I wouldn't spend a great deal of time worrying about Radon. After we paid for radon testing at our house, my wife did some research on this issue as a part of her graduate work.
The posted limit for radon is 4 pCi/L. This was determined by the EPA because most homes could have the leve reduced to that level or less, not because that level was shown to be a safe exposure level!
The results that show correlation between Radon and cancer were created by a study of uranium miners! Would you expect radiation issues for people who work in uranium mines?
http://proliberty.com/observer/20020205.htm
You can make your own decision, and I have no doubt that in general radiation is bad for people, but i'm not about to spend a bunch of $$ to 'fix' any future house that has radon. There's nothing to indicate that spending that cash, or teting the house, for that matter, will help maintain my family's health. I think it's a scam.
Except the first consequence is that we'd be reprimanded for not being a team player, and then we'd not get performance bonuses at the end of the year, and we'd not get promoted.
Your idealism is refreshing, but your understanding of the way the world works is a bit limited.
You said that Saddam was no threat. I seem to remember that another Brit believed that before, made a deal, and proclaimed "peace for our time." this is a brave new world, and today's war is quite different from WWII. Someone needs to step in and protect the weak.
Non-combatant deaths *would* have happened in the states. Training accidents, traffic accidents, domestic violence, victims of violent crime, drunk driving and more would have claimed the lives of service men and women. It's not a zero-sum game. People die outside of combat at a statistically predictable rate. Those would have died anyway.
> second largest reserves in the world? That may be, but the American taxpayers, and American Oil companies will not be taking those oil fields as the spoils of war, no matter what you think. If we wanted them, we would take them, and as the sole remaining superpower there's nothing that anyone could do about it. If we were really corrupt, capricious and power happy, we'd do what ever we wanted and nuke anyone who stood in our way. That's not the kind of thing that Americans do.
> explain...why they were guarding oil facilities Well, let's see. In 1991, Sadddam adopted a scorched earth policy in which he destroyed the oil production gear in Kuwait and Iraq and he retreated.
The generals are always prepared for the last war, not the next one. Besides, if they had not been protected, and had been set ablaze again, you would have charged that it was obvious that Saddam would have done that, and we were fools not to protect them.
Also, the hope for a prosperous future for a free Iraq is based on their ability to generate revenue. It's for the good of the people that their ability to create wealth be protected.
GWB is a puppet? Please. That's ridiculous, and when you suggest that you lose substantial credibility with me. You probably think he's stupid, too, right? Did it ever occur to you that it's strategically valuable to have your opponents underestimate your capability? Many people use that as a life strategy. I believe that GWB lets people think he's less than brilliant.
> You really want to start WW3? No, but all that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
> burn in hell for crimes against humanity Wow. That's pretty potent. On what basis do you make that assertion? Are you God?
> [Saddam may have killed] a couple hundred I've read some reports that Saddam may have killed 300,000 or more people during his reign of terror. What about his crimes against humanity? When should the strong protect the weak?
> zero connections to terrorism I think that the 9/11 commission report says that he was not linked to 9/11, but he has provided support to terrorists, even if he didn't help with that particular attack.
> things we do anyway Right. Some people did those things, and they are being prosecuted. There's an investigation going on, and if it was a systemic problem, the leaders will be punished as well. You seem to make moral equivalence between Saddam and the Coalition. The difference is that the Coalition is accountable to the public, and Saddam was accountable to no one.
> All good people go to heaven, right? I really don't think that is what he believes. If GWB is an evangelical Christian, and I think that he is, then he believes that: 1. God created all people 2. God loves all people 3. God is holy and perfect, and man is not 4. People naturally have no hope of relationship with a holy and perfect God, because of their imperfections 5. God loved people so much that He sent His Son to live the perfect life - free from sin - so that men could have the hope of relationship with God. 6. All people who honestly recognize their shortcomings before God, and place their trust in Christ and His perfect sacrifice to overcome their imperfections will be able to have relationship with God in this world and the next.
I work for a large company, and their view is that viruses are only worthy of attention when we are hit by them. Any time we dodge a bullet, that's considered doing our job, and we get no special credit for it.
When something hits us (primarily because we let our users have administrator, and secondarily because we put almost no effort or money into software patch deployment and automatic upgrades) we go into firefighting mode, and when we're done we get a "glad that's over. How do we avoid that next time?" We give the same answer we gave last time, and they respond: "That costs too much. Keep doing what you're doing."
I doubt that any Fortune 500 companies really reward virus prevention.
> Ah, no oil. And that's what it comes down to. This argument makes little sense to me. In this case, let's assume that your premise is bang on. Where's the money? Who is getting the big money from Iraqi oil? We're not getting rich on this deal. Iraq is a substantial money-loser for years to come. Let's say that we get Iraqi oil production up, and we flood the market with 'our' oil that we stole. The price of oil would plummet.
There's simply no profit here. What we invest in infrastructure and rebuilding and securing that nation will *never* be repaid - under any circumstances.
