Summa Scientiae

Published
by
christopher
31 December 2008 ago
in Current Events and Randomness
. 0 Comments

Anyone who visits Wikipedia currently will (or at least should) notice a very large banner ad at the top of the page that says “Please Read: A Personal Appeal from Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales.”  This ad rotates with a few others asking for donations to the Wikimedia Foundation.  The personal appeal from its founder can be found here.  What bothers me most about this is that it states its goal is “imagine a world where every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.”  Here’s a few reasons why this bothers me so:

1. Is “the sum of all human knowledge” even accessible? There are many subjects (especially the more abstract ones) which don’t have nice, clear-cut answers that make the sum of all knowledge rather silly.  In other words, these things are hotly debated and unless all viewpoints are explained, this project fails to realize “the sum of all human knowledge.”

2. Is Wikipedia this storehouse of information?  Probably not.  The best and wort part of a community like Wikipedia is that Joe the Plumber has as much credibility and influence on a Wikipedia article on Schroedinger’s Paradox as a theoretical physicist whose life’s work is on that exact subject.  Secondly, since Wikipedia does not allow people to promote their own research/understanding, all information must be, by default, secondhand at best.  Wikipedia is good in that it requires sources for “verification,” but looking at the topics which I am knowledgable, these sources aren’t even primary sources but already secondary sources with the opinions of the secondary authors.  I could go on a rant here, but it is not vital to this article.

3. Who gets to determine which information is valid for a Wikipedia entry?  In short, the Wikipedia community.  I’m not a conspiracy theorist who believes the bulk of Wikipedia is moderated by a small group of zealots.  However, I don’t expect the large majority of people to be experts on any given topic.  In other words, the experts on any given topic are always in the minority, which means their expertise is counted equally with the majority’s lack of expertise.

4. Who doesn’t have free access to Wikipedia?  I can think of two examples: those who lack internet access and those who are denied access to Wikipedia (either by governments or ISPs).  Both of these categories are things that the Wikimedia Foundation does not list in its goals.  What do they list?  In short, their own sustainability (check out the about page in the annual report).  Where does their money go?  The majority of the $5.6M goes to paying for salaries, travel, business-related expenses, and real estate.  In other words, they are an incarnation of “consumer-supported” products (such as PBS, public radio, etc).  “Free access” in their case means keeping them in business; everyone must provide their own avenue to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia’s fundraising here isn’t so that every single person on the planet has access to the sum of all human knowledge.  It is, instead, so that every single person on the planet–who has proer internet access–has access to a summary of information democratically chosen and edited primarily by average people with average understanding.

The Christmas Truce

Published
by
christopher
24 December 2008 ago
in General
. 0 Comments

Andrew Jones posted a wonderful story about how Christmas made the first world war cease for celebration.  Regardless of differences, have a peaceful time this Christmas.

The Bailout is not Happening

Published
by
christopher
20 December 2008 ago
in Current Events and Philosophy
. 0 Comments

Look at any news outlet today and you will find references to the financial bailout of large corporations.  While it is restricted right now to financial and automotive sectors, I won’t be surprised if it expands.  There are a number of arguments in support of and against this bailout; however I want to take a different stance altogether: it isn’t happening at all.

Most people reading this are at least familiar with the factors that led to this: collapse of the financial market due to poor choices from most parties involved as an attempt to get more money.  Some have argued it goes back to subprime lending in the1990s.  I will suggest a specific date: 15 August 1971.  What was important then?  This was the date that the US, under President Nixon, began to move away from the “gold standard” of Bretton Woods.  I am not against this action, but its most important action was the dereferencing of the US dollar.  The dollar became a free-floating object without a fixed reference; it became a simulated identity.  As other monetary values (British Pound, Deutsche Mark, etc) became dereferenced as well, the financial market became both simulated and fragmentary.  The system became self-referential and self-perpetuating.  As the money flowed, monetary value was no longer limited to some externally-imposed “Real.”  Because of this dereferencing, we saw an increase of trade and stocks to the point where the total “value” of the US (measured by the GDP) was traded roughly every 3 weeks in the markets.  The amount traded annually far exceeded not just the GDP of a particular nation, but that of all nations combined, and this was just for one system!

The problem, however, happens to be found in the desire to recreate external references to this simulation.  The product of this recreation of reference is not a return to the original object, but rather a new simulation.  We have gone through so many simulations and simulacra that we are unable to relate to the original object and can only see it as another simulation in a procession of simulacra.  The”bailout as well as the financial crisis is not real.  It is just another game of simulation which results in the production of more simulations and the production of more desire.  The crisis is a non-event.  It cannot be avoided, yet it is not real either.

