These I believe
* I believe all governments are, essentially, predatory. I believe the American Founding Fathers understood this, which is why they tried very hard to create a government that would function only just barely well enough to keep the lights on and the water running. I believe that when we complain about how disfunctional our government is, how inefficient it is, how laden with incompetence it is, we are badly missing the point. An incompetent, bungling government is something to be deeply grateful for.
Under the recent Bush Administration, the government only seemed to be staffed with dolts; in fact, I believe, most of those people knew exactly what they were doing. Their so called incompetence never seemed to cost them any money or many elections; in fact, somehow or other, despite every law they've broken and crime against humanity they've blatantly committed, none of them have spent a single night in jail. Or seem likely to. That's not incompetence. Evil pure and simple, yes. Ineptitude, hell no.
* I believe that religion is a social control mechanism. And I believe that it is the most successful social control mechanism in the history of humanity, far more successful than secular government. Having said that, I think submission to superstitious terror is beneath the dignity of what humanity can and should aspire to, and if such is to be the cost of living as a civilized being, I prefer anarchy. (And I'm a fat geek; I'd DIE in a real anarchy. FAST.)
* I hate affirmative action. I know, I know, as a white male I have no right to say this, and it automatically makes me a racist and I should just give up the futile effort at fooling anyone and go put on a white sheet and start dancing around a burning cross. Well, fuck anyone who thinks that way, and fuck everyone who thinks that you can somehow fix racism by reversing it and then institutionalizing it. If the Federal government is going to be in the business of redressing social inequity... and I have no problem with that as a basic concept of government... then instead of creating laws that force people to take race into consideration with every personnel decision, they should be trying to create and model policies designed towards making such processes as color blind as possible.
* I'm not wild about abortion, but I don't believe abortion is the issue. The issue is whether or not individuals will have the freedom to control what does and does not happen within their own bodies. And as to that, I deeply believe no government has the right to deny me or anyone else any medical procedure I want and can pay for, just as I similarly believe that no government has the right to force me or anyone else to undergo any medical procedure I do not want.
* I believe the war in Iraq is wrong. I believe that's so self evident to anyone capable of even a moment's real lucidity that I shouldn't have to point out all the reasons that it is wrong. If the guy down the street is shouting insults at you, you have many legal and moral recourses, but one of them is not and never will be to invade his house, break most of his chattels, steal the ones you like, torture, rape, and kill his family, and then burn the place down. Even if you truly believe he's got weapons and is planning to use those weapons on you at some point in the future, you still are not allowed to pre-emptively take these actions. And while analogy is always suspect, I believe this one is pretty exact. That is pretty much exactly what the United States did to Iraq, and we are still over there, torturing, raping, and killing that guy's family, breaking and stealing his shit, setting fire to the walls and furnishings. The only thing we should be doing over there now is trying to put out the fires we set. Given our level of competence at actually helping anyone, though, I think we should just get the fuck out of there and let the United Nations do what they can. And resign ourselves to paying horrific reparations, with the understanding that for the next hundred years at least, if the Iraqi people want something from us, we damn well owe it to them.
* I believe the U.S. Constitution is a deeply flawed document -- no document that approvingly acknowledges slavery can be anything but flawed -- and I would love to see it replaced with something better. Pragmatically speaking, however, any attempt to replace it would only end us up with something far worse, so I'm willing to live with it.
* I like Christmas. I think it's very cool. I'm not a Christian, am not even particularly religious (although I have articles of faith, at least one of which we'll get to on this list because it also pisses off many of my fellow liberals no end, the tiny minded little fuckers), but Christmas is what the Winter Solstice Holiday that every human culture has always celebrated was always called in my childhood, and that's the word I have the strongest, most positive associations with. So I say "Merry Christmas" on my own time, and in the house I share with my wife and stepkids our holiday celebration is, and will remain, Christmas, despite the fact that we are about as secular humanist as you can get, and my wife and I are both educated enough to know that even if Jesus ever was born, it wasn't anywhere near December 25th. We make Christmas cookies, we send Christmas cards, we put up Christmas decorations, we will goddam well have a Christmas tree.
