| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Dumbing Down Of America, 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,650 Views) | |
| ngc1514 | Jun 1 2006, 11:05 AM Post #271 |
![]()
Member
|
Mad dogs and Englishmen (and I'm neither). Just got in from mowing the back yard in Atlanta's 90 degree heat and 90% humidity and hoping this glass of ice tea will cool things down. Mowing the lawn is a nice, mindless activity that lets one's mind roam - but the wife will agree mine should never be let off the leash. One of the things I was kicking about was all this talk of order without anyone attempting to give a definition (dictionary.com wasn't very helpful) about how order applies to the universe. If I may: Let me throw this out to the wolves...err... readers. Order (in the manner in which we are using it here) can only exist in reference to some predefined schema or expectation. I'll attempt to explain. Pick up a brand new deck of cards (I haven't seen one in years, so I may be incorrect here, but you'll get the idea). As you fan the deck you find the cards are in a logical sequence - 2, 3, and 4 to ace of hearts, followed by the same in diamonds and so on. Would any of you claim the deck is not ordered? But WHY is it considered ordered? Not by any rules of the universe and nowhere in Leviticus does it, among all the other rules, say a new deck of cards should come in just this pattern. Now, let's take another deck and as we check the cards we find all the 2s together, all the 3s...etc Is the deck ordered? It's just a different order. It satisfies our sense of order; Perhaps not as strongly as the first example, but the cards are definitely ordered. Ok, now we pick up the deck and find the 10 of spades between the deuce of hearts and the 5 of diamonds - apparently total disorder throughout the deck. Or so we think. Suppose I then hand you a sheet of paper and say I want the cards in the order in which you've just found them for some unstated reason. In other words, the cards are in order according to my expectations. It's not the sorting of the cards that determines order, but the expectation of the viewer. It also points out that logical sequence and order may not be the same thing. There are rules to establish a logical sequence, but those rules say nothing about order. And the universe? We find it a nice, orderly place because it meets our expectations of what a universe should be; which, of course, is just another restatement of the weak anthropic principle. All you claiming to see order in the universe are just saying that it's orderly because it lets you exist. Show me the predefined expectations and we can measure how closely the universe meets those expectations. Without them, there is no way of knowing whether the universe is orderly or not. We can only say the universe is. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 1 2006, 11:17 AM Post #272 |
![]()
Jane
|
the sarcasm that's creeping in.
you can't find the "why" by examining the material. you can see what the thing does and how it works to do it, but nothing will tell you why it exists beyond the fact that it appears to be just another cog in the universal wheel. the apparent interconnectivity of all things, the cycles, patterns, regeneration, etc.. all suggest order, and order suggests purpose, and purpose suggests a purpose maker... a WILL, and that suggests intellect. you either accept that, or you don't. if you don't, you won't ever find a "why". if you do accept it, you can find a "why". |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 1 2006, 11:25 AM Post #273 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Sarcasm is OK, it's not mean-spirited. I've never expected to find why? in materialism (science). "the apparent interconnectivity of all things, the cycles, patterns, regeneration, etc.. all suggest order, and order suggests purpose, and purpose suggests a purpose maker... a WILL, and that suggests intellect." That's a long list of links that just don't form a chain. Why do things suggest order, order purpose, purpose maker, maker will, will intellect? Especially when the first step is grounded in appearances (apparent) and materialism (where why? won't be found). Even if you were able to connect the links into a chain in a way reasonable enough for others to understand, it would not lead to why?. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 1 2006, 11:33 AM Post #274 |
![]()
Jane
|
re sarcasm...sometimes it's hard to tell the tone by the words. a smilie or two would help.
I see a chain. you don't. it's like looking at a cloud and seeing a face. I see it, you don't. is the face there? |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 1 2006, 11:48 AM Post #275 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Some smilies are sarcastic.
"I see a chain. you don't." Thus, it comes down to personal perceptions and belief, which is fine, but not shared. Religion devolves to personal belief. It doesn't move meters. And doesn't answer why? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 1 2006, 11:57 AM Post #276 |
![]()
Jane
|
of course it's personal belief. but when you've got several millions of people believing the same general thing, you've got to call it shared, too.
it moves meters (emotional/spiritual) for those who believe. and for those who really get deeply into it, the "why" becomes irrelevant. trying to figure out why I exist is a waste of good time. I'm here...now what do I do about it... that's what really matters. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jun 1 2006, 01:33 PM Post #277 |
![]()
Member
|
Moving meters is not a personal experience but an empirical, measurable movement for ALL observers. If my speedometer says 60 MPH, it says the same no matter who observes it. Meter movement is not based on belief; strictly on observation. How do you differentiate between your emotional/spritual meters and the fantasy world meters of the schizophrenic? Without any objectivity, they are indistingushable. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 1 2006, 02:41 PM Post #278 |
![]()
Jane
|
WOW! what an avatar!
