« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »
Inspired by my hello kitty alarm clock, I have amassed a collection of photos of the best hello kitty items I have yet to own.
hello kitty fire extinguisher
hello kitty piano
hello kitty exhaust pipe
hello kitty tattoo gun
hello kitty airplane
hello kitty handgun 1
hello kitty handgun 2
hello kitty condom? NO. hello kitty CHEESE.
hello kitty star wars
hello kitty blood type dolls
hello kitty tooth
hiya.
the compatibility of science and religion:
I recently read an article in Scientific American called "Should Science Speak to Faith?" and it sparked my interest because I really think we should find a way to teach children about science and religion without being exclusive or biased. I don't support teaching creationism in school, mostly because that is only one of thousands of creation stories that humanity has developed, and there is no way to teach them all. If parents want their children to learn about creationism, they should seek that outside of school to prevent forcing a Christian bias onto non-Christian students. But I also think it's wrong to give religion in general such a minor role in education, because it is a hugely important thing in our society. Children should be exposed to the ideas that there are many religions, and that they should not feel pressured to believe that science is right and religion is wrong.
1. Why have we created this artificial dichotomy of Religion and Science? They do not have to be separate or mutually exclusive, and a person does not have to pick one or the other. They have so much in common. They both explain why things are the way they are, and they can both give us goals and standards to live up to, and structures to live within. The main difference, that I see, is that science does not offer any moral guidance, so they are not completely overlapping and can fill different niches in our society and our lives.
2. Many people do acknowledge that they do not have to be two separate things, but then that sort of implies that religion is a type of science, and from a strictly scientific perspective, religion ends up looking like "bad science." So I don't think that science and religion can be measured by the same ruler, if you know what I mean. I think they can be complimentary, in many ways. Though clearly some things are not compatible, such as the belief that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and Darwin's theory of evolution. Apparently 48% of Americans think that God created humans in our present form in the last 10,000 years, so I guess we're about 50-50 on that one.
3. Oh Shit. in the same survey, from Scientific American, it says that 88% of adults in the US reject the idea that God favors the US in world affairs. 12% of people supporting that idea is way too many. This is irrelevant, but I thought it was worthy of mention.
4. The wonders of science as evidence for religion: a lot of people can accept scientific theories as well as religion, though in many cases orthodox religions have to be modified on a personal level in order to make science compatible. For example, some Christians believe in evolution, and still believe in the basic teachings of Christianity, which is perfectly fine. One idea proposed by Carl Sagan is that scientific discoveries-- like dinosaurs, that the earth is billions of years old instead of thousands, that other planets and solar systems exist-- are far more grand than the original Christian view of the world. The vastness of space and time, and the forces of evolution make the old view of God seem kind of lame. So rather than deny that these things are true, some people find that these scientific discoveries give them more faith in something more powerful than themselves. The division here comes down to whether this "enriches religion," or gives supporting evidence for religion.
My personal thoughts on this idea: When someone says that the evidence for God is all around us: the plants, the sky, the people, etc., I look around, and all I see are organisms and landscapes that have been evolving for millions of years and have become diverse and beautiful because of the laws of natural selection. So, whether the world around you is evidence for God or evidence for science simply depends on what you already think. So it's not really evidence at all, it's just an observation.
5. One of the reasons I like Hinduism so much is because there's this idea that everything is one. Superficially it seems like a primitive religion because there are thousands of gods and they have elephant heads and stuff. But really there is only one god, Brahman, and Brahman is everything (there are a lot of different words for Brahman/everything in different contexts and I don't know enough about it, so this is oversimplified). I like this idea a lot, and this one aspect of Hinduism doesn't really conflict with science. In fact, I would say, this belief encourages one to be accepting of new ideas and take a holistic approach to learning.
6. In conclusion. Once an English teacher told me never to use the word conclusion in my conclusion, because it should be obvious to the reader that I am concluding. You should also never use the word "basically," ever. Anyways, the reason I care so much even though I am an atheist is because I really want to make a difference in the world, as far as attitudes towards the environment. Environmental concerns are strongly rooted in scientific principles, and it is absolutely crucial to me that we find a way to make more of the population care about the environment. To do this, we have to make it something that is not exclusive to science, but relevant to everyone. When global warming makes the sea level rise and Manhattan is submerged, everyone is going to be screwed, not just the people who believed in global warming. Society needs to stop pegging certain issues as "environmental" and putting them aside for the environmental people to deal with, when they affect everyone. Also I just think it's interesting. The end. Here for you is a picture of God giving birth to the Earth:
Love,
ln
I decided to stray away from my usual format. Rather than try to think of something interesting, I'm just going to skip that part.
