Waiting for Obama
Obama is keeping mum on the details of what he thinks of all the financial plans swirling around lately, or what he would propose if he were President in these trying times.
If you’re already an Obama fan you probably think this is evidence of his lofty post-partisan superiority as well as his depth of thought. And perhaps it is. But this would be easier to believe if he didn’t have such a long history of protecting himself—and his status as a blank slate on which people can project their dreams—from commitment.
Obama has historically had two methods of accomplishing this. The first is taking so many stands that he can later claim he actually took the right one, and have the quotes to “prove” it. The second is similar to what he’s doing now: generalized platitudes and then silence on the specific issues (or, in the Illinois Senate, voting “present”). Obama has made a career out of being either a shifting target or a vaporous one.
Procrastination such as this is not such a stupid move in the strategic sense. Get your enemies to commit, criticize what they say, and see how the wind is blowing before you take your stand. Better yet, maybe you’ll never have to take a position, because events have a way of moving along and people have a way of forgetting once a new issue rears its head.
It may even be an excellent tactic to win an election—and in this case Obama assumes he has the advantage in any downtown in the economy, before he even opens his mouth. So, why ruin a good bad thing?
But an election is just the first step; after the inauguration, Presidents have to lead. Perhaps Obama is really just being appropriately thoughtful, and he’ll come up with something soon. But perhaps he’s letting us know once again that decision-making is not his forte. If Obama does get elected, I will be fervently hoping it’s the former and not the latter.
Maybe Obama’s pick for vice president is even more important than McCain’s, contrary to current popular opinion. If Obama is elected and it’s a year or two into his presidency and he’s floundering around unable to make a decision about anything maybe people will start looking for alternatives…
I’m honestly not sure if Obama understands, in his heart of hearts, the difference between being a legislator and being a president, i.e. the difference between talking and leading.
(Are we all ready for Jimmy Carter – Round 2?)
Palin’s paleo-religiosity is almost completely untakeable, anything can happen between now and the day of the election, but presently I’m leaning towards Obama. If he’s had one quality other than his voice that I get a sense of being admirable it’s a sense that he has a capacity to be more than he is, to grow — baton down the hatches if he panders to the new Left after the election, I have a sense that he will face the realpolitik with reason — it’s a faith-based sort of sense, which sucks, but a VP that thinks the universe is less than 10,000 years old, well, haven’t we had enough of what this sort of theism has done for the world? Shit.
Where is the proof that she believes in a young age of the earth?
You wouild think that these lefties who claim to be so concerned about science, would also take an interest in being objective.
insteead they have all bought into their bigoted assumptions about Chrtistians
nyomythus has not addressed the topic at hand, therefore why reward it with rebuttal? This thread is not about Sarah Palin: it is about the likely leadership style of our next President, likely to be Barack Obama.
Keep in mind that Barack Obama is even further to the Left than Jimmy Carter was/is. And also keep in mind that, while he is currently trying to triangulate carefully towards the center, he will govern from the Left. But will he do so decisively? There is no history in his background of executive and leadership roles. This Gramscian disciple of Saul Alinsky will allow the proletarian spirituality animate his policy preferences and leadership style. When he decides on something he will try to pass it off as his only adhering to the will of the people. He will, as did Lenin and other socialists, wrap his leadership decisions in the mythology of the will of the people.
The leadership in Caracas, Moscow, Havana, Tehran, and Beijing are grinning right now.
FredHjr: I think the problem is that charges such as nyomythus’s should not go unchallenged. It’s one of those memes about Palin that is so often repeated it’s becoming common “wisdom.” I’ve never seen a single indication that it’s true, and I think it’s very important to counter it, even if it’s off-topic.
O.K., neo, I do see your reasoning. However tangential nyomythus’ assertion, I suppose it does warrant some kind of rebuttal.
For the record, as an educated Roman Catholic who was years ago already in the camp of those who partially accept the evolutionary paradigm – with modifications – I still do not feel threatened by Sarah Palin’s Assembly of God hermeneutics of our texts. I have two siblings who have become Baptists and who do hew to the literalist hermeneutic, and I argue with them about this when appropriate and within reason. But I know I am not going to change their minds and, in reality, I never expected to. I am aware that theirs will never be a scientific or even theological consensus. I believe the Creator has and is achieving His/Her work in a gradual, directed way. This is the Vatican’s scientific consensus as well. The evolutionary process, where it happens, has a purpose to it. It is not random. Most Catholics I know, who are educated, tend to think this way.
I think the fear of Sarah Palin’s particular brand of Christianity is an exaggerated one and rests on the assumption that the President of the United States can move the levers to impose his or her hermeneutics upon the nation’s scientific and theological communities. The fear of the Religious Right is, in my opinion, utterly stupid. I know this because I used to be so moved by it. However, in the big picture of the world we live in I think to base one’s assessment of Sarah Palin’s likely executive qualities on the fear of this bogeyman is just bordering on the ridiculous.
What I like about Sarah Palin is her competence and her comfort with herself. She is direct and unpretentious and yet possesses the quality of an executive that is highly prized: study the problem in all its facets. Listen to all angles and viewpoints. And then ACT in a decisive manner. She doesn’t waffle, as I’ve heard from the oral orifice of her opponent, Joseph Biden, down through the years. I did not like him when I was a liberal Democrat and I still do not like him. The man oozes venality and dissimulation. He is vain and a triangulator in the worst way. Actually, I like Barack Obama more than I like Joe Biden. Biden will not be able to get away with his customary snarkiness and rambling tendencies in a debate with Sarah Palin.
Get your enemies to commit, criticize what they say, and see how the wind is blowing before you take your stand.
Mr Obama described the turmoil as the “most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression”.
http://tinyurl.com/5saebd
The most basic economic numbers completely refute Obama’s apocalyptic conclusions. We are no where near approaching anything like the great depression.
It’s the height of irresponsibility for him to talk that way, given the complexity/uncertainty factors at the hart of our economy.
It’s far-far, far, far, far from off topic, but here’ the source http://richarddawkins.net/article,3068,Palin-average-isnt-good-enough,Sam-Harris-Los-Angeles-Times
Many things may happen between now and the election, and I will remain objective, but I’m leaning hard to Obama presently. I think McCain is the best defender of liberalism in the classical sense, and I’m pulling for him — but he doesn’t get this one tiny vote for free, neither do.
Call it “The Little Engine That Could” argument.
Let’s face it, Obama could hardly shrink. He barely exists now.
But your criterion for choosing a President is his capacity to grow? Seriously? Whoa.
Lem: I agree, and said so here. I suppose I should not be surprised, but it is shocking that most people don’t seem to see how incredibly irresponsible—not to mention incorrect—Obama’s pronouncements are.
nyomythus: I read the article you linked in your comment. There is nothing in it about Palin believing the earth is no older than ten thousand years. I also just listened to that entire 15-minute video at the site you linked, but heard nothing in it that even remotely connects to this issue. What are you talking about? If there’s a moment in it when Palin proclaims her faith that the earth is younger than 10000 years, tell me what minute it occurs at. And if you are saying that the church she belongs to advocates creationism in some general way, are you really meaning to imply that this would trump her own stated words and actions on the subject? Parishioners are free to disagree with certain tenets of their church and they do, all the time, in every faith and denomination.
Palin’s so-called “ceationism” has been debunked over and over. I have read every quote she has given on the issue and it is clear she was only saying she was not against introducing it as part of some sort of airing of opinions and debate in the school system. She said this in answer to a question when she was running for governor. She did not bring it up. She did not promote it. And she further clarified in a different statement later on that she had no intention of promoting it. She has also said that as the daughter of a science teacher she is very keen on science—a point she reiterated in her interview with Sean Hannity, which I watched pretty much in entirety.
I fail to see how this is not clear; she is not a creationist, nor does she promote it. This hasn’t stopped people from portraying her as such, for partisan purposes.
See this as well.
Both Anthony Flew and Steven Hawking have, in their own ways, thoroughly debunked Rickard Dawkins’ physicalist reductionism. Both are now loosely self-described theists who used to be atheists. I find it interesting that those in the physical sciences (physics, astrophysics, and astronomy) tend more towards a theistic consensus than do those in the biological sciences. The lack of humility among those in the biological sciences (biology, chemistry, etc.) is striking, given that the laws of physics do fundamentally obtain in their realm. The laws of physics pretty much went to work right at the moment of the Big Bang (a theory that scares the dickens out of the materialists) and did not evolve.
I recommend that everyone obtain Anthony Flew’s latest book, which I read last year (the title evades me at this moment, as I am still hung over by the Aloha spirit, having just returned from the Big Island) and take note of his thorough answering to Richard Dawkins’ criticisms of Flew, Hawking, and other theists.
Dawkins and the entire community of physicalist reductionists, Marxists, and various other materialists are terrified of anything that smacks of theism. Even my variant of theism, which does accept a non-random kind of evolutionary process, is condemned by people like Dawkins because of the threat it poses to his desire for a world where no moral demands are placed upon us. Yes, that is what I accuse the physicalists of: their desire to escape judgment of their behavior and attitudes.
“…haven’t we had enough of what this sort of theism has done for the world?”
As opposed to what atheism has done for the world? (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mengistu, The Shining Path, Che Guevara, Nicolae Ceausescu, etc. ad nauseum). You really want to compare body counts and ruined lives? Really, what’s the point of using generalities so overly broad as to be meaningless?
I am speaking as someone who is non-religous but who doesn’t believe in caricatures of religious believers. Since I have yet to see a Sarah Palin quote supporting your contention of her views I think it’s entirely intellectually dishonest of you to go around stating as a fact that those are her beliefs. You’re simply projecting your idea of her religion onto her and then pretending the beliefs you have assigned to her are direct quotes of hers. That’s just wrong (besides being ridiculous and juvenile).
Even if it were true of her, I should greatly prefer someone with a simple but harmless creationist view than a Gramscian disciple of Saul Alinsky. Kudos to FredHjr for bringing up one of the most disturbing things about Obama. You need look no further than the “call to action” thuggery that goes on when anyone remotely delves into Obama’s past. It is of a sort that was practiced by the Clintons (Hillary also studied the dark arts of Saul Alinsky). Obama’s seems to have perfected what the Clinton’s only practiced. Having the power of the Executive office and Congressional lemmings and useful idiots on his side is far more terrifying than any worst case fantasist scenario re Palin.
Okay, I read your linked article, and re-listened to the video. I’m still reasoning this through — I don’t have to make up my mind till November.
Back to the point then. As the man said, “Let me clue you in.”
Obama doesn’t have a clue.
He doesn’t know that he doesn’t have a clue, since his brand of socialism doesn’t accept that you can’t cheat Mother Market.
Biden doesn’t have a clue.
He may or may not know he doesn’t have a clue.
I don’t think that Obama knows he doesn’t have a clue.
There is a bit of the old echo chamber in Obama’s assumption that bad economic news is a plus for him. To partisan progressive dems, a bad economy under a republican is a sign of botched regulation and fat cat republican / corporate greed. To a lot of other people, bad economy means we can’t afford a democrat president.
“… you can’t cheat Mother Market.”
Well put, and otherwise known as the “bottom line”.
nyomythus: one more thing. If you are going to ascribe to Palin every fringe belief of her church, then please ascribe to Obama one of the main tenets of his: Black Liberation Theology.
Lem Says:
“The most basic economic numbers completely refute Obama’s apocalyptic conclusions. We are no where near approaching anything like the great depression.”
It was pretty serious but it can be quickly turned around on Obama. While he was laying low, everyone else did stuff to stop it from escalating. McCain already slammed him for pulling the equivalent of voting present on the issue.
neo-neocon Says:
“I fail to see how this is not clear; she is not a creationist”
Also, btw, I’m not sure that the thing about the earth being only 10k years old is a mainstream belief among creationists / people who think God created the earth.
Going back to Obama: his present vote on the current crisis is the correct and sincere position. He doesn’t understand what’s going on, and neither does anybody else, but he’s at least sincere.
It’s much better than Mccains instinctive bash of “greedy, fat cat, Wall Street bankers”.
If Obama promised to always vote present on the economy (i.e. not interfere) during his whole presidency one might even consider voting for him.
Note: this is the first time ever that I had any remotely positive thought about Obama.
I saw this link over at Ace of Spades HQ,
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/022708a.html
Give it a read, it might shed some light on Obama’s silence.
Jacob is proabably closer to reality than many. Pretty darn complicated stuff and it doesn’t look like the outcome would have been much different under Bush, Obama, McCain, or others. I am disturbed by reports that in the proposed legislation for the bailout the bailers-outers will have immunity from lawsuits, tho. Anytime you exempt an administrative procedure from the Constitution it’s a bad idea.
Note: this is the first time ever that I had any remotely positive thought about Obama.
I’m glad to say, to this day I have not been afflicted 😉
I suppose I should not be surprised, but it is shocking that most people don’t seem to see how incredibly irresponsible–not to mention incorrect–Obama’s pronouncements are.
Thanks for pointing to your previous post.
nyomythus: one more thing. If you are going to ascribe to Palin every fringe belief of her church, then please ascribe to Obama one of the main tenets of his: Black Liberation Theology.
I know, rev wright and Obama’s choosen association with him is inescusible — and probaby my main contention with him; poor associations and decision making skills. But it’s an issue on both sides; attenuated and amplified that it was Obama’s preacher and not him, attenuated and amplified that it’s milder by light years milder in Palin’s case but coming directly from Palin (God’s destiny, etc .. bs); both sides pander to this religious crap, and religion once again poisons both side; religion has done nothing to help either candidate. A quick note on atheism and tyranny, many of those tyrants were using a population that had been prepared by religion to accept credulity; show me a secular state founded on the believes of Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, Einstein, etc that fell into despotism and then you’ll have something bad to say about a society founded on separation of church and state.
First, re Richard Dawkins, Dinesh D’Souza:
Second, re Obama has the capacity to grow into the job: I’m with Palin: the Presidency is not a voyage of self-discovery.
Third: I agree with neo and FredHJR and whoever else commented on the importance of a President having the self-understanding to process information and then make a decision. Pres. Bush has commented on this when he has been asked about regrets, saying(summarizing from memory)
neo pointed to this dynamic in a post quotin Kundera.
Several, approaching many, have written President Clinton’s horrifying problem with pulling the trigger on choices. President Clinton would dither long past the time when choices needed to be make, thus creating whole new sets of problems. I suspect this is b/c Pres. Clinton did not firmly know who he was and what he believed – beyond his belief in haiving the public view him as a wonderful President. Pres. Clinton’s overt narcissism trapped him. His narcissism demanded that large swaths of the nation idolize him, yet hard decisions are hard precisely b/c they might meet with largescale protest and outrage. Pres. Clinton could not bring himself to make decisions which would cause people to dislike him. He would delay and delay and delay, for as long as possible.
nyomythus,
If you are asserting that Governor Palin is cynically pandering to religious voters, I disagree.
link to neo’s post about Kundera and making decisions based on imperfect information:
http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/01/return-of-eternal-return-of.html
There is no conclusion on the origins of life, of course, but an overwhelming reasonable evidence suggest it evolved from simple cell organisms, over billions of years (some 4.5 billion) on earth. i mean the physical evidence is everywhere.
