Steve
I figured that you were becoming bored with my brilliant insights so I printed out Jack's last posting and showed it to a few friends. I will quote from their comments.
Nikita (While pounding on the table with his shoe): "See, I told you we would burri you!"
J. McCarthy: "See, I told you..."
Dostoyevsky: "... it is permitted."
Homer: "Doh!"
Boomhauer: "Yurmbrmpomnderwedcndorpullinmylegman."
Jefferson: "I shall roll over in my grave yet again!"
Lincoln #1: "Seven score years hence, our descendants seceded from the union of senses."
Lincoln #2: "On second thought, Mr. Davis, you have a good point."
Kennedy: "Ask not, 'Why your country takes so much from you', but ask, 'How can it take more?'"
Thoreau: "I lost Walden to back taxes!"
Martin: "I had a dream... but what the hell is this?"
Jessie: "The shirt off your back to the Democrat, your dough for our show, from your account on up our mount, out of your mouth lest we go south,... Wait, Steve, I have more clever rhymes to weave..."
Steve: "Ok, Jessie, we got it! Now shut up!"
Dennis: "Keep rowing, Babe."
Babe: "No problem, honey, this hurricane is a only a breeze compared to the liberal's sleeze."
Dennis: "You listening to Jessie on that ham radio or somethin'?"
Sanchez the ex-Marine: "Semper Fidel es."
Castro: "The embargo wasn't altogether successful, was it?"
Bin Laden: "I like it-- a jihad with a three-piece suit and a briefcase!!"
F.D.R.: "Today, June 28, 2004, a date that will go down in inanity."
Einstein: "And they laughed at me for not being able to tie my shoes."
Jim Bakker: "21% and more? I was in the wrong business, a tithe is only 10%"
Cochrane: "It doesn't fit, but you must submit."
David: "The State is my shepherd, I shall not want..."
Hoffa: (Could not be reached for comment.)
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Lance
That's fine, but how do you decide how much is enough? 30%? 40%? Where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line between people who really need government help and those who really don't?
Reschovsky's numbers show that government has been growing faster than our economy. Extrapolate that out far enough, and what happens? How much is enough? Government can't spend a dollar without first taking that dollar from someone. That's a dollar that will be spent with less efficiency than a dollar spent by the private market, because government does not have the market disciplines of competition.
I would be perfectly happy to have government spending stay around 20%, if we could keep it from growing further. I would prefer to have government shrink, in relation to the economy. A growing economy will both send more revenue to the government, and will allow more people to live without government help. Note that, if government spending had declined to 13.3% of personal income, as Reschovsky calculated, government spending still would have grown - just not as fast as the economy.
That's fine, but how do you decide how much is enough? 30%? 40%? Where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line between people who really need government help and those who really don't?
Reschovsky's numbers show that government has been growing faster than our economy. Extrapolate that out far enough, and what happens? How much is enough? Government can't spend a dollar without first taking that dollar from someone. That's a dollar that will be spent with less efficiency than a dollar spent by the private market, because government does not have the market disciplines of competition.
I would be perfectly happy to have government spending stay around 20%, if we could keep it from growing further. I would prefer to have government shrink, in relation to the economy. A growing economy will both send more revenue to the government, and will allow more people to live without government help. Note that, if government spending had declined to 13.3% of personal income, as Reschovsky calculated, government spending still would have grown - just not as fast as the economy.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Steve
Dennis worked hard through high school. Although athletic and artisic, he chose to work a part-time job instead of participating in many extracurriculars. He wanted to go to college. He married his high school sweetheart who worked while he attended the state university. He opted for and worked his way through dental school and opened a practice in his home town. Dennis and his family sacrificed much as he built the business. All their hard work was finally paying off.
Dennis and several of his professional contacts decided to give back to their community by opening a free clinic in a vacant city building in a poorer section of town. Many were benefiting from their free services
Libby (unabashed), a single mother with 3 small children, had for some time suffered with a painfully bad tooth. She was ecstatic to learn about the clinic's free services and came in for treatment. Dennis diagnosed the situation and was glad that he would be able to totally remedy the suffering immediately and in just one visit.
As Dennis worked to prepare the tooth for treatment, Libby suddenly clamped down hard. Her incisors tore into his right index finger as he screamed, "Oowwarggh, goddammit, leggo, girl!!" He jerked back his hand, minus the severed index, and immediately applied pressure to stop the bleeding. He wondered what the hell might be going on as he called 911 for assistance.
After a thorough investigation, the D.A. did not charge Libby, as she had the Constitutional right to do whatever she wanted within her own body. Dennis, however, was in deep doo-doo. His offenses were quite serious. His office exclamation gave the appearance of anger and his use of the term 'girl' was insensitve and sexist. It was also found that he attempted to convert Libby to Christianity on government owned property. He was placed on probation, fined, and ordered to undergo anger management therapy and sensitivity training at his own expense. Since Libby had chosen to keep the finger, Dennis was ordered to pay monthly finger support. Both he and the finger, nicknamed Tippy, had to be tested for HIV regularly.
The public outcry was immediate. Large groups of picketers marched before to clinic and the courthouse. Newspaper headlines and editorials screamed out in protest. They all loudly wondered, "Why?" Why did that judge give Dennis probation and not hard prison time? He had better give up any aspirations for an appointment to any higher court. He must be sucking up to his rich 'good old boys club' buddies.
Libby and Tippy graced the cover of several news magazines and made the talk show rounds. Comparisons to Rosa Parks were common. The Society of Women named her 'Woman of the Decade'.
The clinic closed for lack of staffing.
The Rainblow Coalition protested this development and threatened to expose all those selfish, greedy, racist, rich professionals (winners of life's lottery) who would dare deny the poor their rights. The picketer's chants were, "Hell, Nay, we won't pay!" and "Serve us or be nervous!" (I don't think Jessie brought these guys from Baltimore. I hate to say it, but, I really think these guys were hired from overseas.)
Despite an approaching hurricane Dennis and his family built a rickety raft and fled to Cuba.
Dennis worked hard through high school. Although athletic and artisic, he chose to work a part-time job instead of participating in many extracurriculars. He wanted to go to college. He married his high school sweetheart who worked while he attended the state university. He opted for and worked his way through dental school and opened a practice in his home town. Dennis and his family sacrificed much as he built the business. All their hard work was finally paying off.
Dennis and several of his professional contacts decided to give back to their community by opening a free clinic in a vacant city building in a poorer section of town. Many were benefiting from their free services
Libby (unabashed), a single mother with 3 small children, had for some time suffered with a painfully bad tooth. She was ecstatic to learn about the clinic's free services and came in for treatment. Dennis diagnosed the situation and was glad that he would be able to totally remedy the suffering immediately and in just one visit.
As Dennis worked to prepare the tooth for treatment, Libby suddenly clamped down hard. Her incisors tore into his right index finger as he screamed, "Oowwarggh, goddammit, leggo, girl!!" He jerked back his hand, minus the severed index, and immediately applied pressure to stop the bleeding. He wondered what the hell might be going on as he called 911 for assistance.
After a thorough investigation, the D.A. did not charge Libby, as she had the Constitutional right to do whatever she wanted within her own body. Dennis, however, was in deep doo-doo. His offenses were quite serious. His office exclamation gave the appearance of anger and his use of the term 'girl' was insensitve and sexist. It was also found that he attempted to convert Libby to Christianity on government owned property. He was placed on probation, fined, and ordered to undergo anger management therapy and sensitivity training at his own expense. Since Libby had chosen to keep the finger, Dennis was ordered to pay monthly finger support. Both he and the finger, nicknamed Tippy, had to be tested for HIV regularly.
The public outcry was immediate. Large groups of picketers marched before to clinic and the courthouse. Newspaper headlines and editorials screamed out in protest. They all loudly wondered, "Why?" Why did that judge give Dennis probation and not hard prison time? He had better give up any aspirations for an appointment to any higher court. He must be sucking up to his rich 'good old boys club' buddies.
Libby and Tippy graced the cover of several news magazines and made the talk show rounds. Comparisons to Rosa Parks were common. The Society of Women named her 'Woman of the Decade'.
The clinic closed for lack of staffing.
The Rainblow Coalition protested this development and threatened to expose all those selfish, greedy, racist, rich professionals (winners of life's lottery) who would dare deny the poor their rights. The picketer's chants were, "Hell, Nay, we won't pay!" and "Serve us or be nervous!" (I don't think Jessie brought these guys from Baltimore. I hate to say it, but, I really think these guys were hired from overseas.)
Despite an approaching hurricane Dennis and his family built a rickety raft and fled to Cuba.
How the Sept. 11 commission blew it: "As intelligence types always say, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
That's Mark Steyn, talking about the 9/11 commission. Thought the phrase was apropos.
