Apparently they are. Check this article, Sun releases NFS as open source, or this one, Sun loosens its grip on NFS. Alas, it looks like it's going to be released under YAWSL (Yet Another Wacky Sun License), but it's apparently only for the Transport Independent Remote Procedure Call (TI-RPC) protocol.
What I can't believe is why somebody would honestly believe standardized testing was a measure of their worth...
I don't think that's what he meant. "It was worth it to take the test" is not the same as "I have worth because I took the test." Actually, the converse of the latter (I don't have worth because I can't pass the tests) is probably one source of complaints that standardized testing isn't fair, or culturally biased, or not an accurate judge of knowledge.
Using Legos for college entrance is like saying there should be an essay test to determine whether a person can make the Olympic swimming team! Unless there is some sort of standardized test, there is no standard for college entrance. It's what egalitarian ideals are all about: take everything down to the lowest possible level just to be "fair". But it really just ends up devaluing those who put forth the time and effort to reach a desired goal. The whole point of education is to learn, which means gaining in knowledge.
When I was preparing for the GRE test before graduate school, several professors told me that in order to stand out, I should strive to excel on the verbal section. Why? Every engineer would have comparable (read: high) math and analytical scores. Only the truly exceptional ones would have excellent verbal scores as well. The same was true when I was first entering college to study engineering. I knew my math scores would be high, so I worked on my verbal skills (taking classes in Latin, etymology, etc.) to ensure I wouldn't have to take a basic English class in college (beating a 650 verbal SAT exempted students from college English courses).
If you look at things like star trek their society is fundamentally different. Do you happen to see any bums on Earth? Are there panhandlers outside Starfleet Academy? No. People work for the hell of it and to gain status. I think this is fundamentally different from what we do today.
But is Star Trek any more realistic than the classic SF? Personally, I don't think so. In fact, as much as I like Star Trek, I get annoyed at how politically correct and preachy it tends to be. And all the gadgets and technology are there for a reason, to give support for a future techno-utopia.
What I generally don't like is where we take good ideas and put them in a package that makes it seem like crap.
Seem is the operative word here. The old adage that "you can't judge a book by its cover" springs to mind. While the appearance is nice, it's what's under the hood that counts. Would you want to buy a car with the body of a Porsche and the engine of a Festiva? Probably not.
Suppose I get a car with a superior engine, 1,000 miles to the gallon, can achieve speeds of 200 Mph and go from 0 - 60Mph in say 2.3 seconds. This car will also run off of urine or almost anything that is put in the tank (including sugar). No suppose I take this an put it into a pinto's chasis.
Kind of like building a time machine out of a DeLorean.:-) Actually, I would buy this car, for the very reason you put forth: "If I can say do something a little more efficiently then I will be able to have more time to ponder the great questions." I really couldn't care less what my car looks like (you should see what I drive) just as long as it gets me from point A to point B in a timely, efficient manner. Guess I'm just overly practical that way.
Predictions are nice however not all of them are acurate. A great deal of the future concepts of what society will be like are crappy. Here is a popular one:
Man builds intelligent cyborgs. Cyborgs serve man for a time. Eventually cyborgs say "fsck this" and decide to kick ass. Man is destroyed, forced underground, or enslaved.
But the real story (predictions and all) is how mankind (or different, individual people) will react to different events.
With literature, though, there really isn't any objective standard. The mechanics (grammar, spelling, plot coherence, etc.) can be judged objectively, but the actual content (story, characters, etc.) is purely subjective. Just my two bits in defense of the classics...
Generally these things are obviously not real and have no truth to them they are just teaching some kind of early prophecy or moral. I look to science fiction to see how realistically we can achieve various elements.
One thing to keep in mind (regarding old SF vs. new SF) is that fact that the basic nature of people does not change (just take a look at history). It doesn't really matter whether people are running around in reflective space suits and wielding death rays or fusion-powered armor and hauling plasma cannons; the technology is just there to help tell the story (whatever that story may be), which is invariably about people.
I want more use of technology and less reliance on unrealistic social and political predictions of the future.
But predictions are, in my opinion, what science fiction is all about! As I said above, I generally view the technology as an aid for the story. A story itself is about people. Ever read a work of SF (or any literature, for that matter) that didn't have any characters?:-)
Modern SF is every bit as "preachy" as classic SF. It's just a different kind of preaching. It's the change in the zeitgeist, the prevailing philosophy of the time, that makes it seem more hokey or preachy now than it may have 50 years ago. But it's good to read the stuff that's stood the test of time; there's a reason it did stand.
First off, let me also recommend Thomas Sowell's Inside American Education and Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education. While Allan Bloom may be JAWG (Just Another White Guy), you'll find these authors are a bit more racially diverse (if that's what you're looking for). But beware, they tend to agree with Bloom!
This [they're taught not to judge, not to compare, but to accept other viewpoints as equally valid] is a favorite claim among those who think that only ideas that originated from white guys who've been dead at least a hundred years can be valuable, but it's pretty questionable.
Take a look at public (K-12) education in America today. It's not education, it's indoctrination into a particular worldview. Looking back at my own high-school days, I can recognize the innumerable instances in which this was the case (mostly in history classes, humanities, etc.). One acquaintance of mine, an advocate for quality education, ranked various forms of education for an interviewer.
Home school
Private school
No formal education
Public school
Now, granted, this is just one opinion. But judging by the numbers of parents opting for home schooling and private education, it's something to consider.
Bloom's just another cultural supremicist who equates "different (i.e., non-DWEM) ideas may be valid" with "all ideas are equally valid".
Ouch, pretty harsh. But then, how is validity determined? That is, what's the standard against which validity is measured? I think that's the operative question. We know it's logically foolish to assert that all ideas are equally valid (unless we were brainwashed by the public schools), so where's the standard? Do we just go by "whatever feels right at the time"?
In summary, it is my opinion that an education that isn't based on an objective standard is worse than useless, encouraging intellectual laziness and relativism.
Even that statement? It seems to be pretty absolute. Is it relative to something else, though? That's what I'm talking about, reason and rationality fly right out the window if this is the case! In other words, it's either "either/or" or "both/and". Sense any sort of logical disconnect there?:-)
Not everything is admissible though. The UN has outlined a universal bill or human rights that pretty much describes what is/not/ admissible.
So does this mean the UN is the absolute standard for what is admissible? On what basis? Who is to say that the UN has the final word on what is acceptable and what is not, especially if everything is relative? But if someone can get everyone to agree that the UN has the final say on matters, then we're right back to an absolute basis for acceptability!
My point is that I believe that humans are born murderers or rapists.
What about "I am not so pessimistic to think humans are naturally evil and exploitive"? Does this mean that murder and rape are not evil and exploitative? To quote the Tick, "I can't get my mind around it!"
And to answer the question on that vein, I think murderers and rapists generally feel that the benefits they get from their crimes far outweigh the consequences. In this sense, they view what they do as "right". Arguments like "troubled childhood" and "chemical imbalance", while they may be contributing factors, only serve to further remove responsibility from the person.
I think it boils down to the fact that a society can be no better than the people of whom it is comprised. A society made up of relativists can have little or no cohesiveness or sense of community, because of the "well, that's alright for YOU, but this is best for ME" mentality.
And now for something completely different...
I'd say Jeopardy is a better guage. We've had Jeopardy for a long time, and still do.
I'll grant you that. But I think even the questions on Jeopardy are pretty easy. Maybe I just played too much Trivial Pursuit...:-)
Ignorance of what? Does the murderer kill because he's ignorant of the fact that it's wrong? Does the rapist rape because he doesn't know any better? And if they are ignorant of these facts, then why is that so? What's the root of this ignorance?
I'm personally convinced that ignorance stems from a reckless disregard for a basis of absolute right and wrong. If this basis is lost, everything is relative, and anything is admissible. "Knowledge-dispersal" and "awareness-raising" can only do so much when they're based on shifting, ever-changing notions of what's acceptable and what isn't.
[C]ommunications is raising the knowledge level and awareness of people.
Just a minor point, but I think communications is only increasing the information available to people. Knowledge...I don't know. It sure doesn't seem like people are getting any smarter. Look at "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" for an example of that. I had harder questions than that in the third grade!:-)
But then what about the community factor? I have to agree that all our gadgets and gizmos have made people more distant and disengaged. Sure, there are virtual communities, but are they anything like a real community? Can everybody get together when the electricity goes out for three days to stay warm, light a fire, and cook on the grill (despite the freezing rain)? It's possible and expected to communicate with vast numbers of people on the internet, but where's the depth, the personal in interpersonal communications?
Don't get me wrong, I think communications are a good thing. I like being able to call and e-mail friends and family who live half a country (or world) away. But looking to communications to solve all the world's inequities and woes...I personally don't think that's such a good thing.
The former [they are rational] is plainly false; the entire history of psychology and centuries of philosophy before will attest to that.
But doesn't declaring something as false require some rational basis? In other words, does there not have to be some objective standard to which we can compare this, and thus declare it false? Without some sort of reasoning, there is no way to come to this conclution! Like I said, using rationality (of which reasoning is the main part) to attempt to disprove rationality is mental gymnastics!
Here's Merriam-Webster's definition for rational:
Main Entry: 1rational Pronunciation: 'rash-n&l, 'ra-sh&-n&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English racional, from Latin rationalis, from ration-, ratio Date: 14th century 1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE [a rational explanation] [rational behavior] 2 : involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times 3 : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers [a rational root of an equation] - rationally adverb - rationalness noun
The latter [rationality requires consciousness] has been disproven time and again
Proven how? Rationality is essentially the ability to reason. Could it not be said that consciousness implies rationality, but rationality does not imply consciousness? In other words, it may not necessarily be an if-and-only-if relation. And who is doing the proving? Conscious beings.
Descartes used logic to prove "Cogito, ergo sum", which roughly means, "thinking, therefore being". NOT "I think, therefore I am". There is no "I" in the proof or the conclusion. Attributing the thoughts and memories to an "I" is a leap of logic.
Not to be a nit-picker (does that have a hyphen?), but I did take a couple years of Latin. Cogito is the first person singular form of the verb which is translated as "I think", in addition to being the standard form of the verb "to think." Likewise, sum is the first person singular form of the verb which is translated "I am", in addition to being the standard form of the verb "to be." Ergo is, of course, therefore. So it's either "I think, therefore I am" or "To think, therefore to be." Assuming Descartes was a pretty smart guy who knew his Latin, I'm sticking with the first one.:-)
But thoughts just happen, totally independently. They are not caused by an "I". Our brains act as association machines, and serves to group together certain kinds of thoughts to form an "I" group. I suspect the notion of will and force of personality come down to the strength and exclusivity of the associations around a person's "I" thought-group.
Any proof for this (scientific, historical, or other non-experiential), or is this just something that your "I" thought-group threw together? Metaphysically, this is a pretty tenuous position. It throws any attempt at rationality right out the window, because of the assertion that there is no rational "self." In fact, it looks like an attempt to rationally prove that rationality doesn't exist! How's that for mental gymnastics?
If a ebrain George appeas [sic] self conscious, and answers a Turing test as well as I do, would this ebrain George have a soul? Or does it prove that there is no soul?
There is a very fine distinction between "consciousness" and "soul". Consciousness, as I understand it, is simply the manifestation of our rationality. As it stands, the Turing test is quite appropriate for measuring consciousness.
It is my personal belief (and I'm sure others will disagree) that the soul is the very essence of who we are, and independent of consciousness. "I think, therefore I am" recognizes our consciousness, while "In imago Dei" recognizes our soul. With that assumption, the soul would be unmeasurable by the Turing test. So I would have to conclude that the Turing test can say nothing about the existence of the soul one way or the other. The only "proof" we can have about the soul will come after our physical death ("man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment"). Of course, we do have historical testimony about the soul in the Bible, but that gets back to the old "historical proof" vs. "scientific proof" debate.:-)
You say my story is half-baked compared to yours? I'll grant you I only took 10 seconds to make it up, but "a prophet gets the full Roman crucifixion treatment, survives and disappears" is half-baked compared to "a man born to a virgin by an invisible all-powerful being died and came back"? Come on, logically speaking, which is more likely?
If there is no allowance for the supernatural, then a naturalistic explanation is all you can accept. But what "natural" explanations are there?
Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, He just fainted. There was an article from the JAMA that analyzes the medical aspects of the Roman practice of crucifixion. It's not for those with a weak stomach! After reading this, I think you'll agree that it's pretty far-fetched to believe that someone could survive a crucifixion. But, if you still think He DID survive, He had to have enough strength to push aside the huge boulder from the mouth of the tomb. Of course, he'd first have to unwrap himself from the linen and massive amounts of spices and ointments which was the customary treatments for corpses at the time.
His disciples snuck in and stole the body. This assumes that they either snuck by the Roman guards, or killed them. If the accounts of the Gospels are to be believed, the Roman guards came and reported that the body was gone from the tomb, so that leaves us with the first one. But under Roman law, dereliction of duty (e.g. falling asleep on the post) was punishable by death! Then there's the whole aspect of the martyrdom of the apostles. It requires some heavy mental gymnastics to allow that these men went around boldly preaching a truth that they KNEW to be a lie! Not an acceptable explanation.
As far as I'm concerned, the naturalistic explanations (are there more?) don't hold water. They require more of a leap of faith than the supernatural explanation!
