I need help

I have a problem on facebook if anyone knows whatI should do let me know. The problem: I can't make y own posts. when I try there is not place to write on the post and it wont take the words.I can answer people om their thread but can't startmywn, I looked for phone mi,ber for Faceboo, they did everytyingto hide it. I found a number but can't find the area code. can anyone help?

Does Presence of Pain Mean Absence of God?

"Whatever arguments you use, they are all excuses or rationalizations for the pain and suffering we see in this world where God is the ultimate expression of 'love.'"

This statement is made by our friend Skepie. The equation says "if Pain, then no God." The rationale is that loving parents would never subject their children to pain.Neither would a loving God. The very presence of pain disphttps://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20240608_ASP002.jpgroves the existence of God because loving God would never allow pain. Should we think that's true?

The rationale behind the equation (if Pain then no God) is the assumption that the most important value in all of existence is to be free of pain, or to be comfortable.God would never allow extreem discomfort. Is this true? No, I think there is a higher value. It's More important to be free than to be comfortable.

These are competing values so comfort is not the highest value. But there is a reason to think freedom is a higher value than comfort, and this can be proven. The reason is because without freedom, and I include free will, you can't have love and you can't have a moral universe; and that would negate what I think are God's two major reasons for creating.If true this means freedom is a higher value a priori.

At this point the regular Free will defense kicks in. God must allow free will, which means he risks causing pain through our bad choices, and thus free will necessities pain and freedom outweighs comfort as a value.

Skeptics often make the argument that no parent would willingly subject his/her child to suffering. Thus God, being the ultimate parent, would never subject his children to pain. That is directly contradicted by many examples where parents do subject their children to pain. Parents regularly subject their children to emotional pain not understanding  what it means to be a child. they do this because they love them and whatever the issue is, the parents are doing what they think is best for the child. Forbidden friendships they think are harmful when the child is emotionally bound to that person, all kinds of embarrassment from going to school to getting off drugs and so on. The drug example, if a child is known to the parent to be a drug addict the parent will insist the child get off drugs. Of course this could be very painful. It is a pain a loving parent would impose it doesn't make the paret less loving.

I hear the skeptic saying all of those examples are done for the good of the  child. How is a world of pain for the good of humanity? I am dealing with pain related to the choices we make. Natural disasters are a different issue* Freedom, including free will, is for the good of humanity. God has to allow pain as a consequence of free will,  They might ask why does God allow natural disasters? That is not a question of will But it is a consequence of a naturalistic world

. A Naturalistic world (although one in which God intervenes at times) is necessitated by the search for truth and good. This is why God keeps a world that can run on its own by naturalistic laws. If we were super naturally protected from all pain we should have no need to search for the truth of God. But in searching one develops the values of the good. That's why the search is important.A naturalistic world where there is no pain and suffering negates the need for a search for thinking God's action would be obvious.This all indicates that the existence of pain in the world is not proof against God's existence,especially when he provides the means to endure.

Twelve Angry Steriotypes: answering atheist parody theodicy probelm

from the play "12 angry nen."

A Friend from CARM emailed me this article found on Internet Infidels.Its' a parable (or anti-parable) about the problem of pain. It supposedly critique twelve different views of God and the approaches taken by those who hold said views, and the inadequacy thereof. I promised this friend a critique. But I will only defend the views that I find close to my own. I may make comments on some of the views, but not all. I see no point in defending views I don't hold. Apparently this essay is a "must read" according to HRG (Hans R. Groum) the star of the atheist board on CARM

Before getting started I have one general observation. The argument made here uses the medium of parable, and thus uses the idea of policemen watching a murder and not intervening as the analogy. The problem is, we hired cops to do a specific job, they are regular men and they have limited understanding. They are put up to a specific task which is understood of them and they have our own limitations in understanding the nature of the task or how to carry it out. This means the analogy is limited and dubious as analogous of God and the world. God is not hired to carry out a specific task. God allows things to happen in relation to divine wisdom, which is not something we understand well. We have to allow God to use his own judgment in how he things things should go. We can say to a cop "you know your job is to keep the pace and you allowed this crime to transpire right in font of your face" but we do no know God's role. We do not know God's understanding. We do not know God's limitations (if any). Thus this means there is no analogy. Where there is no analogy there is no argument.

Secondly. This essay carries the same weakness as the design argument. It doesn't outweigh God arguments it falls to them because it argues from the state of the world to the existence of God. If that is a mistake for design arguments, it's a mistake for theodicy arguments. If it is not a mistake for theodicy it is not a mistake for design; moot point at best.

thirdly, of course, I have made my own theory of theodicy, the "Soteriological Drama." Of cosrue this essay makes no mention of it. So any argument gleaned from this parable is countered by my essay. Please read it!

now to the parable:

The Tale of the Twelve Officers (2002) the Tale of Twelve Officers by

Mark I. Vuletic

Previously "The Five Officers" (2000), and then changed to "The Nine Officers" (2001), Vuletic has now made the final update to this essay to include a total of twelve points of view.

The First officer:

It was, of course, sad to hear that Ms. K had been slowly raped and murdered by a common thug over the course of one hour and fifty-five minutes; but when I found out that the ordeal had taken place in plain sight of twelve fully-armed off-duty police officers, who ignored her terrified cries for help, and instead just watched until the act was carried to its gruesome end, I found myself facing a personal crisis. You see, the officers had all been very close friends of mine, but now I found my trust in them shaken to its core. Fortunately, I was able to talk with them afterwards, and ask them how they could have stood by and done nothing when they could so easily have saved Ms. K. "I thought about intervening," said the first officer, "but it occurred to me that it was obviously better for the murderer to be able to exercise his free will than to have it restricted. I deeply regret the choices he made, but that's the price of having a world with free agents. Would you rather everyone in the world were a robot? The attacker's choices certainly weren't in my control, so I can't be held responsible for his actions."

I'm not correcting his spelling. If there is a misspelling in the block quote the atheist put it there.

Of course here we see the mocking of the Free will Defense. My Soteriological Drama is a free will defense. I urge the reader to read it as an answer. But notice here there is no reason for free will given. No attempt to weight the consequences of not having free will vs having it and having to suffer because of it. So no decision cam be made about the wisdom of such a course. The empty mocking of the position says it wall, "would you rather everyone be a robot?" Of course they would. atheists wish they were robots. rather they wish everyone else was a robot. So much for their disingenuous concern for humanity. They can't even understand the basic condition necessary for their own rebellion. if they were robots of God they could not be atheists. But that would suit them, they want to be absolved built and responsibly

The Second Officer:

"Well," said the second officer, "my motivation was a little bit different. I was about to pull my gun on the murderer when I thought to myself, 'But wait, wouldn't this be a perfect opportunity for some unarmed bystander to exercise selfless heroism, should he chance to walk by? If I were to intervene all the time like I was just about to, then no one would ever be able to exercise such a virtue. In fact, everyone would probably become very spoiled and self-centered if I were to prevent every act of rape and murder.' So I backed off. It's unfortunate that no one actually showed up to heroically intervene, but that's the price of having a universe where people can display virtue and maturity. Would you rather the world were nothing but love, peace, and roses?"

spoiled self centered people always mock those who lecture them on being responsible and selfless. I don't really know of any position that says God allows pain so we wont be selfish. I guess its' closest to the old "pain builds character idea" but I don't of anyone who is really willing to argue that seriously. C.S. Lewis argues something similar in the Problem of Pain But he is sophisticated enough to develop it into something more than that. Since I'm not defending Lewis I'll move on.

