In an earlier thread, Howard introduced a new topic idea: " ... almost no one who uses the Internet has the faintest idea of the physics, engineering, manufacturing and programming skills that are essential for making it work. I mean, it’s a total mystery to most people. " I agreed and quoted what turned out to be one of Arthur C. Clarke's Laws:
Howard went on: "... this feeling of mystery (or ignorance) may account for the rise the distrust of science in general and the increase in accepting occult and supernatural beliefs. In other words, if technical devices appear to have an unknown cause, then any event can have an unknown cause."
I agree with Howard that technology is a mystery to most people using it, but I am not sure if he is right about a rise in the distrust of science or an increase in occult and supernatural beliefs. In fact, I am concerned the common folks place too much trust in science and, as a result, are losing their faith in the supernatural.
My reading of history is that irrational beliefs are central to the success of any society. If they get out of hand -OR- if they are extinguished by pure reason, disaster follows. As always, the "happy medium" is the path to success.
The scientific method is a totally rational ideal that is largely responsible for modern civilization. However necessary, it is by no means sufficient. We still need belief in supernatural magic and other things not literally true to make progress work.
Another of Clarke's laws states:
Indeed, we must creatively imagine we believe in the impossible to assure progress in extending the limits of science and technology. Howard agrees to a point: "An essential part of the scientific method is entirely rational, but another essential part is creative imagination often using irrational analogies and metaphors. Also, for physicists the natural world is super enough so that the religious supernatural appears quite dull."
We need to appreciate another of Clarke's laws:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
I, and most of the other active members of this Blog may be characterized, in the words of this law, as "distinguished but elderly scientists". We need to be wary of declaring anything impossible!
On the other hand, according to Isaac Asimov's corollary to Clarke's law:
"When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right."
PS: The photograph is of The_Turk, a 1770's chess playing machine. It turned out to be a hoax - a skilled human chess player was hidden inside the device. Today, however, you can buy a chess program that will run on your PC and beat everyone but a chess master. Larger computers are well-matched with human chess masters and, in the forseeable future, the world chess champion will be a computer.
Thanks Ira, for starting up this new post based upon Howard's comment. It is an area of some concern to me; the general ignorance of scientific fundamentals and the rise of magical beliefs. In my limited experience at the University of Hawaii and with public high school students, the requirements for science education are too low. The result is a population of young people too ready to accept magicians. I say magicians, because there is probably no harm in a belief in magic per se. It is the magician who is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI'm very entertained when I read or see science fiction or magical fantasy. I love films about Santa Claus, wizards and about other magicians. I don't know exactly why. It may have something to do with wishful thinking. However, there are many in our society who are believers in some dangerous version of magical myths. The modern incarnation of most religions have no magicians, but there are suicidal extremes like David Koresh.
If you look up Gaia or New Age on the internet, you will find various leaders who represent themselves as mediums for supernatural beings who are ready and willing to give advice to people at the séance. By definition, the medium is a fraud and one is never sure what his or her motivation may be.
One of my concerns is that scientists may be in part responsible for magical beliefs. You and I know in what strict sense we say that nothing in science is absolutely provable. Others are quick to jump on this to say that scientists know nothing of the world. Scientists seeking media attention are also too quick to get involved in political causes that make people doubt their reliability. Anthropologist Stephen Jay Gould is a good example, both for his self-serving criticisms of Darwin and his opposition to valid research based upon political correctness. Prof. Dawkins is another example of political activism in the name of science thereby casting doubt on the neutrality of science. It's ironic that both Gould and Dawkins were belittled by the infamous television cartoon series "South Park." Appearance on "South Park" is a definite sign that a scientist may have himself too much of a public figure. With respect -Joel
Oh, my God, it's another "Chinese Room." I was constructing a reply to Ira's comment concerning Clarke's third law. Ira said, " Clarke does not say it is magic, just that it is indistinguishable from magic. " My response was to be, "That's not the case. Magic is distinguishable from high technology by the presense of a magician." Then I tried to construct a rebuttal to my argument as I usually do and found myself in the quasi Chinese Room.
