IP pointed out the start of the Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government in a post last March. I was excited today to receive an invite to their inaugural conference. The event is headlined by Steve Forbes and Robert Novak. Hopefully this is just the beginning of a growing effort to bring more conservative thought to the University of Illinois campus. There are some excellent people on the board, and the advisory board includes Victor Davis Hanson, a fellow at the Hoover institute and one of the country's preeminent scholars on war.
Now if we can just find someone to endow a Ronald Reagan chair.
Hmmm, I thought we already had such an academy at UIUC. It's called the School of Business.
Interesting isn't it, when the right wing media rails against liberals in the academy, they never seem to mention the business schools. I guess all the business schools in the great universities in America all advocate for socially responsible capitalism and charity and are run by liberals.
Well, at least part of the reason would be found in the general education requirements that the University has.
Advanced Composition (formerly known as Composition II)
Composition I
Cultural Studies: Non-Western/U.S. Minority Culture(s)
Cultural Studies: Western/Comparative Culture(s)
Humanities & the Arts
Language Requirement
Natural Sciences & Technology
Quantitative Reasoning
Social & Behavioral Sciences
So essentially, every student at the University is going to take a large number of classes in the College of LAS. But everyone, except the Business students, can go their entire careers without a business class. So yes, it would be interesting to have some of these core classes taught by conservatives. And I'm sure most liberals feel the same way. All that diversity and academic freedom stuff.
What is your basis for asserting that none of these core classes are taught by conservatives?
There are plenty of business courses students can take to satisfy the general education requirements. From the very link you provided:
Is the inaugural conference by invite only, or are students welcome to attend? I think it would be something I would be interested in attending.
Also, I can state that civil engineers are required to take Microeconomics (or Macro). Still, since it was located in Foellinger Auditorium with hundreds of other people in the morning, it was too easy to sleep through and nearly impossible to fully engage in.
Suffice it to say, I was libertarian-leaning far before taking that course.
And I'm liking the website design.
It's interesting because for all of the whining, this is probably the most polarized, overtly political unit the university has ever OKed. We're not talking about "The Center for East Asian and Pacific Studies" or LIR or whatever.
I just hope you all will support something as directly politicized in other directions as well, especially if you don't happen to agree with the ideology it's organized around...
I'm sure it's entirely possible that there's a conservative teaching some of these classes. But generally speaking they're not. As to the Economics classes, they are in the college of LAS. The Math classes I believe are likewise there. Of course, with Math classes, it's hard to imagine an ideological tilt. I'm not sure if any of these classes are taught by professors in the business college.
Mark if you had gone to college maybe you would be more credible.
Well, so far this thread has taught us a few things. First, Mark Shelden doesn't know a whole lot about the University. I guess that is to be expected, but to imply that there are no conservatives teaching the undergrad Business or Econ classes is just silly. Hey, Mark! Guess what? There are conservatives teaching in the ENGLISH Department, dontcha know?
Oh, right. You don't know. (but never let that stop you from talking)
Also, it now appears that the whole "bias in the academia" thing was just sour grapes. Conservatives aren't actually interested in having universities that teach with ... you know ... FACTS and SOURCES and stuff (those tiny little details the Extreme Left professors are so good at). Nope. Looks like conservatives just want their own wing of the UI dedicated to their particular brand of propaganda. Should we be surprised that the integrity is lacking in yet another area with conservatives? Of course not.
Finally, Mr. Shelden's grasp of history seems to escape him. The universities were designed (you know, back in the GOOD OLD DAYS) to be places of Liberal Arts education. Now you may not understand this, but Liberal Arts does NOT mean the same thing as a political liberal. Ok. So they were designed to give undergrads a "well-rounded education in the Liberal Arts". They were not designed to create worker bees or functional employees. They were supposed to be a reflection of the Founder's desire for Civic Virtue in the society.
No doubt the idea of getting a well-rounded education is distasteful to most conservatives. After all, keeping 'em stupid is half your platform. But for some of us the idea of sending kids off to learn about better business practices is sickening, when they could be (gasp!) struggling with Shakespeare, learning immigrant history, or finding Zimbabwe on a map.
But ... who cares! You've got Victor David Hanson on the board.
"this is probably the most polarized, overtly political unit the university has ever OKed."
- You mean overtly Republican? Well, I always suspected that Pelosi's claims of the existence of pro-business and small government Democrats was just BS. Thanks for the confirmation, xian.
"Conservatives aren't actually interested in having universities that teach with ... you know ... FACTS and SOURCES and stuff"
- So this unit of the university will not be using facts and sources? Have you examined the teaching materials that will be used? Have you examined the background of the professors and/or instructors? Your accusation appears to be just another shrill liberal rant rather than an assessment based in the facts, sources, and "stuff" that you espouse.
Mark if you had gone to college maybe you would be more credible.
To be clear, I went, but didn't graduate. And yes, I know that it affects my credibility. You, no doubt, realize that credibility has nothing to do with veracity.
Xian, I wouldn't support such an effort, but I wouldn't oppose it either.
to imply that there are no conservatives teaching the undergrad Business or Econ classes is just silly.
First, I didn't say "no conservatives". Second, Business and Econ classes are distinctly different. Surely, you would understand that.
Conservatives aren't actually interested in having universities that teach with ... you know ... FACTS and SOURCES and stuff (those tiny little details the Extreme Left professors are so good at). Nope. Looks like conservatives just want their own wing of the UI dedicated to their particular brand of propaganda. Should we be surprised that the integrity is lacking in yet another area with conservatives? Of course not.
What an interesting premise, backed by what facts and sources?
So they were designed to give undergrads a "well-rounded education in the Liberal Arts".
Yes, I understand that. Did I ever at any time suggest that these classes not be taught?
Your relentless pursuit of FACTS and SOURCES can't make it past 9:00 am.
But for some of us the idea of sending kids off to learn about better business practices is sickening,
Okay, so we'll put you down as against the well rounded education.
It's nice to have a new campus unit formed that isn't centered around ethnicity or sexual practices.
"Finally, Mr. Shelden's grasp of history seems to escape him. The universities were designed (you know, back in the GOOD OLD DAYS) to be places of Liberal Arts education."
- I can't speak to Shelden's grasp of history, but Boon needs a brush-up. The University of Illinois was originally founded as the Illinois Industrial University where most students studied engineering and business, both of which are now nationally ranked in the top 20 of their respective colleges. This university has never been a place just for trust fund students to enlighten themselves with a well-rounded Liberal Arts education.
The Faculty Senate has asked the administration for information on this entity. It was created without any discussion with faculty and initially the website made statements to the effect that its mission was to fundamentally change the university based on ideological principals. Given that the primary mission of the university is to educate students to be able to critically think, not to recite dogma, and that the research done by faculty has to be vetted and reviewed to be legitimized, it created an uproar when an institute announced it was there to push ideology. Once those comments were brought to the public's attention they were removed from the website. Now the website says things about scholarship and research without stating its intent to rework the university's core mission.
The entire enterprise was handled poorly and appeared to have different motives than those now stated. If we do not have critical review and discussion without adherience to rigid dogma we have nothing. The U.S. has the best system of higher education in the world in part due to the freedom of the academic community to propose, research, discuss, and debate ideas and hypotheses based on solid research and experimentation. We should all be vigilant in protecting this freedom
First, I didn't say "no conservatives". Second, Business and Econ classes are distinctly different. Surely, you would understand that.
No, I don't. And you said, "I'm sure it's entirely possible that there's a conservative teaching some of these classes. But generally speaking they're not." Hmmm. I starting to smell troll.
Have you examined the background of the professors and/or instructors? Your accusation appears to be just another shrill liberal rant rather than an assessment based in the facts, sources, and "stuff" that you espouse.
Victor David Hansen and Steve Forbes as advisors? Remind me again which seminal Capitalism and Small Government texts Mr. Hansen or Mr. Forbes have written? These fellas don't seem like the leading scholars in the field. They are, in fact, partisan hacks with specialties in other areas. Hansen's being mediocre, poorly reviewed texts on war.
Okay, so we'll put you down as against the well rounded education.
You could do that and I would not object since you don't seem to have a clue about the history of the Liberal Arts in Islamic Africa, Europe and America. Brush up a little on what constitutes a Liberal Arts education (might I suggest wikipedia at the very least?) and then we can talk. Business is not a Liberal Art, it is a vocation. It is philosophically and practically a different field all together. It is, to be frank, a lower form of education.
Oh, and the idea that the U was created to teach farmers how to farm is ridiculous. Brush up on your history of this school. It has always had a focus on the Liberal Arts and bringing higher learning to the masses. That is, in fact, its mission. To imply otherwise is to only express an ignorance which suggests that the poster could stand to take a couple classes.
Let's think about this differently - what a wonderful way to differentiate U of I from its competition at Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana!
Brush up on your history of this school. It has always had a focus on the Liberal Arts and bringing higher learning to the masses. That is, in fact, its mission.
I thought its mission was to be a premiere research institution? (serious question)
I disagree with Mark Sheldon on many points, but the fact that he doesn't have a college degree is irrelevant. and pointing it out is a bit of a cheap shot (I can't believe I just stood up for Mark Sheldon!!).
We'll get the Ronald Reagan chair as soon as all the Bonzo movies move into the public domain. Beyond that, there isn't much else.
A message from Baghdad...
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
The reason the liberals deny liberalism, in the institutiion of learning, is rather twisted. They think of themselves as enlightened and analytical and yet they are but a product of the system. They have been taught that theirs is a position based on truth, as seen by the collective, when in fact the institution is determining truth for them. So, under this, their reality is reality, when in fact reality is quite possibly not . You are patsies for the Socialist cause, which is out to take our country away from those who believe in individual rights as Americans.
This argument can be stated for Iraq as well, not to change the subject, mind you. Only the institution would be the media, also a product of the liberal institutions of collective thought. In many ways this paradigm is nothing less than the tail waging the dog. Liberal, Socialists thought does not belong in the America that our forefathers established.
In fact, as this post is on Capatalism, Socialism is the arch enemy of our system and must be combated. That Mr. and Mrs. liberal is YOU.
Ah yes, another bias in academia argument. Usually these go along the following well-worn steps, not necessarily in this order:
1. Point out that there are *plenty* of conservatives in academia - why, heavens to Betsy, they are even in the English Dept! Yes, the English Dept is quite the nest of reactionary thought.
2. Deny flatly that there is any bias at all, at least in the aggregate. Professors are no more liberal than, say, accountants or truck drivers. Ignore any evidence to the contrary. Nothing to see here, folks, keep moving...
3. Admit that most professors in the social sciences and the humanities are liberal (well, that's mighty big of you), and even plenty of the ones in the sciences too - but these are balanced by those knuckle-draggers in the business school. Goddamn capitalists.
4. Admit that the professors in the business school aren't really that conservative, and would hardly balance out the rest - but point to things like the Acad for Capitalism and Limited Govt, the Hoover Inst, and that nest of rightwing wackos at the James Madison Prog at Princeton and say that suffering their presence *more* than makes up for all the liberals in the Women's / African-American / Latino / Queer Studies Depts in every other university, as well as their 20 year headstart.
5. Point to more conservative-leaning universities like George Mason, Pepperdine, and SMU, and pretend like there are more of them than there really are. For extra laughs, try to pretend that Catholic universities like Notre Dame and Georgetowns are hotbeds of radical rightwingers. Try to say "Bob Jones University" as many times as you can.
6. Admit that the handful of conservatives admitted to the ivory tower really just operate on the margins and have little or no credibility among their more liberal counterparts - in fact, just give in to the notion that professors are more liberal than the public at large, but that's only because they are so darn smart! If those conservatives could just learn themselves up some facts, they could be smart enough to be liberal too. Sure, conservatives can tell you why a centrally planned economy doesn't work (try getting that out of someone in the Philosophy Dept), but can they talk at length about the stuff that really matters, Marxist dialectics and post-colonialist theory? Yeah, I didn't think so, rightwing boy.
It seems like we should just make some shorthand way of arguing these things - three word exchanges for each argument and counter-argument. It would save a lot of time.
