|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Did the Judge make the right decision? |
| Yes, and it's about time. Can I get a hallelujah? |
|
95% |
[ 22 ] |
| No, he's going to burn in hell for all eternity. |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 23 |
|
| Author |
Message |
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 5:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I think students should learn about scientific method, first, and learn about how experiments work. Then they should see how a hypothesis is made and supported (not "proven"), and that even good hypotheses can be disproven by a single case in unusual circumstances.
Finally, they should be taught about the theory of evolution, the gene, and natural selection. I think it's best if they are taught a little about the history of the search for life's origins, so they can see how theories have been created and refined, and understand that the current set of knowledge is not Truth but the informed consensus of science of today.
They should be cautioned against listening to anybody who claims to Know things that they cannot really know... such as the exact details of our evolution, or the existence of a deity. People who blindly wave the banner of a scientific theory (see the "Global Warming" thread) as if it is Truth are just as bad as evangelical religious people. Some people, I guess, just can't stand the existence of mysteries.
It always throws me off when somebody says, "It's going to rain tomorrow." How do they Know that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Christianity, unfortunately went through this same problem with Gallileo and the Earth being round, not flat, and worse, horrors, not the center of the universe. Why must a small group of ignorant, radical nut cases screw up a good religion?
There is nothing in the bible nor in Christianity that requires God's "creation" of the universe, stars, planets, life and man to have been accomplished like hanging balls on a christmas tree. Imagine a truly powerful God who can accomplish all those things with a single thought. Science only attempts to explain what God did, from the little "pfft", then the "big bang" through billions of years, evolution, and now us. Evolution is a fact based, proven (as far as mere humans can) explanation for the works of God.
Either way, intelligent design or evolution, some posters here make me think God didn't do so well. The idiot nut case fundamentalists could make me an atheist yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| I was with you until that last sentence, but you had to go and blow it. Next time try debating a point without being condescending. It's easier than you think. |
Ah, the irony. Even Mith has his bad moments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
double
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
"Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth." And the ultimate goal of ID is made crystal clear. The movement "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."
The authors put forth an aggressive 20-year plan of action to achieve their goals, "to cultivate and convince influential individuals in print and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies." By 2019, they aim for the complete and total defeat of American civilization as we know it, in order "to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life." |
And people worry about the Muslim radicals... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
I think students should learn about scientific method, first, and learn about how experiments work. Then they should see how a hypothesis is made and supported (not "proven"), and that even good hypotheses can be disproven by a single case in unusual circumstances.
Finally, they should be taught about the theory of evolution, the gene, and natural selection. I think it's best if they are taught a little about the history of the search for life's origins, so they can see how theories have been created and refined, and understand that the current set of knowledge is not Truth but the informed consensus of science of today.
They should be cautioned against listening to anybody who claims to Know things that they cannot really know... such as the exact details of our evolution, or the existence of a deity. People who blindly wave the banner of a scientific theory (see the "Global Warming" thread) as if it is Truth are just as bad as evangelical religious people. Some people, I guess, just can't stand the existence of mysteries.
It always throws me off when somebody says, "It's going to rain tomorrow." How do they Know that? |
While I sort of agree with the basic premises above, they are typically over-generalized. There is much we do and can know about the universe that can and should be applied to making things "better", for lack of a better term. It is naive to say we cannot move forward based on assumptions that are essentially fact, but cannot be completely proven. However, I have felt since childhood that the application of what we discover through science moves at too fast a pace and creates as many problems as it solves. See Global Warming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| It always throws me off when somebody says, "It's going to rain tomorrow." How do they Know that? |
Sounds like you need some Ithkuil!
Section 0.4:
| Quote: |
0.4 Addressing the Vagueness Inherent in Natural Languages
To further illustrate the cognitive depth at which Ithkuil operates, consider one of the most pervasive aspects of natural human languages: semantic vagueness. For example, consider the following four English sentences:
(a) The boy rolled down the hill.
(b) Maybe she just stopped smoking.
(c) Joe didn��t win the lottery yesterday.
(d) There is a dog on my porch.
In examining these four sentences most native English speakers would deny that any vagueness exists. This is because the vagueness does not exist in terms of the overt meanings of the words themselves. Rather, the vagueness lies at the nearly subconscious level of their grammatical (or syntactical) relations and cognitive intent. For example, in sentence (a) we have no idea whether the boy chose to roll himself down the hill or whether he was pushed against his will. (In formal linguistic terms we would say it is unknown whether the semantic role of the subject ��boy�� is as agent or patient.) And yet knowing which scenario is correct is crucial to understanding the speaker��s intent in describing the action.
Imagine sentence (b) Maybe she just stopped smoking being spoken as an answer to the question ��Why does she seem so irritable?�� In interpreting sentence (b), we have no idea whether the subject is indeed a smoker or not; i.e., is the speaker offering this speculation because he/she knows the subject to be a smoker, or as mere conjecture without knowledge one way or the other whether the subject smokes or not?
