Sonmi-451 on Knowledge, Death and Life

Søren Kierkegaard on the Religious Problem

Søren Kierkegaard on the Existential Problem

Science and Islam (3) Universality

[2:54:15]

Nature's rules are refreshingly free of human prejudice.

That's something the scientists of the medieval Islamic world understood and articulated so well...

These scientists' quest for truth, wherever it came from, was summed up by the 9th century philosopher Al-Kindi, who said:

It is fitting for us not to be ashamed of acknowledging truth and to assimilate it from whatever source it comes to us. There is nothing of higher value than truth itself. It never cheapens, or have bases, he who seeks.

One moral emerges from this epic tale of the rise and fall of science in the Islamic world between the 9th and 15th centuries, and that is that science is the universal language of the human race.

Decimal numbers are just as useful in India as they are in Spain. Star charts drawn up in Iran speak volumes to astronomers in Northern Europe. And Newton's "Principia" is just as true in Arabic as it is in Latin or English.

What medieval Islamic scientists realized, and articulated so brilliantly, is that science is the common language of the human race. Man-made laws may vary from place to place, but nature's laws are true for all of us.

~Jim Al-Khalili
Professor of Theoretical Physics
University of Surrey
 

Science and Islam (2) Methodology

[1:54:45]

"On my journey so far, I've been overwhelmed by the sheer intellectual ambition of medieval Islamic scientists. When their leaders asked them to find out the size of the world, scholars like Al-Biruni used mathematics in startling new ways to reach out to describe the universe. And as trade and commerce boomed, scientists like Al-Razi responded by developing a new kind of experimental science - chemistry. But if there's one Islamic scientist we should remember above all others, it is, in my view, Ibn Al-Haitham, for doing so much to create what we now call the scientific method.

The scientific method is, I believe, the single most important idea the human race has ever come up with. There is no other strategy that tells us how to find out how the universe works and what our place in it is. Of course it has also delivered technologies that have transformed our lives. So the next time you jet off on holiday, or use your mobile phone, or get vaccinated against a deadly disease, remember Ibn Al-Haitham, Ibn Sina, Al-Biruni, and countless other Islamic scholars a thousand years ago, who struggled to make sense of the universe, using crude mirrors and astrolabes. They didn't get all the right answers, but they did teach us how to ask the right questions."

~Jim Al-Khalili
Professor of Theoretical Physics
University of Surrey
 

Science and Islam (1) Transcendence

[56:30]

I believe that the first great achievement of the medieval Islamic scientists was to prove that science isn't Islamic, or Hindu, or Hellenistic, or Jewish, Buddhist, or Christian. It cannot be claimed by any one culture. Before Islam, science was spread across the world. But the scholars of medieval Islam pieced together this giant scientific jigsaw by absorbing knowledge that had originated far beyond their own empire's borders. This great synthesis produced not just new science, but showed for the first time that science as an enterprise transcends political orders and religious affiliations. It's a body of knowledge that benefits all humans. Now that's an idea that's as relevant and as inspiring as ever!

~Jim Al-Khalili
Professor of Theoretical Physics
University of Surrey
 

Atheism Community Weighs In (3)

(image credit)

What is rhetoric?

Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.  As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the European tradition. Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion."

Reference: Rhetoric.

: language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable

: the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people

Reference: rhetoric.

The above image is powerful rhetoric, and it accounts for both the learned (academic) and the layperson (common) meanings of the word. The above image is also dangerous rhetoric, in that it grossly simplifies a crowning but complex achievement of humankind as well as a tragic but no less complex event in human history. 

Even if we are to acknowledge science as pivotal, even tectonic in reaching the moon, science is merely the enabler in this case.  Instead, it is more about human ingenuity, inspiration and persistence.  Similarly, even if we are to acknowledge religion as the calling card for the September 11th attacks, some fanatic people bent on destruction were actually the drivers of that tragedy.
 

Atheism Community Weighs In (2)

(image credit)

In the Google+ Atheism community, Michael Meridius asks the following:

What's #God? 

Here is the interview of Neil deGrasse Tyson, in which he articulates the context for the quote above:

"If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for god, then god is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

After explaining that all of the physically understood matter accounts for only 4% of observed energy and gravitation in the universe, Neil Tyson is asked to reconcile the unexplained.

The God we invoke in an article or conversation is, whether we intend to or not, often a human construct.  In other words, we have an understanding of God that is inviolably human in nature, so to draw on Him to make an argument, or to refer to Him to rebut an argument, is to come back to that understanding.  Therefore, as science builds on our knowledge of the world around us, and the broader universe, that human construct is actually the ever-receding pocket of ignorance. 