So during the holidays, I say "Merry Christmas", and if that pisses anyone off (and I imagine it will, at some point), well, there are many people who get pissed off over how I choose to wear my hair, too. I think people who get exasperated over such things badly NEED to be exasperated, hopefully into fatal aneurysms. So I wear my hair long and I say "Merry Christmas", and that's enough about that for now.
* I'm not sure about gun control. I'm still up on the rails about it. See, I hate guns, absolutely. Yet... our forefathers seemed to feel that individual ownership of weaponry was an essential component of individual liberty and social freedom... and I am not sure they are wrong.
I intensely dislike the idea of anyone anywhere being able to walk around with the power of life and death over me, or people I love. Yet, at the same time... the idea of giving all the boomsticks over to the authorities makes my hackles crawl. Would it make cops safer? Yeah, but... well, we don't draft cops in this country; they sign up for the job and last I heard, nobody advertised it as being 'safe'. I'd be happy to pay cops more and equip them better; I'm not sure I'm happy with the idea of seeing to it that they are the only people on the streets with guns.
Beyond that, it's extremely impractical. There are millions of guns in circulation. Gun control laws are not a magic genie; most of the people that society feels shouldn't carry guns are criminals already.
I've already come up with a solution for this; I wrote it up on a much older blog. I called it 'gun insurance'. Maybe I'll go back and dig it up again.
I also think our Constitution pretty unequivocally denies the power to pass any laws in regard to gun control whatsoever. I'm hardly a strict constructionist of the Constitution; in fact, as I already mentioned above, I feel it's a deeply flawed document... but it is the Owner's Manual of the United States, so I do feel we should pay some attention to what it actually says.
Whatever the case, in the end and at this point, I'm just not sure about gun control.
* I cannot support 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' legislation.
I deeply loathe many of the more extreme consequences of absolute freedom of expression. I abhor most exclusionary hate speech, and there are kinds of porn that will make even a filthy jaded old Internet pervert like me go pale as milk... but, nonetheless, I think that the essential concept of freedom of expression requires that we tolerate ALL forms of expression. Letting any authority decide which speech is acceptable and which isn't... nuh uh, that's a bad road to start walking on. So when you start pointing out certain types of extremely distasteful speech and levying fines and even jail sentences on people simply for speaking their minds, well... I think you've left the Freedom Trail and are heading towards despotism. At a fairly decent clip.
Similarly, I feel that when you set aside a certain type of crime as a 'hate crime', what you are doing is criminalizing a person's thoughts and feelings, rather than their actions. I cannot support that. I don't mind 'criminalizing politics', whatever the hell that means. But criminalizing speech, and criminalizing thought... that troubles me deeply.
* I believe in intelligent design. I really, honest to Whatever, do. I think the universe around us is simply too complex to have 'jest happened'. I think it's an artifact of some sort. What sort? I have no idea, any more than I have the slightest frickin' clue who or what set the whole thing in motion, or whether there is any greater purpose to existence than just existing.
I do not believe the idea of 'intelligent design' qualifies as science, but on the other hand, it mostly doesn't qualify as science because religious people think they KNOW who designed the universe, and 'scientists' feel just as certain that nobody/nothing did... so no one is trying to do any research into it. I understand my 'faith' in intelligent design is just that... but instead of having one side rather smugly say "Well, it's the absolute truth, and we know all the details because they're in our Bibles", and the other side just as contemptuously declare "No, there is no Higher Intelligence, that's all childish superstition, we KNOW the universe just 'evolved' over a course of billions of years as a progression of various random chemical interactions"... I'd like to see actually unbiased people who know something about how the world really works, really looking into it.
