Huperborea

LOL

According to this site, these are the symptoms of Group Think:

Eight Main Symptoms of Group Think

1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.

2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.

3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.

4. Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.

5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.

6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.

7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.

8. Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

I have witnessed 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 at several different fora situated in Left Blogistan. (That is not to say Group Think does not occur in the conservative blogosphere, but I don't crusade there.)

Some people confuse the probabilistic concepts of mutually exclusive events and independent events, but the two are not the same. In fact, independent events with positive probability cannot be mutually exclusive:

P(A)>0, P(B)>0 => P(AB) = P(A)*P(B) >0 but P(AB) = 0 for mutually exclusive events.

[Here P(AB) = probability of the intersection of A and B; for independent events, P(AB)=P(A)*P(B).]

Heuristically, if you have two events that are mutually exclusive, then knowing one occurred means that you automatically know the other did not occur. Since independent events do not affect each other, that means they cannot be mutually exclusive.

Over at Pandagon, Lindsay commented (in part):

Belief in God is perfectly intellectually respectable–as most believers and non-believers recognize.

Thank you for being gracious, Lindsay.

Over at his blog, Peezee wrote:

Denying that most scientists are non-believers when 60% are is just backwards. The situation is even worse than the statistics imply, I think; I know plenty of scientists who claim to be 'spiritual' and to believe in some vague kind of deity, and would probably be counted as believers, but their 'religion' is the kind that would have had them imprisoned or burned at the stake a few centuries ago, and certainly would be rejected by most of the modern advocates for religion. Face it. Most scientists are irreligious, if not outright atheists, and apologists like Numbers are in denial.

Peezee needs to acquaint himself with the concept of nonresponse. The Nature survey he is relying on had a 40% nonresponse rate for the 1000 "randomly selected" scientists (I would like to know exactly how they were selected) and a 50% nonresponse rate for the NAS members. Both of those nonresponse rates are very high and one would be justified in viewing the results with incredulity.

Listen, world. Dawkins and Dennett and Tyndall aren't arrogant: they're right.

No.

You don't find that much arrogance in science.

Pull the other leg.

Why should I, or anybody, accept such a silly assertion? Religion adds nothing to science, let alone sight.

Modern science essentially emerged from Christian Scholasticism. It was the Christian belief in an ordered, rational, purposeful universe that allowed modern science to flourish in Europe.

My definition of "free thinker" made it into the urban dictionary.

I saw a post about schizophrenia and the Good God over at "Debunking Christianity," and had intended to respond there, until I noticed my ex-girlfriend had posted to the thread. (I try to avoid posting to the same threads as her, for fear the thread in question might a-splode; I have seen her posting on at least two blogs on my perduto il ben de l'intelletto list, so I need to be adroit.)

Anyway, I was going to say that as an obsessive-compulsive, I also suffer from ego dystonic thoughts, although an important difference is that I realize the thoughts are a product of my mind (intrinsic) as opposed to schizophrenics who believe they are extrinsic.

In any event, I do not believe mental illness constitutes proof or evidence against the Good God. One of the commenters to the thread in question mentioned the concept of “natural evil,” and that is how I would characterize mental illness.

I finished a week of teaching introductory statistics today and things are going quite well. I really like being my own boss, instead of the indentured servant of another instructor.

(These are from the lectures of my undergrad mentor, Dr. Meyer.)

Terms from Statistics

1. Variable-a characteristic of an object or individual.

(a) Political affiliation of a registered voter.
(b) Weight of a certain type of package ready to be shipped.

2. Experimental Unit- an object or individual on which a variable is observed. (Observations are called measurements or data.)

(a) Each registered voter
(b) Each such package

3. Population-the group or collection of all possible observations.

(a) The collection of political affiliations of every registered voter.
(b) All weights that are conceivably possible for such packages.

4. Sample-subgroup of the population.

(a) Political affiliations of a selected group of registered voters.
(b) Weights of a selected group of such packages.

5. Univariate data-result of measuring one variable on a single experimental unit.

(a) Political affiliation of a single voter.
(b) Weight of one single such package.

6. Bivariate data-result from observing two variables on a single experimental unit.

(a) Political affiliation and gender of a registered voter.
(b) Weight and volume of a certain type of package ready to be shipped.

7. Multivariate data-results from observing two or more variables on a single experimental unit.

(a) Political affiliation, gender, and age of a registered voter.
(b) Weight, length, width, and height of a certain type of package.

Terms from Probability

1. Experiment-an unambiguous, repeatable process by which an observation (measurement, datum) is obtained.

(a) Process of selecting a registered voter.
(b) Process of selecting a package.

2. Sample space-set of all possible distinct observations.

For the roll of a six-sided die, S = {1,2,3,4,5,6}

Labels: mathematics, statistics

Ann Coulter's apparent plagiarisms are detailed here and here.

(I saw these links on Gerard Harbison's blog)

Amanda Marcotte, a radical feminist associated with Pandagon, attacks Stephen Hawking for having the unmitigated temerity to suggest humans could colonize the moon and Mars. (Probably because rockets are phallic symbols.) She writes:

The idea of starting over with a small group of people on another planet is the same racist, classist superiority complex-driven fantasy that fuels the mythology of the Rapture, where it’s assumed an elite group of “Christians” (imagined as mostly white Americans) will get sucked away while the rest of us inferior humans died in the cesspool that is Earth. I suspect the rich assholes who buy off scientists to spread imaginary doubt about global warming also think their elite status will save them, so that when the rest of us are crowding to the cities that are still above water and baking from the heat and possibly starving to death, they’ll be bouncing from air-conditioned mansion to air-conditioned car and living off hydroponically grown foods inside the farming wings of their tightly sealed mansions. Out of all the elitist fantasies about escape hatches, this is the only one that probably has an ounce of reality to it.

You forgot to work the concept of "heteronormative bigotry" into that pile of bull****, Amanda.

And, as Chris notes, there’s no evidence that we can recreate a working biosystem on another planet...

Astute thee! Could that be because we haven't tried it yet?

If I seem angry, it’s because I am.

Choleric and on the verge of an apoplectic fit is more like it. Anyway, shouldn't you be channeling your rage into establishing matriarchal anarcho-syndicalist communes with effete males as the servant caste?

(I am responding to this post)

The Resurrection is scientifically impossible.

That is false. There are legitimate criticisms of the Resurrection but this ain't one of them.


At this point, many Christians will cite “miracles” to explain The Resurrection. That’s inappropriate.

No, it is not. Elsewhere Frances cites the Humean maxim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Although Sagan popularized it, it originated with Hume.) But Hume's a priori rejection of miracles has been the subject of criticism, and rightly so.

Anyway, one might object to the Resurrection on epistemological grounds but claiming that it is scientifically impossible is pseudoscientific nonsense (As it is not within the purview of the sciences.)

Inspired by this loser, I submitted the following definition of free thinker to urban dictionary:

Generally, an elitist misanthrope who is infatuated with his pretense of learning.

Jane: I am a free thinker!
John: You get what you pay for.

Source: Robert O'Brien, California

(I am responding to this post)

I watched appalled when that senile fool Reagan was elected.

Nonsense. But I expect as much from a Howard "I have a scream!" Dean shill.

While we've quietly raised a rich crop in scattered little plots...

Their little plots are fertile because they are sitting on top of a mountain of manure.

The citizenry howls to destroy the science standards in our public schools, or complacently votes to lower property taxes at the expense of our children's minds.

Like a true liberal, Peezee's solution to education is to throw more money at it but that is a vacuous solution.

The OECD report also details that higher spending does not necessarily convert to higher results - and that some education systems are more efficient.

South Korea spends about half the amount on school pupils as the United States, but its performance at maths is much higher.

Finland, the top-performing country at maths in 2003, spends much less than Italy, which was almost the worst-performing.

(source)

The District of Columbia spent the most money per student ($13,187) of any state or state equivalent.

(source)

Yet, their mean SAT verbal and math scores are the lowest.

(source)

In my state:

It should also be noted that, contrary to the popular belief that per-pupil funding has decreased since Prop. 13 (the 1978 property-tax-limitation initiative), per-pupil funding in California has actually increased over time. For example, an American Legislative Exchange Council study calculates that between 1976-77 and 1996-97 per-pupil funding in California in inflation-adjusted dollars rose 27 percent.

California, thus, is not penny-pinching education as much as some officials would have the public believe. Caution should therefore be exercised in blaming the poor performance of schools and students in the state entirely on the all too common complaint that not enough money is being spent on public education. Indeed, many studies show that there is little correlation between education spending and student achievement.

After examining decades of academic research, University of Rochester Prof. Eric Hanushek, the nation’s leading education economist, found that, "there is little systematic relationship between school resources and student performance." The point, says Hanushek, is that "how money is spent is much more important than how much is spent."

(source)

Thus, we see that funding is not the issue. Quite to the contrary, the problem with U.S. education can be directly attributed to the mismanagement of liberal educators and liberal unions who promote the interests of educators instead of students. Considering Peezee suckles from that teat, it should come as no surprise that he supports the further shakedown of taxpayers. The sense of entitlement he shares with other liberals is repellent.

I was glad to see this over at EvolutionBlog. Even though I think the stickers are superfluous, the ruling requiring they be removed was absurd.

Like souls that balance joy and pain,
With tears and smiles from heaven again
The maiden Spring upon the plain
Came in a sunlit fall of rain.
In crystal vapor everywhere
Blue isles of heaven laugh'd between,
And far, in forest-deeps unseen,
The topmost elm-tree gather'd green
From draughts of balmy air.

