it was beside the point

citizenschallenge - 19 August 2008 03:50 AM

tiny charter school, graduating class of about a dozen.  But, a first rate little place which facilitated her discovering kayaking and the great outdoors, and to believe in herself, jury is still out on the critical thinking.

School’s not to blame, her mom’s a strong personality and that thinking permeates much of the community.

I can make a good argument that the evolution deniers are agents of Satan and that those who believe and follow them will burn in hell.

CC, why do you refer to your daughter as ‘full-blood’ child? That’s a rather odd wording.

A Voice of Sanity - 19 August 2008 10:11 AM

citizenschallenge - 19 August 2008 03:50 AM

School’s not to blame, her mom’s a strong personality and that thinking permeates much of the community.

I can make a good argument that the evolution deniers are agents of Satan and that those who believe and follow them will burn in hell.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I’ll admi,t I’ve reread this many times…. and consistently come away scratching my head, wondering ~ what is he talking about?

Other than, observing that the “rational mind” of humanity can rationalize whatever its little reptilian emotions want out of the moment.

Mark Twain’s written some wonder quotes on that topic. 

any of you quoter’s out there know of any?

asanta - 19 August 2008 04:45 PM

CC, why do you refer to your daughter as ‘full-blood’ child? That’s a rather odd wording.

Because I have stepchildren of varying bonding.
The full blood means I was there, all twitterbated, with the pregnancy test kit; I heard those first heartbeats; and spoke to her at nights even as she lay in her mother’s womb.  The drive into town; the birth; touching the cascade of infinity on a fundamental… visceral* level during moments of the ensuing eight hours of labor and her sunrise birth.  This little incredible being.

I love all my kids and grand kids and with a deep intensity, mixed with appreciation for the blessing of having these varied lives intertwined with mine.  I have, do and will sacrifice for them all. 

the fact remains their is only this young lady whom I’ve known and loved from her first spark.

yea full-blood sounds odd, guess i haven’t come up with anything better yet.

————————
there’s that word again - I keep seeing it crop up and try to bat it away, but it fits.  It describes that spiritual energy experience that actually feels like it emanates from my gut.

The death of religiosity in any liberal democracy is inevitable (and very obviously underway). The best way to hasten it in the US is probably to eliminate the extreme disparity of wealth (IE get rid of both the ultra-ultra rich and poorest of the poor at the same time).

CC, even if I thought your strategy would help things along I would never endorse it. Such would be intellectually dishonest and philosophically repugnant. Here is a pretty delusion to trade for your malefic one…

I don’t think so.

sate - 17 November 2008 09:27 AM

your malefic one…

Just because you can say it, doesn’t make it so
..................................................................................
Oh gosh, those echos of certitude…. they sound just as sour coming from the left as they do coming from the right.

Sure, sure I agree the death of religiosity would probably do far more good than harm.  But, it’s besides the point, as I’ve rediscovered these past few weeks.  Thinking your going to do away with religiosity is like thinking you can do away with love.

But Sate, I ask you, where in my 700 words do I suggest setting up another religion?
You say “strategy” - when while I was writing I was thinking “description.”
Specifically what sentence do you find abhorrent or dishonest?
{and I’m not trying to say what I’ve written is spot on, of course it’s not, but it is defensible.}

In your words I hear someone who wants to sterilize life. 

Haven’t you ever been swept up into spontaneous dancing by a band that’s grabbed you by the backbone?  Haven’t you ever found your eyes streaming with tears before an artistic masterpiece?  Not because of sorrow, or joy, but simply because the indescribable honesty & power of that particular piece penetrated down into your being - one step beyond your ability to understand it?  (and no, I am not changing the subject - because it is tied together…  relating to our doors of perception)

It’s ok to believe in your own certitude, so long as you’re not foolish enough to believe that certitude applies to all.

None of this is knocking the scientific process or in applying that approach to how we live!  Just keep in mind self-doubt and openness to constant reappraisal are integral to healthy science.