So what is God? 

I'm not sure that anyone, from any discipline, school or belief, truly understands what God is.  However, I'd like to believe that that is part of the world and the universe we are in a collective effort to understand, even though we may disagree vehemently or argue pointedly.  In saying this, I emphasize that we as people are part and parcel of that world and universe, so I also hope that we are in a collective effort to understand, that is, to empathize, each other's perspectives, beliefs and arguments.  We have the sciences as well as the arts and, yes, even the religions at our disposal for such empathic understanding.
 

Atheism Community Weighs In (1)

(image credit)

Michael Meridius posted the following note in the Google+ Atheism community:

I don't need saving, servitude or reward. I'm naturally empathic. 

I commented:

Whether we call it religion or psychology, morals or ethics, or whatever else, we have the privilege of choice and the responsibility not to judge.
  

On being where we are supposed to be

(image credit)

I believe this: Though I may be not so clear at the moment about the purpose for why I am where I am, I trust that that clarity will come in time.

Note: This post is an example of the range of subjects that fall under the rubric of the Tripartite Model (TM) | Religion, that is, philosophical, humanistic and fateful matters.
 

John Donne on our Boundedness

(image credit)

On occasion I hear others say No man is an island.  By and large, they reference the phrase properly, that is, consistently with what John Donne meant.  But I often wonder how much they know of his more elaborated meditation on this matter: namely, that all life and matter are inviolably and intricately bound up.  Ernest Hemingway drew on For Whom the Bell Tolls, as the title of his 1940 novel.  Donne speaks profoundly to how a part of each of us dies, whenever anyone or anything is lost.  So anytime we hear that death knell, it is for us indeed.

Note: This post is an example of the range of subjects that fall under the rubric of the Tripartite Model (TM) | Religion, that is, philosophical, humanistic and fateful matters.
 

Dalai Lama on our Quandaries

(image credit)

I'd like to believe that the Dalai Lama speaks only to a segment of humankind, which fall into a quandary about how to live life. How big this segment is, I don't know. But I'd also like to imagine that there are many who earn a living, and live reasonably happy, healthy lives and who worry about the future but aren't paralyzed into an empty, meaningless life.

Note: This post is an example of the range of subjects that fall under the rubric of the Tripartite Model (TM) | Religion, that is, philosophical, humanistic and fateful matters.

Religion as a Moral Frame of Reference

(image credit)

For one, if someone cannot determine right from wrong, he or she needs education, guidance and encouragement.  Indeed empathy, as a crucial aspect of Emotional Intelligence, also helps us do the right thing by prompting us to step back, reflect on what is going on, and put ourselves in others' shoes.  But these provisions - education, guidance, encouragement and empathy - can be housed in any frame of reference or place of learning, for example, school, sports and workplace.  So this quote is quite correct, we don't quite need religion per se, which I interpret as religion is not our only option.  However, and this is an important however, some people do need religion for such moral reference and learning and religion works perfectly for them.  While this quote may have an undertone of derision vis-a-vis religion, I believe we have to guard against such an undertone.  Millions of people around the world turn to their religion as their saving grace, guidance and protection, and they deserve acknowledgment and respect.

Ten Commandments à la George Carlin

This is intelligent, persuasive comedy. In this context, it makes sense to consolidate the Ten Commandments. 

The Ten Commandments do seem to have a very pragmatic, crucial purpose, that is, to manage and control behavior.  Bad behavior, which can plunge us into chaos, death and sin, is the very thing that Moses was called upon to prevent.  Sadly such precepts, or rules, if you will, haven't completely prevented such bad behavior.  It is in this frame of reference that George Carlin singles out Thou shalt not kill as something that some people have made a terrible, horrific mockery of.  Regardless of faith, it seems that some groups and nations have fought wars in the name of God.  The very fact that this happens makes the commandment all the more important to remind ourselves of and strictly to abide by. 

Quandaries of Religion à la George Carlin

I believe in God, but who that being is exactly, I'm not so sure, yet.  We as humankind created religion, which I don't necessarily equate with God, even though people of various faiths may equate the two as fundamentally the same.  We are an imperfect lot, capable of the best charity toward one another and apparently of horrific deeds on each other, too.  So in this context, the religion we create is necessarily flawed and contradictory, and as George Carlin works it, subject to criticism, comedy and debate.

More specifically, I argue that religion, or religions, are our explanatory models for the supreme complexity that is God.  We don't have limitless capacity for understanding, as our brains, even for the best and smartest of us, simply cannot grasp everything.  We can grasp a lot, and come to understand what God is all about, but then our knowledge has frank boundaries to it.  So we create religion to house that knowledge, and not just knowledge, but also our musings and queries as well as our fears and doubts.

