Video of Niall discussing his new book, Civilization, as well as his current views on the European debt crisis, Turkey's resurgence, and Iran's future here.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Friday, December 9
Wednesday, September 21
Saturday, August 20
Quote of the Day: Paging Mr. Oliver Cromwell
 |
| Oliver Cromwell |
"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice. Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining among you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man among you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes, have you not defiled this sacred place and turned the Lords temple into a den of thieves by your immoral principles and wicked practices. Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You who were deputed by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God`s help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.
I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves, be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"Are there any politicians out there today who can deliver similar words with conviction and credibility?
Monday, July 11
Foreskin Man
San Francisco's political battle over circumcision has produced a new comic book character known as Foreskin Man.
Sunday, June 19
Video: Mormon Bubble?
Mormon Presidential candidates Huntsman and Romney are leading contenders. The hit musical by the South Park creators titled The Book of Mormon cleaned up at the Tony Awards. The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is a rare Mormon Democrat.
Good read over at Newsweek on the 'Mormon Moment'.
Good read over at Newsweek on the 'Mormon Moment'.
Saturday, June 18
Pakistan 101: Bhutto Movie Review and Trailer
Pakistan is complex, messy, and an absolutely crucial place for the world to better understand.
Pakistan is described as a military that happens to have have a country attached to it. The Economist recently argued that the Pakistani-Indian border is the world's most dangerous (although I'd argue back that the North Korean-South Korean border is perhaps equally if not more dangerous). The country has nuclear weapons and has trafficked nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya. It is also perhaps ground zero in the War on Terror.
In the U.S., many questions have arisen since Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan about just how reliable a friend is Pakistan? Since 2002 the U.S. has sent nearly $20 billion in military and other aid to the country, with another $3 billion slated for 2011. How is that aid being used? Is this policy helpful or harmful to not only the U.S.'s interests, but Pakistan's?
The film Bhutto, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival last year, is well made, engaging, informative, and highly recommended. While it perhaps can justifiably be accused of painting a positively-biased picture of Benazir Bhutto, it does not shy away from interviewing her critics and pointing out at least some of the accusations of corruption made against Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, the current President of Pakistan.
This film is a recommended piece of edutainment for anyone interested in learning more about Pakistan and who likes learning through movies. It provides a helpful introduction to the history of Pakistan and the significant role the Bhutto clan have played.
Even more highly recommended is the book Ghost Wars by Steve Coll (who is interviewed in the film), which you can find on the right side of this blog in the Good Books and Films section.
Pakistan is described as a military that happens to have have a country attached to it. The Economist recently argued that the Pakistani-Indian border is the world's most dangerous (although I'd argue back that the North Korean-South Korean border is perhaps equally if not more dangerous). The country has nuclear weapons and has trafficked nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya. It is also perhaps ground zero in the War on Terror.
In the U.S., many questions have arisen since Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan about just how reliable a friend is Pakistan? Since 2002 the U.S. has sent nearly $20 billion in military and other aid to the country, with another $3 billion slated for 2011. How is that aid being used? Is this policy helpful or harmful to not only the U.S.'s interests, but Pakistan's?
The film Bhutto, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival last year, is well made, engaging, informative, and highly recommended. While it perhaps can justifiably be accused of painting a positively-biased picture of Benazir Bhutto, it does not shy away from interviewing her critics and pointing out at least some of the accusations of corruption made against Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, the current President of Pakistan.
This film is a recommended piece of edutainment for anyone interested in learning more about Pakistan and who likes learning through movies. It provides a helpful introduction to the history of Pakistan and the significant role the Bhutto clan have played.
Even more highly recommended is the book Ghost Wars by Steve Coll (who is interviewed in the film), which you can find on the right side of this blog in the Good Books and Films section.
Wednesday, June 15
Sunday, February 27
Podcast: The Immortalization Commission - Science and the Strange Quest to Cheat Death
Link to podcast here.
During the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century science became the vehicle for an assault on death. The power of knowledge was summoned to free humans of their mortality. Science was used against science and became a channel for faith.
John Gray is most recently the acclaimed author of Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia, and Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals. Having been Professor of Politics at Oxford, Visiting Professor at Harvard and Yale and Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, he now writes full time. His selected writings, Gray’s Anatomy, were published by Penguin in 2009. The Immortalization Commission: Science and the Strange Quest to Cheat Death is published in February 2011.
During the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century science became the vehicle for an assault on death. The power of knowledge was summoned to free humans of their mortality. Science was used against science and became a channel for faith.
John Gray is most recently the acclaimed author of Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia, and Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals. Having been Professor of Politics at Oxford, Visiting Professor at Harvard and Yale and Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, he now writes full time. His selected writings, Gray’s Anatomy, were published by Penguin in 2009. The Immortalization Commission: Science and the Strange Quest to Cheat Death is published in February 2011.
Saturday, February 12
2045: The Year Science Makes Humans Immortal?
 |
| Ray Kurzweil |
A good read published in Time yesterday on this topic, and radical life-extension, featuring inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, Cambridge Professor Aubrey de Grey, investor Peter Thiel, and others at the forefront of this (for lack of a better term) movement.
From the article:
The more you read about the Singularity, the more you start to see it peeking out at you, coyly, from unexpected directions. Five years ago we didn't have 600 million humans carrying out their social lives over a single electronic network. Now we have Facebook. Five years ago you didn't see people double-checking what they were saying and where they were going, even as they were saying it and going there, using handheld network-enabled digital prosthetics. Now we have iPhones. Is it an unimaginable step to take the iPhones out of our hands and put them into our skulls?
