Sure, the fossil fuel industry has lots of money and could pay shills to post comments, but I doubt that happens much. They can get more bang for the buck in other ways and let the sheep post comments supporting them for free.
Popularity is not how science is conducted. But not all of us can dedicate our lives to studying such a complex field. So in place of that, we look to the people that do study it.
Your both sides argument falls flat when you consider the orders of magnitude difference in money behind fossil fuels versus green tech. And the relatively small grants and loan guarantees for solar started under Bush. Solyndra had major GOP investors as well as Obama supporters, and the Bush administration was pushing for that loan. And even if your accusations about corruption in grants and loans to green tech companies were true, you haven't provided any suggestion of how that might have affected climate science.
Why, when you look at the last couple decades of the trend of scientists being more and more certain about AGW, do you think that's more like the old physics models instead of quantum mechanics? If you strip away the politics you decry, you're left with the scientific consensus about AGW.
There's a clear difference between this and Pascal's wager. Pascal had only an unsupported hypothesis (with the ultimate carrot and the ultimate stick). Global warming is a scientific consensus.
If "AGW is a symptom of overpopulation", as you say, there are two ways to combat it - reduce the number of people or reduce the negative effects of the average person. What's your plan to reduce the population? It's a very difficult problem to address. I'm not saying it's more or less difficult than addressing the average effect per person, but why only address one side of the equation?
No. What you call "central planning" could also just simply be called "cooperation". Some big problems can't be addressed by a few individuals; they need cooperation and regulation.
Take acid rain for example. Science had a consensus about what was causing it and how to address it. Voluntary action by some individuals could not reverse the harm (due to the economic pressure to keep polluting), but when we got together and imposed regulations, the culprit pollutants were reduced and the acid rain problem was greatly lessened. The skeptics and those that argued it was too costly were proven wrong - the regulations did work, and at a cost well below what was predicted. Oh, and the tighter European model of regulation gave better results than the U.S. model of limited regulation plus emissions permit trading.
Global warming is certainly a larger problem, with larger harm and larger costs to address it. But saying that (forced) cooperation / regulation can't work is just silly.
I want women and men to live up to the highest calling any human being can have- parenthood.
You want to be our dictator, but we don't want you.
They get to be MOTHERS- with all the duties that contains.
Under your regime, you'd force them to be mothers, with all the duties that contains.
And yet you'd force women out of the house and into the business world
No, I'd give them the choice. You're the one arguing to force them to stay out of the business world.
destroying families in the process
Many families are quite happy having the choice to work or not have children.
so that the supply of workers goes up while demand stays constant, thus lowering wages.
And have you declined to work so as not to lower wages? Or is that just for others?
And yet feminism itself argues FOR more workers, and thus a lower wage.
Yes, the feminist idea that women should be allowed to work lowers wages. But the feminists I know are also good lefties that argue for checks on narrow business interests, like unions, a minimum wage, regulations, fairer taxation and so on.
If it was a personal sentiment, then they wouldn't be putting down women who don't work.
That's a baseless argument until you give examples of feminists who want all women to work and not have children.
Until men can give birth, any attempt at equality of opportunity is just an attempt to deny nature.
You're getting really confused if you thought I was arguing for men giving birth.
(i.e. having the choice to work, to raise kids, etc).
Men don't have a choice there. So true equality of opportunity is a *lack* of such choice.
This might be a shock to you, but some men do choose not to work, to raise kids, etc.
By increasing the number of people in the workforce, wages are depressed, which in turn creates the economic conditions that require both parents to work.
So many things wrong with that. First, there are other ways to keep wages up. Second, you ignore the case where a woman works and a man doesn't (no increase in the workforce compared to your ideal). Third, you ignore that not all adults are or want to be parents. Fourth, your regime of forced procreation increases the number of people in the workforce.
The Robber Barons take advantage of the increase in supply of labor, they don't cause the increase in supply of labor.
Agreed. Unless they're also pushing for forced procreation.
Unless, of course, the dictator also has to submit in return, thus the need for a strong church to balance out the technocrat.
So your dictator has a dictator. And that helps how? Now you've given the church the right to harm you and your neighbor without punishment.
The exercise of liberty does not always harm others.
But when it doesn't, it's called morality, and that's what moral relativists say we can't have because of liberty.
What's that supposed to mean? That we can't exercise liberty, even if it harms no one?
those who trade liberty for security end up with neither
You want to trade your liberty for a dictator who tells you what to do. If you give up your liberty and don't even expect security, why do it?
What I fear is random chaos in these decisions, because from where I sit, humans aren't very rational by nature.
You're afraid of irrational humans, as a group, governing themselves. But you're not afraid of a single irrational human governing us. Real consistent.
Technocratic dictatorship with a strong church for morality, is my preferred as it has been for most rational people for 3000 years now.
Well, at least you're honest about being a radical - a double dictatorship. I was going to point out how most people don't want dictators, but you left yourself an easy out - that only people that agree with you are rational.
Chesterton just says that women need *different* education from men- something we used to accept in the United States. Home Economics classes were common in my high school, were they in yours?
So you want to force girls to prepare for their life in the home and not have the options the boys have. That's what we call misogyny. What else do you have slated for women, out of kindness? Do they get to drive? Do they need to wear burkas?
The business leaders who shut down factories in the United States and send jobs where the standard of living is cheaper.
Those are a few people. There are many more people in the US that don't like that so much.
I think the sentiment that labor should be as close to free as possible is quite prevalent.