Some want to use this non-event as a call to socialism (e.g. Badiou and even Bush).  Others want to argue for capitalism and free-market.  I would like to argue that the only true “solution” to the bailout is to take the dereferencing of monies to its ultimate conclusion: the removal recognizing the lack of their value.  Since 1971, money has bean meaningless outside of the financial market.  It was an illusion created to produce more money.  It serves no purpose except to perpetuate itself.  In a money-less society (yes, it is another simulation), there would be no financial crisis.  It is in this society that we today live, but like the death of God in Nietzsche’s The Gay Science, it has not yet been recognized.  There is no bailout because there is no financial crisis.  There is no financial crisis because there is no economy to have a financial crisis.

On Pluralism

Published
by
christopher
4 December 2008 ago
in Religion and Theology
. 0 Comments

Recently, there was a debate regarding religious pluralism at my university.  One of the panelists provided some useful definitions, which I will use here for simplicity.  First, we begin with atheism as the belief that all religions are wrong.  The logical opposite would be that at least 1 religion is correct.  This leads to another disjunction: only one religion is correct (and thus we have exclusivism) or more than one religion is correct.  Under this level, there is another disjunction: either one religion is “more correct” or more than one are equally correct.  The former here gives us inclusivism, the latter pluralism.  Note that none of these require that all religions are equally correct, which I supposed could be classified as relativism.

One of the other panelists is a Catholic theologian who began with exclusivism.  However, as his argument proceeded with references to many 2nd-Vatican and post-2nd-Vatican texts (e.g. Lumen Gentium), he began to approach inclusivism as he suggested that even though the universal Church is the primary medium through which salvation occurs, it does not exclude others.  A corollary to this was that there is some truth in other religions.  The first panelist, a pluralist, saw this flaw and was one of the stronger arguments against this sort of exclusivism because it was inclusivism in disuguise.

The pluralist’s argument was that one should develop true respect and appreciation for other religions because at least some of them lead to the same ending (whether that be the classic ideas of heaven or moksa).  However, the fatal flaw in this argument is that religious difference is subsumed to religious identity, which leads to an “appreciation” of religions based on an assumed identity.  In other words, this really is inclusivism in sheep’s clothing.  If the pluralist wishes to respect other religions, it cannot be through the subsumption of difference to identity.  It would be a stronger argument if it realizes that difference over and above identity as the excess of religion itself.

Sex and Theology

Published
by
christopher
29 October 2008 ago
in Politics and Religion
. 0 Comments

I decided to wait until certain “celebrities” had lost their limelight before breaching this subject.  Conservative evangelical arguments revolve around two things: sexual abstinence and anything not abortion.  However this leads to problems once reality sets in.  Perhaps the biggest campaign is an abstinence-only pledge.  However, very few evangelical teens actually follow through with this to marriage (source).  In fact, evangelical teens are no different than other teens regarding sexual practices with only one exception: evangelical teens delay their “debut” 18 months longer to age 16.  This combined with the push for abstinence-only education leads to evangelical teens not knowing how to effectively use contraception.  As a result, groups which have high abstinence-only pledge rates (read evangelical teen groups) also have higher rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies (source).  All of this leads to the conclusion that sexual education should be an important part of any teen’s upbringing.

A second strand in this discussion is the reaction on failure.  While many would believe that a family which pushes for abstinence-only would be devastated when a teen revealed her being pregnant, the opposite is the case.  Most evangelical families are nonchalant on hearing this news.  This eventually leads to early marriage, divorce, and other “dysfunctional” dynamics which society–particularly socially conservative society–abhors.  In othe words, conservative evangelicals tend to breed an environment which fosters the very things they abhor.

Forget 2012

Published
by
christopher
27 October 2008 ago
in Current Events
. 3 Comments

If you have not heard, the pretty well known organization Focus on the Family has issued a “hypothetical” letter from 2012 describing how bad things will be in the US if Obama is elected.  While I am not a huge fan of either Obama or McCain, I did want to comment on this letter since it will influence some people.  First off, however, you should read the letter here: link to pdf.

In ways similar to “liberal” environmentalists who believe in the “hockey-stick effect” in the weather, this letter makes no attempt to hide this method of interpretation.  Secondly, the author assumes that the Democratic far-left will take control of both Congress and the White House (as well as possibly the Supreme Court).  This assumption is hugely misleading because the number of seats in Congress that are not already “sealed in stone” are very few.  In the Senate, it is quite likely that Republicans will gain seats.  In the House, it looks like the Democrats stand to gain around 8 seats.  That doesn’t sound like “the far-Left segments of the Democratic Party gain control of…the Congress” (p1).  Now, on to each point.

Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more (p2).  I’ve already discussed the possibly changes in Congress this election.  However, we should also remember that there is another election 2 years for the House and some Senate seats.  If things go horribly wrong over the next year, there is still another election cycle in 2010.  Additionally, every justice nominated by the President must be confirmed by the Senate.  Currently in the Senate, there are 49 seats for each the Democrats and Republicans with Independents having the remaining 2.  The Republicans just need to gain a single seat to have the majority (and thus “control” of the Senate), which is a plausible scenario at the moment.  So, even if Obama nominates an extremely liberal judge, he will need the support of all 49 (or possibly less) Democrats as well as some Independent or Republican support to get the nominee confirmed into office.  The hype is furthered by assuming that beyond the two expected Justice resignations, two more conservatives resign as well.  This would be highly unexpected and should fall in the realm of fantasy rather than plausible speculation.  Yet, there is even more fantasy as the author then suggests that the Supreme Court justices begin to make laws by ruling wily-nily on anything they feel like.  This shows a complete lack of understanding the judiciary system in the US.  Supreme Court justices cannot simply pick any case in existence.  These must be brought up by appeals to the US Supreme Court.  Lastly, even if the Supreme Court ruled a law unconstitutional, it does not mean the opposite is suddenly made into law.  These laws must be made through the proper channels (i.e. Congress).

Same-sex marriages allowed.  Who cares?  This is a moral issue and not a political one.  Same-sex marriages becoming a constitutional right does not suddenly mean that the presidency becomes a dictatorship.  There is no secret code (up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, A, B, select, start) that Obama can utilize which changes the Constitution.  Again now: so what if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?  This does not mean that an ordained minister will be forced to perform these, nor does it mean that this will need to be accepted by all religious groups.  After all, abusing legal substances (alcohol, tobacco, etc) and adultery are legal in the US, yet most churches don’t look nicely upon these things.

Boy Scouts disband.  The author’s next worrisome point is that the BSA disbands because they are pressured into either disbanding or accepting homosexual leaders.  The author fails to fully understand the last major action in the Supreme Court regarding this in which the Boy Scouts were allowed to exclude certain people from their organization because they were a private organization.  This won’t change in the next four years.  The author also notes that the Boy Scouts hcould no longer use public facilities because Civil Rights were expanded to include homosexuals.  Guess what?  There are such things as private facilities.  In fact, I know many BSA troops which meet at churches (and, therefore, do not need to follow government policy on using public facilities).

Gender identity in elementary schools.  So what if the schools teach that homosexuality is legally accepted?  There are private schools if one is concerned.  Secondly, the author mentions that Congress passes a law which makes this type of education compulsory.   Let’s look back at Kansas’s fun with evolution and creationism.  Remember when Kansas made evolution optional and allowed the teaching of creationism?  It was reversed in less than two years.  Why?  New board members.  Let’s assume that Obama really pushes and gets gets gender identity into public schools.  I’d give it 2 years–tops–before it’s reversed.  Why?  First off, these standards come from the states, not the federal government.  Secondly, evn if Congress (the one with Republicans most likely in control of the Senate remember) did pass something like this, those who did vote for it with conservative constituents wouldn’t be in office come their next election (which for the House is just 2 years away).  Additionally, the author argues on the grounds of the adoption issue Catholic Charities in Massachusetts (link), private schools will also be forced to follow Civil Rights actions.  However, the author fails to realize that gender is already within the Civil Rights Act and yet there are single-sex private schools (I went to one).  Furthermore, the article which the author uses states clearly that private instutions need to follow these non-discrimination laws when they must be licensed by the state (as adoption agencies in Massachusetts need to do).  However, as I’ve mentioned single-sex schools, this is not the case when it comes to educational institutions.

Civil Rights extended to homosexuals.  The author uses numerous instances of this same subject, so I will address them together.  The author argues that once Civil Rights is extended to include homosexuals, doctors, lawyers, counselors, and social workers as well as wedding ceremonies at churches will no longer be able to discriminate against homosexuals.  Like other anti-discriminatory laws, these must be passed by either state law or federal law, which again falls back on assuming a huge overpowering of Congress at both the state level and federal level–something that will not be happening any time soon.

Public broadcasts cannot criticize homosexuality.  The author cites recent actions in Sweden and Canada.  Guess what my first response is?  You got it: who cares?  There are plenty of topics to discuss and exhaust without needing to criticize homosexuality on public broadcasts.  If you still don’t like it, use a private broadcast (such as internet media, broadcasting on private channels, etc).  I’m also glad that the author mentions Sweden since I now know two people who have taught theology in Sweden (one is at the Stockholm School of Theology, the other was at the University of Lund) who say that this is still a raging debate.  In other words, it isn’t over yet.

