According to conventional wisdom, Iraq may have been a mistake. But not Afghanistan. We had to get OBL. He had killed 3000 Americans. We had no choice. And the Taliban wouldn't hand him over.
In fact, that's not quite true. The Taliban did offer to hand bin Laden over to a third party according to the Washington Post. They made requests that truthfully just don't sound so strange to me. They wanted evidence of his guilt before handing him over. We could have provided the evidence and brought justice to him. Instead he remains free. And we fight against a government in Afghanistan that did nothing to us.
Of course we're bringing freedom, helping women, bringing aid, etc. Wait. Scratch that. That was how the Soviets thought about their invasion of Afghanistan. Why are we there?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Ever Heard of Pakistan?
Did you know that 2.4 million Pakistanis have been displaced as the U.S. and its proxy government in Pakistan bombs the crap out of residential areas in hopes of snagging a few Taliban fighters? Women and children are dying by the hundreds due to the bombs, not to mention the vast numbers dying in the deserts. I find this to be a strange way of going about protecting Americans from the threat of terrorism. How does enraging millions of members of a nation that is a nuclear power make us safe?
It's interesting to contrast coverage of these events with the displaced at Hurricane Katrina. If I'm reading the numbers right it looks like fewer than 30,000 people were stranded, most of whom were housed at the Superdome. In response hundreds of millions of dollars were pledged in aid from around the world, from such nations as Cuba and Venezuala. Why so little outcry about this far greater catastrophe in Pakistan? If I didn't happen to have a friend from Pakistan I'd probably know nothing about it.
It's interesting to contrast coverage of these events with the displaced at Hurricane Katrina. If I'm reading the numbers right it looks like fewer than 30,000 people were stranded, most of whom were housed at the Superdome. In response hundreds of millions of dollars were pledged in aid from around the world, from such nations as Cuba and Venezuala. Why so little outcry about this far greater catastrophe in Pakistan? If I didn't happen to have a friend from Pakistan I'd probably know nothing about it.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
I'm Impressed with Ken Hamm
And his partner in crime, Jason Lisle. They of course are from Answers in Genesis. They debated Hugh Ross and Walt Kaiser on the John Ankerberg show. You might also say they debated John Ankerberg. Though he was supposed to act as moderator his bias was transparent throughout.
Here's why I'm impressed. Of course they are wrong on the science. But their biblical arguments are pretty good. And despite Ankerberg's absurd bias against them they remained composed.
One exchange I found funny was a question posed to Ken Hamm. He said something like "Before I answer I think there are two things that are important to keep in mind." He described the two things quickly, and Ankerberg immediately gave microphone control right back to the old earther's before Hamm even got to his answer. This was typical throughout the debate. Meanwhile Kaiser would ramble on and on and say nothing for long stretches, yet Ankerberg wouldn't interrupt him. Or when he was asked a question he'd just refuse to answer. For instance Hamm asked him "Did cancer exist before the fall?" Kaiser responds "I don't think they knew what cancer was back then." Such was typical of Kaiser, yet Ankerberg treated him with reverence, whereas his contempt for Hamm was obvious.
I don't know much about Ken Hamm. He might be a jerk, and maybe Ankerberg treated him unfairly for this reason. If what I know of his treatment of AIG Australia branch is accurate, then he's dished out far worse. Within this debate though I have to admit he did well in spite of having the deck stacked against him.
Here's why I'm impressed. Of course they are wrong on the science. But their biblical arguments are pretty good. And despite Ankerberg's absurd bias against them they remained composed.
One exchange I found funny was a question posed to Ken Hamm. He said something like "Before I answer I think there are two things that are important to keep in mind." He described the two things quickly, and Ankerberg immediately gave microphone control right back to the old earther's before Hamm even got to his answer. This was typical throughout the debate. Meanwhile Kaiser would ramble on and on and say nothing for long stretches, yet Ankerberg wouldn't interrupt him. Or when he was asked a question he'd just refuse to answer. For instance Hamm asked him "Did cancer exist before the fall?" Kaiser responds "I don't think they knew what cancer was back then." Such was typical of Kaiser, yet Ankerberg treated him with reverence, whereas his contempt for Hamm was obvious.
I don't know much about Ken Hamm. He might be a jerk, and maybe Ankerberg treated him unfairly for this reason. If what I know of his treatment of AIG Australia branch is accurate, then he's dished out far worse. Within this debate though I have to admit he did well in spite of having the deck stacked against him.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Bush's Biblical Intelligence Briefings
GQ has a slideshow depicting the cover photos for the intelligence briefings that were provided for Bush by Rumsfield. Big color photos of the action along with bible quotes for headlines. Frank Rich comments in the New York Times:
"Take the one dated April 3, 2003, two weeks into the invasion, just as Shock and Awe hit its first potholes. Two days earlier, on April 1, a panicky Pentagon had begun spreading its hyped, fictional account of the rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch to distract from troubling news of setbacks. On April 2, Gen. Joseph Hoar, the commander in chief of the United States Central Command from 1991-94, had declared on the Times Op-Ed page that Rumsfeld had sent too few troops to Iraq. And so the Worldwide Intelligence Update for April 3 bullied Bush with Joshua 1:9: “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.” (Including, as it happened, into a quagmire.)"
