Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[jimbogumbo]

Darn it! That was supposed to be on the Inflation thread!

[ciao_yall]

Jesus' teachings and the rest of the New Testament were never about starting a program to transform society and try to fix what was wrong with the world.  Jesus said quite plainly that the world  would not be fixed until he, himself, comes back someday to fix it.  The world is evil, and it's going to remain evil for the foreseeable future.  Following Jesus is about living for God in the midst of a world that doesn't want to do that. 

Which is why Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Jews were supposed to show the world how to live, achieve a perfect world tikkun olam, and then the Messiah would come back.

Since Jesus did not achieve this goal, he was not the Messiah.

[FishProf]

One who follows science as an ideology readily accepts new ideas and incorporates them into their world view.

Nay. The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

That quotation is only true to the extent that the scientists in question are NOT acting scientifically.  Max Plank was one of the few scientists who immediately recognized the importance of Einstein's work and was a major influence on its acceptance in German physics.   He doesn't fit his own quotation.

[dismalist]

One who follows science as an ideology readily accepts new ideas and incorporates them into their world view.

Nay. The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

That quotation is only true to the extent that the scientists in question are NOT acting scientifically.  Max Plank was one of the few scientists who immediately recognized the importance of Einstein's work and was a major influence on its acceptance in German physics.   He doesn't fit his own quotation.

A scientist not acting scientifically? True by definition at best.

Paul Samuelson reported that Keynes' views were accepted  in 1936 upon receipt of the General Theory only by those under 35 years of age, and those over 50 years of age were immune! That's a lot of deaths that have to occur to get acceptance of a new, at least in part, superior theory. :-)

It's a probabilistic thing!

[FishProf]

It's a probabilistic thing!

What do you mean by that?

[waterboy]

Apologies for likely starting more trouble - but can we admit (maybe) that the bible is more of a literary work edited by man rather than anything else?  The various pieces were written down centuries (or more) after the events were to have occurred. That's the classic "telephone" game. Then (forgetting which emperor did this), several were thrown out by a bunch of men because they didn't like what was written? And as we keep trying to interpret things without being in the century when they were put down, that just leads to more confusion. I'm not dissing the message of the bible, but when humans begin to edit the written word, well, you know...Roald Dahl...

[dismalist]

It's a probabilistic thing!

What do you mean by that?

Of a hundred live scientists in a given field, a new superior theory will be accepted by some fraction whose size is subject to chance. Planck's statement can be interpreted as that fraction will vary, but will be small.

Anyway, lot's of deaths as science marches on!

[FishProf]

I suspect Plank was talking about a specific scientist when he said that.

However, my own experience as a Geology major supports the concept.  I had a professor in 1993 who was sure plate tectonics and continental drift were passing fads.  I even kept the textbook which had the now ridiculous sounding explanations that have been replaced.

[Wahoo Redux]

Forbes: A Harvard Astronomer Is More Confident Than Ever That An Alien Probe Visited Us In 2017

Since then, Loeb has garnered worldwide media attention while others in the science community have been critical of his potentially revolutionary conclusion.

"It's a shocking example of sensationalist, ill-motivated science," fellow Forbes contributor and astrophysicist Ethan Siegel wrote in 2018.

In the new book, Loeb addresses some of the criticism:

"To be clear, although I made myself as available as my commitments allowed, I neither sought the limelight nor particularly enjoyed it."

He also accuses some of his critics of a sort of overly-conservative "group-think" when it comes to considering more exotic explanations for the anomaly that is Oumuamua.

[Wahoo Redux]

Apologies for likely starting more trouble - but can we admit (maybe) that the bible is more of a literary work edited by man rather than anything else?  The various pieces were written down centuries (or more) after the events were to have occurred. That's the classic "telephone" game. Then (forgetting which emperor did this), several were thrown out by a bunch of men because they didn't like what was written? And as we keep trying to interpret things without being in the century when they were put down, that just leads to more confusion. I'm not dissing the message of the bible, but when humans begin to edit the written word, well, you know...Roald Dahl...

Yes.