Sometimes the linnet piped his song;
Sometimes the throstle whistled strong;
Sometimes the sparhawk, wheel'd along,
Hush'd all the groves from fear of wrong;
By grassy capes with fuller sound
In curves the yellowing river ran,
And drooping chestnut-buds began
To spread into the perfect fan,
Above the teeming ground.

Then, in the boyhood of the year,
Sir Launcelot and Queen Guinevere
Rode thro' the coverts of the deer,
With blissful treble ringing clear.
She seem'd a part of joyous Spring;
A gown of grass-green silk she wore,
Buckled with golden clasps before;
A light-green tuft of plumes she bore
Closed in a golden ring.

Now on some twisted ivy-net,
Now by some tinkling rivulet,
In mosses mixt with violet
Her cream-white mule his pastern set;
And fleeter now she skimm'd the plains
Than she whose elfin prancer springs
By night to eery warblings,
When all the glimmering moorland rings
With jingling bridle-reins.

As she fled fast thro' sun and shade,
The happy winds upon her play'd,
Blowing the ringlet from the braid.
She look'd so lovely, as she sway'd
The rein with dainty finger-tips,
A man had given all other bliss,
And all his worldly worth for this,
To waste his whole heart in one kiss
Upon her perfect lips.

Last year many atheist bloggers were infatuated with this article by Gregory S. Paul, a "freelance paleontologist, author and illustrator." I greeted it with skepticism but did not bother to analyze it myself. However, it turns out that a fellow statistician already shanked Paul's jengaship* here, here, and here.




*An allusion to homestarrunner.com

The following comments are typical of the pseudo-intellectual rabble Peezee tends to attract to his blog (Like flies to a pile of excrement.)

I would go with Ockham's Razor. It is the strongest argument against the existence of God, and the one most often misused by Christians who think "simple" means "easy for an idiot to understand."

I guess you could argue that Ockham's Razor falls under the category of math, since it's sort of a qualitative way of saying you can judge a hypothesis by multipling the probabilities of your assumptions. Either way, I can't see how anyone who properly understands it could possibly believe in God. Atheism would get a big boost.

Plus, I like the irony of an argument against religion named after a devout friar. I guess it was hard to know any better in the 1300s.

Posted by: Troutnut May 20, 2006 12:32 AM

Nonsense. Ockham's Razor is a heuristic device; it does not constitute proof (or disproof) of anything.




I would never question the utility of the community of mathematics, nor the headiness of correct calculation or discovery, but as Wittgenstein communicated - seems so long ago now - math can't touch God.

Precisely. That is the ultimate demonstration of God's nonexistence.

Posted by: Caledonian May 20, 2006 08:43 AM

I wonder if this is the same sophist who used to post to Monte Cook's message board? In any event, as someone with a mathematical background, I can say with confidence that the above comment is completely vacuous (As is the previous comment I cited.) Quite to the contrary, the coherency of mathematics and its amazing applicability to the universe (even when it is developed without an application in mind) speaks to God's existence. That is why the greatest mathematicians have been theists.

(I saw this on Patterico)

I both surprised and unsurprised that people in LA turned out a respected judge with 20 years of experience, who happens to have a Latvian last name, in favor of a bagel store owner with limited legal experience.

Fortunately, Governor Schwarzenegger has corrected that nonsensical decision by reappointing Judge Janavs to the bench.

Boethius wrote his De consolatione philosophiœ while in prison awaiting execution on false charges of treason. In Book II he addresses is the vicissitudes of Fortune:

THEN for a while [Philosophy] held her peace. But when her silence, so discreet, made my thoughts to cease from straying, she thus began to speak: ‘If I have thoroughly learned the causes and the manner of your sickness, your former good fortune has so affected you that you are being consumed by longing for it. The change of one of her this alone has overturned your peace of mind through your own imagination. I understand the varied disguises of that unnatural state. I know how Fortune is ever most friendly and alluring to those whom she strives to deceive, until she overwhelms them with grief beyond bearing, by deserting them when least expected. If you recall her nature, her ways, or her deserts, you will see that you never had in her, nor have lost with her, aught that was lovely. Yet, I think, I shall not need great labour to recall this to your memory. For then too, when she was at your side with all her flattery, you were wont to reproach her in strong and manly terms; and to revile her with the opinions that you had gathered in worship of me with my favoured ones. But no sudden change of outward affairs can ever come without some upheaval in the mind. Thus has it followed that you, like others, have fallen somewhat away from your calm peace of mind. But it is time now for you to make trial of some gentle and pleasant draught, which by reaching your inmost parts shall prepare the way for yet stronger healing draughts. Try therefore the assuring influence of gentle argument which keeps its straight path only when it holds fast to my instructions. And with this art of orators let my handmaid, the art of song, lend her aid in chanting light or weighty harmonies as we desire.

