This is why Westboro Baptist Church is a joke

[kandrathe]

Well, it is a fact that countries with more social societies (better social security system) have overall higher living standards and much lower amount of people below the poverty line.

Not a fact. Cuba? Former Soviet Union? China under Maoists?

Taxing and using taxing for schooling and health care will allow everybody to have the same chance and that means everybody can develop himself to the fullest. The more kids with a good education the more society benefits.

I won't argue that the outcomes are desirable, only that the possible methods of achieving them are more numerous than utilizing state power to separate people from what they've earned.

There is enough inefficiency in the business world but it is hidden better because companies can very easy just fire 20% of their workforce and the company will survive again. That this is not ideal for people to build a stable life in which they can raise their children is obvious. So I much rather have some inefficiency in the government then companies benefiting from my health.

And, those companies will not long survive as some other better run company will have taken up the slack. I had the opportunity to work at one of the remaining US manufacturing companies who always benefits from recessions like the one we are having now, and has never had to lay off its workers. They count on business cycles, and they build a war chest during the good times. When the recession inevitably comes, they wait for their competition to struggle and become weakened, then they buy them out, they expand, they grow.

Most problems you have in the US with healthcare are caused because of the involvement of the private sector, not because of the government.

Singapore defies your claims.

Doctors will do 100s of tests on a patient that has a good insurance (because they make more money) even though the test are not really necessary. That allows them at the same time to not care too much about the uninsured ones......there is work enough anyway.

They do tests to avoid being slapped with a career and practice killing malpractice lawsuit.

In a fairy tale world it would indeed be great that every person himself could choose exactly the care that he needs.....but seriously....what percentage of the population actually has the intelligence and knowledge to do this??

Yes, that fairy tale world is in Singapore. They spend only 4% of GDP on health care (compared to ~14% in the US. ~7% in the UK, ~10% in the other OECD), and achieve equal to higher life expectancy than the US or UK.

And even then.....how do you insure??? For dental you can easily say; I save 100 dollar per month, and normally this would be enough for those few times I need some serious dental care......but what if you get cancer? Almost nobody can take this cost by himself, so people need to be insured, so people that never get sick pay for the people that do.......it is just like socialism.

If the cancer rate per capita is 1 in 1000, or even 1 in 100 then yes, we can create an insurance pool. When life span increases due to medical technology, the rates eventually go to 1 in 3 people getting an expensive terminal illness, such as cancer, then no one can afford to be insured, or treated. As it stands now, the current and growing population of elderly are using deficit borrowing by the US government to extend their lives for a few months to years. People always justify deficit spending as investment into the nations future, but... where is that happening?

You may have noticed the Europe, and the US are struggling with a financial crisis where socialism is running out of deep pockets to rob. Political slogans aside, adding the Buffet tax for millionaires and above would only raise about 40 billion per year in the US when we have at least a 2 trillion deficit. And, 2010 was the first year of the retiring boomers. The realistic Medicare projections have it alone exceeding 8% of GDP by 2030.

[eppie]

It was important for my great grandmother in particular who was persecuted for her faith back in Europe.

What religion did she practice? This was probably a case of where christians among them had different opinions so strong that it was worth fighting over.

In the past discussions on this topic, the bottom line for me has been that society needs a common code for moral and ethical behavior, and for most Americans, that code has stemmed from their religious upbringing.

Not it hasn't. This was a cultural thing. Don't confuse religion with culture. Ethics existed long before Jesus supposedly walked the earth.
The way a people choses from all that is written in their sacred books to make up their society is culture.


Further I don't understand your comment about being against atheism.
The only thing I have against atheism is the name. The name implies that theism is the rule. An atheist is just not willing to live his life based on unproven tales in some old book. What is you problem with that?

[eppie]

Not a fact. Cuba? Former Soviet Union? China under Maoists?

First those countries were dictatorship which were not social. It is not social to have a ruling class that is rich.
Second, Cuba is probably the best in the class when you compare them to countries in their region DESPITE being victim of a very unfair trade blockade.
I was talking about north west european countries. social ...I didn't say communist dictatorships.

[quote='kandrathe' pid='190175' dateline='1318405891']
You may have noticed the Europe, and the US are struggling with a financial crisis where socialism is running out of deep pockets to rob. Political slogans aside, adding the Buffet tax for millionaires and above would only raise about 40 billion per year in the US when we have at least a 2 trillion deficit. And, 2010 was the first year of the retiring boomers. The realistic Medicare projections have it alone exceeding 8% of GDP by 2030.

Likely western society has to change even more social if it wants to survive. You can't explain to the Greeks that they get fired, saleries lowered etc. when the people that caused the crisis are still rich.
That is a nice ethical question for you; is it really fair that somebody has more then a billion dollars on his bank account? Of course, taking it away from him raises ethical questions but 1; he made the money because of the way the society he lives in was build up and 2, this ethical question answer no at the moment, but what happens if will not get out of this crisis? When people start starving on the streets (even in the west)....what will the answer then be? Chances are very big that we will change our perception of what is ethical or not?
So no, a little tax for the super rich will not help, but say take half of the money of all billionaires and build solar and wind power plants....maybe the US doesn't need to import oil anymore and will prosper again? Who knows.??

