(2006-10-18) — A new Brookings Institution study that shows an inverse relationship between math skills and student self-esteem is “just plain wrong,” according to an overnight poll of the nation’s largest teacher’s union.
The study found that Japanese and Korean students excel in math despite their lack of confidence in their own abilities, while American kids feel great about their abilities but have much lower skills according to tests.
But the survey of National Education Association (NEA) members shows that “five out of four teachers find fault with the data.”
“It just doesn’t add up,” said an unnamed NEA spokesman. “We’ve spent three decades of the last 20 years teaching kids that their self-esteem and happiness are unrelated to their academic competence. The overwhelming minority of them now feel really happy about math.”
The NEA spokesman said the comparatively-low standardized test scores of American children “simply prove that test designers don’t know how to measure what really counts.”
The teacher opinion poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 34 percent, “but that’s okay,” the spokesman said, “because the pollsters did their personal best.”
107 responses so far ↓
1 Darthmeister // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:09 am
I’m 105% in agreement with Scott’s analysis.
2 Darthmeister // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:09 am
Oh, eleventeenth!
3 Shelly // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:12 am
Yeah, I’m first!
4 Just Ranting // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:16 am
Scott, they’re coming too fast. You’re giving us a case of the bends. OOOooooohhhh!!!
5 Mr Sign Up Sheet // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:18 am
Darth you beat me to the idea… or statistically — maybe you didn’t
103% agree plus or minus an error of 5%
6 egospeak // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:19 am
Scott, this is the best one yet!! “Five out of
four teachers find fault with the data” and “We’ve spent three decades of the last 20 years teaching kids that their self esteem and happiness are unrelated to their academic competence” are two of the best lines ever.
Unfortunately, they sound just like something that might come out of the spokesman…err spokesperson for the NEA.
The last line says it all. Forget the results… they “did their personal best”. Great job.
7 Just Ranting // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:19 am
As long as the pollsters feel good about themselves, that’s all that matters.
twelveteenth!!!
8 Mr Sign Up Sheet // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:21 am
btw.. be careful about international tests.. in the us.. a lot more kids take the test- in other countries.. only the rich are able to even get to a school much less take the test.
so like 80+ % take the test in the us.. but maybe 20% in say.. china..
9 sojourner // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:34 am
Teachers are in a tough position. Anything less than the best scores are criticized, and often the most important lessons of life can’t be measured by a test. IQ tests are a bad indicator of how successful or how happy a person might be.
One the other side, many teachers fight vouchers tooth and nail. It’s hard to make generalizations.
10 Cassandra // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:38 am
Moreover, 4 out of 5 Third World dictators are perfectly satisfied with the state of affairs in their countries. Therefore, what right do the overfed, elite of Western nations have to tell them that longstanding cultural practices like murder, rapine, and pillaging are “wrong”?
This insensitive use of perjoratives like “genocide” has got to stop before it begins to erode their fragile self esteem and cause them to ‘act out’ their frustrations, possibly with a nuclear warhead.
11 red satellites // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:41 am
Good morning Scrapplers…
5 out of 4 illegal aliens can’t pronounce the word Math!
12 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:44 am
Perhaps the most nagging regret I have, regarding the fact that I never attended high school, is that, when I went to college in my early 40’s to pursue a BA in Computer Science, the Algebra course which was deemed necessary before I tackled the requisite Trigonometry was absolute, mortifying torture.
13 seneuba // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:51 am
To quote Judge Smales: “Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too!”
14 wildhowd // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:51 am
You should hear the math teachers boo-hoo at my children’s school when I send them emails about the errors in the math book they are using. Sad part is they don’t catch the error themselves.
15 seneuba // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:54 am
“I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am.”
M.Python
16 camojack // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:02 am
“Lies, damned lies and statistics.”
-S. Clemens (A.K.A. Mark Twain)
17 Pauli // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:07 am
It’s actually 3 1/2 out of 4 but they rounded to the nearest 5. That makes the teacher to student ratio much better for group hugs as well as teaching.
18 Ms RightWing, Ink // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:28 am
Four out of five of my lovable personalities agree that baking fresh Vienna bread will cause extreme happiness to one’s sensory outlets. The other contrary personality says what the heck is wrong with Wonder Bread.
Now just how does that add up. Well, it makes me feel good about myself so my
richly boosted self-esteem will sit around and slather fresh butter and at times crab apple jelly on warm bread.
That is all I have to say about that.
Mmmm, fresh bread.
19 gafisher // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:31 am
The New Math Motto: “You don’t have to be right, as long as you’re Nea enough.”
20 RedPepper // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:32 am
Does. Not. Compute.
21 boberinagain // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:44 am
I feel good! (James Brown)
And that’s all that matters. Well, that and always giving everything a 110% effort.
22 Shelly // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:49 am
gafisher, that is inspired.
23 RedPepper // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:51 am
Good morning, boberin. Is everything working out OK with you?
24 Darthmeister // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:04 am
The latest Mark Foley scandalmongering by DemDonks is just the latest example of how Democrat partisans are providing Republicans and independent voters better reasons to vote Republican than Republicans are.
At least that’s what two out of every one person thinks.
25 RedPepper // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:15 am
Have we lost the will to win wars? Not just in Iraq, but anywhere? Do we really believe that being nice is more important than victory?
Politically Correct War by Ralph Peters.
26 Effeminem // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:19 am
Hm, in the words of my father, “If you get a 90%, that means you didn’t understand 10% of what they’re teaching you.” I think he was joking.
27 Ms RightWing, Ink // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:38 am
It was sex education that gave me fits. Now, we are talking about the 50’s. How did tadpoles and pollywogs fit into raising families. I would sit by our pond for hours on end and never once saw a baby crawl out of the sticky, gooey, red muck.
Which begs the question, how come I still got red mud stuck between my toes?
28 Ms RightWing, Ink // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:39 am
oh bother
29 GnuCarSmell // Oct 18, 2006 at 12:28 pm
We shouldn’t bash teachers. After all, almost 100% of American students are above average.
30 maf54 // Oct 18, 2006 at 1:21 pm
scrapplers:
the dirty tricks keep a-comming: now a liberal blogger has “outed” a senator from idaho. despicable. now is the time to air all of your dirty laundry about any dimocrats.
lets hear it.
i’ll start. i hear that nancy pelosi eats babies. lol.
31 Maggie // Oct 18, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Oh,pardon me,I just passed gas.
32 Libby Gone // Oct 18, 2006 at 1:29 pm
maf54,
Get it right Miss America just gets blood tranfusions from babies to remain incredibly youthful and attractive.
Speaking of (on topic)I did pretty good in Maf, as I am now an enginear.
I lurnt mutch in Engleash two, As well as Espanol’!
33 Libby Gone // Oct 18, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Luv thoughs publick skewels!
34 GnuCarSmell // Oct 18, 2006 at 1:35 pm
It’s unacceptable for American students to score in the middle half.
