EDIT: And Joe, just stop. You're in over your head here. The sheer level of ignorance you're professing is staggering. Perhaps when you were in undergrad or high school, we required less of medical personnel. I've been a pre-med student in recent memory. I know people who have gone through med school. Even the simplest of things requires a lot of training. Floor nurses? Like the ones who start IV's? Pre-med students with Bachelor of Science degrees.
And a good A&P; class is more than what you are describing. Again, perhaps it was such once. It is no more.
EDIT: And Joe, just stop. You're in over your head here. The sheer level of ignorance you're professing is staggering. Perhaps when you were in undergrad or high school, we required less of medical personnel.
Let's slow down for a second. Going by Joe's real age, and not by the "lol so old" jokes, you've just said that a huge quantity of the nation's leading doctors received subpar medical education. I'll ask around with my MD friends and family later, but I'm pretty sure that you're not being entirely fair. Pre-med A&P; is taught in undergrad for a reason; it's not meant to be a complete education in every aspect of human physiology. It's supposed to prepare you for med school, where you take A&P; courses that are that complete education.
As for the need for professors to teach basic A&P;, I know that quite often MDs teach that course. It really is ultra-basic, and meant to just teach you to identify parts and their functions at a very minimal level. Although, ultra-basic is relative. You will learn quite a lot about the systems, but it's relatively sparse considering that the U of I course abstract for A&P; I states that you'll learn about 7 systems, but some of those systems (immune, endocrine, nervous) have entire 400-level courses devoted to them. One class simply isn't enough to thoroughly teach that material.
Hey Pete, thanks for saying that my ignorance is staggering basically because I'm older than you and I'm just thinking about how conditions were like in the olden days because I'm old. I really, really fucking appreciate that. Thanks, buddy.
Just for fun, I looked up some of the contemporary educational requirements reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the jobs you say require a "whole fucking lot" of education. From that site, it looks like a person can become a Pharmacy Tech by completing high school and then getting a certificate that can be obtained in 6 months, a person can become a Physician's Assistant by completing a two year program, not necessarily requiring a college degree, a person can become a Physical Therapist by completing a two year program after college, and a person can become an RN by obtaining an associates degree. Floor Nurses are Pre-Med students with Bachelor's degrees? Maybe you should tell that to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, because they're under the impression that a person can be a Floor Nurse after getting an associates degree.
None of those sound like "a whole fucking lot" of education to me (especially that Pharmacy Tech. Wow, that's a lot of education), but maybe they're going to some new-fangled super schools I don't know about seeing as I'm staggeringly ignorant and in over my head, as you so kindly pointed out.
As far as how I described my A & P class, it was intended to be a little humorous, not an exact description, but I guess it's fair to say that, since I didn't take it at the same time you did, it must not have been as good since we didn't really understand how blood circulates back then, and we spent most of our time talking about the four humours. BTW, Cremlian agreed that a professor wouldn't necessarily need to accept evolution to teach a survey A & P class, so maybe he's staggeringly ignorant as well.
EDIT: "We might have required less of medical professionals when you were in school"? Yeah, that's right. When I was in school, doctors were just required to know where the laudanum was. LOL, I'm so fucking old. It must be nice to have gone through undergrad recently, when we were so advanced they just pumped a database into to your fucking head because it's the future and we're so fucking advanced we make Star Trek look like the fucking Flintstones. Fuck you.
Sorry about the double post, but we're out of town at the moment, and I've been using my phone and iPad, and it's not as easy to post as it is with my usual computer.
Somewhere a few posts back, someone said he enjoyed praying for meditation and someone asked him why he needed to pray, why couldn't he just save a step and just meditate. I remember this "save a step" argument being used before when someone said they believed God provided the initial impetus for evolution. Someone asked that person, "If that's what you believe, why not leave God out of it and save a step?"
This leads me to a question. Flamers please note: Questioning does not necessarily mean I believe the question should be answered one way or another. I just want to see how people respond.
To the "save a step" people: Why must we try for some sort of maximum efficiency? Spirituality or philosophy isn't like some sort of engineering materials problem. Sometimes people like some unnecessary frilly bits. I have a grandfather clock. Is it inefficient? Yes, it's inefficient as hell, but I like it. So, why should the person who likes to pray for meditation only be restricted to meditation instead of actual prayer? Why should the person who likes to think God provided the initial impetus for evolution have to save a step and take God out of the equation if that's the way he likes to think about it?
