1=28102&vv=600">http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx/?news=323992>1=28102&vv=600
I love how Kid Rock's real name is Robert Richie. I'm going to refer to him as Bob from now on.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Science people are dumb
In the past I've always thought well of scientists, but not so anymore. At Caltech I've begun to believe that scientists are not so smart. Having not been exposed to any form of scientific environment and then thrust into science of the n-th degree hasn't helped.
1. Scientists are bad managers and make bad bosses. They think everyone is as individualistic as them and just don't think of increasing productivity. This is fine if you have experienced scientists working under you who are exactly like you, but bad for newbies who have no idea what's going on. They aren't open about managing styles either, they just think about their job and what they are working on. This is weird since I would label the primary job of a research professor as manager - they have a fleet of students under them who they're responsible for. I don't understand how the current system propagates.
2. Scientists are bad teachers. They are so focused on the job and what they are doing that they don't think of others. As in, when I am under a grad student supposed to be learning what they are doing I have to continually ask "What are you doing now?" just so I can be included. They never volunteer information.
3. Scientists are narrow-minded. Perhaps this is the root of the problem - too detail oriented that they just shouldn't get involved socially. Ever. Don't expect a scientist to know anything about politics, business, religion, or anything but science. And if they do, they suck at communicating anyway so you shouldn't interact with them. Leaving them alone is the only option, which is good because that's what they want anyway.
1. Scientists are bad managers and make bad bosses. They think everyone is as individualistic as them and just don't think of increasing productivity. This is fine if you have experienced scientists working under you who are exactly like you, but bad for newbies who have no idea what's going on. They aren't open about managing styles either, they just think about their job and what they are working on. This is weird since I would label the primary job of a research professor as manager - they have a fleet of students under them who they're responsible for. I don't understand how the current system propagates.
2. Scientists are bad teachers. They are so focused on the job and what they are doing that they don't think of others. As in, when I am under a grad student supposed to be learning what they are doing I have to continually ask "What are you doing now?" just so I can be included. They never volunteer information.
3. Scientists are narrow-minded. Perhaps this is the root of the problem - too detail oriented that they just shouldn't get involved socially. Ever. Don't expect a scientist to know anything about politics, business, religion, or anything but science. And if they do, they suck at communicating anyway so you shouldn't interact with them. Leaving them alone is the only option, which is good because that's what they want anyway.
Politics
I feel like writing now, so I'll write on politics. Plus I sent in my fee for the Pasadena Republicans Club so it seems appropriate.
Health Care
It seems weird to me that suddenly our society see health care as a right, not a privilege. It hasn't been seen as such until recently - apparently when it becomes really good it becomes a right. I don't see it as such but rather a privilege, so as a taxpayer it's not my responsibility to pay for my i.e. brother's health care but his. I am a capitalist so I think if he wants health care, he should arrange such. This requires that the disadvantaged won't have health care, but I don't want to sacrifice the good of the many for the good of the few.
I don't even buy universal child health care; I see this as the parent's responsibility. Parents are responsible for their child's education, shelter, health, spiritual well-being, etc. Likewise, the idea that as a taxpayer I'm responsible for my nieces/nephew's health care seems weird to me. Again, as part of a society this means some children will be disadvantaged.
Of course, universal health care would be great if cheap and easy, but I think the price is too high. There's no country where I look and say "I'd like to have their system." On the trade-off between cost and access, I'd keep the ("evil") health care companies in business.
Capital Punishment
I'm ok with it. The idea that someone has done something so heinous that as a society we remove their right to live seems fine. People often rhetorically ask, "What would Jesus do?" in hopes of making those like me feel guilty (i.e. turn the other cheek). I would say that Jesus didn't guide us in how to respond as a society but rather as an individual and a church - it was always personal with Him. So Jesus would tell us to use our cranium and figure it out.
The objection that we don't want to kill an innocent person is legit, but we take great strides in our judicial system to not let that happen. I think the judicial system takes enough precautions for me to be at ease.
Government
I chose to stress personal responsibility rather than government intrusion. Rather than purely wealth redistribution to bring up the poor, I'd say do this little and encourage personal responsibility. There will always be poor, and as a society we should recognize that we can't raise all the poor out of poverty. I'm amazed how the lib answer is so often to throw money at a problem without having any specific plan - it's often "we need to fund this more so it will work better" without having any good ideas. Money is supposed to spurn good ideas (i.e. health care, minority rights, helping the poor, science - global warming, education, etc). I'd rather the ideas came first.
