All Things in Moderation

Sorry. Really.

104 Responses

1. 

   yellojkt, on February 22, 2013 at 7:25 am said:

   A very long but good article on how Bon Jovi became The Last Great Rock Band

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   jnc4p, on February 22, 2013 at 8:30 am said:

   Is this a commentary on the sequester as “Bad Medicine”?

   Saw them last year at the Bamboozle Fest at Asbury Park, NJ.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   jnc4p, on February 22, 2013 at 10:13 am said:

   Reposted per request:

   “yellojkt, on February 22, 2013 at 10:05 am said:

   Yeah, that’s changed.

   It’s notable that since the military implications of a strong space program are no longer as pressing that NASA is now seen as a budget-busting frivolousness. And planetary research has always been a step-child to the manned flight program.”

   Republicans were the ones who led the fight against shutting down the U.S. manned space program without having an alternative to the Space Shuttle. You can argue that contradicts their focus on deficit reduction, but that’s how the fight played out.

   It also puts them in the odd position of opposing privatizing a government program, namely space flight as the administration has proposed to do.

   If you wish to take the position that this is knee jerk reaction to President Obama’s initiation of the privatization proposal, then the obvious conclusion is that Obama should strongly denounce evolution and science in general to generate Republican support for it.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 10:16 am said:

   Obama should strongly denounce evolution and science in general to generate Republican support for it.

   That might actually work. . .

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   jnc4p, on February 22, 2013 at 10:17 am said:

   “Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 10:10 am said:

   Just because I don’t get my way doesn’t make the system illegitimate.

   No, but there are illegitimate uses of the system. And, specifically according to our Constitution, using it to further one’s religious beliefs is an illegitimate use.”

   Separating out religious and moral beliefs from policy making in a democracy is impossible and actually ill-advised. This is not the same thing as the Constitutional prohibition on establishing a state religion or having a religious test for public office.

   To give two examples, the abolition movement against slavery was deeply informed by religious sentiment and also one often reads arguments for the welfare state and income redistribution based on invoking “compassion” which I would argue has it’s roots in the Judeo-Christian religious heritage of the original founding and Western history.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   yellojkt, on February 22, 2013 at 10:24 am said:

   To elevate the stakes, the War On Science is really part and parcel of the War Against Sex (at least the non-procreative variety) which brings us back to imposing one’s morality. Science in the name of killing people (at least the non-unborn variety) more effectively is rarely a problem.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 10:25 am said:

   jnc: Religious sentiment and religious beliefs are two different things (although deeply intertwined). Abolition and caring for the poor are things that one can support and care about without adhering to a specific faith. Believing that god created the world and all its inhabitants de novo is not.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   jnc4p, on February 22, 2013 at 10:26 am said:

   “which brings us back to imposing one’s morality”

   That’s an inevitable function of any public policy in a democratic government one way or another. I’ll refer you to my ad-nausem objections to progressive taxation, entitlement spending and income redistribution.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   yellojkt, on February 22, 2013 at 10:28 am said:

   Republicans were the ones who led the fight against shutting down the U.S. manned space program without having an alternative to the Space Shuttle.

   The space program creates a lot of odd positions which are emotionally driven rather than from philosophical purity. The manned space program in particular pushes a lot of nationalistic buttons. If the Chinese had a serious moon colony program, we would be there in a heart beat.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    jnc4p, on February 22, 2013 at 10:28 am said:

    “Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 10:25 am said:

    jnc: Religious sentiment and religious beliefs are two different things (although deeply intertwined). “

    For public policy purposes, and using Yellow’s framing of “imposing one’s morality” I’d argue that the distinction is meaningless.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    jnc4p, on February 22, 2013 at 10:29 am said:

    “yellojkt, on February 22, 2013 at 10:28 am said:

    Republicans were the ones who led the fight against shutting down the U.S. manned space program without having an alternative to the Space Shuttle.

    The space program creates a lot of odd positions which are emotionally driven rather than from philosophical purity. The manned space program in particular pushes a lot of nationalistic buttons. If the Chinese had a serious moon colony program, we would be there in a heart beat.”

    Then clearly the Democrats just need to come up with a better framing of the issue:

    “The Chinese are winning the evolution race”

    “There is a stem cell gap developing under this administration”

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      yellojkt, on February 22, 2013 at 10:32 am said:

      “There is a stem cell gap developing under this administration”

      There is. South Korea owns that corner of the research market.

      LikeLike

      Reply
12. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 10:33 am said:

    the distinction is meaningless.

    Not when you’ve got Republican representatives in the House on the science committee who say that belief in evolution is the work of the devil.

    Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are “lies straight from the pit of hell” meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 10:40 am said:

    Nor when you’ve got Republican school board members in Texas who are re-writing laws in order to teach creationism as fact:

    Cargill’s complaint is that the material overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, which was clearly not what she intended when she voted for the “all sides” language in the standards. Of course, evolution would have never reached the status of theory if it weren’t overwhelmingly supported, so it’s not clear what Cargill was expecting.

    The testimony suggests that the confused language of the recently approved science standards was intentionally chosen to allow the board to exert pressure on publishers to undercut accurate science education. Which is precisely what many people warned at the time (the title of the Texas Freedom Network’s announcement for the video starts with “Told You So”).

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 10:42 am said:

    Thanks all!

    Sorry for just the bare hook, I’ll do better next time.

