Confessions of an 'as if' believer of religion

[rug]

By Ron Grossman
May 17, 2016

After decades of alternately wrestling with the question and avoiding it, I've figured out my religious denomination. Should a census taker or hospital social worker ask, I'd reply: "as if."

That's shorthand for: "In certain situations I behave as if I were a believer."

That may sound less like a profession of faith than a scientific formula. But that's what I am: a man of science. I love to read books on nuclear physics and astronomy, even if I get lost in the math. I immediately toss on the discard pile review copies with dust jackets claiming God spoke to the author.

I have a college buddy, a physicist who headed the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Germany. Whenever we are together I ask him: "Why didn't the Big Bang occur 15 minutes earlier?" I'm absorbed by the question. I've never felt an urge to ask a rabbi, priest or minister a parallel question: "Why didn't God create the world in five days?"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-religion-grossman-20160517-story.html

[DetlefK]

1. "Why not 5 days?" Because 7 was a number of major occult significance in ancient Middle-East.

7 visible "planets": Sol, Mercury, Venus, Luna, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn

That's why 7 is a holy number. Because astrology. The Jews adopted the "7" from older cultures.

[rug]

2. He asks another question further down.

Had I strictly behaved as a nonbeliever when my parents died, I should have called upon a physicist to preside at graveside services. He could explain that, according to the second law of thermodynamics, things inexorably go from an orderly to a disordered state. Ergo death is a natural part of life.

Yet entropy wasn't on my mind. "Why" was. I was desperate to know why I'd been robbed of my loved ones.

What's your answer?

[safeinOhio]

3. The Gospel According to Safe is

very clear, "shit happens".

[rug]

6. That's as safe as it is incurious.

[DetlefK]

4. Sometimes there is no reason, no evil-doer, no miscreant you can pin responsibility on.

That's one of the big differences between science and religion.

Religion is based on the idea that if something happens, "people" are responsible: gods, spirits, daemons, angels... If something happens, you can trace it back to a person. And that person had a reason for doing that deed. This person's intention and will is what you are looking for, when you ask "why".

Science is based on the idea that laws of nature are responsible if something happens: There is no intention behind it. It's just the way things are.
This concept of "laws of nature" existed for example in Ancient Greece: The "demiourgos" was a godly craftsman who made the world in accordance with the rules other gods had set out.
In the 13th century, the philosopher Ramon Llull made this notion very popular among european scholars. He postulated that God had created laws of nature by which the world works independently from his will. This notion of "laws of nature" became one of the founding-principles of science many centuries later. And in the 19th century, science moved towards materialism and further and further away from the notion that God created the laws of nature.



In terms of science, there is no real "why", because it's just some uncaring rule: It's neither good nor bad, nor does it have an intention.
There is nobody to blame, nobody to beg to, nobody to be mad at.

So, ultimately "Why did my parents have to die?" is a question outside of the philosophical scope of science. Science could give an answer, but it would be a generic "Bad luck and shit happens."
Because science essentially deals with "how", not with "why".

[rug]

5. So, if in terms of science, "It's neither good nor bad", does something else determine that?

Or do neither good nor bad exist?

[DetlefK]

7. What is good? What is bad?

A lion eats a gazelle. This is good for the lion and bad for the gazelle.

Somebody gets taken hostage and released for ransom. Good for the kidnapper, bad for the captive.



Simulations of biosystems have shown that the amount of ressources determines what a species decides is a good age for dying of old age: If ressources are scarce, old people are only taking precious ressources from young people. Simulated organisms in an environment with scarce ressources developed shorter life-spans over the course of several generations.

An old person dies. We not only lost someone of emotional value, we also lost someone whose experience can make life better for everybody. Which is bad. At the same time, the death frees ressources for future generations. Which is good.



I'm not trying to make a point how there is good and bad in everything. I'm trying to make a point that good and bad depend on the point of view.



The same can be said about morals. What are the morals we should follow?
Is it moral to spend a fraction of every seventh day sitting in a special house? Is it moral to demand that women wear a certain kind of clothing? Is it moral to rule out capital punishment?

Such things, good, bad, morals, they vary from person to person and from situation to situation. Science deals with scenarios that can be repeated over and over again and generalized, not with unique events.

Good, bad and morals are another example for things that are simply outside of the philosophical scope of science. These concepts do not exist in the philosophical framework of science, so science cannot deliver a meaningfull opinion on them.

[rug]

8. I agree with your last sentence.

These concepts do not exist in the philosophical framework of science, so science cannot deliver a meaningfull opinion on them.

It is, consequently, a tool only and not the basis on which to form a view of life.

[DetlefK]

15. Science is ultimately just a method of gaining information. Not a world-view.

The scientific method has a fantastic track-record of success when it comes to gaining knowledge:
Theory, hypothesis, experiment, comparison, conclusion, repeat.

However, the scientific method does not deal with the question what we do or should do with the knowledge.