Mmm kay. So, let's say that you think Abraham Lincoln was eight feet tall. You are free in the world of opinions to say that to your heart's content. But in academia, you actually have to make a convincing case that he was.
So let's say you find some documentation from a physical the man had when he was in the White House. The documentation says he was 6'8" tall. In academia, that would prove you are wrong. In the real world you can just ignore that evidence and continue to tell people he was 8 feet tall.
This is why there are so few successful conservatives in academia. Like, if you wanted to write a paper explaining how gloriously Trickle Down Economics works. Your wrote it up all shiny, added some footnotes, maybe mentioned Thomas Sowell or Ronald Reagan. What a paper!
But maybe your prof happens to know that the economists who study this theory have completely disproven it's ability to distribute wealth equally. It is (dare I?) a fact. You failed to mention any of that information and you received a "C" mainly because your TA or prof is afraid you'll bitch and moan about "bias" to a department head. Now you're convinced the Academy is biased, the prof is a Lefty, and society in general is in tatters because of these facts. Sound familiar?
Academics is about proving your argument. The people in the Academy may (or may not) be Liberals because they have spent their lives studying certain issues in extreme depth and they have come away convinced that the Left is usually correct. You fellas spend fifteen minutes over coffee in the morning spewing poorly defended diatribes and when you get called on it you get extremely uncomfortable.
Rich people like tax breaks because they are rich. Poor people like government subsidies because they are poor. Businessmen are usually conservative. Intellectuals are usually liberal. What else is new?
With both U of W and U of I in my educational background, I was pleased to get an invitation. Being somewhat of an entrepreneur who heavily favors limited government unlike the current federal leadership, I will attend.
Like, if you wanted to write a paper explaining how gloriously Trickle Down Economics works. Your wrote it up all shiny, added some footnotes, maybe mentioned Thomas Sowell or Ronald Reagan. What a paper! But maybe your prof happens to know that the economists who study this theory have completely disproven it's ability to distribute wealth equally.
Maybe you should study a bit more. Supply side economics is not supposed to distribute wealth equally - only liberals hold that as a goal. Supply side economics is supposed to create wealth.
Now you're convinced the Academy is biased, the prof is a Lefty, and society in general is in tatters because of these facts.
If your argument is any indication, well, ....
D. Boon,
I just don't know how you have come up with the idea that leftists are all about facts and conservatives are about unsubstantiated claims. If you are correct, I think you might also be conservative.
Being a libertarian academic, I have yet to be impressed by an abundance of facts supporting leftist principles. I have, however, heard many emotional points made, such as calls for "social justice", "fairness", and very well-established worldviews, such as that wealth is distributed.
Academics are almost all government employees, which makes them even more dependent on government than poor people.
Is an intellectual someone who knows more or just thinks he does, or could this be objectively subjective.
Supply side economics is not supposed to distribute wealth equally - only liberals hold that as a goal. Supply side economics is supposed to create wealth.
No, what supply side DOES is create wealth. What conservatives always CLAIM it will do is distribute wealth more equally. Otherwise, I doubt the nickname would be "Trickle DOWN Economics".
Newt Gingrich was a college professor. So was Clarence Thomas. So is Jim Edgar, and Rick Winkel. Liberals all. Milton Friedman too.
There are definitely certain areas of academics that are liberal -- Women's Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies, African American Studies, probably Sociology -- but there are also areas that are conservative -- Business, Economics. Plenty of Law Schools are conservative.
Lost in this argument is the fact that the vast majority of college classes: chemistry, math, physics, electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, astronomy, astrophysics, accounting, foreign languages, et cetera have no political bias or political content at all. Right wing pundits like to point to Women's studies courses to "prove" their point that college professors are liberal. What percentage of students actually take a college course in Women's Studies? Less than one percent. How many take math? Most. You are not required to take a course in Women's Studies to graduate. Let's have some perspective here.
Jay
"Trickle down economics" was a nickname created by the left to disparage the idea.
Trickle down economics as a term was around before supply side economics as a term. I'd think that D Boon was unintelligent, but we have it on his word that he's not. So we will just have to assume he's mendacious.
Personally, I hope this thread goes on for a long time. I keep getting more examples of liberal distortions that prove how necessary this venture is.
...but there are also areas that are conservative -- Business, Economics.
Well, they deal with money, if that's what you mean. That doesn't mean that they are stocked with conservatives. There were plenty of Marxist economists when I was school - smart people who should have known better, and that were dedicated to showing how command economies could actually be made to work. And even Keynsians, who made up the vast majority of econ profs then, were slow to turn around and accept the fact that much of what they advocated didn't work. When I first met econ and b-school profs, I was really surprised that they *weren't* conservatives, since that was what I was expecting. I don't get surprised anymore.
The real problem is the tenure system - people spend years betting their careers on only a few research projects, and then get employment for life. They can hardly be expected to say that their life's work is wrong, and because they have guaranteed employment there's not much pressure for them to do so. It takes about 20-30 years to turn things around in academia - to have a new generation of scholars that is both willing and smart enough to go against the prevailing wisdom, get teaching jobs, get tenure, and start assembling departments around them of other people like them.
But naming a few conservatives doesn't change much - they are like short NBA players - they exist, but they don't prove much. Try going up to random UI humanities or social science professor and asking them what they think about the scholarship of Gingrich or Clarence Thomas. Try to not do it when they have a mouth full of coffee and are standing directly in front of you. Then ask them what they think of the scholarship of Derrida or Said. I've heard several (non-econ) profs say some pretty nasty things about Milton Friedman, and certainly dismiss his work, despite the fact that it is now widely accepted in the business world, and increasingly in econ depts.
"On September 12th, 2007 at 01:52 PM, ractivist said:
Is an intellectual someone who knows more or just thinks he does, or could this be objectively subjective."
An "intellectual" is someone who uses his/her intellect, not someone who just relies on emotion to be a reactionary. As you must know, reactionaries REACT to stimulus, and "progressives" measure their progress.
Intellectuals don't necessarily know more, they just know how to better use their intellect, intellect being a very rare commodity, especially among reactionaries.
"Trickle down economics" was a nickname created by the left to disparage the idea.
Well, this is pretty clear evidence of what I mentioned before. If you tried this in class, you'd undoubtedly be marked down because ... well ... you're wrong. No doubt this would create waves of outrage about bias. And yet you would still be wrong.
Not that the fact you are wrong will stop you from saying it. By the way, did I mention Abe Lincoln was eight feet tall?
I'd think that D Boon was unintelligent, but we have it on his word that he's not. So we will just have to assume he's mendacious.
I've never said I was intelligent, so you have no "word" of mine either way. I'm just under the impression that the folks who spend their days studying a subject tend to know more about it than, ahem, people who just spout off their opinions on a blog.
I keep getting more examples of liberal distortions that prove how necessary this venture is.
Really? Like what? I keep getting more examples of rank hypocrisy on the part of "conservatives". First we learn that universities should be places to push our particular propaganda on students when all along we all thought conservatives were against any propaganda. Next we learn that the political leanings of the folks who work at the university should be under scrutiny, apparently so we can have some sort of (dare I say it?) QUOTAS to make sure enough match up with the conservative ideology.
But talk about distortion. The fella who started this thread wants business classes in the Liberal Arts curriculum, but doesn't seem to have any idea about what a historic Liberal Arts education entails. We have some sort of argument that trickle down economics has never been pushed as a way to help the lower classes. Nope! All we've ever been told is that it is a way to "create wealth"y people. Right.
Best of all is this notion that Truth is relative. Perhaps conservatives would fit in Academia better than we think. No need to prove anything, no need to have facts and solid arguments. Nope! As long as we believe it is must be true.
Well, when you think about Iraq, Trickle Down, Katrina, etc. I guess it makes a lot of sense. What did Colbert call it? Truthiness! Perhaps that could be the first class: Truthiness 101. Ha!
If you can't keep your terms straight, it really makes disparaging all sorts of people rather easy. Conservatives aren't the same as republicans. There is an overlap, but conservatism (and the many forms of it) is a political philosophy concerned with how to structure society. Republicans are a political party whose primary purpose is to acquire and maintain power. Sure, Republicans tend to be more conservative, but the terms aren't interchangable. For instance, I can think of a good chunk of conservatives that have a problem with the Iraq war. Almost all of them have a problem with this administrations spending habits and the GOP corruption problem in Congress. Many would say the same about Katrina, though I'd like to point out that everyone gives the governor and mayor a pass on Katrina despite their screwups significantly created the problem to begin with.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
D. Boone,
I just spent 2 minutes trying to find a citation where a conservative advocated "trickle down economics", by name. I didn't have much luck. I did see this on Wiki, which, I will concede, does say "citation needed", and is hardly a source of record:
If my claim is "pretty clear evidence", please show me so that I may become more educated.
We have some sort of argument that trickle down economics has never been pushed as a way to help the lower classes.
That is not what I said - I said it was "not supposed to distribute wealth equally". As IP likes to say - reading is fundamental. "A rising tide lifts all boats" is the way supply-side econimics is usually advocated - and, yes, that does help the lower classes.
You mean overtly Republican? Well, I always suspected that Pelosi's claims of the existence of pro-business and small government Democrats was just BS. Thanks for the confirmation, xian.
No, I meant what I said. Read it again if you couldn't understand it the first time.
The second sentence is probably one of the least logical constructions in the entire history of the English language unless you believe that
a) I'm a democrat
and
2) I'm the ONLY democrat in existence
Not to mention
7) That the described unit will present the only possible form of small government policy and thus to oppose it would be anti-small government and anti-business. After all, we might just hate Hanson for good reason.
Of course, if you read Bambenek's last post he agrees with me on the hazards of just throwing around such terms to insult people or dismiss their perspectives.
I agree with the poster who said that it doesn't help that the people associated with the unit show a poor command of critical thinking skills. The unit is overtly political and associated with obnoxious, boorish, guys who suck at their jobs, life, the universe and everything.
That might describe folks in many of the other units, but it isn't their designed mission.
"A rising tide lifts all boats" is the way supply-side econimics is usually advocated - and, yes, that does help the lower classes.
Well, a rising tide may lift all boats, but it only helps if you're already in a boat to begin with (higher classes). For those not in boats and just out in the water (lower classes), a rising tide also has the problem of making it harder to keep your head above water.
Ugh. This conversation is now really boring. It is my recollection that David Stockman told William Greider in (I believe) the Atlantic that Reagan' supply-side theories were actually "trickle-down". You could look it up - try early in first term, maybe '81 or '82?
Two minutes on wikipedia, eh?
so a politician with a BA from MSU gets to set the terms in economics?
I think that leads us to Voodoo economics
Again, what's your basis for this assertion? Is it more than "Well, they're at the university, therefore they must all a bunch of liberals"?
Well, ECON 101 is taught by the Dean of the Business College.
There's a reason none of the general education courses come from the Business College -- they don't offer introductory-level courses. I looked at the majors they offer, and pretty much all of the BADM courses are 300-level and above. The introductory classes required for the Business College are accountancy, math, computer science, and economics.
I am going to go with Dr. Sowell on this one:
"The second sentence is probably one of the least logical constructions in the entire history of the English language"
- Let me help you understand the results of your own logic, xian:
"The unit is overtly political..."
- The two major political parties are Republicans and Democrats.
- You imply that the unit will promote Republican politics.
- The unit will promote the study of capitalism and limited government.
- Hence, capitalism and small government are not supported by Democrats.
It was a facetious comment, xian, in an attempt to point out that the until is ideological, not political. There are in fact some (at least a few) Democrats that are capitalists and support small government, and Republicans have only increased the size and power of the government since Bush was elected in 2000.
Yeah, what could David Stockman possibly know about Reaganomics -- other than being the director of Reagan's OMB for half a decade? I'll take Stockman over Sowell any day. Even though Stockman, in good Republican tradition, was recently indicted by federal prosecutors and is now potentially facing a jail term of up to thirty years. See, screw over your investors with harebrained financial schemes involving cooking the books, and you go to jail. Screw over American taxpayers with harebrained financial schemes involving cooking the books, and you're a Republican hero.