Well, if you mean prevalent in the sense of powerful, then we agree. But it's mostly only those profiting off that system that agree with it. The masses don't, and that's what I meant.
Every feminist I know says that "Motherhood isn't fulfilling enough, women need to be in control of the workplace as well". This has been the center of the feminist mantra for 100 years. What feminists are you listening to?
You're confusing a personal sentiment (i.e. Motherhood isn't fulfilling enough for me) with the societal goals of equality of opportunity (i.e. having the choice to work, to raise kids, etc). But even apart from that, you're ducking the question. What feminists want to require "*both* parents working outside of the home with no time for the children"? I think you're mixing up your feminists with your evil capitalist robber barons.
Liberty is just the right to harm your neighbor without punishment.
If you submit to a dictator, as you prefer, you're giving him/her/it the right to harm you and your neighbor without punishment. The exercise of liberty does not always harm others. In a rational society, when someone's freedom and someone's well-being conflict, we decide as a society how to weigh each one depending on the circumstances. If you fear being at the mercy of society in these decisions, you should be doubly afraid of the whims of an individual. You rightly decry the oppression of business leaders, yet comically want to invest even more power in a single individual.
What you were rejecting in that line of argument was "My point is that rationality requires careful consideration of evidence and that religion requires only faith (i.e. belief based solely on some authority)." I read that as not necessarily rejecting some level of faith; I read it as arguing that religion doesn't require careful consideration of evidence.
Already disproven in this thread by Pope Benedict's separation of rational and irrational religions- rational religions ALWAYS require careful consideration of the evidence and rethinking of assumptions based on the full sum of available evidence (that is, rational religion differs from science only in a lack of belief in reductionism).
Well, I was citing the person to whom you're responding, so I'll let him respond to that one.
Thanks, I'll respond. The pope's writing was an illogical mess, but mostly seemed to be based on the nonoverlapping magisteria idea, which I addressed. And Marxist Hacker 42 refuses to tell us his own interpretation of the address he linked to. I've already given some examples of how science has eroded the dogma of the church (heliocentrism and evolution), but there are others they've come around on (slavery). So he does have a point that the church is evolving. But they're way behind the curve on other things (e.g. homosexuality and, for that matter, heterosexuality). And they're caught in a conundrum - adapt with societies and give up on the idea of ever having had absolute truth, or sticking with their outdated ideas and driving away their flock.
Worse- I suggest that it encourages AIDS transmission by creating a false sense of security.
Your ideology is showing. Try Guy's link or this one showing that condom use reduced the spread of AIDS in Uganda (http://www.who.int/inf-new/aids2.htm). To support your own position, please show how condom use results in more sexual activity, and how much more activity it is that overwhelms the 97% success rate you stated for condoms.
Catholics for Choice is an irrational sect
You didn't address the quotes from your pope, archbishops and cardinals and instead attacked the site their quotes are on.
one way to live that is in keeping with the dictates of our DNA
What does that mean, if you're not after the best way to live? There are currently 7 billion ways to live and counting.
Nobody needs to develop their own morality anymore.
We could all submit to your authority, but we stubbornly develop our own morality. Even most catholics do, as most disagree in some way with their church.
So why throw it out?
Who threw it out?
His input into the physical world is not intervening
Catholic dogma doesn't agree with a non-interventionist god. You were citing the pope, but maybe that's not actually your authority figure.
creation myth that is just an allegory
It's encouraging that you're not a biblical literalist. It's also encouraging that the church has finally come around on heliocentrism and evolution. But they're still stuck on the 7 day creation and the Ark and so on.
almost all Holy Books are equal
Sounds like special pleading for your own holy book. What if, through archeology, we could find that other gods pre-dating christianity had many of the same stories told about them. Is that evidence you're willing to consider, and are you open to questioning the founding of your belief system?
the effects of intercessory prayer
The ineffectiveness of intercessory prayer doesn't need any kind of physics to be explained. If, on the other hand, it was somehow shown that it does work and there's a quantum physics explanation for it, that's another step toward god's obsolescence.
there are no miracles
Good for you, going against the church dogma.
I don't see anything weird about either visitations or prophecies
My point was that we can see if prophecies come true and if not, learn not to trust the prophet. The guy that predicted the end of the world on 2 separate dates last year is not to be trusted if he predicts the end of the world this year again. When Pat Robertson said god told him who will win the Republican primary this year, but that he's not supposed to talk about it, most people laugh and assume he's a con man.
the point I'm trying to make is more complex than a one sentence
Well, maybe you should get your thoughts in order and write a book. You've written dozens or hundreds of sentences and I'm not sure I understand what points you're trying to make.
[I'm using the word authority to mean a person (or god), a thinking entity.] So am I.
I was talking about submitting to someone else, trusting their word on something more than your own senses and experience. And again, trusting someone else's ideas is filtered through your senses and experience.
You are not perfect, your senses aren't perfect.
I often make the same point. See above when I specifically mention optical illusions.
And by not doing so, you are limited to the 5th level of evidence- personal experience. You can't trust anybody else at all.
But since even your senses are indeed an authority figure, it's irrational to deny other authority figures the right to present evidence
I've done no such thing. My senses are not a thinking entity (the definition you agreed to for authority figure), and I don't deny evidence presented by others.
But you keep missing this point. What authority figures are you submitting to that aren't filtered through your senses? You listen to your priest or pope with your sense of hearing. You read your bible with your sight. I haven't seen you put the slightest dent in my contention that our senses are foundational.
only what you see with your own eyes is true and everything else is false
So you're either anti-democracy or just think (as I do) that democracy could function better with some changes (e.g. by controls on buying of elections). If you're against democracy itself, what's your preferred form of government. If you want changes, what changes?
