or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by JerrySwitched26

    the debate about what ought to be done could be based upon reason, or it could be based upon superstition.  For example, Kant proposed a system of ethics based upon reason, while others say that we should not murder based upon the command of their supernatural friend in some old book.   The two methods arrive in the same place.  But "God wants us to  kill the Commies" has no place in government.
I'm not sure what you are driving at.   I  believe that certain types of government are better than others.  I have no scientific proof.  It is a belief.  It is an opinion, given the lack of empirical proof.   So what?  does that mean I must respect people who throw virgins into a volcano as a means of making it rain?
    If they do not use government land, government occasions and government power to express their crazed ideologies, I can live with that.   But I sincerely object to, for example, the President saying "God Bless America" during the State of the Union speech.   
    There is no scientific basis for political philosophy.  
  The people have that right.  They can advocate any crazy shit they want to.  I would defend their right to say and believe that ghosts are real, and that UFOs are real, and that black cats cause bad luck, and that sinful behavior causes hurricanes.     I think that free expression trumps reality.  I think that any crazy shit that people want to believe in, whether it is crop circles made by aliens, or a benovelent God, should be allowed.   I don't like to see my...
  The mere belief usually has no effect.  I think that vanishingly small numbers of people REALLY believe in "the power of prayer".     But if a guy like Pat Robertson (who  blamed weather events on "sinful" behavior) were to gain any substantial amount of power, I would change that to say that the belief in the power of prayer is causing wholesale disruption of society.  I am worried when I see people who sincerely and strongly believe in stuff for which there is scant...
    Economics is considered to be one of the sciences.  A social science specifically.  If Keynesianism is not valid as science, then it should not be considered to be an economic theory.         Naw.  These superstitious beliefs have been put to the test and found lacking.  Reason seems to me a better tool than unchangeable faith as a method to find truth.     Maybe belief in things for which there is zero evidence makes as much sense as testing ideas to see if they are...
  The mere belief by others is unlikely to have much affect on the normals.   However, I sure don't want my surgeon to believe that crap.  Or my nurse.  Or my president.   And when the government sanctions certain of those crazy ideas by erecting official shrines or banners or statues or using supernatural invocations before legislative sessions, I object. The supernatural has no place in government practices,
    The difference is that with scientific theories, we can measure and test whether or not they work.     With theories of supernatural interventions and miracles, we don't experiment.  Instead, we read ancient unchangeable texts and posit that they contain truth.   Big difference.   If and when there is enough evidence to show clearly that one or another theory of economics is much more predictive and useful, I would expect that other theories wold fall by the...
    When it comes to the government, then one has that  right.  Towns have no business spending tax money to endorse one particular brand of nutcase-ism, even if 99% of the town believes in that particular brand of fantasy,   National figures, if and to the extent that they are representing the government, have no business invoking irrational beliefs and using ancient supernatural methods of problem solving by "calling for prayers for a tragedy".  If one of them were to...
New Posts  All Forums: