I'm not claiming my belief in God is logical, for the record. My belief in God is separate and apart from logic. It's a difficult area, to be sure. Even now as I think about it, I wonder at the huge gap between what little I can comprehend and what can be proven scientifically. Maybe you're right, and my lizard brain (haha) substitutes God for things I don't understand. But, and this is a big BUT, I don't use God as an excuse to stop trying to understand via science. Science is just a means to understanding, and if it proves something wrong about my religious beliefs, so be it - I will amend religious beliefs accordingly.
In my opinion, religion by definition is immoral since it presupposes to know what an ultimate creator wants, and inevitably ends up meting out the most despicable cruelties on those who reject the religion. You can't argue with the word of the ultimate creator, after all.
Interesting that secular communist and socialist governments killed more of their own citizens by murder and gross mismanagement than people who died as a result of all religious wars, ever, in all of human history, yet you identify religion as a force of the most despicable cruelties.
In my opinion, religion by definition is immoral since it presupposes to know what an ultimate creator wants, and inevitably ends up meting out the most despicable cruelties on those who reject the religion. You can't argue with the word of the ultimate creator, after all.
That's a broad generalization that isn't true across the board. Buddhism is a great example of a religion that has been consistently peaceful and inward-looking for the bulk of its recorded history. Christianity has as many implementations as practitioners, some evil, some saintly. Practitioners of man religions take a sincere and humble approach to knowing "Truth" that involves self-inspection and respect for others.
There are many ways to practice religion which are compatible with peaceful coexistence with others, and with honest scientific inquiry. To reject data because you have an emotional prejudice is at best unscientific and irrational.
" But hardline atheists have no choice but to resist any alternatives to evolution"
False and backwards.
Bible literalist have no choice then to deny the theory of evolution regardless of evidence.
Actually, I think you're both right limited to those two statements. But you make reference only to bible literalists. Many religious people do not believe in literal interpretation. The Catholic church certainly doesn't take the creation story literally; nor would the Lutherans, or most of the protestants. For these and many others, there is no conflict between science and religion. I don't think that for Atheists, who don't have a sliding scale of "how much they believe in supernatural processes", that they can accept anything other than evolution, unless you're proposing there are alternative scientific theories on the subject.
Who says it hasn't failed to produce advanced life forms here? There may be a life form out there so advanced that you look like a slime mold in comparison.
I recently got into a debate with Geekoid about crime statistics. By the end of it, I'd won pretty handily, and it was clear he was cherry picking data.
I didn't think it would come up again, but here it has, and as it turns out, you're exactly right - Geekoid engaged in selective comprehension of data to fit his emotional need to support preconceived and wrong beliefs.
That said, I agree with you that there is nothing threatening about finding science compelling to a point, and then thinking that while there are parts of a question science answers, that there are other answers we choose to believe, SO LONG AS we are willing to consider any and all data presented to us.
I personally believe in God, and believe science is just as legitimate a means to find truth as any other. If it leads me to believe that the literal interpretation of Genesis is false, I am doing nothing wrong to believe that. Religious belief is not necessarily absolute truth, and as we grow in emotional and spiritual maturity we don't need to be afraid of science overturning things we believed before from religious education.
What bothers science-only people is that there are many religious people who refuse to accept science when faced with it. I can understand why that would bother science-only folks. But I don't understand the need to hurl insults at science-and-religion folks who show little sign of threatening rational thought or scientific progress.
Approximate squares and circles exist, from which the qualities of theoretical perfect ones may be extrapolated.
There was a terrible attempt to prove the existence of God in this manner by St. Anselm. It was something along the lines of "if the idea of a perfect God exists, then the idea must come from a better source, and the better source would be a perfect God". I thought that rather silly myself, as there is nothing about the idea of a perfect God which requires anything better than a human.
That said, the leap from the observable universe to the Big Bang is remarkable. I cannot conceive of how cosmologists and physicists developed that theory based on anything that didn't involve highly speculative, unsupportable, and [initially, at least] downright laughable proposals. If fact, plate tectonics was laughed at for some time for similar reasons, though I find that idea less dramatic.