35 Maggie // Oct 18, 2006 at 1:41 pm
maf54…..Hey! Weren’t you and Studds(now dead)the co-sponsors of the House Bill ‘No child’s behind left’?
36 maf54 // Oct 18, 2006 at 1:44 pm
scrapplers:
what do you think about this:
FBI director wants ISPs to track users
discuss
37 RedPepper // Oct 18, 2006 at 1:48 pm
#27 Ms RW: Speaking of education, what ever happened to Civics? History? Current Events? As we run in circles screaming like our hair’s on fire over North Korea’s nuclear test, do we ever hear any context about Kim’s dismal dystoptia?
Korea’s Nightmare by Peter Brookes.
38 puzzletop // Oct 18, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Hey, Don’t blame the math teachers they are just following orders.
39 myword // Oct 18, 2006 at 2:08 pm
I think our lurker is a good example of the state of the educational system today.
40 myword // Oct 18, 2006 at 2:26 pm
RedPepper #25
Thanks for the link. Good one.
By RALPH PETERS
October 18, 2006 — HAVE we lost the will to win wars? Not just in Iraq, but anywhere? Do we really believe that being nice is more important than victory?
It’s hard enough to bear the timidity of our civilian leaders - anxious to start wars but without the guts to finish them - but now military leaders have fallen prey to political correctness. Unwilling to accept that war is, by its nature, a savage act and that defeat is immoral, influential officers are arguing for a kinder, gentler approach to our enemies.
They’re going to lead us into failure, sacrificing our soldiers and Marines for nothing: Political correctness kills.
ETC., ETC.
We need to get our priorities straight. Political correctness kills. Waterboarding saves lives.
41 myword // Oct 18, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Talking about priorities……….I was, wasn’t I?
On a local talk radio program this am, one of the two hosts was talking about how he couldn’t kill ANY animal, including cockroaches and mosquitos because all life is sacred. He said he would gently flick a mosquito off himself rather than kill it. There was that moral superiority in his voice, you know the one says I’m superior to you because I’m soooo caring.
The other host said “that’s is an amazing attitude for someone who believes in abortion! How do you reconcile that in your mind!
Host # 1 said, “Well, that’s different. It’s like pizza. It isn’t pizza until it comes out of the oven.”
I kid you not, guys! That was the actual conversation.
I was shocked!!!!!
42 Darthmeister // Oct 18, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Six things the media polls have ignored in their polls:
2) Increasing good news about the economy and financial markets.
3) Social Security recipients are getting a 3.5% “raise” next year
1) 4.6% unemployment rate at its lowest in almost two decades.
7) Moderate and old school liberal Jews are dribbling out of the Democratic Party because of growing divide between Republican support of Israel and Democratic support of Palestinian terrorists. Even if only 5% leave that will be very significant.
5) Possibility that 4% more black voters will crossover to vote Republican because of gay marriage issue, starting to see the Democratic plantation for what it really is, and more high profile black conservatives. Republicans getting 12% of the black vote instead of 8% of the black vote could tip the scales in some races.
4) The threat to gun rights by Democrat leaders like Chuckie Schumer and Charlie Rangle is at an all time high and the NRA is galvanizing more Democratic Second Amendment supporters to vote for strong Second Amendment Republicans.
6) The GOP has silently and efficiently been organizing their get-out-to-vote conservative base, most of those voters being outraged by the Democrat’s scandalmongering the Mark Foley episode. Also, no self-respecting conservative voter would dare sit this election out given that our very national security and economic well-being is at stake as never before. But then some conservatives are just as stupid as liberals who see a victory in losing.
I don’t see how the lamestream media can continue to misinform the American people about how the conservative evangelical vote will be depressed come November when I, being a conservative evangelical voter, can’t wait to vote in November in spite of whatever media/DemDonk October surprises will be sprung in the next three weeks.
43 Darthmeister // Oct 18, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Given how the radical left is willing to “out” Republican Congressmen if they are “gay” [or even when they aren’t gay as may be the case with Larry Craig (ID-R)], this will seriously backfire on Democrats who appear more and more the real bigots since they are more then willing to destroy people’s lives in the name of their politics of personal destruction.
Captain Ed deals with this disgusting Democratic dirty trick here.
44 tomg // Oct 18, 2006 at 3:39 pm
How can you improve on a personal best when the result is not evaluated?
By exuding even higher confidence in yourself, I suppose.
45 GnuCarSmell // Oct 18, 2006 at 4:35 pm
There are three kinds of public school teachers: Those that can do math, and those that can’t.
46 Beerme // Oct 18, 2006 at 5:18 pm
I just hope those tests weren’t scored with red ink! Horrors!
Oh and BTW, there are 10 kinds of people in the world: those that understand binary and those that don’t…
47 conserve-a-tip // Oct 18, 2006 at 5:19 pm
OK, sorry…I’m a little late to the party. House remodeling and all that.
Scott, I read your piece and I am trying to figure out where my son fits into all of this. He is a math/physics major and pretty darn good, but he feels just fine about himself because we raised him to realize who he is in God’s eyes, not man’s eyes. So…umm…is that good or bad?
Let’s see…Nancy Pelosi eats little children. Didn’t they write a story about that? I am sure of it…something about breadcrumbs and a gingerbread house? Yes, yes. Maf54, as is normal for liberals, is living the fairy tales in his head. Although, I will have to say that the characterization of the bad guy in that story is quite appropriate for Ms Pelosi!
48 RedPepper // Oct 18, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Acck! Ms RW, what is going on in Ohio?
It says here that Ted Strickland is probably going to be your next Governor, and that Sen. Mike DeWine is about to become (ex)Sen. Strychnine! Is the Buckeye State about to give us a black eye?
Say it ain’t so, Jo!
49 conserve-a-tip // Oct 18, 2006 at 5:48 pm
#43 - Darthmeister - Amen brother. Have you seen what they are saying about Steel in Maryland?? He is “slavish” to the Republican party? Wow. Nothing like ticking off your gays AND your African Americans. The Democrats are showing that they judge people by their color and their stripes rather then by the person. How ironic.
50 nylecoj // Oct 18, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Re #46 that is very funny!!
51 camojack // Oct 18, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Oh and BTW, there are 10 kinds of people in the world: those that understand binary and those that don’t…
Comment by Beerme — October 18, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Good 01!!!
52 egospeak // Oct 18, 2006 at 6:35 pm
C.A.T.
I have something even more amazing regarding Michael
Steele and the Democrats. As many of you may know,
Steele’s opponent in the Senate race is Ben Cardin, a long, long time House member. Cardin beat Kweisi Mfume, former head of the NAACP and himself a former House member.
Prior to Cardin beating Mfume in the primary the conventional wisdom was that Steele would have a better chance of winning if his opponent was Mfume, who is black, rather than Cardin, who is white.
This made no sense to me as Maryland is and has been a majority Democrat state for the last 50 years. How could it be that a white Democrat would have a better chance against a black Republican, than a black Democrat against a black Republican? For Michael Steele to win he would need the votes of all white Republicans, all black Republicans and probably a good portion of the Reagan Democrats. For Mfume to win, all he would need is the votes of all the regular democrats, black and white who normally vote for the democratic candidate.
The answer, as it turns out, was that if Mfume was the Democratic candidate, white Democrats would sit out the election. Talk about ironic… white rascist Republicans are lining up to vote for Michael Steele, who is black, and I know from personal experience, not thinking twice about it. And white Democrats, who always claim the moral high ground when it comes to race, would sit it out if the candidate was black.
Once again, Democrats actually doing what they accuse Republicans of. I would say unbelievable, but I’m not a virgin anymore.
53 conserve-a-tip // Oct 18, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Camojack - 01 - you guys kill me. The amount of brainpower on this blog so outstrips the entire Democrat party that it is just amazing.
54 everthink // Oct 18, 2006 at 6:46 pm
egospeak:
everthink Question: I believe sin abounds; but, sin is not evil, is it? If so, then but for the grace of Christ, I too am evil.
Comment by everthink - October 14, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
egospeak (Extracted) Answer: In regard to your statement about sin, let me say that absolutely, most certainly, without question, sin is evil. Comment by egospeak - October 14, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
everthink Response:
The New Testament Greek Lexicon
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/
Evil
English Translation: Evil
Original Word: Kakiva
Transliterated Word: kakia
1. Malignity, malice, ill-will, desire to injure
2. Wickedness, depravity
a. Wickedness that is not ashamed to break laws
3. Evil, trouble
Sin
English Translation: Sin
Original Word: aJmartavnw
Transliterated Word: hamartano
1. To be without a share in
2. To miss the mark
3. To err, be mistaken
4. To miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5. To wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin.
This is the second two parts. First part, broader issue, to follow.
ET
55 egospeak // Oct 18, 2006 at 6:47 pm
myword
re #41
Don’t be shocked. You must remember that abortion is a sacrament to liberals, an article of faith. Science and morality simply aren’t allowed to enter the discussion.
Case closed.
56 maf54 // Oct 18, 2006 at 7:03 pm
camojack;
hilarious binary joke. it took me a while but now i get it. lol! i agree egospeak, the amount of brianpower on this site is quite astounding. even if it is slightly inhospitable to newcomers.
the major race that i’ve been watching is conrad burns versus john tester in montana. i used to live in bozeman and have even had the opportunity to sing karaeoke with sen. burns (don’t ask). it was shortly after 9/11 and we all sang ‘proud to be an america’.
long story short, he is in the race of his life against a psuedo dim who is using the politics of personal destruction in order to win. pathetic. spread the word that sen. burns is an honorable man and deserves to be in the sentate.
57 egospeak // Oct 18, 2006 at 7:13 pm
everthink,
It is true that evil and sin are not perfect synonyms, however all the definitions that you listed for evil are sin. It may well be argued that evil is a subset of sin.
If we end up argueing about relatively minor disputes over definitions, my fear is that we will simply update the Middle Age arguement of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and completely miss the big picture. We are all sinners, some more completely evil than others, but all sinners and what are we going to do about it?
That is the real issue.
58 camojack // Oct 18, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Camojack - 01 - you guys kill me. The amount of brainpower on this blog so outstrips the entire Democrat party that it is just amazing.
Comment by conserve-a-tip — October 18, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
Yes, well, that’s why I call ‘em Dumb-ocrats. I think they mean well, for the most part…but they’re naive. Then there are their “leaders”…
59 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 18, 2006 at 8:05 pm
I’m not disagreeing with any of the previous statements regarding the definitions of sin and evil. However, I would like to say this:
Biblically speaking-that is, without regard to “religious” doctrine-as a born-again Christian I am not a sinner, I am a saint.
I know, “Jameson claims to be sinless!”
No, I do not.
I’ve been sanctified by the Blood of Jesus; that is, set apart unto God. The word “saint” is derived from the word “sanctified.”
Therefore, I am a saint who sins-a saint who continually repents and asks forgiveness.
60 everthink // Oct 18, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Egospeak,
Do you keep the Sabbath? Are you a Seventh Day Adventist? Or do you observe only “The Lord’s Day”? I am not an Adventist, but I respect them and I can see their point.
The Fourth Commandment:
Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
We have killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq according to The Lancet (the respected British medical journal). Human Rights Watch has estimated Saddam Hussein’s regime killed 250,000 to 290,000 people over 20 years. Hank and others say this is not murder. I say it is!
My state has capitol punishment. I confess, sometimes I would be willing to drop the switch myself; but by Christ’s Commandment we do not have that right!
I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. Hank and others insist I am pro-abortion. PRO MURDER!
So as I see it, conservatives aren’t really against murder, they just want to decide who gets murdered!
The world during Jesus’ ministry on earth was a sinful place, but true evil existed only in the temple. So is it today, among the Laodicean Sanhedrin.
ET
61 everthink // Oct 18, 2006 at 8:53 pm
JamesonLewis3rd
1 Timothy 1:15
This [is] a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am chief. KJV
(That’s Paul to Timothy!)
ET
Please be quiet, and read my comment to you on “The Common Good”.
62 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:18 pm
I stand by my comment on the “Common Good.” Someone else said the same thing today.
In context, the verse you quote does not, in any way, negate my post #59; rather, it verifies it.
63 rkroese // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:24 pm
There’s just no arguing with 800 million of America’s best teachers.
Actually, some teachers actually give students some credit for original thinking.
64 Darthmeister // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Pro-choice but anti-abortion? Buwahahaha. How perfectly Orwellian of you neverthink.
I’ll prove you’re a liar right now. Are you for school choice? I didn’t think so.
How about a red-blooded American’s choice to any firearm including legal Class III machineguns? I didn’t think so.
How about choice with regard to privatizing a part or all of one’s social security? I didn’t think so.
I’m more pro-choice than you are. Surprise me.
65 Darthmeister // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:03 pm
“We have killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq according to The Lancet (the respected British medical journal).”
You’re a liar again, neverthink. “We”, that is American soldiers or the Bush Administration, have not killed 600,000 civilians. You are just like every other worthless liberal, you refuse to blame the real perps, the Muslim terrorists and indigenous jihadists. Also, the original estimate of 100,000 Iraqis having been killed in Iraq two years ago by the Lancet Study has been thoroughly debunked and this bogus study is no different.
Now are you saying American bombs and bullets have killed 600,000 Iraqi civilians? I didn’t think so. But of course what partisan hacks like you do is blame our mere presence in the region for Muslims murdering one another. You know, the ol’ “devil-made-me-do-it” argument. I thought you were sophisticated enough to get beyond that childish argument. You know, as well as every Scrappler here, that it is Muslims who are murdering Muslims, which seems to be their MO of late.