ReplyDeleteSuppose there is a manual for a high tech device that must be read in order to operate the machine. Let's have the words inscribed in gold for good measure. Suppose that in a sealed room there is a speech recognition computer that requires that a password be recited in order for a technology to perform its wonders. The reader of the password doesn't need to have any special powers (i.e., be a magician) but the incantation itself is sufficient to accomplish the task (as it is in the case of Mickey Mouse in Sorcerer's Apprentice). To an outside observer the password and the room appear to be magical. Therefore, Clarke appears to be right if we change his law to say "can be made to appear magical" rather the rather too strong "indistinguishable."
I bring this up because an argument anti-science people often say that scientists call anything they don't understand supernatural. Scientists are just linear thinkers who are too rigid to investigate the extraordinary phenomena that exist such as communication with the dead.
As a physicist who believes that nature is probabilistic, the existence of miracles is a metaphysical question beyond any decision procedure or empirical test. I would say a miracle has to be a very rare event, because if an event occurs with any regularity, then it must be incorporated into natural laws. (The question of whether natural laws are God’s will is irrelevant for this argument.) In a probabilistic universe any rare event can occur. That is, you cannot exclude the possibility of a rare event, and if it is not repeatable it is not a test of any theory. Also we know our theories of natural laws are far from complete. For example, how would we tell if the big bang was a miracle or just the course of natural laws?
ReplyDeleteHoward said:
ReplyDeleteI would say a miracle has to be a very rare event, because if an event occurs with any regularity, then it must be incorporated into natural laws. (The question of whether natural laws are God’s will is irrelevant for this argument.) In a probabilistic universe any rare event can occur. That is, you cannot exclude the possibility of a rare event, and if it is not repeatable it is not a test of any theory.
Joel responds:
The definition of a miracle is up there with the definition of magic and supernatural in terms of its difficulty. If we follow Howard's probabilistic universe reasoning, miracles happen all the time. We just aren't aware of them. According to the laws of probability as expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is highly likely that an ice cube thrown into Niagara Falls will go over the falls and that it's gravitational potential energy will be converted to thermal energy. No miracle here. However, it is possible, with no violation of the First Law, for a blob of water at the bottom to jump up the falls and turn into an ice cube. This would violate the Second Law, but that law is based upon probability not certainty. If a crowd of tourists happened to be watching the falls when the blob of water turned into an ice cube as it shot up the falls, they would call it a miracle. Would we (we scientists and philosophers)?
If we had witnesses' statistics about how often this rare and random event occurred, we could test that against the thermodynamic probability as predicted by the change in entropy. If the measured frequency of occurrence matched the prediction, we would say that the phenomenon followed the natural laws of the universe. Hence, this "miracle" would not be supernatural. I think we have a problem here. If the event was rare, but happened significantly more often or more seldom than predicted by the thermodynamic probability, it would be supernatural. Hmmm. A probabilistic world is not lawless. The probabilities themselves need to be consistent with statistical thermo and the Schrödinger Equation.
Some people call sunrises a miracle. They're certainly not rare. Some people use the phrase "the miracle of birth." Here again, not rare. I have no trouble consigning these to poetic use of the word miracle, but everyone might not accept this. The wide variety of definitions for the word "miracle" found in internet dictionaries seems to support this. I think we need another ingredient. Otherwise, "rare" turns out to be a cop-out which is defined as that which happens when an event has a probability, but happens so seldom that a scientist can't be bothered checking the probability experimentally. By that measure, a tossed coin landing on its edge is a miracle.
Joel said, “If we follow Howard's probabilistic universe reasoning, miracles happen all the time. We just aren't aware of them.”
ReplyDeleteI did not make my point clearly. I think in all cases, including Joel's, miracles are a matter of faith (or definition), not science.
My point was that any rare probabilistic event that is not repeatable under similar conditions is excluded from any scientific conclusion as to whether it is natural or miraculous. Consequently one may believe either that it is simply a rare natural event, or that it is God intervening in nature. In either case it is a matter of opinion, definition, or faith, not science.
Let's shed some light on the facinating discussion between Howard and Joel on the relationship between probabalistically "rare" events and "miracles".