How else is a mother to teach her children, if she's not educated herself?
It sounds like you're disagreeing with Chesterton on a second point here (the only two I brought up, oddly). I encourage you to disagree more with your authority figures.
Yes, I have. In fact, they'd like to get to the point where everybody, men and women, are working 80 hours a week for $2/day.
Who is that? And do you think that sentiment is prevalent or is it a straw man you found easy to knock down?
they want to re-structure society so that no family CAN make the choice
Why don't you point to the feminists that take that stance? The feminists I know and read are quite opposed to that.
the sweatshop owner is treating his employees worse than the intelligent slave owner treats his slaves
Your defense of slavery is appalling. The rest of the world has mostly agreed that slavery is counter to "human dignity". Your authoritarian worldview may give you the idea of a benevolent dictator or slaveholder, but I contend that democracy has been the best antidote for the conditions you rightly decry.
What you were rejecting in that line of argument was "My point is that rationality requires careful consideration of evidence and that religion requires only faith (i.e. belief based solely on some authority)." I read that as not necessarily rejecting some level of faith; I read it as arguing that religion doesn't require careful consideration of evidence. Perhaps you read it as arguing both that rationality requires no faith and that religion requires no careful consideration of evidence. Now, I'm more interested in the original poster's idea of what it meant than in either of our readings.
Faith is a slippery term. If we define faith simply as an unsupported belief, then yes, my working assumption that my senses can perceive reality is faith. I freely admit that the evidence for the assumption is filtered through the senses we're assuming. I sometimes use the term working assumption instead of faith for my trust in sensory input in an attempt to be clear that it's 1) more foundational - that nobody gets by without it - and 2) that it's subject to reinterpretation from further evidence (i.e. more sensory input). The faith that I argue against is belief unsupported by physical or logical evidence, typically coming from an authority figure.
P.S. Good response above, hitting some points I would have made it you hadn't.
I'm all for giving women an equal voice- but I'm not for say, destroying motherhood in favor of having large numbers of female CEOs working 80 hour workweeks.
So you're not as extreme as Chesterton. You think women should be allowed to vote. And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you think women should be allowed to get an education as well. Have you encountered someone that wants all women to work 80 hours per week? Do you want to limit the number of hours a woman may work? Feminists want to give each woman the choice.
what you term mysogynism in him is more chivalry
So Chesterton wanted to deny women the vote and education out of kindness? Would you find the same sort of condescending argument convincing if given by a mid-1800's slaveholder regarding his slaves?
What is wrong with morality and insisting that for a given species, there might be one way to live that is in keeping with the DNA of that species?
I think you meant one best way to live. And that's a judgment call, and we as a species don't agree on that best way to live.
If there is only one species and one reality, why would anybody differ?
My point was that we do differ. As for why, people have different experiences, so they develop their view of morality differently. The roots of and evolution of morality in societies is an interesting topic too.
Depends on your definition of God. Science is limited, in Catholic theology, to the visible world- that which can be measured. God is limited to the invisible world, that which cannot be measured. The two data sets do not intersect, at all.
This sounds like Gould's non-overlapping magesteria argument. But of course religions do claim overlapping - that their gods do intervene in the physical world. So we at times have evidence in the physical world to evaluate creation myths and other claims in holy books, the effects of intercessory prayer, miracles, visitations and prophecies.
You need to read it all. Skimming doesn't help in reading Benedict any more than skimming helps in reading Chesterton- nor does doing so with a closed mind.
No. If you want to debate me, you have to make your own points or direct me to some specific point someone else has made. I'm not just going to read your books with no idea what points you're trying to make with them.
Ah, there's an excellent point that I'd like to discuss- the idea that evidence can exist without an authority- for that is an irrational definition of rationality to begin with.
I'm using the word authority to mean a person (or god), a thinking entity. Our senses and memories are more fundamental than any authority. You use your senses to hear and read the dictates of your religious teachers and books. I have some level of trust in my senses (as all of us do) but don't add on faith in authority figures like you do.
I'm pretty sure that you do NOT believe what you said, however, it's just that you never thought about the implications of having no authority.
I do believe what I've written, and I have thought this through quite extensively. Nothing is absolutely certain. So, if you like, you could term my tentative trust in my senses as faith. I prefer calling it a working assumption, as my senses can sometimes be fooled (e.g. by optical illusions). Everyone has these senses and builds on top of them, and adding on unquestioning belief in some authority figure on top of that is unnecessary and dangerous.
I don't see the relevance to rationality and religion. I read some passages and skimmed several others. I see him arguing the case for his morality. I no doubt agree with much of it, but found several things quite misogynistic. I think the Catholic faith has been standing in the way of equal rights for women, which in my mind is the rational stance. Do you disagree? Were there other parts that you wanted me to focus on in some way?
[Pope Benedict XVI's] speech caused the deaths of several priests and nuns
That's nothing compared to the effects of his stance on condom use (i.e. that it's worse than AIDS).
A few religions actually do the reverse- start with a clear concept of what human dignity is, then try very hard to serve that human dignity.
I think this might just be a difference in terms - having a clear concept of human dignity sounds like morality to me.
Universal morality and a single reality is required for that- concepts that are currently not in vogue with philosophers, but which are nonetheless required if we're going to approach problems rationally. If, for instance, the gravitational constant is different from person to person, it's pretty hard to have a universal science, let alone a universal morality.