---

[quote='kandrathe' pid='190166' dateline='1318372827']I guess what I was trying to get at, and I guess it was vague, was that if a science teacher's agenda is to promote atheism, that it is as egregious to me as promoting creationism.

A science teacher teaches science.
If he explains something about dinosaurs or fossils is that promoting atheism? It will collide with the ideas of some religious people if they are smart enough to understand....but promotion of atheism????

[Jester]

Singapore defies your claims.

...

Yes, that fairy tale world is in Singapore. They spend only 4% of GDP on health care (compared to ~14% in the US. ~7% in the UK, ~10% in the other OECD), and achieve equal to higher life expectancy than the US or UK.

(If we want to talk Health Care, perhaps a new thread is in order? Religion in the US was close enough, but this is a whole other ballpark.)

Exporting the Singapore model is very difficult, for several reasons.

1) Singapore is unique - a rich, developed, city-state. Government power is extreme, but enforcement and monitoring costs (means testing) are low.

2) Singapore is a major medical tourism destination, and thus, can cross subsidize its system by selling excess capacity. The US does this, but see point 1 - the US is huge.

3) Singapore maintains parallel and competitive private and public health care, with heavy regulation and price controls. In a larger market, this balance is more difficult to control.

4) Singapore is extremely paternalist - the government quite literally tells you how to run your life in all sorts of ways, health included. Few countries tolerate this, probably because of point 1.

5) Singapore can work with very low levels of redundancy. Socialized systems are plagued with waiting lists and patient transfers, whereas the US is plagued with phenomenally expensive slack capacity. Singapore avoids both, because of population density. They can predict demand with high accuracy, and have no problems with poor coverage.

6) Singaporean culture is healthy eating and high exercise, for reasons that are difficult if not impossible to emulate.

7) (Warning: Speculation!) The Singaporean economy has an unusual relationship with foreign workers and Malaysia in general. There may be disguised costs and especially disguised negative outcomes hidden by migration and statistics collection criteria. If a poor worker goes to Singapore to work (high wages), but retires to Malaysia (low costs), that improves Singaporean stats, and reduces Malaysian stats - while saying nothing about their respective systems' efficiency. I do not know how relevant this is, but foreign workers are a *large* (40%) chunk of the Singaporean workforce. (See, Average Income, Luxembourgish.)

Some aspects might be borrowed - a sliding scale of subsidy vs. co-payments might be possible, with sufficient income data. The provision of all basic health care, essentially free, would go a long way. Co-payment for nontrivial, nonessential services are probably a good idea. Tax-free savings accounts are one method of ensuring medical care, although it is unclear how this improves on an insurance model.

I really wouldn't expect miracles from copying Singapore. Improvement, certainly - almost anything is better than the unbelievably expensive US system. But 4% of GDP is just a fantasy for the US, or most countries.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

First those countries were dictatorship which were not social. It is not social to have a ruling class that is rich.
Second, Cuba is probably the best in the class when you compare them to countries in their region DESPITE being victim of a very unfair trade blockade.
I was talking about north west european countries. social ...I didn't say communist dictatorships.

You can't cherry pick which "socialist" states you want to compare. None of those "communist" totalitarian states achieved true communism. They used the force of government to make changes that would bring it about, but in the end they implemented socialism. A dictatorship should be the one that implements "socialism" most efficiently. We could look at France then. Riots? Religious freedom? Debt? Unfunded pensions? Unemployment? etc. etc. etc.

Likely western society has to change even more social if it wants to survive. You can't explain to the Greeks that they get fired, salaries lowered etc. when the people that caused the crisis are still rich.

First, let's get real. The people that caused the crisis is us. Every poor person who took the handout, but could have done it on their own, every middle class worker who cheated on their taxes, every patriotic American who cheered as the boys marched off to war and every rich tycoon who lobbied for or exploited a loophole rather than paying their fair share. But, your argument is that we should do more of the same? Because running up deficits to spend money unproductively has been such a raving success for us? Because if we pump more money into the government beast it will suddenly deliver what it never has? You think we should continue to prop up the corporate failures, and punish the ones who go it alone and don't fail? We live beyond our means, take every opportunity to cheat the system, and use credit to have the party today at the expense of our future. It will end eventually, the people's standard of living will crash, and it won't get better even if you behead the aristocracy, and steal their wealth too. In the US, what our government is doing is "kicking the can down the road". The government can't actually do anything except for reshuffle the deck. They can take from one and give it to another, or... What they are doing now is taking away tomorrows prosperity to fill in the growing hole in our present.

That is a nice ethical question for you; is it really fair that somebody has more then a billion dollars on his bank account? Of course, taking it away from him raises ethical questions but 1; he made the money because of the way the society he lives in was build up and 2, this ethical question answer no at the moment, but what happens if will not get out of this crisis? When people start starving on the streets (even in the west)....what will the answer then be? Chances are very big that we will change our perception of what is ethical or not?

