766. goddess,
I don't doubt that there are some historical accuracies withing the sources. My point about zeitgeist is that it's a spin and propaganda piece. Most spin and propaganda pieces take history and twist it to tell the tale they want it to. Zeitgeist so obviously does that to draw any personal conclusions from it seems absurd.
A couple other examples:
They make a big deal about the cross being an astrological symbol. OK but its also well documented that Romans used cross shaped structures for crucifixions.
They mention the Jesus' tomb representing the womb of the sun or something like that. But tombs were common in those days and not unique to Jesus.
Drawing comparisons like the above is just dishonest.

bigTuna at 12:48PM on Jan 28th 2008

767. "This debate features such bizarre inquiries as "Why does God hate amputees?" That one stumped me for a minute..."

STUMPed me?! LOL!! Get it?!?

David at 2:10PM on Jan 28th 2008

768. Mike (@633) "Sandslice, I think you've misunderstood the amputee argument. Let's assume that everything you said about what the gospel's teach is true (though, I'll add, I in fact agree with none of it). It still wouldn't follow from "no amputee has been healed" that "miracles are impossible.""

Which isn't what the argument claims.
1. If god exists, all statements made by god must be true.
2. In the Bible, Jesus claims that anyone with even minimal faith can do anything, including terraforming, by the power of that faith.
3. Terraforming by faith alone does not occur.

The conclusions reached here are either:
From 2, that no one has sufficient faith to engage in terraforming; or
From 1, that god is internally inconsistent.

More simply:
"No amputee has been healed" leads to "the miraculous healing of amputees is impossible." This leads to "nothing shall be impossible for you" being false.
This is either because no one has any faith, or the Bible contains "inspired" lies. (Not a false dichotomy - the "hidden god" is described as seeding images of Its wife/mother all over the place, not to mention the televangelists that think that every natural disaster is god's miraculous punishment against homosexuality and/or the Democratic Party.)

sandslice at 2:12PM on Jan 28th 2008

769. What moron thinks that any NT book was found at Qumran, Mark? There weren't any. None. No NT books were found there.

And only the brainwashed and/or dishonest believe the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

Knight_of_BAAWA at 2:49PM on Jan 28th 2008

770.
Most spin and propaganda pieces take history and twist it to tell the tale they want it to.

Hi Tuna,
Sure most is propaganda, and those truths have been suggested and studied way before zeitgeist slapped them together in a movie as most media do to grasp your attention.
I didn't use those twists to describe my point to Mark. I only presented him with the attributes of Jesus that are found in other deities before the time of Jesus. Mark mostly sees the bible as a literal interpretation told from the Christian point of view. He does not see the undertone that is found in the bible that proves its history derives of other primitive ideologies of god and Jesus is just the latest representation of that ideology, not a literal son of god as the retractors and compliers of the bible wanted you to originally believe.

I am not saying there is no god, just that Jesus is not the son of god. It is mythology,

The proof lies in the early gospels that treated the death and resurrection as an ideology. The early church condemned then burned these early Christian sects gospels. Anything that did not give full authority to the church through Peter "the rock" and that did not treat the resurrection a literal truth was burned.


The symbology of the Southern Cross is a big deal to those that observed the sky. And it really isn't a big deal to someone who doesn't study the movement of the stars or the theologies created by the observation of stars

goddess1prevail at 3:15PM on Jan 28th 2008

771. "The conclusions reached here are either:
From 2, that no one has sufficient faith to engage in terraforming; or
From 1, that god is internally inconsistent."

You've left out a third option: your reading of the passages is incorrect. If this is so -- which it is; no biblical scholar, whether liberal or conservative, and whether nonbeliever or believer, supports your reading -- then you must alter your premises. So, if this is indeed the argument, it fails because its premises are simply false. I would also add, as a matter of logic, that from the proposition, "anything is possible" it doesn't follow that "every possibility will be actualized." Even if we accept your argument's premises, this is clearly the implication of your second premise. But, as I just demonstrated, this implication is clearly false. By the way, Sandslice, I'd like to say that I find your logical approach to disagreement refreshing. In my opinion, you're one of the more rational posters on this blog.