I think here we differ. Universal morality would be nice, but I think it's not likely to happen as long as there are at least 2 people left to differ. But we can each strive for our moral goals rationally.
From Benedict's speech: by its very nature this method [science] excludes the question of God
No. He takes that stance to avoid questioning of his god, but over and over throughout the centuries science has eroded his case. I'm not sure what else from his speech you might find relevant here. I didn't read it all, but read several sections and skimmed the rest looking for relevant passages.
I'm happy to reply to your points, and even read some more, though I'd prefer if you could pick out some key points you'd like a response to to save some time and avoid confusion. My point is that rationality requires careful consideration of evidence and that religion requires only faith (i.e. belief based solely on some authority).
I don't know what your libertarian stances are, but in my experience, the rational common sense solutions don't often fall under the libertarian umbrella. If you're up for a debate, perhaps you'd like to pick a topic and explain your common sense solution. The last such debate I engaged in was regarding the environment, and my opponent didn't really put up much of a libertarian argument. However, I can think of a couple topics that I might agree with you heartily.
I'm having a hard time figuring how rational and religious isn't a contradiction. Perhaps you could clarify?
Some religions do clearly have a concept of human dignity, but that's defined much differently from religion to religion and within any particular religion. It seems to me that the end goals are what we call morality and rationality comes into it as we try to determine how to get there.
I'd like to point out that your grandfather formed his political ideas out of what worked (for himself and for the country). The old Soviet engineers you describe formed theirs as a reaction to an extreme that didn't work and took up the other extreme.
Didn't you read the page you linked to? Bush's last deficit was higher than any of Obama's deficits so far. From your own link: Bush -$1.413T, Obama -$1.299T.
Again, refusing to give Obama credit for doing things you agree with makes you sound like an anti-Obama reactionary and your attacks suspect.
All those bailout and stimulus plans cost lots of money and may just be extending the recession instead of getting us out of it. In contrast say Donald Tusk (Prime Minister of Poland) was praised for his handling of the economic crisis which was basically leave things alone and let the markets sort it out (as is the premise of capitalism in general). BTW, Poland was the only EU country to avoid recession in 2009. Odd, isn't it?
I'm no expert on the Polish economy, but how does all that EU development aid for Poland fit into your theory? Sounds like stimulus to me.
Call me a Ron Paul shill if you like but I ask you once again, point me to a link that shows Obama's plan in anywhere close to the detail of Paul's (one with numbers). If he's as prepared a candidate as you say he is that should be an easy task. I'm not singling out Obama here I'd be happy if you can point me to a plan nearly as detailed for ANY other candidate. I'd really like to think there's more than one out there that isn't just flapping their gums but has a real plan in place and eagerly await a response that can show me a link to one.
If you're so eager, why didn't you do a simple search for the jobs bill I mentioned? http://www.americanjobsact.com/ Since Ron Paul bases his projections on the CBO, I suppose you'll want to know what they say about the plan: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2875 And about the economic outlook in general. Pay special attention to what continuing the Bush/Obama tax cuts do to the deficit: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12316
It was groundbreaking. But it was tying everything together and making it easy to use that set it apart. But shouldn't everyone strive for that? If you think it was more than that that made the iPhone special, you should probably mention specifics.
You seem to be comparing my Slashdot comment and the time it took to Ron Paul's running-for-president plan, and comparing only on how much documentation and projections they contain. Pretty silly.
you'd really go with the later?
Of course I'd take Obama's plan over Paul's. I'm a realist, not in thrall to Paul's libertarian fantasy.
these one line bits of verbiage
Again, my Slashdot comment description of Obama's plan is bound to be shorter than even the first item, i.e. the Jobs Bill currently being filibustered by the GOP.
led things for 3 years and managed to do none of those things in that time
It's been 2.75 years. He has done a jobs bill (stimulus, much of it wasted on tax cuts), gave away raising taxes on the wealthy in the debt ceiling hostage negotiation, reduced quite a bit of our presence in Iraq (and today announced we'd be out by the end of his 3rd year), and has talked over and over about cutting oil subsidies, but can't get it done due to Republican obstructionism. If you're honestly for cutting war expenditures and corporate subsidies, you should give him some credit for those, while still disagreeing on many other things. That will make you seem more principled instead of just being against Obama no matter what he does.
There are thousands of people besides Ron Paul, working in and out of government, doing projections on the effects of various policies. I assume you've seen a lot of that, but if not, try the CBO for good non-partisan estimates of policy effects. If you want to do some reading on economics regarding the current crisis, I suggest Matt Taibbi's Griftopia, Paul Krugman's The Return of Depression Economics and Michael Lewis' The Big Short.
No, we don't. In a sane system, we'd have surpluses during a good economy and spend it (i.e. use stimulus) during a poor economy. That should be as controversial as storing up food for the winter and then eating it. Stimulus damps the bad economy swings (by hiring, by putting more money in the hands of people that will spend it). Austerity amplifies the bad economy swings (by laying even more people off, taking money out of an already hurting economy).
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, the fossil fuel industry has lots of money and could pay shills to post comments, but I doubt that happens much. They can get more bang for the buck in other ways and let the sheep post comments supporting them for free.
Popularity is not how science is conducted. But not all of us can dedicate our lives to studying such a complex field. So in place of that, we look to the people that do study it.