It's been said many times before, but I will say it again, because it's always worth repeating these essential truths: atheism is in every way as much a leap of faith, or an organized religion, as Christianity or Buddhism or anything else. Insisting that something DOESN'T exist takes as much arrogant gall as insisting that it does... more, in that one can prove that something exists, but I can't think of any feasible method for proving something doesn't.
No human being I am aware of understands how the universe around us works, or where it came from, or where it's going, or even, for the vast most part, where it is and what it is doing right now. We don't truly comprehend time, or space, or matter, or energy; our most brilliant researchers are waving a couple of lit matches around in an abysmally dark cavern of ignorance.
We have to keep trying to find stuff out. Embracing the ignorance and making a virtue of it, as the ultraconservative Christian right wants us to do, is absolutely deranged, but it's nearly as addle-minded to simply say "well, those guys we don't like believe in something, so we're going to laugh at it and pretend that we know it isn't true, when we actually do not know any such thing, because we haven't bothered to do any real research or experimentation on it".
I, personally, believe in Intelligent Design... in a vague sort of way. I don't insist anyone else believe in it... but I do get annoyed when all my fellow liberals insist that the entire concept that the Universe 'just goddam is', is the only acceptable concept for a truly enlightened and rational being to believe. The truth, at this point, is that no one knows for certain a single frickin' thing about the actual nature of the Universe. And if we can't agree on that and move forward with open minds, we aren't going to ever learn anything.
So, there you go. A quick primer on some of the things the guy behind this particular blog believes, or doesn't believe, in. Make of it what you will.
















I liked it.
May 19, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I understand what you are getting at (the vague part anyway) You might not want to call it that with the label "Intelligent Design" though.
It was the central premise in the Dover Case that proved that ID was nothing more than Christian Creationism repackaged to look like science with no basis in fact whatsoever. Thanks to the heavily moneyed Discovery Institute created by the fundie right.
If you haven't seen it, you really should check out the PBS Nova program Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.
May 20, 2009 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hogwash. The absence of a thing does not equal the thing itself. C'mon. Small children understand this very simple concept. Why don't more adults?
The fact that you associate "progression" and "random chemical interactions" with evolution tells me that you don't have the first clue what evolution actually is. Which, I suppose, explains your belief in the magical nonsense called "intelligent design".
Unbiased people who know how the world really works look into it all the time. They are the scientists that we call "evolutionary biologists".
I mean, really Doc? Seriously? Wow. Disappointing.
May 20, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
See? Even mention that you think nature may be an artifact, rather than the accidental result of a few million years of randomness, and you draw this kind of scorn and contempt, from people who pride themselves on being open minded and tolerant.
I don't have any problem with the idea of evolution, and I've studied evolution (several different theories of it) and have a fair idea what is meant by it. But the fact that it seems obvious to even a casual student that various creatures have undergone evolution within the natural biosphere in no way means that the natural biosphere itself was not originally brought into being by some higher, guiding, intelligent force. And after that higher, guiding intelligent force created the biosphere, some things within the biosphere started to evolve into more complex forms.
This evolution may have been something intended by the original creator, or it may have indeed been an unanticipated result of various factors and processes created and set in motion by the original creator. And the original creator need not have had any particular plan for its creation, and certainly need not necessarily be worshipped as any sort of God.
Still, it seems to me that the simple truth is, we don't know the origins of the universe, and to attempt to find out what those origins are, but ONLY if what we discover already accords with our preconceptions as to what is acceptable to us, is bad science.
May 20, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This one is amusing. See, Doc, I actually line up with you on Intelligent Design. But because some church whackos used the term a certain way, an idea which has been held by great thinkers for centuries is now considered nutbar. By people who say - with straight faces - hilarious shit like "unbiased people... the scientists."
Nonetheless, as my last addition to your prior post says, don't you see some humor in this? You know, the way you think people should have their children taken away for "filling them up with all this idiotic pap about a Magical Boy Scout Leader In The Sky... idiotic superstitious drivel..." etc. While you're getting curb-stomped for mentioning a "higher, guiding, intelligent force?" Hmmmm.
May 20, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you on the idea of a higher Intelligence.
What is tiring though, is the ignorance of those who ridicule those of us, who with thorough examination, have proven to ourselves, the existence of a Creator who REALLY cares for his creation. Has and always will.
Who would think for a minute that a finely tooled watch would form by accident? Its precision of movement is evidence of a skilled designer.
Anthropologist, Loren C. Eiseley, an evolutionist, “10 billion nerve cells, any one of which may connect with as many as 25,000 other nerve cells. The number of interconnections which this adds up to would stagger even an astronomer: “A computer sophisticated enough to handle this number of interconnections would have to be big enough to cover the earth.”
George Gallup, a renowned statistician,: “I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone—the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity
Physicist Lord Kelvin who at the time of his death, “We are absolutely forced by science to believe with perfect confidence in a Directive Power
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/joe_wood/2009/05/is-evolution-ever-wrong.php#comment-3471312
May 20, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
“George Gallup, a renowned statistician,: “I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone—the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity”
Statistics can be used to calculate odds. Insurance companies know pretty well what the odds are that you will be involved in an automobile accident. Imagine though this scenario. A person is born in North Dakota in 1947. Ask any mathematician at that time what the odds are that that person will be driving down the road in Wyoming in 2009 and stop at a light and some person born in California in 1965 will come from behind while talking on a wireless telephone to an old friend in Yakima Washington and rear end the guy from N. Dakota doing exactly four hundred and fifty-seven dollars worth of damage.
I bet the odds would be so terrifically high that they might be called a statistical monstrosity. I am surprised that his insurance company believed it even happened and paid the claim.
May 20, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not arguing against your belief, I am arguing against your argument.
May 20, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the "perfect universe" theory neglects is the existence of the mathematical i, the square root of negative 1... if the universe, like the watch, was perfect, then entropy would not exist... life would be akin to a ball rolling perpetually on a frictionless surface.
I think Voltaire kicked this theory in the ass pretty well in Candide.
May 20, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must the universe be perfect to have been the result of some sort of guiding essence? How does the presence of entropy disqualify the universe from being considered perfect?
Wouldn't entropy as a balance to whatever the opposite of entropy is (that one was harder to figure out since it is defined as describing both order and disorder at the same time...) be perfectly reasonable in a perfect universe?
Sounds like a Chicken & Egg question to me.
May 21, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a lapsed Catholic potential Cathar heretic, I believe in the divine. But that belief has no place in science, because science is rooted in observation, and God can not be observed unless you ascribe to monism, and in that case have fun.
ID is just metaphysics that often crosses directly into folkore. I loves my Darwin, loves my Chardin, and studiez my Dawkins.
And you are wrong about atheism. It is the most honest view of the universe given what we do and can know. I was a happy atheist for years, and for all I know my conversion experience was just a burnt circuit in my brain... But I had one and that's that. The rest is history.
May 20, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a contrarian, Doc, as am I.
You are the perfect epitome of why I think political labels (or religious labels for that matter) should die sooner rather than later. Until we are able to truly understand our own stupidity this sorry planet is in for some rough roads ahead.
That is very nearly humanity in a nutshell. A bunch of one-eyed savages stumbling around in the world's biggest cave, trying to find a match and failing miserably at every turn.May 20, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The human condition is founded on the absurd. The fact that any of us think we have the answers is ridiculous. Every inch of terrain we map and identify of terra icognito unleashes a horde of fresh mysteries. I find it quite fun, actually.... which is why I have chosen a worldview knowing full well that it is as much composed of bullshit as anyone else's.
The future will laugh and weep at us the way we laugh and weep at flat-earthers and inquistors.