Second, re Obama has the capacity to grow into the job: I’m with Palin: the Presidency is not a voyage of self-discovery.
That’s right, it’s not a voyage of self-discovery but when you are left to choose between two factions with many negative variables, it’s all you have, especially for Obama who is almost void of any measurable ability, in the context of running for president, it’s a difficult choice to make for me, and yes he doesn’t make it easy when he refuses to speak his mind or vote his conscious — and this is a negative factor I am well aware of … all I’ve essentially said was that I’m presently ”leaning” towards Obama; I probably won’t know what I’m going to do until the ballot is in my hand.
President Clinton’s horrifying problem with pulling the trigger on choices.
That’s why, I believe, the skirmishes of the Yugoslav Civil War became Bosnia and Kosovo, Hillary didn’t want any distractions from her first Universal Health Care initiative.
He (Clinton/Gore) did one important thing towards the end of the tenure, they passed through Congress the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act — so a little credit where credit is due.
Myopic.
I’m sorry, but you neocons are myopic. You bluster about Obama changing positions. Have you been listened to John McCain?
You take pride in not following the MSM, but you have an echo chamber of your own.
Listening, rather.
Matt: We’re not mindreaders so what exactly bothers you we’ll never know.
As best I can determine, Barack Obama does not evince a proper understanding of what the office of the President of the United States’ primary responsibilities are. His FIRST responsibility is that of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He is also responsible for foreign policy, and also for appointing people to the Justice Department and to appoint judges. When I read that he has often expressed the view – and not at all to the wider American public – in private to various Left groups that he aims to shut down the ballistic missile defense program, end the F-22 Raptor program, end the Virginia Class submarine program, put on hold all new navy ship construction programs, and put on hold all new battlefield technological systems, I know that this man has neither an appreciation of the kind of world we now inhabit nor his responsibilities to the United States Armed Forces. He is unfit for command.
To state that he probably would impose no preconditions before meeting with nefarious despots and regimes for purposes of diplomacy and negotiation is a disastrous program. His advisers, Soros’ approved Carter and Clinton retreads, along with Samantha Power, counsel this. That means Iran, for example, can use its flagrant aggression in Iraq as a bargaining chip in negotiations. This is unacceptable. Anyone who cannot see this probably accepts the notion that we are the problem, even though since 1979 Iran has been at war with us and has engaged in all manner of terrorist activity against us and our allies.
Sen Joe Biden first won his seat in the U.S. Senate in November of 1972. I was a high school senior then. He took office in January of 1973 and promptly became on of the most Leftist senators in that club. He first voted to cut off funding for the Saigon government in 1974. The following year the Communists broke the Paris Treaty and invaded the South, thereby ushering in a bloodbath in Southeast Asia that our Left still refuses to accept responsibility for. You know, The Killing Fields and all that…
Biden was wrong about the Pershing II missiles in Europe.
Biden was wrong then, as he is wrong now, about missile defense. Biden was wrong about almost every major foreign policy and defense issue during his entire “illustrious” career in that most exclusive club called the U.S. Senate. Shame on the people of Delaware. One would think that relatively well-heeled state like Delaware would have more informed and reasoned citizens. Apparently not.
Sarah Palin has the right instincts, moral and intellectual. The Ivy League elites hate her because she hunts, fishes, is a lifelong NRA member, supports the Second Amendment, has a clear idea of what good and evil are (these people don’t), and does not equivocate when expressing an idea or answering a question. They hate her because she did not abort her Downs Syndrome baby when they would have done it, or may even have done it themselves. She has a large family, when they think more than two children is a sin against Gaia. Her husband is ruggedly handsome and is a blue collar worker. How quaint! (Oh, yeah, she’s gone slumming when she married him.). She played sports. She likes hockey. Hey, one of their own, the Upper Manhattan Gary Bettman took over the NHL and promptly got rid of the honor code of hockey and ruined the NHL (putting in the “instigator” rule to get rid of fighting – which made the game even more dangerous because now players cannot police their own and keep the game honest). Look, I’ve known some of these kinds of people who disparage us hayseeds. Many are REVOLTING human beings who think very highly of themselves.
They are poor judges of character and intellect and they flatter themselves to think they understand and properly appraise Sarah Palin.
Re: Richard Dawkins
As I understand it, if one believes life evolved from a single cell organism, the question becomes “What created the single cell organism?” Since the days of Darwin, we’ve come to understand that a single cell is an incredibly complicated thing. The odds of a chance combination of atoms and molecules coming together to create a single cell are massively slim. Faced with this reality, Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins have guessed that alien intelligence might’ve created the single living cell and imported it to Earth.
Therefore, it can accurately be said both Crick and Dawkins believe in Intelligent Design!
gcotharn,
It’s obvious to any intelligent observer that Dawkins is trying to make his version of science fit his ideology. I thought that was what got the Church in trouble with the scientists at the outset of the scientific revolution? Dawkins replicating the Church’s error is a scream. At least the Church eventually had the brains to admit it was wrong; it now has a rather extensive panel of scientists of all backgrounds working with the Vatican Observatory and advising theologians and having discussions with them.
What infuriates me about Dawkins is his flagrant dishonesty: he will not own up to his real reasons for his pigheadedness.
I saw him talking about the crisis yesterday and my only thought was, “What the f– does he know about the financial markets?!” And we’re going to be listening to him, and people will swoon.
The discussion on your posts below has been outstanding, very enjoyable, very informed, and I’ve learned alot. Thanks.
In a sense, Barack Obama’s candidacy is symbolic of the failure of our education system to produce citizens who can think and reason. They are woefully ignorant of how our government works and what the branches of government have responsibility for.
His candidacy testifies to the fact that a very large proportion of our people do not learn from history and do not know it to any depth at all.
As for his disdain for capitalism, which he refers to as “that ideology” in recent speeches, this man and his supporters take for granted the very prosperity that gives them the slack and space to damn the system that lays the golden eggs. Pathetic. If Euro style socialism is the new model, show me evidence that there is robust growth in the European socialist countries. Chronic high unemployment and high underemployment. Budgets that spend a very high proportion of GDP on the welfare state. Oppressive regulation of business and high costs of capital, which stymie business growth and expansion. Is this what these stupid kids want? To graduate from college, high school, or tech school and then go on the dole because there is not enough job growth.
I was a teenager and young adult during the seventies. I don’t want a return to that time. We had chronically high unemployment and underemployment, high taxes, and low business investment. The U.S. military was shredded by the Congress and by the Carter presidency. It was a low point in the nation’s contemporary history.
Are we really that stupid?
Nyomythus
show me a secular state founded on the believes of Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, Einstein, etc that fell into despotism and then you’ll have something bad to say about a society founded on separation of church and state
Show me how Palin’s references to the Deity differ from Lincoln’s references to the Deity. Please document.
A quick note on atheism and tyranny, many of those tyrants were using a population that had been prepared by religion to accept credulity
With an argument like that, you can’t lose. Blame it all on the religious people. Here is a contrary view regarding credulity and belief in religion .
BTW, I am an agnostic, formerly an atheist, but am fed up with the snarky attitudes of many towards Christianity. You might investigate the history of science, and investigate the religious roots behind science advancing in once-backward Europe from the Renaissance on, when by contrast science stagnated in China and in areas where Islam predominated.
Though you cannot tell it from the typos in my hastily composed comments: I earned a degree from Baylor University. Therefore, their study with Gallup must be the God’s truth, and don’t even think about questioning it 🙂 Amen and Sic ’em.
I have a question. When Obama is asked a question and he starts ducking and weaving, does it remind anyone else of the slacker in middle school who didn’t do the reading assignment?
FredHjr, we must be roughly the same age. I remember the Seventies. They were awful. I’m doing all I can to prevent their happening again.
