What an arrogant little twit Brit Hume is. He declares that Tiger needs to change his religion, but says he isn’t of proselytizing. That’s the exact definition of proselytizing, Brit. Do you think it’s an exception because it’s your religion? How would you like it if someone said to you “I think Islam would really help you with your problem?”
Jeff ,your best in a long while , oooh that Danziger sarcasm we all love. The Tv at the top of the Sign , pure Danziger .
And the art is top form too. Pulitzer time for you sir , could be your year.
All I could think of was why switch from Buddhism to become Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, or, well, any of the flood of cheaters who turned to their “Christian faith” to change them?
drtroutma, why do you associate “Christianity” with Haggard, Bakker, Swiggart, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, etc…before you associate it with Martin Luther, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, George Whitefield, etc….? It is quite a remarkable historical faith, all open-minded investigators must admit.
personal, free-will, individualized, voluntary, inside-job, day by day crucifixion, anybody?
“When he died on the cross, he did that,
in the wild weather of his outlying provinces
in the torture of the body of his revelation,
which he had done at home in glory and gladness. ”
“Brit Hume simply explained that which is real – Christianity is built upon confession of our sins, forgiveness, and the ability to become a different person through repentance. Buddhism has no such concepts in its religion.”
Maybe Hume was referring to the sort of Christianity practiced by powerful politicians like the K Street “Family”, who use their faith as a perpetual “get out of jail free” card – commit adultery, get caught, profess repentance, get forgiven, and repeat!
Anyway, fine by me if Fox wants to drive away any non-Christian viewers they have by putting on arrogant people like Hume to insult their faiths.
Bruce4671: “It is possible- in fact probable- that there exists a vastly more intelligent entity in residence. Would that make them/it GOD? Well, it would all be relative wouldn’t it.”
Ah, no. And in addition, no.
In the years since H.G. Wells wrote of “an intellect that is vast and cool and unsympathetic” existing on Mars, our understanding of the possibilities of life outside our planet has altered. We know there are billions and billions of stars. Only a handful of the stars we’ve observed have planetary systems at all. A much smaller number have planets of earthlike size, in earthlike orbits. The number of known planets with what we believe to be the requirements for sustaining life is exactly ONE: Earth. That there is a large number of currently-unknown planets which nonetheless have the necessary (as currently considered) conditions for life is highly probable, but by no means certain. If we can find even one other, that might give us a better idea how large that number might conceivably be.
On a planet which is capable of sustaining life, it is not a certainty that life must necessarily arise. On planets where life exists, it is by no means a certainty that “intelligence” will develop (Earth sustained life for billions of years before anything that we would consider an “intelligent” species showed up, and we may only last a tick of the clock in geological terms).
If “intelligent” life in fact exists elsewhere (and I repeat that we have yet to find the remotest trace of it), it is possible that it exists in some form with which we simply could not interact (people are working on different theoretical models of non-human sentience, but they remain completely theoretical so far). If “human-like” intelligence exists, yes, perhaps it is greater than ours, or smaller than ours, or whatever. If greater, even VASTLY greater, that would not make them anything like “gods”, much less God. There is currently no model of exobiology which supports the idea of supreme intelligences (much less “omniscience”), super-powered intelligences (much less “omnipotence”), disembodied intelligences (much less “omnipresence”), or cosmic “forces” of any sort which could be said to have “motives”.
There might be life out there which is more intelligent than human intelligence. There might also be life out there with longer necks than giraffe necks. To suppose that there is a probability (much less an inevitability) of super-intelligence is no more supportable than that there is a probability of super-giraffes with mile-long necks.
You’re trying to play the “Anthro-” card both ways. Man is not, it is true, occupying the apex of any sort of natural hierarchy of life on Earth, but neither must we suppose that any sort of hierarchy necessarily extends beyond us, either within our scope of experience or beyond it. The hierarchy itself is a false one, existing only in our own minds.