The removal of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this phrase was not part of the original Pledge.  It was adding in the 1950s in order to create a greater difference between “Christian” America and “atheist” Russia during the Cold War.

Religious Speech outlawed on public school campuses.  Here is more hype-filled thinking.  Public schools will not stop allowing organizations to rent facilities because of the organization’s beliefs.  Nor will public schools reject prayer in school because these must go through Congress at both the state and federal levels.

Abortion.  Again, the author suggests that if Obama is elected, all hell will break loose.  Morals will be unhinged, societies will crumble, etc.  The author writes that immediately after Obama is elected, Congress (again, the one which has the Republicans in a considerable minority and possibly even a majority in the Senate) will practically undo everything conservatives have done against abortion since Roe v Wade.

Pornography.  The author writes that the FCC decency laws will be removed and kids will be unable to not see nudity.  This has been the case in the UK for many years.  The daily tabloid paper The Sun is easily available on any newspaper rack and is known for its “Page 3″ which features a topless (or sometimes even nude) photo.  The best part, however, is that this paper is owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch, owner of Newscorp and FOXNews.

Gun Control.  Here’s another of my who cares?  The UK has outlawed private gun ownership for many years and it has survived just fine.  For this to occur in the US is nothing short of a miracle (Supreme Court overrulling its previous decisions, Congress passing an amendment to the Constitution, and that amendment being ratified by a majority of the 50 states).  Even if it did happen, it would not mean that mean could no longer hunt (yes, there is hunting here in the UK) or do anything that requires a gun except protecting one’s own property and family.

Home Schooling.  Like above with civil rights being extended to homosexuals, this is something that is primarily up to state law.  The author writing for Focus on the Family argues that the “liberal” government will follow the ruling in California under In Re: Rachel L.  While the author does mention that this is overturned shortly afterwards, he does fail to mention that this ruling was consistent with California state law.

Iraq. The author writes that after US troops withdraw from Iraq, al Qaeda takes over the country.  First off, this is a misunderstanding of al Qaeda since it operates as a non-governmental organization.  They are not interested in taking over any country and this has not happened in any country yet.  Secondly, who cares?  We should not be the policing force of the entire world; let them handle their own problems.

Terrorists.  The author writes that there are four terrorist attacks in the US and that those who are responsible have not been captured.  How is this any different from 9/11?  Besides the few cell members who are suspected of being involved in the 9/11 hijackings, our government has had little success in actually tracking, capturing, and/or prosecuting any famously known terrorists (such as Osama bin Laden).

Foreign problems.  The author is stuck in the Cold War and believes that Russia will invade and take over much of the former USSR.  Similar things happen in South America.  Even if this does happen, who cares? Refer back to above where we are not the policing force of the world.

Healthcare. The author thinks that Obama will get universal healthcare instated right away.  Since I am currently living in the UK, it is actually a viable option.  It does have problems, but so does the current system in the US.  There are no perfect solutions to the problem, but the flipside is also true: no solution currently in use in the world is so seriously flawed that it will destroy society.  The author demonstrates a pitiful lack of knowledge of how healthcare operates anywhere outside of the US.

Taxes. The author argues that Obama will increase taxes.  Unfortunately, every President has increased taxes to the point where expecting the opposite is ridiculous.  Taxes in the UK for most people is 20%; higher income is 40%.  There are no local/state taxes nor taxes for necessity items.  VAT (basically sales tax for everything else) is 17.5%.  However, there are very few people in the UK who are unable to live on minimum wage.

Energy.  The author argues that high gas prices are a bad thing.  In other countries (both the UK and Canada), gas has been expensive for a while.  Here in the UK, it hovers around £1 per litre, which works out to around $6 per gallon with the current exchange rate.  Guess what?  They survive.  Even public transportation is pretty costly here.  However, as I mentioned just above, few people are not able to live on minimum wage.

Media Fairness.  All media outlets will be required to air counterpoint arguments immediately after one side (i.e. something like Al Franken following Rush Limbaugh).  Furthermore, Barnes and Noble will be unable to sell books from Christian publishers (who will fall apart without these sales).  Again, these “fairness” laws will need to go through Congress (rinse and repeat).  If major booksellers are pressured by the public to get rid of religious books, it won’t be as horrible as the author makes it out to be.  Look at the bookshelves of Barnes and Noble and Borders and count how many shelves have Christian books?  The most I’ve counted as 12 shelf sections.  That was out of over 200 sections.  Of course, this will not be an issue in Christian bookstores such as LifeWay and Family Christian Stores since these books are the only they have.