‘What is it, mortal man, that has cast you down into grief and mourning? You have seen something unwonted, it would seem, something strange to you. But if you think that Fortune has changed towards you, you are wrong. These are ever her ways: this is her very nature. She has with you preserved her own constancy by her very change. She was ever changeable at the time when she smiled upon you, when she was mocking you with the allurements of false good fortune. You have discovered both the different faces of the blind goddess. To the eyes of others she is veiled in part: to you she has made herself wholly known. If you find her welcome, make use of her ways, and so make no complaining. If she fills you with horror by her treachery, treat her with despite; thrust her away from you, for she tempts you to your ruin. For though she is the cause of this great trouble for you, she ought to have been the subject of calmness and peace. For no man can ever make himself sure that she will never desert him, and thus has she deserted you. Do you reckon such happiness to be prized, which is sure to pass away? Is good fortune dear to you, which is with you for a time and is not sure to stay, and which is sure to bring you unhappiness when it is gone? But seeing that it cannot be stayed at will, and that when it flees away it leaves misery behind, what is such a fleeting thing but a sign of coming misery? Nor should it ever satisfy any man to look only at that which is placed before his eyes. Prudence takes measure of the results to come from all things. The very changeableness of good and bad makes Fortune’s threats no more fearful, nor her smiles to be desired. And lastly, when you have once put your neck beneath the yoke of Fortune, you must with steadfast heart bear whatever comes to pass within her realm. But if you would dictate the law by which she whom you have freely chosen to be your mistress must stay or go, surely you will be acting without justification; and your very impatience will make more bitter a lot which you cannot change. If you set your sails before the wind, will you not move forward whither the wind drives you, not whither your will may choose to go? If you entrust your seed to the furrow, will you not weigh the rich years and the barren against each other? You have given yourself over to Fortune’s rule, and you must bow yourself to your mistress’s ways. Are you trying to stay the force of her turning wheel? Ah! Dull-witted mortal, if Fortune begin to stay still, she is no longer Fortune.

‘As thus she turns her wheel of chance with haughty hand, and presses on like the surge of Euripus’s tides, fortune now tramples fiercely on a fearsome king, and now deceives no less a conquered man by raising from the ground his humbled face. She hears no wretch’s cry, she heeds no tears, but wantonly she mocks the sorrow which her cruelty has made. This is her sport: thus she proves her power; if in the selfsame hour one man is raised to happiness, and cast down in despair, ’tis thus she shews her might.

‘Now would I argue with you by these few words which Fortune herself might use: and do you consider whether her demands are fair “Why, O man,” she might say, “do you daily accuse me with your complainings? What injustice have I wrought upon you? Of what good things have I robbed you? Choose your judge whom you will, and before him strive with me for the right to hold your wealth and honours. If you can prove that any one of these does truly belong to any mortal man, readily will I grant that these you seek to regain were yours. When nature brought you forth from your mother’s womb, I received you in my arms naked and bare of all things; I cherished you with my gifts, and I brought you up all too kindly with my favouring care, wherefore now you cannot bear with me, and I surrounded you with glory and all the abundance that was mine to give. Now it pleases me to withdraw my hand: be thankful, as though you had lived upon my loans. You have no just cause of complaint, as though you had really lost what was once your own. Why do you rail against me? I have wrought no violence towards you. Wealth, honours, and all such are within my rights. They are my handmaids; they know their mistress; they come with me and go when I depart. Boldly will I say that if these, of whose loss you com plain, were ever yours, you would never have lost them at all. Am I alone to be stayed from using my rightful power? The heavens may grant bright sunlit days, and hide the same beneath the shade of night. The year may deck the earth’s countenance with flowers and fruits, and again wrap it with chilling clouds. The sea may charm with its smoothed surface, but no less justly it may soon bristle in storms with rough waves. Is the insatiate discontent of man to bind me to a constancy which belongs not to my ways? Herein lies my very strength; this is my unchanging sport. I turn my wheel that spins its circle fairly; I delight to make the lowest turn to the top, the highest to the bottom. Come you to the top if you will, but on this condition, that you think it no unfairness to sink when the rule of my game demands it. Do you not know my ways?… For what else is the crying and the weeping in tragedies but for the happiness of kings overturned by the random blow of fortune? Have you never learnt in your youth the ancient allegory that in the threshold of Jove’s hall there stand two vessels, one full of evil, and one of good? What if you have received more richly of the good? What if I have not ever withheld myself from you? What if my changing nature is itself a reason that you should hope for better things? In any way, let not your spirit eat itself away: you are set in the sphere that is common to all, let your desire therefore be to live with your own lot of life, a subject of the kingdom of the world.

