I'm a theology grad student with a bunch of history courses. There's plenty of us doing fairly well in Canada, mostly because we don't think "being valuable members of society" means the same thing as "paid a lot of money." Those of us who want money get an undergrad in something practical, like computers, and then spend the time and money we have to pursue our passion. Kids who get an art history degree for their undergrad, well, that's fine- but kids who get an art history undergrad and then bitch about not getting employment are being whiny entitled losers.
To be more clear; if someone gets a degree in an area of study generally considered to be/socially/ rather than/materially/ valuable, and then makes a lot of noise about disagreeing with the capitalist/commercial economic system, they don't really make sense if their conclusion is that they're not being _paid_ enough, or _employed_ enough. They could complain that nobody listens to them, or that the government is suppressing the expression of ideas, and that's a valid complaint to make.
But complaining that a philosophy grad isn't being paid well is like complaining that an industry magnate isn't being taken seriously in the Journal of Philosophy and Ethics.
That's some high-value laundry washing, right there. I'd expect a little more out of it than housework, myself... but I've been watching a lot of GITS, so maybe I'm biased.
A blacksmith's forge can get hot enough to literally burn steel.
Which, believe me, is a/total/ pisser when all you're trying to do is soften it. Especially when you're doing the last two inches of an ornamental piece. There's a reason all blacksmiths are really OCD about temperature control; everyone's burned a piece. Once.
Well, that's true enough. I was trying to address complaints of lousy content tied to the medium, but you're right; the academic community is tremendously important.
I'm totally not getting into the religious debate part of all this, since as usual it's a flame war.
I do, however, want to answer your rhetorical question "why require a learning process?" seriously. One of the- and possibly _the_- greatest pleasures in my life is learning. I picked up and then began to seriously pay attention to martial arts specifically because I am clumsy and lazy, and as a result it took far more time for me to/learn/ than, say, math. I got to experience the process of learning in a slower and much richer way than I ever had with algebra or C++. In fact, martial arts has become a common element of my schedule precisely because it's a learning process.
I'm not, here, asserting that there is, isn't, should or shouldn't be a god, God, or gods... but if I were involved in the debate, I think requiring us to learn would be a point in favour of the divine.
I've done an online undergrad course that was as execrable as described here; spent 10 hours on it all told, came out with an A, learned nothing. But I've also approached some of the MIT OCW stuff on youtube, and The Teaching Company sells lecture series of mp3s for $30 a course, and the amount of learning available in those packages is impressive. I think that the experience of the student really depends on the effort the school puts forward. If the school's effort is slapping up some htmlized quiz forms, then no, it's not going to do much for the student. But if it's lecture presentations, a faculty or TA-moderated forum, and full-on tests that include essay questions (or better yet replacing tests with research papers), there's little difference between an online course and any well-run distance education class, of which there are plenty. It's a medium that influences content, not determines it.
Could have been gopher bounties and gopher farming, I guess, yeah. The tails were the things they specifically mentioned turning in, so it seems likely.
See, this is why history is a pain in the ass to study; anything but a first-hand account is pretty much garbage.
I was going to say we had them in the Canadian prairies, but I find that there's no mention of it in the official history. My father and grandfather did mention hunting rats in rural Saskatchewan, though, and they have mentioned knowing or hearing about neighbors farming rats. However, this is 3rd-hand knowledge at best.
I can't be arsed to print out timesheets and travel expense forms, fill them in, sign them, fax/scan and send them. I pop the file open in GIMP, paste my signature image, apply a graininess blur, and email the result to my boss- who then prints it out, signs it, scans it, and emails it back to me. By that point, it looks just as lousy as any other form, and corporate accountants are satisfied.
I think we're having different conversations. Opt-out? Spare you the pain? What? Who asked you to study the book? All I did was offer an explanation of how many people approach the Bible differently than fundamentalists. My own interpretation isn't germane to the topic, and you've been pretty aggressive in trying to denigrate me without it. No thanks.
Be excellent to each other, and party on, dude. I'm out.
You've hit the nail on the head; we disagree on the meaning of "truth," which is why I surrounded it in quotes. You, evidently, have a modernist interpretation on truth as, roughly, "statements which correspond to physical fact," yes? But the Mona Lisa- it is a painting, a no doubt inaccurate painting, or possibly a painting of a woman that never existed. Nevertheless, it is _true_. It communicates things to the viewer despite not being factually accurate. Or, if you prefer, Michelangelo's David, which is ludicrously misproportioned in order to convey a human figure that seems correct to the human eye. Or the Lord of the Rings, which is both utter fiction and in possession of tremendously valuable truths about the human condition, evil, etc.