No, neverthink, war is never a pretty thing and people do get killed, but even those Iraqis (estimate is around 1700) who died from American bombs and bullets were killed either through accidental mistargeting or because they were being used as human shields by Saddam’s troops or Muslim jihadists. Unless, of course, you’re going to lie again and suggest that American troops as a matter of routine policy are purposely targeting innocent Iraqi civilians.
What will you argue next, that police “kill” innocent hostages when they surround the perp and then he offs his hostages as a means of terror? To be consistent you must argue the deaths of the five Amish girls were the result of the presence of law enforcement officers.
I’m still more pro-choice than you are and you’re still an even bigger liar for quoting Andrew Card out of context by blindly believing the swill Bob Woodward spewed in his lying book - that is as you and the moonbat left are presently defining “lying” as in Bush “lied” about Iraqi WMD
66 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:18 pm
That 665,000 figure concocted by “The Lancet” has been thoroughly debunked numerous times since it came out. It’s garbage.
67 Darthmeister // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:35 pm
John Hopkin’s “study” which claims 654,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed is seriously flawed.
Editor of IraqTheModel, Omar Fadil, says, “This fake research is an insult to every man, woman and child who lost their lives. Behind every drop of blood is a noble story of sacrifice for a just cause that is struggling for living safe in freedom and prosperity.”
This totally debunks the methodology of the John Hopkins “study”. The survey group should have known better than to use such sloppy methodology in a politically-charged “study”.
68 Godfrey // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Many libertarians say they are “pro-choice but anti-abortion”. Their reasoning goes thusly: abortion is a reprehensible act but the government has no business either prohibiting or advocating it. It is a matter of individual liberty so long as the baby is inside the mother’s womb.
From this non-religious standpoint the crux seems to rest on two key points:
1. When is the child considered a person? From a libertarian standpoint that question becomes “when does it become vested with its own entitlement to liberty (the foremost element of which is life)?” That’s a question that will never be answered to everyone’s satisfaction, but I don’t think you’d find any biologists who would argue with the fact that a child is alive from the moment it is conceived.
2. At what point does the mother’s decision to have sex in the first place negate her claim to personal liberty regarding termination of her pregnancy?
It is obvious that the mother’s personal liberty and the unborn child’s personal liberty overlap here, so the quandry becomes one of the extent to which each party’s liberty must be violated to preserve as much personal liberty as possible.
An abortion protects the woman’s personal liberty completely, up to and including the “freedom” to make an error in judgment (having sex). The problem is this; of the two entities involved, only one has a “choice”-the woman. In fact she has a lot of choices: she chooses to have sex, she chooses to “abort” the unwanted child and barring that she may choose to put it up for adoption. Even if she is compelled to have her baby she still has a considerable degree of personal liberty in the matter.
The child, on the other hand, has absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever. It was not involved in the choice to be conceived, it cannot be consulted on the choice to have an abortion and it certainly cannot assert its opinion as to whether it should be put up for adoption.
For me, personal liberty is the key, not religious edicts or “sin”. We have agreed as a society that we all have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
Without the first, we can have none of the others.
69 Darthmeister // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:48 pm
And here’s something to think about, where are those 654,000 graves? Shouldn’t they be counting new graves? There is nothing like 654,000 new graves in Iraq in the last three years. If so, document them.
And assuming the typical ratio of three wounded for every death (which has been pretty much a standard ratio ever since the American “Civil War”), then where are the hospital records of nearly 2 million Iraqis being treated for serious wounds? That should be easy enough to check. I guess this didn’t occur to the pointy heads either.
The actual number is somewhere between 35,000 to 48,000 Iraqi civilian deaths over a period of three years and 98% of those deaths were the result of Muslims murdering Muslims in the name of their version of “true Islam.” Oh, I forgot, Great Satan America made them murder one another.
70 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:49 pm
I believe human life begins when the zygote is created.
71 Moscow Education (Idaho) : 5 out of 4 U.S. Teachers Reject Math-Esteem Study // Oct 18, 2006 at 10:52 pm
[…] From Scott Ott over at Scrapple Face: […]
72 everthink // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Dear Hankster,
Seen the polls today? This may be too much Diebold! But then, there’s the NFL scare, who knows.
Anyway, it looks like Saddam, and the Baath Party may be more popular in Iraq than Dumbyah, and the conservatives are here.
Who knows, maybe we can find something to do with all that rope you Repugs bought from Halliburton after all.
I’m almost finished with STATE OF DENIAL. I recommend it highly to all Scrapplefaces.
You can find a little preview of David Kuo’s book TEMPTING FAITH @ http://www.beliefnet.com/story/160/story_16092_1.html
Say I just heard on TV, the Evangelicals are demanding the party get rid of its gays. One can only guess how that will effect the Bush Conservatives.
Well, that’s all for now, later dude.
ET
73 everthink // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Oh, oh,
I just read, you called me a liar! Well, I never!
You “Chickenhawk” warmonger! (Of course, I mean that in a good way.)
An Old Soldier,
ET
74 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:16 pm
One of the implications of the “Lancet” “study”:
“On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms.”~~Iraq Body Count
Where are the graves? Where are the death certificates?
75 Darthmeister // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Changing the subject, eh, neverthink. That’s what people do when caught in lies.
But since this thread is about math, let me make it very simple for a troll like you.
Assuming that the Iraqi civilian death toll has been happening at a relatively stedy state the last three years, let’s call it roughly a thousand days, then wouldn’t there need to be 654 Iraqi war deaths EVERY DAY for those thousand days? You know, 654 deaths x 1000 days = 654,000 deaths to date.
Of course this is preposterous since if there was anything like 100 Iraqis a day dying, much less 654 a day dying, the liberal media would be trumpeting this in the headlines EVERY DAY for the last three years! On average there have probably been about 25-30 Iraqi civilian deaths a day for the last 18 months, which was when al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni/Shia militia members began targeting civilians. This means there have been about 15,000 “civilian” deaths (many of these “deaths” were male militants) in the last 18 months. A lot but still not half of 654,000.
And I will say this, most of the “torture deaths” that we are seeing today are mostly Muslim males of competing militias engage in gangland style fratricide. Good riddance.
Now I know you know I’m right about this, but because you’ve always been an arrogant, small-minded troll at Scrappleface, you are unwilling to admit you were snookered (once again) by a bogus poll/study.
Oh, and I wonder why Karl Rove wasn’t frog-marched out of the White House for “outing” Valerie Plame?
76 Darthmeister // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Oh, oh, JL3rd …. great minds and all that!
Once again neverthink is busted big time for so easily swilling down left-wing lies.