Already 30,000 patients with Parkinson's disease have neural implants. Google is experimenting with computers that can drive cars. There are more than 2,000 robots fighting in Afghanistan alongside the human troops. This month a game show will once again figure in the history of artificial intelligence, but this time the computer will be the guest: an IBM super-computer nicknamed Watson will compete on Jeopardy! Watson runs on 90 servers and takes up an entire room, and in a practice match in January it finished ahead of two former champions, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. It got every question it answered right, but much more important, it didn't need help understanding the questions (or, strictly speaking, the answers), which were phrased in plain English.
The idea of the Singularity first hit me like a lightning bolt a little over a decade ago when I read Sun Microsystem co-founder Bill Joy's alarming Wired article titled Why the Future Doesn't Need Us. I've been fascinated and trying to wrap my mind around the many potential implications of exponential technological development and living indefinitely ever since.
The Antithesis of Idle Chitchat
If you're looking for a way to spice up your next dinner party or bar conversation then I encourage you to trot out the idea of science making immortality a reality within your lifetime.
As noted by Kurzweil, people can more easily accept the idea of superhuman HAL-like computer artificial intelligence in the foreseeable future than banishing death. Based on limited anecdotal observations women in particular seem to have an almost viscerally negative, knee-jerk response when first confronted with the notion that the necessary technological advances could arrive in their lifetime.
In fact I have yet to encounter a single woman that responds positively at first blush to the idea of living forever. Perhaps the only thing this reveals is a homogeneity amongst my circle of female friends and acquaintances. But it has led me to wonder whether there is something fundamental to radical life extension which makes it more appealing to men?
Personally, I don't think so. Rather I think this is a case of a big, hard to fathom idea traumatically upending the perceived natural order of life's apple cart. Once you get passed initial concerns over things like quality of life (living long but as a gimp or vegetable) or what this means for romance (and concepts like soul mates) then some women soften up their initial distaste for life extension.
I for one love the idea of extending life indefinitely! There is so much I would love to learn, see, and do; to one day catch a sunrise on planet Mars and then climb Olympus Mons, a mountain almost three times as tall as Everest!
So far as I can imagine there is simply nothing else which would more profoundly alter life as we know it than the Singularity and radical life extension. However, their prospect raises tectonic moral, philosophical, socioeconomic, and security implications. Joy's concerns, which are shared by Kurzweil, must be addressed.
The Antithesis of Idle Chitchat
If you're looking for a way to spice up your next dinner party or bar conversation then I encourage you to trot out the idea of science making immortality a reality within your lifetime.
As noted by Kurzweil, people can more easily accept the idea of superhuman HAL-like computer artificial intelligence in the foreseeable future than banishing death. Based on limited anecdotal observations women in particular seem to have an almost viscerally negative, knee-jerk response when first confronted with the notion that the necessary technological advances could arrive in their lifetime.
In fact I have yet to encounter a single woman that responds positively at first blush to the idea of living forever. Perhaps the only thing this reveals is a homogeneity amongst my circle of female friends and acquaintances. But it has led me to wonder whether there is something fundamental to radical life extension which makes it more appealing to men?
Personally, I don't think so. Rather I think this is a case of a big, hard to fathom idea traumatically upending the perceived natural order of life's apple cart. Once you get passed initial concerns over things like quality of life (living long but as a gimp or vegetable) or what this means for romance (and concepts like soul mates) then some women soften up their initial distaste for life extension.
I for one love the idea of extending life indefinitely! There is so much I would love to learn, see, and do; to one day catch a sunrise on planet Mars and then climb Olympus Mons, a mountain almost three times as tall as Everest!
So far as I can imagine there is simply nothing else which would more profoundly alter life as we know it than the Singularity and radical life extension. However, their prospect raises tectonic moral, philosophical, socioeconomic, and security implications. Joy's concerns, which are shared by Kurzweil, must be addressed.
Below is a video of a 17-year old Kurzweil during his 1965 television appearance on I've Got a Secret, and here is a link to his most recent television interview on Charlie Rose where he describes the Singularity.
Tuesday, December 21
Who's Confused: the Atheists, or the Agnostics?
 |
| Ricky Gervais |
Ricky's explanation for his atheism brings to mind a question I've previously raised with individuals who claim that their atheism, like Ricky's, is rooted in scientific rational thought.
A little over a decade ago during Alan Grenspan's heyday -- a time when I would like to believe that I was not only younger but also much less wiser -- my question even managed to get me thrown out of the Ayn Rand Institute in Southern California.
Here's the short story: after asking the managing director a sincere question about about the atheism of the institute's namesake, I was quickly escorted to the exit with his parting words "I don't have time to be talking to mystics".
Ricky believes God does not exist because there is no provable, scientific evidence which verifies the existence of God. No argument here from me on this point.
My question is this: what scientific evidence does Ricky have to counter the belief that God does in fact exist? The answer is none. Ergo, the logical default is not in fact to be an atheist, but to be an agnostic.
Atheists -- by believing that God does not exist -- are making the same error in logic which believers in God make. Neither of them have scientific evidence to support their beliefs. So the only logical consistent and scientifically supported view is agnosticism.
Are the science-believing atheists simply confused? Or is it the science believing agnostics, like myself, who have it all wrong?
I'll close with an interesting atheist/agnostic factoid and another question: in the U.S. Congress it appears that every 'major' minority group in the United States is represented. There are jews, muslims, blacks, latinos, asians, homosexuals, disabled, left-handed, etc.
However, there is not a single avowed atheist or agnostic among the 535 members of Congress. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is rumored to be an atheist, but to my knowledge he has never publicly outed himself as one.
Given that atheists and agnostics represent perhaps as much as 5-10% of the U.S. population, would it be fair to say that atheists and/or agnostics are discriminated against? And in regards to election to the U.S. Congress, is there a reason why they are discriminated against more than any of the other 'major' minority groups?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)