Halliburton has made some money, but they also are one of the few companies in the world who can do some of the things that are being done in Iraq.
You're busting on GWB for not yet winning the peace? How long does it take? Look at Germany, Japan, Korea - It's ridiculous to suggest that we should be done with winning the peace in 18-24 months? Saddam spent decades killing everyone who expressed any leadership potential.
WRT "western media is barely touching on it" - It seems clear to me that the western media (in general) has no love for GW Bush. Don't you think that they would love to show the Iraq war as a disaster to get the scoop?
Abortion? Roe v. Wade was a bad compromise. The concept of viability as a test was always a slippery slope. Viability in 1972 was a *lot* later in pregnancy than it is today. With the advances in medical science that you mentioned, I can foresee a day in my lifetime when scientists will join a sperm and an egg and the baby grows to viability completely outside of a mother's womb.
When a sperm and egg join, there's little to call that other than human life. All that is required from that point forward to birth is food and shelter.
If you don't consider that human life, what is it? When does it make the leap from whatever you call it to human? How can you be sure of that?
I value human life, and I agree with you that it is easier to be more concerned about the grain of sand in my shoe than the millions starving in other countries on the other side of the planet. I agree that we need to think about the needs of other people, but how many of those people would have been killed by Saddam and his minions? How many of the non-combatant deaths would have happened stateside?
I think that it's likely that we will step into Iraq and into North Korea in the next 5 years, too.
Do you really believe that all of the elected officials are corrupt? I think that most issues are more complex than sound bites would have you believe.
I disagree with Kerry on some significant issues, but I don't think that he's corrupt. I think that he's sincere in his beliefs.
I think that GWB is a man who genuinely believes in what he has chosen to do. I think that he has integrity, and wants to do what he really believes is best for the nation and the world.
It's easy to accuse politicians of being corrupt, and many are, but it seems disingenuous to think that some are not driven by higher motives.
Black versus white? What? I don't get it. Seems like a red herring to me.
WRT your straw man about "war is killing" therefore abortion is irrelevant - whatever helps *you* sleep at night.
WRT killing Iraqis, where are you getting your news? I've got friends who are or recently have been in Iraq, and they tell me that almost every Iraqi they've met has been thrilled to have the US there.
Many Iraqis are glad that a mass muderer and capricious dictator no longer rules their country with an iron fist. What about the number of people that Saddam won't kill now that he's incarcerated? Does that factor into your body count numbers? I seem to recall reading about recent uncovering of more mass graves in Iraq, or is that a straw man, too?
There are some there who are not happy about us being there. Largely those are the folks who have something to lose by having a freely elected government there. Those are the ones who are fighting us.
BTW - you're clubbing the US. From what country do you hail? It must be tough to live where you and your countrymen are right all of the time.
It all depends on your priorities. At this point, in the US, while abortion is legal and NARAL is making huge $$ on that 'industry,' somewhere close to 3,500 abortions a day occur.
From my vantage point, that's 3,500 human lives ended. A vote for Bush reduces the number of federally funded abortions, and therefore lives are saved.
Shortly after the birth of my first child, I purchased a 'night vision' camera from X10. After all, the ads make it look like the thing would be perfect, right? This was advertised as something like a 'ultra-low-light night vision camera' with audio. I thought it would be perfect. What I found was that I needed to leave a lamp ON in order to have enough light to use the camera at night.
It makes me laugh thinking about the people who buy those things to spy on their neighbors......
Why are people imprisoned? For their correction? To deter others? or To help them learn new ways of relating?
These are philosophical questions, and the truth is that some people are going to fear prison and therefore will avoid illegal behavior. Others will endure punishment in prison, decide that this is not an acceptable way to live and therefore will obey the law out of coersion, and others may decide to take advantage of programs there to establish a new life history where they gain education and empathy.
There is a small part of the population which will be unable to comply with society's rules and therefore will need to be isolated from society for the good of society. Perhaps this is to the detriment of the individual, but as Spock says: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Of course we need compassionate concern for those in prison. The fact that many here joke about "federal pound-me-in-the-*** prison" is indicative of one problem we face with prisons in America.
However, establishment of the existence of a problem within a system is not the sole requirement for abolishment of that system.
Inhuman? Some people are quite inhuman, and quite unwilling to change. As such, they must be locked up, and as long as they maintain that attitude, they will not gain education, learn right from wrong, or be interested in anyone but themselves. How do you propose to deal with those people?
Respectfully, Anomaly
I don't want science to 'prove' god
on
Capturing Genesis
·
· Score: 1
You're putting words in my mouth. Others may have that perspective, but I do not.
Science is all about the testable. I agree completely. To follow the scientific method, one observes a phenomenon, gathers information about it, develops a theory about the relationships among the events, and then tests that theory.
We're on the same page here, right?
Origins are not testable using this method. This method can be used to gather information and speculate about the origin of the universe, but science cannot conclude what happened in the absence of being able to test the speculation.
