Catholics, Muslims and Jews, whose degree of observance varies, I have been repeatedly struck by the number who are highly skeptical when it comes to an afterlife. Of course, Judaism has little to say on the matter, but not so, the other religions I mention. Religious Muslims, Christians, and Catholics, have said, sometimes quite humorously, that, no, they do not expect their "souls" to be going anywhere at any time post mortem.

It is the contempt I sometimes hear among fellow atheists that disturbs me. Where were they in South America when priests were risking their lives, dying to free people from some of the horror around them? The contempt sometimes bothers me.

The faith that we are moving ahead, the astonishment at the huge progress "we've" made. Who is we? Someone said he wondered where we would be today if, say, in the 1600s, we had the internet, etc. I responded that genocide was underway against indigenous peoples in that century, notably here. If the indigenes had had the internet, cell phones, access to explosives....

Who knows....maybe, the other commenter was right. Maybe, they would have won, and we would be living in a better world. But, seriously, I do not think that he or she had included them in his/her "we."

You are quite right to worry about false equivalencies. So do I. But I think that worry about false idols is also justified. (As is worry about gnosis)

M. Anonymous :)

I worry about *false equivalency,* Merry. Which is actually our real and present problem.

As for my 'idols' I assure you there's no falsity involved. As fun as it is for others to claim otherwise. :)

PaganPlace:

Thank you for your thoughts. Actually, you will have to define what you mean by the "scientific method," a concept introduced centuries ago, that is less and less universally understood as specialization and subspecialization continue apace.

No, I don't think I'm confused on the points I make. Science may be used to signify a set of beliefs, principles, values, as it has been quite consistently on these threads, or instrumentally, as it has been every great once in awhile. You might want to think of these two senses as Science and science.

Science (and science) does not dispense with intuition as has been remarked on this thread. Quite the contrary.

I worry about false idolatry, an ongoing problem in our culture and in many others.

At all events, I wouldn't personalize. It quite defeats the purpose of this discussion.

"Another thought: When people posit Science, a perfect set of beliefs and practices, they are placing there faith in something that does not exist. They are idealizing."

No... this is not science. This is what religious people who insist science is a rival 'religion' *believe in their religion* about science.

Science neither accepts nor denies 'faith.' This is not what science is *for.*

Science is a tool, and a body of observation. No more, and abso-smurfly no less. Science and the scientific method itself is not confused on this point. Someone else is.

DILTD,

Another thought: When people posit Science, a perfect set of beliefs and practices, they are placing there faith in something that does not exist. They are idealizing.

Their views are optimistic, based on success. They lose sight of all that is tragic in our actual history with science.

Theirs is an act of faith. It really is the binaries that bother me, not that there is no distinction to be made between science and religion. Of course, there is.

Hi, Arminius! :)

"It is SO real that sometimes I feel I must have been there. No reason or history can explain this; I suppose it is some tremendous empathy born of my 'inner knowledge'."

Used to be, there was some folks called that 'Gnosis.' Kind of overstacked the deck. Things got sticky.

My lil' tribe like to call it 'mythic consciousness' or suchlike.

Careful yer myths, you might just find they ..become... you.

Capiche, my friend?

Dear DITLD,

Thanks for your comments.
I guess the best I can do is say I agree. What troubles me in this and the last thread is the polarization between "belief" and "reason," never clearly defined.

Empiricism and reason are not the same. There is a definitional distinction. Where some religions, not all, say believe, science says doubt. This, I think, is among its invaluable contributions to human thought.

But science also involves belief, does not necessarily correct itself for centuries, etc., is highly fallible. Some beliefs end up in what scientists call "intuitive leaps," also evident in mathematical invention. The double helix comes to mind.

It is the binarism that troubles me. We have evidence. You have superstition.

As for the Farnaz business, what I was trying to say is there seemed to be an investment in this new document as (a) somehow indicative of a group's or sub-group's core understanding (it is not), and that its selection of articles is definitive (they are not).

Biblical research, especially of OT/Tanakh, is complex. Problems remain with unexcavated sites, sites that have been destroyed. Myths of the region are extremely important (for NT research as well.) The identities and periods in which various learned men wrote these accounts, etc., etc., etc. What to do with conflicting accounts.

How to answer the lingering questions about why certain elements of the OT are literally unique in epic myth.

This last question does not attest to the existence of a supreme being, of course. But it is an important question, that, thus far, has not been answered.

How Judaism evolved throughout the centuries of the OT/Tanakh before the door was shut permanently.

