The article itself is an undeserved defense of California. I love California and I do believe we have some of the most inventive people in the world but when you add the projected shortfall over the next couple years to our current debt you get a number that's getting close to Google's total market cap.
I don't know how you invent yourself out of a mess like that
You can't invent yourself out of a system of entitlements that has long since divorced itself from reality.
You have a (comparatively) small group of people making a large portion of the income with a much larger group of people making little to no income and demanding more and more help from the earners to support their philanthropic causes.
What makes it hard to swallow is that we see loads of money being thrown at things like education and helping the homeless but we see no improvement.
I'm all for helping educate people, and lending a hand to the less fortunate, but I expect a return on my investment. When you take this much from me and my return is children who can't read turning into violent criminals and the wonderful view of a homeless man crapping in a doorway on the way to work...I want a refund.
State funding for the University of California has decreased from 7% of the state of California's general fund in 1970 to 3.2% in 2008. Between 1990 and 2008, inflation-adjusted state support per UC student fell by 40%. As a result, the total inflation-adjusted education expenditure per UC student (including student fees and contributions from UC General Funds) decreased by 19%, while student costs rose by 138%.
That doesn't sound like money's being thrown at education, at least not higher ed.
(text lifted from this letter: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/08/...)
I live in the Fort Worth Area, and I've seen things a lot different than you make them out to be...in fact I've lived in Texas my entire life, from the south tip, to where I am now and some in-between, I've been to the major cities and driven all over south-central Texas, and I have to say, I think you're letting personal feelings skew your viewpoint a little.
There is a cultural rivalry between cities maybe, but never has anyone ever shown me disrespect from not being raised or living in their city.
And it's rather offending that you would say Austin is the only place a sane person would want to live, that tells me that your viewpoint of Texas and it's culture is already skewed and bias, it's also a little elitist to suggest that there are not plenty of smart people outside of the Austin clique, does Baylor, or Texas A&M, or Texas Tech, Rice, not count? Is UT the only school that attracts smart people?
Dallas, on the other hand, (which is where you live -- who uses the archaic name "Fort Worth" anymore?) is an unholy Sodom of beehive hairdos. Did you know you can get fined for not washing your BMW, or for doing your own yard work? It's true!
I don't know about Fort Worth being archaic, it's actually a city that is not part of Dallas, complicated zoning up here, I can't put "Dallas" as my address, since I wouldn't get my mail then.
I will have to concede to your point about the beehive hairdos, but I've seen plenty of that in Austin as well, it all depends on neighborhood....plus downtown DFW is a mecha of status symbols, not sure about the culture in downtown Dallas, I try to avoid it as it's a little too congested for me.
Anyway, a place is what you make it. If you are not happy where you are now, its likely moving won't change that.
Sometimes I think all these intelligent questers are going to raise a generation of really smart hippie-raised kids who roll their eyes at their idealistic parents and decide to take over the world. Is that what happened in California? Is Austin just one generation behind?
The problem that has to be solved is instead of everyone in Austin priding themselves at how laid back they are they need to realize they are actually just being lazy. People in California seem more driven.
California: 47,706
USA: 44,254
Texas: 42,796
Belief in a perfectly good being that tortures people forever if they don't believe in it: not brainy.
As for sexy, well, I dunno.
[ETA: Hmm, started a horribly off-topic side-thread. Sorry.]
Playing devil's advocate here (or perhaps the better term is God's advocate), if I understand you correctly you are saying that all beings of higher intelligence and wisdom should conform to your definition of goodness.
Does that seem very brainy? Would you like your dog creating a sense of what is right or wrong and then holding you to account for it? How about an ant? When I take my 3-year old for shots, he definitely views the entire process as decidedly immoral. But he's not seeing it from my viewpoint now, is he?
I believe the notion is that goodness as God understands it is beyond my ability to understand it. The greater good when dealing with a universe is so far beyond a petty 100-year lifespan (or a 10K year civilization) that comparisons are kind of silly. We wouldn't even understand the moral questions, much less the answers
I'm not saying I buy into it, I'm simply pointing out that you're taking a cheap shot at religion.
I believe the best response to this is: all I've got is this brain and I have to use it to make judgments. That's cool, but all it really means is the point is undecidable.
I don't consider this a cheap shot. This is the profoundly rotten core at the heart of traditional Christianity (and, indeed, Islam).
