19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
- Genesis 2: 19 & 20.
Growing up, I attended several churches though only one with any real degree of regularity. These were generally Baptist and Methodist but, for my point, likely could easily have been practically any Christian denomination. This practice is called church shopping. The purpose is to find a denomination and church where one feels most at home. I would later learn this also served the purpose of having seeds sown in regards to spiritual matters.
At the time, I didn't think much about God or the possibility of such a being nor did I much care. I was a kid and had other things to think about. The idea didn't sound completely horrible and, indeed, sounded better than some others I'd heard for explanations of why and how the earth existed. I essentially just accepted it and went about my business.
Later, in public schools, I would learn about the argument for evolution and the science which supported it. I was fine with the idea but had a bit of difficulty understanding why so many people would subscribe to the thinking that something came from nothing (the one idea which no current science explained). Regardless, I accepted everything after that single event as plausible enough and found myself somewhat on the fence about the origin of the universe.
Later still, I had a conversation with a buddy who was far more knowledgeable about all-things-science than I, and he laid out what was to be the most effective argument against creation I'd heard. His position was simple: How could Noah have gathered all the animals up given they lived in such remote parts of the world and transportation during Noah's time was so primitive? That was all it took. I decided I would be agnostic if not strictly atheistic.
Several experiences and years later, I would become a true Christian. This came, in no small part, thanks to apologists like Ravi Zacharias who would introduce me to the science supporting creation. I would learn about the shape of the universe which eliminates the possibility if our universe expanding and contracting repeatedly providing an endless number of Big Bangs (though this does allow for a single Big Bang). Still, there are some who argue this does not exclude the possibility of "creation" being cyclical because our universe was "created" because two universes collided or a black hole hit what would be ours and, in either scenario, there was an explosion, here we are, and it will all happen again endlessly.
While these ideas are novel enough, they do nothing to explain how or why anything ever happened in the first place. In fact, it makes less sense a universe like ours would exist than if it didn't. Stefan Countryman, a physics PhD student at Columbia University, offers:
"Think of it this way: Imagine a bomb full of sand exploding onto an empty surface—that’s the Big Bang. You would expect a pretty uniform heap of sand after the explosion, but instead, our universe immediately arranged into lots of sand castles seemingly for no reason and with no help, and we don’t really know why. The Big Bang could have (and maybe should have) resulted in a high-entropy mass of uniformly distributed, disorganized stuff. Instead, we’ve got star systems, galaxies, and galactic clusters all linked together with dark voids between them. We have order."
Was I to believe not only did something come from nothing (which defied science), but also that that something simply happened to organize itself in a sustainable way (which also defies science)?
For all the theories for pre-Big Bang, the one which seems most plausible to me and, I believe, is supported by scripture suggests prior to creation was not a bunch of nothing but was instead a "liquid" state. This theory proposes the liquid prior to the Big Bang crystallized into the "three spatial and one time dimension that we see today." I think it quite possible God's command for light could have been the catalyst causing the crystallization.
Yet, only recently (due to my poor inconsistent reading of scripture), I read the verse above. This verse could readily explain how Noah, also, was able to see and gather so many animals. And this article about the original shape of our lands provides scientific support for Noah's animal gathering ability. From what I know of scripture and science, I can imagine Continental Drift occurring after the flood.
I'd like to re-visit that conversation with my friend so many years ago. Maybe one day I'll have the chance.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Friday, February 24, 2017
Liberalism
Original post here. All posts here.
I’m a liberal because I don’t think that the status quo can be defended on the merits of its own existence. It needs to be challenged on the grounds of its effectiveness.
I’m a liberal because I also believe that one needs to make ones’ case for change and I don’t believe in change for changes’ sake.
I’m a liberal because I believe that wealth creation via capitalism is fantastic but that doesn’t always translate to wealth distribution.
I’m a liberal because I believe that since we do have a State, it’s function should be for the public good.
I’m a liberal because I believe that State does have a role to play in the creation of public goods.
I’m a liberal because I believe the State should protect the weakest among us and work to raise them up and while I really don’t like paying taxes, I’m willing to fund those efforts.
I’m a liberal because I believe in politics that are informed and transformed with the arrival of information.