The Judaic impulse toward interpretation. The dismissal of a much earlier belief system which Christianity took up.

Christianity as a reform impulse re Judaism. Islam as a reform impulse re Christianity.

Typology, its relation to racism, nationalism, imperialism, etc.

Religion and patriarchy. (Some religions, that is.)

The questions of most interest, at least to me, are these.

The more biblical research we do, the more we can understand the evolution of belief and some of the strangely accurate material in the OT. The more we understand when and how certain interpretations became institutionalized in the various religions, the better we can understand how they maintained or lost influence, how that influence evolved, the shape it took, the interests it advanced.

I am an atheist. However, I cannot say with absolute certainty that my way is the better way, that without religion, we'd have one less false belief system to deal with, a salutary development.

Here is a silly game. Suppose tomorrow the world was re-created without religion and every human being in it was pink.

What then?

Merry Anonymous

Dear Merry Anonymous

I am not quite understanding what you were saying. When Farnaz was posting, I understood almost nothing that she said. She made many references unfamiliar to me, so I do not think I commented at all.

I have this to say about your comments on belief. It is said that we believe some things, and we know other things. We use these words casually and easily, as though they are simple verbs, describing "actions" with easy meanings. And often, it is not important to make a distinction between one or the other.

But then, later on, when you try to decide what is the difference in the things you believe and the things you know, then it is not so easy to say what these two words mean; but if you think about it a little harder, surely, you could make the distinction. But when you think about it a little harder, then the obscurity of these words grows and intensifies.

And so, that is why I say I believe in almost nothing, and I also do not think that I know much either. I have judgements on what I think may be true, or is probably true, and I derive these judgemnets from thinking about things in many different ways.

People say that we believe in religion, according to what has been taught to us, but we know science because we do experiements to prove science. But do we really? No, not really. Somebody does scientific experiments, but most of us do not bother to prove all of scientific theory and knowledge ouselves. Instead, we hear about science from what other people write or tell us, and then we believe it is true or we do not believe it is true.

Everything that we do not know from our own senses, we know because someone else has told us. And often, our own senses give a wrong impression of things, so that we must depend on what other people tell us to supercede what our senses tell us. For example, our senses tell us that the world is flat, but scientists tell us that it is round, and if they have a good enough argument, and we trust them, then we agree, that their opinion is more true than our sensory perceptions.

And so, putting together a picture of what the world is like, is actually a kind of art, in which we collect chuncks of belief, and chunks of knowledge, scattered thoughout the landscape of the world which we inhabit, and available to us in the various settings into which we have been born.

Some people have a great interest and appreciation for the collection of these chunks of belief and knowledge, and can arrange them artfully and beautifully, just as one might collect art. But, others, are not good at it; do not care much; find it in fact, boring.

Some people accept this landscape in which we dwell, and perceive it with animal senses, without curiousity, and they accept the religious beliefs handed to them from the previous generation, without effort or stress, and that is good enough for them.

I am not meaning to trivialize belief, but only say that I have a hard time saying what it is, only that is an expression of an inner will.

I am not a scientist although I do have limited expertise in certain religions. That said, a number of discussion points on this thread trouble me. First, it seems to me that the most convincing hypthesis for any phenomena is the extent to which it either explains other phenomena or can be superficially or synthetically replicated.

Using these criteria, which offers the better hypothesis: creationism or evolution?

A second problem I see here is the notion that "belief" is somehow trivial. I believe in equal rights for all Americans. Had that profession of belief not been made and remade and made again, where would be now? And we have a long, long way to go. We are nowhere near the point at which we might say I believe in equal rights for all the world's citizens.

Third, occasionally, and no offense intended, some statements made here seem reductive to me. The idea that science invitably brings progress or proceeds directly from the ether is one.

A fourth goes to matters religious. I emphatically do not want to be involved in or to ressurect the Etz Haym discussion, but I do recall feeling for Farnaz, who was patiently trying to explain that archaeological evidence does not account for everything. From my own studies, I can tell you that this is the case. There are many other kinds of evidence, as she tried to say. As well, the presence of unexcavated sites truly does make some of Etz Haym problematic, as does the tossing of questions that will not go away in religious studies. That is what Etz Haym did. It simply discounted a couple of questions that many in religious studies refuse to discount.

Just thinking....

Asking her if she accepts or rejects/agrees or disagrees, etc., disallows answers containing any subtlty.

