Posts by JonathanH

46

reading a life time of WT literatrash = College education

by Free!! in

or at least that's what my super jw ex-roommate told me when i try to have an adult discussion w her about the importance of a higher education... according to her (a girl that never finished hs because it was not necessary) she has a better education than any college graduate because the jehovah has used the borg literatrash to teach her many many important things.... she says her knowledge of the "truth" is the equivalent of my 4 years of college education..... .

.

is there a cure for stupid???!!

JonathanH

Thanks for the encouragement Quendi! That means alot to me. I am fairly well versed at least in the gateway mathematics, algebra, geometry and trigonometry. That's largely in part to having spent the past six or seven months brushing up on it with the help of Khan Academy (http://www.khanacademy.org/) which is an amazingly good tutor for the self motivated. It has thousands of video lessons on a variety of topics, but math is covered most thoroughly going from basic arithmetic to differential and linear equations, with tests and excercises going along the whole way, as well as a personal profile to track your progress and accomplishments. It's an amazing educational tool that I have found immensely useful in getting myself up to snuff so I can start working on my science degree.

I really love math and find it entertaining and cathartic. My wife reads whatever best seller book in bed while I have "Geometry and Trigonometry for Calculus" and a calculator before bed time. I can't decide between biochemistry and Electrical engineering, but a big draw of engineering is how much math I would get to study which sounds like great fun and a challenge. Plus the electrical engineering major automatically nets you a minor in mathematics just because of all the math coursework you have to do.

But believe me, I don't take it lightly. I know how hard higher maths are, and how much study and discipline will be required just to pass alot of those later classes. Which is why even now in the last month or so leading up to starting college I'm trying to make sure my fundementals in algebra, geometry and trigonometry are as solid as they can be. On the Khan Academy website every video has a question and comments section underneath and sometimes just for fun I like to look ahead at some of the harder calculus just to see where I am heading. But consistently you find comments from college juniors and seniors saying they are struggling with it because they just sort of breezed through the lower maths, didn't pay too much attention but still got the passing grades, and then they just hit a wall when coming up against differential equations or the like. I'm trying to make sure that doesn't happen to me.

If there are any good books on math you want to recomend I'm always interested. "Practical Algebra a self Teaching Guide" and "Geometry and Trigonomety for Calculus" both by Peter Selby have been indispensible for me. I love a good math book.

Which this kind of makes me think about the awake, it never touched on math even a little bit. Math doesn't have to be just a dry series of equations, I'm reading "A History of Pi" right now that is a fascinating look at how math has developed over the ages. But they never seem to pay any kind of attention to this most basic building block of reason and education. It's hard to say that reading the awake is like getting a college education when it completely neglects a fundemental pillar in education. You would think the rank and file would eat it up too. They wouldn't understand it most likely, but they read all about a Hippocrates Lune understanding none of the math behind it and think that they are totally smart and educated for knowing the word "Hippocrates Lune".

46

reading a life time of WT literatrash = College education

by Free!! in

or at least that's what my super jw ex-roommate told me when i try to have an adult discussion w her about the importance of a higher education... according to her (a girl that never finished hs because it was not necessary) she has a better education than any college graduate because the jehovah has used the borg literatrash to teach her many many important things.... she says her knowledge of the "truth" is the equivalent of my 4 years of college education..... .

.

is there a cure for stupid???!!

JonathanH

What are you getting a degree in NewChapter? Now that I'm going to school I feel the need to ask everyone that's in college or has been to college about their degree. I haven't decided for certain yet, but I am either going to go for Electrical Engineering, or Biochemistry. I figure I will have a semester or two to make a final decision, and in the mean time I will have to take alot of courses in math and physics that go toward both, as well as just general education in english, history and the like. I am super pumped to get a legitimate education.

I'm twenty six and I feel like I'm getting such a late start, so it's always encouraging when I hear of people here that went to college at thirty-eight or forty and still managed to make a positive change in their lives. I won't get my B.S. until I'm thirty, or my masters until I'm thirty-two which sounds so late in life, but I guess that's just the perspective of a young wippersnapper.

46

reading a life time of WT literatrash = College education

by Free!! in

or at least that's what my super jw ex-roommate told me when i try to have an adult discussion w her about the importance of a higher education... according to her (a girl that never finished hs because it was not necessary) she has a better education than any college graduate because the jehovah has used the borg literatrash to teach her many many important things.... she says her knowledge of the "truth" is the equivalent of my 4 years of college education..... .

.

is there a cure for stupid???!!