Yeah, but Sowell is just defending a really indefensible slip on his part. Stockman was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He gave a lengthy interview to Bill Greider which the latter wrote up as "The Education of David Stockman" in the December 1981 issue of the Atlantic Monthly. Here is the particular passage of interest:
I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory.
Ok, so that is pretty clear. Remember, Stockman did the whole Reagan Revolution/Reaganomics thing. He was in the WH from '81-'85. Not some lefty trying to skew the frame here.
Whereas Sowell wrote his article in what ... 2001? Quite long enough for someone who doesn't remember the Reagan era to make that mistake. An even more telling sign that Sowell screwed up is the "crazies" part, as if anyone who knows the history of the term and Stockman's use of it is somehow insane?
But again, thanks for proving my point. These mistakes are all too common with folks like Sowell and Hanson and they explain why they receive so little recognition in Academia. When you continue to screw up but continue to deny you screwed up even when it is really obvious and then you call the folks who remember the history "crazies" because they don't agree with you when you are wrong?
Well that's called a lack of credibility. Maybe they should get Sowell as one of the advisors for the "Academy". I think it is quite clear he is more than qualified to teach "Truthiness 101". :)
I did a bit more research, and found the original Atlantic article, not just the snipit from Media Matters. Right before the passage you reference, here is what it says:
Is Stockman's reference point still so clear?
Anon 12th, 3:55
If progressives "measure their progress" what stick do they use? They seem to be progressing down the wrong road, the secular, Socialist path to destruction, at least that is what this reactionary has a tendency to react towards. For all that knowledge they seem to miss the fact that they are located in America, a country that values individual God given, rights, first and foremost.
If intellectuals know better how to use their intellect, why do they say and do such stupid things? Oh thats right, they have a different agenda.
The intellect of man is incredible, just ask the scientist who spends years researching an ape using a stick as a tool to retrieve food. Amazing, amazingly wasteful. But, this is a man with great intellect! No doubt, he believes in the theory of evolution.
Who is sane? Those who live by what they see or those who know what can't be seen. What spectrum do you call home, ANON?
Is Stockman's reference point still so clear?
Yes, of course it is. This article was printed in 1981. Stockman worked for Reagan as his BUDGET DIRECTOR for FOUR YEARS after the article was printed. It is all well and good to claim that he was against the theory but (again!) who are you going to believe? Bill Greider or Stockman himself, who went on to implement the trickle down policies that you are so adamantly defending?
What is more surprising is that this whole debate seems like news to you. How any advocate of trickle-down manages to not even know of Stockman and this quote is baffling. But (again!) it proves my point that just because conservatives don't know about something that hardly stops them from pretending they do. Mr. Sowell is an excellent example, as is Mr. Hanson. "redstatewannabe" is just another in a long list of conservative characters who educate themselves on the fly but refuse to acknowledge that they don't really know of which they speak.
Look, the term "trickle-down" economics was not created by lefties to disparage supply-side. It really is that simple, unless you believe the man who coined the contemporary use of the phrase, the same man who implemented Reaganomics, was actually a lefty working to undercut the policies he was working so hard to implement. I guess in conservative "more people are being killed in Iraq so that is progress" or "it is a good thing Bush let the Mayor of New Orleans handle the relief efforts after Katrina" land this makes sense. But in reality it is hogwash.
But, this is a man with great intellect! No doubt, he believes in the theory of evolution.
Personally, I would never claim a person who believes in something to be an intellectual either way. Belief cannot be proven, much like evolution cannot be proven. But intellectuals function in the world of ideas and spend their days digging deep into particular issues. They become experts on those issues because they put in the work, not because they are blowhards.
I have received quite an education today - thanks D Boone. Before this discussion, I had never heard of the Stockman quote. In all my years I had never heard "trickle down economics" used as a term of endearment, but you have set me straight.
I look forward to your future contributions so that I am not so reliant upon Dr. Sowell and Dr. Hanson for my continuing education.
and
If you will excuse me, I must now go beat my head against the wall for twenty minutes.
As a biology professor explained to me a long, long time ago - It's called the Theory of Evolution for a reason: even though there is overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs, it's not been proven exactly how the genetic mutations that cause differnent species occur.
And I'm working off of memory here, and I'm not scientist. Somebody please correct me if I'm misstating that.
I look forward to your future contributions so that I am not so reliant upon Dr. Sowell and Dr. Hanson for my continuing education.
You're quite welcome. Stomping out ignorance is time well spent.
IP: working off my own faulty memory, i think you're right. from wikipedia:
and from the American Heritage Dictionary, accessed from Dictionary.com:
the problem comes in when, in a non-scientific setting, speakers will disparagingly refer to the "theory of evolution", and make some remark about how a theory is really just a conjecture or speculation. Witness Creationists/Intelligent Designers/Bible-freaks carrying on about evolution as some random scientist's (and probably a stinkin' liberal) idea he dreamt up one day. Or D. Boon's and Ractivist's comments...
HG
"The second sentence is probably one of the least logical constructions in the entire history of the English language"
- Let me help you understand the results of your own logic, xian:
"The unit is overtly political..."
- The two major political parties are Republicans and Democrats.
- You imply that the unit will promote Republican politics.
- The unit will promote the study of capitalism and limited government.
- Hence, capitalism and small government are not supported by Democrats.
It was a facetious comment, xian, in an attempt to point out that the until is ideological, not political. There are in fact some (at least a few) Democrats that are capitalists and support small government, and Republicans have only increased the size and power of the government since Bush was elected in 2000.
Yes, because the two major political parties are D and R, that means that those are the only two ways to be political.
So a political unit cannot be libertarian, socialist, or any other ideology.
Anyone who isn't D or R is by definition apolitical.
As I said--one of the most illogical ideas in the history of mankind. Congratulations.
What circles do you hang out in that anyone would back you up on that argument without shooting milk out their nose? I want to hang out with you!
So, belonging to a minor political party makes you apolitical? And that makes sense to you? Even though there are (albeit far too few) "third party" elected officials out there? What do you have to poll to become political? 5%? 10%?
People can't be political if they don't win office? Does that mean I'm not political?
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
IP:
<< As a biology professor explained to me a long, long time ago - It's called the Theory of Evolution for a reason: even though there is overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs, it's not been proven exactly how the genetic mutations that cause differnent species occur.
And I'm working off of memory here, and I'm not scientist. Somebody please correct me if I'm misstating that. >>
Two books, both written for non-scientists, spring to mind here. One is "Just a Theory" by Moti Ben-Ari.
From pg. 24:
"A scientific theory is a concise and coherent set of concepts, claims, and laws (frequently expressed mathematically) that can be used to precisely and accurately explain and predict natural phenomena. A theory should include a mechanism that explains how its concepts, claims, and laws arise from lower-level theories."
And from pg. 32
"Let us now evaluate evolution to see if it is 'just a theory.' First we need a statement of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Here are the basic principles of the theory:
That's all the theory says."
The book goes on at a good pace for another two hundred or so pages, including a fabulous chapter titled, "Words Scientists Don't Use: At Least Not the Way You Do". It's really very instructive, and very worth the read. While it might not make you an expert on whether or not the first plants colonized the land in the Silurian or the Ordovician period or whether segmented worms really were around in the Precambrian Period, it will at least give you an oversight in whether or not the science you're being fed is the real deal or in a faux form.
Food for thought: there is no known mechanism for the theory of gravity to function, and it does not behave the way it ought to according to the other fundamental laws of nature. Yet we can use it to make precise predictions, express it mathematically, and accurately predict natural phenomena well enough using it.
(The other book is Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", pg. 113-141. Stop by a bookstore and pick it up some time...he does happen to be one of the preeminent experts on evolution, and he's an engaging writer as well. Very easy to read, and it may be a bit of an eye opener for you. Or, in his terms, a "consciousness raiser".)
In any case... here's to learning.
__
Kem
So, belonging to a minor political party makes you apolitical? And that makes sense to you? Even though there are (albeit far too few) "third party" elected officials out there? What do you have to poll to become political? 5%? 10%?
People can't be political if they don't win office? Does that mean I'm not political?
My question exactly. Obviously, it's a ridiculous notion. Thanks for supporting me on this one.
Richard Dawkins' book is intellectual trash and rank bigotry. Even atheists distance themselves from it because it's just a steaming pile of excrement. I can come up with 10 better things off the top of my head against religion than anything that Dawkins' had to say. (I even wrote a less than favorable review of the book, go figure)
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
My internet connection at home is down, so I didn't get a chance to post this last night. We know how a number of genetic mutations occur. There is no single reason. Speciation is just the gradual accumulation of many mutations until you wind up with something that is significantly different than its ancestors.
But I want to make a larger point: all of science is theory. There is nothing in science that isn't theory. It's not like a theory gets upgraded to a law after a certain period of time. There are a few scientific "laws" out there, but that usually refers to something that can be expressed as a simple mathematical formula (e.g. Ohm's law, Henry's law, Raoult's law). Ironically, these are almost all approximations that are useful in practice but not rigorously correct.
John,
That's okay, man. I think the Bible is intellectual trash and rank bigotry, and I can come up with 10 better things off the top of my head to give meaning and philosophical integrity to one's life. Not all atheists distance themselves from Dawkins. Certainly this one doesn't.
Congratulations, you wrote a book review. If you haven't ever had someone tear it apart, I'll be happy to provide that service for you on a more appropriate thread. As it happens, I have one running right now where that conversation would fit in nicely, and I'm feeling like I could use a good chew toy. Are you volunteering?
__
Kem
Narc:
<< But I want to make a larger point: all of science is theory. >>
That's pretty much what I wanted to say as well. Thanks for articulating it a bit more clearly than I did.
__
Kem
Justkem, everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how ill-informed they may be.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Agumentum ad Superiority Complex, but you're not willing to back it up.
Interesting. Oh well. Thanks for playing, and maybe next time you decide to tell me what an idiot I am you'll actually be interested in doing more than flinging random insults around. Get back to me when you want to talk about Russel's Teapot and the ontological argument with anything approaching a spirit of objective inquiry and intellectual integrity, but until that time, don't expect me to give you a free pass when you take random potshots at people who have put a lot more thought into this than you have.
__
Kem
justkem, as in no god.
The order in the world is but a fluke of nature. Do you know the odds of this occurence, for all your knowledge?
Many modern day scientists are coming out of the closet in support of intelligent design, for this very reason. The complexity of all life is of a magnitude that screams intelligent design. Evolution is mathematically impossible without.
Now, I ask you, does it take greater hope and faith in the belief of evolution, which is but a theory, with most all the pieces missing, or the belief of the bible which has so much rich history to back it.
Your answer is predisposed as that of an intellectual, for this I wish you luck in your life, as that is all that exists for you, along with the grey matter between your ears which functions at levels, incomprehensible to man, yet again just a product of evolution.
You are blind to the realities of life, life, how did it come to be, lungs, heart, taste buds, what a bonus. Sex, with all its glory, you are missing the boat, seeing yet never percieving.
Knowledge less understanding leaves one wisdomless. Open your eyes to the world, to life, forget the evil, yet, that is addressed in the book. Look for the complexity of all things, there is no way all this evolved without a creator. His son is named Jesus and your very soul depends on this simple acknowledgment. But not to worry, no one will kill you in the US, if you don't accept this reality, unlike our Muslim brothers. I pray for your vision to clear, some time in your life on this planet, as for all who read this seemingly drab post. For this and this alone is the reason for your existence on earth, the true meaning to life, the Holy Grail.
God bless all intellectuals who scorn this post and may you all some day come to grips with your eyesight. Merry Christmas, its coming!
Perhaps we should drop quantum theory and stop asking how things work and happen and say "god did it" since the theory is far from complete and difficult for non-physicists to understand. One of the strangest arguments for understanding ever is to claim that further attempts to understand are futile. Even if the theory of evolution is flawed or incomplete the appropriate arguments against it would be to point out the flaws, not assume that such things cannot be explained and call that understanding the universe better.