None of this is a comment on Christ himself by the way. Personally I think the stories of his behavior on the planet are enough to help people live a good life. You don't need to hinge it all on the actual "back from the dead" thing, because unless he drops into Central Park in full glory you can never prove that.
Actually, everything DOES hinge on the resurrection. If Christ didn't rise from the dead, then He is a liar (He often predicts His own death and resurrection throughout the Gospels). Can a liar help anyone live a good life? I personally don't think so.
No, I can't prove it to you. But I am utterly convinced that Christ IS the way, the truth, and the life. All I can do is present what I know, and wait for Him to do the rest.
This is what happens when objective reality is denied...
Please name one reliable source that denies this historic person of Jesus of Nazareth. Check an encyclopedia if you want (Britannica springs to mind). Check the histories of Josephus. You probably don't consider the Bible a reliable source, so I won't bother... Suffice it to say, the historical evidence is there. Jesus is not just a cleverly invented myth!
So can you prove Napoleon existed? How about Alexander the Great? Archimedes? Prove to me that Plato existed. How? Historical evidence. It's a fascinating subject...try looking into it some time.
If you find any scientific evidence to support your claims [that WE WERE ALL BORN IN SIN], let me know.
OK, I'll bite. Can you name one person (other than Christ) who never did anything wrong? That's all he's saying. It's that whole inherent badness of humanity thing again. We're not nice unless something outside of us compels us to be nice.
I'm also amused by the demands for scientific evidence for any claims that seem to fly in the face of the popular philosophy of the time. Can you scientifically prove that Hannibal crossed the Alps? No! Why not? Can you do an experiment to show that your hyphothesis, "Hannibal crossed the Alps," is true? Can this experiment be repeated? All we have is historical evidence, which is accepted as valid. Likewise for the statement "we were all born in sin." We have historical evidence and testimony that this is the case. Historical evidence can be every bit as valid as scientific evidence.
And with regard to the online confessional, I have to agree with a previous poster: Prayer works!
JimD
JimD
[OT] Re:Not to sound religiously aetheist...
on
Total Lunar Eclipse
·
· Score: 2
I'm sure this'll get moderated down...
I don't know. The way I heard it, the Bible has undergone tons of revision. For example, during the days of the Roman Empire, I know several alterations were made to make the Bible more consistent. I think that's how the concept of the trinity came about.
Ummmm...where did you hear that? Most of what I've read confirms that the accuracy of modern Bible translations (e.g. NIV or NASB) is exceptionally good. They're based on Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts that remained accurately copied for hundreds of years. For example...
"The impact of this discovery [the Dead Sea Scrolls] is vividly illustrated in the virtual duplication of the Isaiah scroll (dated 125 B.C.) in the Masoretic text of Isaiah (A.D. 916) written 1000 years later. This demonstrates the unusual accuracy of the copyists of the Scripture over a thousand year period. Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, only seventeen letters have been questioned. Ten of these letters are a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as a conjunction. The remaining three letters comprise the word "light", which is added in verse 11 and does not greatly affect the meaning. Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission-and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage. Comparisons of other Bible passages show even closer duplications." (from this site)
While the word "Trinity" is never seen in the Bible, the concept is evident throughout the N.T. Some (me included) would argue that it's evident in the O.T. as well, but that's going WAY off topic! Suffice it to say, many liberal scholars try to argue that since the word isn't in the Bible, the Trinity is an invention of man.
I also suspect Christ actually existed. Whether he was a divine being... I wouldn't know.
That's good, since historically there's no question that there existed a person name Jesus of Nazareth, who was called the Christ. So the question remains, is Christ a divine being? I am convinced He is. But investigate for yourself, the answer is there!
And in a vain (too late!) attempt to bring this back on-topic, there are many who bend some of the biblical prophecies to try to determine the time/place for some events. The blood-red moon is a sign pointing to the final judgment, but a red moon is not an uncommon event (rare, but not once-in-a-lifetime). So, yes, this lunar eclipse might be a sign of the end. Then again, it might not. Regardless, I'm ready!:-)
But be careful: you're using the "r" word: responsibility.:-) To many, it's a taboo word, and the notion of personal responsibility has been eroded for decades in this country. Self-control (which would include self-censorship) has come to be labelled a vice rather than a virtue. We've gotten to the point where it's easier (and, sadly, expected) to attempt to blame all our problems on the other guy (or society as a whole) instead of starting with ourselves.
That said, I do have a comment on one thing you wrote:
I hope one day we can go back to the eras were [sic] people were able to choose for themselves what was right and wrong for them.
This may have worked when everyone had a common basis for right and wrong. If each person's individual "moral compass" is pointing at their own "moral north", then the result is moral chaos. As succinctly stated by Ivan Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted." (in The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky). In other words, if there is no objective standard, no absolute truth, then all discussions about right and wrong are just so much noise. Morality (of any sort) cannot exist in a vacuum. It must have a basis.
Person 1: "There is no absolute truth!" Person 2: "Is that statement absolutely true?" Person 1: "Errrr..."
Let's see if we can get some misconceptions clarified here...
Like the guy who once said "You'd better worship real good, cos' I'm jealous and if you'd ever lay your eyes on someone else, well you're out of luck with me. Now do as I tell, and go and slew the guys across the river in My Name. And be careful using that Name, too."?
OK, it seems like you're referring to a few of the well-known 10 commandments. No problem there. "You shall have no other gods before me," that's pretty self-explanatory. Ditto with "you shall not use the name of the Lord your God in vain." But the law is the same in the Bible -- both the O.T. and N.T. All 10 commandments are summed up in 2: love God with all your heart/mind/soul/strenght and love your neighbor as yourself.
Fortunately, he grew out of this and became a bit more motherly: "So you've been a naughty boy? Well, show me you're sorry, and don't do it ever again. Now come here and give me a big hug."
Ehhhh, it was more like this: "You've been a very naughty boy. You deserve to be punished for all eternity. I've been patient and merciful to you. So now I'm going to pour out my wrath on myself instead. If you repent and allow my life to live through you, you'll have eternal life. If you don't, you're still going to be punished."
He also got Himself a real name, and to make good measure and show how much he was dedicated, divided Himself up into three Entities.
Yes, God cloaked Himself in human flesh to satisfy the demands of the law. And He has always been three entities in one person. Examples can be found throughout the O.T. (provided upon request). It's one of those divine mysteries that our finite brains can't comprehend.
Then humans being humans, after a while they get back to their former habits and crossed the river and slew the guys there in His New Names.
Hark, do I hear the sounds of "sinful man" in the wings? Yes, humans are humans, and always will be. Sin is a fact of life, even in those who have been "reborn." Look at Romans 7 if you want an really succinct example of that.