It is the greatest, most complex, world-changing mythology.

[Wahoo Redux]

NY Times: UPenn Accuses a Law Professor of Racist Statements. Should She Be Fired?

The Amy Wax controversy resurfaces.  The university seems to be taking action.

The article also discusses academic freedom.

[kaysixteen]

OK:

1) Marshy is obviously right-- science is not where one goes to ascertain morality, and moral claims cannot be adjudicated scientifically.  The Bible is but one source of claimed spiritual (or philosophical) wisdom that attempts to make such moral absolute claims, and of course it is also possible to  assert that no moral absolutes exist. 

2) The fact that not *all Christians* were opposed to slavery, esp in the 19th c. American South, does nothing whatsoever to obviate the unambiguous reality that the abolitionist movement was entirely created by and driven by Christian believers, whose religious convictions motivated their actions. 

3) apl makes excellent points, of course, though he and I clearly disagree  at least somewhat wrt the extent that 'socal Gospel' activism should be an integral part of the Christian's daily walk, and esp wrt the actual extent that this was intended to be the case for Christians right from the beginning of the Church.   Almost all of the, ahem, distinctive evils we think of as commonplace in ancient pagan Greco-Roman society, from exposure of unwanted infants, to gladiatorial conquests, yes, even to ancient European slavery, were in fact eliminated by the activism of Christians.   Heck, even old Julian the Apostate, keen to reestablish paganism in his empire, decided he had to mimic for paganism certain innovations of the Christians, such as hospitals for the indigent and the diseased, innovations which he knew had motivated many pagans to convert to Christianity over the years.   It did not work.

4) The fact that Jesus and His disciples did not decide to order, or even allow, slaves to rebel, is what it is, and whether you like it or not, it is not any evidence that the Bible is wrong, Jesus was a bad moral teacher, etc., any more than the fact that both testaments of Scripture unambiguously discountenance homosexuality makes Jesus wrong.   To say otherwise implies that those claiming such have a source of moral absolutes that override the Bible's.   It would be best if they say what that source is.   

[Wahoo Redux]

4) The fact that Jesus and His disciples did not decide to order, or even allow, slaves to rebel, is what it is, and whether you like it or not, it is not any evidence that the Bible is wrong, Jesus was a bad moral teacher, etc., any more than the fact that both testaments of Scripture unambiguously discountenance homosexuality makes Jesus wrong.  To say otherwise implies that those claiming such have a source of moral absolutes that override the Bible's.   It would be best if they say what that source is.

Human compassion.

Methinks you'll just have to deal with the fact that your Prince of Peace failed a very fundamental aspect of a moral universe-----freedom-----which sure makes the Bible sound wrong.

And sure, your abolitionists were Christian.  Virtually everyone in America at that time was Christian by default if for no other reasons, so it makes sense your abolitionists were also.  But don't cherry-pick.  Acknowledge that your slave owners were also Christians who used the Bible verse often under discussion here to justify owning slaves.

BTW, what is your source for the assertion that "Almost all of the, ahem, distinctive evils we think of as commonplace in ancient pagan Greco-Roman society, from exposure of unwanted infants, to gladiatorial conquests, yes, even to ancient European slavery, were in fact eliminated by the activism of Christians?"

[kaysixteen]

Jesus Christ teaches humility, submission to stated authority, and nonresistance to oppression, no private violence, etc.  I suppose I could say that I am sorry that you think less of him because of this, but I would probably be lying if I said that.

[Wahoo Redux]

Jesus Christ teaches humility, submission to stated authority, and nonresistance to oppression, no private violence, etc.  I suppose I could say that I am sorry that you think less of him because of this, but I would probably be lying if I said that.

Yes, I know these things. 

I do not think less of Him.  I do not think more of Him.  As soon as I started to think for myself I formed my views of the man, and they have remained fairly constant throughout my life.

What I approach are the people who refuse to acknowledge the obvious problems with Biblical teachings-----although I am sure you will argue that you do-----but seek ways around them. 

Blind submission to a cause, any cause, is not a good thing.