You won't get any arguments from me that the world is complicated, right down to subatomic particles and all the way up to astronomical events. None are fully explained by science, and perhaps won't be in our lifetimes. But where some see order, I see chaos. Instable scenarios occur on all levels big, small, and massive. The theory of entropy is an interesting one on this whole chaotic mess. Instabilities in the natural world tend to come in mutations, genetic abnormalities and/or bad genetic mixes, cancers, etc. Perhaps the all-knowing thought it was a good idea for us to not only be flawed morally (sinful) but also have flaws inherent in our design. Perhaps like most things in the universe, instability and chaos is all part of an intelligent design. It's an interesting theory... but it seems to be as incomplete and poorly supported as you claim other theories to be.
I don't have any problem with your belief in god or some sort of divine influence in things. But the adherence to the biblical god is a bit much to swallow. Especially considering the "rich history" that supposedly confirms it, but that history seems to be more full of holes than the theory that contradicts it. It's especially hard to swallow as an excuse not to pursue scientific theories to understand the world around us. If we always abandoned incomplete theories because we can always just say "god did it" we wouldn't have any of the technology making this conversation possible.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
It's a fallacy to say that since something unlikely happened, it must be magic. I say this as a believer, but not into deceit.
There may be a billion myraid universes, but it's not like we would be aware without the unlikely circumstances that led to our brand of life.
<< justkem, as in no god. >>
No, justkem as in "Just = fair, impartial, isolated, humble, to the point* *kem = short for Kementari, my nickname on a couple of different web communities... if you're into Tolkien, it's also Quenyan/High Elvish for "Queen/Mother of the Earth", or, in other words, Earth Momma. I was cloth diapering my baby and making all of her food from scratch when I came up with it, and I was a somewhat agnostic solitaire/pagan at the time, who believed in both the God and the Goddess (sort of kind of but not really). Kem also happens to be pretty close to my nickname in real life, which is Em. But you can call me Emily or Kem. Since you asked. Nice to meet you, too, reactivist.
<< The order in the world is but a fluke of nature. Do you know the odds of this occurence, for all your knowledge? >>
Very, very improbable according to Sagan, and he seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to cosmology. Still not as improbable as the possibility that the entire Universe was created fifteen billion years ago by a being who gave differentiation to whatever it was that was hovering around before the moment in time that we mark in our big books of Science as 10 ^ -37seconds. Having designed it, you see, he must be more complex than it, and even less likely to have spontaneously come from nowhere.
But, even if you want to postulate a Divine Knob Twiddler as necessary in order to describe the exact values laid out by Rees, by all means, do so. Which one? There are, I trust you're aware, quite a few competing and mutually exclusive theories on the nature of this Knob Twiddler and his rules for us.
<< Many modern day scientists are coming out of the closet in support of intelligent design, for this very reason. The complexity of all life is of a magnitude that screams intelligent design. Evolution is mathematically impossible without. >>
Hmmm. Care to mention some of those "modern day scientists" who don't believe that evolution occurs? Just curious where you're getting your education from.
<< Now, I ask you, does it take greater hope and faith in the belief of evolution, which is but a theory, with most all the pieces missing. >>
I'd go into what a scientific theory is and what it's purpose is, but I just did that. Please see above.
<< Or the belief of the bible which has so much rich history to back it. >>
Well, I'll definitely agree that the Pentateuch is fascinating from a historical context. Of course... there are a few problems with the facts here and there... but I suspect you're not one to pay much attention to those. (Although, on the off chance that you are, you may want to check out The Bible Unearthed.)
<< Your answer is predisposed as that of an intellectual, for this I wish you luck in your life, as that is all that exists for you, along with the grey matter between your ears which functions at levels, incomprehensible to man, yet again just a product of evolution. >>
And a very free-spirited and generally well-adjusted product, at that.
<< You are blind to the realities of life, life, how did it come to be, lungs, heart, taste buds, what a bonus. Sex, with all its glory, you are missing the boat, seeing yet never percieving. >>
I can assure you that my sense of awe and my ability to be inspired by the natural world and all of its wonders are in no way damaged by my desire to engage this world in every way possible, but I appreciate your concern for my wellbeing. As far as sex is concerned... the Bible is the very last place that I would turn to for advice or wisdom there.... The Song of Solomon is decent, but it's simply no substitute for an enthusiastic partner, with good smut to get you through the dry spells.
<< Knowledge less understanding leaves one wisdomless. >>
You speak with the voice of experience, I see. (Sorry, couldn't resist. Are you done riding your high horse now?)
<< Open your eyes to the world, to life, forget the evil, yet, that is addressed in the book. >>
Errr... right. I'll do my best to live up to your standards.
<< Look for the complexity of all things, there is no way all this evolved without a creator. >>
That wasn't an argument, that was a contradiction.
<< His son is named Jesus and your very soul depends on this simple acknowledgment. >>
Sorry, mate. I graduated from Jesus to Muhammad, and then rejected that load of camel excrement, too. Not trying to be offensive or anything, just letting you know where I stand on these issues.
<< But not to worry, no one will kill you in the US, if you don't accept this reality, unlike our Muslim brothers.>>
Yes, good Christian people never kill people simply because they don't agree with their religious beliefs. (Ahem... cough...) At least, not anymore. Or... well... not as often as we used to!
<< I pray for your vision to clear, some time in your life on this planet, as for all who read this seemingly drab post. >>
And I, in turn, hope that you have the sense of humor to appreciate how utterly amusing this post is to me. It's not as though I've never been a believer or experienced devotion to God, you know.
<< For this and this alone is the reason for your existence on earth, the true meaning to life, the Holy Grail. >>
Oh, well... there you might get me to follow you. I've heard good things about the castle with the Holy Grail beacon.
<< God bless all intellectuals who scorn this post and may you all some day come to grips with your eyesight. >>
That's mighty sefl-aggrandizing of you to say so.
<< Merry Christmas, its coming! >>
Yes, the end is near. I heard the carrots talking about it the other day.
__
Kem
"I've heard good things about the castle with the Holy Grail beacon."
...
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Justkem, I never said you were an idiot, but feel free to get back to me when you can deal with what I actually do say instead of constructing pretty little straw men to demolish. I don't get in religious debates on the webernet. They're kinda pointless.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
<< Justkem, I never said you were an idiot, but feel free to get back to me when you can deal with what I actually do say instead of constructing pretty little straw men to demolish. I don't get in religious debates on the webernet. They're kinda pointless. >>
Ah. I see. So, not an idiot, just "ill-informed" and (oh, wait) spewing "intellectual trash and rank bigotry". Color me confused.
Then you point me towards a link to demonstrate how thoroughly you've demolished those arguments? For the record, I'm more Hitchens and Harris than I am Dawkins, in a lot of ways. He's very gentlemanly and all, and he makes many good points in a very articulate and scholarly fashion. I'm a bit more militant than he is, and I prefer to take the AK47 approach. It's a lot more fun.
Just as an aside, here, if you think debates about religion on the web are pointless, why do you post on politics? Or philosophy? Same thing really. It's all about whose ideology is best and what will make the world a better place to live in.
If you want to accuse me of constructing straw men, that's fine. But pleae do so with an intent to actually have the discussion, and I'd recommend reading what you wrote and considering your audience before you do so. It's probably not a great plan to play the logical fallacy game with me unless you're willing to bring your A game to the table. Snipe and run, with the time honored "that sort of debate is beneath me, but here, read this fabulous link that tells you how I feel about this" is just lame. It falls under the category of internet debate that I generally shuffle straight to the ignore list.
Just so you know.
If you don't want to talk about it, why link your opinions to "prove" your point in the first place? What, exactly, was your intent there, if not to engage a discussion?
__
Kem
No, I said Dawkins' book was intellectual trash and rank bigotry. Be careful with the selective quoting, you're becoming a journalist.
And I *post* on politics and philosophy, I'm less and less inclined to debate it, certainly on the web. Every internet forum eventually gets ruined by the anonymous cowards who would rather spew insults and have flame wars that drown out the serious people wanting to have a discussion. I don't bother with it.
My point is what it always is, to make the world a better place by enlightening people with my opinion.
(And yes, that was sarcasm).
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
If you don't want to talk about it, why link your opinions to "prove" your point in the first place? What, exactly, was your intent there, if not to engage a discussion?
Justkem,
You'll have to forgive Bambi, he's the master of attempting to start a debate, then taking his toys and going home when he's unable to defend himself. It comes from seeing too much of the Hacker Network :)
That's a nonsensical question. The probability that an event will happen, for an event that has actually happened, is exactly 1. "Odds" refers to statistical probabilities of identical, random events. As we have only one universe, we have no frame of reference to determine the probability of its existence.
"Order" is a subjective term. It is dependent on the eye of the beholder. Frankly, life can only exist by increasing disorder.
Actually, very few scientists support intelligent design. The few that do, however, are lauded and given huge and disproportionate amounts of attention by the Christian Right.
You simply don't have any understanding of what a theory is.
Tell that to Torquemada. Or try and sell it in Bosnia.
Ractivist, I concur, life is much easier without thinking at all
<< No, I said Dawkins' book was intellectual trash and rank bigotry. >>
Ah. Well, yes. But you see, I'm an atheist who happens to think that Dawkins is dead on accurate on his points, and tends to be just a bit more militant than he is on some issues. As such, you were calling my own carefully considered viewpoint intellectual trash and rank bigotry by proxy. Of course I'm going to challenge you on that. If you're not willing to stand up for something that you say, why say it?
<< Every internet forum eventually gets ruined by the anonymous cowards who would rather spew insults and have flame wars that drown out the serious people wanting to have a discussion. >>
Well, I'm not an anonymous coward. I also don't spew insults or have flame wars that drown out the serious people (such as yourself, presumedly) who want to have a discussion. To me, debate and discussion are equivalent.
<< I don't bother with it. >>
Apparently not. *shrugs*
j
Sorry, the above anonymous post was from me. Just forgot to login first.
Arvid,
I'll bear that in mind. I typically give people the benefit of the doubt, but "snipe and run" is one of the more annoying online voices people can adopt.
Oh well. Maybe next time he'll actually want to play.
__
Kem
Been away folks. One last insight.
An intellectual who lacks understanding and wisdom is like the most beautiful prostitute, she still is all f.....d up.
Wait, from the secular outlook she's just making a living the old fashioned way. My bad.
For every action there is that equal and opposite reaction, Kem, you also live a life of reaction, you just don't seem to know it.
<< An intellectual who lacks understanding and wisdom is like the most beautiful prostitute, she still is all f.....d up. >>
And a theist who wants to snipe at the atheist for being all blankity-blanked up but doesn't have the courage or the conviction to engage the debate has zero credibility. If you would like to demonstrate that I lack understanding and wisdom, you're welcome to do so. So far all you've done is tell me that if I don't believe exactly as you do, this means that I am weak, stupid, etc. ad nauseum; this isn't debate, it's trolling. Sorry, not interested.
If you want to challenge me on my beliefs, then challenge me. But don't go snivelling behind your Sky Daddy for "proof" that I am not as enlightened as you are. It has absolutely no impact on me and only makes you look like a Raving Lunatic for Christ who couldn't hold his own in a religious debate if his immortal soul depended on it.
Kem
Glock,
A hard, hard life, to be sure.
<ducks>
Kem
I'll note you haven't bothered to actually address any point I raised in the piece I linked... you just keep trying to make a point I made (which I supported by giving you a link) and turn it into an ad hominem attack, and then accuse me of running home.
You've shown you don't want to discuss it. I gave you a starting point, you haven't even gone there. Why should we continue? Is it necessary for me to cut and paste that entire review here to discuss the points? Or would you rather stomp your feet at claim I'm attacking you simply because I have a contrary point of view?
This is why I don't bother with Internet debates. Because people insist you write a book and copy and paste it into a comment field before talking about anything. You can think it's about not able to defend myself, but I respond, against what? No one has addressed one point in the article yet. And Arvid, that was a really weak Hacker Network reference... I really do expect better than that.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
This is why I don't bother with Internet debates.