Yes, that's the question, isn't it? It's a good tool for work, but do we need Occam's Razor all the time? My grandfather clock, for instance, wouldn't survive Occam's Razor if I were to apply it to all aspects of my home life, but I like my grandfather clock, so Occam can take a hike with respect to that particular thing.
Why should someone have to use Occam all the time to answer spiritual questions?
It's not about efficiency. It's about pickles. Hang with me, here.
"Why not save a step" is a nice way of saying, "What the fuck is that doing in here?" Imagine for a moment that you aren't talking about religion, but about making grilled cheese sandwich. You start listing the ingredients: Cheese, bread, butter, maybe a sprinkling of oregano. Then some dude comes along and militantly insists that all grilled cheese sandwiches must include relish. You stare at him in disbelief: "What the fuck? Relish doesn't really belong on grilled cheese, dude."
The next thing you know, this dude -- let's call him Billy -- is bending the ear of parents everywhere. They become convinced that the only way a grilled cheese sandwich is acceptable is with relish, although there's no reason for it. A whole movement springs up decrying non-relish grilled-cheese-eaters. The next thing you know, Billy is in Washington getting "In relish we trust" printed on all our bread bags. Worse, he's trying to get a law passed asking that all culinary institutes mandate the teaching of the relish -- and any chef who does not include relish in the recipe is immoral.
Two-thousand years later, you've institutionalized relish. Heinz and Vlasic have become tax exempt and require a 10 percent tithe each week. It's no longer about the grilled cheese, but it's about corporatizing the "morality" of the sandwich. Special Sunday morning classes for children are held to teach that people who don't eat relish and do everything the relish manufacturer dictates and bad people, and after death will be eternally tortured by an evil pumpkin that lives under the ground. People who like cucumbers over relish shouldn't be allowed to get married. Anyone who throws away premature pickles should be punished. One day, if you eat enough relish, you'll be rewarded with lots of money and happiness and there will be no more sorrow. Most importantly, you absolutely must do everything Heinz commands because relish is all-powerful.
In a particular ironic case, I tend to say fuck Occam's Razor with regard to razors. It takes me a long time to shave between the prewash, lathering my brush, stropping (if I'm using a cutthroat), shaving, and then applying styptic and aftershave. But I look damn good and am a better person for it, because I choose the less efficient razor.
Who cares how I shave as long as I am pleasing to the eye and a good human being? Who cares what I believe as long as I am a humanist above all else? I really don't give a fuck if you believe that machine elves brought forth by the consumption of DMT created the universe by singing a lullaby of creation through time during your last particularly intense psychedelic experience. If you treat everyone equally and can better this world, I have no need to care about your spiritual beliefs. It's 100% irrelevant provided you separate it from any decisions that impact others.
I don't shave problem solved. A question I will raise. What level of understanding must we have of a topic before we can comment.
I'm not sure, but it appears that, if you graduated more than thirty seconds ago, you're too old, you're in over your head, and your ignorance is staggering. See, time has stopped for some of the smarter people here, and since they'll never be old, they have a real axe to grind about how anyone older than them is, quite simply, worthless.
To the "save a step" people: Why must we try for some sort of maximum efficiency? Spirituality or philosophy isn't like some sort of engineering materials problem. Sometimes people like some unnecessary frilly bits. I have a grandfather clock. Is it inefficient? Yes, it's inefficient as hell, but I like it. So, why should the person who likes to pray for meditation only be restricted to meditation instead of actual prayer? Why should the person who likes to think God provided the initial impetus for evolution have to save a step and take God out of the equation if that's the way he likes to think about it?
Assimilating a scientific theory into your religion should be frowned upon. Though often when I see Occam's Razor invoked it's more in the sense to prod why someone has already taken a bunch of steps towards accepting, in this example, the theory of evolution, but still clings to the old and mixing it in. When there's no need for that. You can be religious and accept all sorts of scientific theories without problem imho (sadly I'm but one human). The problem here is just that those people are human, and humans struggle with such emotionally life-changing things as throwing out previously held beliefs. As if doing so would invalidate their lives up till that point (and of course passive peer pressure plays a role). It's also why Jesus Harold Christ was born during Solstice, it already was a time of celebrating, because the night is long and cold, and some of us might not survive. So drink up and be hearty, see you next noon.
