moderationsmuse

jstockPeople are so cynical. What is in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, my friend. Actually it was just a typo. Osama has been around in the news much longer than Obama, so my fingers have typed his name more times and hence remember his name's spelling more readily.But my enthusiasm for Obama is quite genuine, regardless of the coincidental similarity of names. Barrack Obama seems like a real person, honest, principled.And I hope he wins the Democratic nomination.I also like Huckabee for many of the same reasons I have given for liking Obama. The differences in their respective ideologies doesn't bother me given how both men are honest and statesmanly.posted 01/29/2008 at 17:40:23
Okay, I voted for Bush twice and I'm glad I did. And I do not discount Osama because black people in South Carolina voted for him. Indeed, the way I look at the numbers, a whole bunch of whites seem to have voted for him too.Would you have had South Carolina's black voters stay home?Duh.Hooray for Osama. I hope it gives him tons of momentum for the race ahead. Right now, this citizen who voted for Bush hopes mightily that Obama wins the Democratic nomination. I'm still undecided regarding who I'd like to see win on the Republicans side. I could vote for Obama. And even if I vote against him, he might win anyway. And I'd much rather that he was the Democratic winner than dreary Hillary.So, you see, my friends, if a supporter of President Bush can get excited about Obama, maybe South Carolina's black voters merely reflect the demographics of their state. But their support for him does not mean that they voted "on race." Maybe they just like the guy. Like I, just like the guy.What's so hard to believe about that? posted 01/26/2008 at 20:45:33
The "Soul Hypothesis" (Part 2)
I have a metaphor worthy of a Muse. A spider weaves a web without being taught. It is just encoded with the knowledge. Today we'd say it was programmed for web building. What are human beings programed to do? What is the web we weave? To know that we cannot turn our gaze away from myth. Quite the contrary, to find out we have to look into myth with the greatest care and lively perception.BUT! Once looking into the myth, there's always the "danger" of being persuaded by it. If your kids read Milton in college, there's always a danger of their becoming Christians since Milton meant his poem to be persuasive, and the "myth" of Christianity ITSELF means to be persuasive. It is paraphrasing Socrates in the Phaedrus (?) "an intelligent word ... that can defend itself and knows when to speak and when to be silent." Things like myth are not ineffectual because they appeal to us at the deepest levels of our being. Anyone who thinks Homer's Gods and Goddesses are old hat, just hasn't read Homer laterly. Enter into that world and its effects come alive again.So, goodness gracious Wondering, what shall we do? Should we, as in Plato's Republic, ban the poets from the City? Because there will always be those who listen to their music and will be swept away by it ....posted 01/31/2008 at 19:26:57
Thought experiment: assume Jung is right. Examining the contents of religion is like looking at data encoded on a micro-chip (the chip being our DNA and the architecture of mind). Surely such information about us would reveal something about our external circumstances (evolution, fate, intelligent design, whatever name you give it). We do not just toss that information away because some of it is offensive. posted 01/31/2008 at 19:19:30
Wondering,I missed the party, but reading your most recent posts set me thinking ....Actually we agree about religion's needing a shaking and that one who genuinely believes one's faith is true need not fear doubts. Religion needs to be open to criticism if it's an active, living thing and certainly there are churches that stiffle inquiry. But I cannot go so far as to connect religious belief to all the kinds of things that go wrong sociologically, even when they are done in religion's "name," since one has to admit the possibility that not all claims are equally valid. One's profession of faith could be bogus.But even were I willing to champion reason to the extent that you do, I would still urge caution in eliminating religion -- for one would have to examine religion's contents first to know what was being lost. Carl Jung (and later Joseph Campbell) persuasively demonstrated that different stories arise within cultures that are completely cut off from each other. So the Mayans had myths/religious ideas that parallel elements of Christianity, or Egyptian religion or whatever. Jung argued -- somewhat more controversially -- that the similarities derive from an "archetype" that is somehow intrinsically part of the psyche.If Jung is correct one would expect atheism to take on some of the qualities of a religion -- eventually. The "stealth religion" blog alleged something like that though I don't recall a reference to Jung. Such a manifestation of resurgent myth would not necessarily be recognized as such by its adherents -- it might appear "rational" and seamlessly connected to other "rational" assertions -- myth in reason's garments.I think the more prudent move therefore is to take religious motivation as a fact about human beings (whatever else Muse might believe it is). If we examine religion's contents and make them part of our meditation, we learn more about the humans.posted 01/31/2008 at 19:18:41
Dap, Dap, Dap. posted 01/31/2008 at 18:59:51
stevesrantI thought at first you were kidding about the Shroud/Leonardo connection. But your serious? It's not a claim that art historians would find persuasive. Leonardo is a famous name being attached to a controversial object, but there's nothing to indicate that he had anything to do with it. posted 01/31/2008 at 18:48:29
Actually mine's 10, but the toys still abound. posted 01/31/2008 at 11:37:29
I've just popped by at the moment and must go without being able to say much. But I will say this we agree upon one thing: religious people need to "be shaken up." And I'm trying to shake up some atheists also. (A whole lot of shaking going on.)That would be an incredibly healthy thing in my view. But more on that later.Muse posted 01/31/2008 at 11:36:30
And did you find any? posted 01/31/2008 at 11:32:28
I'll take marshmellows. Just in case. posted 01/31/2008 at 11:30:37
You're a born moderate! posted 01/31/2008 at 11:28:32
Goodness, you talked of much besides me. How shall I ever catch up? And quantum mechanics! Ooh la la. I never even took high school physics.Of course, HS has started recommended books again. I think he has stock in Amazon. posted 01/31/2008 at 11:27:53
To all my atheist friends, you are SO serious! But don't ever change. Don't ever change! God loves you just the way you are!Hit it, Ella --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4md2q-hEEo&feature=related posted 01/30/2008 at 19:00:17
I was addressing nypoet22, but goodness the machine has put me way down here!Molecules are nice too. But, yes, we are more than their sum. posted 01/30/2008 at 18:42:10
Wondering thinks people who believe these ideas are motivated by fear. That may sometimes be true, though I think in that case fear becomes a helpful tool. I see motivation coming from joy also. I know my own belief in God arises from joy not fear. posted 01/30/2008 at 18:40:55
Sadly we have digressed since Plato. He was one smart dude.We don't think so much anymore. We have iPods. posted 01/30/2008 at 18:38:12
You're left handed? That's gotta be significant. Right hemisphere dominant, ey? Guess that would make you right-wing? (I knew it!) posted 01/30/2008 at 18:33:35
Oh, by the by, Milton and Augustine are unavailable. They are vacationing in the Bahamas for a while. posted 01/30/2008 at 18:29:32
