The Facile Eclectic

 Just ran across a cool blog for those interested in religion and how it's reported in the media. It's run by a number of professional religion journalists and has lots of interesting articles. One looked at a recent article saying that Fred Thompson was endorsed by 40 million US conservative Methodists. 40 million? Lets see the US population is roughly 300 million, 1/3 of whom(100 million) are conservative Christians, of whom roughly 1/2 are evangelical(50 million). Wow the Methodists are kicking the Babtists butts! In fact there are about 14 million Methodists in the US and that includes the liberal ones. It's an informative site and the commenters are usually intelligent and not prone to the normal ranting and raving. I recomend it to thinking relgious folks(of all stripes, Wiccans too!) and non-beleivers alike.

GetReligion.org

Posted by Ben Wortham at 01:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Being the musing sort that I am I tend to think a lot. Sometimes I even think about thinking. Lately I've been musing about the difference between rational systems or logic and the more limbic mode of thought people often refer to as "thinking from the gut". People, especially here in the states, place a very high trust in their instincts. Americans a very good at responding to their emotions and very poor at using reason to make decisions. A good example is the abstinence only sex education policy promoted by our current, frontal lobe challenged, president and widely accepted by the public. The argument for "abstinence only" is based on an ethical belief about sex and an assumption that children will do as they are taught. Both of these are what's called an a priori argument and therefore logically flawed. A priori is a term used in philosophy and has a number of meanings but in this case I'm using it to refer to an argument or assumption that is not supported by evidence from the real world. "Abstinence only" relies on the assumption that sex is a behavior that exists within an ethical framework. For a behavior to be ethical(or unethical) it shouldn't occur outside of a system of ethics. Charity would be a good example of such a behavior. Animals* aren't normally charitable but most human cultures value charity as an ethical act and it always exists within an ethical framework. Sex on the other hand occurs all over the natural world in the total absence of any ethics. In humans, other than the prohibition against pedophilia(pre pubescent children), sexual morays have varied widely over time and culture and aren't ethically systematized. Therefore sex is technically not an ethical(or unethical) act. The second assumption of "abstinence only" is that teenagers can be taught not to have sex. There is no evidence from the real world that this is possible. While it is possible to modify some behaviors in animals and people, certain behaviors are wired so deeply into our brains that they're practically impossible to subvert. These are the basic drives such the need for food, shelter and of course the drive to reproduce. A human being may choose to starve himself but it's pretty hard to teach him that food is something he can do without and to ignore his hunger as his body slowly dies. One can deduce from this that some teenagers are going to have sex. In fact a recent survey showed about half of teenagers reported having had sex. The same numbers reported before "abstinence only". So in fact a lot of teenagers have sex. Some numbers have changed however. Now that kids don't have easy access birth control as they once did the rates of pregnancy and STD's have risen sharply among teens. So how do we end up with such foolish policies? Whenever policy is guided by faith or any other a priori assumptions about the world we will be doomed to bad governance. The founding fathers were very aware of this fact and designed our system to promote reason and reign in governance based on "passion". But the system only works when leaders are motivated and capable of exercising reason. Thomas Jefferson also knew that education was critical. But his notion of education was very different from the schools we now have. He included philosophy, especially epistemology, ethics, and logic, as a cornerstone to any good education. He was right. It's time we started teaching children how to think for a change instead of teaching them what to think.



* Of course higher primates and dolphins seem to display charitable behavior but one can also argue that they posses a primitive ethical culture similar to human beings.

 

Posted by Ben Wortham at 01:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When my wife left her job due to health reasons two years ago we made some major changes to our lifestyle. First we moved to the country on to a piece of land that my Father gave to me for the price of paying off the note, about a fifth of it's value. We cashed in our savings and payed off our mortgages and moved into a small cabin. We now live off a modest income from renting our old home and the small amounts my part time efforts bring in. We live on a fourth of what we used to. Our time these days is spent raising sheep, growing vegetables and working on our ongoing improvements to the property. We don't use credit cards, we don't go out to eat like we used to, we don't hire service folks much as I take care of most of the repairs, and we don't shop for things we don't need. We prepare and raise our own food. We get lots of exercise and full nights of sleep. We read more books. We get entertainment value watching new born animals play and watch a lot less TV. We're both thinner, healthier, and happier and we don't own an Ipod. In short we're gradually unplugging ourselves from the consumer culture. And the funny thing is, I don't miss it.

