Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
Which book was that? Just wondering. Julia I am away from home. I will send you the name next weekend ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
Dan wrote: Obtaining the oil production data from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_crdsnd_adc_mbbl_m.htm and the crude oil prices from http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Tabl e.asp We get the following table: production US imports total price GDP US Population 1970 9.6 1.3 11.0 $17.193.6 203 1971 9.5 1.7 11.1 $17.503.7 208 1972 9.4 2.2 11.7 $18.763.9 210 1973 9.2 3.2 12.5 $20.884.1 212 1974 8.8 3.5 12.3 $37.264.1 214 1975 8.4 4.1 12.5 $44.634.1 216 1976 8.1 5.3 13.4 $45.314.3 218 1977 8.2 6.6 14.9 $46.744.5 220 1978 8.7 6.4 15.1 $45.134.8 223 1979 8.6 6.5 15.1 $67.424.9 225 1980 8.6 5.3 13.9 $89.484.9 227 1981 8.6 4.4 13.0 $77.495.0 230 1982 8.6 3.5 12.1 $64.964.9 233 1983 8.7 3.3 12.0 $57.485.1 235 1984 8.9 3.4 12.3 $54.485.5 237 1985 9.0 3.2 12.2 $49.255.7 239 1986 8.7 4.2 12.9 $25.925.9 242 1987 8.3 4.7 13.0 $30.746.1 244 1988 8.1 5.1 13.2 $24.786.4 246 1989 7.6 5.8 13.5 $29.096.6 247 1990 7.4 5.9 13.2 $34.836.7 249 1991 7.4 5.8 13.2 $29.196.7 253 1992 7.2 6.1 13.3 $27.006.9 255 1993 6.8 6.8 13.6 $22.837.1 258 1994 6.7 7.1 13.7 $20.797.3 261 1995 6.6 7.2 13.8 $21.647.5 263 1996 6.5 7.5 14.0 $25.667.8 265 1997 6.5 8.2 14.7 $22.868.2 268 1998 6.3 8.7 15.0 $14.388.5 270 1999 5.9 8.7 14.6 $19.528.9 276 2000 5.8 9.1 14.9 $31.299.2 281 2001 5.8 9.3 15.1 $25.57 278 2002 5.7 9.1 14.9 $24.94 2003 5.7 9.7 15.3 $29.63 2004 5.4 10.1 15.5 $39.21 2005 5.1 10.1 15.2 $50.38 287 I got different numbers (though with similar trends) from the first site. I clicked on View History/2006 for each of the relevant quantities and then checked the annual button at the top of the chart. So for 1970 I have 483,293 thousand barrels imported compared with your number: 1.3 somethings imported. In any case, using my numbers, I subtracted U.S. exports from imports to get consumption of domestic supplies and added that to imports to get total consumption. To get per capita consumption I divided the total consumption in millions of barrels by population in millions. (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brin-l/files/, Oil Consumption Study or ask me to send the excel file) What I see on the resulting charts is that 1) consumption increased at a rate of about a half barrel of oil per person in the years preceding Carter's speech and then declined at a rate of .8 barrel/person over the period 1977-1985 (the period previously discussed) the decline starting before the spike in prices. Most interestingly, consumption declined from 24.6 barrel/person at its peak in 1977 to 18.6 barrels per person in 1982 and then averaged 19.1 barrels per person between 1982 and 2000!!! That's lower than the 1969 consumption rate of 19.2 barrels/person. Also noteworthy are the rates of import and export pre and post 1977. One year prior to prices spiking domestic production increased slightly after seven years of steady decrease, and imports decreased slightly after steady increases over the same period. This could be an anomaly, but I'll bet it isn't - I'll bet the policies enacted by Carter were beginning to take effect. Finally, one of your arguments seems to be that consumption can't be curbed by conservation, but that higher prices _can_ curb consumption. But what are lower consumption rates compelled by high prices if not conservation? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 4/11/06, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:33:08 -0700, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't it blindingly obvious that the bin Ladens of this world find followers because of the social and economic conditions where they recruit? No, that's not obvious at all. I'm pretty sure that many of his recruits are middle/upper income types. I would argue that it is the wealth of the region that stimulates terrorism and that if the Middle East was economically and politically irrelevant there would be no epidemic of terrorism. -- Doug Seconded. I remember reading the 9/11 report and interestedly looking at the wealth statistics- predominately middle and upper class (bin Laden himself being a good example). ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 4/12/06, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/12/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. Seriously? And what do you do with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem? Nick Based on what I've read of the Fool's messages, of the dilemma it poses, I think he would accept the incompleteness choice. ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
The Fool, in a sudden religious zeal, wrote: I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. Seriously? And what do you do with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem? Does it effect the underlying math the all physics is based around? I think it does - if the base is not solid, eventually we will come to a problem without a solution. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Fool wrote: I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. Seriously? And what do you do with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem? Does it effect the underlying math the all physics is based around? I think it does - if the base is not solid, eventually we will come to a problem without a solution. In essense you are saying it's impossible to know both the velocity and position of a particle at the same time. But we already knew that. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:38:27 -0200 Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview The Fool, in a sudden religious zeal, wrote: I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. Seriously? And what do you do with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem? Does it effect the underlying math the all physics is based around? I think it does - if the base is not solid, eventually we will come to a problem without a solution. As I understand it the incompleteness theroem does not in any way invalidate physics or the math that is used to study and support it. Goedal was famously misunderstood (at least according to a book I read recently). He did not believe that his work proved that the universe is ultimately unknowable. In fact he was basically a platonist. He firmly believed that there was truth out there. While at Princeton he was close with only one man, Einstein. They shared a belief in the existence of an ultimate truth. Like Goedel, Einstein was in the ironic position of being credited with the notion that everything was relative when in fact his theories despite their unfortunate names proved (or he hoped they proved) the exact opposite. Einstein of course abhored quantum physics because of it inherent probablistic nature. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 2:14 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview Socioeconomics or straight politics create the conditions in which extremism can flourish, but the tools of that extremism, the suicide bombers themselves, *are* religiously motivated. They are convinced that they are doing god's work, and they are told by those who have another agenda that killing Israelis or Americans or Brits or Sunnis or each other is doing god's work. God wants it has long been used as a means of promoting what is wrong, there is no doubt of that. I'd generalize this to include other causes/reasons greater than oneself. In particular the economic rights of the workers is also a strong motivation, being the excuse for the killing of tens of millions in both the Soviet Union and China. China, in particular, is a good example because there was a good deal of spontaneous self-righteousness involved with both the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. As a religious person, it is particularly galling when sacred text is twisted far from its original meaning in order to support evil. That is real blasphemy, not saying [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I've seen the argument, not from you, that humans would be better off if there were no greater causes than one's own enlightened self interest. But, that would have stopped much of the good, as well as evil, that has been done by people. There is plenty of terrorism in Zimbabwe, and for much the same reasons. It's just that it's all internal (as it mostly is in the Basque region or was in Britain and Ireland). I don't doubt that. There is horrible war in much of Africa...I know a former child soldier who goes to our church. The Sudan and Rwanda examples also come to mind. My point was that the rest of the world hasn't had to worry about this violence. There is minimal risk of the violence spreading to the US, UK, China, Russia, India, etc. because the lack of funding limited the scope of the terrorists, private armies, etc. That doesn't make the deaths any less horrificbut it makes them distant. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I understand it the incompleteness theroem does not in any way invalidate physics or the math that is used to study and support it. Goedal was famously misunderstood (at least according to a book I read recently). He did not believe that his work proved that the universe is ultimately unknowable. In fact he was basically a platonist. He firmly believed that there was truth out there. While at Princeton he was close with only one man, Einstein. They shared a belief in the existence of an ultimate truth. Like Goedel, Einstein was in the ironic position of being credited with the notion that everything was relative when in fact his theories despite their unfortunate names proved (or he hoped they proved) the exact opposite. Einstein of course abhored quantum physics because of it inherent probablistic nature. Which book was that? Just wondering. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 12/04/2006, at 1:31 AM, Dave Land wrote: One view -- a minority view in Christianity -- is that the Bible is a human product, not a divine one. Or that it is a divine one but with the errors inherent in human transcription, which is a similar but distinct position to the one that you mention. Another is that the OT is there for the history, but as Jesus represents a new covenant, only the gospels represent the part of the bible of direct relevance to Christians. The Bible records certain people's wrestling with who God might be and how they might relate to God. The value in such a book (which is definitely NOT to be worshiped, but can still be taken very seriously) is that it lets us know what our spiritual forbears thought and believed, which might inform our understanding of God and our relationship to God. It also contains some historically- factual events. It has been said The Bible is true, and some of it actually happened. Problems arise when our (modern, Western) ideas of the equality of truth and factuality are layered on top of writings that didn't originate in the same understanding of truth and factuality. Indeed. Unfortunately, that's all I have time for right now, but I do hold that there is value in the book, and it is not that it was handed down from deity. This I understand, and it is the moderate Christianity that I grew up with. But the same questions apply - how do you pick and choose? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 12/04/2006, at 1:57 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: I have discussed religion with a number of Lutherans other than Nick (mainly Germanic Europeans, either in Cyprus or in Australia), and all bar one of those still practicing that I have met in the flesh (so 6 or 7) are biblical literalists. Are you sure? That's not a typical Lutheran belief, not at all. At the core of Lutheranism are scripture, faith and grace... the inclusion of faith and grace means that scripture does not stand alone, leaving no room for literalism. It may be that creationism has taken hold in the churches of those with whom I have spoken - I was really quite surprised. But I had an otherwise very nice Austrian immigrant in Australia telling me that there was no way the earth was created in more than 6 days and couldn't be more than 6000 years old. Her husband was a little embarrassed. It may also be that American Lutheranism is more moderate than its European branch. Or that I'm just unlucky (not unlikely). They'd regard themselves as Good Christians. I don't know whether anyone still active on this list is a literalist, but if one isn't a literalist, then that's a different measure for what Christianity is or what a good follower means than for those that are. How do we decide what is right? Perhaps that the wrong question. Perhaps the challenge is how to live with uncertainty, as Harris challenges us. To that question I think a quote of Feynman's is appropriate: I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. To me, this is why the traditional teaching of the major religions fails, because frankly if one can just make it up as one goes along, But that's not it at all. Then what is it? Many Christians or theists have this idea of the Bible's teachings as a moral guide, but much of the moral precept they take from it (or imagine that's in there) is simply what they want to take from it. There are good people who are living good Christian Lives, but they're behaving differently to the code as laid out in the NT. Again, how does one decide? Faith in a deity/deities/force/whatever is one thing. It's highly personal. But faith in a book is something else, and that's where the argument starts - if the book says one thing, but a follower disagrees and does something else, where's the value in the book? Plenty of Christians go astray by worshiping the Bible. Right. So the Bible is not to be worshipped. It is a guide. But again, which bits are relevant today, without massive editorial? Which gospel do we take as, er, gospel? The 4 plus Acts? Any of the others that have been rediscovered, like the recent Gospels of Judas, or Thomas, or the other Apocrypha? Do we trust that the motives of the NT editors were pure in selecting which Gospels and Epistles to include, and which not? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 12/04/2006, at 4:18 AM, Dan Minette wrote: If one is Christian, then the Incarnate Word of God (Jesus) has the greatest authority. Precisely what I was taught. I never met someone who was really a literalist concerning the whole of scriptures.they just don't count their non-literal reading as non-literal. Precisely why I abhor literalists. The implication that fundamentalism is the only complete form of a religion is a perfectly reasonable assertion But, with Christianity, then one would have to argue that it was incomplete for most of its existence. Fundamentalism is really rather new. Really? What was the Inquistion all about then? Enforcing the Doctrine of the Faith, and burning heretics to the faith. Or the Mohammedan jihads? Fundamentalism is a new name for something that has been inherent in religion (and politics and tribalism) for as long as there have been people - inflexible adherence to whatever standard has been chosen, and beating up those that disagree... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 12/04/2006, at 7:45 AM, Dan Minette wrote: I was saying that social, political and economic conditions in the Middle East have created an environment favorable to recruiting terrorists by demagogues. My point was to argue against focusing on religion as the reason there are terrorists arising in Islamic countries, as Harris chooses to do. I certainly agree with that basic point, and differ with the Fool. Socioeconomics or straight politics create the conditions in which extremism can flourish, but the tools of that extremism, the suicide bombers themselves, *are* religiously motivated. They are convinced that they are doing god's work, and they are told by those who have another agenda that killing Israelis or Americans or Brits or Sunnis or each other is doing god's work. I think the unique mix of a region that both brings cash in hand over fist and is ruled by a small group of people who control that cash fosters a lot of the danger of terrorism in the Middle East. The leader of Zimbabwe does not have the resources to build atomic weapons that can set of a massive nuclear war. The leader of Iran does...and the West is sending him $50 billion/year to spend as he sees fit. Bin Laden came from a multi-billionaire family, and had access to millions. That helped fund their operations. There is plenty of terrorism in Zimbabwe, and for much the same reasons. It's just that it's all internal (as it mostly is in the Basque region or was in Britain and Ireland). Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
Dan Minette wrote: One thing that struck methe fundamental reason for the last big European war was simply elbow room. Generally the term used is lebensraum, or living room, which is a German word. It was not the reason for the war, but it was a large part of Germany's policy toward/with several nations, in particular Russia/Soviet Union. -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ I'm gonna win, trust in me / I have come to save this world / and in the end I'll get the grrrl! --Machinae Supremacy, Hero (Promo Track) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 4/11/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then what is it? Many Christians or theists have this idea of the Bible's teachings as a moral guide, but much of the moral precept they take from it (or imagine that's in there) is simply what they want to take from it. There are good people who are living good Christian Lives, but they're behaving differently to the code as laid out in the NT. Again, how does one decide? In Lutheranism and most of Protestantism, Christianity isn't about doing good in order to get into heaven, even though that's often how it comes across. Christ's message of forgiveness frees us from the vicious cycle of guilt and error, frees us to do good, to follow the very rules that free us. This is where cause and effect are often confused. Am I a follower of Christ because I'm good? Yes, but not through my own doing. In other words, I would not be free to follow were it not for the freedom from guilt that I enjoy, a freedom that is entirely unearned -- grace (we're big on grace in Lutheranism). Lest this all sound theological, intellectual and distant, let me make it clear that in my life, I certainly have seen that I become a kinder, more loving person when I start by accepting that I am accepted, rather than the false, but often followed, idea that first I have to be good. My favorite parable about this is the woman caught in adultery. The *first* thing Jesus does is send away her accusers and says that neither does he does condemn her, vividly demonstrating that he accepts her as she is. Only then does he say those words that are so often taken out of this context -- Go and sin no more. Acceptance and forgiveness precede be good. Critics of Christianity talk about aspects that are hard to believe, but they rarely point to this wild notion that God loves us in our sin, not despite it. I certainly find it hard to give up the idea that I have to be good before you'll accept me... but when I do believe that, it is powerful stuff. Right. So the Bible is not to be worshipped. It is a guide. But again, which bits are relevant today, without massive editorial? Which gospel do we take as, er, gospel? The 4 plus Acts? Any of the others that have been rediscovered, like the recent Gospels of Judas, or Thomas, or the other Apocrypha? Do we trust that the motives of the NT editors were pure in selecting which Gospels and Epistles to include, and which not? There are various ways that churches answer that question, but if there is one that says, However you'd like to, it is most certainly on the fringe. I suppose that Unitarians fit that description. John Wesley's great contribution was to offer a method (or a Method) to go about this, his quadilateral of reason, tradition, experience and Scripture. Reason can be quite liberal, tradition tends to be conservative, experience can probably go either way (e.g., a conservative is a Christian who has been mugged, a liberal is somebody who has lived among the poor), Scripture can be used and abused... but it seems to me that respecting each is as good as any way to choose one's path. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 11 Apr 2006 at 15:31, Dave Land wrote: On Apr 11, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 11/04/2006, at 6:33 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: He also seems to fail to recognize the difference between irrational and non-rational beliefs. And this statement, Religious moderation is just a cherry-picking of scripture, ultimately, is ridiculous. It implies that fundamentalism is the only *complete* form of Christianity. Nonsense, really. So how do you decide which parts of scripture to follow and which not? The whole bible? Just the NT? Just Jesus' teachings, and ignore Paul's commentary? ... Faith in a deity/deities/force/whatever is one thing. It's highly personal. But faith in a book is something else, and that's where the argument starts - if the book says one thing, but a follower disagrees and does something else, where's the value in the book? One view -- a minority view in Christianity -- is that the Bible is a human product, not a divine one. The Bible records certain people's wrestling with who God might be and how they might relate to God. The This is, incidentally, also the view of Reform Judaism. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
At 04:35 PM Tuesday 4/11/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 12/04/2006, at 12:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Faith in a deity/deities/force/whatever is one thing. It's highly personal. But faith in a book is something else, and that's where the argument starts - if the book says one thing, but a follower disagrees and does something else, where's the value in the book? Charlie One answer is that if there really is a God, you could try asking Him what He wants you to do . . . Sure. Like I say, it's highly personal. Of course, it's possible that the answer you get will be RTF¹M . . . _ ¹Read The Father's Manual --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 11 Apr 2006 at 7:22, The Fool wrote: If you ingore some minor gibberish about buddism: www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060403_sam_harris_interview I find your faith in atheism is touching. I wonder why you need so strongly not to believe. As I said to a communist friend of mine the other day, he takes his Marx a lot more seriously than I take my Bible. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 12/04/2006, at 8:59 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: One answer is that if there really is a God, you could try asking Him what He wants you to do . . . Sure. Like I say, it's highly personal. Of course, it's possible that the answer you get will be RTF¹M . . . Now there's a good shortcut to atheism. :-) Charlie___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
At 01:49 PM Wednesday 4/12/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 12/04/2006, at 8:59 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: One answer is that if there really is a God, you could try asking Him what He wants you to do . . . Sure. Like I say, it's highly personal. Of course, it's possible that the answer you get will be RTF¹M . . . Now there's a good shortcut to atheism. :-) Not necessarily, if as some have suggested the Bible is a record of God's dealings with other humans. Then it might give you some useful guidelines which you could employ in your life. FWIW, my experience is that God, like a good professor, gives you the smallest possible hint to get you on the right track. In some cases that hint may well be found in the Scriptures . . . --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 12/04/2006, at 7:09 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: In Lutheranism and most of Protestantism, Christianity isn't about doing good in order to get into heaven, even though that's often how it comes across. That I know - I was raised C of E, and was heavily involved in Christian fellowship through my teens. It's not what I was talking about. The Christian precept of redemption through acceptance of God's grace in the sacrifice of Jesus is one thing. That is the correct definition of a Christian, and is where so many (including many Sunday Christians like my mother) get it wrong. Christ's message of forgiveness frees us from the vicious cycle of guilt and error, frees us to do good, to follow the very rules that free us. This is where cause and effect are often confused. Sure. *snip for brevity* Lest this all sound theological, intellectual and distant, let me make it clear that in my life, I certainly have seen that I become a kinder, more loving person when I start by accepting that I am accepted, rather than the false, but often followed, idea that first I have to be good. Also fine, and well understood by me. My favorite parable about this is the woman caught in adultery. The *first* thing Jesus does is send away her accusers and says that neither does he does condemn her, vividly demonstrating that he accepts her as she is. Only then does he say those words that are so often taken out of this context -- Go and sin no more. Acceptance and forgiveness precede be good. Critics of Christianity talk about aspects that are hard to believe, but they rarely point to this wild notion that God loves us in our sin, not despite it. I certainly find it hard to give up the idea that I have to be good before you'll accept me... but when I do believe that, it is powerful stuff. Sure is. There are various ways that churches answer that question, but if there is one that says, However you'd like to, it is most certainly on the fringe. I suppose that Unitarians fit that description. John Wesley's great contribution was to offer a method (or a Method) to go about this, his quadilateral of reason, tradition, experience and Scripture. Reason can be quite liberal, tradition tends to be conservative, experience can probably go either way (e.g., a conservative is a Christian who has been mugged, a liberal is somebody who has lived among the poor), Scripture can be used and abused... but it seems to me that respecting each is as good as any way to choose one's path. Interesting how hard it is to get a straight answer, isn't it? So what you're saying is that there is no right answer, and we take out of it what we can? It still seems that the only major difference between you and I in terms of understanding our place in this world is that while we both imagine how a moral person would be and try to live that way, while we both try to be both accepting of our own shortcomings and of others', you have a belief in something I no longer have. A large part of my journey away from religious or supernatural belief was my personal and growing understanding that the ethical and moral codes I chose to follow worked just as well whether God existed or not... ...and eventually, for me, he didn't. I'm still interested in hearing the religious experience of intelligent and thoughtful scientific believers, and chewing the fat on these subjects. I may disagree (and often do, sometimes a bit strongly) but I'm always interested. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
The Fool wrote: I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. Humans are fundamentelly evil creatures who deserve to die. You must be great fun at parties. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 12/04/2006, at 10:17 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote: The Fool wrote: I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. Humans are fundamentelly evil creatures who deserve to die. You must be great fun at parties. *snort* Lucky I wasn't drinking just then. :D Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 12/04/2006, at 10:01 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Of course, it's possible that the answer you get will be RTF¹M . . . Now there's a good shortcut to atheism. :-) Not necessarily, if as some have suggested the Bible is a record of God's dealings with other humans. Then it might give you some useful guidelines which you could employ in your life. FWIW, my experience is that God, like a good professor, gives you the smallest possible hint to get you on the right track. In some cases that hint may well be found in the Scriptures Sure. But, I guess you're just as likely to find that smiting and stoning is recommended as a solution as kiss-and-make-up is... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 11 Apr 2006 at 7:22, The Fool wrote: If you ingore some minor gibberish about buddism: www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060403_sam_harris_interview I find your faith in atheism is touching. I wonder why you need so strongly not to believe. As I said to a communist friend of mine the other day, he takes his Marx a lot more seriously than I take my Bible. I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. Humans are fundamentelly evil creatures who deserve to die. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
At 02:20 PM Wednesday 4/12/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 12/04/2006, at 10:01 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Of course, it's possible that the answer you get will be RTF¹M . . . Now there's a good shortcut to atheism. :-) Not necessarily, if as some have suggested the Bible is a record of God's dealings with other humans. Then it might give you some useful guidelines which you could employ in your life. FWIW, my experience is that God, like a good professor, gives you the smallest possible hint to get you on the right track. In some cases that hint may well be found in the Scriptures Sure. But, I guess you're just as likely to find that smiting and stoning is recommended as a solution as kiss-and-make-up is... That's when it is advisable to request further light and knowledge in the form of another hint . . . --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
Sure. But, I guess you're just as likely to find that smiting and stoning is recommended as a solution as kiss-and-make-up is... That's when it is advisable to request further light and knowledge in the form of another hint . . . Lord, what sort of rock should I lob at his head? ;) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 12/04/2006, at 10:01 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Of course, it's possible that the answer you get will be RTF¹M . . . Now there's a good shortcut to atheism. :-) Not necessarily, if as some have suggested the Bible is a record of God's dealings with other humans. Then it might give you some useful guidelines which you could employ in your life. FWIW, my experience is that God, like a good professor, gives you the smallest possible hint to get you on the right track. In some cases that hint may well be found in the Scriptures Sure. But, I guess you're just as likely to find that smiting and stoning is recommended as a solution as kiss-and-make-up is... Burning virgin girls alive is great fun. So is abusing your concubine* sexually untill she dies and then chopping up her body and sending it to the national leaders. And who can forget that after you deafeat someone militarilly, you get to kill every adult woman, every male adult or child, and your army gets to rape all the female virgins as young as three, and keep them as sexual slaves. Great fun. * A concubine is female sex slave. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 1:43 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview Really? What was the Inquistion all about then? There was a lot of payback of collaborators with the Moors, ethnic cleansing, etc. involved in the Inquisition. But, I realize your fundamental question is broader than that Enforcing the Doctrine of the Faith, and burning heretics to the faith. Or the Mohammedan jihads? Fundamentalism is a new name for something that has been inherent in religion (and politics and tribalism) for as long as there have been people - inflexible adherence to whatever standard has been chosen, and beating up those that disagree... Well, I was using the standard definition of fundamentalism in the Christian religion...which differs from what I see your use as. It is relevant, and not just an argument of semantics, because you were asking questions about the interpretation of scripture. There is no doubt that, from the start, there have been extremely strong arguments over theology. Paul references a number of them in his epistles. The early church, after Paul, had often had bitter differences. In hindsight, I think you can see how people who's family's died preventing authorities from getting copies of scripture would be very angry at those who held that it wasn't a critical part of the faith, and thus did hand over copies. But, this didn't result in many real punishments, except shunning, because there was no earthly authority to back up theological opinion. When Christianity became official, then power was available to back up authority. The first church council at Nicaea produced a creed that defined the orthodox faith. Other views were considered heretical. From here on out, the Catholic church was a power player. The bishop of Rome, pointed to the heritage of Peter, and called himself the vicar of Peter. After a while, it was changed to the vicar of Christ. The church council pronouncements were considered authoritive, and the result of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This was the foundation for a number of the problems the developed. Error had no right, and thus heretics were to be stamped out by all necessary means. This included fairly strong measures. And, of course, there was corruption in the church. Mundane power was backed up by the authority of God. The Inquisition can be seen in the light of a church that had a strong political component as well as being populated/led by rigid thinkers who felt that they had the authority of God and were expected to use their power to fight the evil of those who disagreed with them. But, they were not fundamentalists. The two great doctors of the church (Agustine and Aquinis) did not emphasize a literal interpretation of scripture. The authority of the Church was the keys of the kingdom being passed on from Peter to his successors, not a literal interpretation of scripture. Fundamentalism found it's foundation in the Reformation. Luther, Calvin, et. al. needed to find an authority apart from the Catholic church. It was scripture. Solo scriptura was the cry that undermined the authority of the keys of the kingdom. Still, I don't think that Luther was really a fundamentalist in the modern sense. Modern day fundamentalism is a reaction to the Enlightenment. The Great Revivals of the 19th century can be seen as a basis for Adventist religions, which started the focus of the theology of endtime and is the basis for the Left Behind understanding that many fundamentalists had. It was truly formed, in the US at least, in the early 20th century as a reaction against more liberal theological developments in various Protestant churches. Schisms resulted. One other thing worth noting...fundamentalists tend to be anti-hierarchical. Southern Baptists are the best known fundamentalists in the US. They have no real hierarchy. The Southern Baptist Convention does not have authority over the individual congregations. Indeed, the congregation rules itself by vote; they hire and fire ministers. Fundamentalism also tended to rise up among the poorer classes. Until fairly recently, it was more associated with tent revival meetings that big expensive churches. As the fundamentalists went up in the world, they did gain political and economic power. But, their self image of a besieged underdog is not without rootsits just out of date. So, that's why I said fundamentalism is new. What you have referenced is not new, of course. I think a very strong argument can be made that you are pointing out institutional sins within the Churchand that you are far from the first. Indeed, much of scripture wrestles with this problem. The prophets who proclaimed God's judgment of Israel were not the established priests. Instead, the pointed out the problems with the government
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] But, they were not fundamentalists. The two great doctors of the church (Agustine and Aquinis) did not emphasize a literal interpretation of scripture. The authority of the Church was the keys of the kingdom being passed on from Peter to his successors, not a literal interpretation of scripture. The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred booksIf you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true. --St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 4/12/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. Seriously? And what do you do with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 4/12/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There was a lot of payback of collaborators with the Moors, No, no. It was the Moops! Fundamentalism found it's foundation in the Reformation. Luther, Calvin, et. al. needed to find an authority apart from the Catholic church. It was scripture. Solo scriptura was the cry that undermined the authority of the keys of the kingdom. Still, I don't think that Luther was really a fundamentalist in the modern sense. I don't think it's good to mention sola scriptura and leave out Luther's other two -- sola fide and sola gratia. It wasn't just scripture, but faith and grace as well. So, that's why I said fundamentalism is new. *Christian* fundamentalism of the kind we have today is fairly new. But fundamentalism of all sorts has been around for all of recorded history, I'd wager. But I'm defining fundamentalism as the idea that one understands an idea completely, that it is perfect and frozen in time, never needing to be reinterpreted in the context of the present. As I think I've said here before, I see a lot of liberal capitalist fundamentalism in the USA these days -- and it is rarely challenged. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Fool Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:12 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred booksIf you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true. --St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28 (True, but not in a literal sense) != False. Just think of transubstantiation. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
-- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 4/12/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. Seriously? And what do you do with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem? - Does it effect the underlying math the all physics is based around? -- a + b = c (a + b) * (a - c) = c * (a - c) a^2 + ab - ac - cb = ca - c^2 a^2 + ab - ac = ca + cb - c^2 a * (a + b - c) = c * (a + b - c) a = c Phi the golden mean = 1.61803398875 1 / Phi = 0.61803398875 Phi^2 = 2.61803398875 phi = sqroot(1 + .25) + sqroot(.25) 1 / phi = sqroot(1 + .25) - sqroot(.25) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On Apr 12, 2006, at 12:20 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 12/04/2006, at 10:01 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Of course, it's possible that the answer you get will be RTF¹M . . . Now there's a good shortcut to atheism. :-) Not necessarily, if as some have suggested the Bible is a record of God's dealings with other humans. Then it might give you some useful guidelines which you could employ in your life. FWIW, my experience is that God, like a good professor, gives you the smallest possible hint to get you on the right track. In some cases that hint may well be found in the Scriptures Sure. But, I guess you're just as likely to find that smiting and stoning is recommended as a solution as kiss-and-make-up is... In fact (and you probably know this), it is the preponderance of smiting and stoning as a means of nation-building that convinces some scholars that much of the OT is a human product. It is full of exhortations to tribal violence. Those parts it is relatively easy to disregard as having normative value for me and to interpret as a tiny, feisty nation's self-justification. Perhaps it is as Ronn! says: that Professor God's hints are extraordinarily subtle, that we might best /own/ what we learn by pursuing them. The main hint I get from reading some huge swaths of Scripture is that regardless of how much violence we do to one another, or how poorly we follow what we dimly see as God's will, God continues to love and pursue us. That, I find refreshing, remarkable and redeeming. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
I don't think it's good to mention sola scriptura and leave out Luther's other two -- sola fide and sola gratia. It wasn't just scripture, but faith and grace as well. I was thinking in terms of teaching authority...Church teachings were not to be used. As an aside, would you agree with this statement, which is listed as one of the sources for JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church quote If we translate from one language to another, then Protestant talk about justification through faith corresponds to Catholic talk about justification through grace; and on the other hand, Protestant doctrine understands substantially under the one word 'faith' what Catholic doctrine (following 1 Cor. 13:13) sums up in the triad of 'faith, hope, and love' (LV:E 52). end quote Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
Jim Sharkey wrote: The Fool wrote: I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. Humans are fundamentelly evil creatures who deserve to die. You must be great fun at parties. Jim That assumes he goes to parties. He might not. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julia Thompson Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:55 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview That assumes he goes to parties. He might not. From what I understand, he only goes if he thinks a lot of cute little numbers would be there. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
The Fool said: Does it effect the underlying math the all physics is based around? Yes, it does. It applies to any mathematical system that includes ordinary arithmetic. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. Humans are fundamentally evil creatures who deserve to die. My cats and horses would disagree with those statements: Mice, voles, birds and deer (yes, deer!) are not nonsense. Grass and alfalfa make perfect gastronomic sense. Humans are providers of warm laps in which to sit, pleasing scratching posts such as tables and sofas, and mildly amusing puzzles like closet doors. Humans are good for scratching those impossible-to-reach places (such as the crest of the neck, or between the jawbones), and are a fairly reliable source of goodies like carrots and molasses treats; the amusement factor in overturning a freshly-loaded manure barrow is not to be discounted! With significant forbearance and perseverance, humans are trainable, although they frequently forget what they have learned. Treated cruelly, humans can turn vicious, and some, sad to say, ought to be returned to the compost heap posthaste. Firmness, patience, vigilance and kindness are the watchwords which must guide one's interactions with these challenging creatures. Debbi Channeling Various Critturs Maru;-) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
The Fool wrote: From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 11 Apr 2006 at 7:22, The Fool wrote: If you ingore some minor gibberish about buddism: www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060403_sam_harris_interview I find your faith in atheism is touching. I wonder why you need so strongly not to believe. As I said to a communist friend of mine the other day, he takes his Marx a lot more seriously than I take my Bible. I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. I would not deny that one can find God in math. If the Universe was created by a supreme being then his fingerprints are all over it (albeit in the most subtle ways). Humans are fundamentelly evil creatures who deserve to die. You first! G xponent Gnostic Reflections Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
Nick Arnett wrote: On 4/12/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There was a lot of payback of collaborators with the Moors, No, no. It was the Moops! Considering my primary meaning of MOOP, matter out of place, that's interesting. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Great Sam Harris Interview
If you ingore some minor gibberish about buddism: www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060403_sam_harris_interview -- ...34/-21/13/-8/5/-3/2/-1/1/0/1/1/2/3/5/8/13/21/34... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 4/11/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you ingore some minor gibberish about buddism: www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060403_sam_harris_interview For anyone who is wondering, as I was, who the heck Sam Harris is... With the publication of his 2004 New York Times bestseller, The End of Faith, a full-throttle attack on religion, Sam Harris became the most prominent atheist in America. He also seems to fail to recognize the difference between irrational and non-rational beliefs. And this statement, Religious moderation is just a cherry-picking of scripture, ultimately, is ridiculous. It implies that fundamentalism is the only *complete* form of Christianity. Nonsense, really. There's a lot of blame their theology in what he says. Aside from my objection to blaming in general, that sort of argument makes a terribly simplistic assumption about cause and effect. Group X acts the way they do because of their theology -- there are people who are really willing and eager to blow themselves up because they think they're going to get to paradise, Harris argues. It's not that simple -- but how convenient to assume that the problem is just their theology. With that in mind, we no longer have to concern ourselves with any other issues. Social and economic injustice and no longer important because it's that damned theology that is causing the trouble. Harris argues that terrorists apparently aren't thinking about poverty and injustice. He'd have us assume that just because they focus on religion, their actions have nothing to do with poverty and injustice. Isn't it blindingly obvious that the bin Ladens of this world find followers because of the social and economic conditions where they recruit? For heaven's sake, demagogues are *never* are motivated by altruism! Even those who claim to be -- the SLA and its demands when Patty Hearst was kidnapped come to mind -- clearly are motivated by a desire for power as much as they might want to feed the hungry. Who knows what else motivates that sort of behavior -- genetics, toilet training, education... there are myriad factors. The idea that terrorists cannot be motivated by poverty because they personally are well-off is, well, stupid. Really stupid. It completely ignores the basic human characteristic of empathy. Probably more to the point, it ignores the basic human desire for power, which sees opportunity for personal power in the suffering of others. All we really know is that there is are correlations of varying degrees between certain beliefs and behaviors. It seems to me that there's a lot of evidence that other factors are driving both. In places that suffer from poverty and injustice, terrorism and fundamentalism often arise. But that's just a correlation, too. Maybe it is all driven by nutrition. Who knows? Do I vote the way I do because of my theology? Maybe sometimes. But there's no doubt in my mind that I also choose my theology because of my political and social beliefs. They are inseparable and intertwined, as I suspect is true for people all over the world. Harris says, We should be fundamentally hostile to claims to certainty that are not backed up by evidence and argument. Now there, he's got something. I wish he'd take his own advice a bit more... and realize that the majority of Christians, if not the majority of humans, tend to agree. As David Brin points out, we live in a culture that routinely challenges authority. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:33 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview Harris argues that terrorists apparently aren't thinking about poverty and injustice. He'd have us assume that just because they focus on religion, their actions have nothing to do with poverty and injustice. Isn't it blindingly obvious that the bin Ladens of this world find followers because of the social and economic conditions where they recruit? For heaven's sake, demagogues are *never* are motivated by altruism! Even those who claim to be -- the SLA and its demands when Patty Hearst was kidnapped come to mind -- clearly are motivated by a desire for power as much as they might want to feed the hungry. Who knows what else motivates that sort of behavior -- genetics, toilet training, education... there are myriad factors. One thing that struck methe fundamental reason for the last big European war was simply elbow room. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:33:08 -0700, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't it blindingly obvious that the bin Ladens of this world find followers because of the social and economic conditions where they recruit? No, that's not obvious at all. I'm pretty sure that many of his recruits are middle/upper income types. I would argue that it is the wealth of the region that stimulates terrorism and that if the Middle East was economically and politically irrelevant there would be no epidemic of terrorism. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:43 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:33:08 -0700, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't it blindingly obvious that the bin Ladens of this world find followers because of the social and economic conditions where they recruit? No, that's not obvious at all. I'm pretty sure that many of his recruits are middle/upper income types. I would argue that it is the wealth of the region that stimulates terrorism and that if the Middle East was economically and politically irrelevant there would be no epidemic of terrorism. Supporting that, we don't have a major concern with Bangladesh terrorists or Zambian terrorists (two countries that have been poor for a long time). Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 11 Apr 2006, at 4:33PM, Nick Arnett wrote: But there's no doubt in my mind that I also choose my theology because of my political and social beliefs. They are inseparable and intertwined, as I suspect is true for people all over the world. So religion is just believing whatever you feel like believing then? Why do you need religion for that? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up. - John Carmack ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On Apr 11, 2006, at 11:36 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 11 Apr 2006, at 4:33PM, Nick Arnett wrote: But there's no doubt in my mind that I also choose my theology because of my political and social beliefs. They are inseparable and intertwined, as I suspect is true for people all over the world. So religion is just believing whatever you feel like believing then? Why do you need religion for that? You don't, unless you have an impossibly shallow understanding of religion and insist on using the term incorrectly as a proxy for taking the matter of having a relationship with a deity seriously. Nick said that he chose his theology -- which I happen to know he does in the context of the Lutheran denomination of Christianity -- on the basis of his political and social beliefs. I have done much the same thing, as have many other believers of various religions. And the irreligious as well. Neither necessarily dominates: my theology (my understanding of God and of God's relationship with humanity) informs how I view human relations (political and social beliefs) and my view of human relations informs how I understand God and God's relationship with humanity. They are, to steal a phrase, inseparable and intertwined. Religion doesn't necessarily enter into it, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 11/04/2006, at 6:33 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: He also seems to fail to recognize the difference between irrational and non-rational beliefs. And this statement, Religious moderation is just a cherry-picking of scripture, ultimately, is ridiculous. It implies that fundamentalism is the only *complete* form of Christianity. Nonsense, really. So how do you decide which parts of scripture to follow and which not? The whole bible? Just the NT? Just Jesus' teachings, and ignore Paul's commentary? The implication that fundamentalism is the only complete form of a religion is a perfectly reasonable assertion - as that is a starting point for measuring how well one would conform to the ideals of that religion. To be fair, it's harder with Christianity than Judaism or Islam, as the questions I raised above are fairly fundamental (heh... ;) ) to the question of What Is A Christian? But by making choices of which bits of doctrine to accept, one changes the nature of one's faith. Nick's a Lutheran, so I might as well mention that branch/sect. I have discussed religion with a number of Lutherans other than Nick (mainly Germanic Europeans, either in Cyprus or in Australia), and all bar one of those still practicing that I have met in the flesh (so 6 or 7) are biblical literalists. They'd regard themselves as Good Christians. I don't know whether anyone still active on this list is a literalist, but if one isn't a literalist, then that's a different measure for what Christianity is or what a good follower means than for those that are. How do we decide what is right? To me, this is why the traditional teaching of the major religions fails, because frankly if one can just make it up as one goes along, then one might as well do so, pick an ethical code if one is so inclined, and forget about the rest. Occam's razor comes into play, why add a whole load of complicating factors... Faith in a deity/deities/force/whatever is one thing. It's highly personal. But faith in a book is something else, and that's where the argument starts - if the book says one thing, but a follower disagrees and does something else, where's the value in the book? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
At 04:22 PM Tuesday 4/11/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 11/04/2006, at 6:33 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: He also seems to fail to recognize the difference between irrational and non-rational beliefs. And this statement, Religious moderation is just a cherry-picking of scripture, ultimately, is ridiculous. It implies that fundamentalism is the only *complete* form of Christianity. Nonsense, really. So how do you decide which parts of scripture to follow and which not? The whole bible? Just the NT? Just Jesus' teachings, and ignore Paul's commentary? The implication that fundamentalism is the only complete form of a religion is a perfectly reasonable assertion - as that is a starting point for measuring how well one would conform to the ideals of that religion. To be fair, it's harder with Christianity than Judaism or Islam, as the questions I raised above are fairly fundamental (heh... ;) ) to the question of What Is A Christian? But by making choices of which bits of doctrine to accept, one changes the nature of one's faith. Nick's a Lutheran, so I might as well mention that branch/sect. I have discussed religion with a number of Lutherans other than Nick (mainly Germanic Europeans, either in Cyprus or in Australia), and all bar one of those still practicing that I have met in the flesh (so 6 or 7) are biblical literalists. They'd regard themselves as Good Christians. I don't know whether anyone still active on this list is a literalist, but if one isn't a literalist, then that's a different measure for what Christianity is or what a good follower means than for those that are. How do we decide what is right? To me, this is why the traditional teaching of the major religions fails, because frankly if one can just make it up as one goes along, then one might as well do so, pick an ethical code if one is so inclined, and forget about the rest. Occam's razor comes into play, why add a whole load of complicating factors... Faith in a deity/deities/force/whatever is one thing. It's highly personal. But faith in a book is something else, and that's where the argument starts - if the book says one thing, but a follower disagrees and does something else, where's the value in the book? Charlie One answer is that if there really is a God, you could try asking Him what He wants you to do . . . --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 12/04/2006, at 12:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Faith in a deity/deities/force/whatever is one thing. It's highly personal. But faith in a book is something else, and that's where the argument starts - if the book says one thing, but a follower disagrees and does something else, where's the value in the book? Charlie One answer is that if there really is a God, you could try asking Him what He wants you to do . . . Sure. Like I say, it's highly personal. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On Apr 11, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 11/04/2006, at 6:33 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: He also seems to fail to recognize the difference between irrational and non-rational beliefs. And this statement, Religious moderation is just a cherry-picking of scripture, ultimately, is ridiculous. It implies that fundamentalism is the only *complete* form of Christianity. Nonsense, really. So how do you decide which parts of scripture to follow and which not? The whole bible? Just the NT? Just Jesus' teachings, and ignore Paul's commentary? ... Faith in a deity/deities/force/whatever is one thing. It's highly personal. But faith in a book is something else, and that's where the argument starts - if the book says one thing, but a follower disagrees and does something else, where's the value in the book? One view -- a minority view in Christianity -- is that the Bible is a human product, not a divine one. The Bible records certain people's wrestling with who God might be and how they might relate to God. The value in such a book (which is definitely NOT to be worshiped, but can still be taken very seriously) is that it lets us know what our spiritual forbears thought and believed, which might inform our understanding of God and our relationship to God. It also contains some historically-factual events. It has been said The Bible is true, and some of it actually happened. Problems arise when our (modern, Western) ideas of the equality of truth and factuality are layered on top of writings that didn't originate in the same understanding of truth and factuality. Unfortunately, that's all I have time for right now, but I do hold that there is value in the book, and it is not that it was handed down from deity. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 4/11/06, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, that's not obvious at all. I'm pretty sure that many of his recruits are middle/upper income types. I would argue that it is the wealth of the region that stimulates terrorism and that if the Middle East was economically and politically irrelevant there would be no epidemic of terrorism. Wealth or distribution of wealth? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 4/11/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Supporting that, we don't have a major concern with Bangladesh terrorists or Zambian terrorists (two countries that have been poor for a long time). I didn't say that poverty results in or correlates to terrorism. It's not that simple. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 4/11/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have discussed religion with a number of Lutherans other than Nick (mainly Germanic Europeans, either in Cyprus or in Australia), and all bar one of those still practicing that I have met in the flesh (so 6 or 7) are biblical literalists. Are you sure? That's not a typical Lutheran belief, not at all. At the core of Lutheranism are scripture, faith and grace... the inclusion of faith and grace means that scripture does not stand alone, leaving no room for literalism. They'd regard themselves as Good Christians. I don't know whether anyone still active on this list is a literalist, but if one isn't a literalist, then that's a different measure for what Christianity is or what a good follower means than for those that are. How do we decide what is right? Perhaps that the wrong question. Perhaps the challenge is how to live with uncertainty, as Harris challenges us. To me, this is why the traditional teaching of the major religions fails, because frankly if one can just make it up as one goes along, But that's not it at all. Faith in a deity/deities/force/whatever is one thing. It's highly personal. But faith in a book is something else, and that's where the argument starts - if the book says one thing, but a follower disagrees and does something else, where's the value in the book? Plenty of Christians go astray by worshiping the Bible. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
Nick wrote: I wrote: No, that's not obvious at all. I'm pretty sure that many of his recruits are middle/upper income types. I would argue that it is the wealth of the region that stimulates terrorism and that if the Middle East was economically and politically irrelevant there would be no epidemic of terrorism. Wealth or distribution of wealth? The terrorism is not a product of how the oil wealth is distributed; it's a product of the interest of the rest of the world in the oil. Their bone of contention is that we build bases there and that we contaminate their culture with ours. If they were all poor, they would be relatively powerless to do anything about it, but because everyone wants what they've got, they have the leverage and the resources to pursue their ideological goals. IMO, if we had continued the energy policies set forth by Jimmy Carter instead of largely abandoning them in the late '80s, our problems in that region would be minimal because with some degree of energy independence, we wouldn't need their oil so much and they wouldn't be so important. To a large extent we have made them what they are. This is not to apologize for terrorism, BTW. There is nothing good or right about Bin Laden and his ilk. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 7:03 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview Nick wrote: I wrote: No, that's not obvious at all. I'm pretty sure that many of his recruits are middle/upper income types. I would argue that it is the wealth of the region that stimulates terrorism and that if the Middle East was economically and politically irrelevant there would be no epidemic of terrorism. Wealth or distribution of wealth? The terrorism is not a product of how the oil wealth is distributed; it's a product of the interest of the rest of the world in the oil. Their bone of contention is that we build bases there and that we contaminate their culture with ours. If they were all poor, they would be relatively powerless to do anything about it, but because everyone wants what they've got, they have the leverage and the resources to pursue their ideological goals. IMO, if we had continued the energy policies set forth by Jimmy Carter instead of largely abandoning them in the late '80s, our problems in that region would be minimal because with some degree of energy independence, we wouldn't need their oil so much and they wouldn't be so important. To a large extent we have made them what they are. While conservation policies would have some effect, one can see a much better correlation between changes in prices and changes in oil usage than in governmental policies and the use of oil. Oil use would be lower in the US now if we decided to, say, impose a tax on gas similar to the one in the UK, but the increase in the US use is not the main factor in the increase in the world's use now. The Asian economic boom is responsible, since they are at a point where economic growth has a high energy dependence. I'll agree that if the Arabs were as poor as Sub-Sahara Africa, the chances of us worrying about Islamic terrorists would be minimal. But, I think conservation measures would have mostly cut oil exploration outside of the Middle East, instead of reducing the importance of that region. I recall looking at an oil well log the first time I was in the UAE. I asked which tool was performing badly, since there was a cross over between the neutron and the density tool in a 200 foot water sand. I was told, that log was good, it wasn't water; it was oil. I had never seen more than 20-30 feet of pay in the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), the Alaska wells I had looked at. 200 feet of high porosity pay just blew me away. Total production costs in the Middle East are as low as $5.00/barrel. In the US, we are now producing oil with a total cost of $30.00/barrel. If oil falls back to $10.00/barrel, as it did in 1999, then the Middle Eastern countries will be a lot poorer, but they will gradually increase their market share as high price production is shut in. Indeed, if you look at that time frame, AQ was not drying up and blowing awaythey were strengthening. If you want a turning point, the embargo of 1973 is probably the best candidate, although the die was pretty well cast by then. Dan M. This is not to apologize for terrorism, BTW. There is nothing good or right about Bin Laden and his ilk. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 5:31 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview One view -- a minority view in Christianity -- is that the Bible is a human product, not a divine one. The Bible records certain people's wrestling with who God might be and how they might relate to God. The value in such a book (which is definitely NOT to be worshiped, but can still be taken very seriously) is that it lets us know what our spiritual forbears thought and believed, which might inform our understanding of God and our relationship to God. It also contains some historically-factual events. The Catholic understanding is that scripture is a result of a covenant relationship between God and the people of God. The relationship comes first, and scripture is the result of relationship. Historically and traditionally, Christians do not think of the Bible as a copy of the Mother of all Books which sits in heaven, as the Koran is considered. It is considered the inspired word of God. Literalists would picture this inspiration as close to dictation. I can recall from Catholic grade school, the view that the evangelist said what he wanted to say and God used him to say what he wanted to say. The inerrancy of the bible, for Catholics, is in it's teachings of those truths necessary for salvation. Non-fundamentalists Protestants (including a number of Evangelical Christians I know) agree that inspiration is not dictation. One common theme, which I think you agree with, is that literalism puts God in a box that is far too small. It has been said The Bible is true, and some of it actually happened. Problems arise when our (modern, Western) ideas of the equality of truth and factuality are layered on top of writings that didn't originate in the same understanding of truth and factuality. That is very consistent with the mainstream Catholic/Jewish/Protestant scholarship. People of faith use very human techniques, such as historical criticism, to understand the meaning the author wished to convey to his readers and listeners. (paraphrase of Raymond Brownwho's as middle of the road as there is). Modern scholarship is taken into account when the faith community develops their theological understanding of scriptures. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 4:23 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview So how do you decide which parts of scripture to follow and which not? The whole bible? Just the NT? Just Jesus' teachings, and ignore Paul's commentary? If one is Christian, then the Incarnate Word of God (Jesus) has the greatest authority. Still the whole of scripture is considered by modern Christians to be authoritive. How one understands this authority in a collection of works that contains both sides of theological disputes (such as the dispute over retribution theology) tends to be complex. Literalism cannot really work consistentlyI never met someone who was really a literalist concerning the whole of scriptures.they just don't count their non-literal reading as non-literal. There are several formulations that give general rules for understanding scriptures. Peter Gomes gives one good one: scriptural principals, not scriptural practices. Shirley Guthrie give 6 reasonable principals for Christians...I think I can give them from memory if asked...if not..Teri has them. But, let me give my own set of rules for interpretation. First, one needs to set each work in context to properly understand it. One cannot get the meaning of Jonah, for example, if one thinks it was meant as a history of a minor prophet. It's a literary piece written to get a theological message/messages across...one(s) that I think happens to be great messages for their times and ours. Second, scripture is seen in light of the community's growth in their covenant relationship with God, as told from the human side. Thus, we can see the theology that God rewards good people here on earth early in the Old Testament, and then discussions of the reasons that theology doesn't work very well later. With a timeline, one can see the growth of the people's understandingfor example, the development from seeing Yahwah being one god among many (but very powerful and _their_ god) to being the God of all, who calls all to himself. As a Christian, I tend to look to Jesus and Paul for guidance in understanding scripture. Both discussed going to the heart of scripture, as did Hiller (a noted rabbi of that time...roughly). So, my questions of scripture are more guided towards what is the heart of the relationship instead of looking for specific prohibitions against things like polyester/cotton blends. In addition, I agree with the argument that all Christians have, unconsciously or consciously, a cannon within the cannon. That is to say a central statement that one uses to interpret other parts of scripture. Mine is Jesus' answer to the question what is the greatest commandment: Love your God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole mind and Love your neighbor as yourself. My justification for this is that Jesus is multiply attested (in the 3 synoptic gospels) to having said this.John has a very similar saying in Jesus' farewell discourse love one another and Paul states...three things endure: faith hope and love; and the greatest of these is love. The implication that fundamentalism is the only complete form of a religion is a perfectly reasonable assertion But, with Christianity, then one would have to argue that it was incomplete for most of its existence. Fundamentalism is really rather new. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
Nick Arnett wrote: Plenty of Christians go astray by worshiping the Bible. I suppose I get kinda wierd on this subject. But I agree with Nick's statement above. IMO, the study of Man and the study of the Universe are much more important than the study of the Bible and are much more likely to dribble out little nuggets of truth. xponent Tetragrammaton Ultimatums Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 5:47 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview On 4/11/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Supporting that, we don't have a major concern with Bangladesh terrorists or Zambian terrorists (two countries that have been poor for a long time). I didn't say that poverty results in or correlates to terrorism. It's not that simple. But without correlation, then it's hard to identify it as a major cause. Let me put forward another candidate: honor/pride. We know that there is a strong, almost overwhelming by our standards, concept of honor in Arab cultures, as well there is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Honor killings are a strong example of this. The critical importance of blood ties and the prevalence of revenge killings are other examples of this. I'd argue that, for members of AQ, the decadent West dominating the world is a crime against the natural order of things. It is a tremendous insult to their pride. Even if they and/or their family have become wealthy by trading with the West, the lack of honor is still galling. It's not just the military dominance of the US that is objectionable. More than anything, it is the cultural dominance. The West, the US, and above all Israel (which is secretly controlling the USjust look at the history books: the Protocols of the Elders of Zion of you don't believe thisneed to be put in their proper place. The only hope for their own honor, and the rightful ordering of the world, is to fight these powers by all means necessary. Thus, terrorism is acceptable. I think it fits. Also, pride also fits with the elbow room reason for war given by the Germans. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
Dan wrote: While conservation policies would have some effect, one can see a much better correlation between changes in prices and changes in oil usage than in governmental policies and the use of oil. In the eight years following Carter's moral equivelent of war, during a period of economic expansion, oil demand fell by about 17% and imports droped from 46 to 30%. Two thirds of the oil we consume is on transportation, but thanks to the SUV loophole, the average efficiency of U.S. vehicles is very poor. Oil use would be lower in the US now if we decided to, say, impose a tax on gas similar to the one in the UK, A new energy tax is a great idea because it would encourage conservation. but the increase in the US use is not the main factor in the increase in the world's use now. The Asian economic boom is responsible, since they are at a point where economic growth has a high energy dependence. Oh come on, Dan. The _difference_ in the situation might be Asian economic growth, but the U.S. still consumes a lopsided proportion of the energy resources available. If there were ten people in a room drinking beer and one of them was drinking three times as much as any of the others and another person entered the room and started drinking, who's most responsible for the keg going dry? The guy that just walked in? I'll agree that if the Arabs were as poor as Sub-Sahara Africa, the chances of us worrying about Islamic terrorists would be minimal. But, I think conservation measures would have mostly cut oil exploration outside of the Middle East, instead of reducing the importance of that region. Indeed, if you look at that time frame, AQ was not drying up and blowing awaythey were strengthening. If you want a turning point, the embargo of 1973 is probably the best candidate, although the die was pretty well cast by then. AQ was formed in the '90s due to our presence in their homeland which was in turn was a direct result of our thirst for their oil. Or does anyone believe we would have come to the aid of Equatorial Guinea if they had been invaded by Cameroon? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
On 4/11/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't say that poverty results in or correlates to terrorism. It's not that simple. But without correlation, then it's hard to identify it as a major cause. I don't think you're following me. I didn't say that poverty is a major cause of terrorism. I don't believe that. I was saying that social, political and economic conditions in the Middle East have created an environment favorable to recruiting terrorists by demagogues. My point was to argue against focusing on religion as the reason there are terrorists arising in Islamic countries, as Harris chooses to do. More to the point, there are many reasons such things happen. Religion is just one of a bunch of interacting forces at work. And I do think it is blindingly obvious that more than religion creates the swamps of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, to paraphrase Jim Wallis. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:17 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview Dan wrote: While conservation policies would have some effect, one can see a much better correlation between changes in prices and changes in oil usage than in governmental policies and the use of oil. In the eight years following Carter's moral equivelent of war, during a period of economic expansion, Very slow expansion. oil demand fell by about 17% and imports dropped from 46 to 30%. Two thirds of the oil we consume is on transportation, but thanks to the SUV loophole, the average efficiency of U.S. vehicles is very poor. Obtaining the oil production data from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_crdsnd_adc_mbbl_m.htm and the crude oil prices from http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Tabl e.asp We get the following table: production US imports total price GDP US Population 1970 9.6 1.3 11.0 $17.193.6 203 1971 9.5 1.7 11.1 $17.503.7 208 1972 9.4 2.2 11.7 $18.763.9 210 1973 9.2 3.2 12.5 $20.884.1 212 1974 8.8 3.5 12.3 $37.264.1 214 1975 8.4 4.1 12.5 $44.634.1 216 1976 8.1 5.3 13.4 $45.314.3 218 1977 8.2 6.6 14.9 $46.744.5 220 1978 8.7 6.4 15.1 $45.134.8 223 1979 8.6 6.5 15.1 $67.424.9 225 1980 8.6 5.3 13.9 $89.484.9 227 1981 8.6 4.4 13.0 $77.495.0 230 1982 8.6 3.5 12.1 $64.964.9 233 1983 8.7 3.3 12.0 $57.485.1 235 1984 8.9 3.4 12.3 $54.485.5 237 1985 9.0 3.2 12.2 $49.255.7 239 1986 8.7 4.2 12.9 $25.925.9 242 1987 8.3 4.7 13.0 $30.746.1 244 1988 8.1 5.1 13.2 $24.786.4 246 1989 7.6 5.8 13.5 $29.096.6 247 1990 7.4 5.9 13.2 $34.836.7 249 1991 7.4 5.8 13.2 $29.196.7 253 1992 7.2 6.1 13.3 $27.006.9 255 1993 6.8 6.8 13.6 $22.837.1 258 1994 6.7 7.1 13.7 $20.797.3 261 1995 6.6 7.2 13.8 $21.647.5 263 1996 6.5 7.5 14.0 $25.667.8 265 1997 6.5 8.2 14.7 $22.868.2 268 1998 6.3 8.7 15.0 $14.388.5 270 1999 5.9 8.7 14.6 $19.528.9 276 2000 5.8 9.1 14.9 $31.299.2 281 2001 5.8 9.3 15.1 $25.57 278 2002 5.7 9.1 14.9 $24.94 2003 5.7 9.7 15.3 $29.63 2004 5.4 10.1 15.5 $39.21 2005 5.1 10.1 15.2 $50.38 287 My apologies if things don't line up perfectly. Let's see...Carter made the speech in April, 1977 and consumption rose slightly through '79...even though prices rose to $67/barrel in '79 (inflation adjusted dollars). Crude oil prices rose to $89/barrel in '80 and consumption went through the floor. US production, which dropped from '70 until '76 responded to the increase in price by rising roughly 10%. The peak of exploration and drilling was the week I hired on in the oil patchthe first week of '82. It fell somewhat until '83-'84, but then rose slightly in '86. The wheels came off in '86. You can see US production falling after that, and imports increasing. I see good correlations with pricesit's not surprising that a 5x increase in prices would cut consumption. But, I don't see a direct result of Carter's speech. I see the normal lag between the end of exploration and the drop in production in the US...and I see a fairly quick response to high prices. I'm not sure why we need more than market forces to explain what happened. One other interesting pointeven though prices almost quadrupled between 1970 and 1979, the ratio of oil consumption to GDP (inflation adjusted) remained virtually constantit actually increased very slightly. This was after both Ford and Carter pushed conservation. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 11:05 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview On 4/11/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't say that poverty results in or correlates to terrorism. It's not that simple. But without correlation, then it's hard to identify it as a major cause. I don't think you're following me. I didn't say that poverty is a major cause of terrorism. I don't believe that. I was saying that social, political and economic conditions in the Middle East have created an environment favorable to recruiting terrorists by demagogues. My point was to argue against focusing on religion as the reason there are terrorists arising in Islamic countries, as Harris chooses to do. I certainly agree with that basic point, and differ with the Fool. More to the point, there are many reasons such things happen. Religion is just one of a bunch of interacting forces at work. And I do think it is blindingly obvious that more than religion creates the swamps of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, to paraphrase Jim Wallis. Well, draining the swamp appeals to lots of different people, with many different viewpoints. I think that, it is fair to say, that the Middle East is a region that is uniquely dangerous for the world. The only other hot spot that rivals that area is the Korean peninsula...which has its own unique history. For example, there is little risk of an attack on the WTC by terrorists from Zimbabwe, even though the people there suffer horridly under their government. I think the unique mix of a region that both brings cash in hand over fist and is ruled by a small group of people who control that cash fosters a lot of the danger of terrorism in the Middle East. The leader of Zimbabwe does not have the resources to build atomic weapons that can set of a massive nuclear war. The leader of Iran does...and the West is sending him $50 billion/year to spend as he sees fit. Bin Laden came from a multi-billionaire family, and had access to millions. That helped fund their operations. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
