I think even if that wasn't this guy's intent, people can also be guilty through negligence. Half-a-second's thought would have made this moron realize that even if his only purpose was to make life difficult for his friends, a secondary effect would be tying up 911 lines.
As a fellow payer of insurance whose rates will go up because the company has to pay out when you have an accident because you are speeding, I respectfully disagree.
The argument about stem cell research wasn't that it was "potentially dangerous." Bush and many others consider it be immoral. There's a difference. Worthwhile research that could save millions of lives could be performed on (for example) the prison population, but I don't hear many people clamoring for that.
P.S. I did some googling, and the first two stories I could found that looked somewhat serious are here and here.. Quote from second article: "Men and women differ in their pain tolerance," says psychologist Roger Fillingim of the University of Florida, who has spent years trying to learn why. "There's no debate on that."
That's not really answering the question. In activities that both women and men can do (i.e. as close as we can get to "all other things being equal") like marathons, men are stronger performers physically in terms of both strength and endurance. This is true even in events that last several days (like quadruple triathlons). I've always heard before that women have a higher tolerance for pain (and wonder how something like that can be proven) but even supposing it is true for the sake of argument, it doesn't really mean anything one way or another.
"As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry."
I haven't read the complete statement, so I'm just going on this little portion of the summary, and I assume you are as well.
I think you are drawing some conclusions that aren't really fair.
The legal limits for different types of chemicals are obviously based in part on science. But there must be a recognition that 0 ppm of a toxic chemical is better than 50 ppm. The reason the legal limits aren't 0 for all these carcinogens and toxins is because it is understood that 0 ppm is impossible to achieve without doing away with the chemicals altogether, and we just can't afford to do that. Policy on allowable levels must be a careful balance between, "How toxic is this stuff?" and "What would it cost us to make things safer?" Typically speaking, the people suited to understanding the first question are not the same people suited to understanding the second one, and vice versa. A viable answer only comes out of a dialogue between experts in both areas.
Your interpretation of matters is one possibility. It is also possible that the panel was made up of people who have no appreciation for economic realities and made a recommendation that reflects that ignorance. As a result, the recommendation was rejected, it was realized that the panel isn't making realistic recommendations, and some people on the panel were replaced with people who could intelligently address that side of things. People with "ties to the lead industry" anyone?
Triathlons are a great test of endurance. Record times for male competitors are consistently lower than for female. I'm sure there's some detail I'm missing here, but how do you reconcile this fact with your statement that women can exert themselves for longer?
Well, now you've guilted me into apologizing, because I didn't read the article either. I base the assumption that the article is about policy on the example given in the/. summary:
"As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry."
I think you missed the point/didn't respond to most of what I wrote. First, I said, "Of course, this by itself suggests nothing about the trustworthiness of the report," referring to the reaction it is intended to have. And actually, now that I think a little harder about it, I think I was wrong because: Second, I pointed out twice (I think) that the real issue here is POLICY and not science (The science is established, they are just complaining that it is being mishandled). The credentials of these men as scientists has little to do with their policy-making savvy, and it is somewhat dishonest to pump up their opinions because they are experts in unrelated fields. (It's possible some of them are political scientists. If so, I take this back.) Also because of this, the prestige of these scientists as scientists is not on the line. I don't think peer-reviewed journals will stop accepting your articles because you have stupid political views.
There are precious few scientific "facts," and therein lies the difficulty. The "facts" of science are really just the observations. Tying the observations together into theories and laws and meaningful conclusions is not a strictly mechanical process and involves a certain level of subjectivity.
Further, are we really in the area of science, any more? Aren't these scientists actually criticizing policy? "The science says this, and so the policy should say that!"
Sure, these scientists are well-regarded. The number of Nobel laureates is mentioned specifically to induce the reaction that you are having. The majority of voters are laypeople who are incapable of understanding the science, but who can (and do) parse the word "Nobel" to mean "trustworthy."
Of course, this by itself suggests nothing about the trustworthiness of the report. I can easily see how a group of politically motivated Nobel laureates could (perhaps even unconsciously) allow some bias to creep into this report. How tempting would it be to use a little of the personal prestige you've earned to have things your way?
It's questionable to me that their reputations are really on the line. In most people's minds, again, their prestige removes all doubt. The report is so politically charged (whether they intended it to be or not) that any questions against them or their opponents will automatically be dismissed as posturing. Also, there is a difference between bad science (which could tarnish their reputations among other scientists) and bad social/political recommendations based on fine science. I don't think any of these people are going to be shunned by other scientists for having the wrong political views about what should be done about the scientific data.
If you're drunk, the air you just exhaled into the balloon will set the machine off. If you aren't drunk, why the hell would you waste time with balloons, anyway?
I understand how breathalyzers work. It seemed like you understood my post at first (and you made some points worth thinking about in response) but then you strayed off into something about urban legends and pennies.. My point was that one possible means of preventing people from keeping balloons full of air or bellows in their car to fake out the machine is to make the test temperature sensitive. If the sample is too hot or cold, the machine knows its being cheated. I did NOT mean that temperature itself indicates whether or not someone has had too much to drink.
Depends on how clever it is. Your breath comes out at apporximately body temperature, for example, and making the air in a balloon body temperature plus or minus a few degrees would be tough.