“If Plenty with o’erflowing horn scatter her wealth abroad, abundantly, as in the storm-tossed sea the sand is cast around, or so beyond all measure as the stars shine forth upon the studded sky in cloudless nights; though she never stay her hand, yet will the race of men still weep and wail. Though God accept their prayers freely and give gold with ungrudging hand, and deck with honours those who deserve them, yet when they are gotten, these gifts seem naught. Wild greed swallows what it has sought, and still gapes wide for more. What bit or bridle will hold within its course this headlong lust, when, whetted by abundance of rich gifts, the thirst for possession burns? Never call we that man rich who is ever trembling in haste and groaning for that he thinks he lack

‘If Fortune should thus defend herself to you,’ said Philosophy, ‘you would have naught, I think, to utter on the other part. But if you have any just defence for your complaining, you must put it forward. We will grant you the opportunity of speaking.’

Then I answered, ‘Those arguments have a fair form and are clothed with all the sweetness of speech and of song. When a man listens to them, they delight him; but only so long. The wretched have a deeper feeling of their misfortunes. Wherefore when these pleasing sounds fall no longer upon the ear, this deep-rooted misery again weighs down the spirit.’

‘It is so,’ she said. ‘For these are not the remedies for your sickness, but in some sort are the applications for your grief which chafes against its cure. When the time comes, I will apply those which are to penetrate deeply. But that you may not be content to think yourself wretched, remember how many and how great have been the occasions of your good fortune...If the enjoyment of anything mortal can weigh at all in the balance of good fortune, can your memory of one great day ever be extinguished by any mass of accumulated ills?…

‘While Fortune then favoured you, it seems you flaunted her, though she cherished you as her own darling. You carried off a bounty which she had never granted to any citizen before. Will you then balance accounts with Fortune? This is the first time that she has looked upon you with a grudging eye. If you think of your happy and unhappy circumstances both in number and in kind, you will not be able to say that you have not been fortunate until now. And if you think that you were not fortunate because these things have passed away which then seemed to bring happiness, these things too are passing away, which you now hold to be miserable, wherefore you cannot think that you are wretched now. Is this your first entrance upon the stage of life? Are you come here unprepared and a stranger to the scene? Think you that there is any certainty in the affairs of mankind, when you know that often one swift hour can utterly destroy a man? For though the chances of life may seldom be depended upon, yet the last day of a lifetime seems to be the end of Fortune’s power, though it perhaps would stay. What, think you, should we therefore say; that you desert her by dying, or that she deserts you by leaving you?’

‘When o’er the heaven Phoebus from his rose-red car begins to shed his light abroad, his flames oppress the paling stars and blunt their whitened rays. When the grove grows bright in spring with roses ‘neath the west wind’s warming breath, let but the cloudy gale once wildly blow, and their beauty is gone, the thorns alone remain. Often the sea is calmly glistening bright with all untroubled waves, but as often does the north wind stir them up, making the troubling tempest boil. If then the earth’s own covering so seldom constant stays, if its changes are so great, shalt thou trust the brittle fortunes of mankind, have faith in fleeting good? For this is sure, and this is fixed by everlasting law, that naught which is brought to birth shall constant here abide.’

Then I answered her, ‘Cherisher of all the virtues, you tell me but the truth: I cannot deny my rapid successes and my prosperity. But it is such remembrances that torment me more than others. For of all suffering from Fortune, the unhappiest misfortune is to have known a happy fortune.’

‘But,’ said Philosophy, ‘you are paying him penalty for your mistaken expectations, and with this you cannot justly charge your life’s circumstances…Fortune’s hatred has not yet been so great as to destroy all your holds upon happiness: the tempest that is fallen upon you is not too great for you: your anchors hold yet firm, and they should keep ever nigh to you confidence in the present and hope for future time.

‘And may they continue to hold fast,’ said I, ‘that is my prayer: while they are firm, we will reach the end of our voyage, however things may be. But you see how much my glory has departed.’

And she answered, ‘We have made some progress, if you are not now weary entirely of your present lot. But I cannot bear this dallying so softly, so long as you complain that your happiness lacks aught, so long as you are full of sorrow and care. Whose happiness is so firmly established that he has no quarrel from any side with his estate of life? For the condition of our welfare is a matter fraught with care: either its completeness never appears, or it never remains…So none is readily at peace with the lot his fortune sends him. For in each case there is that which is unknown to him who has not experienced it, and which brings horror to him who has experienced it. Consider further, that the feelings of the most fortunate men are the most easily affected, wherefore, unless all their desires are supplied, such men, being unused to all adversity, are cast down by every little care: so small are the troubles which can rob them of complete happiness.