I’m a liberal because I believe religious liberty and secular Liberty should not stand against one another.
I’m a liberal because I believe in consequentialist arguments and not deontological ones.
I’m a liberal because sometimes the rules need to be challenged.
I’m a liberal because I reject State Socialism and Communism.
I’m a liberal because I reject the idea that the State is a church or anti-Church.
I’m a liberal because I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong and revise my policy prescriptions with new information.
I’m a liberal because I’m willing to change my mind.
I’m a liberal because I will change my mind.
I’m a liberal because I think leftist and right wingers have serious issues of logic and they need to be fleshed out fully.
I’m a liberal because sometimes there is more than one correct answer.
I’m a liberal because I strive to be free of dogma.
I’m a liberal because I seek to understand.
I’m a liberal because I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I know I don’t have all the answers. None of us do.
I’m a liberal because I recognize that the world is full of shades of gray.
I’m a liberal because I think it’s necessary.
I’m a liberal because choice isn’t always freedom.
I’m a liberal because I will learn from the past but I will not be held hostage by the ideas of dead men.
From these things comes an philosophy and from that comes a political philosophy and ideology.
I’m a liberal because I don’t think that the status quo can be defended on the merits of its own existence. It needs to be challenged on the grounds of its effectiveness.
I’m a liberal because I also believe that one needs to make ones’ case for change and I don’t believe in change for changes’ sake.
I’m a liberal because I believe that wealth creation via capitalism is fantastic but that doesn’t always translate to wealth distribution.
I’m a liberal because I believe that since we do have a State, it’s function should be for the public good.
I’m a liberal because I believe that State does have a role to play in the creation of public goods.
I’m a liberal because I believe the State should protect the weakest among us and work to raise them up and while I really don’t like paying taxes, I’m willing to fund those efforts.
I’m a liberal because I believe in politics that are informed and transformed with the arrival of information.
I’m a liberal because I believe religious liberty and secular Liberty should not stand against one another.
I’m a liberal because I believe in consequentialist arguments and not deontological ones.
I’m a liberal because sometimes the rules need to be challenged.
I’m a liberal because I reject State Socialism and Communism.
I’m a liberal because I reject the idea that the State is a church or anti-Church.
I’m a liberal because I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong and revise my policy prescriptions with new information.
I’m a liberal because I’m willing to change my mind.
I’m a liberal because I will change my mind.
I’m a liberal because I think leftist and right wingers have serious issues of logic and they need to be fleshed out fully.
I’m a liberal because sometimes there is more than one correct answer.
I’m a liberal because I strive to be free of dogma.
I’m a liberal because I seek to understand.
I’m a liberal because I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I know I don’t have all the answers. None of us do.
I’m a liberal because I recognize that the world is full of shades of gray.
I’m a liberal because I think it’s necessary.
I’m a liberal because choice isn’t always freedom.
I’m a liberal because I will learn from the past but I will not be held hostage by the ideas of dead men.
From these things comes an philosophy and from that comes a political philosophy and ideology.
A Breakthrough (FB Repost)
Original post here. Read all posts here.
I believe I’ve properly identified the problem I’ve been having for the last few years. It goes something like this:
I’ve had a misallocation of resources due to a skewed perception of value and ROI. Put a different way, the idea the one should spend hours out of the week paying attention to the coming and goings of politicians is foolish at best and hubris at worse. Allocating resources (mainly time) in this way is wasteful and the payoff (knowledge of events) is mostly useless information. Nassim Nicholas Taleb‘s comment about the diminishing returns on constant news watching was 100% dead on.
I believe I’ve properly identified the problem I’ve been having for the last few years. It goes something like this:
I’ve had a misallocation of resources due to a skewed perception of value and ROI. Put a different way, the idea the one should spend hours out of the week paying attention to the coming and goings of politicians is foolish at best and hubris at worse. Allocating resources (mainly time) in this way is wasteful and the payoff (knowledge of events) is mostly useless information. Nassim Nicholas Taleb‘s comment about the diminishing returns on constant news watching was 100% dead on.
