Discussion 3 to Meditation 717
You have not gone far enough
by: Paleface
To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This exchange of views has been continued.
In Meditation 717, you have hit on a very important point, but in my view have not gone far enough: “On the one side is a massive collection of dogma…” – well, yes, in practically all investigations[1] we start with plausible dogma as candidate for inclusion into the body of what we might eventually accept. Most of this dogma is not usually identified as such but it implicitly is there, Examples:
- “If in this neighborhood Nature behaves this way, it will behave the same way everywhere else in which the same circumstances apply”. This is dogma, we do not always know whether in some other (obviously) identical region of Nature things happen differently. But, if, so far, this is how things obviously work, why expect differences?, “Why should it be different in that case?” We believe in the essential uniformity of Nature.. dogma it is.
- “Circles are perfect, consequently heavenly bodies must move in circles”. That was dogma, it worked great for the measurements by the Aztecs and the Babylonians etc., (which were very good) and those by the astronomers at the time and much later. All over the World. Dogma it was… it ceased to be (and became “wrong”) when other curves, other orbits, were found to describe observations with less fudging. Galileo paid a price for noticing this, because the “new curves” were considered heretical.
My point is that there is nothing wrong with dogma as such – but with how far and how blindly it is supported.
What’s the opposite of dogma? Some call it ‘fact’. Fact being a loaded word let me use ‘observation’ instead. The reason of this switch is that what is fact for one could be assumption for another. When we rely on observation we have the advantage of records and repeatability. These records of course could be incomplete[2] but, if complete, they will include information about their own limitations, to what extent can one trust the values of what is presented as observations.
- My bank account report, say, gives me data only to the cent. I don’t think they would report a monthly interest of under half a cent. But, on longer term accounting it might be shown: if I earned 2.083452 cents in one year my monthly accountings might have shown nothing, but my yearly reporting should be “correct”. (Trust but verify anyhow.)
- My friend’s so-called vacation time could have been set at “5 years, 3 with good behavior”, again, a value (5 yr) plus info about how off (+0/-2 yr) the actual measured value could be. (I’m desperately trying to show that the concept of determinacy limitation is not exclusive to the sciences!)
So how does one “know the truth”. If it is a religious truth: just ask the proper authority. And try not to rock the boat. And don’t go any deeper.
If it is an actual truth you are seeking (Legal, botanical, architectural, chemical, you-name-it truth; not only a “scientific” one) then look at how that truth is discovered, or agreed upon, or accepted… (What observations or measurements were made is generally the best bet as a start) and with how much uncertainty.[3]
That seems to require that one must first earn a degree or two, or have a friendly shaman with connections. Fortunately there is a compromise: seek elementary explanations[4] on how this or that was found; if you are lucky, you may agree with the rationale and accept[5] them at least as “Oh yeah”s, or, if you are not lucky, you may postpone getting your satisfaction, but at least you may have gotten the name of someone who knows how and when the info was obtained. Nothing wrong with remaining ignorant of details.
You have five questions about what you call God’s behavior. I have only two to ask you:
- Who are you talking about?
- How do you know[6] that what you are reading has been written by somebody reliable and informed? .
“On the other side.”
Just a few discussible answers and rebounding questions.
- “…simple Evolution…” Nobody responsible is talking here of rigidly determined obvious steps. We are talking here about very slow changes, (not ‘trials’ nor ‘errors’, since there is no evidence of goals, achievements, desires, aims, etc. on anyone’s part.) We are talking here about “failures”, we are talking here about very humble beginnings and enormous numbers of blind alleys resulting, at best, in fossil records of dubious clarity – and possibly in nothing identifiable. But occasionally in changes in a non-damaging direction. Eyes did not pop up in the puppies of eyeless animals, but there are, in some animals and plants today, light sensitive organs which are not ‘eyes’ as we understand them[7]. “Normal” beings, as judged by the rest of their body… except that they are light sensitive. Sensitive perhaps to different ranges of wavelengths (colors) from what we are used to[8] calling ‘light’.
