Science is the devil...

...not really, but there's a big problem with scientists making dogmatic statements while pretending to make objective, "scientific" statements.

For example, in an article I recently read on child psychology (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html), the authors state that, and I paraphrase, 'dualism is mistaken, but children intuitively believe in it. So how do we get people to be more receptive to science?'

Dualism is the philosophical term used to describe, among other things, the idea that your soul and/or mind are different from your body. So by saying dualism is mistaken, they're clearly stating you do not have a soul.

However, there is a very live debate on this issue - even among professional philosophers and scientists.

I don't mind that these psychologists take a side on this debate, but I do feel that as scholars and honest people, they should point out when they've made a major assumption on one of the most significant issues in philosophy and science. A simple footnote would suffice.

If they don't want to admit that, then they should admit that what they are writing is agenda-driven propoganda, not truth-driven scholarship.

Who has greater combat than the man who labors to overcome himself?

-Thomas a Kempis

'The Imitation of Christ,' by the way, is an absolute must read. It's earth-shakingly profound, yet written in a devotional format so that it's easy to read in daily doses.

My first published fiction:

http://raygunrevival.com/Published/RGR_0022_2007_05_15.pdf

My story is written under the sci-fi pseudonym 'Casey Chan.'

It's amazing how long I've been writing to just now get something published. If somebody had told me 10 + years ago how many hundreds of thousands of words of fiction I'd write before anybody'd publish any of them, I think I would have quit on the front end. So I'm glad no one told me. It's pretty gratifying to get my pinky toe in the door.

I recently learned that there are 3 leadership styles.

Autocratic: from on high.

Democratic: help the people decide what they really want to do.

Laissez-faire: only step in when things seem to be going off the train tracks.

I prefer autocrats, I guess, unless they're bad, one way or another. One nice thing about democracies is it seems as if people can't hardly get anything done, so despite the ideas of the people being pretty bad, on the whole, most of them never happen.

Happiness is a walk on a tight-rope.

My favorite line from a novel comes at the end of 'The Power and the Glory.' The Whiskey Priest says, roughly, 'at the end of your life, nothing matters but to have been a saint. And it wouldn't have been so hard. All it would take is a little bit of courage and self-control.'

I really believe that, and I really identify with the whiskey priest. (I prefer scotch, but nowadays I'm not drinking at all).

When I talk with people about my difficulties sharing Christ, and not just with non-believers, people often advise me about tactics. (say "this" or don't say "that"). But my problem isn't tactics. What I need is guts. Courage. A little bit of self-control to keep my knees from knocking.

I would love it if you'd pray for me in that regard.

The Office

My job is like the Office - only not funny.

Today, we had a "consultant" in who is studying the place for "how it can improve, for both the employees and the employer." The punchline, in Office Space at least, is that at the end of the day somebody gets to collect a check - from the unemployment office.

The strange thing about this consultant is that the foregone conclusion from the beginning of the interview was, seemingly, that the person who is the problem is el jefe - the senior/managing partner of my law firm.

It was both kind of sad and weird and anxiety-provoking to sit there for 30 minutes and explain that the problem is the boss. The one improvement that could be made would be to fire the guy who signs all our checks. The consultant promised the conversations were confidential. But there's only 10 of us who work here, so when he goes back to el jefe and says the unanimous opinion was that the boss needs to quit his day job...well, the anonymity kind of goes out the window.

Also, it's kind of sad, because if el jefe wanted to know el problemo, everyone here could have told him. He didn't have to pay some consultant $1,000 to find out what everyone already knows. But maybe it'll help him admit he's got a problem.

So easy a caveman could do it.

People talk about the invention of the wheel as a major accomplishment of early human beings, but how hard would it have been to notice that round rocks roll down a hill?

Do you like your job?

Things I like about being a lawyer: talking to people, writing, reasoning, making good arguments, lots of jobs.

Thinks I don't like about being a lawyer: sitting at a desk all day not talking to anyone, research, helping one person attack another person, feeling like a pretentious pariah when I tell people I'm a lawyer, long books full of rules.

What are the pros and cons to your occupation?