Something else came to me as well. The gap between experts and laymen
cannot be bridged by the consumption of fast media. It takes time,
effort, mentorship and the consumption of slow media and distilled
information. More slow burns than flareups. The irony is that the day I
was thinking of this, I got a text from someone that showed to me just
how big the gap is and demonstrated the point.
You will likely never become an expert of anything spending time reading Drudge or Salon or arguing on FB. You may glimpse expertise on FB but it is very easy for signal to get drowned in the noise, and without proper compensation, you might not even realize it.
“We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge.” John Naisbitt
#distilledinformation
#slowmedia
#misinformationage
#godeeper
You will likely never become an expert of anything spending time reading Drudge or Salon or arguing on FB. You may glimpse expertise on FB but it is very easy for signal to get drowned in the noise, and without proper compensation, you might not even realize it.
“We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge.” John Naisbitt
#distilledinformation
#slowmedia
#misinformationage
#godeeper
A Few Random Thoughts
Read original post here. Be sure to check out the other posts.
Saying that powerful people want X and I think that it is prudent to go along with X so that it doesn’t cause me any issues is a fair position. It might not be the most principled on paper but it is justifiable in terms of self preservation, assuming you can be sure of the impact of your actions. I also find it to be more honest than trying obfuscate your true intentions and concerns. Be direct and drop the pretense.
Related to the first point, when someone complains about hiring based identity(1), depending on their identity, they may move from a state of impossibility to highly improbable. If MegaCorp says, I’m going to hire 6 green people and 1 purple people, if you are the 7th green person, you might be upset about the purple person’s job. Put more directly, you are upset about MegaCorp’s decision to hire a purple person instead of one more green person.
Sounds good?
There are at least two issues that I notice. The first is that is it, in most cases, impossible to know if you are the 7th person. Outside of some cases in academia, you can’t really know if you are person 7 or person 777. Leading from that point, the second part is what happens next. Suppose you aren’t, person 7 but person 777 or just person 10, you still don’t get the job. Nothing has changed for you. You might feel that you have been beaten more fairly but you still lost. This is sort of a zero sum game or musical chairs. If you lose a chair you could never have due to your identity or if you lose a chair you could have had but you just weren’t good enough, the result is the same.
Of course, because of what jobs and what they represent (0: Livelihood 1: Quantifiable measurements of the market value of your labor, time and morbidly your life at a time slice in a particular place according to a particular set of people, the employers) perhaps losing “fairly” matters to certain people. Perhaps it satisfies something outside of the economic. But, for green person 7 or green person 777, doesn’t it initially make sense to go after green people 1-6? Is the idea that those green people *ought* to occupy those jobs and it is *only* the purple person that is out of order? I mean, that’s fine but it doesn’t change anything for your situation.
In my lifetime, I’ve applied to many, many jobs and held quite a few. Conservatively, I can say that of the jobs that I’ve applied for, I’ve been hired on for maybe 20% of them. In my particular field, I can be sure that most of the jobs I didn’t get went to white males. Does it really matter to me? Of course not. Why? Because it makes no difference if the job went to a white male or a black woman, a gay vet or whomever, the pressing matter is that *I* didn’t get it. Of the jobs I have applied for and received, the only thing that really matters is that I got it. I don’t know how many people applied for the same jobs that I got but I got it. If any job I applied to was limited only to black males, my mentality wouldn’t change. I’d still have to beat the competition. Shrinking the sample size or raising the amount of jobs might raise your probability on an individual level but it doesn’t make a difference if you “lose.” You are in the same boat either way.
*When people talk about identity it’s often just a stand in for race but it doesn’t have to be. For an example, Starbucks pledged to hire 10,000 vets but I don’t think anyone complained about that. From my perspective, it doesn’t matter if you lose a job because of a Vet, to a gay person, to a black person or to a woman. The economic state is exactly the same. You lost. Now, I’m not saying that without compassion. I’ve been disappointed about not getting a job I wanted before. But, from my perspective, it doesn’t matter if you lose to someone who looks like you or someone who doesn’t. A loss is a loss and seeing how the people are selected, the real animosity should be turned towards the selectees imo. I, of course, have a major caveat to this but I’m strictly talking about philosophy at this time.
