There are people who do believe that the King James version is the "inspired" Word of God. I don't fully understand why would they consider a translation the "inspired" one.
Dude, if the King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me!
Part of me truly wonders how many more manuscripts (religious or not) would have been available today if people back then don't have the habit of burning every piece of paper they dislike.
I'm curious... Is your perception that book-burnings were common an accurate reflection of reality? Might be, might not be... But does your perception come from positive knowledge of common practices, or is it simply a popular assumption?
For the Republicans, it's "immoral" to do drugs, engage in prostitution, generally speak against the Bible or do anything non-Christian, etc.[bold added]
Eh?
Do you have anything in particular in mind with that? I really have no idea what you're referring to. It looks like you're thinking of some kind of restriction on freedom of speech... When have Republicans tried to restrict speaking against the Bible?
If anything, I'm used to hearing about conservatives being concerned about restrictions on freedom of speech to speak for the Bible--being restricted from saying "Homosexual activity is immoral" on public airwaves in Canada, for instance.
I want to simplify what parent is saying: science is by definition without bias. It doesn't care if lightening is electricity or God's Wrath Made Manifest, it just provides a way to determine the causality of the phenomenon.
To determine the causality, or simply to find out information about the phenomenon.
We can do science on lightning whether it comes from advanced UFOs, or from pixies, or from God suspending the normal laws of physics, or from the mechanistic operation of the laws of physics.
become guilty of conceptual-personification on the order of any theologian, IMHO.
Not really. Because what I said doesn't imply "that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws." It doesn't have to be mechanistic for you to be able to make measurable, testable predictions--it's just easier to set up observations/experiments when it is. (Because you don't have to worry about an intelligent agent deciding to cooperate.) The natural/supernatural distinction is not fundamental to the capacities & limitations of the scientific method. Making testable predictions is.
It's a reasonable viewpoint to say that String Theory isn't science.
But if it's not science yet, string theorists are trying to make it science. (It might be that we should give fledgling fields some leeway--it might take time before people figure out how to perform the tests. At the very least, we can defer judgment on whether or not it's science.)
The problem is that science is not their goal, controversy is.
Uh, it's conceivable that this is true of some people. But generally, I call B.S.
I'm a Christian. Theologically conservative. I'm somewhat agnostic on "origins" issues in general... And I'm actively doubtful about the validity of modern ID arguments.
I've grown up amongst creationists & IDers. And I think you're unnecessarily making unreasonable guesses about people's motivations. Most people that I know are sincere about these things.
(I have met one exception--a guy arguing for ID, and I think he really didn't care about truth at all. Some things he said to me in private emails came close to confirming it. He wasn't a big name, though, just some guy.)
Excuse me--you're correct, and I mis-stated. Thanks.:)
:)
No problem.
But actually, if you read much debate/discussion about evolution, you'll find lots of people phrasing it exactly the way that you did. Not everyone recognizes the distinction that I made. (The very term, "methodological naturalism" implies the wrong thing, I think.)
In the minds of some Creationists, science is itself defective because it only deals with natural phenomena.
Psst. It doesn't. It deals with phenomena about which (or based on which) we can make measurable, testable predictions.
If your methodology for evaluating a theory requires classifying it by abstract metaphysical concepts like "natural" and "supernatural", then you're a step away from the scientific method of "experiment".
Why do people come up with such stupid things like mm/dd/yyyy?
Probably to match the way they say it: January 17th, 2004.
Of course, not everyone says dates that way. Some people say them, "17th of January, 2004".
I don't think I've ever heard someone say, "2004, January 17th."
Not sure why. It may just be an accident of history in the development of language. Or it may be that people tend to ignore the year when they talk or think about dates: "What date is it?" "June 19th."
Argh! My comment got erased when I hit "Submit"! I'll reconstruct...
Hmm... I see multiple interesting components in your last comment.
1.) "the (often non-conservative) religious right"
You would have to unpack that before I could agree or disagree. That is, what about the religious right do you have in mind as unconservative? Are you thinking something like, "They tend not to have strong commitment to small government"? But this is probably a side-issue--I don't think we have to address this question to resolve what we were talking about.
2.) "pacifying the (often non-conservative) religious right is to me modus operandi for much of the neo-con movement."
Ah, in those terms, I agree. And I don't think you were conflating the two groups, then. It's fairly standard politics: People tend to adopt the pet issues that will bring them more votes. Of course neo-cons tend to do that with pro-life, even if it's not a principled stance of their own.