On a more pleasant note: Neo, you have put together one of the more civilized sites I’ve seen. Thank you.
Oh, bother:
“When Obama is asked a question and he starts ducking and weaving, does it remind anyone else of the slacker in middle school who didn’t do the reading assignment?”
You mean the guy who’s popular with the student body, talks a good game but never does any of his own work yet advances anyway? That guy?
Yeah, I recognize him.
Here is Palin talking about religion.
Anyone have a problem with that? Would Lincoln have a problem with that? Would Jefferson have a problem with that?
gcotharn The odds of a chance combination of atoms and molecules coming together to create a single cell are massively slim.
This is what we can’t presume to know, religion nor science knows the source or first spark, religion claims to know by saying God did it; how can we know this? On design: why would a God design a fish with eye sockets but no eyes; blind fish that live below ground, or flightless birds … why does rthe human eye see upside down then correct for this in the brain — that’s a pretty poor design or a possibly a product of some sort of evolution; again we can’t presume to know, but we have something called “reasonable evidence” — it’s what we use to convict criminals all the time, for example.
Gringo
Well, Lincoln wasn’t a theist, nor Jefferson.
nyomythus, that does not answer my question.
By the way, the “ET Hypothesis” doesn’t answer anything; it just pushes it further back. If life came from elsewhere (because it was unlikely to begin here) then how did it begin in that elsewhere?
The evidence for how life unfolded strongly suggests a Greater Intelligence at work. The mathematical probability of the right genes and protein coming together in just the right way goes against randomness. I subscribe to a kind of evolutionary design-intelligent design hybrid. I like to think the blueprint for the final product was nascent in the earlier forms, responding to the right conditions in time.
The Bible is not a science text nor is it a history text. It is theology, which is to say it uses human language to express a basic faith in the goodness of life and the purpose and love of the Creator. It is not about the HOW of things. That is the proper sphere of science, which I am sure Thomas Aquinas would agree with. Rather, the Bible is more about what all this means and the why of it all, which in itself is a religious insight that evolved over centuries of communal theological reflection among the Jews and later Christians. Our understanding of God has changed over time, as we have struggled to understand and have been blessed with insight. Speaking of insight, the Jesuit Bernard Lonergan wrote a book, “Insight,” which is a classic in contemporary epistemology in the Thomistic tradition.
Gringo — that Baylor University study actually places Christianity outside of the realm of superstition, Christianity, the other monotheism, are within the realm of the supernatural thus the realm of superstition. Paganism, monotheism, polytheism, whatever, all of it has a common thread, which is an authority by faith; faith is not a virtue, it’s a surrender of reason, cry as we might but we should grow up and get used to it. Separation of church and state is the cornerstone of democracy, because religion, as the founders recognized, makes the possible — impossible, where there is a humanist answer, which is all we know that we have, religion makes claims to the supernatural; that no that can not be done because it was ordained to us by God, or promised only to those few, for forbidden for this or that; I don’t want another White House with people that have respect for this, though realistically some pandering to region must be done — it’s commanded a monopoly of human thought and progress for thousands of years — and we see how it brings ruin to human history and the world everyday; though we are far from shaking it, like we’ve shaken away astrology for astronomy, alchemy for chemistry, some day philosophy (the Enlightenment principles?) may finally leave faith-based thinking to history, if we have any self-respect and hope for the future of humanity.
nyomythus,
I am always in favor of the separation of church and state, as understood by the Founding Fathers, which means no state church or favored church. It was never meant to ban religious beliefs from informing how people weigh the issues. Moreover, we educated Catholics understand how it became urgent that there be no official church. We were both the victims of the abuse and also the abusers (centuries ago).
Trust me when I say this: we Christians are no threat to your freedom and liberties. I would never be in favor of compelling you to hew to my beliefs and way of life.
To the list of the horrors of brought about by atheism, add please the first one in the West: the Terror from the French Revolution.
I’m a computer programmer.
The idea that DNA came into being by pure chance is so absurd that I have pity on the peopel who believe that.
Very interesting for the community here: “TEDTalks Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html
I’m with you, Vince P, on that one. The probability of all of this being random chance is staggeringly low as to blow the mind. In fact, it takes a stronger kind of faith to believe in that than to believe in a Creator.
But, our way of life allows for people to hew to their own reasonings. I believe in that and I respect it. The Founders were well aware of the bloody history of religious strife in Europe. Wisely, we avoid that mistake. I consider atheism to be a kind of religious faith. I may disagree with it, but it is protected in our country. The only “religion” I object to being in our country is Islam. I consider it a cult and an ideology greatly at odds with our way of life.
But I marvel at how hysterically fearful the atheists are of what is developing in this convergence and conversation between science and theology. I think it is a beautiful and blessed occurrence.
Fossil records, for one, are a physical evidence that is chosen to be ignored here, it alone makes a reasonable suggestion that religion can’t begin to match, religion has no explanation for it; nor for the geological and meteorological sciences that explain why hundreds of thousands of people seem to die by God’s judgment, why microorganism exist and are the source of bacterial and viral infections that plague humanity — religion has no explanation because it could not have possibly of had any explanation, because it was more than likely, dare we assume, or should reason suggest, religion was invented by people — who had no other explanation for anything, so having some invented explanation is better than no explanation at all, how could early-age human civilizations have ever governed anyone without some invented explanations of the world and nature that they could not possibly begin to understand, it’s okay, a challenge to faith is difficult. it’s okay to believe or not believe, just don’t use it to govern me, or make excuses for it’s validity because a magisteria of credulity on some level will corrupt a magisteria of reason. It not what we can hope for in this election, but it’s something we can aspire to, to have a modern day Jefferson or Lincoln, freethinker, striving with to meet the challenges of the contemporary world with enlightenment principles, human freedom and individuality.
Nyomythus please try TinyURL
The problem with Barnett is that a map is only as good as the interpreter, assuming that the map is accessible to begin with.
His example of China turning us down on Iraq, it’s actually worst considering China’s internet restrictions as a backdrop.
Does anybody believe that China would bail out Mexico the way Clinton did? (against his own polls btw, a poster child of term limits – good or bad) Has China shown any capacity to act beyond it’s own self interest considering it’s increasing “defense” budget?
What Barnett calls the leviathan is in reality the only insurance policy that would bail us out in case China can’t or wont choose to read his neat and entertaining map.
I can see Barnett giving that “briefing” to Woodrow Wilson before his inaugural 😉
The most inconvenient facts for neo-Darwinism are those that are revealed by fossil record and molecular genetics (I wrote a peer-reviewed monograph on this subject, published by my university). First, evolution can not be reduced to adaptation: there are lots of inadaptive evolutionary trends, which now constitute the most prominent part of current paleontology. Such regularities are known as Nomogenesis (this was a title of a monograph published in 1921 in Petrograd by professor Lev Semenovich Berg). Nomogenesis, or directed evolution, is a scientific formulation of Intelligent Design, now recognized, for example, as a Low of homological series, established by Nikolay Vavilov – an analog of Mendeleev’s Periodical Law in chemistry. Second, molecular genetics established beyond doubt that natural selection is a conservative force: a brake, not a motor of evolution. That makes role of a motor (and driver) vacant. Contemporary science can not propose veritable candidates for these roles. That is, darwinism is now a debunked theory. The fact that it still has lots of adherents in education system shows only retardation of this system, its inability to assimilate in time advances of science.
That is, darwinism is now a debunked theory.
In my estimation, the value in “The Origin of the Species” still as valid as the day it was published, for it elegantly showed what our powers of observation could do.
Some people could not get past the lofty title… so the book has suffered ever since.
