Techno Chicken

Caesar's Bust Is On The Shelf

I don't feel so great myself.

Since Thanksgiving eve, I've been fighting acute viral nasopharyngitis, more commonly known as the common cold. My symptoms include coughing, runny nose, sore throat, nasal congestion, pink eye, headaches, fatigue, and malaise. I don't have a fever (more associated with influenza) and my appetite is fine-- good news for this Thanksgiving holiday. Now into my fifth day, the only remaining symptoms is a sore throat, some coughing, and a croak. I treat these symptoms with rest, lozenges, and Robitussin.

Wikipedia: "The common cold is most often caused by infection with one of the 99 known serotypes of rhinovirus, a type of picornavirus. Around 30-50% of colds are caused by rhinoviruses. Other viruses causing colds are coronavirus (causing 10-15%, human parainfluenza viruses, human respiratory syncytial virus, adenoviruses, enteroviruses, or metapneumovirus."

A lack of sleep and vitamin D definciency is also causally related to colds.
The best way to avoid a cold is thorough and regular washing of the hands.

At our Thanksgiving eve service, a large man was positioned near the door to the church to shake the hands of everyone who comes in. It is hard to resist such a friendly greeting. However, there is no doubt that such person to person contact is a vector for the common cold. I would like to see etiquette develop so that we can express welcoming warmth to others without touching them.

Lost In Space

The best sci fi theme ever. I loved watching this show as a kid.

What I'm Thankful For

What I'm thankful for. My blessing list. 1. Family and friends. 2. Health. 3. Home. 4. Fun. 5. Awesome children who are on a good path. 6. Church. 7. USA. 8. Work. 9. Meow. 10 Nancy!!!

Winter Thoughts

It surely isn't easy to face up to the realities of aging and death. Speaking only for myself, my inclination is to do as the Johnsons did. In November 1979, I was distressed to learn that she was dying. Elsie wrote that "the prospect of death does not distress me, but the prospect of becoming a helpless invalid does. Therefore, should this rare cancer of mine speed up the inevitable a bit, I would think I'd be grateful. If you find this hard to accept, it may be because you don't have to face the alternatives." Two months later on January 4, 1980 Elsie died. At the memorial service for Aunt Elsie, Aunt Viola said "Ray seemed frail and worn. Ray took his relatives and us to a cafeteria after the service. After we got home, he got right into his pajamas and slept for several hours. His children don't expect that he'll live long without Elsie." Six months later after Elsie died to the day, Ray died. "I was with my father when he died of a heart attack after a weekend of reminiscing," writes his son Ray M. Johnson, Jr. "Death was instantaneous and appeared to be painless, at least for him." The Johnsons' love for others than went beyond their death when they left their estate to 22 different people and their bodies to science.

Having friends in medical school and knowing of the disrespect that students sometimes show to donated bodies, I tried to discourage my aunt from donating her body. She acknowledged the possibility, but insisted the good to future students outweighed the bad behavior of other students, cheerfully endorsing this essay from Author Unknown:

"At a certain moment, a doctor will determine that my brain has ceased to
function and that, for all intents and purposes, my life has stopped. When
this happens, do not attempt to instill artificial life into my body by use
of a machine. And don't call this my 'deathbed'. Call it my 'bed of life,'
and let my body be taken from it to help other lead fuller lives.

"Give my sight to a man who has never seen a sunrise, a baby's face or love in the eyes of a woman. Give me heart to a person whose own heart has caused nothing but endless days of pain. Give my blood to the teenager who has been pulled from the wreckage of his car so that he might live to see his grandchildren play. Explore every corner of my brain. Take my cells, if necessary, and let them grow so that someday a speechless boy will shout at the crack of a bat and a deaf girl will hear the sound of rain against the window. Burn what is left of me and scatter the ashes to the winds to help the flowers grow.

"If you must bury anything, let it be my faults, my weaknesses, and all
prejudice against my fellow man. Give my soul to God. If by chance you
wish to remember me, do it with a kind deed or word to someone who needs you. If you do all I have asked, I will live forever."