I admit, I did put words in your mouth. I will illustrate:
"These are blatantly contridictory statements without resorting to major semantic gymnastics."
What is implied, though I admit not explicitly stated, is that the arguments we would have to resort to aren't convincing to you because they are "major semantic gymnastics." Translating what you allege is a straw man into plainer English:
"There is no reason besides major semantic gymnastics for believing that these statements don't contradict one another. I don't believe major semantic gymnastics provide a good argument [for a missing reason, presumably because of their complexity. I say so because of what you've said elsewhere and it seems to be implied by the word "gymnastics"]. Therefore, I conclude that the apparent contradictions are real."
Pardon me if this isn't what you meant.
I will apologize and admit that the substance of what I wrote is a straw man if you can objectively define "semantic gymnastics," reasonably explain why they aren't convincing arguments (having defined them, I assume this is the easy part), and show how arguments attempting to demonstrate that the bible doesn't contradict itself (in merely the verses in contention) are "semantic gymnastics."
In doing so, I think you should consider the following:
- Even very "obvious contradictions" (which really only exist in logic textbooks) in a translation are not necessarily reflective of contradictions in the original text. - Words have different meanings in different contexts/grammatical constructs, and are to be determined not merely by asking what the most common meaning is, or by assuming that the meaning is identical in two instances, but by determining which of the range of meanings makes the most sense in that context/grammatical construct. - The bible, like most non-technical writing, can reasonably be expected to make use of figures of speech such as hyperbole, metaphor, anthropomorphism, etc. - Any determination of whether or not two statements contradict one another should be made with as much consideration as possible for how they would have been understood by the original author/audience. - Even failing to find good, plausible means of reconciling apparent contradictions, the prudent (and even logical) thing to do is to admit that and go on, rather than claiming things like: "The Bible is undeniably self-contridictory. If it were not, it would be unnecessary to create elaborate arguments to explain and justify the blatant contridictions which are apparant to anyone who hasn't had their bullshit sensors permently fried through a lifetime of indoctrination." This is so for the simple reason that we don't have mathematical certainty in this matter, and it is not only inflammatory but dishonest to act like we do.
I say these things because while I acknowledge the possibility that logically viable arguments can be made that are yet unbelievable because they outstrip the real evidence, I gently suggest that you seem to be running to the opposite extreme in your haste to avoid this one - simplifying and generalizing to the point that the facts are trampled and ignored.
The truth of the matter is, as you pointed out, you don't understand. The ordinary and honest response to this is to try to understand. Your statements about the complexity of the arguments involved are bologna. Here is a summary of what you are saying.
1. The arguments used to demonstrate how apparent contradictions in some English translations of the bible can be resolved are complicated*.
2. Complicated* arguments never yield correct conclusions.
3. Therefore, complicated* arguments used to resolve the apparent contradictions in some English translations of the bible fail.
4. Therefore, the apparent contradictions are actual.
5. Furthermore, "contridictions.... are apparant to anyone who hasn't had their bullshit sensors permently fried through a lifetime of indoctrination"
*I reserve the right to decide when the arguments have become too complicated, and frankly you are confusing me with all this stuff about Greek grammar (even though the NT was written in Greek) and reading the bible on greater than an 8th grade level (even though the bible addresses very complex and abstract topics). I further realize that the verity of statements 3 and 4 depend directly on which arguments I arbitrarily decide are too complicated, as well as the very dubious nature of 2, but I'm ok with that because 5 is true anyway. No, I don't think that I only believe 5 because of some baseless preconceptions I have about how the bible should look if it was really inspired by God. Besides, I know some things about how Thomas Jefferson applied his philosophical biases to a book written by people from an entirely different culture, and I can respect that because he was a cool guy. This is clearly irrelevant, but you should respect my authority because I know things about the bible, and you should feel bad because Jefferson was obviously a lot more willing to randomly excise parts of the bible and you should be openminded like that, too. It's only because you have suffered from a lifetime of indoctrination that you aren't. Wait, you did say that you grew up in a religious home, didn't you?
"No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him."
1 John 3:6
"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"
1 John 1:8-2:1
If there is a contradiction between the two statements you mentioned, than the situation is perhaps more dire for me than you first realized. Not only does John conflict with Paul, John contradicts something he very clearly said just a few verses earlier. Evidentally this John fellow was really a lunatic or a moron.
On the other hand, the distinct possiblity exists that the simplest understanding of English translations of 2000 year old Greek writings don't fully convey the author's intent, particularly when they are ripped out of context. But because out of necessity trying to get a handle on the meaning of an isolated verse such as this one can involve such semantic gymnastics as considering Greek grammar and idiom, the flow of an argument, the larger body of an author's work, and so on, it seems hardly worth trying to determine whether or not some alternate interpretation is at all more accurate.
If you change your mind, please google a little bit. You might try this.
Even if you translate the 6th Commandment as "Don't commit murder", how can you define the wanton killing of non-combatants by soldiers as anything else?
Principally, by allowing the bible to "speak for itself." You are importing ideas about morality into the bible and expecting the bible to match up with them. I can't answer the question, "Why does my view of killing during war not fit well with the bible's?"
