Christian Stuff - A Thread (1 Viewer)

[Mister CIA]

No, I'M living in a simulation.

 

[Chaos34]

This is obviously a complicated topic for me. But what I’ve come to understand is that no amount of reflection on why God allows bad things to happen to good people will lead me to an acceptable answer. It will only invite anger, acrimony and sorrow. So I make a conscious decision not to blame or to question, but instead to accept that I will never ever understand the seeming unfairness of it all. At least not in this lifetime.

Yeah, I'm with you here. Some of the earliest Christian gnostic sects witnessed the living Jesus. They had a dark view of Yahweh and the universe. Yahweh was an evil deity. They criticized countless acts of Yahweh in the Old Testament and considered the flood genocide. He created the material world (universe) to separate and keep us from the spiritual world. Our physical existence is imprisonment in an unjust creation. It sure seems that way sometimes. They believed Jesus was a physical manifestation of the higher god El. He came in opposition to the Old Testament god. He came to teach us the way out of the trap, the way to become spirit and defeat the physical. There's no solace in their world view, but maybe a little understanding. Ya know? The god who set this all up was not so good afterall, but Jesus is still the way. On the cross Jesus said, "El, why have you forsaken me?" Not Yahweh.

Of course, they were branded heretics, their writings burned, and many were executed. Rough place this earth of ours.

 

[kutta]

My best friend in the world that I’ve know since 1980 is 58 years old and has Alzheimer’s. He’s doing some really weird things now, inappropriate things. I carry a card with me that I give to people that asks them to be patient because he has Alzheimer’s.

Does he have free will?

Do any of us? Aren’t we just what our brain is wired to do?

 

[tommyGunZ]

There's far more compelling evidence than supernatural alternatives, at the minimum.

That’s radically different from what I’m asking. I’m asking if you know that we exist without deriving our existence from God.

I don't understand your point then, other than semantics. I definitely do not believe in God. I am equally certain I exist.

Are you certain anything outside you exists? I mean, you know the universe exists?

I disagree with your framing rock. The entirety of Astrophysics is consistent with the existence of the universe. Conversely, there is zero scientific evidence, in any field, that God exists.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Do any of us? Aren’t we just what our brain is wired to do?

I'm of the opinion we don't and simply respond to stimuli programmatically. Free will is an illusion, as Sam Harris likes to say.

 

[Slumpbusters]

There's far more compelling evidence than supernatural alternatives, at the minimum.

That’s radically different from what I’m asking. I’m asking if you know that we exist without deriving our existence from God.

I don't understand your point then, other than semantics. I definitely do not believe in God. I am equally certain I exist.

Are you certain anything outside you exists? I mean, you know the universe exists?

I disagree with your framing rock. The entirety of Astrophysics is consistent with the existence of the universe. Conversely, there is zero scientific evidence, in any field, that God exists.

Its important to remember that science, including Astrophysics, reflects human understanding of the universe, which is deemed true through experimentation with repeatable results.

I think most people agree that we think we exist, and we think the things around us that we can experience with the 5 senses or some help from modern technology exist. Much of science is exceptionally young of course and may or may not have accurate cause/effect/correlation observations. Science, including Astrophysics, is constantly changing.

Is it the intent of science to prove the existence of God or to observe the world around us and try to make sense of it (i.e. his creation for the theists)?

As to the original question - bad things and good people. It is probably the most compelling argument there is for atheism in my book. I'm largely silent on these forums but read them reasonably often, and I've seen the tragedy that some of you have had to deal with. There is no good explanation for it and to maintain your faith in light of all that gets the utmost respect from me.

 

[rockaction]

Its important to remember that science, including Astrophysics, reflects human understanding of the universe, which is deemed true through experimentation with repeatable results.

I think most people agree that we think we exist, and we think the things around us that we can experience with the 5 senses or some help from modern technology exist.

This is the answer to your question, tommyGunZ. It gets right to the heart of the matter. The only way you have understood the world is through your five senses and those senses can fail. The scientific method can never prove anything. You can’t prove anything from empirical realities (I use that term consciously). We just think we know.

 

[Spartans Rule]

My best friend in the world that I’ve know since 1980 is 58 years old and has Alzheimer’s. He’s doing some really weird things now, inappropriate things. I carry a card with me that I give to people that asks them to be patient because he has Alzheimer’s.

Does he have free will?

