Room for different beliefs?

I found this banner outside a Unitarian Universalist church I pass on my way to work.

The sign is a logical contradiction. I'm tempted to stop by and ask them if they have room for beliefs that don't have room for different beliefs!

"We are a welcoming faith, " says Rev. Jim Eller, a UU Pastor. "We do not have one set of beliefs....We welcome agnostics, atheists, humanists, pagans, Buddhists, Christians and theists. All are welcome."

Oh? Would they welcome Nazis? Would they welcome racists? Child abusers? Biblical Fundamentalists? No, especially not Biblical Fundamentalists.

Sadly, this sign is typical of today's thinking. Or, should I say non-thinking?

Another Paradox

I found this in an article at everything2.com.

All adjectives may be divided into two types:
self-descriptive and non-self-descriptive.

Here are some self-descriptive adjectives:

English
short
polysyllabic

Here are some non-self-descriptive adjectives:

German
long
monosyllabic

So, to which type does the following adjective belong?

non-self-descriptive

If the word is really non-self-descriptive, then it applies to itself. But that would make it self-descriptive. And if it's self-descriptive, then it is describing itself as being non-self-descriptive.

Paradoxes

I love puzzles, brainteasers, logic riddles, and paradoxes.

Here's an interesting paradox. How many of the following five statements are false?

1. Three of these five statements are false.
2. 2 + 2 = 5
3. 3 +1 = 4
4. 4 x 2 = 8
5. 6 - 1 = 4

Statements 2 and 5 are clearly false. But what about statement 1? If it's true, there are three false statements. But where is the 3rd false statement? If it's false, then there are three false statements, which makes it true, which brings the number of false statement back to two. But, if there are only two false statements, then statement 1 is also false...

Subvert The Dominant Paradigm

You may have seen this bumper sticker in your travels. I found this one in the parking lot where I work, though I have no idea whose it is. If I find out, I'll probably ask them about it. The message is a call to rebellion against the current mode of thinking, whatever it happens to be. Maybe some people display the bumper sticker to be funny or to raise eyebrows, but I'm sure some consider it a serious expression of their own thinking.

My question to them is what will you do when the dominant paradigm becomes subverting the dominant paradigm?

Maybe it already is.

This reminds me of a quote by G.K. Chesterton in his book, "Orthodoxy." It's a keen observation about modern man, summed up brilliantly in the last sentence.

‘But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.'

--G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1909

"Safe, Legal, and Rare"

When Hillary Clinton says she wants abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare," it is considered to be a "softening" of her rhetoric. I think it's a disingenuous attempt to appeal to anyone with half a conscience by throwing in the oh-so-reasonable term "rare." Who could disagree with that?

I think she would be satisfied with legal. She certainly doesn't want it to be safe. At least not for the baby. And I doubt she wants it to be rare.

But, put her comments in another context, say, that of slavery. Imagine if Abraham Lincoln, in a bid to appease southerners had said, “I'm personally opposed to slavery, but I don't think the government should interfere with a slave-owner's right to choose. Let's keep slavery safe, legal, and rare.”

Abortion is every bit as evil as slavery ever was.

Hillary isn't safe. Her dealings aren't legal. And, unfortunately, she isn't rare.

Pop vs. Soda

I grew up calling soft drinks "pop." But when I moved to New England, I realized that hardly anyone knew what pop was. Instead, virtually everyone calls it "soda," and a few even call it "tonic." Here's a fascinating map that shows, county by county, the most common term for soft drinks.



Click the map to enlarge it.

Is There Life in Outer Space? (Part 2)

I mentioned in my last comment to Dedwarmo
Is There Life in Outer Space? (Part 1) that if he found the words, "Steven Loves Priscilla" scrawled in the sand at the beach, he wouldn't scratch his head and wonder if it was brought about by the receding tide. Likewise, one would not wonder if wind and rain created the heads on Mount Rushmore, even if he had never heard the name Gutzon Borglum or seen another carver's work.

What do the letters on the beach and the heads on Mount Rushmore have in common? The answer is information.

That is what SETI scientists are looking for. And information has two components: specificity and complexity.

Specificity

Something is specified if the arrangement has meaning. The word "the" is specified, but not very complex. If you randomly pulled letters out of a hat and got the word "the," you wouldn't assume the game was rigged, nor if scientists received the word "the" from space would they assume it was caused by intelligence.

Complexity

Random noise is quite complex, but it doesn't mean anything. One way of defining complexity is that which has a low probability of occurring randomly. For instance, the following 30 letters have an extremely low probability of occurring in any random arrangement of 30 letters: ldjhoirojhksdghhlnjdlbhkcjmnjf. They are complex, but not specified, since they have no meaning.

Now if scientists heard, "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation..." they would immediately assume the source was intelligent because the data is both specified and complex. That's information and information always comes from intelligence.

Is There Life in Outer Space? (Part 1)

I've always been intrigued by SETI, which stands for "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence." According to the SETI Institute website, "The mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universe." To that end, they employ over 100 scientists, educators and support staff.

And just how do they go about searching for intelligent life in other parts of the universe? By examining signals received from space. To examine the data, thousands of volunteers run a software program as a screen saver that processes the data as it comes in.

Now, here's my question: How will they know when they find intelligent life?

Any time I meet someone who is running the SETI program, I ask that question. So far, no one has been able to answer. The looks I get tell me they've never even thought about it before.

Here's how the SETI website answers the question: "SETI...seeks evidence of life in the universe by looking for some signature of its technology." Now, what in the world does that mean?!

It sounds to me like they're looking for intelligent design.

Causes Of Death

In the December 4, 2006 edition, Time Magazine lists the causes of death annually in the U.S. (I've rearranged the list a little.)

1. Heart Disease: 685,089
2. Other Diseases (not in this list): 681,150
3. Cancer: 556,902
4. Stroke: 157,689
5. Accidents: 109,277
6. Chronic lower-respiratory disease: 126,382
7. Diabetes: 74,219
8. Suicide: 31,484
9. Homicide: 17,732

Here's a breakdown of #5, Accidents:

1. Motor vehicle (non-motorcycle): 44,757
2. Drug overdose: 11,212
3. Motorcycle accident: 3,676
4. Fire: 3,369
5. Choking on object: 3,004
6. Falling down stairs: 1,588
7. Choking on food: 875
8. Bicycle accident: 762
9. Falling out of bed: 594
10. Pool drowning: 515
11. Falling off a ladder: 365
12. Bathtub drowning: 332
13. Slipping on ice/snow: 103
14. Bee/wasp sting: 66
15. Lightning strike: 47
16. Dog attack: 32
17. Skydiving: 22
18. Crushing by human stampede: 22
19. Commercial airline accident: 22
20. Playground-equipment accident: 3
21. Snakebite: 2
22. Marine-animal attack: 1

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Surprises:

> An equal number of people die from human stampedes as from commercial airline accidents.
> Twice as many people die from suicides than homicides.
> More people die from falling out of bed than from falling off a ladder or in commercial airline accidents.
> Only one fatal marine-animal attack per year? So, Bruce was make-believe?

I want to know how many people choke on objects while riding a bicycle down stairs while being chased by bees during a lightning storm?