Scientific American's September 2005 issue reports on a Templeton Foundation conference where the objective was to find common ground between science and religion. Antagonism between science and religion isn't a given; scientific pioneers such as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Boyle were all devout Christians, yet they laid the foundation for modern science.
According to Scientific American, Biologist Richard Dawkins challenged physicist John Barrow's faith in a debate. Barrow emphasized the fine-tuning of the universe as an indicator of the existence of a Creator Designer.
Dawkins said, "Why not just accept that fine-tuning as a fact of nature? Why do you want to explain it with God?"
Barrow responded dryly, "For the same reason you don't want to."
"Everyone laughed except Dawkins, who protested, "That's not an answer!" Scientific American, pages 24 - 28, article titled: "Clash in Cambridge."
The foundational paradigms of persons involved in the debate are the crux of the antagonism. Barrow sees a Designer's hand at work while Dawkins refuses to. Just as Dawkins resists abandoning his paradigms, so too does Barrow and the opposing parties are at an impasse. Both assert the other party is not being reasonable or logical.
God insists He be accepted by faith. To Barrow, evidence in abundance to prove God's existence is obvious while Dawkins claims he's yet to see any. Martin Rees, author of Just Six Numbers says "the universe is unlikely, very unlikely, deeply, shockingly unlikely," yet he insists no Designer was involved. He believes our universe is only one of an infinite number of other universes, therefore it could still have been created by chance. His theory can't be proven--we can't see past the edge of our universe--he's accepting his theory by faith!
In the end, persons cannot escape the element of faith! No definitive, beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt, without-question proof that God exists and that He created everything will ever be discovered. No definitive, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, without-question proof God didn't create the universe will ever be discovered either. Whatever a person believes, it will be believed by faith. And that's just the way God wants it.
Lone Tree
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
You May be TIME's Person of the Year, but Big Media is Still in Control
Douglas Rushkoff writes in the March 2007 issue of Discover magazine, (page 70), "I wonder how many people picked up Time's "Person of the Year" issue, gazed into the silver mirror on the cover, and felt genuinely proud to be among the 300-million-or-so people the magazine's editors felt deserved this special honor. After all, we had some stiff competition."
I say, "Yes, how about the American soldier? Eh? But he only counts if he resides in a body bag." I digress.
I wasn't proud. My initial reaction was to hold the magazine delicately with two fingers and gaze about for a trash can. What a cop out! The 300-million-or-so people of the United States "Person of the Year?" Condescending snobbery. If I had any questions about how intelligent the Powers of Media thought I was, I am now no longer in doubt. They're convinced I'm an idiot.
"Welcome to your world," the Time article begins. "For seizing the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game..."
"Welcome to your world?" What? You're sitting in my house and you're welcoming me? Excuse me, where's the barf bag. The only way these clowns can acknowledge ordinary joes like MySpace users, bloggers and YouTube freaks is if they can do it from the safety of their corporate towers in the secure knowledge they still hold the power they deign to assign to us. I'm not fooled, o, ye Corporate Honchos with your six or nine figure salaries and trips to the Bahamas on corporate accounts.
As Rushkoff rightly points out, "Instead of our paying to watch a movie in the theater, we pay to make and upload our own movies online. Instead of paying a record company to listen to their artists' music on a CD player, we pay a computer company for the hardware, an Internet access company for the bandwidth, and a software company for the media players to do all this..."
Yes. It's true. They've come around from behind, while we thought we were empowered and took our money in order to empower us.
Rushkoff says, "Time's willingness to acknowledge the power of Internet users everywhere hints at corporate America's confidence that it has finally weathered the storm: If what's playing on YouTube is the best "the people" can come up with, then media monopolies have nothing to fear."
Does your face sting at such a thought? And we've thought we mattered.
Rushkoff agrees with my first impression of the Time article--gee, the mirror isn't very clear and it seems more like a snub than anything. A snub, a "see--you're not as hot and mighty as you thought, you 300-million-or-so slobs you. We're still "da man!"" It just fits with my general conviction that the media thinks the ordinary joe is basically an idiot.
We, the people, have made some headway, but becoming Time's "Person of the Year," makes it look like it hasn't been much! Like it's all been symbolic! Like we've actually just been wasting our time. Being chosen "Person of the Year" with such confident nose thumbing shows "journalists" (a group of persons the Founding Fathers thought of as the lowest class of humanity), are still in the power seats telling us what they want us to hear and guiding our stupid lowlinesses toward what they feel are correct decisions. Hear, hear. Where's that barf bag?