"Here" by the way, is Muse's backyard, not your postings where no one at all raised this interesting mathematics that I now add! posted 01/30/2008 at 18:27:54
Well in my chorus, I sang about Obama (realizing that Bush's music isn't popular anymore). But as someone here observed, we have about 300 million people in the US. The campaign has settled around four or five now (Hillary, Obama, Huck, Romney and McCain). "Can't we do any better?" was the poignant question just asked. Hmm. It is intriguing.Elsewhere I observed you correcting someone about evolution (whether random or no). Not being a scientist or mathematician I must demure, but let's assume randomness. Pure randomness, like billiard balls rolling round and bouncing where they will. I'm thinking we could pick four or five people (by lottery) and do almost as good -- maybe better -- than we do in the typical political campaign. Meaning no respect to the current quintet!I'm back! posted 01/30/2008 at 18:26:54
Hello Wondering! It's nice to feel needed! You have finally asked the question I've wondered quite often myself regarding many of your remarks: "Why does it mean so much to me?"Solve that one, and you will have really come far. Self-knowledge. Who could ask for anything more.Have you any idea why the debate about God is so important to you? posted 01/30/2008 at 18:21:39
stevesrantI've come late to the table, and haven't read half the fine things people have said (gosh, you have all written volumes!) but I would just like to applaud this wonderful idea "that big mind is an invention because I cannot show it to you or because there is no evidence for it, I agree. If you want to experience it you must stop the dialogue we all have with ourselves." I think that so many fine distinctions are being applied in arguments that sometimes hinge around practical consequences. If letting go of words sometimes provides one access to other sensibilities, then it does. I once saw a film of a famous ice skating team in rehearsal. They choreographed every movement carefully -- first without skates. Later the rehearsed bits. Eventually they put the whole thing together. At some point, comes a performance when all the repetitions and taking apart, having served their purposes, these two skaters let themselves "go" to simply and seamlessly perform the piece. The elegance and unity of that goes beyond the planning. Some element of surendipity comes along and lifts up the well-orchestrated task and makes it poetic. After that, who really cares what to call it? posted 01/30/2008 at 18:18:57
Wondering, my friend, father of a three year old, is it? Explain to me what is childish about being a child? Or an adult? In childhood we learn more rapidly than at any other period of life. We experience the world more imaginatively than we will ever do again. Mother Nature herself seems of the opinion that childhood is essential. Watch your little one and you'll note that there are times that a kid simply cannot not play. My daughter goes into "spells" of make-believe that she is loathe to interrupt for anything. Not only do children play, all the other mammals also play. A big cat learns the serious lessons of lion or tigerhood by first chasing its own or a litter mate's tail.Childhood is serious business!So, why must we go through it? What essential element of life does it provide for human endeavor ever afterwards? Hum? posted 01/30/2008 at 18:08:26
"aka kindness, forgiveness, happiness, love for family and our fellow man has been deemed primitive and weak" as I understand it (according to others, I've never read Nietzsche, this was precisely his criticism of Christianity -- that it focused upon the weak.I'm glad someone mentions music. Muses are very fond of music (for obvious reasons), and I've been listening to "Ma Philosophie" lately (in my eternal quest for fluency in French -- Hope springs eternal!)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7poE_nPXb2k posted 01/30/2008 at 17:08:23
I must respectfully disagree as firmly as I can. Au contraire, fulano, a whole branch of human experience is dedicated to the task of "becoming human," that branch of knowledge aptly called the Humanities. posted 01/30/2008 at 17:03:59
IS IT PROPER? Dear Dap, you should have asked the Muse. This has Muse written all over it. Miss Manners and I are "like that."Yes, of course, it is proper to perpetuate false information. What has got into you boys. So, when my daughter is old enough to hear a young man say,"I'll call you" what, pray, am I supposed to do? Have him arrested? I will gently advise her not to sit beside the phone. But the young man must be allowed to have his little fib. And all the other fibbers of other stripes also.Such is life. Meanwhile the rest of us (while observing the MOST scrupulous manners) must endeavor not to be particularly gullible.Any more questions, Dap? posted 01/30/2008 at 17:02:03
HeevenSteven, If you're going to talk mechanics, I'm going to have to return to my second chorus of "I loved George Bush sooo much, ooh, ooh, ooh, and I'm an Obama supporter now, baby, yes I am, ooh ooh...."You know the Muse has enough trouble balancing a check book. Really. Just stop it. You're giving me a headache.Nevertheless, as you yourself so wisely and elegantly noted: quite apart from the "how" of the mind in whatever bio-chemical-mechanical way it works, certainly the mind's CONTENTS which are not bio-chem-mec anything also matter.Math is math (hormones, neurons and sparkplugs aside).And math is damned hard too! posted 01/30/2008 at 16:55:17
Would a Christian fundamentalist with a rubber duckie help? (My daughter's toys ... they're scattered everywhere beside the keyboard.)Hey, Dap.posted 01/30/2008 at 16:49:05
State of the Climate
I either goofed (nah, cannot be) or else there is a sort of reference to Vulcan (God of the Forge?) -- I don't know -- I could google it. But then so can you.Scientists were once so awfully fond of Greek and Roman mythology -- not so much anymore.I suspect Mr. Spock of the Starship Enterprise is a latter day version of that.Cheers posted 01/29/2008 at 17:34:33
Hello HeevenSteven,Gracious you've already got me reading so many things! Meanwhile Realpolitic (below) has discovered that I'm spelling-challenged, too, as well as illiterate.But you know I'm very much in favor of "green" products, of being thrifty and all that. And I really believe the Global Warning Whiners (addressing Realpolitic now) would get more of what they claim they want if they sought consensus rather than a war of words.Hope you and the other atheists are all well. Have kept you all in my thoughts (and prayers too -- but mums the word on that!)Muse posted 01/29/2008 at 17:27:49
I knew global warming was nonsense when my daughter's third grade teacher, in reaction to an unseasonably warm day, remarked "Drat that Global warming."Mr. Gore knows (as perhaps Senator Hart also knows) that climate change may or may not be real. It's a question for scientists whether the microscopically small data we have about the earth's climate (over its estimated 4.5 billions years) represents a pattern. A pattern, period, quite apart from human activities.US Brit and others will call you "right wing" if you so much as sniff at the term "global warming," but the truth is that Climate science is a brand, spanking new baby of a scientific discipline.Various natural events, like vulcanism, mess with the atmosphere a whole lot more than does anything coming from the San Diego Freeway. And the earth has survived. (Of course there was that unfortunate thing with the dinosaurs, the details of which are still emerging.)Hey look, you don't have to be "left wing" (whatever that means) or "right wing" (ditto) to believe in conserving nature. Everybody likes to breath clean air.You guys can begin cleaning up your personal act anytime you like. Please do. And definitely make your carbon footprint as small as you please. I'm not exactly living high on the hog over here. Only difference between you guys and me is I'm not whining so much about it.Cheers. posted 01/27/2008 at 19:03:17