Moving meters is not a personal experience but an empirical, measurable movement for ALL observers. If my speedometer says 60 MPH, it says the same no matter who observes it. Meter movement is not based on belief; strictly on observation. who says it can't be a personal experience that is common to many people, each experiencing the same thing, but personally? How do you differentiate between your emotional/spritual meters and the fantasy world meters of the schizophrenic? Without any objectivity, they are indistingushable. so is sexual ecstasy, but we don't call that a psychotic experience, do we? generally speaking, you can tell the difference between schizos and religious meters by the actions of the person. and yes, it's a judgement call. a little more on moving meters. if you ran an eeg on someone having sex and someone having a religious ecstacy experience, you would see the meters move for sure. high blood pressure can be lowerd with yoga chanting/reflection..the meter will move. you could see the same thing with someone saying the rosary |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 1 2006, 04:22 PM Post #279 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Do you really think you and, say, Alan, or, say, Teryt, or anyone else really believes the same thing? Asked what you all believe each says something different--if they can articulate anything. I have no doubt the social aspects of belonging to a church group are shared, you go to church together, school together, bingo together, what have you. But your beliefs are personal, individual and not shared. And because those emotional/spiritual feelings are personal, individual, they do not move meters. A meter moving can be observed by anyone who looks--like a thermometer, a ruler, a gas guage. Meters are shared. But now the why? being irrelevant is exactly what I've been saying. A waste of time. Meaningless. You're here. I'm here. Others are. The universe is, as Eric has said. What you do about it relates to the opening concern in this thread, the practical benefits for students in their lives of Evolutionary Theory over vacuous speculation. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 1 2006, 04:49 PM Post #280 |
![]()
Jane
|
Chris, you're a keen advocate of freedom of choice........ to deny the fact that there are different ideas re origins of things is mind control. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 1 2006, 05:11 PM Post #281 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
That's exactly what I'm arguing, Jane. Free choice--liberty of conscience--says you are personally, individually free to believe whatever you like, it, as Jefferson said, is between you and whatever god you worship. And so, too, for Alan, and Teryt and Eric and me. There is no denying the value that free choice has to the individual. But your spiritual beliefs don't move my meters, nor mine yours, so that's not what we're discussing here. It doesn't help us understand life, the universe and everything else. Science generally, and evolution specifically does--see the article posted to kick off this thread. "now what do I do about it... that's what really matters." |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 1 2006, 05:17 PM Post #282 |
![]()
Jane
|
I think it does, and there we come to freedom of choice again. you see no benefits. I see some. who is right? more importantly, who has the right to decide? |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 1 2006, 05:40 PM Post #283 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Decide your personal beliefs? No one but you. But aren't we talking about something larger than that? The topic raises the question what is better to teach our children in a biology class? Evolutionary Theory, which is scientific and with obvious personal and social benefits, or ID, which is nothing more than the old teleological argument? How do we, the American society, decide the issue? If not be debating the merits of each position in the public square? And how are the merits of differening opinions to be weighed if not by the reasonableness and persuasiveness of those opinions? To say I believe this and you that and let's not challenge any of that but let's agree to disagree, does not resolve the issue. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 1 2006, 05:44 PM Post #284 |
![]()
Jane
|
okay, I agree that debate is good and let society decide what they want in the voting booth. I myself don't see any difference in you having to "correct" your child's lessons at school any more than I have to correct mine. (if I'm a fundamentalist) |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 1 2006, 06:07 PM Post #285 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
That's what people in Kansas and Pennsylvania did when they voted out those who tried to eliminate evolution or promote ID. In order to preserve each and every individual's freedom from tyranny of majority, though, courts provide a check and balance as well, long as they stick to rule of law and not rule of men. Correct a child's lessons? Do you mean teaching your child your beliefs in your home? By all means, that's your job as a parent. And their job is to figure it out for themselves despite your best efforts it seems. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |









1:28 PM Jul 11