As much as you want it to be, it is not a rich versus poor problem. It is a problem with malinvestment. It is a problem with over promising, and under delivering. It's a problem of encroaching rules and regulations that make getting out of the lower classes harder (and sap the productivity from corporations*). The ones who get to the 1% are either very diligent, lucky, unscrupulous, or all of the above.

So no, a little tax for the super rich will not help, but say take half of the money of all billionaires and build solar and wind power plants....maybe the US doesn't need to import oil anymore and will prosper again? Who knows.??

Where do you stop? Why not take half of everyone? Just think of all the great stuff the government could do with all that money. Hey, let's just take it all. Do you believe at all in freedom? How can a government represent "justice" by unjust means?

A science teacher teaches science. If he explains something about dinosaurs or fossils is that promoting atheism? It will collide with the ideas of some religious people if they are smart enough to understand....but promotion of atheism????

When science talks about origin, it raises many questions in people. The problem is more that the science is taught in textbooks and in the classroom in an atheist way. Such as, "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous." taken from a popular textbook on evolutionary biology. The problem is posed as A versus B, and students are required to choose.

* during Bush, I had to spend about a year helping corporations comply with Patriot Act reporting requirements. This year I'm forced to comply with new Gainful Employment reporting requirements. All of this has a well intended purpose, such as don't lend money to terrorists, and make sure federal student aid is not wasted on programs that exploit students. The outcome of all this is the same as the TSA's requirements that we take off our shoes (which now, suddenly we can wear again). Instead of focusing on getting to the 1% of wrong doers, the government forces 100% to go through extra screening. The TSA has greatly increased the burden for travelers, and has very little to show except for nabbing the occasional drug user. Similarly, the Patriot Act has heavily burdened society, at monetary expense, and the loss of freedom. I doubt my current exercise implementing Congresses new regulations will yield any hidden fruit either. The culprits they are seeking are apparent, and obvious. They could have just went directly to the wrong doers, the trail to them is littered with complaints and loan defaults. And... five or ten years from now they will wonder why the US colleges offer no programs in traditional liberal arts such as Archeology, or History.

[Jester]

When science talks about origin, it raises many questions in people. The problem is more that the science is taught in textbooks and in the classroom in an atheist way. Such as, "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous." taken from a popular textbook on evolutionary biology. The problem is posed as A versus B, and students are required to choose.

A view which does not involve a God is, by definition, going to be atheistic, in the literal sense. The null case is special - you can't treat it identically with positive hypotheses.

Superfluous is not the same as incorrect. Nothing can demonstrate, in the strictest sense, that God does not guide evolution. But the evidence can (and does) demonstrate, to paraphrase Laplace, that we have no need of that hypothesis. You do not have to choose between A and B. However, there is nothing about A (biology) that requires you to believe B (theology).

Perhaps textbooks do not need to point this out. It is, however, a critical juncture in the history of science, and also a correct explanation of the intellectual history.

Even if your religion overtly contradicts biology, there is no constitutional requirement that you must believe everything you are taught in school. If your religion teaches you that pi is equal to 3, you are free to do so, and to teach your kids thus. But you have no grounds for complaint when they fail their geometry test.

-Jester

---

The people that caused the crisis is us. Every poor person who took the handout, but could have done it on their own, every middle class worker who cheated on their taxes, every patriotic American who cheered as the boys marched off to war and every rich tycoon who lobbied for or exploited a loophole rather than paying their fair share.

You seem to be confusing the Greek crisis with the American one.

The US has a macroeconomic crisis triggered by a financial crisis. Government finances are fine - the US can borrow at fine rates, debt service occupies only a middling place in the budget, creditors are all being paid without issue, taxation is low-to-moderate. The problem is not, therefore, any of the following: Nonpayment of taxes, handouts for poor people, the Iraq war, tycoons exploiting loopholes. These things are bad, but they are not why the US economy is in crisis.

Greece (and to a lesser extent, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy...) is having a *debt* crisis, created by fiscal problems (the origins of which are multiple and debatable.) That is a different issue, requiring different solutions.

These things do not much resemble one another.

-Jester

[eppie]

[quote='kandrathe' pid='190184' dateline='1318428686']
You can't cherry pick which "socialist" states you want to compare. None of those "communist" totalitarian states achieved true communism. They used the force of government to make changes that would bring it about, but in the end they implemented socialism. A dictatorship should be the one that implements "socialism" most efficiently. We could look at France then. Riots? Religious freedom? Debt? Unfunded pensions? Unemployment? etc. etc. etc. [quote]

I don't cherry pick. I just didn't mean dictatorships. If you however want to compare the US situation with a heavily boycotted dictatorships situation that is fine with me but I usually lay the bar a bit higher when I want to find out what is right or wrong in my country.