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 10:42 am said:

    I don’t particularly care what Rep. Broun or Ms Cargill believe in their own homes and their own churches on Sunday, but they’re most definitely in positions to impose those beliefs on society.

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 10:48 am said:

    So Michi, what’s steps should be taken, if any, from preventing these people from wielding power?

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    novahockey, on February 22, 2013 at 10:52 am said:

    “if any, from preventing these people from wielding power?”

    too late. interstate commerce, necessary and proper, and general welfare.

    LikeLike

    Reply
18. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 10:54 am said:

    McWing: I don’t even care if they wield power. Just don’t use it to impose your religious beliefs on anyone.

    After all, everyone claims that our Founding Fathers were Judeo-Christians, and they did a pretty good job of writing a secular Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Muffed a couple of things, but all-in-all good work.

    C’mon–you’re a Libertarian. Work with me on this.

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    jnc4p, on February 22, 2013 at 10:54 am said:

    “Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 10:33 am said:

    the distinction is meaningless.

    Not when you’ve got Republican representatives in the House on the science committee who say that belief in evolution is the work of the devil.”

    And whether they arrive at those positions from religious sentiment or specific religious beliefs due to the Christian sect that they profess membership in is irrelevant.

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    yellojkt, on February 22, 2013 at 10:55 am said:

    what’s steps should be taken, if any, from preventing these people from wielding power?

    That pesky No Religious Test Clause cuts both ways.

    LikeLike

    Reply
21. 

    jnc4p, on February 22, 2013 at 10:59 am said:

    “Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 10:54 am said:

    McWing: I don’t even care if they wield power. Just don’t use it to impose your religious beliefs on anyone.

    After all, everyone claims that our Founding Fathers were Judeo-Christians, and they did a pretty good job of writing a secular Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Muffed a couple of things, but all-in-all good work.

    C’mon–you’re a Libertarian. Work with me on this.”

    I oppose it also, but I oppose it in all cases and recognize that religion is more intertwined with public policy than just discussions over funding specific science programs.

    Regardless of my personal views, it’s clear that we don’t have a libertarian government by any stretch of the imagination and that being the case, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    The libertarian solution is to reduce the role and reach of government so that the opinions of lawmakers become less relevant to which scientific endeavors get funded one way or the other. However, as long as the democratic process plays a part in these decisions, trying to argue that it’s illegitimate for an elected lawmaker to oppose funding a government program based on their religious beliefs won’t get much traction. They are representing people who share the same beliefs and values that they do, for better or for worse.

    LikeLike

    Reply
22. 

    yellojkt, on February 22, 2013 at 11:00 am said:

    everyone claims that our Founding Fathers were Judeo-Christians

    Most of the Founding Fathers and Thomas Jefferson in particular were Deists at best, which was as close to being Christopher Hitchens as you were allowed to be in the 18th century.

    LikeLike

    Reply
23. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 11:02 am said:

    jnc: I think we might be using the word “sentiment” differently.

    As I’m reading you, you’re using it as analogous to belief, just not a specifically orthodox one. I’m using it to mean sympathy or empathy to a belief.

    LikeLike

    Reply
24. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 11:04 am said:

    Most of the Founding Fathers and Thomas Jefferson in particular were Deists at best

    Which is why I used the word “claims”. I’ve noticed that it’s the religious right who want them to be good Christians.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      yellojkt, on February 22, 2013 at 11:06 am said:

      I’ve noticed that it’s the religious right who want them to be good Christians.

      Way back in college I read a pamphlet from an evangelical group which quoted George Washington wildly out of context to make him sound like Jerry Falwell.

      LikeLike

      Reply
25. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 11:06 am said:

    They are representing people who share the same beliefs and values that they do, for better or for worse.

    Not necessarily. To get very specific, the entire Utah delegation is LDS. And yet they’re my “representatives”.

    LikeLike

    Reply
26. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 11:11 am said:

    I read a pamphlet from an evangelical group

    Hmmmmmmmm. Word of God, or Community in Christ? They were both active at MSU.

    LikeLike

    Reply
27. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 11:27 am said:

    I’m with j, want less politics, less Jesus Freaks, less (snicker) “War on Science,” less “Fringe Environmentalists, hell, less Republicans? Vote for less government.

    Also, if upwards of 80 or 90% of Americans beleive in a Supreme Creator, thereby not believing in natural evolution, wouldn’t the (snicker) “War on Science” be pretty bipartisan?

    LikeLike

    Reply
28. 

    novahockey, on February 22, 2013 at 11:52 am said:

    Word of God … name of God .. But in the Latin alphabet, “Jehovah” begins with an “I”.

    and my evening plans are set.

    LikeLike

    Reply
29. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 11:55 am said:

    OK, do tell, NoVA!

    LikeLike

    Reply
30. 

    novahockey, on February 22, 2013 at 11:56 am said:

    oh, you didn’t follow —

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097576/quotes

    LikeLike

    Reply
31. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 11:57 am said:

    Michi,

    It’s a Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade reference.

    LikeLike

    Reply
32. 

    novahockey, on February 22, 2013 at 11:59 am said:

    Troll and I have going to have to have another uber-dork contest.

    LikeLike

    Reply
33. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 12:02 pm said:

    Well, if you wish to apologize for your Star Trek reboot heresy, then yes.