That's Mark Steyn, talking about the 9/11 commission. Thought the phrase was apropos.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Lance
Okay, I posted my thing about statistics, but I didn't get to put all the stuff in there that I wanted. I really wanted to use some more quotes from Reschovsky, from the paper he did on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. But it didn't fit, so I'm doing it here.
Reschovsky opposes TABOR - that is clear to me, although I've never actually heard him say so. His position is that taxes really aren't so high in Wisconsin.
Trying to make that point, he actually makes the pro-TABOR point for us.
You see, 13.3% of personal income – 13 cents out of every dollar earned – isn’t enough for the government, according to Reschovsky. He doesn't say how much would be enough, but his implication is clear: the government has to be free to grow beyond the 21% they currently spend.
It's important to note that actual spending would still have grown, just not as fast as the economic factors we measure it against. I can look up the actual growth rates, if you want.
This next one is my favorite bit, from the same paper:
Get it? Reschovsky is just trying to protect our right to pay higher taxes! What a guy!
Could someone please explain to him that this is already the case? If you want to pay more, there are mechanisms to do that. Or find a charity. Taxes are involuntary - once they go up, we have no choice but to pay them.
Okay, I posted my thing about statistics, but I didn't get to put all the stuff in there that I wanted. I really wanted to use some more quotes from Reschovsky, from the paper he did on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. But it didn't fit, so I'm doing it here.
Reschovsky opposes TABOR - that is clear to me, although I've never actually heard him say so. His position is that taxes really aren't so high in Wisconsin.
Trying to make that point, he actually makes the pro-TABOR point for us.
“Over this period (1974 to 2000), total spending increases from 17.5% to 21% of personal income. If annual increases in per capita state and local spending had been limited to the rate of inflation, over this period per capita state and local spending would have declined from 17.5% to 13.3%…”
You see, 13.3% of personal income – 13 cents out of every dollar earned – isn’t enough for the government, according to Reschovsky. He doesn't say how much would be enough, but his implication is clear: the government has to be free to grow beyond the 21% they currently spend.
It's important to note that actual spending would still have grown, just not as fast as the economic factors we measure it against. I can look up the actual growth rates, if you want.
This next one is my favorite bit, from the same paper:
“During this 26 year period, as the economy of the state grew by 43 percent as measured by real (inflation adjusted) growth in per capita personal income, state residents would have had to reduce the share of their income they can spend on the wide range of public services provided by their state and local governments.”
Get it? Reschovsky is just trying to protect our right to pay higher taxes! What a guy!
Could someone please explain to him that this is already the case? If you want to pay more, there are mechanisms to do that. Or find a charity. Taxes are involuntary - once they go up, we have no choice but to pay them.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Steve
I sure am enjoying reading and writing in this Blog. Thanks, guys.
Still am waiting for the promised arguments, pro and con, concerning the latest initiative in tax caps/spending caps or whatever it entailed. OK, OK, uncontested races, too!
If Jesus was just a man and not God come in the flesh, then he was not a good man, he was a freakin' liar.
Jack: Context? Let me rearrange the first sentence. Are the 9/11 murderers the moral equivalent to Mother Theresa? Why or why not? The consistent Marquis would say on a scale of 1- 10, both are zeros, or both are 10's. There is no way to judge between them because there is no Judge. What do you say?
If you say there is a moral difference-- a religious determination-- why doesn't that disqualify your statements concerning political matters on the inane separation of church and state invention? (Jack's trying to institute an antitheocracy!)
If morally indistinguishable; we'd all better watch out. The strongest and most ruthless are headed for the throne. Gandhi may expel the British, but cutthroats usurp the guns.
When the U.S. Articles of Conferderation proved inadequate for the task, our country's founders drafted the Constitution. It's acceptance was no slam dunk. Jay, Hamilton, and Madison wrote a whole bookful of essays to defend its adoption. Freshly independent Americans did not want another king or anything resembling one. Resistance was strong, but finally overcome. The Constitution became the archetypical law limiting the available power of the federal government that could be usurped by any individual or group.
As our Christian foundation continues to erode by judicial fiat, being replaced by a humanist model, the culture will lose its cohesive strength. As God's authority is rejected, all authority becomes delegitemized. The resulting conclusion is that the new triune god becomes me, myself, and I. I am the final authority, I determine what is good and evil. Screw you, Mom & Dad, teacher, cop, boss, laws, mores. All relevant cultural institutions will continue to fracture. (E Pluribus pluribus) God is dead, mankind is irrelevent, I am alone. (Any increase in psychological disorders over the last 40 years?) Intellect, with its now meaningless plethora of facts, gives way to feeling and experience. (Crudely and with much poetic license-- replacing the corpora quadrigemina with the corpora cavernosa-- the brain with the penis.) Since most people would prefer benevolent dictatorship to anarchy, the central government must assume more power ('evolving' constitution) to control the balkanization. Invariably, however, the benevolent are forced out by the cutthroats.
So take your pick. Study and compare the cultures that arose from Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, atheistic/humanist, Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, Shinto, or Martian philosophies. After forcing the Bible from our political scene, you still have all these other choices from which to pick and build upon.
Somewhere I read a little about your interest in increasing the quality of education and catching as many as possible who are falling through the cracks. I also share this interest. How would you approach this situation?
Lance: In your search, I would recommend reading from the Bible itself. Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs of the Old Testament. The Gospel of John and Romans of the New Testament.
I sure am enjoying reading and writing in this Blog. Thanks, guys.
Still am waiting for the promised arguments, pro and con, concerning the latest initiative in tax caps/spending caps or whatever it entailed. OK, OK, uncontested races, too!
If Jesus was just a man and not God come in the flesh, then he was not a good man, he was a freakin' liar.
Jack: Context? Let me rearrange the first sentence. Are the 9/11 murderers the moral equivalent to Mother Theresa? Why or why not? The consistent Marquis would say on a scale of 1- 10, both are zeros, or both are 10's. There is no way to judge between them because there is no Judge. What do you say?
If you say there is a moral difference-- a religious determination-- why doesn't that disqualify your statements concerning political matters on the inane separation of church and state invention? (Jack's trying to institute an antitheocracy!)
If morally indistinguishable; we'd all better watch out. The strongest and most ruthless are headed for the throne. Gandhi may expel the British, but cutthroats usurp the guns.
When the U.S. Articles of Conferderation proved inadequate for the task, our country's founders drafted the Constitution. It's acceptance was no slam dunk. Jay, Hamilton, and Madison wrote a whole bookful of essays to defend its adoption. Freshly independent Americans did not want another king or anything resembling one. Resistance was strong, but finally overcome. The Constitution became the archetypical law limiting the available power of the federal government that could be usurped by any individual or group.
As our Christian foundation continues to erode by judicial fiat, being replaced by a humanist model, the culture will lose its cohesive strength. As God's authority is rejected, all authority becomes delegitemized. The resulting conclusion is that the new triune god becomes me, myself, and I. I am the final authority, I determine what is good and evil. Screw you, Mom & Dad, teacher, cop, boss, laws, mores. All relevant cultural institutions will continue to fracture. (E Pluribus pluribus) God is dead, mankind is irrelevent, I am alone. (Any increase in psychological disorders over the last 40 years?) Intellect, with its now meaningless plethora of facts, gives way to feeling and experience. (Crudely and with much poetic license-- replacing the corpora quadrigemina with the corpora cavernosa-- the brain with the penis.) Since most people would prefer benevolent dictatorship to anarchy, the central government must assume more power ('evolving' constitution) to control the balkanization. Invariably, however, the benevolent are forced out by the cutthroats.
So take your pick. Study and compare the cultures that arose from Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, atheistic/humanist, Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, Shinto, or Martian philosophies. After forcing the Bible from our political scene, you still have all these other choices from which to pick and build upon.
Somewhere I read a little about your interest in increasing the quality of education and catching as many as possible who are falling through the cracks. I also share this interest. How would you approach this situation?
Lance: In your search, I would recommend reading from the Bible itself. Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs of the Old Testament. The Gospel of John and Romans of the New Testament.
Still Lance
You guys are getting boring now. Hey, did you see the news stories about how nearly half of Assembly races were uncontested in 2002? Finally managed to link to them: here's the State Journal story, and here's the Cap Times. There's more in the first one.
Well did you know that 73% of all county board races in Wisconsin were uncontested in 2004? How come I couldn't get that lucky?
I wrote a column about that here, and later today I'll be posting something about certain statements made by a certain UW professor about business taxes in Wisconsin.
You guys are getting boring now. Hey, did you see the news stories about how nearly half of Assembly races were uncontested in 2002? Finally managed to link to them: here's the State Journal story, and here's the Cap Times. There's more in the first one.
