4. March 2010 by Samldanach.

IMO, any post title that has me singing Sting lyrics is a good one.

In working on my new PA setting, I came to a startling conclusion.  Our information-based infrastructure is like a gigantic balloon.  Press it at any point, and it will give.  Remove the pressure, and it will rebound.  But pop it, and it cannot be repaired.  It can only be rebuilt from scratch.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Miscellaneous, Projects, Gaming | No Comments »

18. December 2009 by Samldanach.

I ran across an odd statement this morning:  “Our brains are no longer conditioned for reverence and awe.”

I think that might be true.   I’ve done quite a bit of reading on and off over the years, attempting to really capture the medieval mindset.  One thing that is radically different is that very few people in medieval times were taught to question.  This is the way the world is, and you just have to deal with that.  But, as a consequence of that, people were very willing to let mysteries be mysterious.  You didn’t have to work out how the magician does his trick, or uncover the hidden meanings behind the storyteller’s tales, or know the lengths that a king must go to to provide for his people.

Things just happened.  And that was awesome.

People were allowed to just sit back and marvel in the simple wonder of the experience, whether that be religious, fantastic, or more prosaic.  A thunderstorm was powerful and emotionally moving.  This was not just because it spoke to the tiny hindbrain that still hadn’t caught up to the evolution of safe and snug shelter.  But, because no one, no one, knew what was actually making all the sounds, or where the winds came from.  Mysterious beings venting their frustrations made as much sense as any other explanation.

These days, it is much harder to simply revere the world around us.  We know too much.  We are given warning of the thunderstorm days in advance, often along with a description of why it is forming.  It blunts the emotional punch.  Further, we are now conditioned from a young age to ask questions.  Especially here in the US, we are taught, both explicitly and implicitly, that it is right to challenge authority and tradition.  That to sit on our butts and not try to learn about the world around us is lazy and wrong.  As much as I respect and cherish that attitude, I think that it does get in the way of simple reverence.  The person who has a garden filled with flowers “just because they’re pretty” is often mocked for not thinking more deeply about her choices.

What is wrong with appreciating things on a simple level?  Can we accept the beauty, power, or ability of a person or thing without having to dig deeper?  I think that we can.  And, I think that it is occasionally good to do so.  But, I think that for us poor modern sods, reverence is now something that takes conscious effort.  We have to decide to allow our jaded brains to relax, and just soak in the experience.

Posted in Miscellaneous, Essays | No Comments »

20. November 2009 by Samldanach.

Anybody else remember that show?  I loved it.  I think it only went 6 episodes, though.

There are a number of mysteries of science that bother me.  These are areas that just, for whatever reason, reveal cracks in the framework of my understanding.  Some of them, I am sure, can be explained well enough by those with much greater understanding than me.  Some of them, I think, cannot.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Miscellaneous, Essays | No Comments »

10. November 2009 by Samldanach.

The memorial service for the Ft. Hood personnel is today.  I don’t know about the other branches, but Army has set aside today as a day of remembrance.  Today also happens to be the birthday of the Marines.  Tomorrow is Veteran’s Day.  This has me contemplating the military, and my relationship to it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Politics, Essays | No Comments »

9. November 2009 by Samldanach.

Edit 2:  I’m putting too many notes at the top of this entry.  This was originally supposed to go up Friday.  As you can tell, it didn’t.  Basically, I couldn’t wrestle it around to the shape I wanted.  I’m still unhappy with it, but part of NaNoWriMo is to just get the word count out there.  Allow yourself to write crap.  Oh, look, here it is!

Edit 1:  Huh.  I got about half this entry written on the ride in this morning.  Then saw Chuck Wendig link to this piece.  A fascinating read, there.  Several bits to think on and chew over.

Is science a religion?

This awkward semantic debate fills numerous comment threads out on the internet.  The modern atheist, putting his trust in things that Science! and Technology! and Education! teach him does not seem that different from the modern evangelical Christian, putting his trust in the Bible.  At least, not at first glance.  Neither adherent has actually gone and discovered the various truths they are arguing about.  They have simply heard about them, from sources that seem reputable, and the truth has the ring of veracity.