ReplyDeleteA "miracle" is something both rare and beneficial, such as the Red Sea opening to let Moses cross safely and subsequently closing to drown the pursuing Egyptians. There are naturalistic explanations: 1) The story is totally fictional, 2) The story is true but can be explained by Moses's knowledge of tides and the effect of winds and so on, allowing him to flee when he knew the sea would be low, or 3) It was a total coincidence that the tides and wind happened to occur just when they would be most beneficial for Moses and disasterous for the Egyptians.
If explanation (3) happens to be the case, even Moses himself would believe it to be a true miracle!
OK, with that example in our heads, let us analyze a more mundane case.
Say I ask you to take a coin from your pocket and toss it ten times and I predict it will show a particular sequence of heads and tails. If I am right (one chance in 2^10 or 1024) we might both call it a "miracle" since it was a rare event and I predicted it perfectly.
Let's do the experiment a bit differently. Instead of a physical coin, let us use a computer program to toss the coin. Assume the program meets all statistical tests of "randomness". As you all know, a digital computer is totally deterministic. If the "random" coin tossing program is initialized with the same "seed" each time it is run, the "random" sequence of heads and tails will be exactly the same. Thus, if I have run the program before and recorded the data, I will be able to predict the exact sequence!
So, here we have a rare probabilitstic event (my exact predictions of a statistically rare sequence) that is repeatable. Yet, it is not a miracle at all!
As Howard knows, I believe the Universe is finite and discrete in time, space, energy, and mass, and thus totally deterministic. Thus, given knowledge of the initial conditions and all the Laws of Nature, a super-computer could have predicted exactly when Moses and his followers would exit Egypt and that the Red Sea would be low due to tides and winds when he did so.
Einstein said: "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world," implying that even God (i.e., the Universe) is bound by determinism. Einstein echos his hero Spinoza: "In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things are determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and act in a certain manner."
Thus, the miracle of the Red Sea, a rare but possible probabilistic event, was bound to happen!
Ira Glickstein
Getting back to the original Topic, Howard observed that the enginering behind the Internet was a total mystery to most people, leading them to more readily accept the supernatural because, "if technical devices appear to have an unknown cause, then any event can have an unknown cause."
ReplyDeleteThe reason modern technology is mysterious to most people is that it is so advanced. The patents of the last centuries, such as the cotton gin (1793) and safety pin (1849), and even of the telegraph (also 1849) were simple enough to be fully understood by anyone with a basic education. Not so most more modern technology patents! To that extent, I agree with Howard.
However, virtually everyone in the US who uses the Internet (or cell phones, or PCs, etc.) knows they are firmy based in science and technology. They may not understand the innards of these devices, but they know they are the result of human invention and design and in no way supernatural.
I do not believe there has been an actual increased acceptance of occult and supernatural beliefs in recent decades. Quite the contrary. What evidence does anyone have for an increase?
Ira Glickstein
While looking for statistics on an increase or decrease in supernatural beliefs, I found a surprising set of statistics:
ReplyDeleteAs expected, more Republicans than Democrats say they believe in God (93% to 81%) and Heaven (82% to 73%) and so on ...
but,
MORE DEMOCRATS than Republicans say they believe in REINCARNATION (22% to 18%) and UFOs (37% to 28%) and MIRACLES (78% to 76%) !!!
I also find it interesting that a clear majority of Democrats say they believe in God, miracles, survival of the soul after death, heaven, Jesus as God and His virgin birth and resurrection, angels, the devil, and hell!
Ira Glickstein
I find Ira’s statistics that show a large majority believing in the supernatural rather depressing.
ReplyDeleteIra said earlier, “I am concerned the common folks place too much trust in science and, as a result, are losing their faith in the supernatural. My reading of history is that irrational beliefs are central to the success of any society.”
Ira, maybe you are partly right, but I don’t see any evidence for it.. I’ll try to partly disagree with you by asking a question. What do you mean by “supernatural” and “success” in the above statements? If by supernatural you mean miraculous events that violate natural laws, why should I have faith in them? On the other hand, if an event does not violate natural laws why should I assume it is supernatural?
