tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.comments2015-02-26T15:42:28.753-06:00Words, Ideas, and ThingsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger243125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-45629037807486281922015-02-26T15:42:28.741-06:002015-02-26T15:42:28.741-06:00Thank you, this helped in learning more about the ...Thank you, this helped in learning more about the decision and how the court ruled.Belllezanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-54094246656343170062014-10-25T20:40:42.768-05:002014-10-25T20:40:42.768-05:00Eureka! Thank you a million!Eureka! Thank you a million!Joseph Kimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-44188748068991887982014-09-09T05:06:30.799-05:002014-09-09T05:06:30.799-05:00Now it makes sense :) Thank you!Now it makes sense :) Thank you!Irynanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-15161804519120876062014-06-26T11:43:17.087-05:002014-06-26T11:43:17.087-05:00Ill never understand what the *@!!# perlocutionary...Ill never understand what the *@!!# perlocutionary means. Im beginning to think it doesnt exist.Mattias Orrenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-6809054856118502522014-05-12T06:05:58.813-05:002014-05-12T06:05:58.813-05:00Thanks for the information. it'll help me in f...Thanks for the information. it'll help me in finishing work on discourse analysis.Rauph Ekanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-53218288714170908702014-03-30T23:46:05.662-05:002014-03-30T23:46:05.662-05:00very good example,... thank u very muchvery good example,... thank u very muchIlham Ahmad Setiawannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-8629572694530810602014-03-10T18:08:48.711-05:002014-03-10T18:08:48.711-05:00Are you referring to the "work?"Are you referring to the "work?"Matthew Weidemannnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-83797601419922263432014-02-23T13:06:50.325-06:002014-02-23T13:06:50.325-06:00so great, thank uso great, thank uAmine Kjnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-32076852359810715882013-12-06T01:48:02.855-06:002013-12-06T01:48:02.855-06:00thanks for the info...thanks for the info...Hamidah Marzukinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-57493793982194056662013-11-16T00:06:28.097-06:002013-11-16T00:06:28.097-06:00The purpose of the "Correlations" sectio...The purpose of the "Correlations" section was not so much to prove a point, but to dispel a common assumption. You are right that it's logically possible that abstinence only education brings down high statistic at a faster rate than alternatives, even if absolute statistics are not in its favor. It's also logically possible that it would fare very well in absolute terms in certain situations. What should be clear from the overall history of research, however, is that it's not a broadly effective approach deserving of the Congressional support it has gotten. <br /><br />Also, for anyone who ethically values education over withholding information, it's not even a moral dilemma along the lines of placebo prescriptions. Thank you for your comment, nevertheless!Garrenhttp://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-45774965980790714562013-11-03T12:06:26.985-06:002013-11-03T12:06:26.985-06:00I feel like some info is missing to draw a complet...I feel like some info is missing to draw a complete conclusion. While abstinence only education states have higher pregnancy rates, you leave out the affect on the rates since their introduction.<br />For example if NM used to have a 30% rate, and now has a 10% rate, that is quite successful. If in NH, non-abstinence education dropped the rate from 4% to 3%, that really isn't much to draw a conclusion from. But just using the graphs provided, you just assume lower is better even if the measured affect is next to nothing. I have no idea what the actual results would be though, one would probably draw the same conclusion.ficklesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-75005114146986966332013-10-26T07:05:12.544-05:002013-10-26T07:05:12.544-05:00Wow, fantastic quote. Thanx.Wow, fantastic quote. Thanx.Sabio Lantzhttp://triangulations.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-22823727075078041822013-09-18T09:37:01.433-05:002013-09-18T09:37:01.433-05:00Great example!! I finally understood this shitGreat example!! I finally understood this shitMathildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-29470150994115438542013-09-17T07:10:57.699-05:002013-09-17T07:10:57.699-05:00Hi Garren,
Nice deconversion bibliography!
