As a lesbian trapped in a man's body, I gotta say I loved this...
Posted by Peter David at February 19, 2007 09:11 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI love the fact that ever since his announcement that he is gay, he has been in the spotlight more and more. Why should only Shatner get all the attention 40 years later? ^_^
P.S.: for some strange reason, I would love to see him and Ian McEllan in a movie together :-)
Gee, I love seeing George Takei in the spotlight, too. He's been blessed with such a distinctive voice that grabs my attention everytime I hear it. I think it's right up there with people like George C. Scott, Alan Rickman, and especially James Earl Jones. The world needs more human beings who care about life like Takei.
Takei's performance on the Shatner roast was great and his Howard Stern appearances always leave me adoring him more and more as a human being.
I actually know someone who was born a man, became a woman, and then married a woman here in Massachusetts.
As disappointing as it was to hear Hardaway's comments, I don't think he should apologize if that's how he feels. I wonder if he simply did so to exert some damage control over his future endorsement and public speaking prospects.
Okay, I admittedly posted this off-topic passage in the blog entry below, but had I known that there'd be a gay-related blog entry here, I'd have waited.
As of midnight today, it's official:
Say what you want about my home state, Peter, but now we're a safe haven for gays who wish to marry (even if they're not calling it marriage).
I was at a convention a few years back where George Takei was speaking. A rather short woman who I went to school with talked for ten minutes about how she was sure that he was gay, how annoying that is, this that and the other thing. Now, as remarkably prescient as her statements were, I STILL don't care. Now, all these years later, George Takei is out, seems to be revelling in it, and the Sulu audio adventures are still one of the most played CD's in my car.
And she's still short.
Oh yeah, I really wish somebody else from the NBA--not David Stern, but one of the players--would go on the record denouncing Hardaway's rant against John Amaechi (whose book on life in the NBA as a gay man, "Man in the Middle", is released tomorrow) and all gay people.
It would help the NBA's image so much for a guy like Shaq, or LeBron, or Ray Allen, or Dirk Nowitzki, or SOMEBODY to say "This guy's a bigot and what he said was inexcusable. There's no good reason to hate gay people."
But instead of saying something like that, here is what LeBron James said when Amaechi came out of the closet:
"We spend so much time together, we're like family. You take showers together, you're on the bus, you talk about things. With teammates, you have to be trustworthy. If you're gay and you're not admitting that you are, you're not trustworthy. It's the locker room code; it's a trust factor."
I have been a huge fan of George Takei ever since Howard Stern decided to make him an honorary member of his team on Sirius. Granted, thats not very long...But this mans personality and sense of humor are incredible. Not only is he incredibly funny, but the man also takes a joke very very well. I loved this video...and something about his voice in general leaves me hysterical whenever i hear it :)
Mike
*shrug* It's a *good thing* that he can laugh about it in public and no longer risk getting stoned for it. But I can't say I found it especially funny. A tad predictable, I guess. But, kudos to him for standing up about it.
Heartnut - Distinctive voices? Agreed. Add William Windom to the list. Just saw him in a '62 TWILIGHT ZONE where a thick mustache and younger face had him unrecognizeable. But I just knew it had to be him from the voice.
You're a lesbian trapped in a mans body. I'm a drag queen trapped in a womens body. It's a tough world.
Go Zulu!
I saw the punchline coming from a mile away. Doesn't matter. It was till drop-dead funny. Why? Takei's delivery was spot-on perfect in all respects. When he was supposed to sound serious, he did. When he segued to the funny part, he adjusted his delivery seamlessly and perfectly.
That was awesome. Thanks for sharing, Peter.
And of course, the whole "shtick" will likely make Hardaway squirm in the extreme, which I feel is the real payoff, on top of the great delivery of Mr Takei. Turn the tables and spin 'em often. Nice.
Sometimes I find George a little over the top, but he really can be funny. I love how this bit shows him serious and reasonable before he delves into the lecherousness.
I remember some show had him in a fake movie trailer awhile back. In the fake trailer he was the villain of a movie called "Blowd up!" and he would talk about how soon the whole world would be blowd up. Then he'd laugh manically, and I'd bust a gut watching him.
The Starwolf wrote:
Heartnut - Distinctive voices? Agreed. Add William Windom to the list. Just saw him in a '62 TWILIGHT ZONE where a thick mustache and younger face had him unrecognizeable. But I just knew it had to be him from the voice.
S.C.: "Five Characters In Search Of An Exit" and especially enjoyed him as Commodore Decker in "The Doomsday Machine"
Kirk: Where's your crew?
Decker: On the third planet.
Kirk: There is no third planet.
Decker: Don't you think I know that?
Sorry for straying seriously off-topic, but ...
Steve - Did you see the fan-produced sequel to DOOMSDAY? IN HARM'S WAY. They managed to have Windom reprise his Decker role - albeit a much older Decker. OK, PAD's VENDETTA was much better as far as I'm concerned, but for a fan effort it was pretty darn good. Just seeing someone 'drive' a Constitution-class starship through an industrial-sized Guardian of Forever was pretty neat. 8-))
"As disappointing as it was to hear Hardaway's comments, I don't think he should apologize if that's how he feels."
Honestly, I agree. From what I understand, he was on a shock-jock-style radio talkshow, and they asked him how he felt about gays, particularly in locker room settings. If that's how he REALLY felt, should he have lied? If, for instance, this guy was raised to embrace the Bible, then his breeding tells him to abominate gays and also not to lie. So he was doing was he thought was right. Maybe we should hunt down his parents and ask him what they were planting in their kid's mind.
Should he have hedged it? "How do you feel about gays?" "No comment. I'd rather not talk about it." Well you just KNOW that if he'd gone that route, the media would have sensed blood and piled on looking for a quote.
It's not as if he beat up a gay guy, was arrested, and by way of defense he said he hated gays. He feels a certain way, he was asked about it, he answered honestly. Let's face it: The things he said were no different than the drafters of the military code of conduct, and that's a situation where those who hold that opinion really have an impact, unlike a basketball player.
Yes, the irony doesn't elude me that there's plenty of people who would answer the same way when asked about African-Americans, and I doubt Hardaway would be so sanguine about that attidue. I wonder if anyone's brought that to his attention.
At any rate, I certainly think his comments warrant a big, fat, shoulder-shrugging, "Okay, well...sorry you feel that way." After all, pro sports brought it on themselves: They make players sign off on morality clauses. So if they're going to force issues of morality on pro athletes, they then don't get to bitch if those same players advocate positions based upon Bible-taught morality.
PAD
Not much of a joke if I were just reading the script, but Takei makes everything better.
O my.....
For some reason, I never watch Voyager. So with Spike TV now showing it in sequence, I got my first chance to see Takei's Sulu episode for the first time a while back...reminding me once again that Paramount really missed the boat in not developing the Sulu character into at the least a more-often used recurring character.
I don't fault Hardaway for his words...I'm surprised we haven't had some big-name star say something like it before this. We've got states preventing same-sex marraige...open discrimination...so there must be a good number of people that hold views similar to Hardaways. And I think his apology was ok, too...mostly he apologized for saying he hated gay people. That's fine...hate is a strong word, and when used with "crime," land people in jail, so I can see why he'd want to back away from the H word.
And I think this is a perfect response. Because, deep down, I have to think that most anti-gay sentiment comes from the fear that gay people can "infect" their gayness on heterosexuals. That they secretly want us all.
And now, thanks to Takei, we know the truth. ;)
"From what I understand, he was on a shock-jock-style radio talkshow"
For the record, Dan Le Batard, who was asking Hardaway about gays on his radio show, is not exactly what I would term "shock jock".
He's a sports columnist for the Miami Herald and occasionally for ESPN The Magazine, does sports radio there in Miami, and is a regular guest host for ESPN's Pardon the Interruption.
But maybe I just need "shock jock" redefined for me. :)
"Should he have hedged it? "How do you feel about gays?" "No comment. I'd rather not talk about it." "
I don't know. I can see what you're saying about honesty. The real problem is that he feels that way, not that he said it.
But saying it is a problem too, even if it is a smaller problem. It's basically accepting the belief, when he should be working to be a better person. Saying what he said to a broadcast audience is basically telling them that it is OK if they feel that way, too.
If he felt that way but kept it to himself, he'd at least be admitting on some level that this is something that needs to change. Being proud of being ignorant makes it worse.
Craig-
That would be my bad since I was pulling the story from memory from hearing about it on the radio and a short article about his being pulled from the All star game. Thanks for the clarification.
Kath
And just to show how far the understanding of homosexuality has come in today's 'age of enlightenment':
"I have heard the argument that "Being gay is so tough and I'm so persecuted", why would I choose that lifestyle. Maybe they like that abuse and attention. Some weirdos are into that stuff."
- poster on another forum I read
"It's basically accepting the belief, when he should be working to be a better person. Saying what he said to a broadcast audience is basically telling them that it is OK if they feel that way, too."
To which they would say that who are you to say that it's wrong for them to feel that way? Their point of view would be that there's something wrong with you for *not* being abominated. And they'll claim that their position is backed up by the word of God. So you've got a tough road ahead of you.
PAD
"Someday, when you least expect it, we will have sex with you."
Awesome!
Hurry and talk about heroes! Mondays episode was really well done....the whole show feel as if I am reading some of my favorite comics. Its a blast!
So is it wrong for the NBA to ban him from all star games?
ON the one hand it is highly disturbing to ban someone for expressing their free speech, even when that speech is repugnant. And as PAD points out, what he says even has the official sanction of certain government agencies, so it seems hypocritical to be all shocked, shocked, when an athlete expresses it in raw language.
Then again, we've seen similar things done to people who expressed racist opinions--John Rocker, Jimmy the Greek, etc. I doubt a holocaust denier would be welcome at most events. One can legally join NAMBLA but don't expect not to lose any and all endorsement deals.
It's a slippery slope though. Given his apology I think they should let him compete if he is qualified to do so. Certainly anyone who felt that the Dixie Chicks were wrongly treated should have sympathy to this guy, however odious his views.
The Star Wolf wrote:
Steve - Did you see the fan-produced sequel to DOOMSDAY? IN HARM'S WAY. They managed to have Windom reprise his Decker role - albeit a much older Decker. OK, PAD's VENDETTA was much better as far as I'm concerned, but for a fan effort it was pretty darn good. Just seeing someone 'drive' a Constitution-class starship through an industrial-sized Guardian of Forever was pretty neat. 8-))
S.C.: Missed out on that one, but it sounds cool.
Also, Takei was cool on that episode of Voyager, and it's a shame that Paramount didn't do a show based on Sulu and his crew.
Bill, just FYI, Hardaway is a retired baller, who was working for the NBA as an analyst/presenter. He wasn't going to play or compete in any of the events.
As public representation of the league..not just a player, but an employee, I don't have any problem with the NBA deciding to terminate their relationship with him. Whether you're for or against his position, it's one that's bound to draw criticism. As a business, you generally don't want a public representative that's going to cost you customers.
Had he been a player, it would have been interesting what the league would have done. Certainly, they couldn't bar him for playing. Or rather, they could, but the negative response would probably be great enough that the league wouldn't. But exclude him from the ASG events? Maybe. His apology would probably have earned him a player pass, like Tyrus Thomas' comments on participating in the Dunk contest.
I don't feel that what the DXC went through was wrong...free speech doens't mean you're immune to the consequences of making use of that right. If you express an unpopular opinion, and your job relies upon some level of public acceptance, that opinion might cost you some business. I don't think they deserved to receive death threats, and those folks, should they ever be caught, will learn that free speech doesn't apply to everything you say. But if radio stations and concert venues want to cancel DCX songs because they said something more and more people agree with every day, that's their decision to make. We can agree or disagree with the motives behind that decision, but it's not a matter of right or wrong for society to correct.
Enjoy it while you can. This was the funniest thing ever produced on Jimmy Kimmel Live," with an appearance by Jack Black and Tenacious D a close second.
Problem is that the rest of Kimmel's shows aren't anywhere near this level. It's a talk show where most of the talking is done by Kimmel and his cheesy supporting cast, sounding like imitation Letterman. The ratings are low, the show is losing money for Disney, and I've heard that ABC News has shot some pilots for an hour-long edition of Nightline for the possible time that ABC pulls the plug on this turkey. News won't make them any more money, but it's cheaper to produce, has some nobility, and it'll get those imitative LA club bands that Kimmel inexplicably loves out of the network's hair.
I hate gay people.... I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it.Certainly anyone who felt that the Dixie Chicks were wrongly treated should have sympathy to this guy, however odious his views.
The NBA wants to distance itself from a former player who indulged in celebrating the isolation of a minority -- however crude the NBA's manner.
Radio stations organizing public demolitions of a preformer's album for saying "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas" in itself indulges in isolating her.
Comparing the two agendas only makes sense if you consider any public criticism of white patriarchy to be predatory. That's not a compassion shared among the oppressed, but the privileged.
Bobb, I hadn't realized that he was in a position other than a player. Well, then, of course they have the right to boot him off, and it's probably smart business to do so. An analyst/presenter is of value only in as much as they increase one's enjoyment of the game and having someone who is deliberately turning off viewers on account of his obnoxious opinions serves no purpose.
The ad for Blow'd Up - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td4VEGiIQmk
Darrik-thanks. That was funny.
It really is great to see him getting so much love now.
"I don't feel that what the DXC went through was wrong...free speech doens't mean you're immune to the consequences of making use of that right. If you express an unpopular opinion, and your job relies upon some level of public acceptance, that opinion might cost you some business. I don't think they deserved to receive death threats, and those folks, should they ever be caught, will learn that free speech doesn't apply to everything you say. But if radio stations and concert venues want to cancel DCX songs because they said something more and more people agree with every day, that's their decision to make. We can agree or disagree with the motives behind that decision, but it's not a matter of right or wrong for society to correct."
Wait a second. I think there's a difference between a consumer who decides to boycot artists (like the Dixie Chicks), and when a radio station or record store does it.
Secondly, it's true that in principal both the case of Haraway and the Dixie Chicks are cases of freedom of speech, but it seems to me that there should be a difference in the public preceptionand the public's attitude toward someone using freedom of speech in order to criticize a policy or a political figure and when someone uses it to voice hatred toward a group. We shouldn't get too relativistic.
Anyway, George Takei showed that a sense of humor used in the right way can be more effective than public outrage by some humorless advocacy group.
Secondly, it's true that in principal both the case of Haraway and the Dixie Chicks are cases of freedom of speech, but it seems to me that there should be a difference in the public preceptionand the public's attitude toward someone using freedom of speech in order to criticize a policy or a political figure and when someone uses it to voice hatred toward a group. We shouldn't get too relativistic.
Agreed but since prejudice against gays is tolerated and even to a degree encouraged in government--witness the bipartisan support for both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Don't Ask Don't tell policies--it becomes a bit hypocritical for society to come down hard on some athlete who simply speaks the same prejudice, without the fancy rhetoric and justifications.
I covered an NBC press conference with George Takei recently, re: his stint on "Heroes." But he really had a lot of fascinating things to say, from growing up in Japanese American interment camps to coming out a few years ago.
"Agreed but since prejudice against gays is tolerated and even to a degree encouraged in government--witness the bipartisan support for both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Don't Ask Don't tell policies--it becomes a bit hypocritical for society to come down hard on some athlete who simply speaks the same prejudice, without the fancy rhetoric and justifications."
Isn't there a difference between opposing gay marriage and saying you hate gays?
And should one case of pejudice justify another? If you're going to fight against prejudice you have to start somewhere. It is only hypocritical if the people doing the criticizing of the athlete support the other forms of discrimination.
...of course they have the right to boot him off, and it's probably smart business to do so. An analyst/presenter is of value only in as much as they increase one's enjoyment of the game and having someone who is deliberately turning off viewers on account of his obnoxious opinions serves no purpose.
...since prejudice against gays is tolerated and even to a degree encouraged in government--witness the bipartisan support for both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Don't Ask Don't tell policies--it becomes a bit hypocritical for society to come down hard on some athlete who simply speaks the same prejudice, without the fancy rhetoric and justifications.
First you say the NBA is justified in getting rid of a commentator because his opinion is offensive -- in your words "turning off viewers." Then you say they're being hypocritical because the commentator opinion was nurtured by society -- ie not "turning off viewers."
Are you capable of establishing a boundary -- whether Hardaway's comments are a "turn off" or not -- before attempting to speak with any pretense of knowledge?
Hmm, looks like Mike is back to commenting on my posts again. Or maybe just attacking people's kids--since I don't read him any more I'll have to wait for someone else to tell me. Let me know if he comes near a valid point (and if I'm wrong and nothing he says refers to me please forgive the display of ego!)
Micha--Isn't there a difference between opposing gay marriage and saying you hate gays?
There is. I would not advocate firing someone over not supporting gay marriage. I'm aware that I'm in the minority in supporting it and not everyone who does not support it is doing so for hateful reasons. I think most genuinely, if (in my opinion) needlessly think that gay marriage would be harmful to families. But it is still a prejudiced view and it is hurting people who have done nothing to deserve it. Ditto on the ban on gays in the military--I honestly can't see how this can be justified. When this policy is revoked--and it will be--people will wonder what the hell the whole fuss was about (remember the huge controversy over gay teachers? Well here in my little North Carolina backwater we have several openly gay teachers and 2 of them have been teacher of the year, respected by their peers and loved by their kids).
Ok, I'm preaching to the choir, I know. Hardaway said a hateful thing and is paying the price. When you are representing a company you had better be careful about announcing disdain for any segment of the paying customer. Honesty is fine, but don't be surprised to become the most honest guy on the unemployment line. But who has really done the most harm--Hardaway with his openly declared bigotry or the politicians who give lip service to the rights of gays even as they limit their career choices and the fundamental right to marry the person you love and live out the American Dream (albeit with a modification undreamed of by Ozzie and Harriet)?
We tend to focus on the overtly bad bigots while tolerating the everyday slights. It would be like getting all righteous against a Bull O'Conner while shrugging at the less clearly vicious injustices of the Jim Crow south.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that anything I've said is something you agree or disagree with, Micha--you just gave me the stimulus to break out the soapbox again. Back to our regular program...
Yes, the irony doesn't elude me that there's plenty of people who would answer the same way when asked about African-Americans, and I doubt Hardaway would be so sanguine about that attidue. I wonder if anyone's brought that to his attention.
In Hardaway's forced (and I'm sure totally disingenuous) apology shortly after this, he said "As an African-American, I know all too well the negative thoughts and feelings hatred and bigotry cause." Which, IMO, makes it all the more reprehensible that he would say this kind of thing, because as he says, he knows how much being a victim of bigotry hurts.
Here's something funny...I found another press release that quotes him as saying "There are more important things to worry about than my comments. We should be more concerned about President (George) Bush and all the people dying in Iraq." If he's sincere and not just trying to get back in people's good graces by trying to get the focus on somebody worse than him, then at least he's not clueless about everything but it sucks that we've got guys like this on our side of the Iraq issue. I wouldn't turn down any help they'd give as far as public statements and protests and donating money and whatever, but I wouldn't like working with them when they harbor such hatred towards innocent people.
After all, the whole reason some of us oppose Iraq is because innocent people are dying; the last thing we want to see is somebody who has done no wrong dying or suffering, whether they are being killed or wounded or tortured at the hands of the U.S. military under Bush's orders, or whether they are being hurt emotionally by Hardaway's comments and rejection by society. People should live and let live.
If, for instance, this guy was raised to embrace the Bible, then his breeding tells him to abominate gays and also not to lie. So he was doing was he thought was right. Maybe we should hunt down his parents and ask him what they were planting in their kid's mind.
That is certainly a possible reason for his feelings.
However, it's not the only one, as I know. When I was in high school the word "faggot" got thrown around a lot as an insult (probably still is, though not as much). That was a homophobic environment, and if I were to tell you that I was completely innocent and never had a bad thought about gay people at that point in my life I would be lying.
I didn't grow up in a family of religious zealots or anything. For me, and I presume for other people, the thing that made us think of being gay as disgusting and make crude jokes and so forth was that we thought the idea of anal sex was disgusting. And, as far as we knew back then, only gay people engaged in anal sex. Even today, the thought of somebody voluntarily sticking any part of their body into the hole through which fecal matter is passed--particularly if they do it with no condom--is not really something I like thinking about. Any more than I like thinking about somebody giving somebody else a "Dirty Sanchez." Guess that makes me fecalphobic.
I began to think about it differently when Freddy Mercury died, however, because suddenly a face had been attached to the faceless "faggots" that got ridiculed all the time, and it was the face of somebody I respected. I saw the clips from Freddy giving interviews and could not help but realize that there was more to this guy than just his sexual orientation.
That, combined with the revelation that many, if not most, gay people don't like the idea of making physical contact with human waste any more than I do (hence very thorough personal hygiene and use of condoms), was what made me do a 180 and become more accepting.
Anyway, my point is that nowhere in this story did the Bible or the Torah or the Koran play a part. Obviously, the hatred towards gay people exhibited by others *is* rooted in their religion, but this is not always the case. In my case, my parents had absolutely nothing to do with it one way or the other.
I think most genuinely, if (in my opinion) needlessly[,] think that gay marriage would be harmful to families....
But who has really done the most harm--Hardaway with his openly declared bigotry or the politicians who give lip service to the rights of gays even as they limit their career choices and the fundamental right to marry the person you love and live out the American Dream (albeit with a modification undreamed of by Ozzie and Harriet)?
We tend to focus on the overtly bad bigots while tolerating the everyday slights. It would be like getting all righteous against a Bull O'Conner while shrugging at the less clearly vicious injustices of the Jim Crow south.
You started by saying the motive to limit marriage to exclude gays isn't hostile.
But when someone who publicly says nice things about gays withholds his support to gay marriage -- he's practically declared war on homosexuality.
Why yes, That's Totally Normal Psychology.™
Hmm, looks like Mike is back to commenting on my posts again. Or maybe just attacking people's kids...
That's funny, I would have thought you were someone's kid. But if you deny it, who am I to disagree?
I've been treating this story a bit like most of the Anna Nicole coverage.
(Click)... Next channel.
It was worth a side note on the news, but the coverage and reactions have been silly. He's a moron and he said something to prove just how big a moron he really is. Big deal.
Last I looked, you can like or dislike anyone you want to so long as your personal dislike of them doesn't come in to play in a employer/employee relationship or lead to criminal actions. From what little I've bothered following of this, this situation is neither of those two things. He has the right to be, in my POV, a moron and to show that he is a moron if someone asks him to do so.
He has a right to be a moron. People have the right to point out that he is a moron. Other people have the right to point out that, by their POV, he is correct in his views. It's all only words. So long as it stays only words, so long as the words don't turn into encouragement towards violence and so long as his professional actions toward any gay men he may end up playing against on the courts are not being hampered by his personal views, it's really not that big of a deal.
Besides, it's not like he said Belgium.
Hilarious!!! Brilliant!!!
As for Hardaway ("Hard"-heh heh heh) apologizing, nah. He was stating hoe he feels. Even if how he feels is repugnant, close minded, and prejudiced, it's still how he feels.
Any hoo, atleast there's no doubt the guy's a jerk. Gotta feed baby.
Bill, there's no real disagreement between you and me. You are correct that institutional prejudice is worst than a few words by an loud mouth bigot. I personaly don't care much for those situations where some celebrity says something stupid and than goes through a whole public penance. However, the fact that we live today in a world (at least in the west) where homosexuality is slightly more tolerated, and prejudice slightly less tolerated, is because of a lot of small events in which intolerance was delegitimized. So basically we both agree that it is good that Hardaway got into some trouble for his words, but there are still many greater issues to deal with.
About Mike, you're not missing anything.
Jerry, there is view, which I do not completley accept, that says that hate speech, in and of itself, harms gays, blacks, arabs, jews, mexicans, women etc. because if hate speech is common and acceptable, it makes it difficult for them to function in society. I don't think I'm explaining this point of view very well, but I would imagine that it is very difficult for a homosexual attending a high school in which the word faggot is in common use, even if there are no cases of gay bashing and he or she is not actualy prevented from doing anything. The hostile environment probably affects his or her life in ways we are not aware of.