3.)"While a given stance on abortion could arguably be conservative or not, creating a platform based partially on reversing Roe vs. Wade falls squarely into "religious right" territory, not "conservative" territory."
What? Why? If you think both that abortion is infanticide, and that Roe v. Wade was shoddy legal reasoning, what's unconservative about it?
4.) "haha! not at all! (but you must not be new here)"
Not just a healthy dose of any skepticism, but skepticism that approaches things from a rational, logical perspective.
It's great to demand proof of things before believing them. But too often I see people who never get beyond that stage, even the face of very strong evidence.
If we define rational skepticism as "Seeking adequate evidence", along with "willingness to examine & re-examine your beliefs in terms of that evidence", I agree.
The problem, perhaps, is fuzzy notions of "adequate evidence". It's easy to see yourself as a skeptic, but if your criteria is too high or too low, you get weird. (And, as I said, if such people see themselves as skeptics, their opinion of the value of their opinions will inflated.)
Anyone can doubt anything, the key is what will remove (or reduce) that doubt.
is it the "overdose of skepticism", or merely how one presents that skepticism that is obnoxious?
It's not clear to me how the rest of your comment relates to this question. The situation with your engineer coworker doesn't sound like hard skepticism.
Yes, the manner in which one presents their so-called skepticism adds to its obnoxiousness. But even if someone doesn't have a smug attitude, the hypocrisy of their so-called skepticism is obnoxious. Precisely because it's not genuine skepticism--what I was talking about was hard-nosed disbelief.
That's a restriction of rights, if that is the only relevant information.
Actually, I should correct myself. It's a restriction of rights, period. The question is whether it's a restriction of the "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" variety.
P.P.S. I assume (from your silence on the question) that you agree with what I said? That abortion didn't belong in a list of neo-con issues? Or are you conflating neo-conservatism with the religious right?
Yes, abortion is a religious right issue -- NOT a conservative one, no matter what Fox News might tell you. In fact, conservatives beieve in small government, not limiting rights.
Yes words do have meaning, and you're clearly confused on what 'conservative' means vs. what 'Republican' means.
No, I do agree with you on these aspects of the definition of conservative. At least, good libertarianish conservatism[1]: Small government, protection of civil liberties, etc.
You're contending that anti-abortion is the opposite of conservatism. You're doing that on the premise that making abortion illegal limits the rights of women to obtain those abortions.
Fine. Premise granted. Quite obviously, when we make abortion illegal, we restrict people from getting abortions. That's a restriction of rights, if that is the only relevant information.
Your conclusion, however, wanders far outside the bounds of reasonable thought--due to what you ignore.
Why? Because I'm pro-life on the following premise (as is everyone (I assume) who is pro-life): That abortion is infanticide.
Now, you don't agree. And you can feel free to dismiss me as a ignorant country rube for daring to disagree with you. But that question is not one of political philosophy. It is a question involving biological facts, ethical understandings, definitions of what makes us human people with rights, etc. If abortion is infanticide, then the small government, rights-protecting, classically-liberal position is to restrict abortion.
P.S. I really can't remember the last time I turned on Fox News. I find them a bit obnoxious. Do you have fun playing with your peculiar stereotypes?
[1] I don't make any claims about how well self-professed conservatives in government have actually represented conservatism.
In its best form, skepticism is a matter of caution--wanting to have good grounds for what you accept as true, and maintaining your willingness to re-examine your previously-accepted beliefs.
All too often, skepticism degenerates into simple invincible disbelief. (Or, in a softer form, active disinclination to believe.)
That form of "hard" skepticism is obnoxious in its hypocrisy. You wind up with people whose beliefs (as in, their disbeliefs) are formed irrationally, without respect to reason or evidence--but who smugly view themselves as "rational skeptics".
Republicans blocked an increase on taxes to oil companies profits, and ALSO blocked a TAX BREAK for companies investing in alternative energy?
Honest question, because I don't know: Was that initiative tied together with riders? Was it actually a vote against that tax incentive, or was it a vote against other things attached to it?
First, he'll appoint at least one more highly religious supreme court judge who can't separate their duty from their religion, and Roe v Wade will be overturned.
Ah, so "Roe v. Wade was bad law" is a position that means someone is unable to "separate their duty from their religion"? In your book, it's just not in the category of potentially-valid legal positions?
Is that accurate? If so, when it's put in those terms, doesn't it seem to be a little...small-minded of you?