77 Godfrey // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:26 pm
JL3: I’m of the same opinion. But my point was primarily that a child’s right to live is not (only) a matter of religious doctrine, it is a the only way to consistently apply our concept of personal liberty. To boil it down to an Aristotlian syllogism:
Premise 1: any being orgranically conceived by human parents is itself a human.
Premise 2: all humans have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Conclusion: any being organically conceived by human parents has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Some would argue with the wording of the first premise, but only because their lifestyle makes accepting it inconvenient.
I am very pro-choice, in fact. I just think the choice happens a little sooner than some: in the bedroom, before the child is conceived.
78 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:36 pm
RE: #77~~
Godfrey~~
Yep.
79 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:50 pm
A smile came to my face as I read, “US stops Venezuela planes deal.”
Captain Ed says, “As for Chavez, his big UN speech continues to pay dividends to the Venezuelans. In case he can’t recognize this aroma, it’s the smell of isolation.”
While I was looking up that one, I found this one that made me laugh out loud:
“What happens here, stays here, runs the official slogan of Las Vegas. Steve Wynn, the man who built much of Sin City’s wealth, must be wishing that it were true.
“The billionaire, a real estate mogul and casino king and art collector, inadvertently put his elbow through one of the paintings in his office, leaving a small hole in the middle of the canvas. Unfortunately the painting at the receiving end of the errant limb was a 1932 Picasso that Mr Wynn had just agreed to sell for $139m (£75m), making it the most expensive piece of art ever sold.”
Oops.
80 everthink // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Iraqi Death Toll
Exceeds 600,000,
Study Estimates
“The Johns Hopkins team conducted its study using a methodology known as “cluster sampling.” That involved randomly picking 47 clusters of households for a total 1,849 households, scattered across Iraq. Team members interviewed each household about any deaths in the family during the 40 months since the invasion, as well as in the year before the invasion. The team says it reviewed death certificates for 92% of all deaths reported. Based on those figures, it tabulated national mortality rates for various periods before and after the start of the war. The mortality rate last year was nearly four times the preinvasion rate, the study found.
“Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq’s population has died above what would have occurred without conflict,” the report said. The country’s population is roughly 24 million people.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116052896787288831-vC7aTW_yBMRhyuASs_NxsD37fhA_20071011.html
Lancet/Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health ain’t the DNC, you know beavis.
ETMeister
81 GnuCarSmell // Oct 19, 2006 at 12:04 am
Since the topic is math, let’s do some. The Lancet reports 650,000 violent deaths in Iraq, while other sources report between 30,000 and 50,000 killed (almost all Muslim-on-Muslim killings, by the way). That implies a discrepancy of at least 600,000 deaths between The Lancet and other sources. Where did The Lancet find those extra 600,000 dead folks?
Could those extra 600,000 victims be the terrorists Bush created by naming Iraq part of the Axis of Evil? Yes! That’s the ticket! Bush “created” 600,000 new terrorists just so he could kill them! it’s diabolical! It’s … it’s … Rovian!
82 conserve-a-tip // Oct 19, 2006 at 12:10 am
Godfrey, I like your analysis for those who do not have a scriptural base on which to base the questions you address so well.
I would only add that “Freedom without obligation is anarchy. Freedom with obligation is democracy.”
Earl Riney
We have a responsibility to the least in our nation or else we have no freedom.
In my humble estimation, to say that one is pro-choice concerning abortion, one must accept the fact that one is in favor of allowing murder. That does not make one a murderer, but it does make one an accomplice/enabler in a sense, and in God’s eyes, sin is sin no matter how big or how small. The murderer and the liar are on equal terms. The murderer and the enabler are on equal terms. To say that one is pro-choice and anti-abortion is simply a normal human attempt at assuaging the conscience. But the fact is, it is what it is.
83 conserve-a-tip // Oct 19, 2006 at 12:20 am
GnuCarSmell,
You may have hit on something. Think about this. The first number in 650,000 is ‘6′. The number of places in 650,000 is ‘6′. If one subtracts the previously quoted figure of 50,000 from 650,000, one winds up with a difference of 600,000, again beginning with ‘6′. If one combines these coincidental numerical occurences, one arrives at 666. Need I say more?
See? Not only can I do my gozintas, but I gots self-esteem too.
84 Darthmeister // Oct 19, 2006 at 12:21 am
So let me get this straight, when a study comes under criticism for its flawed methodology your answer is to simply cite the study again? Buwhahahahahaha. If that isn’t a bit of circular reasoning - otherwise known as pepito principii - I don’t know what is.
Also, many polls and so-called independent studies can and do fall prey to what are called ad verecundiam and ad populum flaws. Ad verecundiam simply means an appeal to authority, in this case, John Hopkins. In truth, there are remarkably few real authorities. A real authority in any field is truthful, unbiased and a conscientious expert who has absolutely no ideological or political stake in the outcome. Also they have a long history of expert opinion which is rarely overturned by peer review. Sadly, such is not the case with John Hopkins. Ad populum arguments are constructed in such a way to appeal to the masses, in this case “the masses” are the anti-war liberals.
Statistics from polls are often used to sway those who need reaffirmation of their own prejudices. Most polls and surveys are worthless unless it can be absolutely demonstrated that the pool of respondents was truly representative of the populace at large and the questions or methods were not slanted in any way thus affecting the outcome of the survey/poll.
neverthink, if you had simply examined the last hyperlink at my post #67 you would have never posted your latest laughable attempt at salvaging your pride. The link deconstructed the inadequate “cluster sampling” of the JH study.
Also I never said the Lancet or John Hopkins was the DNC, that’s a total redherring on your part. But the DNC and other moonbats immediately embraced both the earlier Lancet study and this one to their own shame.
85 nylecoj // Oct 19, 2006 at 12:39 am
Although I am anti-abortion on moral/religious reasons, I am also rather libertarian. One important libertarian principle is non-initiation of force. In my opinion since that little zygote can not become anything but a human if left to its own devices, abortion is the initiation of force.
86 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 19, 2006 at 12:50 am
Heck, let’s do some math:
They claim to have seen 92% of the death certificates issued in the 302 violent deaths reported by those 1,849 households (from which they extrapolated the alleged 655,000 deaths), eh?
That means they’ve supposedly seen 276 death certificates.
Yes, this means they’ve verified 4.2137404580152671755725190839695e-4% of their claim.
That’s not good enough for me and shouldn’t be for anyone.
The implication that these alleged fatalities are at the hands of the U.S. and Coalition Forces, is pure LLL hokum.
According to the CIA, the population of Iraq is 26,783,383 (July 2006 estimate).
87 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 19, 2006 at 12:53 am
RE: #85~~
nylecoj~~
Indeed.
88 nylecoj // Oct 19, 2006 at 1:01 am
Re # 86
JL3, if math skills are inversely proportional to self esteem….oh never mind.
Excellent point!
