Just a reminder about who runs our city

[ChriswUfGator]

The two are fundamentally different. We may have thought Pluto was one thing, when it turned out to be another. The false comparison is that Pluto was always there, regardless of what we mistakenly thought it was. You can get a telescope out and look at it, it's a tangible thing. To use your word, this is really the difference between beliefs based on the tangible vs. the intangible. The bleeding edge of science may often blur the line, especially before a theory has been proven and is still just a hypothesis. But then again, we're back to that fundamental difference, aren't we? Science recognizes a hypothesis for what it is, a hypothesis can exist simultaneously with proven fact, it doesn't falsely bifurcate.

[Debbie Thompson]

I get where some of you guys are coming from, I just don't agree with you. That doesn't make me stupid.  I also haven't called you guys morons for believing differently, like bensays called me.  :-) 

But back to the City Council, as I said in my earlier post, I agree they could pray before coming to the meeting, and not pray aloud in public.  I'm not sure how that would be different, other than you not having to hear them.  It seems to me some of you think they shouldn't consider their faith in decisions at all, but if they prayed at home about decisions before coming to the public meeting, wouldn't they be doing the very thing you decry, except just not in public?

Is it possible to separate ourselves from our belief systems completely prior to making a secular decision?  If we do, won't some of you still be upset because we won't always agree on everything, whether or not our faith enters into our decision making? 

So, we are back to mutual tolerance, aren't we?

[BridgeTroll]

Science and religion are united in a shared sense of wonder

As human knowledge expands, some claim science has the answer to the deep questions in life. But what of the mystery of existence?

Jeff Forshaw

The Observer, Saturday 27 October 2012


As a scientist, I like to feel as if I am exploring a cosmic mystery of the greatest significance. I am awestruck by the beauty that saturates the laws of physics and suppose that what I am doing is rather more than merely helping to solve an elaborate crossword puzzle. Or perhaps I am just too optimistic â€" brashly engaging in an ultimately futile attempt to lift my spirits in the face of a meaningless and eternal oblivion.

Fortunately, I don't spend much time on the horns of that dilemma, although that did briefly change recently when I had the privilege to attend a conference on the banks of Lake Geneva organised by Wilton Park, a forum for international dialogue, in partnership with Cern. The event drew together particle physicists, cosmologists, theologians and philosophers in the name of dialogue and mutual understanding. Some might say that Cern should stick to science but I don't agree. A major reason for the popularity of fundamental physics is that it is seen to tackle some pretty "deep" questions â€" the kinds of questions that really "mean" something â€" and the quest for meaning is not something best left to scientists. With the latest ideas in physics seeming to suggest the possibility of "a universe from nothing" (the title of cosmologist Lawrence Krauss's latest book), the stakes do seem rather high. I think it makes sense to ensure that the theologians are up to speed with the science, but I also think that scientists benefit from contemplating the wider implications of their discoveries.

By overstating science's power and not acknowledging its limitations, we risk fostering the growth of a religion-substitute, with the scientists as high priests. Such hubris not only irritates people, but more significantly it risks promoting the misconception that science deals with certainty â€" and that is the very antithesis of good science. Science, which advances through the weight of evidence, is inherently uncertain. Sometimes, the evidence is so overwhelming that it would be unreasonable to doubt it; at other times, it is equivocal and harder to interpret. There is no doubting that science is supreme in its domain. How a microchip works is not a matter of opinion; equally, we have an excellent grasp of how atoms operate, while the evidence that the Big Bang took place 13.7 billion years ago is compelling. If we want to figure out how something works, then science is usually the tool for the job â€" from the action of an electric motor to what happened at the birth of the universe.