My reading of most of history is that societies are indeed based on irrational beliefs, but none of them has had any permanent success because they usually dissipate their resources by going to war with societies with different irrational beliefs.
It is amazing that two such intelligent, honest, well-educated, and basically "good guys" like you and me can agree on the facts while interpreting them so differently!
ReplyDeleteWe agree (in your words) that:
1) "most of history is that societies are indeed based on irrational beliefs"
2) "[societies] usually dissipate their resources by going to war with societies with different irrational beliefs"
In my words:
3) "My reading of history is that irrational [supernatural] beliefs are central to the success of any society."
You ask, "What do you mean by 'supernatural' and 'success' in the above statements?"
By "supernatural" I mean things and events that would violate natural law if they actually existed and happened. In reality, they did not, but, people in successful societies never-the-less believe they did! The things and events are unreal, but the BELIEF in them is very real.
By "successful societies" I mean groups of people who survive and reproduce and maintain some general set of core customs and beliefs ('memes") over an extended period of time.
Societal survival and reproduction is how memes sort themselves out and evolve (similar to how biological genes sort themselves out and evolve).
Memes define and empower societies that compete/cooperate with other societies (similar to how genes define and empower animals that compete/cooperate with other animals).
A society that survives and reproduces for many generations is, by definition "fit" - their customs, beliefs, and actions fit the environment they find themselves in better than competitive societies, and so they garner more resources and surive and reproduce for longer periods of time.
You note that societies go "to war with societies with other irrational beliefs". Of course! That is how societal evolution works.
It is irrational for any individual person to place him- or herself in harms way for the sake of others. Yet, when the "jungle drums" are sounded, any society that does not produce soldiers who energetically and (mostly) voluntarily march off to war, will not long survive. That is the reason for the irrational beliefs at the core of every successful society. It takes irrational beliefs to get people to take the irrational actions necessary for the survival of their society.
We are up against fanatical Islam - smart, resourceful young men who are eager to blow themselves (and us) up for the glory of their memes. "Allah" has placed most of the world's petroleum resources under their lands, so they are well-financed. However ridiculous you and I judge their belief system, their belief in it is very real. We will not succeed against them by reason alone.
History teaches us that societies that lose their irrational beliefs are soon defeated. We believe in the ideals of democracy, diversity, religious freedom, economic freedom, academic freedom, technology, and so on, and we believe they are worth fighting for.
According to the poll I linked to earlier, a clear majority of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, say we believe in God, miracles, survival of the soul after death, heaven, and so on. You and I may not believe these things literally, but I at least believe in the benefit of believing in them!
If Dawkins, Hitchens and the other self-described militant athiests succeed in eradicating the core of our irrational beliefs, I fear our society will succumb to fanatical Islam.
Ira Glickstein
Howard said: My reading of most of history is that societies are indeed based on irrational beliefs, but none of them has had any permanent success because they usually dissipate their resources by going to war with societies with different irrational beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIra said:
History teaches us that societies that lose their irrational beliefs are soon defeated. We believe in the ideals of democracy, diversity, religious freedom, economic freedom, academic freedom, technology, and so on, and we believe they are worth fighting for. If Dawkins, Hitchens and the other self-described militant athiests succeed in eradicating the core of our irrational beliefs, I fear our society will succumb to fanatical Islam.
Joel responds: I'm very skeptical of all of the above from Howard and Ira. If the statements were stated as statistics we would would reject them. For instance, "History (small sample statistics?) teaches us that societies that lose their irrational beliefs are soon defeated." We simply don't have enough data to draw such a conclusion. There are not enough examples of countries that have lost their irrational beliefs and there are so many other factors that impact the military weakening of a nation.
It's not clear, but it seems that Ira is equating belief in democracy, diversity, religious freedom, economic freedom, academic freedom, technology to irrational belief. Since none of those is based upon the supernatural, I don't get his point. If militant atheists who certainly don't have my respect, were successful in the USA, it seems to me that there would be no international consequences. Obviously, if they were successful internationally, huge conflicts would disappear.