I notice the change in myself most at this time of year. When I go to the big box stores what used to be "must haves" look like superfluous junk and clutter. All the new electronics don't have any pull at all, I'll get a new TV when the old one dies, and I certainly don't need two. Why rush for that christmas DVD release and plunk down twenty dollars when next year I'll get it at a garage sale for $1. I can wait. I've become immune to the urgency that mass marketing instills in people. I've become immune to the advertisers siren song telling me I'm a failure as a human being if I don't have a new SUV like my neighbor.  The value of a vehicle drops by half in the first year, buying a new car is insane. I buy used trucks without power widows and gadgets(just more stuff to break down) and drive them into the ground. A car is something that performs a function but it shouldn't be part of your identity. But that is the only identity most people have. They have nothing in their lives that identifies them as a unique human being other than their spending profile stored in a merchants computer database. The counter argument of course is consumerism keeps the economy growing and keeps people employed. Well at the rate that automation is progressing those jobs won't be around for long. In the near future machines will take care of most material production and soon most information jobs as well. These days most telemarketing calls and customer service are automated. Online shopping is largely automated and soon the shipping warehouse will be too. Eventually we'll be giving people unnecessary jobs just to keep them busy and keep the system going( I would argue that to some extent this is already true). In addition our current system wastes huge amounts of energy, material, and time(rush hour comes to mind) and it is rapidly degrading our environment. It can't go on forever. It's instructive to remember that money and economies are a human invention, and an ancient one at that. How many 6000 year old techniques for civilization do we still use? Clay tablets? no. Hamurabbis code? no. God incarnated rulers? no. Slaves? no. God forbid if we still used ships with oars. It's time to start moving to new more mature idea of civilization or risk the collapse of the one we have. It's time put consumerism in the dust bin of history. We'll all live a lot longer.

Posted by Ben Wortham at 03:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If your plugged in to the realms of super nerd-dom  like I am then you might of heard of Ray Kurzweils singularity. Mr. Kurzweils contention is that the accelerated rate of technological progress is leading to a boundary point, or singularity, that will mark a fundamental change in human history. Sometime around 2050, by his reckoning, things will progress to the point where biological aging can be reversed and  technological enhancements to our minds will enable us to evolve to a new level of human consciousness. I might go into how likely I think this scenario is in the future but suffice it to say that since Ray started making these predictions in the early eighties his track record has been quite prescient and his anticipation of trends in technology have made him a wealthy man. The proof is always in the pudding. My main interest is in one aspect of his prediction, the control of aging. I think most folks in their 70's or older would definitely opt for a younger more functional body but what about 18 year olds? Would they opt to never experience the process of aging? I think this would be a mistake for a number of reasons. At the heart of the problem I think is the mind body connection. Increasingly AI folks and philosophers who study consciousness  have begun to realize that having a body is necessary for having a mind. We have all seen bodies without a mind, say a dead human being or a rock, but have you ever seen a mind without a body? The sensory experiences we have are fundamental in forming the patterns of our mind. I would argue that the wisdom that comes with time is not simply the acquisition of experience in general. It also must include the biological aspects of the aging process. For example when a man passes from young adult hood to middle age testosterone levels fall and physical strength diminishes slightly. This leads to a cooling off of the sex drive and the aggression of youth and opens one up to new possibilities in relationships with women, new possibilities of contemplative thought, etc. As one passes into old age and the loss of physical vitality one can attain a deeper appreciation of ones life, the lives of others, and a deeper empathy for the vulnerability of ones fellow beings. This is of course from a male perspective but there are correlaries for female aging. I think these types of experiences are necessary  to form a fully mature human mind. I think a world populated by eternal 18 year olds that never experienced the physical slings and arrows of time might be a pretty scary place. In that not too distant possible future I think reaching a ripe old age should be a prerequisite for receiving the boon of eternal youth.

Posted by Ben Wortham at 05:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Why do people proselytize? The term in it's religious context means to convert someone from another belief to your own religion or creed. Outside of religion attempts to convert are also going on all the time. Conservatives try to convert liberals, feminists try to convert men and Coke wants to convert Pepsi drinkers. Indeed I would say the need to proselytize lies at the heart of every type of debate large or small. We always want the other person to see things our way. The motives for this seem blurry at times. Most religions say they want to convert their fellow beings to prevent eternal damnation, continuous reincarnation or some other cosmic calamity. Politicians of all stripes say their point of view is the only one that will prevent the destruction of society and therefore they must save the rest of us from ourselves. But given that proselytizing almost almost always includes some form of threat, veiled or otherwise, it seems unlikely to me that altruism is the motive. There are practical reasons for it. A church can't survive without enough members to pay the bills anymore than a corporation can survive without customer loyalty and shareholders. But if the practical needs are met for the group, why continue to convert new members? Indeed human groups are not satisfied unless everyone is "in" and no-one is "out" even if the out group is such a small minority as to pose no tangible threat. This speaks a lot to why intolerance is so prevalent among human beings. If another group is impotent why not simply ignore them and go about your business? There are plenty of theories on this from anthropology and behavioral psychology, mostly involving complicated ideas about group and individual identities and deep psychological needs carried over through evolution. I don't dispute any of this. I am not a scientist or a theologian, just a musing musician. I'm interested in the subjective need to convert others to one's point of view and I think it comes down to uncertainty. No matter how well we've examined our data and our reasoning. No matter how well we've argued our theology, philosophy, or politics. No matter how we have questioned the assumptions that form our personal view of ourselves. There is always doubt. Deep down we know we're always on thin ice. One new observation, fact, idea or revelation can bring the whole thing crashing down. It only takes a small stream of water to compromise the integrity of a dam and wash away all we once thought we knew.  As long as there is one unbeliever, one holdout, one dissenter there is always the possibility that some flaw might be revealed that would shatter our sense of self and group into a thousand pieces. In this way those who hold differing points of view become an intolerable threat to us. A threat we must unconsciously always defend ourselves against. This also makes "if you can't beat em, join em" a sound strategy for survival. That is why I think we proselytize. Speaking of proselytizing. I think tonight I'll invite some vegetarians over for barbecued lamb.