Yes, I think he qualifies as a One True Human God.
In the straw-man constructed above, sure. But in the revealed God in the Bible, I don't think so!
PS: I'm not american, is there any chance that I might be sane? Not much if one considers I'm responding to an off-topic post on/.
Well, I don't think it's that offtopic! I'm of the opinion that many of the mental illnesses and problems we see today are direct results of the inability to sufficiently reconcile various aspects of life (why are we here, why is there evil, etc.) within the frame of reference of the materialistic/relativistic/humanistic worldview.
If YOU feel the need to believe in God, go ahead. You have every right to believe in whatever God you chose. However, I wholly reject the idea that "Any intellectually honest person would have to conclude that the Christian God is the one and only God"
First of all, you've misquoted me. Here's what I really said:
"Then he investigates, with an open mind, and he should (if intellectually honest) come to the conclusion that there can be only one true God."
I did not say it was intellectually dishonest to not believe in the Christian God! I stated that doing a thorough, open-minded investigation should lead to that conclusion!
And while I'll hold to my position that YHWH is the Christian God, I cannot say the same for Allah. Based on what I've read of the Koran (admittedly, only a small portion of it) and what I've read of the Bible (all of it), Allah is most emphatically not the God of the Bible. Take that as you may.:-)
How do you know that these are the qualifications for godhood?
You are correct in stating that I've made the assumption that there is a God. All my statements and views about the world follow from that first principle. But by the same token, you've made the assumption that there isn't a God. Logically, all your views will be based on your first principle. Everything boils down to the first principle, the initial assumption. Mine is that a personal God exists. If a person bases their investigation on that assumption (which they'd really have to make to want to investigate in the first place), then it follows that it is intellectually dishonest to deny the revelation in the Bible. QED.:-)
As for the qualifications of God, well...any god without those qualities really wouldn't be much of a god, and hence not worthy of worship. I prefer to worship a sovereign God, not some being with human foibles and follies.
Please find another phrase, if only to keep rabid knee-jerkers like myself off your case.:-)
Ahh, see, I enjoy good honest discussions, especially with those who disagree with me! So please, keep on my case!:-)
So, pray tell me, oh Wise One Who Knows All The Answers, which god?
I won't claim to have all the answers, because I don't. But I'll share what I know...
First off, I'd argue that YHWH is the Christian Trinity, but that's a theological discussion for offline... =)
There's a really simple way to figure out which God. A person takes everything that would be a requirement/necessity for an entity to be God. For example: eternal, outside of space/time, sovereign over everything, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Then he investigates, with an open mind, and he should (if intellectually honest) come to the conclusion that there can be only one true God.
What does one investigate, though? The only thing we have to look at are revelations, both natural (i.e. the world) and supernatural (i.e. the Word). A close inspection will reveal that the rest of the so-called "gods" have little no nothing in common with the one true God, and indeed cannot come close to meeting the necessary conditions! But it will also reveal that the God of the Bible does meet all those conditions, and more!
It comes down to this: if all religions are equally true or valid, then Christianity is false, which contradicts the original assumption (that all religions are true)! If Christianity is true (and I believe that it is), then everything else is false by default. But don't just listen to me. Do your own investigation (much like C.S. Lewis, often quoted by me) to discover the truth!
As a good citizen I would not stand idely by and allow myself and my friends be watched in such an intrusive, unconstitutional manner.
Ever walked into a convenience store or gas station during the graveyard shift? Ever been watched as you go and browse the snack aisle? The clerks (the smart ones, at least) are always on the lookout for suspicious people. In this case, surveillance is being done by machines instead of people, giving them more eyes that don't get tired or bored.
Sorry, I don't think I was as clear as I probably should have been. There you go, reading what I wrote instead of what I meant!;-)
I in no way meant that the child would no longer be human. I agree, that's completely absurd! It's the perception of humanity (person-ness, if you will) that is the issue here. My point was meant to be that there would necessarily be some level, however great or small, of emotional detachment (de-personalization) on the part of the parents toward the child, if characteristics for a child could be selected in a manner akin to opting for more RAM and a CD-R on a custom computer system from Dell. I should have been a little more clear, and used "personhood" rather than "humanity". Regardless, it's the perception, not the objective fact, that I'm writing about. It's not going to feel that much like a person when a one selects the sP70 model: blond hair, blue eyes, 6'2" fully grown, runner's physique, IQ in the range of 140-160, with an ear for music. At least, not until the child starts kicking at 2:00 am!
But let's not forget the potential ramifications for the "gengineered" child. Initially, the cost will be prohibitively expensive, meaning only the super-rich will be able to afford it. This will leave a very small minority of children who will be extraordinarly different from other children. And the other kids will pick up on that very quickly. If you think ostracism and isolation are all too common among today's youth, wait until the first few generations of these children. Their parents won't understand, their teachers won't understand, their peers won't understand. Talk about emotional problems.
Then there's the issue of picking out the characteristics of the child, further reducing his/her prenatal humanity. That's a whole other can of worms that could go way off track... Suffice it to say, human beings are not commodities, although the trend is moving towards treating them as such...
It is a religious issue. I'm hoping others might see it that way as well.
But I did want to leave one extra thing to consider, based on the response:
I have faith that humans will utilize the tools that are science and technology in productive ways that will improve our lot as a species.
Now, of course, comparing this kind of faith to faith in a Creator is specious. While there is plenty of evidence that human nature exists, there is no concrete, provable evidence that a Creator exists.
Human nature in what form? I view human nature as utterly prideful and selfish, and any hope that one might have that the better part of human nature will prevail is just wishful thinking. Likewise, I cannot see any basis to believe that humanity will use the fruits of technology in mostly beneficial ways. From my point of view, humanity cannot (on their own) escape their nature. Based on that assumption, I see no basis for faith in something so finite and tenuous. Faith can only be as good as the object of that faith. And one will arrive at that faith based on their assumptions and first principles about that object.
All I've been hearing throughout the emergence of the so-called "information age" is how much technology will improve the lives of everyone around the world. Whether you worship at the Altar of the Internet or the Temple of the Dow Jones or the Congregation of the Cellular Phone or the Assembly of the Palm V, they're all just setting up another false god (or pantheon of false gods) to which you can pledge your devotion and worship.
But should these idols be the objects of our devotion as the supreme notion of truth, or should they merely aid us on our quest for Truth?
Many of those who are anti-technology are really only against the misuse of technology, and are opposed to the artificial exalted state to which technology and science are often lifted.