"Take the one dated April 3, 2003, two weeks into the invasion, just as Shock and Awe hit its first potholes. Two days earlier, on April 1, a panicky Pentagon had begun spreading its hyped, fictional account of the rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch to distract from troubling news of setbacks. On April 2, Gen. Joseph Hoar, the commander in chief of the United States Central Command from 1991-94, had declared on the Times Op-Ed page that Rumsfeld had sent too few troops to Iraq. And so the Worldwide Intelligence Update for April 3 bullied Bush with Joshua 1:9: “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.” (Including, as it happened, into a quagmire.)"
Facts Concerning Galileo
One of my favorite lines in George's Salmon's book The Infallibility of the Church is a citation from Galileo from a tract of his on the motion of comets, which he wrote after his first trial.
"Since the motion attributed to the earth which I, as a pious and Catholic person, consider most false and not to exist, accommodates itself so well as to explain so many and such different phenomena, I shall not feel sure but that, false as it is, it may not just as deludingly correspond with the phenomena of comets."
Christians sometimes like to pretend that the Galileo affair doesn't demonstrate how science and faith conflict. We're told it really wasn't that the Church had a problem with science. Maybe it was Galileo's arrogance, shoving new claims down everyone's throats. There's usually some talk about how Galileo was wrong about the tides. Or there's lots of talk about how some of the Church's critics have exaggerated the conditions that Galileo was subjected to. I'm reminded of this due to a recent blog entry at str here. You might also find similar things here, or maybe here.
Did the Church really not have a problem with heliocentrism? If not, why would such men as Robert Sungenis continue to defend geocentrism (see for instance some of his offerings here)? This guy is not just some nobody. He's written books endorsed by prominent Catholic writers such as Scott Hahn, Ron Tacelli, Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Thomas Howard, and Steven Ray. Note though that these endorsements were made before his views on the motion of the planets became public.
I'd like to offer some quotations from some documents relevant to this question from the time period for reference. Again, thes quotes are via George Salmon's The Infallibility of the Church.
Galileo's initial run-in with the church occurred because he wrote a private letter explaining that he thought the bible could be interpreted metaphorically in places in a manner consistent with his observations. At the time the church permitted mathematicians to consider Copernicanism, but only as a supposition, not as true. In other words, it was fine if they just wanted to amuse themselves with some calculations, but they were not permitted to actually believe such things.
Galileo was hauled before the Inquisition due to his private letter, which went too far. It went so far as to have a layman offer interpretation of Scripture. He was acquitted on a technicality. The letter was only a copy, not the original. So they said "Not Guilty" but basically don't do it again. They immediately then issued a decree, which reads as follows:
"Since it has come to the knowledge of this Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine altogether opposed to the Divine Scripture of the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun which Nicolas Copernicus in his work De revolulionibus orbium caelestium and Didacus a Stunica in his Commentary on Job teach is being promulgated and accepted by many as may be seen from a printed letter of a certain Carmelite Father Foscarini entitled &c wherein the said Father has attempted to show that the said doctrine is consonant to truth and not opposed to Holy Scripture therefore lest this opinion insinuate itself further to the damage of Catholic truth this Congregation has decreed that the said books Copernicus De revolulionibus and Stunica on Job be suspended till they are corrected but that the book of Foscarini the Carmelite be altogether prohibited and condemned and all other books that teach the same thing."
This decree remained in effect for quite some time. For instance, here is a foreward to the Jesuit's edition of Newton's Principia
"Newton in this third book supposes the motion of the earth. We could not explain the author's propositions otherwise than by making the same supposition. We are therefore forced to sustain a character which is not our own; but we profess to pay the obsequious reverence which is due to the decrees pronounced by the sovereign Pontiffs against the motion of the earth."
So Galileo returned home, but did continue to work on such matters. He wrote the tract on comets that I quoted at the top for instance.
He used similar verbal conformity in a subsequent tract where he'd present the case in the form of a dialogue without committing himself to either view. This is what caused him some big trouble. Ultimately the Pope recognized some of his own arguments in the words of a character Galileo didn't paint too flatteringly (the character was named "Simplicio"). The book was banned and Galileo was orderd to return to Rome. He protested due to his poor health at the age of 70, but was threatened to be brought out in irons if he didn't come.
