Nude Palin Pix? What will the spirits of the Suffragettes think?
In 1920, after a long battle dating to before the Civil War, American women won the right to vote. Women have become an important part of the electorate, with a majority of women choosing the winner in the majority of recent US presidential elections.…
Article comments
76 - duane
Irene #64: If the clumsy way I worded it made you feel that I was insulting your intelligence, I'm sorry about that. I was actually trying to build a bridge, not burn one.
Irene, I wasn't under the impression that you were insulting my intelligence. I was under the impression that you were implying that believers have some sort of edge when it comes to appreciating existence. Personally, I think I have a much greater appreciation of the natural world than the average believer, but maybe that's just because I am full of it. It's yet another topic that has nothing to do with Realist's article. Maybe we can debate that some other time. Anyway, my feelings were not hurt. I'm much too insensitive for that. And thanks for the clarification.
If a science teacher wants to talk about irreducible complexity....
Yes, you could be right. It might be too much responsibility to give to a high school teacher. I would hope that a teacher would have enough professionalism to maintain neutrality. Hard to say. I wonder if there are any teachers reading along.
77 - Jordan Richardson
But Christopher, the issue here is that you're demanding evidence on your terms while be remarkably elusive in terms of what would satisfy as proof. You claim parameters under which a deistic concept should operate, then do away with its existence because it doesn't meet the parameters you have set up.
Of course God's not going to exist, then! While you're at it, why not have him with lightning bolts coming out of his eyes and standing on a cloud in the distance somewhere so that we can see him.
Point is that I asked you very specific questions about how one could detect God and you deflected them.
I asked you if you were speaking in physical terms or spiritual terms. You gave no answer. I'm not asking you to articulate an answer against Common Notions of God via religious vehicles. That's tired, outmoded ground. So again, if we can "detect" God, how would we do that? What would stand as evidence for having detected God? You say "showing up would be a good start," but how does a deistic concept do that if it's not a physical being? Does God have physical properties? Is he tall?
If the faithist argument is correct, then it must be possible to interact with it in some way.
The "faithist" argument, like any religious argument, is based on best guesses. It's easy to discredit common religious beliefs, as I've said. Putting God in a box is easy. Allowing for a broader God concept isn't, apparently. In other words, the "faithist" argument might be (likely is) totally fuckin' wrong.
See, Christopher, I have no problems with atheism. I consider myself an agnostic, although I sense somewhat of a spiritual realm. I'm of the belief that I can't possibly know for certain what that spiritual realm is, although I can make my own "best guesses." And that's really all religion is: a best guess. Nobody knows what God is, much less is there a possibility for God to simply pop out behind the clouds or for Christ to ride down on a horse with Kirk Cameron next to him on a pony. It's ludicrous.
Equally ludicrous is fashioning oneself an atheist based around discrediting the easy, archaic notions of scriptural faith. Like most atheists I've talked to, the argument against a deistic presence appears more to be along the lines of an objection - indeed a rightful one - of religion's typical Small God ideology.
In my view, religious people typically develop a Straw Man God, make him nice and small, give him a gender, give him traits, comprise some sayings that can be attributed as "God's Will," have him choose sides in an election, have him proclaim judgment on people for bad behaviour, have him hate fags, have him pick religious sides, and give him a few "relatives" on earth that we can apparently emulate.
Well, I don't believe in that God either. So if you're going to use The Bible to draw up a portrait of God and then expect God to play by those rules, that's as silly as actually and literally believing what The Good Book says. In other words, you and the faithists are all in the same boat from where I sit and are clinging to equally untenable positions.
78 - Jordan Richardson
By the way, Christopher, I'm interested in your use of the term "faithist." I have to say that the only way I've ever heard that used before your statements was as a term akin to "racist."
As in, via the Urban Dictionary:
"Mr. Jones says all Catholics are drunks... he is a straight up faithist."
Cool.
79 - duane
More Irene #64: As much as I believe in God, my guess is that you won't find either, not with science you won't.
As for finding God, scientists generally don't think about that. Some do. Some believers study Nature as a way to study the works of their Creator, as one way to attempt to get closer to himherit.