My mother read a tribute I wrote for Aunt Elsie. "Over the years I've saved some of her letters," I wrote at the time. " 'This morning's mail brought the enclosed letter from Lillian about Uncle Otto's death in Ipswich ... another link broken in the family circle,' Aunt Elsie wrote me several years before her death. 'As we grow older, I think we accept death more-not only because it's inevitable but also because limitations to a life span become more acceptable. But that doesn't diminish the deep sadness and sense of loss when someone who has been a part of one's life for as long as one remembers anything at all-suddenly is no more.' Eased by a flood of happy memories-hiking through the Grand Tetons, boating down the Snake River, trying Japanese food-I feel the same sense of sadness." And now, two decades later, I see that Aunt Elsie's great gift to me was that life need not be a vale of tears, but a joyous smorgasbord of wonder and challenge and a striving for excellence and empathy as well as travel, theatre, books, cooking, museums, children, seminars, and music. With her great moral and common sense informed by a deep humanity and a supple and sensitive mind, Elsie Wik Johnson taught me as few others have.

When I was on the beach in Hawaii last spring, I gave Ben a teaspoon
of philosophical reality. I stamped my foot into the wet sand and
pointed that footprint to him as the surf washed over it. In a second,
the indentation was gone, as if it never existed in the first place.
That, I said, is our life on earth. It is but a vapor in the eternal
vastness of oblivion, a barely noticed flash on that endless ribbon of
time. As the preacher in Ecclesiastes said: "To every thing there is a
season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be
born, and a time to die." In the local cemetery, I came across a
ninety year old grave marker that had toppled over. As I turned it
upright, I wondered if anyone today even knows or cares that person
lived or died. And I realized that the day will come that no one will
know or care if I or anyone else for that matter lived or died. Man is
not the measure of all things as I'm reminded of Shelley's poem
Ozymandias.

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away

While my faith takes me to a belief in the afterlife, it doesn't mean that our life here on earth is much more than a ripple from a pebble tossed into a boundless ocean, a twig swirling into oblivion. That said, our response cannot be cloud-dwelling morbidity as life is to be lived, and it is our awareness of death that gives life poignancy and urgency. We are always hearing time's winged chariot hurrying near, and it is this knowledge that brings us closer to what and whom we cherish. For me, this means spending less time with tele-marketers and tele-politicians and more time with my family and friends, and less time worrying
about stuff I can't do anything about and more time enjoying the stuff that makes up my life.

The Darkside of Facebook

BROMONT, Quebec – A Canadian woman on long-term sick leave for depression says she lost her benefits because her insurance agent found photos of her on Facebook in which she appeared to be having fun.

Los Angeles, California (CNN) - The beating of 12-year-old boy by a group of classmates at a Southern California middle school may be linked to a Facebook posting encouraging kids to target redheads, authorities say.

"The Heart Has Its Reasons . . .

which reason knows nothing of."

Pascal

The Ontological Argument For God's Existence

To be clear as to exactly what the ontological argument says, one very simple form goes as follows:

1. God is the greatest possible being.
2. It is possible that God exists.
3. If God does not exist, He would be inferior to a God which did exist.
4. If (1), (2), (3) then God exists.
5. Therefore, God exists.

It just happens that people have made this argument much more rigorous. For instance, Godel created a version of the ontological argument using modal logic that proceeds as follows: For those inclined to work through how this argument functions, it's available here:

http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2009/06/godels-ontological-argument-step-by.html

I find the ontological argument unpersuasive once effort is made to understand it. The casting of the argument using model logic cannot whitewash its flaws.

Here is my breakdown.

1. God is the greatest possible being. To better understand the fallacy of this argument, let's start a parallel argument.

A. Pegasus is the greatest possible flying horse. The word possible is the operative predicate, indicating that there are none better horses, flying or otherwise.

2. It is possible that God exists.

B. It is possible that Pegasus exists.

On what basis should I concede that? It seems to me that the moment that you have a ground for a possibility that X exists, it must possibly exist.

