No definition of a miracle is adequate Essay Example for Free

No definition of a miracle is adequate Essay Many philosophers have attempted to define what exactly constitutes a miracle in a number of ways outlining definitions which contain the criteria for what phenomena can be counted as miraculous. Whether a definition is adequate seems highly subjective but will likely be one that is acceptable by non-Christians as well as Christians who in all probability will want a definition that accepts many of the miracle in the Bible to indeed be miraculous. Mackie’s definition of miracles describing them as events that occur when the world is not left alone and is intruded by something that is not part of the natural order necessitates that miracles are caused by a supernatural entity which may be considered to be God. This appears to suggest that his definition would indeed be adequate for some Christians given that it sets apart miracles from coincidences turning them into occurrences which could provide evidence for their faith. Moreover it allows a more specific idea of what constitutes a miracles disallowing events with an entirely naturalistic explanation maintaining them as unique events. However, Hick likely would criticise Mackie’s arguments for not be adequate given the ambiguity of what the natural order and the laws that govern it are. Hick suggested that laws were generalisations that are formed after events have happened, suggesting that that the natural order couldn’t be intruded upon. Also it may be that what is perceived to be an intrusion by something outside of the natural order is actually just a lack of understanding of the natural order on our part. This means that though an event such as the Moon Landing would have been defined as inadequate centuries ago, today it would not. This undermines the adequacy of the definition given that what it encompasses will change with time. A further issue with the adequacy of Mackie’s definition is that it could be argued to not be sufficiently specific given that it makes no attempt to define what exactly constitutes something distinct from the natural order, and it may in fact not be God. This would undermine its adequacy for Christians who believe that God is responsible for causing miracles and may not accept they are caused by other beings. Swinburne’s definition of a miracle appears to resolve this issue defining miracles as a violation of a law of nature by a god (a very powerful rational being who is not a material object). That said, the requirement for God to intervene in the world poses a number of challenges to Swinburnes’ definition especially given that God’s need to intervene in his creation contradicts the idea that he is an all powerful being if the world requires changes. Additionally philosophers like Wiles would argue that if God has the ability to intervene in the world in order to perform miracles in certain instances then his failure to prevent evil and suffering in the world undermines his characteristic of omni-benevolence. For this reason a definition that requires God’s intervention to cause miracles may be inadequate given the contradictions that would occur if such an event happened. On the other hand, many Christians do accept that God intervenes in the world and if so this definition of miracles may indeed be adequate also determining whether God is responsible for an event may be impossible as it may just be due to limited understanding of events. Additionally, Swinburne’s definition is undermined by Hick’s challenge arguably even more so than Mackies given his explicit use of the term ‘natural laws’ and also would likely be subject to change as understanding changes. Holland’s definition of miracles appears to avoid the contractions associated with Swinburne and Mackie’s explanations not requiring the physical intervention of God suggesting from the outset that it may be more adequate. This is because Holland only requires miracles to be an extraordinary coincidence of a beneficial nature interpreted religiously. The emphasis on interpretation also removes the difficulties associated with determining the cause of the miracle while still encompassing Biblical miracles. However it would likely be criticised for being too subjective given that different people would differ on whether the same event is miraculous. Additionally the Catholic church which usually requires a person to have performed at least two miracles in order to be Canonized as a saint would likely not accept miracles as defined by Holland as they only accept events without naturalistic explanation suggesting the definition is inadequate for how the term miracle is used by some Christian denominations. In conclusion, it seems probable that no definition of miracles is adequate given that although Swinburne and Mackie’s definition of miracles may encompass many of the instances of how miracles are used, they are undermined by the difficulty in determining natural laws and also whether God physically intervened. Likewise while Holland goes some way to avoiding these contradictions in his definition it remains highly subjective and also doesn’t reflect how miracles are used in Christianity. Additionally it will likely also lead to significant differences between what people consider miracles. Moreover, the existence of so many contrasting definitions of miracles suggests that there isn’t a single definition that is adequate given that there is no consensus on what makes an event miraculous so any definition will be subject to significant disagreement. For this reason the statement that no definition of miracle is adequate can be considered to be true.