I look forward to other people's comments - politics is an area where I try to revise my ideas frequently.
Health Care
It seems weird to me that suddenly our society see health care as a right, not a privilege. It hasn't been seen as such until recently - apparently when it becomes really good it becomes a right. I don't see it as such but rather a privilege, so as a taxpayer it's not my responsibility to pay for my i.e. brother's health care but his. I am a capitalist so I think if he wants health care, he should arrange such. This requires that the disadvantaged won't have health care, but I don't want to sacrifice the good of the many for the good of the few.
I don't even buy universal child health care; I see this as the parent's responsibility. Parents are responsible for their child's education, shelter, health, spiritual well-being, etc. Likewise, the idea that as a taxpayer I'm responsible for my nieces/nephew's health care seems weird to me. Again, as part of a society this means some children will be disadvantaged.
Of course, universal health care would be great if cheap and easy, but I think the price is too high. There's no country where I look and say "I'd like to have their system." On the trade-off between cost and access, I'd keep the ("evil") health care companies in business.
Capital Punishment
I'm ok with it. The idea that someone has done something so heinous that as a society we remove their right to live seems fine. People often rhetorically ask, "What would Jesus do?" in hopes of making those like me feel guilty (i.e. turn the other cheek). I would say that Jesus didn't guide us in how to respond as a society but rather as an individual and a church - it was always personal with Him. So Jesus would tell us to use our cranium and figure it out.
The objection that we don't want to kill an innocent person is legit, but we take great strides in our judicial system to not let that happen. I think the judicial system takes enough precautions for me to be at ease.
Government
I chose to stress personal responsibility rather than government intrusion. Rather than purely wealth redistribution to bring up the poor, I'd say do this little and encourage personal responsibility. There will always be poor, and as a society we should recognize that we can't raise all the poor out of poverty. I'm amazed how the lib answer is so often to throw money at a problem without having any specific plan - it's often "we need to fund this more so it will work better" without having any good ideas. Money is supposed to spurn good ideas (i.e. health care, minority rights, helping the poor, science - global warming, education, etc). I'd rather the ideas came first.
I look forward to other people's comments - politics is an area where I try to revise my ideas frequently.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Moral Relativist
I was in Oooklahoma with a true moral relativist. It's weird to meet one. This gal was an atheist who thought religion was an inherent unknowable and faith mean blind faith, etc. She based her morality primarily on what was best for sociey from the outcomes of moral choices, so morality for her meant what was best for society. She thinks this is how morality developed (through evolution) and so our morality changes based on society's good. This means that murder is wrong in the same sense that having a bad immigration policy or electing the wrong politician is wrong.
I don't really find anything wrong with this idea. If one is an atheist it seems the required position. Of course, morality doesn't mean much since people can differ on what "society's good" means and how to achieve it. And people don't use the term morality as such but actually refer to something as wrong, not bad for society, but other than semantics it seems ok.
If I was an atheist I would forget society's good and care only about my own. I would care about society's good only insofar as it served me. The idea that unselfishness drives my morality wouldn't make sense to me - why would I care about another's good above my own?
I had a hard time finding what was wrong with her morality. The only thing I could think of was coming up with inconsistencies, as in killing babies/old people could be morally right for population control or assassinating a politician could be right to get the right person in charge. However, these outlandish examples didn't convince her as they aren't practical.
Also, homosexuality came up and I can't think of an atheistic argument against it. More disease, promiscuity, broken homes/relationships with homosexual unions? But it's hard to differentiate these from heterosexual ones. And pointing to how good heterosexual unions are compared to homos doesn't work either. Anyone know any atheistic arguments against homos?
Lastly, since she thinks that morality developed through evolution and is learned and not innate, the idea that a common morality points to a God doesn't work. The only other arguments for God that I can think of are the Uncaused Cause and the fine tuning of the universe. Anyone know of any other arguments? Seems like I should know these since I'm surrounded by liberal heathens...
I don't really find anything wrong with this idea. If one is an atheist it seems the required position. Of course, morality doesn't mean much since people can differ on what "society's good" means and how to achieve it. And people don't use the term morality as such but actually refer to something as wrong, not bad for society, but other than semantics it seems ok.
If I was an atheist I would forget society's good and care only about my own. I would care about society's good only insofar as it served me. The idea that unselfishness drives my morality wouldn't make sense to me - why would I care about another's good above my own?