    LikeLike

    Reply
34. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 12:02 pm said:

    Oh, lord. . . go at it, guys!

    LikeLike

    Reply
35. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 12:04 pm said:

    Since I am merely a girl I won’t tell you what side of the Star Trek reboot I come down on, because I don’t want to prejudice anything.

    LikeLike

    Reply
36. 

    novahockey, on February 22, 2013 at 12:06 pm said:

    “Since I am merely a girl ”

    you’ll love Game of Thrones — some very strong women in those boots.

    LikeLike

    Reply
37. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 12:07 pm said:

    Now I’m going deep into geekdom. Favorite Dune series book, and why.

    LikeLike

    Reply
38. 

    novahockey, on February 22, 2013 at 12:12 pm said:

    [lays gom jabbar at Trolls feet]

    I really liked the first one. and the 2nd is on my shelf, as yet unread.

    LikeLike

    Reply
39. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 12:13 pm said:

    in those boots

    Heh. Typo??

    The first Dune. All the others were simply rehashes.

    LikeLike

    Reply
40. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 12:15 pm said:

    NoVA: you haven’t read the others?

    [sniffs haughtily and turns away]

    LikeLike

    Reply
41. 

    novahockey, on February 22, 2013 at 12:19 pm said:

    gah. i thought i fixed it. that “t” is supposed to be a “k” and was originally a “b”

    LikeLike

    Reply
42. 

    yellojkt, on February 22, 2013 at 12:28 pm said:

    Never made it through the third Dune book. I like to read the first one as an allegory for our history in the Middle East with the Atriedes clan being the Americans, the Harkonnen the British and the Fremen as the Saudis.

    LikeLike

    Reply
43. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 12:30 pm said:

    And you call yourself a geek!

    I like God Emperor of Dune, A sentient worm, with essentially omnipotent powers that lives for over 1500 years? What’s not to like.

    Also,ChapterHouse: Dune was cool in that it left the ending, for me anyway, mysterious and open. An acknowledgement of a higher power perhaps, that was destroyed by the sons reboot, IMO.

    LikeLike

    Reply
44. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 12:31 pm said:

    Always thought the Harkonnen’s were the Turks.

    LikeLike

    Reply
45. 

    yellojkt, on February 22, 2013 at 12:32 pm said:

    Always thought the Harkonnen’s were the Turks.

    That’s a possibility I hadn’t thought of. In which case Clan Atriedes would just be Western Civilization in general.

    LikeLike

    Reply
46. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 12:38 pm said:

    The series implies an ancient Greek origin for the Atriedes, so your Western Civilization theory is spot on.

    LikeLike

    Reply
47. 

    jnc4p, on February 22, 2013 at 12:56 pm said:

    “Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 12:02 pm said:

    Well, if you wish to apologize for your Star Trek reboot heresy, then yes.”

    The reboot itself is the heresy, not our reaction to it.

    JJ Abrams is the Antipope.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope

    LikeLike

    Reply
48. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 3:02 pm said:

    Did, or will the Senate vote for the budget they introduced?

    LikeLike

    Reply
49. 

    jnc4p, on February 22, 2013 at 3:41 pm said:

    Do you mean the sequester alternative or the actual FY2014 budget resolution?

    LikeLike

    Reply
50. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 4:10 pm said:

    J, I thought they came up with something, must be their sequester alternative, because it had a mix of cuts and tax increases.

    LikeLike

    Reply
51. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 5:00 pm said:

    McWing:

    Are you thinking way back and thinking of this?

    LikeLike

    Reply
52. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 5:07 pm said:

    No Michi,

    It’s the D Senate sequester replacement.

    This is it:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-sequester-replacement-bill-plan-sequestration-2013-2

    LikeLike

    Reply
53. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 5:11 pm said:

    Ah.

    Can the Senate introduce this? I’ve been wondering, because I keep reading/hearing about it, but I thought that any legislation dealing with taxes has to originate in the House.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on February 22, 2013 at 5:23 pm said:

      Mich (from earlier thread):

      If Republicans nowadays were behaving like traditional Republicans a lot of this discussion would be moot.

      What policies/behaviors do you associate with “traditional” Republicanism that are not in evidence in today’s Republican party?

      LikeLike

      Reply
      • 

        ScottC, on February 22, 2013 at 5:56 pm said:

        BTW, Mich…I remain interested in just what you mean when you claim to be “all for” smaller government. I understand that you want the government to spend less on the military. But on nearly every other issue that I have seen you expound upon, your policy preferences are for greater, not lesser, government, particularly at the federal level.

        LikeLike

        Reply
54. 

    Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 6:30 pm said:

    What policies/behaviors do you associate with “traditional” Republicanism that are not in evidence in today’s Republican party?

    Asked and answered in response to this statement.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on February 22, 2013 at 6:39 pm said:

      Mich:

      Asked and answered in response to this statement.

      Can you link to where you answered this, or give me the time of the comment? I can’t find it.

      LikeLike

      Reply
55. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 7:28 pm said:

    Ya know, I really dig Coppolla’s The Black Stallion. It’s beautifully shot and Mickey Rooney is absolutely sublime in it. Really, he’s never been better.

    Michi, I ,cant find where you designate what part(s) of government should be smaller either. For me, I’ve said in the past that I would eliminate the Army, defund the Departments of AG, Commere, Energy, Education, HHS and cut back the Dept. of Trans to maybe the Coast Guard.