With this argument, Christians dismiss the atheist argument as simply being a different faith.  Both are equally valid (though, naturally, the Word of God should trump any peer-reviewed journal, as God is above all peers).  So, you go believe what you want to believe, but you can’t tell me that what I’m believing is wrong.

This argument frustrates the atheist to no end.  After all, science is science, it’s not some mumbo jumbo that was supposedly said by some sky ghost to a possibly insane hack who was inhaling who knows what from a burning bush on a mountain in a desert.  Science is all about the purity of thought, the rigor of carefully testing all hypotheses.  Belief has nothing to do with it.  It is about facts, and evidence, and logic.

Or is it?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Religion, Essays | No Comments »

9. November 2009 by Samldanach.

I’ve written about this in past years, and want to make sure I note it again.  The date 9/11 has been embedded in our consciousness for eight years now.  But, the date 11/9 should be equally embedded.

Fortunately, this year you all probably already know what the date is significant for.  Or, at least the most prominent event.  The fall of the Berlin Wall.  The collapse of the great Soviet experiment.  The effective end of the Cold War.

I don’t think that younger people can really understand what that meant for us at the time (in much the same way that I cannot really understand VE Day or the end of the Vietnam War).  The ’80’s were permeated with a sense of foreboding.  Go back and listen to some of the music.  We honestly thought that we were all likely to perish in some kind of nuclear holocaust.  It seems quaint and paranoid now, but it certainly wasn’t then.

When the Wall came down, it seemed blatantly unreal.  Of course, I was a freshman in college at the time, so much of the world outside of campus seemed a bit unreal.  But, there was no question that history had just turned on a dime.  Assumptions about “how the world worked” just fell away.

There was a brief, halcyon period in there, where it seemed like rational thought and diplomacy had actually beaten out a military solution.  The Soviet Union was collapsing, and nobody had to die.  At least, not until events transpired that made the word “Balkan” a permanent part of our vocabulary.  But, for a time, we had hope again.

9/11 was all about the shattering of illusions of peace and safety.  11/9 was all about shattering illusions that the only way to win was to beat the other person into submission.

Of course, if we go back a bit further, the date 11/9 has a much darker event.  One much more similar to 9/11, and one that similarly should not be forgotten.  Unreasoning hatred destroyed thousands of lives, and evil was made manifest.  I am speaking of Kristallnacht, the night when Nazi Germany turned on its Jewish population.  The government attacked its own people, killing or arresting thousands of Jews, and destroying their businesses.  The snowball was pushed down the hill, and it would culminate in the Holocaust.

I do urge you to go read at least Wikipedia on these events today.  History can turn so quickly sometimes.  Watching the way it turned to both the darkness and the light on the same date for Germany is, I think, important.  To all of us.

Posted in Miscellaneous, Essays | No Comments »

14. October 2009 by Samldanach.

I just recently completed a grand tour of my iPod.  That’s just shy of 8000 songs.  I listened to them one album at a time., in alphabetical order by album title.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I did skip a few country albums my wife likes, a few albums of Italian tenors, and most of our Christmas collection.  I intend to catch up on the Christmas albums in, oh, December, like a decent person.)

I discovered a few albums I had no idea we had.  I discovered that I really liked some of those albums, and was iffy about others.  Crash Test Dummies is much better than I remember.  I can’t really seem to get into Tegan and Sara, and can’t put my finger on why.  75 songs in a row of many bands is just too much (from a couple multi-CD box sets).  I also discovered albums that I’d forgotten how much I really liked.  Starfish by The Church is still a fantastic album.

During that time, I also discovered some other new music.  I discovered Abney Park right about the beginning of the project.  I went ahead and bought a Cruxshadows album shortly after, as many of my friends seem to like them.  About a month ago, I discovered the glory of Enter the Haggis.