In summation, what I’m really saying is that sometimes these conversations get extremely group oriented when the reality is, they should be focused on individuals. I’m not saying that group action isn’t justified nor am I even saying that collective outrage isn’t required from time to time. What I am saying is, once you’ve eliminated the job for the purple person, are you sure you are the green person that will be selected? If not, an internal dialog needs to happen with the external conversation.
Edit: Don’t mention starting your own business on this. Yes that’s a third option but that’s not what I want to talk about on this post.
Saying that powerful people want X and I think that it is prudent to go along with X so that it doesn’t cause me any issues is a fair position. It might not be the most principled on paper but it is justifiable in terms of self preservation, assuming you can be sure of the impact of your actions. I also find it to be more honest than trying obfuscate your true intentions and concerns. Be direct and drop the pretense.
Related to the first point, when someone complains about hiring based identity(1), depending on their identity, they may move from a state of impossibility to highly improbable. If MegaCorp says, I’m going to hire 6 green people and 1 purple people, if you are the 7th green person, you might be upset about the purple person’s job. Put more directly, you are upset about MegaCorp’s decision to hire a purple person instead of one more green person.
Sounds good?
There are at least two issues that I notice. The first is that is it, in most cases, impossible to know if you are the 7th person. Outside of some cases in academia, you can’t really know if you are person 7 or person 777. Leading from that point, the second part is what happens next. Suppose you aren’t, person 7 but person 777 or just person 10, you still don’t get the job. Nothing has changed for you. You might feel that you have been beaten more fairly but you still lost. This is sort of a zero sum game or musical chairs. If you lose a chair you could never have due to your identity or if you lose a chair you could have had but you just weren’t good enough, the result is the same.
Of course, because of what jobs and what they represent (0: Livelihood 1: Quantifiable measurements of the market value of your labor, time and morbidly your life at a time slice in a particular place according to a particular set of people, the employers) perhaps losing “fairly” matters to certain people. Perhaps it satisfies something outside of the economic. But, for green person 7 or green person 777, doesn’t it initially make sense to go after green people 1-6? Is the idea that those green people *ought* to occupy those jobs and it is *only* the purple person that is out of order? I mean, that’s fine but it doesn’t change anything for your situation.
In my lifetime, I’ve applied to many, many jobs and held quite a few. Conservatively, I can say that of the jobs that I’ve applied for, I’ve been hired on for maybe 20% of them. In my particular field, I can be sure that most of the jobs I didn’t get went to white males. Does it really matter to me? Of course not. Why? Because it makes no difference if the job went to a white male or a black woman, a gay vet or whomever, the pressing matter is that *I* didn’t get it. Of the jobs I have applied for and received, the only thing that really matters is that I got it. I don’t know how many people applied for the same jobs that I got but I got it. If any job I applied to was limited only to black males, my mentality wouldn’t change. I’d still have to beat the competition. Shrinking the sample size or raising the amount of jobs might raise your probability on an individual level but it doesn’t make a difference if you “lose.” You are in the same boat either way.
*When people talk about identity it’s often just a stand in for race but it doesn’t have to be. For an example, Starbucks pledged to hire 10,000 vets but I don’t think anyone complained about that. From my perspective, it doesn’t matter if you lose a job because of a Vet, to a gay person, to a black person or to a woman. The economic state is exactly the same. You lost. Now, I’m not saying that without compassion. I’ve been disappointed about not getting a job I wanted before. But, from my perspective, it doesn’t matter if you lose to someone who looks like you or someone who doesn’t. A loss is a loss and seeing how the people are selected, the real animosity should be turned towards the selectees imo. I, of course, have a major caveat to this but I’m strictly talking about philosophy at this time.
In summation, what I’m really saying is that sometimes these conversations get extremely group oriented when the reality is, they should be focused on individuals. I’m not saying that group action isn’t justified nor am I even saying that collective outrage isn’t required from time to time. What I am saying is, once you’ve eliminated the job for the purple person, are you sure you are the green person that will be selected? If not, an internal dialog needs to happen with the external conversation.
Edit: Don’t mention starting your own business on this. Yes that’s a third option but that’s not what I want to talk about on this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)