Science is good, as far as it goes, but can only test certain things. As you pointed out in your original posting in this thread, science cannot conclude a negative - only that a positive (or evidence of the positive thing) has never been observed.
Naturalism provides an inadequate model for the universe as we experience it. Science has its limits. Reason does, too. Pascal said "The heart has its reasons which reason does not know."
WRT the universe being the ultimate cause, given our understanding of physics, it seems logical to conclude that due to the entropic principle that the universe should have died a heat loss death an eternity ago. Why hasn't the universe equilibrated?
Some may, but I think you're being a bit unfair
on
Capturing Genesis
·
· Score: 1
You submit that people of faith want the scientists to cook the books by collecting evidence in harmony with religious belief and discarding that which appears to conflict with it.
While many would describe me as quite religious, I know a great number of intelligent people, some of them scientists, who would totally reject that idea. The evidence is the evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.
Realistically, science provides us with a framework to measure, describe, and manipulate the material that comprises the cosmos. It can do nothing more and nothing less.
To suggest that all of humanity is built from the basic building blocks of elements and chemicals causes us to neglect much of the human experience.
Many of the life experiences we have are not scientifically falsifiable. This does not make them less true. For example, trust, honor, and duty are true to the human experience, but science is completely inadequate to describe them.
My issue, which I think is in concert with your comments is that scientists bring their bias to the table when they develop theories. It's a red herring to suggest that the scientist has no bias "only the truth" and that a person of faith is inherently biased.
Specifically, let's take the issue of a creator. If the scientist comes to the table with a philosophical viewpoint that there is absolutely nothing supernatural, he will not consider theories that involve the supernatural. If the truth is that there is a creator, the atheist scientist will not even approach areas of inquiry where something supernatural may have occured.
If the facts support something supernatural, even the atheist should consider that as a possibility.
In terms of scientific research, let's throw some more gasoline on the fire of this discussion. Medical science has shown that stem cells from adults have incredible promise. We are starting to see actual medical benefits from that research, and real people are being helped from stem cell research. The media, and some scientists, are framing the discussion in terms of embryonic stem cells onlt, and neglect the benefits of other research.
Do you really believe that the furor over embryonic stem cell research is driven by a search for the truth? Don't you think that there are some other factors that drive the interest in embryonic stem cell research?
I agree completely that science is science. The light is either on or off, it really doesn't matter how you feel about it. Truth is that way.
However, frequently a straw man is drawn between science and matters of faith, where science is portrayed as unbiased - merely truth, and matters of faith are at best irrelevant, and at worst completely counter to reason itself.
People of faith bring a bias to a discussion. People of no faith bring a bias to a discussion, too. Because scientists are people, they bring a bias to their work. Specifically, scientists who deny God's existence have a bias that impacts their work, and not always in a positive way.
It's true that science and theology are separate disciplines, but to suggest that neither is relevant to the other is a bit naieve.
But I'd bet that there are some significant costs in manufacturing another one based on custom fabrication. My guess is that whatever templates were used in original construction are no longer available, and some of the folks that did the original work are no longer in the workforce. Some of the original engineering costs would be reduced, but the learning curve associated with the manufacturing of another one would not be small.
According to this: http://science.howstuffworks.com/hubble2.ht m The HST cost $2.2B US to build. I'm guessing it might be cheaper to replace the thing after the original is serviced 3 times, but how will you know that it will need three servicings?
I'm posting to slashdot, not writing a theology treatise. You are of course right about Christ being the Word of God - the word became flesh and dwelt among us.
I'll take some isue with your assessment of the 'average fundamentalist.' I happen to know a great number of them, and I'd say that the average fundamentalist that I know is not consistent with your description above.
With respect to the 'recent theology' component, I'd have a bit of a problem with that view. The book of Genesis reads to be the description of the creation of the universe, and the declarative history of humankind. To interpret it as an allegory is one possible explanation, but it doesn't hold water.
When Christ was questioned about marriage, he talked about Adam and Eve as if they were real individuals. When Paul was writing his letter to the Romans, he directly addressed the issue of original sin by explicitly referencing the sin of the one man - Adam, and the redemption of that sin through the man Jesus Christ.
Make Adam an allegorical figure, and there's little need for a real redeemer, but rather an allegorical one. The heroes of the faith listed in the NT book of Hebrews lists the men from Genesis in the long line of people who lived lives of faith. Make them an allegory and you add confusion to the mix because slearly that section of Hebrews talks about real, living people (living at that time) and it seems a little weak to suggest that some of our examples are actually models of what an example might be.
It's possible that there's an explanation for Genesis that doesn't conflict with current conventional wisdom in science, and I'm open to that, but it needs to hang well with the rest of the Bible, or I'm inclined to say that the explanation is unlikely to be valid.
It seems most likely, given my current understanding, that science will change its views about dating and cosmology (again) when more is understood about the universe, and that will likely harmonize physical evidence with scripture.
I could go on, but this *is* slashdot... (Time for a reload of the slashdot front page to see if I've missed something exciting....)