Sentence (c) Joe didn��t win the lottery yesterday illustrates four-way ambiguity. Joe��s failure to win the lottery could be either because: the speaker knows Joe didn��t play; because the speaker knows Joe did play but lost; because the speaker doesn��t know whether Joe played or not and is simply voicing a conjecture; or because the statement is an inference based on some indirect clue (e.g., since Joe showed up for work today, he must not have won the lottery).
And while sentence (d) There is a dog on my porch seems on its surface to be the most straightforward of the four, is the intent of the speaker to simply describe and identify the participants to a scene, or does she wish to convey the idea that the scene has personal significance to her, e.g., because she has a phobia of dogs or has been waiting for a long-lost pet dog to return home? In other words, the sentence itself does not convey the intent behind the utterance, only the static description of the scene.
In all four instances, such vagueness exists unless and until the audience can ascertain information from the surrounding context of other sentences. This shows that, despite the fact that all four sentences are grammatically well-formed English sentences whose words in and of themselves are unambiguous, their grammar alone is insufficient to convey the cognitive information necessary to fully comprehend the intent of the speaker��s utterance. This failure of grammar to inherently convey the requisite information necessary to understand a speaker��s cognitive intent is a functional pitfall of human language in general which Ithkuil grammar has been designed to avoid. The Ithkuil equivalents to the above four sentences would mandatorily convey all of the ��missing�� information noted above without requiring any extra words not corresponding to the English originals. The grammatical elements of the words themselves (word-selection, declensions, conjugations, prefixes, suffixes, etc.) would convey all the elements mentioned.
Similar examples can be given to show the extent to which natural languages such as English must often resort to idiomatic expressions, metaphor, paraphrase, circumlocution and ��supra-segmental�� phenomena (e.g., changing the pitch of one��s voice) in their attempts to convey a speaker��s intended meaning. Ithkuil grammar has been designed to overtly and unambiguously reflect the intention of a speaker with a minimum of such phenomena. |
It wasn't created to be learned by people though. Too hard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deconstructor
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What more is there to be said once it's been posited that God created life the universe and everything but for us to go down on our knees and stay there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Fine. There is no problem teaching another theory. It's just we haven't found another one yet. ID is not science. |
You are right, it's not, but neither is evolution. They are both theories which have arguments to how and why the universe was created. |
You have been told about a billion times that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. But you never seem to grasp that. Why is that? Seriously, how stupid and rock headed are you that you can't get a simple idea past your Jesus filter?
Further, science has nothing to do with the "why" of anything. Really, educate yourself on this issue before you make yourself appear more ignorant. Although, I'm not sure how that is possible at this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| It always throws me off when somebody says, "It's going to rain tomorrow." How do they Know that? |
Sounds like you need some Ithkuil!
|
It does sound like fun! What I really meant was, it boggles me that some people read the newspaper weather report and say "it's going to be sunny this weekend" as if they've just checked the encyclopedia to find the capital of Brasil. They just take it for granted, without the slightest suspicion that it might not be for certain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| It always throws me off when somebody says, "It's going to rain tomorrow." How do they Know that? |
Sounds like you need some Ithkuil!
|
It does sound like fun! What I really meant was, it boggles me that some people read the newspaper weather report and say "it's going to be sunny this weekend" as if they've just checked the encyclopedia to find the capital of Brasil. They just take it for granted, without the slightest suspicion that it might not be for certain. |
and horoscopes, too, dude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| it boggles me that some people read the newspaper weather report and say "it's going to be sunny this weekend"... They just take it for granted, without the slightest suspicion that it might not be for certain. |
Anyone past the age of seven or eight that has not learned that weather reports are almost never right does not belong outside without adult supervision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Out of curiosity, is this an issue in Korea? There's a huge Christian base here, yet Christianity seems to have less bearing on things like this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello, Yu_Bum-suk!
I used to wonder the same thing.
But then I recently read The Geography of Thought by Richard Nisbett.
The book gives two interesting points which would shed light on your question:
East Asian people are not as quick to see contradictions as we are.
Consequently, many East Asian people embrace Christianity without renouncing Buddhism.
In like manner, an East Asian might be less quick to see Evolution and Creationism as contradictory.
East Asian do not put as much emphasis on classifying as we do.
Evolution and Creationism agree on one basic premise: either we are animals or we aren't. Korean people don't know whether they are animals or not, and they don't care.
Last edited by tomato on Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
Hello, Flakfizer!
And thank you for your invitation!
I shall try to be a congenial guest.
| Quote: |
Three basic questions regarding morality are:
1. Are there even such things as right and wrong/good and bad?
2. If there are, how do we know which is which?
3. Even if we know which is which, why choose one over the other? |
1. Yes indeed. Every higher animal species has an orderly system.
The orderly system is set by evolution.
Take monogamy, for example. There are two factors which determine monogamy in a species. One is susceptibility to venereal disease, the other is length of childhood. Our species is susceptible to venereal disease, and we have the longest childhood of any species on earth. Consequently, those populations which did not observe monogamy died out and those populations which did observe monogamy survived. So the monogamists were left to hand down their genes to us.