"Who said anything about an unsolvable problem?
In most of your arguments you distort what the other person has said and that renders any debate with you fruitless. I said there is a need that needs to be fulfilled, not that there is a problem without solution. The need I am referring to is significance, immortality and understanding of the world around us."

Emma, are you honestly suggesting that you, or anyone, has solved the problems of the ages: you have a solution for the questions of meaning, significance, and immortality? Let me explain why I called them unsolvable problems. You said that people use myths to satisfy needs such as the ones I just mentioned. If we have such needs, and if the needs are so powerful, but our resources to deal with them so limited, that we invent fairy tales we know to be false and force ourselves to believe them (on your view), then this relationship between these needs and any potential solution can quite fairly be categorized as a problem. But, as anyone with a modicum of knowledge of philosophy and history understands, these are the perrenial problems. These are the problems that by far most intellectually honest people will concede are unsolvable. As such, I don't think that my characterization of them as "unsolvable problems" is a distortion in any way; I merely took what we were discussing and made explicit the way human beings have always looked at such problems.

"The criticism is based solely on observable actions by the 80%+ of the population who refer to themselves as Christians."

No offense, but we both know that you just picked the "80%" number out of the air. You have no data whatsoever to support it.

"Christian groups that actively focus on environmental preservation make up a VERY small minority."

What about individual Christians who are members of enviromental groups? What about individual Christians who are simply environmentalists, and not members of any environmental group, Christian or not? Again, you simply have no data to make such a judgment.

"As to your argument that Christianity would be refuted in light of certain evidence, you are simply wrong. The majority of christians in America reject evolution and accept biblical creationism and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. This is what I have been saying all along. Religions fill a need and it doesn't matter how much evidence you produce, because it will be denied, ignored or ridiculed to keep the belief alive."

There is a confusion here. Christianity can be falsified, whether any particular Christian believes it to be so or not, just as any scientific theory can be falsified, whether any scientist accepts this or not (and there are plenty of instances, in the history of science, of scientists refusing to let go of a theory they have defended even after it had been conclusively falsified). Falsification is a question of the sort of proposition (or set of propositions) we are talking about; it's not a question of what people will and will not believe. The presence of human remains in precambrian geological strata would falsify evolution, just as the presence of human remains in Jesus' authentic ossuary would falsify Christianity, whether the scientists (in the first case) or the Christians (in the second case) think so or not.

Now for the not so fun part.

"Mike, that was abysmally silly, and the non sequitor [sic] into seventeenth century social philosophy was about as germane as your mom's poppy seed muffin recipe. This helps reinforce your inability to come to grips with this century, I’m afraid."

The fact that you see no connection between your conception of science and "seventeenth century social science" (your misnomer, not mine) reinforces my conclusion that your understanding of science is jejune at best.

"In your lack of even 20th century principles of science, you screwed yourself from your first premise"

This is actually pretty funny, but I doubt you'll like the punchline. You presume to know my background in science, Clif, but you're dead wrong. I, however, can tell from your posts that you have no formal education in science whatsoever. It's so clear that you're self taught (at least with respect to science) that it's a joke. I admire your efforts to shore up the holes in your formal education, but when those holes are filled with less than the best materials, as they evidently are in your case, you'd be better off, and look a lot less silly, if you showed a bit more humility.

As for my background, I was a physics major at the University of Pittsburgh until the middle of my junior year, when I decided to change my major to history of science (at Pitt it's called the history and philosophy of science). I didn't make the change because I couldn't handle the physics; I was doing quite well, but I found that the problems that interested me most (or, rather, that came to interest me most as I continued my studies) could not be worked out by studying physics alone. I initially chose physics (I decided that I wanted to study physics in college when I was a sophomore in high school) because it is foundational, but I discovered that physics itself has foundations. I then went on to study philosophy of science at Tufts, where I am now, working on my master's. Normally I wouldn't bring any of my personal background up, but I couldn't help myself in this case; it's just too funny to be accused of knowing nothing of science, with my background, by someone who is so obviously self taught.