But the questions that science can tackle are nonetheless limited in scope. For most people, the deep questions of science do not shape their lives. For example, science does not touch on whether the universe has any point to it and it cannot even hope to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

In recent years, physicists have begun to anticipate that the matter that composes the entire visible universe might have been created spontaneously â€" a mere consequence of the instability of empty space. Superficially, then, it might seem that we have the answer: there is something rather than nothing because "nothing" is unstable (rather in the way that a pencil balancing precariously on its point is unstable). That is pretty exciting stuff, but it isn't really an answer to the question and, in any case, "nothing" in quantum physics is far from that â€" it is a seething maelstrom of activity, to the extent that one might view the substantial universe we inhabit as the froth on top. Awestruck as I am by the laws of physics, no amount of wishful thinking can allow me to make the mistake of supposing that a law by itself can ever create anything. In addition to being unable to conjure up material existence, the laws of physics cannot create meaning either.

In some people's minds, science and religion stand in stark opposition, but is this really the case? Certainly, years of being a scientist have led me to doubt pretty much everything I thought I knew. Secure and certain knowledge is a rare thing and I am not surprised that scientists often find religious faith hard to swallow. That said, scientists do often act with what seems to me to be something like faith: a faith in scientific truths perhaps or in the humbling significance of nature's beauty. Perhaps "faith" is too strong â€" enthusiastic optimism might be better. Whatever the case, the importance of science lies not only in fighting ignorance and the building of better theories â€" it is important too because of the way it inspires glory and wonder. In that regard, at least, science and religion are united.

[BrooklynSouth]

The theory of evolution is just that so far...a theory.  It's unproven.  It's fine to work on a theory and try to prove it, but any scientist will tell you a theory isn't a fact.   Science 101.  You state a theory (Unproven idea...in other words a belief.  Gasp!  There's that word again) and then you go about trying to prove it.

Hi Debbie,
You are confusing a "fact", a "theory", and a "hypothesis". In every day language, we may use these terms interchangably, but in science they mean specific things. "Facts" are observed events. A "hypothesis" is an untested explanation of the facts. A "theory" is a tested and proven model that explains the facts. We say that a theory is "proven" when it can be used to explain and predict things. For example, it is a "fact" that snakes have hip bones and whales have tiny rear leg bones. There are currently no other "hypotheses" in biology competing with the "theory" of evolution to explain how these seemingly useless structures got inside these animals. The discoveries of fossilized ancestral snakes and whales with legs, "proves" the theory of evolution.

We are the beneficiaries of thousands of biological and medical researchers that accept the theory or evolution and use it in their work. For example, because bacteria constantly "evolve", we need scientists to keep discovering or inventing new antibiotics to keep us healthy. Other theories we take advantage of every day are germ theory (vaccinations), the theory of electromagnetics (power plants), the theory of gravity (communications satellites), and atomic theory (the lasers in DVD players). No one attacks these theories as "just a theory".

[ben says]

The theory of evolution is just that so far...a theory.  It's unproven. 

Oh man..... 

Do you have an appendix? If not, why not?

Ever seen a dog? Then looked at a wolf?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2224904/Evolution-sight-traced-700m-years-jelly-fish-developed-ability-detect-light.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/cooked-food-diet-primates-brains_n_2033975.html

http://royalsociety.org/news/2012/finch-mate-choice-lateralization/

[simms3]

Oh my goodness people...you can believe in "science" and have faith.  Science does not prove everything, nor will it, so that is where faith comes in.  I believe in the evolution, relativity, and every other theory that has gained common acceptance and come only a half of a "procedural" step short of nominal proof over the centuries.  I also believe that there is a creator of the universe that set everything into motion.  I believe based on my interpretation of the Bible that if we know what to look for and we have faith, we'll meet our creator upon death.  Does that make me a simpleton?  There is still farrr more that we don't know than what we know/think we know now.  The biggest questions of the universe still remain unanswered and may always be left unanswered.

Sidenote: the argument a few posts up that asks why Christians get treated in hospitals where science/medicine is practiced is idiotic at best.  Only Christian Scientists don't believe in any form of treatment and some consider that sect of Christianity to be a cult (and there have been negligence lawsuits against members who by not allowing proper medical treatment of members have effectively killed their own).

As far as I'm concerned, as long as Jesus isn't currently on earth standing next to me putting his hand on my shoulder and miraculously curing whatever ailments I might have, then I'm going to see my doctors and I'm going to the hospital when warranted.  I would be willing to bet 99.9% of Christians feel the same way, and probably 90+% of religious people all over the globe with access to medical services.