Furthermore, there is a necessary distinction to be made between “intelligence” and “knowledge”. So far, we haven’t been able to do much to increase the human brain’s capacity for knowledge, but our storehouse of “what is known” has increased exponentially in the last 100 years. So much so, that we may be approaching the limits of the individual brain’s capacity to comprehend it all. Every field of learning is now so complicated that it’s virtually impossible for any one person to be fully-informed in more than one area. But with the help of computers and/or “networked” brains (the work of specialists being coordinated by generalists), we haven’t yet hit limits on what we might still accomplish.
A sentient extraterrestrial species which has managed to keep from killing itself off for a few thousand years longer than we have might possess technologies which appear god-like if and when we encounter them (or they encounter us), all without having greater “intelligence” than our own. As Clarke said, “Any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”, and that may be true, but technology remains technology and magic remains magic. To the aboriginal Americans, the invading Europeans seemed to possess magical powers and were, in some instances, presumed to be gods. They were mistaken. To consider the Europeans to be “gods”, in even a relative sense, is absurd.
“So tell me fritzoid, what’s the probability that intelligent life erupted on only one planet in the universe?”
Don’t know. It’s neither a logical impossibility nor a logical certainty. As I said, until we find even the remotest trace that intelligence exists elsewhere, we cannot make any sort of informed statement about its frequency. We know we’re here. That’s ALL we know for sure. What we DO know about other planets indicates that, so far, we’re nowhere near finding any. Is your information different? There appears to be water on Mars. There may have been liquid water at some point. Is it theoretically possible that microbial life exists or has existed there? Theoretically. Intelligent life? Not a chance. And Mars is the best candidate out of all the other planets we’ve catalogued.
My argument, if you noticed, is not against the existence of life elsewhere, or even the existence of intelligent life elsewhere. It is against your statement: “It is possible- in fact probable- that there exists a vastly more intelligent entity in residence.Would that make them/it GOD? Well, it would all be relative wouldn’t it.” I grant that it is remotely possible, I dispute that it is probable. I further dispute that such an intelligence, however vast, could in any way be considered “God”, relatively or otherwise.
Bruce: “So, just to take your view, and say that it can’t be because you have no evidence that it is, is making a definative [sic] choice. And as a man of science you say you don’t do that.”
I never said “It can’t be because there is no evidence that it is”, I’m saying that “Because we’ve found no evidence that it might be, there’s is no basis for presuming that it is.” We can’t calculate a probability. We haven’t enough information.
Say you came to this country from somewhere else, and set out on a quest to find an American who shares your exact name. If your name happens to be “John Paul Smith”, you will probably find one pretty quickly. If your name is “Yukio Ulrich Gonzalez”, you’ll be looking a LONG, LONG time. If you had never known anything about America and its inhabitants, you’d have had no inkling that one name was common and the other was quite possibly unique.
When we first theorized there might be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, we imagined we might be one of a multitude of John Paul Smiths. The more we understand about the requirements for life and the nature of intelligence, the more it’s looking like we’re a Yukio Ulrich Gonzalez.
(Note: My real name isn’t Yukio Ulrich Gonzalez, but neither is it John Paul Smith. My name is uncommon enough that, in a city of 600,000 people, I would have thought it improbable that another person shares it exactly. Yet there is not only another one in San Francisco, I’ve met him, and neither of us was looking for the other. So I’m aware that improbable events do in fact occur on a regular basis.)
And again, I’m not arguing against the existence – SOMEWHERE – of extraterrestrial intelligence per se, I’m arguing against the “probable existence of a vastly intelligent entity that in relative terms might be identifiable as God.” That’s straight out of Star Trek.
To use another analogy, I’m taller than the average height. My personal experience has brought me into contact with men who are nonetheless taller than me, and I’m aware that there are and have been men (and women) who have been substantially taller still. Yet I don’t need to measure every individual, living or dead, to know that humans who are vastly taller, to the extent that I become miniscule in comparison, are highly improbable (pun acknowledged, but not intended).
“Enter the odd space traveler -there is evidence that this could have happened, isn’t there?”
Is there? You tell me. My understanding is that the “evidence” of such visitations is not credible by any scientific standard. Did they leave any artifacts? Any trace elements of unaccountable chemicals? Anything that could not more reasonably be attributed to completely human actions (or interactions)?
