Showing posts with label Sunday Morning Thinking Out Loud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sunday Morning Thinking Out Loud. Show all posts

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Quotation Of The Day: The New York Times And The Bible Edition

On a Sunday morning, it's both good and necessary to remember Psalm 46's injunction: "“Be still, and know that I am God. . . ."

This Tim Kreider "Opinionator" post in the New York Times points out a few secular reasons for being still:
The space and quiet that idleness provides is a necessary condition for standing back from life and seeing it whole, for making unexpected connections and waiting for the wild summer lightning strikes of inspiration — . . .  

Sunday, May 27, 2012

A Post Wherein I Try To Be Both Spiritual And Weird

It's Sunday morning.  I should be meditating on beautiful passages like Psalm 8:
Psalm 8
For the director of music. According to gittith. A psalm of David.
1 Lord, our Lord,
    how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory
    in the heavens.
2 Through the praise of children and infants
    you have established a stronghold against your enemies,
    to silence the foe and the avenger.
3 When I consider your heavens,
    the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
    which you have set in place,
4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
    human beings that you care for them?
5 You have made them a little lower than the angels
    and crowned them with glory and honor.
6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
    you put everything under their feet:
7 all flocks and herds,
    and the animals of the wild,
8 the birds in the sky,
    and the fish in the sea,
    all that swim the paths of the seas.
9 Lord, our Lord,
    how majestic is your name in all the earth!
 Instead I'm watching YouTube videos like this one.



In my defense the people who made the video come a conclusion similar to the psalmist's.  They just don't express it as beautifully.

HT:IO9.com

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Sunday Weirdness: Baths, Cowboys, And School Boards Edition

When Mark Twain famously wrote, "In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made School Boards," he must have been prophetically considering  the Annville-Cleona School Board in Pennsylvania.  Mary Ann Reilly analyzes the board's decision.
The board voted 8-0 to ban the picture book, The Dirty Cowboy. The book is a humorous story about a very dirty cowboy who takes his yearly bath, his faithful dog who guards his clothes, and the funny mishaps that happen when the cowboy emerges from his bath.
Perhaps one could make a case that the book was banned because it promoted bad hygiene.  Perhaps some liberal objected to the book because the dog, a noble human companion, is not being treated as an autonomous sentient being but rather is being objectified and treated as a slave who is forced to guard smelly clothes  Perhaps a cowboy objected--do they even have cowboys in Pennsylvania?--because it cast him and his fellow agricultural workers in a bad light.

Alas, the book was banned for less noble reasons:  Reilly continues,

So why, you might ask, would a school system condone the banning of a picture book about a cowboy who takes a bath after a year? The Rogue Librarian quoting the local paper explains:
According to Annville-Cleona Schools Superintendent Steven Houser, as reported in the Lebanon Daily News: “They [the parents] were asked what do you feel might be the result of viewing or reading this material, and their answer was, ‘Children may come to the conclusion that looking at nudity is OK, and therefore pornography is OK."
If a book about a bathing cowboy is going to turn kids into repeat porn consumers, the Annville-Cleona School Board had better shut down any high speed internet connections that it might have. Writing for Extremetech, Sebastian Anthony reports,
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a person in possession of a fast internet connection must be in want of some porn. 
While it’s difficult domain to penetrate — hard numbers are few and far between — we know for a fact that porn sites are some of the most trafficked parts of the internet. According to Google’s DoubleClick Ad Planner, which tracks users across the web with a cookie, dozens of adult destinations populate the top 500 websites. Xvideos, the largest porn site on the web with 4.4 billion page views per month, is three times the size of CNN or ESPN, and twice the size of Reddit. LiveJasmin isn’t much smaller. YouPorn, Tube8, and Pornhub — they’re all vast, vast sites that dwarf almost everything except the Googles and Facebooks of the internet.
Anthony analyzes the data and concludes,
[YouPorn] accounts for almost 2% of the internet’s total traffic. There are dozens of porn sites on the scale of YouPorn, and hundreds that are the size of ExtremeTech or your favorite news site. It’s probably not unrealistic to say that porn makes up 30% of the total data transferred across the internet.
While local politicians worry about bathing cowboys, those on the national level try to reduce funding for scientific research.  At The New York Review of Books, Steven Weinberg writes,
Physicists can point to technological spin-offs from high-energy physics, ranging from synchotron radiation to the World Wide Web. For promoting invention, big science in this sense is the technological equivalent of war, and it doesn’t kill anyone. But spin-offs can’t be promised in advance.
What really motivates elementary particle physicists is a sense of how the world is ordered—it is, they believe, a world governed by simple universal principles that we are capable of discovering. But not everyone feels the importance of this. During the debate over the SSC [Superconducting Super Collider], I was on the Larry King radio show with a congressman who opposed it. He said that he wasn’t against spending on science, but that we had to set priorities. I explained that the SSC was going to help us learn the laws of nature, and I asked if that didn’t deserve a high priority. I remember every word of his answer. It was “No.”
What does motivate legislators is the immediate economic interests of their constituents. Big laboratories bring jobs and money into their neighborhood, so they attract the active support of legislators from that state, and apathy or hostility from many other members of Congress. Before the Texas site was chosen, a senator told me that at that time there were a hundred senators in favor of the SSC, but that once the site was chosen the number would drop to two. He wasn’t far wrong. We saw several members of Congress change their stand on the SSC after their states were eliminated as possible site.
If I'm keeping score correctly, reading about a cowboy's bad hygiene is harmful, but cutting research on science is good unless the cut affects one's congressional district or state is bad.  Weinberg provides an illustration of the results of such thinking taken out to its logical conclusion.
Some years ago I found myself at dinner with a member of the Appropriations Committee of the Texas House of Representatives. I was impressed when she spoke eloquently about the need to spend money to improve higher education in Texas. What professor at a state university wouldn’t want to hear that? I naively asked what new source of revenue she would propose to tap. She answered, “Oh, no, I don’t want to raise taxes. We can take the money from health care.” This is not a position we should be in.
If it's true that people get the government they deserve, Americans must be doing something terribly wrong.

(HT Andrew Sullivan for link to Extemetech)

Blogger is being weird today.  I'll apologize for any formatting errors and will try to fix them later.


Update:  Apparently Blogger works better with Chrome than it does with Explorer.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Sunday Morning Irony: Religious Musings From An Atheist

Self-described "gentle atheist" Alain de Botton writes,
Religions are fascinating because they are giant machines for making ideas vivid and real in people’s lives: ideas about goodness, about death, family, community etc. Nowadays, we tend to believe that the people who make ideas vivid are artists and cultural figures, but this is such a small, individual response to a massive set of problems. So I am deeply interested in the way that religions are, in the end, institutions, giant machines and organisations directed to managing our inner life. There is nothing like this in the secular world, and this seems a huge pity.
de Botton offers some reasons that religions can make ideas real and communal.
In my book, I argue that believing in God is, for me as for many others, simply not possible. At the same time, I want to suggest that if you remove this belief, there are particular dangers that open up – we don’t need to fall into these dangers, but they are there and we should be aware of them. For a start, there is the danger of individualism: of placing the human being at the center stage of everything. Secondly, there is the danger of technological perfectionism; of believing that science and technology can overcome all human problems, that it is just a matter of time before scientists have cured us of the human condition. Thirdly, without God, it is easier to lose perspective: to see our own times as everything, to forget the brevity of the present moment and to cease to appreciate (in a good way) the miniscule nature of our own achievements. And lastly, without God, there can be a danger that the need for empathy and ethical behaviour can be overlooked. 

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Some Sunday Morning Thinking Out Loud

Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything came out in April 2009.  I haven't read the book, but I disagree with both the title and the subtitle.  That being said, religion's failures may prove a bit illustrative.

Using Christianity as an example, religion seems to illustrate that agreement on large goals produces unity or accord.  Christians believe that a Jewish man who lived and was crucified a little over 2000 years ago rose from the dead and provides salvation for the whole human race.   It's unclear, however, if a Russian Orthodox bishop and a pentecostal snake handling clergyman can agree on any implications of that statement.  They certainly don't agree on what constitutes proper practices to illustrate their shared belief.  I won't even bother to try to go through the history of great and small religious wars that illustrate that these differences can have disastrous consequences.

In the same manner, educators, politicians, business leaders, parents, and students all agree on a large goal: students need to be prepared to succeed in an ever changing and increasingly complex world.  No one, however, agrees how to achieve that goal.  Although no one may be going to war over NCLB or a liberal arts curriculum, the debate's vitriol rivals that of the arguments over proper communion or baptism practices.

It's clear that the devil owns the details, and we are all living mobile Venn diagrams situated on a shifting plane.  (I don't know if that statement is mathematically possible, but it seems a usable image.)  Venn diagrams illustrate the elements that a set shares or excludes.  As the plane shifts and the arcs move, different elements become shared or null sets.

The problem inherent in the religious arguments or the debate over educational reform is that people seem to believe they own the doctrine.  Maybe those involved in doctrinal arguments ought to see the ideas or the details or first principles as "shared" rather than "owned" the arguments might be less vitriolic.  At least that's the idealistic thought for this Sunday morning.