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
Fwd: Hubble Finds Tenth Planet is [Only] Slightly Larger Than Pluto
April 11, 2006 Grey Hautaluoma/Dwayne Brown Headquarters, Washington (202) 358-0668/1726 Ray Villard Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md. (410) 338-4514 RELEASE: 06-183 HUBBLE FINDS TENTH PLANET IS SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN PLUTO For the first time, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has seen distinctly the tenth planet, currently nicknamed Xena, and has found that it is only slightly larger than Pluto. Though previous ground-based observations suggested that Xena's diameter was about 30 percent greater than Pluto, Hubble observations taken Dec. 9 and 10, 2005, showed Xena's diameter as 1,490 miles (with an uncertainty of 60 miles). Pluto's diameter, as measured by Hubble, is 1,422 miles. Hubble is the only telescope capable of getting a clean visible-light measurement of the actual diameter of Xena, said Mike Brown, planetary scientist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif. Brown's research team discovered Xena, officially cataloged as 2003 UB313, and its results have been accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal. Only a handful of images were required to determine Xena's diameter. Located 10 billion miles from Earth with a diameter a little more than half the width of the United States, the object is 1.5 pixels across in Hubble's view. That's enough to make a precise size measurement. Because Xena is smaller than previously thought, but comparatively bright, it must be one of the most reflective objects in the solar system. The only object more reflective is Enceladus, a geologically active moon of Saturn whose surface is continuously recoated with highly reflective ice by active geysers. Xena's bright reflectivity is possibly due to fresh methane frost on its surface. The object may have had an atmosphere when it was closer to the sun, but as it moved to its current location farther away this atmosphere would have frozen out, settling on the surface as frost. Another possibility is that Xena leaks methane gas continuously from its warmer interior. When this methane reaches the cold surface, it immediately freezes solid, covering craters and other features to make it uniformly bright to Hubble's telescopic eye. Xena's takes about 560 years to orbit the sun, and it is now very close to aphelion (the point on its orbit that is farthest from the sun).Brown next plans to use Hubble and other telescopes to study other recently discovered Kuiper Belt objects that are almost as large as Pluto and Xena. The Kuiper Belt is a vast ring of primordial icy comets and larger bodies encircling Neptune's orbit. Finding that the largest known Kuiper Belt object is a virtual twin to Pluto may only further complicate the debate about whether to categorize the large icy worlds that populate the belt as planets. If Pluto were considered to be the minimum size for a planet, then Xena would fulfill this criterion, too. In time, the International Astronomical Union will designate the official name. The Hubble Space Telescope is an international cooperative project between NASA and the European Space Agency. The Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore conducts Hubble science operations. The Institute is operated for NASA by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., Washington For electronic images and more Hubble news, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/hubble -end- To subscribe to the list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