Third Officer:

"I didn't even consider stepping in," said the third officer. "I probably would have if I hadn't had so much experience of life as a whole, since Ms. K's rape and murder admittedly seems pretty horrible when taken in isolation. But when you put it into context with the rest of life, it actually adds to the overall beauty of the big picture. Ms. K.'s screams were like the discordant notes that make fine musical pieces better than they would have been had all the notes been flawless. In fact, I could scarcely keep from waving my hands around, im

agining that I myself was conducting the delicious nuances of the orchestra." This is really a straw man argument. I don't know of any Christian apologist who argues that pain adds to the beauty of life. I sometimes tell myself "it's all part of the rich pageantry of life," but only as a facetious commentary on how generally screwed up things are. This is really a major misunderstanding that atheists have about Christian positions. I guess they must think Christians have to think everything is huncky duncky. I don't think that. I think the world is screwed. That might go along with the Christian concept of a fallen world. I certainly Don't blame God for it. But then atheists are looking for things things to blame ;God for. Then they catch themse lves and say "but I don't believe in him." but they blame him for everything.

Fourth:

"When I first arrived on the scene, I actually drew my gun and pointed it right at the rapist's head," confessed the fourth officer, with a very guilty look on his face. "I'm deeply ashamed I did that. Do you know how close I came to destroying all of the goodness in the world? I mean, we all know there can't be any good without evil. Fortunately, I remembered this just in time, and a wave of such strong nausea came over me when I realized what I had almost done, that it knocked me to my hands and knees. Man, was that a close one."

This is a misapplication of several arguments none of which say that if God stops evil good will be destroyed. I have argued against atheists views that try to make evil into an essence. Thus many times they will argue that some contradiction obtains because God is good and evil exits, thus God is contradicted by evil or some such idea. Sometimes they push this to the point of making evil an essential quality. I say evil is not a positive thing. It's the lac of good. But that doesn't mean that in space somewhere there's this big "lack of good" sitting around. The lack of Good is in the heart, the human heart, or the attitudes. That is not an argument that evil is in anyway necessary to good. The relationship of good to evil is like that of light to shade. Light does not depend upon shade for its existence. Shade does depend upon light.

Fifth

"Look, there's really no point in my trying to explain the details to you," said the fifth officer, who we had nicknamed 'Brainiac' because he had an encyclopedic knowledge of literally everything and an IQ way off the charts. "There's an excellent reason for why I did not intervene, but it's just way too complicated for you to understand, so I'm not even going to bother trying. I mean, you admit you are nowhere near as knowledgeable as I am, so what right do you have to judge? Just so there's no misunderstanding, though, let me point out that no one could care about Ms. K. m

ore than I did, and that I am, in fact, a very good person. That settles that." this one is typical of the atheist not willing to allow God to be God. They can't allow that anything anywhere could know more than we do. I can't blame them entirely for this answer since I don't like mystifications either. Too often Christan will slough off an answers with this "no one knows the mind of God" sort of thing. On the other hand it is arrogant and stupid to pretend that we do know everything. We have to allow God to be all knowing and ou to be very ignorant. We ave to accept that we don't see the big picture. HOw could we? why shouldn't the big picture be beyond our scope?

There the atheists are looking for an all purpose handy dandy god defeater argument that has to be true. They use the excuse of point as a kings x. o God allowed this so there cant' be a God. It' just a big atheists Kings X.

Sixth!!!!

"I would have defended Ms. K," said the sixth officer, who was notoriously careful about staying out of the public eye, "but it simply was not feasible. You see, I want everyone to freely choose to believe in me. But if I were to step in every time someone was about to be raped or murdered, then the evidence would be so clear-cut that everyone would be forced to believe in me. Can you imagine a more diabolical infringement upon their free wills? Obviously, it was better for me to back off and let Ms. K be raped and murdered. Now everyone can freely choose to believe that there is this extraordinary cop out there who loves them like his own children."

Ok now we are getting someplace! Even though he doesn't say it, this is aimed at me. this is my view which is unique. This means I've had an impact such that they have to answer my own view. Yeah yip yip ypiee!!! (exuse my outburst). This is based upon my view in Soteriological Drama

If one will read the link one finds that there is much more to this view that is left out of the atheist frame work He just said "I didn't help because I want people to believe in me." what's is missing is the all the analysis about how why direct intervention would negate belief and what that means.

(1) It totally misses the point that what would be negated is not just belief or not belief at all. I state explicitly we would all believe in God if God make it plain enough. Not the point.

(2) We would believe but at the price of resentment. If we felt that we had to be good no matter what, there's no ambiguity, God is watching at all times and if we screw up we are in trouble, we would resent it. We would resent God.

(3) God wants more than just belief. He wants us to internalize the values of being good.

(4) The only way

to do that is to instill these values in such a way that we want to believe them. (5) That's the logic of the search. If we have to search for the truth we embrace the truth we find. If part of that truth is the values of the good then embrace them. we internalize them.

(6) If God stopped based stuff all the time there would be no need for a search. there would be no internalizing the values. This involves an answer similar to no 4, but if we are not careful we might think that this is no. 4. But it is not. I am not saying Good requires evil. Nor am I saying suffering builds character. thse are answered specifically on the page linked to above.

seventh

"What are you complaining about?" exclaimed the seventh officer when I turned to him, his eyebrows shooting up in exasperated disbelief. "I just saved a woman from getting raped and murdered last week! Do I have to jump in every time I see something like that about to happen? I would say the fact that more women are not raped and murdered in this city is almost miraculous testimony to my goodness.

" eight

The eighth officer, too, looked frustrated. "Nothing I do is good enough! Do you know how much worse it could have been? The thug actually had a blowtorch with him when he started out, but I said 'No way, not on my watch,' and knocked it away from him with my nightstick. Sure, I let him keep the switchblade, the pliers, the coat hanger, and the vial of

acid, but think how much worse it would have been with a blowtorch! Ms. K should have thanked her lucky stars that someone so loving was there to watch over her." both are highly inadequate parodies of positions I've given in the past. These answers were specific to certain atheist arguments. they are not meant to be general answers to the entire problem of pain. Atheists wont allow an honest answer. They can't take anything seriously and they can't represent an argument fairly. They always leave out the crucial bits that make so much difference. See above on Six see what was left out that makes a fine response look idiotic. Seen and eight do not represent views

of God. They are taken of out context. Which is what I would expect from atheists. Ninth:

"I'll let you in on a secret," said the ninth officer."Moments after Ms. K. flatlined, I had her resuscitated, and flown to a tropical resort where she is now experiencing extraordinary bliss, and her ordeal is just a distant memory. I'm sure you would agree that that's more than adequate compensation for her suffering, so the fact that I just stood there watching instead of intervening has no bearing at all on my goodness."

here he's not even trying. Just mocking the concept of after life. I could make a better parody of the "God will make it up to us in heaven" mentality. Tenth

The tenth officer gave us all quite a start when he revealed a surprising secret about Ms. K. "I genetically engineered her from scratch. I made her, therefore she's my property, and I can do whatever I want with her. I could rape and murder her myself if I were so inclined, and it would be no worse than you tearing up a piece of paper you own. So there is no question of my being a bad person for not helping her."

Of course here we have the atheist inability to argue within the guidelines of a position. I've seen them do this over an dover again. They think 'well it doesn't matter if those guys believe God created us, I don't believe th so he didn't." Then you get this sort of wired argument that doesn't quite accept the premise of it's opponent, even for the sake of argument, and yet expects one to go along with the argument anyway even though tit's not really Germain to anyone's actual belief. Why would we be surprised to find that God created humans? If a real cop said this of course it would be delusional, but not if God say sit. I can just hear the atheists missing the point and saying "but there is no God to say this."

Eleventh

The eleventh officer chimed in, gesturing at the tenth officer "I hired him to create Ms. K for me, because I wanted someone to love and worship me. But when I approached Ms. K about the matter, she actually turned away from me, as though she could find meaning and happiness with someone else! So I decided the loving thing to do would be to break her spirit by arranging to have her raped and murdered by a common thug, so that she might turn to me in her extraordinary suffering, thereby fulfilling the purpose for which she had been created. Well, mission accomplished, I'm happy to say! A few seconds before she died, she was so insane with terror and pain that she actually convinced herself she loved me, since she knew that only I could end her ordeal. I'll never forget the love in her eyes when she looked up at me the last time, begging for mercy, right before the thug bent over and slit her throat. It was so beautiful it still brings me to tears. Now I just have to go to that island so she can claim her prize of servitude."