‘…Thus there is nothing wretched unless you think it to be so: and in like manner he who bears all with a calm mind finds his lot wholly blessed. Who is so happy but would wish to change his estate, if he yields to impatience of his lot? With how much bitterness is the sweetness of man’s life mingled! For even though its enjoyment seem pleasant, yet it may not be surely kept from departing when it will. It is plain then how wretched is the happiness of mortal life which neither endures for ever with men of calm mind, nor ever wholly delights the care-ridden. Wherefore, then, O mortal men, seek ye that happiness without, which lies within yourselves? Ye are confounded by error and ignorance. I will shew you as shortly as I may, the pole on which turns the highest happiness. Is there aught that you value more highly than your own self? You will answer that there is nothing. If then you are master of yourself, you will be in possession of that which you will never wish to lose, and which Fortune will never be able to take from you. Yet consider this further, that you may be assured that happiness cannot be fixed in matters of chance: if happiness is the highest good of a man who lives his life by reason, and if that which can by any means be snatched away, is not the highest good (since that which is best cannot be snatched away), it is plain that Fortune by its own uncertainty can never come near to reaching happiness. Further, the man who is borne along by a happiness which may stumble, either knows that it may change, or knows it not: if he knows it not, what happiness can there be in the blindness of ignorance? If he knows it, he must needs live in fear of losing that which he cannot doubt that he may lose; wherefore an ever-present fear allows not such an one to be happy. Or at any rate, if he lose it without unhappiness, does he not think it worthless? For that, whose loss can be calmly borne, is indeed a small good. You, I know well, are firmly persuaded that men’s understandings can never die; this truth is planted deep in you by many proofs: since then it is plain that the happiness of fortune is bounded by the death of the body, you cannot doubt that, if death can carry away happiness, the whole race of mortals is sinking into wretchedness to be found upon the border of death. But we know that many have sought the enjoyment of happiness not only by death, but even by sorrow and sufferings: how then can the presence of this life make us happy, when its end cannot make us unhappy?

‘He that would build on a lasting resting-place; who would be firm to resist the blasts of the storming wind; who seeks, too, safety where he may contemn the surge and threatening of the sea; must leave the lofty mountain’s top, and leave the thirsting sands. The hill is swept by all the might of the headstrong gale: the sands dissolve, and will not bear the load upon them. Let him fly the danger in a lot which is pleasant rest unto the eye: let him be mindful to set his house surely upon the lowly rock. Then let the wind bellow, confounding wreckage in the sea, and thou wilt still be founded upon unmoving peace, wilt be blessed in the strength of thy defence: thy life will be spent in calmness, and thou mayest mock the raging passions of the air.

‘But now,’ she continued, ‘the first remedies of reasoning are reaching you more deeply, and I think I should now use those that are somewhat stronger. If the gifts of Fortune fade not nor pass quickly away, even so, what is there in them which could ever be truly yours, or which would not lose its value when examined or thought upon?

...Fortune will never make yours what Nature has made to belong to other things. The fruits of the earth should doubtless serve as nourishment for living beings, but if you would satisfy your need as fully as Nature needs, you need not the abundance of Fortune. Nature is content with very little, and if you seek to thrust upon her more than is enough, then what you cast in will become either unpleasing or even harmful

…

Is there then no good which belongs to you and is implanted within you, that you seek your good things elsewhere, in things without you and separate from you? Have things taken such a turn that the animal, whose reason gives it a claim to divinity, cannot seem beautiful to itself except by the possession of. lifeless trappings? Other classes of things are satisfied by their intrinsic possessions; but men, though made like God in understanding, seek to find among the lowest things adornment for their higher nature: and you do not understand that you do a great wrong thereby to your Creator. He intended that the human race should be above all other earthly beings; yet you thrust down your honourable place below the lowest.

… Since, then, this is the condition of human nature, that it surpasses other classes only when it realises what is in itself; as soon as it ceases to know itself, it must be reduced to a lower rank than the beasts. To other animals ignorance of themselves is natural; in men it is a fault...

‘…Can you ever impose any law upon a free spirit? Can you ever disturb the peculiar restfulness which is the property of a mind that hangs together upon the firm basis of its reason?…

‘…[N]othing is to be sought in [Fortune], and it is plain she has no innate good, for she is not always joined with good men, nor does she make good those with whom she is joined.’

...

‘But,’ she said, ‘do not think that I would urge implacable war upon Fortune. There are times when her deception of men has certain merits: I mean when she discovers herself, unveils her face, and proclaims her ways. Perhaps you do not yet understand what I would say. It is a strange thing that I am trying to say, and for that reason I can scarcely explain myself in words. I think that ill fortune is of greater advantage to men than good fortune. Good fortune is ever lying when she seems to favour by an appearance of happiness. Ill fortune is ever true when by her changes she shews herself inconstant. The one deceives; the other edifies. The one by a deceitful appearance of good things enchains the minds of those who enjoy them: the other frees them by a knowledge that happiness is so fragile. You see, then, that the one is blown about by winds, is ever moving and ever ignorant of its own self; the other is sober, ever prepared and ever made provident by the undergoing of its very adversities. Lastly, good fortune draws men from the straight path of true good by her fawning: ill fortune draws most men to the true good, and holds them back by her curved staff.

