Pantheism is the belief that God and the Universe are identical.
The chief objection I have to pantheism is that it says nothing. To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word “world”.
— Arthur Schopenhauer, A Few Words On Pantheism
Are dogs moral agents? This one looks guilty as to me! I hold him accountable!
We treat our dogs as if they were ‘almost human’: that is why they really become ‘almost human’ in the end.
— C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Man Made Super-Flu Could Kill Half Humanity
A virus with the potential to kill up to half the world’s population has been made in a lab. Now academics and bio-terrorism experts are arguing over whether to publish the recipe, and whether the research should have been done in the first place.
Have we reached the limits of free speech? Discuss.
Some concluding remarks from Martin Luther’s The Bondage of the Will.
Sect. CLXVII.
I SHALL here draw this book to a conclusion: prepared if it were necessary to pursue this Discussion still farther. Though I consider that I have now abundantly satisfied the godly man, who wishes to believe the truth without making resistance. For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself is compelled to confess;) then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can be no “Free-will” — in man, — in angel, — or in any creature!
Hence: — If we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensnaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing as — “Free-will!”
Again: — If we believe that original sin has so destroyed us, that even in the godly who are led by the Spirit, it causes the utmost molestation by striving against that which is good; it is manifest, that there can be nothing left in a man devoid of the Spirit, which can turn itself towards good, but which must turn towards evil!
Again: — If the Jews, who followed after righteousness with all their powers, ran rather into unrighteousness, while the Gentiles who followed after unrighteousness attained unto a free righteousness which they never hoped for; it is equally manifest, from their very works, and from experience, that man, without grace, can do nothing but will evil!
Finally: — If we believe that Christ redeemed men by His blood, we are compelled to confess, that the whole man was lost: otherwise, we shall make Christ superfluous, or a Redeemer of the grossest part of man only, — which is blasphemy and sacrilege!
Blaming you, that’s what. It’s your fault!
I’m fast coming around to the view that the Socialist Salvation Army expresses like this.
our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.
This is the doctrine of original sin. It was Adam (and Eve) who committed the orginal sin, but you have inherited that sin. You were born bad. Free will is commonly believed to be a precondition of moral agency and moral responsibility, but it’s not. Just as well, since we don’t have free will!
Contrary to popular opinion, moral responsibility is not consequent upon our actions (whether freely chosen or otherwise). Moral responsibility is not gotten through acts of commission or omission. In fact, it’s a matter of give and take. You are morally responsible if you are justly held accountable by other people (including God) or if you rightly take responsibility yourself for your own (or other people’s) actions.
The view I have just expressed is not a popular one. It gets intransigent atheists, in particular, in a real lather. Here‘s Ayn Rand.
The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.
The doctrine of original sin squares the existence of morality with the non-existence of free will.
The doctrine of original sin is Biblically sound, whereas the doctrine of free will is not (notwithstanding that it’s a very popular theodicy).
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (NIV)
Place me like a seal over your heart,
like a seal on your arm;
for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave.
It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.
Many waters cannot quench love;
rivers cannot sweep it away.
If one were to give
all the wealth of one’s house for love,
it would be utterly scorned. (NIV)
Since August 2011, Peter Dunne has banned 30 synthetic cannabinoids by issuing Temporary Class Drug Notices. These are published in the New Zealand Gazette, “the official newspaper of the Government of New Zealand.” Here’s an example.
Pursuant to section 4C of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, I give notice that the following substances are classified as temporary class drugs:
CB-13
1-naphthalen-1-yl-(4-pentyloxynaphthalen-1-yl)methanone
MAM-2201
(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(4-methyl-1-naphthalenyl)-methanone
AKB48
N-(1-adamantyl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
XLR11
(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone
This notice will take effect on 13 July 2012 and will expire on 13 July 2013, unless cancelled or renewed as specified in section 4E of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Dated at Wellington this 2nd day of July 2012.
HON PETER DUNNE, Associate Minister of Health.
The legislation enabling the issuance of Temporary Class Drug Notices was the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act (No 2) 2011, which became law on 9 August 2011. Let’s take a closer look at what it says.
4C Temporary class drug notice
(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, specify any substance, preparation, mixture, or article as a temporary class drug.
(2) The Minister must not give notice under subsection (1) if the substance, preparation, mixture, or article is a Class A controlled drug, a Class B controlled drug, a Class C controlled drug, a precursor substance, or a restricted substance (as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005).
(3) The Minister must not give notice under subsection (1) unless he or she is satisfied that the substance, preparation, mixture, or article that is to be specified in the notice poses, or may pose, a risk of harm to individuals, or to society.
(4) A notice under subsection (1) may describe the substance, preparation, mixture, or article by any 1 or more of the following:
(a) its chemical name, or 1 of its chemical names:
(b) its product name:
(c) a description of the substance, preparation, mixture, or article, in the form that the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of the notice.
(5) A notice under subsection (1) must state the date on which the notice comes into force.
(6) The date specified under subsection (5) must not be earlier than 7 days after the date of the publication of the notice in the Gazette.
4D Effect of temporary class drug notice
(1) Except as provided in this section, a temporary class drug is to be treated, while the temporary class drug notice remains in force, in the same way as if the drug were a controlled drug that is specified or described in Part 1 of Schedule 3.
(2) A temporary class drug specified or described in a temporary class drug notice is not to be added to any schedule of this Act while the notice is in force.
(3) Despite section 7(1), it is not an offence for a person, in relation to a temporary class drug, to do either or both of the following while the temporary class drug notice relating to that drug is in force:
(a) to possess for his or her own use less than 56 grams in total of any products (including cigarettes), or any drug forms (including flakes, tablets, or capsules), each containing some quantity of that temporary class drug:
(b) to use that temporary class drug.