Why would a god who doesn't want his followers to commit murder then command them to kill women and children and stone people to death for minor transgressions?
That's a pretty complicated question. Here is a short answer: People tend to have very limited perspectives. The important thing is the "here and now." People live a short while, then they die. But God sees the end from the beginning, and perhaps more significantly, sees things eternally, including the effects of human lives along with the lives themselves. Human lives are far more important to God than they are to us, but because we don't see things as he sees them, it is easy for us to imagine that God is a monster. In a similar fashion, everyone, but especially children, hate taking medicine, being operated on, or having a tooth filled. But the parents, who understand that these things are necessary to the health of the child, are required to inflict pain to accomplish good.
If your God thinks it's so important that we worship him and live by his rules, why has he hidden all evidence of his existance so completely? If he intended for there to be One True Faith, how come he did not reveal the same religion to all of his creations?
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." - Romans 1:18-21.
I assume that at least the possibility of these verses won't be overly difficult for you to swallow, seeing as how you later claim that translators, scribes, and every day Christians willfully distort the meaning of scriptures.
Your religion says that God does not use humans as puppets because he created us with free will
I'm genuinely puzzled. What could you possibly know about "my religion," seeing as how this is (so far as I know) the first time we have ever spoken? Advice for you: Never assume that the understanding you have of a world religion is agreed upon by all its adherents. You probably have a great number of convincing arguments against "Christianity" in your head, but unfortunately they only apply to your ideas about it, and are only interesting to you and those who happen to agree with you. You'd be a lot better off replying specifically to "Christianity according to X" where X is some person whose views you are very familiar with. You don't even know whether I'm Roman Catholic, some flavor of Protestant, Orthodox, or something else that defies neat categorization. Your argument, which seems plausible enough, misses the target because I don't hold the view of free will that it requires.
subsequent transcriptionists could willfully change what was written
Logically speaking, perhaps. In fact, they didn't. The evidence of accurate transmission is so surprisingly strong that even I am amazed. So far as I know, critical scholars make all sorts of arguments about the authors of scripture, but practically never worry themselves much over whether the text as we currently have it has been accurately passed down. The number of available ancient manuscripts, what we know about ancient scribal practices, etc in my mind puts the burden of evidence on the person who wants to insist that the bible has been changed.
and translators could willfuly slant the words to their own ends.
This is why scholars read the scriptures in their original languages. Even simple pastors usually have a take two or three semesters each of Greek and Hebrew.
Finally, the reader can willfully misunderstand (or selectively quote) Gods word to support his own predjudices.
For a fascinating example of this in action, see the part of your post about "Thou shalt not kill." Seriously, there is nothing to this charge that couldn't also be said of any other view of authority or source of knowledge, whether it's the book of some religion, natural phenomena, or mathematical proofs. Witness the global warming debate.
Contrary to your ad hominim attack, I've put a great deal of thought into this subject
I apologize for being rude. I'm sure you have thought a great deal about your ideas about Christianity, and I'm sure many of your arguments are sound. But as I said above, you appear to assume that your ideas about Christianity are also "my religion," when in at least one area we've seen they aren't.
It is not even internally consistent with itself -- the Bible is so self-contridictory in so many places that it boggles the imagination. (EG: "Thou shall not kill" vs. "thou shall not suffer a witch to live"; "There is no man that sinneth not" vs. "Whosoever abideth in h
There are folks out there who believe that the "scientific evidence" they are presenting on their websites and in the books they write refute the science you are talking about. I am not an expert of any kind, and I know very little about biology, but I have a hard time believing that what they are saying is at all correct. For one thing, when they venture off into areas I do know a little about, they frequently say things that are flat out wrong, or at least misrepresent what real scientists think. For another, very few of them have much in the way of formal scientific education themselves.
but only somebody choosing ignorance or suffering from insanity could interpret the vast amount of observational evidence as supporting a literalist interpretation of the Biblical Genesis.
There is some truth to that statement, but I think you are misunderstanding the approach of some Christians who hold a literal view but who are indifferent to what "science" says.
The application of the scientific method certainly yields useful information. But reasonable people disagree about the scope of its use and the certainty of the results. I remember a story about some Greek thinker who reasoned from some philosophical principles that women must have fewer teeth. He was married, but it never occured to him to actually count his wife's teeth to determine whether he was right. That's kindof a bad example, because a few observations would have been helpful in that case, but my point is, different people assign different levels of confidence to different types of evidence. If I have a good reason for thinking that the bible is inspired by God, then the question becomes, "Do I trust my literal interpretation of the bible more than the interpretation of nature made by the scientists, or vice versa?" I don't know whether I put that all that well, but hopefully it is clear.
It's quite clear that the Old Testament is the collection of the writings of many plainly different Jewish authors from somewhat different periods of time, smoothed out slightly and rolled into one. You may believe it is divinely inspired if you choose, but God didn't come down to Earth and set pen to paper himself.
I'll timidly agree, but still ask, "So what?" I already answered what I think you are saying in another post. Is God such a bumbler that he can't manage to have written down what he wants?
Show them any real-world evidince that contridicts their beliefs and they either stick their fingers in thier ears and say "LALALALA I can't hear you", or grab the torches & pitchforks.