Thousands of years ago, perhaps people thought they had been visited by gods. Hundreds of years ago, they thought that witches and demons were breaking into their homes at night, or prowling the woods, and carrying off people right and left. Today, people believe that aliens are abducting them on rural highways and conducting experiments on them. Same brain phenomenon, wrapped up in different cultural contexts.
“Ancient astronauts” is a theory which rightly belongs on the ash-heap to which it has been relegated.
I do believe in God, I do believe there is a reason we are here. I do believe there is a reason why there is something at all. finding it out is the work of a lifetime.
Eddie claims catholics are the only way towards God, the only religion that doesn’t lead to Hell. Well, a protestant would say the same thing. Scientologists claim they know the way, so do Jeovah’s witnesses, so do Raelians. Oh, they all claim they have reasonable evedence. (Oh yeah, Muslims too!).
I believe in God, but religion is just God seen from human eyes and we all know that those eyes are desperately flawed. Following an organized religion is following generations and generations of thousands of eyes just as flawed as yours instead of following your own.
Has anyone stopped to realize that the three “major” religions are very, very much alike? And also that in those groups are extremists…everyone tend to focus on the Muslims, but very, very few if, anybody in this country says ANYTHING about the Christian extremists! They are no better that the other side in their belief that their religion is the one and only one, and if you don’t follow them, or their beliefs then you are wrong! THAT is what bothers me about most religions…IMHO of course. Just some food for thought!
Brit has a point- Christianity has the key; the key to burning, hanging, & drowning people as “witches” (because someone had more need for their land); the key to the all-forgiving Inquisition, torturing people into forgiveness; the key to helping the homeless & hungry by pleading for “donations” to build massive mega-churches & cathedrals that are empty 5-6 days a week! At least, unlike Christians, Jews, & Islamics, Buddhists don’t have a reputation & history for torture, murder, and mayhem!
Most of the great religious people, faith founders, were geniuses who asked themselves real, tough questions nobody bothered to ask and wanted to lay the foundation for a better mankind. Christianity jumped the shark after Constantine’s conversion and imposition of Christianity on his empire. People don’t change just because the political leader had a mystical experience. Rome didn’t convert to christianity, christianity became roman, molded itself on the roman world and adopted its sins. Ditto for all state religions worldwide.
As soon as you mingle religion and politics, religion suffers the most.
Budhism doesnt have the bloody reputation of the monotheistic religions, maybe it’s because it asks its followers to withdraw from all things temporal and become monks. But, as with all places with both a religion AND a state, I’m sure the State tried to tap religion’s power over the masses in Buddhism, too and made its share of wars. We just know little about it because we don’t know much about eastern history.
I find it interesting that Ashoka, one of the bloodier emperors in India was responsible for the support of missionaries to spread Buddhism outside India. Incidently, there aren’t a lot of Buddhists, relatively speaking, left in India.
Carlin-wise - nobody so angry as those brutalized by parochial sins in youth.
Check him out in DOGMA, Kevin Smith’s great take on faith. Of course the Catholic League had the heart of the film excised
(“Bethany’s Boo-Hoo” in the out-takes)
but there’s more to faith than can be denied, no matter how genius the denial.
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
What an arrogant little twit Brit Hume is. He declares that Tiger needs to change his religion, but says he isn’t of proselytizing. That’s the exact definition of proselytizing, Brit. Do you think it’s an exception because it’s your religion? How would you like it if someone said to you “I think Islam would really help you with your problem?”
meowdam over 14 years ago
Jeff ,your best in a long while , oooh that Danziger sarcasm we all love. The Tv at the top of the Sign , pure Danziger . And the art is top form too. Pulitzer time for you sir , could be your year.
pbarnrob over 14 years ago
May Hume find some peace someday, sooner, better…
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
All I could think of was why switch from Buddhism to become Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, or, well, any of the flood of cheaters who turned to their “Christian faith” to change them?