[quote='kandrathe' pid='190184' dateline='1318428686']
But, your argument is that we should do more of the same?
[quote]

No it isn't. My argument is that maybe in the not too distand future a society with huge differences in wealth are not sustainable anymore.
Of course people spending money they don't have are too blame.....but as I say so often.....most people aren't smart enough to grasp the consequences of their actions.....and for sure not when everybody (your government, your banks, all the big companies around you) tell it is good to spend as much as you can (because they get better from it themselves).

[quote='kandrathe' pid='190184' dateline='1318428686']
Where do you stop? Why not take half of everyone? Just think of all the great stuff the government could do with all that money. Hey, let's just take it all. Do you believe at all in freedom? How can a government represent "justice" by unjust means?
[quote]

You should try and look a bit out of the box here. I didn't propose anything, I just asked a difficult ethical question. We know that we cannot keep our current wealth....we have to share more and more with poorer countries....things will change.
500 years ago it was very normal that a king was rich and peasants were poor. In India they still (practically) have a cast system etc. etc. it is not a crazy thought to think that our society will change drastically as well. And maybe in another world, people don't find it fair that investment bankers get huge bonuses by shifting money from here to there.

[kandrathe]

A view which does not involve a God is, by definition, going to be atheistic, in the literal sense. The null case is special - you can't treat it identically with positive hypotheses.

Superfluous is not the same as incorrect. Nothing can demonstrate, in the strictest sense, that God does not guide evolution. But the evidence can (and does) demonstrate, to paraphrase Laplace, that we have no need of that hypothesis. You do not have to choose between A and B. However, there is nothing about A (biology) that requires you to believe B (theology).

Perhaps textbooks do not need to point this out. It is, however, a critical juncture in the history of science, and also a correct explanation of the intellectual history.

Even if your religion overtly contradicts biology, there is no constitutional requirement that you must believe everything you are taught in school. If your religion teaches you that pi is equal to 3, you are free to do so, and to teach your kids thus. But you have no grounds for complaint when they fail their geometry test.

But... The flip side of establishment is free exercise. The government should not be telling the people that their religion is superfluous either.

You seem to be confusing the Greek crisis with the American one.

The US has a macroeconomic crisis triggered by a financial crisis. Government finances are fine - the US can borrow at fine rates, debt service occupies only a middling place in the budget, creditors are all being paid without issue, taxation is low-to-moderate. The problem is not, therefore, any of the following: Nonpayment of taxes, handouts for poor people, the Iraq war, tycoons exploiting loopholes. These things are bad, but they are not why the US economy is in crisis.

Greece (and to a lesser extent, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy...) is having a *debt* crisis, created by fiscal problems (the origins of which are multiple and debatable.) That is a different issue, requiring different solutions.

Sure. I'm grouping all the western democracies economic woes together, and their conditions and crises are variable.

These things do not much resemble one another.

In the US we've managed to slow down the free fall, but we are still in a relative decline compared to the past two decades. I think if we can figure out how to balance the equation between taxes and entitlements, and trim out some of the most cumbersome corporate regulations we'll snap back on track, and we'll lift Europe out of it's slump as well. My biggest concern is still energy. Without a consistent, cheap and abundant (infinite) source of energy we cannot sustain the productivity of the past.

I've been giving Mr. Cain's $9.99 plan some thought.

[kandrathe]

You can't cherry pick which "socialist" states you want to compare. None of those "communist" totalitarian states achieved true communism. They used the force of government to make changes that would bring it about, but in the end they implemented socialism. A dictatorship should be the one that implements "socialism" most efficiently. We could look at France then. Riots? Religious freedom? Debt? Unfunded pensions? Unemployment? etc. etc. etc.

I don't cherry pick. I just didn't mean dictatorships. If you however want to compare the US situation with a heavily boycotted dictatorships situation that is fine with me but I usually lay the bar a bit higher when I want to find out what is right or wrong in my country.

Well, France then.

But, your argument is that we should do more of the same?

No it isn't. My argument is that maybe in the not too distant future a society with huge differences in wealth are not sustainable anymore.
Of course people spending money they don't have are too blame.....but as I say so often.....most people aren't smart enough to grasp the consequences of their actions.....and for sure not when everybody (your government, your banks, all the big companies around you) tell it is good to spend as much as you can (because they get better from it themselves).

Here are the two classes; Those that take care of themselves, and those that don't take care of themselves (which includes cannot, and will not). Of the latter, I'm only concerned with those that cannot take care of themselves. Our "occupy Wallstreet" protesters represent those that will not take care of themselves.

Where do you stop? Why not take half of everyone? Just think of all the great stuff the government could do with all that money. Hey, let's just take it all. Do you believe at all in freedom? How can a government represent "justice" by unjust means?

You should try and look a bit out of the box here. I didn't propose anything, I just asked a difficult ethical question. We know that we cannot keep our current wealth....we have to share more and more with poorer countries....things will change.
500 years ago it was very normal that a king was rich and peasants were poor. In India they still (practically) have a cast system etc. etc. it is not a crazy thought to think that our society will change drastically as well. And maybe in another world, people don't find it fair that investment bankers get huge bonuses by shifting money from here to there.