I keep wondering, apropos the "deniers," what has happened to science after being hijacked by politicians and members of the hipster class.Scientists (once upon a time) were SUPPOSED to be deniers par excellence. They had a name for it. They called it Skepticism. posted 01/27/2008 at 18:52:29
I have figured out what your problem is and am happy to report that you're not alone. The problem is that when you try debating with "the right" you're basically talking to yourself. I know this because, strictly speaking, "the right" doesn't exist. (It's an abstraction.) So what you should do is try talking to actual human beings.I'm pretty sure you'll get better results, especially if you can manage to be polite (hint: you might wish to eliminate or at least greatly curtail your discussion of genitals).So try talking to someone persuasively, someone who is real, breathing, who can reply in kind, and let's see what happens! Good luck, dear. posted 01/27/2008 at 18:48:28
If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would be a Sacrament
It is tragically sad that some women define the essence of being a woman by their "right" to kill their own unborn child.Please do not include me in your definition.My life has meaning that does not depend upon killing someone else.The girls you say "disappeared" for their abortions might have had their lives transformed in ways they could not imagine by the presence of their children in their lives. THAT describes my experience. My daughter is the best thing that has ever happened to me.Having a child is a great honor conferred by God (or nature is you prefer), it is nothing less that responsibility for a human being.That a great many women can no longer understand that shows how much abortion has killed not just the children but the human heart. posted 01/22/2008 at 19:30:00
Stoned and Drunk and Messing with Tigers
I hope the comment was helpful, but if I add a coda it would be this: that the concept of "cool" is not something the kids invented. They get it from the culture. As a parent, I would not reinforce it.As to "peer pressure," it's not just about kids. Adults live with peer pressure all the time. We learn by imitation, and "peer pressure" reflects an individual's dependance upon others. But it's obviously also essential for a person to be able to stand up for oneself, which involves sometimes needing to resist the pressure applied by others. Adolescents need help finding an internal anchor for their ideas, their morality, their decisions. So teaching them "uncoolness" (feel free to call it something else) is merely teaching them to honor their own integrity as individuals: in short you are teaching courage.posted 01/22/2008 at 18:29:10
Re: When does the bravado become uncool? Why does anything have to be cool? Somehow the idea of hipness has become the essential thing. I don't know exactly when this happened. Anybody know? I haven't always been paying attention. But now one hears this word, presumed to mean something to adolescents, used by grey haired types who ought to have formed more discriminating means of commentary.While I do not remember what my parents or other adults babbled to me in my infancy, I notice that parents (and teachers) seem universally to use (in this country anyway) the epithet "cool" as their unique form of praise, and the pattern begins before the kid can talk. One might reasonably wonder why little "Johnny" needs to be indoctrinated into the identification of the "cool" from his (or her) earliest moments of awareness. Why??For some adults, a rich English vocabulary of evocative words is reduced to nearly this one syllable by which one "emotes" (?) one's only permissible comment, one which must be applied to nearly any situation: "cool."It annoys me to no end, and I say this as a lifelong fan of Miles Davis. Well, there has to be a reason why we use this term as routinely as Osama bin Laden says "Allāhu Akbar." Evidently it is our religion. Well, somebody's, not mine. Do not indoctrinate your children into the idea that they must be "cool." Rather encourage them to be as "uncool" as they please. Urge them to cultivate "uncoolness" by being all the myriad things that people used to be prior to the invention of "cool."Better still, when they are on the threshold of adulthood, encourage them to take the next step. Encourage them to grow up. posted 01/20/2008 at 14:07:53
There was an old lion in the Afghanistan zoo that was killed as somebody's mis-guided "political" act. I am not sure why the recent US tiger mauling death of the teenager has captured so much attention except for its being unusual. Teenagers die in significant numbers behind the wheel annually ever since the advent of the automobile, a fact that bio-fuels or other "green" policies will not mitigate. Before the automobile, testosterone took its toll in other ways.I am not willing to indite the whole society, though I think Modern America's love affair with adolescence sends unfortunate signals to the more gullible among young males.It is possible for teenage males to begin assuming something like real manhood, though most people define manhood in sexual terms (sadly). Redefine manhood as responsibility and, who knows, we might even find that "abstinence only" works rather more than now. Such a change would benefit young women as much as young men, taking the sexual pressure off young women of defining their self-esteem in sexual terms.We don't appeal strongly enough to the idealism of the young. Their idealism is by nature strong, but the fashionable factoids and truisms undermine it at every turn. And then, eventually, it's rather too late. posted 01/19/2008 at 12:57:14
The Virtues of Silence
I have been using Bach elsewhere on Huff Po as evidence for God's existence. I'm not sure whether I've convinced any of the atheists yet, but then possibly they haven't spent time listening to Bach despite the fuss I make about him.Then, too, I'm not sure how old the atheists here are. While Bach can be appreciated at any age, the older you are, I think the more you recognize the flow of life in his music. Anyway, how I wish we could drag the other Huffers over here. While they are getting so hot under the collar over politics, they remain unaware (?) that the most essential things in life happen as a serious and thought-filled vibration in the air! However, as an old saying has it: you can lead a one to Angela Hewitt, but you cannot make them listen. posted 01/20/2008 at 15:06:24
When Men Become Primates
Caveats noted. HOWEVER, I really do have an excellent rapport with cats. Muse posted 01/22/2008 at 18:07:04
klmebaneWith due respect I was using the term "Marines" to stand for all American soldiers, the use of the term refers to their role as expeditionary forces.I hear the emotion in your remarks and respect them, but you are applying very literal terms to what I said, as for instance regarding "Islamic terrorism, a term which is not meant to slander Muslims but merely to identify which religion-region-ethnicity-etc that the war is being fought against.I agree that expecting soldiers to be peacekeepers confuses their mission and puts an additional psychological burden on soldiers.I would argue that the US was not forcing democracy on the Iraqis, but opening a chance for them to assume it for themselves. Certainly, however, for women living in fundamentalist Muslim cultures, "by force" is the only way democracy could be available to them since they are virtual prisoners within their own systems.Your views and mine are obviously not easily reconcilable and so it is. But if you read through the entire exchange between Sprinkle and I, you see how much we "argued" points of view, but along the way we trade (I think) some interesting ideas. It was for me one of the most enjoyable exchanges I've experienced on Huff Po, and I learned quite a bit and feel myself rather indebted to Sprinkle's elucidating ideas.You do not have to agree with people to learn from them.Best wishes,Muse posted 01/22/2008 at 18:03:25
