UIC-RAFT: Latest Forum Posts

Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles?

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:14:44 GMT

I found this thread in the Ron Paul Forums...

[Karolis edited a link]

…so I thought I’d repost the post here and see what you all have to say in response to this. =o)

============================================================

The following thread prompted this one:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr…125338&page=38

I reject the obvious desire to revise history on this matter. It is as though our heritage is something that should be feared and reviled, and so it must be denied. An Orwellian trait to be sure.

I’ve decided to share some facts about this issue, but before I get into it, allow me to preface this by stating that I believe in a Creator, and I believe that Christ was the human manifestation of that Creator. However, I do not belong to a religious organization. I am a recovering Catholic. I come from a very long line of Catholics that includes priests and nuns on my French-Canadian Father’s side. My Mother was raised with no religion as her Father was an atheist. I was baptized right after birth, but my parents did not raise me Catholic. I practiced Catholicism of my own volition as a young girl, up until the Priest molestation scandal and subsequent illegal alien advocacy of the Catholic Church.

While I believe there is a place in the world for religion, I also believe that way too many people see it as an end, rather than a means to an end. This undermines a person’s wisdom and sense of balance. Instead of viewing the church as a vehicle in which to teach people about the source of divine power and through which divine power can be channeled into man’s nature, people view the church as the power itself. And the church allows and even encourages this line of thinking. I believe this is extremely deceptive and destructive.

I see organized religion in the same way as I see government. If it is allowed to be corrupted, it will be. The idea of religion, as in the idea of capitalism is not, in and of itself, corrupt. But human nature dictates that those who are left to their own devices without any oversight or intervention, will inevitably succumb to the greed and corruption that comes with too much power.

The founders knew this. You can tell they did when you read the Declaration of Independence. Read how they describe King George. Their goal was to protect us against corruption of power. “[They] delivered to us a system of government which has enjoyed unprecedented success: we are now the world’s longest on-going constitutional republic. Two hundred years under the same document- and under one form of government – is an accomplishment unknown among contemporary nations. For example: Russia, Italy, Spain, and other nations underwent revolutions about the same time as the American Revolution, but with very different results. Consider France: in the last 200 years it has gone through seven completely different forms of governments; Italy has over 50 tries, yet we are still in our first.

Where then, did our Founding Fathers acquire the ideas that produced such longevity? Other nations certainly had access to what our Founders utilized, yet evidently chose not to. From what sources did our Founders choose their ideas?

This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.

The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.

The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.

Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.

The study was even more impressive when the source of the ideas used by Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke were identified. Consider for example, the source of Blackstone’s ideas. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws was first introduced in 1768, and for the next 100 years America’s courts quoted Blackstone to settle disputes, to define words, and to examine procedure; Blackstone’s Commentaries were the final word in the Supreme Courts. So what was a significant source of Blackstone’s ideas? Perhaps the best answer to that question can be given through the life of Charles Finney.

Charles Finney is known as a famous revivalist, minister, and preacher from one of America’s greatest revivals; the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800’s. Finney, in his autobiography, spoke of how he received his call to ministry. He explained that – having determined to become a lawyer – he, like all other law students at the time, commenced the study of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws. Finney observed that Blackstone’s Commentaries not only provided the laws, it also provided the Biblical concepts on which those laws were based. Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry. Finney’s life story clearly identified a major source of Blackstone’s ideas for law.

So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”

This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.

Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders.

Sources:

David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review

Hello!

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:44:45 GMT

Its been mighty quiet around here. Nobody has anything to discuss? Anyone subscribe to the Richard Dawkins Forum?

Why shouldn't the press cover the election like a horserace?

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:56:48 GMT

From Slate:

No presidential campaign would be complete without self-flagellation by the press about its overreliance on “horse race” coverage. Politico honchos John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei donned the hair shirts earlier this month to compose an apology on behalf of the political press corps for pushing so many horse-race inspired “bogus narratives” on readers.

