Moreover, when McCain said that his greatest moral failure was the break-up of his first marriage, he left out why that was his greatest moral failure — read: sin (the reason, of course, was his extra-marital affair with Cindy, his current wife). On the other hand, Obama squarely addressed his youthful sins and explained what those sins taught him about his character (i.e. what he learned — that he needed to be outward focused rather than selfish). This is the type of repentance in my mind that the Bible teaches us as Christians to do.
So, basically, I am shocked by the coverage and pundits responses to the faith forum. I think Obama showed that he is truly a person of faith. McCain, on the other hand, appeared superficial and a person of weak Christian faith.
this is a personal challenge to my good friend john crane.
any chance you can devote an hour to listening to this (while you’re folding laundry or something) in the next month?
i know you’re just getting back from the UK, so no rush, but i would love your reaction to this:
Taner Edis, born and raised in Turkey, is associate professor of physics at Truman State University and the author of The Ghost in the Universe: God in Light of Modern Science and Science and Nonbelief, among other publications. His latest book is An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam.
In this wide-ranging conversation with D.J. Grothe, Taner Edis explains reasons he thinks religion persists, and explores the complex relationship between science and nonbelief, detailing how the institutional interests of science may prevent some in the science community from working to diminish religion, the New Atheists excepted. He talks about how scientific theories are often misused by paranormalists and supernaturalists to advance their cultural position, focusing on the New Age movement’s use of quantum physics and on the intelligent design movement. He examines differences between science and pseudoscience, arguing that often it is not possible to demarcate what is uniquely science. And he surveys various scientific approaches of examining religion, such as rational choice theory, the secularization hypothesis, and various evolutionary approaches, such as group selection theory, the byproduct theory of religion, and memetic approaches (that religion is a “virus of the mind”).
First of all this suggests that Humans were the expected outcome of God’s creation and while it is easy to understand this flawed logic, after all, we are the outcome of God’s creation, this should not be confused with a forward looking goal. In fact, it is easy to argue that God’s Creation was set in motion to eventually result in a form of life which could gain spirituality and a soul and thus become aware of His existence. Furthermore, even if God had set in motion a Darwinian process, He could still have intervened, as I have explained above, without violating natural law. In other words, the process would still appear purely Darwinian and at the same time would be guided.
So contrary to the fallacious claims that ‘true Darwinists’ cannot be ‘true Christians’, it is self evident that such a position is not logically tenable.
What I find puzzling is why people are intent on rejecting the good science of Darwinism and evolutionary theory as somehow being incompatible with their faith. That shows both a disregard for science, which is a typical ID Creationist affliction, as well as a significant lack in faith.
so, once, when he lived in arizona — a place so hot that they think 90 degrees f is “kinda nice out” — he was leaving his apartment with xbox under his arm, on his way to a LAN party.
(yes, he now works in IT)
anyway, outside his apartment, in the hallway, was an evangelist, a young one.
Kid in White TShirt: Is that an XBOX?
Jason: Yes.
Kid: Cool.
Jason: Thanks.
Kid: You know what else is cool?
Jason: *blink*
Kid: The Book of Mormon
Here, it was clear that there simply is no controversy. In contrast to the arguments over bacterial trees and the origin of eukaryotes, none of the researchers felt compelled to explain or justify their focus on the role of mutation and selective pressure. Concerns, when they arose, were simply focused on identifying the consequences of selection. As such, Discovery’s focus on presenting a controversy here seems hallucinatory.
No, at some level they believed that their insurance helped keep the plane aloft, according to psychologists with new experimental evidence of just how weirdly superstitious people can be.
We buy insurance not just for peace of mind or to protect ourselves financially, but because we share the ancient Greeks’ instinct for appeasing the gods.
We may not slaughter animals anymore to ward off a plague, but we think buying health insurance will keep us from getting sick. Our brains may understand meteorology, but in our guts we still think that not carrying an umbrella will make it rain, a belief that was demonstrated in experiments by Jane Risen of the University of Chicago and Thomas Gilovich of Cornell.
the best part about this is, as kyle points out, that the banana is doomed:
The banana is about to disappear from store shelves around the globe. Experts say the world’s favourite fruit will pass into oblivion within a decade. No more fresh bananas. No more banana bread. No more banana muffins or banana cream pie.
Why? Because the banana is the victim of centuries of genetic tampering. Scientists say they will be unable to prevent the extirpation of the banana as an edible commercial crop. And its demise may be one more powerful argument in the hands of those who are concerned about genetic modification of foods.
The banana’s main problem is that it has become sterile and seedless as a result of 10,000 years of selective breeding. It has, over time, become a plant with unvarying genetic sameness. The genetic diversity needed to cope with environmental stresses, such as diseases and crop pests, has long ago been bred out of the banana. Consequently, the banana plantations of the world are completely vulnerable to devastating environmental pressures.
[Bush] is completely convinced he knows what things are, so he shuts down all avenues of inquiry about them and disregards the information that is offered to him.
i have a group of friends that i, like everyone else who knows them, refer to as “The Crane Boys.”
one of these guys is john, and he runs a blog called The Daily Detour, which focuses on american culture, and has a decidedly conservative evangelical stance.
i’m rather fond of john and all three of his brothers.
the three older brothers are each known for being, uh, “talkers” — and are each rather good storytellers in their own way.
and one of my favourite stories of theirs is about their grandpa, who believed that pre-deluge humans lived for several hundred years, because of seawater.
now i’m sure i am getting some of the details wrong, but when i read the following paragraph (and it’s amazing headline) i couldn’t help but laugh:
For parents worried about how to treat children’s colds now that some medicines have been called into question, the answer may be a dose of salt water.
A nasal spray made from Atlantic Ocean seawater eased wintertime cold symptoms faster and slowed cough and cold symptoms from returning among children ages 6 to 10, researchers in Europe reported on Monday.
there has been a lot said about the article i am going to quote later in this post, but none of it that i’ve seen calls out the glaringly obvious point that i’m seeing in this:
Consider one more experimental example to prove the point: the ultimatum game. You are given $100 to split between yourself and your game partner. Whatever division of the money you propose, if your partner accepts it, you each get to keep your share. If, however, your partner rejects it, neither of you gets any money.
How much should you offer? Why not suggest a $90-$10 split? If your game partner is a rational, self-interested money-maximizer — the very embodiment of Homo economicus — he isn’t going to turn down a free 10 bucks, is he? He is. Research shows that proposals that offer much less than a $70-$30 split are usually rejected.
Why? Because they aren’t fair. Says who? Says the moral emotion of “reciprocal altruism,” which evolved over the Paleolithic eons to demand fairness on the part of our potential exchange partners. “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine” only works if I know you will respond with something approaching parity. The moral sense of fairness is hard-wired into our brains and is an emotion shared by most people and primates tested for it, including people from non-Western cultures and those living close to how our Paleolithic ancestors lived.
the idea that most people react this way is something in our selves so deep that it is something we share with other primates.
when we share so much DNA with monkeys, apes, and lemurs, and yet so many people deny that we come from common ancestors, it just seems dishonest to me.
intellectually at best, and plain-old lyin’ at worst.
as i get further and further away, as the months tick by, from my old christian self, i have trouble even remembering how it is i ignored so much evidence for evolution and spent so much time researching “science” that “disproved” it.
how was i able to accept as fact then what is so clearly horse-pooey?