——————————————————————-
ps. if anyone’s curious check out my repository of essays at http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com

sate - 17 November 2008 09:27 AM

The death of religiosity in any liberal democracy is inevitable (and very obviously underway). The best way to hasten it in the US is probably to eliminate the extreme disparity of wealth (IE get rid of both the ultra-ultra rich and poorest of the poor at the same time).

This seems like a non-sequitur to me - but maybe I’m missing the point.  I would have thought education would be the best way. It directly impacts poverty as well as secularlism.

citizenschallenge - 09 August 2008 11:47 PM

Where does all that leave our afterlife?  Look around at our world - everything is connected to everything else, not just across the Earth, but through the billions of days that have preceded this one.  Our heritage goes back through an infinity of generations and stretches out ahead of us.  Today is your moment to participate in that pageant, to add the fruits of your particular life to the flow of creation.  This isn’t just poetry, it is a physical fact, the Biosphere and even humanity really are stupendous recycling systems.  Yet, too few stop and take notice. 

Elements, matter, the substance of the universe, is continually being recyled back into the universe, that we understand. But to claim that as an afterlife I think is a stretch, at least in the terms of how the general population would define “afterlife,” as though in the afterlife they retain the same consciousness they have now, their, “self,” I find that to be absurd. And if you are defining “afterlife” as matter being recyled over and over again than I think the term “afterlife” still does not apply. because in respect to matter, it is not living or dying, it is only changing positions and form, interacting with other matter, etc… It is not dying and then living again. It is simply changing.

citizenschallenge - 18 November 2008 10:48 PM

sate - 17 November 2008 09:27 AM

your malefic one…

Just because you can say it, doesn’t make it so

Of course it doesn’t. it is so because the facts are correct and the reasoning is sound, or not.. but that is yours to establish if you think you can. I doubt you will try. Facts and reason are not your go-to tools, if the past is a guide.

Oh gosh, those echos of certitude…. they sound just as sour coming from the left as they do coming from the right.

Dawkins has said the truth is ennobling and I agree. I find nothing sour in it; I find nothing unsavory about merely noticing the way the wind is blowing and saying as much. Should I pretend not to notice to preserve the feelings of deluded people around me?

Sure, sure I agree the death of religiosity would probably do far more good than harm.  But, it’s besides the point, as I’ve rediscovered these past few weeks.  Thinking your going to do away with religiosity is like thinking you can do away with love.

Don’t tell that to Sweden, where love is very much in vogue but religion is a memory of less civilized times. Also I’ve had good friends from families which were wholly secular, there was no shortage of love there either.

But Sate, I ask you, where in my 700 words do I suggest setting up another religion?
Specifically what sentence do you find abhorrent or dishonest?

the word god, used repeatedly.

In your words I hear someone who wants to sterilize life.

Right, because without god there is no love, art, or beauty right? You think I am limited when you can only see intense positive emotion through god-shaped glasses. I don’t need magic or obsolete theology to describe or appreciate the world and what it offers. I can take it for what it is. I am not limited as you seem to be.

Haven’t you ever been swept up into spontaneous dancing by a band that’s grabbed you by the backbone?  Haven’t you ever found your eyes streaming with tears before an artistic masterpiece?  Not because of sorrow, or joy, but simply because the indescribable honesty & power of that particular piece penetrated down into your being - one step beyond your ability to understand it?

I’ve been swept up in emotion, sure.. I think every typical human has. I just don’t taint the moment by injecting needless spirutual nonsense.

It’s ok to believe in your own certitude, so long as you’re not foolish enough to believe that certitude applies to all.

You’re playing a tired semantic game. You are certain your experiences are transcendant. You are certain science is inadequate to describe nature. You are certain religiosity can not be undone (like love, as you said). We’re all reasonably certain of thousands of things. If we werent, it’d be impossible to function on a daily basis so let’s dispense with the “certitude” crap ok? Unless you are providing a counterpoint or evidence, you are wasting time with such talk. And I will gladly hear any counterpoint and revise or reverse my position as necessary. No more will any reasonable man do.