Are you suggesting that there is a monogamy gene in us? Polygamy was very common not too long ago (in evolutionary terms). If it is in our genes, why do we need laws against it? Also, I'm pretty sure polygamy is still practiced today. In fact, those terms, when used in reference to humans, refer to marriage. In terms of actually sticking with one mate, humans are not monogamous at all these days.
2. By following our instincts.
So, we do not need to be taught anything about good and bad or how to behave? We only need to follow our instincts. Why all the laws and penal codes? Shouldn't people just naturally do what it "good"?
3. We are deterred partly by the discomfort from the violation itself, and partly by the reactions of the other members of our population. Just as animals of other species deal with members who get out of line.
I'd like to see this one elaborated upon. I agree that people monitor their action out of fear of human punishment, but I don't think it is the same as what you are talking about.
| Quote: |
With an existing God, I would say the answers are:
1. Yes, there are-God says so.
2. We have been instructed by God as to which is which.
3. You will give an account for your deeds. |
I figured on your answer to #1.
Regarding #2, our instincts were firmly established millions of years before Moses came down from the mountain. Not only our species, but various other species turned monogamous long before all this palaver about "joining in holy matrimony."
As I mentioned, we are not monogamous. Let's do a poll and find out how many Dave's ESLers have only been with one sex partner. You are probably thinking of "monogamy" in a uniquely human sense and not in an animalistic sense. If there is no God, humans are mere animals, perhaps the most highly evolved on Earth at the moment, but merely animals all the same. Among animals, would having multiple sex partners qualify as monogamous?
You wrote, "our instincts were firmly established millions of years before Moses..."
Which instincts are you talking about? Are you saying that humans have been monogamous for millions of years?
Regarding #3, I would like to ask you a question, not to heckle, but out of genuine curiosity: I understand the Bible to say that you should "love thy neighbor as thyself." This means that a good deed is more valuable if it is done out of genuine love than if it is done for some selfish motive. The selfish motive could be desire for recognition, desire for reciprocity, or the need to "feel useful." The desire for blessing or the fear of damnation are also selfish motives. Why, then, does the Bible tell us about heaven and hell?
I can't think of a single religion which doesn't appeal to selfish motives. If you meditate long enough on the sound of one hand clapping, you will attain nirvana. If you ram an airplane into the World Trade Center, you will land in the bosom of Abraham. If you get married in a Mormon temple, you will become god of your own solar system.
This issue of selfish motivation is a good and interesting point. I will try to speak to it in my own limited way. The kind of love you seem to be describing is a love that I believe only God can have. Let me explain. God is completely self-sufficient. He does not need anything. He created out of the kind of love you described, a love that gives and longs to be given. People are not self-sufficient. We have needs. Therefore, as beings who have both needs and self-awareness, we are aware also of our needs. When an infant cries, it is a kind of "selfishness" in that he is only concerned about himself. But, it is because he has a need, a need that he cannot fulfill. We don't cry to be fed because we can feed ourselves. Babies can't and so they cry and wake us up and annoy us in airplanes. We, like babies, will always have needs and will always be aware of those needs. Babies and children need their parents, but that does not mean they can't love their parents. However, parent-love and child-love are different. To God, we will always be children and our role will always be like that of a child. He will care for us. God does not expect us to "grow up" and become self-sufficient like him because that is impossible. As created beings will always have needs. We will always be dependent on God and will never be able to love Him like a peer, but only as a grateful child.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Looking at these verses, it seems to me that God did not give Adam some pie-in-the-sky reason to obey His command like, "just obey me out of love," but rather, He appealed to Adam's sense of his own well-being. It important to note that this command was given before the Fall. Adam was not sinful yet, but God still appealed to his sense of well-being as a motive to obey God. So, it would not have been wrong for Adam to resist eating from the tree with the motive, "hey, this won't be good for me." What Adam and Eve did do wrong, was to conclude that disobeying God was what would benefit them most. God did not expect them to not consider what was good for them, but He did expect them to believe that all that was good for them would be provided by God.
As for heaven and hell, the Bible talks about them because they are there. I mean, if we are taught that we have spirits (or are spirits), then people are going to want to know what happens to our spirtis after our bodies die. It is unfortunate that many preachers (especially those of the subway variety) focus so much on Hell and fear. I hate those kind of sermons as much as anybody. We were made to know and love God as our Father. After the Fall, God still loved as just much, but couldn't accept us because of the sin within us, for He is Holy and cannot tolerate sin. Sin must be destroyed. "The wages of sin is death," Paul write. But God sent Jesus to receive that death penalty so that our sins could be destroyed (in his body) but not us along with them. At the end of this age, those who have no sin in them (not because of thier own righteousness but because their sins were paid for by Jesus) will be able to enter God's presence. That place is called Heaven. Those who have sin in them, will have to go somewhere away from the presence of God. This place is called Hell. But thinking that Heaven is the prize or reward for good people is not quite right. Rather, God himself is the reward, not for the "good" but for those whose sins have been atoned for.
I'm not sure if that answers your questions adequately, but hey, I gave it a shot. 
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