HabaneroBuck over 14 years ago
drtroutma, why do you associate “Christianity” with Haggard, Bakker, Swiggart, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, etc…before you associate it with Martin Luther, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, George Whitefield, etc….? It is quite a remarkable historical faith, all open-minded investigators must admit.
hastynote Premium Member over 14 years ago
Commercial Christianity in America:
It saves the careers of multi-million-dollar sports legends in America, and it sentences homosexuals to death in Uganda.
WHAT A WITNESS!!!!!
babka Premium Member over 14 years ago
personal, free-will, individualized, voluntary, inside-job, day by day crucifixion, anybody?
“When he died on the cross, he did that, in the wild weather of his outlying provinces in the torture of the body of his revelation, which he had done at home in glory and gladness. ”
George MacDonald
michael Premium Member over 14 years ago
“Brit Hume simply explained that which is real – Christianity is built upon confession of our sins, forgiveness, and the ability to become a different person through repentance. Buddhism has no such concepts in its religion.”
Not true. Ever heard of karma?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#Karmaas_thelawof_causeand_effect
Karl Hiller Premium Member over 14 years ago
Maybe Hume was referring to the sort of Christianity practiced by powerful politicians like the K Street “Family”, who use their faith as a perpetual “get out of jail free” card – commit adultery, get caught, profess repentance, get forgiven, and repeat!
Anyway, fine by me if Fox wants to drive away any non-Christian viewers they have by putting on arrogant people like Hume to insult their faiths.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
Bruce4671: “It is possible- in fact probable- that there exists a vastly more intelligent entity in residence. Would that make them/it GOD? Well, it would all be relative wouldn’t it.”
Ah, no. And in addition, no.
In the years since H.G. Wells wrote of “an intellect that is vast and cool and unsympathetic” existing on Mars, our understanding of the possibilities of life outside our planet has altered. We know there are billions and billions of stars. Only a handful of the stars we’ve observed have planetary systems at all. A much smaller number have planets of earthlike size, in earthlike orbits. The number of known planets with what we believe to be the requirements for sustaining life is exactly ONE: Earth. That there is a large number of currently-unknown planets which nonetheless have the necessary (as currently considered) conditions for life is highly probable, but by no means certain. If we can find even one other, that might give us a better idea how large that number might conceivably be.
On a planet which is capable of sustaining life, it is not a certainty that life must necessarily arise. On planets where life exists, it is by no means a certainty that “intelligence” will develop (Earth sustained life for billions of years before anything that we would consider an “intelligent” species showed up, and we may only last a tick of the clock in geological terms).
If “intelligent” life in fact exists elsewhere (and I repeat that we have yet to find the remotest trace of it), it is possible that it exists in some form with which we simply could not interact (people are working on different theoretical models of non-human sentience, but they remain completely theoretical so far). If “human-like” intelligence exists, yes, perhaps it is greater than ours, or smaller than ours, or whatever. If greater, even VASTLY greater, that would not make them anything like “gods”, much less God. There is currently no model of exobiology which supports the idea of supreme intelligences (much less “omniscience”), super-powered intelligences (much less “omnipotence”), disembodied intelligences (much less “omnipresence”), or cosmic “forces” of any sort which could be said to have “motives”.
There might be life out there which is more intelligent than human intelligence. There might also be life out there with longer necks than giraffe necks. To suppose that there is a probability (much less an inevitability) of super-intelligence is no more supportable than that there is a probability of super-giraffes with mile-long necks.
You’re trying to play the “Anthro-” card both ways. Man is not, it is true, occupying the apex of any sort of natural hierarchy of life on Earth, but neither must we suppose that any sort of hierarchy necessarily extends beyond us, either within our scope of experience or beyond it. The hierarchy itself is a false one, existing only in our own minds.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
Furthermore, there is a necessary distinction to be made between “intelligence” and “knowledge”. So far, we haven’t been able to do much to increase the human brain’s capacity for knowledge, but our storehouse of “what is known” has increased exponentially in the last 100 years. So much so, that we may be approaching the limits of the individual brain’s capacity to comprehend it all. Every field of learning is now so complicated that it’s virtually impossible for any one person to be fully-informed in more than one area. But with the help of computers and/or “networked” brains (the work of specialists being coordinated by generalists), we haven’t yet hit limits on what we might still accomplish.