Rob, it is no secret that sexuality is a very significant aspect of human identity and of human interaction. My theory is that homosexuality, or in the past the presence of women in the workplace, are or were perceived by society as a disturbance of the stability of that identity and interaction. In other words, it touches on a deep psychological level.
An interesting poll just came out that stated (and let's keep in mind the usual caveats about the general uselessness of polls) that more people would vote for a gay president than they would an atheist one. Interesting if true. Mormons and old people didn't do so great either which is possibly bad news for Mitt Romney and John McCain.
A certain Israeli liberal political party I sometimes vote for really wanted to have minorities on its ticket (Arabs, Gays, women, and Russians mostly). So somebody figured out that the most likely candidate to get on the list would be a transexual Circassian (small community of Arabic muslims who were brought by the Turks to Palestine/Israel from the Circassian mountains [Russia] in the 19th century).
OK. This would have been funnier without all the explanations.
Jerry, totally agree with you on the ANS coverage...but I don't think Hardaway's comments are of the same ilk. They reflect a viewpoint held by many people living in this country, and I think that's a problem. Not that they live here, or hold those views, but rather that prejudice and discrimination based on sexual preference is something we're still dealing with. Disregarding it as moronic, I think, is dangerous. You ignore morons, because they don't know any better, and you can't really help them change. Hardaway isn't a moron, though. He holds a certain viewpoint that I think is detrimental to the ongoing development of our society.
Secondly, it's true that in principal both the case of Haraway and the Dixie Chicks are cases of freedom of speech, but it seems to me that there should be a difference in the public preceptionand the public's attitude toward someone using freedom of speech in order to criticize a policy or a political figure and when someone uses it to voice hatred toward a group. We shouldn't get too relativistic.Agreed but since prejudice against gays is tolerated and even to a degree encouraged in government--witness the bipartisan support for both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Don't Ask Don't tell policies--it becomes a bit hypocritical for society to come down hard on some athlete who simply speaks the same prejudice, without the fancy rhetoric and justifications.
Bill, there's no real disagreement between you and me. You are correct that institutional prejudice is worst than a few words by an loud mouth bigot.... So basically we both agree that it is good that Hardaway got into some trouble for his words, but there are still many greater issues to deal with.
Bill simply made institutional reform a priority over challenging the public celebration of bigotry. His equating the retaliation against "I hate gay people.... I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it" with the retaliation against "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas" still stands.
Comparing the two agendas only makes sense if you consider any public criticism of white patriarchy to be predatory. It demonstrates the neediness underlying the pretense of invulnerability.
To Bill, reform doesn't begin with crude Boston Tea Parties, but with fully evolved Declaration of Independences -- and only for the reform he has no stake in. He holds others to abstinance from lying, rumor campaigns, and libel, but never himself. It's how he shelters the status quo he seeks credit for criticising.
That's how pretense shelters a predatory agenda.
So somebody figured out that the most likely candidate to get on the list would be a transexual Circassian
Why not a shrimp-headed welder with pods?
I shouldn't have posted that bit. It requires too many explanations.
A transsexual circassian is gay/woman/arab/russian simultanously. namely four marginalized groups in Israeli society.
This party is very liberal, so it wants to help these groups. But most of its voters and candidates do not belong to marginalized groups but in fact belong to the more fortunate group of Israeli society -- the equivalent of WASPs. It is also a small party with only 5-8 members actually entering our parliament. So they were at a bind between their desire to include members of these groups in their party, and the desire to have the people they like -- who are like them -- enter parliament. So somebody who embodies four of the marginalized groups at once would have been ideal way for them to satisfy both their liberal inclinations and have most of their buddies in parliament. basically you have a party of WASPy liberals trying to have a token minority.
It's one of the, you'd have to have been there jokes -- not really funny.
Bill, I think that shrimp is not kosher. I expect that would work against the welder...
It does sound pretty ridiculous, Micha.
Whoever this candidate of theirs is (if they have found a particular TS circassian, that is) I wish that person the best, but I doubt she (I'll refer to the candidate as "she" since this person identifies as female and plans to have surgery to become physically female) will have any chance of being elected.
It's just like if somebody in the U.S. ran for President who was black, and gay, and a woman, and wasn't born in the country. Even being ONE of those things hurts your chances, you know?
It's just like if somebody in the U.S. ran for President who was black, and gay, and a woman, and wasn't born in the country. Even being ONE of those things hurts your chances, you know?
Well, yeah, if she wasn't born here it pretty much reduces her chances to zero!
(Interesting plot idea--a candidate discovers, on the eve of the election, that they were actually born outside of the USA, thus disqualifying them. Or better yet, their opponent discovers it.)
Micha,
Yeah, I've heard that a lot as well but have never subscribed to it. I also tend to believe that there are two things that change the ability of words to harm over time.
The first is any person's own ability to brush stupid crap like that off. I've pointed out before that I grew up in an area where I was the minority for most of my time there. I was the only white guy on my bus in two school districts. Whites were the minority in most of my classes in Petersburg and in some in Prince George. At a time before I was old enough to drive, I was one of only a handful of white kids in my neighborhood.
I had quite a few black friends, but there were lots of black kids in Petersburg that were as racist towards whites as any 50's Southerner stereotype you can think of would be towards blacks. I had lots of nasty things said to me based on nothing more the color of my skin. I also had a few acts of violence thrown my way based on my being white. Violence I met with violence until I got a reputation as someone you didn't mess with. But words? Couldn't care less. The people saying those things didn't know me, weren't my friends and meant absolutely less then nothing to me. Their words had no power in my mind. Their words couldn't hurt me.
It's something I point out to other officers from time to time when they take offense to something said by some loudmouth. Lots of people like to say lots of fun things to/at police just because we're there and they're morons. So what? Why should I give a moron's words any value by allowing them to have any meaning to me?
The second factor is time and public acceptance of an idea. 100 years ago, a white man standing on a street corner in Georgia and calling for his fellow "gentlemen" to get some rope and head out to lynch some blacks might have been a major threat to the local black population. Today the moron would end up arrested, probably given a mental evaluation and, if he were a public figure, shunned and booted from whatever position he held. 50 years ago, blacks and Asians were portrayed in films in a manner that would not be accepted by the general public today. An entertainer then could be able to do a routine with hate filled rants and racial slurs that would get him banned from most places today and, if he were, say, a well known TV star, get him in temporarily career threatening jeopardy.
Dingbat made a stupid statement that, while maybe 70 or 80 years ago would have flown with the general public, won't fly today. How truly powerless were his words? He may have only found support with the fringe minority that thinks like he does. The majority of Americans reacted by expressing their distaste for his comments. He got in lots of trouble and had his employer spank him over it. The majority of the population that expressed their views on the subject did so to call him to the mat over his statements.
His words have no power. The greatest risk here is going so overboard in punishing him that he can in some way start playing up a victim status in the face of extreme overreaction.
Bobb,
"They reflect a viewpoint held by many people living in this country, and I think that's a problem..."
But it is a problem that is diminishing with each generation. It is a problem that more and more people see as a problem and act to correct or remove. But it is a belief that many hold and it would be wrong to tell them that they may not express it.
Mind you, I'm not saying others should not stand up and counter the statements or make an argument against expressed stupidity. It's like with Kanye West declaring that Bush hates black people and that "they" were down there killing "us" for just trying to get food. I argued with several people here and lots of people outside the net-world that he was a moron and what he said was both full of it and just one part of an ultimately extremely self destructive POV to hold for various reasons. At no time did I say he shouldn't be allowed to say such things (outside of questioning his choice of when and where) and I don't think he should be financially punished for being an idiot. He has a right to be a fool and to prove it to the world as often as he wishes.
"Disregarding it as moronic, I think, is dangerous. You ignore morons, because they don't know any better, and you can't really help them change. Hardaway isn't a moron, though. He holds a certain viewpoint that I think is detrimental to the ongoing development of our society."
Calling it moronic isn't dangerous so long as people don't ignore anything that might grow from something like that. Write off words as nothing more then words. If he converts his beliefs into actions or has supporters that try to create physical or financial harm to gays, then you act and act decisively. You make an example of such fools because actions such as that are detrimental to the ongoing development of our society. But the odd group of fools, and groups that are growing smaller with time, opening their mouths and inserting their feet won't mess with the development of our society. We've had people like this for as long as we've had society and likely always will. They're not a problem so long as the majority continues to grow and continues to deem such behavior to be the boorish examples of moronic mouthbreathers that it is.
100 years ago, a white man standing on a street corner in Georgia and calling for his fellow "gentlemen" to get some rope and head out to lynch some blacks might have been a major threat to the local black population. Today the moron would end up arrested, probably given a mental evaluation and, if he were a public figure, shunned and booted from whatever position he held.
Directly taking steps to preserve your privilege isn't inherently moronic or insane. Doing so publicly merely sacrifices that privilege's most reliable shelter -- denying it even exists.
100 years ago, the privilege of white patriarchy in the US did not depend on such a denial. Now those who would preverse it must resort to painting any criticism of white patriarchy as predatory -- by comparing "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas" to "I hate gay people.... I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it."
Bill Mulligan:
Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that the president must be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Unless I misunderstand the meaning, that doesn't preclude he or she being born outside the U.S.- so long as his/her parents are U.S. citizens. That would automatically make him/her a U.S. citizen.
In other words, if for example, your parents- both U.S. citizens- were living in Germany when you were born, you'd be a U.S. citizen and eligible to run for president.
Though why anyone would _want_ to is beyond me. As Milo Bloom said in a 1988 (or late 1987) storyline about the search for a presidential candidate, "we need a complete fool." He turned to Steve Dallas, who, not being a _complete_ fool, immediately shouted, "forget it!"
Again, someone born outside the U.S. to U.S. citizens is also a U.S. citizen. Neither Governor Granholm nor Governor Schwarzenegger could be president (barring a constitutional amendment) because they were born outside the U.S. (in Canada and Austria, respectively) to parents who weren't U.S. citizens.
Now I've a question on a related note, one I'll throw out to the room: If "Bob's" mother has, say, dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship; his father has dual U.S. and German citizenship and Bob is born in Spain, how many citizenships can he claim? All of the above, or just some?
Rick
Mormons and old people didn't do so great either which is possibly bad news for Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Someone should do a poll about the likelihood of voting for a candidate with a reputation for serious anger management problems. That would probably sink John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
Howard Dean, too, but then he's not running.
Rick--thanks for the correction. I feel like a dope; I'd always thought being born outside of the country disqualified a person. (Which would be a pretty silly reason to disqualify anyone).
Den--you're right that both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have shown flashes of temper before. Whether or not it hurts them might depend on how it is perceived and/or reported. I remember McCain being critisized for telling Connie Chung to go away after a primary loss, like that was a big display of ill temper. Of course, a lot will depend on how they contrast with the Democratic candidate. Would any display of anger look even worse when compared to Hillary's relatively unemotional personality? It would depend on the viewer, I guess and whether or not the story the media decides to play on it "candidate Loose Cannon" or "Candidate Soulless Robot". Niether of which is fair to the actual people involved but there we go.
It's an unfortunate fact, but these days, candidates should realize that their every move and word can be recorded and analyzed by not only the media, but also the bloggers as they post it on U-tube. Howard Dean shouted to be heard over a cheering crowd and the next day, everyone thinks he's a psycho. Teresa Heinz-Kerry tells a reporter with a long history of doing hatchet pieces on her and her family to "shove it" and everyone acts like she literally ripped his throat out. What's the first thing most people think of when they hear Dan Quayle? Potatoe.
Both McCain and Giuliani have reputations for being short-tempered and vindictive. Whether that's deserved or not, I don't know, but I doubt there's anything either could do to change that perception at this point.
"To which they would say that who are you to say that it's wrong for them to feel that way? Their point of view would be that there's something wrong with you for *not* being abominated. And they'll claim that their position is backed up by the word of God. So you've got a tough road ahead of you."
Oh, I'm not saying that I want to argue with them. I'm just saying that being open about his hatred actually *is* worse than avoiding the subject. One implies a deeper problem than the other.
For example, President Kennedy smoked cigars. However, he tried extremely hard not to be seen smoking cigars, to the point that he'd shove them in his pocket when the press showed up. The Secret Service joked about needing to line his pockets with asbestos because of all the holes he'd burned in them.
Kennedy did that because he didn't want the children of the nation to see him smoking and take after his example. Now, I don't think I can convert every smoker to have that attitude, but I do hold Kennedy in higher regard on that subject than all the people who've honestly tried to convince me that smoking doesn't cause cancer.
Well, yeah, if she wasn't born here it pretty much reduces her chances to zero!
I thought there was some kind of legislation in the works that'd make it possible for Schwarzenegger to run eventually, but I forget where I heard that.
Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at February 22, 2007 12:24 PM
I'm just saying that being open about his hatred actually *is* worse than avoiding the subject.
I have to disagree. If you really believe something, you should have the guts to say so. Moreover, the only way we can change irrational attitudes like bigotry towards gays is if those attitudes are out in the open where we can all have a good look at them. Covert bigotry is harder to fight because it's harder to spot.
Posted by: Rob Brown at February 22, 2007 12:35 PM
I thought there was some kind of legislation in the works that'd make it possible for Schwarzenegger to run eventually, but I forget where I heard that.
That would require more than just "legislation." It would entail an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
There was talk of an amendment to get rid of the native born citizen requirement a few years ago when Ahnold had just recently gotten elected the governator. It kind of died down when his education reform initiatives got mired. Now that he's won reelection easily, maybe they're start talking him up for 2012.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I'd hate to go through the amendment process just for the ambitions of one man. On the other hand, the native born clause is really outdated and undemocratic. To be truly fair, it should be amended to just requiring the president to be a citizen in good standing.
I heard a suggestion the other day that we should amend the constitution to limit us to one president from Texas per century. Now that's an amendment I could whole-heartedly support.
"Kennedy did that because he didn't want the children of the nation to see him smoking and take after his example."
That may be it, but I tend to suspect it may have had something to do with his having a fondness for Cuban cigars, and he didn't want to have people seeing him puffing away on Havana Golds for obvious political reasons.
PAD
I had heard once that the day before JFK signed the Cuban embargo, he stocked up his humidore.
Jerry, perhaps a better demonstation of the point of viw that hate speech is bad in and of itself is this: a black cop serving in a police force in which racist language is common might find it difficult to perform his job, and will be unlikely to be promoted, even if there will not be clear signs of discrimination.
However, I tend more to agree with your point of view. The fact is that the fact that hate speech is less accepted today is not because of laws restricting freedom of speech, but because freedom of speech was used in order to change the way people think and behave.
"I have to disagree. If you really believe something, you should have the guts to say so. Moreover, the only way we can change irrational attitudes like bigotry towards gays is if those attitudes are out in the open where we can all have a good look at them. Covert bigotry is harder to fight because it's harder to spot."
I wonder. Do you think that the fact that racist language and behavior are less acceptable today was the result of an internal change leading to an external one, or an external change leading to an internal change? Was it first unacceptable to say racist things, and as a result racism become not only less acceptable on the outside, but eventually was removed (to a degree) from peole's minds? Or did the rejection of racist language have to begin with an internal change?
----------------------
"It does sound pretty ridiculous, Micha.
Whoever this candidate of theirs is (if they have found a particular TS circassian, that is) I wish that person the best, but I doubt she (I'll refer to the candidate as "she" since this person identifies as female and plans to have surgery to become physically female) will have any chance of being elected.
It's just like if somebody in the U.S. ran for President who was black, and gay, and a woman, and wasn't born in the country. Even being ONE of those things hurts your chances, you know?"
I shouldn't have posted that story, it requires too many explanations. The Israeli electoral system is different from the American.
To translate to American terms: suppose Ralph Nader was looking for a running mate for the next presidential elections. Obviously Nader has no chance of being president and his running mate's identity probably only matters to the tiny group of ultra-liberal people who support Nader, and even then only those who bother being active in his party. But being the ultra-liberals that they are, they would want to have a running mate that will belong to an under-represented group like women, gays, blacks, hispanics and so forth, despite many of them being white heterosexuals (Nader will not consider giving up his candidacy of course so that such a person would be the presidential candidate). But which group should they satisfy? Which group is more important? And what about all of the possible staunch liberal candidates, the veterans of many struggles, who have the misfortune of being white? This is the kind of funny problems ultra-liberals such as myself, who vote for small liberal parties, have to face.
During our elections the liberal party I vote for used to joke that the ideal candidate would be a transexual-circassian, since it would satisfy four groups inside this rather small party: gays, russians, feminists, and arabs, each one of which had there own candidate they wanted to support. (there was no actual transexual candidate) Most of the voters however, although very liberal, were none of the above. They were mostly non immigrant heterosexual jews. The candidates they really liked were like them too. But they also wanted to feel that they were doing something for minorities.
And now to an even more boring explanation of the Israeli electoral system, proceed at your own peril:
The Nader analogy I wrote above doesn't completelt fit. Israel doesn't have a presidential system. We vote for political parties. A party gets seats in our 120 member parliament based on the number of votes it gets. I think about 50,000 votes is one seat ans so on. Each party has a list of people who fill the seats one by the party. In a small party like the one I vote for, the 10th person on the list has a very slim chance of getting in. No. 1 is the leader of the party. Part of the internal political process of the different parties involves constructing that lists, often by internal primaries. I think this aspect of our system is better than yours because votes don't go to waste. Even if you hold a minority position you still have some candidates in parliament.
Since John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone I hope this has all been worked out!
I'm pretty sure that, like a military base in a foreign country or an embassy, the Panama Cannel zone was considered by treaty to be US territory at that time, so McCain should have nothing to worry about.
Besides, he's never going to win anyway. :)
"That may be it, but I tend to suspect it may have had something to do with his having a fondness for Cuban cigars, and he didn't want to have people seeing him puffing away on Havana Golds for obvious political reasons."
Eh, it's probably both.
I'm just saying that being open about his hatred actually *is* worse than avoiding the subject.I have to disagree. If you really believe something, you should have the guts to say so. Moreover, the only way we can change irrational attitudes like bigotry towards gays is if those attitudes are out in the open where we can all have a good look at them. Covert bigotry is harder to fight because it's harder to spot.
***
If you mean "oppressive," "predatory," or "wrong," you can say "oppressive," "predatory," or "wrong" -- don't seek shelter behind terms you've demonstrated you don't understand.
Intelligent design isn't irrational, it simply disregards evolution -- it's a conflict of incompatible rational paradigms. Even atheist Kurt Vonnegut admits evolution makes as much sense as a tornado whipping into a hangar and slapping a 747 together -- and considering how often evolution is misinterpreted, by capitalists, by communists, by supremacists, siding with intelligent design over the observation-heavy theory of evolution is clearly more rational.
***
Do you think that the fact that racist language and behavior are less acceptable today was the result of an internal change leading to an external one, or an external change leading to an internal change? Was it first unacceptable to say racist things, and as a result racism become not only less acceptable on the outside, but eventually was removed (to a degree) from peole's minds? Or did the rejection of racist language have to begin with an internal change?
Poor people will talk about money. Rich people will tell you talking about money is impolite.
As the privileged shelter their privileges by making discussion of their privileges taboo, predators will shelter their predatory agendas with denial.
When racism was not considered predatory, publicly defending white patriarchy wasn't a problem. Now white patriarchy has to be sheltered by comparing "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas" to "I hate gay people.... I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it" -- where any criticism of white patriarchy gets painted as predatory.
Even atheist Kurt Vonnegut admits evolution makes as much sense as a tornado whipping into a hangar and slapping a 747 together
Okay, suddenly the bits you referred to from Galapagos a while back make a lot more sense: Vonnegut fails to understand evolution at the most basic level. Good to know. (And intelligent design requires the highly irrational step of saying "life, or at least some aspects of it, require an intelligent designer to explain them--but the intelligent designer doesn't require an explanation." Throwing up one's hands and saying "Well, I guess we don't need to explain this part" isn't rational--it's deliberate avoidance of rationality, even if it tries to cloak itself in rational terms.)
BTW....everybody here has heard of Conservapedia right?
Even atheist Kurt Vonnegut admits evolution makes as much sense as a tornado whipping into a hangar and slapping a 747 together
Whoadawha??? I'm guessing this is from Mike. Well, yikes.
(pause while I read his post--don't want to be accused of taking something out of context).
Well, that was the usual thing, though the fact that some people never change their tune has nothing to do with evolution. I don't know if Mike will claim that the Vonnegut reflects his own view or is just something he threw in their to appear intellectual. It is, regardless, pure nonsense. Vonnegut is an intelligent man but saying "evolution makes as much sense as a tornado whipping into a hangar and slapping a 747 together" would, if true, indicates that a basic knowledge of biology is not one of his great strengths.
All of this, of course, assumes that Mike actually has his facts straight--a dangerous assumption, given the source. For example, I am having trouble finding evidence that Mr. Vonnegut has said this and given the science knowledge he has shown in the past it seems rather out of character. The statement sounds a good deal like something British astronomer Fred Hoyle said: the random generation of a simple cell was as likely as "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
Note that this is an argument against the chemical origin of life and has nothing--zip, nada--to do with evolution of life forms on earth. Believing, as some do, that life began on earth from an extraterrestrial "infection", if you will, is interesting but completely meaningless to a discussion on evolution. A common mistake, no big deal (unless one is arrogant enough to include statements like "don't seek shelter behind terms you've demonstrated you don't understand." Then you look like an ass.)
Perhaps Vonnegut was quoting Mr Hoyle in his novel Timequake (one creationist online indicated that something like the quote appears in the book) but that is not the same thing as it being his opinion. Work of fiction and all.
But regardless of whether or not Vonnegut believes this, it is a seriously flawed argument. for many reasons, not the least of which is that nobody claims that complex molecules spontaneously pop into existence by sheer chance. Were that the case every snowflake would be a thermodynamic improbability.
Evolution, like all theories of the natural sciences, seeks an explanation that does not require an the involvement of intelligent forces. It seeks to explain biological phenomena by a mechanistic (is this the proper term?) explanation, just as physics explains the motion of planets and the behavior of atoms, or geology the formation of mountains and continents.
This methodology of seeking mechanistic explanations to natural phenomena is considered preferable for 3 reasons:
1) It reduces the need to speculate about external forces of which there is no empiric evidence available, such as an intelligent designer.
2) It's main tool is observation of the phenomena themselves.
3) The explanation offered by natural sciences seem satisfactory.
Evolution is opposed by people for three reasons:
1) It seems counterintuitive. In everyday human experience, complex things, like planes or clocks, are the result of human minds designing them. It is difficult for people to accept that complex biological organisms, especially humans, are the result of an inanimate process. Some even claim that they can scientifically proove that it is impossible that such complex organisms were formed in the way evolution describes.
2) Human tradition tended to attribute intelligent will to the forces of nature -- gods, spirits etc. Maybe it is an aspect of human nature to animate things? This tradition culminated in the belief in a God who is intelligent and controls or at least intiated natural phenomena. Furthermore, tradition is a strong social and psychological force, and reliion has a long tradition.
3) A mechanistic explanation of human existence, especially one that compars humans with other animals runs contrary to the way humans preceive humanity, especially in the context of human morality. (Mike for example speaks against evolution because of its connection to certain ideologies that tried to extend the evolutionary explanation to the realm of human sociology and history).
--------
Mike is correct that both evolution (and other mechanistic explanations) and intelligent design are equally rational explanations, assuming you adopt a rational attitude for your subject matter. Science does not have to automatically reject the possibility of intelligent agents to be rational. Natural sciences do so because explanations that do not assume intelligent agents are better. Social sciences and humanities on the other hand deal with phenomena connected with intellligent agents (mostly) -- humans. However, even if science were to discard the requirement that the explanation of natural phenomena will not use intelligent agents in its explanations, it would still require that the subject matter of the study will be addressed rationaly. That would mean the intelligent designer wil not be treated with the reverence that religious people attribute to god, but instead he will be studied in the same dispassionate way way that a rock, a planet, a virus, a social institution, or human psychology are studied.
[I should qualify what Isaid earlier in two cases: ecology studies human influence on the environment, and quantum physics speaks about the way an intelligent observer affects behavior of particles.]
It has long amazed me that people--religious ones particularly--are so resistant to the idea of evolution.