Among the bogus narratives cited by VandeHarris were “McCain is dead” from last summer; Huckabee has no chance in Iowa; Obama is a dud—no, Obama is the bee’s knees!—and the Clinton machine will die in New Hampshire.

While I appreciate the pair’s candor, self-reflection, and regret, you can no more divorce “horseracism” (to pinch Brian Montopoli’s coinage) from campaign coverage than you can divorce horseracism from the coverage of horse races. Why else would they call political contests “races”? Or their leading contestants “front-runners”?

Consider the fullness of the metaphor: A bunch of perfectly groomed and tended politicians gather at the starting gate. They all have track records and somebody has placed a bet on them. When the gun sounds, they run like Seabiscuit, frothing and jostling. Some pull up lame before the race concludes. The event, which seems to go on forever, can be a blowout or end in a photo finish. The winner takes a victory bow as the losers regroup for the next heat or depart for the glue factory.

During an actual horse race, nobody wants to hear the announcer drone on about the ponies’ dietary regimes. They want to know who’s winning, who’s gaining, who’s in the thick of it, and who can be written off. Are the front-runners burning themselves out and letting a back marker take the prize? That which cannot be compressed into an announcer’s play-by-play ends up in the learned pages of the Daily Racing Form. But for immediacy, nothing rivals a great horse-race take.

Horse-race coverage isn’t the devil spawn of the television age. Scholar C. Anthony Broh dates horse-race coverage of campaigns back to 1888, when the Boston Journal reported that a “dark horse” was unlikely to appear in a campaign. While noting horseracisms’ obvious deficiencies, he catalogs its many pluses. Horse-race journalism increases voter interest in campaigns, something you can’t say for the average newspaper’s delineation of a position paper. “The horse-race image encourages reporters to emphasize competition rather than to forecast results,” Broh writes, arguing against the common view that reporters are keen to anoint a winner as soon as possible. Every political reporter I know yearns to cover a deadlocked presidential convention.

Critics of horseracism complain that it isolates on poll results and reports from campaign rallies to the exclusion of discussions of political “substance.” But that’s hardly ever the case. Mother Jones’ Jonathan Stein has been cataloging some of the best of the substance coverage, recently citing pieces about Clinton’s voting record vs. Obama’s and a comparison of the Democrats’ domestic policy. He’s also refuted Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone piece that claims the campaign press corps has bogged itself down in trivialities. But even if the press corps had abandoned substance, no voter is more than a mouse click away from detailed policy papers and unfiltered campaign speeches by the candidates. If you’re not an informed political consumer this year, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

A political campaign is more than a traveling debate society. Beyond the issues, voters need to know why a candidate is (or isn’t) performing well in the polls, is (or isn’t) raising money, is (or isn’t) drawing crowds of supporters, or is (or isn’t) keeping his cool. Candidates win or lose for a reason, reasons that have to do with issue papers but also with how they carry themselves and present their positions. Candidates appreciate this fact, which is why they commission private polls so they can construct their own horse-race results and act on them.

Of course, reporters should never forget that their subjective impressions of the voters’ subjective impressions are … subjective, and that reporters are as fallible as anybody. But these subjective impressions also convey essential information that helps voters decide which candidate will govern best. For instance, in this campaign the difference among the Obama, Clinton, and Edwards health-care plans are negligible compared with the changes likely to be mandated by a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party. To make an intelligent decision about which one of these three to vote for, a citizen needs horse-race data.

Finally, if not for horseracism, reporters would have no concrete way to cover the ultimate “substance” of the Obama campaign, which is more about personality and establishing a transcendental social movement than pushing a unique set of policy prescriptions.

It’s one thing to watch a horse run the track by himself, but there’s no substitute for watching him pound the turf with his equals. Only great horses can go the distance. Only great horses stage comebacks. And the only time a race really makes sense is when it’s over. As for the view that political reporters love to cover campaigns as a horse race because it’s so easy, you try it sometime. And then get back to me.