Well did you know that 73% of all county board races in Wisconsin were uncontested in 2004? How come I couldn't get that lucky?
I wrote a column about that here, and later today I'll be posting something about certain statements made by a certain UW professor about business taxes in Wisconsin.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Lance - one more time.
But, this is all beside the point. At least, the point I'm trying to make.
There was a time that nobody had ever seen an atom, yet atoms existed. There was a time when nobody knew bacteria existed, that nobody knew North America existed (or, for the North American natives, that Europe existed), or that the Earth actually rotates around the sun.
We now know that people were just ignorant back then. Just because they couldn't see something didn't mean it didn't exist. Just because they drew wrong conclusions from the things they could see didn't mean new evidence would never come to light.
On the other hand, there are people today who (apparently) honestly believe the Holocaust never took place. Sure, there's tons of evidence, but it could all have been made up. Witnesses could have been coached. The moon landing was faked, don't you know that?
There are even some who are willing to call Abe Lincoln's existence into question. After all, just because I read about him and saw his picture on my money doesn't mean he was real.
I suppose I believe those things because I have faith in what I was taught.
I'm very long winded today, but still not as long winded as Steve.
There are surely many things that exist today that we aren't aware of. It was only a few years ago that we found real evidence of planets around other stars. As far as I know, the only other planets we've discovered are gas giants (but don't ask me how they know that), but I think it's only a matter of time before we find some planets much more like ours. There could be life on a planet a mere 4 light years away - we just can't see it yet.
Surely there are many other wonders waiting for us in space - they exist, but, looking around us in our daily lives, we can't see any evidence of them. This doesn't mean they're not there.
Just to be completely fair here, I don't have any real active arguments in favor of Christianity (or theism), either, as you've all probably surmised. I find myself wanting to believe, and every now and then I'm able to do so wholeheartedly, but not always. That's why I like to talk about this with people who have made their minds up. After all, we can't all be right.
But, this is all beside the point. At least, the point I'm trying to make.
There was a time that nobody had ever seen an atom, yet atoms existed. There was a time when nobody knew bacteria existed, that nobody knew North America existed (or, for the North American natives, that Europe existed), or that the Earth actually rotates around the sun.
We now know that people were just ignorant back then. Just because they couldn't see something didn't mean it didn't exist. Just because they drew wrong conclusions from the things they could see didn't mean new evidence would never come to light.
On the other hand, there are people today who (apparently) honestly believe the Holocaust never took place. Sure, there's tons of evidence, but it could all have been made up. Witnesses could have been coached. The moon landing was faked, don't you know that?
There are even some who are willing to call Abe Lincoln's existence into question. After all, just because I read about him and saw his picture on my money doesn't mean he was real.
I suppose I believe those things because I have faith in what I was taught.
I'm very long winded today, but still not as long winded as Steve.
There are surely many things that exist today that we aren't aware of. It was only a few years ago that we found real evidence of planets around other stars. As far as I know, the only other planets we've discovered are gas giants (but don't ask me how they know that), but I think it's only a matter of time before we find some planets much more like ours. There could be life on a planet a mere 4 light years away - we just can't see it yet.
Surely there are many other wonders waiting for us in space - they exist, but, looking around us in our daily lives, we can't see any evidence of them. This doesn't mean they're not there.
Just to be completely fair here, I don't have any real active arguments in favor of Christianity (or theism), either, as you've all probably surmised. I find myself wanting to believe, and every now and then I'm able to do so wholeheartedly, but not always. That's why I like to talk about this with people who have made their minds up. After all, we can't all be right.
Lance
History is rife with examples of people doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. A flawed human being may believe God wants him to murder an abortion provider. A flawed human being, heavily influenced by his upbringing (also flawed due to its dependence on other human beings) may believe God wants him to blow himself up in a crowded theater.
A gun can be used to murder, or in self defense, or to put food on the table. A pen can be used to write poetry, or to write slander, or to stab somebody in the neck. What use the tool is put to doesn't make the tool evil - only the intentions and actions of the person using it.
A student may erase a whole line of A's written in cursive because he thinks the teacher will want to see better work, then get into trouble because the teacher wants to see the original work. The teacher hasn't "encouraged" a wrong outcome - the student has misunderstood, or misapplied, or maybe is trying to cheat.
The Sons of Liberty did some pretty vile things in opposing Britain, before the Revolutionary War. The regimes of Lenin and Stalin (and Castro) did much much worse, in a cause that some people still believe in.
History is rife with examples of people doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. A flawed human being may believe God wants him to murder an abortion provider. A flawed human being, heavily influenced by his upbringing (also flawed due to its dependence on other human beings) may believe God wants him to blow himself up in a crowded theater.
A gun can be used to murder, or in self defense, or to put food on the table. A pen can be used to write poetry, or to write slander, or to stab somebody in the neck. What use the tool is put to doesn't make the tool evil - only the intentions and actions of the person using it.
A student may erase a whole line of A's written in cursive because he thinks the teacher will want to see better work, then get into trouble because the teacher wants to see the original work. The teacher hasn't "encouraged" a wrong outcome - the student has misunderstood, or misapplied, or maybe is trying to cheat.
The Sons of Liberty did some pretty vile things in opposing Britain, before the Revolutionary War. The regimes of Lenin and Stalin (and Castro) did much much worse, in a cause that some people still believe in.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Steve
Lance: Homo erectus? Didn't he go to Massachusetts to marry Homo australoprickecus?
Jack: The 9/11 terrorist murderers have moral equivalence with Mother Theresa? No, one is positive and one is negative? Where'd those terms derive substance? It's what you grew up with? Someone won't like you or hurt you if'n you don't ascribe? A continuation of primitive taboos invented to explain why Gork was stomped by a Mastodon? (Although Uncle Schragon said he tasted pretty decent-- kinda like pterodactyl) 'But, Mom, everyone else does!' 'No, Son, the de Sades don't, and they are the most logically consistent humanists we know.' Ex nihilo. OK.
Lance: Homo erectus? Didn't he go to Massachusetts to marry Homo australoprickecus?
Jack: The 9/11 terrorist murderers have moral equivalence with Mother Theresa? No, one is positive and one is negative? Where'd those terms derive substance? It's what you grew up with? Someone won't like you or hurt you if'n you don't ascribe? A continuation of primitive taboos invented to explain why Gork was stomped by a Mastodon? (Although Uncle Schragon said he tasted pretty decent-- kinda like pterodactyl) 'But, Mom, everyone else does!' 'No, Son, the de Sades don't, and they are the most logically consistent humanists we know.' Ex nihilo. OK.
Lance
Well, we're talking in circles now. There are things I don't understand, which would be explained by the existence of God. Since I can't logically rule God out, I have to consider that as a possible explanation. I also think I should give that possibility greater weight in my daily musings, since I view it as a more important question than whether Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus evolved subsequently or in parallel to each other.
You, apparently, can't logically rule God out, either, and have no active arguments against theism, only passive ones. Yet you have decisively concluded that there can be no such thing as God. This, from the man who forced me as a boy to learn critical thinking. Which, by the way, is why I'm conservative today. So there.
Well, we're talking in circles now. There are things I don't understand, which would be explained by the existence of God. Since I can't logically rule God out, I have to consider that as a possible explanation. I also think I should give that possibility greater weight in my daily musings, since I view it as a more important question than whether Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus evolved subsequently or in parallel to each other.
You, apparently, can't logically rule God out, either, and have no active arguments against theism, only passive ones. Yet you have decisively concluded that there can be no such thing as God. This, from the man who forced me as a boy to learn critical thinking. Which, by the way, is why I'm conservative today. So there.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Steve
If you guys hadn't noticed by now-- just about every sentence you post on this Blog inspires a marathon from me. You may have expected my brevity of speech at our get-togethers to carry over to Blogdom. Ooops! Your mistake.
Lance, you are correct in your assessment of the lives of Jesus' disciples. Most of those named in Scripture were eventually executed. Paul (Saul) since he was the writer of a major portion of the New Testament gives a lot of information about his life. Before his conversion (knocked off his ass onto his ass) he was on the Hebrew fast track. He had great expectations of becoming a member of the Sanhedrin (Jewish ruling council) and possibly hoping to become Chief Priest. Hebrew high cotton. After his conversion-- 5 times 40 lashes, 3 times beaten by rods, once stoned (to a supposed death), 3 times shipwrecked, otherwise often without sleep, food, etc. Christian high cotton.
We celebrate Thanksgiving. The Pilgrims spent their first winter watching half of their loved ones suffer and die. So, going into their second winter they... Held a feast of thanksgiving to God. Like Paul, they just didn't have an intellectual assent to the existence of God, they had God's own gift of faith implanted in them and a personal relationship with him.