People of your generation (and mine) make a meaningless bet when declaring that we will never ever find the answers to the Big Questions. It's a bit like a person in 10,000 BC saying that you will never ever find the edge of the world, prior to the development of travel on the high seas. The only response would be a shrug, and "I dunno, maybe, maybe not." How could a person 10,000 years ago have anticipated that there was no edge, and that the Universe was unimaginably larger than their conception? I find that many believers have no patience, and are too willing to think that answers will not come, since we don't already have them, ignoring our history. Our generation is just one. We chip away.
It could take thousands of years to figure out how life started. One crucial piece of evidence is missing at this time, and that is whether or not there is life elsewhere, particularly, intelligent life. Biologists are stuck with a single example of a planet with life. As vast as that subject is, it is limiting when considering the questions of the ultimate origin. It could be thousands --- tens of thousands --- of years before we can even begin to answer the question of extraterrestrial evolution, and then use that model as input to models of the origin of life on Earth. But maybe biologists will find a back door. Life started on Earth about 3 billion years ago. Figuring out how that simple organism led to humans is a very hard problem. Maybe we should cut biologists a little slack and let them work.
As for actually finding God, I have nothing to say. What is God?
80 - Cannonshop
To the redoubtable debators...
Science is about telling us HOW the universe works, and what it's made of. This is a bit like taking a machine apart to determine its function, and reverse-engineering components to perform tasks.
It doesn't tell us shit about who made the machine.
Religion is all about the unexplainable, things we can NOT test and confirm. (That's why it's called "Faith" and not "Reason").
People have an emotional need that Faith fills when Reason fails. Depending on the person (and the need), dictates what faith is used.
We live a universe that is dictated by rules, measurable within that universe, and controlled by processes built into that universe. By definition, God(s) don't follow those rules, anything outside the rules is impossible to measure, define, prove or disprove.
It's kind of like the program trying to prove the existence of the Geek that built the computer using only the system's internal resources without benefit of peripherals like a camera.
And this brings us to the evolution/creation debate.
Here's the problem: Evolution can only be inferred. Speciation and colour-changes in Moths don't alter the complexity of Moths, as an example.
We don't have observed instances of simple lifeforms becoming more complex life-forms without direct intervention from humans. Viruses don't become Bacteria, Bacteria have not been observed turning into Fungi, and Fungi have not been Observed evolving into full-blown seed bearing plants, and nobody yet has been able to replicate conversion of amino acids into full-blown life.
This doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does mean we can't prove it did.
While it's the best, most supportable of the "Where did it come from" scenario, it is still at best a Hypothetical idea supported only by conjectural evidence and the law of random chance.
On the religious side, the Creationist begins with an assumption that his or her 'god' is an infinite being, all-knowing and all-powerful (the geek that built the computer). Unfortunately, the Creationist also relies on questionable documentation. some of which can be disproven rather easily.
Without being able to prove or even test the claims on either side, it's really a rather bad idea to put either material on the curriculum of primary education.
I'd suggest leaving it to the University level, where students are (presumably) capable of thinking critically and analyzing information on their own.
81 - duane
Cannonshop: And this brings us to the evolution/creation debate. Here's the problem: Evolution can only be inferred.
Why is that a problem? Inference is one of the cornerstones of science.
82 - Baritone
Jordan,
First, in considering how god would manifest himheritself, and if we are talking about, I guess, the "small god" you refer to, presumably, if hesheit is omnipotent, that should be no problem. There would be no limitations as to how this god could make himheritself known to us.
I'm not really clear as to what it is you are getting at regarding your notion of what god could be. You refer to a vague sense of something spiritual. To me, this becomes far too much of an abstraction to have any meaning for me or, as I see it, for humanity. If god is, say, a mindless force that simply puts the universe in motion periodically (i.e. the big bang,) but is otherwise indifferent to that universe, then I don't see how it has any meaning for us, except perhaps as the answer to the last question. Would that answer be revelatory? Would it make any difference to us in our lives? Or, would it indeed be a total abstraction?
The importance of the existence of god to most people is the belief in salvation and eternal life beyond the corporeal. Without that, what's the point? It gets back to the human conceit that we are the special creations of a doting but wrathful god who will grant or deny entry into his realm for eternity. Adding to the angst is the prospect of satan waiting to grab onto those denied god's grace to throw them into his realm of eternal torment. Good times!