    But that’s chump change.

    To really tackle things I’d means test SS and phase it out. I’D give 3/4 of average Medicare benefit yearly benefit in cash to recipients and allow inheritance on it for like, 5 years, and phase it out.

    I’d block grant Medicaid.

    LikeLike

    Reply
56. 

    jnc4p, on February 22, 2013 at 7:54 pm said:

    “Michigoose, on February 22, 2013 at 5:11 pm said:

    Ah.

    Can the Senate introduce this? I’ve been wondering, because I keep reading/hearing about it, but I thought that any legislation dealing with taxes has to originate in the House.”

    The usual method around this prohibition is to amend a House bill and send it back.

    LikeLike

    Reply
57. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 22, 2013 at 10:29 pm said:

    Dunno if this was linked before but it’s interesting.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/02/20/as-country-club-republicans-link-up-with-the-democratic-ruling-class-millions-of-voters-are-orphaned/

    Are believers in a Supreme Creator waging ( snicker) a War on Science”?

    LikeLike

    Reply
58. 

    Fairlington Blade, on February 22, 2013 at 11:02 pm said:

    Also, if upwards of 80 or 90% of Americans beleive in a Supreme Creator, thereby not believing in natural evolution, wouldn’t the (snicker) “War on Science” be pretty bipartisan?

    This comment rests upon the naive notion that religious belief and acceptance of evolutionary theory are incompatible. Two different questions are involved. Why? and How?.

    ∂ß

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on February 23, 2013 at 6:00 am said:

      FB:

      Two different questions are involved. Why? and How?.

      The two questions are, however, closely related, and the answer to one can have implications for the other. For example, if the answer to “How?” is via random chance, then the answer to “Why?” is for no reason whatsoever.

      LikeLike

      Reply
59. 

    yellojkt, on February 23, 2013 at 6:29 am said:

    That Forbes article is incoherent and whiny to the point of being self-parody. The author obviously didn’t bother to consult Scott when writing this line:

    Government grew more rapidly under these Republican Administrations than under Democratic ones.(emphasis in the original)

    It took me a while to figure out that his ‘country class’ was just the usual amalgamation of Tea Party-ish fist-shakers. To argue that they have been sold out by the Republican establishment is both absurd and hysterical. And to claim that they are under-represented due to the machinations of one-man one-vote gerrymandering is risible.

    And who are these moderate Republicans he keeps railing about? He seems to have a rather loose definition of moderate. I wish him luck in organizing his revolution.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on February 23, 2013 at 7:15 am said:

      yello:

      The author obviously didn’t bother to consult Scott when writing this line:

      I think, in context, it is clear he is adopting the same approach that liberals tend to take by looking only at which party controls the executive while ignoring which party controls congress. So he is not talking about the same thing I was talking about.

      LikeLike

      Reply
60. 

    yellojkt, on February 23, 2013 at 6:32 am said:

    Here’s another conservative outraged by calls that RINOs need to be kept from extinction:

    At any rate, let me offer some overtures to the RINOs. I’ll agree to doff my tri-cornered hat and stop firing musket blanks at my co-workers, several of whom have taken up my epistemic closure with the HR office. But I’m going to keep demanding smaller government and less spending, and I may occasionally even use an exclamation point.

    He sounds like quite a few people around here.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on February 23, 2013 at 7:23 am said:

      yello:

      Here’s another conservative outraged by calls that RINOs need to be kept from extinction:

      I just read it and the actual article bears no relationship at all to your characterization of it.

      LikeLike

      Reply
      • 

        yellojkt, on February 23, 2013 at 7:41 am said:

        I just read it and the actual article bears no relationship at all to your characterization of it.

        That is why I provide a link so you can form your own opinion. I mean the title of the article is “The Banality of the RINOs”.

        LikeLike

        Reply
        • 

          ScottC, on February 23, 2013 at 8:31 am said:

          yello:

          I mean the title of the article is “The Banality of the RINOs”.

          Exactly. It wasn’t “Purge the RINO’s”. Again, your characterization of the author as “outraged” at calls to keep RINOs from becoming extinct is false in pretty much every particular. The author expresses neither outrage nor does he call for the elimination of RINOs.

          LikeLike
61. 

    yellojkt, on February 23, 2013 at 6:36 am said:

    the answer to “Why?” is for no reason whatsoever.

    This was the burden of the Existentialist philosophers. The absurdity of life without purpose.

    LikeLike

    Reply
62. 

    Fairlington Blade, on February 23, 2013 at 7:09 am said:

    I would agree, Scott, that the questions are closely intertwined. Religions have attempted to explain how and some still do. There are some interesting scientific speculations about why the Big Bang arose. I don’t recall the source, but one scientist was quoted as saying maybe nothing is unstable.

    I find it interesting that we live in a universe that seems tailor made for our existence. If the fundamental constants (gravitational, electroweak, strong) were tweaked ever so slightly, life would not be possible. It’s also interesting that we happen to live in a flat universe (enough mass that it doesn’t expand infinitely, not enough so that it doesn’t collapse). One can find inspiration in such matters or shrug it off as coincidence. Physicists that I’ve known tend to be agnostic to a greater degree than the general populations. Those who believe tend to find inspiration in their exploration of the natural universe.