This is pretty obviously untrue, and not really worthy of response.
It should be clear to any rational thinker that the most, if not all, of the Bible is intended to be metaphorical rather than literal.
This is also pretty obviously untrue. Putting aside for a moment whether or not the bible is mostly "literal" or "metaphorical," it is a fact that "rational thinkers" have come down on both sides. Also, while a lot of the bible is in the form of poetry, allegory, metaphor, parable, etc, and EVERYONE acknowledges this, it is a mistake to say that "most, if not all" of it is intended to be metaphorical. The majority of the so-called "historical" books of the Old Testament (for example) read like history, and include the results of the occasional census, the strength of armies, personal correspondences, and explicit references to other extra-biblical historical annals.
The basic problem with the literal interpretation theory is that even if you accept that the Bible is the result of Divine Inspiration, it is still a *human*, and therefore flawed, interpretation of God's word.
This argument is so uncompelling that I doubt you've spent much time at all thinking about this subject. For the sake of argument, do you really think that God in the Judeo-Christian tradition is such a wimp that he couldn't manage to have written what he wanted? Bear in mind, we are talking about the same Being who spoke everything into existence. Wondering whether or not this God has the wherewithal to work around (and even through) human frailty to accomplish His ends seems like a trifle bearly worth worrying about. (The assumption that he does is practically foundational to Christian belief). You may as well argue that because chisels are prone to failure, God would have had a difficult time with the stone tablets, as well.*
*Please note that the majority of Christians do not believe that God used human authors in the same way that we might use a chisel. The analogy breaks down there, but still illustrates the point.
(I know you said you didn't want to start a theological debate, but...)
Few Christians have ever believed that the earth is flat. What they told us all in school about Christopher Columbus sailing around the world to prove it was round is a lie. Just do a little googling.
Second, the issue of heliocentricity was unfortunately blown all out of proportion. A great many educated people in the days of Copernicus and Galileo did believe that the earth was the center of the universe, but not because they were Christians. Certain Greek philosophies which were in vogue since the days of the scholastics held that the sun, stars, etc, were very pure and absolute, and that as you descended, things became more and more corrupt. The earth is at the center of the universe because it is a corrupt place. This view led to the idea (found nowhere in scripture) that hell is in the center of the earth (see Dante). The point is, heliocentricity was not an idea that people rejected because they were Christians (a great many Christians accepted it).
The persecution of Galileo (which, interestingly and tellingly, Copernicus never faced) so frequently cast as a war between theology and science, or religion and reason (whatever you prefer) was actually mostly political. A Roman Church beleaguered by the Reformation and desirous of reasserting its authority put Galileo on trial not primarily because of what he wrote (a great many Roman officials, including the pope himself, if memory serves, believed in the heliocentric model) but basically because he had the audacity not to keep his trap shut when told to. Obviously the Church doesn't come out smelling like a rose on this one, but my point is, there never really was a great "Science verses Christianity" debate about the position of the earth in the cosmos. It is an invention of later writers who were trying to prop up a scientific, rational basis for modern life by berating an imagined, monolithic old order.
I'm just about done.:)
Many Christians these days oppose evolution because (unlike a flat earth at the center of the universe) they see it as being distinctly denied by a plain reading of the relevant scriptures. This is actually a fact commonly agreed upon (if only implicitly) because other Christians who don't see the difficulty with evolution are frequently saying things like, "Don't take that so literally!" and appealing to certain exegetical nuances that seem to indicate that Genesis 1 and 2 are more like a literary framework than a natural history, or that what is being described are very long periods of time.
Exactly what I was thinking. I suspect about 1 in a 1000 people who read/. really understand what the article is talking about, and the intended audience is even more miniscule. I kindof have to wonder why this merits front-page treament. If the people who write device drivers for fun are waiting around for/. to post an article about how to do it for the new kernel, Linux is in a lot of trouble. I suspect it is just a type of geek self-congratulations for reading a site that features articles that are technically over their heads. "Did you catch that article over on slashdot about migrating device drivers to 2.6?" "Yeah, that was pretty interesting. I had no idea it would be different. It's important information for me in case I ever want to *smug* write a driver"
For some reason every limiting, nonsensical case is modded insightful. There is such a thing as culpability under the law. I think it's pretty obvious that if she really did intend to download something else (legally) and instead got the source code, she isn't guilty of anything, and could show that she really was tricked - say if she is none too computer saavy, has a demonstrable interest in cooking, etc.
Notice that this is different than knowingly downloading the Windows source code and claiming that "I didn't know it was against the law." That is the genuine "ignorance of the law" for which there is no excuse. In the first case, something is happening to you that is really beyond your control. In the second, you are willingly and knowingly doing something that happens to be illegal.
I don't know where you're from that 450 HP tractors are rare. Mexico? Some place where most farms are a quarter section and people farm for fun? In places where corn is grown, 450 HP tractors are not terribly uncommon. Generally speaking, the larger the farm, the larger the equipment (larger equipment costs more to start with, but is in theory cheaper to operate, provided you have enough acres to warrant owning it).
Slashdot Mirror
I think even if that wasn't this guy's intent, people can also be guilty through negligence. Half-a-second's thought would have made this moron realize that even if his only purpose was to make life difficult for his friends, a secondary effect would be tying up 911 lines.