Your both sides argument falls flat when you consider the orders of magnitude difference in money behind fossil fuels versus green tech. And the relatively small grants and loan guarantees for solar started under Bush. Solyndra had major GOP investors as well as Obama supporters, and the Bush administration was pushing for that loan. And even if your accusations about corruption in grants and loans to green tech companies were true, you haven't provided any suggestion of how that might have affected climate science.
Why, when you look at the last couple decades of the trend of scientists being more and more certain about AGW, do you think that's more like the old physics models instead of quantum mechanics? If you strip away the politics you decry, you're left with the scientific consensus about AGW.
So, given the scientific consensus about AGW, what's your explanation for why all those people studying it are wrong? Is is a worldwide conspiracy?
There's a clear difference between this and Pascal's wager. Pascal had only an unsupported hypothesis (with the ultimate carrot and the ultimate stick). Global warming is a scientific consensus.
If "AGW is a symptom of overpopulation", as you say, there are two ways to combat it - reduce the number of people or reduce the negative effects of the average person. What's your plan to reduce the population? It's a very difficult problem to address. I'm not saying it's more or less difficult than addressing the average effect per person, but why only address one side of the equation?
No. What you call "central planning" could also just simply be called "cooperation". Some big problems can't be addressed by a few individuals; they need cooperation and regulation.
Take acid rain for example. Science had a consensus about what was causing it and how to address it. Voluntary action by some individuals could not reverse the harm (due to the economic pressure to keep polluting), but when we got together and imposed regulations, the culprit pollutants were reduced and the acid rain problem was greatly lessened. The skeptics and those that argued it was too costly were proven wrong - the regulations did work, and at a cost well below what was predicted. Oh, and the tighter European model of regulation gave better results than the U.S. model of limited regulation plus emissions permit trading.
Global warming is certainly a larger problem, with larger harm and larger costs to address it. But saying that (forced) cooperation / regulation can't work is just silly.
I want women and men to live up to the highest calling any human being can have- parenthood.
You want to be our dictator, but we don't want you.
They get to be MOTHERS- with all the duties that contains.
Under your regime, you'd force them to be mothers, with all the duties that contains.
And yet you'd force women out of the house and into the business world
No, I'd give them the choice. You're the one arguing to force them to stay out of the business world.
destroying families in the process
Many families are quite happy having the choice to work or not have children.
so that the supply of workers goes up while demand stays constant, thus lowering wages.
And have you declined to work so as not to lower wages? Or is that just for others?
And yet feminism itself argues FOR more workers, and thus a lower wage.
Yes, the feminist idea that women should be allowed to work lowers wages. But the feminists I know are also good lefties that argue for checks on narrow business interests, like unions, a minimum wage, regulations, fairer taxation and so on.
If it was a personal sentiment, then they wouldn't be putting down women who don't work.
That's a baseless argument until you give examples of feminists who want all women to work and not have children.
Until men can give birth, any attempt at equality of opportunity is just an attempt to deny nature.
You're getting really confused if you thought I was arguing for men giving birth.
(i.e. having the choice to work, to raise kids, etc).
Men don't have a choice there. So true equality of opportunity is a *lack* of such choice.
This might be a shock to you, but some men do choose not to work, to raise kids, etc.
By increasing the number of people in the workforce, wages are depressed, which in turn creates the economic conditions that require both parents to work.
So many things wrong with that. First, there are other ways to keep wages up. Second, you ignore the case where a woman works and a man doesn't (no increase in the workforce compared to your ideal). Third, you ignore that not all adults are or want to be parents. Fourth, your regime of forced procreation increases the number of people in the workforce.
The Robber Barons take advantage of the increase in supply of labor, they don't cause the increase in supply of labor.
Agreed. Unless they're also pushing for forced procreation.
Unless, of course, the dictator also has to submit in return, thus the need for a strong church to balance out the technocrat.
So your dictator has a dictator. And that helps how? Now you've given the church the right to harm you and your neighbor without punishment.
The exercise of liberty does not always harm others.
But when it doesn't, it's called morality, and that's what moral relativists say we can't have because of liberty.
What's that supposed to mean? That we can't exercise liberty, even if it harms no one?
those who trade liberty for security end up with neither
You want to trade your liberty for a dictator who tells you what to do. If you give up your liberty and don't even expect security, why do it?
What I fear is random chaos in these decisions, because from where I sit, humans aren't very rational by nature.
You're afraid of irrational humans, as a group, governing themselves. But you're not afraid of a single irrational human governing us. Real consistent.
Technocratic dictatorship with a strong church for morality, is my preferred as it has been for most rational people for 3000 years now.
Well, at least you're honest about being a radical - a double dictatorship. I was going to point out how most people don't want dictators, but you left yourself an easy out - that only people that agree with you are rational.
Chesterton just says that women need *different* education from men- something we used to accept in the United States. Home Economics classes were common in my high school, were they in yours?
So you want to force girls to prepare for their life in the home and not have the options the boys have. That's what we call misogyny. What else do you have slated for women, out of kindness? Do they get to drive? Do they need to wear burkas?
The business leaders who shut down factories in the United States and send jobs where the standard of living is cheaper.
Those are a few people. There are many more people in the US that don't like that so much.
I think the sentiment that labor should be as close to free as possible is quite prevalent.
Well, if you mean prevalent in the sense of powerful, then we agree. But it's mostly only those profiting off that system that agree with it. The masses don't, and that's what I meant.
Every feminist I know says that "Motherhood isn't fulfilling enough, women need to be in control of the workplace as well". This has been the center of the feminist mantra for 100 years. What feminists are you listening to?