JonathanH

PHY 161 — Introductory Physics I Laboratory
Hours: 1
Course ID: 000471

Investigates concepts introduced in PHY 151 through experiments in classical mechanics and thermal physics. Prerequisite or concurrent: PHY 151. Lab: 1 credit hour (30 contact hours). BIO 150 — Principles of Biology I
Hours: 3
Course ID: 000135
Presents knowledge of biological principles at the cellular and molecular levels, similarities and differences in structure and function of simple and complex cells and theories on the origin and evolution of biological systems. Part one of a two semester sequence ( BIO 150 and BIO 152). Lecture: 3 credits (45 contact hours). Prerequisite: (CHE 105 or concurrent enrollment) or consent of instructor. Those are introductory courses I will be taking in my first or second semester when I start school this fall. I will learn more in those contact hours than I learned in a lifetime of reading the awake, or the creator book or any of that nonsense. I remember when I was a teenager going over the creator book in our bookstudy, that's the book that had a couple of chapters on the fine tuning argument of the universe. It has a few paragraphs on strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity ect. The question and answer parts were like pulling teeth. People just had to repeat a sentence or two in the paragraph's but nobody could even comprehend the information enough to do that much. They read some magazine that says evolution is like a tornado in a junkyard and they think they are now qualified to go argue with educated people on the topic. The brilliance of the WT is not that it is so successful at keeping it's members ignorant, but that it convinces their members that they aren't.

7

BBC Blog: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?

by mummatron in

an interesting and informative read, covering some recent research.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2011/07/faith-versus-science-does-crea.shtml.

JonathanH

lol, amusing article. That's the problem with "creation science". It's an a priori assumption that looks for facts to fit that assumption. Now that the methodology has lead to facts that don't agree with the assumption they have to either say that the methodology was wrong, or just re-interpret the data in some way to fit what they already believe. It's hard to call that science. It's irrelevant though, because 99.9% of those that believe in creation myths don't do so because they are science majors, they do it because it's culturally relevant for them. So these findings will only matter to a very very small group of creationists.

81

Belief in God: What were the difficult aspects and questions you had.

by designs in

two main one's for me were god being capricious and serendipitous..

JonathanH

Can you have free will without suffering? Sure, just get rid of the parts of the brain that register suffering. That was one of the things that got me when I was thinking critically about a theistic god. If god created man, he created him purposefully to suffer if we disobey him. Our mental states are not just some axiom of the universe. Anger is biological, pain is biological, suffering is biological. During the very ugly mid period of psychology a doctor went around performing frontal lobe lobotomies on people through their nose. When it "worked" the result was bizarre and disturbing. The people were still able to function normally, lead regular lives, but their emotional state was different. It was a bit more muted, they said they didn't really feel angry anymore, or hatred. They just felt comfortably content. And went on with their lives (of course most of the victims of this insanity were not success stories).

Our emotions, even the negative ones are a result of our neuro biology. Certain regions of the brain operate in such a way to create the feeling of anger, or hatred, or sadness, or suffering. Which meant that god would've had to have made humans with the capacity to hate each other, even though he did not intend for them to do so. It was a time bomb planted in humanity that if anyone should disobey they would suffer for it. Suffering is not a pre-requisite for free will to exist. But if there was a god, he made suffering a pre-requisite to use free will. We could've just not had the capacity for those things and have been comfortably content, not harbering anger or animosity for others. What would society have looked like after thousands of years if we just didn't have the capacity for hatred?

Or is there some theological mumbo jumbo answer to say why we must have the capacity hatred, and how that is necessary for us, and god was gracious for programming us to hate?

6

Evil WT: A Catalyst for Real Spiritual Growth

by cameo-d in

could it be that the reason for all lies, deception and evil in the world is actually part of a grand design to act as a catalyst for our spiritual development?.

could it be that it is necessary to know evil in order to appreciate the beauty of goodness and peace?.

could it be that those who knowingly participate in evil for their own gain will receive a punishment for it, while others who are victims of the evil will grow closer to spiritual perfection if they mature through it and triumph over it?.

JonathanH

Now that you have a question cameo-d you must think of exactly what you're asserting, what is the opposite of your assertion, and how you can determine which is correct. If you want an actual answer rather than a fuzzy "maybe", then you must make your exploration as concrete as possible.

Is evil required for spiritual growth?

What is defined as "evil" and what is defined as "spiritual growth"?

What are observances of "spiritual growth" in the face of "evil"?

Are there any examples of "spiritual growth" in the absence of "evil"?

Are there any opportunities for "spiritual growth" without the presence of "evil"?

Is there a consistent correlation between experiencing "evil" and experiencing "spiritual growth"? If so is the correlation consistently positive, or consistenly negative? Is there any kind of exponential curve to the correlation, or diminishing returns?

Find a means of defining "evil" and "spiritual growth", then find a reliable means of quantifying your terms, then seek as many random case studies under specific conditions to test your hypothesis, and generate a statistical model.

You must start asking concrete questions and attempting to find a means of falsifying the premise, and then attempting to do so. Anything "could be", but the real question is "is it really?"

Happy hunting.

49

More on Saturday's drama: Endo-symbiotic theory mentioned not once but twice

by sir82 in

jw
friends

i don't want to give a full synopsis of saturday's drama, for fear of inducing stupor among this thread's readers, but.... .

the drama deals with a jw family with 3 kids, 2 of whom are in various stages of rebellion against all things jw.. the older brother is one of the "rebels", while the younger brother is a thoroughly annoying piece of brown-nosing crapola, completely buying into the jw mindset.. anyways, the younger brother is asking the older brother about why he doesn't want to attend the family study any more.. the older kid's rambling answer touches on something along the lines of "i'm learning things in school about how life really came here.

it's not as simple as you think!".

