You may be right about the "make work" projects but that doesn't make it not exceedingly stupid. How about they pay their own worker to do that work and use the other money to get other things. If they do that they are providing more value for everyone while distributing money.
As long as the government actually enforces property rights, enforces contracts, prosecute fraud, and punishes anti-competitive behavior, regulations are largely unnecessary. Most cases of "but what if an evil corporation does x, y, or z" are actually already punishable by law, regulation generally tries to prevent it from happening instead of punishing those that do it. The problem with that approach is that a regulation aimed at preventing something punishes 999 companies that have been doing the right thing with unnecessary testing, documentation, and standards because 1 company did the wrong thing. We would be better off making an example of the 1 company and letting the other 999 flourish.
I'm not arguing for any particular tax or system, I am pointing out that "rely[ing] on money" is actually a sure fire way to alter peoples behavior. Money is not all about greed, it is a useful and necessary tool.
Having a set time that you go each time is good motivation wise and helps prevent the rolling "I'll go in just one more hour" which leads to "well, it's too late to go now."
I would say doing a structured weight training program would actually be better for you physically and be more optimal time wise but it requires much more self motivation and discipline than going to a CF gym.
Above all, be safe and actually do something. Doing something is, usually, better than doing nothing so find what you will actually be motivated to do. I know tons of people who normally wouldn't be motivated enough to show up at the gym but consistently show up to a CF gym.
That is what you infer he is arguing, that isn't what he is arguing based on the articles that have been posted to slashdot. Perhaps there is some external argument that he made that you are correct about.
From the original article summary:
He is also a Christian minister, who contends that there is no real conflict between religion and science, citing the writings and views of Saint Augustine as a guide on melding the two.
From the man himself:
Whom do we thank for over two thousand years of scientific advancement? Aristotle and his translators. University founders. Museum builders. Field surveyors employed by governments. Did religious folks help? Of course.
These don't seem to go along at all with what you are saying, they support my position. The only part that is even close to what you and the OP are saying is when he called all of the "what if" questions "silly." If he means they are silly in the sense that he easily proved them wrong then you are correct. If he means they are silly because all such "what if" questions are silly, then you are wrong. I don't see why anyone would waste time trying to publicly disprove "silly" questions so I assume the later interpretation.
Did you actually read the article or did you just skim it for quotes to knee jerk react to?
It seems you think it was reading religious texts and allowing God to work through them? Not actually excavations, logical thinking and their daring to challenge the status quo?
Who are you even talking about? Where in the article did it state or even imply that their scientific explorations were due to them being religious? The entire point of his article is that it is possible for a religious person to also be scientific in some regards. Not that religion causes people to be scientific.
Yeah, that's really depressing to know that someone can have a doctorate from Yale and Harvard and cling to this idea that science owes its existence to religion
He didn't say give credit of the existence of science to religion. He was obviously talking about giving credit to religious people for the scientific contributions they made. Seriously, stop reading into things and assuming so much. You don't have to agree with what he said but if you are going to disagree at least disagree with what he said.