As for the rest of your post, I'll dismiss it in one sentence: the three pieces of data I referred to, which we use to infer everything we can know (not assume, as in "if it works here, it probably works there") about other galaxies, didn't come from me, but from Murray Gell-Mann! You're so full of yourself, and you've for some reason persuaded yourself that I know nothing about science (because I'm a Christian, maybe? Talk about a "non sequitor" [sic]), that you just wrote a long post demonstrating that you know more about science than a Nobel prize winning physicist!! Atta boy, Kulpen! Feel free to wipe the egg of your face; it doesn't become you, though I suspect you're quite used to wearing it.

Mike Valente at 10:59PM on Jan 28th 2008

772.

mike, you're a self perpetuating idiot. The more you post, the deeper a hole you dig yourself into.

Would you like to bet your life savings on your assumption that I don't have a formal education or that I'm not degreed in science?

I have only ten hours of physics as that was all that was required for my degree and about all I deal with these days would be ohm's law, but you pretty much bet the ranch on the inerrancy of your logic, and if it led you to your stated conclusion regarding my education, you did physics an inestimbable favor by abandoning it!

If you tucked tail and ran into philosophy of science, it was probably not for reasons you'll own up to. Metaphors are easier than calculation and you don't have to mess with all the labs and research.

I would assume the superstitions you hold to be true and the objectivity you needed to complete studies and have a career wouldn't hold together very well.

I once had an offer I had to turn down due to prior committments to start a guitar department in a southern university although I definitely have little to no formal training in music, something that hasn't really been much of an impediment to my ability.

As to credentials, I am a college graduate in marine biology specializing at the time in intertidal invertebrate physiology, with essentially a minor in chemistry demanded as part of the core curriculum. I applied for about four fellowships on graduation and received two offers. I took the most generous and least confining.

I had completed most of a major in psychology before changing majors, but since I found teaching of psych where I was to be less rigorous or systematic than I felt it should be, I was eager for more of a challenge.

I changed states, worked for a while to get the money up and went back.

It was a good move. I found what I'd been looking for, but even as an undergrad, I was getting musical job offers I couldn't refuse - disneyland, opening for stevie wonder, aretha franklin, little richard, tv appearances etc. (this was L.A.) That was extremely enticing!

After graduating, I was a doctoral fellow in biochemistry at another university on the east coast, but I was hired by a musical group that was later to become the house band at the Apollo Theater in Harlem. It was after gaining a local reputation a couple of years later that I was offered the musical teaching position.

I've done some other things too without the need for the education, but in biological science, I am indeed legitimately and formally and pretty goddam well-educated.

I doubt you'll back of a single step, though. I've never seen you do much but wrestle with minutiae while letting the argument slip past.

For all your hundreds of words it was the same this time. What I said holds completely true, that the methodology used to determine physical properties of other galaxies are the same we use for our own.

That was my entire point, and it still is. To quote merle travis, 'you aint' a preacher, you're an educated fool'

'and that's all'

better luck next time, kreskin.

Clif Kuplen at 2:34PM on Jan 29th 2008

773. "Would you like to bet your life savings on your assumption that I don't have a formal education or that I'm not degreed in science?"

I'm a grad student; I have no savings. But I do have some debt. If you'd like, I'll bet that.

Your post reminds me about a story I read about Voltaire. A friend of his mentioned a writer whose work Voltaire was familiar with, and Voltaire proceeded to praise his talent. His friend, who knew this writer, said that he (the writer) thought Voltaire was talentless. Voltaire replied, "perhaps we're both wrong."