For example, the world-view of materialism arose from knowledge gained with science, not from science itself. Atheism gets bolstered by knowledge gained with science, but the scientific method itself in no way connects to atheism. (The earliest "real" scientists, in the 17th century, were in fact devout Christians. As were the proto-scientists of the Renaissance.)

[rug]

22. No argument here.

[stone space]

9. That's an assumption presented without evidence.

Somebody gets taken hostage and released for ransom. Good for the kidnapper, bad for the captive.

I've seen no evidence that kidnapping is good for the kidnapper, nor for those kidnapped.

At best, kidnappers have a false belief that kidnapping is in their own interests, and in the interests of their societies, just as those who engage in other forms of violence labor under similar false beliefs.

[DetlefK]

10. The kidnapper gets money, which is good, and the captive gets put into danger, which is bad.

[stone space]

11. Too simplistic of an analysis of kidnapping in today's society.

The kidnapper gets money, which is good, and the captive gets put into danger, which is bad.

And an analysis that wouldn't pass muster in either religion nor science.

It's main virtue is that it would fit on a bumper sticker.

[DetlefK]

12. Ooooooh! You want a complete socio-economic analysis of a generic scenario happening in a void?

Have you ever thought about the bad things resulting from this guy being released?

He returns as a mental wrack.

Maybe his marriage suffers.

Maybe the trauma turns him into an alcoholic.

Maybe he becomes a bad father.

Maybe he traumatizes his kids.

And what about the unwanted media-attention?

How will his neighbours deal with journalists showing up at his doorstep?

His neighbour invites the woman he loves over to his place, but she sees the journalists and hears the story and subconsciously gets the impression that he lives in an unsafe neighbourhood. She turns him down.

The neighbour meets another girl and they become a happy couple.

But now that other girls day-to-day life is different. She doesn't trip over and doesn't cause a jam on a walk-way, meaning that yet ANOTHER guy won't miss his subway. With horrifying consequences for that yet other guy...




How many more details do you want?

[stone space]

13. Do you ever consider the possibility that those considering the violence...

Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 07:41 AM - Edit history (2)

...of kidnapping might be wrong in their moral, political, psychological, and sociological calculations?

That it might not be as beneficial to them or to their societies as they believe?

And that a deeper analysis than "they got the money, and that's good" might lead them in other directions?



That the decision to turn to kidnapping, or to turn away from kidnapping, is not quite as simple as you seem to believe it is?

Well, perhaps you haven't, but others have.

Colombian Guerrilla Group Requests Audience With Pope Francis

Representatives of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) have requested to meet with Pope Francis during his visit to Cuba in September.



By Junno Arocho Esteves

Representatives of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) have requested to meet with Pope Francis during his visit to Cuba in September.

Peace talks between FARC and the Colombian government have been taking place in Havana, Cuba, since 2012. The request for a meeting with the Holy Father was made to the Episcopal Conference of Colombia by Antonio Lozada, one of the negotiators representing the guerrilla group.

Lozada also requested that a delegate from the Holy See to be present during the negotiations. “We want to study the possibility of a meeting (with the Pope), but we know it’s something the Vatican and the Cuban Government must study,” Lozada said in a statement.

“We are proposing that there also be a delegate of Pope Francis in the negotiations, although we know that it is something that both parties must request.”

A delegation from the Episcopal Conference of Colombia, led by its president, Archbishop Luis A. Castro Quiroga, met with representatives of FARC to assist in the peace negotiations. According to Italian Catholic news blog, Il Sismografo, the meeting between the bishops and the guerrilla group lasted for roughly two hours.

In a press conference following the meeting, Archbishop Quiroga said that a meeting between the Pope and the FARC representatives is a possibility.

“It is something that depends on the government and the Church of Cuba, therefore it is not our decision whether they can meet, but it is a possibility that might be done,” the Colombian prelate told the press.

The conflict in Colombia, which has spanned almost 50 years between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Colombian government, has left an estimated 220,000 dead, over 25,000 missing and 30,000 people kidnapped.

For his part, Pope Francis has expressed his hope that the negotiations can finally lead to peace in the country.

In a message sent earlier this month to participants of the 18th Meeting of the Ordinary Jurisdiction on “Transitional Justice, Peace and Post-Conflict” in Cartagena, the Holy Father said that the peace process requires “courage and creatitvity.”

The statement, which was sent on the Pope’s behalf by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, assured Pope Francis’ prayers for those contributing to the peace process "so that, in the framework of institutionalism, they will contribute with courage and creativity to identify solutions that reinforce peace and justice, in respect of the national and international juridical order."

http://vaticannewsagency.com/m/article/705-colombian-guerrilla-group-requests-audience-with-pope-francis

[DetlefK]

14. Example? (And let's get back on topic.)

Scenario: Kidnapper kidnaps somebody. Kidnapper releases somebody for ransom.

What are the downsides for the kidnapper in THIS situation?


And you can make any scenario arbitrarily convoluted by adding more and more consequences.
Scenario: The lion ate a gazelle that was especially fertile and would have provided much more food in the long term. -> Eating is bad.