And Arvid, that was a really weak Hacker Network reference... I really do expect better than that.
I work with what you give me...
j
Make up your mind. If you want to talk about it, my views on the topic aren't exactly hidden away in some obscure corner. If you "don't get into religious debates on the webernet" because you think they're pointless, then don't waste my time by accusing me of tossing down straw men arguments. (Which, by the way, would only have been the case if you assume that calling someone ill-informed isn't the basic equivalent of calling someone an idiot. As far as I'm concerned there's not enough difference between the two to make a distinction. If you can't tell a good source from a bad one, it leaves you mentally handicapped in this world, certainly.)
If you want me to address your points in that book review, by all means, I will. I asked you if you wanted me to get into the ontological debate with you in all seriousness, because that was the first thing that I saw in your link that struck me as completely missing the point.
For the record, I do get into religious and political and philsophical debates because I enjoy them. I tend to write a lot, because I enjoy that, too. If you don't, that's fine. If you do, I just put down a rather long rant about the effect of religious memes on society and what we need to do about them if we want to make it to the twenty-second century without embarking on another round of Crusades (only this time, with nukes). Perhaps that might be a good place to explore Dawkins' ideas and your opinions about them? If you're actually interested in getting into the debate, than yes, I'll be happy to discuss pink elephants and the nature of human learning. You really don't have to ask me twice. We can do it here or there, it really doesn't matter to me... but I think it might save me repeating myself a few times if we do it on the thread where I've already dropped a fair amount of time and energy into the debate. Certainly there are things that have been said there already that would help you to better understand my position so you know exaclty where our differences lie and whether or not this is something you actually want to discuss.
In any case, if you attack my position, I'm going to defend it. If you point something out that makes me modify my position, I'll learn from the experience. Win, win, as I enjoy both exercises. I assumed you wouldn't follow up because you gave me every indication that you wouldn't by firing off a one-liner about how ill-informed I was instead of responding to my invitation to actually talk about these things, but I don't mind being pleasantly surprised in the slightest.
Kem
Raving lunatic for Christ! In this country that makes me part of the majority. Christ is a supernatural being that has chosen to hide himself from those with eyes that see, yet never percieve. It is not my desire to try and convince you on an intellectual basis, in this post or any other on the realities of this. On this much is written, just as against this much is written. It does get down to ones own viewpoint. The secular discounts this view as you and Glock have shown. It was and is my intention to state the view that is contrary to yours, not to go into detail, of which would be a complete waste of everyones time. To try and prove such a thing is impossible. This is the reality. But, to discount my stance that is based on reason, the math of improbability alone, shows your contempt. Your kind is stuck on science, even as it flip flops. Always interesting to hear athiests attack, based on the pretence of their stil very limited knowledge.
Call me simple, call me a reactionary. You won't find me living in the fantasy world of Tolkien, speaking of trolling.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, no matter yours or mine. But your decisions are your decisions, your reality is yours, our worlds don't ever have to overlap, not my problem, as my views have no impact on you or the likes. I hope your children have a chance to see the light some day, if you don't.
Sincerely, RACTIVIST
<< Is it necessary for me to cut and paste that entire review here to discuss the points? >>
No, actually. I'm fairly new to this blog, and I haven't been around long enough to know the rules with respect to threadjacking ettiquette. Generally speaking, deliberately opening up a huge can of worms with the intent to get into a long and drawn out discussion in an unrelated thread when there is an active thread going about precisely the topic you want to debate is considered rude in the communities I've lurked or posted in.
In case you are sincerely interested in defending your points, I hold to my original statement. I'm more than happy to get into a merry little war of ideologies. I enjoy it. If you would rather have the discussion on this thread instead of the one where it's already been going on for 30+ posts, that's fine, too. It's the thread on Islam, terrorism, and the nature of submission with the really unwieldy title.
__
Kem
"I'm fairly new to this blog, and I haven't been around long enough to know the rules with respect to threadjacking ettiquette."
If there are rules about threadjacking, nobody follows them. I'm one of the worst offenders.
;-)
Reactivist:
Oh, why not...
<< Raving lunatic for Christ! In this country that makes me part of the majority. >>
Not really. Most people are much more reasonable and interested in exploring their beliefs from an interfaith perspective, because they genuinely care about whether or not they really understand God and their place in the Universe. Certainly, that was my angle of approach when I was a believer. It's a relatively small (but vocal) percentage of the population that will proudly self-identify themselves as raving lunatics with no stomach for debate.
<< Christ is a supernatural being that has chosen to hide himself from those with eyes that see, yet never percieve. >>
So is Allah, and the Muslims are equally certain that you are deeply mistaken in your assumption of the divinity of Christ. But that 1/3 of the world is just misguided, right? How do you know? More importantly, if you don't understand them, how are you going to make them see the Truth?
<< It does get down to ones own viewpoint. The secular discounts this view as you and Glock have shown. >>
I'll take comfort in the fact that I'm in very good company. Even when I disagree with him, he's at least articulate about why he disagrees and willing to consider alternate perspectives objectively.
<< It was and is my intention to state the view that is contrary to yours, not to go into detail, of which would be a complete waste of everyones time. >>
In that case, why are you continuing to try to get in the last word?
<< But, to discount my stance that is based on reason, the math of improbability alone, shows your contempt. >>
As has already been pointed out to you, the probability of a thing happening that has already happened is exactly 1. I'm not sure if you understand that, but you'll just have to trust people who are better at math and science than you... or possibly even look it up.
I sincerely doubt that you've done any reading whatsoever that wasn't published by the Templeton foundation when it comes to cosmology and the origins of life, so I won't bother to take responsibility for your education. It's not hard to find scientists who want to talk about this topic. They're a pretty curious bunch, by and large, and most if not all of the good ones are at least casually interested in understanding the history of the Universe and the reason why life exists the way that it does.
<< Your kind is stuck on science, even as it flip flops. >>
Yes, religion is very comforting that way. It believes the same thing on Wednesday that it did on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday (with apologies to Stephen Colbert). Science is more rebellious. It delights in the destruction of an elegant theory, and looks for new ways to put the pieces together when evidence destroys that model.
<< Always interesting to hear athiests attack, based on the pretence of their stil very limited knowledge. >>
Too bad it's beneath you to actually do something bold like engage that attack and present your best defense.
<< You won't find me living in the fantasy world of Tolkien, speaking of trolling. >>
*Looks around.* Whew. No elves. I was worried that you knew something about me that I didn't know for a second there!
Nope, you won't find me there, either. I prefer non-fiction now, but I read those books when I was 8, and they had an impact on me. Plus, I just think Kementari is a damned cool name. It evolved over time to Kem, because languages are really very fluid that way. No genetic mutations required.
<< But your decisions are your decisions, your reality is yours, our worlds don't ever have to overlap, not my problem, as my views have no impact on you or the likes. >>
Okay. But if you don't want our worlds to overlap, why do you keep trying to bring this topic up again and again?
<< I hope your children have a chance to see the light some day, if you don't. >>
Yes. You raving lunatics are always more interested in talking to the children. They're so much more trusting and gullible than the grown adults.
My daughter is aware that politics and religion are topics that she is welcome to explore as she gets older. She is 6 now. I'm not about to go dizzying her mind with a plethora of crazy beliefs. I do read to her from the Tao of Pooh, which she likes, and I tried finding something in the Bible that would be appropriate, but she said she didn't like it. She's much more interested in rockets and animals and things like that. I try to let her tell me what she's interested in and don't push her to follow my view of the world.
But then, I'm responsible that way. If she winds up a republican nun, I'll still love her.
Kem
IP:
Good to know!
j:
If you want to copy and paste that last post I did to you over there and bring it back over here, that's fine, too. I don't mind having simultaneous "God threads" going, and the one over there was originally intended to be more of a discussion about how to effectively combat terrorism anyway.
Kem
You seem to be under the impression that being in the majority makes your supernatural beliefs more likely to be accurate. That's not the case.
He's pretty much the same as the mighty Thor in that respect, I guess.
Highly improbable events happen all the time. You haven't provided any stance based on "the math of improbablity" other than some handwaving rhetoric. That's not math. Show me the math.
Lastly, science doesn't "flip flop." It does reevaluate it's conclusions based on the best available evidence, which is constantly being gathered. Should we have ignored Einstein because we didn't want to "flip-flop" on Newton's Laws of Motion? There's a word for clinging to a belief in the face of contradictory evidence: self-delusion.
My question is do you have to thread jack while on a horse and wearing a handkerchief?
lol... maybe not, but if I'm going to do it, I might as well do it with guns blazing.
Kem
Narc:
Nice to meet you. I'm Kem. Would you pass the salt, please?
Kem
Let it go forth from this time and place. Nothing kills a thread faster at Illinipundit.com than a long, insulting and always-off-topic posting from "Kem".
Mr. Bambenek, you've been replaced. Please update your scorecards, if you are following along.
Now back to regularly scheduled narcissism.
Thanks, Anonymous. Nice to meet you, too.
What's interesting to note here is that I didn't start with the insults. I made a comment about the nature of scientific theory and evolution, which was actually on topic at that point (if you hadn't noticed, this thread branched away from the original topic of conversation a while back). I cited a couple of books that I've read that helped me form my opinions. I could have also referenced Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", which goes into more detail about the specific topic, but I don't own that book and I haven't read it. In response, j decided it might be fun to call one of those books a pile of excrement and see what kind of reaction he got in good old fashioned Evil Clown smackdown style.
As far as the whole "off-topic" thing goes, please see the post from IP, as well as my original comment about not wanting to derail the thread. I do try to uphold basic netiquette as outlined in the rulebook (for full details on the one I use, see flamewarriors.net).
As a general rule, the writing voice I go for is Eagle Scout. But I do have my pet peeves. When I run across Deacon or his buddy the Evil Clown, I tend to put on my Kung Fu Master cap and go to town. Everyone has their hobbies. At a guess, I'd say you're going for a cross between Ennui and Nanny. But I could be completely off base. Perhaps you have something to contribute instead of just complaining?
If you think my posts are too long or too insulting, I have a simple solution for you: don't read them. Nobody's forcing you.
Kem
We live in a peculiar time that listening to all of the facts and points-of-view and making an informed decision is considered "flip-flopping". Sherlock Holmes is spinning in his imaginary, un-supernatural grave.
It's interesting in that people are clearly not interested in the "IED" doctrine--"If Everyone Did" that, there's no hope for consensus, right?
There is a difference between listening to the facts and evening revising your opinion and flip-flopping... however the news cycle doesn't have time for such nuance... the latest twist in the OJ case needs to be reaired for the 30th time this hour.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Huh?
Boggle...
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"If you think my posts are too long or too insulting, I have a simple solution for you: don't read them. Nobody's forcing you."
And I have a solution for you. Stop telling us about yourself, ad nauseum, in every single comment you make. It's not that interesting, it is getting to be a pattern, and it kills discussions faster than you can say "I'm an Atheist!" yet again. After all, who wants to respond to that?
If I was a psychologist I might make a diagnosis at this point. As it is, I'd prefer if you could start your own blog and tell the world about yourself somewhere else. Honestly, this isn't the place for that. Just stick to the point and leave the personal antecdotes by the wayside where they belong.
I'll try harder to match your level of contribution on this forum, Anonymous 7:00 AM.
Kem
I admit to being a Johnny come lately to this spirited discussion and I have not read every post in detail, but I won't let that stop me from spouting off, er... offering an opinion. The bottom line for religion as science e.g. "Creationism" or most any other account of "how things came to be” ultimately rely one premise. PFM: Pure Freaking Magic. There may be a lengthy and erudite explanation as to how something as elegant and complicated as the bone structure of the hand could not have possibly happened through random mutation and chance, but the alternate explanation is PFM. God did it. We don't know how He controls whatever forces caused things to be created, but He does work in mysterious ways. PFM.