Seriously, go find an Enter the Haggis album.  They are nominally Celtic rock, but with more emphasis on the “rock.”  They are phenomenal.  I wish I knew how to review albums, so I could express just how incredible these guys are.

I’ve also been thinking about other music from my life.  I realized that all of my Violent Femmes albums are actually still on cassettes.  I really need to fix that.  I also need to replace all my Heart albums that are still on cassette.

It’s kind of funny.  I don’t associate much music with particular events in my life.  However, I have a whole lot of ’80’s music that I associate with various things I’ve read.  I will always think of Spider-Man when I hear George Michael’s “Father Figure.”  Billy Joel’s  “This is the Time” is associated with romance novels (I had a stack that a friend gave me to schlep to donate to the library, and read through them in the space of couple months).

I do love music, despite a maddening inability to produce it.  And, I have to confess that I don’t entirely understand it.  I can’t ever tell what separates a good song from a bad song.  I don’t know art, but I know what I like.  It comes down to what touches me.

I also do know that lyrics are extremely important to me.  There are huge swaths of music that I can’t get into because there are no lyrics for me to follow.  I can’t listen to most opera for that reason.  And, yet, I still like Rammstein.  They are the exception that proves the rule, I guess.

I think I’m going to go back to shuffle.  I may actually get around to hijacking the wife’s computer and assembling a few playlists.  Maybe.

Meantime, if music be the food of life, then variety is its spice.  Or something like that.

Posted in Miscellaneous, Personal, Essays | No Comments »

22. September 2009 by Samldanach.

Disclaimer: I identify as a mystic humanist; I believe there is no divinity in this world, but that magic and the supernatural do exist. Despite my atheism, I consider myself a deeply religious and spiritual person. I was raised Episcopalian, my father is now a priest, and my mother is a deacon. As such, the church is no strange place to me. It simply did not fill my needs.

Faith. It is a loaded word. And too often loaded with ammunition to hurt and kill. One might think that it is at the center of most religious debates, but it is not. Instead, it is used as a blind to dismiss entire points of view. From the fundamentalists, it is, “If you had faith, you would know why what you say is wrong.” From the skeptics, it is, “You fall back on faith, and refuse to think.” Both are right, and yet the conversation never seems to progress any further.

In any argument, as any rhetorician would tell you, you need to start by agreeing on your terms. If I say “red” and you hear “angry,” we are never going to get anywhere. What this essay is going to attempt to do is present some useful definitions. If all goes according to plan, we will end with a useful definition of faith, which may help us get past conversation road blocks like those above.

Let’s start with some basics. “Fact” and “opinion” are tossed around quite a bit in these discussions, and often erroneously. A “fact” is any statement that has a truth value. Note that this value does not need to be true. “I am 171 years old” is a fact. It just happens to be a false one. An “opinion” is a statement that does not have a truth value. “She is pretty” is an opinion, and no one can say it is false or wrong. (It may be at odds with the common definition, but it is not wrong.)

There are a couple qualifications here. “She is pretty” could actually be considered a fact, if we could all agree on an objective definition. Establishing such definitions is often a useful step in discourse, as it allows us to move from the non-starter of a collection of opinions to something that can have reason and logic applied to it. Additionally, the statement “I think she is pretty” is a fact. It is either true that you hold that opinion, or it is not. Plato, particularly through the voice of Socrates, used these facts quite a bit to lead his opponents into traps of their own making.

Before we go further, let us take a step back. What is “truth,” after all? Mathematically, a “true” statement is one that can be derived from known axioms through the application of proper logic. (If you think that is a solid definition, I invite you to read Godel and Hofstadter.) Scientists tend to view “truth” as being “consistent with all observed phenomena.” Personally, I find this definition to be useful in a lab, but rather restrictive for our purposes. I think that in discussing “truth” in a religious context, one cannot simply dismiss the argument from authority or truth spontaneously gained through an immanent experience. To do so is to dismiss nearly all of religion a priori. Unfortunately, simply declaring a statement to be true if it agrees with a given set of teachings is no more useful. That will grant the larger argument to whichever teachings we select with no more discussion allowed. Instead, let us define a statement to be “true” if it neither contains nor implies a logical contradiction, and is useful to understanding this shared construct we call “reality.”