89 Ms RightWing, Ink // Oct 19, 2006 at 1:02 am
Wake up and read this. Nah, never mind because officials say it’s not true so go to the game anyhow. Boy, not
me.
http://www.newsnet5.com/sports/10105905/detail.html
90 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 19, 2006 at 1:05 am
RE: #86~~
I’m fairly sure that should be .042137404580152671755725190839695e-4%
More math:
The 12,000 people allegedly surveyed in in those 1,849 households amounts to .044803899492457692891148216787999e-4% of the population of Iraq.
91 GnuCarSmell // Oct 19, 2006 at 1:07 am
The Lancet’s bogus reporting on Iraqi casualties signals a paradigm shift from science to politics. Their editors have obviously decided that empirical truth is subservient to leftist dogma.
Sad on one level, but happily, it presents a new place for America-haters (think George Soros) to squander their wealth, as traditional subscribers abandon the magazine.
92 nylecoj // Oct 19, 2006 at 1:13 am
Re #90, Even if the number were the one in #86 it would be a ridiculous number to base a conclusion on. The point is still excellent and valid.
93 nylecoj // Oct 19, 2006 at 1:15 am
Ms RW, Black Sunday is not something I want to wake up to/for. What are you guys doing up so late?
94 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 19, 2006 at 1:17 am
Oh, I see. Take the e-4 off the end.
Math whiz? Moi!?!
95 nylecoj // Oct 19, 2006 at 1:35 am
Re #94 It sure looks that way.
96 Effeminem // Oct 19, 2006 at 2:22 am
What are a few orders of magnitude among friends?
Based on a purely secular libertarian argument, I think it would be OK to remove a fetus, intact, and then let it starve to death by itself. After all, that’s not murder; it’s just a lack of welfare. No one has a RIGHT to be fed and sheltered by someone else’s labor.
-UNLESS conception can be considered an implied contract between the parents and the fetus. Then abortion is murder and removing the fetus intact is manslaughter 1.
The more practical question is, if it’s murder, how do we go about stopping it without being unethical ourselves? Generally Natural Rights would suggest some kind of revenge on the killer, but the purpose of that is to protect the rest of society from a criminal. In the case of abortion, the killer is obviously not going to go after adults for the next targets.
Pre-emption is possible now, but only because of technical problems. When people start cooking RU-486 in their basements, how are we supposed to stop them?
97 Darthmeister // Oct 19, 2006 at 7:04 am
Godfrey,
Your argument against abortions of convenience are ultimately based on natural law, the law of conscience, Christian reason, natural law, and the moral law of God. I see nothing contradictory between the natural moral law of God as revealed in Scripture and what and how you argued the issue. I don’t believe the random firing of synapses that have randomly evolved over eons can create such logical and legal artifices. In fact my own “secular” argument is very similar to yours because I am compelled by the reveal law of God to believe as I do, not because I feel my argument is right. There are atheists who believe they are as rational and as logical as you in the defense of their agenda, yet come to the opposite conclusions.
I would argue that that though everything necessary to guide us morally through life can be found in that inner chamber known as the conscience, it is often obscured by external manipulation. That is, there is no external absolute authority to which we can appeal upon which to hang our reason and logic and thus we become susceptible to the sophistry-du-jour of our contemporaries. We all like to consider ourselves above the influence of external manipulation or that only the “simple minded” can be easily manipulated, but actually just the opposite is the case. Consider: Hitler’s strongest support came from highly secular university students and professors. Intellectuals are peculiarly malleable when it comes to throwing the moral law and conscience overboard.
St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, laid down the ground work for Christian reason and cleared the ground for modern science. Christian reason stood for progress in understanding the word of God and developing civilization consistent with God’s moral law. I don’t think you realize how influenced you have been by Judeo-Christian reasoning, having been brought up in western civilization steeped in Christian traditions and moral law.
You see, in my view, like all humans you have a mind gifted to you by God as well as a conscience. And it is from that basis you reason though you do not give credit to the Creator. The only difference being, unlike Adam and Eve you weren’t created directly by God but rather you are a product of pro-creation as a result of your parent’s union. Hence, like all human beings, you are susceptible to external manipulation, the “wisdom of the world”. Yet you bear it well.
I find it rare indeed for someone who is not a man of God to so eloquently argue the natural law and the law of conscience without being unduly influenced by the “wisdom of the world.” And in that sense we are brothers indeed though I wish we could have a deeper bond together in the fellowship of God.
I think you would find this exposition of The Moral Law and the Law of God interesting.
98 tomg // Oct 19, 2006 at 8:14 am
650,000 dead - WSJ Thursday, I think.
Totally debunked this basis sample size, something about questions wrt people asked, and so on, including references and real math.
Sorry, no link - it was a stray hardcopy I browsed.
99 tomg // Oct 19, 2006 at 8:15 am
re98 - WSJ Wednesday (today is Thursday) I think.
100 Darthmeister // Oct 19, 2006 at 9:05 am
Godfrey,
In a 1787 letter written by Thomas Jefferson to nephew Peter Carr:
3. Moral Philosophy. I think it lost time to attend lectures on this branch. He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if He had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality …
101 Loki, E.NC.Z.B-K // Oct 19, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Dude, everyone knows life begins after 1700…
(I know, that was bad.)
102 Godfrey // Oct 19, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Hank:
I don’t believe the random firing of synapses that have randomly evolved over eons can create such logical and legal artifices.
I don’t either, as such. But it would be misrepresenting the process of evolution somewhat to call it “random”. Evolution is not random in the way that you appear to be suggesting, although it is random in the sense that it doesn’t have an aim or a “goal”. Many people (whether they subscribe to the theory or not) mistakenly believe that evolution is supposedly a process of refinement, ultimately resulting in a creature that is “better” than what it began with. I assume this is because they wish to apply some sort of consciousness to the process, in keeping with the terms in which they are accustomed to viewing the world.
While one of its mechanisms is the (indisputable) presence of tiny random changes over generations, evolution is actually quite non-random in that it has the same inevitable result every time: that of allowing those species to survive that have demonstrated the greatest talent for survival. Over time even a small difference in ability can doom one species while ensuring the survival of another.
So it comes as no surprise to me that humans, groomed for survival as they are, have developed a “conscience” which dictates that such things as murder are unacceptable. That same conscience, which causes a man to empathize (i.e. equate his own security and chances of survival) with potential murder victims, is quite naturally extended to the most helpless among us…babies. Add to that the parental instinct (which probably arose in much the same way as survival instinct, for groups without parental instinct would have died off long ago) and it’s easy to extend that empathy to an unborn child as well.
And that’s more or less how it is for me. I love my life. I have done many things that others only dream of. If I died tomorrow my life would still have been worth living ten times over. If I feel this way about my life, how can I deny the possibility of such a wonderful thing…life…to anyone else without a good reason?
In my mind, personal convenience is not a good reason to snuff out a life I helped create, even if I did so inadvertently. And evolutionarily speaking, a species that has concern for its unborn is a species that will survive.
the conscience…is often obscured by external manipulation. I don’t think you realize how influenced you have been by Judeo-Christian reasoning, having been brought up in western civilization steeped in Christian traditions and moral law.
I do not deny it. In a vacuum it would be impossible to distinguish my own morality from Judeo-Christian morality. But we don’t live in a vacuum: there are many societies which teach similar moral laws as Christianity but which arose independently (and which often predate) Christianity.
This suggests that morality itself is human, not given by the Christian God or any other supernatural entity. If this is true, the various world religions have merely served to codify what was already in existence; man’s self-imposed boundaries, brought about by the necessity of survival. This is what Jefferson misses, living as he did before the theory of evolution came along: society is not moral because its people were created with innate morality: rather the need for society as a survival mechanism necessarily honed man’s ability to abide by common moral laws. In other words morality developed out of necessity, allowing men to live together in large, safe groups. Those who couldn’t abide by common moral codes would have been outcast and would not have survived very long. Morality is a mechanism for survival.
This is supported by the disparity that basic morality (rules against murder, thievery etc.) is the same all over the world but there are nonetheless great differences in the details of that morality. If everyone had been “given” the same morality we would have no problems, we would never see a “clash of civilization”. But different groups have developed within the version of morality which best ensured their survival and prosperity, so we do have somewhat different versions of it. This supports the evolutionary hypothesis much more strongly than it supports Jefferson’s notion that we were all given the same morality for the purpose of coexisting in a society.
Likewise I do not deny that St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas have contributed, if not to science per se, at least to the evolution of critical thought. But we must also remember that there were many men before them (and before Christianity) who contributed considerably more (i.e. the Greeks). I know you’ll take umbrage at this, but the astute minds of St. Augustine (who came up with one of my favorite quotes ever: “Lord, give me continence…but not yet”) and Aquinas were hampered by their emotional need to try to superimpose reason onto supernatural belief. Because of this many of their ideas (Aquinas’ prime mover, for example) were discredited in the early years of the so-called Enlightenment, as soon as it became other than a capital offense to question religion. In addition many of the supposedly moral precepts of the Greeks, Romans and early Christians (such as slavery) we now find to be disagreeable. But they were all necessary stepping stones.
If morality were indeed an immutable “gift”…it would never have changed. If, on the other hand, it is the result of evolution, you’d see exactly what we see today; a changing morality under which the conventions of our own society (i.e. premarital sex is okay but slavery isn’t) would have mystified the societies of the past.
We will probably always see eye to eye on many key issues, but I will never engage in a fellowship which requires belief in a God…although I take that statement as it was intended and so of course appreciate the sentiment. Such fellowship would require me to divest myself of what I prize most highly: the freedom and ability to apply critical, rational thought to everything around me, without exception. I think this is what makes mankind special, not his belief in the supernatural.
In fact in my view such belief can only be the result of “external manipulation”…otherwise you, Hank, would have equal chance of having been a Muslim or a Hindu. We know, of course, that you had almost zero chance of becoming either. It is an indisputable fact that most people subscribe to the religion of their parents (or at least their parent societies); if that isn’t a perfect example of “external manipulation”, I don’t know what is. All babies are atheists, as they say. But that doesn’t last long.
So I suppose we will have to settle for being of a similar ideological inclination rather than a similar religious inclination. Either way the conversation’ll be good.
103 10 Out of 9 Agree « Colorado Right // Oct 19, 2006 at 9:15 pm
[…] Scrappleface has the latest in math education trends: But the survey of National Education Association (NEA) members shows that “five out of four teachers find fault with the data.” […]
104 Darthmeister // Oct 20, 2006 at 9:08 am
I do not deny it. In a vacuum it would be impossible to distinguish my own morality from Judeo-Christian morality. But we don’t live in a vacuum: there are many societies which teach similar moral laws as Christianity but which arose independently (and which often predate) Christianity.
But they often don’t predate Jewish law. We speak of the Judeo-Christian ethic whereby what we call common law is based on old Jewish civil law (not to be confused with priestly or religious law). But in the end your position argues not for the innate logical basis of the law and conscience we do have, put rather that a Creator has predisposition all mankind everywhere with a conscience and that conscience is the guide in laying down law in different societies which uniformly (for the most part) echo the conscience in which all humankind is endowed.
Of course there are corruptions of the law of nature and the revealed moral law of God; polygamy, human sacrifice (which is a primoridal human perversion of God providing a sacrifice for our sins), trial by gauntlet, etc., but those corruptions are expected when dealing with a corrupted humanity.
Such fellowship would require me to divest myself of what I prize most highly: the freedom and ability to apply critical, rational thought to everything around me, without exception.
That’s a red herring. I’ve never belonged to any fellowship which “would require me to divest myself of the ability to apply critical, rational thought.” A fellowship is a banding together of like-minded people. You still have medieval understanding of religion, which is surprising given your ability to “apply critical, rational thought.”
I’m sure every atheist and secular prides themselves in “applying critical, rational thought”, but other than their criticisms of Judeo-Christian thought and religion in general, there is little to recommend atheism given its own lack of worldview unity. For surely if atheism represents the highest pinnacle of man’s dispassionate reasonings and “critical, rational thought”, then there wouldn’t be atheists on both sides of the abortion debate, who are socialists versus constitutional republicanism, who believe in just war versus anti-war all the time.
You see, the very point upon which you rest your atheist worldview betrays the very tenets of your own faith because obviously if its a matter of conducting ones life according to the principles of rationality, critical thinking and objectivity then it should lead all atheists down the same road irrespective of the cultures they may live in, right? That’s your point isn’t it, you’re so dispassionately critical and objective in your thinking that even the cultural morass around you cannot easily prevent you from coming to some universal materialistic, atheistic way to conduct ones life and politics. I mean, that’s what you strive for, right, doing the singularly right thing and being faithful to the ideological constructs of your own mind which should be smililarly echoed in all like-minded, self-respecting athiests who have a critical, materialistic viewpoint?
105 bystander // Oct 20, 2006 at 10:17 pm
“3) Social Security recipients are getting a 3.5% “raise” next year”
3.3% - Get your facts straight Darth Baby !
106 Godfrey // Oct 22, 2006 at 10:20 pm
But they often don’t predate Jewish law. We speak of the Judeo-Christian ethic whereby what we call common law is based on old Jewish civil law (not to be confused with priestly or religious law). But in the end your position argues not for the innate logical basis of the law and conscience we do have, put rather that a Creator has predisposition all mankind everywhere with a conscience and that conscience is the guide in laying down law in different societies which uniformly (for the most part) echo the conscience in which all humankind is endowed.