3. If God does not exist, He would be inferior to a God which did exist.

C. If Pegasus did not exist, He would be inferior to a flying horse that did exist.

Now, I'm not expert in modal logic, but this seems gibberish, as an attempt is to prove existence in the using the negative subjuctive: "If X does not exist, therefore Y must exist." By assertion, we are creating the existence of flying horses.

4. If (1), (2), (3) then God exists.

D. If (A), (B), and (C), then Pegasus exists.

5. Therefore, God exists.

E. Therefore, Pegasus exists.

I don't think that follows.

A response from a reader:

Well, it is the consensus opinion that there are severe problems with the ontological argument. I should note that I do not believe in the ontological argument (in fact, I don't believe in God at all.) However, the reasons which you have cited are not the faults which are usually found with the ontological argument. In fact, if I understand your reasons correctly, then much of modern analytic metaphysics is unquestionably false. Given that this is a large body of serious academic work, it is worthwhile to at least try to understand some of the orthodox responses to your comments. I reserve neutrality as to my own position on this statements; I am merely pointing you to the accepted answers, not whether or not I personally accept them (though I do think they would be difficult to properly refute.)You seem to find fault with the modal notion of "possible" (which is sometimes also refered to as "contingency", though that has a slightly different meaning.)

You wrote:

2. It is possible that God exists.
B. It is possible that Pegasus exists.

On what basis should I concede that? It seems to me that the moment that you have a ground for a possibility that X exists, it must possibly exist. Strikes me as nonsensical.

In modern analytic metaphysics, X is said to possibly exist if we can form consistent propositions about it. Unless the notion of pegasus is somehow contradictory we must accept that it possibly exists precisely because, and only because, it is non-contradictory. We are not usually entitled to say that X has necessary existence only in virtue of its possible existence, and this is something that is strange about the ontological argument. Usually, philosophers find it sufficient to say that if they can imagine it, then it exists at some possible world (which is equivalent to saying that it is a non-contradictory notion.) In other words, if we can imagine it, then it is possible. Contradictory notions, meanwhile, are termed impossible. Modal logic gives us the ability to quantify over these varies different modes of existence - necessary, possible, and impossible. Therefore, modal logic is the formal tool that we need to express sentences containing various different modalities (i.e. modes of existence.)I should note that there are many things which are possible but do not exist in our world. I think it is non-controversial that Pegasus is an object of that kind (i.e. Pegasus is possible, but does not exist in our universe.) Of course, there are philosophers who believe in all kinds of things, so you can find philosophers who identify themselves as "modal realists". They believe that all possible worlds are real, whatever that might mean. This is different from the multiverse theory, though there are some who believe that these are the same thing. Most philosophers feel that these ideas are silly. I therefore will not spend more time on them.

What you wrote, while ultimately at odds with philosophical orthodoxy, is not entirely different from one of the standard refutations of the ontological argument. Personally, I like to formulate a parallel argument using the "ultimate taco":

1*. The Greatest Taco is the greatest possible taco.
2*. It is possible that the Greatest Taco exists.
3*. If the Greatest Taco does not exist, it would be inferior to a taco which did exist.
4*. If (1), (2), (3) then the Greatest Taco exists.
5*. Therefore, the Greatest Taco exists.

Now, the flaw here cannot be that the argument is invalid. After all, it is a simple modus ponens argument and its validity can be trivially shown. What we are concerned with is its soundness. I think it is non-controversial that the Greatest Taco does not exist. Therefore, we can conclude that the taco argument must make a mistake somewhere.

