why the “economic stimulus” is a load of bull…

The US of A just spent $168 billion…

(or 152, depending on sources)

Might wanna read that again…

What did they spend it on?

Shopping… that’s right, shopping…

This makes me want to release a torrent of various expletives…

Each tax-paying American recently received hundreds of dollars to –yes– go shopping. The ridiculous rhetoric used for this was that of (as seen in the picture) ‘boosting our economy’. Why are they all smiling? Because you can rest assured, they all got rewarded (i.e. paid-off) wonderfully well by the various corporations that no doubt pushed this one through. Continue reading “why the “economic stimulus” is a load of bull…”

Craig-Cooke debate

This just in…

* * *

The Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship
&
The New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists

present a debate between

Atheist Historian *Bill Cooke*

and

Christian Philosopher *William Lane Craig.*

Adjudicated by *John Bishop*, head of Philosophy Department, Auckland University.

*Moot: Is God a Delusion?*

7PM, Tuesday the 17th of June 2008
Lecture Theatre OGGB5, 12 Grafton Road, Auckland University

* * *

Of course, this kind of thing is only one of hundreds of its kind. The apparent -or ‘felt’- ‘winning’ of either ‘side’ will not, of course, be (directly or indirectly) indicative of the superiority of that position. Debates are like that. But it will be entertaining, interesting and a better use of time than watching most of the nonsense which will be on television at the same time (not that I watch much television anyway). So do come.

age of consent?

The video (around 8 minutes) on this page is very thought-provoking. A 19 year-old male had a (consentual) sexual relationship with his 15 year-old girlfriend, and was convicted for statutory rape, including on-going public identification as a sex-offender.

This scenario re-raises not only the question of sexual ethics (How old should a person be to have sex?), but also raises the question of what our laws are based on, etc.

Very interesting indeed (…and before Christians give too ‘conservative’ an answer, let me say that many people think that Mary was possibly as young as 14 when she was found to be pregnant with Jesus…)…

sexual identity – again…

I’ve posted before on this topic, and thought I’d share a bit more about it. Hopefully, these thoughts will be helpful in aiding fruitful discussion…

I’ve observed a distinction between 3 things that I feel are necessary to distinguish between in order to most helpfully discuss the topic of sexuality. Actually, these three things can, I suggest, be distinguished helpfully when discussing other topics as well… See what you think…

Continue reading “sexual identity – again…”

good question

I’ve enjoyed the few articles I’ve skimmed at this blog called “Just Thomism”.

(Thomism designates the study of the life and work of St. Thomas Aquinas)

I found this post having to do with atheism, theism, evolution and science(s) of particular interest.

Here’s a quote…

It is mere historical chance that popular theism did not end up insisting that God could only exist in an evolutionary world, where all matter had been developing to the point where man could emerge at last- At last! man! prepared for by all the ages! Who all creation leads up to, just as it says in the book of Genesis!

This is one of many interesting philosophical reflections (and certainly not necessarily the best) in basically each and every post. We often don’t think about how we think; observe how we observe; ponder how we ponder; distinguish how we distinguish; wonder how we wonder; know how we know; ‘etc.’ how we ‘etc.’

:)

Happy browsing… (and thinking)

is anything significant?

This question (‘Is anything significant?’) can be fleshed out a bit…

We could ask, “Is everything equally in-significant?”, or we could ask, “Is everything equally highly-significant?”

What makes something (an event or object [which can quite rightly be said to be ‘events’ in themselves]) significant, and another thing not so?

Continue reading “is anything significant?”

a gentler universe?

Consolmagno has done it again…

Yet another poignant and wise article, helpfully navigating the intersection of faith and science…

Here’s a sampler:

…there’s the world of nature, the world I study as a scientist, nice and neat and well described by some beautiful equations, elegant in their simplicity. And there’s the world of human beings, strange fleshy bundles of ego and free will, who can sometimes be described in a statistical sense but who as individuals never cease to surprise you.

Read the whole thing here.

wisdom

For some reason, I respect people the most when they obviously are very smart, but are ever-concious that they don’t know everything.

Matter of fact, it seems that the more you know, the more you become aware of all the things you don’t know.

Ehrman and Wright ‘blogalogue’

WrightEhrmanBart Ehrman and N.T. Wright have agreed to ‘blog’ through the issue of Suffering and God over at Beliefnet. You can follow their discussion here.

Bart Ehrman (author of ‘Misquoting Jesus‘, ‘God’s Problem‘ and other titles) and Tom Wright (author of ‘Evil and the Justice of God‘, ‘Suprised by Hope‘ and other titles) are both recognised scholars. Ehrman is currently an ‘agnostic’ and is open about his slow departure from the Christian faith. Wright is Bishop of Durham.

I look forward to following their contributions and interaction with one another.

beliefs undergirding science

In another interesting article over at Thinking Faith, Guy Consolmagno posits three things all scientists must ‘believe’. He calls them “three axioms of science that must be taken on faith before you can do science.”

  1. “You have to believe that the physical world actually exists – I am not just a butterfly, dreaming that I am a scientist, in an imaginary universe.”
  2. “You have to believe, ahead of time, that the physical world actually does have rules and regularities – well hidden ones perhaps, but something that eventually you’ll be able to figure out.”
  3. “…you have to believe that the physical universe is worth studying. Think of it… if your religion says that the goal of life is to meditate yourself out of this corrupting universe onto a higher plane, you’re not going to be a physical scientist.”

The article can be found here, (PDF version) or by clicking the link in my RSS for Thinking Faith in the sidebar…

Thoughts?