That's an aspect of my question about Lincoln. Christ had witnesses to his life and statements. Ditto with his arrest and crucifixion. He had 500 witnesses to his resurrection. Many witnesses to his ascension. (Not one claimed to see the wires suspending him.) The Jews and/or the Romans could have brought out his dead body to disprove the claims and shot the whole religion to hell. Paul could have become Grand Poobah and the Pilgrims could have stayed in Holland drinking Heineken and keeping prostitutes busy. What criteria does one use to accept as evidence the witnesses to Lincoln but not the witnesses to the life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ?
Again, this isn't a proof that God exists or that Christianity is true. That knowledge comes by faith, but not the proverbial blind leap. It is a blind leap to accept that we arose from the primordial soup under the auspices of the god of chance and developed in all the ways we have. I've been there. I once hypothesized that Ilya Prigogine's Nobel Prize winning work (1977) in nonequilibrium thermodynamics showed that the long development of life through evolutionary processes was a development of a temporary 'organization' to speed completion of entropy. Just as an 'organized' tornado develops to bring to equilibrium differing pressure systems, so the evolution of humans would hasten entropy's direction. Thermodynamics is hot!! (Now it's not quite so hot, now a bit less, now a hair cooler...) What great faith I had. And purpose! I was an integral part of a mindless scheme to bring the destruction of everything in the universe and bring that same universe to absolute zero degrees. (Hey, Strawberry, wake up, man! You got any more of that acid, dude?)
Jack: You got up...Routine...Work?...Came home...Were nagged at by Kirstin...(that's all she did?-- it's a miracle!)
If you guys hadn't noticed by now-- just about every sentence you post on this Blog inspires a marathon from me. You may have expected my brevity of speech at our get-togethers to carry over to Blogdom. Ooops! Your mistake.
Lance, you are correct in your assessment of the lives of Jesus' disciples. Most of those named in Scripture were eventually executed. Paul (Saul) since he was the writer of a major portion of the New Testament gives a lot of information about his life. Before his conversion (knocked off his ass onto his ass) he was on the Hebrew fast track. He had great expectations of becoming a member of the Sanhedrin (Jewish ruling council) and possibly hoping to become Chief Priest. Hebrew high cotton. After his conversion-- 5 times 40 lashes, 3 times beaten by rods, once stoned (to a supposed death), 3 times shipwrecked, otherwise often without sleep, food, etc. Christian high cotton.
We celebrate Thanksgiving. The Pilgrims spent their first winter watching half of their loved ones suffer and die. So, going into their second winter they... Held a feast of thanksgiving to God. Like Paul, they just didn't have an intellectual assent to the existence of God, they had God's own gift of faith implanted in them and a personal relationship with him.
That's an aspect of my question about Lincoln. Christ had witnesses to his life and statements. Ditto with his arrest and crucifixion. He had 500 witnesses to his resurrection. Many witnesses to his ascension. (Not one claimed to see the wires suspending him.) The Jews and/or the Romans could have brought out his dead body to disprove the claims and shot the whole religion to hell. Paul could have become Grand Poobah and the Pilgrims could have stayed in Holland drinking Heineken and keeping prostitutes busy. What criteria does one use to accept as evidence the witnesses to Lincoln but not the witnesses to the life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ?
Again, this isn't a proof that God exists or that Christianity is true. That knowledge comes by faith, but not the proverbial blind leap. It is a blind leap to accept that we arose from the primordial soup under the auspices of the god of chance and developed in all the ways we have. I've been there. I once hypothesized that Ilya Prigogine's Nobel Prize winning work (1977) in nonequilibrium thermodynamics showed that the long development of life through evolutionary processes was a development of a temporary 'organization' to speed completion of entropy. Just as an 'organized' tornado develops to bring to equilibrium differing pressure systems, so the evolution of humans would hasten entropy's direction. Thermodynamics is hot!! (Now it's not quite so hot, now a bit less, now a hair cooler...) What great faith I had. And purpose! I was an integral part of a mindless scheme to bring the destruction of everything in the universe and bring that same universe to absolute zero degrees. (Hey, Strawberry, wake up, man! You got any more of that acid, dude?)
Jack: You got up...Routine...Work?...Came home...Were nagged at by Kirstin...(that's all she did?-- it's a miracle!)
Lance here.
Okay John, here's my problem with your last post: you seem to have concluded that there is no God because nobody's been able to convince you that there is a God. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with just taking a default position like that (my own is, to a degree, also a default position), but these are passive arguments. I'd like to hear some active arguments.
I can't say for sure that I have any active arguments in favor of Christianity - they're mostly just "why" questions that are only answered to my satisfaction by the existence of God, who made things the way they are. For example, why did the human race develop in one specific part of Africa (as we currently believe, anyway), but no where else? How could an animal species make such an enormous leap in ability in that place, at that time only, and at no other place and time? Why are there still monkeys?
Here's another example: according to the Bible, Jesus was dead, rose again, and then was taken into Heaven. The disciples continued to witness to this for the rest of their lives, even though they faced imprisonment, torture, death for it. If they were making it all up, or embellishing, or just trying to lure people into their cult, would they have undergone the danger and the pain that they did? None of them ended up rich.
I'm relying on the historical research of others for that paragraph, of course. I wonder if Steve can fill some of that in?
None of this proves anything, but it's enough to make me think, to make me realize I don't have all the answers, and to look around for those answers.
There are other questions to explore, of course, like why Christianity instead of Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism? Why Episcopalian instead of Lutheran? But maybe we should just stick to the bigger question of whether there's a God in the first place.
Okay John, here's my problem with your last post: you seem to have concluded that there is no God because nobody's been able to convince you that there is a God. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with just taking a default position like that (my own is, to a degree, also a default position), but these are passive arguments. I'd like to hear some active arguments.
I can't say for sure that I have any active arguments in favor of Christianity - they're mostly just "why" questions that are only answered to my satisfaction by the existence of God, who made things the way they are. For example, why did the human race develop in one specific part of Africa (as we currently believe, anyway), but no where else? How could an animal species make such an enormous leap in ability in that place, at that time only, and at no other place and time? Why are there still monkeys?
Here's another example: according to the Bible, Jesus was dead, rose again, and then was taken into Heaven. The disciples continued to witness to this for the rest of their lives, even though they faced imprisonment, torture, death for it. If they were making it all up, or embellishing, or just trying to lure people into their cult, would they have undergone the danger and the pain that they did? None of them ended up rich.
I'm relying on the historical research of others for that paragraph, of course. I wonder if Steve can fill some of that in?
None of this proves anything, but it's enough to make me think, to make me realize I don't have all the answers, and to look around for those answers.
There are other questions to explore, of course, like why Christianity instead of Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism? Why Episcopalian instead of Lutheran? But maybe we should just stick to the bigger question of whether there's a God in the first place.
Monday, June 21, 2004
Steve
Grandpa John's-- The Blog dedicated to laissez-faire-ness.
I hear that the Liberals are going to begin manufacturing a new line of automobiles according to liberal principles. They expect the new Uranus models out of the chute and onto the showroom floor by early 2005.
Hey, guys, you're lucky that I had cut out about 3/4 of what I had written before I posted it. I didn't realize until now that we Burris have shorter attention spans than I... Rats! What was I going to say?
Funny that Lance mentioned using a thesaurus-- this Sunday's NY Times Crossword's theme featured Roget.
From this morning's State Journal-- Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then you'll be a mile away, have his shoes, and can say anything you like.
Hodo, back when you were a budding young artist your dad would display your works on the living room wall. Your signature on one more resembled Hodo than Todd. The crossbar of the T was low and intersected a vertical line in the picture. The final D looked like an O. HODO. I don't know why, but, it stuck in my feeble mind. (Probably drug induced.) Anyway, it's still much better than, 'Stevie-Weevie gives me the Heebie-Jeebies' or 'Steve, when you left Texas and moved back to Wisconsin, the mean IQ's of both states went down.'
Adam Smith- Important Scottish economic theorist. I expect he had a major impact on American Revolutionary thought. ...Moral Sentiments (1759) & ...The Wealth of Nations (1776)
Free Trade? Generally speaking, I would expect free trade to benefit all countries involved. All would have access to a greater variety of goods, services, and technologies, as well as greater exposure to the thoughts and ideas emanating from another culture. Historically, a great proportion of these exchanges occurred after military conquest and subjugation. In contrast, direct foreign aid usually only entrenches and enriches the leadership while doing nothing to develop the people or that nation's capital foundation.