How is this different from the Pegasus argument? It's different because I did not attack the ontological argument on either the grounds that you cite (i.e. your problem with modality or your problem with negative subjunctives. You might be wondering why I did not give the orthodox response to your worry about negative subjunctives. I have to confess that I am not familiar with the formal fallacy that you are indicating if, in fact, such a fallacy exists.) Rather, this is simply a reductio argument showing that something must be wrong with arguments of this kind; the exact error is not specified.There is a problem with this counterargument (and so we begin the counter-counter-argument!) The first problem is that it does not tell us where the issue occurs in arguments of this kind. Maybe there is a Greatest Taco, greater than any other taco and perhaps Pegasus exists as well. We doubt that these two statements are true, but on what grounds do we come to believe them? Perhaps an evil demon is tricking us into believing that super tacos and flying horses don't exist. Egads -- we've been deceived our entire lives! But most people are willing to think that this response is probably false, at least on the basis of inductive evidence.The second problem with this counterargument is the possibility that Anselm meant something else, something more subtle. Examine premise (1*) of this argument and premise (1) of the ontological argument. These premises are slightly different:1*. The Greatest Taco is the greatest possible taco.1. God is the greatest possible being.In premise (1), what is a "being"? And, in particular, what exactly did Anselm mean? If he just meant object, thing, or entity, then this is very different from saying that God is the greatest possible "supernatural man with a beard". It's not that God is the greatest possible god; it's that, of all things/objects that could possibly exist, God is the greatest. So, pick out any object in the world and God will be greater than that object. Toasters? Yep, God is greater. Laptops? Yep, God is greater. Janet Reno? Yep, God is greater. Burger King? Still, God is greater. I think you get the picture.But this is not true of premise (1*). Here, we are told that the Greatest Taco is the greatest possible taco. Maybe toasters are superior to tacos for some reason. I don't why that would be true, but bare with me. The idea is that proposition (1*) only speaks about possible tacos and not the full set of possible objects. Thus, we should be able to identify objects, either possible or actually existent, which are superior to the Greatest Taco, if, in fact, no possible taco is the greatest possible object.Unless, that is, we change premise (1*) to read:1**. The Greatest Taco is the greatest possible thing.Now, we claim that premise (1) and premise (1**) are equivalent modulo the name of the greatest possible thing. One might think, on a variety of different grounds, that there can only be one greatest possible thing (i.e. "greatest possible thing" is a unique object.) If this uniqueness claim holds, then God is the Greatest Taco and the Greatest Taco is God. You might object here on the grounds that relating God to tacos is clearly absurd. But what this really shows is that any object, when it is given the status of "greatest possible thing", must have the properties of God. We can imagine a taco that is the most intelligent, the most beautiful, the most good, the most merciful, etc, possible. Such a taco doesn't really have the properties of taco-ness; it has the properties of Godness. We probably wouldn't call such an object a "taco" since it does not have the properties we expect tacos to have. Just the same, if (1**) is true, then God and the Greatest Taco are identical.In case you're sceptical about the uniqueness claims, one simple way to argue for the uniqueness of the greatest possible thing is just to state that a non-unique thing is always inferior to a unique thing. Therefore, the greatest possible thing must be unique in virtue of its being the greatest possible.Another problem that you might cite in the ontological argument is the vagueness of the term "greatest". In virtue of what is God said to be the greatest? He obviously isn't the greatest evil. He's also not the greatest womanizer or the greatest misogynist. On all of these qualities, God seems to be the polar opposite (at least in the conception of God that mainstream Abrahamaic religions profess.) Yet, if we just say that He is the greatest possible in all categories, we are left with deducing clearly false propositions like this. There do exist solutions to this vagueness problem in the literature; however, none of them are really satisfying to me.There is another problem, though it is much more technical. In the ontological argument, the property of existence is ascribed to God. Further, He is said to be the greatest possible at existing; i.e. a non-existent deity is inferior to an existent deity. However, this is at odds with how existence is normally understood in the philosophical and logic literatures. In the literature, the orthodox position is that existence is a quantifier. But if existence is a quantifier, then it is not something which can be ascribed to an object. -- i.e. there would be no such thing as an existence predicate. However, it is impossible to formulate the ontological argument without an existence predicate. I understand that this last counterargument is still controversial. I also understand that there exists the position that existence is a second order predicate. I do not know very much about this last position nor do I know how it relates to the ontological argument.