Historical Analysis of the Military Draft Policy Essay -- Military Arm

Historical Analysis of the Military Draft Policy The Constitution adopted in 1789 gave Congress the "power to raise and support armies," but it neither mentioned nor prohibited conscription. The Framers left that issue to the future, although most of them believed that the United States like Britain would enlist its men rather than conscript them, and would pay for its armies through the power to tax. Not until World War I did the United States rely primarily upon conscription. The Selective Service Act of 1917 was adopted in large part because a civilian-led "preparedness" movement had persuaded many Americans that a selective national draft was the most equitable and efficient way for an industrial society to raise a wartime army. Woodrow Wilson overcame considerable opposition, particularly from agrarian isolationists in the South and West and ethnic and ideological opponents of the war in the North, to obtain the temporary wartime draft. (Berger 1981) For more than 50 years, Selective Service and the registration requirement for America's young men have served as a backup system to provide manpower to the U.S. Armed Forces. President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 which created the country's first peacetime draft and formally established the Selective Service System as an independent Federal agency. From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means. (Gerhardt 1971) A lottery drawing - the first since 1942 - was held on December 1, 1969, at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This event determined the order of call for induction during calendar year 1970, that is, for registrants born between January 1, 1944 and December 31, 1950. Reinstitution of the lottery was a change from the oldest first method, which had been the determining method for deciding order of call. 366 blue plastic capsules containing birth dates were placed in a large glass jar and drawn by hand to assign order-of-call numbers to all men within the 18-26 age range specified in Selective Service law. With radio, film and TV coverage, the capsules were drawn from the jar, opened, and the dates inside posted in order. The first capsule - drawn by Congressman Alexander Pirine (R-NY) of the Ho... ...ain that our military will not leave Iraq until a stable democracy is intact and if other actions are taken against countries such as North Korea and Iran as communication failure continues to break down, we will find U.S. military sources stationed in those countries as well until they too have reached a level of stablility that is consistent with how the United States government would approve. And although our commitment to these current day conflicts has not reached a status where a draft would be needed, talk has begun to stir and its reinstatement could come in the near future. Good or bad, each individual has its own opinion and its policy will be debated for years to come. Bibliography Anderson, Martin. The Military Draft: Selected Readings on Conscription. Stanford, California: Hoover Press. 1982. Berger, Jason. The Military Draft. New York: H.Wilson CO. 1981. Carter, Phillip and Paul Glastris. â€Å"The Case for the Draft.† Washington Monthly; March 2005, Vol. 37 Issue 3, p18. Flynn, George. Conscription and Democracy. Westport, Connecticut. Greenwood Press. 2002. Gerhardt, James. The Draft and Public Policy. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. 1971.

Media and Politics Essay

We all agree that a well-informed public leads to a more open, just and civic-minded society. Yet today it seems every major and minor news network has a Sunday talk show or weekly roundtable dedicated to â€Å"educating† the American public about politics. In addition, with the growth of the Internet, thousands of Web sites exist with information on politics and government. The irony is that while the quantity of places we can go for political information continues to increase, the quality of that information has not. Recent voter turnout shows an American public with a general apathy toward government and the political process. If we continue to focus on innuendo instead of insight, we threaten to create even more public apathy. For everything a quick sound bite delivers in sharpness, it often loses the same in substance when the message reaches the public. While it may be easy to fault the media for the lack of public confidence in America’s political system, policymakers are also partly to blame. Because increased political partisanship has led to an adversarial relationship between policymakers, it has created a disconnect with the media who cover them. It is only natural for the media to present the news in this â€Å"crossfire† approach when that is all it hears from politicians on a daily basis. Thus, instead of creating a well-informed society, policymakers, and the media can inadvertently work together to give the appearance that complicated issuesare black or white, with no in-between. We all know this is not true. For television, and the American media generally, the election of 2000 will be the first real taste of things to come, the beginning of the end of an era if not the end itself. Whispers of the â€Å"information revolution† could be heard in 1994, mostly in the accents of the Right, but in 2000, the Internet’s campaign presence will be sounded in shouts and with cymbals.  