Given the paucity of evidence, given that many Christians and Catholics believe that their way is contained in the NT, it would be much simpler to do this sort of thing with that document. And it would be very important, very important for many Christians and Catholics to know when certain interpretations were introduced, "canonized" and institutionalized. Priests have acknowledged openly that they do not believe in the literal existence of the trinity, that there is no such thing as hell, which, incidentally, has been assigned a specific above-ground location. Why not share with the faithful?

With respect to religion, one can retain a spiritual kind of thinking and accept cautiously those findings that should be accepted, AS well AS their limitations, the latter from a more "scientific" perspective.

E Fav,

Missed a post of yours, found it while searching for something else. Here goes:

#1 - I won't call you 'dear Lady' again. It was meant as a term of respect, but I defer to you.

#2 - As to having my own 'inner knowledge' of God, and then diving into the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus - well... the quest continues. That 'inner knowledge' lit a fire in me to see what was available out there. To have my faith in God and not see how it fit into the world as perceived, into history, into my relations with my fellow humans, would be a fruitless cop-out! I have no intention of spending the rest of my life sitting on a mountain and contemplating my navel. Anyway, I am a naturally curious person. I find no contradiction here, I think it is a natural path to follow, just as I find no contradiction between belief and science. Yes, I have found acceptance of the Gospels, and of Jesus. It was His words that did it. Took four readings of the Gospels. And yes, His passion, death, and resurrection are real to me. I don't yet know how to handle that. It is SO real that sometimes I feel I must have been there. No reason or history can explain this; I suppose it is some tremendous empathy born of my 'inner knowledge'.

Best I can do for now. Keep it coming.

Arminius

Sputterman2's post on CD vs. LP was so stupid and uninformative that I feel compelled to respond. He basically said, "all things considered, perfect reproduction of sound is better than imperfect reproduction." Well, that's a big help.

LPs introduce distortion related to the deterioration of the signal as it is carved into the master, copied to the presses, and stamped into the final LPs. There is also distortion introduced by imperfect speed of the turntable, warping of the LP, groove and stylus contaminants, scratches, and wear of both the groove and the stylus. As Mr. Mark correctly indicates, some of these distortions are pleasing (e.g. the "warmth" of low-frequency noise). Some are now used to great effect in "Trip Hop" music (e.g. pop and hiss).

CDs introduce "digital noise," which is the difference between the original signal and the piecewise step function that is encoded on the disk. Since the sampling rate is high, this frequency of this noise is also high, and has a quasi-sawtooth waveform. Personally, I'm not sure if I can hear it, although I have heard audiophiles complain about it sounding "harsh".

I recorded some of my LPs to CD, and as far as I can tell the "warmth" is still there, which suggests that it is due to distortions in the LP format rather than a part of the legitimate signal that is lost in the CD process.

All in all, I prefer CDs. Just think how pissed you would be if you bought a CD that had all the noise we used to just accept in LPs.

And besides, Perplexed, it doesn't even matter if an engineer does not accept evolution; it does not even matter if a scientist does not accept evolution; the consensus of opinion remains as it is, or changes, according to the opinions, findings, observations, and explanations of many people, not of any one person.

As I said in an earlier post, you know some things by your own senses, and you know other things by consensus, by what other people say, and of those other people, whom you decide to trust, and why you trust them, who among them have credibility, and who does not.

I do not think that anybody should feel compelled to put all their blind trust and faith in everything that science says. Yet, science has earned a great deal of trust, and is overall, pretty trustworthy.

Spiderman wants me to prove evolution to him, like proving how much something weighs, by weighing. But evolution is a sophistocated concept; to understand it requires some degree of intellectual capacity, and some degree of sincerity, in seeking truth and knowledge, and an energetic curiousity; without any of these qualities, what really is the point in knowing something of a complex and sophisticated nature?

Spiderman could just as easily doubt that the earth is round; he could say "prove it" and then what would I do to prove it?

Rather than try to prove it to someone like him, I would be inclined to say, "suit yourself; the world is flat."

We've said this before, and apparently it will have to be said again for the benefit of those 'engineers' that dispute evolution as a well-established scientific reality.

All the hard sciences are represented in this pursuit - computer science, physics and astro-physics, genetics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and the general field of medicine are all among the various fields of science that now contribute greatly to our ever-evolving knowledge of the processes of evolution.

Without the electron microscope, for example, we'd know far less about the fundamental role of DNA in disease processes, inherited characteristics, medical anomalies, and the life-affirming spectral process of evolution itself. And who actually builds electron micro-scopes from the complex physics 'blueprints' required for the construction of these useful gadgets??