I can list a dozen ways he's shifted toward the neocons (off the top of my head: nation-building, torture, abortion, tax cuts for the wealthy in wartime, warrantless wiretapping, campaign finance reform)
Oh, come now. Words have meaning.
Since when does abortion have anything to do with being neocon? That's a fairly standard "conservative" issue--or at the very least, call it a religious right issue. (Though I'd like to introduce you to my pro-life atheist friend sometime...)
If you require all music downloaders at your site, before downloading, to check a box that states "I hereby state that I am a MediaSentry/RIAA employee/contractor, and assume responsibility for affirming as such", could that get you off the hook?
That depends. Do you think you can tell that story (with a straight face) to a judge, without him smacking you upside the head for being cute?
Why should anyone have to be willing to give up what's important to them?
Everyone is always willing to give up what's important to them, for the sake of something that's more important to them. The premise of Jesus' comments is that God--the creator, redeemer, etc.--should be more important to you than anything else. That was background to his comments, not the subject of them.
Just because I'm not willing to give up my riches, or a host of other things I'm supposed to get punished for eternity? That's not a loving god.
And that's not the situation. You're working from a wrong assumption.
The subject wasn't "do this or I'll punish you." It was, "You already deserve punishment; where do we go from here?"
But that wasn't about morality, that's "I'll reward you with eternal life in heaven or punish you with eternity in hell.
As I said, I really think you're mistaken in that.
Show up, demonstrate that you are a loving, caring, and good god, and you'll earn my love and trust.
Again, what was the context of Jesus' words? God showing up, healing, and getting ready to suffer death for the sake of people who don't deserve it, in an act of supreme humility and love.
If there's a loving god out there, all I should do to earn my reward is to lead an honest life and not intentionally hurt anyone in the process.
Again, it's not about "What do I need to do to get a reward", it's about "I already deserve punishment; what happens now?"
However, as many/.ers argue, the Bible should not be taken completely literally. I tend to agree.
Incidentally... Virtually no one believes the Bible should be taken "literally". Even people who use that phrase mean something a little different--because no one[1] thinks that "I am the door" means Jesus thought he was a wooden slab on hinges. "At face value" is more accurate--it allows for figures of speech, hyperbole, etc.
[1] OK, there could be some weirdo somewhere at some point in the last 2000 years who thought that. But I think I would actually be surprised if there was a single one.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, if the King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me!
I'm curious... Is your perception that book-burnings were common an accurate reflection of reality? Might be, might not be... But does your perception come from positive knowledge of common practices, or is it simply a popular assumption?
Eh?
Do you have anything in particular in mind with that? I really have no idea what you're referring to. It looks like you're thinking of some kind of restriction on freedom of speech... When have Republicans tried to restrict speaking against the Bible?
If anything, I'm used to hearing about conservatives being concerned about restrictions on freedom of speech to speak for the Bible--being restricted from saying "Homosexual activity is immoral" on public airwaves in Canada, for instance.
We can do science on lightning whether it comes from advanced UFOs, or from pixies, or from God suspending the normal laws of physics, or from the mechanistic operation of the laws of physics.What now?
It's a reasonable viewpoint to say that String Theory isn't science.
But if it's not science yet, string theorists are trying to make it science. (It might be that we should give fledgling fields some leeway--it might take time before people figure out how to perform the tests. At the very least, we can defer judgment on whether or not it's science.)
I'm a Christian. Theologically conservative. I'm somewhat agnostic on "origins" issues in general... And I'm actively doubtful about the validity of modern ID arguments.
I've grown up amongst creationists & IDers. And I think you're unnecessarily making unreasonable guesses about people's motivations. Most people that I know are sincere about these things.
(I have met one exception--a guy arguing for ID, and I think he really didn't care about truth at all. Some things he said to me in private emails came close to confirming it. He wasn't a big name, though, just some guy.)
No problem.
But actually, if you read much debate/discussion about evolution, you'll find lots of people phrasing it exactly the way that you did. Not everyone recognizes the distinction that I made. (The very term, "methodological naturalism" implies the wrong thing, I think.)
If your methodology for evaluating a theory requires classifying it by abstract metaphysical concepts like "natural" and "supernatural", then you're a step away from the scientific method of "experiment".
Of course, not everyone says dates that way. Some people say them, "17th of January, 2004".
I don't think I've ever heard someone say, "2004, January 17th."
Not sure why. It may just be an accident of history in the development of language. Or it may be that people tend to ignore the year when they talk or think about dates: "What date is it?" "June 19th."