May 20, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel the same way. The unknown truth is always so much more fun (and typically way more profound) than the crap we think we know is truth. I have had a blast exploring the depths of my ignorance this last year and coming through a full 180 degree arc on many subjects previously held in awe.
May 21, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice blog doc. I'm an atheist on most days, but don't think of it as a leap of faith, nor think of it as based on any kind of 'proof'. I don't believe there is a grand Mind behind the creation of the universe, whatever other character traits he or she may have. And I take that attitude much as I hold the belief there aren't flying pigs or used to hold the belief there weren't pink elephants - until someone showed me a picture (via BBC, I think). I don't make these analogies to be derogatory toward the Almighty, but just to give mundane examples of grounds for beliefs about Non-existence of things: there's no reason to think they exist, so I'm not going to go about positing them without reason. No 'leap' here.
Of course then there is the watch-watchmaker idea you mention as an argument for Divine creation. But the old atheist refrain on that is to say that, if the world is too complex for spontaneous existence - hence requiring a Creator - then the Creator will be more complex than his creation. And so, in turn She will be too complex for spontaneous existence - hence requiring a further Pre-Creator, ad infinitum. Sure you get a lot of more refined back and forth on this, but it's the kind of thinking that leads me to atheism. Positing a 'watchmaker' just pushes the same puzzle back one step. A step in the wrong direction if you're looking for an answer.
I'm not attached to atheism in any serious sense, it's just one more interesting intellectual problem worth pondering. Which seems to be a perspective pretty much at odds with most people's attitude towards issues of the Divine. The more 'spiritual' approach to it just never took with me, or rather wore off after many years of church-going/choirboying. I don't think people BELIEVE for the kind of reasons you'll find in discussions of the proofs of the existence of God. Belief in the Divine isn't based on ordinary epistemic reasons at all. That's why they call it faith. It's a very different kind of attitude from ordinary belief.
And I'm not sure where it comes from. Sometimes I think it's a certain way of looking at the world which people end up adopting or falling away from mostly for reasons difficult to explain. Definitely not the kinds of reasons which ground scientific beliefs. And the kind of reasons you get in standard fare philosophical discussions. Finding God is, to an outsider like me, adopting a perspective on the world which is a kind of 'knowledge' in many cases. So it's not as though I see theism in many of its forms as Wrong or misguided.
Anyway, just some thoughts Not Fully Thought Through...
May 20, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will say, as a counter to the watchmaker hypothesis, that posed by cabbalists:
The God most high (the limitless light or ain soph aur) carved the universe out from the light like cuneiform, and shards of the light formed 10 spheres interconnected by 22 lattices that reflect outward and inward on four levels of reality (the material, the heavenly, the creative, and the divine). Consciousness moves up and down this ladder effortlessly, but our ego-perception limits what we believe that we perceive to the lowest of the spheres on the lowest ladder, that of malkuth in assiah. The reason the universe appears remote, cold, mysterious and frightening is because we see the world with through the veil of the ego (original sin).
Therefore, God most high is notsomuch a watchmaker, but an engraver, and the act of engraving creates duality (separateness), from which reality springs, leaving us mortals at play in the fields of the Lord.
May 20, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will also add that just because suffering and tragedy make us feel bad does not necessarily make it universally bad. The existence of evil is on the human level, against humans and the planet, but is in and of itself not an argument for or against a loving God. That is why I say "at play in the fields of the Lord," because it is a psychodrama enacted by the masses that plays out across eternity like a mural that stretches to infinity.
May 20, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if the cabalists say so, okay then...
May 20, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am only saying that there are reams of elegant and rather sophisticated theories of everything that extend beyond the mechanistic view of the universe. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but I say (since we are all fundamentally ignorant) to choose a belief system that best reflects and extends your own consciousness. Hell, even atheism has an esoteric body of work.