Evidently, we were both wrong, Clif. I was wrong about your background in science, and you were wrong about mine. Perhaps this will put to bed the nonsense about 'backgrounds.' If I'm wrong about something, tell me why I'm wrong; you don't have to add something like, "you know nothing about science." If I think you're wrong, I'll do the same.

Mike Valente at 5:21PM on Jan 29th 2008

774. "you know nothing about science." If I think you're wrong, I'll do the same.



Mike Valente at 5:21PM on Jan 29th 2008
xx

that's not a bad idea. I concur.

The point I was trying to make is that the methods of investigation of distant galaxies are the same methods we have for observing our own.

We can't actually touch anything beyond the Oort band, but our observation of chemical reactions in distant stars, if I recall in the microwave spectrum led to discovery of new ways for carbon to bond - the geodesic form resembling bucky fuller's invention. We can do very accurate assays of elements and reactions based on spectophotometry including organic ones.

We can now make these compounds (fullerenes) and other related ones here on Earth and there are commercial applications for them as they facilitate superconductivity.

We have evidence from telescopy that dark matter is not a collection of brown dwarfs for example (MACHOS), since they would show up under present parameters of magnification, and there are numerous photographs of supermassive black holes, galaxy collisions, antimatter and other exotica.

To me, compared to where astrophysics was at the discovery of the quasar around 1962, we've come an immensely long way.

We do get quite a bit of information based on the three parameters you mentioned, plus the spinoffs like dark energy, galactic acceleration and gravitational lenses, galactic collision that may or may not be specifically inferred from the three parameters you mentioned.

It seemed to me that you were suggesting that F might not equal MA in some other galaxy or something that basic. Unless there is something very basically wrong with the way we understand numbers, we are literally seeing back thirteen billion plus years, and that is an amazing thing to me.

Clif Kuplen at 6:32PM on Jan 29th 2008

775. Clif, I think I now see, more precisely, where our disagreement lies. But first, let's look at a few areas where we agree.

First, the obvious: science rocks. I love science, and so do you. I would never accept a conclusion that directly contravened well established scientific theories without a ton of evidence, and I'll bet the same goes for you. That's why, as a Christian, I reject creationism. I don't think it's entailed by my religion, and I don't for a moment think it's supported by any legitimate scientific work.

Second, we both agree that science has made remarkable advances, and that these advances are a direct result of our increased understanding of how natural phenomena are to be studied. In other
words, it is the method that's important, not the conclusions (even if "the scientific method," as it is often taught, is rarely followed exactly in practice). If a man in 1858 had a dream in which he was provided with the fundamental conclusions -- only the conclusions! -- that Darwin reached in his work on evolution, the man's conclusions, though exactly the same as Darwin's, would not be scientific, and Darwin's conclusions, though exactly the same as those of the dreaming man, would be (note that I said Darwin's conclusions were scientific, not that they're entirely accurate; I'm well aware of the fact that we've moved pretty far beyond Darwin). In other words, it's not just what you have to say, but how you back it up.

The third area we would agree on is just that -- the basic conclusions, resulting from an interpretation of the currently available evidence, that most in the scientific community regard as solid. We would, I'm sure, have minor disagreements about some specifics, and perhaps some larger disagreements, but they would be scientific disagreements, period.

The fourth area we agree on is the methodological presumption of atheism in scientific investigation (you take it further, of course, and conclude there is no god, or that the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that there is a god, while for me it's purely procedural). When something we don't currently understand occurs, I don't jump to "goddidit!" And when certain problems seem intractable, I don't resort to a "god of the gaps" explanation. When trying to explain natural phenomena, we, as scientists, examine nature as if there were no god. Again, I see no problem with this, as a Christian. In fact, this presumption has quite a Christian pedigree, from Kepler on (though it of course has also been violated plenty of times, by Christians); what you'll frequently find is that Christians have been motivated to study nature itself as a way to understand god, and not study god as a way to understand nature. In other words, throughout history the causation has usually worked in the exact opposite direction from that of today's Southern evangelical Christian who denies evolution on biblical grounds.