Not all, of course. The Pope has no problem with it. One can simply state that evolution is the means by which God (or whatever supernatural force one believes in) has used evolution to get us to this point. Since virtually all educated religious people have no trouble accepting that God uses natural means to me the earth spin and the seasons change it seems to me the height of hubris to think that only Man could not be achieved through nature. The stars and the planets, oh sure, but not mighty man!
I would answer the objections in order:
1) It seems counterintuitive. In everyday human experience, complex things, like planes or clocks, are the result of human minds designing them. It is difficult for people to accept that complex biological organisms, especially humans, are the result of an inanimate process. Some even claim that they can scientifically proove that it is impossible that such complex organisms were formed in the way evolution describes.
Life is chemistry and chemistry is fully capable of getting order out of randomness, at least in the short term. Again, I would use the example of the snowflake--it is not a miracle that water forms such perfect crystal forms. The odds of such a thing forming randomly from atoms is probably 1 bazillion to 1. It happens because it is not random.
2) Human tradition tended to attribute intelligent will to the forces of nature -- gods, spirits etc. Maybe it is an aspect of human nature to animate things? This tradition culminated in the belief in a God who is intelligent and controls or at least intiated natural phenomena. Furthermore, tradition is a strong social and psychological force, and reliion has a long tradition.
And I would respect that. Science can't disprove God. A smart person of a religious nature should welcome science in its search to find the means by which God does His handiwork. Indeed, one could argue that those who try to supress such knowledge are working contrary to God's will.
3) A mechanistic explanation of human existence, especially one that compars humans with other animals runs contrary to the way humans preceive humanity, especially in the context of human morality. (Mike for example speaks against evolution because of its connection to certain ideologies that tried to extend the evolutionary explanation to the realm of human sociology and history).
Animal, plant, protist, fungus, bacteria--these are the options, folks. I'll take animal and be happy about it.
As for those who try to either use or deny evolution to advance some political agenda, well, that's probably true for every scientific truth. It's no reason to deny the science.
I would not argue against intelligent design on the basis of it being irrational; only that it is not scientific and, as such, not proper for the teaching of science.
Intelligent design works for some because it's easy. No research, no questions. Any time you hit a dead end, insert the "Intelligent Designer". Or, to keep it simple, a "Being with God like Powers.
Most of the folks I've met who take I.D seriously are the same bunch who call global warming or climate change a myth. Evidence be damned, we'll go with B.W.G.P.
IMHO, these people fear the idea that maybe there's no one in charge, and we'll have to clean up the mess ourselves.
I don't know if Mike will claim that the Vonnegut reflects his own view or is just something he threw in their to appear intellectual.
Yes, Vonnegut cited a scientist, referred to him as if they were acquainted, and did not challenge his expertise. The name Hoyle sounds familiar, I don't doubt it's him, and your citation of Hoyle suits me fine:
[The] probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap-yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.
Though Vonnegut cited Hoyle somewhere else, Hocus Pocus mentions in passing microscopic organism traveling on meteors and astreroids and such. Germs that were discovered to have survived on a lense exposed to the lunar surface have also been cited as an example of how space-traveling germs could survive.
Note that this is an argument against the chemical origin of life and has nothing--zip, nada--to do with evolution of life forms on earth.
Evolutionary theory proposes that all life has a common ancestry.
Considering a proven theory of the origin of life could make or break evolutionary/intelligent design theory -- the topic I was addressing -- saying the origin of life has absolutely nothing -- zip, nada -- to do with evolution is counter-intuitive to the point of mental retardation.
When you talk here about students, I hope you're speaking as a driving instructor, and not some kind of science teacher.
But regardless of whether or not Vonnegut believes this, it is a seriously flawed argument. for many reasons, not the least of which is that nobody claims that complex molecules spontaneously pop into existence by sheer chance. Were that the case every snowflake would be a thermodynamic improbability.
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, Charles Darwin[™] made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Unless you are referring to the literal appearance of matter from nothingness -- why Hoyle's observation would depend on the literal appearance of matter from nothingness you'll have to explain -- the above quote by Charles Darwin™ from 136 years ago qualifies as a claim as valid as any other that life blossomed by mere chance.
Also, considering only one pair of matching snowflakes has ever been verified, you may want to clue us all in on how the shape assumed by every snowflake isn't thermodynamically improbable.
...and considering how often evolution is misinterpreted, by capitalists, by communists, by supremacists, siding with intelligent design over the observation-heavy theory of evolution is clearly more rational.(Mike for example speaks against evolution because of its connection to certain ideologies that tried to extend the evolutionary explanation to the realm of human sociology and history).
Observing the rationality of you siding with intelligent design over a theory you don't understand isn't speaking against evolution.
Posted by: Micha at February 22, 2007 02:40 PM
Do you think that the fact that racist language and behavior are less acceptable today was the result of an internal change leading to an external one, or an external change leading to an internal change?
Interesting question. In the U.S., the civil rights movement of the 1960s forced our nation to see the ugly results of racism. Television had a lot to do with it: people could see peaceful black demonstrators being shot with police water cannons and attacked by police dogs. Our collective conscience was awakened, and as a result racist language gradually became less and less socially acceptable as people began to realize just where racism leads.
Granted, we haven't gotten to the "promised land" Martin Luther King Jr. spoke about, but we're closer now than we were 40 or 50 years ago.
Anyway, my initial remark admittedly was a shot from the hip. It is a good thing that bigoted langauge today results in society's disapprobation. A few decades ago, Michael Richards could have gotten away with his recent racist tirade. Not so today. That's a good thing.
It's a double-edged sword, though. In today's environment of "political correctness," I don't think anyone could get away with doing a T.V. show like "All in the Family." That's unfortunate. I was just a youngster when that show was in first run, and I believe it had a lot to do with helping me form my social conscience. Archie Bunker's escapades were cautionary tales that screamed, "Don't be like this." We can't change bigoted attitudes unless we first identify them and discuss them, just as doctors cannot treat a cancer that is undiagnosed.
Considering a proven theory of the origin of life could make or break evolutionary/intelligent design theory -- the topic I was addressing -- saying the origin of life has absolutely nothing -- zip, nada -- to do with evolution is counter-intuitive to the point of mental retardation.
The origin of life is a completely different issue from evolution. This is not rocket science. Imagining that the first life on earth came from space viruses or cosmic bacteria does not, in any way shape or form, change evolutionary theory. The name of the book was On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life.
I also fail to see how bacteria arriving on earth from space has much to do with Intelligent Design. Are these supposed to be Intelligent Bacteria, Mike? Did they arrive in a bacteria spaceship of their own design? You're like those goofs who head off to Africa to look for surviving relic dinosaurs, thinking that this will disprove evolution when evolution has nothing--zip, nada, zero--to do with theories of the disappearance of the dinosaurs.
When you talk here about students, I hope you're speaking as a driving instructor, and not some kind of science teacher.
Yet they somehow are able to figure out the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. And these are 9th graders.
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, Charles Darwin[™] made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Yes. Um, your point?
Oh! You think that is inconsistent with the idea that nobody believe that life just randomly came together from chemicals, like Hoyle’s imagined 747. See, Mike, here's the thing--there is a discipline called chemistry that explains why, under certain circumstances, simple chemical compounds become more complex chemical compounds. It isn't random and a matter of pure chance. Darwin was correct that his primordial pool could very reasonably be imagined to be capable of forming complex compounds from simpler ones. Whether or not that is really how life on Earth came about is something we may never know. But what is not proposed by any scientist I know of is the idea that somewhere in a pool of goo all the various parts randomly and spontaneously came together to form an amoeba. The first self replicating molecules were not alive, by the modern definition of it anyway.
But again, none of this is part of evolutionary theory. As wikipedia states The origin of life from self-catalytic chemical reactions is not a part of biological evolution, but rather of pre-evolutionary abiogenesis. They tend to get lumped in together by the careless.
Also, considering only one pair of matching snowflakes has ever been verified, you may want to clue us all in on how the shape assumed by every snowflake isn't thermodynamically improbable.
What the old saw about no two snowflakes ever matching has to do with any of this is beyond me. (at any rate it is probably virtually impossible for them to be exactly identical--exact same number of atoms? Doubtful.) And as to why snowflakes are not thermodynamically improbable...go talk to the folks in Oswego, now still shoveling 142 inches of improbability off their roofs. Snowflakes are formed from crystals. Crystalline water forms the structures it does because of very specific ways the water molecules interact with each other.
Why do snowflakes not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Because the Earth is not a closed system. Energy flows in. Not. Rocket. Science.
This from the guy who tells others "don't seek shelter behind terms you've demonstrated you don't understand." But that's Our Mike. The perfect storm of arrogance and ignorance, always convinced that the best defense is offensiveness. Don't ever change.
Mike for example speaks against evolution because of its connection to certain ideologies that tried to extend the evolutionary explanation to the realm of human sociology and history
Which is a common argument made by people who don't have any competing data to counter a scientific theory that they don't like. I find it being made all the time for everything from global warming to evolution and the big bang. The argument goes that scientists are advancing certain theories not because that's what the data supports, but because they're communists/nazis/atheists who want to undermine our society or force us to accept a certain political ideology. For people like that, facts aren't facts, they're just tools to be manipulated for one agenda or another. If your theories don't support their agenda, it's not because you found facts they didn't know about. It's because you have a different agenda. To them, everyone has an agenda. Except themselves of course, they just want to expose the "truth" against your facts.
Manny has it right, ID appeals to people because it's an easy to gloss over complex ideas that they don't understand. But just because Professor Behe can't imagine a mechanism that would produce a flagellum through natural selection doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
ID, though, is boring. If you don't understand something, just put up a sign that says, "here God intervened" and stop asking questions. Perhaps, though, that is their agenda. Questions, after all, could lead to more questions, which might lead to independent thought.
Can't that.
"2) Human tradition tended to attribute intelligent will to the forces of nature -- gods, spirits etc. Maybe it is an aspect of human nature to animate things? This tradition culminated in the belief in a God who is intelligent and controls or at least intiated natural phenomena. Furthermore, tradition is a strong social and psychological force, and religion has a long tradition.
And I would respect that. Science can't disprove God. A smart person of a religious nature should welcome science in its search to find the means by which God does His handiwork. Indeed, one could argue that those who try to supress such knowledge are working contrary to God's will."
Ultimately, the probem for religion is not the theories that scientific knowledge offers, or any challenge that it does or does not offer to the idea of God. It is a problem of the authority of knowledge. The authority of religions comes from tradition -- knowledge passed down. and only religion has the authority to interpret tradition. The moment a person suggest another, competing source of knowledge, reason, observation, that person is challenging the authority of tradition and of those who interpret it. It doesn't matter if it is an ancient Athenian philosopher, 9th century Muslim philosopher, a 12th century professor in Paris, or a 19th century biologist. The fact that such a person claims knowledge without depending on tradition is bad enough. It is even worse if the knowledge he or she offers does not include god as a part of the explanation as modern science does.
"Animal, plant, protist, fungus, bacteria--these are the options, folks. I'll take animal and be happy about it."
Next you'll be saying that the earth is not the center of the universe, and then that our traditions are simply social institutions no different from other inferior cultures. People wil start questioning authority. You're corrupting our youth Bill. Socrates was executed for this.
Oh, since Mike copyrighted Daewin every time you mention him in class you have to pay royalties.
Mike wrote:
"...and considering how often evolution is misinterpreted, by capitalists, by communists, by supremacists, siding with intelligent design over the observation-heavy theory of evolution is clearly more rational.
(Mike for example speaks against evolution because of its connection to certain ideologies that tried to extend the evolutionary explanation to the realm of human sociology and history).
Observing the rationality of you siding with intelligent design over a theory you don't understand isn't speaking against evolution."
To prefer a theory like intelligent design over a theory like evolution which is counterintuitive and hard to understand is understandable, it's human nature, it is not even completly irrational.
Prefering the not really scientific theory of intelligent design over the scientific theory of evolution because of political movements that misused that theory is irrational.
"Intelligent design works for some because it's easy. No research, no questions. "
I don't think so. Science also finds itself at times stuck with no answers. And theology is not easy -- speculating about divine beings is not easy. Intelligent design is more satisfying on some level for human psychology.
---------------------
"Do you think that the fact that racist language and behavior are less acceptable today was the result of an internal change leading to an external one, or an external change leading to an internal change?
Interesting question. In the U.S., the civil rights movement of the 1960s forced our nation to see the ugly results of racism. Television had a lot to do with it: people could see peaceful black demonstrators being shot with police water cannons and attacked by police dogs. Our collective conscience was awakened, and as a result racist language gradually became less and less socially acceptable as people began to realize just where racism leads.
Granted, we haven't gotten to the "promised land" Martin Luther King Jr. spoke about, but we're closer now than we were 40 or 50 years ago."
I think the two processes happened simultanously. Some people went through internal change because black's were humanized. Others changed there behavior because of social pressure by the first kind of people. some people went through both processes.
"Anyway, my initial remark admittedly was a shot from the hip. It is a good thing that bigoted langauge today results in society's disapprobation. A few decades ago, Michael Richards could have gotten away with his recent racist tirade. Not so today. That's a good thing."
Agreed.
"It's a double-edged sword, though. In today's environment of "political correctness," I don't think anyone could get away with doing a T.V. show like "All in the Family." That's unfortunate. I was just a youngster when that show was in first run, and I believe it had a lot to do with helping me form my social conscience. Archie Bunker's escapades were cautionary tales that screamed, "Don't be like this." We can't change bigoted attitudes unless we first identify them and discuss them, just as doctors cannot treat a cancer that is undiagnosed."
Today we have comedians and comedy shows like Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Sarah Silverman, Southpark, the Daily Show, Bill Mahr, that examine political correctness and what's hidden beneath it. They are very edgy. Different comedy for a different time.
Micha, I don't understand what you mean by this: "Mike is correct that both evolution (and other mechanistic explanations) and intelligent design are equally rational explanations, assuming you adopt a rational attitude for your subject matter."
For one, this sounds circular...everything would be rational if you assume it's rational? Well, of course. You can look at any number of religious/cultural explanations of the world around us, and if you adopt the stance that the beliefs of that culture/religion are rational, then their observations are of course rational. Ancient Greek and Roman cultures, for example, held the rational belief that Gods actually existed, and interacted in a physical, tangible, visible way with the world around them. Hell, how many people were running around in ancient Greece claiming to be sons or daughters of Zeus?
ID is only rational if the idea of the Designer...God in most cases...is rational. But it's not a rational idea. I'm a fairly spiritual guy, I totally believe in God, but I know it's not a rational belief, because it's based on nothing more than my feelings and what I've been told. If anything, it's based more on the things I don't know than anything.
Evolution, on the other hand, is totally based on observations and conclusions based upon what we see of the world around us. It's a rational theory because it's based on facts. With evolution, you trace the evolutionary development through genetic and fossil records, and you draw the conclusion that species are evolving into other species over time. There are very real and tangible facts to observe, study, and compare. With ID, you say God designed all life. That's it. There's nothing to see, nothing to study, nothing to compare. A rational person would not accept ID, without some irrational motivation. Religion is irrational, because it almost universally deals with the unproven, the unknown, and the unknowable. You take religion on faith, which often contradicts or even replaces rationality.
What is troubling is that evolution continues to this day as a sound scientific principle--what else are strains of diseases which mutate to resist various medications if not evolution? Are Godhuggers (if enviornmentalists are treehuggers, then those who substitute God's work for nature's should be Godhuggers) going to claim that God is so into micromanaging that he's actually deciding which diseases should live and die?
PAD
Considering a proven theory of the origin of life could make or break evolutionary/intelligent design theory -- the topic I was addressing -- saying the origin of life has absolutely nothing -- zip, nada -- to do with evolution is counter-intuitive to the point of mental retardation.Imagining that the first life on earth came from space viruses or cosmic bacteria does not, in any way shape or form, change evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory includes timelines, does it not?
What evolutionary timeline does not include a demarcation between the time when there is no evidence of life and the time when there is?
Just because fossilized remains give record to the changes of life, but not its origin, it's a very crude rationalization, Lothar, to say establishing the origin of life contributes nothing to establishing the credibility of evolution.
It's Not Rocket Science.™
When you talk here about students, I hope you're speaking as a driving instructor, and not some kind of science teacher.Yet they somehow are able to figure out the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. And these are 9th graders.
You can't even make the intuitive leap Hoyle based his statistical conclusion on evolutionary paradigms without explicitly being told so.
And it isn't like you don't have a history of disregarding plainly worded English if Hoyle's notes cite fossilized records.
Dude, your salary so belongs to me.
But regardless of whether or not Vonnegut believes this, it is a seriously flawed argument. for many reasons, not the least of which is that nobody claims that complex molecules spontaneously pop into existence by sheer chance. Were that the case every snowflake would be a thermodynamic improbability.Unless you are referring to the literal appearance of matter from nothingness -- why Hoyle's observation would depend on the literal appearance of matter from nothingness you'll have to explain -- the above quote by Charles Darwin™ from 136 years ago qualifies as a claim as valid as any other that life blossomed by mere chance.
Oh! You think that is inconsistent with the idea that nobody believe that life just randomly came together from chemicals, like Hoyle’s imagined 747.
In as much as I disagree Charles Darwin™ is Nobody™ -- yeah.
So belongs to me.
Also, considering only one pair of matching snowflakes has ever been verified, you may want to clue us all in on how the shape assumed by every snowflake isn't thermodynamically improbable.What the old saw about no two snowflakes ever matching has to do with any of this is beyond me. (at any rate it is probably virtually impossible for them to be exactly identical--exact same number of atoms? Doubtful.) And as to why snowflakes are not thermodynamically improbable...go talk to the folks in Oswego, now still shoveling 142 inches of improbability off their roofs.
In as much as the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique -- yeah.
So Belongs To Me.™
...this sounds circular...everything would be rational if you assume it's rational?
Jung distinguished judging functions (functions that model, iconifying functions -- thoughts or feelings) as rational, and observing functions (functions that record, empirical functions -- sensing or intuiting) as irrational.
As far as all beliefs model the world or an aspect of it, Counselor,™ they are rational.
I've had ID supporters try to explain to me why evolution on a micro scale...slight changes in color, or developing bigger teeth, or a flu virus developing a resistance to the flu vaccine du jour...doesn't support the idea of so-called macro evolution, which was defined to me as one species changing into another.
After which I showed through maths how a 1% change in size every 100 years takes T-Rex from a 30' long monster down to the size of a large chicken in something like 25,000 years.
In this case, ID/faith is totally overriding rationality, in the sense that ID is being used to replace evolution. ID and evolution can coexist, just so long as one understands that they aren't talking about the same thing. ID, unless you take it to mean that God not only designs all life, but he also is changing all life around us, merely looks at the origin of life. Evolution doesn't look at the origin of life at all, although eventually perfect knowledge of the evolutionary tree would, logically, reveal the origin of life.
PAD, Bobb has it right; the creationists have more or less given up on arguing against microevolution. They just try to claim that it's macroevolution that's impossible. When you try to explain to them that macroevolution is just lots and lots of microevolution added up they act like Mike and put their hands over their ears and throw out big words they saw in a book once like "paradigm". Usually mispronouncing it as "para-diggum", which is just all sorts of cute.
Mike. Mike, Mike, Mike. You get so cute when you know you got your facts wrong. All the TM's in the world, all the schoolyard "I SO own you!" taunts, all the quotes from your betters (which is to say, all your quotes)--you can't change the fact, plainly seen by all, that you got your facts wrong. Again.
In as much as the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique -- yeah.
Oh now they are "virtually" unique? Well...again, so what? They are all made of water. All water is simply 2 hydrogens and an oxygen. They crystallize in certain ways. This gives them their basic shape. However since the exact same number of atoms will vary from flake to flake and the exact conditions under which every flake--even two that are side by side when formed cannot ever be exactly the same it should be no surprise--to the informed—that they are not exactly the same. It isn’t magic. It isn’t a miracle—except to the easily impressed. You must be the only person on earth who actually has his mind blown by the phenomena of paint drying.
You can go on believing that the existence of snowflakes somehow supports your magical view of the universe. It's not like anything you could do at this point would make you appear more clownish than your past transgressions.
And keep on insisting that evolution and abiogenesis are one and the same. And make sure you insist that anyone who disagrees with you is the stupid one. Just make sure you wear a hat with jingles on it. You're the resident forum clown, you may as well dress the part.
Oh, since Mike copyrighted Darwin every time you mention him in class you have to pay royalties.
Darwin, Darwin, Darwin. There, Mike, now you can go supersize those fries.
Jerry--read your post up there, talking about where you grew up and what would happen if Boss Hogg there called for a lynching. and it hit me. IS society actually changing, or have the media types just gotten too politcally correct? Now, as far as Hardaway goes, I couldn't care less WHAT he thinks about anything. I usually watch basketball with the sound off. I know an awful lot of people who still think just like the old days.
Micha--up above, when you were talking about WASP, I'm gonna assume you weren't talking about the band. Although that image DID give me a chuckle.
"Mormons and old people didn't do so great either which is possibly bad news for Mitt Romney and John McCain."
Wonder if that's because they'd worry about too many First Ladies? Gods, could you imagine that? "Okay, I married him first, I'm First, you're second..." Jem'Hadar by marriage.
"I heard a suggestion the other day that we should amend the constitution to limit us to one president from Texas per century. Now that's an amendment I could whole-heartedly support."
Den, change century to millenium, and you've got my support.
Now, if I could borrow Bill's soapbox, here's my 1.236 cents on the evolution versus intelligent design celebrity deathmatch. First, evolution is a THEORY. While widely accepted, it isn't a scientific LAW. Being a theory, it can be added to in ways that a law cannot. If you suddenly find an entire colony in South America of Michigan J. Frogs in top hats, you could theorize as to how this took place, besides a Warner animator with too little sleep. As I understand it, Intelligent Design merely states that there was some, say, intelligence behind all this. In itself, not a bad theory. (Go on, YOU explain how life evolved on this planet, developed homo sapiens who invented Cherry Coke and the Cajun cheesesteak. Go on. I'll wait.) The problem with Intellegent Design is that it implies there is an end to research. Beyond this point, there be dragons and no answers, so just stop looking. At least, that's how most people who use the arguement end up speaking. "We can't know, we'll never know, so what fits?" There is ALWAYS more to know. Questions don't just get answered. They lead to more questions. It's like a five year old who just won't for the LOVE OF GOD stop asking "Why?" (Sometime remind me to tell you about the time I explained to Brian why the sky is blue and the look my wife had on her face.) Evolution and intelligent design aren't the End All Be All of the arguements. They CAN'T be. But too many people treat them like they are.
Bill, here's your soapbox back.
And to go WAY up the thread, Steve Chung, have you checked out the Sulu audio adventures? Should be able to get them from Amazon or eBay if you haven't. Second one's my favorite.
"Jung distinguished judging functions (functions that model, iconifying functions -- thoughts or feelings) as rational, and observing functions (functions that record, empirical functions -- sensing or intuiting) as irrational."
I'm not well-versed on Jung at all.
"As far as all beliefs model the world or an aspect of it, Counselor,™ they are rational."
Ok, fine...are you suggesting that the Greek Pantheon, as viewed by an ancient Greek, is a modelling function?
Or, maybe a better response by me is to say that a belief doesn't try to model the world at all...it's trying to intuit it. When a culture or religion believes that thunder and lightning are the result of the Gods wrestling in Heavan, that's not a modeling observation, it's an intuition or guess about what's happening. When that culture then observes that lightning is the static electricity discharge from a cloud formation, and thunder is the result of the passage of that lightning through the atmosphere, that becomes a modelling function.
Which, unless I'm totally off base here, is exactly what I just said.
Which still leaves me confused as to why you think, at least according to Micha, that evolution and ID are both rational theries. In what way is ID not an intuitive function, and instead a modelling function?
And for the record, you can't call me Counselor until I renew my inactive registration. Don't want you to get me in trouble with the Bar. For the moment, I'm just a guy with a law degree. I'll let you know when you can call me Counselor again.
"Micha, I don't understand what you mean by this: "Mike is correct that both evolution (and other mechanistic explanations) and intelligent design are equally rational explanations, assuming you adopt a rational attitude for your subject matter.""
I'm sorry. I didn't explain myself well. I'll try again.