Now, in addition to facts and opinions, there are a number of other types of statements. A “hypothesis” is simply a fact whose truth value is not yet known. A “theory” is a fact whose truth value is assumed to be true because it has been thoroughly tested without finding any contradictions. A “belief,” on the other hand, is a fact whose truth value is assumed to be true because it is useful to do so. It still should be able to avoid any contradictions if it is to be considered a “correct” belief. However, as most beliefs are statements about matters that are well beyond our current ability to test, it is generally only important that a belief system be internally consistent.

Now, the astute reader may have noticed one significant difference between the definitions of “theory” and “belief.” Namely, that theories rely on objective criteria in their definition (assuming we can agree on a common sense of “thoroughly tested”). The presence or absence of a contradiction is rarely a matter of opinion (though it may be a matter of debate). A “belief,” though, relies on the purely subjective notion of “useful.” Is it useful to believe in reincarnation? Some would see the use, and others would not. It is from this that the endless variety of religions ultimately springs. And with it an endless variety of religious arguments.

Now we are ready to establish another dichotomy, that of science versus religion. “Science,” per se, is not even the right word to use here. Science is the process of rigorously testing a hypothesis to produce a theory. However, it is also useful in this context to bastardize the poor word to stand for the current body of theories, data, and hypotheses that we “know” (another loaded word for another time). This includes such theories as evolution and relativity, and the ever-growing load of pure information we are able to gather, compile, and analyze. Note that beliefs do not enter here. Science rejects beliefs, simply because they are not practically testable.

“Religion” is a body of beliefs, and of common definitions to turn certain opinions into facts. A simple example of the latter is the notion of “good” (and its counterpart, “evil”). Really, “good” is an entirely subjective matter. No deed can be truthfully called “good.” However, there are a number of deeds that we can largely agree are good. Religion adopts, and then extends, that agreement to define a factual notion of objective “good.” Where there are differences in these definitions and in the beliefs (as discussed above), we see religious disagreements and even schisms. However, religion does not test its beliefs in the same manner that science does (though the Jews may disagree). The merit of a belief is based almost entirely on how much it helps its adherents in one way or another, so long as it does not undermine other beliefs.

Does this make science superior to religion? After all, it would seem to lead to fewer disagreements as it always has independent phenomena and pure mathematics to fall back on. Very few actual scientists would tell you that they live a life free of disagreement, though. Read a number of scientific papers, and you will see sharp camps forming around differing interpretations. And, indeed, some of the most significant papers today are involved with phenomena that cannot be directly observed. From quantum physics to economics to neuroscience, the topics at hand deal with forces that we can only see in terms of inputs and outputs, and not actual action. This does not make statements about these things into beliefs, though. They are simply hypotheses that are still in the process of becoming accepted as theories.

In a remarkably similar process, religious thought evolves (if the fundamentalists will forgive the term). However, rather than starting with the observable world as their axioms, they typically start with either a holy book or more nebulous body of myths. One of the primary differences is that this starting point not only determines what is, but what should be. Such sticky subjects as morals, lifestyles, and tribalism are introduced into the debate (subjects that science is only now trying to actually explain). But, aside from that, the parallels are remarkable. Religious scholars look at the “known” (read: commonly accepted) truths. A particular dilemma is posed. Logic is applied to determine what the proper solution to the dilemma would be. If the decision adds something material to the religion, it is incorporated as a belief. If a given belief gains acceptance of sufficient depth and breadth, it becomes formalized as dogma. A statement of truth that has withstood rigorous testing, and is rarely questioned without a powerful reason? Sounds suspiciously like a theory to me.