    ∂ß

    LikeLike

    Reply
63. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 23, 2013 at 9:12 am said:

    I’m still not getting it, a belief in a Supreme Creator means a in, at the absolute minimum, a belief in Intelligent Design. A belief in ID means you’re waging a (snicker) War on Science.

    Help me here.

    LikeLike

    Reply
64. 

    Fairlington Blade, on February 23, 2013 at 9:30 am said:

    I’ll help you out, Troll.

    A belief in a Supreme Creator does not mean a belief in Intelligent Design. That is to say, if you are referring to a specific proposal favored as an alternative to evolution by some religious Americans, especially evangelicals. For the view of a religious leader with slightly more standing than I, I would offer the following:

    In a speech before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences he [Pope Pius XII] offered an enthusiastic endorsement of the [Big Bang] theory: “…it would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux, when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies.”

    As far as I know, the Pope wasn’t snickering.

    ∂ß

    LikeLike

    Reply
65. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 23, 2013 at 10:28 am said:

    Again though FB, if the Universe was created then there was an intelligent impetus for it. Presumably it was not a design in which utter randomness could result, but a design with a result of something other than utter randomness. I believe that an overwhelming number of those Americans who believe in a Supreme Creator also believe in a universe designed for a purpose other than randomness. Evolution, it seems to me, is a process that is random in that changes in species are random, mutations occur, and the successful mutations are the ones that either do not harm survival, or increase survival.

    If there is an Intelligent Design for the Universe, is there really randomness, as in a lack of a design?

    LikeLike

    Reply
66. 

    Fairlington Blade, on February 23, 2013 at 11:25 am said:

    I would recommend the book Order out of Chaos to you, Troll. You might find some interesting answers to those questions. For a short quip, I will turn to Einstein (reacting to Quantum Mechanics).

    God does not play dice.

    ∂ß

    LikeLike

    Reply
67. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 23, 2013 at 11:37 am said:

    So, if one believes in a Supreme Creator, one believes in ID, no? And we’ve established that a belief in ID means you’re at (snicker) War with Science.

    LikeLike

    Reply
68. 

    Fairlington Blade, on February 23, 2013 at 11:50 am said:

    No. Asserted not established. And I had the odd notion that ATiM was to be above something as juvenile as snickering at one another. Have fun under the bridge, Troll. [typo edited]

    ∂ß

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on February 23, 2013 at 12:52 pm said:

      FB:

      And I had the odd notion that ATiM was to be above something as juvenile as snickering at one another.

      I’ve taken the snicker to be directed at the notion of a “war on science”, not at specific ATiMers. In that the snicker is well deserved, I think. The notion of a war on science is nothing but an absurd political framing of opposition to liberal policies.

      LikeLike

      Reply
      • 

        ScottC, on February 23, 2013 at 1:46 pm said:

        BTW, my question from quite some time ago still stands…as a practical matter why does anyone give a crap whether someone believes in evolution, or ID, or creationism, or chariots of the Gods?

        LikeLike

        Reply
69. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 23, 2013 at 12:04 pm said:

    So, how can a belief in a Supreme Creator not also be a belief in ID? Or, are you writing that a belief in ID is not a belief that is (snicker) at War with Science?

    And I’m not snickering at you, but at the idiotic Democratic meme of a Republican War on Science. Also, the moronic Democratic meme of a Republican War on Women.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on February 23, 2013 at 12:26 pm said:

      McWing:

      So, how can a belief in a Supreme Creator not also be a belief in ID?

      I suspect that FB is distinguishing between a specific proposition, called ID, which posits that a deliberate design can be observed, and scientifically established, in living creatures, and a more general, philosophical proposition that assumes the existence of a Supreme Being who created the universe with a purpose. It is possible that one can reject the specific scientific claims made by ID theory without rejecting the philosophical notion of a Supreme Being “first mover”. More briefly, I suspect FB distinguishes between Intelligent Design and intelligent design.

      That being said, it is not at all clear to me how evolutionary theory, which posits randomness, can be reconciled with the notion of a Supreme Being who deliberately created the universe, and life, for a purpose. I suspect that no one else here can either, despite their claims that the two are not incompatible, which is why they keep directing you to ask other people.

      LikeLike

      Reply
    • 

      markinaustin, on February 23, 2013 at 10:03 pm said:

      George, at one time in western history religion sought to explain the spiritual, the moral, the communal, the historical, and the scientific aspects of life. For Jesuits, among others, where science and religion conflict, religion must give way.

      For Jews, the mainstream thought has been that Bible was allegory; not revelation, not science, and not history. The two creation myths in Genesis were essentially allegories about the interrelation of life and the physical world and about free will, to Jews. Jews don’t pretend to understand what God is or what God does beyond wanting all of us to do justly and love mercy and walk humbly, expressed as 7 commandments to the world in the story of Noah. We don’t have a construct of an afterlife and we don’t know what it would be. We can’t “Save” anyone. So science never interferes with religion for mainstream Jews. Evolution is no problem or threat to our view of God because we never thought the world was literally created in 7 days in the first place. We also think that ascribing characteristics to God is anthropomorphic. So we see “Supreme Creator” as already a step to describe God in human terms.

      LikeLike

      Reply
      • 

        ScottC, on February 24, 2013 at 5:16 am said:

        Mark:

        Evolution is no problem or threat to our view of God because we never thought the world was literally created in 7 days in the first place.

