Optimism for the USA
An optimist -- and I am still an optimist -- will argue that in spite of forgone opportunities, the USA could help create a more civilized and sustainable world. On the technical side, it would need to advance * education, * research, and * innovation, This effort should advance the education, research, and innovation needed to produce a sustainable world. In particular, the US government should spend $300 billion or so per year on solar thermal towers, solar voltaic cells, yeast able to survive a higher concentration of alcohol, enzymes to convert carbohydrates to hydrocarbons, and the like. We know that the US government can borrow (or raise thorugh taxes) and spend $300 billion per year since it has borrowed far more than that recently. On the social or political side, * it should retract from the `Jacksonian tradition' in American politics. Overtly, that tradition is committed to preserving American interests and honor. Covertly, in current practice, it implies torture, repression, and corruption. Instead, it should combine the other three traditions, * the Hamiltonian, which is concerned with American economic well-being; * the Jeffersonian, which focuses on protecting American democracy in a perilous world; * the Wilsonian, which strives to promulgate American values; and push for * more competition in US elections; less gerrymandering, fewer people who feel themselves forever excluded from making possibly valuable votes; * more honesty in government; both of which imply reciprocal accountability, since fairness and honesty tell us that the dishonest and incompetent will be excluded. At least one group should push for * a conservative admininstration that recognizes that it protects itself and its supporters by protecting the environment. (A progressive administration would do the same; but think of conservatives.) The analogy is that lions do not only fight other lions, they do not eat all their prey. Lions preserve their environment. Property law enables weak humans to enlist a government to fight other humans, to control their own private property. The essence of subsidiarity is that decisions be kept as close as possible to their enactments. Thus, an agriculture economy is more successful with government-protected private farms than with huge latifundia. In a economy with airplanes, potential bombers and highjackers are prevented by alert and aware airline passengers who are willing and able to defend themselves. Likewise, environmental law enables weak humans to save themselves and their property from dangers they cannot fight alone. No single human can prevent a drought, a heavy snow, or a harsh rain from hurting him or her, his or her land. No one can stop breathing certain kinds of poisoned air (the rich can save themselves from other kinds of poison by filtering their air). Conservatives must protect and preserve their environments. Otherwise, they are not conservative; they are short-sighted and irrational spendthrifts. Similarly, for the long run, a conservative or progressive government needs to provide the legal base for a economy based on the two legs of * von Neuman replicators that can manufacture material objects cheaply. (Inorganic replicators have been built, but none have invented and built replicators that can manufacture from raw materials; indeed, this work may take another generation and considerable funding, although some group might succeed tomorrow.) And a * sufficiently low population that material resources can be expanded without much trouble. With von Neuman replicators that manufacture, human governments no longer need many people for conventional war. The cost of that kind of military action drops. The ancient need for large numbers of people vanishes. You can survive with a small population. At least you can survive so long as most people preserve the society -- groups can, as usual, infiltrate and destroy it -- and so long as they make sure it is resilient against disruptive attacks. For both the short and the long run, a government needs to provide the monies for education, research, and innovation and laws that provide for reasonable accounting. We are hurt by unaccounted costs, which economists call `external costs' since they do not appear without law. Without a legal base to form the institutions, sensible practice lacks motivation. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
Robert J. Chassell wrote: An optimist -- and I am still an optimist -- will argue that in spite of forgone opportunities, the USA could help create a more civilized and sustainable world. Excellent post, Robert, you should have given it a Brin header. As for optimism, I'm afraid I've lost some of mine. Five years of W, the packing of the SC with legal ludites, the knowledge that a solid majority of the people in this country believe that the universe was created in six (literal) days, the fact that my government would not only condone torture but make it official policy; well, you know the refrain. Maybe we can still do all the things you suggest, but it will require a sea change in attitude from where we seem to be right now. -- Doug On Board maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On 4/23/06, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Robert J. Chassell wrote: > > > An optimist -- and I am still an optimist -- will argue that in spite > > of forgone opportunities, the USA could help create a more civilized > > and sustainable world. > > Excellent post, Robert, you should have given it a Brin header. > > As for optimism, I'm afraid I've lost some of mine. Five years of W, the > packing of the SC with legal ludites, the knowledge that a solid majority > of the people in this country believe that the universe was created in six > (literal) days, Eh? Cite, please! Or maybe not... I just searched a bit and found a few polls that put the numbers just over 50 percent. George Barna, who I think does some of the best research on this sort of thing, doesn't directly address it. From his stats, I would think the number is more like 30 percent. People believe all sorts of crazy things. Seventy-five percent of Americans think that the Bible teaches "God helps those who help themselves." It doesn't. For what it's worth, I think it is true, in some mysterious way, that the universe was created in six days. But I don't think that it really happened that way. I wonder if a poll that emphasized that word you put in parentheses -- "literal" -- would show numbers as high. Popular Christianity has become propositional and prescriptive, rather than relational and narrative. Some of us are doing our best to get it turned back around. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