B
83 - Irene Wagner
Cannonshop: Without being able to prove or even test the claims on either side, it's really a rather bad idea to put either material on the curriculum of primary education.
Yes. That's not what Sarah Palin says, though, and everyone knows that Sarah Palin *coughs into sleeve* has John McCain wrapped around her little finger, so what Sarah Palin says is what's gonna go if the Republicans win this November.
Ergo, we all Americans should follow Realist's advice in the closing words of this article and write in "Ron Paul" when they vote this November.
(Chris Rose, thank you for not editing my reference to you as "a cheeky little git" in my reply to Baritone above. You sagely recognized it as a richly undeserved term of endearment and left it alone. You cheeky little git.)
84 - Cannonshop
#81 Duane, I'm an Empirical kind of guy. If you can't test it, it's untestable. Inference is only a tool, and by itself you can infer all kinds of whacky shit. Using only inference, "Intelligent Design" is just as viable as "Evolution". Without being able to test, you can't disprove the assertion with reliability.
I myself am open to the possibility that either conjecture is close to the truth, but as I believe that Natural "Laws" don't change over time, only our understanding of them does, I'm inclined to demand that someone fabricate a life-form from raw chemical stock before I believe in the random mixing of chemistry and energy hypothesis underlying the Atheist version of evolution. (Selective breeding, and therefore, natural selection is proven to work, but it's that first step I've got my issue with. So far, nobody's been able to synthesize a living organism from raw stock. even a VERY simple one.)
The only way to really approach scientific questions honestly, is to accept the possibility that:
1. one's own ideas are wrong.
2. That the other guy's ideas might be right.
The only path to certainty, is to test it,then submit your tests to the guy who's saying you're wrong to see if he can break your results. Anything else is philosophy.
85 - duane
Well, Cannonshop, empiricism is all well and good. The ancient Greeks were hobbled in their approach to science by their lack of an appreciation of empiricism. The famous Galileo story is exemplary in its use of empiricism. But, unfortunately, that only takes you so far.
Modern science is a leapfrogging of empiricism, deduction, and induction. There is no one order in which these come into play. It's a mess, but it works.
If you can't test it, it's untestable.
That's demonstrably false. Many well known and currently accepted ideas in science were untestable at their conception.
The current inability of biologists to synthesize life in the laboratory does not invalidate the precepts of Evolution.
The only way to really approach scientific questions honestly, is to accept the possibility that:
1. one's own ideas are wrong.
2. That the other guy's ideas might be right.
Scientists have massive egos. The "I am right" attitude is common. They need that kind of audacity to think they can solve problems. But no scientist works in a vacuum. Bad ideas are eventually exposed by someone else with the "I am right" attitude. It's a tried and true system. Don't knock it. IDers are entirely welcome to make their case. They have their own "I am right" attitude, but unlike real scientists, they have nothing to show.
I was amused by your "Atheist version of evolution."
86 - troll
troll - you seem to be ever more abstruse lately.
Alternative answer - say what?
What I said was: the bourgeois history of scientific statements about empirical reality remains as mysterious (epistemologically speaking that is) as that of claims to knowledge of god...Russell - for all of his prolific majesty - did not get around to squaring the circle and clarifying the relationship between so called 'sensory data' and his posited 'facts' that make up his reality...and the positivists who followed him (Carnap and Popper and Cannonshop [though he seems to come closer with his materialism]) fail to give empirical realism a rational foundation
87 - Jordan Richardson
B-Tone, I am an agnostic. I don't believe that I can identify who or what deity, if any, is out there. So let's get that on the table first. While I follow the example of Christ (and others, naturally, including Buddha for instance), my thoughts towards God are ambiguous at best.
if hesheit is omnipotent, that should be no problem
But who assigned hesheit with that trait? We did. The inference that it should "be no problem" for hesheit to manifest in some sort of static or observable form relies entirely on the notion that hesheit is what we claim hesheit to be. So in order to suggest that, you have to subscribe, at least slightly, to the idea of a personal, approachable, physical Being. I'm not so sure that I do.
I'm not really clear as to what it is you are getting at regarding your notion of what god could be.
I don't recall tabling such a notion. On the contrary, I have asked questions of both atheists and "faithists" to determine what kind of deity it is that they believe in or do not believe in. I personally don't have the foggiest idea as to what god could be.