A sentient extraterrestrial species which has managed to keep from killing itself off for a few thousand years longer than we have might possess technologies which appear god-like if and when we encounter them (or they encounter us), all without having greater “intelligence” than our own. As Clarke said, “Any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”, and that may be true, but technology remains technology and magic remains magic. To the aboriginal Americans, the invading Europeans seemed to possess magical powers and were, in some instances, presumed to be gods. They were mistaken. To consider the Europeans to be “gods”, in even a relative sense, is absurd.
jkshaw over 14 years ago
Jeff, our family loves your cartoons – this one is especially good. The cross with a “v” is great touch. Thank you.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
Bruce, our posts crossed.
“So tell me fritzoid, what’s the probability that intelligent life erupted on only one planet in the universe?”
Don’t know. It’s neither a logical impossibility nor a logical certainty. As I said, until we find even the remotest trace that intelligence exists elsewhere, we cannot make any sort of informed statement about its frequency. We know we’re here. That’s ALL we know for sure. What we DO know about other planets indicates that, so far, we’re nowhere near finding any. Is your information different? There appears to be water on Mars. There may have been liquid water at some point. Is it theoretically possible that microbial life exists or has existed there? Theoretically. Intelligent life? Not a chance. And Mars is the best candidate out of all the other planets we’ve catalogued.
My argument, if you noticed, is not against the existence of life elsewhere, or even the existence of intelligent life elsewhere. It is against your statement: “It is possible- in fact probable- that there exists a vastly more intelligent entity in residence.Would that make them/it GOD? Well, it would all be relative wouldn’t it.” I grant that it is remotely possible, I dispute that it is probable. I further dispute that such an intelligence, however vast, could in any way be considered “God”, relatively or otherwise.
OmqR-IV.0 over 14 years ago
Learnt about this thru’ the Daily Show. Absolutely amazing, especially the follow up. Thanks for pointing out the Tv mark, meowdam. Great ‘toon.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
Bruce: “So, just to take your view, and say that it can’t be because you have no evidence that it is, is making a definative [sic] choice. And as a man of science you say you don’t do that.”
I never said “It can’t be because there is no evidence that it is”, I’m saying that “Because we’ve found no evidence that it might be, there’s is no basis for presuming that it is.” We can’t calculate a probability. We haven’t enough information.
Say you came to this country from somewhere else, and set out on a quest to find an American who shares your exact name. If your name happens to be “John Paul Smith”, you will probably find one pretty quickly. If your name is “Yukio Ulrich Gonzalez”, you’ll be looking a LONG, LONG time. If you had never known anything about America and its inhabitants, you’d have had no inkling that one name was common and the other was quite possibly unique.
When we first theorized there might be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, we imagined we might be one of a multitude of John Paul Smiths. The more we understand about the requirements for life and the nature of intelligence, the more it’s looking like we’re a Yukio Ulrich Gonzalez.
(Note: My real name isn’t Yukio Ulrich Gonzalez, but neither is it John Paul Smith. My name is uncommon enough that, in a city of 600,000 people, I would have thought it improbable that another person shares it exactly. Yet there is not only another one in San Francisco, I’ve met him, and neither of us was looking for the other. So I’m aware that improbable events do in fact occur on a regular basis.)
And again, I’m not arguing against the existence – SOMEWHERE – of extraterrestrial intelligence per se, I’m arguing against the “probable existence of a vastly intelligent entity that in relative terms might be identifiable as God.” That’s straight out of Star Trek.
To use another analogy, I’m taller than the average height. My personal experience has brought me into contact with men who are nonetheless taller than me, and I’m aware that there are and have been men (and women) who have been substantially taller still. Yet I don’t need to measure every individual, living or dead, to know that humans who are vastly taller, to the extent that I become miniscule in comparison, are highly improbable (pun acknowledged, but not intended).
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
“Enter the odd space traveler -there is evidence that this could have happened, isn’t there?”