In the end, it all boils down to faith. The techno-optimists put their faith in science and technology. Others put their faith in human nature, or government, or socialism, or capitalism, or environmentalism, or any other -ism under the sun. Next time you jump to deride and condemn a Christian for their faith, stop and think about where you place your faith. And then challenge yourself to examine why they put their faith in the Creator instead of the created.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently they are. Check this article, Sun releases NFS as open source , or this one, Sun loosens its grip on NFS . Alas, it looks like it's going to be released under YAWSL (Yet Another Wacky Sun License), but it's apparently only for the Transport Independent Remote Procedure Call (TI-RPC) protocol.
JimD
I don't think that's what he meant. "It was worth it to take the test" is not the same as "I have worth because I took the test." Actually, the converse of the latter (I don't have worth because I can't pass the tests) is probably one source of complaints that standardized testing isn't fair, or culturally biased, or not an accurate judge of knowledge.
Using Legos for college entrance is like saying there should be an essay test to determine whether a person can make the Olympic swimming team! Unless there is some sort of standardized test, there is no standard for college entrance. It's what egalitarian ideals are all about: take everything down to the lowest possible level just to be "fair". But it really just ends up devaluing those who put forth the time and effort to reach a desired goal. The whole point of education is to learn, which means gaining in knowledge.
When I was preparing for the GRE test before graduate school, several professors told me that in order to stand out, I should strive to excel on the verbal section. Why? Every engineer would have comparable (read: high) math and analytical scores. Only the truly exceptional ones would have excellent verbal scores as well. The same was true when I was first entering college to study engineering. I knew my math scores would be high, so I worked on my verbal skills (taking classes in Latin, etymology, etc.) to ensure I wouldn't have to take a basic English class in college (beating a 650 verbal SAT exempted students from college English courses).
JimD
But is Star Trek any more realistic than the classic SF? Personally, I don't think so. In fact, as much as I like Star Trek, I get annoyed at how politically correct and preachy it tends to be. And all the gadgets and technology are there for a reason, to give support for a future techno-utopia.
What I generally don't like is where we take good ideas and put them in a package that makes it seem like crap.
Seem is the operative word here. The old adage that "you can't judge a book by its cover" springs to mind. While the appearance is nice, it's what's under the hood that counts. Would you want to buy a car with the body of a Porsche and the engine of a Festiva? Probably not.
Suppose I get a car with a superior engine, 1,000 miles to the gallon, can achieve speeds of 200 Mph and go from 0 - 60Mph in say 2.3 seconds. This car will also run off of urine or almost anything that is put in the tank (including sugar). No suppose I take this an put it into a pinto's chasis.
Kind of like building a time machine out of a DeLorean. :-) Actually, I would buy this car, for the very reason you put forth: "If I can say do something a little more efficiently then I will be able to have more time to ponder the great questions." I really couldn't care less what my car looks like (you should see what I drive) just as long as it gets me from point A to point B in a timely, efficient manner. Guess I'm just overly practical that way.
Predictions are nice however not all of them are acurate. A great deal of the future concepts of what society will be like are crappy. Here is a popular one:
Man builds intelligent cyborgs. Cyborgs serve man for a time. Eventually cyborgs say "fsck this" and decide to kick ass. Man is destroyed, forced underground, or enslaved.
But the real story (predictions and all) is how mankind (or different, individual people) will react to different events.
With literature, though, there really isn't any objective standard. The mechanics (grammar, spelling, plot coherence, etc.) can be judged objectively, but the actual content (story, characters, etc.) is purely subjective. Just my two bits in defense of the classics...
Cheers!
Jim
JimD
One thing to keep in mind (regarding old SF vs. new SF) is that fact that the basic nature of people does not change (just take a look at history). It doesn't really matter whether people are running around in reflective space suits and wielding death rays or fusion-powered armor and hauling plasma cannons; the technology is just there to help tell the story (whatever that story may be), which is invariably about people.
I want more use of technology and less reliance on unrealistic social and political predictions of the future.
But predictions are, in my opinion, what science fiction is all about! As I said above, I generally view the technology as an aid for the story. A story itself is about people. Ever read a work of SF (or any literature, for that matter) that didn't have any characters? :-)
Modern SF is every bit as "preachy" as classic SF. It's just a different kind of preaching. It's the change in the zeitgeist, the prevailing philosophy of the time, that makes it seem more hokey or preachy now than it may have 50 years ago. But it's good to read the stuff that's stood the test of time; there's a reason it did stand.
Cheers!
Jim
JimD
This [they're taught not to judge, not to compare, but to accept other viewpoints as equally valid] is a favorite claim among those who think that only ideas that originated from white guys who've been dead at least a hundred years can be valuable, but it's pretty questionable.
Take a look at public (K-12) education in America today. It's not education, it's indoctrination into a particular worldview. Looking back at my own high-school days, I can recognize the innumerable instances in which this was the case (mostly in history classes, humanities, etc.). One acquaintance of mine, an advocate for quality education, ranked various forms of education for an interviewer.
- Home school
- Private school
- No formal education
- Public school
Now, granted, this is just one opinion. But judging by the numbers of parents opting for home schooling and private education, it's something to consider.Bloom's just another cultural supremicist who equates "different (i.e., non-DWEM) ideas may be valid" with "all ideas are equally valid".
Ouch, pretty harsh. But then, how is validity determined? That is, what's the standard against which validity is measured? I think that's the operative question. We know it's logically foolish to assert that all ideas are equally valid (unless we were brainwashed by the public schools), so where's the standard? Do we just go by "whatever feels right at the time"?
In summary, it is my opinion that an education that isn't based on an objective standard is worse than useless, encouraging intellectual laziness and relativism.
Cheers!
Jim
JimD
Everything is relative.
:-)
/not/ admissible.
:-)
Even that statement? It seems to be pretty absolute. Is it relative to something else, though? That's what I'm talking about, reason and rationality fly right out the window if this is the case! In other words, it's either "either/or" or "both/and". Sense any sort of logical disconnect there?
Not everything is admissible though. The UN has outlined a universal bill or human rights that pretty much describes what is
So does this mean the UN is the absolute standard for what is admissible? On what basis? Who is to say that the UN has the final word on what is acceptable and what is not, especially if everything is relative? But if someone can get everyone to agree that the UN has the final say on matters, then we're right back to an absolute basis for acceptability!
My point is that I believe that humans are born murderers or rapists.
What about "I am not so pessimistic to think humans are naturally evil and exploitive"? Does this mean that murder and rape are not evil and exploitative? To quote the Tick, "I can't get my mind around it!"
And to answer the question on that vein, I think murderers and rapists generally feel that the benefits they get from their crimes far outweigh the consequences. In this sense, they view what they do as "right". Arguments like "troubled childhood" and "chemical imbalance", while they may be contributing factors, only serve to further remove responsibility from the person.
I think it boils down to the fact that a society can be no better than the people of whom it is comprised. A society made up of relativists can have little or no cohesiveness or sense of community, because of the "well, that's alright for YOU, but this is best for ME" mentality.