The flip side of this is my understand of subtle but occasionally documented rejection of examples of epigenetic mechanisms at work which didn't fit with Darwinism. Since certain types of epigenetic actions (i.e. inheritance of acquired traits) don't fit with the Mendelian OR Darwinian models, they took a very long time to be generally accepted. Even worse for epigenetics was that these mechanisms occasionally looked like ID, and so were often co-opted by ID proponents to argue for ID, when really they are just poorly understood natural phenomenon.
However, it makes me wonder: Is it worse to suppress data that can be used to support a nonscientific view because you disagree with the nonscientific view, and be wrong for suppressing the data, or is it worse to accept data that science does not explain, while being open to scientific or nonscientific explanations?
"..l free to engage in thinking beyond that which is accepted in those circles."
unless he can actually get some evidence that adds to what is already known., he isn't thinking beyond anything. Just spouting nonsense.
Because there's no value in considering or thinking about anything for which empirical data doesn't exist? This concept goes broadly beyond evolution. In fact, if you believe in the mathematical concept of a circle, or a square - you have established belief in something for which no physical evidence exists. There are no perfect circles or squares in the world. Only in pure thought do such things exist. And the understanding of mathematics that we use to describe them had to come about without perfect or precise examples.
Also, as GP implied, jumping from "intelligent designer" to the benevolent and omnipotent Christian god just does not follow from "there are issues with Evolutionary Theory."
I didn't mean to imply that, though I can see why you might assume it. I was more interested in pointing out that I appreciated seeing someone who has a science and engineering background feel free to engage in thinking beyond that which is accepted in those circles.
I only knew Mims through his electronics books. I had no idea he was skeptical of evolution. It's interesting to show an example of someone who is clearly scientifically literate, yet still has room in his belief system for God, and also sees cracks in accepted theory. How many "independent" thinkers do we have in my generation? Whenever I say things like Mims said here, I'm mocked (openly or silently). I think something's lost for that.
This is why I refuse to vote for Republicans (broadly), even though they think I should vote for them. I'm perfectly happy to help clean house in the GOP by convincing fiscal conservatives to stop supporting the GOP until they roll over and live up to their promises of small government (which for me includes noninterventionist foreign policy, staying out of the bedroom, getting out of the "war on drugs", etc.).
I'm certainly not going to convince leftists of the need for economic freedom, but if I can help make fiscal conservatives who are trying to enforce religious right social values get out of the evangelism through politics business, I'll fight that fight.
And we really needed your ass-simple analogy to understand the article.
Maybe you didn't, but it would appear the multitude of frustrated Humanities PhDs who can't find tenure-track jobs might. And, possibly, the MLA committee who penned the original study.
You are right. I made most of my earnings playing jazz and motown in a wedding band (most clarinetists double, and I played sax and flute). I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have been making almost $1K/month for a while as a performing musician. I bet that puts me in a much higher percentile than as a 6 figures/year engineer...
I am not sure I agree. With a few exceptions, I'm quite capable of going to original source material myself without it being brokered to me by a Humanities PhD. I can read Greek philosophy, observe art, and happen to take piano lessons (for over six years now) from an MFA.
Only ONCE in my adult life did I find a Humanities PhD useful, and he pointed me at an original source work about labor issues during the industrial revolution, and warned me almost everyone BUT him in his field was essentially a Marxist.
To think that there are no other choices than to think we need hordes of mediocre PhDs in humanities or be dead inside is a false dichotomy.
And again, to be real freaking clear, there is a world of difference between a fine arts major who can be evaluated on performance in terms of art, music, and theatre, or a Humanities major who kisses ass to get a dissertation through the committee. Sorry, Humanities PhDs are NOT the ones producing art and music. And most of the lit these days is warmed over Marxist garbage.
It's hard to imagine where all the resentment is coming from.
No kidding. I thought I explained pretty clearly: "I have been told by a friend that his vote should count for more because he has a master's in International Conflict Resolution"
I have other examples of that kind of condescension from him. He's a well-meaning individual, but hopelessly unable to make a decent living, or solve basic practical problems, and nearly seems to look down on me BECAUSE I can. And I hardly think my experience is unique.
I'd never heard of the Frankfurt School before reading your comment, and now, after reading a bit about them, I wish I never had. Just the Wikipedia article on them made me want to ban all liberal arts classes in perpetuity.
Yes and, as was my point, people when left to their own device also tend to do whatever they can to exploit and live off the work of others up to and including enslaving them and credibly threatening them with death to enforce that enslavement.