Doug Pensinger wrote, > An optimist -- and I am still an optimist -- will argue that in > spite of forgone opportunities, the USA could help create a more > civilized and sustainable world. Excellent post, Robert ... Thanks! It grew out of the discussion between Dan Minette and Nick Arnett on various paradigms throughout history. (The initial thread was `Liberal Capitalist Fundamentalism' which became `three paradigm shifts?'.) ... Maybe we can still do all the things you suggest, but it will require a sea change in attitude from where we seem to be right now. That requirement is for sure. But I am hoping that will happen. My optimism depends on changes both on the technical side and on the social or political side. Hence, von Neuman replicators that manufacture, and government that protects and preserves our environment. As for the consequences of the discussion, I am busy with my first science fiction novel. It inspired more writing. (The book is a socioeconomic proposal disguised as an adventure and detective story. It is what I would have liked to have read when I was 13 or 14. Of course, there are problems, big problems. For one, few others have the same interests I do. So its potential audience will be small. I just don't know whether it will be too small. We shall see. And in any case, I am not a story teller. (When the time comes, I will seek critiques, but the book is not there yet.) Besides my immediate problem, which is running out of money -- I was not paid for some work I did earlier, I am wondering whether the fellow has the money (if any of you have renumerative projects I can do, please tell me) -- the discussion and your remarks inspired me to write a thousand words more. Here they are. Filgard is a farmer whom Djem (pronounced in English, `Gem') and Leestel are visiting. On a totally different matter, not on paradigms, are my remarks on cows accurate? As a young child I was a cowherd, but have forgot everything in the years since. ... Filgard stopped pushing and the rock stopped moving. He said, "Aristotle was right. When you stop pushing a rock, the rock stops." This was not what Djem thought when he stopped pushing, but he had to agree, Filgard was right. The farmer kept talking, "Newton came along ... and distinguished between inherent idleness and the retardation you get from rubbing -- he extended the notions as metaphors or maybe he used existing metaphors and made them famous. He called the two concepts inertia and friction. So rocks without friction, like this planet, kept moving; and rocks with friction, like this one here," he patted the rock, "stop." "Aristotle had confounded the two ideas." Filgard looked at Djem, "Aristotle probably had slaves to push the rocks. They would stop whenever they could. They would act dumb and pretend to worry too much. By acting stupid, they could hurt their kidnapper without endangering themselves. "Humph! Acting stupid enabled a slave to be more idle than he would be otherwise. I bet idleness is the part of it that Aristotle noticed. He thought that idleness was a natural state of being. But Newton pointed out that rocks on a planet suffer retardation because they rub against the soil." Filgard kept following his train of thought. "Newton came to distinguish inertia and friction. Newton's Laws are wrong; we know that. Still, his notions are good enough for much interplanetary work. Most of the time, you do not have to employ Einstein's ideas. And Aristotle's Laws, which I doubt anyone thinks of, work fine for pushing stones." Filgard stopped for a moment. "There is much more to it than that," he said. "Newton was articulating a paradigm shift. There were lots of little shifts, but I think he explicated the first big shift since the transition from the pre-agricultural era to pre-industrial agriculture." He stopped for a moment. "In our culture, I think Aristotle explicated the previous paradigm shift, or Plato and Aristotle did, the one idealistic and the other not. I am sure that other agricultural cultures had their own men articulate appropriate paradigms." "What were the characteristics of this paradigm?" Leestel asked. Filgard explained, "Newton put an emphasis on non-living things, like planets as dots in space. Because his equations could, in theory, be calculated exactly, the paradigm favored determinism." He looked at Djem as well as Leestel. "It had definite theological implications. It affected how people interpreted their numinous experiences. "Besides deterministic Calvinism, which preceded Newton by a very long time, his Laws articulated a change in his culture's relationship with its God: omnipotence got limited. The mathematical correlation wi
Re: Optimism for the USA
On 4/25/06, Robert J. Chassell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dan and Nick, may I mention your names in the Thank You section? At > the moment that section consists only of: Certainly... as long as you sign this three-page document certifying that your book is, er, I mean is not, subversive. And of course I'm kidding... you're welcome to thank me all you wish. Thank you. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