Suppose that an alien biologist came to earth and abducted a dog in his ship and began studying him. Now, being a rational l=alien, he might assume that dogs are the result of natural selection. However, dogs are not the result of natural selection but artificial selection by humans -- intelligent design if you will. An alien scientists who proposed such a theory would have been both rational and correct (in this case. However, if an alien came the scientist and said that dogs are the result of inteligent design because that's what our ancestors say, or the sacred texts, or faith, and if he would say that because of that dogs are divine, and that therefore there creators should be worshipped in temple (modern orthodox), that would be irrational.
The ancient greeks were responsible for the rational revoltion which meant that gods, their involvement in the world, the world, history, medicine, and traditional social norms, were questioned rationaly using reason. Even if some of the ancient philosophers reasoned that gods exist, or even that traditional piety is important, the fact that they thought about it in a rational critical way was already a challenge to the traditional way of thinking.
"ID is only rational if the idea of the Designer...God in most cases...is rational. But it's not a rational idea. I'm a fairly spiritual guy, I totally believe in God, but I know it's not a rational belief, because it's based on nothing more than my feelings and what I've been told. If anything, it's based more on the things I don't know than anything."
"Religion is irrational, because it almost universally deals with the unproven, the unknown, and the unknowable. You take religion on faith, which often contradicts or even replaces rationality"
The distinction between rationality and faith that is common today is the result of the challenge posed to religion by rational thinking. If you look at the bible, you will see that religion was neither unproven, unknown, or unknowable. God proves himself repeatedly with very tangible miracles. He is experienced by mystics. It is said that when Moses went to Mt. Sinai he 'knew' god. Although, from early on the knowledge is privilaged, and incomplete. But then again, so is science.
Imagine this: you want to know about the past -- how life began. You ask 'people who have more access to the past, your parents. They tell you what their parents told them, and so on. How can you doubt such direct evidence of tradition (and revelation) and prefer instead the speculations of some guy who claims that he has a methodolgy to know about the past that does not involve tradition? Instead this person examines the evidence he has before him, and he does so critically. He examines the stories of your ancestors with dubiousness. That's pretty revolutionary.
At this stage tradition needs to defend itself from rationality by saying that the methodology of rationality is wrong -- you're supposed to have faith, experience religion in a different way than thinking about it. One early Christian said: "I believe because it is absurd." He lived in a society in which greco-roman philosophy was a competeing authority.
However, this compromise is good for both sides. It allows philosophy and science to speculate without having to deal with religion, and religion does not have to argue with philosophers and scientists. But this truce works only if both sides accept the limitations. ID is an attempt by religion to get into science, supposedly claiming to have rational scientific arguments for intelligent design.
Wonder if that's because they'd worry about too many First Ladies? Gods, could you imagine that? "Okay, I married him first, I'm First, you're second..." Jem'Hadar by marriage.
The funny thing is that of the top 2 Republican frontrunners it's the Mormon who has only had one wife.
First, evolution is a THEORY. While widely accepted, it isn't a scientific LAW. Being a theory, it can be added to in ways that a law cannot.
Sean, I respect your opinion but the scientific meaning of "theory" and "law' are not the same as how laymen use them. A theory is as good as it gets. A Law is generally something that can be expressed mathematically-- double the temperature of a gas and you double the volume, something like that. Evolution by natural Selection can't become a law, it will always be a theory, like Germ Theory. It will no doubt be modified--our understanding of genetics has solved many of the problems that Darwin struggled with.
Intelligent Design is more of a hypothesis and not a terribly good one since a hypothesis needs to be able to be tested. that doesn't disqualify it from being true but it does limit it's usefulness to science.
Man I would love to continue this but the Nevermore Horror film festival is this weekend and I have to go man the table we'll be selling our movie at (and hopefully doing a makeup demo) so I don't know if I'll have access to a computer. everyone have a great weekend, hopefully the forecast doesn't call for any thermodynamic miracles. Oh and Mike, if there's an eclipse it's just the position of the moon and the sun in relation to the Earth. No need to sacrifice virgins to the Corn God or anything.
Sean, the problem with ID is not so much that it implies an end to the process so much as it's a way of kicking aside anything we don't currently understand and then declaring that it doesn't matter if ever do. It's like that episode of the Simpsons where Lucy Lawless dismissed any continuity errors in Xena by saying "a wizard did it". Don't understand how a bacterium developed a flagellum? Just put up a sign that says, "God did it" and move on. Nothing to see here.
While spiritual beliefs may help people make sense of the "why" of the world, it doesn't do anything to us understand the "how" and in science, you need the "how" if you're ever to use it to help fight diseases or other problems. The real problem ID is that it doesn't really explain anything. Now, ID proponents often dance around and say that the intelligent designer doesn't necessarily have to mean God (although everyone knows that's what they really mean). It could be aliens, they'll say.
Well, then, what created the aliens? Who designed the designer? Moving the goal posts back doesn't mean you've prevented your opponent from scoring a touchdown.
"What is troubling is that evolution continues to this day as a sound scientific principle--what else are strains of diseases which mutate to resist various medications if not evolution? Are Godhuggers (if enviornmentalists are treehuggers, then those who substitute God's work for nature's should be Godhuggers) going to claim that God is so into micromanaging that he's actually deciding which diseases should live and die?
PAD "
Yes. Religion has no use for a god who creates the world and then lets inanimate natural laws do all the work while he loafs around, plays golf or embarasses himself in the tabloids. No, god has to earn his keep by micromanaging everything, punishing the wicked, healing the sick, talking to priests. Religion is a business, and everybody has to carry his own weight, including god.
My own theory as to the hatred of gays, which I think essentially boils down to gay men, is the physical penetration aspect of it. There is something aggressive and threatening about the "invasion of space" aspect of it that non-gay men fear. Of course the homophobic mindset seems to assume that the person is so irresistable that a gay person can't help but try to force themselves upon them.
As for evolution/ID, it has always struck me that the ID argument is really trying to argue for the *intent* of evolution. Which I think can exist beside evolution which is the mechanism. If God wants to get to Humans, isn't it more mighty and God-like if you take 4.5 billion years of intricate small changes than just "*poof* there you are"? The ID argument seems to kind of belittle what is supposed to be an all-powerful entity. "Evolution is too complicated, it's like dropping a bunch of parts and getting it to land together as a watch". Okay, that should be no problem for a god that is supposed to be infinately smarter and more powerful than anything any human can imagine.
Den, the example you use cracks me up--the creationists are telling us to buy the premise that God has cleverly managed to make a universe that works with natural laws but in making bacteria flagellum he screwed up and did it in a way that can only prove there is a God. He must be smacking his head right now over that boner!
Then agin...conasider this: Bacteria were the first life forms on Earth, we think. We are told God create life in his image. the bacteria in a single spoonful of dirt outnumber all the humans on Earth. And now, we are told, the very form of bacteria is such that could not have possibly occured without a divine hand. Are you seeing where this might be going?
Maybe when they said our bodies were temples they meant temples for God's chosen creatures, the "lowly" monera.
Damn it, Bill, I'm a video guy, not a scientist! Seriously, though, I thought that was one of the things about theories and laws I was taught in my science classes. Also, I always thought, given the wide variety of life forms on the planet, that God created all of them when he WAS them, thereby creating everything in his own image. We are living in God, you could say.
Den, that's what I was trying to say. Where I would differ from you, though, is in the application. I was trying to say that ID gets used by it's promoters as the end, not as a "We don't know" but as "We don't know and never will."
I can see it now, Micha. "God went into a hairdresser and shaved His head. The clippings are now on eBay, going for a guaranteed shot of getting into Heaven." Now, not to go all spiritual here, but if God is supposed to heal the sick, what does that mean for the virus that presumably He created? It means the virus has to get sick and die.
My head hurts now.
Posted by: clatterboot at February 23, 2007 10:56 AM
My own theory as to the hatred of gays, which I think essentially boils down to gay men, is the physical penetration aspect of it.
I think it's more basic than that. I think hatred of gays is rooted in the human tendency to fear that which is different. This was an adaptive trait at one time, with that fear keeping early humans on their toes in a world filled with very real physical threats. We've long since come out of the caves and exist in a very different world, but that survival mechanism still exists. Unfortunately, too few people recognize it for what it is: an adaptive mechanism that has to a degree outlived its usefulness. Instead, people rationalize that their instinctual hatred is in fact some kind of moral stance... when it is in fact just instinctual hatred.
By now, we should be better than this. We have brains capable of higher-order thought. Unforunately, we have to choose to think, whereas our baser instincts are set to "automatic."
""Jung distinguished judging functions (functions that model, iconifying functions -- thoughts or feelings) as rational, and observing functions (functions that record, empirical functions -- sensing or intuiting) as irrational."
I'm not well-versed on Jung at all.
"As far as all beliefs model the world or an aspect of it, Counselor,™ they are rational."
Ok, fine...are you suggesting that the Greek Pantheon, as viewed by an ancient Greek, is a modelling function?
Or, maybe a better response by me is to say that a belief doesn't try to model the world at all...it's trying to intuit it."
I think that To understand what Jung says, you have to understand the terms rational, thinking, and intuition in the context of jung's theory. My knowledge of Jung's theory is limited to a few lines in wikipedia.
The distinction you make between scientific theory and myth, and the distinction made by Jung in his terminology are both valid but different.
"I think it's more basic than that. I think hatred of gays is rooted in the human tendency to fear that which is different."
I agree that's an aspect of it as well, but it does seem to me that when people talk about gays, it is primarily focused on gay men, rather than lesbians. And women kissing/etc. is, I don't know if I would say accepted, but is demonized like it is for men. Am I alone in sensing that? It's certainly a complicated subject which speaks to how off-the-mark the view that it is some sort of simple learned behavior is. I have no explantion as to why I find some things attractive or not, and I don't think homosexuals can explain their attractions in some rational way either.
If I can try to merge the two ideas in this conversation, what does it mean that homosexuality has not evolved out of the human equation (and many other animals for that matter)? Is there an evolutionary possibility that in some disaster it may become possible for some sort of same-sex procreation? I'm no biologist, but is the ability to have children what defines an organism as "female" or is it some other aspect? I'm reminded of the Jurassic Park thing where lizards can switch genders (sexes?). Or does homosexuality exist as an avenue for physical urges to be satisified if the opposite sex is not available? Kind of a mental wellness sort of thing? Or maybe I'm way off base.
er... I meant "ISN'T demonized like it is for men."
Thanks, Micha. I'm not sure that helped me understand Mike's contention any more, but thanks.
Let me 'splain. ID, by itself, is fine. Its unprovable, untestable, and unknowable to us at this point. So saying it's a rational belief (that some intelligence designed life) is fine. Believing that makes you neither rational nore irrational.
However, using ID as a replacement to evolution, or even claiming that evolution does not happen because all life forms are IDed and remain static, is not rational. It's the imputing of tradition to trample rational thought and conclusions based on observations.
The ancient Greeks are a good example of a happy medium. To a modern person, thinking Zues causes thunder and lightning is irrational, because we've observed what actually creates those phenomenon. But to an ancient Greek, they see lightning, and they hear thunder, and unable to determine what actually caused them, they assign them a divine source, after failing to determine a provable cause. Zeus becomes the Greek version of ID...as the start of something not yet otherwise known.
From that context, both ID and Zeus tossing tunderbolts are rational thoughts.
I was trying to say that ID gets used by it's promoters as the end, not as a "We don't know" but as "We don't know and never will."
Which is what makes people like Michael Behe so astoundingly arrogant. What he essentially says in his writing amounts to because he can't figure out how bacterial structures developed, then no one else ever will and therefore, we should just accept that only the direct hand of God could do.
Bill Mulligan hits the nail on the head, for ID to be accepted as science, we have to assume that God created a universe that obeys certain observable, natural laws - except where it doesn't. To them, God isn't so much a blind watchmaker as he is an inept one. He has to keep adjusting the mainspring in order to keep the thing working.
"To them, God isn't so much a blind watchmaker as he is an inept one. He has to keep adjusting the mainspring in order to keep the thing working."
This is one of the key flaws I have to the most vocal ID proponenets. What is the more impressive feat? That God, like me playing Geotrax with my 16 month old, has to constantly keep things on track because the locals keep messing things up? Or that He can set up the whole universe eons and eons ago, get things spinning, and have Earth develop life hudreds of billions of years later, leading to me banging away on a keyboard at just this moment, knowing all those eons ago that I'd be doing this just at this moment?
To me, it's far more impressive to have that kind of foresight than it is to keep having to act to maintain things.
This latest debate stems from incorrect assertions about the meaning of the word rational. For the record, according to the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary the word "rational" has the following definitions:
"1. governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice;
"2. able to think clearly and sensibly, because the mind is not impaired by physical or mental condition, violent emotion, or prejudice;
"3. presented or understandable in terms that accord with reason and logic or with scientific knowledge and are not based on appeals to emotion or, prejudice;
"4. endowed with the ability to reason, as opposed to being governed solely by instinct and appetite;
"5. able to be expressed exactly as the quotient of two whole numbers or polynomials."
Bigotry is born of prejudice. Prejudice is not rational. Therefore hatred of gays is irrational.
Evolution is a theory developed by using the scientific method. It is rational. "Intelligent Design" is based on unprovable assumptions rooted in religious belief. It is therefore not "rational."
I do not give a rat's ass about Jung's use of the word, by the way. The word predates Jung's birth, and as far as I know no one named him the Final Arbiter of the Meaning of All English Words. I'll stick with definitions taken from reliable sources, like major dictionaries.
Sigh... I didn't want to mention his name, but in case any of you are wondering, the bit about "incorrect assertions about the meaning of the word rational" applies solely to Mike.
I don't usually like to acknowledge him because, frankly, he doesn't deserve it.
What the old saw about no two snowflakes ever matching has to do with any of this is beyond me. (at any rate it is probably virtually impossible for them to be exactly identical--exact same number of atoms? Doubtful.) And as to why snowflakes are not thermodynamically improbable...go talk to the folks in Oswego, now still shoveling 142 inches of improbability off their roofs.In as much as the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique -- yeah.
Oh now they are "virtually" unique?
In as much as it's Virtually Impossible™ for snowflakes to match -- yeah.
Chastising someone for using a word you introduced into the discussion, by the way, is "Totally Normal Psychology.™"
Well...again, so what? They are all made of water. All water is simply 2 hydrogens and an oxygen....
I never said the existence of snow was improbable, and saying the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique is factually true.
You were wrong about Nobody™ claiming life blossomed by chance. Your libel of Jimmy Carter libeling was wrong, your rumor campaign of Hillary Clinton passing rumors was wrong, and your comparing the Dixie Chicks challenging George W Bush to "I hate gay people.... I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it" was wrong.
You're an ass.
(...don't want to be accused of taking something out of context)....
And keep on insisting that evolution and abiogenesis are one and the same.
Strawman.™
Oh, since Mike copyrighted Darwin every time you mention him in class you have to pay royalties.Darwin, Darwin, Darwin. There, Mike, now you can go supersize those fries.
Words cannot be copyrighted, and I never said they could be. Honoring a trademark is not the same as claiming to own it.
And hey, I can copy and paste dictionary definitions too:
rational, adj
1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
2 : involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3 : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>
ID, though, is boring. If you don't understand something, just put up a sign that says, "here God intervened" and stop asking questions.
Exactly. The only difference between ID and full-blown creationism is where you put that line. That's why it's the opposite of science; if you don't have an explanation for something in science, you can put forth a theory and see whether it works, or say "we don't know yet but hope to someday when we know more." The key is the admission that you may not be correct, and the willingness to explore further. (Individuals may be irrationally attached to one particular theory, but that's a different matter.)
ID, on the other hand, reaches something that the questioner feels can't be explained and says, "Well, I don't have an explanation for it, so I'll postulate something that can't be disproven or explored further." It does so, moreover, by introducing an element which is even more complex than the phenomenon being explained. Evolution works through the accumulation of simple steps that require no intervention by a complex entity; ID simply raises more questions (namely, where did the designer come from? If complex elements require a designer, then who designed the designer? Extraterrestrial origin of life on Earth, similarly, may be an explanation, but ultimately it's not an answer, just a cop-out).
The great science cartoonist Sidney Harris has a cartoon which shows a scientist writing on a blackboard. Step 1 is a complex formula, as is step 3; step 2 is the phrase "And then a miracle occurs." Another scientist is saying, "I think you need to be more explicit here in step 2." That's ID in a nutshell.
"Evolution works through the accumulation of simple steps that require no intervention by a complex entity"
Just to point out why ID and evolution are not incompatible when used appropriately...while evolutionary theory doesn't call for any intervention, it likewise doesn't eliminate the possibility that such intervention takes place.
Micha's example of the alien biologist is an example of this: The alien could postulate that the dog evovled the way it did on it's own...or he could postulate that humans intervened to get the dog to evolve a certain way. Technically, both theories are correct, depending on how you view the human intervention. If you just view humans as one more external infuence on the natural evolution of the dog...meaning humans are just a part of the environment...you get the first theory. On the other hand, if you view the humans as some kind of dog Creator, you get the second. But the evolutionary observation itself...that dogs evolved from a distant canine ancestor in common with cats...is unaffected by whichever view you hold.
Behe makes me think of all the other naysayers throughout history. Human flight? NEVER! Humans breaking the sound barrier? IMPOSSIBLE! Man on the moon? NEVER MAKE IT/NEVER HAPPENED! Also makes me think of advice my dad gave me. You might reach the Top today, enjoy it, because someone's gonna top you tomorrow if you stop now.
And Bill, my wife is thankful that you're not giving my ass away.
Mike, ignorant as always, says:
Also, considering only one pair of matching snowflakes has ever been verified, you may want to clue us all in on how the shape assumed by every snowflake isn't thermodynamically improbable.
then he tries to backtrack by saying
I never said the existence of snow was improbable, and saying the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique is factually true
Poor, poor Mike. So much ignorance in such a little, little man.
You've managed to do something once thought almost impossible--argue about evolution and intelligent design in a manner so sloppy that both evolutionists and creationists can share a beer and laugh together at your foolishness. Were that a deliberate effort it would almost be noble.
But hey, nice attempt to change the subject, what with the politics and all. Not gonna bite, sorry to say--it's too much fun kicking your ass on the pure facts. Politics is opinion. But thinking that evolution and Hoyle's argument against abiogenesis are the same thing is just ignorant. Continuing to claim it in the face of all reality makes you stubborn, stupid, or both. An unenviable choice.
And now, as promised, I must go. You have 2 whole days to say stupid things without me being able to point out how stupid they are. You can even pretend that my silence means I've thrown in the towel, giving you that sense of self esteem you need so very very much. Others may chose to take up the effort, though at this point it's obvious you have nothing (nada! zip! zero!) to add and are just blustering about, angry that you've been made to look dumb. Er. Dumber.
(And to those who do believe in creationism, while I am 100% in the evolution camp, for all the reasons I've given here and in the past, I do not have the same contempt for your opinions that I do for Mr. Leung's. It's not his ignorance that galls--it's the incredible dripping arrogance with which he sneers at people for having the temerity to disagree with him, even when, as is usually the case, the actual facts are on their side. He's an ass and it's always fun to watch them hoisted by their own petard (I don't actually know what a petard is but I'll bet it hurts to get hoisted by it)).
Mike, ignorant as always, says:
Also, considering only one pair of matching snowflakes has ever been verified, you may want to clue us all in on how the shape assumed by every snowflake isn't thermodynamically improbable....then he tries to backtrack by saying
I never said the existence of snow was improbable, and saying the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique is factually true
Do you not know the difference between a noun and a preposition?
Bill Mulligan,
In case you're still around, a petard is a form of primitive grenade (like 16th Century). Thus, being hoist by your own petard is having your own arguement/methods/weapon/etc blow up in your face. The line is from Hamlet, but I can't recall the specific context. I do believe that Hamlet is comparing SOMEONE to a grenadeer who has been hoist by their own petard, but can't remember who or why.
Sean,
"Jerry--read your post up there, talking about where you grew up and what would happen if Boss Hogg there called for a lynching. and it hit me. IS society actually changing, or have the media types just gotten too politcally correct?"
Maybe a bit of both.But I do think that people have gotten better about such stuff as their horizons have been expanded by life in a shrinking world.
Geez... The thread went and turned into Evolution VS ID? What a dumb argument.
I'm of the camp that says that evolution basically is ID. There's a book out there, I think they call it The Bible, that's full of stories where God sets events into motion to work up to his final desired outcome. Lots of His most devoted followers praise these stories and talk, at great length, about the greatness of the wisdom learned in taking the journey rather then having God just snap his fingers and having whatever happen. So, why should the idea that the entire journey of our existance is not in some way the same thing be shouted down as the work of the devil? Why not just say that God has a point A and a point B and that evolution is just his way of getting us all there?
There's one simple question I like to ask creationists, after they've finished claiming that all the evidence of a 14-billion-or-so-year-old universe, and the evolution of various life forms on this planet, are all planted by God to "test our faith."
I like to ask them, "So, you're calling God a liar?!"
As David Brin asked, if God went to all this effort to make it look as if modern cosmology and evolutionary theory are correct, who are we to contradict Him?
I don't want to see Bill Mulligan and Bill Myers fall off the Mikeholoic wagon, unless they can take Mike's posts with the seriousness it merits.
The truth is I have no idea what Mike's contention is, in this as in most things he writes, nor why he brought up Intelligent Design to begin with. But intelligent design in and of itself is an interesting subject, and people had some interesting things to say about it.
I think it is necessary to distinguish between several levels of the argument.
1) That both evolutionary theory and religious creation myths are rational in the sense that both involve a process of observation of the world and thinking or reasoning about it.
[I think that is the sense of the word rational used by Jung, although I'm no expert of jung. You should also remeber that Jung is probably using the word in a specific meaning in the context of his own theories about the psyche and not providing a dictionary definition.]
2) That evolutionary theory is rational and creation myth is irrational because evolutionary theory involves dispassionate analysis of evidence, critical thinking, using reason to reach conclusions, and so forth, while myth is not critical, involves faith, reverence to traditional authority, worship, emotion, creativity and so forth.
That's the point I was trying to make. It is mostly historical. The ancient greeks introduced the idea of rational thinking in the sense of questioning traditional seeking explanation in philosophy, history, medicine, biology etc. that were not based on the authority of tradition or faith or the most creative or appealing story, but what seemed dictated by rational thinking. Ultimately their theories were wrong, but it was a different way of thinking.
In this level, Intelligent Design could hypothetically be a rational explanation. we could imagine that before Darwin described the mechanism of evolution, a person looking at the biological complexity could rationaly speculate that species are the result of design the source of which we as of yet do not understand. So long as this person treated the question critically without refering to religious tradition, it would be rational. Similarly, Newton's gravity theory involved a force that could not be explained until Einstein came along. It was still rational.
3) That between evolution and ID, evolution is a superior scientific theory, and therefore to prefer ID over evolution is irrational, and in fact motivated by religious emotion.
In a similar way we would say that the speculations of ancient greek philosophers were mostly rational at the time, but since our scientific methodology and technique inproved in many respects, to continue holding to such ancient theories would be irrational.
4) That ID is irrational because it is not a real scientific theory, but is in fact a way of sneaking in religion into science, and that its practitioners introduce into their consideration an irrational component, namely their religious beliefs.
I don't think these approaches are contradictory.
If followers of ID could present a real theory of ID that could compete with evolutionary theory, that theory would be rational. but they can't because their scientific methodology is faulty, and their process of reasoning is not rational, since it is influenced by religious beliefs.
"If God wants to get to Humans, isn't it more mighty and God-like if you take 4.5 billion years of intricate small changes than just "*poof* there you are"? The ID argument seems to kind of belittle what is supposed to be an all-powerful entity. "Evolution is too complicated, it's like dropping a bunch of parts and getting it to land together as a watch". Okay, that should be no problem for a god that is supposed to be infinately smarter and more powerful than anything any human can imagine."
The idea that the laws of nature are the manifestation of god, or that god creates and controls the world according to the laws of nature is an old one. The problem with this approach -- for religious people -- is that it makes god pretty redundant. You don't need him to explain how the world works, his influence in the world does not seem the result of divine will, prayers are pretty much pointless, and miracles do not really occur. You just let him tag along as nature runs its course. It also runs contrary to the concept of god in scripture as somebody who is involved in the world, as well as the discription in scripture of the creation of the natural world.