In the same way, the Bible is thoroughly true, despite disagreements with commonly accepted understanding of the nature of the physical universe.
Not the best start to your comments, but I take your meaning. The long answer is to familiarize yourself with textual criticism from Origen to Derrida, who were generally wrong-headed but meant well and had some exceptionally useful ideas.
The *short* answer is that there is One And Only One Meaning to Genesis like there is One And Only One Meaning to, say, possession of manuals that appear to be describing criminal activities. I have heard, for example, rabid post-Catholic atheists explain at length about Genesis as the foundation of a cult meant to instill fear. I have also heard explanations- just as sincerely meant- that Genesis is the beautiful mythopoetic basis for a religion that radically reformed ideas about slavery and debt in a pre-industrial world. The difference isn't in the text, but the reader. Which isn't to say that you're full of fear- it's that your experiences suggest to you that the text is used in that way. I've had friends whose experiences were of bigoted, vicious dogs in human form who used the Bible as an excuse to treat their fellow man like an animal. I've had other friends who grew up with the Bible used to instruct them in peace and love.
The Christian view of the universe puts God on top, but Man above all the other creatures. Humans are _worth_ more than animals. Creation in Genesis explains it, in the same way that the- Greek, I think?- myth of the sun god driving across the sky explained to Greeks the movement of the sun in the sky. It wasn't a "true" explanation in terms of orbits, but it gave them some kind of handle to wrestle with the problem.
But I don't see why these evangelical scientists have a problem with not taking everything in the Bible literally. The evangelicals I know have been taught from a young age that the Bible is the Truth and any scientific evidence that contradicts it, is manufactured by God to tempt the faithful.
I think I know the source of your confusion. "Evangelical" refers to any Christian that either considers witnessing to others their primary duty, or views the Bible as the highest spiritual authority available on Earth (over, say, the Pope). This makes "evangelical" synonymous with "protestant" and even some Roman Catholics. Fundamentalists, while members of the evangelical tradition, are a specific and kind of radical subset. *Evangelicals* are perfectly willing to attempt to explain the Bible in contemporary contexts, and get into even more theologically liberal activities. *Fundamentalists* are not.
Never read Karen Armstrong, but I've got a few church history courses under my belt, and afaik she's right; "RAR SCIENCE BAD" is a particularly fundamentalist reaction to 19th century legal victories about teaching evolution in schools.
It helps to understand that "the Bible is literally true in every word in its literal meaning and there are no metaphors" is a relatively recent aberration that is mostly restricted to America, as a result of the (I speak technically, not denigratingly) fundamentalist reaction to the legal victories of evolution over creationism. It generated a tremendous anti-intellectual feeling among a certain crowd of Christians, and that rift has been getting wider and wider. Part of that rift is the insistence that the Bible is to be taken "literally," which is a misappropriation of a method of interpretation most recently popularized by Martin Luther. Luther, however, emphasized the _plain_ meaning, not the _literal_, and was perfectly content with metaphorical interpretations- as, in fact, has most of the church since the period of the pre-Imperial church fathers.
In other words, modern American anti-intellectual fundamentalism, while more noticeable to Americans, is neither the American nor the worldwide Christian norm, and those outside that strict/reactive interpretive tradition view it negatively for its very restricted view of scripture. Plenty of people do identify themselves as fundamentalist, or descended from fundamentalist traditions (which were, originally, about holding to the fundamentals of the faith and letting everything else slide, in a sort of ecumenism), without being rabid Bible-thumpers.
To answer your question more directly, two mutually exclusive things can be true, as long as you're using "truth" carefully. In this case, Genesis as a mythic creation account is an explanation of why the world doesn't seem to be fair, why bad things happen to good people, and why there is still hope. It is "true" whether or not we're descended from a single pair or the rise of a species. The 6-day creation account is "true" as an explanation of the moral order of the universe, no matter how long it took to make the universe. And, of course, it's "true" as a reminder of the ultimate spiritual authority. None of these ideas are in conflict with scientific knowledge. Which isn't to say that this is my particular interpretation on things, but it's generally how people are reconciling new scientific knowledge with old religious views.
While I agree with your implied meaning, your expressed statement is also correct; if Bieber fans demanded he stop supporting the RIAA, the kid could still have a successful career, and pull more cash down, and it would make a hell of a statement.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a theology grad student with a bunch of history courses. There's plenty of us doing fairly well in Canada, mostly because we don't think "being valuable members of society" means the same thing as "paid a lot of money." Those of us who want money get an undergrad in something practical, like computers, and then spend the time and money we have to pursue our passion. Kids who get an art history degree for their undergrad, well, that's fine- but kids who get an art history undergrad and then bitch about not getting employment are being whiny entitled losers.