Anyway, none of this has any relevance to the OP.  I just internally laugh at all the atheists and supposed intellectuals and hardcore liberals on this site...you guys should get a hold of the NYT and every other major publication in America and tell them to write a piece about how progressive, liberal, intelligent and non-religious Jax is and to quit running articles that make the place look like country bumpkinville USA because that's just not how Jax really is!  LoL  MetroJacksonville.com is sooo un-representative of the overall political and religious make-up of the city/metro, but at least we are all on the same page as far as most things are concerned and that's a good thing!

Nobody has come up with any legitimate reasons not to be religious.  So far we have all agreed that Don Redman is a hypocrite and bigot.  One argument has been made about the separation of church and state (and it's an incredibly faulty argument at best since there really is no technical separation of church and state and we aren't even discussing the federal government).  Then outside of any arguments, religious people in general have been questioned, sometimes insulted.

Bottom line is that I believe that folks like Don Redman in the City Council are so repulsive, slimy, publicly humiliating, etc that they are influencing people in Jax to renounce religion in the hopes to change the tide in Jax or convince the world that Jax isn't some nutcase filled city.  I bet some of you would have no problem being Catholic or Jewish in SF, where I am now, because there are plenty of left wing, scientific types who are practicing religion out here no problem and this city never takes flak for being a right wing over-religious lunatic town (actually the exact opposite, haha).

[ronchamblin]

Some have expressed disappointment about the continuing prayer in the city council meetings.  I suspect that there are several aspects of this disappointment.  A minor one is the time taken by the prayer.  Another is that some in the council, and the attending public, who are not religious might view prayer as a somewhat ridiculous act, and one that imposes unfairly on their time. 

It’s similar to several people in a room studying, and someone plays somewhat offensive music, imposing it on the others.  I wonder how many times a religious person wishes to pray each day.  One, two, three?  They have all day and night to pray.  Why is it necessary to pray in the council meetings? 

But perhaps the most important aspect is the fact that the prayer act promotes a mood wherein one might wait for solutions via the imagined recipient of the prayer.  Prayer might allow a mood of shifting responsibility to a god in the sky.  The council mood should be one of sober professionalism, as there is much work to do, and the problems are often difficult and complex.  There is no gain in shifting the burden to someone or something else.

I wonder how much the prayer event reminds all within the council that the downtown core church continues to infect the council with its members for the purpose of control, and watching to insure that any issues of interest to them receive the attention deserved.  I recall several events, one being the recent failed attempt for legislation preventing discrimination to gays, which was obviously influenced, perhaps unfairly, by the big church in the core.   

The problems confronting the city council are often serious, are sometimes difficult and complex.  Therefore, all council members working on solutions must be sober, without minds clouded by religious ideas.  Problems are solved with hard work, with decisions based on sober professional thinking, and not on thinking shaped by religious ideas, with hopeful assistance from a god of one’s choice. 

The idea of prayer is very close to simple superstition, to the belief in witchcraft, to astrology, to voodoo, and those engaging it, especially in a work environment, should be ashamed.  There is work to do.  The act of praying in the city council injects a mood suggesting that somebody else is involved, and because he is powerful and all knowing, he can assist.  This kind of thinking allows thoughts and moods suggesting that they must not worry too much, that they don’t have to exert the best effort, that they don’t have to think with discipline on how to solve this problem because the big guy in the sky is with them.   

Perhaps these individuals should stop unloading responsibilities to some imagined god in the sky, and be responsible for their decisions, and their work, so that the council’s objectives can be accomplished effectively and efficiently.

Besides, it’s over.  How much ignorance in the population is acceptable?  The Dark Ages have been gone for hundreds of years.  The fellow Jesus is not coming back.  You’ve been fed a fairy tale.  It’s time to accept the responsibility of living according to common sense and hard work, with sober thinking, without a god in the picture.   I wonder how much more the city could have accomplished if recent years had enjoyed a city council with nobody within it who would insist on praying at the city council meetings? 

[ben says]

Incidentally I do not have an appendix.  Neither did my dad.