I had a hard time finding what was wrong with her morality. The only thing I could think of was coming up with inconsistencies, as in killing babies/old people could be morally right for population control or assassinating a politician could be right to get the right person in charge. However, these outlandish examples didn't convince her as they aren't practical.
Also, homosexuality came up and I can't think of an atheistic argument against it. More disease, promiscuity, broken homes/relationships with homosexual unions? But it's hard to differentiate these from heterosexual ones. And pointing to how good heterosexual unions are compared to homos doesn't work either. Anyone know any atheistic arguments against homos?
Lastly, since she thinks that morality developed through evolution and is learned and not innate, the idea that a common morality points to a God doesn't work. The only other arguments for God that I can think of are the Uncaused Cause and the fine tuning of the universe. Anyone know of any other arguments? Seems like I should know these since I'm surrounded by liberal heathens...
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The God Who Wasn't There
I watched this 1 hour documentary today that I ordered and loved it. It was by Brian Flemming and attacked Christian fundamentalism really harshly - largely through attacking the early church and who Jesus was. It's not a movie every Christian could stand watching and I was thinking throughout the movie that perhaps part of my "calling" is to non-Christian intellectuals. Right now I'm very interested in how atheists think and their reasons for rejecting Christianity. I don't get mad at such movies (except from the occasional really stupid idea) but am purely interested - perhaps that's how one determines where God can best use you.
Maybe I could be useful here because I actively seek truth no matter where it is found - whether atheism or Christianity. I am genuinely curious of their arguments because they could be valid. I try to never hold on to a belief so tightly that no evidence or argument could cause me to give it up. I often wonder what the world would be like if everyone had this philosophy. Mormonism would die out fast.
I'll post thoughts on the main ideas of the movie when I think about it more and can watch it again.
UN
Maybe I could be useful here because I actively seek truth no matter where it is found - whether atheism or Christianity. I am genuinely curious of their arguments because they could be valid. I try to never hold on to a belief so tightly that no evidence or argument could cause me to give it up. I often wonder what the world would be like if everyone had this philosophy. Mormonism would die out fast.
I'll post thoughts on the main ideas of the movie when I think about it more and can watch it again.
UN
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Bill Dembski
In Dembski and Richards' book Unapologetic Apologetics, Bill Dembski writes a few chapters on science/creation and I'd like to comment. First, I think that as a Christian who does not read the creation account as historical narrative, I am one of the few who can look at the issue of creation with an open mind. I view it as a question of the mechanism for design and thus have no vested interest in either side.
He says "without question, no aspect of theology escaped the need for reevaluation in the light of Darwinism." I think he overestimates the impact of Darwinism. How does it question the resurrection or eschatology?
His two main points are 1) "God is not an absentee landlord" and 2) intelligent design is a theory of information which can be tested.
1) "Christians are not deists" so proposing a theory where "God is a master of stealth" like theistic evolution does not jive with Christianity. "If God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God's purpose was to make it seem as though life was created without purpose." Theistic evolution is a cheap compromise for those who believe "the natural world in itself provides no evidence that life is designed."
First, invoking the character of God and saying "God is not like that so He wouldn't do it that way" is a close-minded and arrogant pseudo-argument. I don't think Darwinism requires a deistic God, just deistic in the limited sense of letting life evolve. I think this is reductio ad absurdum (heard that on "The Big Bang Theory"). A engineer type God who enjoys seeing animals evolve can still be personally involved in our lives. God can create a world, let animals evolve, and still perform miracles and direct human lives. Theistic evolution does not mean God can't/doesn't intervene but for the most part let's the earth evolve on its own. This is how I see God working the most in the world today - the coincidences that just seem "natural" or "random."
Second, why can't I see design and be a Darwinist? The fallacy comes in when Darwinism is extracted beyond its purpose and includes atheism. Why can't Darwinism simply be a mechanism of creation? The arguments from Darwin's book are 1) species are not immutable, 2) evolution can account for all the diversity of life, and 3) this process was guided by natural selection. (Phil Johnson, Darwin on Trial) Darwin's theory does not invoke atheism.
2) We know enough today to not make the God of the Gaps fallacy. Using math we can determine whether something has "complexity" ("ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance") and "specification" ("ensures that this object exhibits the type of pattern that is the trademark of intelligence."). Thus, we can reduce or eliminate the personal decision about whether something is designed.