Governments are no less likely to do such things than individuals. I believe you're implying that government is by nature tending to prevent slavery and exploitation. I don't believe that's true, simply by looking at the massive exploitation and murder of citizens by their own governments in the 20th century, and including the unprecedented and ongoing theft of wealth from wage earners to banks today via inflation.
I'm not all that keen on giving religious wars of the past a pass simply due to sheer numbers, but you've got a really good point.
Sigh. And I really liked bashing on the crusades and the inquisition:)
If it helps, there are lots and lots of Christians who are mortified by the bad parts of the history of the Church, and ongoing anti-human preaching and activity from some parts of it.
The funny thing about this, is it's counterintuitively accurate. Most of the captains and officers of history were aristocrats, and therefore well educated in the liberal and even fine arts. I enjoyed the scenes in "Master and Commander" where the captain and doctor played string duets. But the truth is, the people going to get PhDs in humanities are just middle class wankers who are not destined for a starship Captain's chair.
Not true. You can have a few elite universities granting PhDs to Humanities majors at a rate that fills the general need for professors at elite and other universities. The excess number of PhDs without those jobs is the indication that the need is being met for professors, and too many additional PhDs are being granted.
While that's a possibility, I'm pretty sure it's not the case. Through high school I placed very highly in one of the most competitive state audition tracks in the country, consistently at or near the top. My academics, while strong, were not even close to that of the math and computer students just at my high school let alone being good enough to even get into anything approaching a prestigious university. My college professor wanted me to pursue a performance degree in clarinet (I took lessons as a non-major). So on balance, I feel like when I say this I'm being quite grounded and as objective as possible.
At best, I'd likely be a second-call broadway player or an adjunct clarinet professor at a second-rate university. Crushed my dreams, but probably true.
You might still read a book of his. It might be far better for him to pursue it as a hobby while enriching his life with productive work, and really having something to write about, instead of living in the echo chamber of academia. No one is saying don't study the humanities. What's clear is that there are far more people engaging in mediocre pursuit of Humanities credentials than we possibly need.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not claiming my belief in God is logical, for the record. My belief in God is separate and apart from logic. It's a difficult area, to be sure. Even now as I think about it, I wonder at the huge gap between what little I can comprehend and what can be proven scientifically. Maybe you're right, and my lizard brain (haha) substitutes God for things I don't understand. But, and this is a big BUT, I don't use God as an excuse to stop trying to understand via science. Science is just a means to understanding, and if it proves something wrong about my religious beliefs, so be it - I will amend religious beliefs accordingly.
In my opinion, religion by definition is immoral since it presupposes to know what an ultimate creator wants, and inevitably ends up meting out the most despicable cruelties on those who reject the religion. You can't argue with the word of the ultimate creator, after all.
Interesting that secular communist and socialist governments killed more of their own citizens by murder and gross mismanagement than people who died as a result of all religious wars, ever, in all of human history, yet you identify religion as a force of the most despicable cruelties.
Here are some basic stats to back up that claim: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkil...
In my opinion, religion by definition is immoral since it presupposes to know what an ultimate creator wants, and inevitably ends up meting out the most despicable cruelties on those who reject the religion. You can't argue with the word of the ultimate creator, after all.
That's a broad generalization that isn't true across the board. Buddhism is a great example of a religion that has been consistently peaceful and inward-looking for the bulk of its recorded history. Christianity has as many implementations as practitioners, some evil, some saintly. Practitioners of man religions take a sincere and humble approach to knowing "Truth" that involves self-inspection and respect for others.
There are many ways to practice religion which are compatible with peaceful coexistence with others, and with honest scientific inquiry. To reject data because you have an emotional prejudice is at best unscientific and irrational.
" But hardline atheists have no choice but to resist any alternatives to evolution"
False and backwards. Bible literalist have no choice then to deny the theory of evolution regardless of evidence.
Actually, I think you're both right limited to those two statements. But you make reference only to bible literalists. Many religious people do not believe in literal interpretation. The Catholic church certainly doesn't take the creation story literally; nor would the Lutherans, or most of the protestants. For these and many others, there is no conflict between science and religion. I don't think that for Atheists, who don't have a sliding scale of "how much they believe in supernatural processes", that they can accept anything other than evolution, unless you're proposing there are alternative scientific theories on the subject.