This fifth area is a bit more controversial, but I'm reasonably sure we'd agree here, given certain facts you told me about your background (some of which we're fascinating!). Namely, that science, for all it's power, has its limits. That is to say, it does certain things, and does them well, but that it cannot do others. To provide a simple example, I'm sure that some day we'll have one hell of an accurate description of just how we enjoy music (much better than we have today). But -- and I think you'll agree -- there will still be a world of difference between understanding the effect Schubert's Unfinished symphony has on me, and on my experience of the symphony. No scientific theory will ever be able to capture my phenomonological states as I listen to Schubert. Again, it will be able to describe them, measure them, perhaps even predict them, but there will still be something essential that is missing. Since I now know that you're a music lover, perhaps you'll agree with this. Perhaps not. But the point is, I think we'll both agree that science, wonderful as it is, does have its limits.

Now for the part we disagree about: where do those limits lie? That's it. There's the area of disagreement. It's a big area, of course, but probably not as much as you had initially thought. I should add that by the limits of science, I mean things like what questions it can and cannot answer, what conclusions it can and cannot justify, what assumptions it makes use of without scientific (key word!) justification (that is, what philosophic assumptions it rests upon), how much a dominant paradigm affects the interpretation of the data, and so on. These sorts of disagreements are not, strictly speaking, scientific; rather, they are philosophical. For example, Stephen Hawking is a positivist, while Francis Collins is a Christian. Both are capable of 'doing' science very well, as their respective accomplishments demonstrate, but both would have very different ideas about the limits of science. Oddly enough, in this case, Hawking's positivism makes him see it as more limited than Collins's Christianity does! But the point is that science doesn't come without its baggage, and that the baggage isn't all scientific baggage. But, as the Hawking/Collins example demonstrates, this baggage need not affect just how science is done, nor need it hinder scientific inquiry.

We're just debating the baggage, Clif. It's important, because it determines what place science has in your overall worldview, but in the end, it seems to me, it's not a scientific debate.

Mike Valente at 9:00PM on Jan 29th 2008

776. Mike, that was a very good read. I'd much rather trade off on concepts that way than play the dozens, but the usenet experience sort of impels in the other direction and we all wind up with usenet Tourette's, so to speak.

I appreciate the effort. It took awhile to write that and it was excellently organized. It will take me awhile to write a reply.

You hit on a couple of things I could go on for too long about, and I didn't find any real disagreement on much of anything. You seem like a thoughtful deliberate person in that post. And of course, your religious convictions are worthy of respect. You don't seem to be a proselyte to me from that, and certainly not a militant one.

I appreciate your qualifying your christianity conceptually to me.

It is very hard to infer the limitation of intelligence vis a vis 'faith' sometimes. A musician I consider to be a giant in his time, a seemingly brilliant guy and miles out of my league as a performer and composer is also a scientologist. I've known others who were amazing but amazingly benighted in other ways.

To me, 'paradigm' is an all-encompassing state - what it means for all humanity to know something. Since chaos, it's mimeticized into a pop term, but I still think of it that way.

I do sense one coming again. Too long a topic for right now but worth chatting about at some time. It's everywhere in our literature and fiction and may be the source of this renewed need for superstition (not your beliefs - I'm talking about the same ones you want distance from.)

But if this shift is to occur, it will also bring 'science' with it since it will be because of science.

And science, as noble as we want it to be is still full of egotistical eccentric people who may be so intensely focused on their specialty that they may well present as dummies in an unrelated area. There are plenty who are NOT that way, too, and they may be equally competent but probably less frequent.

Is science complete? No, it's just the best we can do, hopefully. It has to chug along and has to account for an ungodly amount of eccentricity and egomania and some chicanery and fraud, but compared to any other discipline I also know to some extent, like law or music, it's light years ahead.