I love the idea, but I'm skeptical that we have this ability when it comes to evolution. I think it will always come down to "the argument from personal incredulity" as Hugh Montefiore calls it (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker). Dawkins hates this idea because we have no intuition of the amount of time evolution requires (we think in terms of centuries/millenia) or how complex things (like the human eye) evolve in living things. If statistics can help with the design question, we better be sure what evolution is capable of (circular argument?).
Overall, I think Christians should not have the knee-jerk reaction to Darwinism that's so popular. Two reasons I think are legit for rejecting Darwinism are irreducible complexity and animal death. Irreducible complexity says that there are mechanisms/machines in organisms that require all the parts to operate (i.e. a mousetrap) - take away one part and the thing breaks. This is opposite of cumulative complexity (i.e. a city) where one can take away a part and the thing still functions. (The Darwinist response to irreducible complexity is to deny it or to say that the parts were used for a different purpose but came together for the current purpose.) Second, animal death is an integral part to evolution so if one thinks that God hates animal death (perhaps it entered as part of the Fall) then one can reject Darwinism. However, God's view on animal death is not especially clear and should not be assumed flippantly. As a side note, I find the irreducible complexity argument convincing (not the animal death argument) sometimes so I would classify myself as a theistic evolutionist a few days a week and a progressive creationist a few days a week.
He says "without question, no aspect of theology escaped the need for reevaluation in the light of Darwinism." I think he overestimates the impact of Darwinism. How does it question the resurrection or eschatology?
His two main points are 1) "God is not an absentee landlord" and 2) intelligent design is a theory of information which can be tested.
1) "Christians are not deists" so proposing a theory where "God is a master of stealth" like theistic evolution does not jive with Christianity. "If God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God's purpose was to make it seem as though life was created without purpose." Theistic evolution is a cheap compromise for those who believe "the natural world in itself provides no evidence that life is designed."
First, invoking the character of God and saying "God is not like that so He wouldn't do it that way" is a close-minded and arrogant pseudo-argument. I don't think Darwinism requires a deistic God, just deistic in the limited sense of letting life evolve. I think this is reductio ad absurdum (heard that on "The Big Bang Theory"). A engineer type God who enjoys seeing animals evolve can still be personally involved in our lives. God can create a world, let animals evolve, and still perform miracles and direct human lives. Theistic evolution does not mean God can't/doesn't intervene but for the most part let's the earth evolve on its own. This is how I see God working the most in the world today - the coincidences that just seem "natural" or "random."
Second, why can't I see design and be a Darwinist? The fallacy comes in when Darwinism is extracted beyond its purpose and includes atheism. Why can't Darwinism simply be a mechanism of creation? The arguments from Darwin's book are 1) species are not immutable, 2) evolution can account for all the diversity of life, and 3) this process was guided by natural selection. (Phil Johnson, Darwin on Trial) Darwin's theory does not invoke atheism.
2) We know enough today to not make the God of the Gaps fallacy. Using math we can determine whether something has "complexity" ("ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance") and "specification" ("ensures that this object exhibits the type of pattern that is the trademark of intelligence."). Thus, we can reduce or eliminate the personal decision about whether something is designed.
I love the idea, but I'm skeptical that we have this ability when it comes to evolution. I think it will always come down to "the argument from personal incredulity" as Hugh Montefiore calls it (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker). Dawkins hates this idea because we have no intuition of the amount of time evolution requires (we think in terms of centuries/millenia) or how complex things (like the human eye) evolve in living things. If statistics can help with the design question, we better be sure what evolution is capable of (circular argument?).
Overall, I think Christians should not have the knee-jerk reaction to Darwinism that's so popular. Two reasons I think are legit for rejecting Darwinism are irreducible complexity and animal death. Irreducible complexity says that there are mechanisms/machines in organisms that require all the parts to operate (i.e. a mousetrap) - take away one part and the thing breaks. This is opposite of cumulative complexity (i.e. a city) where one can take away a part and the thing still functions. (The Darwinist response to irreducible complexity is to deny it or to say that the parts were used for a different purpose but came together for the current purpose.) Second, animal death is an integral part to evolution so if one thinks that God hates animal death (perhaps it entered as part of the Fall) then one can reject Darwinism. However, God's view on animal death is not especially clear and should not be assumed flippantly. As a side note, I find the irreducible complexity argument convincing (not the animal death argument) sometimes so I would classify myself as a theistic evolutionist a few days a week and a progressive creationist a few days a week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)