UKbound

Good grief, go read a book already. Talk about tunnel vision, sheesh!

It's irrelevant that you think what I think is irrelevant. You've officially moved yourself into a position of "completely missing the point." I am one of an overwhelming majority that has, basically no clue about the way this whole QM business works, but nevertheless is on board with it. I'm done quibbling about Einstein, you're clearly seeing exactly what you want to see in that article and further discussion would be futile. If you don't like the invocation of Einstein, fair enough. We'll go with your boy Newton. If you want contemporary, why don't we go with Murray Gell-Man, Franz Boas, Noam Chomsky, Richard Feynman, David Bohm, Saul Kripke or Noam Elkies? I can certainly provide several more if you've got a problem with that list, but I think it should suffice in establishing the fact that there have been many (self-described) religious persons both in the distant past and not-so-distant past who were intellectuals. Shalom :wink:

I, as in me, this non-physicist has faith in QM. I don't fully understand it and, more importantly, I don't need (or even want) to. I have faith in the science. That was the whole point of offering that list. There are many things that we non-scientists absolutely take on faith. I don't need to get into a lab and see the experiments to feel confident about the work that's being done. There's a distinct possibility that much of it will turn out to be rot...like the Ptolemaic system, flogiston, fixity of the species....blah, blah, blah...but for now it's good enough. Oh, btw, Immanuel Kant lived a hundred and fifty or so years AFTER Newton. Moreover, he's widely credited with being the father of Logical Positivism. Also, Einstein was religious by his own account (see the groovy little Wiki article provided by a PP), not mine.

I applied to five, total. That turns out to have been more than enough. I think it really depends on the strength of your application.

Pantheism (Greek: ??? ( 'pan' ) = all and ???? ( 'theos' ) = God, it literally means "God is All" and "All is God") is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. I'm pretty sure I didn't specify what sort of faith/belief/religion any of those men had, but I did look at your link and, provided anything in it is legitimate (it is Wikipedia after all), I think that first line sums things up quite nicely. "The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and whether or not he believed in a God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[55]" Please note, he was talking to a rabbi. Anyway you cut it, that's faith. Oh and thanks for reminding us of yet another religious (albeit a bit unconventional) person..Spinoza. Spinoza was a pantheist as well. I suppose if I had to choose a camp, agnostic that I am, pantheism seems like a fairly good bet but I'm not even convinced there's a God " who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world" at this point. As far as chosen-ness goes, I think it's pretty clear that that is the most ridiculous idea of all. If the Jews were chosen for anything, it certainly wasn't anything good. Not even sure why you included it...but hey thanks for sharing.

What about those images of the blessed virgin in your toast? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm In all seriousness though, the claim that religious people are not intellectuals is patently ridiculous. In addition to Plato, St. Thomas Aquinas, Renee Descartes, Immanuel Kant, and William James who were all religious men, one of the greatest intellects of the 20th century, Einstein, was a man of faith ("God doesn't play dice" ring a bell?). For many, such as William Paley and Blaise Pascal (nevermind all the ID proponents) it is the "evidence" that leads them to God. I think you need to be very careful, and a bit more precise, with your use of the term evidence. For believers, it's all around them. As non-believers, we're really not in much of a position to dispute it. It just doesn't work for us. But to say religious people aren't intellectuals is ....ugh there's not even a moderately polite way to describe what a bigoted and misinformed position that is. Also, where the heck did you come up with that definition of faith?? Faith is not Are we supposed to simply take that definition on faith? If so, you've basically created a nice little Liar's Paradox for yourself. You certainly can't prove that that is what faith is. Faith is just the belief in ideas that may not be empirically 100% verifiable. Ironically, all of the empirical sciences, being based on induction (there's always the possibility that a purple/black/green swan may show up), rely on faith to some extent. I personally have a great deal of faith... in things like the theory of evolution, quantum mechanics (certainly need a great deal of faith with this one), and the existence of minds.

There certainly do seem to be a lot of not-so-persecuted religions/persons that fall into that category. On the other hand, those that do have a history of genuine religious persecution often just want to put it behind them and move on. With the exception of a handful of extremists, I think most people who have had it bad in the past would prefer to make sure things are better in the present and future, than whine (or kvetch as we say) about being persecuted. Even most modern-day Jews of the kooky variety are more likely to embrace slogans like "never again" than "vengeance is mine."