Let me tell you about things I like right now. I like Sufjan Stevens, which isn't new, but I've been spending a lot more time thinking about him. I would have expected him to be blond, but he's a brunette (Just like my cousin Kate. Hi Kate!).
Sufjan doing "For the Widows In Paradise, for the Fatherless In Ypsilanti"
I love, love, love his lyrics and his voice and the music in general. Sufjan, if you are reading this, please write me a letter. I am going to write one to you right now.
Other things I like right now: free public transportation. Something I have not experienced recently, but I like it nonetheless. Kitties. Alternative energy technology. That's all.
Things I don't like right now: The canker sore in my mouth, and the Australian box of baking soda that exploded all over my desk, and the way it feels when you put the baking soda on the universe's most painful canker sore (this better work).
Other things I don't like right now: Los Lonely Boys, most boys (not all boys luckily) (not Sufjan obv), Emily Bronte, meat, listening to people talk about what kinds of meat they like, the smell of meat, watching people electrocute cows, thinking about where meat comes from. Sooo I strayed a little bit from my vegetarianism lately, but you better believe I'm back on board.
I went surfing with Moondoggie. It was the ultimate. Seriously, I had a lot of fun surfing. Here is a sport I could potentially get into. Here are some pictures of me:
In other news: George Bush came to Sydney this weekend, and since cell phones are sometimes used to set off bombs, there was a helicopter following him around everywhere jamming cell phone signals for everyone in the area. There is some resentment towards the US because Australia's international policy is pretty much "let's do whatever America does." Australia, I'm sorry you have to deal with our shit. But I feel really warm and fuzzy knowing I was again in the same nation as Bush, if only for a couple days.
Personality types: Science or just cats(nonsense)?
Are there actually personality types, or do we just construct them to simplify the world around us?
Are you prickly or gooey?
Who Am I? by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Who am I? They often tell me
I stepped from my cell’s confinement
Calmly, cheerfully, firmly,
Like a squire from his country-house.
Who am I? They often tell me
I used to speak to my warders
Freely and friendly and clearly,
As though it were mine to command.
Who am I? They also tell me
I bore the days of misfortune
Equally, smilingly, proudly,
Like one accustomed to win.
Am I then really all that which other men tell of?
Or am I only what I myself know of myself?
Restless and longing and sick, like a bird in a cage,
Struggling for breath, as though hands were
compressing my throat,
Yearning for colors, for flowers, for the voices of birds,
Thirsting for words of kindness, for neighborliness,
Tossing in expectation of great events,
Powerlessly trembling for friends at an infinite distance,
Weary and empty at praying, at thinking, at making,
Faint, and ready to say farewell to it all?
Who am I? This or the other?
Am I one person today and tomorrow another?
Am I both at once? A hypocrite before others,
And before myself a contemptibly woebegone weakling?
Or is something within me still like a beaten army,
Fleeing in disorder from victory already achieved?
Who am I? They mock me, these lonely questions of mine.
Whoever I am, Thou knowest, 0 God, I am Thine!
Temperaments
There are online quizzes you can take to find out your temperament, but I think they're kind of silly because they oversimplify things and it's impossible to know yourself that well anyway. It's a lot easier to figure out what your friends are. This theory has a long history and gets very complicated; including things like physical characteristics that go along with the temperaments. It's nuts yo.
"Temperament is a set of innate traits that underlies personality. Find out which of the 4 below temperaments suits you best. It is highly likely that you are a blend of two temperaments, one being more dominant than the other. It is also a bit possible that there is a tiny bit of the traits of a third temperament. It is very, very unlikely that there is a blend of all four temperaments in one person."