Apparently I share a gene with him and was born without one.

Appendix's aren't a genetic trait. Whether your dad had one or didn't have one is insignificant. If you're born without one, thank evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Possible_functions

The human appendix is a vestigial structure. A vestigial structure is a structure that has lost all or most of its original function through the process of evolution. The vermiform appendix is the shrunken remainder of the cecum that was found in a remote ancestor of humans. Ceca, which are found in the digestive tracts of many extant herbivores, house mutualistic bacteria which help animals digest the cellulose molecules that are found in plants. As the human appendix no longer houses a significant number of these bacteria, and humans are no longer capable of digesting more than a minimal amount of cellulose per day, the human appendix is considered a vestigial structure. This interpretation would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost. See the sections below for possible functions of the appendix that may have evolved more recently after the appendix lost its original function.

[ChriswUfGator]

Some have expressed disappointment about the continuing prayer in the city council meetings.  I suspect that there are several aspects of this disappointment.  A minor one is the time taken by the prayer.  Another is that some in the council, and the attending public, who are not religious might view prayer as a somewhat ridiculous act, and one that imposes unfairly on their time. 

It’s similar to several people in a room studying, and someone plays somewhat offensive music, imposing it on the others.  I wonder how many times a religious person wishes to pray each day.  One, two, three?  They have all day and night to pray.  Why is it necessary to pray in the council meetings? 

But perhaps the most important aspect is the fact that the prayer act promotes a mood wherein one might wait for solutions via the imagined recipient of the prayer.  Prayer might allow a mood of shifting responsibility to a god in the sky.  The council mood should be one of sober professionalism, as there is much work to do, and the problems are often difficult and complex.  There is no gain in shifting the burden to someone or something else.

I wonder how much the prayer event reminds all within the council that the downtown core church continues to infect the council with its members for the purpose of control, and watching to insure that any issues of interest to them receive the attention deserved.  I recall several events, one being the recent failed attempt for legislation preventing discrimination to gays, which was obviously influenced, perhaps unfairly, by the big church in the core.   

The problems confronting the city council are often serious, are sometimes difficult and complex.  Therefore, all council members working on solutions must be sober, without minds clouded by religious ideas.  Problems are solved with hard work, with decisions based on sober professional thinking, and not on thinking shaped by religious ideas, with hopeful assistance from a god of one’s choice. 

The idea of prayer is very close to simple superstition, to the belief in witchcraft, to astrology, to voodoo, and those engaging it, especially in a work environment, should be ashamed.  There is work to do.  The act of praying in the city council injects a mood suggesting that somebody else is involved, and because he is powerful and all knowing, he can assist.  This kind of thinking allows thoughts and moods suggesting that they must not worry too much, that they don’t have to exert the best effort, that they don’t have to think with discipline on how to solve this problem because the big guy in the sky is with them.   

Perhaps these individuals should stop unloading responsibilities to some imagined god in the sky, and be responsible for their decisions, and their work, so that the council’s objectives can be accomplished effectively and efficiently.

Besides, it’s over.  How much ignorance in the population is acceptable?  The Dark Ages have been gone for hundreds of years.  The fellow Jesus is not coming back.  You’ve been fed a fairy tale.  It’s time to accept the responsibility of living according to common sense and hard work, with sober thinking, without a god in the picture.   I wonder how much more the city could have accomplished if recent years had enjoyed a city council with nobody within it who would insist on praying at the city council meetings? 

We already covered that territory, Ron. As long as Pinky and I are intangibly comforted by our religious belief in showing up naked and blowing air horns at council meetings, then Stephen is perfectly fine with it. He argues for absolute tolerance. Of course, under that view, left unanswered was how we're going to have time for the actual council meeting by the time we're done with all the various prayers, the goat gets slaughtered in the pentagram, we read some old testament and sacrifice a chicken, maybe break out an e-meter or two, apparently you better find a comfortable seat cause this religious tolerance stuff is going to take some time.

[ChriswUfGator]

The theory of evolution is just that so far...a theory.  It's unproven. 

Oh man..... 

Do you have an appendix? If not, why not?