I suppose we have to give optical engineers and other engineering specialites working in tandem a certain amount of credit for actually fabricating these amazing devices.

And as far as we know, none have refused to build electron microscopes because the DNA information thus obtained leads to knowledge that runs counter to the biblical understanding of the origins of life - and for that we are most fortunate!

There are engineers and then there are engineers.

I realize that it is late in the discussion to bring this up again, but I can't resist. I always thought that E Fav was a woman. Her scrupulously gender neutral posts were, to me, the very thing that made me believe that she was a woman. My wife used to post on various boards before she died, and she was always gender neutral. She said that people then had only the words with no gender-based biases.

I also thought of E Fav as quite chic. Jill Sander power suit with maybe Christian Louboutin pumps.

And for everyone else

I am not really arguing with Spiderman, whom I do not regard seriously. He is a good foil, that helps clarify my own thinking, by pondering how wrong he almost always is on just about everything.

Angela whined: "Also, why is it that if someone believes in creation they are dehumanized on this post: well, again, human depravity...."

I haven't seen much in the way of dehumanizing, just asking where the evidence is for it or why you ignore evidence against it. If its all based on faith, fine! Faith cannot be proved. A belief is a belief and if you want to believe in biblical creation, or the flying spaghetti monster, that is ok with me, just don't expect to tell me its true and be surprised when I don't believe it when the evidence against both is overwhelming. If you were to tell me the world was created last Thursday and will be destroyed this Thursday I could not disprove it but I would still say you have nothing to back it up and it is just as much of a belief as the biblical creaton and apocholyptic stories.

For Spiderman

It's called a joke; look it up.

Columbus thought he was in the Indies. Where do you think the aboriginal name "Indian" came from?

But Columbus was not really a scientist, and he never realized that he had discovered a New World. But the pseudo-scienctific consensus of opinion (for in those days, there really was no institutional science such as we have now) quickly morphed into the realization that they had not travelled to India but had discoverd a New World.

And what of people who refused to believe in the New World, saying, but it can't be; how can it be? It's not in the Bible; all the world there is to know is already known; there can't be any New World' it just can't be.

That is where Spiderman would enter the conversation.

Spiderman2 wrote: "To prove my point that this man is a quack, let him list down the MEDICAL DISCOVERY based on evolution. What are they? Im very interested to know."

Here are a few:

-The drop in iron in the blood during a fevor is seen in all mammals when they have fevors. Evolution says that this must be beneficial to the organism since it is being retained through the evolutionary tree, but before evolution it was considered harmful since you need iron to be strong. Scientists test the hypothesis that depriving bacteria of iron slows down their growth and find it to be true. So a drop in iron helps battle an infection.

-Similarly, since a fevor is a response to an infection and seen in all mammals it must be a beneficial response to infection for it to be retained through evolution. Scientists test the hypothesis and show that sure enough, raise the tempurature on some bad bugs from 98.6 to 102 and they slow down. So taking aspirin to lower a fevor may lead to a prolonged infection. This was not understood until the realization that animals have this same response, and that evolutionary theory does not retain what is useless or harmful led researchers to understand that adding iron or aspirin to a patient may do more harm than good.

-You can also look at the understanding of sickle cell anemia. The question was always "why would evolution allow sickle cell anemia to exist"? If you have both genes for it you die very young. If you have just one gene (and thus one normal gene too), you live but with the pain and sickness of sickle cell anemia. Evolutionary theory says this disease is a very recent mutation or that the gene actually provides some benefit. Following up on that benefit idea researchers discovered that the malaria parasite dies in the veins of those with sickle cell anemia, making them less prone to malaria. And guess where we find people with the gene for sickle cell anemia? Right in west africa, where malaris exists. Evolution thus helped explain why sickle cell anemia exists.

Spiderman2 wrote: "All the advancement in medicine like stethoscope, CAT Scan, etc are done by engineers and not by paleontologists or anthropologists."

As an engineer I'll take that as a complement. But medicine is not fed by only one science. Evolutionary theory is just one science helping medical research in areas like tissue transplantation research, neurological research and all animal studies since the link from animal to man must be understood to be sure the animals are good models for that experiment being done on a human. This involves the evolutionary links.

Now, Spiderman2, I'm waiting for the answer to my question: How did the kangaroos hop off the ark at Mt. Ararat to Australia?