To me, this becomes far too much of an abstraction to have any meaning for me or, as I see it, for humanity.
My "vague" sense of something spiritual doesn't need to have any meaning to you, though. That's the point. Whether or not you love your wife or enjoy the taste of crackers and peanut butter has no bearing on my life, either. And it sure as shit doesn't have any bearing on humanity. It is, instead, a personal experience based on your understanding of the world. I don't believe that spirituality need have a sense of "meaning" for all of humanity in a sense that we all come to one accord on how we interpret the world, metaphysically or otherwise. Indeed, a spiritual connection amongst all living beings (as I believe) could be helpful in progressing humanity.
Whether or not there's a god involved here is, in my view, completely irrelevant to the questions I was asking and, additionally, completely irrelevant to what I believe. I'm not trying to sell a bill of goods; I am trying to live my life to the fullest in a way that doesn't betray my spiritual self.
Here's an interesting question to follow up: Need a deity have meaning to us in order to exist? My answer is no.
And for some, take panentheists for instance, the importance of the existence of a deity lies in the connection that human beings can feel by all being "part of god," so to speak. Salvation is doubtlessly of vital importance to many religious individuals, often leading to a neglect of the so-called "here and now" that is to our peril. This is especially common in brands of Western religions, where care for the Earth is neglected in line with the notion that we are merely on a "temporary vessel."
In terms of what I believe, the only real answer that I can give is that I don't know and I doubt I will ever know. I think any honest believer in anything spiritual must acknowledge the mystery and the lack of answers. For myself, I find more joy and life in the questions.
So when people ask for proof of god(s), I struggle with that notion because I don't see how that's possible. If god(s) were a physical being, it would be (for lack of a proper term) pretty fucking lame. I don't even think the fundies buy that anymore, actually. So for god to reveal itself in someone's life takes a more abstract set of answers, I think. In terms of evidence, I think the truth is that everybody has their own terms and conditions. Everybody wants god to try and meet them where they are, not the other way around.
In that god fully can't be known, regardless of what we call it, I advocate a more inclusive spirituality in which we learn from people of all faiths and paths to come to an understanding of unity, love, and compassion. Finding god is inherently futile because nobody knows and nobody can know.
From where I sit, it seems to me that most atheistic understandings of deistic concepts come wrapped in the cloak of religious dogma. It is rarely the idea of god that is objected to, but rather the concept of God via religious understanding. When venturing beyond religious understanding and beyond healthy, natural objections to doctrine, most atheists are as fucked as the rest of us.
Now those are some good times!
88 - Cannonshop
"That's demonstrably false. Many well known and currently accepted ideas in science were untestable at their conception."
Yah, but they kept working at it until they found a way to test it, rather than simply declaring it to be "Truth". (Capital-T Truth is more appropriate to Philosophy or Theology than science. it requires no backup, see?)
"The current inability of biologists to synthesize life in the laboratory does not invalidate the precepts of Evolution."
I never said it Did, I simply posit that until it CAN be tested, it's just a Hypothesis, and should not be presented as "Truth" without question. It's not a fact until you can prove it, see? (mind you, I consider it to be the most likely explanation, but that doesn't mean it's worthy of being fed without criticism to kids before they can think for themselves.)
"Scientists have massive egos. The "I am right" attitude is common. They need that kind of audacity to think they can solve problems. But no scientist works in a vacuum. Bad ideas are eventually exposed by someone else with the "I am right" attitude. It's a tried and true system. Don't knock it. IDers are entirely welcome to make their case. They have their own "I am right" attitude, but unlike real scientists, they have nothing to show."
Be that as it may, until you can conclusively disprove their assertions, those assertions are valid. Early solar-centric models were less capable of accurately predicting the motions of stellar bodies than the refined Ptolemaic structure believed in by the Church. It took WORK to change that. If (through some insane chance unlikely to occur) an ID'er comes up with evidence that can't be refuted, would you change your mind, or adhere to the dogma and burn the messenger? (I'm not positing it likely to happen, mind you, but neither, at our current level of sophistication am I likely to simply assume the opposite is true.)