Spinoza is the most extreme example of this view. For him god and nature was pretty much the same. The world worked according to unbreakable mathematical laws (his book was built like a geometry book), and there was no way that things could happen differently. There was no divine will. Another philosopher, Leibniz, disliked this idea so much that he proposed the idea that although the world we live in works according to unbreakable laws of nature, god chose to create this world and not another one. Being a good god he created the best of all possible worlds.
Both were extreme rationalists although neither theory is worth much scientifically.
Hi all.
Probably too late to affect this thread but here goes one of my trademark "Posts of Unusual Size"...
Bill Muiligan stated: "A smart person of a religious nature should welcome science in its search to find the means by which God does His handiwork. Indeed, one could argue that those who try to supress such knowledge are working contrary to God's will."
There was a smart person like that: Johanes Kepler. He was the astronomer guy that discovered Mars had an eliptical rather than circular orbit. An orbit that went faster as it got closer to the Sun and slower as it was away. His observations were a preview to Newtons Laws of gravity. Kepler felt he failed as a priest and believed he was doing God's work by showing how things worked in God's creation.
Clatterboot stated: "As for evolution/ID, it has always struck me that the ID argument is really trying to argue for the *intent* of evolution. Which I think can exist beside evolution which is the mechanism. If God wants to get to Humans, isn't it more mighty and God-like if you take 4.5 billion years of intricate small changes than just "*poof* there you are"? The ID argument seems to kind of belittle what is supposed to be an all-powerful entity. "Evolution is too complicated, it's like dropping a bunch of parts and getting it to land together as a watch". Okay, that should be no problem for a god that is supposed to be infinately smarter and more powerful than anything any human can imagine."
I agree. As a Christian, I am constantly amazed at the arrogance of my brethren who can't simply be satified to faithfully believe God's hand in creation, but feel the need also stomp on anyone's ideas of HOW God could have done it. They remind me of Job's friends who are *CONVINCED* that the reason Job's life sucks is that he did something wrong. Humility is a desperately needed trait in the Church. Myself included.
When I was begining my faith I used to struggle with the evolution vs creation thing until once in astronomy class in college my professor was talking about cosmology. He stated that 150 years ago scientists believed the planets and stars had ALWAYS been like they are in their courses above.
But Edwin Hubble changed all that when he saw that galaxies were all "red shifted"--or moving away from one another. He theorized that at one point the universe was tiny and then universe was suddenly expanding in a big bang. While Hubble was no failed priest, the scientific community thought he was a neo-creationist. The poor guy was just calculating his data! From then on I started thinking maybe both sides are right--but could use some humility.
--Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
But the evolutionary observation itself...that dogs evolved from a distant canine ancestor in common with cats...is unaffected by whichever view you hold.
The difference between the dog example and ID is that the answers "the dog evolved into this form" and "humans made the dog this way" are addressing two different questions, while ID tries to use the second answer for the first question. (To get Aristotelean about it, answer #1 is the efficient cause and #2 is the formal cause.)
The key distinction: Evolutionary theory explains both dogs and humans, so it's not inherently self-contradictory; humans are one agent in the wide range of factors that led to modern dogs. ID, by its fundamental tenet, can't explain both the lifeform and its designer.
When I refer to ID, incidentally, I'm specifically referring to the modern movement that proponents are trying to push as an alternative to evolution, not any way that the terms could be applied to historical thought. If proponents of ID had positive evidence--"Here is the evidence of the intelligence that designed life form X"--rather than negative evidence--"I don't understand how life form X came to be, so somebody must have designed it"--then it would be another kettle of fish entirely, because it wouldn't be introducing a new factor out of nowhere.
(In other words, Micha, I'm not directly arguing against your broader point but a specific application of the idea. I certainly don't disagree that intelligence has had an effect on the modern form of certain species, or that they could have more in the future; it's the specific example of trying to address an unknown by jumping to one conclusion to the exclusion of all other I'm objecting to.)
My god there's a lot to read here since I last posted.
Micha, thanks for the explanation. We vote for political parties rather than the person we want to see in the Prime Minister's office in Canada as well, so I think I understand how it works.
As for the evolution vs. creationism vs. ID...I have always said that I just do not know anything for sure, because there's no way I can.
Creationism seems highly improbable to me, but I don't feel comfortable ruling it out 100% because it's still possible.
On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining everything on the planet evolving completely at random. My layman's understanding of mutations is that they don't happen all that often, and if that's the case, wouldn't evolution require that when organisms mutate they not only do so in a way that's beneficial rather than harmful, but that the organism with the mutation survives long enough to mate and pass the trait on, and that this happens over and over and over again? I know the planet has been around for a long time, but has it been around long enough for this to happen enough times to get it right, without setbacks such as a promising new species going extinct and the whole process having to start over again?
And on the other other hand, if there was some sort of being like a god guiding the development of life on Earth, the question then becomes where did THAT being come from? Did it evolve from something? Or was it created by yet another being, and if so, who created THAT being? So that makes me believe that even if there is some higher form of life controlling the development of life on Earth, it probably came into being through evolution or something similar to evolution, or the being that created it did, or the being that created the being that created it did, and so forth.
But anyway, the only answer I'm confident in giving when asked whether we evolved or whether we're the product of divine/supernatural intervention is "I honestly don't know."
After all, I can't prove to anybody that I exist. I mean, *I* know that "I think, therefore I am," but I can't prove to anybody else that I'm a thinking entity as opposed to a hallucination. So if we can't be certain about that, how can we be completely certain about anything? How can we be completely certain about evolution or creationism?
Rob Brown Stated: "And on the other other hand, if there was some sort of being like a god guiding the development of life on Earth, the question then becomes where did THAT being come from? Did it evolve from something? Or was it created by yet another being, and if so, who created THAT being? "
Again back to cosmology. Scientists are debating that if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding *into*? Another dimension? One could postulate it contains an intelligence or liveform(s) too complex for concepts like evolution or even birth. An entity too complex for modern human minds to grasp, perhaps. (Unless they're a bit arrogant and run Liberty University)
I'm not sayin that's how its done, but if cosmologists are saying the universe is expanding into something else...well...why not?
Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
Rob--when I was in college, I wrote a play along those lines. Woman gets in a car accident, wakes up from the coma, struggles through months of rehab, then wakes up out of the coma again, ffinding that nothing she remembered happened.
For those strict ID adherents, point out the differences in human height now and hundred years ago. In Denmark, I think, a hundred years ago, the population could've populated Snow White's house, Munchkinland, and Moria. (Slight exaggeration, there.) Now they're among Europe's tallest. Evolution, for those in a hurry!
Okay, not to drag us allllll the way back to the topic, but I just saw that picture of George Takei at the top of the thread, and my overactive imagination had Excelsior making first contact with a really buttoned-up race, with Sulu saying, "When you least expect it, we will have sex with you."
I gotta get out more.
"How can we be completely certain about evolution or creationism?"
We can't be certain. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is about the method used to ask questions about he world and answer them.
The questions science asks, the methods used to answer them, the answers that are possible and acceptable for science to acheive are completely incompatible with those that religion asks and answers.
For example:
"But Edwin Hubble changed all that when he saw that galaxies were all "red shifted"--or moving away from one another. He theorized that at one point the universe was tiny and then universe was suddenly expanding in a big bang. While Hubble was no failed priest, the scientific community thought he was a neo-creationist. The poor guy was just calculating his data! From then on I started thinking maybe both sides are right--but could use some humility."
The big bang and the story of the biblical genesis look similar, but Genesis is the result of myth-making or revelation that became tradition, while the big bang is the result of the modern scientific method. Genesis could never be considered a scientific conclusion, while Hubble could not assume in his research not treat his conclusion (the big bang) as supernatural or divine. If he did so he would move from the language of science to that of theology.
Saying that the laws of nature or evolution are simply the manifestation of the god is also not a scientific statement but theological. It is also a poetic statement, and a political statement. It enables science and religion to work at the same time without conflict.
This is hilarious. This debate was touched off by an attempt by Mike to prove that if I'm against bigotry I must be for it, and that if I use the word "rational" properly I must not know what it means.
By the way, I haven't fallen of the "Mike-o-holic" wagon, Micha. He made some erroneous statements and I pointed that out. That's it.
As far as the whole evolution/ID debate, I think ID is an attempt to apply religion to science, which makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Science exists to answer the "what" and the "how." Religion exists to explore the "why."
Sean, I think your vision of Takei as Sulu warning aliens that they are about to be... melded with... is hilarious. Don't get out more. We love you just the way you are.
"By the way, I haven't fallen of the "Mike-o-holic" wagon, Micha. He made some erroneous statements and I pointed that out. That's it."
The important thing is that your enjoyment in attending this blog is not diminished.
"Religion exists to explore the "why.""
It would probably be morecorrect to say that religion answers the 'why'.
Apparently not all religious people accept this division of labor. It is rather recent, and its basically a demotion of the role religion had in the past.
"I'm not sayin that's how its done, but if cosmologists are saying the universe is expanding into something else...well...why not?"
At this stage this is not a scientific question but a theological speculation.
"I think ID is an attempt to apply religion to science, which makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Science exists to answer the "what" and the "how." Religion exists to explore the "why.""
See, this is where I disagree with most folks. I think that science and religion work very well together when you're not trying to disprove one with the other or sticking to the belief that every single word in a book is THE WORD with no wiggle room left in there for common sense and the idea of the one can give strength to the other.
I tend to gain even more respect for the creations of a creator, divine or human, when I discover how much more there is to it then what I merely see. To see how so many things work, to see the amazing levels of details and the fragile balance of so many things and to see them work so well and with, in some cases, such strength just impresses me all the more with the creation then I was when I was young and being told that, in esence, God just went "snap" and there it was.
Here's the strangest stretch for an example of the night...
To me, it's a little like pro wrestling. I grew up watching it when it was "real" and was only a passing fan of it. Then I got older and I learned how much goes into the art of pro wrestling and into doing what those guys do, how much you have to learn, work and treat it as an art to do it well and I just became a huge fan out of respect for what these guys can really do and what they go through. Knowledge of the "fake nature of wrestling made me a bigger fan because I began to learn so much more about what goes into it. Same thing here. Knowledge of what goes into the creation to make it what it is only gives me more respect for it and for it's creator then keeping the idea that it was all done as easy as the flip of a switch.
But not everybody thiks like me. They're just not evolved enough yet.
:)
Captain, I'm not going to go into the maths here, but the question of what the Universe is "expanding into" is an artifact of the imprecision of language. Space is defined by the existence of something in it, even if that "something" is only subatomic particles. Beyond the "edge" of the Universe is nothing - in its most literal form. Until the Universe has expanded into it, the "space" (not really space yet, but again we're dealing with the imprecision of language) doesn't exist as yet. It's not even really potential - it's nothing.
If you think that's hard to comprehend, try contemplating the monobloc...
Jung distinguished judging functions (functions that model, iconifying functions -- thoughts or feelings) as rational, and observing functions (functions that record, empirical functions -- sensing or intuiting) as irrational.I'm not well-versed on Jung at all.
As far as all beliefs model the world or an aspect of it, Counselor,™ they are rational.Ok, fine...are you suggesting that the Greek Pantheon, as viewed by an ancient Greek, is a modelling function?
Or, maybe a better response by me is to say that a belief doesn't try to model the world at all...it's trying to intuit it."
I think that To understand what Jung says, you have to understand the terms rational, thinking, and intuition in the context of jung's theory. My knowledge of Jung's theory is limited to a few lines in wikipedia.
The distinction you make between scientific theory and myth, and the distinction made by Jung in his terminology are both valid but different.
Understanding Jung's system is only a little more challenging than understanding a simple graph.
Jung makes the attitudes, extraversion and introversion, his primary axis to systematize personality.
The functions are grouped rational (judging), and irrational (perceiving).
The profile a subject fits then depends on his or her tendency to consciously favor a function and, for the opposite rational/irrational duad, then favor another function as secondary.
The complexity in actually applying the system to people lies in the role of the unconscious mind, which adopts the opposite attitude and functions to the degree the conscious mind adopts its attitude and functions. Consider that introverted experience is not externally observable, unconscious experience is not internally observable, and people normally exhibit conscious and unconscious behavior more or less equally. Jung described the unconscious attitude and functions as more observably primitive, and the conscious attitude and functions as more observably refined -- definitions dry and vague.
The vague definitions of consciousness and unconsciousness passed around leave the mere existence of such a thing as the unconscious mind controversial. Alan Watts described consciousness as a spotlight-like awareness, and unconsciousness the darkness not receiving the attention of the light -- just because you can't see it, that doesn't mean there's nothing there.
By modeling, I'm referring to iconic representation -- like words or pictures or myths or theories -- to modularize reality to ease comprehension.
As far as there is some disconnect between ourselves and the world -- based on an unconscious connection with either the world or ourselves -- we all depend on some form of modeling. This is obvious from our use of language.
Possibilities and potentialities are explored by our irrational functions, and the effectiveness of each possibility is rated by our rational functions.
Saying religion is irrational is like saying language is irrational. Words are not the things they represent, no more than a fingerpointing at the moon is the moon itself, or can draw the moon down. Religion and languages are both canonized by consensus. Building consensus in religion is merely more vulnerable.
By the way, I haven't fallen of the "Mike-o-holic" wagon, Micha. He made some erroneous statements and I pointed that out. That's it.
It's funny how you reserve for yourself the privilege of correcting erroneous statements by me without actually, like, citing one. No, that isn't needy at all.
"Saying religion is irrational is like saying language is irrational."
Whoa. My BS detector just went off. While languages may be constructs used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another, religion is an entirely different kettle. What we call an orange is a constant, no matter what it might be called in another a language or culture. But the nature of "God" is far from constant from culture to culture, or religion to religion.
And no one (to my knowledge) has killed someone for calling an orange an apple, but the millions have been slaughtered in the name of a God, or for practicing a different form of religion.
That comparison is flawed on a fundamental level.
"See, this is where I disagree with most folks. I think that science and religion work very well together when you're not trying to disprove one with the other or sticking to the belief that every single word in a book is THE WORD with no wiggle room left in there for common sense and the idea of the one can give strength to the other."
Jerry, I don't think there is a big difference between what you say and what Bill says.
It's one thing to look at the discoveries of science and say -- poetically -- that he represent god's work. It is another thing entirely to try to include god or other teachings of religion as part of the scientific theories. and a third thing is to try to apply the scientific method to god and religion.
In the first case you have an approach that enriches your appreciation of science while enabling you to maintain religious beliefs without giving up on the scientfic method.
In the second case tthe scientific method is compromised by insertion of data that is not scientific.
The third case is more complicated. The methods of natural sciences cannot prove or disprove god or in fact deal with him in any meaningful way. However other sciences and philosophy do treat religion and god in a way that may seem to religious people irreverant. Social sciences, for example, might treat the bible as a myth no better than those of other religions.
----------------------
"Understanding Jung's system is only a little more challenging than understanding a simple graph."
I don't want to address the terms of a major theory of a major thinker without having a better understanding of them than Wikipedia. It would be irresponsible. It is also unnecessary. It is probably better to actually present one's own point of view in the clearest way possible than paraphrasing theories.
"Religion and languages are both canonized by consensus. Building consensus in religion is merely more vulnerable."
We are getting here to complicated and controversial philosophy. It's connected with post-modernism, post-structuralism, Jacques Derrida, and a lot of other stuff I know almost nothing about.
"Whoa. My BS detector just went off. While languages may be constructs used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another, religion is an entirely different kettle. What we call an orange is a constant, no matter what it might be called in another a language or culture. But the nature of "God" is far from constant from culture to culture, or religion to religion."
You are getting here into really complicated philosophy of language I know a little bit about, but very little. Suffice to say things are not that simple, and philosophers have been arguing about them for years. There's a famous philosophical thought experiement that deals with just this question, namely the relation between words like orange, eater or gold and the things in the world they refer to.
The though experiment is called 'twin earth' and it was thought out by a guy named Hilary Putnam. I think it's in wikipedia.
Saying religion is irrational is like saying language is irrational.Whoa. My BS detector just went off. While languages may be constructs used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another, religion is an entirely different kettle. What we call an orange is a constant, no matter what it might be called in another a language or culture. But the nature of "God" is far from constant from culture to culture, or religion to religion.
And no one (to my knowledge) has killed someone for calling an orange an apple, but the millions have been slaughtered in the name of a God, or for practicing a different form of religion.
That comparison is flawed on a fundamental level.
So, because religious pretense can be used to shelter a predatory agenda, it can't be a "[construct] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another?"
My bullshit detector just went off.
Religion and languages are both canonized by consensus. Building consensus in religion is merely more vulnerable.We are getting here to complicated and controversial philosophy. It's connected with post-modernism, post-structuralism, Jacques Derrida, and a lot of other stuff I know almost nothing about.
Do you know of a surviving philosophy that isn't complicated and has never been controversial?
And, as Jung pre-dates post-modernism, post-structuralism, and Jacques Derrida, comprehension o his work is obviously independent of those issues.
"So, because religious pretense can be used to shelter a predatory agenda, it can't be a "[construct] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another?" "
No, it cannot. Because the purpose of language and that of religion are two very different and unrelated things.
Language is a construct of the rational mind to communicate ideas and information. It is used to DEFINE. Religion, on the other hand, is used to EXPLAIN and, I need to point out, the explanations vary from religion to religion, from doctrine to doctrine, from church to church, and person to person. Religion is as malleable as silly puty, because it is irrational. The same cannot be said of language. Although the terms used to describe an apple will vary from language to language, and even within most languages, the apple itself remains what it is, regardless of the label placed on it. The same cannot be said of religion, for its very nature changes from person to person, belief system to belief system.
Being a former evangelical Christian turned atheist, I am of the opinion that Religion does not shelter a "predatory agenda," it IS a predatory agenda. More often than not, it brings out the worst in people.
So, because religious pretense can be used to shelter a predatory agenda, it can't be a "[construct] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another?"No, it cannot. Because the purpose of language and that of religion are two very different and unrelated things.
Language is a construct of the rational mind to communicate ideas and information. It is used to DEFINE. Religion, on the other hand, is used to EXPLAIN and, I need to point out, the explanations vary from religion to religion, from doctrine to doctrine, from church to church, and person to person. Religion is as malleable as silly puty, because it is irrational.
So "[communication of] ideas and information from one person to another" and EXPLANATION are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE? That still sounds like BULLSHIT to me.
Being a former evangelical Christian turned atheist, I am of the opinion that Religion does not shelter a "predatory agenda," it IS a predatory agenda. More often than not, it brings out the worst in people.
How does atheism not qualify as "a religion that insists there in no god?"
How does introducing yet another paradigm no one has any hope of verifying standardize our model of reality?
By sabotaging a stable paradigm of reality in this manner, how isn't atheism -- in your crude application of the word* -- irrational?
*As if diversity ("vary from religion to religion") and adaptibility ("malleable as silly puty") are irrational.
"So, because religious pretense can be used to shelter a predatory agenda, it can't be a "[construct] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another?" "
No, it cannot. Because the purpose of language and that of religion are two very different and unrelated things."
Slight opinion, if I may. The difference between language and religion is that language communicates ideas. Religion is an idea.
Language describes a set of ideas, concepts and terms, and frames them in a communal construct that members of the community can all understand and agree upon.
"Apple", "apfel", and "pomme" all describe the same thing in a the communally agreed upon languages of various cultures. They define a general group of similar items.
Religion is an idea that attempts to explain, among other more complex ideas, apples. Also, where the universe came from, the nature of time, and how we got where we are. It also attempts to define morality, right, wrong, sin, sanctity, and create some sort of idealized social framework.
Since religion attempts to adress the nature of the world, organized religions take time that survival level cutures don't have. As cultures advance, religions become more complex and ritualized.
Religions add philisophical ideas to the linguistic make up, but without language, these ideas cannot be communicated.
The difference between language and religion is that language communicates ideas. Religion is an idea.
Well, saying religion is an idea is like saying language is an idea -- they are ideas.
Just as words are not the things they represent, religions are not the gods they revere.
Religions and languages are both canonized by consensus. Building consensus in religion is merely more vulnerable to coontention.
"So "[communication of] ideas and information from one person to another" and EXPLANATION are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE? That still sounds like BULLSHIT to me."
To define something is to say what something is, to explain something is to say why something is. This is why the answers to the questions "define yourself" and "explain yourself" can be quite different. They are two very different things. It is the nature of the different uses of language and the uses of religion that exludes one from the other. Both are tools, one of the rational, the other of the irrational.
What we define as an apple remains what it is regardless of what we call it. An appleseed cannot grow into a lemon tree that then sprouts figs. However, someone can be born into one religion and convert to another, because religion is in no way tactile or testible. It is entirely what the believer makes of it. It is just a fantasy. But if one were to walk into a grocery store, walk into the produce aisle, and pick up an apple and say to someone nearby, "Look at this grapefruit." I think an odd look or a stated, "That's an apple," would be the expected responses. That is not the case with religion.
As far as atheism being a "religion." It is not. I worship nothing, therefor I cannot be religious. As far as "proving" there is no god? A negative needs no proving, but a positive does. ( ) Can you prove to me that there are no words between those parenthesis? The very absense of words proves that there are none, so why should one even bother to prove what is obvious? The book of Hebrews states (depending on translation) that [religious] faith "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Religion deals with the untestible and the intangible, things that do not exist outside of the mind/spirit of the believer. I am afraid that this makes the proof of God (or the truism of ones religious convictions) the burden of the believer, not the unbeliever. First define God (what God is and what God isn't), the nature of the religious belief (what it is and what it isn't), and then define exactly what about it makes it true and all the others false. Give some objective testible and/or provable examples of that truth, of why God chooses to act for some, but not for others. Of why a "loving" creator God would allow disasters, both man made and natural, to occur. It seems odd to me that the only answer that makes anything close to rational sense to me is found in the pages of Peter David's Fallen Angel and Olaf Stapleton's novel Starmaker. Hardly what one would call religious texts.
If anyone of faith is angered by my stance, I do apologize. But I think that religion is irrational. It exists entirely in the realm of emotional fantasy and cannot exist in the reality of the rational.
"This topic is pointless as are these posts."
Agreed. I learned long ago that people will believe whatever they want to believe, all the rest be damned.
At least it was a somewhat entertaining Saturday morning diversion while it lasted.
Peace.
So "[communication of] ideas and information from one person to another" and EXPLANATION are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE? That still sounds like BULLSHIT to me.To define something is to say what something is, to explain something is to say why something is. This is why the answers to the questions "define yourself" and "explain yourself" can be quite different. They are two very different things. It is the nature of the different uses of language and the uses of religion that exludes one from the other. Both are tools, one of the rational, the other of the irrational.
What we define as an apple remains what it is regardless of what we call it. An appleseed cannot grow into a lemon tree that then sprouts figs. However, someone can be born into one religion and convert to another, because religion is in no way tactile or testible. It is entirely what the believer makes of it. It is just a fantasy. But if one were to walk into a grocery store, walk into the produce aisle, and pick up an apple and say to someone nearby, "Look at this grapefruit." I think an odd look or a stated, "That's an apple," would be the expected responses. That is not the case with religion.
Unless you specify otherwise, I'm taking "Both are tools" as a concession religion and languages are both "[constructs] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another." That seems to be the only part of your reply that applies to the section you cite.
In any event, you've called religion a tool.
implement, n.
...a device used in the performance of a task : TOOL, UTENSIL
Fundamentalism is a tool that feeds the resolve of the insurgency in Iraq. Religion is no less rational than the guns they carry.
As far as atheism being a "religion." It is not. I worship nothing, therefor I cannot be religious.
Buddhism is the worship of nothing. The Buddha preached embracement of the void. Are Buddhists, therefore, not religious?
As far as "proving" there is no god? A negative needs no proving, but a positive does.
I didn't ask you to prove the non-existence of god. I said you can't, and you haven't disagreed with me.
So:
How does introducing yet another paradigm no one has any hope of verifying standardize our model of reality?