In short, professor Gould would disagree with you.
http://tinyurl.com/3jvmcq
Reading comments here about Sarah Palin’s religion may lead some to conclude that J F Kennedy would be unelectable today.
I can’t think of anything more depressing.
Seriously.
Intelligent Design
I don’t mean to be rude but as with the evolving interpretations of “The origin of the spices”, my interpretation of “Intelligent Design” is that it seems to embrace more than what it can prove.
My mother calls it – eating with your eyes.
In fact, professor Gould made the most valuable contribution to debunking of Darwinism. First, he elaborated the concept of puctuated equilibrium, showing that species originate instantly on geological time scale, that is, speciation is not evolutionary, but revolutionary process. Additionally, this happens in a very tiny populations, probably, in progeny of a few individuals. This means that number random choices needed to generate new traits reduces orders of magnitude, from billions to few hundreds, making probability of such events due really random variation a miracle. Second, he has shown that during most of their lifetime species are stable, all modifications occure only in short periods of geographical spread, of order 5% of all time of their existence. Yes, natural selection can explain many racial traits, but has almost nothing to do with speciation. And, of course, he is known to debunk Richard Dawkins views on evolutuon. Gould was self-declaring Marxist, of Trotskite variety, that is why he was able to replace evolution by Permanent Revolution.
“Lofty” is understatement. If in his popular book Darwin were as scrupulous as in his scientific papers, he would be obliged to name it “Origination of Geographical Races”, but it still would be too lofty. The proper title, probably, should read like “Modification of shape and size of beaks of ground finches at Galapagos Archipelago”. But derive a whole theory of evolution of all life from a single example of a single species in a very distinctive geographical setting is very audacious, indeed. This is a feat of an ideologue, not of a scientist.
It worth to note that Darwin was not an ornitologist. His speciality was barnacles (Cirripedia), and his monograph on this group still is a handbok for two dozen specialists on this group. About birds he knew as much as the most bird-watchers. But he had choosen to illustrate his theory by fictitious example of a single wolf hunting a single deer. He knew nothing about deers and wolves, even the fact that wolves hunts in packs. About barnacles he knew everything, but somehow failed to use this knowledge in development of his theory. Another proof that Darwinism is not a science, but an ideology.
I am certain that most who have posted here are aware of it, but, perhaps the reason Obama has said little as far as the current meltdown is concerned is the fact his economic advisers were at the helm of Fannie and Freddie in the note too distant past.
br: I totally agree with that.
I think that’s also the reason why the Democrat Congressional Leadership is also very quiet
nyomythus, you still did not answer my question. I will rephrase the question. Given the quote from Governor Palin, what problem would Jefferson or Lincoln have with such a person operating in the political arena ?
Your going on and on about separation of church and state did not answer my question, because Governor Palin’s statement made it clear that she also supports separation of church and state. Have you ever heard of the phrase that begins with “Render unto Caesar….”? Governor Palin and I have, though she does not share my agnosticism.
There is a difference between bringing one’s religious beliefs to the political arena, such as many in the anti-slavery movement did in the 19th century, and advocating the establishment of a state church, which is what the First Amendment discusses.
The point of the Baylor studies is as follows. If being a churchgoing Christian is evidence of credulity, then this credulity compared to non-churchgoers should be manifest in other areas, such as beliefs in ghosts or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. Not so: non-churchgoers were more likely to believe in the likes of Bigfoot. That does not point to non-churchgoers being less credulous than churchgoers. If non-churchgoers are less credulous than churchgoers, then why the heck are they more likely to believe in the likes of Bigfoot? You did not address this at all. (FWIW, I do not attend church.) As further evidence of non-churchgoers not being free of credulity, consider the reaction of secular Europe to ∅bama.
Faith does not need to mean the surrender of reason, although for some people it will, and for a few it will place severe demands on their powers of reason.
Read C.S.Lewis, for example. Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain (for the discussion on the improbabilities and unlikelyhoods of religion as we know it), and Miracles. Or Chesterton, most particularly Orthodoxy. Or try to take on Aquinas, if you can.
“To the list of the horrors of brought about by atheism, add please the first one in the West: the Terror from the French Revolution.”
It does really seem that unmoderated violence by those enlightened ones who know “the truth” in those situations is more than just a fluke. It’s happened too many times and in too many different places to be explained away as coincidence. It appears to be more of a feature than a bug of that sort of philosophy.
But, hey, have you seen what those religious people have done…
…another proof that Darwinism is not a science, but an ideology. saying it doesn’t make it so, no matter how hard we wish to force it to fit with a personal God magisteria, which is what religion claims to KNOW beyond a shadow of any doubt; see Occam’s Razor.
It’s actually a theory, as we know is a distinction that is difficult, and we don’t care if it’s difficult or not if it’s measurable then it’s pursuit until debunked, to sustain because the scientific process doesn’t rely on guess work, but evidence.
Darwinism: A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
I don’t mean to demean nyomythus’ constant harping on the point of Palin being untrustworthy because she is a Christian in the literalist hermeneutical tradition. But I still do not grasp the point of his fears. How would a President Palin be a threat to the Republic? I used to be on the Left many years ago during the late seventies on through to about 1987. At the time I was (and still am) a practicing Catholic, tending to be (still) a liberal Catholic and because of who I was many fellow travelers were not comfortable with me, because I was a Christian and a Catholic. I in turn was not comfortable with the Republican Party’s cozy relationship with more literalist Christians. Yet, over time I have come to realize that my fears were irrational. Plus, I think I now understand why my fellow traveling socialists were not comfortable with me. It took some years for me to understand why this was so, and it is hardly flattering of them.
The Left sees all those in the Judaeo-Christian tradition as a threat to their project of a world where they are not constrained by the influence of our moral tradition. THAT is what this is all about. They do not want us to have any influence at all, because they do not like our ethical traditions. They prefer the ethics of the socialist utopia, the hedonist paradise of physicalist reductionism, where there are no restraints and where government bails them out of the natural outcomes of their biological urges. I know these people well, because I once rubbed elbows with them. I could see what was evolving in our society and how it has so negatively impacted the lives of children. Single parent households are not working out well. There have been periods of frightening levels of the spread of STD’s. Kids growing up without any sense of restraint over what they should and should not do in life.
Welcome to the opening phases of the statist/socialist utopia. Heaven on earth. There are no objective truths. Ethics are entirely based on what is expedient to maximize our passions and our wants. The government exists to take the risk out of life and to underwrite our personal and moral failures.
Of course a Creator is a threat to these people. If there is a Creator, then this Creator can make demands of us and expect us to treat each other in a certain way. And this Creator’s will is critical of both the Left and the Right wing, and all areas in between. No one has a monopoly on righteousness, but the Creator.
I have spoken these words directly to a few of my former fellow travelers. One of them understands and is open to the ethical import of it all. Two of them militantly reject it simply because they do not consent to the moral demands. This is insolence of a most corrupt kind. If by intellectual slight of hand they can, in their own minds, obviate the necessity of a Creator, then they are back in a world where there are no absolute truths and no bedrock moral principles which make demands of us.
Given the quote from Governor Palin, what problem would Jefferson or Lincoln have with such a person operating in the political arena ?
I think Jefferson and Lincoln would be inspired that a women were in such a position to archive such a high office, they would more than likely admire her tenacity and maverick qualities; I’m backing off a bit on suggestions that Palin is a hardcore creationist, but in the spirit of your question I think Jefferson and Lincoln would not disregard a suspicion of credulity with statemenst like “get right with God” or other such talk — we need to “get right” with the emancipation of mankind and superstitious thinking, might have been their reply.
There is a difference between bringing one’s religious beliefs to the political arena, such as many in the anti-slavery movement did in the 19th century, and advocating the establishment of a state church, which is what the First Amendment discusses.