Do any of us? Aren’t we just what our brain is wired to do?

Alzheimer’s sucks. My grandfather had it, and it raised some of those nature-of-existence questions for me. When you see someone completely cease to be themselves because of a brain disease, that makes it hard to believe that there's any kind of immortal soul or essence in there beyond just our brains.

 

[tommyGunZ]

There's far more compelling evidence than supernatural alternatives, at the minimum.

That’s radically different from what I’m asking. I’m asking if you know that we exist without deriving our existence from God.

I don't understand your point then, other than semantics. I definitely do not believe in God. I am equally certain I exist.

Are you certain anything outside you exists? I mean, you know the universe exists?

I disagree with your framing rock. The entirety of Astrophysics is consistent with the existence of the universe. Conversely, there is zero scientific evidence, in any field, that God exists.

Its important to remember that science, including Astrophysics, reflects human understanding of the universe, which is deemed true through experimentation with repeatable results.

I think most people agree that we think we exist, and we think the things around us that we can experience with the 5 senses or some help from modern technology exist. Much of science is exceptionally young of course and may or may not have accurate cause/effect/correlation observations. Science, including Astrophysics, is constantly changing.

Is it the intent of science to prove the existence of God or to observe the world around us and try to make sense of it (i.e. his creation for the theists)?

None of this contradicts my view. I am generally ignorant when it comes to the hard sciences, but I’m curious enough to check the scoreboard every so often. And from an evidentiary standpoint, it’s not close. It’s a shutout, and a blowout of epic proportions. Faith is alone on the god side.

 

[Joe Bryant]

My best friend in the world that I’ve know since 1980 is 58 years old and has Alzheimer’s. He’s doing some really weird things now, inappropriate things. I carry a card with me that I give to people that asks them to be patient because he has Alzheimer’s.

Does he have free will?

Do any of us? Aren’t we just what our brain is wired to do?

I'm sorry, GB. Thank you for being a friend to him. I'm sorry.

 

[Slumpbusters]

There's far more compelling evidence than supernatural alternatives, at the minimum.

That’s radically different from what I’m asking. I’m asking if you know that we exist without deriving our existence from God.

I don't understand your point then, other than semantics. I definitely do not believe in God. I am equally certain I exist.

Are you certain anything outside you exists? I mean, you know the universe exists?

I disagree with your framing rock. The entirety of Astrophysics is consistent with the existence of the universe. Conversely, there is zero scientific evidence, in any field, that God exists.

Its important to remember that science, including Astrophysics, reflects human understanding of the universe, which is deemed true through experimentation with repeatable results.

I think most people agree that we think we exist, and we think the things around us that we can experience with the 5 senses or some help from modern technology exist. Much of science is exceptionally young of course and may or may not have accurate cause/effect/correlation observations. Science, including Astrophysics, is constantly changing.

Is it the intent of science to prove the existence of God or to observe the world around us and try to make sense of it (i.e. his creation for the theists)?

None of this contradicts my view. I am generally ignorant when it comes to the hard sciences, but I’m curious enough to check the scoreboard every so often. And from an evidentiary standpoint, it’s not close. It’s a shutout, and a blowout of epic proportions. Faith is alone on the god side.

I didn't really intend to contradict your view, so much as introduce the idea that it isn't even close to a shutout or blowout, unless you start with the premise that you only believe what you see, in which case you are limited to a worldview based on your own personal experience. I understand the scientific method pretty well. Remember at one time in the not so distant past smoking was scientifically proven to be healthy

Edited to add - science is WAY far from explaining the world, so faith exists in droves on both sides. It just depends on where you want to place it. In a movement that has existed for millennia, or scientific findings that change constantly and are published mostly for funding.

 

[rockaction]

so much as introduce the idea that it isn't even close to a shutout or blowout, unless you start with the premise that you only believe what you see, in which case you are limited to a worldview based on your own personal experience.

May I, in the future, use the two succinct responses you’ve given to Tommy? I tend to gasbag and get away from the crux of what I’m doing, but you’ve summed it up quite nicely and with a bit of gusto, even. Thank you.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Its important to remember that science, including Astrophysics, reflects human understanding of the universe, which is deemed true through experimentation with repeatable results.

I think most people agree that we think we exist, and we think the things around us that we can experience with the 5 senses or some help from modern technology exist.