But, Dap, people disagree about all sorts of things. Expecting complete unanimity of opinion strikes me, at the very least, as kind of boring. In any case, my beliefs are what they are and I cannot change them just to suit the atheists. I'm not sure if the fellow above was serious or making a joke, but to fear discussion is to hold to a weak faith, whether it's faith in God or belief in a scientific viewpoint or anything else. If it cannot stand up to scrutiny, what is one to conclude? posted 01/22/2008 at 17:47:25
klmebane, DapMuse was making a joke. You are supposed to laugh! You're not cooperating! Klmebane is unaware that I'm already on record as saying that the atheists at Huff Po are the best ever. I find them very fair and kind. (And open minded most of the time.)Cheers. posted 01/21/2008 at 20:30:35
DapYou're so hard on poor Muse, who is thoroughly opposed to witch-burning (I'm also already ON RECORD as being against the virgins into volcanos thing, ask HS.) Meanwhile I'm developing a good rapport with cats. (Still working the lions.)Agape! posted 01/21/2008 at 20:28:26
klmebaneI don't believe that God wants anyone to surrender their intelligence. Why should we have been rendered intelligent just to toss reason away. But not everybody's a genius. It's the nature and the beauty of faith that it can touch anyone, brilliant or ordinary or mentally challenged.Still, the "greats" of the worlds' religions were people of considerable intellect. Augustine, Jerome, Aquinas, et al, in for instance Christianity. (I'm not knowledgeable about the other religions to address their "greats.")The Bible itself is not exactly an easy read. And if you want a very challenging book by a great intellect read Milton's Paradise Lost. But be ready to work. It's long, complex and filled with allusions to 17th c intellectual hot topics that are not so self-evident to 21st c readers.Anyways, I'm sure you have your reasons for your not being religious. I think religious people have to respect that -- the integrity of others.Best, Muse posted 01/21/2008 at 20:24:00
klmebaneI agree we should not sell the animals short. But let's not sell the humans short either.Best,Muse posted 01/21/2008 at 20:17:45
DerikHow kind of you to reply so thoughtfully. My point was the multiplicity of religions does not demonstration that God does not exist. Actually it might seem to argue the exact opposite: that humans in every era, all over the planet, have had intimations of God points to something, or else our senses fail us. What they disagree about are particulars, which indeed is very significant -- though many religions that might seem radically different seen from the perspective of their "details" share all kinds of underlying similarities. Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell and others have done some remarkably insightful research in this area.People toss around words like "magic" without thinking much about what they mean. I don't think religious ideas benefit from literal interpretations. Literary strategies (such as one uses to understand poetry) get you farther in interpreting religious texts and ideas.However, I can appreciate that science works on an opposite principle -- that of using words narrowly, when possible, to refine meaning into very precise channels.As to faith itself: I would liken it to creativity in science. The idea that leads to the splendid mathematics often comes from invisible sources. Ramanujan thought his ideas came from a Hindu deity. I'm not suggesting he was correct, but very significantly he did not know how he was getting the mathematics he was using. His not-knowing does not, however, hinder the mathematics from being correct. Scientists can have "hunches" that lead to further scientific insight. Similarly people thinking in spiritual terms can also have hunches about the nature of spiritual things.I just think you'd do well to be more open to the intellectual content of serious religious ideas, as well as to the ameliorative affects of ordinary everyday religion among ordinary folks.Best, Muse posted 01/21/2008 at 20:16:14
I prefer the cha cha, myself. posted 01/21/2008 at 19:59:39
PaxChristiActually I've always had a pretty good rapport with cats.I cannot tell if your comments are intended to be humorous or what.Assuming you're genuine, I would argue that people have to be able to have conversations in good faith if they are ever to learn anything. Christians are included in the learning curve right along with everyone else.And if you don't talk to the atheistis how can you share your faith? "...[B]e ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you...."It seems reasonable to me to have faith in God's ability to protect you while you're having a conversation about your faith. That's what having faith is about -- that you don't have to be afraid.Best,Muse posted 01/21/2008 at 19:59:08
What am I even saying, "almost willing," heck I'm totally willing to credit you with Western Civ. Period.From across the pond, Muse posted 01/19/2008 at 18:10:56
Well, knowing that your a Brit I certainly don't want to stir up old arguments, though most of us have gotten past "the British are coming!" When we hear that now, we think it good news indeed. The whole question of old real estate claims is a tough one certainly. Interesting that you include my items as ones among the recent events. Given that modern Israel was formed in 1948, the events of the seventies are ones I'd called "old." But I'll not quibble about terms.Airplanes seem to figure significantly in the Arab imagination as durable symbols and while security measures related to air travel stiffen, terrorists still seems to prefer attacking aviation whenever possible.Your other point was about Communism. That would be an issue about which we agree.Unfortunately, whenever neighbors develop enough culture to have different styles of clothing and different eating habits, they seem to start plotting each others' doom. It's really not good.Could we (now I mean even particularly Americans) have NOT interfered with the Middle East? As soon as we stepped foot on Arab soil we were in some measure interfering.But now that I know you're British, I find it more difficult to argue. Anybody -- however remotely -- associated with Jane Austen and John Cleese is a friend of mine. I'm almost willing to give you Brits credit for "Civilization As We Know It." Best, Muse posted 01/19/2008 at 17:58:49
Woah! Don't mess is HS! posted 01/19/2008 at 17:32:24
You make some delightfully insightful observations! posted 01/19/2008 at 17:14:43
We've have strayed far from the topic, haven't we? We began by arguing whether terrorism could compare with war in terms of destruction.I think the real point is that terrorism leads to war. Each one of many incrementally worsening attacks against the West made the Iraq war more likely. Saddam was not involved in 9/11, but had there been no 9/11, there would have been no Iraq war --at least not on Bush's watch. Indeed, had there been no 9/11, it's questionable whether Bush would have been reelected. (But let's not yank the chain of conspiracy theorists.)Well, I suppose it's your serve. But let's not get carried away. Best wishes, Muse posted 01/19/2008 at 16:49:57