As you know, Joanna is in contact with many of our troops. Many of them have expressed their pride in what they are doing. Never has a soldier emailed her that they're doing it for Jesus or Christianity. They express themselves in terms that our Founders would be proud of.
As usual we are arguing over more over the meaning of our words than substance. What do we mean by rational and irrational? I don’t think the connotations of these words are really opposites.
ReplyDeleteIra says, “History teaches us that societies that lose their irrational beliefs are soon defeated. We believe in the ideals of democracy, diversity, religious freedom, economic freedom, academic freedom, technology, and so on, and we believe they are worth fighting for.”
Why do you imply that these are irrational beliefs? I believe they have all been justified on rational even on empirically tested grounds.
I agree with Joel that our Founding Fathers were rational. They were certainly not religious fanatics.
I should have added that my view, "most of history is that societies are indeed based on irrational beliefs," was based on a comment by Barzun that the American Constitution was the most rational government ever formed. Even the phrase “under God” was for several founders a rational strategy to persuade and placate the religious. We are all stuck with the irrational belief of the religious that atheism is a mortal sin. Plato’s Republic was largely a rational design, but it was never implemented.
ReplyDeleteI was doing a search to see if I could pin down Howard's use of the term "probabilistic world", when I came across an interesting paper (http://vdgsa.org/hermes/magic.html) Not that I claim to understand it all, it seems interesting. Here's a little taste of it , so you can see if you want to read the whole paper. The paper speaks of magic, melancholy, Plato, probability, determinism and insurance.
ReplyDeleteTwists of fate:
The rise and fall of neo-Platonist magic
© Ken Perlow, 11 January 2000
A probabilistic world is deathly toxic to Platonism and melancholy, because the Platonic system is all about harmonies; it's all about meaning. Platonism seeks the fundamental patterns of the cosmos. There is no place is such a system for "random". There is the entire cosmos, and there is each individual soul; there are no statistical populations. Can we imagine what such a cosmology was like, a world in which a learned person might (and a few did) set out to know everything, because everything was related? We don't think that way now, obviously. We live in a world of abstractions and symbols, which may mean whatever we wish. Names for us are not integral qualities of things, they are simply labels. The most hallowed instruments of our age--computers--perform their wizardry because they can play with the names of the names of the names of things in Byzantinely self-referential ways. We are long removed from that age of complete interconnectedness, but the sensory experience of that cosmology is still there for us, in the magic, because the Hermetics left such a tangible record of it. Music was at the heart of it all, and that earthly reflection of the harmony of the spheres still has the power to transport us into oneness with the universe. The magic is still there now as then--if you open yourself to it.
Both Joel and Howard got the impression I was saying democracy and the various freedoms are irrational ideals. I was not clear. Freedom and democracy are rational. The irrational part is getting young men to trade their lives for these abstract ideals.
ReplyDeleteBoth Joel and Howard seem to have missed the paragraph where I said:
"It is irrational for any individual person to place him- or herself in harms way for the sake of others. Yet, when the 'jungle drums' are sounded, any society that does not produce soldiers who energetically and (mostly) voluntarily march off to war, will not long survive. That is the reason for the irrational beliefs at the core of every successful society. It takes irrational beliefs to get people to take the irrational actions necessary for the survival of their society."[Emphasis added]
Consider the average soldier who fought our country's wars. He probably does not vote, and, even if he does, he hardly knows the candidates, the issues, or where Afghanistan is on a map. Why should he volunteer to fight for democracy? He hasn't been to college and will never be a professor, so why give his life for academic freedom? He is a white Protestant, so why does he give a rat's ass about diversity or religious freedom? If he survives the war he will work at some menial or semi-skilled job, so why does he worry about economic freedom?
All societies that have survived hundreds of years have motivated soldiers by appeals to primitive tribal instincts of territoriality, and by claiming Destiny or God or the gods are on their side!
Joel expresses doubts about Howard and my claim that societies are based on irrational beliefs. Can Joel give even a few examples of societies that have survived a hundred years without some irrational, religious-faith-based core belief?