This is the answer to your question, tommyGunZ. It gets right to the heart of the matter. The only way you have understood the world is through your five senses and those senses can fail. The scientific method can never prove anything. You can’t prove anything from empirical realities (I use that term consciously). We just think we know.

After initial interest, mental masturbation like this is a big reason philosophy was one-and-done in college. I know you didn’t originate these ideas, rock, so please don’t take my critique personally.

 

[Terminalxylem]

There's far more compelling evidence than supernatural alternatives, at the minimum.

That’s radically different from what I’m asking. I’m asking if you know that we exist without deriving our existence from God.

I don't understand your point then, other than semantics. I definitely do not believe in God. I am equally certain I exist.

Are you certain anything outside you exists? I mean, you know the universe exists?

I disagree with your framing rock. The entirety of Astrophysics is consistent with the existence of the universe. Conversely, there is zero scientific evidence, in any field, that God exists.

Its important to remember that science, including Astrophysics, reflects human understanding of the universe, which is deemed true through experimentation with repeatable results.

I think most people agree that we think we exist, and we think the things around us that we can experience with the 5 senses or some help from modern technology exist. Much of science is exceptionally young of course and may or may not have accurate cause/effect/correlation observations. Science, including Astrophysics, is constantly changing.

Is it the intent of science to prove the existence of God or to observe the world around us and try to make sense of it (i.e. his creation for the theists)?

None of this contradicts my view. I am generally ignorant when it comes to the hard sciences, but I’m curious enough to check the scoreboard every so often. And from an evidentiary standpoint, it’s not close. It’s a shutout, and a blowout of epic proportions. Faith is alone on the god side.

I didn't really intend to contradict your view, so much as introduce the idea that it isn't even close to a shutout or blowout, unless you start with the premise that you only believe what you see, in which case you are limited to a worldview based on your own personal experience. I understand the scientific method pretty well. Remember at one time in the not so distant past smoking was scientifically proven to be healthy

Edited to add - science is WAY far from explaining the world, so faith exists in droves on both sides. It just depends on where you want to place it. In a movement that has existed for millennia, or scientific findings that change constantly and are published mostly for funding.

*Industry-sponsored “science”

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I understand the scientific method pretty well. Remember at one time in the not so distant past smoking was scientifically proven to be healthy

The scientific method doesn't lead to "proven".

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And from an evidentiary standpoint, it’s not close. It’s a shutout, and a blowout of epic proportions

Evidence might support one side better than the other, but it does not really have a side. The creationist and intelligent design folks use the same evidence as everyone else. Maybe more creatively, but same evidence.

 

[rockaction]

The scientific method doesn't lead to "proven".

That’s not what that sentence said at all.

 

[Slumpbusters]

so much as introduce the idea that it isn't even close to a shutout or blowout, unless you start with the premise that you only believe what you see, in which case you are limited to a worldview based on your own personal experience.

May I, in the future, use the two succinct responses you’ve given to Tommy? I tend to gasbag and get away from the crux of what I’m doing, but you’ve summed it up quite nicely and with a bit of gusto, even. Thank you.

Any time man, I'm far from the first to make this point but I appreciate the props.

Its important to remember that science, including Astrophysics, reflects human understanding of the universe, which is deemed true through experimentation with repeatable results.

I think most people agree that we think we exist, and we think the things around us that we can experience with the 5 senses or some help from modern technology exist.

This is the answer to your question, tommyGunZ. It gets right to the heart of the matter. The only way you have understood the world is through your five senses and those senses can fail. The scientific method can never prove anything. You can’t prove anything from empirical realities (I use that term consciously). We just think we know.

After initial interest, mental masturbation like this is a big reason philosophy was one-and-done in college. I know you didn’t originate these ideas, rock, so please don’t take my critique personally.

Id encourage you to maintain interest. Most folks just drop off, say F it and go back to fun things like fantasy football. Humanity was better when people went out and shot around their ideas over drinks. Just don't overestimate the validity and certainty of science. I am an engineer and while we are science adjacent, let's just say I know a lot of people who are designing things that have no business being in that position. I also know a fair number of folks in the sciences (academia and health sciences) and their whole world is funding or the next grant. Don't get me wrong, many of them are brilliant, but they will be the first to put an asterisk next to their work.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The scientific method doesn't lead to "proven".

That’s not what that sentence said at all.

"Science doesn't do proofs". Happy?