We are, according to Rushkoff, "...creating content using expensive consumer technologies and uploading it to corporate-owned servers using corporate-owned conduits...we're doing it with software made by corporations whose own interests are embedded in its very code...User agreements...require us to surrender some or all of the rights to our own creations..."
Our behavior is monitored, we're categorized and cubbyholed for advertizing campaigns on sites like this one, iTunes, Second Life, Gmail..."Each and every key stroke becomes part of our consumer profile; every attempt at self-expression is reduced to a brand preference," says Rushkoff. Gak.
Rushkoff concludes, "...But in the end we're still glued to a tube, watching mostly crap, arguing like angry idiots, surrendering the last remains of our privacy, and paying a whole lot more to large corporations for the privilege."
Oh well, here I am blogging away. I'll be looking for a way to get back at you Corporate Honcho.
I say, "Yes, how about the American soldier? Eh? But he only counts if he resides in a body bag." I digress.
I wasn't proud. My initial reaction was to hold the magazine delicately with two fingers and gaze about for a trash can. What a cop out! The 300-million-or-so people of the United States "Person of the Year?" Condescending snobbery. If I had any questions about how intelligent the Powers of Media thought I was, I am now no longer in doubt. They're convinced I'm an idiot.
"Welcome to your world," the Time article begins. "For seizing the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game..."
"Welcome to your world?" What? You're sitting in my house and you're welcoming me? Excuse me, where's the barf bag. The only way these clowns can acknowledge ordinary joes like MySpace users, bloggers and YouTube freaks is if they can do it from the safety of their corporate towers in the secure knowledge they still hold the power they deign to assign to us. I'm not fooled, o, ye Corporate Honchos with your six or nine figure salaries and trips to the Bahamas on corporate accounts.
As Rushkoff rightly points out, "Instead of our paying to watch a movie in the theater, we pay to make and upload our own movies online. Instead of paying a record company to listen to their artists' music on a CD player, we pay a computer company for the hardware, an Internet access company for the bandwidth, and a software company for the media players to do all this..."
Yes. It's true. They've come around from behind, while we thought we were empowered and took our money in order to empower us.
Rushkoff says, "Time's willingness to acknowledge the power of Internet users everywhere hints at corporate America's confidence that it has finally weathered the storm: If what's playing on YouTube is the best "the people" can come up with, then media monopolies have nothing to fear."
Does your face sting at such a thought? And we've thought we mattered.
Rushkoff agrees with my first impression of the Time article--gee, the mirror isn't very clear and it seems more like a snub than anything. A snub, a "see--you're not as hot and mighty as you thought, you 300-million-or-so slobs you. We're still "da man!"" It just fits with my general conviction that the media thinks the ordinary joe is basically an idiot.
We, the people, have made some headway, but becoming Time's "Person of the Year," makes it look like it hasn't been much! Like it's all been symbolic! Like we've actually just been wasting our time. Being chosen "Person of the Year" with such confident nose thumbing shows "journalists" (a group of persons the Founding Fathers thought of as the lowest class of humanity), are still in the power seats telling us what they want us to hear and guiding our stupid lowlinesses toward what they feel are correct decisions. Hear, hear. Where's that barf bag?
We are, according to Rushkoff, "...creating content using expensive consumer technologies and uploading it to corporate-owned servers using corporate-owned conduits...we're doing it with software made by corporations whose own interests are embedded in its very code...User agreements...require us to surrender some or all of the rights to our own creations..."
Our behavior is monitored, we're categorized and cubbyholed for advertizing campaigns on sites like this one, iTunes, Second Life, Gmail..."Each and every key stroke becomes part of our consumer profile; every attempt at self-expression is reduced to a brand preference," says Rushkoff. Gak.
Rushkoff concludes, "...But in the end we're still glued to a tube, watching mostly crap, arguing like angry idiots, surrendering the last remains of our privacy, and paying a whole lot more to large corporations for the privilege."
Oh well, here I am blogging away. I'll be looking for a way to get back at you Corporate Honcho.
Wonky PETA Wars
Mary C. Pearl received Senator William Proxmire's "Golden Fleece" award awhile back for applying for funding to research how rhesus monkeys behave in the wild. The "Golden Fleece" is given to the person or group Proxmire believes begs for money to pay for bogus science. Personally, I don't think Pearl's research idea was bogus. Rhesus monkeys were widely used in laboratories and it makes sense to have a base line for how they'd act if they weren't trapped in wire cages in colorless, sterile rooms.
Her recent article in Discover magazine, April 2007, touches on the confusing, hypocritical world of political fighting over animal rights and government funding.