Posted by Ben Wortham at 04:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There's fairly recent theory in physics called quantum loop gravity. It doesn't have a lot of traction yet in the physics community and is by no means close to being proven. It does however make one prediction that caught my attention. It implies that below the level of the quantum flux, which is thought to give rise to all forms of matter and energy, there might be nothing but pure information. In other words, the universe might be a giant quantum computer with no real physicality. This brought to mind an essay I read 20 years ago in Douglas R. Hofstadter's, "The Minds Eye". The essay begins with the premise of a powerful enough computer to run a simulation program that would create a universe like our own. To the inhabitants of this simulation everything would appear as it does to us and therefore they would not be aware of existing inside a computer program. I've been wondering lately what a physicist inside the program might see. You might see simulated atoms, made of simulated particles, made of simulated quarks, etc. until finely the software code itself. This would be limit of what you could learn about your simulated universe from the inside. In other words it would look like what quantum loop theory predicts.   Maybe the Buddhists where right all a long. A computer also implies a maker but not necessarily the one we usually think of. If human beings can conceive of a way to make universes in a bottle then the maker of ours may be no more divine than us. And what is the purpose of a computer universe? Perhaps we live in somebody else's version of a video game. I think a lot of us have suspected the universe is a bit out of whack all along. It brings to mind the last message of God to his creation before he left in Doug Adams "Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy". "So long, and sorry for all the mess!"

Posted by Ben Wortham at 08:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently I got involved in an in-promptu discussion with my doctor about the current debate over health care. During the course of this my doctor asked where I had gotten the information I was using to support my argument. My facts did not agree with what he thought he knew about the issue. I responded that if I had known we were going to have a debate I would of prepared a bibliography. The sources I access are too numerous to recall off the top of ones head. I've found over the course of my life growing up in the information age that this has become a serious problem. It seems that what we think we know to be true is increasingly nothing but a fiction. The internet has given us access to huge volumes of information but as yet we do not have the tools to gauge the quality of that information. Previous generations where able to do this more easily when all information was in the form of the printed word. Even the traditional method of using reputable sources is becoming less effective in determining truth. As an example, if I want medical information I might go to a well established medical journal as a source to inform me on the best diet to eat. What I find is thousands of studies from molecular nutrient interactions on up to population studies showing various links between diet and disease, nutrients and disease, etc. Many of these make conclusions that may or may not be causal which means thousands more studies are required to understand the various mechanisms involved just to prove carrots are actually good for you. You could sift for a lifetime and not find a definitive answer to any question you pose.

Another disturbing phenomenon is how incorrect information spreads so quickly that it lodges in our group mind before any correction can hope to root it out. A recent example was the "Jena six" story which I started following a full week before it bubbled up to the national level. In early local reporting teachers and students said that students of both races had gathered under the what was later dubbed "the whites only tree" for many years before the noose incident. The nooses where probably not hung there because it was a "whites only" tree, they where more likely hung there because it was in fact the only tree on campus. This small fact does not signifacantly alter the overall story of the "Jena six" whatever your opinion of the situation. But it amazed me how quickly once the story broke how many times I saw "whites only tree" repeated in hundreds of reports and blogs. In all the reports I read from across the world it was repeated and no-one backtracked the story to correct it. It would be pointless now anyway. It is an established fact that Saddam Hussein had no part in the 9-11 attacks but to this day, like most americans, my wife thinks that fiction is true. The ancient Greeks discovered the earth is round but most continued to think it was flat for another 2000 years. The information was never lost, it just took that long to change the old point of view. How many flat earth fictions are we carrying around in our heads now that the internet makes disseminating them so easy and rapid? More importantly, how long will it take for us to root them out?

Posted by Ben Wortham at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)