Subnavigation
Front Page
Displays posts from every section of the site on one page.
Blog
Only show blog posts.
Archive
List of all posts for quick browsing.
Hosting
- Anything is appreciated, even a dollar can cover my hosting costs for a while, depending on bandwidth usage.
Recent Comments
Gordo on Moved to a new server...
Brett on Moved to a new server...
Gordo on Legalizing Recreational Drugs
Gordo on Gulf
Gordo on Oak Mtn Beach
RSS Feeds
Friends
Henry B. Rosenbush
Matt Friel
Jamie Smith
Film Guys
Jimmy Cantrell
IT Pros on the Go
Paul Chater
Locust Fork JournalDiscuss
C.S. Lewis's Law of Human Nature - Response
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 02:32:37 AM.Response to http://www.btinternet.com/~a.ghinn/lawof.htm
1/30/2008
Cognitive Thought
In C.S. Lewis’s “The Law of Human Nature” he describes our attributes or characteristics as being our nature. However, we as humans are capable of cognitive reasoning. In my opinion, the opposite of nature is thought. Nature does not think, it does not reason, and it cannot lie or deceive. The only thing that separates us as humans from animals is our ability to reason and communicate.
I refuse to define the law of Human Nature. This is analogous to asking me to explain plant intelligence. No such thing exists in my opinion. I would then proceed to pour my thoughts onto paper in the form of a long drawn out essay explaining why I don’t believe plants have the ability to reason. However, I could describe the nature of plants, and our ability to use logic as humans.
C.S. Lewis’ provides no real reasoning or evidence to back up his claims, and therefore calls what he is describing “nature”. He basically blabbers on for three pages about ethics and how people in general do not adhere to their own moral beliefs unless it benefits them personally. He defines his so-called “law” by calling people lying, selfish asshats.
In my opinion, C.S. Lewis is a marvelous fiction writer but not a very able philosopher. He’s basically calling ethics “human nature”. He’s creating a new paradigm to describe something that has already been described. It’s circular logic. He finishes off his essay with this long spill about how he and the rest of society do not stick to their own moral beliefs. However, when an adversary is not “fair”, most people, who are not themselves “fair”, will criticize that entity for being unfair or immoral. This act, according to Lewis, is human nature.
Unfortunately for Lewis, humans do not have a nature; we are capable of thought and reason, deception, loving and hating, and the list could go on... The Law of Human Nature could be Lewis’s long and overcomplicated way of explaining that he believes humans are knowingly immoral. He uses those four words so often in his essay though, that they could just be synonymous to ethics or morals.
GodTube
Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 11:03:01 AM.This stuff is just messed up. It's one thing to preach love and compassion, but this... This is just messed up.
Some comments from GodTube:
I am disappointed... I thought that this website was safe for children! This Video is like a horror movie. I will not let my children on to this website until it is removed. I will not have my children terrorized in action. The holy spirit is their motivator, not fear!
I am so glad you posted this video. I have a friend who has been talking to me about Christianity, and I was going to start going to church with him this weekend. But you have shown me that this is a religion of fear and hatred, of retribution and violence. A religion that feels it's appropriate to scare teenagers into the fold, instead of treating them with warmth and compassion. Any religion that would encourage these kinds of beliefs is not something I want to be a part of. Thank you for saving me.
That it is our responsibility to share the love of Jesus. Pure and simple." This video is neither pure or simple. You don't share love with fear. No major Christian denomination preaches that people are condemned to hell because of ignorance. That view went out a long time ago, but apparently some people have yet to catch up. "Keep searching guys the truth is within." I am afraid it isn't. Anyone with any knowledge of psychology and neurology would tell you that we are not only unreliable witnesses to external events, but we are constantly misled by our own minds. Philosophers have long realized that we are flawed beings, and our minds are no guarantees of truth. The idea that "truth is within" is simple scientific and philosophical ignorance, and is positively dangerous, as it detaches us from reality. I am sure the makers of this disgusting video believed that they where telling some kind of "truth".
Ruby on Rails Fails
Posted on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 10:22:31 PM.Oh look, I rhymed!
"I'll add one more thing to the people reading this: I mean business when I say I'll take anyone on who wants to fight me. You think you can take me, I'll pay to rent a boxing ring and beat your fucking ass legally. Remember that I've studied enough martial arts to be deadly even though I'm old, and I don't give a fuck if I kick your mother fucking ass or you kick mine. You don't like what I've said, then write something in reply but fuck you if you think you're gonna talk to me like you can hurt me.
I'll never be afraid of some pilsner fresh fat fuck who eats donut hamburgers and only gets exercise when he plays World of Warcraft on a DDR pad."