Btw, your grandfather clock metaphor isn't well suited here. I had an explanation regarding that with atomic clocks and Playboys and playbunnies, but it was just as ill suited.
Yes, that's the question, isn't it? It's a good tool for work, but do we need Occam's Razor all the time?
It doesn't need to be exercised all the time, as you pointed out with your grandfather clock. It may have sentimental value to you, it may be pleasing to the eye, there are reasons why having it isn't a bad thing. Why do we play video games? They're fun. Doesn't have to be any more reason than that. However, your clock isn't really relevant to philosophical or metaphysical discussion. Prayer (and consequently God) certainly is.
Why should someone have to use Occam all the time to answer spiritual questions?
I would say because you can't really be wrong about a clock. You can certainly be wrong about God.
I don't think matters of artistic preference fall under the efficiency ruling. If you insisted on having a grandfather clock whenever you needed to tell time then that would be a question of efficiency. Right now your clock is more of an art piece than a time piece because you value the aesthetic. above the function.
Why should the person who likes to think God provided the initial impetus for evolution have to save a step and take God out of the equation if that's the way he likes to think about it?
I have to ask the obvious question: If God started the chain of evolution on Earth then who started the chain which eventually created God? A more powerful being? Then who started his creation?
The aspect that I have problem with about Christianity is God as human like being. If the universe some how formed consciousness and had the power to curve the evolution of a single planet, for arguments sake, It's mind would be so far above humans that there isn't even a metaphor to compare it to. Humans would be less than single celled organisms to a create who has the energy of the cosmos at his disposal. So what's the point of worshipping him? What does it accomplish?
Even the Bible is inconsistant in this matter. There are pieces where "God" is a metaphor for the law, there are pieces where "God" is a force of nature, and there are pieces where "God" is an individual being with unlimited power. The three aren't compatible to me.
No, you can't. There is no evidence for or against God. The question of a deity does not have a truth value, because it can't.
Wrong. You could perhaps argue this point when talking about deities in general - though even then, the correct position on deities is not to believe in them - but the question of "God" is quite a different case. WindUpBird, is there a teapot orbiting the sun?
As for Occam's razor, it shaves away hypotheses, not inefficiency. If you think it applies to grandfather clocks and razors, you're wrong.
Why should the person who likes to think God provided the initial impetus for evolution have to save a step and take God out of the equation if that's the way he likes to think about it?
I have to ask the obvious question: If God started the chain of evolution on Earth then who started the chain which eventually created God? A more powerful being? Then who started his creation?
The aspect that I have problem with about Christianity is God as human like being. If the universe some how formed consciousness and had the power to curve the evolution of a single planet, for arguments sake, It's mind would be so far above humans that there isn't even a metaphor to compare it to. Humans would be less than single celled organisms to a create who has the energy of the cosmos at his disposal. So what's the point of worshipping him? What does it accomplish?
Even the Bible is inconsistant in this matter. There are pieces where "God" is a metaphor for the law, there are pieces where "God" is a force of nature, and there are pieces where "God" is an individual being with unlimited power. The three aren't compatible to me.
Why do you assume that we're dealing with judeochristian metaphysics? I could exclusively believe that "God" is the deity responsible for inspiring man to create hard liquor. Doesn't matter.
No, you can't. There is no evidence for or against God. The question of a deity does not have a truth value, because it can't.
Wrong. You could perhaps argue this point when talking about deities in general - though even then, the correct position on deities is not to believe in them - but the question of "God" is quite a different case. WindUpBird, is there a teapot orbiting the sun?
As for Occam's razor, it shaves away hypotheses, not inefficiency. If you think it applies to grandfather clocks and razors, you're wrong.