I believe God is perfect, but why, Carlin basically asks, is there disaster, catastrophe and other bad things?  Why does there seem to be flaws in God's stewardship of Earth and humankind?  A comment on YouTube points out that there is Satan, too, who is the one responsible for all these bad things.  But then I wonder how can there be Satan, if God is also omnipotent.  I'd like to believe that such things as disease, famine and poverty, conflict and war, killing and horror are part and parcel of God's purpose for humankind, that these are a test of some sort, and that it is all His Will.  Again, I'm not sure about these questions, so I need to keep reflecting on them, thinking about them, and trying to understand. 

In the end, though, Carlin is a brilliant comedian and a piercing critic of such things that we may hold near and dear.  The best thing about his act is how it prompts us to reflect, think, and try to understand.

Religion as Ongoing Explanatory Model

What Sam Harris is saying, I think, is that religion was our explanatory model for things that happened which we could not understand.  But as we evolved, gained more experience and knowledge, and built sophisticated tools, science became our go-to frame of reference.  To say that religion, now or then, is indicative of science failing to explain something is curious, however.  Scientific failure is a plausible enough way of putting it, but I prefer to acknowledge that science can carry us quite far, but only so far, beyond which other viable explanatory models must come it (rf. The Tripartite Model).  So science doesn't so much fail, as it meets its limits with certain phenomena and in certain contexts.

Harris' point about the wide diversity of religious belief, practice and terminology is a good caution not to pin religion down as meaning one, and only one, thing.  But he must be very careful not to suggest that Islam, in particular, is a religion of Holy Wars and of combat and death in certain contexts, which is the highest obligation for Muslims.  Islamic scholars and Muslim practitioners can speak to this much better than I can, but Islam is a religion of peace.  But like Christianity, people can commandeer the religion to justify a destructive or military purpose (rf. English kings who fought wars in the name of God). 

Religion for Understanding Beyond Physical

In keeping with my preceding article Religion is Crucial for Understanding People, let's look at more issues and insights on religion, especially as it is an integral area in The Tripartite Model.

Question: As a "bright," what do you believe?

James Randi: The term "bright" I don't much care for, but hey, we did the best we could with it. I was with Richard Dawkins in Clearwater, Florida and a few other people who brainstormed and came up with idea of having the "brights." I think I was maybe the third or fourth person to sign the membership roster. And a "bright" is someone who thinks logically and rationally; bases his or her decisions on rationality, upon logic, and upon evidence—that's the major thing right there. And if we don't have evidence, we can express our belief or lack of belief in it, but it has to be provisional. I believe that this is probably true, though I don't have any evidence for or against. It's a perfectly safe statement. And so, brights base all of their decisions and their beliefs on logic, rationality, and evidence. That's the thing in which they differ from the average person who takes anything that comes along that looks attractive. "Oh, I like that; I think I'll believe in it."

Question: As the scientific picture of the universe gets weirder, could any religious claims ever be verified?

James Randi: Not that I know. I am an atheist, tried and true. I have been since I was, oh I guess about this tall. I'm only about this tall now. And I made up my mind that I was going to investigate all of these things and question them. I went to Sunday school. I was tossed out of Sunday school immediately. But it gave me 25 cents that I could have put in the contribution plate there, so when they pass the plate around, and I found out that at Purdy's Drug Store, you could buy a two-flavored ice cream sundae for 25 cents. And that was a great discovery of my childhood, I must say, and I took full advantage of it.
My parents, bless them, never found out and I went off every Sunday morning as if going to Sunday school, but I lied. And I'm ashamed to admit it now, and if my dad and mom are up there someplace, or down there someplace, I have no idea, I ask them to forgive me.

What James Randi speaks to in the first part resonates quite well with my views à la Theory of Algorithms and The Tripartite Model.  It's about adopting a curious, questioning approach to knowing, grasping and solving things.  What is the evidence? is akin to my more epistemic phrasing How do we know what we know?  While some of us will do what Randi acknowledges, namely, believe wholesale what we run into, I encourage us to step back a bit, think it about some, and then believe or not believe accordingly.

In the second part, however, I beg to differ with Randi.  Investigating or questioning things doesn't necessarily make people an atheist, although evidently it is true for him.  The question of evidence and verification vis-a-vis religion is a complex one. Science is founded on empiricism, which is essentially about seeking to understand via our senses: sight, sound, scent, taste and touch.  If we can see it, hear it, or hold it in our hands somehow, then whatever it is, it is a real phenomenon.