My prima facie response to this question therefore is, "Of course!!" But upon further review... I remain a proponent, but would only use one exclamation point. We have put many obstacles in our own way that hobble our efforts for fair free trade. If the powers that be only allowed players under six feet tall to participate on our olympic basketball team, no matter the skill level of the players, they would have a difficult time competing productively on the world scene. (Although they did beat Liechtenstein by 3 in double overtime.) In the same way our legislators, bureaucracy, and activist judiciary (for Todd's benefit) have laid weights on our productive segment that they themselves could not even bear. The first area that comes to mind is environmental standards. The mixture of pop-scientific claims, fervent watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside, and very seedy), legislators that love your children more than you, judges that rule with caprice, and bureaucrats that wish to justify and bankroll their existence drop anchors to retard those that are moving to actually do something. Government action that unnecessarily increases production costs inhibits our ability to compete.
It therefore should be obvious that, for the sake of free trade profit, I support polluting air and water, poisoning the children, feeding dogfood to the elderly (or maybe even spotted owl and snail darter burgers), and denuding the forests (They cleared paradise and put up a parking lot-- Ooooo, bop, bop, bop, bop.) In addition, all scientists, ecologists, congressmen, judges, bureaucrats, or anyone attempting to inhibit me from getting affordable North Korean nukes fer me an' mah racist, secksist, hommofobe, reelijus funnamentlist, skinhed buddys... Oh, sorry, I forget to keep up my facade on occasion.
There are also several items that should be restricted from the trade freedom as well. Arms to Bin Laden, et. al. Chicago Bears game videotapes. (Unless it's for Baryshnekovski's Funniest Home Videos or Gutierrez de Sanchez's Lo Cree o No.)
Since y'all think I'm verbose, I'll have to include the remaining 3/4 of this for a later posting.
Grandpa John's-- The Blog dedicated to laissez-faire-ness.
I hear that the Liberals are going to begin manufacturing a new line of automobiles according to liberal principles. They expect the new Uranus models out of the chute and onto the showroom floor by early 2005.
Hey, guys, you're lucky that I had cut out about 3/4 of what I had written before I posted it. I didn't realize until now that we Burris have shorter attention spans than I... Rats! What was I going to say?
Funny that Lance mentioned using a thesaurus-- this Sunday's NY Times Crossword's theme featured Roget.
From this morning's State Journal-- Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then you'll be a mile away, have his shoes, and can say anything you like.
Hodo, back when you were a budding young artist your dad would display your works on the living room wall. Your signature on one more resembled Hodo than Todd. The crossbar of the T was low and intersected a vertical line in the picture. The final D looked like an O. HODO. I don't know why, but, it stuck in my feeble mind. (Probably drug induced.) Anyway, it's still much better than, 'Stevie-Weevie gives me the Heebie-Jeebies' or 'Steve, when you left Texas and moved back to Wisconsin, the mean IQ's of both states went down.'
Adam Smith- Important Scottish economic theorist. I expect he had a major impact on American Revolutionary thought. ...Moral Sentiments (1759) & ...The Wealth of Nations (1776)
Free Trade? Generally speaking, I would expect free trade to benefit all countries involved. All would have access to a greater variety of goods, services, and technologies, as well as greater exposure to the thoughts and ideas emanating from another culture. Historically, a great proportion of these exchanges occurred after military conquest and subjugation. In contrast, direct foreign aid usually only entrenches and enriches the leadership while doing nothing to develop the people or that nation's capital foundation.
My prima facie response to this question therefore is, "Of course!!" But upon further review... I remain a proponent, but would only use one exclamation point. We have put many obstacles in our own way that hobble our efforts for fair free trade. If the powers that be only allowed players under six feet tall to participate on our olympic basketball team, no matter the skill level of the players, they would have a difficult time competing productively on the world scene. (Although they did beat Liechtenstein by 3 in double overtime.) In the same way our legislators, bureaucracy, and activist judiciary (for Todd's benefit) have laid weights on our productive segment that they themselves could not even bear. The first area that comes to mind is environmental standards. The mixture of pop-scientific claims, fervent watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside, and very seedy), legislators that love your children more than you, judges that rule with caprice, and bureaucrats that wish to justify and bankroll their existence drop anchors to retard those that are moving to actually do something. Government action that unnecessarily increases production costs inhibits our ability to compete.
It therefore should be obvious that, for the sake of free trade profit, I support polluting air and water, poisoning the children, feeding dogfood to the elderly (or maybe even spotted owl and snail darter burgers), and denuding the forests (They cleared paradise and put up a parking lot-- Ooooo, bop, bop, bop, bop.) In addition, all scientists, ecologists, congressmen, judges, bureaucrats, or anyone attempting to inhibit me from getting affordable North Korean nukes fer me an' mah racist, secksist, hommofobe, reelijus funnamentlist, skinhed buddys... Oh, sorry, I forget to keep up my facade on occasion.
There are also several items that should be restricted from the trade freedom as well. Arms to Bin Laden, et. al. Chicago Bears game videotapes. (Unless it's for Baryshnekovski's Funniest Home Videos or Gutierrez de Sanchez's Lo Cree o No.)
Since y'all think I'm verbose, I'll have to include the remaining 3/4 of this for a later posting.
Sunday, June 20, 2004
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Lance yet again.
I think I told at least two of you that I've been posting columns on another website. I posted one yesterday regarding free trade and the political advantages/disadvantages to each side in the debate over free trade. Wouldn't mind hearing what you guys think of it.
As backup, I'll include this, about a study showing elimination of tariffs would reduce worldwide poverty.
I think I told at least two of you that I've been posting columns on another website. I posted one yesterday regarding free trade and the political advantages/disadvantages to each side in the debate over free trade. Wouldn't mind hearing what you guys think of it.
As backup, I'll include this, about a study showing elimination of tariffs would reduce worldwide poverty.
Lance here.
I was trying to start a discussion about the relationship between religion and logic, not in the context of the specific beliefs of anybody participating in this blog, although obviously we're going to use our own experiences as examples.
My contention is: logic is not a barrier to any form of faith, whether atheism or any form of theism. In fact, pure use of logic would naturally lead one to agnosticism.
By adhering to one or the other, atheism or, in my case, Christianity (or trying to, anyway), we are all acting on faith, rather than pure logic.
I was trying to start a discussion about the relationship between religion and logic, not in the context of the specific beliefs of anybody participating in this blog, although obviously we're going to use our own experiences as examples.
My contention is: logic is not a barrier to any form of faith, whether atheism or any form of theism. In fact, pure use of logic would naturally lead one to agnosticism.
By adhering to one or the other, atheism or, in my case, Christianity (or trying to, anyway), we are all acting on faith, rather than pure logic.
Todd to fairness blog, come in please. Fairness blog, come in. (Are we putting our names at the top of our posts now?)
Let's see...
Steve: 'Hodo?'
The Watchmaker hypothesis doesn’t constitute a ‘wrench in the works.’ At most it shows that religion and science aren’t incompatible; i.e. god made the universe with rules that we can learn and understand, made it to grow and evolve, etc.
Actually, when I see your name from now on, I won't automatically skip it. I'll decide whether I have the stamina to actually read it. If not, I'll try again later.
Lance: I think you missed my point. Go read Steve’s second-to-last paragraph again.
I am not agnostic. When you say ‘agnostic,’ people think you just haven’t made up your mind, or you have a ‘maybe there is, maybe there’s not’ attitude. I’ve made up my mind, and there’s not.
Belief or non-belief isn’t something you choose. There isn’t a time in my past when I considered the options and decided to be atheist. In fact, I’ve always been atheist. If it ever seemed otherwise it was because I was a child aping the people around me (apologies to John), because I wasn’t sophisticated enough to express my actual thoughts. [That’s not to say religious belief is unsophisticated.] The point is what you’re asking is impossible. There is no logic chain leading me to atheism. I’ll bet it’s the same for you. The best I can do is to say that I reject religion because I can’t think of a single reason to accept it. Saying that it shouldn’t be ruled out doesn’t suffice.
Side note: Buddhism kind of interests me, but in its pure form it’s nontheistic anyway.
Let's see...
Steve: 'Hodo?'
The Watchmaker hypothesis doesn’t constitute a ‘wrench in the works.’ At most it shows that religion and science aren’t incompatible; i.e. god made the universe with rules that we can learn and understand, made it to grow and evolve, etc.
Actually, when I see your name from now on, I won't automatically skip it. I'll decide whether I have the stamina to actually read it. If not, I'll try again later.
Lance: I think you missed my point. Go read Steve’s second-to-last paragraph again.
I am not agnostic. When you say ‘agnostic,’ people think you just haven’t made up your mind, or you have a ‘maybe there is, maybe there’s not’ attitude. I’ve made up my mind, and there’s not.