Source: zedshaw.com
Okay, yeah, that was funny, but down to seriousness. I'm a PHP/Perl guy, obviously. I have used Rails, and in theory it IS better than PHP. However, Rails is a buggy, over-hyped, and immature framework. Rails has some great ideas, but they unforunately fail in the end because of elitist asshats. To them, if something doesn't work, you're just doing it wrong and have to ass-kiss Ruby and sacrifice a fucking goat to make it work correctly. With PHP, you can get exactly what you need and no more. It's like comparing an Apple to a Whopper.
Sure, Rails is superior to PHP in theory, but Rails has shitty library support. PHP might be ugly as sin, but it works, and works damn well. There is a reason languages like PHP and Perl are so successful: standards, standards, standards, and standards. Oh yea, and excellent support, be it community, plugins, libraries, or frameworks. Rails has no support, and has horrible library/plugin support, and is itself a framework.
RoR's claim to fame is rapid development. However, if you write a content management system in 30 minutes from "scratch", and something breaks on the business end, you're pretty much screwed since you didn't actually write any code. Plus, there are MVC frameworks for PHP, Perl, and just about every other language known to man, and they are written in whatever language you're developing in, so you actually know how to dig in and get your hands dirty.
Rails is a great idea, and I've learned many things from it, but in the end, I'm sticking with PHP. There is absolutely nothing Rails can do that PHP can't do just as well, if not better.
I apologize in advance for this post's formatting though. I'm scatterbrained tonight.
God vs Science
Posted on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 08:40:51 PM."You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes sir," the student says.
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."
"Are you good or evil?"
"The Bible says I'm evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
The student remains silent.
"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"
"Er...yes," the student says.
"Is Satan good?"
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."
"Then where does Satan come from?"
The student falters. "From God"
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"
"Yes."
"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."
Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"So who created them?"
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."
The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"
"No sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
"No, sir, I have not."
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"Yes."
"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"
"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."
"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"And is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No sir, there isn't."
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."
"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"
"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."
"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"
"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."
"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."
"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."
The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.
"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."
"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."
"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"
Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, repost =] God vs Science
You compared tangible matter with an untangible idea. Electricity does exist. Heat does exist. We can prove this. Electricity is the exchange of electrons between atoms. Heat is fast moving atoms.
God is simply an idea. Good and evil are traits, but also ideas. What is good though? What is bad? Where is your basis? Ethics? Morals? Where do those come from? Ideas? You cannot prove the existence of god. You can however prove that heat and electricity exist.
Plus, who is to say absolute zero even exists? There is no such thing as nothing. You can cut something in half forever. Maybe it's just such a low amount of heat that we can't measure it accurately.
I'm simply breaking down your arguement. I'm not taking a side. Faith is faith. Nothing wrong with that.
Thank you!
Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 at 09:33:57 PM.Really? I have THE SAME PROBLEM. Oh yummeh! Anyone who actually uses their brain and thinks for themselves is just a crazy conspiracy theorist. Yep yep yep...
I have this problem. Whenever I try to explain what's happening in American politics-I mean, what's really happening-I wind up sounding a bit like an unhinged conspiracy theorist. But honestly, I'm not. My politics are actually quite moderate. (Most real lefties, in fact, think I'm a Washington establishment sellout.) So please give let me a chance to explain myself when I tell you the following: American politics has been hijacked by a tiny coterie of right-wing economic extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others merely greedy, a few of them possibly insane. (Stay with me.)
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/chapters/0923-1st-chait.html?pagewanted=print
Who Cares?!
Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 at 01:33:03 AM.Is there not any concern about the direction this country is going?
Isn't anyone sick of being fed incessant and irrelevant crap by the media?
Do people just not realize that the value of the US dollar is declining rapidly because we import more than we export?
Is anyone else sick of the hypocrisy?
"But oh" you say! "Go to a protest!"
Right, just be sure to stop by Wal-Mart to buy some posterboard and markers (that were made in China) on your way while driving down the interstate (that was built by the lowest bidder and immigrant workers who work for less than minimum wage) alone in your gas-guzzling (yeah, that gas/oil is imported too) SUV (which was most likely made from parts manufactured elsewhere and imported).
"Write your congressman."
Yeah, lots of good that'll do seeing as they part of the freaking problem!
I'm sick of all of it, and I'm sick of not being able to do anything about it. I can't be the only one. Man, things have gotta start changing soon or things are gonna get ugly. Problem is, things won't change if nobody does anything about it. Nobody cares! The people that do seem to care aren't helping anything.
![[Q]](/site/i/comment.png)