At trial he protested that he had only considered the question hypothetically without committing himself to either position. Wrong answer. Nothing can even be probable which is contrary to Scripture. He was forced to recant heliocentrism as a false, cursed, and detestable. He was then subjected to house arrest for the remainder of his life.
Maybe Galileo was sometimes arrogant. Maybe he was sometimes wrong. Maybe some church members didn't oppose heliocentrism. Maybe Galileo believed in the Bible. Maybe Copernicus did as well. None of this changes the fact that in this instance the church opposed demonstrable science because of their understanding of the Bible. This is an excellent example of some of the problems with religious thinking.
"Since the motion attributed to the earth which I, as a pious and Catholic person, consider most false and not to exist, accommodates itself so well as to explain so many and such different phenomena, I shall not feel sure but that, false as it is, it may not just as deludingly correspond with the phenomena of comets."
Christians sometimes like to pretend that the Galileo affair doesn't demonstrate how science and faith conflict. We're told it really wasn't that the Church had a problem with science. Maybe it was Galileo's arrogance, shoving new claims down everyone's throats. There's usually some talk about how Galileo was wrong about the tides. Or there's lots of talk about how some of the Church's critics have exaggerated the conditions that Galileo was subjected to. I'm reminded of this due to a recent blog entry at str here. You might also find similar things here, or maybe here.
Did the Church really not have a problem with heliocentrism? If not, why would such men as Robert Sungenis continue to defend geocentrism (see for instance some of his offerings here)? This guy is not just some nobody. He's written books endorsed by prominent Catholic writers such as Scott Hahn, Ron Tacelli, Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Thomas Howard, and Steven Ray. Note though that these endorsements were made before his views on the motion of the planets became public.
I'd like to offer some quotations from some documents relevant to this question from the time period for reference. Again, thes quotes are via George Salmon's The Infallibility of the Church.
Galileo's initial run-in with the church occurred because he wrote a private letter explaining that he thought the bible could be interpreted metaphorically in places in a manner consistent with his observations. At the time the church permitted mathematicians to consider Copernicanism, but only as a supposition, not as true. In other words, it was fine if they just wanted to amuse themselves with some calculations, but they were not permitted to actually believe such things.
Galileo was hauled before the Inquisition due to his private letter, which went too far. It went so far as to have a layman offer interpretation of Scripture. He was acquitted on a technicality. The letter was only a copy, not the original. So they said "Not Guilty" but basically don't do it again. They immediately then issued a decree, which reads as follows:
"Since it has come to the knowledge of this Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine altogether opposed to the Divine Scripture of the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun which Nicolas Copernicus in his work De revolulionibus orbium caelestium and Didacus a Stunica in his Commentary on Job teach is being promulgated and accepted by many as may be seen from a printed letter of a certain Carmelite Father Foscarini entitled &c wherein the said Father has attempted to show that the said doctrine is consonant to truth and not opposed to Holy Scripture therefore lest this opinion insinuate itself further to the damage of Catholic truth this Congregation has decreed that the said books Copernicus De revolulionibus and Stunica on Job be suspended till they are corrected but that the book of Foscarini the Carmelite be altogether prohibited and condemned and all other books that teach the same thing."
This decree remained in effect for quite some time. For instance, here is a foreward to the Jesuit's edition of Newton's Principia
"Newton in this third book supposes the motion of the earth. We could not explain the author's propositions otherwise than by making the same supposition. We are therefore forced to sustain a character which is not our own; but we profess to pay the obsequious reverence which is due to the decrees pronounced by the sovereign Pontiffs against the motion of the earth."
So Galileo returned home, but did continue to work on such matters. He wrote the tract on comets that I quoted at the top for instance.
He used similar verbal conformity in a subsequent tract where he'd present the case in the form of a dialogue without committing himself to either view. This is what caused him some big trouble. Ultimately the Pope recognized some of his own arguments in the words of a character Galileo didn't paint too flatteringly (the character was named "Simplicio"). The book was banned and Galileo was orderd to return to Rome. He protested due to his poor health at the age of 70, but was threatened to be brought out in irons if he didn't come.
At trial he protested that he had only considered the question hypothetically without committing himself to either position. Wrong answer. Nothing can even be probable which is contrary to Scripture. He was forced to recant heliocentrism as a false, cursed, and detestable. He was then subjected to house arrest for the remainder of his life.
Maybe Galileo was sometimes arrogant. Maybe he was sometimes wrong. Maybe some church members didn't oppose heliocentrism. Maybe Galileo believed in the Bible. Maybe Copernicus did as well. None of this changes the fact that in this instance the church opposed demonstrable science because of their understanding of the Bible. This is an excellent example of some of the problems with religious thinking.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Explaining and Debunking
This guy makes great videos both explaining basic scientific knowledge and debunking Creationist nonsense. His first in his series explaining follows and his first in his series debunking is below that. All his videos are worth the time. The debunking stuff is pretty funny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)