Ha, speaking of this, where is the warrant for human slavery found? For genocide found? For misogyny found? For sexual and dietary restrictions found? …Scripture. Religion creates and finds solutions for its incompatibility with human nature. And the first amendment doesn’t just discuss it, it demands it, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” — which was based on Jefferson’s “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” which is much more telling in the spirit of what the founders thought on this topic. In the strongest language that could be written and accepted at the time, the Constitution was ratified though coalitions in an era when religion was the sole monopoly of all human authority and had been for as long as history was recorded. The American experiment continues to scatter that monopoly to this day. If religion is going to be used guess and presume then we might as well just roll dice, but it’s worse than rolling dice because what one religion says is not what another religion says, and this is the source of what ruins the lives of millions of people, generation after generation. What I’m getting at is that it’s unfortunate that we must, we have no other recourse, to, act under the realpolik of the real world (this is the way it is, and this is what we can do to fix it now, Iraq for example was a humanitarian and political crisis that had gone on too long, would have continued to go on and get worse before completely imploding perhaps the entire region, it was in our future inevitably and it was best to respond to that crisis at the hour of our choosing, no matter what Bush’s reason were — what I’ve stated were my reasons for supporting regime change) I just don’t like seeing the neocon community (and your classical liberal cousins) attenuating our intellectual and creative progressive edge because of a pandering to religious politics (at least mum it down, keep to a bare minimum) that was perhaps our best trait as Leftist, we must both respond to the world as it is with what we have and simultaneously peer hopefully into the future.
These uppity atheists seem to have no uinderstanding that their ability to be tolerated and live in Liberty in soceity is a direct conssequence of Christianity. It is Christian belief in the inidivudal dignity of each person, and that each man has his own personal relationship with God which led to the freedom of conscience.
That they now begin to turn the tables and declare Christians to be the intolerable ones is getting to be something I can no longer bear.
…of Palin being untrustworthy because she is a Christian in the literalist hermeneutical tradition. But I still do not grasp the point of his fears.
Well you guys have put so many “this is what he means” and presumption in my mouth that you actually believe that they are my thoughts in the context that you choose for me. Don’t do this, you deprive yourself of so much when you do.
nyomythus writes:
And it was Christianity, expressed in England, that suppressed the global slave trade. The abolitionist movement was primarily Christian. You might also see what Rodney Stark has to say on the subject in Victory of Reason. (Yes, a controversial book. It rips up a lot of old beliefs by comparing them with fact. Make up your own mind.)
Misogyny certainly doesn’t need religion; Kim Jong Il has three wives. Sexual restrictions preserve civilization by creating families with participating and responsible fathers. When that is destroyed, we fall back either to full barbarism or to Sparta/Zulu rule, dependent on conquest and slaves. In either case the physical and intellectual patrimony is spent or squandered. As to dietary restrictions … if that is the worst ‘evil’ of religion, you are reaching very, very far.
I ask, once again, where is the theocracy in our government, in our country? Where is the violation of the separation of Church and State, as understood in the minds of the Founders? The State does not compel nyomythus and those who think like him to observe religious laws or attend church or synagogue.
I still resent the way this thread has been hijacked by this completely off-topic discussion.
The original topic deserved a fuller exchange. The lack of economic and financial education in Barack Obama’s background lays bare his inability to grasp what is happening and why. If you have to totally rely on advisers in order to get a clue about what is going on, you are in serious trouble. I mean SERIOUS trouble.
When in his recent public statements he makes reference to economic thinking as “that ideology” and “being wedded to an ideology” – all meant as code words his socialist supporters understand to mean capitalism, I think we can see the outlines of a brain that sees the world in entirely – ENTIRELY – different terms.
Let’s get this topic back on track to what it is supposed to be about. People like nyomythus live their lives unmolested by us. We don’t hunt them down and hang them or burn them. We don’t snare them and throw them into prison, to be interrogated by clerical inquisitors and forced to retract their own particular faith. We don’t force them to live their lives the way we live. It would seem to a rational person that this would be enough. I would settle for it. If you leave me alone and leave me in peace, what complaint should I have if others live differently, think differently, and have their own particular beliefs? Really?
And if the gradual convergence of many people in the scientific community with theologians and churches is going on, what of it to the person who is free to reject theism and live unmolested by us? How are we a threat to them? We simply state, in discussions all across the world on this topic, that scientific and theoretical atheism more and more is dead. But people are still free to reject theism and live in peace. Our laws and our system of government cannot compel them to be otherwise. It burns them that we theists do have a voice in the debate about the shape and content of our government’s policies. It rankles them to no end, but the same standards do not apply to them. They want to shut us out of the debates because we bring our values to the discussion. This is fascistic and totalitarian, and it is no surprise at all that, starting with the French Revolution on down through all the modern Marxist/Communist revolutions they have profusely shed blood to eradicate us Jews and Christians from the utopian experiments they have tinkered with.
It is not enough for them that we leave them alone. They want us gone. They want no echoes reverberating through history of our expressions of the dignity of the human being, the bonds we have with each other and the ethics which respect those.
If they can’t have the world they way they want it, they want us dead.
Vince P:
“The idea that DNA came into being by pure chance is so absurd that I have pity on the peopel who believe that.”
No need for the pity. If DNA was left here by a god, it was a god that wasnt interested in directing the outcome. The fossil record suggests that much randomness. DNA had a precursor. Probably RNA. The chance that the polymer assembled itself were low dosent preclude that it didnt happen at all. You do not have a viable alternative scientific theory.
nyomythus Says:
“Fossil records, for one, are a physical evidence that is chosen to be ignored here, it alone makes a reasonable suggestion that religion can’t begin to match, religion has no explanation for it”
Not true… they’re saying they doubt random changes did it all. Not that life didn’t evolve / get to places it is via stages.
If you’re already an Obama fan you probably think this is evidence of his lofty post-partisan superiority as well as his depth of thought.
All I know is, the economy will probably play better for Democrats at the moment because the Republicans are always associated with big business (true or not, that’s the case). Or that is, unless Obama says something really crazy, which I doubt will happen.
As for the evolution debate, science will continue on, and until they have something better to offer it will stand. I also highly doubt something else is going to come along unless it’s the Second Coming.
Why is the probability of life starting randomly greater than the probability of a super powerful being existing?
Speaking of fossils, there may be a new fossil shortly.
Take a look at the poll over at Althouse’ blog. Can the msm and the pollsters actually be that far off?
Man oh man.
This comment section has been charging toward self-parody for quite a while but with this post it’s flat gone round the bend.
It’s certainly legitimate to question how Obama would have handled the current crisis were he president, but we actually have a president in office right now. Remember him? And for this president, the handling of this crisis is not theoretical at all.
And what he is doing is handing a $700 billion check — the equivalent of another Iraq war — to Wall Street so that these corporations need not be held accountable for their own bad decisions. And all with no public debate, little oversight or accountability, little or no benefit for taxpayers.
Is it me, or is this a complete repudiation of everything that conservatives have been trumpeting for the last 40 years? Deregulation? Shrink the federal government? Free markets? Pick yourself up by your own bootstraps?
All of them are out the window.
All of you good conservatives who have opposed nationalized healthcare as socialism might want to explain why it is that, under a Republican president, the federal government now owns the largest insurance company is the country.
You sit here endlessly arguing DNA and fossil records and how many atheists can dance on the head of a pin while the most fundamental underpinnings of your philosophy lie in tatters at your feet.
Surreal.
“Well you guys have put so many ‘this is what he means’ and presumption in my mouth that you actually believe that they are my thoughts in the context that you choose for me. Don’t do this, you deprive yourself of so much when you do.”
