Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 03:31 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, jon louis mann wrote: i haven't seen him in years but hear that he has mellowed and no longer drinks excessively. jon Last time I saw him in person was in 2005. The latter condition has indeed made a noticeable difference since the first time I met him. (I think that is a simple statement of fact which can be verified independently by other witnesses not "gossip.") And this seems to be the case in general with people who drink in their youth and drink a lot less as they grow older. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
At 06:00 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: >On 06/12/2007, at 3:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > > > I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible > > about the > > two. > >Except insofar as Christianity makes claims about how the world is. >IIRC, you're a Lutheran, and the American Lutheran church is fairly >progressive. But saying there's *nothing* incompatible about the two >would seem to be a stretch - even if you subscribe to the viewpoint of >"non-overlapping magisteria" there are bound to be cases where you >simply have to make a value judgement between what your religion tells >you and how the world appears to actually be, no? > > > My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and > > engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that > > their > > beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't. > >Because they genuinely don't collide at all, or because of >compartmentalisation? The usual answer in practice to that question: If » I « do it, it's because they genuinely don't collide. If » you « do it, it's because of "compartmentalization" (aided perhaps by "rationalization" and/or "self-delusion"). ;) -- Ronn! :) "People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them." -- Dave Barry ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
At 03:31 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, jon louis mann wrote: >i haven't seen him in years but hear that he has >mellowed and no longer drinks excessively. > jon Last time I saw him in person was in 2005. The latter condition has indeed made a noticeable difference since the first time I met him. (I think that is a simple statement of fact which can be verified independently by other witnesses not "gossip.") -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
dogmatism v. pragmatism
nick, i remember when i went to my first science fiction convention and i realized how diverse fandom was. i assumed we were all free thinkers and learned there were cultists and gays and even christians among us. some of the fans didn't even read and were into media and role playing, etc. what a shock!¬) i should not be surprised that there are CEOs in silicon valley who recognizes the need to balance faith, family, and work. the fact that you find it challenging to hang on to your faith while witnessing the worst life has to offer makes you more human, but i wonder why you feel losing your faith is the easy way out? i am not trying to convert you, but i agree with charlie that is would be more courageous to seriously consider the possibility that you have been following the wrong path and find meaning without faith. there is no reason to give up your morality and purpose just because you decide not to follow a structured set of beliefs. i was an altar boy, but was never caught up in the dogma. i couldn't help having doubts about what the priests and nuns were teaching me. it left me free to make my own decisions based on all the information available, rather than trying to adhere to the out of date catholic indocrination. i am actually free of any need to find a way to make any religious beliefs conform to scientific theories that would have had me burnt at the stake during the inquisation. that is no longer a danger and we need to get on with advancing stem cell research, and other scientific advances that religion is attempting to prevent. jon jon - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On 06/12/2007, at 11:17 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > There has been at least one time when I made a commitment to a > church-related activity and our CEO called and wanted to talk > business, > urgently, and I told him that on that particular day -- a Saturday > -- my > priority was the church. Ironically, what I was supposed to be > doing was > practicing a talk on priorities -- how we balance faith, family, > work, etc. :-) > > One reason I'm very happy to work where I am is that this was okay, > even > encouraged by our CEO. Others might be less supportive and I'd have > to > decide whether or not to keep working there... but I don't see that > as an > incompatibility. No, that's not what I meant, of course. But that's an interesting and different issue that I think we all have to deal with, and I'm sure we'll discuss it again. > > > What I find far more incompatible, or at least challenging, is to > hang on to > faith while witnessing the worst things life has to offer -- war, > suicides, > trauma of all sorts. It often seems like it would be much easier to > yield > to fear and distraction (which are related) than to continue to > believe. Or, indeed, decide as I did that leaving religion and embracing the concept that all those things are like they are because it's just how it is, and it's actually the brave choice to stand up, say "actually, it makes a lot more sense of there isn't a god..." and stop being afraid of life and death. That worked for me, and casting away that fear and doubt allowed me to start making decisions about my own life properly. But I appreciate it neither makes sense to, nor helps, many others. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On Dec 5, 2007 4:00 PM, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Except insofar as Christianity makes claims about how the world is. > IIRC, you're a Lutheran, and the American Lutheran church is fairly > progressive. But saying there's *nothing* incompatible about the two > would seem to be a stretch - even if you subscribe to the viewpoint of > "non-overlapping magisteria" there are bound to be cases where you > simply have to make a value judgement between what your religion tells > you and how the world appears to actually be, no? Not that I can recall. Certainly not on a regular basis. There has been at least one time when I made a commitment to a church-related activity and our CEO called and wanted to talk business, urgently, and I told him that on that particular day -- a Saturday -- my priority was the church. Ironically, what I was supposed to be doing was practicing a talk on priorities -- how we balance faith, family, work, etc. One reason I'm very happy to work where I am is that this was okay, even encouraged by our CEO. Others might be less supportive and I'd have to decide whether or not to keep working there... but I don't see that as an incompatibility. What I find far more incompatible, or at least challenging, is to hang on to faith while witnessing the worst things life has to offer -- war, suicides, trauma of all sorts. It often seems like it would be much easier to yield to fear and distraction (which are related) than to continue to believe. > > > My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and > > engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that > > their > > beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't. > > Because they genuinely don't collide at all, or because of > compartmentalisation? Depends on the church, I'm sure. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On 06/12/2007, at 3:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible > about the > two. Except insofar as Christianity makes claims about how the world is. IIRC, you're a Lutheran, and the American Lutheran church is fairly progressive. But saying there's *nothing* incompatible about the two would seem to be a stretch - even if you subscribe to the viewpoint of "non-overlapping magisteria" there are bound to be cases where you simply have to make a value judgement between what your religion tells you and how the world appears to actually be, no? > My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and > engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that > their > beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't. Because they genuinely don't collide at all, or because of compartmentalisation? > > > The real incompatibility is between fear and science. That's true. So really, it's where religions or ideologies are fear- based that they have trouble with dealing with things as they are. Well, that explains the Bush Administration... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
dogmatism v. pragmatism
In my faith, being lukewarm is cause for criticism... ;-) Nick what is your faith, nick, if you don't mind my asking? i get that you are a christian, but what version? were you raised in the church, or did you have some kind of epiphany? i personally don't believe one's political bias is determined by whether their personal obligations are forced or chosen. perhaps influenced? i have been in both situations and also had a very stern father model. some people react against their upbringing and others embrace it, but imho, it is an individual choice. i have two sisters who are republicans, one brother who is apolitical and another who is as radically militant as myself. i hate the government in any case, even though i believe government should regulate industry and provide social services. i encountered pournelle for the first time during the reagan years when he was involved with sdi. he would talk about his politics in the mc carthy era and was very visible at conventions and the lasfs. i haven't seen him in years but hear that he has mellowed and no longer drinks excessively. jon - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
Lakoff makes more sense if you add the concept of freely chosen obligations versus enforced obligations - I forget the precise terminology. The latter means that you do what you do because you must - it's your duty as whatever your role is. Dharma, in the Hindu usage. The former is, you freely choose your obligations and choose to remain faithful to them. People who believe in the chosen obligations ask "How can you ever trust someone forced into staying with you/taking care of Mom/whatever? Being enslaved, won't the resent it and do as little as possible or get petty revenge?" People who believe in forced obligations can't imagine being able to ever trust any of the chosen-obligation people. After all, didn't they get into their marriage, role, or whatever, on a *whim*? And won't they walk out of it just as freely? The mapping onto Lakoff is fairly obvious. And let me add that the forced-obligation people tend to be hard-right and the chosen-obligation people to be moderate-to-hard left. The reason is that if the government takes over the obligations, doesn't that get people off the hook and allow them to skip out on doing their bounden duty? There was a long discussion of this on Ozarque's Journal (lj) some time ago. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ "Now is the winter of our discontent" >From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" >Subject: Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism >Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:55:40 -0800 > >On Dec 5, 2007 11:45 AM, jon louis mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > jerry pournelle, is also catholic, and used to be a much more > > progressive, but now is way over to the opposite end of the political > > spectrum. > > > >I haven't seen Jerry in a long time, but I never would have guessed that he >was ever progressive. The more times I ran into him, the less I could >stand >reading anything he wrote... Aside from his grandiosity and misbehavior >(don't ask, I won't gossip) I'd hear it all in his voice, which could ruin >anything. > > > > > i can understand why many wealthy individuals are drawn to the >religious > > right, but i can not understand why so many lower class christians >support > > bush when they are victims of his economic policies... > > >George Lakoff has an explanation and although I'm not sure it is >politically >useful, it makes a lot of sense to me. "Moral Politics" is his book that >explains it in depth. The short version is that the right, especially the >fundamentalist right-wingers, appeal to a "stern father" concept that all >of >us have and use to one extent or another. The alternative is to invoke our >concept of nurturing parents, Lakoff argues. But it's sort of like Freud; >the model works but doesn't seem to be practical. > > > > > i have a friend who is a cal tech graduate and is still orthodox. that >i > > don't understand, but we are still friends. if you are raised in a >faith, > > you either reject it completely, as i did, or find some way to >rationalize > > your faith... perhaps there is a middle ground? > > > >In my faith, being lukewarm is cause for criticism... ;-) > >Nick > >-- >Nick Arnett >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Messages: 408-904-7198 >___ >http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On Dec 5, 2007 11:45 AM, jon louis mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > jerry pournelle, is also catholic, and used to be a much more > progressive, but now is way over to the opposite end of the