Is there? You tell me. My understanding is that the “evidence” of such visitations is not credible by any scientific standard. Did they leave any artifacts? Any trace elements of unaccountable chemicals? Anything that could not more reasonably be attributed to completely human actions (or interactions)?
Thousands of years ago, perhaps people thought they had been visited by gods. Hundreds of years ago, they thought that witches and demons were breaking into their homes at night, or prowling the woods, and carrying off people right and left. Today, people believe that aliens are abducting them on rural highways and conducting experiments on them. Same brain phenomenon, wrapped up in different cultural contexts.
“Ancient astronauts” is a theory which rightly belongs on the ash-heap to which it has been relegated.
Gladius over 14 years ago
As an addition to this debate you might want to take a look at the Cargo Cult, South Pacific.
deadheadzan over 14 years ago
Another great cartoon by Danzinger.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 14 years ago
I do believe in God, I do believe there is a reason we are here. I do believe there is a reason why there is something at all. finding it out is the work of a lifetime.
Eddie claims catholics are the only way towards God, the only religion that doesn’t lead to Hell. Well, a protestant would say the same thing. Scientologists claim they know the way, so do Jeovah’s witnesses, so do Raelians. Oh, they all claim they have reasonable evedence. (Oh yeah, Muslims too!).
I believe in God, but religion is just God seen from human eyes and we all know that those eyes are desperately flawed. Following an organized religion is following generations and generations of thousands of eyes just as flawed as yours instead of following your own.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
I like to say “what if” as well, but I don’t imagine that my fantasy life will intersect with reality.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 14 years ago
^ Anyway, your type. The ones who want to spread yoru religion around.
TurquoiseRiver over 14 years ago
Has anyone stopped to realize that the three “major” religions are very, very much alike? And also that in those groups are extremists…everyone tend to focus on the Muslims, but very, very few if, anybody in this country says ANYTHING about the Christian extremists! They are no better that the other side in their belief that their religion is the one and only one, and if you don’t follow them, or their beliefs then you are wrong! THAT is what bothers me about most religions…IMHO of course. Just some food for thought!
bobdonth over 14 years ago
Brit has a point- Christianity has the key; the key to burning, hanging, & drowning people as “witches” (because someone had more need for their land); the key to the all-forgiving Inquisition, torturing people into forgiveness; the key to helping the homeless & hungry by pleading for “donations” to build massive mega-churches & cathedrals that are empty 5-6 days a week! At least, unlike Christians, Jews, & Islamics, Buddhists don’t have a reputation & history for torture, murder, and mayhem!
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 14 years ago
Most of the great religious people, faith founders, were geniuses who asked themselves real, tough questions nobody bothered to ask and wanted to lay the foundation for a better mankind. Christianity jumped the shark after Constantine’s conversion and imposition of Christianity on his empire. People don’t change just because the political leader had a mystical experience. Rome didn’t convert to christianity, christianity became roman, molded itself on the roman world and adopted its sins. Ditto for all state religions worldwide.
As soon as you mingle religion and politics, religion suffers the most.
Budhism doesnt have the bloody reputation of the monotheistic religions, maybe it’s because it asks its followers to withdraw from all things temporal and become monks. But, as with all places with both a religion AND a state, I’m sure the State tried to tap religion’s power over the masses in Buddhism, too and made its share of wars. We just know little about it because we don’t know much about eastern history.
Gladius over 14 years ago
I find it interesting that Ashoka, one of the bloodier emperors in India was responsible for the support of missionaries to spread Buddhism outside India. Incidently, there aren’t a lot of Buddhists, relatively speaking, left in India.
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
Irrespective “faith”- humanitarian is a minority view in “human nature”.
babka Premium Member over 14 years ago
Carlin-wise - nobody so angry as those brutalized by parochial sins in youth.
Check him out in DOGMA, Kevin Smith’s great take on faith. Of course the Catholic League had the heart of the film excised (“Bethany’s Boo-Hoo” in the out-takes) but there’s more to faith than can be denied, no matter how genius the denial.