Top 20 Logical Fallacies

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:51:11 GMT

This is taken from The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Presents our Top 20 Logical Fallacies

What is a logical fallacy?

All arguments have the same basic structure: A therefore B. They begin with one or more premises (A), which is a fact or assumption upon which the argument is based. They then apply a logical principle (therefore) to arrive at a conclusion (B). An example of a logical principle is that of equivalence. For example, if you begin with the premises that A=B and B=C, you can apply the logical principle of equivalence to conclude that A=C. A logical fallacy is a false or incorrect logical principle. An argument that is based upon a logical fallacy is therefore not valid. It is important to note that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true. Valid logic applied to one or more false premises, however, leads to an invalid argument. Also, if an argument is not valid the conclusion may, by chance, still be true.

Top 20 Logical Fallacies (in alphabetical order)

Ad hominem An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO’s are crazy or stupid.
Ad ignorantiam The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. UFO proponents will often argue that an object sighted in the sky is unknown, and therefore it is an alien spacecraft.
Argument from authority Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.
Argument from final Consequences Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. For example: God must exist, because otherwise life would have no meaning.
Argument from Personal Incredulity I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.
Confusing association with causation This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they are correlated, although the relationship here is not strictly that of one variable following the other in time. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time. A corollary to this is the invocation of this logical fallacy to argue that an association does not represent causation, rather it is more accurate to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it can. Also, multiple independent correlations can point reliably to a causation, and is a reasonable line of argument.
Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the “God of the Gapsâ” strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.
False Continuum The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful: There is a fuzzy line between cults and religion, therefore they are really the same thing.
False Dichotomy Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to the other.
Inconsistency Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others. For example, some consumer advocates argue that we need stronger regulation of prescription drugs to ensure their safety and effectiveness, but at the same time argue that medicinal herbs should be sold with no regulation for either safety or effectiveness.
The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for “proof” or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.
Non-Sequitur In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
Post-hoc ergo propter hoc This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the latin translates to “after this, therefore because of this”).
Reductio ad absurdum In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either. This is a false reductio ad absurdum because he is ignoring evidence other than personal eyewitness evidence, and also logical inference. In short, being skeptical of UFO’s does not require rejecting the existence of the Great Wall.
Slippery Slope This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme.
Straw Man Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.
Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results. For example, one might point out that ESP has never been demonstrated under adequate test conditions, therefore ESP is not a genuine phenomenon. Defenders of ESP have attempted to counter this argument by introducing the arbitrary premise that ESP does not work in the presence of skeptics. This fallacy is often taken to ridiculous extremes, and more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies.
Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force.
Tu quoque Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. “My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours.”
Unstated Major Premise This fallacy occurs when one makes an argument which assumes a premise which is not explicitly stated. For example, arguing that we should label food products with their cholesterol content because Americans have high cholesterol assumes that: 1) cholesterol in food causes high serum cholesterol; 2) labeling will reduce consumption of cholesterol; and 3) that having a high serum cholesterol is unhealthy. This fallacy is also sometimes called begging the question.

Dawn Sherman

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:08:03 GMT

Check this out: The Atheist’s Daughter: Teenager takes on school prayer, following activist father into battle

Her lawsuit challenging the new Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act in Illinois has already resulted in a temporary injunction blocking the law’s mandatory moment of silence for the 13,000 students in Township High School District 214. Now, she and the No. 1 atheist activist in Illinois — her father, Rob — are going after a bigger prize: They want the law struck down as unconstitutional.

Important, info about the website!

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:09:55 GMT

Hello, everyone. Several updates have been implemented on this website. They are meant to increase the usability and overall look of the site. One of the major differences was the implementation of “Textile” markup. Now whenever you post a forum post please use these formatting guidelines with several exceptions (“Align Blocks” and “Apply Attributes” tags are not allowed).

Hopefully this will simplify things for everyone.