Who says it hasn't failed to produce advanced life forms here? There may be a life form out there so advanced that you look like a slime mold in comparison.
I recently got into a debate with Geekoid about crime statistics. By the end of it, I'd won pretty handily, and it was clear he was cherry picking data.
I didn't think it would come up again, but here it has, and as it turns out, you're exactly right - Geekoid engaged in selective comprehension of data to fit his emotional need to support preconceived and wrong beliefs.
That said, I agree with you that there is nothing threatening about finding science compelling to a point, and then thinking that while there are parts of a question science answers, that there are other answers we choose to believe, SO LONG AS we are willing to consider any and all data presented to us.
I personally believe in God, and believe science is just as legitimate a means to find truth as any other. If it leads me to believe that the literal interpretation of Genesis is false, I am doing nothing wrong to believe that. Religious belief is not necessarily absolute truth, and as we grow in emotional and spiritual maturity we don't need to be afraid of science overturning things we believed before from religious education.
What bothers science-only people is that there are many religious people who refuse to accept science when faced with it. I can understand why that would bother science-only folks. But I don't understand the need to hurl insults at science-and-religion folks who show little sign of threatening rational thought or scientific progress.
Approximate squares and circles exist, from which the qualities of theoretical perfect ones may be extrapolated.
There was a terrible attempt to prove the existence of God in this manner by St. Anselm. It was something along the lines of "if the idea of a perfect God exists, then the idea must come from a better source, and the better source would be a perfect God". I thought that rather silly myself, as there is nothing about the idea of a perfect God which requires anything better than a human.
That said, the leap from the observable universe to the Big Bang is remarkable. I cannot conceive of how cosmologists and physicists developed that theory based on anything that didn't involve highly speculative, unsupportable, and [initially, at least] downright laughable proposals. If fact, plate tectonics was laughed at for some time for similar reasons, though I find that idea less dramatic.
The flip side of this is my understand of subtle but occasionally documented rejection of examples of epigenetic mechanisms at work which didn't fit with Darwinism. Since certain types of epigenetic actions (i.e. inheritance of acquired traits) don't fit with the Mendelian OR Darwinian models, they took a very long time to be generally accepted. Even worse for epigenetics was that these mechanisms occasionally looked like ID, and so were often co-opted by ID proponents to argue for ID, when really they are just poorly understood natural phenomenon.
However, it makes me wonder: Is it worse to suppress data that can be used to support a nonscientific view because you disagree with the nonscientific view, and be wrong for suppressing the data, or is it worse to accept data that science does not explain, while being open to scientific or nonscientific explanations?
"..l free to engage in thinking beyond that which is accepted in those circles." unless he can actually get some evidence that adds to what is already known., he isn't thinking beyond anything. Just spouting nonsense.
Because there's no value in considering or thinking about anything for which empirical data doesn't exist? This concept goes broadly beyond evolution. In fact, if you believe in the mathematical concept of a circle, or a square - you have established belief in something for which no physical evidence exists. There are no perfect circles or squares in the world. Only in pure thought do such things exist. And the understanding of mathematics that we use to describe them had to come about without perfect or precise examples.
Also, as GP implied, jumping from "intelligent designer" to the benevolent and omnipotent Christian god just does not follow from "there are issues with Evolutionary Theory."
I didn't mean to imply that, though I can see why you might assume it. I was more interested in pointing out that I appreciated seeing someone who has a science and engineering background feel free to engage in thinking beyond that which is accepted in those circles.
I only knew Mims through his electronics books. I had no idea he was skeptical of evolution. It's interesting to show an example of someone who is clearly scientifically literate, yet still has room in his belief system for God, and also sees cracks in accepted theory. How many "independent" thinkers do we have in my generation? Whenever I say things like Mims said here, I'm mocked (openly or silently). I think something's lost for that.
Governments are made of people and do whatever the majority of banks want or at least allow them to do.
FTFY.
This is why I refuse to vote for Republicans (broadly), even though they think I should vote for them. I'm perfectly happy to help clean house in the GOP by convincing fiscal conservatives to stop supporting the GOP until they roll over and live up to their promises of small government (which for me includes noninterventionist foreign policy, staying out of the bedroom, getting out of the "war on drugs", etc.).
I'm certainly not going to convince leftists of the need for economic freedom, but if I can help make fiscal conservatives who are trying to enforce religious right social values get out of the evangelism through politics business, I'll fight that fight.