As a fellow payer of insurance whose rates will go up because the company has to pay out when you have an accident because you are speeding, I respectfully disagree.
The argument about stem cell research wasn't that it was "potentially dangerous." Bush and many others consider it be immoral. There's a difference. Worthwhile research that could save millions of lives could be performed on (for example) the prison population, but I don't hear many people clamoring for that.
P.S. I did some googling, and the first two stories I could found that looked somewhat serious are here and here.. Quote from second article: "Men and women differ in their pain tolerance," says psychologist Roger Fillingim of the University of Florida, who has spent years trying to learn why. "There's no debate on that."
That's not really answering the question. In activities that both women and men can do (i.e. as close as we can get to "all other things being equal") like marathons, men are stronger performers physically in terms of both strength and endurance. This is true even in events that last several days (like quadruple triathlons). I've always heard before that women have a higher tolerance for pain (and wonder how something like that can be proven) but even supposing it is true for the sake of argument, it doesn't really mean anything one way or another.
"As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry."
I haven't read the complete statement, so I'm just going on this little portion of the summary, and I assume you are as well.
I think you are drawing some conclusions that aren't really fair.
The legal limits for different types of chemicals are obviously based in part on science. But there must be a recognition that 0 ppm of a toxic chemical is better than 50 ppm. The reason the legal limits aren't 0 for all these carcinogens and toxins is because it is understood that 0 ppm is impossible to achieve without doing away with the chemicals altogether, and we just can't afford to do that. Policy on allowable levels must be a careful balance between, "How toxic is this stuff?" and "What would it cost us to make things safer?" Typically speaking, the people suited to understanding the first question are not the same people suited to understanding the second one, and vice versa. A viable answer only comes out of a dialogue between experts in both areas.
Your interpretation of matters is one possibility. It is also possible that the panel was made up of people who have no appreciation for economic realities and made a recommendation that reflects that ignorance. As a result, the recommendation was rejected, it was realized that the panel isn't making realistic recommendations, and some people on the panel were replaced with people who could intelligently address that side of things. People with "ties to the lead industry" anyone?
Triathlons are a great test of endurance. Record times for male competitors are consistently lower than for female. I'm sure there's some detail I'm missing here, but how do you reconcile this fact with your statement that women can exert themselves for longer?
Well, now you've guilted me into apologizing, because I didn't read the article either. I base the assumption that the article is about policy on the example given in the /. summary:
"As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry."
I think you missed the point/didn't respond to most of what I wrote. First, I said, "Of course, this by itself suggests nothing about the trustworthiness of the report," referring to the reaction it is intended to have. And actually, now that I think a little harder about it, I think I was wrong because: Second, I pointed out twice (I think) that the real issue here is POLICY and not science (The science is established, they are just complaining that it is being mishandled). The credentials of these men as scientists has little to do with their policy-making savvy, and it is somewhat dishonest to pump up their opinions because they are experts in unrelated fields. (It's possible some of them are political scientists. If so, I take this back.) Also because of this, the prestige of these scientists as scientists is not on the line. I don't think peer-reviewed journals will stop accepting your articles because you have stupid political views.
There are precious few scientific "facts," and therein lies the difficulty. The "facts" of science are really just the observations. Tying the observations together into theories and laws and meaningful conclusions is not a strictly mechanical process and involves a certain level of subjectivity.
Further, are we really in the area of science, any more? Aren't these scientists actually criticizing policy? "The science says this, and so the policy should say that!"
Sure, these scientists are well-regarded. The number of Nobel laureates is mentioned specifically to induce the reaction that you are having. The majority of voters are laypeople who are incapable of understanding the science, but who can (and do) parse the word "Nobel" to mean "trustworthy."
Of course, this by itself suggests nothing about the trustworthiness of the report. I can easily see how a group of politically motivated Nobel laureates could (perhaps even unconsciously) allow some bias to creep into this report. How tempting would it be to use a little of the personal prestige you've earned to have things your way?
It's questionable to me that their reputations are really on the line. In most people's minds, again, their prestige removes all doubt. The report is so politically charged (whether they intended it to be or not) that any questions against them or their opponents will automatically be dismissed as posturing. Also, there is a difference between bad science (which could tarnish their reputations among other scientists) and bad social/political recommendations based on fine science. I don't think any of these people are going to be shunned by other scientists for having the wrong political views about what should be done about the scientific data.
If you're drunk, the air you just exhaled into the balloon will set the machine off. If you aren't drunk, why the hell would you waste time with balloons, anyway?
I understand how breathalyzers work. It seemed like you understood my post at first (and you made some points worth thinking about in response) but then you strayed off into something about urban legends and pennies.. My point was that one possible means of preventing people from keeping balloons full of air or bellows in their car to fake out the machine is to make the test temperature sensitive. If the sample is too hot or cold, the machine knows its being cheated. I did NOT mean that temperature itself indicates whether or not someone has had too much to drink.
Depends on how clever it is. Your breath comes out at apporximately body temperature, for example, and making the air in a balloon body temperature plus or minus a few degrees would be tough.