Either way, anything you can't prove conclusively (or even test with reliability) doesn't belong in primary education as a "Fact". That which CAN be proven (Natural selection within existing species, for instance) does-because we can demonstrate that it works with physical and replicable means.
89 - Irene Wagner
The last paragraph puts it in a nutshell, Cannonshop. The "evolution in the schools" issue is fueled by enormous egos, though, on both sides of the equation. I'm still trying to figure out if the "two sides" are really "two sides" at all.
Today the classroom, for the Empire. Tomorrow, the world.
90 - duane
OK, Cannonshop, I can see your position. I don't want to take this down to the hair-splitting level, so I'll just let it go for now.
Just one last thing, though.
It's not a fact until you can prove it, see?
The word "proof," like "truth," does not belong in a scientific discussion. Mathematicians prove things. Scientists construct models. Theories do not morph into facts. When you insist on proof, you run the risk of ending up with an angels on the head of a pin situation. Prove that the sun is yellow. You can prove that something is wrong, as long as there is agreement upon what the standards of proof are. There is a general consensus that Newton's Law of Gravitation is wrong (although it's still taught in schools), for example. You can't prove that theories are correct in science. You can only reach a point where one says, "This is the best explanation we have." Whatever the best explanation is, one that has been around for decades, is fair material for the educational system.
91 - Cannonshop
Duane, the key isn't "Proving" it's "Testing". Test it, does the test disprove it? adjust hypothesis accordingly, and review testing for accuracy and correct modeling.
We can't do that with Evolution. We can't do it with Creationist dogmas either. When the question is up in the air (regardless of whether or not it's been "accepted" for decades), it's not proper to spoon-feed it as an assumption of fact.
As for Newton's laws of motion...we can test those, number one, and number two, the "disproven" portions are detail-level stuff that refines the theory rather than tossing it out (unless you've got proof that a more massive body does NOT exert gravitational forces on less massive bodies) his base assumptions are essentially correct until proven otherwise-but his base assumptions hold up to general testing and can be challenged.
This is not so with (Random) Evolution, or (intelligent design)Creationism.
92 - Irene Wagner
All the "God and Country" rallies popping up around the US are Republican festivals featuring the "we have God and military might this is why we are right" and the Cross draped (figuratively) in the flag. Onward American Christian soldiers.
Like it or not, well-intentioned and sincere agnostics and atheists, Christians ARE a significant voting bloc, and just about half of them are of or below average intelligence. YOU are their enemy, because you are the BAD GUYS who stand against God Being Honored in The Classrooms of This Christian Land of Ours. The Republicans who want to keep war going on in the Middle East...and maybe Georgia...are the GOOD GUYS.
***
Jesus is real to me, Christopher Rose, for reasons that would only make sense to me, and I'm just smart enough to know that whacking you over the head with Bible verses is going to have as little impact on you as the immortal words of Russell and the significantly less immortal words of Richard Dawkins have on me. All I can do is try to be a good sport about being told I'm a fool, and leave the rest to God. I hope that maybe a few people who read what I have to say might get a hankering to read something about George Muller or Nate Saint, for example, or at least get a good laugh.
I try to be about peace when I can be.
Despite my sassy attitude, I do have respect for the beliefs and even lack of belief of those who disagree with me. There is something I heard from the fundiest of fundamentalists, someone who had crossed the seas to bring the Light of the Gospel to the heathen. After the missionary had been there a while, a little lady came up to her and said, "You've told me the Name of Someone I've known all my life. Now the rest of the tribe understands. Thank you"
It colors the way I consider the words of "unbelievers" and what I say to them, at least most of the time, I hope. Well, I feel Lent comin' on. Or maybe it's Advent...
93 - troll
amazing Irene - I was was just about to post:
however...if the ontologies of science and religion are socially constructed - then conjecture and experimentation and belief become political activities
just say no - !
94 - Cannonshop
Maybe so, Troll, but think on this:
Binary solution set: does it work y/n?
Or, as my Stepfather used to say, "pray for gold in you right hand, and shit in you left, see which one fills up first."
Experimentation works. Belief? not so much.
95 - Ruvy
Why do you guys argue so much as to whether there is a G-d or not?
If you're a believer, you're a believer. And if you're not, well, you'll discover the painful truth when the time comes.
In the meantime, waiting is, as the saying goes....