There is little difference between the king, and the corporate tycoon with a parcel of politicians in his pocket. The crucial element that make them both unjust is the use of government. How about instead of sharing our wealth (giving them fish), we share our expertise (teach them how to fish)?

But, let's not beat around the bush. Let's look at real world examples. What did Bill Gates (lost only $6 billion this year), or Warren Buffet (lost $39 billion), or the Koch brothers (plus $43 billion speculating on oil futures) do that justifies taking half their wealth? Actually, the rich are a minority with an angry majority mob literally marching to their homes demanding their heads (and wealth). Our misplaced anger should be redirected toward our government representatives who should be helping to level the field so we all can prosper.

[Jester]

But... The flip side of establishment is free exercise. The government should not be telling the people that their religion is superfluous either.

How is saying that religious explanations are superfluous *to evolution* (not superfluous in general - good prevarication, though) violating free exercise? Presumably, mathematicians would tell you that God is not necessary to perform algebra, chemists would tell you God is not necessary for molecular bonds, and political scientists would tell you that God is not necessary to establish a voting system. The only reason biologists make a point of saying so, is that so many have claimed otherwise, but that this is scientifically incorrect.

In the US we've managed to slow down the free fall, but we are still in a relative decline compared to the past two decades. I think if we can figure out how to balance the equation between taxes and entitlements, and trim out some of the most cumbersome corporate regulations we'll snap back on track, and we'll lift Europe out of it's slump as well.

Deregulation and spending cuts: the universal solution? Growth is constrained by demand shortages. Demand is constrained by lack of employment. Employment is constrained by lack of hiring. Hiring is constrained by lack of growth. The trap goes snap.

Without a consistent, cheap and abundant (infinite) source of energy we cannot sustain the productivity of the past.

Second Law of Thermodynamics, anyone?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But... The flip side of establishment is free exercise. The government should not be telling the people that their religion is superfluous either.

How is saying that religious explanations are superfluous *to evolution* (not superfluous in general - good prevarication, though) violating free exercise? Presumably, mathematicians would tell you that God is not necessary to perform algebra, chemists would tell you God is not necessary for molecular bonds, and political scientists would tell you that God is not necessary to establish a voting system. The only reason biologists make a point of saying so, is that so many have claimed otherwise, but that this is scientifically incorrect.

Should they be bandying about opinions about God in any way? Is that not a violation of the "Separation"? God is not necessary for me to go to the restroom, but I pray that someone remembered to replaced the toilet paper. You don't want "wink and nod" indications that "God is necessary", but you are OK with "wink and nod" suggestions that "God is unnecessary"? And, you are actually wrong about how Christians, or Buddhists, or Muslims view the superfluousness of God in all things. To them, God is the simplicity of an equation, God is the beauty of a flower, God is the process of a chemical reaction, God touches the hearts of elected and electorate, saints and sinners. It is not necessary to contradict their beliefs, and it is not constitutional either.

Not every scientist is on board. Of course, when they are not, they are called crackpots. For example, "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." -- Prof. Frank Tipler, Tulane Univ.

But, as we've discussed before, I view cosmology as just another type of religion, requiring little proof and a lot of faith.

In the US we've managed to slow down the free fall, but we are still in a relative decline compared to the past two decades. I think if we can figure out how to balance the equation between taxes and entitlements, and trim out some of the most cumbersome corporate regulations we'll snap back on track, and we'll lift Europe out of it's slump as well.

Deregulation and spending cuts: the universal solution? Growth is constrained by demand shortages. Demand is constrained by lack of employment. Employment is constrained by lack of hiring. Hiring is constrained by lack of growth. The trap goes snap.

In a linear model that makes sense, but in reality the equations are more complex. Hiring, and productivity are also constrained by resources devoted toward unproductive regulation. Demand is constrained by income which is made lower by taxation, and prices which are made higher by adding taxes and conditions on how the product is produced. Eventually (unless you believe in perpetual deficit spending) we must choose to purge those things (processes) that we can do without, or we can transfer the burden of maintaining them to the tax payers.

Without a consistent, cheap and abundant (infinite) source of energy we cannot sustain the productivity of the past.

Second Law of Thermodynamics, anyone?

I think you understand what I'm saying. The sun will eventually burn out and we'll all die.

[Treesh]

But... The flip side of establishment is free exercise. The government should not be telling the people that their religion is superfluous either.

How is saying that religious explanations are superfluous *to evolution* (not superfluous in general - good prevarication, though) violating free exercise? Presumably, mathematicians would tell you that God is not necessary to perform algebra, chemists would tell you God is not necessary for molecular bonds, and political scientists would tell you that God is not necessary to establish a voting system. The only reason biologists make a point of saying so, is that so many have claimed otherwise, but that this is scientifically incorrect.