The following could be much longer answers, but I'll try to keep them as short as possible:
1. The Bible is the inspired word of God as written by men. Each author communicated using his own style, but the content was given by God and protected by God so that what was written was 'The word of God.' The Jewish people were the keepers of the 'Hebrew Scriptures' and they preserved those writings over time. The early Christian church absorbed the Hebrew scriptures (Jesus *was* a jew) and brought them together with the writings of the apostles. In 393 and 397 councils recognized the canon of scripture as hose books that were already accepted by the church as a whole. That is to say - man did not determine which books were from God and which were not. God revealed that to the church.
2. You might as well say "Define God and give two examples":) God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible contains the Word of God, but is not God. Your image appears in a mirror when you walk by, but the mirror does not contain you. Vampires excepted, of course.
I think that we are in agreement. As a fundamentalist, I do not oppose science - that is, good science - science that adheres to fundamental principles of science.
I'd sumit that most atheists I know - and I know a few - are completely unwilling to change their opinion. For most that I have questioned, there is *no* evidence that they would consider sufficient to change their point of view - and they call themselves free thinkers?
Many Christian fundamentalists 'major on the minors' by insisting on things that are not actually in the bible, or instead, violate principles of biblical interpretation by using a 'wooden literal' approach. The Bible does not claim to be a scientific textbook, and contains many different styles of writing. Literal interpretation is not always wise.
Let me put that in context. I *am* after all a fundamentalist. I think that: 1. The Bible is authoritative and accurate in its information. The objections to biblical accuracy that are well documented on the internet are also well refuted on the internet and elsewhere.
2. God created the universe - and the details are not provided in scripture, but
3. The creation as documented there certainly appears to reflect a seven-day creation. Other theories that attempt to include a long gap between days 1 and 2 are a stretch as far as I'm concerned.
Does that give me a cemented view? Perhaps.
I think that it is conceivable that scientists will one day conclude that the earth is substantially younger than is currently believed. After all, if new evidence is gathered that support that view, shouldn't science change its position?
Ultimately, I have the same physical evidence that an atheist has. Neither of us was present during creation (through natural or supernatural processes) and so neither of us can rely on the pure scientific method (lather, rinse, document, repeat) for affirming our positions with respect to universal and life's origins.
We each have theories that explain the evidence that we find, and sometimes each of us speculates.
Does that make the atheist's position more sound than mine? Only if his speculation is more supported by facts than mine.
Interestingly, if science is dominated by folks with 'an a priori commitment to naturalism' who will form hypotheses that conflict with conventional wisdom in science?
The debates between fundamentalists with their cemented views (having painted themselves in corner with fundamentalist interpretation of their holy book, be it bible, quran or whatever) and scientists (or people with strong natural science background)
I'll agree with you that many folks in the 'fundamentalist' camp have 'cemented views.' Many of them are certifiable. It seems that you are suggesting that scientists are not subject to the same kind of cement.
Scientists, the last time I checked, are people, and as such do have the same basis for their ideas that fundamentalists do.
As an example, I'll offer that if a scientist is an atheist, he (or she) is asserting that no God exists. That is a 'cemented view' that sets the place from which the scientist observes the universe.
We all have a bias. The question is, which bias fits the universe best?
I used to subscribe to this way of thinking - after all "I'll always have a car payment" and "As long as I can make the minimum payment, it doesn't matter what my credit card balance is."
This was foolish youth talking, and 'buy now, pay later' immediate gratification marketing that led me for years.
I had a wise aunt and uncle who advised me that I could spend 10% more than I earned, or 10% less. The first way I'd sweat payments for the rest of my life, the second way I'd always have money in my pocket. They were right!
Another great piece of advice from them was "buy a car you can pay off in 3 years. Keep it 6. After the loan is paid off, pay a savings account the same car payment. Then go pay cash for your replacement car. Keep paying yourself, and you'll never need to borrow money for a car loan again." If the next car costs more than the first, keep the first until the savings account has enough to cover the next car.
This REALLY works! I paid cash for my last two cars. I no longer buy what I don't have cash for, and I'm approaching paying off my house, too. Not in the next year or two, but long before 30 years have passed.
A side benefit is that I think much more about whether I really want to spend that extra money on options or gadgets when I'm taking greenbacks out of my wallet!
It is possible to live without debt, even in the US.
The role of the government is ultimately a philosophical position based on worldview. I think that protecting the populous includes restricting things like usury, gambling, prostitution, and what is broadcast by the media.
That's my position, and as a citizen, it's my privilege to communicate that to our nations leaders. It's yours to disagree with me. That's what makes America great!
BTW - what's to stop them from censoring political views? The first amendment.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Check out the bookm
http://www.mousedriver.com/book/excerpts.ht
Written by a couple of MBA's with a 'great product idea' who documented their experiences getting their new mouse to market.
Hope this helps!