Just a quick note. You may notice that the box that lists recently discussed forum posts is out of order. During the updating process dates got reset. Everything works fine now and if a reply is made it will float to the top.

Open-Mindedness

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:34:47 GMT

“The mind is like a parachute: It only works when it is open.”

“An open mind is a great thing, but if you open your mind too much, a lot of shit gets in… and your brain might even fall out.”

Irrational, Illogical, and Intuitive Atheism

Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:43:39 GMT

Religionless Religion
by Osho.

Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Mohammedanism — these are only ideologies, dogmas, creeds; they are only cults. The true religion has no name, it cannot have any name. Buddha lived it, Jesus lived it — but remember, Jesus was not a Christian and Buddha was not a Buddhist, he had never heard of the word. The truly religious people have been simply religious, they have not been dogmatic. There are three hundred religions in the world — this is such an absurdity! If truth is one, how can there be three hundred religions? There is only one science, and three hundred religions?

If the science that is concerned with the objective truth is one, then religion is also one because it is concerned with the subjective truth, the other side of the truth. But that religion cannot have any name, it cannot have any ideology.

I teach only that religion. Hence if somebody asks you what my teaching is, in short, you will not be able to say — because I don’t teach principles, ideologies, dogmas, doctrines. I teach you a religionless religion, I teach you the taste of it. I give you the method to become receptive to the divine. I don’t say anything about the divine, I simply tell you “This is the window — open it and you will see the starry night.”

Now, that starry night is indefinable. Once you see it through the open window you will know it. Seeing is knowing — and seeing should be being, too. There should be no other belief.

So my whole effort is existential, not intellectual at all. And the true religion is existential. It has always happened to only a few people and then it disappears from the earth because the intellectuals immediately grab it and they start making beautiful ideologies out of it — neat and clean, logical. In that very effort they destroy its beauty. They create philosophies, and religion disappears. The pundit, the scholar, the theologian, is the enemy of religion.

So remember it: you are not getting initiated into a certain religion; you are getting initiated into just religiousness. It is vast, immense, unbounded — it is like the whole sky.

Even the sky is not the limit, so open your wings without any fear. This whole existence belongs to us; this is our temple, this is our scripture. Less than that is manmade, manufactured by man. Where it is manufactured does not matter much — beware of manufactured religions so that you can know the true, which is not manmade. And it is available in the trees, in the mountains, in the rivers, in the stars — in you, in people that surround you — it is available everywhere.

Science is the search for truth in the objective world and religion is the search for the truth in the subjective world. In fact, they are two wings of one bird, of one inquiry — two sides. Ultimately there is no need to have two names. My own suggestion is that “science” is a perfectly beautiful name, because it means “knowing.” So science has two sides, just like every coin has two sides. Knowing in the dimension of matter you can call objective science, and knowing in the dimension of your interiority — of your inner being, of your consciousness — you can call subjective science. There is no need for the word religion.

Science is perfectly good — and it is the same search, just the directions are different. And it will be good that we make one supreme science, which is a synthesis, a synchronicity of the outer science and the inner science. There will be no need of so many religions then, and there will be no need then even for somebody to be an atheist. When theists are gone, then there is no need for atheists — they are only reactions. There are believers in God so there are disbelievers in God. When the believers are gone, what is the need of disbelievers?

There is no need to believe in anything — that is the fundamental of science. That is the scientific approach to reality: do not believe, inquire. The moment you believe, inquiry stops. Keep your mind open — neither believe nor disbelieve. Just remain alert and search and doubt everything until you come to a point which is indubitable — that’s what truth is. You cannot doubt it. It is not a question of believing in it, it is a totally different phenomenon. It is so much a certainty, overwhelming you so much, that there is no way to doubt it.

This is knowing. And this knowing transforms a man into a buddha, into an enlightened one. This is the goal of all human growth.

This article was excerpted with permission from Autobiography of a Spiritually Incorrect Mystic by Osho. Published by St. Martin’s Press.