SprinkleI might have implied you were being fashionable in blaming the US. It is fashionable. Of course, this being the internet you could be from any place and my assumption that you're an American was wrong. But does it follow that you haven't benefited from the American Revolution? The US is the oldest modern democracy, and so its health or success does impact the rest of the world. As to terrorism, evidently we're not going to agree on definitions. Yes, terrorism is on the rise. It does however have a much longer history than you allow. I'm thinking about things like the Lockerbie explosion of 1988 killing 270 people, the 1972 killing of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes, the October 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship when terrorists kill a disabled wheelchair bound American tourist, 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer, as well as less well publicized events within the Arab world against moderate Arab targets.Ends do not justify means and these attacks were completely unjust. posted 01/19/2008 at 16:41:43
"If it were not for the very real resentment," you do not think Bin Laden would be so influential. The rise of Bin Laden has its own casuality that may have little to do with any of the rest. Had he not been heir to a tremendous fortune, he would not have had the influence he does/did. Had Sayyid Qutb stayed in Egypt, married, been less uptight history might have played out rather differently. Had the Soviets not invaded Afghanistan, and etc. The US (under the Clinton administration) was passionately in pursuit of a peace between Israel and Palestine even while Bin Laden and Co. were plotting their attack on the World Trade Center. They had already destroyed two African embassies and bombed the USS Cole. So obviously peace between Israel and Palestine was not high on their list, though Bin Laden has always used the Palestinian cause to stir his pot.The idea of nationhood does not have validity for him. The earth belongs to Allah, the whole region of the Mediterranean all the way to Spain rightfully belongs to Islam. Even over here we are supposed to learn the Koran, and I don't know about you, but I am supposed to don a veil, a burka, or whatever.However, if Bin Laden's father had not become very rich working for the Saudi royal family things might have been quite, quite different. He has spurned his wealth. But it had to be there first before it could be spurned, didn't it? posted 01/19/2008 at 16:28:01
Sprinkle,I figured I'd get another volley in our tennis match. Your first paragraph:Well, you raise in interesting point, though the "Middle East" is obviously not a problem you and I will solve with our debate.Notably, the European Jews would perhaps not have needed an Israeli state had they not been treated so shabbily in their European countries. So some unjustifiable means and ends can have far reaching consequences -- a point that you were trying to make earlier. However, Israel is historically a Jewish homeland of very ancient pedigree. In any case, it is a democracy and has opened itself to Jews from all over the world. But Isreal would, I think, have possibly welcomed Arabs also if it were not under threat. You cannot realistically expect Israeli Jews to include Muslims into their culture if it means their own destruction. posted 01/19/2008 at 16:16:19
Religions are not spiritual at all. In the plural, how is "it" anything but an abstraction? And as to what individual believers find of worth in their myriad different dogmas and rituals, how are you in any position to know? Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to judge the spiritual condition of billions of other people that you don't even know. Got to tell you, AlphaDoc, you're sounding a little haughty.The feeling of superiority is very much evident in your own remarks. posted 01/19/2008 at 15:48:55
I'd be curious what aspects of Dawkins's biological statements you think demonstrate anything substantive about religion (or perhaps even about biology). I once began reading "The God Delusion." However I'll admit I didn't get very far into it. His arguments lacked any substance that I could find. He doesn't so much make a weak argument as make no argument at all.I lack information to judge whether his biology is scientific (there's not a lot of biology in his book). His commentary on religion, though, is definitely not scientific. It is rhetorical. And it's rather weak and paltry rhetoric at that.But if you can provide actual quotes that show otherwise, I'd be interested to see them. posted 01/19/2008 at 15:45:40
HeevenStevenSomewhere around here I referred to atheism as one of the religions. And I got caught by Dap.And now he's threatening to feed me to the lions. Yikes.Muse (here kitty, kitty) posted 01/19/2008 at 15:36:17
Nommo and Merlin7I said I don't believe without evidence, however I am not claiming that my evidence would be persuasive for you. Actually my strongest evidence for God is also personal and not something I'm going to publish even under a pseudonym.But I think the question here -- it is the issue you raised Merlin7 -- is how my belief harms you.Living in a free society, I'm permitted my belief in God and you're permitted your opinion that religion is superstition. That's the whole point of a free society being free: that individuals find their own path to truth. posted 01/19/2008 at 15:33:37
Our inference in the Middle East does, I grant, factor into their anger. However our interference is not all negative. Putting McDonalds into Saudi Arabia is something we could have done without. But our support for Isreal, as a democratic country, serves our own national interest. And by far the great threat the West poses to the Middle East is feminism, an ideology which completely undermines the foundation of their present culture.Bin Laden's political, religious philosophy grows out of the writings of Sayyid Qutb who formed his own anti-Western animosity by witnessing church suppers in Colorado in the late 40s.The Middle East does have its own history and not everything that happens there (or elsewhere) is a reaction to US policy. Though al Quida is, oddly, a reaction of sorts to mid-western mores of the innocent Truman era, strange as it may seem. If a "Leave it to Beaver" world was beyond the pale, one can only imagine the reaction to the contemporary chronicles of Brittany and Madonna.In any case, it's helpful to recall that Bin Laden's idea of the well run state was Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban. Kind of puts it into perspective. posted 01/19/2008 at 12:15:22
Sprinkle,When a truck bomb that explodes outside a Shite Mosque, a bomb that has been put there by Sunnis, that is not Uncle Sam's fault. Nor is it a credit to Saddam that by killing Shites himself, he kept the rest of Sunni anger at bay. Unfortunately, it's fashionable to blame every bad thing that happens around the planet on the US, but the conflicts between various Muslim groups have long histories going back to before there even was a US. We are seeing the coincidence of very old animosities with 21st century technology.Jihad against the West is fairly novel. Terrorism against Islamic targets is not new. Most terrorism prior to the first al Quida was directed at moderate Arab nations. It wasn't as newsy an item at the time, and terrorism has become progressively more sophisticated and deadly.I won't argue that the US military isn't a very formidable force. But the US military has goals, ones which don't include attacking civilians. posted 01/19/2008 at 12:15:03