And now for something completely different...
I'd say Jeopardy is a better guage. We've had Jeopardy for a long time, and still do.
I'll grant you that. But I think even the questions on Jeopardy are pretty easy. Maybe I just played too much Trivial Pursuit...
Cheers!
Jim
JimD
I like to think that malice stems from ignorance.
:-)
Ignorance of what? Does the murderer kill because he's ignorant of the fact that it's wrong? Does the rapist rape because he doesn't know any better? And if they are ignorant of these facts, then why is that so? What's the root of this ignorance?
I'm personally convinced that ignorance stems from a reckless disregard for a basis of absolute right and wrong. If this basis is lost, everything is relative, and anything is admissible. "Knowledge-dispersal" and "awareness-raising" can only do so much when they're based on shifting, ever-changing notions of what's acceptable and what isn't.
[C]ommunications is raising the knowledge level and awareness of people.
Just a minor point, but I think communications is only increasing the information available to people. Knowledge...I don't know. It sure doesn't seem like people are getting any smarter. Look at "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" for an example of that. I had harder questions than that in the third grade!
But then what about the community factor? I have to agree that all our gadgets and gizmos have made people more distant and disengaged. Sure, there are virtual communities, but are they anything like a real community? Can everybody get together when the electricity goes out for three days to stay warm, light a fire, and cook on the grill (despite the freezing rain)? It's possible and expected to communicate with vast numbers of people on the internet, but where's the depth, the personal in interpersonal communications?
Don't get me wrong, I think communications are a good thing. I like being able to call and e-mail friends and family who live half a country (or world) away. But looking to communications to solve all the world's inequities and woes...I personally don't think that's such a good thing.
Cheers!
Jim
JimD
The former [they are rational] is plainly false; the entire history of psychology and centuries of philosophy before will attest to that.
But doesn't declaring something as false require some rational basis? In other words, does there not have to be some objective standard to which we can compare this, and thus declare it false? Without some sort of reasoning, there is no way to come to this conclution! Like I said, using rationality (of which reasoning is the main part) to attempt to disprove rationality is mental gymnastics!
Here's Merriam-Webster's definition for rational:
Main Entry: 1rational
Pronunciation: 'rash-n&l, 'ra-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English racional, from Latin rationalis, from ration-, ratio
Date: 14th century
1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE [a rational explanation] [rational behavior]
2 : involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3 : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers [a rational root of an equation]
- rationally adverb
- rationalness noun
The latter [rationality requires consciousness] has been disproven time and again
Proven how? Rationality is essentially the ability to reason. Could it not be said that consciousness implies rationality, but rationality does not imply consciousness? In other words, it may not necessarily be an if-and-only-if relation. And who is doing the proving? Conscious beings.
Cheers,
Jim
JimD
Descartes used logic to prove "Cogito, ergo sum", which roughly means, "thinking, therefore being". NOT "I think, therefore I am". There is no "I" in the proof or the conclusion. Attributing the thoughts and memories to an "I" is a leap of logic.
:-)
Not to be a nit-picker (does that have a hyphen?), but I did take a couple years of Latin. Cogito is the first person singular form of the verb which is translated as "I think", in addition to being the standard form of the verb "to think." Likewise, sum is the first person singular form of the verb which is translated "I am", in addition to being the standard form of the verb "to be." Ergo is, of course, therefore. So it's either "I think, therefore I am" or "To think, therefore to be." Assuming Descartes was a pretty smart guy who knew his Latin, I'm sticking with the first one.
But thoughts just happen, totally independently. They are not caused by an "I". Our brains act as association machines, and serves to group together certain kinds of thoughts to form an "I" group. I suspect the notion of will and force of personality come down to the strength and exclusivity of the associations around a person's "I" thought-group.
Any proof for this (scientific, historical, or other non-experiential), or is this just something that your "I" thought-group threw together? Metaphysically, this is a pretty tenuous position. It throws any attempt at rationality right out the window, because of the assertion that there is no rational "self." In fact, it looks like an attempt to rationally prove that rationality doesn't exist! How's that for mental gymnastics?
Cheers,
Jim
JimD
Where are the theologians when we need them?
:-)
:-)
Some of us actually do read Slashdot...
If a ebrain George appeas [sic] self conscious, and answers a Turing test as well as I do, would this ebrain George have a soul? Or does it prove that there is no soul?
There is a very fine distinction between "consciousness" and "soul". Consciousness, as I understand it, is simply the manifestation of our rationality. As it stands, the Turing test is quite appropriate for measuring consciousness.
It is my personal belief (and I'm sure others will disagree) that the soul is the very essence of who we are, and independent of consciousness. "I think, therefore I am" recognizes our consciousness, while "In imago Dei" recognizes our soul. With that assumption, the soul would be unmeasurable by the Turing test. So I would have to conclude that the Turing test can say nothing about the existence of the soul one way or the other. The only "proof" we can have about the soul will come after our physical death ("man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment"). Of course, we do have historical testimony about the soul in the Bible, but that gets back to the old "historical proof" vs. "scientific proof" debate.
Cheers!
Jim
JimD
If there is no allowance for the supernatural, then a naturalistic explanation is all you can accept. But what "natural" explanations are there?
- Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, He just fainted. There was an article from the JAMA that analyzes the medical aspects of the Roman practice of crucifixion. It's not for those with a weak stomach! After reading this, I think you'll agree that it's pretty far-fetched to believe that someone could survive a crucifixion. But, if you still think He DID survive, He had to have enough strength to push aside the huge boulder from the mouth of the tomb. Of course, he'd first have to unwrap himself from the linen and massive amounts of spices and ointments which was the customary treatments for corpses at the time.
- His disciples snuck in and stole the body. This assumes that they either snuck by the Roman guards, or killed them. If the accounts of the Gospels are to be believed, the Roman guards came and reported that the body was gone from the tomb, so that leaves us with the first one. But under Roman law, dereliction of duty (e.g. falling asleep on the post) was punishable by death! Then there's the whole aspect of the martyrdom of the apostles. It requires some heavy mental gymnastics to allow that these men went around boldly preaching a truth that they KNEW to be a lie! Not an acceptable explanation.
As far as I'm concerned, the naturalistic explanations (are there more?) don't hold water. They require more of a leap of faith than the supernatural explanation!None of this is a comment on Christ himself by the way. Personally I think the stories of his behavior on the planet are enough to help people live a good life. You don't need to hinge it all on the actual "back from the dead" thing, because unless he drops into Central Park in full glory you can never prove that.
Actually, everything DOES hinge on the resurrection. If Christ didn't rise from the dead, then He is a liar (He often predicts His own death and resurrection throughout the Gospels). Can a liar help anyone live a good life? I personally don't think so.