To be more clear; if someone gets a degree in an area of study generally considered to be /socially/ rather than /materially/ valuable, and then makes a lot of noise about disagreeing with the capitalist/commercial economic system, they don't really make sense if their conclusion is that they're not being _paid_ enough, or _employed_ enough. They could complain that nobody listens to them, or that the government is suppressing the expression of ideas, and that's a valid complaint to make.
But complaining that a philosophy grad isn't being paid well is like complaining that an industry magnate isn't being taken seriously in the Journal of Philosophy and Ethics.
That's some high-value laundry washing, right there. I'd expect a little more out of it than housework, myself... but I've been watching a lot of GITS, so maybe I'm biased.
Welcome to the slow crawl up the far wall of the uncanny valley.
practical != fun
A blacksmith's forge can get hot enough to literally burn steel.
Which, believe me, is a /total/ pisser when all you're trying to do is soften it. Especially when you're doing the last two inches of an ornamental piece. There's a reason all blacksmiths are really OCD about temperature control; everyone's burned a piece. Once.
Well, that's true enough. I was trying to address complaints of lousy content tied to the medium, but you're right; the academic community is tremendously important.
I'm totally not getting into the religious debate part of all this, since as usual it's a flame war.
I do, however, want to answer your rhetorical question "why require a learning process?" seriously. One of the- and possibly _the_- greatest pleasures in my life is learning. I picked up and then began to seriously pay attention to martial arts specifically because I am clumsy and lazy, and as a result it took far more time for me to /learn/ than, say, math. I got to experience the process of learning in a slower and much richer way than I ever had with algebra or C++. In fact, martial arts has become a common element of my schedule precisely because it's a learning process.
I'm not, here, asserting that there is, isn't, should or shouldn't be a god, God, or gods... but if I were involved in the debate, I think requiring us to learn would be a point in favour of the divine.
I've done an online undergrad course that was as execrable as described here; spent 10 hours on it all told, came out with an A, learned nothing. But I've also approached some of the MIT OCW stuff on youtube, and The Teaching Company sells lecture series of mp3s for $30 a course, and the amount of learning available in those packages is impressive. I think that the experience of the student really depends on the effort the school puts forward. If the school's effort is slapping up some htmlized quiz forms, then no, it's not going to do much for the student. But if it's lecture presentations, a faculty or TA-moderated forum, and full-on tests that include essay questions (or better yet replacing tests with research papers), there's little difference between an online course and any well-run distance education class, of which there are plenty. It's a medium that influences content, not determines it.
Could have been gopher bounties and gopher farming, I guess, yeah. The tails were the things they specifically mentioned turning in, so it seems likely.
See, this is why history is a pain in the ass to study; anything but a first-hand account is pretty much garbage.
I was going to say we had them in the Canadian prairies, but I find that there's no mention of it in the official history. My father and grandfather did mention hunting rats in rural Saskatchewan, though, and they have mentioned knowing or hearing about neighbors farming rats. However, this is 3rd-hand knowledge at best.
s/SG/5/g
FTFY.
I can't be arsed to print out timesheets and travel expense forms, fill them in, sign them, fax/scan and send them. I pop the file open in GIMP, paste my signature image, apply a graininess blur, and email the result to my boss- who then prints it out, signs it, scans it, and emails it back to me. By that point, it looks just as lousy as any other form, and corporate accountants are satisfied.
I've been reading /. on and off for 12 years. I hadn't realized it had been so long. Thanks, Taco.
7. naps
XD and ^5
I think we're having different conversations. Opt-out? Spare you the pain? What? Who asked you to study the book? All I did was offer an explanation of how many people approach the Bible differently than fundamentalists. My own interpretation isn't germane to the topic, and you've been pretty aggressive in trying to denigrate me without it. No thanks.
Be excellent to each other, and party on, dude. I'm out.
Words are just symbols, and they can mean whatever we use them to mean.
You are within inches of my point. replace "Words" with "books."
You've hit the nail on the head; we disagree on the meaning of "truth," which is why I surrounded it in quotes. You, evidently, have a modernist interpretation on truth as, roughly, "statements which correspond to physical fact," yes? But the Mona Lisa- it is a painting, a no doubt inaccurate painting, or possibly a painting of a woman that never existed. Nevertheless, it is _true_. It communicates things to the viewer despite not being factually accurate. Or, if you prefer, Michelangelo's David, which is ludicrously misproportioned in order to convey a human figure that seems correct to the human eye. Or the Lord of the Rings, which is both utter fiction and in possession of tremendously valuable truths about the human condition, evil, etc.