I don't know of anyone who says that God allows pain so that we will have to love him. This is seems like the typical atheist misrepresentation and distortion they are constantly into. As I say they can never really gasp what an argument is about and they can never represent a Christian view point accurately.

Twelve:

"Well, this is quite a coincidence," chuckled the twelfth officer. "It looks like the thug got himself double pay, because I actually hired him to carry out the murder, too! Why? Oh, well it was just a test. Ms. K and I had been dating for some time (no offense, I didn't know she was someone else's property), and one beautiful night she finally told me she loved me. So, naturally, I wanted to see whether this was indeed love - that is, whether she would continue to adore me even while drowning in a pool of her own tears and blood, with me standing before her doing nothing."

I have to had it to him on this one. This is pretty much why I reject the "this is all a test" theory of spirituality. But of course their fuming hatred at people who say this marks their inability to empathize.

By now, it had become clear to me that any difficulty I might have had in reconciling the presumed goodness of the officers with their behavior that day was unfounded, and that anyone who sided against them could do so only for love of evil over good. After all, anyone who has experienced their friendship in the way I have knows that they are good. Their goodness is even manifest in my life - I was in a shambles before I met them, but now everyone remarks on what a changed person I am, so much kinder and happier, apparently possessed of an inner calm. And I have met so many others who feel exactly the same way about them - so many who, like me, know in their hearts the truth that others try to rationalize away with their cold reason and sterile logic. I am ashamed that I ever doubted the entitlement of the twelve officers to my loyalty and my love. As I was getting ready to leave, the first officer spoke up again. "By the way, I also think you should know that when we stood there watching Ms. K. get raped and stabbed over and over, we were suffering along with her, and we experienced exactly the same pain she did, or perhaps even more." And everyone in the room, myself included, nodded his head in agreement.

Of course this is not kind of answer to the process theology position that says God suffers with humanity but can't save 100% of life. Pain and suffering are those things cannot be saved. The assumption made here by the author is that they could stop such things. Thus it fails to even speak to views such as process, or deism or a view of an impersonal God (the God principle) which assert that God cannot stop such things.

The usual atheist mentality is to mock and blaspheme such a God and to assert that he's not worth worshiping. Then they turn around and idealize Buddhism as atheist spirituality even though its essentially offering the same thing as an impersonal God principle, even though they don't' say that. Now comes the passive aggressive bit.

Postscript

Religious readers, do not take offense. I have made this parable as brazen as I could, but my purpose is not to insult or blaspheme. I just got through distorting and insulting your view of life, but I don't mean to insult you.

I have found that religious believers are often conditioned to accept trite solutions to the problem of suffering, and that it is all but impossible to shake that conditioning through dry analysis. The temptation to offer to an entity a moral blank check simply because it sports a nametag with "God" written on it, is overwhelming in our theistic culture. Hence, this attempt to make the point through a medium as far removed from dry analysis as possible. But again, it is all to make a point, not to cause anyone harm. I have not written anything that I would not have wanted directed at me when I myself was a believer.

yes I think you are a perfect idiot to hold your beliefs but don't' be offended.

Atheists are really stuck with the need to reduce answers to pablum because theodicy is one of the major arguments they possess. They can't prove there is no God, they can't win a God argument to save their lives. About the only thing they can do si throw up sweeping objections to the concept of God based upon the nature of the world. Of course we need to be aware of The reverse design argument. (see up top) The best they can get out of it is a moot point because it is either outweighed by God arguments, or equal tot hem; can't reason form the state of the world to God or rule out God's existence for same reason.

comparing God to a big cop in the sky is just another version of thinking of God as a big "guy in the sky." This seems to be about the only way atheists can think about god.

Oddly enough I was thinking of doing an argument along these lines. I don't think sufficient attention is given to the impersonal God option. Even though that is not my view I will do one on it, the impersonal God as an answer to theodolites. I'll put that up in a couple of days. I'll how it relates to a valid Christian position. In the mean time we should recognize that we don't need a definite answer tot he great oceanic questions to justify belief. If I' don't know why God allows pain" is the only answer, they must show why this is not good enough. Because they can't answer other oceanic questions without appealing to God. why aren't we robots? why do we have wills, why do we find meaning in belief? why is the human brain wired to respond to God talk? They can't answer that. At that level all of it has to reduce to personal decision.

The atheist fails to secure his big all purpose God beater argument.

Ouch! AAAAAAAAAAA, how I feel about the election

Obviously I'm not happy. I have lost elections a lot of times. My first was 1972, my brother and I worked for George McGovern, We went to the HQ every day after school and registered voters on week ends, I was almost knifed in the Dallas projects by a pimp lookimg guy who said white people had no business there. I was saved by a huge line backer who must have been 7 feet tall who said "He's doing this for our people." The pimp looking guy slunk away. I was a sophomore in highschool, We were saving the world. We lost by the second greatest landslide in American history.

I can handle losing an election it'w who won that makes me mad. People saw how terrible Trump was just four years ago but they have totally forgotten. Americans would rather feel economically secure than be free. They have traded their freedom for security and this will become apparent over time.

An anonymous idiot comments on the blog, "You only have yourself to blame for the culture in which we live. I had to inherit this from old fools like yourself who helped it become like it is today." Does he nt even notice all the anti Trump things I'e said? I Have spent my whole life working to change the world for the better and had zero effect. I changed nothing,I bear no responsibility for Trump that is insane. I am proud of my life time of social protest and left leaning organizing. I would do it all again if I had it to do over. I might try to find some more effective ways.My brother and I were major organizers in Texas in the Central America Movement,fighting contra aid.

Ultimately all we can do is trust God. That is the only protection we have against the ravages of history. Sometimes that takes the form of going home to be with Jesus. Before I do that,however, I would like to think I took a few with me and made the world a bit better.

See the guys at top of page in grpahic? That's my image of who I am that's my youth that ideal as I grew up. It probably had no effect on anything Still we tried. We hada ourselves a time

,

The upshot of this politicization of the gospel is to produce a leader like Trump. A con man with no regard for human life and no understanding of human behavior.

So how do Trump-supporting evangelicals square their supposed belief in the literal truth of every word of the Bible with Trump’s monstrous behavior and policies? This is a guy found liable in civil court for sexual assault, and credibly accused of similar behavior by 15 other women. A guy who has been married three times. A guy who has been charged with 91 felonies. A guy who is about to go on trial for allegedly illegally covering up a $130,000 hush money payment to a porn star he committed adultery with four months after his current wife gave birth to their son. A guy who rather than displaying Christian humility and charity, compulsively boasts about himself with every other word out of his mouth, and positively wallows in the personal excesses of wealth. A guy whose policy agenda would snatch health insurance from tens of millions, viciously punish unauthorized immigrants, cut taxes on the rich, and on and on,1

Trump appears to be a major threat to civilization, For example,he keeps bragging about what great accomplishments he's made, but even his major underlings do not realize the harm he has done. Example: only the department of energy has the expertise to know if Iran can build a nuclear weapon at this stage. But Trump officials have not even asked them because as Trump said "they are not military what do they know?" No one likes the government but the truth is over the course of the 20th century the feds built a vast data collectivization machine in the various federal agencies. All Trump has done is to destroy that data collection/dissemination ability. Another example thanks to Trump “the public no loner has access to the major data on global warming."2 He rolled back over 100 environmental regulations that are crucial in savibg lives.3

In 2000, 2004 and again in 2010, the Clean Air Task Force issued studies based on work by Abt Associates quantifying the deaths and other adverse health affects attributable to the fine particle air pollution resulting from power plant emissions. Using the most recent emissions data, in this 2014 study, CATF examines the continued progress towards cleaning up one of the nation's leading sources of air pollution. This latest report finds that over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants. This represents a dramatic reduction in power plant health impacts from the previous studies....Our 2004 study showed that power plant impacts exceeded 24,000 deaths a year, but by 2010 that had been reduced to roughly 13,000 deaths due to the impact that state and federal actions were beginning to have.  4That is what Trump rolled back.