Should they be bandying about opinions about God in any way? Is that not a violation of the "Separation"? God is not necessary for me to go to the restroom, but I pray that someone remembered to replaced the toilet paper. You don't want "wink and nod" indications that "God is necessary", but you are OK with "wink and nod" suggestions that "God is unnecessary"? And, you are actually wrong about how Christians, or Buddhists, or Muslims view the superfluousness of God in all things. To them, God is the simplicity of an equation, God is the beauty of a flower, God is the process of a chemical reaction, God touches the hearts of elected and electorate, saints and sinners. It is not necessary to contradict their beliefs, and it is not constitutional either.

Not every scientist is on board. Of course, when they are not, they are called crackpots. For example, "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." -- Prof. Frank Tipler, Tulane Univ.

But, as we've discussed before, I view cosmology as just another type of religion, requiring little proof and a lot of faith.

Just a little side note to your and Jester's discussion here, but I actually took a course on evolutionary biology from a creationist in college. He wasn't frowned upon by the rest of the scientific faculty; he didn't force feed you creationism. What he did was point out was point out some of the minor lack of data points with the hypothesis of evolution while he was teaching the parts of it that have been universally accepted. He didn't leave out what we had been taught previously to force people into accepting creationism instead, but did point out what atheistic scientists don't bother to mention. It was really interesting to see the lack of fossil record in big chunks here and there and he did point out that it may just because we haven't seen it yet or it may actually be that evolution happened in step-like progression rather than an even slope. You don't have to teach things to be A or B. You don't have to drill into people that each thing is caused by just simply ONE thing. It doesn't have to be a case of either/or with damned near everything. That's the biggest failing we have in teaching, regardless of what level of education you're talking about. I think the problem came about because of how the scientific method is taught and how we're basically just spoon fed info rather than being taught to think about what we're being taught. You have to isolate one variable when setting up your experiments, but that doesn't mean there is ONLY one factor in what you're trying to figure out. Like the whole deal of nature vs nurture in so many cases. WHY does it have to be one or the other instead of a blending of both? That's such a pet peeve with me. Sorry.

With being taught by people with really differing views on religion and how it pertains to science (he wasn't the only one who was "different", but he was the easiest one to use as an example), I found out that science is really just another way to get a handle on how the world/universe works, just like religion is a way to explain how/why the world/universe works. It's just easier to believe in science over religion because there are things that you can do to get concrete results. But just think back and see how scientific hypotheses have changed over the years, starting with when the scientific method was really put into place. We've had to radically change some of the hypothesis simply because we couldn't measure and record everything we needed to in order to get accurate data and experiments. We're still learning new things with every jump in technology that allows us to measure more and more things. Who is to say that we won't eventually find a way to measure theological beings? I don't think it's likely that we will, but choosing religion over science or science over religion just really isn't as necessary as folks have been taught to believe. They are both just ways to view the world and since it's your own personal world view, you are allowed to grab a little from bag A and a little from bag B.

[Zenda]

Not every scientist is on board. Of course, when they are not, they are called crackpots. For example... Prof. Frank Tipler

Isn't that the guy who believes in the Omega Point, which will allow us to ressurect the dead? Who thinks he found the real Theory of Everything all by himself?

Yes, I'd rather call him a crackpot then a scientist

[kandrathe]

Not every scientist is on board. Of course, when they are not, they are called crackpots. For example... Prof. Frank Tipler

Isn't that the guy who believes in the Omega Point, which will allow us to ressurect the dead? Who thinks he found the real Theory of Everything all by himself?

Yes, I'd rather call him a crackpot then a scientist

So then you read his book? Are you familiar with the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? I think some of the futuristic predictions of Kurzweil are interesting, on how we choose to evolve our consciousness away from physical form.

[kandrathe]

Just a little side note to your and Jester's discussion here, but I actually took a course on evolutionary biology from a creationist in college. He wasn't frowned upon by the rest of the scientific faculty; he didn't force feed you creationism. What he did was point out was point out some of the minor lack of data points with the hypothesis of evolution while he was teaching the parts of it that have been universally accepted. He didn't leave out what we had been taught previously to force people into accepting creationism instead, but did point out what atheistic scientists don't bother to mention. It was really interesting to see the lack of fossil record in big chunks here and there and he did point out that it may just because we haven't seen it yet or it may actually be that evolution happened in step-like progression rather than an even slope. You don't have to teach things to be A or B. You don't have to drill into people that each thing is caused by just simply ONE thing. It doesn't have to be a case of either/or with damned near everything. That's the biggest failing we have in teaching, regardless of what level of education you're talking about. I think the problem came about because of how the scientific method is taught and how we're basically just spoon fed info rather than being taught to think about what we're being taught. You have to isolate one variable when setting up your experiments, but that doesn't mean there is ONLY one factor in what you're trying to figure out. Like the whole deal of nature vs nurture in so many cases. WHY does it have to be one or the other instead of a blending of both? That's such a pet peeve with me. Sorry.