I've known one attorney and seen one on television that I thought was systematic as a solid peer reviewed published journeyman scientist with a formidable reputation. The rest were literally twits.

Muscical geniuses, you never know what else may come with it. Artists are all weirdos or they'd suck at art.

I'd like to comment on 'atheism' since you mentioned your religious basis (not sure of the right word) in passing as it was germane to what you were writing.

My personal perception of the universe and where I fit into it is colored completely by personal experience, education, and the algebraic intuition I paid to get and got.

I've never heard anyone else espouse anything that made sense to me, so I see no point in imposing my perception on someone who isn't me.

People call me an atheist because of that, but fundamentalists and this blogger rebadge that as a religion in itself, even though I find no kinship in belief with anyone, just a commonality in disbelief and an aversion to fundamentalism.

Once the rebadging is done, they can project their own theism and its baggage onto their newly invented granfaloon and attack hell out of it for being what they are. that's the 'you are me' that I write about.

I could care less personally, but they're getting too busy in government and I don't see that as helping either of us.

I don't get the sense that you approve of any of that either, from your last post.

I don't ever find a common thread to anyone discussing religion, so I lost interest in it and gave it no thought until others' religions began encroaching on my comfort, sense of ethics, and finally security of me, the young ol' lady and the kids I've had stewardship of for their kid lives, and now their kids.

Religious discussions always get down to the syllogistic failure, 'can god build a rock so heavy he can't lift it?' which shows the futility of attempting to pit irresistable forces against immovable objects and make any intellectual progress.

This is probably a private conversation now since just the two of us are posting.

I did enjoy reading what you wrote and will probably go back and look at it again. I found some abstracts today on some amazing work being done on small self-replicating polypeptides that are autocatalytic, symbiotic and capable of evolving in complexity being done at Scripps, where I almost went.

This is the exact edge between organic chemical self-replicating reactions and the onset of the most basic concept of chemical life - going the wrong way on the entropy gradient. I'm looking forward to finding out more about this!

Again, I appreciate your replying and defusing. There's a lot more to be gained from real discussion.

Before I close, I should mention something about how music affects us. We have no words for it, or the music would probably be unnecessary. As a player in an improvised setting, if we're all doing it right, we're speaking a language and there is communication that even non musicians can sense. I say all the time that music is a language that deals exclusively in whatever words can't express. the word 'language' is wrong, but when you're doing it right, you're not even there - as an individual you don't exist. It is probably about the same as 'satori' or 'samhedi' or whatever - oneness.

Clif Kuplen at 2:08AM on Jan 30th 2008

777. I think what he MEANT to imply was that if God is typically given thanks for making people better and "saving" people from the brink of death or illness than he can alternately be blamed when someone is incapacitated or dies.

Someone. at 11:13PM on Jan 30th 2008

778. Well, Lets just say this , Maybe there is a god and you don't believe, well guy's looks like your stuck!
Maybe you should rethink the whole probabilities thing, huh?

yvonne at 2:06PM on Feb 1st 2008

779. I must admit I stopped watching D'idiot after just 3 minutes of this idiotic video.
D'idiot attacks the Theroy (fact) of evolution does it how? By confusing it with abiogenesis.

This guy is just a master imbecile and I still can't believe any scholar is willing to debate with this human escrement.

Thank god those idiots (d'idiots) are not in Europe where I live. :-)

ekhnaton1 at 4:28PM on Feb 11th 2008

780. Why God hates amputees, are you serious?
It's hard to fathom such a statement. If people would simply open up to God, they would see things beyond their own issues in life. There is so much more then being an amputee. People forget there is a devil too and where God teaches us, "The thief (devil) cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” John 10:10. Yet they accuse or blame God for their misfortunes. Has he not forewarned us in saying, “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. John 16:33.” Therefore, let us not reason with our limited intellect, but rather trust in God. “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 1 Corinthians 3:18-19.”

T.Martinez at 7:47PM on Feb 22nd 2008