JonathanH

Great post NewChapter. That's a very true insight into the psychology of the witness brain. I remember being bullet proof when I was thirteen or so. I had just been reading the "life how did it get here" book, and a couple of times back then I got into arguments about evolution online, and got my ass handed to me. I still thought I won, and they just didn't get it. Eventually I did decide that, thanks to satan's cleverness, it was a logically sound theory, but ultimately still incorrect. It's funny what a tiny drop of knowledge can do when you're told that it's really an ocean.

27

"Philosophy is disfunctional" - Hallq

by bohm in

jw
friends

philosophy is disfunctional.

http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/07/05/philosophy-is-dysfunctiona/.

im now convinced that, as an academic discipline, philosophy is dysfunctional.

JonathanH

It was in another topic, and I THINK (I would need to double check, so I just won't assert it) that it was you Nadia that posted that science can talk about the universe but what came before the universe science can't answer and it is best left to philosophers and theologians to figure that out. If that wasn't you my apologies, I'm not bringing it up because you posted it, but because it is relevant to the point I'm making. Now I would ask of that statement "Why should philosophers and theologians be consulted on what existed before our universe?" We might as well ask a baker or a pilot. They are all going to do the same thing, namely make blind unfalsifiable assertions that make sense to them personally. The only real difference is that the philosopher and theologian will be much more obscure in their language. It makes me think of antony flew's article on theology and falsification, let me see if I can find a link to it....

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/theologyandfalsification.html

In order for an assertion to be deemed true or false, it must have something to check it against, anything that it is checked against is going to fall into the realm of empirical materialism. If there is nothing to check it against, then the statement cannot be said to be true or false.

27

"Philosophy is disfunctional" - Hallq

by bohm in

jw
friends

philosophy is disfunctional.

http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/07/05/philosophy-is-dysfunctiona/.

im now convinced that, as an academic discipline, philosophy is dysfunctional.

JonathanH

Case in point.

Materialism is the pragmatic view. Anything else is imagination. If something interacts with our universe, it is natural and describable, quantifiable and ultimately explainable by science, because it is natural. If psychic forces, or gods were discovered, they would be natural and materialistic for the very reason that they exist with or interact with our universe. We may not at present have the means to describe it, but if it has something to do with empirical reality, it is in the realm of science. If it does not interact with our universe then it cannot be demonstrated to exist, only asserted or assumed. That is the problem with non materialist views, there is no means of demonstrating one is more correct than the other, or that they are in anyway correct at all. As such any claim becomes equally valid as long as it isn't self contradictory (and in some philosophical circles, that isn't even a criteria for it being incorrect).

The only thing that I think isn't in the realm of science are things that are human constructs such as art. But it's because they are by nature subjective to taste, and experience, preference and as such there is neither a correct or incorrect for it. There is no "truth" to be had. Gravity is not a preference. Existentialism cannot be said to be "true" or "false" because it is a human construct of what it means to exist.

Scientist are still waiting for some one to demonstrate that materialism is false, or that there are other paths to understanding the universe other than logical positivism and science. To claim that something is true is to say that it is real, and any claim of something being real (that is to say exists) requires some demonstrable evidence and evidence comes in the form of logical positivism, materialism and science. If you cannot offer evidence of something, then you cannot say it is real or that it exists, it is just assertions of one's imagination. So we merely have the assertion that materialism is false without evidence that it is. If somebody wants to go down the road of epistimological nihilism and assert that we can't really know anything in order to destroy materialism, let them. And then ask them if they want some antibiotics next time they are ill. Science FTW!

27

"Philosophy is disfunctional" - Hallq

by bohm in

jw
friends

philosophy is disfunctional.

http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/07/05/philosophy-is-dysfunctiona/.

im now convinced that, as an academic discipline, philosophy is dysfunctional.

JonathanH

I think this is only a problem if you consider philosophy to be a path to truth. It's not. Philosophy is an excercise in reasoning, rhetoric, and logic. Science reveals solid truths about our universe and has an actual end, and a methodology to reach that end. Philosophy is an exercise with no real goal other than fitness. The ancient greeks had a different definition of philosophy that terry pointed out above, it was just the love of wisdom. Science, religion, ethics, law, math, rhetoric, politics, it was all under the umbrella of philosophy. But civilization grew up and science became the arbiter of truth, math was it's torch, laws and ethics were left to shape society and politics, and the vague notion of philosophy is now just pure logics without an end. A great academic excercise, it's a necessary tool in developing ethics and law, and great for sharpening one's critical reasoning, but it has no end unto itself.

The real problem is when philosophy elevates itself to the realm of science. This is frequently called theology, but it has other avenues as well. The problem is when the assumption is made that our understanding of the universe can be moved by pure reason isolated from logical positivism, or the assertion is made that science is just a philosophy. To which the only decent reply is "show me a philosophy that cures disease, or a theology that gives positive information about the universe". Philosophy is an interesting intellectual excercise, but science get's shit done. So as long as that is understood and no one is expecting or claiming that philosophy is TCB'n (Takin' Care Of Business) then it doesn't matter if they can agree on the color of the sky or not. It's a rhetorical excercise. Not everything is science.