With being taught by people with really differing views on religion and how it pertains to science (he wasn't the only one who was "different", but he was the easiest one to use as an example), I found out that science is really just another way to get a handle on how the world/universe works, just like religion is a way to explain how/why the world/universe works. It's just easier to believe in science over religion because there are things that you can do to get concrete results. But just think back and see how scientific hypotheses have changed over the years, starting with when the scientific method was really put into place. We've had to radically change some of the hypothesis simply because we couldn't measure and record everything we needed to in order to get accurate data and experiments. We're still learning new things with every jump in technology that allows us to measure more and more things. Who is to say that we won't eventually find a way to measure theological beings? I don't think it's likely that we will, but choosing religion over science or science over religion just really isn't as necessary as folks have been taught to believe. They are both just ways to view the world and since it's your own personal world view, you are allowed to grab a little from bag A and a little from bag B.

I can't remember much on my Evol. biology course, other than I had to do too much lab work and always messed up calculating statistical error. Good thing I married a statistical genius. She always reviewed my work and fixed it for me, and in exchange I helped her write most of her computer programs.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that it's best to keep an open mind, but also to remain skeptical. If you watch any number of magicians on TV, you know you can't even believe everything you see.

I guess my approach is that nothing gets wasted. As an employer, if someone wasn't a good fit for their position I would move them to a position better suited for them. I feel the same way about knowledge. I'm in a constant learning state, but if something doesn't fit in one place, it might make sense somewhere else. For example, I don't need to be a Buddhist, or Taoist to enjoy their philosophies. I think it would be foolish of me to reject some tidbit of wisdom prejudicially.

[Zenda]

So then you read his book? Are you familiar with the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? I think some of the futuristic predictions of Kurzweil are interesting, on how we choose to evolve our consciousness away from physical form.

No, thank you. I prefer Douglas Adams when it comes to subjects like that

[eppie]

Actually, the rich are a minority with an angry majority mob literally marching to their homes demanding their heads (and wealth). Our misplaced anger should be redirected toward our government representatives who should be helping to level the field so we all can prosper.

Only one comment.
I am not angry at the super rich. I just consider sharing wealth to help a country back on its feet.
Because the same question can be posed for the greek or Italian citizens; their nepotistic leaders have made a mess, and the small guys have to pay. Is that fair?

[Jester]

Should they be bandying about opinions about God in any way? Is that not a violation of the "Separation"? God is not necessary for me to go to the restroom, but I pray that someone remembered to replaced the toilet paper. You don't want "wink and nod" indications that "God is necessary", but you are OK with "wink and nod" suggestions that "God is unnecessary"?

Again, these things are not symmetrical. Saying a process requires a designer is making a very strong claim. Saying a process does not require a designer is making a very weak claim. What is necessary for biology class to teach is that evolution is a process that functions without guidance. It need not be specific about exactly what kinds of guidance are unnecessary - the list is infinite. If that contradicts someone's belief in God's hand in evolution, or any other religious doctrine, tough beans. Nobody is being taught that there is definitely no god - only that god (or any other outside agent, of any kind: aliens, faeries, Xenu, The Force, whatever) is not necessary to explain these phenomena scientifically.

And, you are actually wrong about how Christians, or Buddhists, or Muslims view the superfluousness of God in all things. To them, God is the simplicity of an equation, God is the beauty of a flower, God is the process of a chemical reaction, God touches the hearts of elected and electorate, saints and sinners. It is not necessary to contradict their beliefs, and it is not constitutional either.

The free exercise clause does not defend religion from science! People are allowed to practice their religion freely. That's it. If your religion tells you that verbs are nouns, your English teacher still gets to correct you. If your religion tells you that two plus two is five, your math teacher still gets to mark you down. These things are not unconstitutional - and neither is teaching that evolution does not require direction.

If you, or anyone else, wants to believe that within every flower, between both sides of every equation, guiding every chemical reaction, there lies an omnipotent-yet-invisible creator deity, you are free to believe that - it's constitutionally protected. But the science remains the science. The naturalism of these processes is inherent to science, and it is certainly not unconstitutional to teach as much.

Not every scientist is on board.

They are free to have their opinions, same as anyone else. They don't tend to make much headway in science - we obviously disagree as to why.

But, as we've discussed before, I view cosmology as just another type of religion, requiring little proof and a lot of faith.

We've built gigantic space telescopes and colossal observatories, pointed them at space, and accumulated an enormous amount of data that has, many times in the last century, overturned our previous hypotheses about the state of the universe, its size, its origins, its composition, and so on. We understand more and more every day, clarifying our better theories, and scrapping some of the shakier ones.