I admit, I did put words in your mouth. I will illustrate:
"These are blatantly contridictory statements without resorting to major semantic gymnastics."
What is implied, though I admit not explicitly stated, is that the arguments we would have to resort to aren't convincing to you because they are "major semantic gymnastics." Translating what you allege is a straw man into plainer English:
"There is no reason besides major semantic gymnastics for believing that these statements don't contradict one another. I don't believe major semantic gymnastics provide a good argument [for a missing reason, presumably because of their complexity. I say so because of what you've said elsewhere and it seems to be implied by the word "gymnastics"]. Therefore, I conclude that the apparent contradictions are real."
Pardon me if this isn't what you meant.
I will apologize and admit that the substance of what I wrote is a straw man if you can objectively define "semantic gymnastics," reasonably explain why they aren't convincing arguments (having defined them, I assume this is the easy part), and show how arguments attempting to demonstrate that the bible doesn't contradict itself (in merely the verses in contention) are "semantic gymnastics."
In doing so, I think you should consider the following:
- Even very "obvious contradictions" (which really only exist in logic textbooks) in a translation are not necessarily reflective of contradictions in the original text.
- Words have different meanings in different contexts/grammatical constructs, and are to be determined not merely by asking what the most common meaning is, or by assuming that the meaning is identical in two instances, but by determining which of the range of meanings makes the most sense in that context/grammatical construct.
- The bible, like most non-technical writing, can reasonably be expected to make use of figures of speech such as hyperbole, metaphor, anthropomorphism, etc.
- Any determination of whether or not two statements contradict one another should be made with as much consideration as possible for how they would have been understood by the original author/audience.
- Even failing to find good, plausible means of reconciling apparent contradictions, the prudent (and even logical) thing to do is to admit that and go on, rather than claiming things like: "The Bible is undeniably self-contridictory. If it were not, it would be unnecessary to create elaborate arguments to explain and justify the blatant contridictions which are apparant to anyone who hasn't had their bullshit sensors permently fried through a lifetime of indoctrination." This is so for the simple reason that we don't have mathematical certainty in this matter, and it is not only inflammatory but dishonest to act like we do.
I say these things because while I acknowledge the possibility that logically viable arguments can be made that are yet unbelievable because they outstrip the real evidence, I gently suggest that you seem to be running to the opposite extreme in your haste to avoid this one - simplifying and generalizing to the point that the facts are trampled and ignored.
The truth of the matter is, as you pointed out, you don't understand. The ordinary and honest response to this is to try to understand. Your statements about the complexity of the arguments involved are bologna. Here is a summary of what you are saying.
1. The arguments used to demonstrate how apparent contradictions in some English translations of the bible can be resolved are complicated*.
2. Complicated* arguments never yield correct conclusions.
3. Therefore, complicated* arguments used to resolve the apparent contradictions in some English translations of the bible fail.
4. Therefore, the apparent contradictions are actual.
5. Furthermore, "contridictions.... are apparant to anyone who hasn't had their bullshit sensors permently fried through a lifetime of indoctrination"
*I reserve the right to decide when the arguments have become too complicated, and frankly you are confusing me with all this stuff about Greek grammar (even though the NT was written in Greek) and reading the bible on greater than an 8th grade level (even though the bible addresses very complex and abstract topics). I further realize that the verity of statements 3 and 4 depend directly on which arguments I arbitrarily decide are too complicated, as well as the very dubious nature of 2, but I'm ok with that because 5 is true anyway. No, I don't think that I only believe 5 because of some baseless preconceptions I have about how the bible should look if it was really inspired by God. Besides, I know some things about how Thomas Jefferson applied his philosophical biases to a book written by people from an entirely different culture, and I can respect that because he was a cool guy. This is clearly irrelevant, but you should respect my authority because I know things about the bible, and you should feel bad because Jefferson was obviously a lot more willing to randomly excise parts of the bible and you should be openminded like that, too. It's only because you have suffered from a lifetime of indoctrination that you aren't. Wait, you did say that you grew up in a religious home, didn't you?
I can not understand ...
And I couldn't have said it better myself.
"No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him." 1 John 3:6
"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" 1 John 1:8-2:1
If there is a contradiction between the two statements you mentioned, than the situation is perhaps more dire for me than you first realized. Not only does John conflict with Paul, John contradicts something he very clearly said just a few verses earlier. Evidentally this John fellow was really a lunatic or a moron.
On the other hand, the distinct possiblity exists that the simplest understanding of English translations of 2000 year old Greek writings don't fully convey the author's intent, particularly when they are ripped out of context. But because out of necessity trying to get a handle on the meaning of an isolated verse such as this one can involve such semantic gymnastics as considering Greek grammar and idiom, the flow of an argument, the larger body of an author's work, and so on, it seems hardly worth trying to determine whether or not some alternate interpretation is at all more accurate.
If you change your mind, please google a little bit. You might try this.
Even if you translate the 6th Commandment as "Don't commit murder", how can you define the wanton killing of non-combatants by soldiers as anything else?
Principally, by allowing the bible to "speak for itself." You are importing ideas about morality into the bible and expecting the bible to match up with them. I can't answer the question, "Why does my view of killing during war not fit well with the bible's?"
