Gould's spandrel theory says the universe is a bunch of consequences; that some things have no purpose - it's all random.
The question wants you to explain how Wolfram supports Gould.
[http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/midcol.htm]
The Middle Colonies as the Birthplace of American Religious Pluralism
[http://www.apologeticsindex.org/p14.html]
"... is an affirmation of the validity of every religion, and the
refusal to choose between them, and the rejection of world
evangelism."
[http://www.deepsight.org/articles/westcon.htm]
Can the west be converted?
Any websites with insights into the heretical imperative would be helpful! Thanks.
The show discusses how race is not biological, but why we think it is. While there is no genetic code for race, we choose which race people should belong to based on their biological output (skin color, hair texture). And from there, most people will make racist assumptions - even about themselves.
I like how Stephen Jay Gould explained it ...
"My favorite trivia question in baseball is which Italian-American player for the Brooklyn Dodgers once hit 40 home runs in a season and no one ever gets it right, because the answer is Roy Campanella, who is as Italian as he was Black. He had an Italian father and a Black mother, he's always classified as Black. You see, American racial classification is totally cultural. Who's Tiger Woods? Who's Colin Powell? Colin Powell's as Irish as he is African. Being Black has been defined as just looking dark enough that anyone can see you are."
In class on Monday we talked about how new religions are results of new gods, and that as religion grows up the silly/stupid ones die. Nietzsche thinks we are too smart to believe the nonsense of a lifetime ago, and for that reason (intelligence and/or just plain sense) we dump the silly ones to take on more sophisticated ones. I don't think so.
I think the silly ones aren't dumped, but rather change forms so that they are more believable. In order to be more believable, they must
1. keep the skeleton of the old silly religion because that's where
the basic concept of faith is rooted
2. forbid the 'evil' beliefs of any suppressive or aggressive
religions
3. integrate any new knowledge (i.e. the earth revolves the sun)
4. provide a new and improved purpose or reward for changing faith
For example, Christianity has remnants of Egyptian mythology: god coming from heaven to live on earth, death and rebirth, nothing exists without the "Father", modelling in god's image with clay. {http://gtae.users.btopenworld.com} Knowing that the pre-Christian Jews were enslaved by Egyptians, it is possible that the Egyptian culture influenced the "new" gospel and the new religious traditions. (Memes in action.) With a heavy influence and so many similarities, perhaps Christianity is merely a sophisticated mix of Judaism and Egyptian mythology.
Judaism + Egyptian mythology&influence = Christianity
Okay, then what will be the next sophisticated religion to replace Christianity (if it dies)? Or Christianity could take a new form?
Africans brought to the U.S. as slaves had their own distinct faith, were suppressed by Christians and influenced by the Christian society. Did a new religions spring from that? No, the majority of black-Americans are just as faithful to the Christian religion as the white-Americans, although Vodou is still practiced in the U.S. {http://www.mamiwata.com/vodou1.htm}
Native American Indians were also enslaved and suppressed by the Christians. They were beaten or killed for speaking their native language or if they were caught secretly practicing their own non- Christian beliefs. {http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/nm/julia/history.html} And although a new, individually separate religion was not born from this enslavement, many Natives now practice a blend of the two religions. {http://www.mamiwata.com/vodou1.htm}
Native spirituality + Christian mythology&influence = ?
We have yet to see.
These cannot and should not be dismissed as 'close enough'. Anyone who studies the bible as a means to an end (ie heaven) should honesty acknowledge the contradictions and accept them, not just shrug their shoulders. Because not all of the contradictions are "small".
For example, 2 Samuel 8:4 says 7 hundred horsemen and 1 Chronicles 18:4 says 7 thousand horsemen. 1 Chronicles 21:12 says three years famine and 2 Samuel 24:13 says seven years famine. How are those the same thing? Can you justify those differences in the same manner?
Here's a less dramatic example: Matthew 27:9 says "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value". Jeremiah never said anything even remotely similar. Maybe Matthew meant Zechariah 11:11-13? This error I would say is an error on Matthew's part; it is believable that he must not have known the scripture perfectly.
Here's another website with some of the same points, a little easier to read: hammer.prohosting.com
Happy reading!
Wow! To see how other nations fare, go to: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/nationprofiles/.
And if it were the politicians, why wouldn't they have destroyed all of the books? Dr. Lane said certain books were demanded to be burnt, but that a very small number of people were able to hide those books which is how we found them. How had the political arena changed between the time of King Herod and the compliling of the new testament?
And if it were the Christians, why would they choose to get rid of some books over others? Wouldn't they want to keep every trace of their savior? Why would they be selective about what memories should remain? Why would one person's account be more or less valid than another person's account?
If it were the Christian politicians that were in office as you stated below, 70 to 100 years after Jesus' death, how were they influenced on what books to keep? Even if they did fast and pray, their parents, and their friends, and all of the political and social goings-on must have had a big contribution to their decisions. Couldn't it have been similar to lobbying?
You asked what other political institution has started off this way? I don't understand. Are you asking what other government has started off with persecution then permission of a religion? Or are you asking what other government was started by religiously affiliated individuals?
Today, it is a common conception that cults brainwash people to join their organization so that they can take advantage of its members either psychologically or financially. Some groups may and others probably don't brainwash - our media does a great job of misrepresting and feeding on our paranoia. Here are two websites to shed light on brainwashing:
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/brainwashing.htm
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/melton.htm
Secondly, about having a purpose to life. Why can't evolution be correct and you still have a purpose? My dog has never read the Bible, but in his heart of hearts he believes (and without too much effort) he has a purpose - to love his owner. Why can't we have evolved from less human-like ancestors and still find a purpose? I'm confused on why the two are connected. You said that without a purpose we are no different than any other creature. But perhaps you mean a GREATER purpose? To that I answer ... "The smaller the mind the greater the conceit" (Aesop, ~500BCE).
1. Don't prepare anything prior to getting there. They are totally
unable to convert any file over to a DVD format. Just take your raw
pictures/clips.
I propose that the Bible is an instrument to inspire humankind. It
means to provide hope and peace. It can instill compassion and
kindness. It cannot however answer questions regarding the laws of
nature. And I really don't think it was intended to. And since it
isn't truth verbatim we cannot use it to explain our origin. Let me
see if I can say it another way...
If Moses wrote the account of Genesis more than 3,000 years ago
based on a vision, could it not be said that he wrote the stories to
the best of his understanding? I mean really, if he had visions of
the internet or gene therapy or deep sea diving would he have had a
clue what it was? No way. If Moses saw a vision of the Big Bang
would he know how to describe it using laws of physics? No. But he
would be able to describe the vision by saying that god created the
heavens and the earth. Since that is all he wrote, does that mean
that is all that happened? I don't think so.
If a layman were to watch an experienced sculptor mold an
intricately detailed sculpture and then try to explain what they saw
happen with words, would they be able to describe every tool, every
stroke, every bend of the wrist, with art jargon? Would they want
to? Probably not because it would be too tedious to read and only
understood by a few. But, if the observer were to write what they
saw happening in such a way that it moved those who read it to be
able to see the final piece in their own minds, wouldn't the writer
rather do that than explain the process? I think the account of
Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) has inspired humans for
centuries so that we would be in awe of the completed work; rather
than detailing the processes of life, it moves the reader to see the
art of life.
It is for this reason that using the Bible to explain for example,
mitochondrial genome mutations thru generations to show human
migration patterns, is well, ludicrous. Likewise, using the account
of Genesis to explain with scientific detail the origin of humans is
well, missing the point.
Some Muslims say that this sentence is a misinterpretation of the
Sharia law, while other Muslims say it is just. In addition to the
cruel punishment, her sexual partner was exonerated and will not be
punished. Using consilience, starting with theology and working
down the ladder to chemistry, how can this belief be explained?
Also in reference to the Muslim religion, and using consilience, why
do they practice "honor killings" — the punishment of death
preformed by the father or brother of a woman who has had sex
outside of marriage, including having been raped. I realize this is
not a practice accepted by all who embrace the Muslim religion. But
why, socially, psychologically, and biologically has this practice
survived?
For starters, the web-author says that "Evolution implies 'descent
from a common ancestor' with all of life related, consisting of
modified forms of very different things, such as a person descending
from a fish." No. No. No. Evolution IS descent from a common
ancestor. It is NOT fish turning into people, or the more popular
misinterpretation of people used to be apes. That would the same as
saying you and your brother are related via a common ancestor
therefore you used to be your brother.
Secondly, the web-author says that macroevolution doesn't happen in
the present. How do we know its not happening just because we can't
see it? Macroevolution is a gradual process; it happens very slowly
over millions of years. Expecting to see one species turn into
another totally different species in a time span of a year, is NOT
how evolution works. Just because none of us saw the effects of the
Black Plague back in the 1300's, can we say it didn't happen? Not
seeing macroevolution is also a poor arguement against the whole of
evolution. [Note: This could be argued in terms way beyond my
philosophic abilities.]
Thirdly, he says that evolution didn't happen in the past because we
see no transitional forms. Addressing soley human evolution, I'm
going to throw out a few "transitional forms" that are common
ancestors to current day homo sapiens: Australopithecus boisei, Homo
ergaster, Homo neanderthalensis, and so on. Here is a web site that
may be of further interest with regards to these species:
Lastly, he says that "Of the two, creation is better supported by
scientific observation...". What? Creation is static species,
instantaneous formation of diversity, and most of all creation is
faith in a supernatural creator. Scientific observation definitely
does not support creation more than, or better than, evolution. In
fact, looking through all the natural sciences (and their
consilience) it beautifully explains evolution. Evolution is fully
immersed into physics, chemistry, geology, and biology. Creation
isn't used to explain anything in science and science as a whole
rarely is used to explain creation.
The most difficult part in understanding evolution is when trying to
apply it to humans.
Of course if you've already finished chapter 5, you know that the
possibility exists that dreams don't actually have meanings but
rather are our brains engaging in a function similar to when you
tell your computer to "defragment". Its as if our eyes are cameras
that take pictures every second of the day. Then when we go to
sleep, our brain goes back over the pictures and decides which to
keep and what order to store them.
Also in chapter 5, EO Wilson mentions Pablo Amaringo, the shaman and
artist who fills every space in his paintings with detail. If you'd
like to see some of his work visit
http://www.egallery.com/walka101.html.
2. Take more than one blank DVD in case they f up the first one.
3. They only have CD, DVD, and zip drives. Don't take any floppies.
Good luck!
Post #5994
Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 2:58 pm
Subject: Is the Bible true?
Is every word of the Bible true or is it really just a tool to
inspire humankind? Some christians say that the Bible is
infallable - that every single word is the concrete truth. Then
when asked if the sun moves around the earth they will say no, of
course not. Science has shown us that the earth moves around the
sun. But the Bible says in Joshua chapter 10 that the sun was
commanded to stand still. If the sun doesn't move, how can it be
told to stand still? And if this story is an accurate recollection
where every word is the hard truth, why didn't the writer just
change the word sun to earth and tell 'the earth to stand still'?
Post #5773
Date: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:06 pm
Subject: Re: Human interuptions on Evolution
For starters, the process of cloning has not been perfected enough
to effectively use it. If that day ever comes, cloning an
individual would not necessarily guarantee their species' survival.
(Remember, the panda bears are not endangered because they are
genetically inept to survive in their environment. They are
endangered because they have been hunted faster than they reproduce,
their food supply has been diminished, and the land they once
occupied has been taken over.) In terms of humans, if, say Dr. Lane
cloned himself, then his clone would live on even after the original
copy died (assuming the process works one day). Thus his personal
extinction will have been delayed, but the extinction of the species
as a whole has not. In fact, I think cloning would only put the
species in danger because the making of new genetic mixes would
cease. As said already, our survival (as a species not as
individuals) depends greatly on the mixing of genes.
Post #5772
Date: Wed Sep 24, 2003 10:30 pm
Subject: Nigerian Muslim woman being stoned
MSNBC put out an article today about the Nigerian Muslim woman who
is to be "buried up to the chest and stoned until all life leaves
her body" as punishment for a sex sin.
[http://www.msnbc.com/news/970413.asp]
Post #5714
Date: Sat Sep 20, 2003 11:05 pm
Subject: Re: "What you may not know about evolution"
I have a beef with the second website posted:
http://www.icr.org/newsletters/btg/btgapr02.html.
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
It charts some of the transitions making up hominid ancestors.
Post #5648
Date: Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:53 am
Subject: Re: pg 34 Consilience
To expand on what CR said below ...
I took Evolutionary Biology (Bio312) last semester and this is the
way the instructor explained the answer to your question. Evolution
is a thoughtless force; it doesn't intentionally behave for our
benefit doing things on purpose. For example, evolution did
not "make" polar bears white because they live in the snow - that
would be purpose. White polar bears simply survived better in the
snow than pink polar bears did, so through evolution's mechanism of
natural selection we no longer have pink polar bears - this is
product.
Post #5631
Date: Tue Sep 16, 2003 1:42 am
Subject: Dreams find meaning
After reading chapter 5 (of Consilience) I thought it might be fun
to look up meanings of dreams. Here is a link to a dream
dictionary: http://www.petrix.com/dreams/.
Midterm
Religious Diversity Page
Home