Ever seen a dog? Then looked at a wolf?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2224904/Evolution-sight-traced-700m-years-jelly-fish-developed-ability-detect-light.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/cooked-food-diet-primates-brains_n_2033975.html

http://royalsociety.org/news/2012/finch-mate-choice-lateralization/

hmm.

Well  lets reverse the flow on that.

Can you still electroshock the gay out of people?  You know....scientifically?



Do Frontal Lobotomies really help out with 'mental disturbances'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/António_Egas_Moniz

Are people poor because they are genetically unable to compete with their better bred white competitors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Can people still detect personality traits based on bumps on their heads?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

Should we 'breed out' the 'inferior'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

What you've posted is probably the perfect example of religion perverting what should be a secular endeavor, so it's somewhat ironic. But I won't argue your point, which is valid. Obviously, science at times has confused fact with hypothesis. But the point about religion and science being fundamentally different is unaltered and true, science allows for the coexistence of fact, theory, and hypothesis, religion simply conflates fact with hypothesis while enforcing a social structure wherein its members lack the moral authority to question it. While, again, I'm not denigrating believers of any particular faith, I strongly question what good that does when brought into a purely secular government function.

[ChriswUfGator]

Some have expressed disappointment about the continuing prayer in the city council meetings.  I suspect that there are several aspects of this disappointment.  A minor one is the time taken by the prayer.  Another is that some in the council, and the attending public, who are not religious might view prayer as a somewhat ridiculous act, and one that imposes unfairly on their time. 

It’s similar to several people in a room studying, and someone plays somewhat offensive music, imposing it on the others.  I wonder how many times a religious person wishes to pray each day.  One, two, three?  They have all day and night to pray.  Why is it necessary to pray in the council meetings? 

But perhaps the most important aspect is the fact that the prayer act promotes a mood wherein one might wait for solutions via the imagined recipient of the prayer.  Prayer might allow a mood of shifting responsibility to a god in the sky.  The council mood should be one of sober professionalism, as there is much work to do, and the problems are often difficult and complex.  There is no gain in shifting the burden to someone or something else.

I wonder how much the prayer event reminds all within the council that the downtown core church continues to infect the council with its members for the purpose of control, and watching to insure that any issues of interest to them receive the attention deserved.  I recall several events, one being the recent failed attempt for legislation preventing discrimination to gays, which was obviously influenced, perhaps unfairly, by the big church in the core.   

The problems confronting the city council are often serious, are sometimes difficult and complex.  Therefore, all council members working on solutions must be sober, without minds clouded by religious ideas.  Problems are solved with hard work, with decisions based on sober professional thinking, and not on thinking shaped by religious ideas, with hopeful assistance from a god of one’s choice. 

The idea of prayer is very close to simple superstition, to the belief in witchcraft, to astrology, to voodoo, and those engaging it, especially in a work environment, should be ashamed.  There is work to do.  The act of praying in the city council injects a mood suggesting that somebody else is involved, and because he is powerful and all knowing, he can assist.  This kind of thinking allows thoughts and moods suggesting that they must not worry too much, that they don’t have to exert the best effort, that they don’t have to think with discipline on how to solve this problem because the big guy in the sky is with them.   

Perhaps these individuals should stop unloading responsibilities to some imagined god in the sky, and be responsible for their decisions, and their work, so that the council’s objectives can be accomplished effectively and efficiently.

Besides, it’s over.  How much ignorance in the population is acceptable?  The Dark Ages have been gone for hundreds of years.  The fellow Jesus is not coming back.  You’ve been fed a fairy tale.  It’s time to accept the responsibility of living according to common sense and hard work, with sober thinking, without a god in the picture.   I wonder how much more the city could have accomplished if recent years had enjoyed a city council with nobody within it who would insist on praying at the city council meetings? 

We already covered that territory, Ron. As long as Pinky and I are intangibly comforted by our religious belief in showing up naked and blowing air horns at council meetings, then Stephen is perfectly fine with it. He argues for absolute tolerance. Of course, under that view, left unanswered was how we're going to have time for the actual council meeting by the time we're done with all the various prayers, the goat gets slaughtered in the pentagram, we read some old testament and sacrifice a chicken, maybe break out an e-meter or two, apparently you better find a comfortable seat cause this religious tolerance stuff is going to take some time.

