 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Church joins real world
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 02 Aug 14 - 05:54 PM ed, if I follow your parable , I presume you mean, that just because the data don't suggest millions of yrs that it might not be accounted for by the biblical record. and with this I agree. though I do think that does account for it, I only claim that it is more consistent with it than the deep time paradigm. I recognize that a faith position is involved as well, but not a faith lacking evidence . but it is the generally same evidence as evolutionists claim, but otherwise interpreted. that is their faith position, especially when it contradicts established principles.....say of preservation of stuff that ought to have gone much sooner....if such aeons were real. of course these creationist arguments " challenges what you[or they] hold as important" and maybe that is why they are often so mocking, insulting and badmouthing, far, far more than anything I might say about evolutionist believers. but I like to think that I am addressing the issues, not the person. and, I think, that you grossly exaggerate what I might suggest. stu, despite you calling me a liar, I will respond. I have read a lot of that stuff, as I intimated before. if you have a answer , you tell us what it is. I don't insist you read reams of creation articles, esp if they don't answer a specific question. I don't suppose you will answer yourself..."but you got to try, right?" well bill, we certainly have talked about dating methods before , and about the many anomalies ,and that they make measurements, but not of time, but of data that is interpreted....rocks aren't clocks. if there can be any...let alone many, inconsistencies, why should we trust evolutionist dating at all. ah, but you, bill, have already decided that creationist scientists have invented silly science to validate their faulty conclusions. you should write to CMI etc to explain to them how Darwin and dawkins have made it pointless giving up well paid jobs to give the evidence for creation....to return a form of your own words back to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: MGM·Lion Date: 02 Aug 14 - 11:41 AM Jump! Oh bugger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 02 Aug 14 - 10:59 AM Look. This thread is about women being able to be appointed to the same jobs employed in The Church Of England as men. Surely, rather than discussing dinosaurs, or misogynist members of the church as they are really, why not ask if pete is celebrating this as every real Christian does, as per their own creed? Michael..... BOO!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Ed T Date: 02 Aug 14 - 09:17 AM Pete7* A more elementary perspective on the related issue: Just because an object is determined not to be the colour orange, it is not logical to assume it must be blue - even though you prefer it to be. There are other possibilities to consider. If one person, or a group, cant identify what the colour-shade is at that moment, it is illogical to say that this person, or group, does not have the capacity to identify the colour at some point in the future. It is alsoshallow thinking and unkind to suggest a whole group of people is, in some way, unprofessional, dishonest or biased because thay do not have an answer, but are working on it. I suspect you are not intending to suggest that, but are just very caught up (and possibly perplexed) by an argument that challenges what you hold as important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 02 Aug 14 - 07:05 AM " I hope, that this post has not appealed to the authority of scripture ,as you claim, but testable ,repeatable science [albeit simple]." That pete, is a lie plain and simple as you are NOT using science to endorse your argument at all. You are deliberately conflating the issues with regards to the role in preservation iron plays in soft tissue, and the fact proteins have been recovered from dinosaur bone and this has been tested and verified. For the upteenth time I suggest you read the papers associated with these findings, a fair few are available in the references a section on the Wikipedia page about Mary Schweitzer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer I actually don't know why I'm bothering, but you got to try right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: MGM·Lion Date: 02 Aug 14 - 06:09 AM & there were two more I didn't read. Anything about me in them, I wonder? As if I gave a flying one! ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 02 Aug 14 - 05:05 AM It concerns me more that I might inadvertently come off your little list. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 02 Aug 14 - 02:19 AM He loves reading them really. When your narcissist tendencies mean you crave attention, you savour every last drop. He knows I slip in the odd reference to him. It isn't difficult, he supplies the ammunition each time he spouts off. (At this point I usually say bless him, but his awful discriminatory stereotyping of anyone Muslim or his claims that to oppose Israeli aggression is an insult to the memory of some distant family members situated a thousand miles from Israel...) Anyway, what with drinking tea sans cow juice, treating his newsagent with suspicion and a fondness for Baileys, he is an interesting li...... On second thoughts, rather boring actually. His vitriol towards me for no real reason is about the only thing I can think of, and thats neither here nor there either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: MGM·Lion Date: 02 Aug 14 - 02:08 AM No -- really true, Hen. I did say 'almost always'. & have admitted I sometimes read one absent-mindedly or out of curiosity. But usually I just don't read them, and so save myself much ulcer-pain-inducing annoyance. It's not hard & fast, just a general policy of mine. So, now, don't you be rude to me, young man. Don't want to find yourself, yer actual Steve Shaw, on my dreaded "all posts boycotted" list, do you? ~The~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 Aug 14 - 06:27 