DerikApropos: "Let us for sake of arguement, say that god exists. Then, I am now faced with figuring out which one. i.e. Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist (yup, they have a not-god as opposed to no-god), and whatnot'I'm glad you raise this excellent question, however I am wondering how you think the question is answered in regard to science, a discipline where exactly the same problem of multiple theories arises. In physics "super-string" theory there are a whole bag full of theories, different ones dependent upon different numbers of dimensions and different ways of solving equations. [String theory has as yet no coroborating experimental data to support any of its competing theories.]So should the scientists just say, "this is too hard," pack up their cookies and go home?What's the difference? posted 01/19/2008 at 11:06:57
Theses headlines come from today's Washington Post on line:Bush urges fast tax aid to boost economy.Egypt to rule on phone-message divorce.Chess genius Fischer dies.DHS to unveil new disaster response plan.Did it. And I don't see that "belief in the supernatural with no evidence whatsoever to justify such belief" plays any role in the headlines.Merlin7, dear. You haven't provided any evidence yourself. I for one do not believe in the supernatural "with no evidence." I have evidence. So I'm not going to "move beyond religion." I have religion and reason. As I see it, though, you haven't quite got reason yet. If you had, there wouldn't be a blank "tah dah!" between your first paragraph and your last.You still need to do your homework. Lots of homework.posted 01/19/2008 at 11:01:07
You can judge Mother Theresa in her own words if you think judgment is necessary.http://florida.x-to-y.info/video_cbLS-vivKf0.htmlThen compare her with her critic.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5kWhich one do you think exhibits more peace of mind and more integrity? posted 01/19/2008 at 10:43:52
dissolvethecorporationRegarding "inevitability" -- your assertion needs a little evidence to back it up. Inevitably, human beings get into conflict. Human beings are granted the ones who practice religions. But they also play Monopoly. Perhaps we should get rid of board games. It might be that they provoke delusions of grandeur.Bach wrote mountains of some of the world's best music as an outpouring of religious faith. Michelangelo painted the Sistine ceiling. Faith has inspired literature, science (cranky Newton was nonetheless very religious), medicine, and innumerable other great good achievements. Show me the atheist who is writing some great string quartets and get back to me. posted 01/19/2008 at 08:51:29
Third grade teachers use threats of fear and would use Hell also if they had it available as a resource (something that perhaps the NEA should look into). But every major religion has a vision of an ideal that attracts believers. Your idea of a typical church is about 100 years out of date. A lot of people wander into church merely to socialize. It's an impure motive perhaps, but not such a bad one. Curiosity is a motive. Need and loneliness are motives. I think there are as many motives as there are individual people. As for fairy tales, even fairy tales have a deeper meaning for whoever chooses to look more closely into them. What's wrong with creating meaning through stories? posted 01/18/2008 at 21:20:33
Better warn the lions that I'm a vegetarian. They'd get more protein by eating the atheists. Sly Dapper Dap. posted 01/18/2008 at 21:14:16
SprinkleThe uniforms signal to someone that a military operation is in progress. I suppose one could say that it provides a warning and a chance to stay alive to those of good will. But a suicide bomber purposely tries to look like everybody else in order to kill innocent parties.I do not accept that Iraqi deaths are "ultimately" tied to the invasion. Iraq had plenty of death going on before the Marines showed up. Indeed, the Marines are working to restore order.The American Revolutionary War of which I presume you are now a beneficiary lasted 6 years. Too bad you won't allow Iraqis their own shot at freedom.Islamic terrorism has been plenty bloody for a very long time and grows increasingly violent. Maybe you need to do some remedial research. Evidently you weren't paying attention prior to Iraq. Oh, by the way, I wouldn't assume that the Islamic terrorists are "done." posted 01/18/2008 at 21:12:55
Your doing the same thing Hitchens does, applying your ideology to Mother Theresa. Maybe it wasn't poverty she was trying to eradicate. After the Indians are well-off, I suppose they can find meaning in watching television and going shopping. She saw in their poverty something that Hitchens cannot see: an opportunity to offer love, a kind of love that has nothing to do with self. What Mother Theresa chose to perpetuate was a spiritual vision of life that goes beyond the pocket book and the transient moment. posted 01/18/2008 at 21:05:48
I think your indignation is misdirected. One can admire animals and still recognize the fundamental dis-similarity between human beings and other primates, unless of course your primates have developed the string quartet. At best your comments pay tribute to the beauty of nature. At worst they ignore science, history, art, mathematics and all the ways that humans are very un-animal-like and somewhat "God" like. posted 01/18/2008 at 21:02:19
I think he's trying to show that human failings are not the fault of any one group, that everybody shares some blame. And every faith (I'll include atheism as one of the faiths, hoping my atheist friends will forgive the analogy) -- every faith has its core truths too.It's a glass half empty, half full, kind of thing. The point is that religions need to continually renew themselves, make sure they are doing all that they can do to make the glass's contents something that is healthy to drink. posted 01/17/2008 at 20:20:11
You are conveniently conflating numbers here. Many of Iraqi deaths in the fighting are the result of terrorism. Huge numbers of Iraqi deaths are the result inter-Arab terrorism. Also, there is enormous difference between a soldier wearing a uniform and a combattant who looks just like everybody else and who strikes without warning. And the danger is chiefly felt by a civilian population.You seriously need to rethink this. Your bias makes your mathematics meaningless. posted 01/17/2008 at 20:14:14
That's unfair. These are just labels. To put an equal sign between Bush, who you don't like, and every Christian is ridiculous. I voted for Bush and respect the role his faith has played in his decision making. But we are not clones. (See Alec Baldwin today for the whole clone thing. And Bon Apetite!)PS, eat local, support sustainable agriculture and small, diverse farming, check out the farmer's markets and learn how you can make a difference in your own community. Plant a garden! Befriend wild animals. Sometimes to make "progress" means rediscovering the beauty of the past. posted 01/17/2008 at 19:31:15
Amen posted 01/17/2008 at 19:23:15
Pride goeth before a fall. The other primates aren't destroying the planetary habitat. What's so superior about our present situation, post-Descartes? I'd say, "It's a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into." Though I'm not sure the other primates will be laughing after we've driven them into extinction. posted 01/17/2008 at 19:20:14
