What Is the Worst Sin?

politics
I've always liked senator Byrd, but we must remember that politicians are more likely to show integrity in their twilight, when they are about to leave office because of old age. And it's VERY rare for them to be whistle blowers while in office. Notice that Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex was never hinted at while he was in office. In other words, politicians tend to be honest with the public when it cannot hurt their careers.

segue---while everyone likes to recant Eisenhower's "military industria complex" what is so often left out from the same speech is his warning about US Universities accepting funding grants from the Government/Pentagon making them dependent and prone to skew their research.

truth
Very good, Dyslexia. In additinon, the governmental (not to mention military) fountains of support for research, have tended to turn academic researchers into pimps choosing their research "problems" with regard to the interests of government--as opposed to more disinterested intellectual values. This is good or bad depending on one's orientation to cultural progress.

I'm with Sophia, An honest politician is one that, when you buy him, stays bought.
Bush IMO hasn't- but the lying is besides the point. Congress should have called him on it. They were quick enough on Nixon.
When you give a person practically unlimited funds, call him the most powerful person in the world, with Kings and Popes seeking his ear, how can we (the great unwashed) expect his view of reality to correspond with ours.
Thats why we need so many princelings. And THEY failed


Dys and JL,
I have also argued that little facet of life. I am against federal funding for education simply because of that economically enforced coercion.
Humans being what they are a bias is inevitable. When a single entity is responsible for funding education a bias must slip in. The only way that I can see to eliminate that bias is to eliminate federal control. At least the damage done our children would be minimized.

A researcher is not likely to discover anything that would imperil his funding. (his boss wouldn't permit it anyways)



A CIA agent is not likely to discover anything that would imperil his agency. (his pension, or his bosses office)
(The Nation magazine had a cute little article about this enforced collusion betwixt the funders and the funded vis-a-vis the Oval office and Langley VA.) June 30, 03 issue.

The same holds true in our medical care, especially now with Medicare taking over a great deal of our medical funding and he FDA in charge of medicine. The best of humans would find it impossible to eliminate bias.
(Except probably for me and Frank that is. )

truth
And, don't forget: JL, Dysl, and C.I.

i am very biased

I remember, after I had been completely jaded after the 60's, in 1974 I felt that, because of Richard M. Nixon, to betray the public trust was the worst sin. I still agree somewhat but since then there have come to mind so many that are equally qualified. On a global basis, and not the individual, there is a great social sin committed by most of us, that is to maintain the status quo that condemns countless millions to unnecessary suffering and privation. Privation comes in a vast multitude of forms; anything from a person not finding the book she wants at the library to horrible death of children. Of course side by side they are incomparable but I draw these extremes to illustrate the myriad of ways we all lose some of the best that life has to offer. May G-d strike me dead for an attempt at consolidating human sufferings cause; that is that the rich think the wealth belongs to them and that the wealth does not belong to the average worker. The world does not really want to fix these problems; that is the sin.

dov, Unfortunetely, The world is us. Have a little sympathy for us poor deprived Athiests who have nothing else to blame for the inhumanity of humans. (or the humanity of humans for that matter.
It is our fault, yours and mine for failing to ridicule the ridiculous, to call our leaders liars when conditions warrant, and for failing to point out the probable results of a course of action by reasonable extrapolations.

When a priest or politician tells us a certain action is pleasing in the eyes of God he has no way of knowing. He BELIEVES he is telling the truth. (but he's probably lying)
When little Bush told us that there were WMDs in Iraq he BELIEVED he was telling the truth.( but there is a 50/50 chance he was lying)
When Ashcroft crofted (like that? ) The Patriots Act he BELIEVED that he was acting in the best interests of Americans. (but he's has disregarded every advance political man has made since the Magna Charta)
When Joe Smith (no relation) told the Mormons that Negroes couldn't be elders in the Church of Latter Day Saints, as they bore the "mark of Cain" he BELIEVED he was correct in his assumption. (but he was probably lying)
There is plenty to discuss EVEN if we are forced to stick to facts, and call a theory a theory.
IMO our tolerance for others beliefs which are unsubstanciated by observations is very deleterious to the human condition generally.

Ramifications--> Excessive tolerance may be bad for humans. Would this be sinful? Perhaps the Worst sin?? Shocking Best wishes, M.

Indeed. There is no-one who can know the truth. They may think they are telling the truth but there is no way to tell whether their viewpoint is influenced by their own personal prejudices. This leads to the problems with injustice, hatred and intolerance that are based SOLELY upon the fact that those subject to the hatred and intolerance are in the THEM group from the point of view of the hater.



To look at something as being either 'good' or 'bad' for humans as a whole can be confusing as I think the terms get in the way of the actual issue.
If one wishes to ensure the survival and most importantly the progress of humans then that could be construed to be beneficial to humans as a group of conscious beings.
If the progress of humans is not on one's agenda then one has placed oneself in a position of opposition to the concept of the furtherace of humans.

As an aside I have to comment on this as it made me laugh but it does illustrate a problem with the actual words used.

This really shows a politican or any other individual with integrity. Their views and methods may be diametrically opposed to yours and they may wish your extermination, even so it shows they have integrity and that they are being true to themselves. Which seems to me to be the only truth worth anything.

I'm really enjoying this.

Frank; maybe you're getting close to something you can completely believe in!

BoGo,
Frank BELIEVES that he does not KNOW. But he KNOWS that he may never KNOW.
But not KNOWING that you don't KNOW because you may KNOW and not KNOW it is what validates the quest for knowledge. IMO natch.
But if you BELIEVE you KNOW and have no way of KNOWING if you KNOW then it is fair to THINK you KNOW.
But if you THINK you KNOW, but don't KNOW that you KNOW then you can fairly hypothesize.
A hypothesis can result in either KNOWLEDGE or BELIEF.
A BELIEF is the result of an incomplete hypothesis.
A FACT or observation is the result of a completed hypothesis.
Figuring out the difference is difficult for some.
Even an Athiest must believe in something


Helio, I am having fun too! What a bunch of fun people.
We'll have to go on another picnic someday.

Just for the record, I think a lot of that "all politician's are scumbags" stuff is stereotyping in the same way that "all lawyers are scumbags" is.

There are lawyers who get into law because they think its a way to help people, believe it or not - and if one ever saves your ass, you'll not include that one when you make your next "scumbag" statement. And I also think there are politicians - the late Paul Wellstone for one, who act out of committment and personal belief, not withstanding however abhorrent certain individuals' beliefs may be to you.

Just as all soldiers are not mindless drones, all taxicab drivers are not immigrant opportunists, all cops are not pigs and all corporate managers are not soulless misers, politicians are just people in a certain line of work - and it takes all kinds.

snood, I agree with you; not all politicians are scumbags. After all, my brother is a politician, and I know Norm Mineta, and I know without doubt he's good guy. c.i.

truth
Snood, how about "most" or "too many" in stead of "all"?

Re: truth


Definitely more accurate, I'm sure. But I try to steer away from broad generalizations, even about such time-honored dumping targets as lawyers and politicians, since no one knows all of either.

The lack of apreciation for yoursle, since the most important thing for somebody it's himself or herself.

After that maybe ignorance.

Just as a quick bit of info that you probably already know I think it may be helpful to define a couple of terms.

Conjecture : An idea that someone has come up with that has no supporting evidence and has possibly even been born through a 'hunch' that someone has had about a particular thing.

Hypothesis : An idea that someone has had and then they have gone out and looked for some supporting evidence in the real world. They've found a couple of things but nothing drastic and there's a lot of things that need looking for.

Theory : An idea that someone has had and they've gone out and looked for evidence to support it and found evidence that is consistent with their idea. They look everywhere that they and their colleagues can think of for evidence that contradicts the idea. They don't find it. Then they can start using their idea to predict things about the system that they idea was about. The predictions are borne out by experiments designed to test the predictions.

Law : Basically a misnomer this as it's really a theory that has been around for so long and has crucially stood up to every test that people can put it to for perhaps several centuries.

All religions are conjecture. The beginnings of science is conjecture. Some of science is hypothesis, most of science is theory. Some of it is so-called law.
When people say that something is "just a theory" they actually should be using the term conjecture. A theory is as close to a solid fact as makes almost no difference as it's got a great deal of evidence and experiment backing it up.
You can't prove a positive but you can exclude an idea by finding contrary evidence.

That is not correct.

As long as you allow that "not being able to retreive the information equals not knowing" -- then I KNOW I do not KNOW the answers to Ultimate Questions -- i.e. questions about reality.

(Remember, being agnostic does not mean KNOWING NOTHING.)



No need for the word "but" there -- and as long as you use the word "may" -- I agree.




I'm not sure of where you were going with the rest of that post, but...I think it was closer to cute than to accurate.

Mech (newbie?);
A brilliant, if flawed, treatise;

This discussion could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and ..................................

You see Frank has the most solidly in "amber"ed thoughts on the subject of intelectual "avoidance of make a decision "in order to "take a stand" on something"ness". (did that end up being a sentence? Wel maybe it did, and maybe it didn't, I just can't be sure!)

Almost, Bo, almost!

I would prefer, instead of "avoidance of make a decision" to use...

..."acknowledge that a decision (or guess) is meaningless because there is no unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful decision."

I could get off the "avoidance of making a decision" by just tossing a coin (something I've done on several occasions) but to what profit???