She faults The Center for Consumer Freedom web site for "misleading polemics designed to alarm animal lovers." The site's reference to PETA's killing of "defenseless creatures" is based on PETA's practice of "humane euthanization of unwanted dogs, cats and other pets at a PETA-run animal shelter."
Wait. What's wrong with The Center for Consumer Freedom holding PETA's feet to the fire on this one? If it's ok to kill "unwanted dogs, cats and other pets" living in a PETA-run animal shelter, then why isn't it ok to kill cows for food and mink for fur? I don't get it. What's the difference?
It's a mad, mad world all right.
Her recent article in Discover magazine, April 2007, touches on the confusing, hypocritical world of political fighting over animal rights and government funding.
She faults The Center for Consumer Freedom web site for "misleading polemics designed to alarm animal lovers." The site's reference to PETA's killing of "defenseless creatures" is based on PETA's practice of "humane euthanization of unwanted dogs, cats and other pets at a PETA-run animal shelter."
Wait. What's wrong with The Center for Consumer Freedom holding PETA's feet to the fire on this one? If it's ok to kill "unwanted dogs, cats and other pets" living in a PETA-run animal shelter, then why isn't it ok to kill cows for food and mink for fur? I don't get it. What's the difference?
It's a mad, mad world all right.
Morality and Faulty Morality Testing
The May 2007 issue of Discover magazine features an interview with evolutionary biologist, Marc Hauser, beginning on page 62. He uses hypothetical examples of moral dilemmas to discover what persons actually believe regarding moral choices.
The first example in the article is a contrast between these two scenarios:
Scene one: a trolley is running wild down the tracks, a person has to choose between throwing the switch and saving five people but killing one or leaving the trolley alone and killing five people. Should the person pull the switch or let the trolley take its course?
Scene two: a healthy person walks into a hospital where five people are dying of diseases that can be cured with transplants from his body. Do the medical people jump him and take his organs and thereby save five people while killing one or not?
First, in scene one, the person facing the dilemma will most likely do nothing because he'll stand there with his mouth hanging open while his brain tries to process all the issues he's facing. Studies of crisis situations reveal very few people are able to act at all. When a nigh club burned, most of the people remained seated exactly where they had been before the fire started while panic and the inability to process all their issues kept them pinned. The poor fool Hauser has placed in the dilemma will most likely do nothing, therefore proving nothing regarding morality, except that after he finally processes all the information and his issues, he'll probably feel like a worm.
Second, the trolley is an inanimate object, it is not a group of medical personnel in a hospital. It is not contemplating taking the five persons' lives, in fact, it is not contemplating anything at all; it's incapable of contemplation! Medical personnel will not take the life of one healthy person to save five unless that healthy person walks up to the counter and says, "I'm here to donate myself to science." Jumping a healthy person for any reason which will result in his death is called "murder" unless it is a war situation, then it's called "defending your country," and is not considered murder.
These two scenarios have nothing in common to prove anything about morality.
In another example Hauser contrasts these two scenarios:
Scenario 1: A violinist (I have no idea why the violinist part matters, except maybe he thinks there's more moral value to a talented person compared to someone who has no talent) is suffering kidney failure. A woman, sleeping peacefully in her bed wakes up to discover she has been hooked up to this sick violinist. She is told that if he can remained hooked up to her for 9 months, he will recover and his kidneys will be able to function on their own. Will the woman permit this or not?
Scenario 2: A woman wakes up one morning to discover she's pregnant. Will she keep the baby or not?
Hauser crows that even Christians say that the woman linked to the violinist should be permitted to tell him to buzz off and this proves that morality has nothing to do with religion. Duh, I don't get it. Exactly what do these two examples have to do with one another? Didn't someone teach Hauser that sex can and often does lead to conception? Unless the pregnant woman was raped, these two examples have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever. A woman who has consented to have sex with someone should not wake up surprised to discover she's pregnant. FYI: for all you evolutionists, feminists, etc. take note: sex (boy + girl) = baby. It's simple, so simple even a caveman can figure it out.
In the scenario, the woman who was hooked up to the violinist didn't consent to even permit him into her bedroom, never mind all the medical personnel it would take to complete the procedure--she was essentially raped. Christians have long held that raped women may abort babies conceived as a result of the rape. Christian morality is consistent, but either the Christians involved in this study hadn't thought through all the variables involved in these two examples or, as in the case of so many of these types of studies, they weren't permitted to discuss the two cases with the questioner. For instance, it's likely they were not permitted to say, "These two scenarios have about as much in common with one another as the Rocky Mountains have in common with a Florida beach."