Belief or non-belief isn’t something you choose. There isn’t a time in my past when I considered the options and decided to be atheist. In fact, I’ve always been atheist. If it ever seemed otherwise it was because I was a child aping the people around me (apologies to John), because I wasn’t sophisticated enough to express my actual thoughts. [That’s not to say religious belief is unsophisticated.] The point is what you’re asking is impossible. There is no logic chain leading me to atheism. I’ll bet it’s the same for you. The best I can do is to say that I reject religion because I can’t think of a single reason to accept it. Saying that it shouldn’t be ruled out doesn’t suffice.
Side note: Buddhism kind of interests me, but in its pure form it’s nontheistic anyway.
Friday, June 18, 2004
Lance
Holy crap, Steve. You're either smarter than I give you credit for or you're really giving your thesaurus a workout.
I hadn't realized the connection between that article about greed and Smith's stuff. He was much earlier, right? Eighteenth century? Most of what I know about him comes from watching "A Beautiful Mind."
John makes a good point in his last post - I often wrestle with the thought that belief in God may only stem from a fear of death.
However, pointing out that there is an alternative possibility doesn't logically refute existence of God. If we're working exclusively through logic, God and Creationism can't be proven, but can't be ruled out either.
Likewise, we can't rule out life on other planets. We have no evidence of it - in fact, it was only a few years ago that we found any evidence there even are other planets around other stars, and we still haven't found any that would support life (as we know it, anyway).
Knowing so little, how can we rule anything out, and in the case of God's existence, why would we? I find it too important of a question to simply lay it down because there are other, simpler explanations.
Holy crap, Steve. You're either smarter than I give you credit for or you're really giving your thesaurus a workout.
I hadn't realized the connection between that article about greed and Smith's stuff. He was much earlier, right? Eighteenth century? Most of what I know about him comes from watching "A Beautiful Mind."
John makes a good point in his last post - I often wrestle with the thought that belief in God may only stem from a fear of death.
However, pointing out that there is an alternative possibility doesn't logically refute existence of God. If we're working exclusively through logic, God and Creationism can't be proven, but can't be ruled out either.
Likewise, we can't rule out life on other planets. We have no evidence of it - in fact, it was only a few years ago that we found any evidence there even are other planets around other stars, and we still haven't found any that would support life (as we know it, anyway).
Knowing so little, how can we rule anything out, and in the case of God's existence, why would we? I find it too important of a question to simply lay it down because there are other, simpler explanations.
Steve
I was a little leary of following Lance's suggestion to list your name first to identify authorship at the writing's onset. I figured that y'all would see it and say, "Oh, it's from Steve. Let's see what else is on the Blog." (From now on I may use a psuedonym like Heather or Bambi or something like that.)
Obviously, the chief purpose of my 'existence of Lincoln' question was to ask each of you what type of evidence will be accepted as valid in our discussions. Often I have found that many discount points and assertions coming from a Christian perspective just because it is considered faith-based or religious-- discounted by use of a magic wand without doing the work to actually consider and answer the points. That is unacceptable. (Especially since this Blog is devoted to fairness.)
The subsequent corollary expects a consistent use of examination techniques in acceptance or repudiation of statements. In other words, I would expect one to use similar critiquing methods concerning your own assertions as well as those of another. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)
My assumptions here are twofold and may sound contradictory. First, faith not only underlies Christianity, it is also the substructure of logic, science, atheism, politics, post modernism, etc. Second, however, I also aver that there is truth and that it can be known. (Not exhaustively, but truly)
Further, I assert that Christianity, as a philosophy, explains the nature of things, people, and societies. It bridges the gap between the particulars and the universals; phenomena and noumena. The otherwise mentioned philosophies/anti-philosophies (logic, science,...), by themselves or mixed and matched as they usually are, when disrobed of their adorning rhetoric by distillation in life's crucible expose the 'might makes right' and 'whatever is, is right' foundations regardless of their originally stated intentions. This is not intended as a proof, but that, as a philosophy, Christianity is even more rational than the others. Science is wonderful for observing, gathering data, and prediction, but is as dead as a hammer in explaining the love I have for my brother and nephews, as well as so many other aspects of life that we all know exist. (You all know each other so logic could never explain why I love...)
For a more practical example, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America were both written within Christian philosophy. The framers presumed that that there were God-given rights and that unlimited power grasped by a single man (or several) would trample these rights. (Yes, they knew that Christians would also abuse that much power.) By contrast the French Revolution was based upon another thought form. Its adorning rhetoric tolled a high sounding ring, but its actual implementation...
Unfortunately, although the Constitution remains essentially the same, the surrounding culture has to a great extent moved out of the penumbra of its original philosophy and nearly twisted it into dead-letterdom. (It all depends on what the meaning of is is.)
This Constitution does not prohibit greed. The Declaration would seem to legitimize it. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (private property- Smith) are all issues of self-interest and the betterment of one's condition. Greed that provides a desirable service seems to be beneficial to many more than its originator. In this definition greed not only betters one's own condition, but also betters the condition of others. That appears good.
In a stricter definition, however, the internal condition of greed is toxic. Its manifestation can be controlled by external forces-- competition, law, social disapproval-- but if fully allowed to express itself it will cause harm. It can express in a manner as benign as Alka-Seltzer inventing a condition called 'The Blahs' for which it is the cure (back in our day) up to greedy assumption of power 'to serve the greater good' that swallows up life and liberty (examples found in all times and places).
Nonetheless, the law cannot (or should not) prosecute an internal state, but only certain defined outward expressions of it.
If hate in some way produced a desired service for some, would it also be good? It could be argued that Hitler's inward motivations not only brought on Germany's prosperity, but also ours. After all, WWII also brought us out of our economic depression (moreso than F.D.R.'s social policies) to enjoy the prosperity and benefits that we indulge in today.
However, if I were required to choose between the greed of a robber baron and the greed of a 'Power to Washington, D.C., Berlin, or U.N.' politician, I'd opt for the former. At least the robber baron produces something-- the politician only takes what others have produced (whether that be for Constitutionally legitimate purposes or other).
Todd (or Hodo as I have nicknamed you since viewing some of your early artwork posted on the Cribbage Wall on Chatham St.), you may be surprised to know that we are generally in agreement about the assumption of belief. John Calvin would say the same. The bulk of American Christianity superficially skims the ubiquitous John 3:16-- 'whosoever believes on Him...'-- and takes it to mean something other than it does. Elsewhere it says, 'speak with your mouth and believe with your heart.' But, what does 'believe' mean and how do you do that? Many would say that if you say it you believe it, but talk is cheap. You are correct in that it is not something you consider and decide on. I differentiate between an intellectual assent and an actual belief. Most American Christians would also say that he offers this belief to everyone (like holding a $20 bill in front of someone within their reach) and they consider and choose to accept it or not. Again, we agree that this is not the case. 'All have sinned' and are 'dead' through that sin. Dead men don't accept anything. However, if they are to get it, God must implant it. That is the only way we may receive this belief. He choses to whom he gives it and there is not anyone who deserves it by acting or thinking according to certain standards. (No one need apply, no one meets the required standard of perfection) Jesus voluntarily set aside his divinity and lived as a human fulfilling the required perfection and was crucified, shedding the blood that is the only atonement for us. (Here he became the conduit through which the universal/particulars gap is bridged.) Going to church, reading the Bible, saying prayers, taking communion, and being baptized do not make one a Christian. Sleeping in a garage does not make one a car. The belief that is actually spoken of in John 3:16 makes one a Christian only through an unmerited gift-- a transplant.
By the way, the watchmaker hypothesis is not intended to be a proof, but as a wrench in the works of 'popularly known facts' such as evolutionary theory. The same is true for the 'you can't logically prove that logic reigns supreme'. These are only tools through which one may be persuaded to reconsider a thought pattern and seek others, but, again, as you say, belief is not earned by consideration and choice. So it goes with much of what I write. Even in the economic/social/politcal sphere I do not believe my faith should be forced out of the debate in favor of other 'secular' religions that use the claim that my faith is out of bounds (unconstitutional) while their faith is legitimate.
I was a little leary of following Lance's suggestion to list your name first to identify authorship at the writing's onset. I figured that y'all would see it and say, "Oh, it's from Steve. Let's see what else is on the Blog." (From now on I may use a psuedonym like Heather or Bambi or something like that.)
Obviously, the chief purpose of my 'existence of Lincoln' question was to ask each of you what type of evidence will be accepted as valid in our discussions. Often I have found that many discount points and assertions coming from a Christian perspective just because it is considered faith-based or religious-- discounted by use of a magic wand without doing the work to actually consider and answer the points. That is unacceptable. (Especially since this Blog is devoted to fairness.)