But let's get back to the original topic of good and evil:
You said "moral, political, psychological, and sociological calculations".
Is that how we should define good and evil? With utilitarianism?
It provides a stable political system, so it must be good? E.g. totalitarian dictatorship?
It makes lots of people happy, so it must be good? E.g. drugs?
It's good for society at large, so it must be good in general? E.g. sacrificing few for the good of the many?

[stone space]

16. The 30,000 examples in my previous post weren't enough?

Example? (And let's get back on topic.)

How many more examples do you need?

[DetlefK]

17. As I said: It's just a matter how convoluted and big you define your system.

How exactly are those kidnappings bad for the kidnappers?

If criminals were worse off after committing a crime, why would there by any repeat offenders?
If you make the system small, crime pays.
Make the system bigger and bigger and give it feedback-loops back to the kidnapper, and you can eventually come up with a reason why the kidnapping affected the kidnapper negatively.

[stone space]

18. I call the system in which I live "the real world".

As I said: It's just a matter how convoluted and big you define your system.

Except when I'm doing mathematics.

Then it's just a figment of my imagination, guided by the previous flights of fancy of those mathematicians who came before me.



And I assume that the kidnappers and those who are kidnapped live in that same real world, as well, except perhaps when they are doing mathematics, should they be so inclined.

Which system did you have in mind?

[DetlefK]

19. For the third time: Do you have an actual example or not?

You claim that a kidnapper is worse off because he kidnapped somebody and got ransom in return.
In which ways is he worse off?


I'm not talking about whether the people who got kidnapped are worse off: You are claiming that the kidnapper is worse off.

[stone space]

20. You made the claim, not me. And I provided 30,000 examples for you.

For the third time: Do you have an actual example or not?

You claim that a kidnapper is worse off because he kidnapped somebody and got ransom in return.
In which ways is he worse off?

The burden of proof is on you to defend your claim in the face of reality.

Many have chosen the path of violence and kidnapping, presumably based on a more profound analysis than the bumper sticker science which you offer here in this thread, and sometimes they seek greater wisdom from various sources when contemplating leaving that same path.

Your simplistic analysis offers nothing for those who have chosen the path of kidnapping in the past, and who are involved in kidnapping in the present, but who are contemplating a change in that path for the future.

[DetlefK]

21. Quote from Post #13:

Do you ever consider the possibility that those considering the violence...

...of kidnapping might be wrong in their moral, political, psychological, and sociological calculations?

That it might not be as beneficial to them or to their societies as they believe?

And that a deeper analysis than "they got the money, and that's good" might lead them in other directions?



That the decision to turn to kidnapping, or to turn away from kidnapping, is not quite as simple as you seem to believe it is?



You said, that a deeper analysis of their deed would show the kidnappers that kidnapping is wrong for the kidnappers. However, you only provided examples how kidnapping is wrong for the captives.

[stone space]

23. Questions reguarding the scientific methodologies that you followed are not claims.

When you make claims in the name of "science", you should expect your claims to be questioned, as the burden of proof for your claims (especially when made in the name of "science"!) is on you.

You said, that a deeper analysis of their deed would show the kidnappers that kidnapping is wrong for the kidnappers.

Where?

Would you please quote that claim?

However, you only provided examples how kidnapping is wrong for the captives.

I provided 30,000 examples, and left it to you to defend your claim regarding those examples.

You are now explicitly making a claim about each of the 30,000 examples that I provided to you.

Do you have evidence to back up those 30,000 claims?

Does the fact that some of those behind many of the 30,000 kidnappings that you are making claims about here are themselves searching for an alternate path make you question your claims?

If even the kidnappers themselves aren't buying your so-called "scientific" claims unquestionably, then why should we?

[DetlefK]

24. I'm getting really confused. Are you serious or is this some elaborate joke?

1.
Direct quote of yours, from your post #13:
That it might not be as beneficial to them or to their societies as they believe?

And that a deeper analysis than "they got the money, and that's good" might lead them in other directions?

If that is not a claim that a deeper analysis would show the kidnappers that they are worse off because of kidnapping, then what do these sentences of your's mean???


Direct quote of yours, from your post #9:
I've seen no evidence that kidnapping is good for the kidnapper, nor for those kidnapped. At best, kidnappers have a false belief that kidnapping is in their own interests...

You are here, claiming in your own words, that kidnappers have the false belief that kidnapping is good for them.


2.
You provided 30,000 examples how kidnapping is bad for the kidnapped. The kidnappers are nowhere mentioned. And if I recall correctly, we are arguing about the kidnappers.


3.
You are using the thoughts of the kidnappers responsible for those 30,000 kidnappings in Colombia to attack my point?
How do you know what they are thinking?


4.
Are you challenging me to prove that the 30,000 people YOU brought up as victims of kidnappings are worse off?






So, for the fourth and last time:
Do you have any evidence to support the claims you made in posts #9 and #13?
If you do not provide evidence for your claims in posts #9 and #13, I will not respond to any further posts of yours in this thread.