How can we justify that lying, hypocrisy and other moral depraved issues politicians have give us the excuse to say; well, no one's perfect. Well, what about character refinement and not just excusing one's personal human deficiences. In a nutshell, this country is probably in the worst moral decay it's ever been in and I wasn't around when Abraham Lincoln was president but my take: none of the candidates exemplies Abraham Lincoln's courage, faith and determination for this country. Since I will not stay home on election day, I guess I'll take the less of all 3 evils. Also, why is it that if someone believes in creation they are dehumanized on this post: well, again, human depravity....That's the mission statement here...

Somebody asked, which is better a CD or an LP record?

From an engineer's point of view : CD is a digital recording while LP is an analog. Our ear captures sound in an analog way so theoretically speaking if nothing was lost or added to the purity of the original sound as it was recorded analogously, it is always ANALOG that is better.

In the real world, Im not sure if that can be achieved so it becomes subjective. Meaning, a CD can be better or an LP record can be better depending on many factors.

C ya later guys. Class is over. Continue throwing chalks and don't catch them with your mouth.

"we are in India!"

What they thought as India, was actually South America. If that is your kind of scientist, NO WONDER you guys are LOST.

Dear Sir or Madam Pseudo,

I can tell you based on some truly miserable years of study, as can others now engaged in same activity intellectual,the man remains enormously influential. HIs imprint is universal and not only in linguistics. If you are involved in computational linguistics, you've seen it there as well.

One of his strongest influences was his teacher, whom some say he simply made comprehensible. Everyone who followed der Fader followed der Fader.

Pseudo, my regardful comrade, Bewildful has inquired if he might be among the regarded. What say you?

Regard,
Merry Anomymous

I hate to drop this great big bomb on Spiderman, BUT an engineer is not a scientist; an engineer is an engineer.

It's like this:

When Columbus came on his voyage to the New World, the engineers are the ones who built the ships, and navigated the way; the scientists were the ones who stepped ashore in the New World, and proclaimed in tremulous awe, "we are in India!"

Should be:
"For neighbour our good man writes neighbor."

Oh dear. Neighbor just looks so wrong to me.

What dunce was it who did maintain
Speed and myself were just the same?
Besides contrasts too great to tell
The man does not know how to spell.
For neighbour our good man writes neighbour
And labour he inscribes as labor.
A man of few words it is true
And, as it seems, few letters too!

Dear Pseudo and MA,

It is my most considered opinion--assuming that one's opinion *can* be considerate for in some sense is not an opinion *against* one's good adversary as well as *for* one's good self *not* considerate? (I only ask)--that your exchange of posts was indeed honourable. I would hope that in future you could carry on in this enlightened method. I also will strive to duplicate your honourable methodology. In this fashion I hope to endeavour to distinguish myself from the aforementioned Speed123 who, whilst of course sharing our ancient Catholic faith, is rather more direct in his missives.

Yours faithfully,
Mary Cunningham
London

Fate wrote : "But how primitive life, bacterial like organisms, turned into brain is known through evolution."

That can only be true if your brain is as small as a bacteria. In that case, we have nothing to contend about.

Holly Dunsworth wrote "I believe evolution. It's easy. It's my life. I'm a paleoanthropologist."

I am an Engineer. I am more of a scientist than paleoanthropologists are. Paleontology and anthropology is a mixture of science and intuition. Intuition is NOT science. In my field, intuition is discarded. We only accept PURE SCIENCE that can be PROVEN mathematically AND can be PROVEN in the lab. NO TRICKS, JUST PURE SCIENCE.

HOW DID SOIL TURN INTO BRAIN? Unless it can't be shown in the lab, it's purely INTUITION and in my field, it is as good as GARBAGE.

Holly Dunsworth wrote "My health is better because of medical research based on evolution."

To prove my point that this man is a quack, let him list down the MEDICAL DISCOVERY based on evolution. What are they? Im very interested to know.

All the advancement in medicine like stethoscope, CAT Scan, etc are done by engineers and not by paleontologists or anthropologists.

spiderman2 asked: "HOW DID SOIL TURN TO BRAIN?"

Soil did not turn into brain. You need to understand that first. The first life is not known and scientists admit that, though they have ideas, but how the first life "happened" is not known, yet. But how primitive life, bacterial like organisms, turned into brain is known through evolution.

Now, may I ask you a question: HOW DID THE KANGAROOS HOP FROM AUSTRALIA TO THE ARK, THEN AFTER THE ARK LANDED AT MT. ARARAT, HOW DID THE KANGAROOS HOP BACK TO AUSTRALIA?

For Spidey -

Maybe this will help:

I Am Evolution
by Holly Dunsworth

Weekend Edition Sunday, May 11, 2008.