See: http://www.innerself.com/Spirituality/religionless.htm

Monkey Love and the Dangers of Mixing Ideology with Science

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:05:33 GMT

Chimps Are Champs In Short-Term Memory Test Versus College Students
Chimps better than human counterparts in short-term memory tests
Young chimp beats college students
5-year-old chimp beats college kids in computer game

I must admit, I was completely captivated when I read about the discovery that monkeys had better short term memory than humans. I thought that was an AMAZING discovery, and was very impressed and happy for the chimps…

Then, a random thought occurred to me: Why are we measuring the capacity of a monkey’s memory in relation to humans? Isn’t it enough to just say, “Monkeys can perform x,y,z feat.” and leave it at that?

Something else occurred to me too… This video:

TGM 3 Tetris Arika !!! Invisible Tetris
(you have to watch the last 1/4th to appreciate it)

I thought, ‘I’d like to see a monkey beat that!’ – then I realize how unfair I was being to the monkeys. This guy has obviously been playing this game like a nut… and… then… it struck me what was wrong with the whole headline about monkey vs. human short term memory!

First, I had to make sure: So I investigated the details. Sure enough. Turns out, the chimpanzees being used in this experiment had been training in labs for this type of task for years! Their “human counter parts” as one headline put it, were randomly plucked from college campuses and had no context for performing the specific memory task at hand, much less any practice in it for the large majority of their lives, unlike the chimps used in the experiment.

I realized that this claim that “Chimps better than human counterparts in short-term memory tests” was about as silly as claiming that “Gorillas are better at sign language than the average human” or “Educated people are better at reading, writing, and arithmetic than those who have received no education whatsoever”

So, this takes me back to my original question: Why are we comparing humans and chimpanzees in the first place? The answer can be found simply by reading what the researches claim this experiment proves:

“The simple test, according to Kyoto University Tetsuro Matsuzawa, debunks the age-old belief that humans are superior to chimpanzees in all cognitive functions.”

“Our common ancestors might have had immediate memory, but in the course of evolution, they lost this and acquired language-like skills,” said Matsuzawa.

Oh, I see… That’s what this is really about isn’t it? Matsuzawa has a stake in the ideological debate that humans are superior to animals. Apparently, he has been looking for evidence to the contrary (more research on Matsuzawa’s scientific history) to support his ideology, and finally, with the aid of this “rigged “experiment, he has done so.

Interestingly enough, he ties the whole thing into an assumption about the history of human evolution and what it all means about how our brains have evolved. Sadly, the assumptions about the results of this horribly constructed experiment are already questionable, so the assumptive implications about how we evolved as humans is even more shaky!

“Scientists plan to repeat the experiment using 5th graders against the great apes.”

They don’t even realize how completely pointless the results of their first experiment were, yet they’re going to pursue this same faulty path of science looking for even more evidences for… whatever point they are trying to make? Sorry, guys, but dressing up a corpse isn’t going bring your ideology to life. Please, for the love of science, pursue some other path of reasoning!

Okay. Personally, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not interested in proving humans are or are not superior to animals, because I don’t really see that as an issue. I think humans are unique and special, but the rest of nature is unique and special and deserving of respect, conservation, and good stewardship. While I believe that the universe and the governing laws of science were created miraculously out of nothing, I also recognize that the universe and the laws of science were created self-sufficient, and therefore will appear to be have come into being and sustain their existence absent any kind of miracle or divine intervention: evolution. Proving creationism with science is totally silly and pointless to me, but setting out to disprove it and “prove” evolution with science is just as dangerous and can completely confuse the results.

Perhaps for some, human superiority has been used as an excuse to abuse nature, even other humans. For others, anti-humanism has been taken to the opposite extreme where an animal’s life is MORE important than a human’s. I think those are two interesting ideological extremes which deserve a much larger arena to be debated than just the limited arena of “science.”

For the person who worships science as some kind of god, science IS the end all, be all and judicatory of all debates. Unfortunately, this obsession can be counter productive, and often counteracts human reason and everything we have learned through reason, philosophy, and other humanities.