Prosecuting Bush.  With all of these things going on, Obama will also prosecute the Bush administration for the Iraq war.  Unless there was actual criminal activity, this won’t ever happen because criminal prosecution requires criminal activities (and if there were, they should be prosecuted).

Let me summarize my critique of this “Letter from 2012.”  The author shows an ignorance of how politics works in the US, current composition (as well as plausible changes) of Congress, the limits of each part of the government, and politics in other countries.  Let’s face it: if Obama is able to do all of this in one term of office, he will have been the most active and most influential president in US history.  And for all that it’s worth, I don’t think he’s nearly as strong (politically) as the conservatives make him out to be.

Connections

Published
by
christopher
13 October 2008 ago
in Geekiness and General
. 0 Comments

Since I have been living my digital life on many machines, I thought about ways to create easier access for myself to my most useful things.  As a result, I’ve been integrating into many of the online services.  For instance, I now maintain a personal calendar on Google.  I use Google Reader for my blog subscriptions (and will use Liferea once it releases its 1.5x line that can sync with Google Reader).  i have switched all of my bookmarks to delicious.  I have switched all of my email accounts to IMAP instead of POP3 (so that I can use my webmail and access all of my email from wherever).  I still have the problem of accessing all of my files, but the most necessary fit nicely on my USB drive.  Any other suggestions?

Site Update

Published
by
christopher
10 October 2008 ago
in General
. 0 Comments

I am in the process of updating this site.  Many things are broken (like the sidebars).  However, they will be fixed (eventually).

Notes On Universalism

Published
by
christopher
5 October 2008 ago
in Theology
. 0 Comments

“Salvation” needs to be though of as a 2-step process.  Why?  If it is a single-step process, then it would have to be God’s choice; there is too much evidence in the Bible to deny this.  This excludes what is typically called Arminianism.  However, that would also mean that, no matter how random God’s choosing was, it was still preferential.  Furthermore, there is too much evidence in the Bible to suggest that God acted for all mankind, all flesh, to all the ends of the earth.  This leaves two options: (1) universalism as most people see it (that is, God eventually “saves” everyone), or (2) something else.  We’ve already excluded what can be called predestination (which most people equate with Calvinism, but that is another debate).  Lastly, we can exclude Pelagianism because (again) there is too much evidence which suggests that we humans are not free in and of ourselves to choose God.

Now that I’ve touched every major theological stance on the matter, it is time to turn to the two-step process I believe fits what we read in the Bible.  All I want to do here is describe it briefly in process.  First, man has chosen corruption (we see this in Genesis with the story of Adam and Eve; it is echoed in Romans and throughout the NT).  This is followed directly by the Cross where God “saves” all of mankind, universally.  We cannot simply say that this action is only effective on some of mankind (as if God was using a pen to reveal what was written with disappearing ink).  The Bible is clear that this action is for the whole world, all of sin, all flesh, everything.  However, the Bible is also clear that not all of mankind ends up on the “saved” team.  Hence, the next step: mankind must accept this gift.  There is much difficulty if one wants to add in here that God chose all who do accept this (or something similar).  This is because it would bring us back to the same difficulty above if God chooses some for salvation: it doesn’t fit with what we have in the Bible nor does it reflect an image of God as being impartial.  One can add in here that God somehow “knew” this, but it cannot affect God’s actions (or again we get into the same sticky situation).  As a final result, we have the Great Commission: Christ calling all disciples of all time to spread the good news to all ends of the earth, to all peoples.  Perhaps one could also add into here that if one truly hears the good news, it is too appealing to reject, but I’m not sure how this properly fits.

That’s it.  There’s no need to explain away the passages in the Bible that speak of God saving all mankind, passages of not all mankind being saved, nor passages of mankind choosing God.  This is still a work in progress and will need some tweaking.  If any reader sees a possible flaw in the logic or a possibly difficulty with a passage in the Bible, please join in the discussion.

Preparations

Published
by
christopher
16 August 2008 ago
in General
. 0 Comments

It is now the home stretch for leaving Denver.  Yesterday was my last day at work.  We’ll be leaving Denver early Thursday morning.  Today, we spent the day taking apart most of what we had left (bed frame, entertainment center, etc).  Our apartment has become so empty, we can hear echoes in it.  We both have our visas in hand and everything is ready for our big move.  Life has become one of waiting for the prescribed times to pass as everything is planned (and even paid for!) until we arrive in Glasgow and look for a new place to rent.  It will be most interesting to see how living out of a suitcase works for a month, as it is 31 days before our flight.