A description of the problem of having existence be a predicate (at least as formulated by Kant) is available here:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-ontological-argument/st-anselms-ontological-argument/existence-is-not-a-predicate/

As for why the ontological argument cannot be formulated without having existence as a predicate, we have to turn back to examine what exactly it is that the argument says. Let's consider a modified form of the argument that I already gave:1. God is the greatest possible thing.2. It is possible that there exists an x such that x=God.3. If God does not exist, He would be inferior to a thing which did exist.4. If (1), (2), (3) then God exists.5. Therefore, God exists.However, premise (3) now has problems. First, I note that premise (3), as currently expressed, cannot possibly be coherent if existence is a quantifier since it was in that sentence as a predicate. Namely, proposition (3) is a sentence of the kind "x is p" (expressible in predicate logic as ). Now we look for a way to suitably alter (3) without changing it's meaning.Consider the sentence "If there does not exist x, such that x=God, then there exists some existent t such that God is inferior to t." We might formalize this as: inf where G is God, t is a thing which exists. and inf is a order relation such that if AinfB then A is inferior to B. But why would this proposition be true? Since we have existentially quantified over G, and not attributed some property to it, there is no property by the lights of which G is inferior to t. In other words, the relation tinfG returns false whenever A=G and B=t. But that's not at all the idea that we wished to express; we wished to express the idea that a non-existent God would be inferior to an existent God.

Russell's Sets

This graphic explication of the ideas of Bertrand Russell are getting good reviews.

This and That

A few quick takes on current events that strike my fancy. (What is my fancy? Probably that which is next to the cockles of my heart.)

Obama's falling approval ratings probably relate the weakening job picture: "Joblessness rose in 29 U.S. states last month compared with 22 in September, the Labor Department said today in Washington. Michigan had the highest jobless rate at 15.1 percent, followed by Nevada at 13 percent and Rhode Island at 12.9 percent." A comparative shows that Obama's polling foots with Reagan's polling.

Palin is booed by her supporters. What is it about this women that is catnip for so many people? Her supporters will claim that she is an average American beset by media elitists whereas her detractors will claim that she is a serial liar and a shallow and shrill opportunist. My view is that she is consequential on the political scene, an unelectable but canny player who will make a difference, but will ultimately be toxic to national Republican ambitions.

Guys notice another woman's smile, hair, cleavage, and skin. Hey, they got my number! I would also add voice.

So former Miss California Carrie Prejean has eight porn tapes to explain away. Say, Carrie, you cannot have it both ways-- be a spokewomen for wholesome Christian values while continuing to lie. "In interviews last week, Prejean claimed she became 'really serious' about her Christianity when she was 18." Right.

Will those CERN egg heads create a black hole that will suck all we know into oblvion? Stay tuned.

I'm not impressed by the student protests at Berkeley. The forceable occupation of a student building violates the rights of other students, and there are better ways to seek for a redress of grievances. (I feel like I'm in a time warp back to 1968.)

"Let his days be few." Christianism at its worse.

Satanism: The Toothless Tiger

Of all the religions that are practiced today, the most pathetic must be Satanism. It seems to essentially be Ayn Rand light and in its social Darwinism sounds like the very flower of the Grand Old Party. No black masses, no human or animal sacrifices, not even a belief in the existence of their deity. It seems to be more about Oprah-like individual empowerment. People who appropriate symbols of strength are usually weak.

Here are some of their beliefs:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

A response from a reader.

There are different forms of "satanism." - both as a philosophy and as "a practicing religion." ... mostly: it is a philosophy that "man is his own god" and "ought to act and live that way."

Then there is the insideous occultic philosophy of "Luciferianism." - namely, that Lucifer is actually the god of this world and is greater than Yahweh or any other god. According to this mindset: lucifer is 'a good guy' who just wants us all to "be free" to pretty much "do as we please" and NOT be shackled by MORAL RESTRAINTS of religion or GOD. - this group has LOTS of adherents, ... many of them in secret and occultic societies.