In a message dated 4/25/2006 9:49:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > For what it's worth, I think it is true, in some mysterious way, that the > universe was created in six days. But I don't think that it really happened > that way what the hell does this mean? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On 4/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 9:49:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > For what it's worth, I think it is true, in some mysterious way, that > the > > universe was created in six days. But I don't think that it really > happened > > that way > > what the hell does this mean? I think it is true in the way that Shakespeare's plays are full of truth, even though the events they portray didn't really happen. Maybe the idea that everything was created in six days is just a way of saying that we should have a day of rest and gratitude every seven days. Maybe there's more to it than that. Creation myths have all sorts of truth in them, don't you think? I'm content to let it remain a mystery. Like many other things, I don't think that whether or not it is literal truth would make any difference in the way I live my life. I often wonder what it is that literalists do differently because they take a version of the creation story literally (I say a version because the Bible has more than one). What difference does it make, really? What does make a difference is that idea, which I embrace, that creation is an ongoing act of God, here, now, in this moment and those to come. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
Robert J. Chassell wrote: Filgard is a farmer whom Djem (pronounced in English, `Gem') and Leestel are visiting. On a totally different matter, not on paradigms, are my remarks on cows accurate? As a young child I was a cowherd, but have forgot everything in the years since. There's a lot about dairy farming here: http://www.katfeete.net/nucleus/ especially earlier in the archives. I never want to get involved in dairy farming, now that I've read it all. :P He started them walking. "Time to go back to the farm house," said Filgard. They took a different route, this time past cows fenced in a large field. ... Several cows recognized the farmer and came up to him. He patted their noses; so did Leestel, and with a bit of trepidation, Djem. Filgard then give each a carrot he took out of a pocket. "They are like horses, but more stupid," he said. The intelligence of a cow depends greatly on what breed it is. (Gleaned from the above-cited blog.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
Nick Arnett wrote: > > Maybe the idea that everything was created in six days (...) > Would you invest your money in oil companies whose science and geology team was made of Creationists? :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On 4/25/06, Robert J. Chassell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [I don't say it in the draft, but I have heard that for the past 600 > or so years, various Muslim theologians have said that their God is > omnipotent and unrestrained. Does anyone know whether this is true?] > Robert J. Chassell Hard to say. I'm not really sure what you are trying to get across? The supreme deity as omnipotent? That's been around for a lot longer than 600 years, and Islamic theology is no slouch in picking up neat innovations like omniscience or omnipotence. Unrestrained does sound a little more iffy; it reminds me of the Greek Neoplatonists who inspired later Muslim philosophers and theologians. For example, the Brethren of Sincerity (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brethren_of_Sincerity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Sincerity - full disclosure: I wrote those articles) took a position that the Creator was unbounded in ability and attributes, and that to even describe him in remotely earthly (or comprehensible for that metter) terms was to commit a falsity. ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On 4/26/06, Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Would you invest your money in oil companies whose science > and geology team was made of Creationists? :-P I don't think I'd knowingly invest in anything run by Creationists if those ideas had anything to do with what they were doing. I don't buy literal creationism. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
In a message dated 4/25/2006 8:11:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I'm content to let it remain a mystery. Like many other things, I don't > think that whether or not it is literal truth would make any difference in > the way I live my life. I often wonder what it is that literalists do > differently because they take a version of the creation story literally (I > say a version because the Bible has more than one). What difference does it > make, really? > > What does make a difference is that idea, which I embrace, that creation is > an ongoing act of God, here, now, in this moment and those to come. > > ok - but of course it cannot be the literal truth. Do you see god as an active agent or something like Spinoza's god, that is the world is a manifestation of god - all things are - but god is nature and does act as an "individual" outside of nature ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
> inspired later Muslim philosophers and theologians. For example, the
> Brethren of Sincerity
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brethren_of_Sincerity
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Sincerity
> - full disclosure: I wrote those articles) took a position that the
> Creator was unbounded in ability and attributes, and that to even
> describe him in remotely earthly (or comprehensible for that metter)
> terms was to commit a falsity.
Heck. At least visually God resembles a human, as the Bible tell us so.
Darwinists however might conculde that this means very little, because
during the creation of the universe, apparently no complex structures
existed - so the similarities with God won't neccessarily extend past the
basic structure/interaction of elementary particles and energy.