By sabotaging a stable paradigm of reality in this manner, how isn't atheism -- in your crude application of the word -- irrational?
This topic is pointless as are these posts.
Don't let me stop you from skipping the topic, person-whose-name-I-don't-recognize.
Agreed.
Don't let me stpo you from retreating.
"It's one thing to look at the discoveries of science and say -- poetically -- that he represent god's work. It is another thing entirely to try to include god or other teachings of religion as part of the scientific theories. and a third thing is to try to apply the scientific method to god and religion."
Yeah, I know. Don't get me wrong here, I have never and will never support teaching religion in the schools or science in the churches. Nor will you see me trying to argue that you can actually use one to explain the other.
I’ve just never seen the knowledge in science as being a threat to the faith of religion. Quite the opposite actually. The more that science sheds a light on just how complex some things really are, the greater it elevates the admiration for the divine craftsmanship that went into it.
Granted, it’s easier for me to see it that way then it is for some I’ve met in the past. I don’t read the Bible as a history book or 100% factual account of events from the past. I read it a book full of parables and good ideas. Because of that, the discoveries of science don’t threaten my view of my faith.
Jerry, you and I actually don't disagree. We're just saying the same thing in a different way.
I don't believe religion can be used to explain the mechanics of natural phenomena. I also don't believe the fact that rational explanations exist for certain natural phenomena -- and that we'll likely discover explanations for others where such explanations are currently lacking -- doesn't preclude the existence of God.
Since I am not familiar with the teaching of Buddhism, I cannot comment on that. So I will leave that to others.
But:
"How does introducing yet another paradigm no one has any hope of verifying standardize our model of reality?"
What did I introduce and what can not be verified? Please explain and I will attempt to answer to the best of my ability.
"By sabotaging a stable paradigm of reality in this manner, how isn't atheism -- in your crude application of the word -- irrational?"
Are you speaking of Religion? Something that has birthed countless genocides, the denial of scientific advancement (to the point of torture), and the oppression of those who dare to believe differently (or who are unfortunate to be born of a different gender). You call that STABLE? :D
With all honesty I admit that I am not on an intellectual level anywhere near that of a Sam Harris or a Richard Dawkins, so the question confuses me to no end. How can something with a long and bloody history of causing violence and instability possibly be considered stable?
Just curious.
Yeah, I wasn't really saying that you and I did disagree here. We're likely on the same page on 99% of this topic. I only disagree on the point that science exists to answer the "what" and the "how" while religion exists to explore the "why."
I've always felt that the closer you get to the truth of anything, the closer you are to answering all three of those things. The "what" and the "how" can often explain the "why" of something and, when looked at with an open and investigative mind, the "why" of something can help to shed light on the path to learning the "what" and the "how" of something. I've only ever seen conflict in that with the people that feel that they must embrace either the teachings or religion or the teachings of science almost to the exclusion of the other.
But that's just me.
Micha the Mika-a-holic (sorry, couldn't resist) stated: The big bang and the story of the biblical genesis look similar, but Genesis is the result of myth-making or revelation that became tradition, while the big bang is the result of the modern scientific method. Genesis could never be considered a scientific conclusion, while Hubble could not assume in his research not treat his conclusion (the big bang) as supernatural or divine. If he did so he would move from the language of science to that of theology."
And that is exactly as it should work. Scientists should be like V-Ger--dispassionately collecting data and analyzing it. Ministers, Rabbis, Imams and philosophers should be like Captain Matt Decker-- use human faith to find both God and the why in what they see. As humans we function very poorly without either type, or if one type tries to assume the job of the other.
Jerry Chandler stated: See, this is where I disagree with most folks. I think that science and religion work very well together when you're not trying to disprove one with the other or sticking to the belief that every single word in a book is THE WORD with no wiggle room left in there for common sense and the idea of the one can give strength to the other.
And that is exactly were I start to disagree with my Christian brethren. It isn't enough for them to read the Word, pray about it, and ask God what its trying to say. Their interpretation is the only interpretation. That's when trouble starts. Not only is it offensive to others, but its a lazy way to believe because HUMANS spell out all the answers to religious questions. One of the things I liked most about the Book of Job is God tells him in essence "I don't have to justify everything that happens to you. I'm God. You're not. Deal with it."
Jonathan:The other one stated: "Captain, I'm not going to go into the maths here, but the question of what the Universe is "expanding into" is an artifact of the imprecision of language. Space is defined by the existence of something in it, even if that "something" is only subatomic particles. Beyond the "edge" of the Universe is nothing - in its most literal form. Until the Universe has expanded into it, the "space" (not really space yet, but again we're dealing with the imprecision of language) doesn't exist as yet. It's not even really potential - it's nothing."
On this I would disagree. Beyond the "edge" of the Universe is nothing - that we know of... Some string theorists have with V-Ger like dispassion stated that there may be dozens or more universes. Some possibly connected to this one. Just because we cannot see does not make it not there.
Chadwick H. Saxelid stated: "If anyone of faith is angered by my stance, I do apologize. But I think that religion is irrational. It exists entirely in the realm of emotional fantasy and cannot exist in the reality of the rational."
Not offended at all. In fact, though we disagree ecclesiastically, you concisely summed up my point nicely. Faith isn't about being rational. It was never intended to be-- and good thing too!
--Captain Naraht
(Ray from NH)
"Granted, it’s easier for me to see it that way then it is for some I’ve met in the past. I don’t read the Bible as a history book or 100% factual account of events from the past. I read it a book full of parables and good ideas. Because of that, the discoveries of science don’t threaten my view of my faith."
It is a theological and a political decision to allow science, religion, the state, art, each its own place, thus avoiding conflict.
It could be be claimed that this is the truest form of religion and that the conflict that arises between these arenas is because of wrong religion. It could also be claimed that historically and in its true essence relgion did not and cannot share and divide the power with these other arenas. This is the view of fundemntalists (who seek the fundementals of their religion). In any case, I believe this compromise and division of labor is the better compromise. It allows people to have religion, science, and state with less conflict.
"I only disagree on the point that science exists to answer the "what" and the "how" while religion exists to explore the "why.""
This is the articulation of the division of labor between science and religion. The 'why' here means things like morality, the meaning of life, love, and other stuff like that. Science can tell you how the world works and what is its nature. Scientific knowledge can help deal with questions of morals and the meaning of life, but not provide the answers. Religion claims to provide the answers. So do other philosophies. Questions about the meaning of life and morality might affect the scientists who do research, but it shouldn't affect the research itself. Here there is room only for the scientific methodolgy that deals with what and how.
------------------
Chadwick. Like you I am an atheist, and to some degree because of similar reasoning. Like you I once thought that religion is dangerous because it claimed to have knowledge of and be guided by divine commands, namely something that is outside of the natural world, outside of compromise, outside of reasoned discussion. However, later I've come to believe that religion, like other human institutions and ideologies can be used for good or for evil. The thing that causes humans to kill, torture, act intolerantly and be close-minded are not in religion, it is part of human nature. Religion has its Osama Bin Ladens but it also has Martin Luther King. And atheism was not able to prevent Nazism.
So I still believe that on the philosophical level the belief in God and all the religious aspects that follow are unjustified. Although there have been rationalistic attempts to justify god, and I don't know if it is fair to describe the reasoning of religious people as wholly irrational. But the truth is that it does not matter. The conflicts today that involve religion are not really philosophical/theological conflicts, they are political and (to a lesser extent) ideological. And it is quite possible for religion on atheism to have things in common on the political, ideological, and emotional level (as in the case of MLK), as well of mutual respect.
You have also probably noticed that your discussion with Mike is a little different than usual discussions. You might want to disentangle the points you are trying to make from the structure Mike is forcing on them, so as to make them more coherent.
"Chadwick. Like you I am an atheist, and to some degree because of similar reasoning. Like you I once thought that religion is dangerous because it claimed to have knowledge of and be guided by divine commands, namely something that is outside of the natural world, outside of compromise, outside of reasoned discussion. However, later I've come to believe that religion, like other human institutions and ideologies can be used for good or for evil. The thing that causes humans to kill, torture, act intolerantly and be close-minded are not in religion, it is part of human nature. Religion has its Osama Bin Ladens but it also has Martin Luther King. And atheism was not able to prevent Nazism.
So I still believe that on the philosophical level the belief in God and all the religious aspects that follow are unjustified. Although there have been rationalistic attempts to justify god, and I don't know if it is fair to describe the reasoning of religious people as wholly irrational. But the truth is that it does not matter. The conflicts today that involve religion are not really philosophical/theological conflicts, they are political and (to a lesser extent) ideological. And it is quite possible for religion on atheism to have things in common on the political, ideological, and emotional level (as in the case of MLK), as well of mutual respect.
You have also probably noticed that your discussion with Mike is a little different than usual discussions. You might want to disentangle the points you are trying to make from the structure Mike is forcing on them, so as to make them more coherent."
Thank you for your kinds words, and you are right...violence is as much a part of human nature as is compassion. The outpouring of support and aid in the aftermath of a disaster or tragedy has nothing to God and everything to the inherent decency within the human heart. All the other stuff doesn't matter. As I said before, people will believe what they want to believe, all the rest be damned.
As far as Mike goes, he has his viewpoint and I have mine. I'm not approaching it as an argument that truly winnable (see my comment about people above), but as two blokes shooting the breeze. If it gets nasty, I'll just walk away. Besdies, there comes a time in any debate when it runs its course and we all move on, hopefully a little wiser to others point of few.
Micha,
I'm pretty sure we agree on most of this. My only fine tuning on this would be to stress that I believe that the division of labor you speak of should be enforced in institutions (like schools and the church) but people should not be stuck with that in their day to day lives.
If we were discussing ID VS evolution or science VS religion in the context of forcing faith into the public school system, then I would be talking about this in a different way. I don't believe one should be taught in the house of the other at all. I just think that we shouldn't have such conflict over the two. They needn't be an either or kind of thing.
"Micha the Mika-a-holic."
I can stop whenever I want. I only respond to his posts to be sociable.
"On this I would disagree. Beyond the "edge" of the Universe is nothing - that we know of... Some string theorists have with V-Ger like dispassion stated that there may be dozens or more universes. Some possibly connected to this one. Just because we cannot see does not make it not there."
Here is the thing. There are parts of the natural world that are still unknown in the sense that they are not yet described by the scientific method. There are gaps in scientific knowledge. Now, you can choose to say things about the unknown, speculate about it, try to fill it with your imagination. This would be basically an artistic act. But it would be completely meaningless as scientific knowledge. Moreover, if a gap in scientific knowledge is filled using the scientific method (the way Hubble did with the big bang), the discovery will have to be treated in the dispassionate scientific way. Of course you can also super impose on it whatever extra theological or artistic meaning you like. For example, when voyager sent pictures from Jupiter, it became scientifically known. The pictures could also be described as beautiful or, if you so desire, divine.
A good example could be this: for the Vikings, thor was an unknown god. For the denizens of Marvel universe Thor is a natural entity with properties that can be described scientifically.
"Faith isn't about being rational."
I've addressed that before. In the old testament god proves himself to convince people to believe in him. The idea of faith as an irrational state of mind opposed to reason that is specifically fit for religion only came afterwards.
"And that is exactly were I start to disagree with my Christian brethren. It isn't enough for them to read the Word, pray about it, and ask God what its trying to say. Their interpretation is the only interpretation. That's when trouble starts. Not only is it offensive to others, but its a lazy way to believe because HUMANS spell out all the answers to religious questions. One of the things I liked most about the Book of Job is God tells him in essence "I don't have to justify everything that happens to you. I'm God. You're not. Deal with it."""
There was an Israeli religious philosopher who had numerous PhD's in natural sciences. His name was Isaia Leibowitz. This guy was a strict Ortodox Jew, but his theological view, which he followed very strongly, was the idea that god is completely beyond description -- you could not say anything positive about him (this was his interpretation of Mimonides, but I don't know if it was correct, only that he held that view). He did believe that prayer affects god. He refused to entretain questions about god to nature. He did not believe in miracles or the literal truth of the bible, but he strictly followed Jewish ritual. For him, his belief was not so much a belief about god and the rituals he followed were not for god or because of god but rather toward a completley unknown god.
I believe there were problems with his view too. I do not share it. But he was an admirable (if grouchy) man. Unfortunatly, one of the flaws of his attitude was his rejection (but not hatred) towards homosexual life, since Jewish religious law rejects it, and for him the proper devotion for the unknown god was to follow Jewish religious law to the last tenet.
"I'm pretty sure we agree on most of this. My only fine tuning on this would be to stress that I believe that the division of labor you speak of should be enforced in institutions (like schools and the church) but people should not be stuck with that in their day to day lives."
Agreed. The seperation of Church ans State is the manifestation of the division of labor in the rame of government, but it need not be enforced in other realms. In a way, the democratic political system puts limitations on the state tha allow people who do not accept this compromise the freedom to practice their beliefs.
Religion, on the other hand, is used to EXPLAIN and, I need to point out, the explanations vary from religion to religion, from doctrine to doctrine, from church to church, and person to person. Religion is as malleable as silly puty, because it is irrational....
Being a former evangelical Christian turned atheist, I am of the opinion that Religion does not shelter a "predatory agenda," it IS a predatory agenda. More often than not, it brings out the worst in people.
How does atheism not qualify as "a religion that insists there in no god?"
How does introducing yet another paradigm no one has any hope of verifying standardize our model of reality?
By sabotaging a stable paradigm of reality in this manner, how isn't atheism -- in your crude application of the word -- irrational?
Are you speaking of Religion? Something that has birthed countless genocides, the denial of scientific advancement (to the point of torture), and the oppression of those who dare to believe differently (or who are unfortunate to be born of a different gender). You call that STABLE? :D
I didn't call anything stable. You:
I call that BULLSHIT. ; D
Faith isn't about being rational.
Faith is complete trust.
Who has more faith than the person with no religion?
IMHO, competent science is kind of like good journalism. It asks and attempts to answer who,why,what,when,where and/or how without being coloured by the questioners personal beliefs or biases. The answers can be tested and proven or disproven. It is the search for facts.
Intelligent design is like Fox News. Interested in inserting it's own truth when the facts get uncomfortable, spinning whole tapestries from hand picked threads and hoping noone looks to close, or pulls the one loose string.
Spirituality is the search for who the individual is, "why am I?". It is individual and private, the desire to understand the truth of oneself in relation to the reality one inhabits.
Religion is the search for comfort, for acknowledegment that that there's more to it than all this, that there's someone in charge of this mess. It is the search for less tangible answers about the world.
Religion is of itself neither good nor evil, neither infantile nor wise. It is what it's adherents make of it, since religion is also the search for community.
Chadwick, you have said nothing that any rational, reasoning person would find offensive, nor anything any spiritual person would find offensive. As for religious people, depends on the Path they follow.
Somebody once said, and I'm paraphrasing, "I have no problem with God, it's the ground crew I'm not to crazy about." Chadwick, the historical precedents you cite are accurate, but they are the work of men.
I'm not going to try to save you, I walked away from Christianity 20+ years ago. I always thought that a God so desirous of obediance and adoration could have hired some better PR, and been clear and concise.
The dark actions of religious organizatioons through history, however, do not diminish the good that they have also done. During the dark ages, it was Catholic monastaries that kept knowledge and literacy alive. Mind you, the Crusades probably weren't the best ideas, but, again, the ground crew.
Unless someone tries to present their personal Truth as Universal Fact, I refuse to call BULLSHIT.
I am of the opinion that Religion does not shelter a "predatory agenda," it IS a predatory agenda.Religion is of itself neither good nor evil, neither infantile nor wise. It is what it's adherents make of it, since religion is also the search for community.
Chadwick, you have said nothing that any rational, reasoning person would find offensive, nor anything any spiritual person would find offensive....
Unless someone tries to present their personal Truth as Universal Fact, I refuse to call BULLSHIT.
Whaaateeeveeer, duuude.
Or, as a friend's T-shirt says:
Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers. Amen.
Mike, unless you can tell me WHAT I said and meant, rather than pursuing an O'Reilly/Limbaugh approach by cherry picking specific items to quote out of context, or simply quoting then ridiculing without any attempt at debate or presentation of a logical counterpoint, I call FUCKIN' BULLSHIT!!!
"Whaaateeeveeer, duuude."? That's the best you've got?
"Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers. Amen."
I like it!
How about:
"Jesus saves! But Gretzky scores on the rebound!"
"Jesus is coming! Look busy!"
"Jesus saves. Moses invests."
"Jesus loves you!!! The rest of think you're an assbag."
"We nailed Jesus to the cross once, and we still know where the hammer is!"
Welcome to the first stages of visiting Planet M, Manny. Keep your visit short. It's not a fun place to stay for too long.
"Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers. Amen."
That should be, like, the subtitle of the Book of Job.
The Book of Job: or Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers.
Anyone know where a guy could get that t-shirt?
Thanks,
Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
Something I wanted to respond to but did not:
"I agree that's an aspect of it as well, but it does seem to me that when people talk about gays, it is primarily focused on gay men, rather than lesbians. And women kissing/etc. is, I don't know if I would say accepted, but is demonized like it is for men. Am I alone in sensing that? "
It would appear that the male point of view when it comes to sexuality is still the dominant one. This is what feminists call patriarchy. Male homosexuality is more troubling to heterosexual men's sense of identity.
I don't know if the popularity of lesbian images among heterosexual men is a recent thing. But I think even in the past lesbianism was considered as much of a threat. Historically heterosexual men seem to have been more concerned with women overstepping their place.
I am curious if heterosexual women perceive lesbianism to be a greater threat.
In general it would be interesting to have more acces in popular media for the point of view of women.
""Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers. Amen."
That should be, like, the subtitle of the Book of Job."
Wouldn't the appropriate subtitle for the book of Job be: Dear God, please protect me from you?
"Wouldn't the appropriate subtitle for the book of Job be: Dear God, please protect me from you?"
Not really. In the plot of the Book of Job, it is the devil that causes Job's woes and Job's friends that blame Job for his misfortunes. While people have debated the deeper meaning of Job for millenia, according to the text, it is Satan that harms Job.
Capt. Naraht
That Satan is such a trouble-maker.
Yeah, what's his deal?
(not really back, just typing on someone's computer at the film fest. Uh oh, he's coming back! Gotta run!)
""Wouldn't the appropriate subtitle for the book of Job be: Dear God, please protect me from you?"
Not really. In the plot of the Book of Job, it is the devil that causes Job's woes and Job's friends that blame Job for his misfortunes. While people have debated the deeper meaning of Job for millenia, according to the text, it is Satan that harms Job."
You have to recall that Satan in this story is an agent of God and not the arch-enemy of god you see in Christian tradition. He tells god: harm Job, and we'll see if he does not curse you. And God said: fine, go ahead and harm him. Satan is acting on behalf of god. Imagine this: Rumsfeld goes to Bush and tells him he should attack Iraq. Bush says OK. Who attacked Iraq, Rumsfeld or Bush?
OK, let's start a religious war over this :)
Not really. You are correct that the Book of Job in large part a criticism of Job's friends for presuming to judge Job. So your T-Shirt is in the mail.
"Jesus saves! But Gretzky scores on the rebound!"
"Jesus is coming! Look busy!"
"Jesus saves. Moses invests."
"Jesus loves you!!! The rest of think you're an assbag."
"We nailed Jesus to the cross once, and we still know where the hammer is!"
"Jesus saves! Everyone else, take 5d6 damage."
"I didn't call anything stable. You:
say religions are irrational specifically because, as distinct paradigms of reality, they are incompatible with each other
and expect us to accept as rational a paradigm of reality that neither disproves nor is compatible with any of the paradigms you are complaining about.
I call that BULLSHIT. ; D"
I'm cool with that. :)
But my core opinion remains unchanged. Religion is irrational because it is nothing more than a human construct rooted entirely in emotional fantasy and wish fulfillment. It's all "Might be" and "Could be" and "We hope it's that way," with nothing testible or researchable to prove these beliefs. To me it is no more complex or simple than that, really. That religions are incompatible with each other is nothing more than a "useful" by-product of its ability to control and influence the poorly educated and gullible with far too simple minded answers to complex questions and issues that, in time and with proper research, could be both answered and resolved.
My closing argument/example (after this we'll just be dancing in circles) is to just look at the last few hundred years of human history. Look at what science has accomplished compared to what religion has. The answer of which paradigm is more "stable" or "useful" is self-evident and cannot be denied, it can only be ignored. Religion (especially organized religion) struggles to keep the people ill informed, while science struggles to inform. An informed people are, far more often than not, a less violent and a more accepting society than one that is ill-informed and steeped in religious beliefs.
As far as the lessons one can learn for the story of Job? My take on it is this: "Bad shit happens, get over it." :D
"Wouldn't the appropriate subtitle for the book of Job be: Dear God, please protect me from you?"
Actually, God gave the okay. More like "Job:or How I Was a Victim of a Damn Stupid Bet"
"Welcome to the first stages of visiting Planet M, Manny. Keep your visit short. It's not a fun place to stay for too long."
Thanks for the reminder, Jerry. Having seen what Mike did to others, I should have learned from smarter people here, ignored him, and done something pleasant. Like changed my son's diaper. At least the conversation would have had some logical point to it.
Does the "Victims of Mike Club" have t-shirts?
Actually, God gave the okay. More like "Job:or How I Was a Victim of a Damn Stupid Bet"
I have a book by an secular Israeli columnist that presents stories from the old testament in a kind of critical, sometimes modern reading. He reads Job in a similar way, he was a victim of a stupid bet, and he doesn't accept god's excuses. as far as he's concerned god is like a politician who's hiding the his real blunder. he says he should get better speech writers.
"Does the "Victims of Mike Club" have t-shirts?"
I wanted to make some, with a picture of a person hitting his head repeatedly against a wall. But Bill Myers shot the idea down.
"You have to recall that Satan in this story is an agent of God and not the arch-enemy of god you see in Christian tradition. He tells god: harm Job, and we'll see if he does not curse you. And God said: fine, go ahead and harm him. Satan is acting on behalf of god."
While I disagree with you that Satan is an agent of God, the Devil does make an interesting if manipulative point: Job only likes you God because you bless him. (How many times have I asked that of wealthy Christians?) God is not so much making Job suffer as proving Satan wrong. For 36 chapters of Job's friends being judgemental dolts, Job questions God, Job complains to God, but Job never cursed God. Therefore at the end Job wins his friends livestock as a consolation prize.
"Does the "Victims of Mike Club" have t-shirts?"
Actually they are more like brandings or really painful neck tattoos.
Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
"6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan [b] also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."
8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD."
The King James vesion has a closer feel to the Hebrew
"God is not so much making Job suffer as proving Satan wrong."
Job suffers enough. The ancient Jewish sages apparently said that it was a parable that never actually happened, because they found it so unfair.
Posted by: Micha at February 25, 2007 02:56 PM
I wanted to make some, with a picture of a person hitting his head repeatedly against a wall. But Bill Myers shot the idea down.
I never "shot the idea down." I merely quipped that the shirts weren't selling well.
I've begun to think of him as our lovable mascot, though. He's always good for a laugh.
Jerry's got it right, though: we should ignore Mikey. Responding to him plays right into his hands, because that gives him what he wants: attention. For the last few weeks, we weren't giving that to him and the results were wonderful. But once again we broke down and gave him the satisfaction, and yet again he's hijacked another thread.
So, going forward, I strongly suggest that everyone with an ounce of sanity join Jerry in putting Mike on their personal "ignore at all costs" list. Because if you really want to get at a troll, that's the way to do it.
"So, going forward, I strongly suggest that everyone with an ounce of sanity join Jerry in putting Mike on their personal "ignore at all costs" list. Because if you really want to get at a troll, that's the way to do it."
No arguments here.
After all is said and done (fer now), I propoe that we all pretty much agree that:
1)Tim Hardaway (Hard-still funny) has a right to express his opinion, even if said opinion is vile, prejudices and revealing of a scared little man.
2)George Takei is a funny guy who, thankfully, has a sense of humor about himself and twits like Hardaway (stopped being funny).
3)None of us has all the answers, but there are lots of interesting questions.
Sound about right?
"1)Tim Hardaway (Hard-still funny) has a right to express his opinion, even if said opinion is vile, prejudices and revealing of a scared little man.
