Lol, given the origins of this thread there's a certain irony in your assumption that I was merely indoctrinated, instead of convinced by superior arguments. If we blindly believe other people are simply brainwashed then we are no better than those who blindly follow their religious beliefs. Blind faith is not exclusive to religion. We must always follow the evidence.
Please provide specific examples of how Catholic belief is contrary to science, or how catholic belief is necessarily brainwashing in place of reasoned belief. This cannot include references to what "most" Catholics do or believe. This is about the Catholic faith as a religious and philosophical system, not what individual Catholics may (often mistakenly) believe.
I ended up converting to Catholicism while doing my masters in philosophy. I couldn't argue against it. This was at a highly secular university in Ontario, York university. Many may believe for poor reasons, but that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons, and not all of us are indoctrinated from youth.
Let's be clear here: Catholics do not take this stance - faith MUST be supported by reason. The Catholic position:
Catechism Paragraph 155: In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."
In more depth:
Catechism Paragraph 159: Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."
And finally, and perhaps most significantly:
Catechism Paragraph 50: By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works.
By this is it meant that through philosophical reflection God's existence can be known.
You can argue that philosophical reflection will reveal something different (ie, that he cannot be known), but you can't assert that Catholic religious belief involves belief in something without evidence. This is completely false.
It might be worth noting that up here in Ontario I'm able to get 7.2 megabits/sec on a good night, with averages between 4.5-6.5, with latency between 75 and 95ms. And this is literally in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by fields and trees. In fact, because of where we live, we use something called a Rocket Hub as our primary internet access device, and it uses the cell network. $60/month for 10 gigs, with $5/gig overage. We may not be the best in the world by any stretch, but it's not bad!
Not in Catholic theology it's not. Among other things, power is suffering and humiliation for the sake of the truth. No one knows this better than Benedict. He's a very deep thinker, and I suspect he's being quoted out of context again.
I'm not sure how far that irony extends, so if I'm attacking a straw man here please forgive me.
He very much is talking about serious philosophical positions. The pope is a heavy-duty philosopher and intends to note the potential harm that can come from ethics not grounded in being.
It should be noted that while Augustine may have looked back to Plato, the church has looked more to an Aristotelian foundation since the 13th century and Thomas Aquinas. Further, Aquinas noted that faith and reason can never be in conflict with each other (either our belief is wrong or our understanding of the world is). Thus many of the commandments of divine law can be understood using the light of human reason alone.
Further, unless the truth of the Church's authority can be established through the light of human reason alone (with philosophy, history, etc), there is no reason one should follow it. This is a dogma of Catholic belief. It's right in the catechism and several dogmatic councils. So much like we trust a microscope to provide us with valid data we can't directly prove once it's ability to provide data at a different scale is established, the church can be trusted to teach truthfully that which human reason alone attain. It can never be contrary to reason, but we could never have discovered the data had the Church not provided it.
And the Church has done, and continues to do, incredible things for the world. Millions of people are fed, healed, and prayed for because of the church. She is made of human members, so a few have failed in very serious ways. But don't let the misdeeds of a few tarnish the incredible dedication and love of so many others.
The trouble is that wind turbines can't be counted on for peak load generation either. The wind may be there when you need more power, but perhaps not. And so you still will have to build the peak stations in addition to the wind turbines.
I do in fact have some vague idea of the concept (sublime) - I did my masters degree in environmental ethics. I assure you that there are probably few people who are less on the side of industry than myself.
While the wind may always be blowing somewhere, there's no guarantee that you can get it from where it's blowing to where it's not. And might not the people need it where it's blowing in any event?
Second, economies of scale don't scale infinitely - and it is very far from clear that even with mass production scaled far above what it is now that the savings would be as substantial as you suggest.
Finally, I can indeed give you your wikipedia entry for Wind Turbine Syndrome: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_Turbine_Syndrome)
Why assume that the only response is to be snide? I love and care for the environment as well! The goal of all this discussion is to determine the best way of generating power in service of ultimately creating the richest, fullest lives we can for all while helping the environment to flourish. Though preserving air quality is a key part of this balance, it shouldn't include destroying the physical landscape and people's health and well-being to do it.
Even taking into account the increases in efficiency this would provide, it still doesn't solve a fundamental problem - if the wind isn't blowing, power won't be generated.
Certainly in this part of the country (Ontario), there are periods of time, days long, when the wind will not blow. And the province still needs the same amount of power regardless of the present wind speed. If the power can't be counted on, then backup generator stations will need to be built to generate power when the wind can't.
And wind power is far more expensive than other sources of power. At least twice as expensive in most cases, if not a good deal more, from what I understand. So not only is it more expensive when it does work, but even more money will need to be spent to provide backup power when it doesn't.
Aesthetics and health also must be taken into account. While some find them beautiful, to many they are an offensive blot on the landscape, particularly in serene, peaceful, or sublime areas. Their noise production is not insignificant for those living nearby. And recent studies show they can have a negative impact on human health when people are located close enough to them.
So if wind power is to be used, the installation should be done in such a way that it will not destroy the beauty of the landscape we are trying to preserve, while recognizing that backup power will still need to be built.
Slashdot Mirror
Though I don't use it myself, notify my android looks very good. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.usk.app.notifymyandroid&feature=search_result
Also, it integrates with tasker. And once you get tasker into the game, there's not much you can't do.
Lol, given the origins of this thread there's a certain irony in your assumption that I was merely indoctrinated, instead of convinced by superior arguments. If we blindly believe other people are simply brainwashed then we are no better than those who blindly follow their religious beliefs. Blind faith is not exclusive to religion. We must always follow the evidence.
Please provide specific examples of how Catholic belief is contrary to science, or how catholic belief is necessarily brainwashing in place of reasoned belief. This cannot include references to what "most" Catholics do or believe. This is about the Catholic faith as a religious and philosophical system, not what individual Catholics may (often mistakenly) believe.
I ended up converting to Catholicism while doing my masters in philosophy. I couldn't argue against it. This was at a highly secular university in Ontario, York university. Many may believe for poor reasons, but that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons, and not all of us are indoctrinated from youth.
Let's be clear here: Catholics do not take this stance - faith MUST be supported by reason. The Catholic position:
Catechism Paragraph 155: In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."
In more depth:
Catechism Paragraph 159: Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."
And finally, and perhaps most significantly:
Catechism Paragraph 50: By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works.
By this is it meant that through philosophical reflection God's existence can be known.
You can argue that philosophical reflection will reveal something different (ie, that he cannot be known), but you can't assert that Catholic religious belief involves belief in something without evidence. This is completely false.
It might be worth noting that up here in Ontario I'm able to get 7.2 megabits/sec on a good night, with averages between 4.5-6.5, with latency between 75 and 95ms. And this is literally in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by fields and trees. In fact, because of where we live, we use something called a Rocket Hub as our primary internet access device, and it uses the cell network. $60/month for 10 gigs, with $5/gig overage. We may not be the best in the world by any stretch, but it's not bad!
Not in Catholic theology it's not. Among other things, power is suffering and humiliation for the sake of the truth. No one knows this better than Benedict. He's a very deep thinker, and I suspect he's being quoted out of context again.
I'm not sure how far that irony extends, so if I'm attacking a straw man here please forgive me.
He very much is talking about serious philosophical positions. The pope is a heavy-duty philosopher and intends to note the potential harm that can come from ethics not grounded in being.
It should be noted that while Augustine may have looked back to Plato, the church has looked more to an Aristotelian foundation since the 13th century and Thomas Aquinas. Further, Aquinas noted that faith and reason can never be in conflict with each other (either our belief is wrong or our understanding of the world is). Thus many of the commandments of divine law can be understood using the light of human reason alone.
Further, unless the truth of the Church's authority can be established through the light of human reason alone (with philosophy, history, etc), there is no reason one should follow it. This is a dogma of Catholic belief. It's right in the catechism and several dogmatic councils. So much like we trust a microscope to provide us with valid data we can't directly prove once it's ability to provide data at a different scale is established, the church can be trusted to teach truthfully that which human reason alone attain. It can never be contrary to reason, but we could never have discovered the data had the Church not provided it.
And the Church has done, and continues to do, incredible things for the world. Millions of people are fed, healed, and prayed for because of the church. She is made of human members, so a few have failed in very serious ways. But don't let the misdeeds of a few tarnish the incredible dedication and love of so many others.
The trouble is that wind turbines can't be counted on for peak load generation either. The wind may be there when you need more power, but perhaps not. And so you still will have to build the peak stations in addition to the wind turbines.
I do in fact have some vague idea of the concept (sublime) - I did my masters degree in environmental ethics. I assure you that there are probably few people who are less on the side of industry than myself.
While the wind may always be blowing somewhere, there's no guarantee that you can get it from where it's blowing to where it's not. And might not the people need it where it's blowing in any event?
Second, economies of scale don't scale infinitely - and it is very far from clear that even with mass production scaled far above what it is now that the savings would be as substantial as you suggest.
Finally, I can indeed give you your wikipedia entry for Wind Turbine Syndrome: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_Turbine_Syndrome)
Why assume that the only response is to be snide? I love and care for the environment as well! The goal of all this discussion is to determine the best way of generating power in service of ultimately creating the richest, fullest lives we can for all while helping the environment to flourish. Though preserving air quality is a key part of this balance, it shouldn't include destroying the physical landscape and people's health and well-being to do it.
Even taking into account the increases in efficiency this would provide, it still doesn't solve a fundamental problem - if the wind isn't blowing, power won't be generated. Certainly in this part of the country (Ontario), there are periods of time, days long, when the wind will not blow. And the province still needs the same amount of power regardless of the present wind speed. If the power can't be counted on, then backup generator stations will need to be built to generate power when the wind can't. And wind power is far more expensive than other sources of power. At least twice as expensive in most cases, if not a good deal more, from what I understand. So not only is it more expensive when it does work, but even more money will need to be spent to provide backup power when it doesn't. Aesthetics and health also must be taken into account. While some find them beautiful, to many they are an offensive blot on the landscape, particularly in serene, peaceful, or sublime areas. Their noise production is not insignificant for those living nearby. And recent studies show they can have a negative impact on human health when people are located close enough to them. So if wind power is to be used, the installation should be done in such a way that it will not destroy the beauty of the landscape we are trying to preserve, while recognizing that backup power will still need to be built.