 

[rockaction]

The scientific method doesn't lead to "proven".

That’s not what that sentence said at all.

"Science doesn't do proofs". Happy?

Nope. This is where pedantic exercises (mental masturbation) shows up as important. @Terminalxylem

Watch this, Terminal. Tell me this is mere pedantry.

Proofs are deductive logic.

Science is inductive.

No matter how many ways you slice it, a proof is something we can be sure is true from its premises, the other (science in general) we cannot be sure of. We can be convinced. But not sure.

 

[rockaction]

The difference between deductive and inductive logic is no mere pedantry. It’s the difference between civilizations falling and collapsing or not.

I’m not being snarky when I say this. I’ve enjoyed this conversation. But I hope this helps.

 

[rockaction]

Any time man, I'm far from the first to make this point but I appreciate the props.

Sweet. I know you’re not, but you’ve done it pretty thoroughly and hit all the concepts in three sentences. It takes me pages and I get discursive. Peace, man.

 

[bigbottom]

Any time man, I'm far from the first to make this point but I appreciate the props.

Sweet. I know you’re not, but you’ve done it pretty thoroughly and hit all the concepts in three sentences. It takes me pages and I get discursive. Peace, man.

There are a lot of things to like about you Rock. But I think I’ve decided that what I like about you most is your vocabulary.

 

[rockaction]

Any time man, I'm far from the first to make this point but I appreciate the props.

Sweet. I know you’re not, but you’ve done it pretty thoroughly and hit all the concepts in three sentences. It takes me pages and I get discursive. Peace, man.

There are a lot of things to like about you Rock. But I think I’ve decided that what I like about you most is your vocabulary.

Thanks, BB. I appreciate that. I went from being a guy who was a little bit behind expectations (because I concentrated on athletics in high school and flaked off in college) to somebody who got to read a lot for my job my first five years after graduation. Having friends that were writing all the time helped me out tremendously with my understanding of language just through conversation and being on the same page as they were—we cared about what was said and how it was said. Nobody ever mistook me for brilliant given the crowd that I was with, but it was something I’ll never forget about my young adulthood.

Hearing that somebody appreciates the fruits of those friendships and that time in my life makes me smile. Thank you for jogging my memory and for the compliment.

 

[Gally]

Humanity was better when people went out and shot around their ideas over drinks.

I really think this is impossible to do today. Nobody discusses ideas anymore. Nobody has the ability to sit and listen to an idea. Everyone just takes turns talking past each other without ever listening and debating. Society is all about being right and making the other side see things your way because they are obviously wrong. It's sad.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Humanity was better when people went out and shot around their ideas over drinks.

I really think this is impossible to do today. Nobody discusses ideas anymore. Nobody has the ability to sit and listen to an idea. Everyone just takes turns talking past each other without ever listening and debating. Society is all about being right and making the other side see things your way because they are obviously wrong. It's sad.

I hear you @Gally but I'm not ready to give up.

Granted, we showed we were unable to do it with politics with an online forum with anonymous people. But that's very different than "

Humanity was better when people went out and shot around their ideas over drinks.

And I don't think it's impossible. Kicking around ideas at the pub or coffee shop is real life with real people that they knew and trusted. They didn't assume the "other" was "evil". I think we can get back to that in real life. And hopefully it never left.

At least that's my hope and what I'm pushing for. I'm not ready to give up on it.

 

[Zow]

Humanity was better when people went out and shot around their ideas over drinks.

I really think this is impossible to do today. Nobody discusses ideas anymore. Nobody has the ability to sit and listen to an idea. Everyone just takes turns talking past each other without ever listening and debating. Society is all about being right and making the other side see things your way because they are obviously wrong. It's sad.

And this is why I'll always champion college and push back on anybody who says that we don't need as many people going to college that currently do. While there may be an argument to reduce college attendance from a purely economic standpoint, my anecdotal college experience (both as a student and as an adjunct prof) is this is the one place where ideas can be discussed in a positive setting - which, to me, makes it worthwhile just for this.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Humanity was better when people went out and shot around their ideas over drinks.

I really think this is impossible to do today. Nobody discusses ideas anymore. Nobody has the ability to sit and listen to an idea. Everyone just takes turns talking past each other without ever listening and debating. Society is all about being right and making the other side see things your way because they are obviously wrong. It's sad.