Why would a god who doesn't want his followers to commit murder then command them to kill women and children and stone people to death for minor transgressions?
That's a pretty complicated question. Here is a short answer: People tend to have very limited perspectives. The important thing is the "here and now." People live a short while, then they die. But God sees the end from the beginning, and perhaps more significantly, sees things eternally, including the effects of human lives along with the lives themselves. Human lives are far more important to God than they are to us, but because we don't see things as he sees them, it is easy for us to imagine that God is a monster. In a similar fashion, everyone, but especially children, hate taking medicine, being operated on, or having a tooth filled. But the parents, who understand that these things are necessary to the health of the child, are required to inflict pain to accomplish good.
A huge amount of mental effort....
These comments are pretty subjective.
If your God thinks it's so important that we worship him and live by his rules, why has he hidden all evidence of his existance so completely? If he intended for there to be One True Faith, how come he did not reveal the same religion to all of his creations?
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." - Romans 1:18-21.
I assume that at least the possibility of these verses won't be overly difficult for you to swallow, seeing as how you later claim that translators, scribes, and every day Christians willfully distort the meaning of scriptures.
Your religion says that God does not use humans as puppets because he created us with free will
I'm genuinely puzzled. What could you possibly know about "my religion," seeing as how this is (so far as I know) the first time we have ever spoken? Advice for you: Never assume that the understanding you have of a world religion is agreed upon by all its adherents. You probably have a great number of convincing arguments against "Christianity" in your head, but unfortunately they only apply to your ideas about it, and are only interesting to you and those who happen to agree with you. You'd be a lot better off replying specifically to "Christianity according to X" where X is some person whose views you are very familiar with. You don't even know whether I'm Roman Catholic, some flavor of Protestant, Orthodox, or something else that defies neat categorization. Your argument, which seems plausible enough, misses the target because I don't hold the view of free will that it requires.
subsequent transcriptionists could willfully change what was written
Logically speaking, perhaps. In fact, they didn't. The evidence of accurate transmission is so surprisingly strong that even I am amazed. So far as I know, critical scholars make all sorts of arguments about the authors of scripture, but practically never worry themselves much over whether the text as we currently have it has been accurately passed down. The number of available ancient manuscripts, what we know about ancient scribal practices, etc in my mind puts the burden of evidence on the person who wants to insist that the bible has been changed.
and translators could willfuly slant the words to their own ends.
This is why scholars read the scriptures in their original languages. Even simple pastors usually have a take two or three semesters each of Greek and Hebrew.
Finally, the reader can willfully misunderstand (or selectively quote) Gods word to support his own predjudices.
For a fascinating example of this in action, see the part of your post about "Thou shalt not kill." Seriously, there is nothing to this charge that couldn't also be said of any other view of authority or source of knowledge, whether it's the book of some religion, natural phenomena, or mathematical proofs. Witness the global warming debate.
Contrary to your ad hominim attack, I've put a great deal of thought into this subject
I apologize for being rude. I'm sure you have thought a great deal about your ideas about Christianity, and I'm sure many of your arguments are sound. But as I said above, you appear to assume that your ideas about Christianity are also "my religion," when in at least one area we've seen they aren't.
It is not even internally consistent with itself -- the Bible is so self-contridictory in so many places that it boggles the imagination. (EG: "Thou shall not kill" vs. "thou shall not suffer a witch to live"; "There is no man that sinneth not" vs. "Whosoever abideth in h
There are folks out there who believe that the "scientific evidence" they are presenting on their websites and in the books they write refute the science you are talking about. I am not an expert of any kind, and I know very little about biology, but I have a hard time believing that what they are saying is at all correct. For one thing, when they venture off into areas I do know a little about, they frequently say things that are flat out wrong, or at least misrepresent what real scientists think. For another, very few of them have much in the way of formal scientific education themselves.
but only somebody choosing ignorance or suffering from insanity could interpret the vast amount of observational evidence as supporting a literalist interpretation of the Biblical Genesis.
There is some truth to that statement, but I think you are misunderstanding the approach of some Christians who hold a literal view but who are indifferent to what "science" says.
The application of the scientific method certainly yields useful information. But reasonable people disagree about the scope of its use and the certainty of the results. I remember a story about some Greek thinker who reasoned from some philosophical principles that women must have fewer teeth. He was married, but it never occured to him to actually count his wife's teeth to determine whether he was right. That's kindof a bad example, because a few observations would have been helpful in that case, but my point is, different people assign different levels of confidence to different types of evidence. If I have a good reason for thinking that the bible is inspired by God, then the question becomes, "Do I trust my literal interpretation of the bible more than the interpretation of nature made by the scientists, or vice versa?" I don't know whether I put that all that well, but hopefully it is clear.
It's quite clear that the Old Testament is the collection of the writings of many plainly different Jewish authors from somewhat different periods of time, smoothed out slightly and rolled into one. You may believe it is divinely inspired if you choose, but God didn't come down to Earth and set pen to paper himself.
I'll timidly agree, but still ask, "So what?" I already answered what I think you are saying in another post. Is God such a bumbler that he can't manage to have written down what he wants?
Show them any real-world evidince that contridicts their beliefs and they either stick their fingers in thier ears and say "LALALALA I can't hear you", or grab the torches & pitchforks.