Likewise. While I certainly consider myself an ethnic Jew (I'm genetically an Ashkenazi Jew and I respect the traditions), the whole God question is just not something I feel any rational person should devote too much time to. I don't, personally, know any Jews who even bother with this issue. Most are basically agnostic, or like my mother, full-blown, hard-core atheists. Frankly, I don't care enough about the God question to even bother with committing to atheism (saying there is NO god opens us up to as many difficulties as saying there is one...you just shift the burden of proof, as in "hey atheist, prove there isn't a God"). I do not, however, have a problem with or feel a need to disabuse persons of faith of their myths. All religion is just a form of collective action at bottom.

HA! How is a religion that boasts 1.5 billion members a minority? You want an Abrahamic minority religion, go with Judaism (we're sitting pretty at whopping 13 million or so). Of course, we don't waste a lot of time praying for favors--we know that if there is a God, it's not very nice. Sorry for the digression...I just find it funny that Islam is considered a minority faith.

Philosophy is generally categorized under the Humanities umbrella, so it's quite possible that it's school specific rather than discipline. I have a good friend who applied to Berkeley's Psych program at the deadline last year and was in by late Jan. Also, not all schools bother waiting until after their own deadlines have passed to send out offers/rejections.

I submitted three applications during the first week of September, got offers from two of the three the third week of October and an offer from the third about a week-and-a-half ago. I also submitted two other applications at the end of September--so far one rejection and I haven't yet heard from the other. So it looks like anywhere from about six to ten weeks...give or take.

Minnesotan, your obnoxiousness is second only to your obtuseness. I didn't shift the topic to racism or anywhere for that matter, American Woman did. I didn't support the act of fraud, and neither did UKgrad (thank you for reposting the post ...it's quite clear that this person thinks the original poster is a busy body, and is simply going out of his way to point that out...still no "YOU SHOULD COMMIT FORCERGY AND OTHER ACTS OF FRAUD" message in there). We may be stinky, buy you sir are a blockhead. I genuinely hope you pay closer attention to your coursework than you have the actual content of this thread. :wink:

It would be nice if we could keep track of who we're talking about. Our "British friend" never weighed in on the matter of racism, I did. I'm an American, and I don't endorse fraud OR racism. I think this whole topic has gotten kind of out of hand. No one, NO ONE, endorsed forgery or committing fraud. I, personally, find the whole sordid business very disappointing. The original problem, the way certain posters responded, and even the misrepresentations on the part of still others is really sad. Not one single person on either side of this supposed problem has spoken out in favor of fraud (UKgrad's point, as I took it, was essentially 'stop worrying about others, take care of your own stuff'). Yet, we suddenly have accusations of endorsement of fraud. WTF is that about? What's really disturbing to some of us is the way people have argued against this girl's actions. Slurs, slights, and insinuations should have no place in a discussion between educated adults. We all seem to have forgotten what the original poster presented to us. For starters, there hasn't been a forgery (if these fraudulent letters were submitted online, not even the signatures were forged). The pathetic girl in question wrote her own letters of support and put someone else's name on them. A crappy thing to do, indeed, and definitely fraudulent...but the reason we all get so up in arms about plagiarism is we don't want others taking credit for our hard work. That is why plagiarism is such a serious offense in academia. This girl wrote her own letters, supporting what sounded like an otherwise very solid applications, and "signed" someone else's name. Minnesotan and others who keep using terms like forgery, saying that those of us who saw the earlier crack about Brits as inappropriate are somehow supporters of the behavior, don't seem to be able to keep straight exactly what has a occurred. There's been no forgery, it's a case of fraud, and nobody approves of what this sad sack did, so let's knock off the mudslinging. Being loud won't make the things you've said any less inaccurate or inapplicable.

I sent both of the schools I was offered admission to a short email letting them know I would notify them of my decision shortly. Be sure to check for deadlines. Both of the programs that offered me spots had clear specifications about when I needed to accept their offer by. You may inadvertently lose your place if there are deadlines and you haven't acknowledged the offer.

Interesting, though I kinda wonder whether you'd take those comments the same way if they were made in reference to an American? An Asian? A Jew? Any person representing a group of color? A very clear, and quite direct, reference was made regarding the attitude of Brits, questioning their tolerance of ethical indiscretions (the comment wasn't directed at UKgrad). I, for one, think that comment is pretty clearly "culturally biased" and we all know cultural bias is really just a veiled form racism. I don't think your reply is terribly mature either, your little rant looks a little nutty even. All the things you brought up in your mini rant are real problems, and I actually envy you your glibness on the matter. I wish all of us could be so relaxed about these issues. There are some very good points that probably should be considered in American Woman's post. Wouldn't it be nice if Americans, as a culture, could try to see from others point-of-view on occasion. Just for kicks maybe...