And this is why I'll always champion college and push back on anybody who says that we don't need as many people going to college that currently do. While there may be an argument to reduce college attendance from a purely economic standpoint, my anecdotal college experience (both as a student and as an adjunct prof) is this is the one place where ideas can be discussed in a positive setting - which, to me, makes it worthwhile just for this.

It's not 1994 any more. Colleges aren't like that.

 

[Gally]

my anecdotal college experience (both as a student and as an adjunct prof) is this is the one place where ideas can be discussed in a positive setting - which, to me, makes it worthwhile just for this.

I agree with the concept that it should be happening that way but my current anecdotal experience with college campuses and students (I live near a few different colleges) is that they are echo chambers as well. There isn't a lot of discussing of ideas and is more protesting for protesting sake and trying to shove ideas at people. Things have changed, and I don't think it is in a good way.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Humanity was better when people went out and shot around their ideas over drinks.

I really think this is impossible to do today. Nobody discusses ideas anymore. Nobody has the ability to sit and listen to an idea. Everyone just takes turns talking past each other without ever listening and debating. Society is all about being right and making the other side see things your way because they are obviously wrong. It's sad.

And this is why I'll always champion college and push back on anybody who says that we don't need as many people going to college that currently do. While there may be an argument to reduce college attendance from a purely economic standpoint, my anecdotal college experience (both as a student and as an adjunct prof) is this is the one place where ideas can be discussed in a positive setting - which, to me, makes it worthwhile just for this.

It's not 1994 any more. Colleges aren't like that.

I agree with @IvanKaramazov

But even if he was wrong, I don't accept one has to be able to afford college or have a scholarship to be able to discuss ideas rationally.

And besides, those college students turn into 50 year olds one day. They need a place too.

The answer I think is push back hard on the "We can't discuss anything and anyone who disagrees with me is a bad person" shtick. And instead assume more the stance of our long time Tennessee statesmen, Howard Baker and have the attitude of "You should listen to other person. They might be right".

 

[Gally]

And I don't think it's impossible. Kicking around ideas at the pub or coffee shop is real life with real people that they knew and trusted. They didn't assume the "other" was "evil". I think we can get back to that in real life. And hopefully it never left.

I am definitely with you on this hope. I am just not sure we can. Something will have to drastically change in society to get back to this. By and large most people today prefer to force their way into being right over having a discussion and actually LISTENING to other people and their views/experiences.

I do hope we can get back to it as a society.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And I don't think it's impossible. Kicking around ideas at the pub or coffee shop is real life with real people that they knew and trusted. They didn't assume the "other" was "evil". I think we can get back to that in real life. And hopefully it never left.

I am definitely with you on this hope. I am just not sure we can. Something will have to drastically change in society to get back to this. By and large most people today prefer to force their way into being right over having a discussion and actually LISTENING to other people and their views/experiences.

I do hope we can get back to it as a society.

Keep the faith GB. Don't give in.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And I think we celebrate people trying to do this.

Tennessee's last two former governors, a democrat and a republican, have a great podcast on this topic. https://open.spotify.com/show/6MwO7uu1sEsQVYK2tskowO

 

[Zow]

Humanity was better when people went out and shot around their ideas over drinks.

I really think this is impossible to do today. Nobody discusses ideas anymore. Nobody has the ability to sit and listen to an idea. Everyone just takes turns talking past each other without ever listening and debating. Society is all about being right and making the other side see things your way because they are obviously wrong. It's sad.

And this is why I'll always champion college and push back on anybody who says that we don't need as many people going to college that currently do. While there may be an argument to reduce college attendance from a purely economic standpoint, my anecdotal college experience (both as a student and as an adjunct prof) is this is the one place where ideas can be discussed in a positive setting - which, to me, makes it worthwhile just for this.

It's not 1994 any more. Colleges aren't like that.

Well that sucks (though my experience was from 2001 - 2005 and the philosophical/theoretical discussions I enjoyed there remain invaluable to me).

Why do you think this has changed?

 

[Zow]

Humanity was better when people went out and shot around their ideas over drinks.

I really think this is impossible to do today. Nobody discusses ideas anymore. Nobody has the ability to sit and listen to an idea. Everyone just takes turns talking past each other without ever listening and debating. Society is all about being right and making the other side see things your way because they are obviously wrong. It's sad.