Religion is based around the limitations of human knowledge. The idea is that the Great Spirit, Great Father, or whatever is older and wiser than us (but yet strangely human!) so he understands things we do not. Just as when we were a child we did not understand things, now the Big Dude With The Beard knows things far beyond our kin.
Like a child, you can stamp your feet and complain about his/her/it lack of suitable morality for you all you want, but it really just plays into the entire metaphor, doesn't it?
I can tell you that more liberal Christans view sin as being apart from God, and hell as being simply apart from God forever. Taken this way, it simply means that if you're doing okay with the plan (whatever the plan is) you get to hang out with the big guy. If not, you don't. And that's awful! You really want to hang out with the big guy.
It's the fundamentalists who get into this "lake of fire" bit and such. I imagine "not hanging with the Big Kahuna" doesn't bring in the converts as much as "tearing your eyes out with pain" but I was never much into marketing and sales.
As for me, and you seem to be interested in my morals, I'm perfectly happy not being able to make moral decisions for God. As long as he returns the favor. (grin) I don't think that torturing folks for eternity is moral for me to do, but I try to confine my judgments of morality to myself. I also think that you're arguing with what some bunch of folks "think" some other (probably imaginary) being will do, and that seems really, really silly to me. Better to determine what you think about the idea of God in general -- any kind of God -- before you go lumping the whole kit and kaboodle together and passing your own judgment on it.
"It's the fundamentalists who get into this "lake of fire" bit and such."
Indeed. Nevertheless, it is in the Bible you know: Matthew 25:41, Mark 9:43, Luke 16:22-24, Revelation 14:9-11, probably others: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:41,...;
"I also think that you're arguing with what some bunch of folks "think" some other (probably imaginary) being will do, and that seems really, really silly to me."
My great hope is that they will come to see that their concept of God is contradictory.
"Better to determine what you think about the idea of God in general"
What I think is that P(God), while low, is much, much higher than P(God and Hell).
I would sooner choose hell than follow a God that was holding damnation over my head, though I think I would be happier if I was so delusional.
Ah, well, the thread is dead.
(sorry for presumed IP block to all those outside of the USA)
It certainly is a much more defensible position.
But if it's fleshed out so that the afterlife of the damned is so unpleasant that they would end their existence if they could, it comes to much the same thing.
If it simply means annihilation, then fine. As I've noted, that's not how Jesus put it (according to the gospel authors, anyway). But OK.
You take a lot more comfort than I do. If we went back 400 years and had this conversation, you would be just as sure of our moral understandings. So I'm not convinced in the least that if we went forward 400 years that our understanding of morality and ethics will remain the same. Perhaps you are. But I take too much faith in human progress to think we're anywhere near being done.
Yes, instead of allegorical and spiritual stories, the definition of fundamentalists is that they take holy writings just the same as we would a newspaper, or encyclopedia. Lots of stuff in the Bible (even more in the Koran, but I digress) I don't think it does justice to the word "religion" to pick some one stance and attack it -- there are as many micro-versions of religion as there are people probably. Most modern atheists take some form of fundamentalism to use as their straw man. If that makes your boat float, fine. But Christianity has always evolved -- much more than the other religions. It's not a static target, and I bet (based on history) it will continue to evolve for many centuries to come.
Now, lets look at the fundamental morals behind the Bible, New Testament of course, because with the New Testament we were given a new law.
- Love one another - Be a generous, helpful person - Accept personal responsibility - Don't have a sense of entitlement - Honor and cherish your spouse - Don't mislead or abuse children - Honor your parents - Be proactive - Resist conformity - Abide by the laws - Don't be judgmental - Be kind - Be compassionate - Be empathetic - Don't be obsessed with possessions or wealth - Work hard - Ignorance is not an excuse - People are people, no matter their ethnicity - Be tolerant - Don't cheat - Everything in moderation
I could probably go on if I thought about it more, these are the immediate things that I try to keep in my mind from my studying. Say what you will, but that's a pretty good model for living life. One that I try my best to implement, and constantly fail at, but hey, practice makes habit.
I don't think gort would have any problem with those morals. What he has a problem with is:
"Love one another - Be a generous, helpful person - Accept personal responsibility, etc., etc.,... because otherwise, you'll burn in hell"
As an agnostic, I find it amusing that someone would demand that god conform to human morality. But it's an understandable viewpoint.