‘And do you think that this should be reckoned among the least benefits of this rough, unkind, and terrible ill fortune, that she has discovered to you the minds of your faithful friends? Fortune has distinguished for you your sure and your doubtful friends; her departure has taken away her friends and left you yours. At what price could you have bought this benefit if you had been untouched and, as you thought, fortunate? Cease then to seek the wealth you have lost. You have found your friends, and they are the most precious of all riches.

‘Through Love the universe with constancy makes changes all without discord: earth’s elements, though contrary, abide in treaty bound: Phoebus in his golden car leads up the glowing day; his sister rules the night that Hesperus brought: the greedy sea confines its waves in bounds, lest the earth’s borders be changed by its beating on them: all these are firmly bound by Love, which rules both earth and sea, and has its empire in the heavens too. If Love should slacken this its hold, all mutual love would change to war; and these would strive to undo the scheme which now their glorious movements carry out with trust and with accord. By Love are peoples too kept bound together by a treaty which they may not break. Love binds with pure affection the sacred tie of wedlock, and speaks its bidding to all trusty friends. O happy race of mortals, if your hearts are ruled as is the universe, by Love!

When she finished her lay, its soothing tones left me spellbound with my ears alert in my eagerness to listen. So a while afterwards I said, ‘Greatest comforter of weary minds, how have you cheered me with your deep thoughts and sweet singing too! No more shall I doubt my power to meet the blows of Fortune…’

Having had my life turned upside down and my fortunes reversed more than once, I find great comfort and wisdom in Boethius’ writings. I believe, as did he, that we must strive to be content within ourselves because our circumstances can change in a heartbeat. “Trust no future, howe’er pleasant” and “Be as a tower firmly set; Shakes not its top for any blast that blows,” as Longfellow and Dante wrote, respectively.

The fickleness of Fortune is also the subject of one of my favorite songs, O Fortuna:

1. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Fortune, Empress of the World)

O Fortuna (Chorus) O Fortune

O Fortuna O Fortune,

velut luna like the moon

statu variabilis, you are changeable,

semper crescis ever waxing

aut decrescis; and waning;

vita detestabilis hateful life

nunc obdurat first oppresses

et tunc curat and then soothes

ludo mentis aciem, as fancy takes it;

egestatem, poverty

potestatem and power

dissolvit ut glaciem. it melts them like ice.

Sors immanis Fate - monstrous

et inanis, and empty,

rota tu volubilis, you whirling wheel,

status malus, you are malevolent,

vana salus well-being is vain

semper dissolubilis, and always fades to nothing,

obumbrata shadowed

et velata and veiled

michi quoque niteris; you plague me too;

nunc per ludum now through the game

dorsum nudum I bring my bare back

fero tui sceleris. to your villainy.

Sors salutis Fate is against me

et virtutis in health

michi nunc contraria, and virtue,

est affectus driven on

et defectus and weighted down,

semper in angaria. always enslaved.

Hac in hora So at this hour

sine mora without delay

corde pulsum tangite; pluck the vibrating strings;

quod per sortem since Fate

sternit fortem, strikes down the string man,

mecum omnes plangite! everyone weep with me!

2. Fortune plango vulnera (I bemoan the wounds of Fortune)

Fortune plango vulnera I bemoan the wounds of Fortune

stillantibus ocellis with weeping eyes,

quod sua michi munera for the gifts she made me

subtrahit rebellis. she perversely takes away.

Verum est, quod legitur, It is written in truth,

fronte capillata, that she has a fine head of hair,

sed plerumque sequitur but, when it comes to seizing an opportunity

Occasio calvata. she is bald.

In Fortune solio On Fortune's throne

sederam elatus, I used to sit raised up,

prosperitatis vario crowned with

flore coronatus; the many-coloured flowers of prosperity;

quicquid enim florui though I may have flourished

felix et beatus, happy and blessed,

nunc a summo corrui now I fall from the peak

gloria privatus. deprived of glory.

Fortune rota volvitur: The wheel of Fortune turns;

descendo minoratus; I go down, demeaned;

alter in altum tollitur; another is raised up;

nimis exaltatus far too high up

rex sedet in vertice sits the king at the summit -

caveat ruinam! let him fear ruin!

nam sub axe legimus for under the axis is written

Hecubam reginam. Queen Hecuba.