No, I can't prove it to you. But I am utterly convinced that Christ IS the way, the truth, and the life. All I can do is present what I know, and wait for Him to do the rest.
Cheers,
Jim
JimD
This is what happens when objective reality is denied...
Please name one reliable source that denies this historic person of Jesus of Nazareth. Check an encyclopedia if you want (Britannica springs to mind). Check the histories of Josephus. You probably don't consider the Bible a reliable source, so I won't bother... Suffice it to say, the historical evidence is there. Jesus is not just a cleverly invented myth!
So can you prove Napoleon existed? How about Alexander the Great? Archimedes? Prove to me that Plato existed. How? Historical evidence. It's a fascinating subject...try looking into it some time.
JimD
If you find any scientific evidence to support your claims [that WE WERE ALL BORN IN SIN], let me know.
OK, I'll bite. Can you name one person (other than Christ) who never did anything wrong? That's all he's saying. It's that whole inherent badness of humanity thing again. We're not nice unless something outside of us compels us to be nice.
I'm also amused by the demands for scientific evidence for any claims that seem to fly in the face of the popular philosophy of the time. Can you scientifically prove that Hannibal crossed the Alps? No! Why not? Can you do an experiment to show that your hyphothesis, "Hannibal crossed the Alps," is true? Can this experiment be repeated? All we have is historical evidence, which is accepted as valid. Likewise for the statement "we were all born in sin." We have historical evidence and testimony that this is the case. Historical evidence can be every bit as valid as scientific evidence.
And with regard to the online confessional, I have to agree with a previous poster: Prayer works!
JimD
JimD
I'm sure this'll get moderated down...
:-)
I don't know. The way I heard it, the Bible has undergone tons of revision. For example, during the days of the Roman Empire, I know several alterations were made to make the Bible more consistent. I think that's how the concept of the trinity came about.
Ummmm...where did you hear that? Most of what I've read confirms that the accuracy of modern Bible translations (e.g. NIV or NASB) is exceptionally good. They're based on Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts that remained accurately copied for hundreds of years. For example...
"The impact of this discovery [the Dead Sea Scrolls] is vividly illustrated in the virtual duplication of the Isaiah scroll (dated 125 B.C.) in the Masoretic text of Isaiah (A.D. 916) written 1000 years later. This demonstrates the unusual accuracy of the copyists of the Scripture over a thousand year period. Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, only seventeen letters have been questioned. Ten of these letters are a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as a conjunction. The remaining three letters comprise the word "light", which is added in verse 11 and does not greatly affect the meaning. Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission-and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage. Comparisons of other Bible passages show even closer duplications." (from this site)
While the word "Trinity" is never seen in the Bible, the concept is evident throughout the N.T. Some (me included) would argue that it's evident in the O.T. as well, but that's going WAY off topic! Suffice it to say, many liberal scholars try to argue that since the word isn't in the Bible, the Trinity is an invention of man.
I also suspect Christ actually existed. Whether he was a divine being... I wouldn't know.
That's good, since historically there's no question that there existed a person name Jesus of Nazareth, who was called the Christ. So the question remains, is Christ a divine being? I am convinced He is. But investigate for yourself, the answer is there!
And in a vain (too late!) attempt to bring this back on-topic, there are many who bend some of the biblical prophecies to try to determine the time/place for some events. The blood-red moon is a sign pointing to the final judgment, but a red moon is not an uncommon event (rare, but not once-in-a-lifetime). So, yes, this lunar eclipse might be a sign of the end. Then again, it might not. Regardless, I'm ready!
JimD
JimD
Well said, good sir!
:-) To many, it's a taboo word, and the notion of personal responsibility has been eroded for decades in this country. Self-control (which would include self-censorship) has come to be labelled a vice rather than a virtue. We've gotten to the point where it's easier (and, sadly, expected) to attempt to blame all our problems on the other guy (or society as a whole) instead of starting with ourselves.
But be careful: you're using the "r" word: responsibility.
That said, I do have a comment on one thing you wrote:
I hope one day we can go back to the eras were [sic] people were able to choose for themselves what was right and wrong for them.
This may have worked when everyone had a common basis for right and wrong. If each person's individual "moral compass" is pointing at their own "moral north", then the result is moral chaos. As succinctly stated by Ivan Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted." (in The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky). In other words, if there is no objective standard, no absolute truth, then all discussions about right and wrong are just so much noise. Morality (of any sort) cannot exist in a vacuum. It must have a basis.
Person 1: "There is no absolute truth!"
Person 2: "Is that statement absolutely true?"
Person 1: "Errrr..."
There was a great book that came out a little over a year ago (March 1998). It's called Hal's Legacy, edited by David Stork. It's basically a collection of essays written by members of the AI community on the current state of AI research with respect to the various aspects of HAL (e.g. lip reading, vision, chess playing, etc.) Many of the basic building blocks for HAL are there, but aren't quite ready to be integrated. Regardless, it's an interesting read.
Let's see if we can get some misconceptions clarified here...
/.
Like the guy who once said "You'd better worship real good, cos' I'm jealous and if you'd ever lay your eyes on someone else, well you're out of luck with me. Now do as I tell, and go and slew the guys across the river in My Name. And be careful using that Name, too."?
OK, it seems like you're referring to a few of the well-known 10 commandments. No problem there. "You shall have no other gods before me," that's pretty self-explanatory. Ditto with "you shall not use the name of the Lord your God in vain." But the law is the same in the Bible -- both the O.T. and N.T. All 10 commandments are summed up in 2: love God with all your heart/mind/soul/strenght and love your neighbor as yourself.
Fortunately, he grew out of this and became a bit more motherly: "So you've been a naughty boy? Well, show me you're sorry, and don't do it ever again. Now come here and give me a big hug."
Ehhhh, it was more like this: "You've been a very naughty boy. You deserve to be punished for all eternity. I've been patient and merciful to you. So now I'm going to pour out my wrath on myself instead. If you repent and allow my life to live through you, you'll have eternal life. If you don't, you're still going to be punished."
He also got Himself a real name, and to make good measure and show how much he was dedicated, divided Himself up into three Entities.
Yes, God cloaked Himself in human flesh to satisfy the demands of the law. And He has always been three entities in one person. Examples can be found throughout the O.T. (provided upon request). It's one of those divine mysteries that our finite brains can't comprehend.
Then humans being humans, after a while they get back to their former habits and crossed the river and slew the guys there in His New Names.
Hark, do I hear the sounds of "sinful man" in the wings? Yes, humans are humans, and always will be. Sin is a fact of life, even in those who have been "reborn." Look at Romans 7 if you want an really succinct example of that.
Yes, I think he qualifies as a One True Human God.
In the straw-man constructed above, sure. But in the revealed God in the Bible, I don't think so!