And this is why I'll always champion college and push back on anybody who says that we don't need as many people going to college that currently do. While there may be an argument to reduce college attendance from a purely economic standpoint, my anecdotal college experience (both as a student and as an adjunct prof) is this is the one place where ideas can be discussed in a positive setting - which, to me, makes it worthwhile just for this.

It's not 1994 any more. Colleges aren't like that.

But even if he was wrong, I don't accept one has to be able to afford college or have a scholarship to be able to discuss ideas rationally.

And besides, those college students turn into 50 year olds one day. They need a place too.

Joe - for sure agree with you on these two points. My college reference was only to refute Gally's sweeping claim that "nobody discusses ideas anymore."

I'd love for people to openly discuss ideas in a positive setting whenever and wherever it can happen.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Humanity was better when people went out and shot around their ideas over drinks.

I really think this is impossible to do today. Nobody discusses ideas anymore. Nobody has the ability to sit and listen to an idea. Everyone just takes turns talking past each other without ever listening and debating. Society is all about being right and making the other side see things your way because they are obviously wrong. It's sad.

And this is why I'll always champion college and push back on anybody who says that we don't need as many people going to college that currently do. While there may be an argument to reduce college attendance from a purely economic standpoint, my anecdotal college experience (both as a student and as an adjunct prof) is this is the one place where ideas can be discussed in a positive setting - which, to me, makes it worthwhile just for this.

It's not 1994 any more. Colleges aren't like that.

Well that sucks (though my experience was from 2001 - 2005 and the philosophical/theoretical discussions I enjoyed there remain invaluable to me).

Why do you think this has changed?

The simple answer is that higher ed has leaned in one direction for a long time, but it was never quite slanted enough to completely fall over. That changed sometime around 2014. The thing I miss most about this industry is exactly what you describe -- it was an intellectually lively place that was fun to hang out in. That environment mostly doesn't exist anymore. For example, it's just not that I don't know a single colleague who supported Trump. I don't even know anybody who supported Romney. It's just a weird place to work.

 

[Psychopav]

Well, this thread went off the tracks quickly.

 

[Gally]

My college reference was only to refute Gally's sweeping claim that "nobody discusses ideas anymore."

What I meant is *everyone talks past each other without listening to other viewpoints. Most people hang with like minded folks and talk the same talk. When a "discussion" does come up there isn't enough listening from each side to gain an understanding and possibly learn something.

*by everyone I mean most people. Enough that discussions have gone from learning other perspectives to forcing your perspective on the other person.

 

[belljr]

Humanity was better when people went out and shot around their ideas over drinks.

I really think this is impossible to do today. Nobody discusses ideas anymore. Nobody has the ability to sit and listen to an idea. Everyone just takes turns talking past each other without ever listening and debating. Society is all about being right and making the other side see things your way because they are obviously wrong. It's sad.

And this is why I'll always champion college and push back on anybody who says that we don't need as many people going to college that currently do. While there may be an argument to reduce college attendance from a purely economic standpoint, my anecdotal college experience (both as a student and as an adjunct prof) is this is the one place where ideas can be discussed in a positive setting - which, to me, makes it worthwhile just for this.

It's not 1994 any more. Colleges aren't like that.

Well that sucks (though my experience was from 2001 - 2005 and the philosophical/theoretical discussions I enjoyed there remain invaluable to me).

Why do you think this has changed?

The simple answer is that higher ed has leaned in one direction for a long time, but it was never quite slanted enough to completely fall over. That changed sometime around 2014. The thing I miss most about this industry is exactly what you describe -- it was an intellectually lively place that was fun to hang out in. That environment mostly doesn't exist anymore. For example, it's just not that I don't know a single colleague who supported Trump. I don't even know anybody who supported Romney. It's just a weird place to work.

Cool so all colleges are like that then because in your own world that's how your school works SO they all must work the same?

My daughter school has watch parties and political discussions all leading up to the election

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Humanity was better when people went out and shot around their ideas over drinks.

I really think this is impossible to do today. Nobody discusses ideas anymore. Nobody has the ability to sit and listen to an idea. Everyone just takes turns talking past each other without ever listening and debating. Society is all about being right and making the other side see things your way because they are obviously wrong. It's sad.

And this is why I'll always champion college and push back on anybody who says that we don't need as many people going to college that currently do. While there may be an argument to reduce college attendance from a purely economic standpoint, my anecdotal college experience (both as a student and as an adjunct prof) is this is the one place where ideas can be discussed in a positive setting - which, to me, makes it worthwhile just for this.