Maybe I'm wrong, who knows.
Undecidable? You're kidding right? It's "decidable" all right, by any rational person, just like whether or not the tooth fairy exists is "decidable".
Look, here's religion in a nutshell. Religion:
1. Makes a great many claims about events known to be physically impossible
2. Offers no evidence whatsoever for those claims
3. Is therefore total nonsense until (2) is convincingly rectified
4. Therefore anyone believing it is either brainwashed or stupid or both
I get it. You would subject me to scientific tests and logic to "prove" whether or not I fit into some label that has about as many meanings as there are people who believe in the tooth fairy. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Since we know exactly what God is we can use the scientific method to disprove a negative.
Of course.
You're purposely cherry-picking your definition of God. That's at the heart of your fallacy -- some belief that there is this one definition of God that somehow you can come to terms with. There isn't. You've got a great argument about the self-inconsistencies of Christianity inside it's own system. That's the best one. Stick to that. Trying to come up with one straw man (or straw God) to discredit or disprove just makes you look intellectually dishonest. In my opinion, of course.
I have no idea what you mean by "cherry-picking" - I am going straight for the heart of the matter. Religion - all religion really, but Abrahamic in particular - is practically made of supernatural phenomenon. It's all impossible according to everything we know about the universe. No further discussion is required.
I hate to repeat memes but when it comes to religion it's basically "pics or it didn't happen". Until you have some evidence - any evidence - you may as well be arguing that Harry Potter is real.
But you see you are proving my point. You are providing some definition of the tooth fairy that you then expect me to demonstrate. That's crazy. What if my definition of the tooth fairy is simply a kind father who slips a couple bucks under his kid's pillow on certain occasions?
Do you see what I'm getting at? You're taking some attributes, that some people believe, about some possible entity beyond our understanding. Then you're trying to use logic and science with it. That doesn't seem so smart to me. There is a fine line between stories I make up to tell you and stories I tell you that you have no ability to verify. You might want to read that preceding sentence again. From the outside they look the same. There's no way for you to tell the difference.
Since you like to play with definitions so much, why don't you define "God" and give me something to shoot at, then? If you define him as a kindly middle aged father who is nice to his kids, then fine, no argument from me, except it doesn't have much to do with the character in the book.
"There is a fine line between stories I make up to tell you and stories I tell you that you have no ability to verify."
No there's not. There is no line at all! If there is no evidence, it didn't happen.
"Then you're trying to use logic and science with it. That doesn't seem so smart to me."
I guess that's where we'll have to differ.
A Christian, by definition, is one who follows Christ. The "Bible" as I guess you are using the term, is a collection of religious letters put together in the 3rd century out of dozens or hundreds of candidates. Fundamentalists think of the bible as a textbook. So do critics, except they think of it as a flawed textbook. More modern versions of Christianity view that Bible as largely allegorical.
You can certainly be a Christian and not believe in the bible. Good grief, you can be a Christian and not believe in God. You could even be an atheist.
But these are just simple facts that I would take as a starting point for discussion.
The best I can tell, there is a universal core definition of God across religions which is something like "that which we are not able to understand". I can grok this, as throughout history there have been things we do not understand. Perhaps God will be by ex-wife: never could figure her out. So if you asked me for a definition, that's the one I'd give. Not some myth-overloaded product of hundreds of years of religious dogma. God is a belief that we do not know everything. At least to me. I find such a belief a critical part of being a mature intellectual.
You're welcome to take shots at that definition. I'd like to hear your critique. I don't have any answers. The issue of God and all of the sub-issues has been debated for ages. Perhaps there is some new angle everybody else has missed. Who knows?
I don't really know about these variants of Christians you mention. I suppose that if there are Christians who know that any supernatural events in the bible are fictional, and do not believe in God but merely try to follow the purported words of Jesus, then that is great - I totally support such people. Anything beyond that, though, is a leap into irrationality, and I suspect the vast majority of Christians fall into the latter category. I have certainly never seen or heard of a Christian who does not believe in God. Perhaps we can term the mere admirers of Jesus' words "Philosophical Christians", and "Christians" can refer to the believers in the supernatural entity.
The best I can tell, there is a universal core definition of God across religions which is something like "that which we are not able to understand"
That seems like a uselessly broad definition and totally at odds with the common definition of the word. If I said to a normal person that I believe in God, he or she is not going to think "Ah, this person believes that there are certain things humanity is not able to understand".