- “Love and compassion”. I am all for them, plus I believe that they provide “evolutionary” benefits. How could a pack, a herd, survive, if its members were to lack what we call “social behavior”?. So, Love and Compassion too are good candidates to be considered as “Positive Evolutionary Traits”
I am not sure that love and compassion are present in all members of all species, though I am admitting that there are questions here I have not yet thought through. How about humans? Are we, generally, that nice? How about guppies? They are born live from mama guppy, not hatched from eggs, and then must swim away as if chased by The Devil him/her self (oops, am I admitting the existence of yet another god? With gender?) Why is it convenient that they escape?, because… mama eats them if she can..!!.[9] Would you expect slow-swimming guppies to be able to have their own offspring later on?
- “Evolution requires” Again, who is doing the requiring?. Species evolve not because there are slots to fill but because there is garbage (pardonez moi) to throw out. (Like carnivores no longer able to roam empty plains or dinosaurs no longer having laxative grasses to munch on. OR polar bears with no polar ice available..!)
We can: a) choose to believe that there is some mechanism to support the effort to achieve goals mandated somehow somewhere
or b) we can just observe events happen, and rationally see if they fit or not our model of Nature. And alter our model(s) as needed.
- “..Blind evolution…lead to… greater species”. Is there any evidence of that? All we have observed is that some “mistakes” survive, and are repeated, while others don’t[10]. Given the current intellectual climate, as evidenced by our world-wide reductions in the support of education, health services, environment protection, &c., &c., we appear to be facing a non-promising future, as if we were bent on “evolving stupider and stupider”. Some of our ancestors had larger cranial volume than we do (which of course might be indicative of some sort of intellectual decay OR indicative of nothing relevant anyhow.) Is there evidence indicating mandated improvement of some sort?
- Religion, except of course when practiced for insidious motives, is a very important part of our selves: it gives hope and consolation when all reasonable alternatives are at best, bleak; it gives a varnish of morality to those whose actions are only controlled by the fear of (deserved) punishment. It has played important roles in history, some of them rather good roles actually.
I happen to believe (i.e., I act as if I knew this, but I don’t know) that the more we know about us (about how we behave, how/why we grow, what is the shape of the Universe, why is green such an important color, how to package food, how do electrons show up, how to behave in the highway…) the better chances are of our survival as a species; more than that, of us surviving and deserving to survive.
- Finally, accept that some stuff is yet unexplained.
About, your list of possibilities:
I will ask you to go easy on the “apathetic” question. I am not pushing militancy, but please keep an eye open for (modest small scale, gentle) opportunities to help society. If you find people you disagree with, find out why, they might have new insights. Be nice, by all means, but disagree openly, not in hiding.
Don’t expect others to be nice to you – you be nice. Why? Because you are, NOT because Item XXVII, Catch 22, in some sacred document says you should (the agnostic justification for being nice: “just because”) or because it is mandated (the religious reason for being nice). Be quietly militant and don’t expect others to follow you.
Reduce your ambivalence by demanding that ideas which you do not yet understand be made at least plausible to you. Understandable? That may be too much to ask right away for some concepts, but the purpose of this trip is the going, not the arriving. When given final answers – use them as source of new questions. Such as “And how is that known?”.
Religion gave birth to Science, compare them. And throw in a bit of the arts into the mix. You may find that elements of esthetics pop up as “serious” parameters more frequently in the sciences than in the religions., not just as oooh and aaaah provokers.
But if you are curious, investigate. (Only advice: if you want to investigate religions stick to the well established ones: the probability of misunderstandings, financial and others, should be less. Their answers might not be satisfactory, but surely better thought out.)
Happy hunting,
Paleface -/-
Footnotes:
- Consider both the religions and the sciences to be investigations, searches for verifiable truth, with different tools.
- Not only in the sciences: anybody recall anything about missing minutes in tape recordings of politically important conversations?
- If you have no idea how wrong you might be, you have no idea about how right you are…
- Wikipedia is a good place to start – but wear gloves and use caution.
- Under your responsibility
- ‘Know”, not “Believe”
- Get a grant for studying the cultivation of a strain of sunflowers that do not follow the Sun. Well, you might get it. Please sign me in as consultant…
- One of my fellow students could see infrared illumination. And he was not extraterrestrial or something…
- Even before they get to be teenagers! Talk about tough love. Check at a local pet shop.
- They call it “Survival of the fittest”. I prefer “Survival of the survivors” – great name for a mystery, isn’t it ?…