Campaigning via Websites and the use of e-mail, already routine, will edge toward dominance. In addition, a significant fraction of the public will be getting its politics from the Internet: the Pew Research Center found that in 1995, only 4 percent of adults went on-line for news at least once a week; by 1998, the figure had reached 20 percent, and rising. Today, however, television, which displaced the press and radio (and movies, for that matter), is itself substantially being shouldered aside. It is not even surprising that, according to the Pew Research Center, while 60 percent of adults â€Å"r egularly† watched TV news in 1993, that figure dropped to 38 percent in 1998. Like the press and like radio, television will retain much of its power; its quality of its influence may even rise; what is certain, however, is that it will have to change. If we are lucky, that change will help Americans reclaim some of democracy’s old charm. Our communities have been weakened or shattered by the market, mobility, and technology, and the centralization of the media and of party politics has taken much of the spirit out of our politics, emphasizing mass and hierarchy, and leading citizens to seek dignity in a private life that seems increasingly confined. Our politics, like our society, is more and more divided into two tiers. The elite levels, especially around the national capital and the media centers, are dense with organized groups and with information about the subtleties of policy and politics†¦The great majority of Americans, by contrast, are socially distant from power, baffled by its intricacies, anxious about change, and inundated by the welter of information being made available to them. The links that connect citizens to government are thin, mostly top-down, and dominated by money: the parties are increasingly c entralized bureaucracies, and â€Å"participation† is apt to take the form of donating money in response to direct appeals, voicelessly, without any say in group leadership or policy. As for the dominant news media, they are not seen as a stratum between citizens and centers of power, but as part of the powerhouse, an element of the elite or in its service. The great majority of Americans know that they depend on the media†¦the media decide what opinions to attend to and in what ways. Viewers, lacking a voice, can assert their discontents only by changing channels or by turning off the set, and in relation to politics, tuning out has become startlingly common, a silent protest against indignity. It does  not help that, eager to cultivate and hold a mass audience, the news media tend to dumb down their political coverage, as indicated by the ever-shrinking sound bite afforded to candidates and leaders. It is probably even worse that the media also pander, playing to our worst impulses. Early and consistently, polls showed that most Americans were convinced that coverage of the Lewinsky affair was doing damage to our institutions, telling pollsters that they wanted it to receive much less attention from the media. However, media leaders knew, of course, that despite this public-regarding judgment, very few Americans, as private ind ividuals, would be able to resist getting caught up in the tacky salacity of the thing. As a result, we got coverage in agonizing detail: Russell Baker called it â€Å"disgusting,† an indication that the media market is dominated by â€Å"edge, attitude, and smut.† Moreover, it encouraged millions of Americans to view the media, for all their power, as worthy of contempt. Political societies can be symbolized but not seen, and the most important political controversies turn on words–like justice, equality or liberty–and hence on public speech. A picture makes a strong impression, but one that tends to be superficial. Many see who you appear to be, Machiavelli advised the prince, but not many will recognize who you are. And often, visual coverage of politics is banal or beside the point. In the internet, a good many observers discerned a trend toward a more decentralized communication and politics, more interactive and hence friendlier to democratic citizenship. However, the Internet, at least so far, is not leading us to the public square. It does enable minorities to find like-minded people, to avoid the sense of being alone, and sometimes this gives strength and assurance to our better angels, although at least as often it gives scope to the dark side. In general, however, the Internet creates groups that lack what Tocqueville called the â€Å"power of meeting,† the face-to-face communication that makes claims on our senses, bodies as well as minds. — Over the past five decades, the American electorate has come to depend more and more on the news media for learning about political candidates and making voting decisions. The growth of all forms of media and the rise of â€Å"objectivity† in the press†¦ has made voters more dependent on the news media for campaign information. Today, about seven in 10 voters depend mainly on the news media for information to make choices when they cast their ballot. Voters’ dependence on the news increases the importance of the role that the news media play in American elections. But what do American voters want from election news coverage? And how do voters evaluate the news media’s coverage of presidential elections? In a word, â€Å"lukewarm† describes the general feeling of voters about the performance of the news media in covering presidential campaigns, according to national scientific surveys of the American electorate conducted from