If you accept PFM you are acting purely on articles of faith. PFM happens because the stuff is here, right? Science may never answer the questions, but it is forced to look for the answers, not default to PFM whenever the question gets to the point. Most religions can be great philosophies, but they are poor explanations
I disagree. The accusation of "flip flopping" exists only to make cheap political points, not to accurately describe someone's past history. Just look at Kerry's "for it before he was against it" vote. Two different versions of a bill, voted for one and against the other, but that counts as "flip flopping."
PMF
Self delusion
My statement was that creative, intelligent design was responsible for all things. Yes, this can be found in science. Just as mistakes can be found in science. We all agree on that. The intellectual secularists who deny intelligent design are in my opinion like those who can't see the forest through all the trees. The evidence is everywhere, but they have such tunnel vision they don't see it. The complexity that exists to date, is not and could not be from sheer random interchange beginning with the bang. I do believe in the bang by the way. I believe in the periodic table, I believe that for you to believe that all of our world is the direct result of these elements some how coming together in a random fashion over billions and billions of years to create all the life in this incredible sphere we live in is, quite the faith.
In this country it is your duty as a Socialist to debunk religion, so your stance is a common one amongst the intellectual elite secularist that is truly an extreme minority. This we all know. And for that I thank God.
If there is overwhelming evidence beyond the claim that everything is too complex to have not been designed by a supreme being then apparently I missed it here. You say we can't see the forest through all the trees. But it seems like you are showing us one tree and calling that a forest.
It's not necessarily an unusual claim by any means. Societies throughout recorded history have often given credit to the metaphysical for unexplainable phenomenon of all sorts. Eclipses, earthquakes, and other natural phenomenon... but also as cultures clashed with differences in technology, and even within societies when new discoveries conflicted with the then current religious explanation.
It's not that anyone has really disproved any divine intervention in these discoveries and scientific understanding. They merely figured out how a complex system works and removed the mysticism from it. With many theories though people have merely proposed how a complex system works and then test that theory through experiments and observation and adjust and correct the theory when appropriate. Is that absolute proof that there is no divine intervention? Not really. The problem is the absolute absence of any proof of divine intervention. As we continue to learn more and more about complex systems having a logical and non-divine explanation it really makes it difficult for people to rely on the "god did it" excuse to explain how things work without additional proof. If there is overwhelming evidence of divine intervention, people would love to see it. Lack of evidence isn't all that overwhelming to many people, though it is enough for many others.
As a Constitutionalist it'd be pretty hard for me to be a socialist. Being anti-religion is quite possible without being a socialist.
Anti-intellectualism was pretty big in many communist countries, with China probably taking the biggest body count under Mao. Does that make you a communist for using the term intellectual as a perjorative? Of course not.
Is it elitist to think you're right and push your own view? If so, are we all elitists here? Who's left, the agnostic moderates?
Is it too much to ask for some of the overwhelming evidence claimed to support divine intervention? Is it socialism/intellectualism/elitism/etc that drives us to call people out when the evidence provided is a lack of evidence and the age old argument for unexplained phenomenon, that god did it?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
It's a shame no one has gotten around to telling us scientists that. Do you really think that biologists wake up in the morning and their first thought is, "What can I do today to deny the existence of God?"
I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but you seem to keep conflating evolution with abiogenesis. You also never provide any evidence for your assertion that it's "not possible." Furthermore, evolution isn't random, it's stochastic. It seems that you're working entirely from the argument from incredulity.
What's this with socialism? I've never even met a genuine socialist. It seems to be a popular insult around here, but it's thrown around like anyone that's slightly to the left of Dick Cheney is a cross between Che and Mao. It's just absurd.
<< There may be a lengthy and erudite explanation as to how something as elegant and complicated as the bone structure of the hand could not have possibly happened through random mutation and chance, but the alternate explanation is PFM. >>
May as well jump right in. The water's plenty warm. I might also add that the lengthy and erudite explanation also boils down to an argument from incredulity, every single time.
And I like that PFM... reminds me somehow of PMS (Poor Misguided Sycophants). The partitioning that goes into maintaining religious beliefs in an otherwise rational and eloquent neural network is astonishingly complex. It's really too bad that so few people are willing to exercise it vigorously, preferring instead to study in the company of their peers. They might be challenged on the specifics, but not the holy partitions themselves.
Truly, the mother of all burkas, this desire to shield and protect faith from eyes that don't see it as a beautiful thing.
Kem
Eyes seeing yet never percieving. Many have eloquently stated hypothesis on the existence of God. I'm sure you have read them and discounted them all. For faith is the foundation. And what is that, nothing. So chastise my belief to your hearts desire. If you ever see as I do, I hope you adamently try and explain why to your intellectual peers. For it is impossible, as that is part of the plan. In this the spirit and I leave this post. I thought I would leave you with some more fodder for your bashing.
The hypothesis is not in question. The evidence is. Many have also stated the hypothesis for phlogison, the aether, the miasma theory of disease, celstial spheres, the hollow earth, and plenty more.
In other words, you have to be a believer before you can see the evidence that will let you believe.
Do you really think you're the only person in the history of the world with faith in their God? The Egyptians had plenty of faith that Pharaoh was God made flesh. After all, he made the sun rise every day, didn't he? Worked for them for a few thousand years.
You say that the order in the universe that proves god exists is self-evident. But you have to be a believer to see that order. Ultimate, it's a circular argument. Actually, it's not even really an argument. It's just another way to say, "Faith, therefore God exists."
It's just another way to say, "Faith, therefore God exists."
And more power to him. Believe it or not, people are perfectly free to practice their religion freely in this country. Preferably without being harassed on a blog by humans wanting "PROOF, DAMN IT!". But even with the harassment, the man is still free.
But you have to be a believer to see that order.
Actually, you have to be a believer to see God in that order. Otherwise you are perfectly free to learn as much as you can about that order without ever seeing anything in it besides a really neat random plan. Who knows, maybe you'll inch the understanding forward a bit during your time on the planet. Yet you'll never have an answer for "WHY?" besides the tragically empty "BECAUSE".
But in your mind you'll always think yourself smarter than those billions of simpletons who BELIEVE. And that, I guess, is some solace.
I fail to understand how this thread has anything to do with oppressing someone and not allowing them to practice their religion. It was ractivist, not me, that said the existence of God and intelligent design was self-evident in the "order" of nature.
No, and that's part of my point. "Order" is generally a value judgement. You can say that phenomena behave in "orderly" ways, but that's really just another way of saying that they behave in ways we can predict. But when people say that there is "order" to the universe, they generally mean there is some sort of overarching "plan" to the way things are. Coincidentally, the nature of that plan just happens to correspond to the religious beliefs they already hold.
The very nature of the question "Why?" presupposes that there is someone to engender meaning or purpose to the universe. That's not as self-evident as people always seem to claim. It begs its own question.
My point is that evidence to support a conclusion that can only be observed by those that already believe in the conclusion isn't evidence at all.
Is subjective thought a reality? Is that allowed in your world. Can one deduce a reality, without a scientific fact to back it. Philosophy has many doors, yet are they all true, or all false? Certainly not, can they even be proven. Can the thought process of the brain ever be proven, as the voal cords have. The transition from impulse to word is a very unique process, can you prove it, yet it does exist. The ability to picture an event in the mind, the memory, will man ever be able to prove how, yet we know it exists.
Is it really such a far fetched thought, to deduce that random chance could not have evolved into the world as we know it? Read the book "The Science of God". In it are many interesting mathematical facts to support the unlikely random evolution that you support. Or should I stress, the mathematically impossible chance for all these things to have occured from the bang and the fundemental elements from that day, or year, or all those billions and billions of years to date. Is it wrong to work in reverse, to see the God, to believe in the God and then for the God to show himself to you. Life in any form, in all forms is nothing short of miraculous, I am sorry that you folks dont see this.
Sure many societies through out history have believed. Is it any wonder? Today there are six big religions. I do believe that only one is right. how could that be you say? Who am I to be so bold as to tell others they have made a mistake. Given they really have had no choice, there's is a God of location, as to were one is born. Middle East is Islam for example. How could I condem them? The secrets of the universe are, just that, but I believe just the same.
No harm or disrespect intended nor did I percieve an attack from any of the earlier posts, your views are just that, I accept them, no problemo. Peace my brothers and sisters.
I'd wish you good luck, but that does'nt exist either.
<< Believe it or not, people are perfectly free to practice their religion freely in this country. Preferably without being harassed on a blog by humans wanting "PROOF, DAMN IT!". But even with the harassment, the man is still free. >>
The freedom of the religious man to "throw a punch" (so to speak) ends where my nose begins. When I mention that it might be nice for my mom to be able to share health benefits with her partner (whom she has lived with now for close to four years), and that is inevitably met by the age old contradiction, "God doesn't approve of that"... it's no longer neutral territory. It becomes necessary to address the root cause of the debate, and this is impossible to do without challenging the authority of God.
When the President of my country states that I can't really be considered a patriot because I spit out the Kool-Aid that he swallowed, it's no longer neutral territory. It becomes necessary to address the root cause of the debate, and this is impossible to do without challenging the authority of God.
More to the point, when crazy jihadists wage war on Western secularism and debauchery and the Christian and Hindu perversion of the unity of God, and we're told that we must respect their right to believe that God wants them to kill us for our own good... well, you get the point.
Kem
Mind you, Dr. Dobson and friends (when the issue came to Colorado) offered a compromise that if any two people could share health insurance (and other benefits) regardless of their relationship status, they'd have no problem. That compromise was explicitly denied. (Of course that could just as easily be blamed on the insurance companies).
And I think your relying on stereotypes for the Kool-aid cracks. Stop watching TV and actually learn about what's going on, then we'll talk.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
j
I haven't watched TV for my news in years. These are the actual arguments and the issues as I see them. You're welcome to demonstrate that I'm wrong! In fact, I seriously would like an intelligent theist to do so. I freely admit that my perspective is jaded by a few years of trying to find someone who can disabuse me of my bitter notions, and failing. If you've got a positive way forward, I'm all ears.
As far as Dr. Dobson's offer goes, I was listing specific symptoms of larger problems that are all tied to religious certitudes, not the actual problems themselves. The only reason to pretend that straight love is better than queer love is that we're running on ethics that date back to the 7th century B.C.E. in order to determine our societal mores. Same thing with the whole, "this is a "Christian" nation, and if you don't choose to believe in some kind of higher power, you can't be considered a patriot." It's a symptom of the tendency of believers in general to assume that they have a priveledged connection to Truth which makes them superior to the non-believer. I see this as problematic, and worth talking about. It's fairly rare that anybody actually wants to take me up on it (other than the people who are trying to save my soul by telling me how blind I am), but it's worth a try-- can't learn if you don't seek out the other side of the debate..
As far as the Islamist extremists go, it's not a stereotype. It's reality. I just finished writing a good long rant on why, ending with an invitation to spar over there, if you missed it... I did give your review of Dawkins' book a read when you linked it the first time, and I was sincere about wanting to tear into the ideas. I didn't get those from the TV, I got those from reading what the experts (both the moderates who preach appeasement and the alarmists who preach extermination) have to say. I'm somewhere in the middle, but I don't mind changing my mind if you can give me a good reason to.
Kem
The only reason to pretend that straight love is better than queer love is that we're running on ethics that date back to the 7th century B.C.E. in order to determine our societal mores. Same thing with the whole, "this is a "Christian" nation, and if you don't choose to believe in some kind of higher power, you can't be considered a patriot."
Well as I am off to church for another dose of self-delusion, I am trying to think about all the folks I know (and love) who are going to be there, and I am trying to figure out which ones believe that "straight love" is better than "queer love". Hmm. Hold on, I think it will come to me. Hmm. I am sure there is someone. Hmm.
I'll get back to you on that one after church. The next one should be easier, since my church is full of card-caring Republicans (aint the diversity of the Kingdom a wonderful thing? I actually eat LUNCH with these people. :) ). Ok, so which ones think you have to be a Christian to be a patriot? Hmm. Oh boy, this is a lot harder than I thought. But I am sure they are out there and I just don't know it. Granted, I've been churchin' with these folks for more than ten years, but if KEM says this is what they believe, then this must be what they believe, right?