You're confusing a personal sentiment (i.e. Motherhood isn't fulfilling enough for me) with the societal goals of equality of opportunity (i.e. having the choice to work, to raise kids, etc). But even apart from that, you're ducking the question. What feminists want to require "*both* parents working outside of the home with no time for the children"? I think you're mixing up your feminists with your evil capitalist robber barons.
Liberty is just the right to harm your neighbor without punishment.
If you submit to a dictator, as you prefer, you're giving him/her/it the right to harm you and your neighbor without punishment. The exercise of liberty does not always harm others. In a rational society, when someone's freedom and someone's well-being conflict, we decide as a society how to weigh each one depending on the circumstances. If you fear being at the mercy of society in these decisions, you should be doubly afraid of the whims of an individual. You rightly decry the oppression of business leaders, yet comically want to invest even more power in a single individual.
What you were rejecting in that line of argument was "My point is that rationality requires careful consideration of evidence and that religion requires only faith (i.e. belief based solely on some authority)." I read that as not necessarily rejecting some level of faith; I read it as arguing that religion doesn't require careful consideration of evidence.
Already disproven in this thread by Pope Benedict's separation of rational and irrational religions- rational religions ALWAYS require careful consideration of the evidence and rethinking of assumptions based on the full sum of available evidence (that is, rational religion differs from science only in a lack of belief in reductionism).
Well, I was citing the person to whom you're responding, so I'll let him respond to that one.
Thanks, I'll respond. The pope's writing was an illogical mess, but mostly seemed to be based on the nonoverlapping magisteria idea, which I addressed. And Marxist Hacker 42 refuses to tell us his own interpretation of the address he linked to. I've already given some examples of how science has eroded the dogma of the church (heliocentrism and evolution), but there are others they've come around on (slavery). So he does have a point that the church is evolving. But they're way behind the curve on other things (e.g. homosexuality and, for that matter, heterosexuality). And they're caught in a conundrum - adapt with societies and give up on the idea of ever having had absolute truth, or sticking with their outdated ideas and driving away their flock.
Worse- I suggest that it encourages AIDS transmission by creating a false sense of security.
Your ideology is showing. Try Guy's link or this one showing that condom use reduced the spread of AIDS in Uganda (http://www.who.int/inf-new/aids2.htm). To support your own position, please show how condom use results in more sexual activity, and how much more activity it is that overwhelms the 97% success rate you stated for condoms.
Catholics for Choice is an irrational sect
You didn't address the quotes from your pope, archbishops and cardinals and instead attacked the site their quotes are on.
one way to live that is in keeping with the dictates of our DNA
What does that mean, if you're not after the best way to live? There are currently 7 billion ways to live and counting.
Nobody needs to develop their own morality anymore.
We could all submit to your authority, but we stubbornly develop our own morality. Even most catholics do, as most disagree in some way with their church.
So why throw it out?
Who threw it out?
His input into the physical world is not intervening
Catholic dogma doesn't agree with a non-interventionist god. You were citing the pope, but maybe that's not actually your authority figure.
creation myth that is just an allegory
It's encouraging that you're not a biblical literalist. It's also encouraging that the church has finally come around on heliocentrism and evolution. But they're still stuck on the 7 day creation and the Ark and so on.
almost all Holy Books are equal
Sounds like special pleading for your own holy book. What if, through archeology, we could find that other gods pre-dating christianity had many of the same stories told about them. Is that evidence you're willing to consider, and are you open to questioning the founding of your belief system?
the effects of intercessory prayer
The ineffectiveness of intercessory prayer doesn't need any kind of physics to be explained. If, on the other hand, it was somehow shown that it does work and there's a quantum physics explanation for it, that's another step toward god's obsolescence.
there are no miracles
Good for you, going against the church dogma.
I don't see anything weird about either visitations or prophecies
My point was that we can see if prophecies come true and if not, learn not to trust the prophet. The guy that predicted the end of the world on 2 separate dates last year is not to be trusted if he predicts the end of the world this year again. When Pat Robertson said god told him who will win the Republican primary this year, but that he's not supposed to talk about it, most people laugh and assume he's a con man.
the point I'm trying to make is more complex than a one sentence
Well, maybe you should get your thoughts in order and write a book. You've written dozens or hundreds of sentences and I'm not sure I understand what points you're trying to make.
[I'm using the word authority to mean a person (or god), a thinking entity.] So am I.
I was talking about submitting to someone else, trusting their word on something more than your own senses and experience. And again, trusting someone else's ideas is filtered through your senses and experience.
You are not perfect, your senses aren't perfect.
I often make the same point. See above when I specifically mention optical illusions.
And by not doing so, you are limited to the 5th level of evidence- personal experience. You can't trust anybody else at all.
No. I believe things in proportion
But since even your senses are indeed an authority figure, it's irrational to deny other authority figures the right to present evidence
I've done no such thing. My senses are not a thinking entity (the definition you agreed to for authority figure), and I don't deny evidence presented by others.
But you keep missing this point. What authority figures are you submitting to that aren't filtered through your senses? You listen to your priest or pope with your sense of hearing. You read your bible with your sight. I haven't seen you put the slightest dent in my contention that our senses are foundational.
only what you see with your own eyes is true and everything else is false
Who are you arguing with? Another straw man.
voting is largely useless for both women and men
So you're either anti-democracy or just think (as I do) that democracy could function better with some changes (e.g. by controls on buying of elections). If you're against democracy itself, what's your preferred form of government. If you want changes, what changes?