2)George Takei is a funny guy who, thankfully, has a sense of humor about himself and twits like Hardaway (stopped being funny).
3)None of us has all the answers, but there are lots of interesting questions.
Sound about right?"
You forgot:
4) ARRRGHH!! SQUIRRELS!
--Captain Naraht
Posted by: Captain Naraht at February 25, 2007 05:09 PM
You forgot:
4) ARRRGHH!! SQUIRRELS!
They are best forgotten.
"I wanted to make some, with a picture of a person hitting his head repeatedly against a wall. But Bill Myers shot the idea down.
I never "shot the idea down." I merely quipped that the shirts weren't selling well."
I was just kidding. Still, I think there's a growing market here.
Mike did divert the discussion. We're a long way from George Takei. But it was an interesting diversion, quite interesting. We should be thankful to him for starting it if not for his own contributions to the discussion.
Mike, I recommend, should be consumed in moderation or not at all. Like I said, the important thing is that he discussion is enjoyable. when it stops being fun it's time to walk away to better threads.
Looks like you folks have done just fine wwithout me. Reckon I'll just go mosey along...
Just got back from the Nevermore Horror Film fest. Great bunch of folks. Even the one who, I fear, gave me what is almost certainly a case of noravirus. Oh well...
Check out SEVERANCE or THE HOST if you get the chance.
Oh, I am SO going to see THE HOST on opening night!
Bill, there were two posts that might require a science teacher for a proper respond:
Rob brown wrote:
"Creationism seems highly improbable to me, but I don't feel comfortable ruling it out 100% because it's still possible.
On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining everything on the planet evolving completely at random. My layman's understanding of mutations is that they don't happen all that often, and if that's the case, wouldn't evolution require that when organisms mutate they not only do so in a way that's beneficial rather than harmful, but that the organism with the mutation survives long enough to mate and pass the trait on, and that this happens over and over and over again? I know the planet has been around for a long time, but has it been around long enough for this to happen enough times to get it right, without setbacks such as a promising new species going extinct and the whole process having to start over again?"
Captain Naharat wrote:
"Again back to cosmology. Scientists are debating that if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding *into*? Another dimension? One could postulate it contains an intelligence or liveform(s) too complex for concepts like evolution or even birth. An entity too complex for modern human minds to grasp, perhaps. (Unless they're a bit arrogant and run Liberty University)."
You are probably more qualified to address these issues in a serious way.
On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining everything on the planet evolving completely at random.
But that's the thing--Physics, it's little sister Chemistry and Chemistry's bastard offspring Life are not just random. Atoms combine or don't based on the electrons they have. Compunds combine or son't based ontheir shape and charge. We are carbon based lifeforms because of the way that carbon is, not by any random lottery among the elements.
The problem withthe 747 analogy is that it assumes that supporters of abiogenesis think that all of the components fopr life just happened to luckily come together in the right place at the right time and the chemical process called life began and has been running roughshod ever since. Since evolution deals with how life changes and not how life began abiogenesis is not something evolutionists need to argue about with the doubters of Darwin but not everyone gets this.
Regardless, what proponents of abiogenesis argue is not some 1 in a billion trillion quadrillion pure lucky chance arrangements of atoms but that early life--which might not look very much like life at all--was the process of logical chemical interactions. Herein the problem--one would assume that if nature can do chemistry so can we. We should be able to also create primitive life in a lab. So far we haven't been able to do so.
So one can argue that maybe it takes something divine to accomplish this. Or maybe it's because we are working under most undesireable circumstances--we don't know exactky what it is we are trying to create (what did early life look like?), we aren't sure of which energy source to use, we can't be positive which of the dozens of possible ingrediants to use or how much.
I'll discuss forther in a bit--have to fix a water problem.
Posted by: Captain Naraht at February 25, 2007 05:09 PM
"You forgot:
4) ARRRGHH!! SQUIRRELS!"
And chihuahuas in celebutantes purses. They gotta go, too.
The situation eventually arises where the search for the answer to life, the universe and everything (42) eventually intersects with the question of some sort of intelligence actually pulling the strings.
Then comes the question "Is there some intelligence doing these things?". If the assumption is yes, one then asks "What is the nature of this intelligence?".
At some point, some bright guy assumes said intelligence not only created everything from amoebas to squirrels, but that it also wants total control of it's creation, as well as worship and adoration. From there it's straight on downhill to pogroms, censorship, and Bob Jones University.
Just my late night musings and two cents worth.
Okay, gonna hate myself, but I can't keep this joke bottled up any longer.
If we're gonna form a "Victims of Mike" club, it should actually be called "Victims of Mike's Intransigence Together," or VOMIT. It's win-win. Mike gets to pretend the name reflects badly on us, and we get to giggle about how it reflects on what he spews all over the Internet.
Hey, cut me some slack, willya? Mike's been slamming me for the last several weeks with hardly a response from me. I'm only human.
But that's it. Like the Klingons who turned their back on Worf when he received discommendation, I'm done giving Mike any satisfaction.
I'll just bust on Bill Mulligan instead. ;)
Oh, hey, here's a thought that's (gasp!) related to the thread topic. I find it fascinating that George Takei has experienced something of a resurgence after his "coming out." Frankly, prior to this I had no idea he was so comedically gifted.
I'd love to see him in his own show. It'd have to be the right show, mind you -- one that was well-written and properly suited for his particular gifts.
Just realized: there was a time gay actors wouldn't dare "come out" because doing so would have killed their career. But George Takei doesn't appear to have been hurt by acknowledging his sexuality; hell, he may have even benefited from it.
People need to keep fighting the Good Fight because little by little, we're making progress.
"Just got back from the Nevermore Horror Film fest."
I was reading about this years line up at Horrorhounds site. I must hate you now.
Hate over. Hope your having a blast, Mulligan. Drop an email when it's over with a list of the best BOLO films you saw.
"I'd love to see him in his own show."
I've been saying that for years. I so wanted one of the Trek shows to be the Sulu Adventures. Now I would love to see him doing something that they can use his comic timing and style to its fullest.
*****Posted by Sean Scullion at February 23, 2007 08:51 PM
For those strict ID adherents, point out the differences in human height now and hundred years ago. In Denmark, I think, a hundred years ago, the population could've populated Snow White's house, Munchkinland, and Moria. (Slight exaggeration, there.) Now they're among Europe's tallest. Evolution, for those in a hurry!********
Evolution, or the results of better nutrition? That is, if you went back that hundred years, and fed those people (while they were still kids) what nutritionists today say makes a balanced diet, would they still stay that small as adults, or would they be closer height-wise to what their desecdents are today?
Chris
Elf, you're right, it was most likely nutrician. You can see the same thing at an airport where the tiny immigrant grandmother speaks to her average sized daughter while their 6 foot granddaughter listens to her ipod. A steady supply of milk and McDonalds toadburgers has gien her some length of bone, though Grandma isn't the one who will have to battle breast cancer in her lifetime.
I only got to see 1 (one) (!) film at Nevermore: Night of the Hell Hamsters. It was great.
I was in charge of a table selling our movie (The Forever Dead! Makes a great St Patrick's day gift! ) Sold a few and made some great contacts for our next project--a zombie western called A FISTFULL OF BRAINS. I know, the title sells itself.
I play a child killing horse raping scalawag named Bill Myers.
I don't remember signing over the rights to my life's story, Mulligan.
"Jesus saves! Everyone else, take 5d6 damage."
OR:
"Jesus saves! For a rainy day!"
"Jesus is Lord! You're not! Nyah nyah nyah nyah!"
Actually, that last one makes Jesus sound like an Only.
"Beyond the "edge" of the Universe is nothing" besudes a really fine restaurant where your meal introduces itself. And how do we KNOW? Have any of us been there? What exit is it off the Jersey Turnpike?
Elf, uh, Chris, uh, hey, YOU! I only brought up the Denmark thing to point out that the physicality of an organism does in fact respond to differences in environment. The nutrition thing no doubt has a lot to do with it, unless the entire nation sold their souls so they wouldn't have to sit on phone books anymore and could FINALLY start that minor league basketball team.
Bill Myers--like you, I can't resist. With proper acknowledgment to Mr. Jagger--Mike can't get no...satisfaction...
And the squirrels will haunt you. Evermore.
Just thinking here. The Creation story is accepted as THE TRUTH by some people. That's fine. But before anybody completely dismisses it(in case there was anyone out there that did) think about it. Let's assume for a tick or two that it happened in sorta that way. Now, until God puts out the do-it-youself make-a-universe kit with the DVD with deleted scenes, all we have is what these first people saw. Now, get more than one person seeing the same thing, you're going to get two different stories. I'm gonna call it a chance that these first humanoids weren't big on documentation, so who knows?
Bill Mulligan--do the boots on Boot Hill start walking back to town on their own in this movie?
Bill Myers--you wouldn't use horses, man. Squirrels, all the way.
I have good news for the "Victims of Mike Club." I've gotten what I've been looking for here, paradigms for the motives of the people here that have been baffling me. The price for these paradigms has been my time and, as far as my attraction to the returns for my time here have diminished, you will hear less from me, if at all.
In the interest of vetting of these paradigms, I will share them with you.
Summary:
When I first came here, I compared the devotion of oppressed people to leaders who worked against the peoples' self-interests to a hooker knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her. A pyramid occupies a smaller and smaller area the higher it goes. Why the oppressed base of the pyramid of the pretense of invulnerability should have any stake in continuing to support it is, as I've said, baffling to me.
I haven't accepted that all support of pretense is driven specifically by devotion to pretense, and now I believe where this support of pretense isn't so driven, it's driven by fidelity to another person's relationship with his or her environment.
Specifically, I can show:
Bill Mulligan will reserve for himself privileges he knows are morally unjustifiable.
I can think of no other virtue for the selective application of principles than to shelter a predatory agenda.
Bill refuses to address his inconsistencies by lying about not reading my posts. I don't think Bill believes libel, strawmen, and lying are justifiable. Instead I think Bill's libel, strawmen, and lies demonstrate his disconnect with reality.
To an extraverted personality, a person knows who he is predominantly from his role in his or her environment. I am criticizing actions by Bill that won't effect the perfomance of his role in his environment as long as I'm the only person holding Bill to what he says here. I think Bill takes the authority he holds in his community as evidence of his integrity, unconsciously believes his libel, strawmen, and lying somehow must be my fault, and would say so explicitly if he knew how to without leaving the idea vulnerable to cross-examination.
Though citing only strawmen or no reasons at all for why I am wrong to hold Bill to what he says, I don't think all of my critics here are driven specifically by a need to support the pretense of invulnerability. I think other extraverted personalities, who predominently know who they are from their role in the world, Micha or Craig R for example, will intervene and say I am wrong without citing a reason out of fidelity to another person's relationship with his environment. I demonstrate no fidelity to Bill's relationship to his environment. As people who may only know who they are from their role in the world, Micha and Craig need no other reason to disagree with me other than my lack of fidelity to Bill's relationship with his or her environment.
The person here paying the most for his fidelity to others' roles in their environment is Bill Myers. As someone who has suffered obvious challenges to conformity, he benefits the least from the pretense of invulnerability.
I am of the opinion that Religion does not shelter a "predatory agenda," it IS a predatory agenda.Religion is of itself neither good nor evil, neither infantile nor wise. It is what it's adherents make of it, since religion is also the search for community.
Chadwick, you have said nothing that any rational, reasoning person would find offensive, nor anything any spiritual person would find offensive....
Unless someone tries to present their personal Truth as Universal Fact, I refuse to call BULLSHIT.
Chadwick said religion is inherently predatory. You said religion isn't inherently evil. That would make saying Chadwick said nothing offensive to spiritual people WRONG.
Then you said you only reserve the right to call bullshit someone presenting their opinion as fact.
How about presenting WRONG as fact? Would you call presenting Wrong™ as fact BULLSHIT?
Whaaateeeveeer, duuude.
Mike, unless you can tell me WHAT I said and meant, rather than pursuing an O'Reilly/Limbaugh approach by cherry picking specific items to quote out of context, or simply quoting then ridiculing without any attempt at debate or presentation of a logical counterpoint, I call FUCKIN' BULLSHIT!!!
Unless I've excluded some part of the discourse that surrounded your quote crucial to its interpretation, I haven't taken anything you've said our of context.
you will hear less from me, if at all.
Don't let the disconnect screen hit your ass on the way off.
Craig R for example, will intervene and say I am wrong
Nope, I'm not going to do anything of the sort. In fact, I'm going to wish you well and hope that the sooner you leave, the better off the rest of us will be.
I stopped reading your posts months ago, and the only reason I'm responding to this one is that while scrolling past the latest of your inane posts, I saw you mention my name.
Sorry, Mikey ol' boy, but in terms of internet trolling, you could be on fire and I wouldn't take a leak on you to safe your life.
"I think other extraverted personalities, who predominently know who they are from their role in the world, Micha..."
Mike, that's really nice of you to say this about me. I wih as was extrovert or knew my place in the world.
Are you sure you're using the word paradigm correctly? I'm not going to get into a debate about it, but I'm not sure about the way you use it.
I find your sentences very baffling but intriguing in a weird kind of way. It doesn't read like regular speech, acadmic or everyday. I don't know what it says about you, but it is certainly different. I'm not even certain I know what you're talking about some of the time.
Have you considered the possibility that Manny disagrees with Chadwick about religion but does not find his opinions offensive, and that he does not feel that Chadwick was presenting his inner truth as universal truth?
"you will hear less from me, if at all."
That is not much of a threat.
The reason the idea of a Victim's of Mike Club emerged was that most if not all people who were conversing with you on this blog felt that although we were hearing from you a lot, there was no real meaningful communications, because you were unwilling to engage us and our opinions in a serious, meaningful and respectful way, prefering instead to twist or ignore what we were saying while bludgening us repeatedly with sentences that were supposed to convey your opinions but were at the least incoherent and at worst downright absurd, and all too often abusive. In a way, your method of debate was disrespectful of your own opinions too (at least at the times that respect was waranted). We may have given up on having a real discussion with you, but not before many of us tried to engage you in the only way we could, by stating our opinions clearly and then waiting to hear from you. But your pattern was always the same -- hostility, disrespect, flipancy, childishness, and much more. Our attempts prooved futile, and your attitude offended us to the point that we started becoming hostile, contrary to the way we usually prefered to conduct our communications here.
I don't know why you have fixated on Bill Mulligan of all people. Not once did you engage or converse with the man, always with the shadow puppets you created out of snippets of his words, your strange binary mind, and some other parts of your psyche that are beyond me. When I defended him, I thought you just misunderstood his opinions on one specific subject. I argued with you on this both because I found your reasoning faulty and because it ran contrary to what I knew of Bill Mulligan. But clearly the problem goes deeper both with regard to your attitude toward Bill, and your ability to process what I was saying.
I also don't understand why every conversation anybody had with you always degenerated along an always predictable pattern.
Human society depends on the ability to communicate. Since you have been unable or unwiling to communicate with us. So, unless communication becomes possible, I won't regret seeing you leave. I hope you find a way to get out of this hole your conduct or your psyche has dug yourself into.
If you want to respind to me, know that any response thtat will involve quoting a snippet of my words, comparing to another, highlighting bits, followed by a strange incoherent assertion and completed with a rude comment, will be ignored since it is not meaningful communication.
Bill Mulligan--do the boots on Boot Hill start walking back to town on their own in this movie?
No but that's a riot. You get it.
What's amazing is how many people LOVE the idea of horror westerns but the western genre is dead as those aforementioned boots.
Mike says
(long string of letters and words. as though a lemur scampered repeatedly across the keyboard).
A few highlights:
I have good news for the "Victims of Mike Club."
See, I knew he'd love the attention that even a joke like this would bring. Nobody here is a "victim" of Mike. What can he do? Has anyone suffered? Indeed, one could argue that for al the differences in our political outlooks, philosophical bents, religious beliefs or lack thereof, the near universal agreement that Mike is a LoonTM.
# Archived here are posts where Bill:
I'm glad you provided links so that any one interested can go and see what a frikkin kook you are. You've at least confirmed one hunch I've always had--truly awful people have no idea how truly awful they truly are.
I think Bill takes the authority he holds in his community...
Authority? This is PAD's blog and I'm a guest. Any "authority" I have is the result of the friendships I've made here, a concept that Mike will find difficult to understand for reason we all know but are usually too kind to point out.
Micha and Craig need no other reason to disagree with me other than my lack of fidelity to Bill's relationship with his or her environment.
Yep, that's Craig, always afraid to say anything that might offend! :) Hey Craig, quit being such a shrinking violet!
But "his or her"? Is it time for me to get another haircut?
The person here paying the most for his fidelity to others' roles in their environment is Bill Myers. As someone who has suffered obvious challenges to conformity, he benefits the least from the pretense of invulnerability.
Yeah, the cold comforts of having friends, a good woman and a great personality are no substitute for what he could have been if only he could have been more like Mike. Poor, poor Bill.
you will hear less from me, if at all.
That would seem a wise choice. You've been flailing about lately and, in the process, damaged any regard anyone might have had for you as a man (your attacks on someone's daughter) and as a thinker (the shape of snowflakes as evidence of a thermodynamic miracle?). Being remembered as a major troll is a small ambition but I guess it could be worse.
Micha says:
I find your sentences very baffling but intriguing in a weird kind of way. It doesn't read like regular speech, academic or everyday. I don't know what it says about you, but it is certainly different. I'm not even certain I know what you're talking about some of the time.
It is a kind of verbal jazz sometimes. Who knows, maybe he's just on too high a level for the rest of us to understand. Genius is often misunderstood in its own time.
Just realized: there was a time gay actors wouldn't dare "come out" because doing so would have killed their career. But George Takei doesn't appear to have been hurt by acknowledging his sexuality; hell, he may have even benefited from it.
Probably. Then there's Ellen DeGeneres, whose career doesn't seem to be hurting much.
On the other hand, there are still lots of actors whom "everyone knows" are gay, but haven't come out of the closet. A lot depends on the circumstance. You could also argue that, as an actor primarily known for character roles, George didn't have much to lose by coming out at age 64. If you're an actor who hopes to play a leading man in the movies, coming out of the closet might still be career suicide.
Are you sure you're using the word paradigm correctly?
As far as a paradigm is an example or pattern; especially : an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype, yes.
Have you considered the possibility that Manny disagrees with Chadwick about religion but does not find his opinions offensive...
I don't doubt Chadwick didn't offend Manny -- but Manny spoke for all spiritual people.
...and that he does not feel that Chadwick was presenting his inner truth as universal truth?
I didn't say Chadwick expressed his opinion as fact. I said saying Chadwick said nothing offensive to spiritual people was wrong.
you will hear less from me, if at all.That is not much of a threat.
Did I ever cite intimidation as my agenda?
Though citing only strawmen or no reasons at all for why I am wrong to hold Bill to what he says, I don't think all of my critics here are driven specifically by a need to support the pretense of invulnerability. I think other extraverted personalities, who predominently know who they are from their role in the world, Micha or Craig R for example, will intervene and say I am wrong without citing a reason out of fidelity to another person's relationship with his environment. I demonstrate no fidelity to Bill's relationship to his environment. As people who may only know who they are from their role in the world, Micha and Craig need no other reason to disagree with me other than my lack of fidelity to Bill's relationship with his or her environment.The reason the idea of a Victim's of Mike Club emerged was that most if not all people who were conversing with you on this blog felt that although we were hearing from you a lot, there was no real meaningful communications, because you were unwilling to engage us and our opinions in a serious, meaningful and respectful way, prefering instead to twist or ignore what we were saying...
In so far as I've excluded no part of the discourse surrounding your quotes crucial to their interpretation -- no.
Otherwise, please cite. Make it a first.
...while bludgening us repeatedly with sentences that were supposed to convey your opinions but were at the least incoherent and at worst downright absurd...
In so far as I've excluded no part of the discourse surrounding your quotes crucial to their interpretation, the incoherence and absurdity are yours, not mine.
...and all too often abusive.
If holding you to your own words is abusive, how do you justify saying them in the first place?
In a way, your method of debate was disrespectful of your own opinions too (at least at the times that respect was waranted).
As I post here sincerely, I have no reservation against being held to what I say.
We may have given up on having a real discussion with you, but not before many of us tried to engage you in the only way we could, by stating our opinions clearly and then waiting to hear from you. But your pattern was always the same -- hostility, disrespect, flipancy, childishness, and much more. Our attempts prooved futile, and your attitude offended us to the point that we started becoming hostile, contrary to the way we usually prefered to conduct our communications here.
I said you cite no reasons to disagree with me, and I think you hold no other reason to disagree with me other than my lack of fidelity to Bill's pretense. Now you've confirmed that this is the case.
I don't know why you have fixated on Bill Mulligan of all people.
In my previous post, I established he has the most obvious pattern of hypocrisy.
Not once did you engage or converse with the man, always with the shadow puppets you created out of snippets of his words, your strange binary mind, and some other parts of your psyche that are beyond me. When I defended him, I thought you just misunderstood his opinions on one specific subject. I argued with you on this both because I found your reasoning faulty and because it ran contrary to what I knew of Bill Mulligan. But clearly the problem goes deeper both with regard to your attitude toward Bill, and your ability to process what I was saying.
Please cite his opinion you thought I misunderstood.
I also don't understand why every conversation anybody had with you always degenerated along an always predictable pattern.
My current working paradigm is that you throw facts out the window of Bill's libeling, whisper campaigning, and lying because, as you may only know who you are from your role in the world, you can only imagine a lack of fidelity to the pretenses of others as predatory.
Human society depends on the ability to communicate. Since you have been unable or unwiling to communicate with us.
I'm not the one who demonstrated he doesn't know the difference between nouns and prepositions.
If you want to respind to me, know that any response thtat will involve quoting a snippet of my words, comparing to another, highlighting bits, followed by a strange incoherent assertion and completed with a rude comment, will be ignored since it is not meaningful communication.
If you can't be taken at your word -- what are you doing here?
I don't think Bill believes libel, strawmen, and lying are justifiable. Instead I think Bill's libel, strawmen, and lies demonstrate his disconnect with reality.
To an extraverted personality, a person knows who he is predominantly from his role in his or her environment. I am criticizing actions by Bill that won't effect the perfomance of his role in his environment as long as I'm the only person holding Bill to what he says here. I think Bill takes the authority he holds in his community as evidence of his integrity, unconsciously believes his libel, strawmen, and lying somehow must be my fault, and would say so explicitly if he knew how to without leaving the idea vulnerable to cross-examination.
Though citing only strawmen or no reasons at all for why I am wrong to hold Bill to what he says, I don't think all of my critics here are driven specifically by a need to support the pretense of invulnerability. I think other extraverted personalities, who predominently know who they are from their role in the world, Micha or Craig R for example, will intervene and say I am wrong without citing a reason out of fidelity to another person's relationship with his environment. I demonstrate no fidelity to Bill's relationship to his environment. As people who may only know who they are from their role in the world, Micha and Craig need no other reason to disagree with me other than my lack of fidelity to Bill's relationship with his or her environment.
Indeed, one could argue that for al the differences in our political outlooks, philosophical bents, religious beliefs or lack thereof, the near universal agreement that Mike is a LoonTM.
So your libel, strawmen, and lies are my fault?
I think Bill takes the authority he holds in his community...Authority? This is PAD's blog and I'm a guest.
The school you teach at isn't a community? As a teacher, you aren't trusted to safeguard knowledge?
So Belongs To Me.™
Any "authority" I have is the result of the friendships I've made here, a concept that Mike will find difficult to understand for reason we all know but are usually too kind to point out.
Now we know Authority™ feeds your drive to build relationships. Who would have thought?
...as far as my attraction to the returns for my time here have diminished, you will hear less from me, if at all.That would seem a wise choice. You've been flailing about lately and, in the process, damaged any regard anyone might have had for you as a man (your attacks on someone's daughter) and as a thinker (the shape of snowflakes as evidence of a thermodynamic miracle?). Being remembered as a major troll is a small ambition but I guess it could be worse.
Peter accepted my word I had no intention of crossing his boundary -- that he is the only David who is fair game -- in so far as I said so, and he sid now I know otherwise. Your attempt to cite in me a predatory agenda from this incident -- and prompting me to address your accusation against me -- serves no purpose except to create opportunities for Peter to relive his angst.