PM The more so with the noxious, ill-motivated, spiteful, & altogether malignant & malevolent Ian, whose posts I now almost always scroll thru without even reading Liar. But don't let it get to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 01 Aug 14 - 06:11 PM "..., that the presence of soft tissue does not suggest 65+ myo." Oh exactly so... it does not! Dating of the surrounding strata & the bones themselves by several independent methods suggest the date. Soft tissue is a very unusual thing to find in things dated that old.... which is why they worked so long & hard to find a reasonable explanation that was consistent. Ah... but you, Pete have already determined that they were only inventing silly sorts of 'science' to validate their faulty conclusions. You should write them a letter explaining how the Bible makes all their work a waste of time & resources. (Ummm... I don't offer an argument because I have given the scientific argument for the various dating procedures several times. Just as I know YOUR basic explanation for biblical answers without you having to mention it in every post.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 01 Aug 14 - 04:42 PM ah bill, the reason that I think your post sounds like an appeal to authority, is because you offered no argument, it seemed to me. you just assumed that the reigning paradigm [ but that is by no means universal] is answer enough, but my contention is that, had they solved their problem we would all hear about it. seems to me that ,experimentally , that the presence of soft tissue does not suggest 65+ myo. , but the paradigm trumps testable science. well, the ostrich blood vessels binding together/preserved by the presence of iron [think that's right] is still "recognizable" after 2 yr.......only another few million to go! and you will notice, I hope, that this post has not appealed to the authority of scripture ,as you claim, but testable ,repeatable science [albeit simple]. I have not used appeal to scripture, as that is understood between us, and I know presuppositional apologetics is nonsense to you. "....my answer is beyond your ken, pete" what answer was that, stu. has it disappeared, or yet to be posted ?. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 31 Jul 14 - 11:14 AM The meaning of life can be found in S6. The decision of The church of England to come closer to the real world demonstrates that even they realise the meaning of life isn't to be found in loose and fanciful medieval translations of ancient stories. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 31 Jul 14 - 10:05 AM Yep, Ed... and another problem faced by thinkers is to recognize 'solutions' offered where there were no real 'problems' to begin with.' such as: "Where did it all come from?" and "What's the Meaning of Life?" interesting to ponder, but not really problems.... which make all the serious solutions offered a fascinating landscape of ..... something or other.... I have a collection of dozens of cartoons on the general topic of The Meaning of Life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 31 Jul 14 - 09:39 AM "well stu, I see you evade the invitation to supply an answer." It's not my problem if my answer is beyond your ken, pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Ed T Date: 31 Jul 14 - 08:20 AM Another Old Bert, Bill D: "The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution." Bertrand Russell |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Jul 14 - 08:17 AM My name appears in 1st line of that last post -- one can never help noticing one's own name. But I haven't read the rest of it, so he's pissing down the wind as per usual! ☞〠☜ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 31 Jul 14 - 08:11 AM So by pointing out blatant homophobia, Michael says I should be ignored. Has your newsagent got a gay nephew as well as a terrorist one? Stupid old fool. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Jul 14 - 08:05 AM Again, Keith: without meaning to be patronising, I wonder why you bother. I said it once about Jim. The more so with the noxious, ill-motivated, spiteful, & altogether malignant & malevolent Ian, whose posts I now almost always scroll thru without even reading, because I just don't feel obligated to have my ulcer-pains revived by his incessant point-missing vindictiveness & malice & spleen. Every now & then for once in a way I read one, and even reply; & he smarmily welcomes me back with "It's good to talk". Not with him, it isn't; not in my book. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Jul 14 - 07:29 AM Simply not true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 31 Jul 14 - 07:28 AM No. I point out where some here judge at all. You and Akenaton judge all gay people for instance. Wrongly, and in order to incite hatred. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Jul 14 - 03:46 AM I think your whole perspective is wrong. You misjudge people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 31 Jul 14 - 03:08 AM As Keith is quick to google facts when it suits him, I look forward to him pointing out that Akenaton is wrong to say that gender and sexual orientation are at two different levels and to remind him that the law requires that people are not discriminated against for either gender or sexual orientation. The post congratulating the church for not seeing gay people as equal is perhaps the largest stain on Mudcat that the moderators haven't bothered reading. It is not a view, it purposely lies about law in order to make a view look acceptable that insults and is abusive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 30 Jul 14 - 08:24 PM Ol' Bert was pretty wise.