Trump has made many serious attempts to destroy democracy. One such case, he threatened the Georgia Secretary of State, Raffensperger, with Criminal Charges for Not Faking Votes! (Brennan Center For Justice).5

https://www.gcrr.org/addendum-b

Here is a list of about 70 the failings of Trump. The list was compiled by a non profit non a,inedthy8bj tank for religious scholars.

1 Ryan Cooper,"The Pious One, Donald Trump."Tne American Prospect (April 4, 2024) https://prospect.org/politics/2024-04-04-pious-one-donald-trump/

2 Face The Nation, TV news program, CBS, September 30, 2018

3 Nadja Popovich et al “Trump Administration rolled back more than 100 Environmental Rules,” New York Times, (Jan. 20, 2021 )

4 Clean Air Task Force, Clean Air Task Force 114 State Street 6th Floor Boston, MA 02109 quoted in “Trumos war in breathing: Jospeeh Hinman Metacrock blogm Ict 5 2024 https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2024/10/trumps-war-on-breathing.html

5 Fact Check: “Trump’s Georgia Call to Raffenspergerm” Brennan Center for Justice. (July 27, 2023)

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fact-check-trumps-georgia-call-raffensperger

Politics distorts the motovations that drive it

Eventually solidarity with the group and revenge dominate the ideals that motivated political action. The ideals recede into the background. Evangelicalism is a product of the south. It's notions of justice were forged in light of the slave trade and it's notions of love were rationaliztions for its raw poloticcal instincts. Let us note the way Christ's commands to love, especially love of enemies, have become distorted.

The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx) reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.[1]

He points to militarism, draconian criminal justice, hatrod of the poor and lionizing the rich.

Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor — especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of “socialism,” even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training — anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do.[2]

Examples of co opted values, according to Sean Mcelwee,  include:

(1)Immigration 

The verse: "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God." - Leviticus 19:33-34.[3]

Yet, as he points out the evangelicals oppose the imigration bill, rampage against the poor who desperately leave their homes to seek life sustaining employment, and they rationalize keeping kids in cages.[4]

2.Poverty

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:24.

Mcelwee points out:

Because the only thing fundamentalists dislike more than immigrants is poor people. Seriously. Just this year, Tea Party congressman Stephen Fincher explained why he thought the government should cut food stamps entirely, “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other, but not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country.” Michelle Bachmann has also made a similar statement. The entire Tea Party movement is based on the idea that a huge portion of Americans are “takers” who suck the lifeblood out of the economy.[5]

as John Gehring points  out:

Too many white Christians sacrifice the gospel’s radical solidarity with the poor and oppressed with comfortable, self-serving ideologies. Prosperity gospel preachers affirm the cult of consumerism and individualism. Evangelicals rally behind political leaders who make a holy trinity out of tax cuts for the wealthy, attacks on social safety nets and anti-government propaganda.[6]

We can see the upshot in the way conservatuvee Christians blame the poor themselves for their poverty rather than the system or their circumstances. In  a 2016 study by the Public Religion Research Institute we find:

Christians, the study found, are more than twice as likely to blame a person’s poverty on individual failings than Americans who are atheist or have no specific religious affiliation. White evangelical Christians, who voted overwhelmingly for President Trump and continue to be some of his most steadfast supporters, are especially wedded to this worldview. Half of white Catholics also cited lack of effort — read: laziness — rather than difficult circumstances as the primary reason why people are poor. Less than a third of African-American Christians agree.[7]

What is the solution? It seems that politics dreches one in muck and distorts our view of the world, obscuring Christ's clear teachings. Shall we declare politics  too worldly for Christians? That would also be to ignore human suffering. Ignoring people's pain is to ignore Jesus' teaching. I think the only remedy is the litmus test "is your political stand based upon your own wordly comfort?" Only if we are willing to give and to get out of the comfort zone can we obey the gospel.

So how do Trump-supporting evangelicals square their supposed belief in the literal truth of every word of the Bible with Trump’s monstrous behavior and policies? This is a guy found liable in civil court for sexual assault, and credibly accused of similar behavior by 15 other women. A guy who has been married three times. A guy who has been charged with 91 felonies. A guy who is about to go on trial for allegedly illegally covering up a $130,000 hush money payment to a porn star he committed adultery with four months after his current wife gave birth to their son. A guy who rather than displaying Christian humility and charity, compulsively boasts about himself with every other word out of his mouth, and positively wallows in the personal excesses of wealth. A guy whose policy agenda would snatch health insurance from tens of millions, viciously punish unauthorized immigrants, cut taxes on the rich, and on and on.[8]

Cooper is an atheist, let's hear from a Christian leader. Russell Moore who was editer amd chief of Christianity today:

“If you can defend this, you can defend anything,” wrote Russell Moore, a theologian who is also the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), in an excoriating editorial to his fellow evangelicals about the breach of the Capitol. The intruders displayed Jesus Saves signs next to those calling for the hanging of Vice President Mike Pence and, once in the building, thanked God for the opportunity “to get rid of the communists, the globalists and the traitors” within the U.S. government. “If you can wave this away with ‘Well, what about …'” added Moore, “then where, at long last, is your limitp[9]

Notes:

[1] Phil Zuckerman and Dan Cady, "Why Evangelcals Hate Jesus,"Huffpost, (03/03/2011 10:11 am ET Updated May 25, 2011) https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237

[2] Ibid.

[3]Sean Mcelwee, "5 ways Fundamentalsts Mistreat the Bile ," Salon, (AUGUST 6, 2013) https://www.salon.com/2013/08/06/when_fundamentalists_get_liberal_about_the_bible_partner/

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6]John Gehring, "What is Wrpg woth White Chrstians?" Religion News Service, (August 10, 2017). https://religionnews.com/2017/08/10/what-is-wrong-with-white-christians/

[7] Ibid

[8]Ryan Cooper,"The Pious One, Donald Trump."Tne American Prospect (April 4, 2024) https://prospect.org/politics/2024-04-04-pious-one-donald-trump/

[9] Russell Moore,in Belinda Luscombe"Theologian Russell Moore Has a Message for Christians Who Still Worship Donald Trump," Time *(January 21, 2021) https://time.com/5932014/donald-trump-christian-supporters/

Christianity and the changing of the Mazeways.