The subsequent corollary expects a consistent use of examination techniques in acceptance or repudiation of statements. In other words, I would expect one to use similar critiquing methods concerning your own assertions as well as those of another. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)
My assumptions here are twofold and may sound contradictory. First, faith not only underlies Christianity, it is also the substructure of logic, science, atheism, politics, post modernism, etc. Second, however, I also aver that there is truth and that it can be known. (Not exhaustively, but truly)
Further, I assert that Christianity, as a philosophy, explains the nature of things, people, and societies. It bridges the gap between the particulars and the universals; phenomena and noumena. The otherwise mentioned philosophies/anti-philosophies (logic, science,...), by themselves or mixed and matched as they usually are, when disrobed of their adorning rhetoric by distillation in life's crucible expose the 'might makes right' and 'whatever is, is right' foundations regardless of their originally stated intentions. This is not intended as a proof, but that, as a philosophy, Christianity is even more rational than the others. Science is wonderful for observing, gathering data, and prediction, but is as dead as a hammer in explaining the love I have for my brother and nephews, as well as so many other aspects of life that we all know exist. (You all know each other so logic could never explain why I love...)
For a more practical example, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America were both written within Christian philosophy. The framers presumed that that there were God-given rights and that unlimited power grasped by a single man (or several) would trample these rights. (Yes, they knew that Christians would also abuse that much power.) By contrast the French Revolution was based upon another thought form. Its adorning rhetoric tolled a high sounding ring, but its actual implementation...
Unfortunately, although the Constitution remains essentially the same, the surrounding culture has to a great extent moved out of the penumbra of its original philosophy and nearly twisted it into dead-letterdom. (It all depends on what the meaning of is is.)
This Constitution does not prohibit greed. The Declaration would seem to legitimize it. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (private property- Smith) are all issues of self-interest and the betterment of one's condition. Greed that provides a desirable service seems to be beneficial to many more than its originator. In this definition greed not only betters one's own condition, but also betters the condition of others. That appears good.
In a stricter definition, however, the internal condition of greed is toxic. Its manifestation can be controlled by external forces-- competition, law, social disapproval-- but if fully allowed to express itself it will cause harm. It can express in a manner as benign as Alka-Seltzer inventing a condition called 'The Blahs' for which it is the cure (back in our day) up to greedy assumption of power 'to serve the greater good' that swallows up life and liberty (examples found in all times and places).
Nonetheless, the law cannot (or should not) prosecute an internal state, but only certain defined outward expressions of it.
If hate in some way produced a desired service for some, would it also be good? It could be argued that Hitler's inward motivations not only brought on Germany's prosperity, but also ours. After all, WWII also brought us out of our economic depression (moreso than F.D.R.'s social policies) to enjoy the prosperity and benefits that we indulge in today.
However, if I were required to choose between the greed of a robber baron and the greed of a 'Power to Washington, D.C., Berlin, or U.N.' politician, I'd opt for the former. At least the robber baron produces something-- the politician only takes what others have produced (whether that be for Constitutionally legitimate purposes or other).
Todd (or Hodo as I have nicknamed you since viewing some of your early artwork posted on the Cribbage Wall on Chatham St.), you may be surprised to know that we are generally in agreement about the assumption of belief. John Calvin would say the same. The bulk of American Christianity superficially skims the ubiquitous John 3:16-- 'whosoever believes on Him...'-- and takes it to mean something other than it does. Elsewhere it says, 'speak with your mouth and believe with your heart.' But, what does 'believe' mean and how do you do that? Many would say that if you say it you believe it, but talk is cheap. You are correct in that it is not something you consider and decide on. I differentiate between an intellectual assent and an actual belief. Most American Christians would also say that he offers this belief to everyone (like holding a $20 bill in front of someone within their reach) and they consider and choose to accept it or not. Again, we agree that this is not the case. 'All have sinned' and are 'dead' through that sin. Dead men don't accept anything. However, if they are to get it, God must implant it. That is the only way we may receive this belief. He choses to whom he gives it and there is not anyone who deserves it by acting or thinking according to certain standards. (No one need apply, no one meets the required standard of perfection) Jesus voluntarily set aside his divinity and lived as a human fulfilling the required perfection and was crucified, shedding the blood that is the only atonement for us. (Here he became the conduit through which the universal/particulars gap is bridged.) Going to church, reading the Bible, saying prayers, taking communion, and being baptized do not make one a Christian. Sleeping in a garage does not make one a car. The belief that is actually spoken of in John 3:16 makes one a Christian only through an unmerited gift-- a transplant.
By the way, the watchmaker hypothesis is not intended to be a proof, but as a wrench in the works of 'popularly known facts' such as evolutionary theory. The same is true for the 'you can't logically prove that logic reigns supreme'. These are only tools through which one may be persuaded to reconsider a thought pattern and seek others, but, again, as you say, belief is not earned by consideration and choice. So it goes with much of what I write. Even in the economic/social/politcal sphere I do not believe my faith should be forced out of the debate in favor of other 'secular' religions that use the claim that my faith is out of bounds (unconstitutional) while their faith is legitimate.
Geez Todd, you just proved yourself right. I asked for proof there isn't, and you responded by asking for proof there is.
My question is this: if you live by logic, and if you are an atheist, then you must have logically come to the conclusion that there is no God. If you haven't reached that conclusion logically, then you either don't live by logic or you aren't really an atheist.
Whether there is a God or not is an extremely important question. I wrestle with it myself. I'm asking you (actually I was asking John) to share the process by which you conclusively determined that there is no God.
There's nothing wrong with being an agnostic, you know. It's just saying you don't have the answer.
My question is this: if you live by logic, and if you are an atheist, then you must have logically come to the conclusion that there is no God. If you haven't reached that conclusion logically, then you either don't live by logic or you aren't really an atheist.
Whether there is a God or not is an extremely important question. I wrestle with it myself. I'm asking you (actually I was asking John) to share the process by which you conclusively determined that there is no God.
There's nothing wrong with being an agnostic, you know. It's just saying you don't have the answer.
Lance: "Since we live by logic, let's start with John's statement that the existence of a supreme being doesn't make sense. Prove to me logically that this is true."
Boooring. This is the old game: 'prove there isn't,' 'no, you prove there is.'
I have zero interest in convincing anyone that I'm right on this, but look at it this way: you're saying 'I know this is true,' and I'm asking 'how do you know?'
Boooring. This is the old game: 'prove there isn't,' 'no, you prove there is.'
I have zero interest in convincing anyone that I'm right on this, but look at it this way: you're saying 'I know this is true,' and I'm asking 'how do you know?'
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Lance
More housekeeping - I've been referring to Dad as John, just because that's the name he's posting by. On the extreme off chance somebody other than one of us reads any of this, I thought that would help eliminate confusion.
Although Steve's vocabulary will provide far more confusion than I can ever eliminate.
The quote you (John) mentioned before was from a Scottish academic, Alexander Tytler - there's actually some dispute about its authenticity. I can send you the whole thing when I get back to work next week (society hasn't collapsed since I left the office, so I figure I can risk a few more days).
We are all afflicted with greed to one degree or another. I certainly am. Greed even gets the better of me sometimes - mostly when I'm at a family event where there's way too much food.
Humans are flawed, greedy, and will break the rules to satisfy that greed. That doesn't disprove the basic premise of my original post - that to satisfy our greed, we have to find a way to serve others.
I want stuff, above and beyond what I need to take care of my family. To get it, I have to find something I can provide that somebody else wants. Failing to find anything anybody else wants, I have to work for the government.
I could get really greedy, and demand twice my salary. Nobody will pay, so I have to temper my greed. A store owner has to temper his greed, or risk driving off customers with high prices.
There are examples in which this model doesn't work - there are industries which are as good as monopolies.
I would point out, though, that Enron - John's example - was exposed, and its officers criminally charged. People break the law, and eventually the law will catch up.
Free enterprise isn't a perfect system, because it's being operated by flawed human beings. However, it's the best system that exists. It has been the source of unending improvement in the human condition.
Maybe this is because it takes a reality that won't be denied (human greed) and gives it a purpose. I'll have to think about that some more later. Right now, I'm on vacation.
More housekeeping - I've been referring to Dad as John, just because that's the name he's posting by. On the extreme off chance somebody other than one of us reads any of this, I thought that would help eliminate confusion.
Although Steve's vocabulary will provide far more confusion than I can ever eliminate.
The quote you (John) mentioned before was from a Scottish academic, Alexander Tytler - there's actually some dispute about its authenticity. I can send you the whole thing when I get back to work next week (society hasn't collapsed since I left the office, so I figure I can risk a few more days).
We are all afflicted with greed to one degree or another. I certainly am. Greed even gets the better of me sometimes - mostly when I'm at a family event where there's way too much food.
Humans are flawed, greedy, and will break the rules to satisfy that greed. That doesn't disprove the basic premise of my original post - that to satisfy our greed, we have to find a way to serve others.