In the same way, the Bible is thoroughly true, despite disagreements with commonly accepted understanding of the nature of the physical universe.
Not the best start to your comments, but I take your meaning. The long answer is to familiarize yourself with textual criticism from Origen to Derrida, who were generally wrong-headed but meant well and had some exceptionally useful ideas.
The *short* answer is that there is One And Only One Meaning to Genesis like there is One And Only One Meaning to, say, possession of manuals that appear to be describing criminal activities. I have heard, for example, rabid post-Catholic atheists explain at length about Genesis as the foundation of a cult meant to instill fear. I have also heard explanations- just as sincerely meant- that Genesis is the beautiful mythopoetic basis for a religion that radically reformed ideas about slavery and debt in a pre-industrial world. The difference isn't in the text, but the reader. Which isn't to say that you're full of fear- it's that your experiences suggest to you that the text is used in that way. I've had friends whose experiences were of bigoted, vicious dogs in human form who used the Bible as an excuse to treat their fellow man like an animal. I've had other friends who grew up with the Bible used to instruct them in peace and love.
No story is "nothing but" anything.
The Christian view of the universe puts God on top, but Man above all the other creatures. Humans are _worth_ more than animals. Creation in Genesis explains it, in the same way that the- Greek, I think?- myth of the sun god driving across the sky explained to Greeks the movement of the sun in the sky. It wasn't a "true" explanation in terms of orbits, but it gave them some kind of handle to wrestle with the problem.
But I don't see why these evangelical scientists have a problem with not taking everything in the Bible literally. The evangelicals I know have been taught from a young age that the Bible is the Truth and any scientific evidence that contradicts it, is manufactured by God to tempt the faithful.
I think I know the source of your confusion. "Evangelical" refers to any Christian that either considers witnessing to others their primary duty, or views the Bible as the highest spiritual authority available on Earth (over, say, the Pope). This makes "evangelical" synonymous with "protestant" and even some Roman Catholics. Fundamentalists, while members of the evangelical tradition, are a specific and kind of radical subset. *Evangelicals* are perfectly willing to attempt to explain the Bible in contemporary contexts, and get into even more theologically liberal activities. *Fundamentalists* are not.
Never read Karen Armstrong, but I've got a few church history courses under my belt, and afaik she's right; "RAR SCIENCE BAD" is a particularly fundamentalist reaction to 19th century legal victories about teaching evolution in schools.
It helps to understand that "the Bible is literally true in every word in its literal meaning and there are no metaphors" is a relatively recent aberration that is mostly restricted to America, as a result of the (I speak technically, not denigratingly) fundamentalist reaction to the legal victories of evolution over creationism. It generated a tremendous anti-intellectual feeling among a certain crowd of Christians, and that rift has been getting wider and wider. Part of that rift is the insistence that the Bible is to be taken "literally," which is a misappropriation of a method of interpretation most recently popularized by Martin Luther. Luther, however, emphasized the _plain_ meaning, not the _literal_, and was perfectly content with metaphorical interpretations- as, in fact, has most of the church since the period of the pre-Imperial church fathers.
In other words, modern American anti-intellectual fundamentalism, while more noticeable to Americans, is neither the American nor the worldwide Christian norm, and those outside that strict/reactive interpretive tradition view it negatively for its very restricted view of scripture. Plenty of people do identify themselves as fundamentalist, or descended from fundamentalist traditions (which were, originally, about holding to the fundamentals of the faith and letting everything else slide, in a sort of ecumenism), without being rabid Bible-thumpers.
To answer your question more directly, two mutually exclusive things can be true, as long as you're using "truth" carefully. In this case, Genesis as a mythic creation account is an explanation of why the world doesn't seem to be fair, why bad things happen to good people, and why there is still hope. It is "true" whether or not we're descended from a single pair or the rise of a species. The 6-day creation account is "true" as an explanation of the moral order of the universe, no matter how long it took to make the universe. And, of course, it's "true" as a reminder of the ultimate spiritual authority. None of these ideas are in conflict with scientific knowledge. Which isn't to say that this is my particular interpretation on things, but it's generally how people are reconciling new scientific knowledge with old religious views.
more stuff created for war. These cameras instruments are not going to be sold to civilians, here is the purpose:
Yeah! Like the Internet. Or satellite phones. Or guns.
They've already got the government icon, and tag, on the article. What more do you need?
While I agree with your implied meaning, your expressed statement is also correct; if Bieber fans demanded he stop supporting the RIAA, the kid could still have a successful career, and pull more cash down, and it would make a hell of a statement.
This.