This discussion can of course be circumvented by adopting one of the most
popular religious viewpoint ("kill all non-belivers").
- Klaus
_
This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.orgg
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On 27/04/2006, at 1:13 PM, Klaus Stock wrote:
inspired later Muslim philosophers and theologians. For example, the
Brethren of Sincerity
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brethren_of_Sincerity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Sincerity
- full disclosure: I wrote those articles) took a position that the
Creator was unbounded in ability and attributes, and that to even
describe him in remotely earthly (or comprehensible for that metter)
terms was to commit a falsity.
Heck. At least visually God resembles a human, as the Bible tell us
so.
Crosspost from Culture:
One POV I did hear suggested by a fellow member of the Imperial
College Christian Union, and that apparently is held by several
Christian Biologists, was that "in god's image" does not relate to
our physical appearance, just our mental and moral capacity - so
evolution itself can be unguided, the act of creation of humans was
the initiation of awareness allegorised in the Garden of Eden story.
Darwinists however might conculde that this means very little, because
during the creation of the universe, apparently no complex structures
existed - so the similarities with God won't neccessarily extend
past the
basic structure/interaction of elementary particles and energy.
"Darwinists"? Ugh. I hate that. Especially as the rest of the
paragraph talks about "the creation of the universe," which is
nothing at all to do with evolutionary theory.
This discussion can of course be circumvented by adopting one of
the most
popular religious viewpoint ("kill all non-belivers").
:)
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On 4/27/06, Klaus Stock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > inspired later Muslim philosophers and theologians. For example, the
> > Brethren of Sincerity
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brethren_of_Sincerity
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Sincerity
> > - full disclosure: I wrote those articles) took a position that the
> > Creator was unbounded in ability and attributes, and that to even
> > describe him in remotely earthly (or comprehensible for that metter)
> > terms was to commit a falsity.
>
> Heck. At least visually God resembles a human, as the Bible tell us so.
>
> Darwinists however might conculde that this means very little, because
> during the creation of the universe, apparently no complex structures
> existed - so the similarities with God won't neccessarily extend past the
> basic structure/interaction of elementary particles and energy.
>
> This discussion can of course be circumvented by adopting one of the most
> popular religious viewpoint ("kill all non-belivers").
>
> - Klaus
Yes, that is true. But it is easy to work around such an objection: of
course God could take on a human form, or that's how we perceive him.
Similarly, the Brethren were not Hanbali theologians; they and quite a
few of the other schools accepted multiple non-literal exoteric and
esoteric readings of the scriptures, and indeed, even allegory.
~maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
... I'm not really sure what you are trying to get across? The supreme deity as omnipotent? That's been around for a lot longer than 600 years ... Yes, you are right, the notion of omnipotence has been around a very long time. My question is whether it is compatible with generic Western thinking over the past 500 - 600 years? Human laws are restraints on what we humans may do. By the same thinking, natural laws are restraints on what God may do. However, an unrestrained god is not subject to any kind of law. But omnipotence means one can do anything: no restraints. Newtonian (as well as post-Newtonian) science means the discovery of natural laws. A supreme deity that is unrestrained must be able to produce miracles (although it need not do so often in human terms). My sense is that a culture that focuses on the `unrestrained' aspect of its supreme being is less likely to support notions that imply godly (as well as human political) restraint than an opposing culture. Is that really true? And if it is true, over the past 600 or so years, have various Muslim rather than Christian theologians more often said that their God is omnipotent and unrestrained? (Actually, the question has to do more with statements from the theologians of the the various denominations; obviously, the denominations are different from one another.) -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On 4/26/06, Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Would you invest your money in oil companies whose science and geology team was made of Creationists? :-P Maybe, if their belief that fossils and fossil fuels are tricks of the devil to deceive us into believing (what science tells us is) the truth about the history of the world did not cloud their ability to find and extract such fossil fuels... Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On Apr 27, 2006, at 3:13 AM, Klaus Stock wrote:
inspired later Muslim philosophers and theologians. For example, the
Brethren of Sincerity
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brethren_of_Sincerity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Sincerity
- full disclosure: I wrote those articles) took a position that the
Creator was unbounded in ability and attributes, and that to even
describe him in remotely earthly (or comprehensible for that metter)
terms was to commit a falsity.
Heck. At least visually God resembles a human, as the Bible tell us
so.