Speaking as a religious right person:
Nah, the GP wasn't saying that. He was saying that the creation/evolution debate is an illustration of the masses in general losing trust in science.
Argh! My comment got erased when I hit "Submit"! I'll reconstruct...
Hmm... I see multiple interesting components in your last comment.
1.) "the (often non-conservative) religious right"
You would have to unpack that before I could agree or disagree. That is, what about the religious right do you have in mind as unconservative? Are you thinking something like, "They tend not to have strong commitment to small government"? But this is probably a side-issue--I don't think we have to address this question to resolve what we were talking about.
2.) "pacifying the (often non-conservative) religious right is to me modus operandi for much of the neo-con movement."
Ah, in those terms, I agree. And I don't think you were conflating the two groups, then. It's fairly standard politics: People tend to adopt the pet issues that will bring them more votes. Of course neo-cons tend to do that with pro-life, even if it's not a principled stance of their own.
3.)"While a given stance on abortion could arguably be conservative or not, creating a platform based partially on reversing Roe vs. Wade falls squarely into "religious right" territory, not "conservative" territory."
What? Why? If you think both that abortion is infanticide, and that Roe v. Wade was shoddy legal reasoning, what's unconservative about it?
4.) "haha! not at all! (but you must not be new here)"
Ah, how refreshing!
The problem, perhaps, is fuzzy notions of "adequate evidence". It's easy to see yourself as a skeptic, but if your criteria is too high or too low, you get weird. (And, as I said, if such people see themselves as skeptics, their opinion of the value of their opinions will inflated.)Well said.
Yes, the manner in which one presents their so-called skepticism adds to its obnoxiousness. But even if someone doesn't have a smug attitude, the hypocrisy of their so-called skepticism is obnoxious. Precisely because it's not genuine skepticism--what I was talking about was hard-nosed disbelief.
P.P.S. I assume (from your silence on the question) that you agree with what I said? That abortion didn't belong in a list of neo-con issues? Or are you conflating neo-conservatism with the religious right?
You're contending that anti-abortion is the opposite of conservatism. You're doing that on the premise that making abortion illegal limits the rights of women to obtain those abortions.
Fine. Premise granted. Quite obviously, when we make abortion illegal, we restrict people from getting abortions. That's a restriction of rights, if that is the only relevant information.
Your conclusion, however, wanders far outside the bounds of reasonable thought--due to what you ignore.
Why? Because I'm pro-life on the following premise (as is everyone (I assume) who is pro-life): That abortion is infanticide.
Now, you don't agree. And you can feel free to dismiss me as a ignorant country rube for daring to disagree with you. But that question is not one of political philosophy. It is a question involving biological facts, ethical understandings, definitions of what makes us human people with rights, etc. If abortion is infanticide, then the small government, rights-protecting, classically-liberal position is to restrict abortion.
P.S. I really can't remember the last time I turned on Fox News. I find them a bit obnoxious. Do you have fun playing with your peculiar stereotypes?
[1] I don't make any claims about how well self-professed conservatives in government have actually represented conservatism.
An overdose of skepticism is obnoxious.
In its best form, skepticism is a matter of caution--wanting to have good grounds for what you accept as true, and maintaining your willingness to re-examine your previously-accepted beliefs.
All too often, skepticism degenerates into simple invincible disbelief. (Or, in a softer form, active disinclination to believe.)
That form of "hard" skepticism is obnoxious in its hypocrisy. You wind up with people whose beliefs (as in, their disbeliefs) are formed irrationally, without respect to reason or evidence--but who smugly view themselves as "rational skeptics".
Is that accurate? If so, when it's put in those terms, doesn't it seem to be a little...small-minded of you?
Since when does abortion have anything to do with being neocon? That's a fairly standard "conservative" issue--or at the very least, call it a religious right issue. (Though I'd like to introduce you to my pro-life atheist friend sometime...)
Ah, but you're just an individual. Not likely to get away with as much.
The subject wasn't "do this or I'll punish you." It was, "You already deserve punishment; where do we go from here?"As I said, I really think you're mistaken in that.Again, what was the context of Jesus' words? God showing up, healing, and getting ready to suffer death for the sake of people who don't deserve it, in an act of supreme humility and love.Again, it's not about "What do I need to do to get a reward", it's about "I already deserve punishment; what happens now?"
[1] OK, there could be some weirdo somewhere at some point in the last 2000 years who thought that. But I think I would actually be surprised if there was a single one.