No, there's no teapot orbiting the sun, though it would be amusing to fire a teapot into heliocentric orbit just to retroactively invalidate every instance that argument has been rehashed on the internet. However, whether or not its a different case is dependent on your belief as to whether metaphysical questions stand beside the razor. I don't think they do, but I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
Why do you assume that we're dealing with judeochristian metaphysics? I could exclusively believe that "God" is the deity responsible for inspiring man to create hard liquor. Doesn't matter.
It does matter. Also, capital G 'God' is usually taken to mean the god of the Abrahamic religions. If you're talking about something else, it's up to you to clarify.
No, you can't. There is no evidence for or against God. The question of a deity does not have a truth value, because it can't.
Obviously it does have a truth value. Let's say you die and end up in Hell - clearly you were wrong. Merely not knowing the answer to a question does not mean that no answer exists; any lack of evidence is a state of your mind, not a state of the universe. Besides, evidence against God does exist.
No, you can't. There is no evidence for or against God. The question of a deity does not have a truth value, because it can't.
Obviously it does have a truth value. Let's say you die and end up in Hell - clearly you were wrong. Merely not knowing the answer to a question does not mean that no answer exists; any lack of evidence is a state of your mind, not a state of the universe. Besides, evidence against God does exist.
No, you can't. There is no evidence for or against God. The question of a deity does not have a truth value, because it can't.
Obviously it does have a truth value. Let's say you die and end up in Hell - clearly you were wrong. Merely not knowing the answer to a question does not mean that no answer exists; any lack of evidence is a state of your mind, not a state of the universe. Besides, evidence against God does exist.
Yes, exactly that. For example, if prayer being effective would have been evidence in favour of God, then the fact that it is not must necessarily be evidence against God. You can't have it both ways.
Comments
Joe: Shows how X doesn't actually apply to his assertion or question.
Jason: Well, even if you're right, it doesn't matter, because I just decided I don't care. Those grapes are probably sour, too.
EDIT: And Joe, just stop. You're in over your head here. The sheer level of ignorance you're professing is staggering. Perhaps when you were in undergrad or high school, we required less of medical personnel. I've been a pre-med student in recent memory. I know people who have gone through med school. Even the simplest of things requires a lot of training. Floor nurses? Like the ones who start IV's? Pre-med students with Bachelor of Science degrees.
And a good A&P; class is more than what you are describing. Again, perhaps it was such once. It is no more.
As for the need for professors to teach basic A&P;, I know that quite often MDs teach that course. It really is ultra-basic, and meant to just teach you to identify parts and their functions at a very minimal level. Although, ultra-basic is relative. You will learn quite a lot about the systems, but it's relatively sparse considering that the U of I course abstract for A&P; I states that you'll learn about 7 systems, but some of those systems (immune, endocrine, nervous) have entire 400-level courses devoted to them. One class simply isn't enough to thoroughly teach that material.
Just for fun, I looked up some of the contemporary educational requirements reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the jobs you say require a "whole fucking lot" of education. From that site, it looks like a person can become a Pharmacy Tech by completing high school and then getting a certificate that can be obtained in 6 months, a person can become a Physician's Assistant by completing a two year program, not necessarily requiring a college degree, a person can become a Physical Therapist by completing a two year program after college, and a person can become an RN by obtaining an associates degree. Floor Nurses are Pre-Med students with Bachelor's degrees? Maybe you should tell that to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, because they're under the impression that a person can be a Floor Nurse after getting an associates degree.
None of those sound like "a whole fucking lot" of education to me (especially that Pharmacy Tech. Wow, that's a lot of education), but maybe they're going to some new-fangled super schools I don't know about seeing as I'm staggeringly ignorant and in over my head, as you so kindly pointed out.
As far as how I described my A & P class, it was intended to be a little humorous, not an exact description, but I guess it's fair to say that, since I didn't take it at the same time you did, it must not have been as good since we didn't really understand how blood circulates back then, and we spent most of our time talking about the four humours. BTW, Cremlian agreed that a professor wouldn't necessarily need to accept evolution to teach a survey A & P class, so maybe he's staggeringly ignorant as well.
EDIT: "We might have required less of medical professionals when you were in school"? Yeah, that's right. When I was in school, doctors were just required to know where the laudanum was. LOL, I'm so fucking old. It must be nice to have gone through undergrad recently, when we were so advanced they just pumped a database into to your fucking head because it's the future and we're so fucking advanced we make Star Trek look like the fucking Flintstones. Fuck you.