How else is a mother to teach her children, if she's not educated herself?
It sounds like you're disagreeing with Chesterton on a second point here (the only two I brought up, oddly). I encourage you to disagree more with your authority figures.
Yes, I have. In fact, they'd like to get to the point where everybody, men and women, are working 80 hours a week for $2/day.
Who is that? And do you think that sentiment is prevalent or is it a straw man you found easy to knock down?
they want to re-structure society so that no family CAN make the choice
Why don't you point to the feminists that take that stance? The feminists I know and read are quite opposed to that.
the sweatshop owner is treating his employees worse than the intelligent slave owner treats his slaves
Your defense of slavery is appalling. The rest of the world has mostly agreed that slavery is counter to "human dignity". Your authoritarian worldview may give you the idea of a benevolent dictator or slaveholder, but I contend that democracy has been the best antidote for the conditions you rightly decry.
What you were rejecting in that line of argument was "My point is that rationality requires careful consideration of evidence and that religion requires only faith (i.e. belief based solely on some authority)." I read that as not necessarily rejecting some level of faith; I read it as arguing that religion doesn't require careful consideration of evidence. Perhaps you read it as arguing both that rationality requires no faith and that religion requires no careful consideration of evidence. Now, I'm more interested in the original poster's idea of what it meant than in either of our readings.
Faith is a slippery term. If we define faith simply as an unsupported belief, then yes, my working assumption that my senses can perceive reality is faith. I freely admit that the evidence for the assumption is filtered through the senses we're assuming. I sometimes use the term working assumption instead of faith for my trust in sensory input in an attempt to be clear that it's 1) more foundational - that nobody gets by without it - and 2) that it's subject to reinterpretation from further evidence (i.e. more sensory input). The faith that I argue against is belief unsupported by physical or logical evidence, typically coming from an authority figure.
P.S. Good response above, hitting some points I would have made it you hadn't.
I'm all for giving women an equal voice- but I'm not for say, destroying motherhood in favor of having large numbers of female CEOs working 80 hour workweeks.
So you're not as extreme as Chesterton. You think women should be allowed to vote. And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you think women should be allowed to get an education as well. Have you encountered someone that wants all women to work 80 hours per week? Do you want to limit the number of hours a woman may work? Feminists want to give each woman the choice.
what you term mysogynism in him is more chivalry
So Chesterton wanted to deny women the vote and education out of kindness? Would you find the same sort of condescending argument convincing if given by a mid-1800's slaveholder regarding his slaves?
Objectively, it IS worse than AIDS. But of course, most researchers who claim that condom use prevents AIDS, are not objective on the subject.
Are you seriously arguing that condoms don't help prevent the transmission of HIV? If so, even many of your church's authority figures disagree: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/hivaids/bishopssupportcondoms.asp
What is wrong with morality and insisting that for a given species, there might be one way to live that is in keeping with the DNA of that species?
I think you meant one best way to live. And that's a judgment call, and we as a species don't agree on that best way to live.
If there is only one species and one reality, why would anybody differ?
My point was that we do differ. As for why, people have different experiences, so they develop their view of morality differently. The roots of and evolution of morality in societies is an interesting topic too.
Depends on your definition of God. Science is limited, in Catholic theology, to the visible world- that which can be measured. God is limited to the invisible world, that which cannot be measured. The two data sets do not intersect, at all.
This sounds like Gould's non-overlapping magesteria argument. But of course religions do claim overlapping - that their gods do intervene in the physical world. So we at times have evidence in the physical world to evaluate creation myths and other claims in holy books, the effects of intercessory prayer, miracles, visitations and prophecies.
You need to read it all. Skimming doesn't help in reading Benedict any more than skimming helps in reading Chesterton- nor does doing so with a closed mind.
No. If you want to debate me, you have to make your own points or direct me to some specific point someone else has made. I'm not just going to read your books with no idea what points you're trying to make with them.
Ah, there's an excellent point that I'd like to discuss- the idea that evidence can exist without an authority- for that is an irrational definition of rationality to begin with.
I'm using the word authority to mean a person (or god), a thinking entity. Our senses and memories are more fundamental than any authority. You use your senses to hear and read the dictates of your religious teachers and books. I have some level of trust in my senses (as all of us do) but don't add on faith in authority figures like you do.
I'm pretty sure that you do NOT believe what you said, however, it's just that you never thought about the implications of having no authority.
I do believe what I've written, and I have thought this through quite extensively. Nothing is absolutely certain. So, if you like, you could term my tentative trust in my senses as faith. I prefer calling it a working assumption, as my senses can sometimes be fooled (e.g. by optical illusions). Everyone has these senses and builds on top of them, and adding on unquestioning belief in some authority figure on top of that is unnecessary and dangerous.
I don't see the relevance to rationality and religion. I read some passages and skimmed several others. I see him arguing the case for his morality. I no doubt agree with much of it, but found several things quite misogynistic. I think the Catholic faith has been standing in the way of equal rights for women, which in my mind is the rational stance. Do you disagree? Were there other parts that you wanted me to focus on in some way?
[Pope Benedict XVI's] speech caused the deaths of several priests and nuns
That's nothing compared to the effects of his stance on condom use (i.e. that it's worse than AIDS).
A few religions actually do the reverse- start with a clear concept of what human dignity is, then try very hard to serve that human dignity.
I think this might just be a difference in terms - having a clear concept of human dignity sounds like morality to me.