It's not 1994 any more. Colleges aren't like that.

Well that sucks (though my experience was from 2001 - 2005 and the philosophical/theoretical discussions I enjoyed there remain invaluable to me).

Why do you think this has changed?

The simple answer is that higher ed has leaned in one direction for a long time, but it was never quite slanted enough to completely fall over. That changed sometime around 2014. The thing I miss most about this industry is exactly what you describe -- it was an intellectually lively place that was fun to hang out in. That environment mostly doesn't exist anymore. For example, it's just not that I don't know a single colleague who supported Trump. I don't even know anybody who supported Romney. It's just a weird place to work.

Cool so all colleges are like that then because in your own world that's how your school works SO they all must work the same?

My daughter school has watch parties and political discussions all leading up to the election

Yes, that's it. I'm a big dummy who doesn't know anything besides his own school. You got me.

 

[Slumpbusters]

My college reference was only to refute Gally's sweeping claim that "nobody discusses ideas anymore."

What I meant is *everyone talks past each other without listening to other viewpoints. Most people hang with like minded folks and talk the same talk. When a "discussion" does come up there isn't enough listening from each side to gain an understanding and possibly learn something.

*by everyone I mean most people. Enough that discussions have gone from learning other perspectives to forcing your perspective on the other person.

One of my better friends is a stout lifelong atheist and we ve had many conversations that got heated but never came close to compromising our friendship. If anything he made me question why I believe what I believed and forced me to be a bit more open minded than I was. I may have made him a little more agnostic at least and less of a Christian hater.

Its proven the algorithm we are all exposed to daily pushes us to more extreme ideas by feeding us what we want to hear perpetually. This goes against the best interest of humanity in general as the collective wisdom of a group is nearly always better in the long run provided everyone listens to and gives merit to the best ideas of each individual at any time. Our politicians have lost sight of their job, which is ultimately find the best compromise as opposed to fight for your side.

I've always been of the mind I can learn something from anyone, and I think I'm better off for it.

Back to the original topic - CS Lewis has a great book called "The Problem of Pain" that he wrote after he lost his wife which hits this topic on the head. I've read excerpts of it but never cover to cover. It would be a good grab for someone though thinking about this topic!

 

[Joe Bryant]

Back to the original topic - CS Lewis has a great book called "The Problem of Pain" that he wrote after he lost his wife which hits this topic on the head. I've read excerpts of it but never cover to cover. It would be a good grab for someone though thinking about this topic!

Thank you. That could be useful. Maybe we do add that to the possible book club list.

 

[Gally]

Our politicians have lost sight of their job, which is ultimately find the best compromise as opposed to fight for your side.

One of the biggest issues of our political system right now in one succinct sentence.

 

[Zow]

Our politicians have lost sight of their job, which is ultimately find the best compromise as opposed to fight for your side.

One of the biggest issues of our political system right now in one succinct sentence.

I'm going to actually push back on this here and defend the politicians.

IMO, the voters themselves have lost sight of compromise and the climate for both sides has become too "my team versus yours" and compromise is akin to Big Papi wearing a Yankees cap. The politicians just then act rationally by refusing to compromise because if they do so it likely means they lose their jobs and defeats the purpose of running in the first place.

Look at McCain, Romney, Synema, etc. who all tried compromise and their party voters made them pay for doing so. In other words, it's us and not them.

(I hope this isn't too political as I kept it non-partisan)

 

[belljr]

Our politicians have lost sight of their job, which is ultimately find the best compromise as opposed to fight for your side.

One of the biggest issues of our political system right now in one succinct sentence.

I'm going to actually push back on this here and defend the politicians.

IMO, the voters themselves have lost sight of compromise and the climate for both sides has become too "my team versus yours" and compromise is akin to Big Papi wearing a Yankees cap. The politicians just then act rationally by refusing to compromise because if they do so it likely means they lose their jobs and defeats the purpose of running in the first place.

Look at McCain, Romney, Synema, etc. who all tried compromise and their party voters made them pay for doing so. In other words, it's us and not them.

(I hope this isn't too political as I kept it non-partisan)

Or the "leaders" bully pulpit that attitude and voters act in kind ......chicken and egg imo

 

[Gally]

The politicians just then act rationally by refusing to compromise because if they do so it likely means they lose their jobs and defeats the purpose of running in the first place.