I believe evolution. It's easy. It's my life. I'm a paleoanthropologist. I study fossils of humans, apes and monkeys, and I teach college students about their place in nature.

Of course I believe evolution.

But that is different from believing in evolution.

To believe in something takes faith, trust, effort, strength. I need none of these things to believe evolution. It just is. My health is better because of medical research based on evolution. My genetic code is practically the same as a chimpanzee's. My bipedal feet walk on an earth full of fossil missing links. And when my feet tire, those fossils fuel my car.

To believe in something also implies hope. Hope of happiness, reward, forgiveness, eternal life. There is no hope wrapped up in my belief. Unless you count the hope that one day I'll discover the most beautifully complete fossil human skeleton ever found, with a label attached saying exactly what species it belonged to, what food it ate, how much it hunted, if it could speak, if it could laugh, if it could love and if it could throw a curveball. But this fantasy is not why I believe evolution — as if evolution is something I hope comes true.

After all the backyard bone collecting I did as a child, I managed to carve out a career where I get to ask the ultimate question on a daily basis: "Where did I come from and how?"

If our beliefs are important enough, we live our lives in service to them. That's how I feel about evolution. My role as a female Homo sapiens is to return each summer to Kenya, dig up fossils, and piece together our evolutionary history. Scanning the ground for weeks, hoping to find a single molar, or gouging out the side of a hill, one bucket of dirt at a time, I'm always in search of answers to questions shared by the whole human species. The experience deepens my understanding not just about what drives my life, but all our lives, where we came from. And the deeper I go, the more I understand that everything is connected. A bullfrog to a gorilla, a hummingbird to me, to you.

My belief is not immutable. It is constantly evolving with accumulating evidence, new knowledge and breakthrough discoveries. For example, within my lifetime, our history has expanded from being rooted 3 million years ago with the famous Lucy skeleton, to actually beginning over 6 million years ago with a cranium from Chad. The metamorphic nature of my belief is not at all like a traditional religious one; it's more like seeing is believing.

So I believe evolution.

I feel it. I breathe it. I listen to evolution, I observe it and I do evolution. I write, study, analyze, scrutinize and collect evolution. I am evolution.

Independently produced for Weekend Edition Sunday by Jay Allison and Dan Gediman with John Gregory and Viki Merrick.

This article is from the Richard Dawkins website.

My Dear Merry Anonymous:

"Except for the Chomsky part. From that first "Apples are good to eat" to the present, it's been Chomsky all the way."

John Backus advanced BNF to describe the syntax of the International Algorithmic Language (Algol 60). Chomsky picked up on that kind of grammar and tried to describe the syntax of English with it. Using a syntactic device from computer languages to try capture semantics of human language didn't work very well.

Best Regards,

Pseudo

Spiderman2 vs the global scientific community on the question of evolution - somehow this doesn't seem like a fair fight.

And I have to agree - spidey is a textbook example of a resident living in the State of Denial. If he had spent less time throwing chalk in school he'd have passed English 101 and gone on to much bigger things. Perhaps as a paleoanthropologist or evolutionary biologist, instead of a biblical fundamentalist - but then, I guess we'll never know.

I said

"The whole thing comes down to an artful judgement of what is more probably true than not true."

You have a tin ear, with no artful judgement, when it comes down to sorting through the chunks of knowledge that we have gathered over the past few thousand years.

You do not accept the consensus of science, and that is how you think. But sciece continues on, despite your artless judgement.

You keep bringing up your nonsense question, how did brains come from dirt? Are you saying that all matter comes from the same source? And is this your reason for disproving evolution?

But posing a theorectical thought-question of what might be, or could not possibly be, cannot change the consensus of scietific opinion. Evolution is real, but for no reason that we know of. If something is real, then it just is, and disproving its reality by questioning how could it possibly be real, is a form of denial.

So, I would say that Spiderman's babblings are rooted in profound denial, and how anyone argue with that?

Spiderman2,

It's quite amusing that you like "Intelligent answer no 1" but you don't like "Stupid answer no. 2." It testifies to the truth of both answers that you don't see that they're the *same*! Read Intelligent answer no 1 again. Carefully. Ha ha ha!!!

Intelligent answer no 1 -

We hear Spidey persistently pound,
“Evolution? To hell it is bound!
They are searching in vain
To turn soil into brain”!
Spidey proves: It’s the other way ‘round!

Stupid answer no. 2 - "Um... in your case... it didn't."