96 - Cannonshop
Well, Ruvy...
tying government to god cheapens god and feeds the arrogance of government. It doesn't matter what form the god takes, and the worst is to treat government AS god.
as such, subjects that are ephemeral and essentially matters of faith should be avoided in schools. Even when those subjects are the most likely of many explanations. People's spiritual lives are private, and should always be private, neither endorsed nor suppressed by the State. Even people who don't actively believe in spiritual life.
97 - Ruvy
Cannonshop,
There is no need to teach creationism or intelligent design in a science class. Neither are science, despite all the huffing and puffing of their adherents. Perhaps they belong in philosophy classes, if that.
One should just teach theology straight up in philosophy classes and be done with it. Those of you who want a religious education for your children will provide one, no matter what is taught in state schools.
As for the arrogance of power that comes with official religions, talk to Chris Rose. Where he lives, the Queen is the Defender of the Faith.
98 - troll
Cannonshop - there are folks who think that the Church was correct to suppress Galileo's work...belief works for them (they think) and they vote
99 - Irene Wagner
Troll - #93 I love a good coinky-dink. Ya, we were soooo sympatico until you started chanelling Nancy Reagan! (I always enjoyed the "Just say N2O" bumper stickers.)
I agree though. Science and Religion both have their sacred cows.
****
hmmm. No wonder the left hand - right hand experiment was such a "flop." Perhaps the Almighty was unwilling to make a deposit of gold so close to all that excrement.
George Muller left the poop out of the process and got the goods. Now THAT's faith based ministry. No government hand-outs required.
100 - Dave Nalle
Um, Irene. What are these 'god and country' rallies? Never heard of them.
Dave
101 - Cannonshop
Irene, I still think hard work and reason get you further than idle hands and belief do. Too many of the "faithful" talk it, but don't walk it.
102 - Irene Wagner
Troll....and I should have added..."....and people who know how to milk them."
Well HELLO, Dave Nalle. Probably never heard of 'em because you were in "throw Christians under the bus" mode. If you're interested now, though, I could get tickets for you.
103 - Cannonshop
Irene, the best way to deal with Sacred Cows:
Grind them up into tasty hamburger, cook over a grill stoked with mesquite and a nice cayenne and whiskey marinade with just the right touch of garlic.
104 - troll
Irene - I on the other hand would pull a quote out of my ass: "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas..." K Marx
105 - Clavos
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas..." K Marx
"...As they should be; that's why we have the ruling class, and why the peasants are revolting..." Clav(os)
106 - Cannonshop
Hey, I may be a revolting peasant, but I'm also rebelling...
107 - Zedd
Ruvy,
Re: #96 & 97 Great posts.
108 - Clavos
Jeeze, I didn't know you're a Cracker, Cannon. When did you move to the PNW?
109 - Irene Wagner
Of COURSE that didn't come out of your butt, Troll, it came out of Marx's.
I'm still goin' for the Gold. ;)
Thanks for our chat earlier on Dialectical Materialism, I think.
Ruvy - After Advent, when our paths might again cross here, certainly not until after Rosh Hoshanah (which I discussed in a comment--I don't know if you've seen it yet--after you used my name in VAIN in conjuction with Sarah Palin's in another thread :), please see if you can find out what different rabbis have to say about "Mesech" and "Kedar." Psalm 120 is very much on my mind right now.
And Zedd, I agree with you. Ruvy's comments WERE good.
110 - Cannonshop
"Jeeze, I didn't know you're a Cracker, Cannon. When did you move to the PNW? "
My family dragged me up here in June of '86 from southern Colorado. With a few breaks (three years army time in the Southern states and foreign deployments to hell holes), but my stepfather grew up in Arkansas and Michigan, so the cooking's rubbed off on me...
111 - Ruvy
Irene,
If you want to discuss that other thread, link to it or tell me the article's name. I won't know otherwise, or be able to follow your comment - or see whether I indeed took your name in vain.
As for Méshekh v'Tubál, what is your question? I have an article coming out in not too long - it's pending and making its way through the queue - maybe you'll want to discuss it there....
112 - Ruvy
Come to think of it, Irene, my article is already up for you to see. Go there, and we can discuss all you wish. Have a pleasant Sunday.