Somewhere a few posts back, someone said he enjoyed praying for meditation and someone asked him why he needed to pray, why couldn't he just save a step and just meditate. I remember this "save a step" argument being used before when someone said they believed God provided the initial impetus for evolution. Someone asked that person, "If that's what you believe, why not leave God out of it and save a step?"
This leads me to a question. Flamers please note: Questioning does not necessarily mean I believe the question should be answered one way or another. I just want to see how people respond.
To the "save a step" people: Why must we try for some sort of maximum efficiency? Spirituality or philosophy isn't like some sort of engineering materials problem. Sometimes people like some unnecessary frilly bits. I have a grandfather clock. Is it inefficient? Yes, it's inefficient as hell, but I like it. So, why should the person who likes to pray for meditation only be restricted to meditation instead of actual prayer? Why should the person who likes to think God provided the initial impetus for evolution have to save a step and take God out of the equation if that's the way he likes to think about it?
Why should someone have to use Occam all the time to answer spiritual questions?
"Why not save a step" is a nice way of saying, "What the fuck is that doing in here?" Imagine for a moment that you aren't talking about religion, but about making grilled cheese sandwich. You start listing the ingredients: Cheese, bread, butter, maybe a sprinkling of oregano. Then some dude comes along and militantly insists that all grilled cheese sandwiches must include relish. You stare at him in disbelief: "What the fuck? Relish doesn't really belong on grilled cheese, dude."
The next thing you know, this dude -- let's call him Billy -- is bending the ear of parents everywhere. They become convinced that the only way a grilled cheese sandwich is acceptable is with relish, although there's no reason for it. A whole movement springs up decrying non-relish grilled-cheese-eaters. The next thing you know, Billy is in Washington getting "In relish we trust" printed on all our bread bags. Worse, he's trying to get a law passed asking that all culinary institutes mandate the teaching of the relish -- and any chef who does not include relish in the recipe is immoral.
Two-thousand years later, you've institutionalized relish. Heinz and Vlasic have become tax exempt and require a 10 percent tithe each week. It's no longer about the grilled cheese, but it's about corporatizing the "morality" of the sandwich. Special Sunday morning classes for children are held to teach that people who don't eat relish and do everything the relish manufacturer dictates and bad people, and after death will be eternally tortured by an evil pumpkin that lives under the ground. People who like cucumbers over relish shouldn't be allowed to get married. Anyone who throws away premature pickles should be punished. One day, if you eat enough relish, you'll be rewarded with lots of money and happiness and there will be no more sorrow. Most importantly, you absolutely must do everything Heinz commands because relish is all-powerful.
Who cares how I shave as long as I am pleasing to the eye and a good human being? Who cares what I believe as long as I am a humanist above all else? I really don't give a fuck if you believe that machine elves brought forth by the consumption of DMT created the universe by singing a lullaby of creation through time during your last particularly intense psychedelic experience. If you treat everyone equally and can better this world, I have no need to care about your spiritual beliefs. It's 100% irrelevant provided you separate it from any decisions that impact others.
A question I will raise. What level of understanding must we have of a topic before we can comment.
Btw, your grandfather clock metaphor isn't well suited here. I had an explanation regarding that with atomic clocks and Playboys and playbunnies, but it was just as ill suited. JOKETHIEF!
The aspect that I have problem with about Christianity is God as human like being. If the universe some how formed consciousness and had the power to curve the evolution of a single planet, for arguments sake, It's mind would be so far above humans that there isn't even a metaphor to compare it to. Humans would be less than single celled organisms to a create who has the energy of the cosmos at his disposal. So what's the point of worshipping him? What does it accomplish?
Even the Bible is inconsistant in this matter. There are pieces where "God" is a metaphor for the law, there are pieces where "God" is a force of nature, and there are pieces where "God" is an individual being with unlimited power. The three aren't compatible to me.
As for Occam's razor, it shaves away hypotheses, not inefficiency. If you think it applies to grandfather clocks and razors, you're wrong.
WUB - 0
For example, if prayer being effective would have been evidence in favour of God, then the fact that it is not must necessarily be evidence against God. You can't have it both ways.