        I don’t think it is simply, or even primarily, the timeline which creates tension between evolution and belief in God as a creator of the universe.

        Is it the case the mainstream Jews do not think God created the universe?

        LikeLike

        Reply
        • 

          markinaustin, on February 24, 2013 at 7:18 am said:

          I think many, if not most, mainstream Jews do believe God created the universe, Scott. I think it is a given for the Orthodox.

          It is not a tenet of faith, however, for the majority of Jews, who are not Orthodox.

          The argument from design appears in Jewish literature and I grew up on a farm emotionally impressed by it. My kids, who all grew up in the city, were never awed by the little miracles of seeds sprouting, or the complexity of the simplest creatures. They didn’t stand in the cavern behind a waterfall when they were 8 and feel overwhelmed by the raging power of it.

          Part of the difficulty of conversing between modernists and fundamentalists is that fundamentalists assume an all powerful God while modernists simply assume a higher power than human self; not omnipotent, not omnipresent. For believers a question has been posed by Christian theologians along this line: Do you prefer a God who could if he would, or would if he could? For Jews there is a notion that we are God’s partners on Earth and we are supposed to do right by each other, and by the planet. I know that Methodists call the latter idea “stewardship” and think of it as a calling.

          LikeLike
        • 

          ScottC, on February 24, 2013 at 7:53 am said:

          mark:

          Part of the difficulty of conversing between modernists and fundamentalists is that fundamentalists assume an all powerful God while modernists simply assume a higher power than human self; not omnipotent, not omnipresent.

          I think I at least understand what fundamentalists believe in, even if I think it is ultimately self-contradictory and I don’t believe it myself. But I confess that I really don’t understand at all what “modernists” believe in.

          If the power is not omnipotent and not omnipresent, what is it then? What does it mean for a power to be higher than human self? The power to do what?

          LikeLike
        • 

          markinaustin, on February 24, 2013 at 9:56 am said:

          If the power is not omnipotent and not omnipresent, what is it then?

          I don’t pretend to know. There is plenty of Rabbinic and theological discussion about this in 20th century Judaism, that generally reads to me like the RC answer “It’s a mystery.”

          What does it mean for a power to be higher than human self?

          It means that humans should be humble, because of our limitations.

          The power to do what?

          The power to have blessed us with free will and the ability to choose right from wrong, and to have inspired many. Beyond that, I don’t know.

          I have to think that even the most modern, non-atheists Jew believes that there is at least a purpose to existence, no?

          We give purpose to our lives through justice, mercy, and humility.

          Events are not foreordained and thus serve no higher purpose, except in the minds of the ultra-Orthodox, who get trapped into notions like “if you got cancer it must be a punishment from God”, and in the minds of fundamentalist Muslims who think whatever they do must be God’s will.
          I suspect all fundamentalist religion contradicts itself this way and it is part of what Scott was talking about.

          Let me divide western theology into two convenient, if imprecise, subgroups: catechism and narrative. In catechism, lists of rules take precedence. Leviticus and the Amish Church and Catholic school are catechism based. The Prophets, the Writings, Genesis, Exodus, and the Synoptic Gospels as they recount the living Jesus of Nazareth are narrative theology. Stories, allegories, parables.

          Narrative theology doesn’t ever conflict with science because it never presumes to be scientific.

          LikeLike
        • 

          ScottC, on February 24, 2013 at 10:09 am said:

          Mark:

          I don’t pretend to know.

          OK. I presumed that you counted yourself among the modernists. Is that a bad presumption?

          The power to have blessed us with free will and the ability to choose right from wrong, and to have inspired many.

          How does being “blessed” with free will by some higher power reconcile with evolutionary theory?

          LikeLike
        • 

          markinaustin, on February 24, 2013 at 10:49 am said:

          Scott, I am a modernist and it’s a mystery.

          Scott, if free will exists as a scientific notion, at all, I am unaware of it. I don’t think it is expressed by self-awareness, which I do think has a root in science. I would defer to a biologist about that. It is possible that what you suggest would force me to rethink my own notion of God, because I accept that Jesuit maxim that religion falls away if in conflict with science.

          George, we are talking past each other. I am not skirting an issue. To me you are positing an all knowing ever present God who gives a shit about humans and who asserts control for some purpose from time-to-time as being contradictory to science. As Yossarian’s GF said “The God you don’t believe in is not the same God I don’t believe in!”

          LikeLike
        • 

          ScottC, on February 24, 2013 at 1:32 pm said:

          Mark:

          Scott, I am a modernist and it’s a mystery.

          I’m sincerely not trying to be snarky, but isn’t this the same as saying that you don’t really know what you believe? You have said the power you believe in is not omnipotent nor omnipresent, but that it does have the power to “bless” things with free will. How does that work? How/why have you determined that God (I assume it is fair to call this power “God”) has this ability to inject free will into things, but is otherwise limited in his abilities?

          Scott, if free will exists as a scientific notion, at all, I am unaware of it.

          I think this is actually a big problem for science. At the core of all human interaction is the assumption of the existence of free will. Morality, ethics, law…they are all based on the assumption of free will. So if evolutionary theory attempts to explain how humans came to be as they are, it is either quite incomplete in failing to explain the source of free will, or it must reject the notion of free will altogether, which itself will lead to some rather mind bending discussions. (What’s the point in slamming “religious nuts” and the political policies for which they advocate if they have no choice in the matter? But then again, what choice do the critics of “religious nuts” have either in their criticism? Then again I had no choice in posing those last two questions. The mind boggles.) I myself am a non-believer, but my conviction is tempered by the knowledge that non-faith based explanations of this very fundamental aspect of human existence simply do not suffice.