When I say "God" I mean a supernatural entity as depicted in a religious text or tradition. When I want to talk about things we do not yet understand, I say "things we do not yet understand". I understand the anthropological point you are getting at though, and agree that "God did it" has been the refrain of savages throughout the ages when confronted with the incomprehensible. However, it is now 2009, and it's time for us to grow up, IMO.
"Not some myth-overloaded product of hundreds of years of religious dogma."
Look, everyone else is using that definition. You should make up a new word or something because otherwise it's just confusing.
"God is a belief that we do not know everything."
Argh! Is there anyone on the planet who does believe we know everything? Please narrow your definition. Ironically, the only people I ever encounter who think they know everything are the religious.
"I find such a belief a critical part of being a mature intellectual."
I agree, but that's got nothing to do with religion, and it's not a "belief"! You are talking about Philosophy, not Theology.
"Organized Religion" is really what probably gets your goat. You can thank the Catholic Church for that, which in the 3rd century took some religious letters and made them a Bible, hooked up with the largest world government at the time, and eliminated the competition. (I'm not bashing Catholics here. From what I know most seem like good people). As a monopoly, they controlled one version of "creative answers to things we don't know" for many centuries. To a large degree, even after the Reformation, the pieces of belief you see today in Christianity come from this long-lived monopoly.
The interesting thing here is that the tenets of some religion -- the set of creative stories commonly held -- and the actual practice of that religion by participants are two completely different things. So while Catholics, for instance, have this big set of beliefs, it's not unusual to see individual Catholics completely digress. Religion, for as much as people want to make it into a monopoly or a formal system of beliefs, is still actually practices in a very individual and creative way, just like it has been since the dawn of man.
What we're left with is the actual practice of religion is a deeply personal matter, and if you paint with a broad brush you miss the entire point of how religion actually works.
You're basically correct with your argument of "when I say believe in God, they're not going to think I mean X" but at the same time _you_ are the one who is missing the point in your imaginary conversation. If you ask somebody if they believe in God, the very next question from you should be something like "what does that mean to you?" because "believe in God" is nothing the same as "2 + 2 = 4" You're simply asking somebody if they have some belief in some "thing" that is out there beyond their understanding. What you really want to know is whether they conform to some organized religion that has these tenets that you find so despicable.
When you say "everyone else is using that definition", best I can figure you mean that in the western world, as part of your observations in English, the most vocal people use the term "God" as part of some discussion about their organized religious practices. I can buy that. But most people use the word "science" as something guys in white coats do, or the word "politics" to describe cheating weasels lying to each other, or the word "religion" to describe something that happens in a church.
People use all kinds of crappy terms. That doesn't mean that you get to pick and choose poorly defined terms and then go flailing away at them. It just confuses matters more. If you're going to slam somebody's belief system, don't go throwing a bunch of other people into the mix at the same time.
"Argh! Is there anyone on the planet who does believe we know everything? Please narrow your definition."
That has not been my experience. In another thread under this very article a commenter was making the assumption that modern-day morals can judge whether what some God figure does is right or wrong. I find that incredible, given our progression in what is right and wrong in the western world. It's common to see people act as if modern science understands 99% of everything, when most likely it's nowhere near that percentage. This attitude is taught in schools and, best I can tell, fits the definition of religious instruction. Science is a tentative set of rules that are interconnected and based on abduction, induction, and deduction. It's always tentative, but that part of science is uncomfortable for many, so we creatively explain how it's some sort of natural progression from ignorance to greatness. (In fact, as Kuhn noted, it goes in fits and starts, is highly political, and works from one paradigm to another) People who admire celebrities many times think they actually know all about the person from watching them on TV or reading their works, when in fact the public version of somebody and the private version are very different. Atheists will argue at length about there not being a God when, as demonstrated here, there's simply no way for anybody to know one way or another. Salesmen will think they know everything about what a potential client needs without ever talking to them.
Humans seem very good at thinking they know everything about a subject, whether it's science, religion, social interactions, whatever.
Epistemology -- the study of that which is knowable -- is a topic both for philosophy and religion. I wouldn't go separating the two, because there is and has always been heavy overlap. I'd argue the difference between philosophy and religion is minuscule.