Wittgenstein's Truth

Truth is an abstract idea. Abstract ideas are generalized from particular cases. From particular cases we can generalize an abstract “family resemblance” from all of the cases.

To see how this works, let's look at another popular example of an abstract idea from Wittgenstein; games. To teach me what games are, you cannot simply hold up a photograph of two people playing chess and point to it. For, I could easily take a game to be just that, a photograph. Only after giving me enough examples of games, “this is a game, that's not a game”, can I heuristically abstract all these particular cases into a vague and generalized idea of what a game is....
This is the distinction between object language (things) and metalanguage (meanings). Similarly, when we pick out true statements, we don’t need an idea of truth. We are picking out a certain physical event. We are referring to the physical event in object language with the label “true statement” but this should be taken as shorthand, just as “lion” is shorthand for “big growling thing with sharp teeth”. We pick out true statements, not by first knowing what truth is but by noticing remarkable features about them that, taken together, have a family resemblance. Fortunately for us, the abstract idea of truth isn't as spread out as games. There are essentially two kinds of true statements. That is truth by definition and truth by correspondence with reality. For example, consider the following two true statements.

1. All bachelors are unmarried
.2. All copper wires are electrically conductive.

The first (1) is true by definition of what the words “all bachelors are unmarried” mean. The second (2) is true by corresponding with reality.
Some remarkable features of the first kind of true statement are that it’s obvious, trivial and redundant. Any true statement of this kind will implicitly contain one term inside of another. The term “bachelor” contains the term “unmarried”, for a bachelor is simply an unmarried man. The statement is therefore true by definition of what the words mean. We are pointing out the same thing twice and comparing it to itself, i.e. redundant. ...

So, what is truth? Truth is a correspondence relationship, either between the terms within a statement or between a statement and reality. The statement, “the cat is on the mat” is true because the cat is in fact, on the mat. The statement corresponds to reality. The statement, “all triangles have three sides” is true because the term "triangle" is defined as something with three sides. Having three sides is [i]how we point triangles out[/i], so of course they are going to have three sides. The terms correspond to each other making the statement true as well as redundant.

That's truth, in a nutshell (comparatively speaking).[/quote]

Wittgenstein has clearly influenced you and I also agree with your epistomology. A non-tautological proposition must have some kind of correspondence to the natural world. "A cat is on the mat" has truth value for both "cat" and "mat" whereas "A angel is in my living room" has meaning only in so far as there is a living room that is mine. "A ffblgg is on the xxrsrr", however, has no meaning and thus no truth possible content outside of my own imagination. The test of correspondence of subject and predicate to what is in the world that we can jointly apprehend is a low standard but a necessary one that eliminates even the need to ask unanswerable and undefinable metaphysical questions.

Is a process of verification still necessary to discerning whether there is really a correspondence between subject and predicate? What if it just "looks" like a cat? Also is this definition of truth not subject to languistic convention. Whose definition of cat are we using. If I say kitty, pussy, Felix, or el gato does the subject begin to shift. Would it be better to say cat like thing. But, that would only be a family resemblance. Not that particular cat. What about the mat? Is it a small rug, a cloth rectangle, a laying thing, a tiny two dimensional floor cover? How does subjective interpretation impact the truth statement. Is truth only objective?

You make a good case that truth is not only objective. However, we try to attach unreal symbols to something real, which we then call truth when it really might be my truth. There are many kinds of cats, as the Wikipedia disambuguation suggest. In the case of felix catus, the best we can do is to state that the entity on the mat corresponds to a form that we agree is a domestic cat. The entity "domestic cat" doesn't exist any more than the entity "5" exists. But just as there are five people, five stones, five cars, and so on, the set of all "5"s constitute what we agree is "5". The same is true with our feline. So long as it corresponds sufficiently to that which agree is a "cat", it must be a cat. However, that agreement whether it be by humans or machines still involves subjectivity-- a disonnect between the thing in itself and the thing as I, you, or a robot sees it.