This is pretty obviously untrue, and not really worthy of response.
It should be clear to any rational thinker that the most, if not all, of the Bible is intended to be metaphorical rather than literal.
This is also pretty obviously untrue. Putting aside for a moment whether or not the bible is mostly "literal" or "metaphorical," it is a fact that "rational thinkers" have come down on both sides. Also, while a lot of the bible is in the form of poetry, allegory, metaphor, parable, etc, and EVERYONE acknowledges this, it is a mistake to say that "most, if not all" of it is intended to be metaphorical. The majority of the so-called "historical" books of the Old Testament (for example) read like history, and include the results of the occasional census, the strength of armies, personal correspondences, and explicit references to other extra-biblical historical annals.
The basic problem with the literal interpretation theory is that even if you accept that the Bible is the result of Divine Inspiration, it is still a *human*, and therefore flawed, interpretation of God's word.
This argument is so uncompelling that I doubt you've spent much time at all thinking about this subject. For the sake of argument, do you really think that God in the Judeo-Christian tradition is such a wimp that he couldn't manage to have written what he wanted? Bear in mind, we are talking about the same Being who spoke everything into existence. Wondering whether or not this God has the wherewithal to work around (and even through) human frailty to accomplish His ends seems like a trifle bearly worth worrying about. (The assumption that he does is practically foundational to Christian belief). You may as well argue that because chisels are prone to failure, God would have had a difficult time with the stone tablets, as well.*
*Please note that the majority of Christians do not believe that God used human authors in the same way that we might use a chisel. The analogy breaks down there, but still illustrates the point.
(I know you said you didn't want to start a theological debate, but...)
:)
Few Christians have ever believed that the earth is flat. What they told us all in school about Christopher Columbus sailing around the world to prove it was round is a lie. Just do a little googling.
Second, the issue of heliocentricity was unfortunately blown all out of proportion. A great many educated people in the days of Copernicus and Galileo did believe that the earth was the center of the universe, but not because they were Christians. Certain Greek philosophies which were in vogue since the days of the scholastics held that the sun, stars, etc, were very pure and absolute, and that as you descended, things became more and more corrupt. The earth is at the center of the universe because it is a corrupt place. This view led to the idea (found nowhere in scripture) that hell is in the center of the earth (see Dante). The point is, heliocentricity was not an idea that people rejected because they were Christians (a great many Christians accepted it).
The persecution of Galileo (which, interestingly and tellingly, Copernicus never faced) so frequently cast as a war between theology and science, or religion and reason (whatever you prefer) was actually mostly political. A Roman Church beleaguered by the Reformation and desirous of reasserting its authority put Galileo on trial not primarily because of what he wrote (a great many Roman officials, including the pope himself, if memory serves, believed in the heliocentric model) but basically because he had the audacity not to keep his trap shut when told to. Obviously the Church doesn't come out smelling like a rose on this one, but my point is, there never really was a great "Science verses Christianity" debate about the position of the earth in the cosmos. It is an invention of later writers who were trying to prop up a scientific, rational basis for modern life by berating an imagined, monolithic old order.
I'm just about done.
Many Christians these days oppose evolution because (unlike a flat earth at the center of the universe) they see it as being distinctly denied by a plain reading of the relevant scriptures. This is actually a fact commonly agreed upon (if only implicitly) because other Christians who don't see the difficulty with evolution are frequently saying things like, "Don't take that so literally!" and appealing to certain exegetical nuances that seem to indicate that Genesis 1 and 2 are more like a literary framework than a natural history, or that what is being described are very long periods of time.
That's an, erm, interesting suggestion... I guess you are talking about megalomania. Do you know what that big word means?
Exactly what I was thinking. I suspect about 1 in a 1000 people who read /. really understand what the article is talking about, and the intended audience is even more miniscule. I kindof have to wonder why this merits front-page treament. If the people who write device drivers for fun are waiting around for /. to post an article about how to do it for the new kernel, Linux is in a lot of trouble. I suspect it is just a type of geek self-congratulations for reading a site that features articles that are technically over their heads. "Did you catch that article over on slashdot about migrating device drivers to 2.6?" "Yeah, that was pretty interesting. I had no idea it would be different. It's important information for me in case I ever want to *smug* write a driver"
For some reason every limiting, nonsensical case is modded insightful. There is such a thing as culpability under the law. I think it's pretty obvious that if she really did intend to download something else (legally) and instead got the source code, she isn't guilty of anything, and could show that she really was tricked - say if she is none too computer saavy, has a demonstrable interest in cooking, etc. Notice that this is different than knowingly downloading the Windows source code and claiming that "I didn't know it was against the law." That is the genuine "ignorance of the law" for which there is no excuse. In the first case, something is happening to you that is really beyond your control. In the second, you are willingly and knowingly doing something that happens to be illegal.
I don't know where you're from that 450 HP tractors are rare. Mexico? Some place where most farms are a quarter section and people farm for fun? In places where corn is grown, 450 HP tractors are not terribly uncommon. Generally speaking, the larger the farm, the larger the equipment (larger equipment costs more to start with, but is in theory cheaper to operate, provided you have enough acres to warrant owning it).