May 20, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried reading it Zip, like 10 times, and still don't understand it. now I'm cross-eyed. I don't buy the mystical 'we're all fundamentally ignorant' line. Science has pretty tangible results, in my mind. But I'll grant I don't understand what the Cabalists are on about. Not that I'm not open to new stuff. I just weigh the cost in time to the possible benefit of getting my head around this stuff, and it's not looking profitable right now...
If you've got a clearer version, be my guest.
May 20, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, Obey, there's no simplified description. What I gave is about as reader's digest as I am able to render.
As far as science and tangible results, sure. Science allows us to understand the material aspect of the universe. But I will note that it has not given us answers to ethical and political problems. The 20th century was the most brutal and inhuman of centuries, and the 21st is shaping up to be a doozy. So when I say ignorance, I mean ths abysmal state of consciousness that allows us as humans to abide such horrors and yet somehow insist that we've made progress. For all the insight that science yields, where is the wisdom?
May 20, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could the reason people don’t want to believe in God, is they might need to inquire what is the purpose? Why are we here?
Some find it so difficult with so many theories about the material universe, and forms of life on Earth?
FIRST CAUSE (PERSON OR THING)
How it originated has some common ground. Atheist and people that believe in God, presuppose the existence of something. The atheist presupposes the existence of a thing. Matter and energy.
Where the person who believes in GOD believes in the existence of a person.
Some who believe in a thing, feel the universe could happen accidentally
.
People, who believe in God, see cause and effect. Qualities, energy, organizing, Design. With artistic values and varieties. Just to name a few things to show personal qualities.
Love. Wisdom. These things are observable in the Universe and our Earth they reflect characteristics.
Like a clock and clock maker, the planet is in the right position.
The natural laws such as gravity, even at the molecular level, to bind the oxygen to the hydrogen molecule.
Mathematical precision, purposeful design, order, organization and wisdom
These being observed, are attributes of a person, a Supreme Being, GOD, not things.
It is more logical to conclude the first cause is a person, not a blind force thing
First cause “In the beginning God.”—Genesis 1:1.
May 20, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It kind of amazes me that in a post where I talk about reasonably controversial opinions on the fundamental nature of government, organized religion, affirmative action, abortion, the War in Iraq, the U.S. Constitution, the right to bear arms, hate speech, hate crimes, and Deist vs. Atheist philosophy, it's apparently only the last that has stirred any debate.
Well, I say good business is where you find it.
I don't have any idea Who or What created the universe, or Why. I just believe as an article of faith that the universe is an artifact, not an accident. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I'm not going to be persuaded by any statements which begin and end with "Well, we know this to be so because it's just ridiculous to think anything else", any more than I'm going to be persuaded by "It says so in the Bible".
Maybe the universe, as artifact, is being created all the time by the perceptions of the sentiences that inhabit it. Maybe self awareness and the universe came into being at the same time, and each requires the other to exist.
There's an idea I read somewhere that self awareness does not really exist on an individual level... that the universe itself is self aware, and we are merely cells within the universe that that self awareness flows through, and while that river of consciousness flows through our physical bodies and brains, it seems to us that we are individuals, but this is merely, in effect, a trick of the light... an illusion created by our own singular perspective, trapped as we are within our own skulls. And when our bodies cease to function, and the brain that has temporarily shaped the stream of consciousness like a funnel ceases to work, the unique entity that we thought of as 'me' simply ceases to exist as well. But the universe doesn't miss it, because it was only a momentary aberration anyway... a kind of brief refractory quirk in the eternal beam of light that is universal self awareness.
I don't like that idea very much, but I suppose it has as much chance of being true as anything else.
May 20, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, with a twist here or there (and some very good gin to go with the twist) I could convince myself that I agree with most of your creed. Seriously.
Government: yes, some governments are predatory. I hope you are wrong about the predatory nature of government, because for better or for worse we need it. When people really understand what government is, I hope to be able to prove you wrong. Until then, I believe that one of the great advantages of our system of government is that it largely protects us from the incompetence of our leaders. See, we're not far apart.