Once the scope of how these ideological debates can be settled is limited to science, we end up in a very dangerous place indeed! For one thing, this has lead to the fact that much of the “science” being done in the world is no longer to satisfy human curiosity and improve our plight. It is to “find answers” to idiological questions – answers that the people doing the research have often already decided they will find.

“If only I could find the proof for what I already believe to be true.” is a phrase many scientists working in the labs have often muttered to themselves. These guys are in the trenches of an ideological war, often on opposite sides, and so it is no wonder that what comes out is one scientific discovery trumping the next, over, and over, and over again…

When you’re “doing science” to find the proof to an ideology you have already made your mind up on, chances are, you’re going to find the evidence to support your claims one way or another (if you don’t find cold hard evidence, you’ll just exaggerate results). Is anyone really benefiting from this?

The truly sad thing, is that once one side of the debate constitutes the majority of those doing the science, that side is going to “appear” to be winning with all the results they “discover.” What ends up happening, is that science marches onward, flimsy theory stacked on flimsy theory, so that the original errors are buried so deep under conclusions made from conclusions made from conclusions, they’re nearly impossible to detect! A virtual scientific monopoly of thought and ideas! On no! And thus, the house of cards is built.

What happens when that house of cards starts to fall down? Every last scientist who has a stake in this house of cards now comes to its defense (which by now is the overwhelming majority). Truth gets blurred even more, and minority dissenting “evidences” are squashed before they even see the light of day. What you end up with is the opposite of science, you get religion! We’ve got plenty of religion in this world… what we need is real science, please.

All this because we thought it would be a good idea to mix up science in ideological debates. When science is being done in the midst of an ideological and for the purpose of settling that debate, all you really get is bad science. Really bad science.

Think about how many ideological debates science is mixed up in. How skeptical have you been of what scientists are telling you about what the results of their science is telling you about the answers to these ideological questions? Perhaps, it is time to start holding scientists more accountable, especially those who constantly infer ideological claims from their work and stop bowing down to them as the priests of a new religion, whose dictums and mandates are unquestionable and infallible.

Pro Life Feminists?

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:20:20 GMT

When I clicked the link (from Anne Rice’s website) I expected to see a site about devoting one’s entire lifespan to being a feminist. I was quite surprised and amused by what I actually found…

Feminists For Life

What do you think?
Is being a feminist and being pro-life mutually exclusive?

I Want YOU to Join the War on Truthiness

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:59:37 GMT

Join the war!

http://facebook.com/group.php?gid=6492453914

O Christmas Tree!

Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:30:11 GMT

As it is now getting closer to Christmas, I felt that it would be fitting to share a passage from the Holy Bible:

Jeremiah 10:2-4: “Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.” (KJV).

Now, I will not go into any sort of in-depth analysis of this passage for fear that I may get crucified by Zachariah ;P but I will say that considering the many pagan origins of various common traditions (winter solstice anyone?), this passage is not surprising (yet still very funny to point out to very conservative Christians!).

Further readings:
Christmas tree
More on Christmas

My christmas project

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:56:21 GMT

So what I am thinking for next semester is a way to get Rob Sherman to come to uic and speak. He was the one who took on the boy scouts of america and he was also responsible for getting the moment of silence recalled in district 214 (my high school is included in that woot). So I think he would be a great candidate to come out here and speak.

So if anyone is intersted than during break I will see what I can do about getting him to come out here. Let me know if anybody is interested.

Grossness During Grossman Meeting

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:38 GMT

Grossman’s presentation today was fascinating but I have no hard opinions on it either way. It’s something I feel I should reflect on and let develop “on its own” over time, so to speak. Now as some of you already know, I am agnostic and harbor very little ill-will toward the religious or those who aren’t. I attend RAFT meetings because I have a few friends in the group, don’t have an issue with Rationalists or Free Thinkers, and find the discussions interesting and occasionally insightful. I wasn’t originally going to attend today’s due to a prior committment but I scheduled it for a little later in the day and I must express two sentiments: admiration for Professor Grossman, who has serious “stones” to enter the lion’s den as he did. The other feeling is extreme disappointment at the reaction some of RAFT’s members had toward the Professor.