February through November 1996, as well as a more recent survey, conducted in October 1999, on the current campaign. The surveys were conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis (CSRA) at the University ofConnecticut. Funding for the 1996 surveys was provided by The Freedom Forum. Why the tepid feelings? American voters are quite consistent in what they say they want from election news–and they are quite clear in saying that what they want is often not what they get. The American electorate is hungry for news and information that allow it to evaluate the substance of presidential candidacies on the basis of issue positions and on the likely consequences of electing a particular candidate to office. News provided outside of these parameters, while perhaps entertaining, is viewed as â€Å"nonsense† in the words of our focus group participant. Two types of stories–those that review how candidates stand on issues and those that describe how election outcomes might affect voters–are clearly the kinds of stories in which voters express the highest levels of intere st. The remedies suggested†¦.enhanced coverage of issues and candidates positions, more coverage of the possible impact of election outcomes on public policy and broader coverage of the  full field of candidates, not just the front-runners–could improve the quality of news and promote voter learning, which would be healthy for American democracy. At the same time, less coverage of the election as a sporting horse race and less obsession with entertaining stories about candidates personal lives would, according to voters, be an improvement. In election periods, the polls highlight the role of public opinion in the political process. They also illuminate the importance of public opinion measurements in the media. Fundamentally, and at their best, media polls are a way for public opinion to be reported and perceived, thus fulfilling the eminent 19th-century British visitor James Bryce’s conception of the American press as the â€Å"chief organ of public opinion,† and community â€Å"weathercock.† However, when employed inappropriately by overzealous reporters and analysts, polls can be used to create an exaggerated sense of precision that misleads more than it informs. Polls routinely bring the public into election campaigns. In an otherwise fragmented and even alienated society, poll reports may be the only means individual members of the public have in situating themselves in the greater society. News reports of poll results tell individuals that they are part of a majority or a minority on various issues. In campaigns with more than two candidates, especially early in the primary season, information about relativecandidate standing gives voters the information to help them cast a vote that is strategically advantageous. But most importantly, polls take that strategic information about candidate performance away from politicians’ control and places it in the hands of the public. News organizations no longer are forced to rely on the instincts of party leaders  or on carefully orchestrated leaks from partisan pollsters for data. Because they are numbers, poll results sometimes create the appearance of a false precision in reporting of candidate support or presidential approval. In fact, some polling organizations flaunt this alleged precision by displaying results to a 10th of a percentage point. Of course, the error due simply to the sampling design is usually at least 30 times greater than the specificity presented. Moreover, there are growing concerns about the ability of su rvey researchers to reach the majority of households selected in their sample. Some respondents refuse to be interviewed. Others have become ever more difficult to reach during the short news survey-interviewing period that must be sandwiched between public events. This perception of precision and accuracy leads journalists into making blunders, including attempting to find deep meaning when there probably isn’t any. Newspaper and television reporters often try to attribute a three-point difference in the margin between two candidates to some campaign action. Either the â€Å"slipping† candidate has made a mistake, or there has been a successful strategic decision that has brought supporters to the â€Å"rising† candidate. Sometimes small movements in the percentages of subgroups that form only a part of the total sample are given the same â€Å"explanatory† treatment. Those â€Å"differences,† however, are more likely to be caused by sampling error than by campaign events. In mid-October, a prominent presidential candidate addressed his largest audience. Hundreds of thousands of voters heard his message–but they never got the news that his message contained some distortions, omissions, and half-truths. Those significant matters were either ignored or buried in coverage by the leading news media. Why? It was not because of bias. It was because the candidate’s message was delivered not at a campaign event but in campaign television ads. And when candidates communicate via ads on the tube  instead of on the stump, journalists act as if we are stumped about our role and responsibility. Journalists at most major and medium-sized newspapers are proud that they are now at least covering political advertisements at all. They report on them in small-boxed features called â€Å"Ad Watch† or something of the sort. But they haven’t figured out that they are still being manipulated by the ad-makers. The â€Å"Ad