It's a symptom of the tendency of believers in general to assume that they have a priveledged connection to Truth which makes them superior to the non-believer.
Boy, who does this remind me of? Well, thank goodness Atheists don't suffer from THAT character flaw.
I am not usually in the business of defending GW Bush, but I have to admit that he has personally never attacked the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees about the war. That's not to say that his minions haven't done his dirty work for him, but at least from the highest levels this message has not come down. And to even suggest that your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) would render you "unpatriotic" by the right-wingers is a step too far, even for me. Don't get me wrong, they are tragically mistaken in their beliefs about the war and about almost everything else they bother to propose, but I know that there are Republicans of all religious (am atheistic) stripes who are working hard this morning to undermine all the work the progressives managed to do in this country over the last 100 years. It's not a religious thing, it's a political and economic thing.
we're told that we must respect their right to believe that God wants them to kill us for our own good... well, you get the point.
Who is saying this? Good Lord, of all the whack-job liberals I know I have again NEVER heard anyone even approach this level of cynicism. You might not be watching TV for your information, but I would humbly suggest you might consider getting out of the house a little more. There's a whole world of us out here who don't fit neatly into any of the stereotypes you are putting forth. You're welcome to join us whenever you are ready.
You can find me at church. Happy Sunday!
The ones over at Americans for Truth, for one thing. You could also check out Exodus International, NAARTH, Love in Action, and the ever-popular Focus on the Family. Maybe your church and your associates don't subscribe to the same beliefs as those people. But you can't deny that they're an incredibly powerful force (especially FoF) in the poltical wing of the Right.
You've really never heard of anyone saying gays should be put to death? Merril Keiser ran for Senate in Ohio in 2006 saying this, and "only" got 21% of the vote. Here's a similar protest in Dallas from 2001. Sure, it's a fairly small fraction of people that think this, but it's not a negligible fraction.
Kem-
To be fair, the conversation you say you want to have is not suited for the internet. It's just not. No serious conversation is.
As another aside, anyone who has decided on an opinion on any subject has implicitly decided that their view is "better" than other views. That's simply the nature of having an opinion. It does not follow that having an opinion must immediately entail having disrespect for another or that such an opinion must entail a feeling of smug certitude that others are simply deluded and inferior for not holding that same opinion. Sure, it's a possible stance, but it's not the only stance.
And that's the problem with Dawkins' book, besides cherry-picking the data. He argues with stereotypes. Sure, every stereotype has a poster-child, but it is a stereotype nonetheless.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
D. Boon:
Happy Sunday to you as well, and I had a great time spending it with my little sisters (who are Christian, and moderates like yourself). I know this may come as a shock to you, but I do still include Catholics and Muslims and pagans (and even a long-suffering Mormon who I've gone back and forth with plenty of times) in my circle of friends (online and in real life), too. They understand me well enough not to be personally offended by my views. It is possible for me to have deep reservations about the nature of religious faith in general while still loving and respecting people who are religious and affirming their inherent worth and dignity. I even go to church occasionally myself... albeit, it's the UU church where a gal like me can kick back and take in my philosophy without the supernatural baggage.
It's good to get out on a Sunday morning and share time thinking about the important things in life with friends and family. Even ones who don't share your beliefs about the world.
George Bush Sr. would be a Republican who does not feel that atheists should be considered patriots. While people go back and forth about whether or not these conversations took place, John Q. Public is very much on pace with this genreral nervousness about atheists in their midst. (Link to an interesting study at the University of Minnesota, which studies mainstream attitudes towards atheists and whether or not they share an equal sense of moral and philosophical conscience... "The work on symbolic boundaries and moral order suggests, however, that the creation of the other is always necessary for the creation of identity and solidarity. Our analysis shows that attitudes about atheists have not followed the same historical pattern as that for previously marginalized groups.")
I have no priveledged connection to Truth. I have a set of strongly held opinions about the nature of reality and I enjoy testing them by framing them as strongly as possible and watching to see if they crumble under analysis or stand firm. Belief that God exists and speaks with a certain and clear voice, no matter how moderate that voice may be, lends support to those who point to all of their fellow believers and then prey upon the weakest ones to gain converts to their army of twisted ideology. If I respect your God as "real" in any meaningful sense of the word, I must also respect the God of Osama bin Laden as equally real. Certainly, he is as convinced as you are that he is doing God's will.
j:
Your experiences with internet conversations are clearly different than mine. I'm used to exploring things in depth online, and learning from opposing viewpoints. If I can't defend my beliefs, I assume they are wrong and come up with ones that I can defend. I'm just as guilty as the next person of turning a blind eye to the holes in my logic, and I appreciate it when those spots are revealed.
Seriously.
Those do tend to be long, drawn out, and intense discussions. I enjoy them, but maybe I'm just weird that way.
I don't know if that's the way it works on IP, but it seems like it is the atmosphere that people want to foster in a lively discussion board that isn't just an echo chamber for the same old talking points, ad nauseum.
Kem
Yeah, I have to agree with Narc--one of the things I found frustrating in my relatively liberal church was the unwillingness to acknowledge the massive amounts of hate eminating from the national Christian voting block. It seemed to me that we should be concerned with people pushing atrocities in the Lord's name.
xian,
And really, man, that's all I'm asking for. Concern, clearly stated, from everyone who is concerned. No hand-wringing and looking the other way... a hard dialogue that talks about the religious other and the non-religious other as equally moral (and sometimes immoral!) individuals with no special priviledge or insight that the other does not also have.
It's happening. It's happening with particularly strong unified pluralism since 9/11, and I applaud this. But I'm deeply concerned that it's not happening fast enough. There are still far too many people on this planet who feel that the solution is to convert rather than to just learn to live at peace with our differences, and that the voice of God as they hear it is the only true source of morality.
Kem
Atrocities are atrocious regardless of who or what's name they are done in. Whether it be over religious differences, political differences, racial differences, belief in superiority or natural claim to territory, etc etc.
When someone butchers your family, the reason is pretty irrelevant... even if that reason may be based on a belief you or I support. I can't bring myself to blame the atrocities of extremists on the moderates as well. I can however blame the moderates for their complacency if it helps empower the extremists. That is something they have to live with and be reminded of regularly so they don't find some way of excusing or justifying it and continue empowering extremists.
Belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God may not be responsible for anywhere near as many acts of violence as it used to be, nor responsible for the big headline grabbing acts of violence that similar beliefs lead to in the Muslim world... but it sure as heck leads to a great deal of earthly judgement, government policy, and social hostility towards people who disagree with such a literal interpretation or merely disagree with the interpretation.
My larger concern is with making blind submission to authority acceptable. In a free society I consider such movements extremely dangerous and a threat towards continued liberty. I don't really care if that blind submission is to dark age desert dwellers or communists or any other religious or political "prophets."
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock,
Amen to all that, too.
I think I'm going to leave this subject be for a while here. *wanders off to go read that Mao piece*
Kem
a hard dialogue that talks about the religious other and the non-religious other as equally moral individuals with no special priviledge or insight that the other does not also have.
It's happening. It's happening with particularly strong unified pluralism since 9/11, and I applaud this. But I'm deeply concerned that it's not happening fast enough. There are still far too many people on this planet who feel that the solution is to convert rather than to just learn to live at peace with our differences, and that the voice of God as they hear it is the only true source of morality.
First of all, you are framing this debate around the beliefs of a very small and extreme group of people. No doubt there are believers who want Gays to die (I guess), but they are such a small minority that I hardly think having a discussion about their views is a decent use of time. Just as constantly discussing Islamic extremists is pretty fruitless. There are BILLIONS of moderate Muslims in the world who never blow anything up for any reason. They are only concerned with loving their God and living their lives.
But advocating the relinquishing of belief is not the solution, as we have already discussed. In my opinion the problem with the world today is that people: A) Don't believe in anything and therefore have lives built on the acquisition of pleasure, or B) Don't know what they believe and therefore think that "everybody is the same" on some fundamental level. This results in beliefs that are extremely shallow and easily discarded.
The answer isn't more narcissism. The answer is real, deep faith in a loving God, and the pacifism that often arises from that faith. You can't solve the problems of religion by trying to get people to be less religious. You must in fact encourage them to really seek out their faith with passion so that they can more fully reflect the Love of God, which is the only thing capable of saving this world you seem so worried about.
I started this conversation by attempting to point out that murder, war, and sin are not products of religion. In fact, religion is the product of the brokenness of this world. The bottom line is that humans just suck. They've been sucking for untold thousands of years and their absolute failure to be anything close to Holy has now brought us to the brink of extinction. To believe that getting rid of religion is the way out of this problem is to (imo) fail to understand the problem. The problem isn't religion, or God. The problem is sin. Get rid of religion, get rid of God, and you will still have the sin. Embrace religion, seek after God, and we might indeed have a chance to overcome our sin.
I cannot state it more plainly than that. No doubt you have little interest in seeking after something that cannot be proven to exist. Just as I cannot prove to you how much I love my wife and child, I can never prove to you that the God of the universe exists and loves you. Somethings are beyond proof, otherwise they would not be what they are. Or as the Grateful Dead once sang, "That path is for your steps alone". Best of luck.
Careful, if you say you're running off to read a Mao piece somebody might think you're a dirty commie. Make sure to qualify it with "...that an anti-communist yahoo suggested I read because it may have interesting application to the asymmetrical warfare in which we are currently dealing."
And by god I am that anti-communist yahoo! - Gomez, paraphrased.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"First of all, you are framing this debate around the beliefs of a very small and extreme group of people. No doubt there are believers who want Gays to die (I guess), but they are such a small minority that I hardly think having a discussion about their views is a decent use of time. Just as constantly discussing Islamic extremists is pretty fruitless. There are BILLIONS of moderate Muslims in the world who never blow anything up for any reason. They are only concerned with loving their God and living their lives."
Killing is only the most extreme form of oppression. A person who works to limit liberty of others or endorses full blown oppression of others, whether or not killing is involved is pretty much on my "coal for Christmas" list. Moderates may not take the more extreme actions but they often help empower those who do. Having millions of people say that they agree that some prophetic text is the literal words of god really helps the extremists, whether you want to admit it or not.
I mean if it were, that'd probably be all fine and good. But since nobody can show that to be the case (I remember you personally running away from that conversation when cornered on the "whims of man" vs. "whims of man deciding which prophets are right" convo). From the other thread you pretty much argued that if someone somehow felt god they were justified in deciding which prophets were right and submitting entirely to their views... no matter how screwed up it might seem to other people.
You seem to think you are arguing from a base of popularity on this issue since you are always appealing to your community of fellow believers... but I'd argue that is what makes it so much more dangerous. A popular belief has little to do with being right or wrong (high school taught us that)... but a popular belief that empowers those that want to limit liberty is a threat to a free society. If the prophets say some activity is wrong, why shouldn't believers of him support limiting the liberty of others to engage in that activity? If one believes in liberty over prophets they'll probably make a rational judgment call. If they submit fully to the prophets of a god then they are likely to vote to restrict liberty in that case... and that's a best case scenario. Beyond that it can get pretty ugly. We'll assume for your sake that we're dealing with perfect moral citizens who just happen to submit to god over any support of liberty. The best case scenario is unacceptable if one desires a free society.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Heh... Thanks for clarifying that, Glock.
For the record... I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party.
D. Boon:
At the risk of sounding like the hippy I'm not, peace, man. My beef is not with the believers, it's with the act of belief itself. I understand it extremely well. I know how powerful it is, and that makes me all the more wary. I have a couple of things I want to clarify here, and then I'm going to give this topic a rest. It's one of my favorites, but I really don't want to be that chick who won't shut up about God.
<< There are BILLIONS of moderate Muslims in the world who never blow anything up for any reason. They are only concerned with loving their God and living their lives. >>
Yep. I agree. Certainly, when I was one, I wasn't interested in blowing anyone up for any reason. But I did hurt my gay mother pretty badly in the name of my God, because I allowed my ethics to be shaped by my experience of the Divine. Not all hurt is physical, and the choice between one's God and one's family is a hard one. I have a friend in her sixties who has been cut off from 98% of her family (fundamentalists) because she started asking too many questions and found that she didn't like the answers... when she was in her fifties. Good people can do bad things in the name of their beliefs, even when they are not extremists. (Even when their beliefs have nothing to do with God!)