Take the man in the Rolling Stones shirt, whose name is Robert I believe — he’s not a bad guy and I don’t want to insult him personally. Not at all! I generally like him, from prior meetings. He seems informed, intelligent and fairly articulate. But today, I noticed him constantly interrupting Professor Grossman, talking “out of turn”, and being generally rude. I’m a big believer in some level of civility during discussion and I try to never cut someone off unless it’s become a significant and contentious disagreement. Very little of the sort was going on today from Grossman’s side, so I found Robert’s attitude toward him and his speech odd and uncalled for. Plus, he made what I thought was a self-evidently false claim in saying that he was particularly familiar with Grossman’s work.

The other one is for who I was told is named “Mike”: the young man with the glasses, blond/light hair, green coat, corporate-sponsored bookbag and premature exit. He’s clearly an “intelligent” person, but I thought he was being an asshole today and so did just about everyone around me. His constant interruptions and his pretensiousness were what struck me initially but when he let this nugget loose I was only barely able to contain my disgust:

“I continuously look at the data.”

I quoted it and underlined it. Rolling his eyes, saying “whatever” once, shaking his head, being a general prick weren’t enough — Mike had to argue that he “continuously” looks at the data but couldn’t cite any of the articles he’d read, books, or specifics? No particulars? No real knowledge of Grossman’s citations beyond a passing familiarity?

I’m sure Mr. “Mike” is an intelligent young man but he’s an asshole and his “I know everything” attitude needs to be checked fast. Nobody likes someone who thinks they know everything, and I know that the easy response to THIS post of mine will be, “Pratt thinks he knows everything!” but I don’t. And it’s hard to demonstrate that I do.

Otherwise, it was a fine meeting, but let’s keep the yelling and the screaming and the anger and the flippant attitude down, eh?

The Neil Grossman meeting...

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:26:12 GMT

Just wanted everyone to know, I’m currently enrolled in Grossman’s “Death” class and know many of his arguments and examples he uses, as well as specific authors he has our (my class) reading. If anyone has any questions that I might be able to help with, let me know.

In regards to a lot of his thoughts I recommend looking into metaphysicalism as well as what constitutes a scientific theory and what constitutes a theological theory. I personally believe he can properly define the difference (scientific theories allow for a specific example that would falsify it, theological theories can not be falsified) and knows what these are but is slow to apply the criteria to his own and others “theories”.

He also will likely bring up reincarnation, mediumship, ghosts, etc. In my opinion, the 2 strongest arguments against any of this is:

1. Contradiction to the Laws of conservation of energy (energy can neither be created nor destroyed). How can a ghost appear (light energy) without violating this law? Soul interact with the body without using energy (moving or influencing matter without applying a force on it)?

2. (This second point may be foggy and need clarification but I’ll do my best) A metaphysical world would be separate entirely, from our world (that’s why physics don’t apply, etc) so even if this world would exist, any beliefs about what happens in that realm can not be verified, nor can they even be theoretically more likely to occur than another, due to a complete lack of knowing the physics of this world (causation may not even exist).

He will not likely bring up the experiences of NDE that do not provide epistemological proof (Tunnel, life review, seeing a spirit) as an argument, but likely will state it as parts of the phenomenon. He will argue about evidence of OBE (Out of Body Experience) with verifiable claims (seeing a shoe on a ledge that was out of sight of the NDEer, etc.). The Pam Reynolds case is a arguably strong case for this, though I actually think it’s a weak case. Wikipedia is actually a good source to find info and criticisms of a lot of this.

Sites he cites in class: http://www.NDErf.org and http://www.iands.org/