Anthony FC Wallace (1923-2015)

For years I would see strange opinions popping up on message boards, evangelicals are forgetting the gospel, I was not the first to post one of those messages. I first regarded it as New Atheist slander.I soon joined the ranks of such prophets, however, yet no one listened because we were just cranks on a message board. After what we have seen over the last seven months* it seems absurd for anyone to question it, People keep asking how can it be that Evangelicals would forget to be Evangelical?" The answer is provided by historian Wayne Flynt of Auburn University, and the answer is obvious, they are changeling. Flyant his devoted his life to studying his fellow southerners: Flynt’s answer is that his people are changing. The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, are less central to their thinking and behaviour, he says. Church is less compelling. Marriage is less important. Reading from a severely abridged Bible, their political concerns have narrowed down to abortion and issues involving homosexuality. Their faith, he says, has been put in a president who embodies an unholy trinity of materialism, hedonism and narcissism. Trump’s victory, in this sense, is less an expression of the old-time religion than evidence of a move away from it....[Flynt says] 'Arguably, what has constituted white evangelical Christian morality for 200 years no longer matters, which is to say we’re now a lot like Germany, a lot like France, a lot like England, a lot like the Netherlands, and what we have is a sort of late-stage Christian afterglow.'[1]

How could people so committed to a value system and way of life, a world view, the Bible,Jesus,change? Everyone I know still talks about how unbelievable it all is,Not just Evangelicals going for and becoming completely sold out to a a man who embodies the antithesis of all that they stand for, not only the election to the Presidency of a totally unqualified clown, not only that he fundies vest this man with an anointing that makes him seem almost divine in their minds, but also the decline of Western civilization, the resurgence of racism and the seeming collapse of ordinary civilizing norms. But we need not be puzzled. it's all explained by going back to my old sociology days.There is a sociological theory, which I will discuss, that accounts for this change, That is explained by a theory in sociology of religion, the theory of "the Mazeways" by Anthony F.C. Wallace. An Anthropologist was born In 1923 in Toronto he died in 2015 in Pennsylvania, where he went to school (University of Penn 1950). Wallace began working on his general theory, the Theory of "Revitalization Movements" (RM) in the late 40s as a student with a paper on the Delaware tribe of native Americans. By the earlly 90s his theory was well developed and largely accepted, having it's major period of development in the 60s. [2]

A RM is a deliberate, organized, conscious effort by members of a society to construct a more satisfying culture. Politico-religious movements arise in periods of great social stress promising deliverance from deprivation, foreign domination, social exploitation,or conflicts over colonialism, economic exploitation and racial conflict; these movements employ new transformations of spirit based upon reshuffling of old cultural vales, which seem to have failed. The classic example is the native American ghost dance, which Wallace studied. Wallace also studied the Delaware in early fomentation of his theory,[3] [4]

Wallace's theory began as a theory about native American culture and religious movements. It deal with visionary leaders with ecstatic experiences. But he was not just applying hunter gatherer culture to post industrial society. He also studied Christianity and Islam and used modern examples of American Society. Wallace has developed a full array of methodologies from field work to participant observer,to laboratory experiment, to archival etnohisotry.[5] The result is that he has become of the most commonly sited social scientists, accepted by every major social science field and considered one of the true greats of anthropology. [6] After re-mainspring his theory after all these years I think he is the only one who really explains what is going on in terms of the sense that everything is falling apart. Moreoer in the 60s Luthar Gaqrloch and Virginia Hines applied Wallace's theory favorably to the study of Pentecostalism and Black Power movements, He took a paradigmatic approach from Thomas Kuhn and studied the effects of technology on modern society.[7]

The Theory in thumbnail

RMs start in times of stress, they occur during times of disillusionment or disappointment.It is a process in which the people involved see their culture as a system that has let them down and is no longer working for them.The classic processes of cultural change are evolution, drift, diffusion, historical change, acculturation and all these produce changes in cultures as systems; however, these changes may not be the result of deliberate intention of the member of that society, but rather a gradual chain-reaction effect. The process cascades effecting multiple other changes and spurring more reaction.

Stages in the movement

There are several stages in the movement I wont bother to go into but I will highlight the crucial stages that I think really speak to our time. There is a steady state (that's a stage in the theory) where people become depressed, crumble under the new situations and it becomes the new normal. They go through increased individual stress then hit the stage of cultural distortion. The state of cultural distortion is significant, In that period people are trying to find new solutions and old elements such as values and traditions that were once comforting are abandoned or compete with each other or changed in ways previously thought unimaginable,[8]

Mazeways (yes, one word) are crucial here because it is mazeway change that creates much of the stress and it is mazeway change that people try playing with and manipulating to understand the new situation.For example sex, drugs, rock and roll. But mazeway shift creates more stress.[9] Mazeways are the links that enable the individual to connect with the larger culture through her understanding of daily life. They include things as innocent as table manners to things as serious as the moral code, For example the idea of being a law abiding citizen, having a social time table and career plan, playing by the rules, seeking conventional rewrds of good behvior. These are marked by things like style and career path all of these are mnazeways,

Mazeway Reformation is crucial and it applies to either secular movements or religiosity. The individual's understanding no longer correlates with that of the culture, appropriate example, someone who believes one goes to hell for being gay suddenly sees gay marriages around her

. The leader

Within the context of organization of the movement, Wallace evokes sociologist Max Weber's notion of the "charismatic leader." The prophet is a chrism tic leader endued with special status and abilities, He relates his vision to concerts and they accept him absolutely. "As God is to the Prophet so the Prophet is (almost) the follopwrs"[10] Don't forget Wallace's primary data applies to native American culture so he says the prophet and many of his followers will have ecstatic experiences. But the theory has also been applied to modern secular society. The leader "is regarded as an uncanny person of unquestionable authority in one or more spheres of leadership sanctioned by the supernatural...followers defer to the charismatic leader not because of his status in an existing authority structure but because of a facilitating personal power."[11]

In Wallace's theory a society is like an organism,Its a living entity meaning it's dynamic,is compassed of various members and parts which fomentation together and work in certain ways. That dynamic includes tensions and conflicts and times of stress occur there are cascades of effect that lead to social breakdown, When the system is seen not to function the movement begins.

What Wallace calls internal incongruities of the Mazeways it leads to anxiety and loss of meaningful way of life disillusionment with the Mazeways sets in. "This process of deterioration can, if not checked,lead to the death of society."[12] Society is an organism with parlous parts,when when society is seen as dysfunctional organism and has let people down,they fail to accomplish their preconditioned traditional expectations. I interprit the theory to mean that a given subset of the society can have a revitalization movement or can off, or the same principles could be applied to a whole nation.

Applying the theory to the current situation

RMs promise deliverance from deprivation, foreign domination, social exploitation,or conflicts over "colonialism, economic exploitation and racial conflict;" these are reflected and named in the literature (fn3-4) These were issues in the last presidential election. America as the colonial power not as the colony figures into the conflict with illegal aliens and the boarder wall, especially the idea of Mexico to pay for the wall. Fear of foreign domination certainly figured into the campaign

. Certainly the bit about the Charismatic leader applies, supernatural aid. Even though Trump has not had ecstatic experiences he has been vested with sanctifying Grace by his followers and is practically worshiped in some quarters. Televangelists have declared that anyone trying to thwart Trump will dealt with by God and Trump is Gods man. The uncanny acceptance of Trump's unchristian manner are explained by the e shuffle of the mazeways, the rules are suspended for the leader, he's too important because his mission is so vital, to make the culture work again for the deprived. The talk of make America great again and take America back are indicative of the shift of mnazeways the culture is broken they can/t find their way

. We can explaimn why old people are racist and why they are reacting for Trump, They lived for years in silent defeat by civil rights moment, But why are young people dedicated to alt right and racism? A minority of young people are alienated, and racist. Trump's vocabulary was a statistical fluke spread over a few states.[13]Yet, that minority of disaffected racists could be virulent, They may have been raised on the reshuffled mazeways of the Reagan era then we never got a chance to change the educational system,which Trump is understudying all the more.

The issue is not as simple as racism vs democrats. There are lots of overstates who are not racist, I think the revitalization movement theory exclaims the evangelical's change. a lot of middle age to older people who were raised on the model of abide by the law, follow the rules be a church goer and you will get rich, the American dream. That mazeway as been changed shuffled distorted. collapsed and otherwise mutilated. There has been a persist amt substitute growing on talk radio,

In The U.S. We have had a succession of revitalize movements starting with the 60s counter culture,then the Reagan counter revolution then the Obama answer to economic collapse, now the Trump vacation from sanity, That's a lot of Maseway shifting and it has bred anew generation of antisocial people who never knew the old maszeways and there are still a lot of hold overs who are alienated American dream types.

*First published:June 05, 2019. Sources

[1] Gary Silverman, "How the Bible Belt Lost God and Found Trump," Financial Times (APRIL 13, 2017) On line version (access 9/14/17) URL: https://www.ft.com/content/b41d0ee6-1e96-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c

[2] Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 8; Vol. 12 (15 ed.) Encyclopedia Britannica ISBN 0852296339

[3] Anthony F.C. Wallace and ed. Robert S. Grumet, Revitalization and Mazeways: Essays on Cultural Change Vol 1 Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press 2003, 9-12..

In 1956 Wallace published a seminal paper "Revitalization Movements that really began his theory as a coherent whole, which was at that time a theory about Native American culture.

[4] Encyclopedia.com. "The Revitalization Movmeent" The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright The Columbia University Press, no date given, (acess 8/13/17) URL http://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/other-religious-beliefs-and-general-terms/religion-general/revitalization

[5] Robert S. Grumet, "Foreword," Revitalization and Mazeways, op. cit., x

. [6] Ibid, vi

i [7] 5

[8] Wallas 10-16

[9] 16

[10] Wallace, op cit, 21

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid 16

[13] CHAUNCEY DEVEGA. "Are younger Whites Less Raciost? New Research..." Salon (Dec 20,2016) http://www.salon.com/2016/12/20/will-young-people-save-us-new-research-into-the-racial-attitudes-of-young-whites-suggests-its-not-that-simple/ Posted by Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) at 9:51 AM

Trump used DOJ to overturn election results

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/07/1044015379/senate-report-details-trumps-efforts-to-use-doj-to-overturn-election-results

NPR:"Senate report details Trump's efforts to use DOJ to overturn election results"

An interim report from the Senate Judiciary Committee provides the most detailed look yet at former President Donald Trump's attempts to enlist the Justice Department in his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The report from the panel's Democratic majority documents the chaotic final weeks of Trump's presidency following his loss to Joe Biden, and how Trump tried to force Justice Department officials to help him keep his grip on power.

Department leaders ultimately resisted Trump's pressure, but it took threats of mass resignations across the department to get him to back down.

A key moment that emerges in the report is a Jan. 3 meeting in the Oval Office between Trump and senior Justice Department leaders, including then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and his top deputy, Richard Donoghue.

Trump continues to lie, says 'real insurrection' happened when he lost election POLITICS. Trump continues to lie, says 'real insurrection' happened when he lost election Rosen told the committee that Trump opened the three-hour meeting by saying: "One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren't going to do anything to overturn the election."

He is essentually saying forget the will of the people, make me king. He wants to be dicktator. Hw is still in full controlof the repubs, Duch tight cobtrol the got no votes toremove him from office. A vote for the repubs is a vote for Trump.

Jesus Christ copy cat savior ? Dionysian Mysteries

Dionysian Mysteries

1) Dionysus was not born of a virgin.

The Greek god Dionysus is said to be the god of wine, actually he began as a fertility god in Phrygia and in Macedonia, Thrace, and other outlying regions. The origin of the cult is probably in Asia. (Charles Seltman, The Twelve Olympians, New York: Thomas Y. Corwell Company, 1960.)

"In the myths about Dionysus the most important is the tale of his birth. His mother was Semele...in fact she was an earth goddess...the usual form of the story is that Zeus loved Semele and consorted with her...." (Ibid, 171). Hera, of course was jealous and tricked the girl into asking Zeus to show himself to her in his true from. She was fried by his thunderbolts which cannot help but constantly shoot from his true form, but Zeus was able to save the child that she carried. I can find no authority who says that Dionysus mother was a virgin. But this is one of the tricky ones, she may have known no mortal man, but she was not the product of virginal conception. She was also not mortal herself, so the idea of her having a Virginal conception is out of the question, because whatever she did would be supernatural anyway, and we don't' know what gods she dated before Zeus.

2) Dionysus not laid in a manger.

There is one very tiny aspect of a manger-like thing in the Dionysus myth, and it is not very central. A flower basket which could double as a crib was used as one of many fertility symbols. In fact there is no real manger connection at all. Near the end of the 5th century BC the Greek Euripides wrote a play, The Bacchae, one of the major sources of Dionysian mysteries. I've seen skeptics claim that he was laid in a manger at his birth. But he was not, he was laid in Zeus's thigh until he came to term and there is no manger scene at all (Stelman,171).

3) Title "Son of god" Other similarities.

Euripides does refer to Dionysus as "son of god." But that is just profanatory. In mythology gods were like people, they were born, they had parents, and they lived in families. Why? Probably because people do. The phrase "son of god" and the general concept may be "influenced" by paganism in a general sense (see above) but the specific notion of Jesus' incarnation is totally different. Jesus is the incarnation of the divine logos, the second person of the Trinity, God incarnate. He is the incarnation of the rational that created the universe; not a mythological demigod, the offspring of a god and mortal. Besides that, the term "Son of God" in Judaism of Jesus' day was understood as a Euphemism for the Messiah.

4) Dionysus Dying and Rising.

In some stories Dionysus is torn apart by the Titans. In other stories it is Hera's orders that he be torn apart. But he was torn apart, not crucified. Moreover, since he was not an historical figure he was not a flesh and blood man. He did not really die, and his resurrection is not really bodily. His dying and rising are an echo of the death of plant life and fertility in winter and his rising is the rising of the plants in the Spring. "He was the vine which is always pruned as nothing else which bears its fruit; every branch cut away, only the bare stock left, through the winter a dead thing to look at...he was always brought back to life..." (Edith Hamilton, Mythology, Mentor edition, original copywriter 1940, pp. 61-62). Hamilton says that his rising did offer hope of new life, the immortality of the soul. "He was the assurance that death does not end all."

But this is very different from the historical claims of Christ's resurrection. Dionysus did not have an historical existence, no empty tomb, no flesh and blood body seen and felt by witnesses afterward. He is merely the archetype suggested by seasons, the human wish for a rejuvenation and the circularity of nature.

"In Christianity everything is made to turn on a dated experience of a historical Person; it can be seen from I Cor. XV. 3 that the statement of the story early assumed the form of a statement in a Creed. There is nothing in the parallel cases which points to any attempt to give such a basis of historical evidence to belief" A. D. Nock (Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background", 1964, p. 107).

5) Not a savior

Moreover, the followers of Dionysus did not gain their sense of eternal life from Dionysus himself, nor form his death, but from their own drunken ecstasy in the "Béchamel." (Yamauchi, in "Easter: Myth, Hallucination or History," and c.f. M. Nilsson, The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age, 1957).

His death was not an atonement and his resurrection has not even the semblance of an historical, much less history making aspect. But perhaps it was a dress rehearsal.

6) Moreover, he was not crucified as Till claims but instead was torn apart by the Titans.

Trump's war on breathing

This essay was written during the Trump Presdiency I think it is important to think about it now.

One major crime of the Trump Presidency was Trump's war on EPA.

We can quantify how many lives Trump's lattest scheme will end. That scheme being the repeal of Major Obama era carbon emissions rules. "The Environmental Protection agency announced on Tuesday that Scott Pruitt, the Chief of the agency, had signed a measure to repeal President Barack Obama's signature policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants...." [1]

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) has studied the effects of fine particle emissions from power plants since the year 2000. These are empirical scientific epidemiological studies. There are now 7,500 deaths each year from power plant emissions. [2] This may sound like a lot but its actually down by 50% from the time before the Obama regs,

In 2000, 2004 and again in 2010, the Clean Air Task Force issued studies based on work by Abt Associates quantifying the deaths and other adverse health affects attributable to the fine particle air pollution resulting from power plant emissions. Using the most recent emissions data, in this 2014 study, CATF examines the continued progress towards cleaning up one of the nation's leading sources of air pollution. This latest report finds that over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants. This represents a dramatic reduction in power plant health impacts from the previous studies....Our 2004 study showed that power plant impacts exceeded 24,000 deaths a year, but by 2010 that had been reduced to roughly 13,000 deaths due to the impact that state and federal actions were beginning to have. The updated study shows that strong regulations that require stringent emission controls can have a dramatic impact in reducing air pollution across the country, saving lives, and avoiding a host of other adverse health impacts. The study also shows regrettably that some areas of the country still suffer from unnecessary levels of pollution from power plants that could be cleaned up with the application of proven emission control technologies.[3]

The 2004 study showed 24,000 deaths a year, I show above its down to 7,500, that's 17,000 lives a year saved by the regs!. [4] Market forces are moving us away from Coal. There is no question this will be, power plants are closing and the large industry is committed to it. Coal Fired energy in US has fallen from 51% in 2008 to 30% in 2016. [5] The market story creates a complex issue. The question becomes how much, how soon? We can retard the drift away from coal as Trump is trying to do,or we can facilitate moving to more healthy sources of energy that furnish employment.  Neither candidate in the election had the presence of mind to say that. The shift has meant 80% less sulfur dioxide, 64% less nitrogen oxide, 34% less carbon dioxide [6] For those who don't know those things are  not good to breath.