I think as belljr pointed out that it's a combo but it does lead to the problem (and I don't know a solution) that most politicians care more about being re-elected rather than actually doing their job.

 

[tri-man 47]

My college reference was only to refute Gally's sweeping claim that "nobody discusses ideas anymore."

What I meant is *everyone talks past each other without listening to other viewpoints. Most people hang with like minded folks and talk the same talk. When a "discussion" does come up there isn't enough listening from each side to gain an understanding and possibly learn something.

*by everyone I mean most people. Enough that discussions have gone from learning other perspectives to forcing your perspective on the other person.

One of my better friends is a stout lifelong atheist and we ve had many conversations that got heated but never came close to compromising our friendship. If anything he made me question why I believe what I believed and forced me to be a bit more open minded than I was. I may have made him a little more agnostic at least and less of a Christian hater.

Its proven the algorithm we are all exposed to daily pushes us to more extreme ideas by feeding us what we want to hear perpetually. This goes against the best interest of humanity in general as the collective wisdom of a group is nearly always better in the long run provided everyone listens to and gives merit to the best ideas of each individual at any time. Our politicians have lost sight of their job, which is ultimately find the best compromise as opposed to fight for your side.

I've always been of the mind I can learn something from anyone, and I think I'm better off for it.

Back to the original topic - CS Lewis has a great book called "The Problem of Pain" that he wrote after he lost his wife which hits this topic on the head. I've read excerpts of it but never cover to cover. It would be a good grab for someone though thinking about this topic!

Thanks for mentioning the CS Lewis book. I really need to get a hold of that.

 

[BassNBrew]

This all smacks of programming, at least to me. But are we the base reality, or a simulation (or simulation built inside a simulation above us; simulations all the way down)? Scientists believe that there's a slightly greater than 50% chance that we are in a base reality as opposed to a simulated reality. But that's a very, very slight difference over a coin flip.

I'm completely on board with thinking we have no free will and are just playing out operations that could have been forecasted billions of years ago by an infinitely powerful computer. However, as Ivan suggests, the simulation theory seems to rely on some unknown variable that created everything in the first place. I don't see the rules of our universe as any more proof of a simulation than a Creator.

No, I'M living in a simulation.

With apologies in advance to @Joe Bryant , I feel sorry for the gaming nerd who got stuck with a bunch of dudes reading and posting on a message board rather than the guy stealing cars and running from the cops. Come to think of it, maybe he's not a nerd and just a non-believer paying his penance in hell.

 

[Mister CIA]

This all smacks of programming, at least to me. But are we the base reality, or a simulation (or simulation built inside a simulation above us; simulations all the way down)? Scientists believe that there's a slightly greater than 50% chance that we are in a base reality as opposed to a simulated reality. But that's a very, very slight difference over a coin flip.

I'm completely on board with thinking we have no free will and are just playing out operations that could have been forecasted billions of years ago by an infinitely powerful computer. However, as Ivan suggests, the simulation theory seems to rely on some unknown variable that created everything in the first place. I don't see the rules of our universe as any more proof of a simulation than a Creator.

No, I'M living in a simulation.

With apologies in advance to @Joe Bryant , I feel sorry for the gaming nerd who got stuck with a bunch of dudes reading and posting on a message board rather than the guy stealing cars and running from the cops. Come to think of it, maybe he's not a nerd and just a non-believer paying his penance in hell.

Waiting for a glitch.

 

[Slumpbusters]

Back to the original topic - CS Lewis has a great book called "The Problem of Pain" that he wrote after he lost his wife which hits this topic on the head. I've read excerpts of it but never cover to cover. It would be a good grab for someone though thinking about this topic!

Thank you. That could be useful. Maybe we do add that to the possible book club list.

No problem! He writes a little thick but beautifully. Probably a sign of the times in which he was writing. I would love to be a part of book club.

I can also get behind the @Zow and @belljr posts about our responsibilities as constituents and the chicken and the egg. Jim Collins (business author) has a concept called the fly wheel, the premise of which is basically "if one thing happens, a resulting thing cannot help but to happen". Someone needs to break this cycle and I don't think its in this generation of political leaders on either side and maybe not in this generation of constituents either.

@tri-man 47 I hope you do, its kind of a lot for me which is why I take it in excerpts but this conversation led me to start it cover to cover last night.