Regards,
Anomaly
I wouldn't spend a great deal of time worrying about Radon. After we paid for radon testing at our house, my wife did some research on this issue as a part of her graduate work.
The posted limit for radon is 4 pCi/L. This was determined by the EPA because most homes could have the leve reduced to that level or less, not because that level was shown to be a safe exposure level!
The results that show correlation between Radon and cancer were created by a study of uranium miners! Would you expect radiation issues for people who work in uranium mines?
http://proliberty.com/observer/20020205.htm
You can make your own decision, and I have no doubt that in general radiation is bad for people, but i'm not about to spend a bunch of $$ to 'fix' any future house that has radon. There's nothing to indicate that spending that cash, or teting the house, for that matter, will help maintain my family's health. I think it's a scam.
Regards,
Anomaly
Except the first consequence is that we'd be reprimanded for not being a team player, and then we'd not get performance bonuses at the end of the year, and we'd not get promoted.
Your idealism is refreshing, but your understanding of the way the world works is a bit limited.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
You said that Saddam was no threat. I seem to remember that another Brit believed that before, made a deal, and proclaimed "peace for our time." this is a brave new world, and today's war is quite different from WWII. Someone needs to step in and protect the weak.
Non-combatant deaths *would* have happened in the states. Training accidents, traffic accidents, domestic violence, victims of violent crime, drunk driving and more would have claimed the lives of service men and women. It's not a zero-sum game. People die outside of combat at a statistically predictable rate. Those would have died anyway.
> second largest reserves in the world?
That may be, but the American taxpayers, and American Oil companies will not be taking those oil fields as the spoils of war, no matter what you think. If we wanted them, we would take them, and as the sole remaining superpower there's nothing that anyone could do about it. If we were really corrupt, capricious and power happy, we'd do what ever we wanted and nuke anyone who stood in our way. That's not the kind of thing that Americans do.
> explain...why they were guarding oil facilities
Well, let's see. In 1991, Sadddam adopted a scorched earth policy in which he destroyed the oil production gear in Kuwait and Iraq and he retreated.
The generals are always prepared for the last war, not the next one. Besides, if they had not been protected, and had been set ablaze again, you would have charged that it was obvious that Saddam would have done that, and we were fools not to protect them.
Also, the hope for a prosperous future for a free Iraq is based on their ability to generate revenue. It's for the good of the people that their ability to create wealth be protected.
GWB is a puppet? Please. That's ridiculous, and when you suggest that you lose substantial credibility with me. You probably think he's stupid, too, right? Did it ever occur to you that it's strategically valuable to have your opponents underestimate your capability? Many people use that as a life strategy. I believe that GWB lets people think he's less than brilliant.
> You really want to start WW3?
No, but all that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
> burn in hell for crimes against humanity
Wow. That's pretty potent. On what basis do you make that assertion? Are you God?
> [Saddam may have killed] a couple hundred
I've read some reports that Saddam may have killed 300,000 or more people during his reign of terror. What about his crimes against humanity? When should the strong protect the weak?
> zero connections to terrorism
I think that the 9/11 commission report says that he was not linked to 9/11, but he has provided support to terrorists, even if he didn't help with that particular attack.
> things we do anyway
Right. Some people did those things, and they are being prosecuted. There's an investigation going on, and if it was a systemic problem, the leaders will be punished as well. You seem to make moral equivalence between Saddam and the Coalition. The difference is that the Coalition is accountable to the public, and Saddam was accountable to no one.
> All good people go to heaven, right?
I really don't think that is what he believes. If GWB is an evangelical Christian, and I think that he is, then he believes that:
1. God created all people
2. God loves all people
3. God is holy and perfect, and man is not
4. People naturally have no hope of relationship with a holy and perfect God, because of their imperfections
5. God loved people so much that He sent His Son to live the perfect life - free from sin - so that men could have the hope of relationship with God.
6. All people who honestly recognize their shortcomings before God, and place their trust in Christ and His perfect sacrifice to overcome their imperfections will be able to have relationship with God in this world and the next.
>
I work for a large company, and their view is that viruses are only worthy of attention when we are hit by them. Any time we dodge a bullet, that's considered doing our job, and we get no special credit for it.
When something hits us (primarily because we let our users have administrator, and secondarily because we put almost no effort or money into software patch deployment and automatic upgrades) we go into firefighting mode, and when we're done we get a "glad that's over. How do we avoid that next time?" We give the same answer we gave last time, and they respond: "That costs too much. Keep doing what you're doing."
I doubt that any Fortune 500 companies really reward virus prevention.
> Ah, no oil. And that's what it comes down to.
This argument makes little sense to me. In this case, let's assume that your premise is bang on. Where's the money? Who is getting the big money from Iraqi oil? We're not getting rich on this deal. Iraq is a substantial money-loser for years to come. Let's say that we get Iraqi oil production up, and we flood the market with 'our' oil that we stole. The price of oil would plummet.
There's simply no profit here. What we invest in infrastructure and rebuilding and securing that nation will *never* be repaid - under any circumstances.
Halliburton has made some money, but they also are one of the few companies in the world who can do some of the things that are being done in Iraq.
You're busting on GWB for not yet winning the peace? How long does it take? Look at Germany, Japan, Korea - It's ridiculous to suggest that we should be done with winning the peace in 18-24 months? Saddam spent decades killing everyone who expressed any leadership potential.
WRT "western media is barely touching on it" - It seems clear to me that the western media (in general) has no love for GW Bush. Don't you think that they would love to show the Iraq war as a disaster to get the scoop?
Abortion? Roe v. Wade was a bad compromise. The concept of viability as a test was always a slippery slope. Viability in 1972 was a *lot* later in pregnancy than it is today. With the advances in medical science that you mentioned, I can foresee a day in my lifetime when scientists will join a sperm and an egg and the baby grows to viability completely outside of a mother's womb.
When a sperm and egg join, there's little to call that other than human life. All that is required from that point forward to birth is food and shelter.
If you don't consider that human life, what is it? When does it make the leap from whatever you call it to human? How can you be sure of that?
I value human life, and I agree with you that it is easier to be more concerned about the grain of sand in my shoe than the millions starving in other countries on the other side of the planet. I agree that we need to think about the needs of other people, but how many of those people would have been killed by Saddam and his minions? How many of the non-combatant deaths would have happened stateside?
I think that it's likely that we will step into Iraq and into North Korea in the next 5 years, too.
Do you really believe that all of the elected officials are corrupt? I think that most issues are more complex than sound bites would have you believe.
I disagree with Kerry on some significant issues, but I don't think that he's corrupt. I think that he's sincere in his beliefs.
I think that GWB is a man who genuinely believes in what he has chosen to do. I think that he has integrity, and wants to do what he really believes is best for the nation and the world.
It's easy to accuse politicians of being corrupt, and many are, but it seems disingenuous to think that some are not driven by higher motives.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Black versus white? What? I don't get it. Seems like a red herring to me.
WRT your straw man about "war is killing" therefore abortion is irrelevant - whatever helps *you* sleep at night.
WRT killing Iraqis, where are you getting your news? I've got friends who are or recently have been in Iraq, and they tell me that almost every Iraqi they've met has been thrilled to have the US there.
Many Iraqis are glad that a mass muderer and capricious dictator no longer rules their country with an iron fist. What about the number of people that Saddam won't kill now that he's incarcerated? Does that factor into your body count numbers? I seem to recall reading about recent uncovering of more mass graves in Iraq, or is that a straw man, too?
There are some there who are not happy about us being there. Largely those are the folks who have something to lose by having a freely elected government there. Those are the ones who are fighting us.
BTW - you're clubbing the US. From what country do you hail? It must be tough to live where you and your countrymen are right all of the time.
It all depends on your priorities. At this point, in the US, while abortion is legal and NARAL is making huge $$ on that 'industry,' somewhere close to 3,500 abortions a day occur.
:)
From my vantage point, that's 3,500 human lives ended. A vote for Bush reduces the number of federally funded abortions, and therefore lives are saved.
It's all in your perspective.
That's what makes slashdot great!
This is slashdot. It's our job to not read the articles, and offer complaints about everything with which we interact.
Shortly after the birth of my first child, I purchased a 'night vision' camera from X10. After all, the ads make it look like the thing would be perfect, right? This was advertised as something like a 'ultra-low-light night vision camera' with audio. I thought it would be perfect. What I found was that I needed to leave a lamp ON in order to have enough light to use the camera at night.
It makes me laugh thinking about the people who buy those things to spy on their neighbors......
Why are people imprisoned?
For their correction?
To deter others? or
To help them learn new ways of relating?
These are philosophical questions, and the truth is that some people are going to fear prison and therefore will avoid illegal behavior. Others will endure punishment in prison, decide that this is not an acceptable way to live and therefore will obey the law out of coersion, and others may decide to take advantage of programs there to establish a new life history where they gain education and empathy.
There is a small part of the population which will be unable to comply with society's rules and therefore will need to be isolated from society for the good of society. Perhaps this is to the detriment of the individual, but as Spock says: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Of course we need compassionate concern for those in prison. The fact that many here joke about "federal pound-me-in-the-*** prison" is indicative of one problem we face with prisons in America.
However, establishment of the existence of a problem within a system is not the sole requirement for abolishment of that system.
Inhuman? Some people are quite inhuman, and quite unwilling to change. As such, they must be locked up, and as long as they maintain that attitude, they will not gain education, learn right from wrong, or be interested in anyone but themselves. How do you propose to deal with those people?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
You're putting words in my mouth. Others may have that perspective, but I do not.
Science is all about the testable. I agree completely. To follow the scientific method, one observes a phenomenon, gathers information about it, develops a theory about the relationships among the events, and then tests that theory.
We're on the same page here, right?
Origins are not testable using this method. This method can be used to gather information and speculate about the origin of the universe, but science cannot conclude what happened in the absence of being able to test the speculation.