My fortunes have waned. But I have passed through the nadir of Fortune’s revolving wheel and now my fortunes are waxing; I am content.

I have been receiving bank statements just about every day, so I finally went to my bank with a stack of statements to get it corrected. The person who assisted me said she had never heard of such a thing in thirty years of banking, but as it turned out someone had input a code for me to receive daily statements. Hopefully, this will be the end of the inundation. (I told her I like detail, but not that much detail!)

Excerpt:

MORE than 20 babies have been aborted in advanced pregnancy because scans showed that they had club feet, a deformity readily corrected by surgery or physiotherapy.

According to figures from the Office for National Statistics covering the years from 1996 to 2004, a further four babies were aborted because they had webbed fingers or extra digits, which are also corrected by simple surgery. All the terminations took place late in pregnancy, after 20 weeks.

Last year, according to campaigners, a healthy baby was aborted in the sixth month at a hospital in southeast England after ultrasound images indicated part of its foot was missing.

News of the terminations has reignited the debate over how scanning and gene technology may enable the creation of “designer babies”. In 2002 it emerged that a baby had been aborted late

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2200495,00.html

This is absolutely repugnant. Abortions of convenience such as these, championed by "reproductive rights" Amazons and their effete male coconspirators, are a devaluation of human life and should not be tolerated in a civilized world.

This is a picture of Bernini's David:



It is a shame that Bernini's sculpture of David is overshadowed by Michelangelo's because I think Bernini's sculpture is superior. In any event, Bernini was a bad ass.

My CF friend Voegelin posted this to Ethics & Morality:

The Official "Definition of Racism" offered by the Seattle Public Schools

Is Racism Worse Now Than in the '80s?
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
By Wendy McElroy
Fox News

. . .The institutionalization of racial bias occurred on both a federal and local level.

The official "Definitions of Racism" offered by the Seattle Public Schools . . . (is) . . . "The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites). The subordination is supported by the actions of individuals, cultural norms and values, and the institutional structures and practices of society."

By this definition, it is impossible to commit an act of racism against a white person . . .

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196686,00.html

To which I responded:

If they valued economy of speech (such folks rarely do) then they could replace that perambulating paragraph with the phrase "blame whitey," which carries the same explanatory power and connotation.

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman

(Props to this dude for posting the link to CF)

Billy Sunday, a baseball player turned evangelist, once said:

"Lord save us from off-handed, flabby-cheeked, brittle-boned, weak-kneed, thin-skinned, pliable, plastic, spineless, effeminate, ossified, three-karat Christianity."

Sounds like modern liberal Protestantism to me.

This is a picture of my car covered in snow from back in February. Yes, Virginia, there is, indeed, snow in parts of California.

(Originally posted here)

The 12 Theses

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

False.

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

Again, his premise is false. I do not believe Jesus is Incarnate God, though.

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

I'm not sure what to say to this one.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

I do not believe Jesus is divine or haploid. However, I deem his knowledge of christology deficient in light of this thesis.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

False.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

I do not espouse that soteriology but I dispute his characterization of it.

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

False.

8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

False.

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

False.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

False.

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

Wrong.

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

Homoeroticism is a sin.

It is clear to me that Spong is really an agnostic hiding behind his mitre. Thus, he is a hypocrite and a false teacher who already stands condemned.

All that is from [God] is full of Providence.

Every moment think steadily as a Roman and a man to do what thou hast in hand with perfect and simple dignity...

Do not act as if thou wert going to live ten thousand years. Death hangs over thee. While thou livest, while it is in thy power, be good.

Time is like a river made up of the events which happen, and a violent stream; for as soon as a thing has been seen, it is carried away, and another comes in its place, and this will be carried away too.

Remember this,—that there is a proper dignity and proportion to be observed in the performance of every act of life.

Mark how fleeting and paltry is the estate of man,—yesterday in embryo, to-morrow a mummy or ashes. So for the hair’s-breadth of time assigned to thee live rationally, and part with life cheerfully, as drops the ripe olive, extolling the season that bore it and the tree that matured it.

A man makes no noise over a good deed, but passes on to another as a vine to bear grapes again in season.

Nothing happens to anybody which he is not fitted by nature to bear.

If any man can convince me and bring home to me that I do not think or act aright, gladly will I change; for I search after truth, by which man never yet was harmed. But he is harmed who abideth on still in his deception and ignorance.

To a rational being it is the same thing to act according to nature and according to reason.

By a tranquil mind I mean nothing else than a mind well ordered.

I will be teaching an intro statistics course this summer, which I am looking forward to. (Unless enrollment drops too low, in which case the class will be cancelled.) This will be at a regular university, and not a JC, so I feel quite honored.

Congratulations to my friends Reed and Carly, who gave birth to their third child, Emery Albert, last Friday.