PS: I'm not american, is there any chance that I might be sane? Not much if one considers I'm responding to an off-topic post on
Well, I don't think it's that offtopic! I'm of the opinion that many of the mental illnesses and problems we see today are direct results of the inability to sufficiently reconcile various aspects of life (why are we here, why is there evil, etc.) within the frame of reference of the materialistic/relativistic/humanistic worldview.
See my response above.
:-)
If YOU feel the need to believe in God, go ahead. You have every right to believe in whatever God you chose. However, I wholly reject the idea that "Any intellectually honest person would have to conclude that the Christian God is the one and only God"
First of all, you've misquoted me. Here's what I really said:
"Then he investigates, with an open mind, and he should (if intellectually honest) come to the conclusion that there can be only one true God."
I did not say it was intellectually dishonest to not believe in the Christian God! I stated that doing a thorough, open-minded investigation should lead to that conclusion!
And while I'll hold to my position that YHWH is the Christian God, I cannot say the same for Allah. Based on what I've read of the Koran (admittedly, only a small portion of it) and what I've read of the Bible (all of it), Allah is most emphatically not the God of the Bible. Take that as you may.
How do you know that these are the qualifications for godhood?
:-)
:-)
:-)
You are correct in stating that I've made the assumption that there is a God. All my statements and views about the world follow from that first principle. But by the same token, you've made the assumption that there isn't a God. Logically, all your views will be based on your first principle. Everything boils down to the first principle, the initial assumption. Mine is that a personal God exists. If a person bases their investigation on that assumption (which they'd really have to make to want to investigate in the first place), then it follows that it is intellectually dishonest to deny the revelation in the Bible. QED.
As for the qualifications of God, well...any god without those qualities really wouldn't be much of a god, and hence not worthy of worship. I prefer to worship a sovereign God, not some being with human foibles and follies.
Please find another phrase, if only to keep rabid knee-jerkers like myself off your case.
Ahh, see, I enjoy good honest discussions, especially with those who disagree with me! So please, keep on my case!
So, pray tell me, oh Wise One Who Knows All The Answers, which god?
I won't claim to have all the answers, because I don't. But I'll share what I know...
First off, I'd argue that YHWH is the Christian Trinity, but that's a theological discussion for offline... =)
There's a really simple way to figure out which God. A person takes everything that would be a requirement/necessity for an entity to be God. For example: eternal, outside of space/time, sovereign over everything, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Then he investigates, with an open mind, and he should (if intellectually honest) come to the conclusion that there can be only one true God.
What does one investigate, though? The only thing we have to look at are revelations, both natural (i.e. the world) and supernatural (i.e. the Word). A close inspection will reveal that the rest of the so-called "gods" have little no nothing in common with the one true God, and indeed cannot come close to meeting the necessary conditions! But it will also reveal that the God of the Bible does meet all those conditions, and more!
It comes down to this: if all religions are equally true or valid, then Christianity is false, which contradicts the original assumption (that all religions are true)! If Christianity is true (and I believe that it is), then everything else is false by default. But don't just listen to me. Do your own investigation (much like C.S. Lewis, often quoted by me) to discover the truth!
As a good citizen I would not stand idely by and allow myself and my friends be watched in such an intrusive, unconstitutional manner.
Ever walked into a convenience store or gas station during the graveyard shift? Ever been watched as you go and browse the snack aisle? The clerks (the smart ones, at least) are always on the lookout for suspicious people. In this case, surveillance is being done by machines instead of people, giving them more eyes that don't get tired or bored.
Sorry, I don't think I was as clear as I probably should have been. There you go, reading what I wrote instead of what I meant! ;-)
I in no way meant that the child would no longer be human. I agree, that's completely absurd! It's the perception of humanity (person-ness, if you will) that is the issue here. My point was meant to be that there would necessarily be some level, however great or small, of emotional detachment (de-personalization) on the part of the parents toward the child, if characteristics for a child could be selected in a manner akin to opting for more RAM and a CD-R on a custom computer system from Dell. I should have been a little more clear, and used "personhood" rather than "humanity". Regardless, it's the perception, not the objective fact, that I'm writing about. It's not going to feel that much like a person when a one selects the sP70 model: blond hair, blue eyes, 6'2" fully grown, runner's physique, IQ in the range of 140-160, with an ear for music. At least, not until the child starts kicking at 2:00 am!
Good point.
But let's not forget the potential ramifications for the "gengineered" child. Initially, the cost will be prohibitively expensive, meaning only the super-rich will be able to afford it. This will leave a very small minority of children who will be extraordinarly different from other children. And the other kids will pick up on that very quickly. If you think ostracism and isolation are all too common among today's youth, wait until the first few generations of these children. Their parents won't understand, their teachers won't understand, their peers won't understand. Talk about emotional problems.
Then there's the issue of picking out the characteristics of the child, further reducing his/her prenatal humanity. That's a whole other can of worms that could go way off track... Suffice it to say, human beings are not commodities, although the trend is moving towards treating them as such...
It is a religious issue. I'm hoping others might see it that way as well.
But I did want to leave one extra thing to consider, based on the response:
I have faith that humans will utilize the tools that are science and technology in productive ways that will improve our lot as a species.
Now, of course, comparing this kind of faith to faith in a Creator is specious. While there is plenty of evidence that human nature exists, there is no concrete, provable evidence that a Creator exists.
Human nature in what form? I view human nature as utterly prideful and selfish, and any hope that one might have that the better part of human nature will prevail is just wishful thinking. Likewise, I cannot see any basis to believe that humanity will use the fruits of technology in mostly beneficial ways. From my point of view, humanity cannot (on their own) escape their nature. Based on that assumption, I see no basis for faith in something so finite and tenuous. Faith can only be as good as the object of that faith. And one will arrive at that faith based on their assumptions and first principles about that object.
All I've been hearing throughout the emergence of the so-called "information age" is how much technology will improve the lives of everyone around the world. Whether you worship at the Altar of the Internet or the Temple of the Dow Jones or the Congregation of the Cellular Phone or the Assembly of the Palm V, they're all just setting up another false god (or pantheon of false gods) to which you can pledge your devotion and worship.
But should these idols be the objects of our devotion as the supreme notion of truth, or should they merely aid us on our quest for Truth?
Many of those who are anti-technology are really only against the misuse of technology, and are opposed to the artificial exalted state to which technology and science are often lifted.
In the end, it all boils down to faith. The techno-optimists put their faith in science and technology. Others put their faith in human nature, or government, or socialism, or capitalism, or environmentalism, or any other -ism under the sun. Next time you jump to deride and condemn a Christian for their faith, stop and think about where you place your faith. And then challenge yourself to examine why they put their faith in the Creator instead of the created.