Any taste for blood is obviously yours.
It is a kind of verbal jazz sometimes. Who knows, maybe he's just on too high a level for the rest of us to understand. Genius is often misunderstood in its own time.
I credit my genius to my ability to distinguish nouns from prepositions.
Captain Naraht Wrote in response that the universe is "expanding into nothing": "Again back to cosmology. Scientists are debating that if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding *into*? Another dimension? One could postulate it contains an intelligence or liveform(s) too complex for concepts like evolution or even birth. An entity too complex for modern human minds to grasp, perhaps. (Unless they're a bit arrogant and run Liberty University)"
and also:
"Beyond the "edge" of the Universe is nothing - that we know of... Some string theorists have with V-Ger like dispassion stated that there may be dozens or more universes. Some possibly connected to this one. Just because we cannot see does not make it not there.
"
Then Micha Wrote: "You are probably more qualified to address these issues in a serious way."
Then Bill Mulligan wrote: "I'll discuss forther in a bit--have to fix a water problem"
Just curious what a science teacher thinks, Bill.
--Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
P.S. I have to say, for the length of time I've posted on this blog, I haven't gotten in a debate with Mike. Maybe it's because my excellent cross-examination of one of Mike's points would be, "Oh yeah....well SO'S YOUR FACE!" (Can I still order my V.O.M.I.T neck tattoo?)
To everyone who is not Mike:
Folks, we need to let this go -- because Mike won't. We need to take the high road -- again, because Mike won't. Otherwise, we'll end up with another thread like "A Smart Move," and I don't think any of us wants that.
Besides, who cares what Mike says about us? Mike can point to a circle and call it a square to his heart's content, but the circle will remain a circle.
Hey, look, I know it's hard to ignore the trolls. I've succumbed to the temptation to put them in their place on more than one occasion.
The problem is that trolls crave attention -- any attention. Look at Mike. He declared he would post here with far less frequency or stop entirely, and not even 12 hours later he posts again. He thrives on us talking to him and about him.
Me, I'm walking away. Mike isn't worth even the tiniest fraction of the time I've given him. He gets no more.
Shrouds up -- this time, permanently.
Bill, I've largely been ignoring Mike not because I want to shroud him, but because most of the time I don't know what his point is to begin refuting. And when I do, it's not like it's going to be a conversation. Rarely have I seen Mike note and accept something posted by anyone not Mike, and he often takes the MTV approach to debate...meaning he comes up with some snide remark that substitutes for a reply, thinking that's how debates and conversations work.
Which is a shame. When he's not being snide, rude, condescending, or downright abusive, he has on occasion raised some interesting points. But his approach is intolerable in any format where the parties are interested in civil discourse. Of course, having earned the reputation for being snide, rude, condescending, and abusive, he kills any credibility his points might otherwise earn him.
I don't think ignoring him will work, because so long as he posts here, he's going to be saying things that people must respond to. There are too many folks here that can't let a false statemet, mistatemet, or overstatement be made without trying to correct it. That's not a failing. But when the OP of such statements really isn't interested in hearing how others think he's wrong, it ends up going...well...here.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at February 26, 2007 10:49 AM
Bill, I've largely been ignoring Mike not because I want to shroud him, but because most of the time I don't know what his point is to begin refuting. And when I do, it's not like it's going to be a conversation.
I don't own this blog, so any suggestions I make are just that -- suggestions. I wouldn't presume to dictate your behavior.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at February 26, 2007 10:49 AM
There are too many folks here that can't let a false statemet, mistatemet, or overstatement be made without trying to correct it.
I'm just concerned about the trading of personal insults. I led the charge against Mike in that arena late last year. It resulted in a thread that Peter had to shut down because it had gotten so big it was threatening to undergo gravitational collapse. I'm just sayin' trading insults with Mike leads to no good end.
Mike can cast aspersions on my character to his heart's content. I've realized that my actions will speak louder than his words. The same goes for anyone else here. That's all I'm sayin'. If Mike insults you -- let it go.
Just a suggestion. Although I think it's a good one.
"The situation eventually arises where the search for the answer to life, the universe and everything (42) eventually intersects with the question of some sort of intelligence actually pulling the strings.
Then comes the question "Is there some intelligence doing these things?". If the assumption is yes, one then asks "What is the nature of this intelligence?".
At some point, some bright guy assumes said intelligence not only created everything from amoebas to squirrels, but that it also wants total control of it's creation, as well as worship and adoration. From there it's straight on downhill to pogroms, censorship, and Bob Jones University.
Just my late night musings and two cents worth."
Imagine the humans walking around in a prehistoric world. It is a world teaming with life.. and with death: animals hunt and are hunted, the earth tremors, the seasons change, the seas and rivers ebb and flow, the sun rises and falls, people are born and they die. It is a word of chance , of deseases, accidents, attacks by foreign and hostile forces human or other, that emerge from far away places, from dark forests and arid deserts. It is also a word of hierarchies, chieftains and followers, parents and children. and it is a word that has not yet distinguished between reason and inspiration, observation and imagination, explanation and story telling. Is it surprising that peole living in this world, that were farmiliar only with their own human consciousness and their own human society, mountains, ses and ancestors become spirits to be worshiped and bargained with? Is it not surprising that as civilization developed, and cheiftains became kings and kings emperors, some spirits became rulers and other subjects? A process of abstraction may have caused the idea of monotheism to appear, with one god gradualy subjugating and swallowing all of creation, but we still had our share of angels, demons, djinns, saints prophets etc. The book of Job is from an old source. It doesn't say angels, it says 'the sons of the elohim (god)'. The attempt of modern science to create a world without demons is stil an uphill battle. the assumption that you can describe the world in terms of animate laws and mechanics is very typical of the time period and place in which it was conceived. It is a hard sell for a human species that is still not that different than it was thousands of years ago.
-----------------------
Bill Myers, my problem is that I usually try to understand how other people think and then engage them. Right or left, religious or secular, ancient or modern, I always try to put myself inside their minds so I can understand what they are thinking and then say, "look I know what you are saying, but here is how I see it." But here I encountered someone whose cognitive functions baffle me completely. I found it intruiging, entertaining, troubling, saddening. Perhaps it requires someone with a more professional understanding of the human psyche? At this point I'm a little concerned for the person in question.
I'm not going to make promises I'm not sure I'm going to keep. I doubt what I do or don't do will affect this person, he is clearly living in his own world of words (prooving Chadwick statements about language wrong). I have no interest in tormenting this man just out of cruelty. My morbid curiousity might cause me to try to unravel his words. At times I might latch to something he starts, for the greater interest in a subject such as Intelligent design. I might also sometimes take a humorous attitude -- I enjoy finding the humor in life [how about a T-shirt with a squirrel hitting his head repeatedly against a tree while an acorn his hitting him on the head]. But I will always try to do so in moderation. I think everything will be fine regardless of what this person does or does not do.
OK! OK! I surrender! It was only a suggestion. ;)
And you're right, Micha. Ultimately, this blog and the community it has proven itself strong enough to survive the occasional odd troll.
Admittedly, I react badly when I perceive that I've been insulted. I also get angry when someone insults my friends. Perhaps my "shrouds up" attitude is an overreaction to that flaw. And perhaps I should learn to be more confident in my ability to control my negative impulses without having to go to the extent of creating an "ignore list."
Sigh... I'd rather talk about George Takei. Jerry, I think it would be awesome if they gave Mr. Takei the best of both worlds (no ST:TNG pun intended): a Star Trek sitcom! Think of the possibilities!
Sigh... the second sentence in the second paragraph of my prior post should've read, "Ultimately, this blog and the community it has created have proven themselves strong enough to survive the occasional odd troll."
"a Star Trek sitcom!"
I'm not sure that would be a good idea. I'm not even a Trekkie, but I think a regular show (as opposed to the occasional skit) that doesn't take Star Trek seriously, will be annoying.
Part of the problem of fantasy/comics/sci-fi TV shows and movies is that they are not always taken seriously by the people who make them. The results are usually campy.
---------------
Bill, You must do what ensures your own peace of mind and enjoyment of life. I think we have a clear example of someone who has let his mind loose every shred of peace.
No, Bill, never give up, never surrender.
Oh, wait, that's a totally different yet related pop culture reference.
I don't mean to suggest people won't or shouldn't ignore Mike...actually, I think we'd be better off if we could. What I meant is that, based on past repeated calls to ignore him...advocated and then broken by many, including me...I just didn't see why this latest call would work any better than past ones, primarily because Mike's posts are just begging for refutement.
On the few recent occasions when I've directly responded to Mike, I've had to wait a few seconds and edit my post before hitting the Post button, to erase any snide comments or insults of my own. Which is why I try my best to ignore him, because, unlike Takei, I don't always manage to couch my responses in humor and satire, and when I do, since I'm not posting Youtube video, the funny gets losts in the medium.
"Part of the problem of fantasy/comics/sci-fi TV shows and movies is that they are not always taken seriously by the people who make them. The results are usually campy."
I share that opinion, and, more often than not, I hate camp. Now that I've started collecting TV on DVD, I'm getting a chance to compare and contrast the various genre TV shows. The ones that play it straight are, by and large, far better than the campy ones. (I could barely make myself watch Lost in Space when I was a kid, nowadays I avoid it like the plague.) One interesting comparison is between Wonder Woman and The Incredible Hulk. Wonder Woman had more than a bit of camp to it, while The Incredible Hulk played it straight. I think that The Incredible Hulk wound up being the better show...although Lynda Carter is a hell of a lot easier on my eyes than Lou Ferringo. ;)
Guys -- I was only joking about a "Star Trek sitcom."
Although the BBC did produce a wonderful sci-fi sitcom called "Red Dwarf" proving that sci-fi and comedy aren't incompatible. If you're not familiar with it, go out and get the DVDs. Now.
Guys -- I was only joking about a "Star Trek sitcom."
Oh... sure... I knew all along...
Just so I'm sure, the part about raping horses was true :)
Posted by: Micha at February 26, 2007 02:22 PM
Just so I'm sure, the part about raping horses was true :)
You know, I just had a wonderful idea for a short story I can write. It's about two characters named Bill Mulligan and Micha, a couple of drug-pushing, necrophiliac Al Qaeda operatives who suffer from social anxiety and impotence.
Captain Naraht:
I don't know that I can comment much on the cosmology questions. Physics baffles me (though not so much that I think snowflakes are...ok, I'll let it go).
Certainly the basic premise of the Big Bang would collapse if we found other Universes coming toward us. My understanding it that the Universe is expanding but it has no edge--it isn't expanding into anything because until it's there, there is no anything to expand into...now my head is expanding, about to explode, but unlike the Universe it will hit something, namely my walls, making a perfectly dreadful mess.
Tim Lynch, who is very much missed around here, would be the best person to answer these things.
I do like the idea of lifeforms so different that we would not recognize them as such. Keep in mind that "life" is what we say it is. We have given it definitions based on life as it exists here. There could easily be kinds of existence completely unlike our kind of life that, nevertheless, deserve the description. If we get to the point where we replace our flesh bodies with machines but retain our individuality I would regard such cyborgs as alive, even though they might violate at least one of the basic requirements (must be made of cells).
Ok...originally this post had a bunch of stuff directed at Mike, or, more specifically, at PAD regarding what we will just call the "Mike shows his ass" incident. Lots of sound and fury. But upon reflection, and after reading Bill Myer's words--you're a wiser man than me, my friend--I've deleted them and sent an email to PAD. There was something I wanted to say but perhaps saying it in public would just open old wounds. Gotta hand it to Mike--it's a neat trick to do something so awful that if anyone so much as mentions it THEY feel like they are accomplices.
Mike's need for attention will never abate. He won't leave until he finds some other forum to infect. We aren't the first and won't be the last.
Stepping.Slowly.Away.From...unclean...M..post.
Must resist. Sanity at stake.
Whoo. Survived.
Either way. George Takei sitcom. It works. The adventures of...?
As for where the universe goes as it expands. I think it goes to a trailer park in 'Bama somewhere so we can all be on Jerry or Maury or some such.
Or maybe there's no "there" there.
Incomprehensible/inconceivable lifeforms is pretty cool. Kinda like a whole universe of squirrel dog carrying celebutantes.
"You know, I just had a wonderful idea for a short story I can write. It's about two characters named Bill Mulligan and Micha, a couple of drug-pushing, necrophiliac Al Qaeda operatives who suffer from social anxiety and impotence. "
That's absurd, I am way too lazy to ever be an operative.
---------------
I once had the sci-fi/fantasy idea that he whole universe is like a giant brain in which the planets, galaxies etc. are neorons.
Cosmology is weird. I read Hawking's book, barely understood it. At this stage the anwers they give to questions by laymen are about as stisfying as the answeres offered by religion about god. The oly reason to prefer them to tthe clergy is because their methodolgy is more trustworthy.
-----------------
You know, I just had a wonderful idea for a short story I can write. It's about two characters named Bill Mulligan and Micha, a couple of drug-pushing, necrophiliac Al Qaeda operatives who suffer from social anxiety and impotence.
necrophilia AND impotence? Well, at least you won't hear any complaining about it.
"Although the BBC did produce a wonderful sci-fi sitcom called "Red Dwarf" proving that sci-fi and comedy aren't incompatible. If you're not familiar with it, go out and get the DVDs. Now.'
No, get them last week. Even if you have the VHS tapes, get them last week. The extras are a blast and there's even an ep. that was never filmed that's been included in the Season 7 DVD set.
Uhmm... Just trust me on that last sentence.
"Although the BBC did produce a wonderful sci-fi sitcom called "Red Dwarf" proving that sci-fi and comedy aren't incompatible. If you're not familiar with it, go out and get the DVDs. Now.'"
What about "Space Rangers"? It proved sci fi and (unintentional) comedy are not incompatible.
For fans of the "40 Year Old Virgin", if you recall the "Space Nuts" sequence, a friend showed me a copy. Take out the XXX scenes, theres almost a decent little space opera parody there.
Okay, Sean the Science Geek time. Three potential problems I can see for spotting Bill Mulligan's universes speeding toward us. First, we just can't see very far into interstellar space, to say nothing of intergalactic, without the images becoming something Great Aunt Milly might see on her next eye exam. Blurry, distorted, and not very meaningful. Second, let's assume for a tick or two that that's taken care of, and we can see way far out there clear as an HDTV demo. How are we going to recognize the edge of the universe? I doubt very much that you'll get to a certain point in space and see a big old wall with pictures of the universe right after the big bang sucking it's universal thumb. And third, going on the assumption that we can in fact see this wall, edge, what have you, how do we see past it? What in the universe can see past the universe? Just for fun, though, assume that you come up with a way to peek through. Think of the universe like a bucket of water. Poke a hole in the bucket, and something's going to happen. Either what's inside the bucket is going to leak out, or what outside the bucket's going to leak in if either universe has material more dense than the other one.
I was going to do a story like that a while back, so that's why I thought about all that. If my amittedly layman's understanding of astrophysics isn't up to date or is just plain wrong, well, excuuuuuse me!
"What about "Space Rangers"? It proved sci fi and (unintentional) comedy are not incompatible."
What, you mean it wasn't supposed to be funny? Huh, shows what I know.
Hyperdrive is the new sci-fi comedy running on BBC America. Not in the same league as Red Dwarf, but it does provide a good laugh here and there. Also, anyone who has yet to see Doctor Who: Curse of the Fatal Death needs to go out and get it. You can find it on things like Google Video, but the VHS tape has several extra Doctor Who spoofs that are mostly pretty good.
And, hey, I'm always ready to prove my general dementia levels to all by recommending Killer Klowns from Outer Space at every chance.
No, get them last week.
What about last month? Or last year? :)
Thankfully, all 8 series are out on DVD now. It was painful to wait each year, waiting and watching as only two more series would come out each year.
But now I have them all! MUAHAHAHA!
Still, the damn things are overpriced. Which is why I haven't bought a lot of other stuff from the BBC. :)
"And, hey, I'm always ready to prove my general dementia levels to all by recommending Killer Klowns from Outer Space at every chance."
Jerry, m'lad, have you considered a little show called "tripping the Rift". A villainous space clown called Darth Bobo has gotta work somehow. And does anyone but me remember "Quark"? Not the bartender on "DS9", a sci fi sitcom starring Richard Benjaman from the late 70s.
I agree with Chadwick, sci fi creators tend to take their creations overly seriously. I try to avoid any show that won't put out a blooper reel, or whose creator tries to block any and all parody.
A truly great unintentional sci fi chuckle was an early 70's Canadian show called "The Starlost". Production values that make old "Dr. Who" look like Oscar level stuff, Kier Dullea in all his post-2001 glory. I believe that Isaac Asimov actually disassociated from this mad little mis-creation.
The story concerned "the Ark", carrying the remnants of humanity to a new home. Unfortunately, the ships guidance has been damaged, an the various domes have become cut off from each other, and have forgotten wht's going on.
Fun idea, rotten execution. I think you can find it at TV.com.
Little detail I missed re: Starlost. Look for Walter Koenig in a couple of episodes.
These posts are now certified George Takei relevant, for your safety and enjoyment.
Craig J. Ries,
Deepdiscount.com or cduniverse are two good sites to hold down costs.
Manny,
Quark... Nice androids.
Ark... Why did you remind me that that thing was ever made?!?
Tripping the Rift and Futurama are both on the regular DVD rotations here.
Sheesh, if you guys wanna get in to listing every TV show and movie that was meant to be serious but went goofy...
Logan's Run the Series, Damnation Ally, some TV show that used the DA truck after the film made sure that it wouldn't be needed for a DM II, the Classic Trek where they picked up the space hippy guys, the 2nd and 3rd Highlander films (the 4th DOES NOT EXIST), Invasion Earth (BBC), Battlefield Earth, just about anything that gets played on Sci-Fi Channel's Saturday night block, the complete works of Uwe Bowl, Trancers 6, How to Make a Monster, Robot Jox and Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone spring to mind without actually having to work at thinking up a list. God knows what we could all come up with if we actually tried.
"What in the universe can see past the universe?"
That's a very succinct way to describe the point of atheism.
-----------
"Logan's Run the Series, Damnation Ally, some TV show that used the DA truck after the film made sure that it wouldn't be needed for a DM II, the Classic Trek where they picked up the space hippy guys, the 2nd and 3rd Highlander films (the 4th DOES NOT EXIST), Invasion Earth (BBC), Battlefield Earth, just about anything that gets played on Sci-Fi Channel's Saturday night block, the complete works of Uwe Bowl, Trancers 6, How to Make a Monster, Robot Jox and Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone spring to mind without actually having to work at thinking up a list. God knows what we could all come up with if we actually tried."
OK, I'm not denying that you can have sci-fi comedy. I also admit that I have not seen most of the stuff you mentioned either because I'm too young or it didn't make it to my part of the galaxy or I'm not geeky enough (that sucks, being to geeky for some but not enough for others).
But Highlander 3? I thought the idea of this discussion was sci-Fi comedy that's good, not the kind that's so bad it's enjoyable.
I said before that:
"Part of the problem of fantasy/comics/sci-fi TV shows and movies is that they are not always taken seriously by the people who make them."
Of course I'm not against humor about Sci-Fi. I think Sci-Fi sometimes get's ruined because the peole who make it have no respect for the material. In a way that's also true for comedy. I think if the creators don't believe in the material, the characters iin the story do not.
And does anyone but me remember "Quark"? Not the bartender on "DS9", a sci fi sitcom starring Richard Benjaman from the late 70s.
Wow, you've awakened a 30 year old memory...Dr. Ficus, half man, half plant...
I remember the show as actually funny. I also like The Fantastic Journey and the Planet of teh Apes TV show so I am not to be trusted...
Oh hey! Look, you can download all the peisodes of Quark right here! Yay! http://quark.name/
"On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining everything on the planet evolving completely at random."
Bill, in response to this you've talked about abiogenesis. It is true that people confuse it with evltion. But I also think part of what people don't understand is how evolution functions to create complex life forms. The idea that complex things (usually the eye) are the result of a process of evolution and not the result of a deliberate proces by an intelligence is the thing they find hard to accept.
"I remember the show as actually funny. I also like The Fantastic Journey and the Planet of teh Apes TV show so I am not to be trusted..."
Was Fantastic Journey the one about the people lost in the Bermuda Triangle? Or am I way out?
"I remember the show as actually funny. I also like The Fantastic Journey and the Planet of teh Apes TV show so I am not to be trusted..."
Hey, I put those and things like Otherworld, Manimal, Man from Atlantis, The Invisible Man and the TV version of War of the Worlds amonst other clunkers on my must watch lists. We've all been there. That's what the support groups are for.
****Posted by Bill Mulligan at February 26, 2007 02:56 PM
Tim Lynch, who is very much missed around here, would be the best person to answer these things.****
??????
I don't read every last post on this blog (mainly for time constraints). What happened to Tim Lynch? And why?
Chris
A truly great unintentional sci fi chuckle was an early 70's Canadian show called "The Starlost". Production values that make old "Dr. Who" look like Oscar level stuff, Kier Dullea in all his post-2001 glory. I believe that Isaac Asimov actually disassociated from this mad little mis-creation.
Actually, that was Harlan Ellison who had his name removed. I read his novelization of what the first episode was supposed to be like. It was intended as an Ark of sorts, transporting a number of human cultures away from a vaguely doomed Earth, keeping them all in separate environments so that they wouldn't contaminate one another. Then a young Amish boy finds the door out of his world. He meets up with a couple of other escapees, they're pursued by Security bots, and in the process, they find that the ship was damaged by a meteor collision, the command crew was killed, and the ship's trajectory was altered so it was heading for a star. The MacGuffin of the series was supposed to be the search for the controls. Harlan tells of a producer who commissioned a script about six episodes in in which the controls are found. When Harlan called him to scream, the producer didn't see the problem. He figured they could start looking for the backup controls - which he thought were the controls that would make the ship back up.
Manny, Fantastic Journey was a movie (based on a treatment by Asimov, so he does figure in somewhere) in which a group of people had to be shrunk to submicroscopic size, along with their submarine, to go burn a blood clot out of a defecting Russian scientist. They had several interesting adventures, based on Asimov's knowledge of human anatomy (for instance, they were diverted on their way to the brain when they hit an arterial fistula, and were abruptly transferred to the neighboring vein - headed straight for the heart).
Jonathan (the other one),
Actually, Fantastic Journey was a TV show from the mid-70's (re-cut into the syndicated TV film LOST IN TIME) that was set in the Bermuda Triangle.
Fantastic Voyage was the submicroscopic submarine movie (that was later turned into an animated TV series) based on the treatment by Asimov.
Is it at all sad that I can remember all this stuff without even trying but I forget my own cell phone number half the time?
%(
Thanks for the clarification. However, no discussion of inintentional HA HA sci fi TV can be complete without Irwin Allen (cue forboding music).
Time Tunnel, Land of the Giants, Journey to the Bottom of the Sea (?), Lost in Space. C'mon. Irwin da man!
Who else can present such a cornucopia of sci fi schlok?
I keep hearing about a Time Tunnel feature film caught in development hell
Tim Lynch, who is very much missed around here, would be the best person to answer these things.****
??????
I don't read every last post on this blog (mainly for time constraints). What happened to Tim Lynch? And why?
I didn't mean to worry anyone that that something happened to Tim. It's his participation and intellect I miss. Last I heard he was dealing with some illness in his family and the considerably happier time consumption of a small daughter. Hey Tim, if you read this drop us all a line and tell us how things are going.
"However, no discussion of unintentional HA HA sci fi TV can be complete without Irwin Allen (cue forboding music)."
I'm more of admirer of Irwin Allen's Master of Disaster phase myself. But even then Allen gifted the world with...THE SWARM! :D
****sted by Bill Mulligan at February 28, 2007 06:59 AM
I didn't mean to worry anyone that that something happened to Tim. It's his participation and intellect I miss. Last I heard he was dealing with some illness in his family and the considerably happier time consumption of a small daughter. Hey Tim, if you read this drop us all a line and tell us how things are going.****
Ah, okay, he was just caught in a hit-and-run by Life, then. :) No worries. Hope all's okay with him and his.
Chris