Religion: check.
Christmas: come on. This is like sleeping with the enemy. I say "Merry Christmas" too, with capitals, just like that. But I wouldn't consider it part of my creed. It's not important enough, for one. And too many really bad people make a life-or-death issue out of it.
Affirmative action: hating it doesn't necessarily make you racist. It probably makes you an idealist, and you might not like that.
War: two thumbs way up. Not just Iraq, but any war brought to any nation for any reason other than straight up self defense, as an absolute last resort. By that I mean the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor, or German subs patrolling the Atlantic shore, or alien hordes marching up Wilshire Blvd. Actual guys with actual tanks and guns and death rays and stuff. Not a made-up psycho "war on terror."
Gun control: the idea of individual citizens -- even a hundred thousand citizens goaded on by Rush Limbaugh -- taking up arms against the most powerful military machine on earth is, again, fanciful. Just like believing that if every student carried a concealed weapon it could have prevented Virginia Tech. Or an old lady waiting in line for stamps could draw a .38 from her purse and coldly ice one of those storied postal workers before he went totally off the rails. Guns are instruments of death coveted by people with cartoon fantasies. And here in the US of A, we believe our crazies should be allowed to arm themselves to the teeth. Guns are evil. They are an endless source of mayhem, misery and pain. Sure, people kill people. But people without guns would kill a lot less.
Hate crimes: sorry. Think what you want and say what you will. It's cool by me, even if it makes me foam at the mouth. But beating the crap out of someone -- especially you and a few dozen of your BFFs beating the crap out of someone -- because he or she is gay, or Jewish, and alone and weaker than you should reserve you a special place in hell or federal prison. You can be a moran on your own time. But don't take your ignorance out on someone just because you think they're different than you.
ID: that's cool, but saying that scientists haven't bothered to research the origins of the universe is a bit over the top. I'll stick with Einstein and Hawking, but hey, to each his own.
We're not all that different, you and I. This was enjoyable and insightful. Thanks for coming clean. Rock on, my brother.
May 20, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doc Wrote “ This I believe”.
Doc wrote :“so we're going to laugh at it and pretend that we know it isn't true, when we actually do not know any such thing, because we haven't bothered to do any real research or experimentation on it".
At least you didn’t laugh
Doc wrote “We don't truly comprehend time, or space, or matter, or energy; our most brilliant researchers are waving a couple of lit matches around in an abysmally dark cavern of ignorance.
Who are you referring to when you say WE?
I am persuaded otherwise
(Romans 2:19-20) . . .and you are persuaded that you are a guide of the blind, a light for those in darkness, 20 a corrector of the unreasonable ones, a teacher of babes, and having the framework of the knowledge and of the truth in the Law—
Lit matches are not necessary to get out of the abysmally dark cavern of ignorance. You only need a guide.
This I believe,
Either you believe or you don’t.
Choose the light or stay in the darkness
(John 12:35-36) . . .“The light will be among YOU a little while longer. Walk while YOU have the light, so that darkness does not overpower YOU; and he that walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36 While YOU have the light, exercise faith in the light, in order to become sons of light.”
Doc wrote I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I'm not going to be persuaded……., any more than I'm going to be persuaded by "It says so in the Bible".
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to try and convince you. But I’m afraid, unless you believe that the intelligent designer of the stars that guided ships lost at sea; also had his Words written down to guide those lost in the dark.
As he had written “Follow me”.
It makes life easier. :)
May 20, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Resistance,
The problem with your 'lit matches aren't necessary, all you need is a guide' is that, well, it's entirely too trusting for my comfort. Just as money won is twice as sweet as money earned, so too is knowledge won twice as useful as knowledge blindly accepted from some Higher Authority.
Plus, to extend your metaphor, it's not like there's only one guide in the dark cavern. There are thousands. And all of them continually insist that each of them is the only guide that actually knows the real way out into the light, everybody else is crazy or lying.