political > spectrum. > I haven't seen Jerry in a long time, but I never would have guessed that he was ever progressive. The more times I ran into him, the less I could stand reading anything he wrote... Aside from his grandiosity and misbehavior (don't ask, I won't gossip) I'd hear it all in his voice, which could ruin anything. > > i can understand why many wealthy individuals are drawn to the religious > right, but i can not understand why so many lower class christians support > bush when they are victims of his economic policies... George Lakoff has an explanation and although I'm not sure it is politically useful, it makes a lot of sense to me. "Moral Politics" is his book that explains it in depth. The short version is that the right, especially the fundamentalist right-wingers, appeal to a "stern father" concept that all of us have and use to one extent or another. The alternative is to invoke our concept of nurturing parents, Lakoff argues. But it's sort of like Freud; the model works but doesn't seem to be practical. > > i have a friend who is a cal tech graduate and is still orthodox. that i > don't understand, but we are still friends. if you are raised in a faith, > you either reject it completely, as i did, or find some way to rationalize > your faith... perhaps there is a middle ground? > In my faith, being lukewarm is cause for criticism... ;-) Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
dogmatism v. pragmatism
religion and science are incompatible, *for the most part*... jon May I just say, nicely perhaps... baloney. I spend all day doing complicated large-scale mathematical analysis of community behaviors, writing software, trying to know all the statistics that might apply (I hate statistics, which is probably the only healthy way to use it) and keeping up with a rapidly growing field of analysis. I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible about the two. My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that their beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't. The real incompatibility is between fear and science. Nick i agree with you about fear and science, nick. perhaps i should clarify that i was referring to evangelical fundamentalist religious zealots who preach hellfire and damnation, deny evolution and translate the christian bible literally. that IS incompatible with science, and to put it unkindly, that sort of dogmatic religion is baloney, salami, sausage and other meat byproducts from intestinal organs. now, having said that, i do respect those christians who practice the teachings of christ, but i draw the line at elevating a mortal to diety status. he was a man, like you and i, just with a highly developed sense of morality, in the context of his times. he was a rebel, and i believe, a commie. i have no problem with his sermon on the mount, or the beatitudes, either. i admire the story of him as a youngster throwing the money changers out of the temple. it is institutional religion i abhor. i generally tolerate congregationalists over, say southern baptist schisms, although i marched with mlk for civil rights and those kind of political stands i approve. there are fundamental differences in how different religions believe humanity and the world interact. religion and politics are an extremely volatile mix. both approach the most profound questions of existence from different perspectives and with different agendas. unfortunately, because of the religious right, politics has mutated into a material and spiritual debate over issues such as aborttion, capital punishment, education, torture, justice, race, eguality, health care, immigration, gender, sexual idenity and much, much more. religion and state are supposed to be separate, at least in america. i once had this discussion with r.a. lafferty and he got up and walked away. he was devoutly catholic and i was mystified how someone so intelligent and literate could believe in doctines like papal infalliblibility. jerry pournelle, is also catholic, and used to be a much more progressive, but now is way over to the opposite end of the political spectrum. i can understand why many wealthy individuals are drawn to the religious right, but i can not understand why so many lower class christians support bush when they are victims of his economic policies... i have a friend who is a cal tech graduate and is still orthodox. that i don't understand, but we are still friends. if you are raised in a faith, you either reject it completely, as i did, or find some way to rationalize your faith... perhaps there is a middle ground? jon - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On Dec 4, 2007 3:11 PM, jon louis mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > religion and science are incompatible, for the most part May I just say, nicely perhaps... baloney. I spend all day doing complicated large-scale mathematical analysis of community behaviors, writing software, trying to know all the statistics that might apply (I hate statistics, which is probably the only healthy way to use it) and keeping up with a rapidly growing field of analysis. I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible about the two. My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that their beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't. The real incompatibility is between fear and science. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
dogmatism v. pragmatism
snippits... Religions are belief systems... If you question the basic tenets of the faith, you are not adhering to that faith... Unquestioning obedience is nothing more than a belief of the more cult-like religions... There aren't many that aren't cult-like in at least some of their aspects... It certainly is not true of the major ones except in a very limited sense that by no means extends to scientific pursuits... there are anti-science forces at work in some religions, no human institution is exempt from such corruption... http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/03/golden.compass.religion.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest the battles between fantasy and religion would be hilarious if the pious theophiles were not deadly serious. religion and science are incompatible, for the most part, but we do need more ethics in science and more rationalism in religion. the continuing debate over evolution, especially in the 21st century, is ludricous, as is the suggestion that evolution is part of 'god's plan... the debate about global warming is also ludricrous. it doesn't matter if climate change occurs in cycles, it is still a fact that it is accelerated by human impact on the enviornment and is a threat to our civilization. - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