Those who are oppose to saving lives will always argue jobs. the Trade-off, jobs vs breathing. Jobs will always win, We see this in the election. of Trump. The Koch brothers (Charles and David sons of Fred C.) and other billionaires have orchestrated a huge grass roots campaign that started long before the election,It was working overtime during Obama's time as the rightful  president. That movement produced the bedrock of Trump's support.[7]

It involved a massive public relations campaign taking over local news broadcasting across the country plus grass roots ralleys. They fomented the lie that science is undecided about climate change [8]and since climate change can't be proven to be caused by humans the greatest risk is in disturbing our wonderful life style which allows the K boys and Trump to get richer. They fostered the image among these grass roots types that science and climate change and pollution are just fancy ideas by egg heads or the cultural elite who can afford to control their so corralled "carbon foot prints," ":whatever that is" (nudge nudge).Trump's second  phase of EPA destruction has been replaced by anti-EPA people  Trump has put in charge of the agency,

The old time administrators are angry and depressed and some long time officials retired or were fired by Trump. they were then dismissed as "disgruntled" but they report the agency is being destroyed from  within,[9] "Scott Pruitt, a fierce defender of fossil fuels, is on a crusade to gut the environmental agency he now leads..They can now toast Scott Pruitt in coal country, perhaps with plastic flutes of toxic rain. Tuesday brought what New Yorker writer Jane Mayer has called the “triumph of the anti-environmental movement.” It’s a triumph you can watch on Wednesday’s installment of PBS’ Frontline." (see fn 8) [10]Pruitt was not merely a critique of the EPA he advocated eliminating it and now he has his chance.

It's not just limited to power plants, in April OP ED published "Trump's War On EPA Continues in which we said,

U.S. automakers may not have to reach fuel efficiency standards that were set during President Obama's administration, as the Environmental Protection Agency says it's reopening a review of the rules.President Trump is expected to make that announcement Wednesday in meetings with auto industry executives and workers in Michigan.In Washington, a senior White House official said the president wants to "set standards that are technologically feasible, economically feasible and allow the auto industry to grow and create jobs."The Obama-era rules stemmed from an agreement the government reached with major vehicles in the summer of 2011, setting carbon dioxide emissions targets for passenger cars and light trucks that were equivalent to the industry's fleet of achieving an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by the 2025 model year.The reopening of the rules review comes after a request from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry group that represents both domestic and foreign automakers. The group's request came last month, after the confirmation of Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator. [read More] [11]

Studies show the situation is even more alarming with auto emissions than with power plants. The new MIT study puts auto emission deaths at 50,000/yr [12] including powerboats and other sources it goes up to to 200,000/yr! [13]

Of course the big counter argument will always be jobs, supposedly breathing costs us jobs. There two levels of argument, the more abstract level asserts that economic efficiency equals job growth and anything that costs profits is inefficient. The pragmatic level merely asserts that clean energy cant sustain employment, both are totally wrong. Energy fro solar will employ 79 times the labor force of coal. [14] The entire renewable energy industry is more labor intensive than fossil fuel technology. Wind energy alone already employs 75,000 workers in the U.S. [15]

John Kenneth "Ken" Galbraith, in The New Industrial State, [16] tells us that the bench mark economic efficiency is not written in stone but can be measured anyway we choose to measure it. We choose to measure it in terms of profit margin because those who own the means of production want it that way. They don't value human life so they don't consider that 200,000 as anything but Collateral damage. Economic efficiency could me measured in terms of our ability to supply vital resources to those who need them. As log as we allow those who put profits over lives our efforts to support a vital economy will be negated, We might have jobs but those we seek to support will die of cancer caused by the jobs we do to support them. We need to endure government regulation as long as the wonders of production don't care who they kill to get richer. We need to vote in a government that will regulate pollution.



update: " Today, April 25 (2024), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a suite of final rules to reduce pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants in order to protect all communities from pollution and improve public health without disrupting the delivery of reliable electricity."[17]

Sources

[1] Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer, "E.P.A. Announces Repeal of Major Obama-Era Carbon Emissions Rule," New  York Times, (OCT. 9, 2017) on line ed. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html?smid=fb-share
(accessed 10/11/17)

[2] Clean Air Task Force, Clean Air Task Force 114 State Street 6th Floor Boston, MA 02109 

• Joseph Chaisson, Research and Technical Director, http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/
• (accessed 10/11/17)
• board of directors: http://www.catf.us/about/board/
• (accessed 10/11/17)
• Jeff Gleason, Board Chairman, Deputy Director, Southern Environmental Law Center
  Charlottesville, VA
• Deputy Director, Southern Environmental Law Center
  Charlottesville, VA
• [3] Ibid
  
  
  [4] Ibid
• [5] Union of Concerned Scientists, "A Dwindling Role for Coal." UCS website, no date or author given.http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-transition#.Wd9twvlSzIU
• (accessed 10/11/17)
• [6] Ibid
• [7] Patrice Tadonio, "War o EPA," Fontline, PBS aired Oct. 11,2017
• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/this-was-a-hostile-takeover-how-the-war-on-the-epa-was-waged/ (accessed 10/13/17)
• [8] Joseph Hnman, "Climate Change: the 97% Solution," Metacrock's blog. (feb 9. 2017)
• http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/02/climate-change-97-solution.html (accessed 10/15/17)
• [9] Frontline op cit
• [10] James Warren, "The Climate Change Skeptic Leading Trump's War on EPA." Vanity Fair (Oct. 11.2017)
• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/scott-pruitt-war-on-the-epa (accessed 10/12/17)
• [11] Joseph Hinman, "Trump's War on EPA Continues," Resistance is Not Futile, OPED, (April 17, 2017) https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1105458450094819345#allposts/src=sidebar  (accessed 10/13/17)
• [12] Christopher Mims, "More Americans Die from Car Pollution Than From car Accidents," Quartz(Oct 15, 2013).
• https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/ 
• (accessed 10/13/17)
• [13] Jennifer Chu. "Study: Air Pollution kills 200,000 early Deaths Each Year in The US," MIT News, Mass. Institute  Technology (Aug 2012)
• http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829 (accessed 10/13/17)
• [14]Mark Perry, "Inconvenient energy fact: It takes 79 solar workers to produce same amount of electric power as one coal worker" A Ideas, (May 3,2017)
• http://www.aei.org/publication/inconvenient-energy-fact-it-takes-79-solar-workers-to-produce-same-amount-of-electric-power-as-one-coal-worker/ (accessed 10/13/17)
• [15] "Benefits of renewable energy," Union of Concerned Scientists, no date
• http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewable-energy/public-benefits-of-renewable-power#bf-toc-3 (accessed 10/13/17)
• [16] John Kenneth "Ken" Galbraith,  The New Industrial State, Princeton: Priomceton University Press, 1967
• 
  

Continue reading the main storyShare This Pag

• ShareTweE

[17]"Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes Suite of Standards to Reduce Pollution from Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants" EPA, April (2024) https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-suite-standards-reduce-pollution-fossil-fuel ______________________________________________

God,Science, and ideology,a book by Joseph Hinmman

God.Science, and ideology, by Joseph Hinman, is a great book. Ot argues that positions which teach the superiority of science over religion in such a way as to negate the truth content of the religious is not a scientific position but an ideological one. The books takes down such atheist greats as Dawkins and discusses the strongest God arguments.