When do we get to point the telescope at God and collect some data? Seems to me, the only changes to "theory" in theology are random drift and social trends. Nobody ever learns anything new about it, empirically. This is absolutely nothing like cosmology. Perhaps Treesh is right - some day, we'll find a deity, learn how to measure and observe it. On that day, Theology will become a branch of science (cosmological zoology?) and we'll start to make some progress. But so far, we're not even at step one, and if God is what you say, an ineffable force always within concepts and processes, we're probably never going to get there.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Again, these things are not symmetrical. Saying a process requires a designer is making a very strong claim. Saying a process does not require a designer is making a very weak claim. What is necessary for biology class to teach is that evolution is a process that functions without guidance. It need not be specific about exactly what kinds of guidance are unnecessary - the list is infinite. If that contradicts someone's belief in God's hand in evolution, or any other religious doctrine, tough beans. Nobody is being taught that there is definitely no god - only that god (or any other outside agent, of any kind: aliens, faeries, Xenu, The Force, whatever) is not necessary to explain these phenomena scientifically.

I have no problem with biologists explaining what IS happening, e.g. mutations, natural selection, fossil evidence, plate tectonics, geologic record, ice cores, etc. Why do they need to state that there is no other force? They don't believe another force is involved, but they really have no way of knowing what occurs in the "spiritual realm".

The free exercise clause does not defend religion from science! People are allowed to practice their religion freely. That's it. If your religion tells you that verbs are nouns, your English teacher still gets to correct you. If your religion tells you that two plus two is five, your math teacher still gets to mark you down. These things are not unconstitutional - and neither is teaching that evolution does not require direction.

In defense of Establishment, you seek equal protection for non-religious people from public officials talking about anything of faith. But, when the same public officials talk about faith being unnecessary, you don't defend that same spirit of Establishment.

But so far, we're not even at step one, and if God is what you say, an ineffable force always within concepts and processes, we're probably never going to get there.

Well, more importantly, I believe that God is incomprehensible.

As for cosmology... Well, no one is running around with trumpets announcing the numerous failures of the Big Bang theory, and the many holes we've proven(with science) to be untrue about it. In order to support it, "scientists" invent unseen, unproven processes such as baryogenesis, to fill in the gaps. We are supposed to take it on faith that the universe is filled with dark matter, and things are moved by an unknown. unmeasured force called dark energy. Doesn't this seem a little more mystical than science?

[Kevin]

As for cosmology... Well, no one is running around with trumpets announcing the numerous failures of the Big Bang theory, and the many holes we've proven(with science) to be untrue about it. In order to support it, "scientists" invent unseen, unproven processes such as baryogenesis, to fill in the gaps. We are supposed to take it on faith that the universe is filled with dark matter, and things are moved by an unknown. unmeasured force called dark energy. Doesn't this seem a little more mystical than science?

"Popular Science" suffers the same issues as everything else the media gets it's hands on. It gets dumbed down to try and convey it to as broad of an audience as possible.

Dark energy and dark matter are no considered to be a truth by any serious scientist. In fact if you really read into it you see people studying this saying "dark can be read as a code word for we don't know". However as part of a THEORY it is gives you a framework to test things against. A framework that has changed simply because it wasn't taken as an absolute truth to begin with! The Big Bang Theory fit the observations the best, but it didn't cover everything so people tested what it postulated. They observed that the universe was accelerating in it's expansion. Hmm that means the theory is wrong.

So given what they knew they came up with another thought and are devising tests to see if that fits or not. It's a theory. Yes the best theories get used like they are true because starting from an existing point can be very valuable.

If you want to improve your house do you knock it down and rebuild from scratch or do you remodel or do you add an expansion? The answer varies depending on the condition of the house, how much you need or want to make, how much land you have. Scientific theories are the same way. There were several houses built on the Big Bang floor plan. Some people see that it sill explains a lot of what we've been able to observe, but that it's still too small, it doesn't explain why the universe is still accelerating. So they are building an addition. Others look at the floor plan and say, this doesn't work at all for my family so I'm tearing it down and going with this new floor plan of dark matter and dark energy and super strings and whatever else.

Quantum Mechanics got the same type of criticisms, even from some of the people who helped make the question spring up, the most famous being Einstein and his "God doesn't play dice with the universe", and yet now we are actually using quantum entanglement for practical uses.

Science teachers have failed to get some of this point across, media-ization of science has helped reinforce it, other failures in general education have contributed as well. But a fundamental concept of science is that it's fine to QUESTION EVERYTHING and then use observable, measurable information to see if your thought was right, wrong, or indeterminate. Yes this does mean that may be working from a theory that is wrong because we can't test it closely enough (Newtonian physics on scales other than what it was built off of it just wrong but you need to be able to measure things at other levels) but that doesn't mean you still can't learn something new or valuable.

Sometimes yes, you do have go on faith, work from something that seems right but really hasn't been able to really be tested because there isn't a way to test it yet and there may never be. You can even question it. But again you can still learn and discover and progress so you do. You don't always want to reinvent the wheel, but you also don't want to feel that the wheel is the only way to get around. That's the whole point.

OK rant off.

You'll note nothing I said should have had any impact on if there is a god or not. There are plenty of things that exist that we can't measure. That's part of the point you want to question to try and find these sometimes. Or you want to question because things just don't seem to fit right. A god could be there, a god may not be there. God could be dark energy. That's a perfectly valid theory. It's pretty much impossible to test right now though so it could be hard to gain traction.