          LikeLike
        • 

          markinaustin, on February 24, 2013 at 2:49 pm said:

          Scott, there is an intersection of what we believe, you and I. And I think free will is essential to understanding everything from morality to ethics to the theory of the law to raising a family, I think just as you do. BB says science gives us a reason to believe in free will but I am not sure how if even the neural pathways are probabilistic algorithms.

          So I cling to my faith [and my shotgun, too, living in TX]. But when you suggest I don’t know what I believe, I can only admit that I cannot explain what I believe. That may be the same thing to you. I have never, since I was a pre-teen, anyway, writing to Bertrand Russell, tried to explain my belief or faith in some organized and intellectual way because I cannot. I can convince myself rather easily that faith is completely irrational when I go down that road.
          I am somewhat comforted by the notion that faith is virtually required to be non-rational. I know that mine is, and it is fraught with skepticism. I move between agnosticism and skeptical belief fairly often. So I have carried this as far as I can.

          George, in a similar vein, I accept evolution and the multi-billion year old universe and the like, and the germ theory of disease, as the best available explanations for the physical universe, but they have no effect on what I am doing when I am seriously praying for guidance or strength, or how I think I should treat others. That is my limit with this and it only proves what I already knew: I have limitations.

          LikeLike
70. 

    Fairlington Blade, on February 23, 2013 at 1:49 pm said:

    Scott – I appreciate that. It did get a little annoying after awhile. I’m not someone who buys the “War on Science”, mainly as I think the use of the war metaphor is about as dated as slapping a gate on everything. There should be some scandal at Microsoft so we could have Gategate. There’s no war on drugs (an image of a predator drone firing on a doobie comes to mind). There’s no war on poverty. Or terror. Etc. So, I suppose I could snicker at all of them.

    The effort to defund legitimate work because you dislike the policy implications is deadly serious. As an example, I would take the defunding of federally funded research into the effects of firearms.

    My reason for directing you to ask other people is not that I cannot reconcile the concept of a deity with randomness (which is an empirical fact) or evolution (a theory that explains both the diversity of life on our planet as well as its commonality). I took Einstein and Pope Pius XII as examples of individuals who have thought deeply about science and religion. I do have my own opinions on the matter, but religious belief is a private matter for me. I know neither of you and this is a quasi-public forum.

    I suggested Order Out of Chaos as an interesting reference as it is a book I enjoyed it and thoroughly explores such issues. Randomness does not mean random outcomes. Take a 1 liter box full of helium and put it in a 9 liter box full of nitrogen. Poke a very small hole in the helium box. We’ll do it with a laser so as to preserve the integrity of the larger box and wait. Eventually, you will find that both the smaller box and the larger box contain a mixture of 10% helium and 90% nitrogen. The individual events of the diffusion of helium out into the larger box are random. The outcome is deterministic.

    I have enjoyed today’s discussions, but need to head off to take care of organizing a research conference as well as cooking dinner for the family. It has been fun. I’ll try to get back before bed.

    ∂ß

    LikeLike

    Reply
71. 

    Michigoose, on February 23, 2013 at 10:09 pm said:

    As a scientist, working with people from all over the world and adhering to many different religions (or not), this whole question of ID, a Supreme Creator, evolution, etc. seems to me to be largely a fundamentalist Christian “problem” and largely an American one.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on February 24, 2013 at 5:26 am said:

      Mich:

      seems to me to be largely a fundamentalist Christian “problem” and largely an American one.

      As I asked earlier, what exactly is the problem? Why should what fundamentalists believe bother you?

      LikeLike

      Reply
      • 

        ScottC, on February 24, 2013 at 6:26 am said:

        Is science joining the Republican war on women?

        LikeLike

        Reply
72. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 24, 2013 at 9:18 am said:

    In (some) Jewish tenets, in not presuming to understand the goals/motives of the deity, it’s possible that the diety created the Universe for random chemical reactions? Not being snarchy Mark, but I have to think that even the most modern, non-atheists Jew beleive’s that there is at least a purpose to existence, no? If so, then randomess really doesn’t mean what we think it means. I.E. events serve the purpose of existence. How could it be any other way?

    LikeLike

    Reply
73. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 24, 2013 at 10:27 am said:

    There sure seems to be a lot of skirting of the issue here. The only way, it seems to me, to believe in Darwinian Evolution is to believe in True Randomness, which is impossible to reconcile with a belief in a Supreme Creator, hence, only true atheists can really believe in Darwinian Evolution.

    Everybody else, and Gallup puts the belief in God among ‘Merican’s at over 90%, with even Liberals at over 80%, cannot possibly believe in Darwinian Evolutiom. If there is a (snicker) War on Science, how is it not completely bi-partisan? Seriously?

    LikeLike

    Reply
74. 

    Fairlington Blade, on February 24, 2013 at 10:50 am said:

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Troll, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

    ∂ß

    LikeLike

    Reply
75. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 24, 2013 at 11:29 am said:

    ” To me you are positing an all knowing ever present God who gives a shit about humans and who asserts control for some purpose from time-to-time as being contradictory to science. As Yossarian’s GF said “The God you don’t believe in is not the same God I don’t believe in!”