Ira Glickstein
PS: Joel mentioned that his wife, Joanna, is in contact with many of our troops currently in harms way. She produces a wonderful daily email with stories and photos you'll never see in most mainstream media. I would appreciate it if Joel would post their personal email address to this Blog so any Blog reader who wants to can request to be put on Joanna's email mailing list.
I'd be happy to post our email address; jandjfox@mindspring.com Joanna takes the daily updates written by the military and deletes all the negative stuff that the media are already publicizing. The positive material that remains is virtually never seen in the media. Joanna would be happy to add anyone to her list who requests the information. Thanks for the plug, Ira.
ReplyDeleteIra said: Joel expresses doubts about c. Can Joel give even a few examples of societies that have survived a hundred years without some irrational, religious-faith-based core belief?
Joel responds: Please note in the above the difference between the two phrases 1) Joel expresses doubts about Howard and my claim that societies are BASED (emphasis mine) on irrational beliefs and 2) without some irrational, religious-faith-based core belief? Our difference is one of extent. Of course, I can't name a society without SOME irrational belief. But, that belief may be peripheral to the actions of the society. That's quite different from naming a society not BASED upon irrational religious belief. Despite the obvious presence of religion in the US, I would contend that the actions of our society are based upon the rational design of a limited government and a logical belief that the principles of freedom championed since the late 1600's are a tradition (meme) that will serve us in good stead.
This is not to say that I don't sympathize with your feelings concerning a war between the passionate forces of radical Islam and the unmotivated people of a democracy who must be led kicking and screaming to battle. I'm not referring to our troops, but to the general public who remain uninspired. It's hard to say whether this situation exists, because of a lack of religious fervor or a lack of articulate leadership or just plain lack of imagination. With respect- Joel
I'll accept Joel's sensible comment. No successful society has been totally BASED on irrational beliefs. The EU, US and others may be mostly based on rational beliefs.
ReplyDeleteA society, like a stool, needs multiple legs to be stable. The American rational leg includes our belief in a limited, democratic republic, with emphasis on secular education, high technology, freedom for business investment and so on. Another important leg includes location in a safe neighborhood of countries with defensible borders and resources for energy, raw materials and agriculture. These are totally rational. Add to that what we all seem to agree is an irrational religion-faith-based belief we are favored by Destiny and the society may stand. Remove any of these legs and it will fall.
Ira Glickstein
My disagreement with Ira is over his too-broad meaning of “irrational belief.” I think it is necessary to make a distinction between the NON-RATIONAL instinctive responses that are based on genes and the IRRATIONAL religious or cultural memes. Of course we depend on non-rational behavior. It is obvious that a society that has no fighting instincts or no sex instinct will not survive. Humans along with all animals have a fighting instinct and a natural sophisticated ability to discern how best to use it. Also, animal species without religion have survived longer than the human species, and religious memes have certainly been a major cause of death. Fighting a physically real enemy like the terrorists is entirely different from the artificial and irrational religious memes that teach fear of apostasy, or a propaganda meme that by deception triggers the genetic fighting instinct.
ReplyDeleteI think our present situation is an example. Along with many political analysts, it now seems clear that our real enemy was an extremist terrorist group, not an Islamic nation or the Islamic religion. Our propaganda-based attack on an Islamic nation that was not a real threat to us has triggered a real instinctive fear response in all Islamic peoples. Unless there is a rational reversal of our belligerent policies this could easily escalate into a world religious war. I need to see some evidence that belligerent memes that produce war-mongering societies are more successful than militarily strong societies with peace-loving memes.
Let's accept Howard's distinction between what he calls NON-RATIONAL, gene-based instincts, and IRRATIONAL, meme-based religious and cultural behaviors. Let us agree non-human animal species have survived for billions of years without religion. In fact, an argument could be made that even humans survived without anything that could properly be called "religion" until perhaps 10,000 years ago when (according to Julian Jaynes ) metaphoric language first developed. Howard correctly observes that "It is obvious that a society that has no fighting instincts or no sex instinct will not survive."