ForwardtoYesterdaySeeing humans as "just animals" completely ignores, by what one takes to be almost a willful blindness, what animals are and what human beings are while we're discussing being and essence....Human beings are the only creatures that are paving planet earth, going to war,killing their offspring before birth, polluting the air, constantly dissing each other and gradually eliminating biodiversity. In fairness they are also the only ones doing the cha cha, studying black holes, curing diseases,and planting gardens.I cannot even imagine by what means you wisk all this aside in favor of the song of evolution. Are we randomly fated to write poetry or wreck havoc with the planet?Unlike the animals, human beings are purposeful, purpose-creating creatures. We don't "have" to do anything that we do. We choose. And what we have chosen, we can unchoose.Ever seen a detour sign? That's one of man's remarkable creations: the sign that tells you to turn around when the path ahead is not working.posted 01/17/2008 at 19:15:43
These are your definitions of religion. What makes you suppose they have any relevance for religious people. I don't observe my fellow Christians being motivated by fear of punishment, unless by that you mean their own wounded sense of integrity when they act wrongly. And what makes that so different from the motivations of non-religious people, who also have ethical motives and a sense of conscience?posted 01/17/2008 at 19:01:24
I wouldn't assume so readily that the "flaws" that Hitchens used to slander Mother Theresa were ever true at all. Certainly Hitchens is incapable of, for instance, understanding that money has a completely different meaning for someone like Mother Theresa. Take her accepting money from disreputable sources -- perhaps Mother Theresa was not concerned about Hitchenian categories of worthiness. Seeing the God can sanctify life changes the worth and meaning of everything. She not only saw the worth of India's most desperate poor, she saw the worth of corrupt rulers and believed that God could redeem them both. posted 01/17/2008 at 18:57:48
New Menu in Capitol Cafeterias Ruffles Conservative Feathers
sheila,That you believe what you believe is not remarkable. However, you're not likely to find evidence to the contrary as long as you cling to your dogma. Which was my point.The majority of this country's 300 million people want clean air, kindness, land stewardship, quality of life. Even the filthy rich wish to continue breathing. How many greedy rich people can there be? And when their toilets stop up, they will need a plumber. But the plumber cannot unstop the toilet if he cannot eat, live, breath and thrive. (Plumbing is also, notably, one of those jobs that will never be outsourced overseas.) The moral damning of abstract "others" is just bigotry mixed with fantasy. After you've insulted people who disagree with you, you can't seriously believe them likely to consider, let alone, adopt your ideas. Hence, one can only conclude that persuasion is NOT your principle objective. Feeling passionate, morally superior and justified can be a motive too. Unfortunately, feelings are not solutions.Cheers, Muse posted 01/22/2008 at 19:05:44
I wish people on both sides would stop trying to politicize things like food, clean air, morality, kindness.There are, believe it or not, some things that most people agree on, if you seek agreement. [Well, except for people who LIVE to disagree.]If the diners at the cafeteria like the food, they'll buy it and that's great. If the cafeteria encourages recycling and wise energy policy, so much the better. If the conservative talking heads are trying to politicize this, shame on them. To the extent that you are doing the same thing, shame on you.It's time to seek the moderate center in American politics. It's past time. All this arguing is bad for the national digestion. posted 01/19/2008 at 12:28:17
Oh, No! Are Biofuels Just Garbage?
RTIIII am not aware that anybody "runs" Christianity, except God -- and he's not the one with the asphalt. Sorry the Christian brand is a turn off for you, but you aren't giving other religions much credit if you are suggesting that they don't also have ideas of proper stewardship, since I'm quite sure they do.Meanwhile, ecology is a problem in countries that have barely heard of Christianity. It's pretty much of an equal opportunity problem and it requires an equal sharing of responsibility. posted 01/22/2008 at 19:11:02
RTIIII am not aware that anybody "runs" Christianity, except God -- and he's not the one with the asphalt. Sorry the Christian brand is a turn off for you, but you aren't giving other religions much credit if you are suggesting that they don't also have ideas of proper stewardship, since I'm quite sure they do.Meanwhile, ecology is a problem in countries that have barely heard of Christianity. It's pretty much of an equal opportunity problem and it requires an equal sharing of responsibility. posted 01/18/2008 at 20:39:12
The fuel question misses a much larger problem. Energy policy in this country is the epitome of not seeing the forest for the trees (well, except for the fact that we're cutting all the trees down ....)Friends, no matter what you use for fuel, I don't care if the most pristine oxygen/nitrogen mixture perfect for breathing is the bi-product of the combustion, it still doesn't solve the problem of roads. We are paving every square foot of the planet because of our notion that every man, woman and child (think kid's ATVs) has to have wheels. Where do the animals live (or are animals permitted to live?) when we eliminate all their habitats? People are worried about polar bears ... where I live "ordinary" North American mammals like deer, possom, foxes, racoons, beavers are finding fewer and fewer places to live. Soon "bio-diversity" in the mid-Atlantic will consist of cats, dogs and squirrels.This could be the bi-partisan issue that it once was if Democrats and Republicans could ever stop loathing each other long enough to ask some really deep "quality of life" questions, such as: how much shopping can human beings really do?Some people need to stay home, walk, enjoy nature. But walking can be as hazardous to humans as it is to animals.We hear a lot on Huff Po about casualities in Iraq, but all the death in Iraq hardly compares to the mortality figures from highway deaths in any typical year. Why aren't people stirred up about that? posted 01/17/2008 at 18:19:36
The FDA's Dangerous Cloned Beef Decision
This sounds good, but you're over-looking something very basic: real food doesn't come with labels. We're so used to food coming in a package that we've forgotten this.Fruits and vegetables don't grow with labels. And cows, chickens and pigs aren't born with labels. But the farther we are from where food is produced, the more we need the label. Get closer to the farm and you reduce your reliance on the labels. Yes, of course, we need them! But do you see my point?Gardening is still a satisfying thing. Even if it's just one potted something in a kitchen window. I guess I'm talking about a relationship to things. Our food economy can change. It won't happen over night. But the more we rethink the whole question of what food is, how it connects us in society, what it means to share a meal around a table, to pick up some soil and realize that we depend upon the health of this dirt for our health -- well all that kind of thing moves us in a better direction. posted 01/19/2008 at 14:18:53
I'm a vegetarian, but you could not pick me out of a carnivore lineup. Don't know who your ghosts are, but I'm eating a very delicious and varied diet. And I'm very sturdy.It's not just for rabbits anymore! posted 01/19/2008 at 14:08:03
Great! But it still affects you whether you eat it or not. The mass production of beef takes land away from other kinds of farming. Chicken excrement (sorry to have to bring this up) from chicken farms has been polluting the Chesapeake Bay (my region) and hurting the natural species of animals who call the Bay their home throughout the Bay watershed.The effects of these things branch out. But wisdom is wisdom. Whenever we do things smart, the smart effects fan out too.So, everybody needs to look at this regardless how they eat and realize that the way we feed ourselves affects other aspects of our lives -- and affects the animals too! posted 01/19/2008 at 14:03:54