Jackson - 19 November 2008 03:53 AM

sate - 17 November 2008 09:27 AM

The death of religiosity in any liberal democracy is inevitable (and very obviously underway). The best way to hasten it in the US is probably to eliminate the extreme disparity of wealth (IE get rid of both the ultra-ultra rich and poorest of the poor at the same time).

This seems like a non-sequitur to me - but maybe I’m missing the point.  I would have thought education would be the best way. It directly impacts poverty as well as secularlism.

Admittedly, I am guessing about the “best way..”, but let me explain why I think so. An Edge-published article (link at the bottom) discussed trends in belief rates world-wide and part of it contrasts the US specifically with other countries. It is a fact that all modern liberal democracies are much much less religious than any other kinds of states but the US is freakishly more religious than otherwise similar nation. Education seems like a sensible guess.. and is part of the equation, but not enough by itself. So it is reasonable to ask, how is the US different from europe but similar to other equally-religious states? The most obvious answer to this, is in disparity of wealth. Along this axis the US falls away from europe and into the likes of the second and third world. A snip-

Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman - 19 November 2008 03:53 AM

Mass rejection of the gods invariably blossoms in the context of the equally distributed prosperity and education found in almost all 1st world democracies. There are no exceptions on a national basis.

Link: Why the Gods are not Winning

morgantj - 19 November 2008 07:53 AM

at least in the terms of how the general population would define “afterlife,” as though in the afterlife they retain the same consciousness they have now, their, “self,” I find that to be absurd.

Quite right.  It would be absurd to think that our conscious can remain intact when it departs from our body.

morgantj - 19 November 2008 07:53 AM

But to claim that as an afterlife I think is a stretch

I believe our understanding of “afterlife” is what needs to stretch a bit.

morgantj - 19 November 2008 07:53 AM

And if you are defining “afterlife” as matter being recyled over and over again than I think the term “afterlife” still does not apply. because in respect to matter, it is not living or dying, it is only changing positions and form, interacting with other matter, etc… It is not dying and then living again. It is simply changing.

When viewing the pageant of evolution there is something more than “simply changing” going on. 
To me your statement sounds like a denial that there is a direct connection between me and a flatworm way back in the dawn of prehistory.  Well I do believe in that connection - and it is closer to an “afterlife” than mere “recycling.”

sate - 19 November 2008 10:04 AM

You are certain your experiences are transcendant.

Just because you imagine it don’t make it so. 
I’m certain my experiences are mine. 
I want to believe they are worth sharing.  Not because they ought to be adopted, but because I like to presume that maybe something within my words will strike a cord, resonate and hopefully help someone else with their process of making connections regarding their own perception of evolution and our place in the world.

sate - 19 November 2008 10:04 AM

You are certain science is inadequate to describe nature.

I never said that !!    (ps. certitude inhibits good listening abilities)
But, I do say science isn’t all there is to understanding our lives.
There is a difference and it’s not just semantics.

sate - 19 November 2008 10:04 AM

it’d be impossible to function on a daily basis so let’s dispense with the “certitude” crap ok?

Yea, let’s dispense with the “certitude crap” ok.
Tell you what: when I can turn on the news after the most recent crisis or catastrophe, be it Hurricane Katrina, or the wild fires, or various aspects of our failing economy, or the next big one - and not hear a parade of “experts” confiding “no one could have expected such a thing.”
Then, maybe your sentence won’t sound so shrill.

=========================================

I do agree with you that I really ought to sit down and focus on tighten up what I’ve been trying to communicate.  I’ve been given a lot to work with back in my August, September back and forth with CFI.  And since then campaigning (...pamphleteering) and having some interesting talks with serious right wingers and religious folks (wherein lies the origins of my recent focus on the horrors of certitude).  It’s mulling around, but obligations, the bills and the job crack the whip and I gotta go.

