Tuesday, December 20, 2005

intelligent design again

The debate rages on.

"HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday"


We live in a world of confusion, our teaching methods are backward. Why do we have to teach absolutes. It seems we are scared to admit to our children, hence ourselves that we don't have absolute answers to anything.

Would it not be better to teach what we have discovered to date and then discuss the predominant views. There are facts and there is dogma. Teach facts and let kids think for themselves, analyse the facts and decide.

If you teach dogma, don't be upset when dogma is all around you.

Both evolution and intelligent design have issues as theories. But I believe id is a reaction to the dogmatic presentation of evolution by scientists desperate to prove they have an answer, they have a theory. ID looks worse though, at best it seems like an argument to say we were created by aliens. Probably..

Monday, December 19, 2005

god and science 2

The essential conclusion of my last god log was this:

The word god is meaningless as the meaning most people think it has, but the word has a tonne of meaning in a personalised context.

The word is a key into the individual human psyche, and tells you about the person describing god to you.

A useful conclusion if you like thinking things through.

An inner key

So with the word god you have an easy key into a persons inner world. You may say this is open to abuse by people that hold this key and know how to use it. I would say so... Its a natural step to start tampering with peoples inner world if you can set yourself up in any position of authority on the definition of the word.

This is similar to how viruses can attack computers. A virus can only get into a computer if there is what is known as a vulnerability in the system. The virus exploits the vulnerability to get into the computer and then can proceed about its nefarious business appropriating the computers assets for its own ends.

I am proposing that the equivalent human vulnerability is this:

Any human that believes any other human can define god for them has this vulnerability manifest.

For an organised group this is a very useful device and can be a powerful cohesive force to motivate societies in directions that are predetermined and planned by a leading group or individual.

If what i am discussing is not a science of god what is ?

In fact right from the very earliest human history do we see this played out time and again. The formation of the first towns and cities in the earliest cultures like the Sumerian and Egyptian are accompanied by the formation of a definition of god. Large groups of humans could only come together and operate under a unified command, if there was a command structure, a system to operate it and someone to drive it.

I am going to call this type of science religion, I want to separate this from the word spirituality which is a wholly different thing and something I may return to in another piece.

In my definition, religion is the hierarchical command system for motivating large groups of humans that operates though the 'god' psychic vulnerability in the human.

The first scientists i believe, were the first people to operate rationally constructed systems to motivate people in ways they desired. These were the high priests of the earliest cultures. And I claim that it was only when this science was understood and deployed effectively that the earliest city states came together.

You can bet these were the smartest people around. It is also interesting to note that these same people handled the geometry and mapping out of the movement of the stars and planets to a very high degree of accuracy. Certainly rational and very scientific in their approach, equivalent to the scientific elite of the day.

I don't think these fellows would have been troubled by reconciling issues of god and science. They practiced a thoroughly rational art that delivered understandable and testable results.

They certainly got the human motivation thing right, the pyramids of egypt are a constant reminder of just how good their science really was.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

god and science

Just saw a bbc program on the nature of god and its compatibility with science, it got me thinking... and wanting to write something down.

Can you be scientific about god ?

To go into it we need to wade though words that don't really have much good defined meaning, we are not on easy ground. the ground is a world play.

'scientific'.. instead of using this confusing word i am going to go with 'rational'. The program, and many people dont seem to think you can be rational and have a view of god. Well i dont claim to know that much on the subject, but i have observed most people seem to be most irrational about anything close to this subject. I think then, this would explain the prevailing view, that never the twain shall meet..

This brings me to the second word, god. Well you certainly cant be rational about this word if you cant give it a meaning. As far as i have discovered, this word means something different to everyone i meet. If i ask them to tell me about their view of the meaning, most people go off into the sunset with an incoherent dialogue that looses me fairly rapidly.

So to go any further into this observation i have to conclude at least that the word god does not have any useful meaning. At least the meaning it has, is not the meaning most people think it has. it gets even better.

All I have to go on is what i have observed in my life to date, and what i have observed in respect to this word is that its a meaningless word unless you connect it to the person you are talking to.

Startlingly the word takes on a new light, it opens a key into someones inner world. Their hopes, fears, views on morality get put onto their definition and personal relationship with their view of this externally so named figure. As far as i have seen to date in nearly all people i have met, this external figure turns out to be their own inner self. Ask most people to define god and they are defining their own idealised self.

Well, at least if you want to get to know someone its a great discussion point.

I believe you can be rational about god, provided you can be rational...

Unfortunately science itself is often irrational as people are quoting under the guise of science, just because they are a scientist it does not make them rational. If these people are not rational then what they say is not much use either.

Can you be scientific about god ?

A first step could be to say, a rational view of god is that the word tells you about the person telling you about the word. Most scientists dont study much about people, hence dont have to much useful to say on the matter.

I think you could be scientific about god, but not many people have really tried. Everyone including most scientists start talking about themselves before they get any distance into the issue.