What makes you think we are not worried about genetically alterred veggies. We are worried. And we should be worried. posted 01/19/2008 at 13:57:42
dsgeorge, You put the word "engineered" into quotes. And wisely, you did. Shaping breeds of corn by polination is not the same thing as alterring its basic genetic structure. In contrast, the genetic modification of species is an entirely new endeavor whose long-term consequences are completely unknown. Many are the old fashioned man-made intrusions into Nature that have gone awry. What makes you think that the most radical interference in natural processes won't be expontially worse? However by the time we know why we should not be tampering with life, we will be already suffering the unfortunate consequences.posted 01/19/2008 at 13:56:31
And if I did resume eating meat, it would be nice to know that the animals were healthy without being fed hormones, were living in a clean natural environment, and that they got a chance to just be themselves before they were slaughtered. A chicken needs to be a chicken if human beings are going to really be human beings. posted 01/19/2008 at 13:44:02
Michie62 I hope people are heeding your advice. When they do buy foods closer to the farm, they benefit themselves and the farmer both in numerous ways: in more nutritious, better tasting food, in economic benefit to their region, in better land use policies, and in the satifaction of living a more ethical life. Organic meat from small farms costs more than its factory-produced alternative, but you get what you pay for. What's more, the fact is that people eat too much meat: they eat more protein than their bodies are designed to metabolize. Having to pay more for meat can translate into healthier eating habits: into eating less meat and eating meat in a more "natural" diet of moderation and balance.Obesity is going to be one of the number one killers of the present generation if folks don't start changing their habits fast. The price tag for obesity-related deaths in adults and children is going to affect health care costs for everybody, fat or slim. And the hidden costs of having a huge segment of our population hopelessly "out of shape" is going to catch up with us in more ways than we can imagine. This is one issue where making progress involves taking a U-turn, relearning our natural relationship to the land. How we eat reveals a lot about our relatedness to the rest of the planet. Fixing our eating habits can be a first step toward fixing our estrangement from Nature. We don't have to live life in a "shop until you drop" kind of way. It's possible to find meaning in small things. And it can begin right at the dinner table! We need a more Spartan life -- one of eating lean and eating smart. I'll confess that I'm a vegetarian, but the meat eating habits of others impacts me, too, since the monoculture approach to modern food has a ripple affect through the whole economy. posted 01/19/2008 at 13:43:45
People do have a say. You can vote. And you can support farmers who produce organic, natural products and boycott those who don't. posted 01/18/2008 at 20:50:57
Splashy, It's another reason for people to support local farmers and the growing movement toward smaller scale, sustainable, closer to the consumer farming. When you are getting food from local suppliers you can ask them up front what they do and don't put into foods. I recommend everybody look into the "Edible" communities, regionally published magazines that are leading the way toward making food natural again! posted 01/18/2008 at 20:49:25
Mr. Fitz,I respectfully disagree. Decisions to smoke, engage in drunken debachery, or to eat oneself into obesity, etc., might seem like "personal behaviors," but each one leads to public health consequences. And everybody, particularly those who made other choices, end up footing the bill.Similarly, one beef producer's decision to use clones is not an isolated decision. Taking the scenerio already mentioned as one instance, a herd of clones having the same vulnerability to a particular disease organism could by virtue of their numbers alone impact how non-cloned animals come into contact with disease, or could provide a vector for a particular organism to develop heightened virulence.I'm asking myself what are the perceived benefits of this technology? The inherent dangers of monoculture are fairly obvious.It looks to me like a move similar to the one that created mad cow disease, a virtually man-made disease caused by feeding herbivores to each other -- something that would never have occured in nature!Buyer beware. Diners beware!posted 01/17/2008 at 18:01:22
Ignoring Iraq: Why Has it Become the Forgotten Issue of the '08 Race?
The democrats should ignore the Iraq war since they have already eliminated from their contest the only candidates with any genuine experience in foreign policy. posted 01/19/2008 at 11:11:43
Atheism as a Stealth Religion III: Four Questions and Six Possible Answers
But the Christian assertion is that God cares about the whole of creation ... knows when the sparrow falls. posted 01/17/2008 at 20:03:47
Dapper Dap,What a lovely, thoughtful ... essay... I guess that's what it is really. You raise so many ideas that I'm really quite at a loss to comment. I would need to "muse" over them quite a bit more than I can just now, writing with one foot out the door. Perhaps some of the others will. I'll post this also at the top of the page hoping they'll scroll down and find your remarks.People are affected certainly by which door they enter ideas. I was not raised a Christian, which no doubt alters the ways I see it.Anyway I have been very intrigued, at times moved, by the comments of the atheists even while not sharing their perspective.As to science, I think Dr. Wilson would get more mileage from his ideas by narrowing the focus a lot. But then I don't know what his purpose was in creating the blog, perhaps to gauge the reactions of this audience to the topic in its most general terms.I think each person has to find his own way with honest inquiry and so perhaps the atheists have to be atheists and I have to be a Christian. It is certainly enlightening -- there's a word we all like -- to hear these various ideas batted back and forth.Agape. Muse posted 01/17/2008 at 11:09:46
Dapper Dap,What a lovely, thoughtful ... essay... I guess that's what it is really. You raise so many ideas that I'm really quite at a loss to comment. I would need to "muse" over them quite a bit more than I can just now, writing with one foot out the door. Perhaps some of the others will. I'll post this also at the top of the page hoping they'll scroll down and find your remarks.People are affected certainly by which door they enter ideas. I was not raised a Christian, which no doubt alters the ways I see it.Anyway I have been very intrigued, at times moved, by the comments of the atheists even while not sharing their perspective.As to science, I think Dr. Wilson would get more mileage from his ideas by narrowing the focus a lot. But then I don't know what his purpose was in creating the blog, perhaps to gauge the reactions of this audience to the topic in its most general terms.I think each person has to find his own way with honest inquiry and so perhaps the atheists have to be atheists and I have to be a Christian. It is certainly enlightening -- there's a word we all like -- to hear these various ideas batted back and forth.Agape. Muse posted 01/17/2008 at 11:09:19
If God exists and created the humans, believe me, he has a sense of humor. posted 01/16/2008 at 17:51:11