It all depends on what you think the Bible means when it says that man
was created in God's "image". Perhaps it means that we are spiritual
beings with the ability to create and make choices. This is one point
where some Christians would write me off as a raving liberal.
Darwinists however might conculde that this means very little, because
during the creation of the universe, apparently no complex structures
existed - so the similarities with God won't neccessarily extend
past the
basic structure/interaction of elementary particles and energy.
This discussion can of course be circumvented by adopting one of
the most
popular religious viewpoint ("kill all non-belivers").
By what objective measure is this one of the most popular religious
viewpoints? How many religious people have there been in the history
of the world? How many of them advocated or acted out this meme?
Without those numbers, you're just spewing bile, and I don't need your
bile all over my nice clean floors. :-)
The "kill all people-not-like-me" meme is present in persons religious,
but it is not peculiar to them.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On 4/27/06, Robert J. Chassell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... I'm not really sure what you are trying to get across? The > supreme deity as omnipotent? That's been around for a lot longer > than 600 years ... > > Yes, you are right, the notion of omnipotence has been around a very > long time. My question is whether it is compatible with generic > Western thinking over the past 500 - 600 years? I'm not so sure it has been around as long as many think. For example, there's nothing in the Bible that clearly says that God is omnipotent. Aquinas had a bit to say about this. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/102503.htm And a bit of an overview of various religions' views about omnipotence: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/175/story_17566_1.html I'm no fan of the "God is in control of everything" way of thinking. When a child dies, "God must have needed another angel" is a fairly horrible idea. "It was his time to go" is a phrase I would never use regarding Wes' death in Iraq. No, I don't think it was time for him to go. Somebody else decided to kill him. I think the story of Jesus makes it clear that the God of the Bible is grieved by this sort of thing. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On 28/04/2006, at 12:39 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm no fan of the "God is in control of everything" way of thinking. When a child dies, "God must have needed another angel" is a fairly horrible idea. On that we agree. "It was his time to go" is a phrase I would never use regarding Wes' death in Iraq. No, I don't think it was time for him to go. Somebody else decided to kill him. I don't know the exact circumstances, but he was in a place where the probability of death or serious injury was far far higher than for most of us, and the odds went the wrong way, tragically for him and those who knew him. I think the story of Jesus makes it clear that the God of the Bible is grieved by this sort of thing. ...and I can't conceive of a merciful all-powerful god who could allow this. Sorry, but the story of Jesus just makes it clear that a man who wanted humanity to be better was killed for saying so and annoying the elite of the day. It says nothing about "God grieving". The God of the Bible slaughtered the innocent children of those who oppressed his chosen people. Not the people doing the oppressing, but their firstborn. If the bible is true, that's not a merciful god. (I suspect, if the Israelites were ever enslaved by the Egyptians at all, that this might refer to a nasty guerrilla action, but it's probably far too long ago to have much reality left in the story). Anyway, i think it's pretty clear that this world is too random to be being controlled by God. We're on our own in this life. If you choose to believe in the next life and believe that your faith is a route to it, fair enough. But there's precious little order in this one. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On Apr 27, 2006, at 2:39 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 4/27/06, Robert J. Chassell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... I'm not really sure what you are trying to get across? The supreme deity as omnipotent? That's been around for a lot longer than 600 years ... Yes, you are right, the notion of omnipotence has been around a very long time. My question is whether it is compatible with generic Western thinking over the past 500 - 600 years? I'm not so sure it has been around as long as many think. For example, there's nothing in the Bible that clearly says that God is omnipotent. Aquinas had a bit to say about this. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/102503.htm And a bit of an overview of various religions' views about omnipotence: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/175/story_17566_1.html I'm no fan of the "God is in control of everything" way of thinking. When a child dies, "God must have needed another angel" is a fairly horrible idea. Amen, brother. If God needs another angel, She can bloody well create one and keep her god-done hands off mine. It's not only a horrible thing to say to a grieving parent, it's really lousy theology. I know of no belief that deceased humans become angels, other than some sort of Hallmarkian pap. "It was his time to go" is a phrase I would never use regarding Wes' death in Iraq. No, I don't think it was time for him to go. Somebody else decided to kill him. I think the story of Jesus makes it clear that the God of the Bible is grieved by this sort of thing. Anne Graham, daughter of Rev. Billy, being interviewed regarding Katrina, was asked "How could God let something like this Happen?" Her reply started well enough (for maybe a dozen words), then went right off the rails: "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?" I'm with her right up to "just as we are", but I have trouble with the bit that comes afterward: that God chose not to act to prevent the Katrina disaster because of America's secularism. Dave Sheesh, Some Peoples' Kids! Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On 4/27/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ... It says nothing about "God grieving". "Jesus wept." That's God grieving, in my book. > > Anyway, i think it's pretty clear that this world is too random to be > being controlled by God. We're on our own in this life. If you choose > to believe in the next life and believe that your faith is a route to > it, fair enough. But there's precious little order in this one. The older I get, the more I grasp Job and Ecclesiastes, which portray life as absurd, but here to be enjoyed. I don't think I ever expect that my faith would head in this direction... but now I look back and see how miserable I can make myself when I demand to understand everything. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
Dave Land wrote: > > Heck. At least visually God resembles a human, as the Bible > > tell us so. > It all depends on what you think the Bible means when it says > that man was created in God's "image". Perhaps it means that > we are spiritual beings with the ability to create and make > choices. This is one point where some Christians would write > me off as a raving liberal. They may think so, but isn't it silly (and at least a little blasphemous) to claim that the Creator of the entire universe just happens to look like a semi-hairless upright ape, complete with a half-assed spinal column design, and other wacky internal engineering? I can see God deciding to look human when it suits some purpose, but actually looking human all the time? __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
-Original Message- From: Robert J. Chassell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:09:31 + (UTC) Subject: Re: Optimism for the USA ... I'm not really sure what you are trying to get across? The supreme deity as omnipotent? That's been around for a lot longer than 600 years ... Yes, you are right, the notion of omnipotence has been around a very long time. My question is whether it is compatible with generic Western thinking over the past 500 - 600 years? Human laws are restraints on what we humans may do. By the same thinking, natural laws are restraints on what God may do. However, an unrestrained god is not subject to any kind of law. But omnipotence means one can do anything: no restraints. Newtonian (as well as post-Newtonian) science means the discovery of natural laws. A supreme deity that is unrestrained must be able to produce miracles (although it need not do so often in human terms). The question of whether god is free to act in any way is an interesting one and it became critical to Spinoza when he formulated his philosophy. He said that if god is all powerful he can only be himself (or its self). Therefore god cannot act or be any way other than to be him(it) self. If god were to choose between actions then there would have to be something outside of god which would mean that god was not be the ultimate entity. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
On 28/04/2006, at 2:06 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 4/27/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... It says nothing about "God grieving". "Jesus wept." That's God grieving, in my book. A man crying over the news of another man's death is not surprising (or, indeed, because he'd been telling them over and over that Lazarus would be fine, and when he gets there he finds they've buried the poor sap - I'd be weeping too). You have accepted that the subsequent claims that Jesus "is God Incarnate" are true, but it just doesn't make any sense to me, I'm afraid. (And to remind you, as it's been a while, I was raised CofE, went to Christian schools, did Christian summer camps and was a part of the Christian Unions at both school and university, and was a believer, this isn't a snipe from someone who was raised atheist.) Anyway, i think it's pretty clear that this world is too random to be being controlled by God. We're on our own in this life. If you choose to believe in the next life and believe that your faith is a route to it, fair enough. But there's precious little order in this one. The older I get, the more I grasp Job and Ecclesiastes, which portray life as absurd, but here to be enjoyed. Yep. That's much more what I've been getting at in the paragraph to which you replied. But I found I didn't need a belief in God to find life absurd! Male genitalia, or kangaroos are proof enough... ;) I don't think I ever expect that my faith would head in this direction... but now I look back and see how miserable I can make myself when I demand to understand everything. Or how angry at God you'd be when the answers make no sense? As for me, I'm enjoying my life a lot more since I stopped trying to fit my understanding of the world to one of the many old books that claimed to have the answers to life, and accepted that there actually aren't any answers to some of the questions - in fact, the questions themselves are meaningless. Like "Why did so many people have to die on 26th December 2004?," or "Why a young family I know died on a plane trip to Athens?" There is no why beyond the first level physical reasons. The universe has no motive, as far as I can see. I actually find that a lot *more* comforting. A large part of my recent expedition was in a sense a spiritual journey - to see what I could find. Kind of a walkabout (but on my trike, hence the TrikeAbout name!). I found a lot of desert and some really ancient landscape, and a lot of people with a lot of beliefs and stories and opinions. But what I really found was that the only true strength comes from within. The world really doesn't care, we have to just find a path and follow it. But as always, YMMV. I'm happy to chat our relative beliefs (as long as no one gets upset we believe different things!). Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