I often do the same. No kidding, a friend of mine won two elections that way.
Corollary: Rats are smarter than people who keep voting for Democrats or Republicans.
And we really needed your ass-simple analogy to understand the article.
Maybe you didn't, but it would appear the multitude of frustrated Humanities PhDs who can't find tenure-track jobs might. And, possibly, the MLA committee who penned the original study.
Two, he might be a jazz clarinetist.
You are right. I made most of my earnings playing jazz and motown in a wedding band (most clarinetists double, and I played sax and flute). I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have been making almost $1K/month for a while as a performing musician. I bet that puts me in a much higher percentile than as a 6 figures/year engineer...
I am not sure I agree. With a few exceptions, I'm quite capable of going to original source material myself without it being brokered to me by a Humanities PhD. I can read Greek philosophy, observe art, and happen to take piano lessons (for over six years now) from an MFA.
Only ONCE in my adult life did I find a Humanities PhD useful, and he pointed me at an original source work about labor issues during the industrial revolution, and warned me almost everyone BUT him in his field was essentially a Marxist.
To think that there are no other choices than to think we need hordes of mediocre PhDs in humanities or be dead inside is a false dichotomy.
And again, to be real freaking clear, there is a world of difference between a fine arts major who can be evaluated on performance in terms of art, music, and theatre, or a Humanities major who kisses ass to get a dissertation through the committee. Sorry, Humanities PhDs are NOT the ones producing art and music. And most of the lit these days is warmed over Marxist garbage.
It's hard to imagine where all the resentment is coming from.
No kidding. I thought I explained pretty clearly: "I have been told by a friend that his vote should count for more because he has a master's in International Conflict Resolution"
I have other examples of that kind of condescension from him. He's a well-meaning individual, but hopelessly unable to make a decent living, or solve basic practical problems, and nearly seems to look down on me BECAUSE I can. And I hardly think my experience is unique.
I'd never heard of the Frankfurt School before reading your comment, and now, after reading a bit about them, I wish I never had. Just the Wikipedia article on them made me want to ban all liberal arts classes in perpetuity.
Yes and, as was my point, people when left to their own device also tend to do whatever they can to exploit and live off the work of others up to and including enslaving them and credibly threatening them with death to enforce that enslavement.
Governments are no less likely to do such things than individuals. I believe you're implying that government is by nature tending to prevent slavery and exploitation. I don't believe that's true, simply by looking at the massive exploitation and murder of citizens by their own governments in the 20th century, and including the unprecedented and ongoing theft of wealth from wage earners to banks today via inflation.
I'm not all that keen on giving religious wars of the past a pass simply due to sheer numbers, but you've got a really good point.
Sigh. And I really liked bashing on the crusades and the inquisition :)
If it helps, there are lots and lots of Christians who are mortified by the bad parts of the history of the Church, and ongoing anti-human preaching and activity from some parts of it.
The funny thing about this, is it's counterintuitively accurate. Most of the captains and officers of history were aristocrats, and therefore well educated in the liberal and even fine arts. I enjoyed the scenes in "Master and Commander" where the captain and doctor played string duets. But the truth is, the people going to get PhDs in humanities are just middle class wankers who are not destined for a starship Captain's chair.
Not true. You can have a few elite universities granting PhDs to Humanities majors at a rate that fills the general need for professors at elite and other universities. The excess number of PhDs without those jobs is the indication that the need is being met for professors, and too many additional PhDs are being granted.
While that's a possibility, I'm pretty sure it's not the case. Through high school I placed very highly in one of the most competitive state audition tracks in the country, consistently at or near the top. My academics, while strong, were not even close to that of the math and computer students just at my high school let alone being good enough to even get into anything approaching a prestigious university. My college professor wanted me to pursue a performance degree in clarinet (I took lessons as a non-major). So on balance, I feel like when I say this I'm being quite grounded and as objective as possible.
At best, I'd likely be a second-call broadway player or an adjunct clarinet professor at a second-rate university. Crushed my dreams, but probably true.
You might still read a book of his. It might be far better for him to pursue it as a hobby while enriching his life with productive work, and really having something to write about, instead of living in the echo chamber of academia. No one is saying don't study the humanities. What's clear is that there are far more people engaging in mediocre pursuit of Humanities credentials than we possibly need.