Which is an interesting comment on your part, since that’s exactly what you were doing with Sarah Palin at the beginning of this thread. Exactly. And now you probably see why some of us were annoyed by it, although I think maybe you have moderated your position as this thread has progressed – which is good.
“I ask, once again, where is the theocracy in our government, in our country? Where is the violation of the separation of Church and State, as understood in the minds of the Founders? The State does not compel nyomythus and those who think like him to observe religious laws or attend church or synagogue.”
And even more to the point, the government (and the Constitution) doesn’t impose a religious test for government employment. You don’t have to be a member of the “correct” religion to be part of the government.
“…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” – US Constitution, Article VI, Section 3
That was real problem in Europe at the time. To have political power you needed to be a member of the correct religion. The so-called separation of church and state doesn’t mean that if you want to hold a government job you can’t be a religious person (as some people are trying very hard to argue nowadays) but rather you can be a member of any religion and still be part of the government. In other words, no matter your religion, you have equal rights.
As I said before, I’m not a religious person, but I don’t particularly respect people who are basically saying that religious people ought to be treated as second-class citizens and not have the full rights of other citizens. Especially since the Constitution specifically says that is illegal.
Yes, kamper, it does. Actually, every American’s philosphy does.
Since we now own the largest insurance company in America, it should be a piece of cake to get nationalized health care rolling, right?
As one who believes that things like this don’t happen by accident, and roughly every ten years we have a blow up similar to this (for the last 30 years, anyway), I believe it is time to throw out all elected officials, and even more importantly, all bureaucrats.
A lot of folks inside the beltway have forgotten who works for whom.
I realize you are trying to blame it all on republicans, but that dog won’t hunt. You know it too.
Kamper:
“And what he is doing is handing a $700 billion check – the equivalent of another Iraq war – to Wall Street so that these corporations need not be held accountable for their own bad decisions.”
That’s government mandated bad decisions. Lets get it right.
nyomythus: From Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, about slavery, the Civil War, and the diety:
Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
He sure said a mouthful didnt he neo? He certainly did.
Ever hear the FDR D-Day Prayer that he did over the radio? I was shocked that that happened. I never heard about it until recently
harry McHitlerburtonstein the Conservative Extremist writes
Unfortunately, no Democratic Congress will repeal the Community Reinvestment Act. And only a very secure Republican Congress could.
What’s frightening is that the same Democratic Congress is determined to let expire the repeal of the double taxation of dividends. I’m convinced that this double taxation helped to create the Clinton stock bubble, by bidding up the price of growth over income, making it even more attractive for further investment … until the bubble burst.
kamper, you ascribe to conservatives unhinged views of market absolutists. Nobody here believes that markets can not fail. Thay can, of course, and when this happens, it is time for government intervention. Financial institution that are “to big to to fall” are clear cases of natural monopoly, and all natural monopolies should be regulated. The quality of this regulation is another question. All classics of market self-regulation theory explicitly described neccessary conditions for efficiency of self-regulation: the number of independent market participants should be large enough so nobody have the power to manipulate prices by his decisions. That is, market should be protected from monopolization. The very existence of government-sponsored behemots violates this condition and create a danger of collapse in case of imprudent decisions of the regulator.
Obviously (thankfully) most who come in here do not watch CNN. I watch Glenn beck on CNN on occasion.
During a commercial break, and a following news blurb, CNN stated that Palin never said the earth is 4,000 years old. It was a rumor started by a blogger in Washington state. They had the blogger on, explaining it. He thought it was funny. Matt Damon is stupid. I think that’s funny.
From what I’ve studied of Lincoln he was a deist, who struggled with the notion of a personal God. Many believers and non-believers float in and out of varieties and convictions of belief, see Mother Theresa. I myself floated from belief in a personal God, to deism, to complete non-belief — and it may circle around again — I’m open to that possibility. But when you advocate the study of creationism we should recognize and should consider showing some contempt for what that belief entails. We don’t give equal time for discussing that the world is flat, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth, we know what creation entails and I don’t have to spell it out here. There is no evidence for creation, hypothesis perhaps — there is a lot of evidence for evolution thus it rises to the distinction of ”theory” which is a high place in science. Again I said I’ve backed off from any suggestion, though none was made, that Palin is a ”hardcore” creation, which I never suggested (hardcore meaning “ramming it down everyone’s throat”) — Lincoln was no doubt saying what needed to be said to sooth and heal the nation; okay … a little dissonance is just what the doctor order in the real world sometimes. As for Palin, it is her belief and that’s her business but it questions her decision making skill, too. Many here may be offended by this challenge, but there is another side of this coalition that is offended too, for reasons stated. And, he he ho ho, no that’s not what I was doing, I haven’t demanded anything of anyone. Again, Well you guys have put so many “this is what he means” and presumption in my mouth that you actually believe that they are my thoughts in the context that you choose for me. Don’t do this, you deprive yourself of so much when you do.
Why do some people keep comparing Obama’s lack of experience to Palin? She is not running for the Presidency. He has about 150 days of actual time as a US Senator for God’s sake. He tells us a military option is not off the table as far as Iran goes, yet was/is totally against our presence in Iraq. He can’t even connect the dots.
How many times so-called “progressives” need to be reminded that modern creationism does not deny the fact of evolution? What it does deny is Darwinist interpretation of this fact; but Darwinism is not a science, too, it is a philosophy – and a rather obsolete one.
Sergey, you might be reminded that the “modern creationism” you mention only came about after the science proved that the Earth is round, not the center of the universe and not 4,000 years old.
As the science advances, we find your deity seems to have had less and less real apparent influence in the world. Maybe its not such a stretch to imagine that a supreme being probably doesn’t exist.
Goesh: Why do some people keep comparing Obama’s lack of experience to Palin? She is not running for the Presidency. He has about 150 days of actual time as a US Senator for God’s sake. He tells us a military option is not off the table as far as Iran goes, yet was/is totally against our presence in Iraq. He can’t even connect the dots.
I know it’s stunning, Obama has less experience yet he’s running for President, he’s done little to nothing in congress in his short time there; for better or worse. Plain has done a little of something, and fairly amazing work at that, and yet may become President de facto if McCain dies in office, a morbid thought but nevertheless a heightened possibility in comparison to Obama, yet McCain’s mother certainly has good genes for aging, it really all cuts down the middle for me, which means I’m not leaning in either direction now, but simply and completely undecided. It certainly helps to talk about it all … and yeah yeah what ever.
Harry, as science advances it finds more and more facts of indeterminism in the fabric of universe, so more points where extra-natural forces can manifest themselves. Progress of science is also progress of humility and understanding of inherent limitations of scientific method as such.
Where was all this obsessive focus on John Edwards in 2004? And even this year.. How was Edwards any more “quialified” than anyone else.
It was already known 3500 years ago that Torah is a book for a thousand generations. No wonder that every century a new interpretation of the same text is found: this is built-in property of this text and the rules of its interpretation. Science (at least, in Hebrew tradition since Maimonides) was considered as a tool of better understanding of Scripture.
Sergey:
“Harry, as science advances it finds more and more facts of indeterminism in the fabric of universe,…”
They do? Where?
… so more points where extra-natural forces can manifest themselves. “
“Extra-natural forces”? Im sorry, that doesnt sound very scientific. More like a leap of faith if you ask me.
It’s not a book for the cure of measles (medicine), for democracy (law and philosophy), for the discovery of other earth like planets in other galaxies (astrology), for the explanation of weather patterns (meteorology), because it is a book for the people of 3,500 years ago, books like this have retarded human advancement on all these levels and more; enlightenment and theism have always been at each other, with theism holding all the cards in it’s monopoly on everything, we’ve carved out a corner for human enlightenment, and religion will never again fully dominate the evidence-based authority of science and reason. This is why we fight militant Islamism.