Ah, but I asked a question above without answering it, didn’t I? Is science superior to religion? Well, science certainly has the firmer grounding. You have far fewer axioms that have little or no support. That gives it the illusion of being closer to the ultimate truth. However, that ultimate truth is about far more than how these crude lumps of matter bump into each other. That is where religion takes the lead. By declaring a starting point at a higher order of knowledge, it is able to produce truths that are much more useful (hearken back to the definition of belief). But, it will always suffer from the fatal flaw that humans, notoriously error-prone, first guessed at the primal truths that the whole house is built on.

It is also worth taking a moment here to address another frequent criticism of the religious: They will frequently hold to ludicrous positions, which are obviously self-contradictory. Leaving aside the tricky inclusion of words such as “ludicrous” and “obviously” which too often pepper these discussions, there is a kernel of truth here. Some people will believe anything, and parrot patently silly statements to “support” their beliefs. However, these beliefs may be false, just the same as any hypothesis my be. And, these chronically uncritical believers are little different from similarly uncritical thinkers who fall for pseudo-science such as phrenology or modern diet programs. Dismissing any claims simply because the loudest proponents use poor techniques for defending them shows remarkably poor critical thinking of your own.

Now we come full circle to the tricky term that we began with: Faith. Faith is, quite simply, the belief that the truths you have accepted are actually true. While that seems terribly trite and obvious, let us pull the definition apart a bit. What is a “truth?” It is a fact that we accept to be correct. This can be a theory, such as evolution; it can be dogma, such as the existence of God. Our truths are the skeleton about which we construct our understanding of the world. Any statement about our truths, taken as a whole, therefore has deep ramifications on everything we think or do. In this case, we are asserting that the truths are true. That is, that they are internally consistent, and are useful to understanding the world around us. So, now we can say that our skeleton is a good one.

But we do more than simply say it. We believe it. We state that our truths are true as a fact which is, itself, true. With the closing of that loop, we create a system whereby our thoughts take on a power that can change the very nature of reality itself. Any statement that we can successfully incorporate into that framework becomes true. Doing so is no trivial feat, though. The statement must either be rigorously tested by us to the point that we no longer question it, or it must come to us already vested with truth from an authority that we similarly do not question.

What does this mean for our stalled conversations? Unfortunately, it is no beacon of light to pierce the obstacles. Rather, it should afford us an ability to understand what the other side is saying in a somewhat less arbitrary and inflammatory context. When the faithful appear to be refusing to think, it is because yielding the point is as easy for them as yielding the point that they think at all. To them, something like the existence of the Abrahamic God is as self-evident as the existence of music or laughter, and any further explanation is as unnecessary and self-referential. When the skeptics appear to be denying “obvious” truths, the faithful need to understand that, not only are those points not obvious for the skeptic, they may not even actually be true! (Again, refer back to the arbitrary and subjective nature of “usefulness.”)

When engaging in religious discussions, faith is always the elephant in the room. It defines the context that each participant is using. While many of the people on the same “side” may have contexts that significantly overlap, no two people enjoy exactly the same faith. By recognizing this inescapable disconnect, all of the participants can, theoretically, find ways to navigate around their own faiths. They may also, just possibly, find a way to use the discussion to test and hone their own beliefs.

Posted in Religion, Essays | 2 Comments »

30. January 2009 by Samldanach.

I just finished reading A. J. Jacobs’ excellent book The Year of Living Biblically. It is a memoir of his experiences trying to live as closely to the laws and rules of the Bible as possible. (This is the same author who wrote The Know-it-all, in which he read the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica from A to Z, also a fabulous book.) I highly recommend the book to, well, pretty much everyone. It is funny, and thoughtful. It is fair and open-minded without waffling all over the place and agreeing with anyone and everyone. It also has some intriguing insights, both from the author himself and from the experts he consults.

Naturally, this has me thinking about my second-favorite topic, religion. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Religion, Essays | 2 Comments »