Your faith tells you that one particular Holy Scripture out of the thousands of human writings that lay claim to being Holy Scripture is correct. My lack of faith tells me that they were all written by fallible humans. I'm sorry, but I just can't get there from here.
bluemeanie,
Thanks for the props.
As to guns, they give me the cold shivers, too. But for all their inherent wickedness, they have proven a useful tool over and over again throughout human history. And while, certainly, it's unlikely that any populace is going to rise up against a modern organized military state, or, at least, do so successfully, nonetheless, if the American colonials hadn't all had muskets, there could have been no Revolution (or, for that matter, successful conquest of the American frontier... which didn't work out too well for the indigenous peoples of this continent, but did end up in a culture that has produced moving pictures, rock and roll, and men on the moon, so overall, I confess myself satisfied with the outcome of history's bloody turmoil, at least, in this regard). I'm simply not ready to write them all off.
Beyond that, the practical is one of my watchwords. Outlawing guns won't get rid of all the guns. And if it did, it just means the sonsofbitches of the world would go back to using swords and crossbows. If I have a sonofabitch coming at me with a sword or a crossbow, I'd like to have a gun. That's obviously even more true if I have an SOB coming at me with a gun. (In all honesty, I'd also like to have a bulletproof vest. But a gun to shoot back with would be useful, too.)
May 21, 2009 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, outlawing guns won't get rid of all guns. And now that the cat's out of the bag, strict gun legislation will likely not happen here in my lifetime. But gun violence in Canada and the U.K., to name two industrialized nations, is virtually nonexistent compared with the United State. And -- surprise, surprise -- violent crime is proportionately lower as well.
Somehow, those folks get by. Maybe they've learned to repress their nightmare fantasies of storm troopers crashing down the front door. Maybe they're fatalists and just don't care. Whatever. I'm just saying.
May 21, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever it has been said "God did it", science stops.
Astrophysicist and Author Neil deGrasse Tyson put it beautifully.
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/category/subjects/intelligentdesign
May 21, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
DOC,
I came across this link, looking for information to respond to your last address to me,
I thought you’d enjoy
The Curse of Modernity
Philip Rieff’s problem with freedom George Scialabba
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.4/article_scialabba.php
May 21, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strawman, Doc. Who exactly does this?
The fact is that that evolution and cosmogony (the study of the origin of our cosmos, our universe) are two completely different fields of inquiry, and that you seem to conflate them with alarming regularity.
Please allow me to break it down a bit for you: Evolution is a fact. It happens, it continues to happen, and it will continue to happen. Evolution is also a collection of theories that attempt to explain the mechanism by which the fact of evolution occurs. It has ZERO connection with cosmogony, except is the very loosest of senses. To say that all scientists who study cosmogony are only trying to reinforce their own preconceptions about the origin of the universe is disingenious. Some do - and they are doing bad science if they do. Most don't. To say that it is "obvious to even a casual observer" that the universe is an artifact is a product of your ignorance regarding this field - not of the field itself. To further make the bald, unevidenced asserion that there must be an intelligent, "higher" being who created this artifact is nothing more than wild speculation. It deserves ridicule. Because it's not necessary. It simply moves the goalposts back from the simpler "the universe began" to the more complex "the universe was created as an artifact by a super-intelligence - uh, who we don't know anything about because he's invisible and stands outside of time." Ockham's Razor anyone? And while Ockham's Razor is not in any sense a "law", it is a fantastically useful rule of thumb until we know more about what we are trying to study. As it is in this case. Why make it more complex than it has to be - until we discover more facts about it that require that complexity?
In other words, you're putting the cart so far ahead of the horse that it's ridiculous. :)
So, you're right - we don't know the origins of the universe - but we are working on it. However, your position of asserting an unevidenced, magical being in addition to the facts is unreasonable at this point.
May 22, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink