Hussein -
I hear you... many of us are challenged to defend the name of our God
or our Faith or our gender or our cultural or genetic heritage or sexual
orientation or hair color or set of our jaw. Even when obviously (but
superficially?) motivated, these are false challenges and to accept
Steve, you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion is the
primary weakness of this so-called Complexity group. That weakness
being, again solely in my opinion, an inability or perhaps an unwillingness
to face the real substantive, important complexity issues that surround us.
Instead,
The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various
interpretations of the religion. And it is a myth that there is a
majority available to counteract or condemn the minority
Take the obscene group of Christians that like to protest at military
funerals claiming the death is a good thing
Well, as much as I respect your opinion, Dave, I could not possibly
disagree more with you. Or at least with your opening sentence.
While I choose not to state it as absolute fact, I would like to suggest
that Religion *is* the problem.
Human kind's ongoing attempts to cast one's existence into
Doug -
You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or distancing
through abstraction... and yes it may be a side show. But as you point
out, a side show that has not even been mounted.
/Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful
effects of mass
Are physicists guilty of Hiroshima? Let's say the Japanese had won the war
and Oppenheimer had been hauled before the World Criminal Court in The
Hague. Would he have been guilty of Crimes Against Humanity? You are a
judge on that Court. Write the opinion.
N
From:
First things first: the bumper sticker. It is, sadly, real, and not just a
photoshopped artifact:
It came out of Georgia, and the woman who created it was shocked, just
shocked, that people would think it racist.
Doug -
Well, as much as I respect your opinion, Dave, I could not possibly
disagree more with you. Or at least with your opening sentence.
While I choose not to state it as absolute fact, I would like to
suggest that Religion *is* the problem.
Whether through formal models (requiring
And she removed the bumper-sticker from her web-site after the interview
with the journalist from Forbes.
Incredible but true, some people start ignorant and become less so.
-- rec --
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote:
First things first: the bumper
Roger -
I grant Doug that the bumpersticker apparently wasn't photoshopped, but
I wouldn't put it past the anti-whatevers to jump the whatevers for
whatever by contriving a I know this is what they are thinking device
such as this bumper sticker in question...
I have to ask (just because
Oh, ok. I have to stop heckling and take this seriously. DAMN!
First, I yield to no one on this list in my atheism. I have been an atheist
longer than most of you have been alive. So there! My FATHER was an
atheist, my mother was an agnostic. (For anybody on this list who might
have been
Doug -
I cannot resist: a very accurate description of the impact of
religion, via a single word substitution.
As long as we are being pointed, my last response to Roger's comment and
my ongoing response to yours follows this point:
When does the Religion of Cynicism become indistinguishable
Unsympathetic, perhaps. Not intolerant, though. I'm perfectly happy
letting anybody live in whatever delusional world-view they find compelling.
On the other hand, I am decidedly intolerant of
religious proselytizing. Or religion-based judgmental behavior. Or
religion-based intolerance. Or
I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all. The question is of
groups and institutions.
When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the
entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?
When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us
Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.
There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting
Allahu Akhbar whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats
because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.
And this is not about religion?
I
Re Doug's last comment:
It's about power and control. A justification for them. They are
using 'religion' as a potent, unquestionable label to justify their
behaviour. Much like fundamentalists from all 'religious traditions'
Technically, the word 'religion' derives from 're-linking', as
One semi-final note from me about culture and religion: I lived in Libya
for a year in 1976 when I was a consultant to Occidental Petroleum.
I traveled extensively between Tripoli, Benghazi, and several points about
900 miles southeast of Tripoli in the northern tip of the Sahara during
that
Or there's a bunch of irate terrorists/loonies/freedom fighters that
hijack the Islamic cause because they can't stand America(ns) and want
to hurt us as much as possible - pursuing 'death by a thousand cuts' and
know they can rile up the locals to act/riot/revolt.
Or has this theory been
The Fixation of Belief, Charles S. Peirce, Popular Science Monthly,
November 1877.
http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html
I was going to paraphrase another part of this, but looking at it again I
realize my feeble bowdlerization wouldn't do it justice. [Emphasis added]
Let the will of the
Great discussion, everyone.
To Owen's point about speaking out against injustice, perhaps we should start a
world-wide organization of the 6-Sigma Peaceful Majority, speaking out
against violence and hatred for any reason. May be it's time for the grass-root
majority to be the leaders of peace
Religion is not inherently bad. It is the use of it for mundane power
that is the problem.
All religious traditions began with a prophet / visionary / mystic who
urged tolerance, peace and self-awareness. Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha...
In most cases, that person's initial followers began to
Exactly.
Thanks, Roger.
On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
The Fixation of Belief, Charles S. Peirce, Popular Science Monthly,
November 1877.
http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html
I was going to paraphrase another part of this, but looking at it
again I realize my
Well see, here we go again.
To which I come back again with the point of view that any philosophy, or
religion that is human-centric in nature as both Christianity or Islam are,
is inherently bad. A narrow world view, enabled, promoted, and enforced
with even narrower strict fundamentalist
Roger,
I am always stunned by your ability to mine the web for wonderful stuff.
I happen to have the Peirce paper sitting on my table, so let me draw his
argument out a bit further. Piece describes 4 ways of fixing belief . This
one he calls authority. The two others he disapproves of
Here we go again, indeed.
Blind faith is a redundancy, right? All faith is blind. We do not have
faith in what we doubt. As Peirce would say: Doubt is not a guest. We do
not entertain it. When it moves in, it sleeps in our bed, eats at our
table, goes to work with us, and listens to
Absolutely to Steve, and whiskey and a talk about all this. I would
LOVE to.
Just tell me the time and place.
Tory
On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Victoria,
I was speaking from the perspective of two religions with which I
have first-hand familiarity: Christianity
It always surprises me the extent to which people (yes! people in
general) over-simplify complex things. One of my pet peeves is the
conviction that religion is identical with belief or doctrine.
Most religion is an individualized convolution of belief and practice.
It's not merely belief and
This graph shows the government employees in the US, all levels of
government, divided by the population of the US.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=87170
Color me surprised. The government/capita has been 0.0725+/-0.0025 since
1982. Variation in the last
If your conversations go on past the first of October, I would love to join
you. N
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Victoria Hughes
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 2:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re:
Nick, you're in fine form. Can't wait until you come back to Santa Fe so
that I may better experience it once again in person.
It's been a rather full Friday of trying to get my work done while
communicating with my colleagues on the off-topics of politics and religion.
One closing note,
Qué viva el simposio!
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Victoria Hughes
victo...@toryhughes.comwrote:
Absolutely to Steve, and whiskey and a talk about all this. I would LOVE
to.
Just tell me the time and place.
Tory
On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Victoria,
I
Glen,
Comments below, if you care to scroll down.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 2:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd:
Doug,
I promise you, it's not personal.
To me, you are, Universal Man.
But the question does interest me: What IS the difference, in principle,
between the kind of faith for which you and I would let people off the hook,
and the kind of faith that makes us kind of nauseous. .
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 09/14/2012 12:18 PM:
gepr wrote:
It always surprises me the extent to which people (yes! people in
general) over-simplify complex things. One of my pet peeves is the
conviction that religion is identical with belief or doctrine.
[NST ==] one'mans
Nick, I enjoy our little interactions as well, in no small part due to the
fact that you are (usually) charm personified.
But to answer your question: in my case it's cosmology. Religion, or at
least most traditional religions, are simply to small-minded and
human-centric to garner any respect
My interest is not the extremists, but the fact that the leaders and
majority do not protest against them, do not make themselves heard.
So it is about religion, but it could equally be about the NRA or racism or
human rights or whatever. Where the majority is silent. And the leaders
do not
Well, I'd like to suggest that if in fact they really do deplore the
fundamentalist Islamic violence that has been raging around the globe since
9/11 and before, and yet they are not speaking out against it, there are
several possible explanations:
- They're cowards
- They're terrified of
Or they believe that speaking out against it is useless.
Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/14/2012 03:45 PM:
Well, I'd like to suggest that if in fact they really do deplore the
fundamentalist Islamic violence that has been raging around the globe since
9/11 and before, and yet they are not
But how do we know this? How would you expect a non-extemist to be heard? Its
not like a non-extremist is going to blow up an extremist group… Sort of by
definition.
Plenty of people have spoken out against the events this week. But what more
can they do? The bombs are news worthy. The
Yes, that goes on the list.
On Sep 14, 2012 4:52 PM, glen e. p. ropella g...@tempusdictum.com wrote:
Or they believe that speaking out against it is useless.
Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/14/2012 03:45 PM:
Well, I'd like to suggest that if in fact they really do deplore the
fundamentalist
Of course, Owen, we could be asking the same thing about the good
Catholic community regarding all the years of child sex abuse and coverups
in that religion.
--Doug
On Sep 14, 2012 4:30 PM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net wrote:
My interest is not the extremists, but the fact that the
Joshua, You are spot on.
I am not sure what we are comparing here. Are we equating bad actions to good
actions? Of course this is misleading, because this discussion can only
demonstrate our ignorance of all the good actions, Moslims, Christians and all
those use Religion to drive them to do
Ok, owen. Let's say I put on a bomb vest, put my FRIAM T-shirt on over it,
and blew myself up and 30 soldiers at the military base where that poor
schmuk Bradley Manning is being held. Let's say, I leave an email circular
claiming that I did it in the name of a Free Internet. The reporter
Glen,
I thought I believed that we we are ALL zombies.
Maybe I don't know what a zombie is.
N
-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 6:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 09/14/2012 05:57 PM:
I thought I believed that we we are ALL zombies.
Maybe you do. I don't know. But I infer from your words in these
e-mails that you believe beliefs are real things, are constituted by
real things, result from and result in real things.
Maybe I
So, what's a big government? Are there any other national statistics for
comparison?
The real question is: Why in hell does no one know just how good a job
Obama is doing? He's mute! Why?
The best speech at the DNC was Clinton, and then Michelle! Why is Obama so
unwilling to defend what
Michael Lew has a very nice
profilehttp://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obamaof
Obama in Vanity Fair.
*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
*** Professor, Computer Science*
* California State University, Los Angeles*
* My paper on
I dunno. It's not a bad speech
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/07/remarks-president-dem
ocratic-national-convention . Have you read it? N
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 11:25
Dear Doug
You're quite right, and there is a huge disconnect.
Nobody on this thread / list is examining the Great Satan who provoked
all of this.
One nation under GOD ?
In God we trust ??
God bless America ???
Whats going on in the Middle East now is just another episode of the
long running
49 matches
Mail list logo