Watch† reports c arry the transcript of the 30-second ad, followed by a small section in which a reporter subjectively interprets the ad-maker’s strategy. Then–in the most valuable section–the reports briefly focus on the factual accuracy of the ad’s claims. Newspapers display these â€Å"Ad Watch† boxes on inside pages, back with the snow tire and truss ads. Think about it from a journalist’s viewpoint: when a candidate distorts his record in a huge rally speech, a good reporter fact checks the claims. The resulting news story will surely focus in part on the candidate’s omissions and distortions that present a different and more accurate picture of his record.And that may well be a page one story. Now think about it from the political strategist’s viewpoint: Democratic and Republican strategists expect print journalists will check ads for accuracy but then downplay the results. So, being skilled manipulators, they are willing to take a light hit in a box that is buried back with the truss ads and will run just once if they can pour their unfiltered, exaggerated and distorted message in to living rooms where it may be seen by millions, not just once but perhaps 10 times in a campaign. There is one mistake that all journalists make whether we are covering politics at the White House, state house, or courthouse. Every time we report on money and politics, we fail to tell people the real story about how the system really works because we are using the wrong words to describe what is happening right before our eyes, every day. So no wonder people just shrug when we report that a special interest â€Å"contributed† $100,000 to Democrats or Republicans. Because, this special interest really did not â€Å"contribute† this money (which my dictionary explains means that it was given as though to a charity). What the special interest representative really did was â€Å"invest† $100,000 in the Democrats or Republicans. Big business people (see also: big labor, trial lawyers, et al) â€Å"invest† in politics for the same reason that they invest in anything–to reap a profitable return on their â€Å"investment.† Use the right word and suddenly  everybody understands what is really going on. They will especially understand when we regularly report that the largest agribusiness â€Å"investments† in Senate and House races routinely go to the top agriculture committee members, and largest energy special interest â€Å"investments† go to the top energy committee members, and so on. Use the right word and suddenly our next task as journalists becomes clear–and clearly difficult: we need to do a better job of discovering the campaign investors’ motives. We need to ask, Just what profitable return did the investor expect to reap for that campaign investment? A tax subsidy? A regulation waived? A loophole that is difficult for a squinting journalist to see with a naked eye? Whatever the return, this much is clear: the money ultimately comes out of the U.S. Treasury. Clearly, our present system, which we like to say is based on private financing of campaigns, can also be viewed as a form of backdoor public funding–where the taxpayers pay the final tab, no doubt many times over. We journalists have yet to find a way to calculate how many billions of tax dollars it now costs us to finance election campaigns through the back door. At least we can begin using a vocabulary that will finally tell it like it is.

Understanding Movies - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 1 Words: 318 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2017/09/20 Category Advertising Essay Type Argumentative essay Tags: Movie Essay Did you like this example? Understanding movies was the most interesting class which I have ever taken. People expect many advantages from taking various classes. Some people want to take a sports class to have fun while other people like a science class to enlarge their knowledge. In my case, I could get both entertainment and knowledge form the movie class. Through the use of a couple of examples and specific explanation, I will demonstrate why I liked the movie class most. First, Understanding movies was enjoyable. School life was always stressful. Whenever I was sick and tired of my major classes such as math, economics and so on, I could relax myself in the movie class. One day, I was so stressed out because I failed a quiz in my math class. But the movie class showed Dead poets society, which gave me a lesson. While I saw some young high school students trying to find the real value of lives, my stress had done away. Movie class entertained me whenever I felt bad during my university days. Sec ond, the movie class allowed me to have much valuable knowledge. In the movies, there are so many kinds of people, history and culture. When I saw the movie, Modern times by Charlie Chaplin, I could learn the situation of the United States in the early nineteenth century. Before I saw the movie, I did not know what exactly happened during The Great Depression in the U. S.. The movie class was one of the best sources of my knowledge. I really loved that movie class not only it was enjoyable but also it enlarged my knowledge. Since I found some advantages of watching movies, I have seen so many films that changed my major to film making. I hope that I can take one more chance to attend a movie class in the Unite States. The movie class was the most exciting class Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Understanding Movies" essay for you Create order