Cats may refer to:

Cats (musical), an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical Cats (film), a video version of the musical Geelong Cats, an Australian football league team Jacob Cats (1577–1660), Dutch poet Felis catus, the domestic cat Felidae, the taxonomic grouping of all cats Catalytic converter, A shortened term for

The acronym CATS may refer to:

CATS (software), electronic design automation software CATS (trading system),
Computer Assisted Trading System, an automated trading system developed by the Toronto Stock Exchange
CATS pipeline, a natural gas pipeline in North Sea
CATS, a character from the 1989 video game Zero Wing known for speaking the phrase "All your base are belong to us"
Canadian American Transportation Systems, a defunct Fast Ferry company serving Rochester, New York and Toronto, Ontario. Central Autónoma de Trabajadores Salvadoreños, a trade union in El Salvador Charlotte Area Transit System, the regional transit authority for metropolitan Charlotte, North Carolina,
USA Chicago Area Transportation Study, the former metropolitan planning organization for the Chicago region
Citizens for an Alternative Tax System, a national tax reform public interest group in the United States
Commonwealth Accountability Testing System, the assessment process for K-12 schools in Kentucky,
USA Computer Active Technology Suspension, an automotive technology that controls the movement of the wheels
Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme, a scheme used by many UK universities to evaluate modular degrees
Critics' Awards for Theatre in Scotland, an annual awards event in Scotland
C.A.T.S., fictional Home Office team from C.A.T.S. Eyes, a British television series aired between 1985 and 1987

Science Project Ideas

This is funny. These kids are asking good questions.

"Will there be minorities in heaven?"
"Crystal meth: friend or foe?"

The Breakup of Conservatism

It’s official: the conservative movement is splitting into two parties

That's not quite right. The GOP is shattered into more than two pieces.

1. The Oglaboogla wing. These are the anti-abortionists from the Bible belt who hate the ...

2. Liberterians. They want no government intrusion, including on the issue of abortion. They hate the ...

3. Wall Streeters. These are the Enron and hedge fund types who steal from their shareholders and ship jobs overseas. They hate ...

4. Main Street USA. Normal Americans who want to live their lives as best as they can. They hate the . . .

5. Neocons. They want to send the sons and daughters of Americans overseas to die. They hate the ...

6. Isolationists. They believe in Fortress America. They hate the ...

7. Mink coat set. They are the jet setting and opera going sophisticates who want to keep their trust funds intact. They hate the ...

8. Paleocons. The neo-nazi, skin head contingent, who hate ...

9. Everyone.

And so it goes.

The Heresy of Speaking in Tongues

"I am teaching what Jesus and Paul taught. What is it that you think I teach that does not agree with the Bible? You believe what you have been taught about the Bible as most Christians do instead of believing what the Bible says and obeying. Jesus tells us when we seek we will find: if you would obey: you would find what I am teaching about."

You have a distorted and incorrect view of what Jesus and Paul taught. I think Dr. Younce in post one hit the nail on the head.

"I have never spoken in tongues. After examining the Scriptures, I am sure that I never will, because they are not for today. Isn't it amazing? I have everything in Christ, and more, without speaking in tongues than those who claim tongues."

(Face To Face With Tongues
A Verse by Verse Examination and Exposition On the Subject of Tongues

By Dr. Max D. Younce, Pastor)


To which you said: "But does this person have everything that Christ has taught? or is it just claimed because he has not understood and acted on the scriptures? When Jesus taught that when we believe: that the power to heal; the power to cast off devils the utterances are given to pray and worship with will follow us when we believe and he does not have this following: does he really have all that Christ has for us or has he been deceived, and just thinks he does because he is too proud: being a pastor, and does not want to pretend that he doesn't even have the baptism with the Holy Spirit that will give us this power because the One with the power in 'in us'?

Jesus taught in Mark 16 15-18: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. AND these signs will follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues: They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

So does this person 'really' have everything in Christ or has he been deceived by believing that what Jesus taught is a lie if he does not believe it?"