I want stuff, above and beyond what I need to take care of my family. To get it, I have to find something I can provide that somebody else wants. Failing to find anything anybody else wants, I have to work for the government.
I could get really greedy, and demand twice my salary. Nobody will pay, so I have to temper my greed. A store owner has to temper his greed, or risk driving off customers with high prices.
There are examples in which this model doesn't work - there are industries which are as good as monopolies.
I would point out, though, that Enron - John's example - was exposed, and its officers criminally charged. People break the law, and eventually the law will catch up.
Free enterprise isn't a perfect system, because it's being operated by flawed human beings. However, it's the best system that exists. It has been the source of unending improvement in the human condition.
Maybe this is because it takes a reality that won't be denied (human greed) and gives it a purpose. I'll have to think about that some more later. Right now, I'm on vacation.
I'm not back yet, but thought I would check in. By the way, the Superman roller coaster at Great America is awesome.
Since we live by logic, let's start with John's statement that the existence of a supreme being doesn't make sense. Prove to me logically that this is true.
You can't simply say there is no proof. There is no proof of life on other planets, either - in fact, up until a few years ago, we didn't have proof there even were other planets.
Since we live by logic, let's start with John's statement that the existence of a supreme being doesn't make sense. Prove to me logically that this is true.
You can't simply say there is no proof. There is no proof of life on other planets, either - in fact, up until a few years ago, we didn't have proof there even were other planets.
Well, I wasn't sure where you were going with that first post, but...
I've had this conversation enough times to believe that there is no common ground for us to meet on. My point in that other place was that I never had a moment when I considered my options and decided to be an atheist. It's something I came to, not something I chose. Maybe the two of you could discuss your own processes.
At the same time, I've been waiting for someone to bring this up: Steve said, "It's more logical to assume an intelligent, logical engineer." That's the Watchmaker hypothesis, and I must admit that it has some resonance. I've been reading about the origin of life (context: chance of life on other planets) and string theory lately, and man, everything just lines up a little too perfect. But my objection to religion isn't merely an objection to god; it's to the wealth of belief, dogma, and ritual built up around god. How do you logically get from 'created the universe' to 'expects us to behave in certain ways and promises reward/punishment according to our compliance?' I could just as easily claim that this is one of infinite universes: the one that got conditions just right.
Later.
I've had this conversation enough times to believe that there is no common ground for us to meet on. My point in that other place was that I never had a moment when I considered my options and decided to be an atheist. It's something I came to, not something I chose. Maybe the two of you could discuss your own processes.
At the same time, I've been waiting for someone to bring this up: Steve said, "It's more logical to assume an intelligent, logical engineer." That's the Watchmaker hypothesis, and I must admit that it has some resonance. I've been reading about the origin of life (context: chance of life on other planets) and string theory lately, and man, everything just lines up a little too perfect. But my objection to religion isn't merely an objection to god; it's to the wealth of belief, dogma, and ritual built up around god. How do you logically get from 'created the universe' to 'expects us to behave in certain ways and promises reward/punishment according to our compliance?' I could just as easily claim that this is one of infinite universes: the one that got conditions just right.
Later.
My penny says, "In God We Trust" on it. So, does that close the case?
Our existence does include a large element of logic. Chance based evolution is not logical. Life's complexity and diversity by chance collisions of atoms under the perfect environmental conditions? It's more logical to assume an intelligent, logical engineer.
Much of life is not logical. What is logical about allowing the weak of our species to live and, moreover, 'wasting' resources prolonging their lives? What is logical about love, beauty, right & wrong?
Our existence does include a large element of logic. Chance based evolution is not logical. Life's complexity and diversity by chance collisions of atoms under the perfect environmental conditions? It's more logical to assume an intelligent, logical engineer.
Much of life is not logical. What is logical about allowing the weak of our species to live and, moreover, 'wasting' resources prolonging their lives? What is logical about love, beauty, right & wrong?
I was able to catch some of the dialogue on Master Wingtoes Blog. In his 6/12 posting discussing belief/unbelief in a supreme being, he referred to an item in the comment section (by the infamous JB). I want to transfer the issues of that discussion to Grampa John's sphere.
Assuming no solipsists, I want to find some epistemological ground upon which we may dance.
TOPIC: Abraham Lincoln was neither a breast-supporting women's undergarment, nor the upper hind leg of a hog, nor even an expensive luxury automobile. But... did he exist? Why or why not believe this? Discuss!
Assuming no solipsists, I want to find some epistemological ground upon which we may dance.
TOPIC: Abraham Lincoln was neither a breast-supporting women's undergarment, nor the upper hind leg of a hog, nor even an expensive luxury automobile. But... did he exist? Why or why not believe this? Discuss!
Saturday, June 12, 2004
Okay, I'm on vacation. We're leaving tomorrow and won't be back until Wednesday. So here's something I've been gnawing on for a few days. Picked it up from one of Todd's web buddies, Old Whig.
In "Wall Street," Gordon Gecko said "Greed is good." That character then became a bit of a foil, upon which liberal do-gooders found much enjoyment in throwing their conservative foes.
Little did we then know that Gecko was only paraphrasing the writings of an early 20th century poet, Erma Perham Proetz.
Here are some excerpts from an article she wrote in 1928:
You can read the whole thing here. It's some sort of scan, but you can view it as a pdf or in text if you want. Check the drop boxes above the article.
Greed really is good. Are you greedy? Then you better find some way to part the public from their money, and to do that, you need to offer them something they want. You need to serve them.
Have at it.
In "Wall Street," Gordon Gecko said "Greed is good." That character then became a bit of a foil, upon which liberal do-gooders found much enjoyment in throwing their conservative foes.
Little did we then know that Gecko was only paraphrasing the writings of an early 20th century poet, Erma Perham Proetz.
Here are some excerpts from an article she wrote in 1928:
We are, of course, accustomed to thinking of education as philanthropy and to think of business activity as the direct opposite, the purely selfish pursuit of profit.
There is no occasion to deny that commercial activity is essentially the pursuit of profit. But in the forward progress of the world, we are discovering that the soundest basis of profit is service. Commercial organizations are more and more realizing that they can take profit from the public only if they render a service for which the public is willing to pay and that the willingness of the public to pay depends on whether the public is educated to the point of valuing the service.
It is coming more and more to be realized by the great commercial organizations that the end of selfish activity profit cannot be accomplished unless the activity really renders service to the public.
The fundamental purpose of business organizations today is not to discover how the public can be fooled, but on the contrary, to discover how the public can be served.
You can read the whole thing here. It's some sort of scan, but you can view it as a pdf or in text if you want. Check the drop boxes above the article.
Greed really is good. Are you greedy? Then you better find some way to part the public from their money, and to do that, you need to offer them something they want. You need to serve them.
Have at it.
Oh, goodie, goodie– a forum within which we may discuss issues in a civilized manner. (And no name calling either, you big dope!)
Since Jack is of the highest intellect, and the boys are both highly educated and multilingual, I do greatly appreciate that to this point not one of you has flaunted that reality. Nay, verily, I declare that each has hidden it into total latency always putting forth such self-deprecating facades. Acting!!
One unabashed liberal (you’ll be bashed plenty soon enough!), one conservative (sounds like a pretty smart guy!), Todd (a riddle in a paradox surrounded by an enigma wrapped in a sesame seed tortilla!), and I (your token Christian who no longer handles snakes, but is losing teeth and does speak in tongues!)(don’t worry, I haven’t formed it into a written version, yet.)– all add up to hours and hours of fun.
Y’all may remember the old personal slam, “If you had any more brains, you’d be a half-wit.” Now then, all four of us added up together...
And I hope ‘No girls allowed’. I’ve always been fond of the expression, “ Don’t worry your pretty little head about it, Baby– It’s a Man thing.”
Since Jack is of the highest intellect, and the boys are both highly educated and multilingual, I do greatly appreciate that to this point not one of you has flaunted that reality. Nay, verily, I declare that each has hidden it into total latency always putting forth such self-deprecating facades. Acting!!
One unabashed liberal (you’ll be bashed plenty soon enough!), one conservative (sounds like a pretty smart guy!), Todd (a riddle in a paradox surrounded by an enigma wrapped in a sesame seed tortilla!), and I (your token Christian who no longer handles snakes, but is losing teeth and does speak in tongues!)(don’t worry, I haven’t formed it into a written version, yet.)– all add up to hours and hours of fun.
Y’all may remember the old personal slam, “If you had any more brains, you’d be a half-wit.” Now then, all four of us added up together...
And I hope ‘No girls allowed’. I’ve always been fond of the expression, “ Don’t worry your pretty little head about it, Baby– It’s a Man thing.”
Friday, June 11, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)