The Bible is SOOOOOOOOOOO backwards that somehow the culture that was based on it became the most advanced civilization in history of the world.
There are two cultures in this world in which people with ordinary education can read texts their ancestors wrote two thousand years ago: the Chinese and the Jews. And the PRC, through it’s Orwellian ‘reforms’ has largely thrown away that ability; only Taiwan continues to preserve it.
To Harry: 1) Quantum mechanical indeterminism. Quantum objects, like elementary particles, can not be described deterministically. As Shredinger shown, this quality can be translated from micro-world to macro-world by high-sensitive equipment (see “Shredinger cat” paradox).
2) Non-linear dynamics, for example, strange attractors. Known for “butterfly effect”: infinitesimal disturbance can qulitatevely change the behavior of a system. That is why long-term weather prediction is not possible.
3) Singularly disturbed differential equations. This give rise to chaos (in fluid dynamics – to turbulence).
And yes, extra-natural forces are excluded from science, and rightly so. Science is exploration of natural phenomena, supernatural causation is beyond its scope and competence. This shows limitations of scientific method, and nothing else. But reality is more complex, and the most important aspects of it belong to realm of theology.
nyomythus, astrology has nothing to do with discovery of exoplanets, it is occult science of making horoscopes. May be, you meant astronomy? If you do not know the difference between astrology and astronomy, you are a complete ignoramus.
nyomythus: To make record straight, astronomy can not find Earth-like planets in other galaxies, does not even attempt this, only in our own Galaxy Milky Way. Up to date, it has not found even a single Earth-like planet, only Jupiter-like planets. It seems, your knowlege is based on tabloids and comics, not on peer-reviewed literature.
Yeah, but Sergey, all these things suggest randomness. I dont see the the intelligent design or direction in any of this. To me you sound like your making my points, not yours.
“”we’ve carved out a corner for human enlightenment, and religion will never again fully dominate the evidence-based authority of science and reason.
nyomythus””
The hallmark of a blossoming religion is its insistance on newfound enlightenment. I suppose those immersed in such movements are the last to see it. At the least a red flag should pop up for any thinking man when opposing views must be silenced instead of offered voice.
Do not explain me what Bible is. I can read it in Hebrew – you can not. And do not explain me what science is: my job is making translations and reviews of English language scientific literature for Russian Academy of Sciencies.
Whal looks like randomness to atheist, is Providence for believer. It is impossible in principle to tell one from another by any statistical test. See the famous book of Carl Yung “Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle.”
The Bible is the most amazing book in the world.
Meanwhile the Republicans are making the country into a Socialist empire – but only for the very rich. The People’s Republic of Wall Street. There is never any reason again to believe it when Republicans say they want smaller government or a free market. Also if a Republican ever says that 100 million for children’s health care is too much they should be reminded of their recent actions. The bottom line they throw out their principles when they see dollar signs.
It was already known 3500 years ago that Torah is a book
……Do not explain me what Bible is. I can read it in Hebrew
Just say you are a Jew believer and your Holy Book is Torah not The Bible?
Are afraid to tell the truth all the truth?
Sorry to cut and paste, but this is interesting!
HORSERACE – Cheeseheads Love McCain and Palin
Two updates of note to
this post:
There are new polling numbers out for the Green Bay region,
putting McCain ahead, 49-41.
Second, a Fox News producer puts the attendance margin between Obama and McCain/Palin, estimating Obama’s crowd at 6,000 and the GOP ticket at 10,500-11,000.
nyomythus, astrology has nothing to do with discovery of exoplanets, it is occult science of making horoscopes. May be, you meant astronomy? If you do not know the difference between astrology and astronomy, you are a complete ignoramus.
Of course I did, you really leaped on that cheap shot like the white on the rice.
Matt,
Here are a few things to consider before you castigate the nation for being a “Republican empire.”
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were creations of the federal government to help low income have access to mortgage financing so they could own their own homes. In 1977 President Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which was supposed to put teeth into a mandate to help poorer communities have access to bank financing for homes and businesses. In 1995, President Clinton asked his Attorney General Janet Reno to end the practices of certain banks to restrict financing from certain environs, and she made sure that the banks went beyond the letter of the law.
The current financial crisis owes to the fact that the securitization of these sub prime loans from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, having to be quarterly marked to market, have proven to be of such dubious quality that they cannot be reliably valued. Republican presidents and Congresses have kept the low income mortgage financing intact. Including the current POTUS.
More of our poor are able to have access to better quality housing than what is available to the poor of the so-called compassionate socialist Western European countries. We leaned that low income housing developments turn into bleak, dreary, crime-ridden neighborhoods, like Clichy sous Bois in France. We learned that people who own their own homes and condos take better care of them and are invested in their communities. This is infinitely more compassionate than what is found in the socialist world.
And the taxpayer is going to have to bail out (i.e. subsidize) the program. Yeah, heartlessness…
In a way, I hope Obonga does win this election so that his aspirations for Euro style socialism can be tried and seen to be the failure that it always has been. Only then, I think, will the Left in the United States finally be discredited and we can begin to rebuild the nation’s economy and its defensive/deterrence posture. That way the KosKiddies and their cohorts can be given the big rejection from voters who learned a lesson.
“Whal looks like randomness to atheist, is Providence for believer.”
Alright Sergey. Its still is no more the case for teaching “Intelligent design” in the classroom than current AGW evidence would support strict carbon emission restrictions. Let’s settle with that.
harry McHitlerburtonstein the Conservative Extremist Says:
“No need for the pity. If DNA was left here by a god, it was a god that wasnt interested in directing the outcome. The fossil record suggests that much randomness. DNA had a precursor. Probably RNA. The chance that the polymer assembled itself were low dosent preclude that it didnt happen at all. You do not have a viable alternative scientific theory”
I think it is not an accident that most of the scientific skeptics are people with a background in mathematics. They’re saying the odds of pure random chance creating what we have are just too big for them to accept… especially considering that many systems in the body had to develop in tandem (which really sets the odds off).
I tend to think maybe there is just more to evolution than random chance (which is another way of saying I have doubts about the existing theory). I don’t think we really understand all the ways cells might be communicating (re: see slime molds, we can’t explain how they exist / do what they do) and whether other bodies might have a network.. with some other kind of intelligence / awareness… we can’t detect (re: that might be making changes)… We also can’t explain why humans are still evolving (and at such fast rates) given the lack of natural selection…
Neither I nor Palin propose teach Intelligent Design in schools. As I said many times, both Darwinism and Creationism are philosophies, nor scientific disciplines. They should not be taught in schools as sciencies. But this does not mean that teacher should suppress a free discussion in class on these topics. Such questions naturally arise when studying biology, and pupils deserve honest answers: what is known, what is doubtfull, what is a total mystery.
I dont have much of an argument with you there Sergey, providing its an open an honest discussion that doenst detract from the lesson plan. I recently went thru a couple of classes this summer that tended to venture close to editorializing. Guess in which direction?
So far ideology, not religion dominates the academic bias. Im all for the US political pendulum swinging to the right (though not religiously), however, the classroom should be neutral ground as much as possible.
Nyo has been automatically biased against religions and have said so. That kind of faith based reasoning is not something that would be wise to use in judging potential Presidential or VP candidates.
I don’t make it automatic, I don’t subscribe to it, religion make it’s biases automatically not me — I didn’t pen the holy books, other men before me did. And “faith based reasoning is not something that would be wise to use in judging” correct, it isn’t good for judging anything … precisely my point. Let’s scooch on down, scooch on down the road.
Alchemy is the art of manipulating life, and consciousness in matter, to help it evolve, or to solve problems of inner disharmonies.