Hauser and the Discover interviewer, Josie Glausiusz, seem to believe that they've hit upon something enlightening about human nature, natural selection and morality, but actually they've only proved they have faulty paradigms driving their research. With faulty paradigms, their research results are false. But you can be sure, with evolutionists at the helm, their results will become the paradigms for future policies that will drive programs for quite some time.
Are You Disgusted?
USA Weekend published an article in their December 13th, 2009, issue:
The author states that if you'd be disgusted to discover you're drinking out of someone else's cup, you're probably Conservative.
What? Liberals aren't disgusted by this? They don't mind sharing swine flu virus or any number of other illnesses that can be transmitted by drinking from a sick person's cup?
According to the research, people who were disgusted by unflushed toilets were found to be more conservative than people who weren't disgusted. Obviously these people doing the research haven't been in very many unsanitary bathrooms otherwise they wouldn't be disparaging people who find unflushed toilets disgusting. Either that or, they're just nasty. I've heard there are people out there who are nasty, they like nasty things like unflushed toilets and snot nosed handkerchiefs and mugs with lipstick on them. Do you really want to be classified as a "Liberal" if it means you're someone who doesn't mind sharing a cup with a snagging, gagging person?
I wonder what John F. Kennedy would say about all of this. He seemed kind of disgusted by some things, like mooching off the government. He said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." He was referring to whining and looking for a hand-out. These days the government wants a hand out. They want a hand out from any American who's got any money. They really believe in "ask what you can do for your country." They want to take from us whatever we earn so they can dole it back out to us as they see fit. They want to turn us all into a bunch of whiner babies. The government is a whiner baby. I'm disgusted.
Science Daily wrote back in June, 2009:"Easily grossed out? You might be a Conservative"
"Conservatives have argued that there is inherent wisdom in repugnance; that feeling disgusted about something -- gay sex between consenting adults, for example -- is cause enough to judge it wrong or immoral, even lacking a concrete reason."
Wait. Do these people not know what happens when gay people have "sex?" Do they really not know what gay men do? I mean, they insert body parts not designed to be inserted in places where stuff is only supposed to come out--do they not know this?!
Has it come to this, that basic hygiene is now passe, falling away like women having to wear dresses not pants and men having to wear hats out-of-doors? If you object to someone sneezing all over your coffee now you're one of those horrid conservatives. If you want to get with the program, go find unflushed toilets to use, soiled cups to drink out of and some gay men to applaud.
UGH! I'm disgusted. I guess I must be conservative!
"An emotional reaction to impurity might inform conservative values."
The author states that if you'd be disgusted to discover you're drinking out of someone else's cup, you're probably Conservative.
What? Liberals aren't disgusted by this? They don't mind sharing swine flu virus or any number of other illnesses that can be transmitted by drinking from a sick person's cup?
According to the research, people who were disgusted by unflushed toilets were found to be more conservative than people who weren't disgusted. Obviously these people doing the research haven't been in very many unsanitary bathrooms otherwise they wouldn't be disparaging people who find unflushed toilets disgusting. Either that or, they're just nasty. I've heard there are people out there who are nasty, they like nasty things like unflushed toilets and snot nosed handkerchiefs and mugs with lipstick on them. Do you really want to be classified as a "Liberal" if it means you're someone who doesn't mind sharing a cup with a snagging, gagging person?
Quote from the article: "The more sensitive to disgust you are, the more you might react intuitively negative to sexual or other bodily behaviors that might be seen as unusual or immoral," says Yoel Inbar of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government."
I wonder what John F. Kennedy would say about all of this. He seemed kind of disgusted by some things, like mooching off the government. He said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." He was referring to whining and looking for a hand-out. These days the government wants a hand out. They want a hand out from any American who's got any money. They really believe in "ask what you can do for your country." They want to take from us whatever we earn so they can dole it back out to us as they see fit. They want to turn us all into a bunch of whiner babies. The government is a whiner baby. I'm disgusted.
Science Daily wrote back in June, 2009:"Easily grossed out? You might be a Conservative"
 |
| iStock photo from "Science Daily" |
Wait. Do these people not know what happens when gay people have "sex?" Do they really not know what gay men do? I mean, they insert body parts not designed to be inserted in places where stuff is only supposed to come out--do they not know this?!
Has it come to this, that basic hygiene is now passe, falling away like women having to wear dresses not pants and men having to wear hats out-of-doors? If you object to someone sneezing all over your coffee now you're one of those horrid conservatives. If you want to get with the program, go find unflushed toilets to use, soiled cups to drink out of and some gay men to applaud.
UGH! I'm disgusted. I guess I must be conservative!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)