    No I’m not. I’m positing that a belief in a Supreme Creator means a belief in a purpose for existence. Not just, or necessarily or even Human Existence, but of Existence itself. Unless you believe that a Supreme Creator created Existence so that True Randomness occurs. So, if you believe there is a purpose to Existence other than for True Randomness, the purpose of Existence, even if we don’t know it, can only mean that there is no True Randomness.

    I think this is understandable and I think it is being purposefully avoided.

    What percentage of those that believe in a Supreme Creator also believe that Existence was created (a purposeful, non random act, in and of itself) to merely be True Randomness? I posit that those that accept that set of beliefs is minuscule, even among “Modernists.” A Supreme Creator, that creates Existence, by definition, has “asserted control” by creating.

    Bottom line, those that believe in a Supreme Creator cannot believe in True Randomness. Ergo, huge, bi-partisan (snicker) (and hence the “snicker”) War on Science, and the utter meaninglessness of the meme, and it’s obvious partisan use.

    LikeLike

    Reply
76. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 24, 2013 at 11:46 am said:

    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Troll, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

    Shakespeare, as beautiful a writer as ever was, is not necessarily a religious, science of philosophical expert.

    But to assert that statement, means that you believe, or at least believe that I believe, that there is a purpose behind Existence. I’ve never tried to deny that, I believe in a Supreme Creator and in a purpose of Existence. I’m saying, one cannot believe in a Supreme Creator and in True Randomness.

    Are there those here that I believe that I am at (snicker) War with Science? There is no wrong answer, in that I am just looking for poster’s opinions of my attitude. If you believe it to be so, how has it manifested itself in my comments?

    LikeLike

    Reply
77. 

    Fairlington Blade, on February 24, 2013 at 12:08 pm said:

    Troll – Your comment that anyone who believes in a Diety interested in the goings on of a thin film of scum on top of the third planet of a minor star cannot possibly believe in Darwinian evolution, suggested the paraphrase. Another exchange comes to mind:

    —

    “I’m just one hundred and one, five months and a day.” [said the White Queen]

    “I can’t believe that!” said Alice.

    “Can’t you?” the Queen said in a pitying tone. “Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.”

    Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”

    “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

    —

    I don’t believe that you’re at war with science, but then I’m skilled at believing as many as eight impossible things before breakfast.

    ∂ß

    LikeLike

    Reply
78. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 24, 2013 at 1:14 pm said:

    FB,

    That’s not what I wrote. I wrote that if you believe in a Supreme Creator, you believe in a reason, a purpose for Existence. If you beleive in a purpose for Existence, then you cannot believe in True Randomness.

    LikeLike

    Reply
79. 

    Fairlington Blade, on February 24, 2013 at 2:06 pm said:

    Modern science actually gives us a reason to believe in free will. If you take classical mechanics, everything is predetermined.Mind you, it is far too complex a system to calculate, but in principle, it is a deterministic universe. At its essence, probability is built into the smallest reactions.

    Troll – You’ve got so many proper nouns (or Inappropriate Capitalization) in there that I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. As you’re not being Serious, I’m not that Worried about It. One question. Is there any alternative to Predistination and True Randomness (and wuv, true wuv) in your Philosophy?

    Scott – I started on a response to the other thread and had to get to work. The oral program for the conference I organize is due in a couple of weeks, so it’s crunch time for organizing the committee. I think a post on peer review, both for funding, papers, and conferences, is merited. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I promise to take them seriously and address them as directly as I know.

    I do want to offer an apology. I spent awhile tracking down the thread where I asked you if you’d read my “magnum opus”. You said you’d started and hoped to get back to it. I was wrong to characterize that as not being bothered to read it. I was disappointed at the time as it took a couple of hours to write that post and it was meant to provide insight that I thought would interest you. The mega threads that you cited were not in character for what ATiM was supposed to be and I largely avoided them.

    Reading through our exchange this weekend (which I’ve enjoyed), I would make a couple of suggestions. It’s OK to concede the occasional point. I was happy to concede that there is no general war on science. You devoted much space to refuting or deflecting my example of Ken Cuccinelli using his office to accuse Michael Mann of fraud. Why not simply say, yeah, he went over the line. That doesn’t mean there’s a general war on science. A little good will towards those with whom you disagree politically would go a long way.

    ∂ß

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on February 24, 2013 at 4:06 pm said:

      FB:

      If you have any suggestions, please let me know.

      The main thing I would be interested in is what Phil Jones could have meant when he wrote, referring to the science work of AGW skeptics, “[we] will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”, and how he might have been in a position to go about doing that successfully.

      I do want to offer an apology.

      Don’t think twice about it. Not a problem.

      Reading through our exchange this weekend (which I’ve enjoyed), I would make a couple of suggestions.

      I know your suggestion was offered in a spirit of goodwill, and I don’t want to sound churlish. So I’ll just say that I appreciate your agreement on the alleged war on science, but I think we have a different take on the Cuccinelli part of the discussion. I didn’t think whether Cuccinelli had gone too far was in dispute. I assumed that he had, and I thought the question we were addressing was how to stop it from happening.

      BTW..I’ve enjoyed it too.

      LikeLike

      Reply