ReplyDeleteWe agree that the non-rational gene-based fighting (territorial, reproductive) instincts are adaptive. So, the only remaining bone of contention is the adaptive value of the irrational memes for religion and culture.
What Howard calls the "artificial and irrational religious memes that teach fear of apostasy, or a propaganda meme that by deception triggers the genetic fighting instinct" have caused wars between societies and genocide within them. That seems like a tremendous waste of resources. Wars and genocide have subjected humans to horrible cruelty and depravation.
On the other hand, the religious meme set has evolved for at least 10,000 years. Joel, Howard, and I agree all successful societies in recorded history have been at least partially based on religious-faith-based irrational beliefs. Why would all those societies waste all those resources and subject their peoples to such hardships?
My opinion is that religious memes are simply the genetic "fighting instinct" writ large, operating at the level of human societies. Just as genetic evolution is driven by fighting and cooperation between animals, societal evolution (agriculture, government, military, religion, economics, technology, and science) is driven by armed conflict and cooperation between societies.
Could the great technological achievements of humankind have come into existence without war or the threat of war? Think of the great wall of China, the Roman roads, the fighting machines designed by Leonardo Da Vinci, long-distance transportation (ships, trains, trucks, airplanes, spaceships, ...), coal and petroleum energy, communications (telegraph, telephone, radio, TV ...), atomic energy, computers and the Internet, medical technology, and on and on.
The word "scientist" was coined in the 19th century and the roots of modern science may be traced back to the what we now call the "scientific revolution" of the 16th and 17th centuries. Although some Chinese, Arabs, Greeks, and others conducted empirical investigations of the natural world, reason-based science had little real effect on societies until a few hundred years ago.
How can anyone expect reason-based science memes that have evolved for a few hundred years to overcome religion-based memes that had a ten-thousand year head start and were founded upon the non-rational gene-based animal instincts that go back millions and billions of years?
I wish I could believe, as Howard apparently does, that "militarily strong societies with peace-loving memes" can succeed against "war-mongering societies" with "belligerent memes". That would be nice.
"And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them." (Isaiah 11:6)
"The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain, says the LORD." (Isaiah 65:25).
Well, maybe some day. I wish I could believe it!
Is it even possible for a society with "peace-loving memes" to be "militarily strong"?
Ira Glickstein
Ira said:
ReplyDeleteIs it even possible for a society with "peace-loving memes" to be "militarily strong"?
Joel responds: First of all, I don't care for the term "memes" all that much. Dawkins coined the word because it sounds like "genes." I prefer the word "traditions," since "memes" adds nothing but confusion to the discussion. Tradition can have positive or negative impact on societies. Tradition sometimes dies faster than the society it inhabits, but sometimes not. As an example of the latter, I saw a tv presentation by an African woman concerning "rough sex." This is a practice in some parts of Africa in which women use dry leaves to roughen their vaginal lining, because men prefer it that way. The result of this roughness is blood and the STDs it can produce. This according to her is one of the reasons for the high rate of AIDs in Africa. Except for the intervention of the West, it is easy to imagine that these society could die out before the tradition dies (or at the same time). What I'm trying to say is that a traditions unlike genes are not necessarily related to survival. I believe that the United States has a peace-loving tradition (as individuals we are not war-like), but obviously we are militarily strong. The tradition of peace through strength is highly respected and has been proved to work at least in some cases.
Both biologically and historically I agree with Ira’s points as far as they go. Evolution depends on competition and so does history. Most of this competition is necessarily deadly. Consequently there are adaptive genes and memes that have evolved to kill competitors. Ira does not mention that at the same time all of evolution and history also depend on cooperative genes and memes. All organisms above the Protista began with cooperative genes, and all multicellular organisms are populations of cells with cooperative genes. What we mean by a society at all levels ― a family, a tribe, a state, or a nation ― is largely defined by its cooperative memes [traditions or cultural norms]. Even a few nations have learned that fighting memes are not as adaptive as cooperative memes.