(4) Possession by a person of 56 grams or more in total of any products (including cigarettes), or any drug forms (including flakes, tablets, or capsules), each containing some quantity of that temporary class drug is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as possession by that person of an amount, level, or quantity at and over which a controlled drug that is specified or described in Part 1 of Schedule 3 is presumed to be for supply.
(5) A substance that has a structure substantially similar to a temporary class drug is not to be treated as a controlled drug analogue by reason only of that similarity.
(6) While a temporary class drug notice is in force, the Minister must seek advice, as he or she considers appropriate, under section 5 or 5AA, or both, in relation to the temporary class drug and its appropriate classification, if any (including as a precursor substance, or as a restricted substance as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005), under this Act.
(7) As soon as possible after the publication of a temporary class drug notice in the Gazette, and while a temporary class drug notice is in force, the Director-General of Health must ensure that the notice, and information about its effects, is available—
(a) on the Ministry of Health’s Internet site, in an electronic form that is publicly accessible; and
(b) in any other way that the Director-General considers appropriate in the circumstances.
(8) Despite the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989, a temporary class drug notice is not to be treated as a regulation for the purposes of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989.
4E Duration of temporary class drug notice
(1) A temporary class drug notice expires at the earliest of—
(a) the close of the day that is 1 year after the date on which the notice came into force; or
(b) the date on which the substance, preparation, mixture, or article is—
(i) classified as a Class A controlled drug; or
(ii) classified as a Class B controlled drug; or
(iii) classified as a Class C controlled drug; or
(iv) added to Schedule 4 as a precursor substance; or
(v) classified as a restricted substance (as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005); or
(c) its revocation by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.
(2) A temporary class drug notice may be renewed by the Minister—
(a) prior to the date of its expiry as calculated under subsection (1); and
(b) on 1 occasion only; and
(c) only for the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Minister to obtain the advice that is to be sought under section 4D(6).
Did you pay special attention to the highlighted bits?
According to 4C(3), since August 2011 Peter Dunne has been satisfied 30 different times that a particular substance poses, or may pose, a risk of harm to individuals, or to society. Well, it’s nice to know that someone’s getting some satisfaction.
Now, according to 4D(6), “while a temporary class drug notice is in force, the Minister must seek advice, as he or she considers appropriate, under section 5 or 5AA, or both, in relation to the temporary class drug and its appropriate classification, if any (including as a precursor substance, or as a restricted substance as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005), under this Act.” What advice did Peter Dunne consider it appropriate to seek, regarding the 30 substances he’s banned? He must have sought it. So what was it?
So far, Peter Dunne has renewed all his Temporary Class Drug Notices issued in 2011, prior to their expiry. Note that, according to 4E(2), this is only for the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Minister to obtain the advice that is to be sought under section 4D(6). Peter Dunne must be seeking lots of advice. Otherwise, what’s taking him so long?
You know what I think? I don’t think Dunne’s been keeping his side of the deal at all. I’m going to ask him to find out.
Stop trusting in mere humans,
who have but a breath in their nostrils.
Why hold them in esteem? (NIV)
Some of my best friends are socialists. One friend in particular often has good arguments in favour of government interventions in a variety of flavours. Here’s one of them, in response to this article in the NZ Herald on rising power prices.
Its no surprise that electricity prices in NZ have doubled in real terms (compared with overseas) in the last 30 years (as per the article in your link).
Interesting to look at the wage bill, interest bill and profit (and where the profit went) for the old system and compare with the new.
And also look at the nature of the generation and distribution assets , old and new i.e. how much of todays electricity as supplied by dams and plants that were there 30 years ago.
I have no doubt the the old government owned system was:-
Simpler
Cheaper
More reliableAlso with the old system
little marketing and advertising costs
reduced management costs
greatly benefitted from orders of magnitude
reduced compliance costs (annual reports. legal costs etc)
profits went to the government to offset taxes
Central planning was done to benefit NZ – not to manipulate the system to the benefit of those receiving bonuses (smartest people in the room syndrome)Cutting the system up into competing entities means that in many cases where there used to be one job there are now about 6. Plus each of the new entities now has its own marketing department. I project managed the multi-million dollar computer that is required to calculate the billing between generators and retailers. Such complexity was unnecessary in the old system. And someone has to pay for all those people treading the streets trying to persuade households to switch from one retailer to another.
In the old system the best brains were used on engineering calculations – now they are used on how best to manipulate for profit.
It all wouldn’t be quite so bad if households could buy electricity at wholesale rates plus a margin and use smart meters to understand and adapt to the risks – but that particular vision still seems unreachable.
Anyway that’s my (admittedly one sided) rant.
My friend also admits it “was written very very quickly as an angry outburst. No real thought gone into it. It is filled with sentences and phrases that could be much better as well holes in the logic etc. and totally lacking in references or hard facts.”
Way too modest!
I think it deserves a response. Any takers?
Absolutely nothing!
I’m fast coming around to the view that the concept of free will is what Ayn Rand called an anti-concept.
An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate …
Free will is designed to obliterate human decision-making.
It’s simple. We make decisions.
Other people (including God) hold us accountable (i.e., deserving of moral praise or blame) for our decisions. That’s all there is to it, and all you need to know.
The Singularity – the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence – is coming, as early as 2030 according to some estimates. The first smarter-than-human AI will make decisions, like we do, only better. Will it have free will? That depends on whether other people (including God) hold it accountable for its decisions.
“The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it. (NIV)