Here is a case where you are reading and teaching the Bible without understanding it. Is it really your contention that we should fondle rattle snakes or send people home from the hospice after the laying on of hands or drink Jonestown joy juice in His name or preach to all creatures including rabbits and dogs? Does any of this define what it means to be a Christian?

Let's be honest with each other. No one really knows what the phrase "new tongues" really means. If there is one thing that comes through in totality in the writings of Paul, and that is his commitment to logical exposition and to communication. There are no verses in the epistles that look like this: "Iglede biggle de booj blabety bigglety woo." And for good reason, and God has given us reason as well as faith to find the truth so that we can separate truth from falsehood rather than just blindly accepting whatever nonsense a preacher from a soapbox or pulpit may claim.

The Bible is a dangerous book, because in the wrong hands as interpreted by false prophets, it becomes a door way to cultish heresies, where people abandon their loved ones or people turn on the government with armed force. The Heavens Gate folks and the Branch Davidians defined themselves as devout Christians and read from the same Bible that you do, but the consequences were their deaths.

Finally, could it be that some of the writings of Paul and culturally and temporally bound, appropriate for the church of the Acts but not today? This is why I am skeptical about modern day miracles, especially as performed by televangelists. Our Lord performed miracles to validate His authority, but at the same time made it clear that he was bound by natural law. We see this in the rebuke to Satan when Satan asked Jesus to abrogate the law of gravity in the desert (Matthew 4, Luke 4). ("If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.") I cannot say dogmatically that there are no modern day miracles, and I admit I will be impressed if I saw an amputee sprout limbs. But what is it that these evangelists are really trying to do? They are essentially making the claim that they are the conduit of God's grace. Thus, if you trust them enought to send them "seed" money, in return they will intercede with God on your behalf to bring you health and wealth. The fallacy of this is that they falsely believe that they mediate between you and God, that usurping the role of Jesus as the only mediator between you and God. In their cynicism, lies, greed, and manipulation, these people are not Christians but Satanists.

"The serpent that we will be able to 'pick up' or have no danger of is satan in the scriptures that Luke 10 clearly shows us."

Ah, yes. You reveal yourself finally as a liberal cafeteria Christian. On one hand, you take literally "talking in tongues" as a sign that you are "in His kingdom" while at the same time claiming that the fondling of snakes is a metaphor for Satan. Friend, you cannot have it both ways-- using literalism to support your dogmatic interpretation of the Bibe and the using figuratism to support your dogmatic view of the Bible.

Here is a daring thought. Perhaps those verses in Mark are nothing more than an injunction to show extraordinary faith and not a command to start babbling gibberish if what very well might be Polish curse words.

Cat Names

A list.

Children's Books Philosophy

The best philosophy comes from children's books. Here are some of my favorites. "Rivers know this: there is no hurry. We shall get ther someday." (Winnie-the-Pooh, A.A. Milne). "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast" (Alice's Adventures in Wondereland, Lewis Carroll). "And he puzzled three hours till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before! 'Maybe Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store. 'Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means little bit more.'" (How the Grinch Stole Christmas!, Dr. Seuss). "Ooooooooo! I absolutely love Christmas!" (Elolsie at Christmastime, Kay Thompson.) "After all, what is life anyway? We're born, we live a little while, we die. A spider's life can't help being something of a mess, with all this trapping and eating flies. By helping you, perhaps I was trying to lift up my life a trifle. Heaven knows anyone's life can stand a little of that." (Charlotte's Web, E.B. White.) "All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only being the cover and the title page: now at least they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story, which no one on earth has read: which goes on for ever: in which every chapter is better than the one before." (The Last Battle, C.S. Lewis).

When the Old Man Died

An elegiac tune.

Happy Halloween!

We enjoyed "trunk and treat" at church on Saturday, where families decorated the backs of their vehicles with Halloween themes and there was a chili cookoff and lots of fun for the kids.

Ben carved the '2 Much Candy' pumpkin.