As long as it all gets done in a moment of silence you should be clear.

Silence and moment being the two key words.

What if my faith (like Don Redman's, apparently) subscribes to that weird inverse ratio I pointed out earlier, where my prayers must only count when done at the most inappropriate time in front of the greatest number of people, with bonus Jesus points if it happens when I'm trying to sway voters? Isn't the only fair solution to just say "this is secular, take your prayers to church"?

[ChriswUfGator]

No, the debate got going because of comments by our secular government officials, of which a small number (3) of council members insist on forcing the audience to sit there and listen to them pray. Not silently, not privately. They also routinely inject their faith into council meetings, as happened repeatedly with Parvez Ahmed and the recent attempt at a human rights ordinance. There are those of us who feel the meetings are secular, and have long since passed the point of being offended by this behavior.

Nobody is pigeonholing anything, the behavior that initiated the discussion was indeed backwards and mean spirited. Science is a red herring. Government is a secular enterprise, the consequences of mixing the two are obvious, and I am unsure as to why the obvious solution, in terms of both getting work done effectively, and in terms of fundamental fairness to all, isn't simply saying that government functions are secular, leave your religion out of it. Whatever religion that may be.

[Ocklawaha]

Well  lets reverse the flow on that.

Can you still electroshock the gay out of people?  You know....scientifically?

Of course it can't be done, but the entertainment value would be priceless, especially if the victim were an atheist. 

[ronchamblin]

Meh.  This just seems uninformed about the nature of prayer within the context of most religious faiths, Ron.

Also it seems deliberately offensive to Christians, which seems beneath you.

Sorry about the delay in getting back.  Praying to some entity seems rather foolish.  It is a superstitious act.  If my honesty results in flattery, all is good.  If honesty is offensive,  all is good.  Honesty is paramount.

Besides what does it matter to you how many times a person 'prays' per day?  Especially if the one time you are exposed to it, its done in silence? 

If one feels pressured to pray every half-hour, then their wish to pray in city council is more qualified and perhaps more acceptable.  My argument was to assume that one might wish to pray only perhaps three or four or five times per day, in which case the praying person might not feel obliged to pray at city council, as there are many other hours in the day and night for prayer.  Why choose the two or there hours in city council to pray? 

Would you similarly fret about the number of times people remind themselves of truisms like "Be Responsible for living according to common sense and hard work"?
How many times a day should they think this too themselves?  How many times are they allowed to say it out loud? 
And isn't it ridiculous to try and quantify that for someone else? 

Whether the praying is in silence or not, it imposes on the comfort, convenience, and time of others, and infringes on their right to enjoy a nonreligious and sober environment, free of superstitious acts.  Because of the importance of achieving objectives at the council meetings, and recognizing that their is much work to do, a responsible mood should exist.  The council meetings should be neutral, allowing no nonreligious ceremonies, and no religious ceremonies.  The council meetings are secular in purpose.  Therefore all time, words, and energy should be applied to the secular agenda.  Religious ceremonies, if one needs them, should occur outside of governmental meetings, as they promote a less than objective mood, which only impairs effective and efficient solutions to problems. 

Of course the thoughts about living and working according to good common sense and hard work is within the minds of those engaged in projects or meetings, requiring no need for speech about these thoughts.  Prayer, especially because it should be a private and personal thing, should also be silent and performed without infringing on the time and agendas of others.  When there is work to do, all things other than work should cease.  There is a time for prayer, but it isn't at governmental meetings.

As I mentioned, those wishing to have prayer at the city council meetings, do so not out of great need, but to exert a measure of control, to show those present that they, their kind, have infected the area with some aspects of their religion.  All the while, they are making a fool of themselves in front of rational and sober individuals who have no time for the superstitions of the religious.  If we are to proceed with aggressive objectives in the downtown core area of this city, there should no longer be room for the circus of church control and good old boy politics.