Universal morality and a single reality is required for that- concepts that are currently not in vogue with philosophers, but which are nonetheless required if we're going to approach problems rationally. If, for instance, the gravitational constant is different from person to person, it's pretty hard to have a universal science, let alone a universal morality.
I think here we differ. Universal morality would be nice, but I think it's not likely to happen as long as there are at least 2 people left to differ. But we can each strive for our moral goals rationally.
From Benedict's speech:
by its very nature this method [science] excludes the question of God
No. He takes that stance to avoid questioning of his god, but over and over throughout the centuries science has eroded his case. I'm not sure what else from his speech you might find relevant here. I didn't read it all, but read several sections and skimmed the rest looking for relevant passages.
I'm happy to reply to your points, and even read some more, though I'd prefer if you could pick out some key points you'd like a response to to save some time and avoid confusion. My point is that rationality requires careful consideration of evidence and that religion requires only faith (i.e. belief based solely on some authority).
I don't know what your libertarian stances are, but in my experience, the rational common sense solutions don't often fall under the libertarian umbrella. If you're up for a debate, perhaps you'd like to pick a topic and explain your common sense solution. The last such debate I engaged in was regarding the environment, and my opponent didn't really put up much of a libertarian argument. However, I can think of a couple topics that I might agree with you heartily.
I'm having a hard time figuring how rational and religious isn't a contradiction. Perhaps you could clarify?
Some religions do clearly have a concept of human dignity, but that's defined much differently from religion to religion and within any particular religion. It seems to me that the end goals are what we call morality and rationality comes into it as we try to determine how to get there.
Thanks for that.
I'd like to point out that your grandfather formed his political ideas out of what worked (for himself and for the country). The old Soviet engineers you describe formed theirs as a reaction to an extreme that didn't work and took up the other extreme.
As to giving Obama credit for what he's accomplished please look at this:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
I think you will notice the significant increase in DEFICIT under his term.
Didn't you read the page you linked to? Bush's last deficit was higher than any of Obama's deficits so far. From your own link: Bush -$1.413T, Obama -$1.299T.
Again, refusing to give Obama credit for doing things you agree with makes you sound like an anti-Obama reactionary and your attacks suspect.
All those bailout and stimulus plans cost lots of money and may just be extending the recession instead of getting us out of it. In contrast say Donald Tusk (Prime Minister of Poland) was praised for his handling of the economic crisis which was basically leave things alone and let the markets sort it out (as is the premise of capitalism in general). BTW, Poland was the only EU country to avoid recession in 2009. Odd, isn't it?
I'm no expert on the Polish economy, but how does all that EU development aid for Poland fit into your theory? Sounds like stimulus to me.
Call me a Ron Paul shill if you like but I ask you once again, point me to a link that shows Obama's plan in anywhere close to the detail of Paul's (one with numbers). If he's as prepared a candidate as you say he is that should be an easy task. I'm not singling out Obama here I'd be happy if you can point me to a plan nearly as detailed for ANY other candidate. I'd really like to think there's more than one out there that isn't just flapping their gums but has a real plan in place and eagerly await a response that can show me a link to one.
If you're so eager, why didn't you do a simple search for the jobs bill I mentioned?
http://www.americanjobsact.com/
Since Ron Paul bases his projections on the CBO, I suppose you'll want to know what they say about the plan:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2875
And about the economic outlook in general. Pay special attention to what continuing the Bush/Obama tax cuts do to the deficit:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12316
It was groundbreaking. But it was tying everything together and making it easy to use that set it apart. But shouldn't everyone strive for that? If you think it was more than that that made the iPhone special, you should probably mention specifics.
Because it's the right thing to do, and costly (in many ways). Same reasons it was wrong to go in in the first place. But I do like the snark. :)
You seem to be comparing my Slashdot comment and the time it took to Ron Paul's running-for-president plan, and comparing only on how much documentation and projections they contain. Pretty silly.
you'd really go with the later?
Of course I'd take Obama's plan over Paul's. I'm a realist, not in thrall to Paul's libertarian fantasy.
these one line bits of verbiage
Again, my Slashdot comment description of Obama's plan is bound to be shorter than even the first item, i.e. the Jobs Bill currently being filibustered by the GOP.
led things for 3 years and managed to do none of those things in that time
It's been 2.75 years. He has done a jobs bill (stimulus, much of it wasted on tax cuts), gave away raising taxes on the wealthy in the debt ceiling hostage negotiation, reduced quite a bit of our presence in Iraq (and today announced we'd be out by the end of his 3rd year), and has talked over and over about cutting oil subsidies, but can't get it done due to Republican obstructionism. If you're honestly for cutting war expenditures and corporate subsidies, you should give him some credit for those, while still disagreeing on many other things. That will make you seem more principled instead of just being against Obama no matter what he does.
There are thousands of people besides Ron Paul, working in and out of government, doing projections on the effects of various policies. I assume you've seen a lot of that, but if not, try the CBO for good non-partisan estimates of policy effects. If you want to do some reading on economics regarding the current crisis, I suggest Matt Taibbi's Griftopia, Paul Krugman's The Return of Depression Economics and Michael Lewis' The Big Short.
No, we don't. In a sane system, we'd have surpluses during a good economy and spend it (i.e. use stimulus) during a poor economy. That should be as controversial as storing up food for the winter and then eating it. Stimulus damps the bad economy swings (by hiring, by putting more money in the hands of people that will spend it). Austerity amplifies the bad economy swings (by laying even more people off, taking money out of an already hurting economy).