But &...Hi Garren,<br /><br /><br />Nice deconversion bibliography!<br />But "<i>short</i>" !? ;-)<br /><br />The short version via my speed read seems to be this:<br /><br />(1) I was raised Christian and didn't doubt it<br /><br />(2) I started seeing through fundamentalism<br /><br />(3) I hoped progressive Christianity would stop me from totally deconverting<br /><br />(4) I see through all the obvious problems with all forms of Christianity<br /><br />(5) I think ALL other religions have similar issues.<br /><br />(6) I'm open to other solutions, but just don't see religious answers as viable now<br /><br />Is that close? :-)<br /><br />I just did a post called "<a href="http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/agnostic-of-gutted-gods/" rel="nofollow">Agnostic of Gutted Gods</a>" which shows how I could be considered and "agnostic" rather than "atheist" -- it seems to relate to a bit of what your story tells here.<br /><br />My story is very similar to yours -- well said!!Sabio Lantzhttp://triangulations.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-72162765360815603262013-09-15T15:12:38.595-05:002013-09-15T15:12:38.595-05:00Thanks for your reply (and the assurance of welcom...Thanks for your reply (and the assurance of welcome!)<br /><br />I had an idea earlier in the week of a thought-experiment that shows one example of how moral motivation can legitimately be undermined by something like "significance", without that undermining simply consisting in a lack of reward-incentive for the agent. And how, if there's a lack of the proper significance, this can undermine the motivation for an action that still, in a sense, "benefits" the recipient. <br /><br />Imagine you reliably know that the world and all its inhabitants are going to be destroyed in 24 hours (and there is no afterlife). That is, in a day's time this whole human project is going to be ended. How do you think that this weighs upon your moral considerations? Obviously, moral choices that depend on long-term outcomes will be undermined. But I have intuitions to the effect that even short-term moral considerations now seem to have something counting against them. <br /><br />Perhaps you're normally the sort of person who helps old ladies carry their shopping. You see an old woman struggling. Perhaps you would still help her even while knowing that in 24 hours, this woman and her groceries will be obliterated. You can, after all, quite clearly still help her in that way. You can still benefit her. But would you not at least feel like the world's ending counted as a reason not to help her, even if not an ultimately decisive reason? Would you not feel, at least, that this fact saps some of your moral vitality? <br /><br /><br /><br />It's certainly clear to me, anyway, that the world's ending would have such an effect on me. And that its doing so isn't related to the fact that I won't be "rewarded". Rather it feels like some of the "point" is taken out of the moral activity.<br /><br />Now, granted, even if you do share these intuitions, that wouldn't say anything about the need for "cosmic" significance to properly motivate moral reasoning. I'm just trying to show that, for a person who finds themselves with intuitions that cosmic significance is morally important, it's intelligible how that need features in their moral motivations without it boiling back down to the need for reward, and that its absense could be undermining even in the face of a prima facie retaining of benefit for the recipient.Martin Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-89511867010738528892013-09-11T02:36:18.616-05:002013-09-11T02:36:18.616-05:00Good evening, Martin. I certainly don't think ...Good evening, Martin. I certainly don't think everything he talks about in this area boils down to self-interest, but sometimes it sure looks like he doesn't think self-sacrifice is reasonable unless it either comes out as a good for the person doing the sacrificing, or (and maybe this is what you were talking about) has some kind of transcendent significance. <br /><br /><br />Either way misses the possibility that a primary reason for self-sacrifice is nothing more or less than the benefit it brings to other people. No personal credits or cosmic moral concern is required for sacrifice to be a sensible choice for a caring person. Heck, I can understand some of the appeal in a worldview where cosmic concern exists beyond our human concern for each other, especially since our concern is too often outweighed by our lack of concern. What I find offensive from some people (whether or not WLC truly fits) is the notion that human suffering and human love are nothing without that cosmic layer.<br /><br /><br />Thank you for commenting. You're always welcome!Garrenhttp://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-29812676016919519092013-09-08T05:42:29.848-05:002013-09-08T05:42:29.848-05:00Hi Garren.
If I may - and I may not be able to m...Hi Garren. <br /><br />If I may - and I may not be able to make a persuasive case that this is so - I don't think what William Lane Craig is getting at really boils down to self-interest. At least, not in that quote. <br /><br />The intuition is much more to do with concepts like "meaning" and "worth". It's an intuition I share with him and though I can't really articulate it yet, it really doesn't feel like it's in the territory of self-interest. It's not that, for instance, were evil-doers not punished I would straight-forwardly feel that I had wasted time being "good". It's not that I need some "incentive" to make the right moral choices. It's that - in some deeply intuitive, inarticulate sort of way - unless reality upholds the bindingness of morality, the whole moral project feels trivialised and undermined. <br /><br />Eh, that's obviously not enough to explain this perspective and sensibility. And I don't think Craig necessarily does enough articulating work either (I tend to find that with him on morality generally, he doesn't do much to help folks who don't already share his theist-friendly intuitions).Martin Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-36490119464307675342013-08-01T22:44:42.323-05:002013-08-01T22:44:42.323-05:00Excellent discussion. Thank you.Excellent discussion. Thank you.Lauranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-86679103580215232042013-07-21T10:15:14.891-05:002013-07-21T10:15:14.891-05:00This is a very scholarly piece, Garren! Thanks for...This is a very scholarly piece, Garren! Thanks for sharing your research and insight. I wish more people could hear this argument.Kylie Lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-34694010231890956262013-06-05T21:05:42.973-05:002013-06-05T21:05:42.973-05:00it means that "close the door please..."...it means that "close the door please..."Putrinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-87926157740334576552013-05-31T10:57:13.405-05:002013-05-31T10:57:13.405-05:00Nice!
The photojournalism is top-notch. Makin...Nice!<br /><br /><br />The photojournalism is top-notch. Makin' me hungry over here...clnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-25108038142721473662013-05-15T18:21:23.765-05:002013-05-15T18:21:23.765-05:00Good evening, Rachel.