ReplyDeleteOrganized Religion memes are peculiar. Not only do they fail to adapt or learn to cooperate like normal genes and memes, but they break into sects that fight among themselves. Pascal had a strong religious meme, but he saw the problem: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
Ira asks, “How can anyone expect reason-based science memes that have evolved for a few hundred years to overcome religion-based memes that had a ten-thousand year head start and were founded upon the non-rational gene-based animal instincts that go back millions and billions of years?”
Ira is right that we can’t expect all of mankind to become rational after being indoctrinated with organized religions’ dogmas for so long. But why excuse or promote this inflexible irrationality? Why not promote Spinoza’s rationality for a few centuries or millennia and see what happens. His Ethics is based on reason, knowledge, and understanding: “Man’s lack of power to moderate and restrain the affects [instincts] I call bondage. For the man who is subject to affects is under the control, not of himself, but of fortune, in whose power he so greatly is that often, though he sees the better for himself, he is still forced to follow the worse. . . I pass, finally, to the remaining part of the Ethics, which concerns the means, or way, leading to freedom. Here then I shall treat of the power of reason, showing what it can do against the affects, and what freedom of mind, or blessedness is.”[The Ethics IV, Of Human Bondage]
I agree with much of what Howard has written. I do take issue with the following: "Ira does not mention that at the same time all of evolution and history also depend on cooperative genes and memes."
ReplyDeleteIn my Dec. 28th Comment (that he is replying to) I wrote: "Just as genetic evolution is driven by fighting and cooperation between animals, societal evolution (agriculture, government, military, religion, economics, technology, and science) is driven by armed conflict and cooperation between societies." [Emphasis added]
I give great credit to cooperation between genes and cells and animals and species and memes and societies for evolutionary processes at all levels. Howard and I are in complete agreement on that.
Howard says "Organized Religion memes are peculiar ... they fail to adapt or learn to cooperate ... but they break into sects that fight among themselves." I do not agree with that at all. The various Protestant denominations fight about relatively minor differences among themselves, but they cooperate on more important issues, like keeping Catholics in their place and opposing radical Islam. Similarly, Orthodox and Reform Jews are opposed on ritual issues but united on everything important. Religious people "ecumenically" unite to oppose the vices of the non-religious. [Did you hear about the lion who ate a Catholic, a Protestant, and a Jew? Two days later, he had an "ecumenical movement:^)]
I agree with Howard when he quotes Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." THAT is the great power of organized religion!
Men (and women of course) do "evil" when they advance their particular sect and society against other sects and societies. What is good for one group is sometimes bad ("evil") for others.
For example, in the conflict between radical Islam and western democracy, who are the "evil" ones?
I would say the terrorists are "evil".
However, a literal believer in Islam might say it is the western invaders who are "evil". We are pushing our vices (alchohol, unrestricted sex, materialism, woman's liberation, ...) on them and teaching their young people western values and "reason" that lures them away from their traditions and customs.
At the end of his Comment, Howard mentions Spinoza (my favorite philosopher) and his lament on the "bondage" of us humans to "affect" (instincts and emotions). Spinoza wrote a classic analysis in which he makes distinctions between various human emotions. I believe I wrote a paper about it for Howard when he was the Chairman of my PhD Committee.
Spinoza gets the emotions and their relations to each other right, but (IMHO) for the wrong reasons. Spinoza's dedication to reason was so strong that he was totally in control of his emotions. Like an asexual psychologist who goes to the burlesque show and watches the audience, Spinoza observed the human condition like an alien anthropologist!
He was excommunicated from the Jewish community, presumably including his family. He lived alone in a small room grinding lenses (the silicon dust killed him at an early age). He never married and his relationship with the daughter of his landlord was probably totally Platonic. His relationships with males were, I believe, totally intellectual.
It is highly unlikely that any substantial percentage of the population will read or understand or follow Spinoza's "Ethics". It would be nice if they did - perhaps some day (when the lion eats straw like the lamb :^)
Ira Glickstein
Again, I fail to disagree with Ira.
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year!
And a special HAPPY NEW YEAR to you!
ReplyDeleteUnless we can find more stuff to disagree about (in an agreeable way) this Blog is doomed!
However, I have faith we will continue.
THANKS to all and to a great NEW YEAR!
Ira Glickstein