Science is good, as far as it goes, but can only test certain things. As you pointed out in your original posting in this thread, science cannot conclude a negative - only that a positive (or evidence of the positive thing) has never been observed.
Naturalism provides an inadequate model for the universe as we experience it. Science has its limits. Reason does, too. Pascal said "The heart has its reasons which reason does not know."
WRT the universe being the ultimate cause, given our understanding of physics, it seems logical to conclude that due to the entropic principle that the universe should have died a heat loss death an eternity ago. Why hasn't the universe equilibrated?
You submit that people of faith want the scientists to cook the books by collecting evidence in harmony with religious belief and discarding that which appears to conflict with it.
While many would describe me as quite religious, I know a great number of intelligent people, some of them scientists, who would totally reject that idea. The evidence is the evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.
Realistically, science provides us with a framework to measure, describe, and manipulate the material that comprises the cosmos. It can do nothing more and nothing less.
To suggest that all of humanity is built from the basic building blocks of elements and chemicals causes us to neglect much of the human experience.
Many of the life experiences we have are not scientifically falsifiable. This does not make them less true. For example, trust, honor, and duty are true to the human experience, but science is completely inadequate to describe them.
My issue, which I think is in concert with your comments is that scientists bring their bias to the table when they develop theories. It's a red herring to suggest that the scientist has no bias "only the truth" and that a person of faith is inherently biased.
Specifically, let's take the issue of a creator. If the scientist comes to the table with a philosophical viewpoint that there is absolutely nothing supernatural, he will not consider theories that involve the supernatural. If the truth is that there is a creator, the atheist scientist will not even approach areas of inquiry where something supernatural may have occured.
If the facts support something supernatural, even the atheist should consider that as a possibility.
In terms of scientific research, let's throw some more gasoline on the fire of this discussion. Medical science has shown that stem cells from adults have incredible promise. We are starting to see actual medical benefits from that research, and real people are being helped from stem cell research. The media, and some scientists, are framing the discussion in terms of embryonic stem cells onlt, and neglect the benefits of other research.
Do you really believe that the furor over embryonic stem cell research is driven by a search for the truth? Don't you think that there are some other factors that drive the interest in embryonic stem cell research?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I agree completely that science is science. The light is either on or off, it really doesn't matter how you feel about it. Truth is that way.
However, frequently a straw man is drawn between science and matters of faith, where science is portrayed as unbiased - merely truth, and matters of faith are at best irrelevant, and at worst completely counter to reason itself.
People of faith bring a bias to a discussion. People of no faith bring a bias to a discussion, too. Because scientists are people, they bring a bias to their work. Specifically, scientists who deny God's existence have a bias that impacts their work, and not always in a positive way.
It's true that science and theology are separate disciplines, but to suggest that neither is relevant to the other is a bit naieve.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But I'd bet that there are some significant costs in manufacturing another one based on custom fabrication. My guess is that whatever templates were used in original construction are no longer available, and some of the folks that did the original work are no longer in the workforce. Some of the original engineering costs would be reduced, but the learning curve associated with the manufacturing of another one would not be small.
According to this:t m
http://science.howstuffworks.com/hubble2.h
The HST cost $2.2B US to build. I'm guessing it might be cheaper to replace the thing after the original is serviced 3 times, but how will you know that it will need three servicings?
I'm posting to slashdot, not writing a theology treatise. You are of course right about Christ being the Word of God - the word became flesh and dwelt among us.
I'll take some isue with your assessment of the 'average fundamentalist.' I happen to know a great number of them, and I'd say that the average fundamentalist that I know is not consistent with your description above.
With respect to the 'recent theology' component, I'd have a bit of a problem with that view.
The book of Genesis reads to be the description of the creation of the universe, and the declarative history of humankind. To interpret it as an allegory is one possible explanation, but it doesn't hold water.
When Christ was questioned about marriage, he talked about Adam and Eve as if they were real individuals. When Paul was writing his letter to the Romans, he directly addressed the issue of original sin by explicitly referencing the sin of the one man - Adam, and the redemption of that sin through the man Jesus Christ.
Make Adam an allegorical figure, and there's little need for a real redeemer, but rather an allegorical one. The heroes of the faith listed in the NT book of Hebrews lists the men from Genesis in the long line of people who lived lives of faith. Make them an allegory and you add confusion to the mix because slearly that section of Hebrews talks about real, living people (living at that time) and it seems a little weak to suggest that some of our examples are actually models of what an example might be.
It's possible that there's an explanation for Genesis that doesn't conflict with current conventional wisdom in science, and I'm open to that, but it needs to hang well with the rest of the Bible, or I'm inclined to say that the explanation is unlikely to be valid.
It seems most likely, given my current understanding, that science will change its views about dating and cosmology (again) when more is understood about the universe, and that will likely harmonize physical evidence with scripture.
I could go on, but this *is* slashdot...
(Time for a reload of the slashdot front page to see if I've missed something exciting....)
Respectfully,
Anomaly
The following could be much longer answers, but I'll try to keep them as short as possible:
:)
1. The Bible is the inspired word of God as written by men. Each author communicated using his own style, but the content was given by God and protected by God so that what was written was 'The word of God.' The Jewish people were the keepers of the 'Hebrew Scriptures' and they preserved those writings over time. The early Christian church absorbed the Hebrew scriptures (Jesus *was* a jew) and brought them together with the writings of the apostles. In 393 and 397 councils recognized the canon of scripture as hose books that were already accepted by the church as a whole. That is to say - man did not determine which books were from God and which were not. God revealed that to the church.
2. You might as well say "Define God and give two examples"
God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible contains the Word of God, but is not God. Your image appears in a mirror when you walk by, but the mirror does not contain you. Vampires excepted, of course.
Why do you ask?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I think that we are in agreement. As a fundamentalist, I do not oppose science - that is, good science - science that adheres to fundamental principles of science.
I'd sumit that most atheists I know - and I know a few - are completely unwilling to change their opinion. For most that I have questioned, there is *no* evidence that they would consider sufficient to change their point of view - and they call themselves free thinkers?
Many Christian fundamentalists 'major on the minors' by insisting on things that are not actually in the bible, or instead, violate principles of biblical interpretation by using a 'wooden literal' approach. The Bible does not claim to be a scientific textbook, and contains many different styles of writing. Literal interpretation is not always wise.
Let me put that in context. I *am* after all a fundamentalist. I think that:
1. The Bible is authoritative and accurate in its information. The objections to biblical accuracy that are well documented on the internet are also well refuted on the internet and elsewhere.
2. God created the universe - and the details are not provided in scripture, but
3. The creation as documented there certainly appears to reflect a seven-day creation. Other theories that attempt to include a long gap between days 1 and 2 are a stretch as far as I'm concerned.
Does that give me a cemented view? Perhaps.
I think that it is conceivable that scientists will one day conclude that the earth is substantially younger than is currently believed. After all, if new evidence is gathered that support that view, shouldn't science change its position?
Ultimately, I have the same physical evidence that an atheist has. Neither of us was present during creation (through natural or supernatural processes) and so neither of us can rely on the pure scientific method (lather, rinse, document, repeat) for affirming our positions with respect to universal and life's origins.
We each have theories that explain the evidence that we find, and sometimes each of us speculates.
Does that make the atheist's position more sound than mine? Only if his speculation is more supported by facts than mine.
Interestingly, if science is dominated by folks with 'an a priori commitment to naturalism' who will form hypotheses that conflict with conventional wisdom in science?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
The debates between fundamentalists with their cemented views (having painted themselves in corner with fundamentalist interpretation of their holy book, be it bible, quran or whatever) and scientists (or people with strong natural science background)
I'll agree with you that many folks in the 'fundamentalist' camp have 'cemented views.' Many of them are certifiable.
It seems that you are suggesting that scientists are not subject to the same kind of cement.
Scientists, the last time I checked, are people, and as such do have the same basis for their ideas that fundamentalists do.
As an example, I'll offer that if a scientist is an atheist, he (or she) is asserting that no God exists. That is a 'cemented view' that sets the place from which the scientist observes the universe.
We all have a bias. The question is, which bias fits the universe best?
This may solve the question about the origin of life on earth, but does nothing about the origin of life in general.
I used to subscribe to this way of thinking - after all "I'll always have a car payment" and
"As long as I can make the minimum payment, it doesn't matter what my credit card balance is."
This was foolish youth talking, and 'buy now, pay later' immediate gratification marketing that led me for years.
I had a wise aunt and uncle who advised me that I could spend 10% more than I earned, or 10% less. The first way I'd sweat payments for the rest of my life, the second way I'd always have money in my pocket. They were right!
Another great piece of advice from them was "buy a car you can pay off in 3 years. Keep it 6. After the loan is paid off, pay a savings account the same car payment. Then go pay cash for your replacement car. Keep paying yourself, and you'll never need to borrow money for a car loan again." If the next car costs more than the first, keep the first until the savings account has enough to cover the next car.
This REALLY works! I paid cash for my last two cars. I no longer buy what I don't have cash for, and I'm approaching paying off my house, too. Not in the next year or two, but long before 30 years have passed.
A side benefit is that I think much more about whether I really want to spend that extra money on options or gadgets when I'm taking greenbacks out of my wallet!
It is possible to live without debt, even in the US.
Don't you know that Windows is never an acceptable solution? Linux Rul3z d00d!!!
The role of the government is ultimately a philosophical position based on worldview. I think that protecting the populous includes restricting things like usury, gambling, prostitution, and what is broadcast by the media.
:)
That's my position, and as a citizen, it's my privilege to communicate that to our nations leaders. It's yours to disagree with me. That's what makes America great!
BTW - what's to stop them from censoring political views? The first amendment.
Regards,
Anomaly