<< But advocating the relinquishing of belief is not the solution, as we have already discussed. >>
I'm not advocating the relinquishing of belief. I'm advocating the acknowledgment that belief is a choice, and that the choice you make is based on where you were born and raised. I'm advocating the kind of pluralism that embraces all approaches to the question of the existence and nature of a Divine Entity as equally subjective. There's a huge difference!
<< A) Don't believe in anything and therefore have lives built on the acquisition of pleasure, r B) Don't know what they believe and therefore think that "everybody is the same" on some fundamental level. This results in beliefs that are extremely shallow and easily discarded.>>
Hmmm.... I agree that there is a problem with people who don't know what they believe. I'm not sold on the idea that the acquisition of pleasure is something to be afraid of, though. To quote the old Wiccan rede that I used to follow when I thought that described the sacred best for me, "An it harm none, do as you will."
Equally subjective isn't quite the same thing as equally viable. A pluralist approach doesn't mean that you have to assume that everyone is equally right! It just lays the foundation at a neutral starting point instead of elevating one approach over the other based on the particular subjective beliefs that a person starts the discussion off with.
I'd be the last person on the face of the planet to argue that everyone is the same, or any other kind of post-modernist nitwittery when it comes to moral relativism. There are indeed standards that can (and must!) be applied, and the discovery of what those standards are is always up for review and analysis. I'm strongly in favor of that.
<< The answer is real, deep faith in a loving God, and the pacifism that often arises from that faith. >>
For you, I accept that it is. (Although I will add that there was something intensely personal and even narcissistic about the experience of faith for me. I'm not sure if the same is true for you, because it is such a personal experience. There was surrender, certainly, but there was also a great deal of focus on myself and what my heart told me about God's wishes for me.) For me, my pacifism has other sources; and I'm not always a pacifist. Some things are too far gone to assume that they will right themselves, and there comes a time when appeasement is no longer an ethical solution. I've been a pacifist before... the whole deal... nuclear disarmament, ban guns, etc...
Not there anymore. Largely because of long and drawn out internet discussions. ;)
<< I started this conversation by attempting to point out that murder, war, and sin are not products of religion. >>
That's debatable in scripture, but I'll save it for another time. I don't really feel that you want to go into a detailed analysis of murder and war and sin in the Pentateuch, in any case. Neither do I. It's depressing.
<< The bottom line is that humans just suck. >>
On that point, I would certainly buy you a beer and drink to that.
<< Get rid of religion, get rid of God, and you will still have the sin. >>
I agree with that, too. An underdeveloped sense of empathy and responsibility to one's loved ones and one's community is still perfectly possible in a God-free world.
<< Embrace religion, seek after God, and we might indeed have a chance to overcome our sin. >>
Do you really think so? I tend to line up more with Paul Tillich's Social Gospel-- the experience of Faith is simply "the courage to be", and that "Religion is not a sphere alongside others, but the dimension of depth in all spheres of human life." I don't think there needs to be a supernatural component to that depth. It simply is. I don't name it Faith, I name it Life. I embrace it with passion, as you obviously do yours. We just choose different bridges to get there.
<< No doubt you have little interest in seeking after something that cannot be proven to exist. >>
You seriously have no clue how ironic that statement is. My entire life has, in one way or another, been a search for things that don't make sense to me, to see what I can do with them and whether or not I like what I build with them. Certainly, I built the cathedral of my faith in a supernatural component to the Universe with flying buttresses and stained glass tears before I walked away from it.
I still remember what it was like to stand inside it. Ye' Gods, man, it's only been three years!
<< Or as the Grateful Dead once sang, "That path is for your steps alone". Best of luck. >>
And to you on your path as well. If I knew the way, I would take you home.
La da da da...
Oh, wait... I started this thing off by saying I wasn't a hippy. Drat.
If I am a hippy, at least I'm an Ayn Rand reading sort. Fair and balanced. ;)
Kem
I agree the topic has run it's course. For the record, believing that religion spawns zealots is (imo) akin to believing that the 2nd Amendment spawned the Virginia Tech slaughter. It is something to think about, this idea that religion needs to be abolished in order for Peace on Earth to reign. Just as it is a good idea to consider getting rid of guns to stop murder. Both are interesting ideas, but eventually very shallow because the gun did not kill those kids, the Evil in that bastard's heart did. And religion did not bring down the Twin Towers, the Evil in those bastard's hearts did. Fight that Evil with all your heart and you have taken the first step to victory, imo.
End of story.
"For the record, believing that religion spawns zealots..."
How about believing that misplaced submission can ruin lives, and not just their own? Religion just being one aspect of this idea.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
D. Boon:
I'm not advocating the abolition of religion. In case that wasn't clear, I'm not advocating the abolition of religion. I'd say it again, but I've already said it in so many words, so many times, with such a detailed breakdown of what I really am concerned about, that I'll just have to trust I've done everything possible to be very clear about my opinions on this topic.
Glock:
I'd buy you a drink for that one, but all things considered I'll just have to stick with a heartfelt thanks.
Random lurker:
Cliff notes version: Certitudes of any sort can be very dangerous things. Believe as you feel compelled to believe, and may joy and happiness spring from those beliefs with abundance; but keep an open mind to the possibility that your beliefs might be wrong.
True for me as much as it is for you. That's all I'm saying.
Kem
Jkem
It is good to hear you have such an open mind and don't mind changing it as you see fit. Evolution is real, in thought for sure. The truth is- one of us is right, it is truly a fifty fifty. when I was young I was stuck on the thought that it did not seem right that so much injustice occured and that many died never knowing or hearing of God. The prevelance of so many religions only made the issue more complex Yet, it was when I decided to accept by faith, and asked the lord to show me the light, the proof from within, that his presence became known. So for me, it was that decision to believe, in him by name, that opened the door, the rest is my history, my reaity that is as real to me as any object as any analytical fact. You have said your reality is entirely based on the analytical, as I find truth in logic, based on subjective reasoning, and my very experiences, with no magicians in sight. So there you have it, or don't.
PS, gays should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of our society, just call it a civil union, not marriage. PEACE
(cracks open the door... what's this? more to explore?)
Reactivist:
<< gays should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of our society, just call it a civil union, not marriage. >>
Why? Are straight expressions of love somehow superior to homosexual ones?
<< Yet, it was when I decided to accept by faith, and asked the lord to show me the light, the proof from within, that his presence became known. >>
I'm not sure if you're just skimming my posts (understandable... I tend to write volumes where snippets would do), or if you simply are not understanding me when I say that I've felt that as well. It raised additional questions for me that I am still curious about.
<< You have said your reality is entirely based on the analytical, as I find truth in logic, based on subjective reasoning, and my very experiences, with no magicians in sight. >>
(*bangs head slowly against the wall*) Of course. We all do. I did when I believed in God, too. Why is that so hard to understand?
The part that I want to play with, conceptually, is the assumption that one subjective reality is not only superior to another based on divine origin, but also that this sort of subjective reality is in all ways permanent and unchanging-- definitive for all time and impervious to change.
Why? How? After we're done with that, we can move on to Who, What, When, Where, and To What Extent, but the Why and the How seem like the most important ones to me, from a political standpoint.
Kem
Straight expressions of love are more historical in our society, Like Iran, ha ha. America and its Judeo Christian roots to this country is non negotiable, it is the history of this religious country. Marriage has been a bond between a man a woman and God for all of our history, at least past history, prior to the closet door getting swung open. A civil union, given our government, is logical today, marriage with Jesus officiating is a stretch into our world that is unacceptable, just as much of the anti religious art is, like Howard Stern, shock value with no intrinsic value. The ACLU is an institution that undermines the society in ways that concern me and many like minded folks. Rights are a funny thing, two of one makes another, it is easy to play mind games in debate, with alternate outcomes being as universal as health care isn't. Facts are easily twisted, just as is reality.
I do see that at one time you believed, as in the seeds that fell in shallow dirt, and sprouted but soon were choked out by the world, common behavior, in an uncommon world.
Roots are just that, depth of understanding is certainly a huge part of roots, yet they are only as good as the wisdom one subjects the mind to. If you believe that all you see is a product of random chance, so be it. I see as I do, the only real questions I hope to understand is where did God come from, and what is he actually? And at this point that is off the table, so, I'm content playing the salt of the earth role, which is to slow the process of evolution down, as we are going down, in time. Is that a revelation? Not to me. We all die. Or do we? Your guess. Because you will never prove it's nonexistence with science. This is conclusive, in my mind. In the science that I understand. I'll let you guess the depth of my knowledge, as that is limited by yours.
Which came first the chicken or the egg?
answer, the rooster. All is not what it seems, but one of us is right, and one of us is wrong. There is no other outcome. He either does exist or doesn't. Absolute proof is subjective. But absolute reality varies through all mens eyes, and experieinces, as minds change, is that a function of man or God or both, in a free will environment? After all. all we do is provide tags, and names to things and digest the words and visuals that cross our sphere. Who are we to ever really know, conclusively, on anything, some have even said it is all a dream. But , some of us know bettter. You for sure, right?
??? cannot follow that last post at all. me for sure, right
reactivist:
<< America and its Judeo Christian roots to this country is non negotiable, it is the history of this religious country. >>
Technically, it is negotiable. The roots of this country were decidedly NOT Judeo-Christian. They were Protestant. Quakers, Catholics, and Jews were not accepted as viable religions until after the foxholes of World War II (and even then, only with grudging reluctance). In fact, the reason why there is a separation between church and state in this nation is because some smart people in the seventeenth century saw what was going on in Massachusettes (particularly what was happening to the Quakers), moved to Rhode Island, and spoke out against it. Most of them were Christian, but some of them were deists who had very little love for native white Protestant supremacy as a family value.
In any case, the term Judeo-Christian wasn't even invented until the 20th century. If you're going to talk about this religious country as it existed in the past, that term simply doesn't apply. They were Protestant roots. If you're going to talk about it from 1945-1970ish, Judeo-Christian is accurate. Much more past 1970, and you really do need to take into consideration that the religious tapestry of America contains far more than just Christians and Jews. There are also Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Muslims, and Pagans. Oh My! Welcome to life in the twenty-first century. It's not the same world anymore. We have a Pluralist foundation now, and a part of that pluralist foundation is the rising tide that says religion is simply a subset of philosophy... a means of entertainment, but no more inherently worthwhile or correct (or closed to debate) than any other means of entertainment.
<< I do see that at one time you believed, as in the seeds that fell in shallow dirt, and sprouted but soon were choked out by the world, common behavior, in an uncommon world. >>
No, not really. They fell in very deep soil, took root, blossomed, and turned me into someone very different than who I was before I found my faith. The problem came when I looked in the mirror and decided that this plant had no place in my philosophical garden, and that it was invasive. It choked out the old growth and covered up some of those flowers which were still precious to me. Once I saw it for what it was, I removed it at the root ball... a hell of a process that required a great deal of labor, but one that I learned a lot from.
The rest of your post strikes me as non sequitor babble about how we can't know anything, and I have a fair amount of contempt for the idea that not knowing something means we need to fill in the blanks with something that both a) sounds good to us and b) cannot be questioned. It strikes me as intellectually toxic.
Kem
I would also argue that the roots of this country were largely Deist. Much of the population was Protestant, but that's not what drove the founding of the nation.
I tend to view the Deists as the heretics who provided the secular roots. Jefferson had writings that were stridently anti-religious, only thinly veiled by Deist language elsewhere. It strikes me as "sexed up" atheism, both then and now. (Which is not to say that all Deists do not believe in the supernatural... that's plainly false. I just think that Deism/Agnosticism/Pantheism/Panentheism/and other forms of wishy-washy-ness are good cover for people who don't feel comfortable with their lack of belief in strictly theistic terms, or who don't want to "rock the boat" when it comes to societal norms. Everyone comes at it from their own angle.)
Kem