Sanguine Temperament
Joyful/Cheerful, Optimistic, Passionate, Outgoing/Attention-seeking,
Responsive to emotions, Charismatic, Compassionate, Impractical/Dreamer,
Storyteller, Childlike, Memory for smells & colors, Makes friends easily,
Doesn’t hold grudges, Loves people, Inattention, Lack of concentration,
Disorganization, Easily distracted, Forgetful, Impulsive, Restless,
Very talkative, Interrupts (Egotistical), Weak-willed, Emotionally unstable,
Unpredictable, Circumstantial
Choleric Temperament
Self-sufficient, Born leader, Dynamic, Practical, Compulsive need for change, Must correct wrongs, Unemotional, Strong-willed, Independent, Optimistic, Not discouraged easily, Confident, Goal-oriented, Knows the right answers, Can see the whole picture, Quickly moves to action, Thrives on opposition, Little need for friends, Leads and organizes, Excels in emergencies, Delegates work, Motivator, Long-term thinker, Hot-tempered, Cruel, Impetuous, Impatient
Melancholy Temperament
Sensitive to anguish of others, Analytical, Deep thinker, Self-introspective, Artistic or musical, Self-sacrificing, Poetic and philosophical, Appreciates beauty, Perfectionist with high standards, Detail conscious, Neat and tidy, Organized, Sees the problem, Seeks creative solutions, Must finish what is started, Content to stay behind the scenes, Likes charts, numbers, and lists, Cautious to make friends, Will listen to complaints, Problem solver for others, Moved to tears with compassion, Tries not to raise attention, Serious, Conscientious, Studious, Reflective, Not practical--Dreamer, Self-centered, Pessimistic, Moody, Revengeful, Skeptical
Phlegmatic temperament
Calm and collected, Quiet, Witty, Sympathetic, Kind, Inoffensive, Hides emotions, Reconciled to life, Not in a hurry, Takes the good with the bad, Practical, Dry sense of humor, Mediator, Avoids confrontation and conflict, Cool under pressure, Takes the easiest way, Good listener, Likes to watch people, Compassionate and concerned, Pleasant, Good administrative ability, Intuitive, Dependable, Efficient, Slow and Lazy, Teaser/Sarcastic, Selfish, Stubborn, Indecisive, Detached observer
An Ode to a Very Wise Man
Mark Sagoff!!
If you are interested in environmental issues of any sort, or ethics, or yes, Environmental Ethics, I highly recommend that you look for anything by Sagoff to read.
This spring I saw him talk, and it was not only really interesting, but I felt that it was one of the only times that a speaker or author has really been able to tackle the idea of WHY we should protect the environment. Usually we environmental types just skip over that part and trust that we should and move onto how. But understanding why we value the environment is crucial. In order to decide what our priorities are, encourage people to consume less, and fight for better environmental policy we need a logical, indisputable argument for why we this should be done. Sagoff very convincingly discredits most arguments people use for environmental protection. For example, since economics rule the world and we have a somewhat capitalist society, people sometimes try to work environmentalism into that framework. But there are no economic reasons for protecting the environment. The reasons we exploit it are to make money. Global Warming is actually stimulating the economy, as do things like increased storm severity. Nothing like a huge environmental catastrophe to make some cash. So scrap that. Sagoff is a very interesting character, he made some people, including environmental studies hippies, very angry and their faces turned pink. But I found that what he was saying was very logical, and though I didn't agree with every single thing, I respect him for saying it. He doesn't have very many people in his field backing him up, and yet he is well published and a sought-after lecturer.
Okay, so about why we should protect the environment: Sagoff is a lot better at explaining it than I am, so I won't really go there. My personal reason for wanting to protect the environment comes down to my belief that man is no more worthy of life than the plants and animals we are constantly destroying. I respect the laws of nature; life entails death. But we have taken things to a new level and it is wrong. We are all selfish. All organisms are selfish, but we have gained the knowledge and technology to do so much more damage with our selfishness. Most of the time I see no solution for the problems we have caused (like urban sprawl, habitat fragmentation, pollution, and global warming) but to wait it out. Maybe we will come to our senses and begin to fix things, or maybe we will spiral downwards and destroy everything that we rely on. Being a skeptical and chronically non-spiritual person, I don't really see what difference it makes which way things go. I still don't know what I'm going to do after college, but I intend to dedicate my work to improving environmental integrity or reducing consumption, because I personally would prefer that we fix things. Based on my tendency to go through phases and change my mind weekly, I might not feel this way for long and then I will write a new blog entry about it.
This link to see articles written by my hero ( I like "Zuckerman's Dilemma"):
http://www.jstor.org/search/AdvancedSearch?si=1&hp=25&q0=&f0=&c0=AND&q1=&f1=&c1=AND&q2=mark+sagoff&f2=au&c2=AND&q3=&f3=ti&wc=on&Search=Search&sd=&ed=&la=