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Ed T Date: 30 Jul 14 - 07:52 PM "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 30 Jul 14 - 03:13 PM Pete-" but that seems like an appeal to authority, rather than engaging the argument....is.nt that some sort of fallacy ?. Appeal to authority IS a fallacy... appeal to a reasonable analysis of scientific data does not involve 'authority'. YOU appeal to authority... all you have is generations of theologians with unquestioning minds reciting vaguely similar versions of the same apocryphal tale and telling you to 'believe' their version. Science changes when new evidence appears... sometimes too slowly, but NOT by authority/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 30 Jul 14 - 03:04 PM ""It has always surprised me how little attention philosophers have paid to humor, since it is a more significant process of mind than reason. Reason can only sort out perceptions, but the humor process is involved in changing them" Thanks for the quote, Ed. It surprised ME for awhile, when I was deeply involved. But I finally saw that some were just too concerned with their place in the pecking order and getting recognition and/or jobs. In my group of grad students, we fortunately had a decent amount of humor, and it really helped in keeping all those odd theories in perspective. A notice on the bulletin board once: The Audio-Visual Center announces a film on "Plato's Republic" to be shown at...etc. under that in pencil: Next week they will feature " The Great TUPA- Kant's Transcendence of Pure Apperception- starring Julie Newmar as the Sensible Manifold. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 30 Jul 14 - 02:44 PM So big of you to defend the abusive little shit. He is using abusive language, demonising people for having partners who look different his, saying they are not equal and you come running to his defence. Why is that Keith ? Keith? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jul 14 - 02:40 PM Tunesmith, those people did believe. Read their biographies, private letters, diaries, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: akenaton Date: 30 Jul 14 - 01:18 PM "I repeat what you and I have debated many times in the past. I cannot see how organised religions can pick and choose based on scripture, not actually believe it literally but then cling onto it as set in stone when it conflicts with decency. The role of women and the equality of all regardless of creed or sexual orientation being two large elephants in the room." The role of women in society, and the acceptance of ANY sort of sexual orientation are completely different and should not be lumped together as if they were the same. The role of women differs slightly in various societies, but is widely accepted worldwide. Many form of sexual orientation are not accepted and some and are even criminalised here in the UK. Many more are criminalised worldwide. The church at least attempts to set some moral standards for society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 30 Jul 14 - 01:17 PM Look, you silly person! Could Kennedy - for example - have said he was an atheist and still have become president? No, he couldn't! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jul 14 - 01:03 PM No reasonable intelligent person actually believes literally in a god do they? Kennedy, Ghandi (several Gods), Martin Luther King, Churchill, Roosevelt, Mandella,..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 30 Jul 14 - 12:22 PM No reasonable intelligent person actually believes literally in a god do they? How can they have credibility in any arena if they do? Boutique superstition is the art of believing the good bits and dismissing the bad, or hypocrisy as it is known. Intelligent people use the word God as a metaphor. That requires intelligence. I personally don't have any time for mumbling words you know to be medieval superstition but I respect those who like the tradition and comfort. But to those who say it is real, I ask them what gives them the right to decide which bits are true and which are fantasy. I remember all the old biddies getting cross when the then bishop of Durham pointed out that learned theologists are above believing in fantasy, but see the value of the moral message. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 30 Jul 14 - 12:17 PM sadly, keith, I have heard of vicars that are more or less atheist in their private views, but hopefully a small minority. well stu, I see you evade the invitation to supply an answer. and as you concede, I might well say the same thing. there are biblical creationists, old earth creationists [ utilizing various ideas to assimilate "science"] and of course theistic evolutionists. even among biblical creationists there are different schools of thought as to which geologic layer represents the flood. and yes , "evolutionist" is a catch all term, by which I mean those believing that life evolved from simple organisms on to complex, right up to man. that life came from non life which came from absolutely nothing.....the whole or the parts, interpretation of data at best, and a faith position at best....esp the very beginnings. I am not asking you to answer for every shade of Darwinism, just the question in hand from your own line of study. bill. its all very well to infer that all those complex scientific studies validate evolutionism, but that seems like an appeal to authority, rather than engaging the argument....is.nt that some sort of fallacy ?. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: MGM·Lion Date: 30 Jul 14 - 12:15 PM It's not a 'wise warning', it's a dreary, patronising apology for an epigram. I don't believe in God. But I do believe in lots of other things ~~ one of which is that GKC wasn't half as clever as he thought he was. But selectively ~~ certainly not bloody 'anything'. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jul 14 - 11:53 AM Tunesmith, if you believe that your judgement is in question. "Consider the wise warning of G.K. Chesterton: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Ed T Date: 30 Jul 14 - 11:48 AM One for you Bill D ""It has always surprised me how little attention philosophers have paid to humor, since it is a more significant process of mind than reason. Reason can only sort out perceptions, but the humor process is involved in changing them"". -- Edward de Bono |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 30 Jul 14 - 11:45 AM Well, I'm pretty sure most of the recent Popes wouldn't have believed much of the Bible, but rather they were probably being pragmatic and believed that organised religion - although based on a false premise - is a force for good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jul 14 - 06:34 AM vicars I know include two very good personal friends and a brother in law. None of them actually believe in an interventionist God, to use the Nick Cave term. They are kidding you, or you are kidding us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 30 Jul 14 - 06:20 AM " I suggest you tell us what it is, and if you need to, do a link , IN ADDITION, that might clarify and validate your explanation." Evolutionist is a catch-all term that is used by anti-science folk and creationists to lump together a whole slew of people that pretty much disagree with the fundamentalist viewpoint of creation by god in six days. And that's it. It's a simple attempt to reduce a wide range of people who work in various scientific disciplines to a single group (who work on varying hypotheses) which in reality doesn't exist. These people may agree on the broad evolutionary narrative but differ in their understanding of the process for various reasons, and there's a vigorous ongoing debate, as there has been since Darwin and Wallace discovered evolution. Incidently, it's worth mentioning that they don't think god made the earth in six days because there is zero evidence of that having occurred. You could argue that many people do the same for creationists, but all creationists believe the exact same thing, so are a group unified by a common viewpoint, which contains little or no variation. I presume - or are there creationist factions? Now that might be interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 30 Jul 14 - 05:28 AM Ive always said it Joe, and you know that. I don't personally know, to my knowledge that is, any literalists, and yet vicars I know include two very good personal friends and a brother in law. None of them actually believe in an interventionist God, to use the Nick Cave term. I repeat what you and I have debated many times in the past. I cannot see how organised religions can pick and choose based on scripture, not actually believe it literally but then cling onto it as set in stone when it conflicts with decency. The role of women and the equality of all regardless of creed or sexual orientation being two large elephants in the room. If not being literalist means accepting men wrote the script, then it isn't a mental leap to either alter the script to reflect the age or write off the literalists as mocking the idea of a faith without er.. Faith. In a way, pete has the advantage of being a good christian. The whole idea of religion is fodder for the masses to keep them quiet or happy to do as they are told, and he is an excellent example of the prime motive. For most people, soap opera and Facebook have replaced the fodder bit, in the same way christianity replaced bread and circuses in roman times. Again, this thread is about relevance and progress. Many people in The UK are far more comfortable with their faith and less likely to be ashamed of it, according to a poll carried out by The Church of England last week, reflecting the women bishops vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: akenaton Date: 30 Jul 14 - 04:21 AM Are you implying that there is a "fifth column" Joe? :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Jul 14 - 04:03 AM Musket says: The good news about that would be to free religious people to, as Don eloquently describes it, see scripture as a book of interesting questions as it seems to be the case that it certainly isn't a book of answers. Musket, maybe you're finally starting to understand the idea that there are religious people who may have perspectives different from those of the literalists. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 30 Jul 14 - 03:45 AM I finally got around to watching the Stephen Hawking documentary where he describes why you don't actually need a God hypothesis in order for the Big Bang to happen. My (rather lay) understanding of quantum mechanics can see his point. Without the variable called time, you cannot have premeditated creation. The good news about that would be to free religious people to, as Don eloquently describes it , see scripture as a book of interesting questions as it seems to be the case that it certainly isn't a book of answers. So, the Anglicans are getting there and the Catholics did once have a female Pope. Ok, inadvertently, but by their logic it was the will of their God. If only someone could slip a line in future editions saying bigotry is arrogance and vanity, and his big balls of fire are awaiting those who discriminate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jul 14 - 09:10 PM The authors of Genesis (at least five, none of whom were Moses) seem to have picked up parts of their story from Hindu legends of the creation and early history of humanity. Stories of Hindu Heros Adimo, Heva, Sherma, Hama and Jiapheta apparently were replicated into legends about Adam, Eve, Shem, Ham, and Japeth. The two creation stories at the start of Genesis were also apparently heavily influenced by Pagan writings from Mesopotamia; the transition between the two sources occurs at Genesis 2:4 with a verse inserted by whoever compiled the scrolls into the book of Genesis. Pete, if you want to know what Christianity is really all about, stop trying to beat people over the head with Genesis (a compilation of ancient myth and the folklore of several different religions), made up words like "evolutionism," and ignoring observable and verifiable fact (the REAL story of how God did it!), and spend some quality time reading the Sermon on the Mount, and especially Matthew 25:35-40. A pastor friend of mine once held up a copy of the Bible and said, "This is NOT the Boy Scout Manual. It is not a book of answers, it is a book of QUESTIONS!" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 29 Jul 14 - 06:34 PM ..."I hope that I would concede an argument if genuinely evidenced." Pete... I doubt that can happen as long as you hold a set of beliefs that defines ANY evidence about evolution as false. You persist in definitions about the very nature of science that are demonstrably incorrect. There is no such thing as " deep time mind set ", and I spent many years in school learning specifically how to avoid such flawed thinking, while you say things like this: "I realize that I am engaging a challenging community of skeptics, who educationally far out compete me, which is I why I try to keep to the simpler ideas..".... and then you defend those "simpler ideas" as superior to the many thousands of ideas & explanations based on more complex studies & education. I'm sure it is comforting be so confident, but it must be interesting to live in such a narrow world................ I surrender.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 29 Jul 14 - 05:28 PM you may not like the word "evolutionist", stu , but that was what I googled and a few links came up, as I have been describing over last few posts. if you have the answer lacking in those items, I suggest you tell us what it is, and if you need to, do a link , IN ADDITION, that might clarify and validate your explanation. in the meantime, you will have to excuse me if I think your post is evasion and bluff. thats ok ed. certainly I am convinced about my position, but that does not mean that I don't want to learn what the opposing arguments are. but on this item , it appears to me that the argument consists of claiming complete impartiality by evolutionists, coupled with an assurance that new info will be followed without bias, and of course discounting any creationist explanation a priori. I realize that I am engaging a challenging community of skeptics, who educationally far out compete me, which is I why I try to keep to the simpler ideas.....ie like preservation of soft tissue being against observational science......at least so far, and as I say, I suppose they have faith that they will find an answer. my worldview is unlikely to change but I hope that I would concede an argument if genuinely evidenced. bill,...we are never going to agree, because I view the deep time mind set as just as entrenched as the creation view. and in my opinion , it is "science in general", that does support a far younger era for dinos, and just assuring that evolutionism is willing to follow the evidence where it leads, does not answer the question. if you have no answer to the substance of the question, it might be better to admit as much, but that you still trust the evolutionist scientists anyway for their explanations of other lines of argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 29 Jul 14 - 06:41 AM "So , how do evolutionists account for soft tissue in dino bone? " I don't know how 'evolutionists' do, but palaeontologists have been doing and you've had plenty of links in past threads to these. I'm guessing that as usual, you've not read them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 29 Jul 14 - 04:21 AM I only read the first sentence of Goofus's rambling above. He said that the church joining the real world just means agreeing with someone's politics. I don't think that allowing women to apply for senior jobs in the organisation is politics, it's human nature. To disagree isn't a political view , it's blatant misogyny and borderline personality disorder to say the least. One comment on the radio the other day was "removing the stained glass ceiling." I liked that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 14 - 07:58 PM Assuming there is any meaning there.... Goofy, your spavined brain cell blowing off politics as a "delusion" and merely a way to manipulate people shows how shallow your understanding is. Colleges and Universities all over the world have entire departments devoted to Political Science and offer degrees in the subject. Read the following and try to grasp what is being said: Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state. It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems, political behavior, and political culture. Political scientists engage in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works. Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory.So if you think that politics is not worth studying seriously, you'll have to take it up with people like Plato, author of The Republic, Aristotle, author of Politics, and Cicero and Confucius, authors of a number of works on the subject. During the Renaissance, throughout Europe and in Italy in particular, a thorough understanding of the writings of Machiavelli was sometimes necessary for just staying alive. As to "Left" and "Right," this has nothing to do with the wings of a bird. This classification is comparatively recent and dates from the French Revolution era, when those members of the National Assembly who supported the republic, the common people and a secular society sat on the left of the President of the Assembly, and supporters of the monarchy, aristocratic privilege and the Church sat on the right. In more modern times, it can be generally said that the Right Wing tends to value tradition and social stratification, while the Left Wing values reform and egalitarianism, with the center trying to seek a balance between the two, such as with social democracy or regulated capitalism. Political Science is also subsumed under the philosophical field of Ethics, and one cannot really deal with many of the "ins and outs" of politics without a good understanding of the field of Ethics. And Philosophy, which includes Ethics as one of its major fields, is another major department in colleges and universities. So, Goofball, your cavalier dismissal of Politics displays a really wide area of ignorance. AND—having a thorough knowledge of Ethics and Politics, not to mention History, does not in any way interfere with musical knowledge, talent, and ability. An intelligent mind is capable of dealing with a whole variety of subjects. Beethoven displayed strong political beliefs on a number of occasions, as did (do) a host of other musicians and composers. It's not "either-or," Goofy. It's "AND." Don Firth |