My undergraduate GPA was 3....Good evening, Rachel.<br /><br />My undergraduate GPA was 3.0 or slightly lower, which certainly didn't help. On the other hand, I had two graduate 'A's after almost a decade out of the undergraduate scene. Maybe that hinted at a reform? I'm about 2/3rds through now with a 4.0, so their risk taking on me was justified. <br /><br />GRE scores were: 760 verbal, 730 quantitative, and 4.5 analytical writing (somehow!). According to a translation table (http://www.ets.org/gre/concordance), that would be about 170 verbal and 157 quantitative on the new scale. Don't let the faculty know, but the GRE was my hardest class. ;-)<br /><br />My advice is to play up whatever you can contribute to librarianship that isn't a common factor. For me, that would be a tech background and a philosophical bent. Leadership experience, creative solutions, design skills, and the like would all be quite attractive to the folks making these decisions.<br /><br />Best wishes and feel free to contact me by email if you have questions or want me to hook you up with others associated with the program.Garrenhttp://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-32687145732581313332013-05-15T15:09:28.446-05:002013-05-15T15:09:28.446-05:00I am currently applying for the same program, and ...I am currently applying for the same program, and was looking for sample statement of purposes. If you don't mind me asking--As well as this wonderfully written statement, how did your GRE scores and GPA rate with those UNO-Mizzou preferred? I am wondering primarily because my Verbal Reasoning Score is 4 points below where they wanted me to be, but everything else I can offer is above par.<br /><br />Thank you in advance for any advice you can offer.Rachelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-33324524007657032412013-05-05T19:00:31.393-05:002013-05-05T19:00:31.393-05:00Thank you for your comments, Ronald! Some response...Thank you for your comments, Ronald! Some responses:<br /><br />> "Firstly, on atheism, eating would be considered right if one wanted to survive and fulfill our goals."<br /><br />Atheism doesn't come bundled with an ethical system to justify saying "On atheism..." and give a value judgment. If you're referring to Carrier's ethical views, that's fine, but you shouldn't conflate his views with what is given by atheism.<br /><br />> "Why is it even objectively moral to survive and fulfill our goals/desires? Atheism has no objective answer to this, since the answer is based on subjective foundations."<br /><br />I find the terms "objective" and "subjective" to only be useful as a set of vague verbal gestures, especially when it comes to moral philosophy. Their definitions are fuzzy enough that most ethical systems can be classified as "subjective" or "objective" depending entirely on how those words are being applied at the moment. They're more useful for rhetoric than for clear communication of ideas.<br /><br />> "Thirdly, just because we have fundamental desires to do things doesn't make them objectively morally right. For example, the enlightened robber (who knows he can probably get away with it) can have a desire to steal cash from someone, to help fulfill fundamental desires. Does it become objectively morally right to steal? Most atheists including Carrier would presumably find it objectively immoral"<br /><br />I wouldn't presume that about Carrier. You might find the notion repulsive, but there are usually uncomfortable implications to any ethical system laid out in significant detail. What you did would be like me telling a Christian that she presumably disagrees with a certain Christian ethical system because it implies moral approval of genocide in certain situations. <br /><br />Overall, I don't think you're doing a very good job of engaging with Carrier's specific approach.Garrenhttp://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7060635436578918366.post-52115714895425066602013-05-04T23:00:01.434-05:002013-05-04T23:00:01.434-05:00"To use one of Carrier's examples, we all..."To use one of Carrier's examples, we all have fundamental desires to eat<br /> and to avoid pointless harm, which might make it morally right for me <br />to eat strawberries but morally right for you to avoid eating <br />strawberries because you're allergic to them; we're both following the <br />same basic imperatives of eating and avoiding pointless harm, which <br />means there is no real difference in moral facts here."<br /><br />Firstly, on atheism, eating would be considered right if one wanted to survive and fulfill our goals. Why is it even objectively moral to survive and fulfill our goals/desires? Atheism has no objective answer to this, since the answer is based on subjective foundations.<br /><br />Secondly, Carrier hasn't objectively defined "pointless harm". Is it pointless harm when we kill animals in order to eat them? Is it pointless harm when we take the life of plants in order to eat them? Since atheists are subjective agents, therefore, the standard to define "pointless harm" becomes subjective. This leads to absolute chaos, because one can easily argue that cannibalism becomes moral, if it is the only way to survive (i.e. as in the: "R v Dudley and Stephens" case).<br /><br /> Thirdly, just because we have fundamental desires to do things doesn't make them objectively morally right. For example, the enlightened robber (who knows he can probably get away with it) can have a desire to steal cash from someone, to help fulfill fundamental desires. Does it become objectively morally right to steal? Most atheists including Carrier would presumably find it objectively immoral. But we'll disagree whether or not this is moral, because we are subjective agents, which shows that the criteria/foundation for morality is subjective, hence, on atheism, morality is subjective, not objective.<br /><br />Lastly, on atheism, what objective reason is there to think human flourishing is objectively moral? On atheism, we are simply a by product of time, chance and matter. If a person blows a child to death in the middle of no-where, all that's happened is that nature has rearranged the collocation of atoms that used to be a child. An atheist has to have FAITH that human flourishing is the objective standard to make moral or immoral judgment.Ronaldnoreply@blogger.com