Eventually, I’ll present you with something that might not raise all of your contempt hackles.

sate: You are certain your experiences are transcendant.

cc: Just because you imagine it don’t make it so.

The proof is in your words, not my imagination.  You have frequently described your experiences in metaphysical terms.

sate: You are certain science is inadequate to describe nature.

cc: I never said that !!    (ps. certitude inhibits good listening abilities)

You would have to type awful hard for me to hear it. I never said you said it. Perhaps you should work on your own perspicacity, then judge mine.

But, I do say science isn’t all there is to understanding our lives.
There is a difference and it’s not just semantics.

In fact you mean even the basic tools of science are not enough.. reason, evidence, inference, knowledge, observation. These are insufficiently magical. It’s not just semantics, its se-magics that is the problem.

cc: Tell you what: when I can turn on the news after the most recent crisis or catastrophe, be it Hurricane Katrina, or the wild fires, or various aspects of our failing economy, or the next big one - and not hear a parade of “experts” confiding “no one could have expected such a thing.”
Then, maybe your sentence won’t sound so shrill.

I’m struggling to follow the logic here.. really really bad examples aside**.. some experts are idiots, or are dodging culpability.. therefore I’m not allowed to illustrate a point supported by copious unambiguous evidence as such? What if I said tobacco causes cancer? Does that hurt your ears? The shrillness I mean? The earth is round (an oblate spheroid to be precise), germs cause many diseases and electronics flow through some metals in objects we call “machines”. I’m sure of all this! Oh the arrogance! did your head explode at the sheer hubris of me thinking, nay, saying aloud such folly?

cc: ...And since then campaigning (...pamphleteering) and having some interesting talks with serious right wingers and religious folks (wherein lies the origins of my recent focus on the horrors of certitude).  It’s mulling around, but obligations, the bills and the job crack the whip and I gotta go.

I sympathize with the aversion to the dogmatic religious folk. That said I do not know why you can not understand the difference between blind, unrelenting faith and mutable evidence-based conclusions. You have plainly seen me invite anyone to question or correct what I have said- when was the last time a Q&A;session followed a mass? I’m glad to change my position the second it is merited by the facts.. how many religious nuts will say the same?

___________________________________________________________________

** Why your examples are poor
Experts predicted the failure of the levees and the danger of a hurricane for years. Read more here. quote- ...Reuters reported that in 2004, more than 40 state, local and volunteer organizations practiced a scenario in which a massive hurricane struck and levees were breached, allowing water to flood New Orleans. Under the simulation, called “Hurricane Pam,”
Further, in the case of Katrina most of the “shocked experts” were people trying to save their jobs. Knowing about the problem in advance would have made them accountable.

The wildfire called the “Tea fire” was caused by people. Experts can not be expected to magically know the arbitrary future actions of stray humans. So far as I know the cause of the others is unknown, but there are natural fires every season and experts have long warned of the danger of the santa anna winds. Whoever says CA wildfires can’t be foreseen is either an idiot or a beaurocrat nervous for their job.

Better examples in the sense of more fun and striking could be found in one of my favourite hubris-puncturing books , Cerf and Navasky’s wonderful compendium The Experts Speak. Here are a couple I like.
“Experimental evidence is strongly in favor of my argument that the chemical purity of the air is of no importance.” - L. Erskine Hill (Lecturer on Physiology at London Hospital), quoted in the New York Times 1912

“The cloning of mammals by simple nuclear transfer is biologically impossible.”-Drs. James McGrath and Davor Solter, reporting on nuclear transfer research they conducted. Dec 1984

“X-rays are a hoax.” -Lord Kelvin c 1900

citizenschallenge - 14 August 2008 08:49 PM

Science will gain no meaningful political ground if all you show is contempt for other’s deepest beliefs.

Science is not a political venture, it merely describes the facts of our objective reality.  The onus of living without self-deception is on our own fragile egos, not on science.