But not everything about ourselves, the world around us, and the broader cosmos is material or tangible, and therefore to rely exclusively on an analytic frame of reference (i.e., science) and to seek truth mainly via evidence (i.e., empiricism) is necessarily to limit our knowledge and understanding.  If, on the other hand, we allow ourselves the notion of a different sort of evidence, that is, one beyond the material or the empirical, then we pave the way for verification.

Take the thoughtful, wonderful TV series `Joan of Arcadia.  Joan is a high schooler who, much to her consternation and confusion at first, finds that she can talk with God.  Cleverly, the writer brings God to her in the guise of everyday people she may encounter at school, in the streets, or at parties.  One time God was a cute fellow high schooler, and as they walked to the park, Joan demanded that he prove he truly was God by creating a miracle.  He pointed to a tree.  'That's just a tree' was her dismissive retort.  No one else can really make a tree was his comeback.

The scientific method is arguably the best way to grasp our physical, material world, but it falls short otherwise.  I haven't fully figured this out yet, but I argue that we have to rely on the religious method, such as faith, belief and miracle, to grasp and thus verify the non-physical and non-material.

Religion for Understanding People Better

Theory of Algorithms is a conceptual framework for knowing, understanding and solving things more effectively, and The Tripartite Model is a structured guide for doing these.  Religion is part of it all, as you see below.  It's a general term I use to encompass (a) any formal religion we may espouse across humankind and also (b) any endeavor having to do with spirituality, purpose and fate, belief and faith, philosophy, even metaphysics and transcendence.  While Science is about rational or analytic and Art about non-rational or intuitive, Religion is about meta-rational and spiritual.  Sometimes what we encounter is mysterious, inscrutable or miraculous: Religion helps us come to grips with these things. 

Not everyone is religious, spiritual or philosophic, of course, and some of us prefer to draw mainly on analytic or intuitive perspectives for knowing, understanding and solving things.  Some may even scoff outright at any notion of religion.  But I argue that to grasp ourselves, the world around us, and the broadest universe fully, we must draw on something like the Tripartite Model.  

That said, my articles this week look at issues and insights on religion.  Big Think is one of the best forums for a wide range of ideas and information, and while it's decidedly logical, rational and analytic in perspective, I am intrigued about how the broad area of science tackles religion.  I weigh in on such tackling.

Religion is really made by the brain, it's a secretion of the brain...  The brain creates religion, the brain consumes religion [i.e., neurologically].

There are 4200 religions in the world, each of them believing that they're absolutely correct and everyone should follow their views. No one has any evidence of the stories behind the religions.

We got interested in this massive unreality, which is in fact finally a real reality, namely, religion.

When my mother died last year, the priest and many in attendance at her funeral mass believed that she was now in the eternal life with God.  Privately I said to myself that none of us really know that.  But it was a very real belief in that Catholic church gathering, and it allayed the grief at losing my mother.  I very much allow for that possibility, that is, of the everlasting and the infinite, while wondering about, questioning and challenging how we come to believe what we believe, especially about the after-life. 

It makes sense, from a scientific viewpoint, that practicing religion is akin to going to a spa, getting a massage, or going for a walk, that is, in its effects on our brain.  While there are some wealthy people for whom luxury treatment is a sort of religion, I can hear devout practitioners taking umbrage at what Lionel Tiger relates.  But I agree with him:  Religion must've helped people at my mother's funeral come to grips with the thought of death, and it must've soothed them from that frightening specter. 

This brings me to some working arguments:

• God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and almighty, while religion is a human-made set of beliefs, practices and community, which are inevitably imperfect and limited.  
• How God fits into religion is a complex, intricate phenomenon, but the two are distinct and one doesn't necessarily require or imply the other.  
• At the same time, some people do equate God and religion as essentially the same:  To go to church, for example, is to follow God.

Much as some may scoff at religion, the fact that millions and millions of people around the world believe in it, practice it, and abide by it means, to Tiger's point, that this is no small or casual phenomena.  While some may say more bluntly that religion is a delusion, myth or farce, it is indeed a very real human reality.  It is no fantasy or fabrication that, again to Tiger's point, invests ungodly sums of money into religion, erects edifices of worship, and advances a strict edict of conduct.  It is indeed a real unreality and a real reality. 

So even if we have just a smattering of interest in truly understanding ourselves, each other, and our broader community across the world, then we cannot, I argue, dismiss religion in the way I position it in The Tripartite Model.  Some of us can certainly choose to dismiss religion, even after all these points, but they necessarily limit their understanding.