This is an important book that spans an immense literature in a balanced and very readable form. For anyone interested in why some believe and others do not, this book will inform you of the entire range of literature in which not only can the proper questions be asked, but the reader can evaluate the often hidden ideological nature in which answers are proposed Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies

"Hinman is highly stimulating, brilliant in places. It is rare to find a book so exuberant yet still rational."

--Lantz Fleming Miller, Ashoka University

https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765

Quick note on Trump

I came accross this on facebook. Forgot all about it I think it should be noised about for the election: Joe Hinman September 30, 2018 · Shared with Public I just watched face the nation, The Fearless leader has done more damage than even I realized! The guest was a man from the department of commerce he was saying Trump keeps squeaking about what great accomplishments he's made, bit even his major underlings do not realize the harm he;s done, Example: only the department of energy has the expertise to know if Iran can build an nuclear weapon at this state. But Trump officialism have not even asked then because they know that. When told this Trump said "they are not military what do they know?" No one likes the government but the truth is over the course of the 20th century the feds built a vast data collectivization machine in the various federal agencies. All Trump has done is to destroy that data collection/dissemination ability. Another example he says the public no loner has access to the major data on global warming.""

Occam's razor shaves the Multiverse

Multiverse is the idea that our space/time is merely one "universe" in a huge limitless number of parallel worlds. Atheists often use this concept to argue against the fine tuning argument by saying with all those universe out there the odds of hitting one that can bare life is not so great. Our life bearing universe is not as improbable as the FTA would have us believe because when we consider that it's just one of a limitless expanse of other worlds then it's not so improbable that one would have life. We just happen to be it, if we weren't we wouldn't know about it. We would not be here. Sometimes they also argue that against the cosmological argument on the grounds that the universe is eternal and infinite and parallel words have been popping up forever. Then there's no way to say "here's the moment of creation."

Atheists have another favorite tactic and that is to argue that Occam's razor rules out God because God is not the simpler idea. There they are confusing it with Parsimony. Occam was priest and he believed in God he didn't think the razor got rid of God. For that reason I've always been somewhat peeved by their use of this argument. Moreover, what the razor really says is no not multiply entities beyond necessity.[1] The thing is you see, atheists assume that since they don't believe in God then is not necessary so God is multiply beyond necessity. That's the argument made by those who at least know the real version of the argument but they don't know what it means. Let's try to understand it first by understanding Occam's nominalism. four senses of nominalism:

(1) Denial of metaphsyical universals: applies to Occam.

(2) reduce one's ontology to bare minimum, streamline categories: applies to Occam.

(3) Nix abstract entities, depending upon what one means here Occam may or may not have been a nominalist in this sense. he did not believe in mathematical entities but he did believe in abstraction such as whiteness, or humanity.

Ockham removes all need for entities in seven of the traditional Aristotelian ten categories; all that remain are entities in the categories of substance and quality, and a few entities in the category of relation, which Ockham thinks are required for theological reasons pertaining to the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Eucharist, even though our natural cognitive powers would see no reason for them at all. As is to be expected, the ultimate success of Ockham's program is a matter of considerable dispute.[2]

He was not getting rid of God. Occam's razor never allows us to deny what spade calls "putative entities" which would definitely include God. It merely bids us referain from positing them without good reason. Of course the many choruses of atheist propagadna slgoanizing would have it that this does include God,[3] but with my 52 arguments we know better, don't we?[4]In fact for Occam humans can't really know what is necessary, "For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else, the whole of creation, is radically contingent through and through. In short, Ockham does not accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason.."[5] Wait a minute, not a contradiction because all the reasor says is refrain form multiplying entities without good reason, not rub them out of existence. Note that he includes God as the only truly necesasry entity. Thus atheist are violating Occam's razor in trying to use it on God.

Occam did not have a razor:

"The concept of Occam’s razor is credited to William of Ockham, a 13-14th-century friar, philosopher, and theologian. While he did not coin the term, his characteristic way of making deductions inspired other writers to develop the heuristic. Indeed, the concept of Occam’s razor is an ancient one which was first stated by Aristotle who wrote “we may assume the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.”[6]

Yet this raises the question of the Multiverse. Is the multiverse necessary? It's a matter of empirical question and there is empirical evidence to support it. Claims have been made of hard data proving Multivese, but when investigated they evaporate. Here's a physicist who opposed string theory and multiverse he argues that his evaluation of the papers finds irresolvable problems.

In recent years there have been many claims made for “evidence” of a multiverse, supposedly found in the CMB data (see for example here). Such claims often came with the remark that the Planck CMB data would convincingly decide the matter. When the Planck data was released two months ago, I looked through the press coverage and through the Planck papers for any sign of news about what the new data said about these multiverse evidence claims. There was very little there; possibly the Planck scientists found these claims to be so outlandish that it wasn’t worth the time to look into what the new data had to say about them. One exception was this paper, where Planck looked for evidence of “dark flow”.[7]

If hard evidence turns up for it then we have to deal with that on it's own terms. Until that time Multiverse should be shaved with Occam's razor. We don't need it to explain reality, it's only advanced to keep from having to turn to God. It's naturalistic so it's an arbitrary necessity at best. Arbitrary necessitates are logical impossibilities, contingent things jumped up to the level of necessity to answer a God argument. It's not we are going to disprove the unnecessary entity but we are going refrain from advancing it's existence as an assumption until such a time that real empirical evidence makes it necessary. Therefore, Multiverse should be taken out of the issues of God arguments.

sources


[1]C.K. Brampton, "Nominalism and the Law of Parsimony." The Modern School Men, Volume 41, Issue 3, (March 1964), 273-281. the sentiment of that slogan "don't multiply entities beyond necessity" is in line with Occam's thinking although he didn't actually say that.

[2]Spade, Paul Vincent and Panaccio, Claude, "William of Ockham", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Fall 2011 (substantive content change) [new author(s): Spade, Paul Vincent; Panaccio, Claude]

[3] Spade, et al, Ibid.

[4] 42 God arguments on Doxa, and 10 more on Religious A prori.

[5]Spade, Ibid.

[6] FS Farnam Street The Danger of Over Simplification: how to use Occam;s Rzzor without getting cut"
https://fs.blog/2017/05/mental-model-occams-razor/

[7]Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong,May 22, 2013 blog: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ Woit, Ph.D. particle theory form Princeton, Post doctorte in phsyics and math from Berkeley, tught at Columbia since 1989.

Joseph Hinman, "Occam's Razor Shaves the Multiverse," Metacorck's Blog. (June 12, 2013) http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2013/06/occams-razor-shaves-multiverse.html (accessed June 8.2019)


____________________________

God,Science, and ideology,a book by Joseph Hinmman

God.Science, and ideology, by Joseph Hinman, is a great book. Ot argues that positions which teach the superiority of science over religion in such a way as to negate the truth content of the religious is not a scientific position but an ideological one. The books takes down such atheist greats as Dawkins and discusses the strongest God arguments.

This is an important book that spans an immense literature in a balanced and very readable form. For anyone interested in why some believe and others do not, this book will inform you of the entire range of literature in which not only can the proper questions be asked, but the reader can evaluate the often hidden ideological nature in which answers are proposed Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies

"Hinman is highly stimulating, brilliant in places. It is rare to find a book so exuberant yet still rational."

--Lantz Fleming Miller, Ashoka University

https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765