First, you seem to be equating morality with the law and we should be careful not to do that. The laws we have now are put in place by elected legislators, many of whom have demonstrated that they aren’t particularly “moral”. It may seem a minor point but there is a difference, especially with regards to the point that human morality predates Jewish morality. As I said above, the fact that similar moral precepts are present all over the world indicates that they are independent of their supposed proponents in a given region (Moses, Confucius, Siddhartha, whomever).
So if it (morality) arose independently, it cannot be claimed as the exclusive province of any particular region; that much is obvious. What remains to be sorted out is whether God gave man a conscience or whether man developed a conscience as a “survival skill”. You incorrectly state that my position argues for a “predisposition” toward morality; it you read my posts again you’ll se that I am actually proposing the opposite: that men who developed “morality” were able to band together and provide a safer environment in which to have and raise offspring. In other words, men with basic morality lived long enough to have children, who then found themselves in a group (tribe) of others who also had basic morality. The men who shirked morality (as it pertained to the group) were been forced to live outside the group; a much more dangerous prospect. He and any kids he had would have a much greater chance of either starving or succumbing to a predator. It is survival of the fittest, and the fittest in this case were those who could live together peacefully in large groups.
Once morality exists it is a natural impulse to refine and codify it in some way, and the most obvious way for primitive man to do so was through his gods. There always exist men who ask “why?” and this codification gave such men their answer: because the gods will it.
Given this rather simple explanation, why should we choose a more complex one involving supernatural agencies? Once again William of Occam rears his head: the simplest explanation (the one that doesn’t rely on the supernatural) is most likely the correct one. There is no need to posit a magical being (which raises more question than it answers) when simple, observable, naturalistic processes are more than adequate to explain how morality developed.
Of course there are corruptions of the law of nature and the revealed moral law of God; polygamy, human sacrifice (which is a primoridal human perversion of God providing a sacrifice for our sins), trial by gauntlet, etc., but those corruptions are expected when dealing with a corrupted humanity.
I think we can agree that the practice of human sacrifice predates Christianity. We can further agree that whenever two things exist which are obviously related, the one that predates the other is usually the cause or basis of the second (especially when we talk about cultural memes in a specific region).
This suggests that the Christian notion of the spiritual “value” of blood sacrifice is the actual “perversion” (or more accurately a logical outgrowth, for “perversion” has ugly connotations) of what came before it…pagan human sacrifice. In other words the Christian notion of blood sacrifice is built upon the foundations laid by more primitive man (as are literally all of our customs today).
This is, in fact, born out by what we know of the times before Christianity. The pre-Christian practice most similar to the Biblical sacrifice of Jesus was the sacrifice of willing “sacred kings” (men who were chosen for the honor of being king for a year and then sacrificed to the gods to ensure a good harvest).
Even within the Bible itself are a few references to the practice of human sacrifice (such as Genesis 22:1-18: “Take your son, your only son…Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains” or Judges 11:29-40, wherein Jephthah burned his daughter as a sacrifice to compensate God for a recent military victory).
I know your first impulse in reading the above paragraph will be to explain that God was only testing Abraham or that Jephthah acted of his own accord. I know this; I am only demonstrating that humans still viewed human sacrifice as something of value at the time the Bible was written.
Likewise, the Bible is laced with passages wherein God is pleased by the smell of charred animal flesh. This might seem repugnant to modern man at first blush, but it makes perfect sense from the perspective of those who lived back then, when there was little more valuable in the world than meat to eat.
IF there is value in the sacrifice of living things, it stands to reason that the ultimate sacrificial value would be in the sacrifice of God’s own son. The progression is obvious.
”Such fellowship would require me to divest myself of what I prize most highly: the freedom and ability to apply critical, rational thought to everything around me, without exception.” – Godfrey
That’s a red herring. I’ve never belonged to any fellowship which “would require me to divest myself of the ability to apply critical, rational thought.”
It’s not a red herring at all. Christianity requires faith, does it not? And faith is the act of believing in something regardless of a lack of evidence. Therefore faith requires suspension of some degree of rational inquiry, something which propels the old saying “the Lord works in mysterious ways”…in other words “don’t ask”. I’m not saying that Christians don’t have the capacity for critical thought, only that they must willingly suspend it in order to believe in something that is invisible, intangible and lacking in empirical evidence. That is what faith is all about, and that is all I meant.
I’m sure every atheist and secular prides themselves in “applying critical, rational thought”, but other than their criticisms of Judeo-Christian thought and religion in general, there is little to recommend atheism given its own lack of worldview unity.
Does Christianity have “worldview unity”? If so, why is it necessary to have so many different sects? Do Christians all support the war? Do all oppose abortion? Your point is a non-starter because the characteristic of “disunity” applies in some respect to any group of two or more.
For surely if atheism represents the highest pinnacle of man’s dispassionate reasonings and “critical, rational thought”, then there wouldn’t be atheists on both sides of the abortion debate, who are socialists versus constitutional republicanism, who believe in just war versus anti-war all the time.
Belief in the supernatural doesn’t have anything to do with whether abortion is right or whether the political climate justified the Iraq war. It certainly has nothing to do with socialism or democracy. You are unfairly pigeonholing atheists, who have as widely varying notions about political issues as anyone else.
You see, the very point upon which you rest your atheist worldview betrays the very tenets of your own faith because obviously if its a matter of conducting ones life according to the principles of rationality, critical thinking and objectivity then it should lead all atheists down the same road irrespective of the cultures they may live in, right?
First of all, you are wrong to say that I have a “faith” with “tenets”. Atheism is not a faith…it’s a lack of faith. Would you call a man who doesn’t breed dogs a “breeder of not dogs”? I know you are fond of calling atheism a “faith” (perhaps in an attempt to level the playing field?) but you are completely incorrect in doing so.
As for your question regarding a solidarity of worldview, the answer is no. Not all atheists are logical. Many merely consider the supposed existence of gods and demons and ghosts self-evidently absurd and go on about their lives without pondering it further. Some, like me, are interested in philosophy, science and logic; but even they (we) apply these things in different ways. I could just as easily ask you: if God’s way is the only way, why are there so many conflicting (but supposedly exclusive) versions of it?. Christians aren’t robots, and neither are atheists. We are all affected by a multitude of factors like our environment, our past and what we want to be true (although on that last point I believe I am less prone than most, if only because I make a concerted effort to be so).
And so if I think to myself “why is abortion wrong?” I put it through the prism not of theology or atheism but of critical thought. I see that it is a bad thing in many ways for society as a whole and I see that if principles I cherish are applied to it (particularly freedom) it is as inherently wrong as murder or theft. But that is my own view…and I daresay many libertarians and atheists would disagree.
I’d love the chance to grill them on the subject: I think I’d win that debate.
107 CaNN :: We started it. // Oct 23, 2006 at 1:57 pm
[…] SCRAPPLEFACE: “5 out of 4 U.S. Teachers Reject Math-Esteem Study” …. (scrappleface) […]
You must log in to post a comment.