I cringe whenever I hear someone say, "I could never believe in a God that would [fill in the blank]."
<I'm going to use the pronoun "He" here for simplicity in writing. Your beliefs may differ.>
With the premise that God exists, then He is already defined. We cannot define Him any more than we can personally define what the chemical makeup of quartz is; we must discover Him. We must accept what He factually is. We cannot choose what God is.
The fact that, for example, innocent children suffer in this world is evidence that this tragic occurrence fits somehow with God's nature. God allows it for some reason. It may be difficult for us to understand, but once we discover Him and learn His nature and His Big Picture, we should be able to understand the "why's."
If you have an "I could never believe..." in your head, stop and think for a moment. Perhaps you're asking the wrong question. Perhaps you should be instead trying to find God, to discover Him.
As a scientist, I cannot prove scientifically that God exists. The supernatural is just that -- beyond science's ability to test, touch, experiment, and prove. And, by the same token, it is also impossible to prove that God does not exist. But as a man of faith, I know that I can prove to myself that God exists by praying to Him and, once I find them, putting His promises to the test. I can testify so to others and share my beliefs and experiences, but I cannot objectively prove it and transfer that knowledge to others -- it is a matter of personal faith. To discover God, you must exercise faith (knowledge/belief in something you cannot see). To find God without faith would be like finding a scientific fact without observation and experiment -- it cannot be done.
An interesting outcome of this essay is that not all religions could be fully "true;" that is, that all their teachings about God are factually accurate. They may be "good," and they may be close to reality, but if there really is a God, then God has one definition, one reality, one identity. It is up to us to discover whether those differences between religions matter to God!
The agnostic may dismiss my premise, but consider this: you cannot prove that God does not exist!
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
If Only You Understood!
There is a disturbing trend in today's politics to say, "If they just understood my idea, they would accept it."
This philosophical abomination is used across the political spectrum, but has been particularly prevalent in the Obama administration.
It is an abomination because it presumes that only one side of an argument is valid. That is almost never the case in the political arena. It dismisses the opposing ideas out-of-hand, giving them and their adherents no due respect. It presumes that opposing opinions are not valid, or are morally and/or intellectually inferior, while implicitly exalting the speaker's ideas. It is pure intellectual and moral arrogance.
Watch for this tactic, and see it for what it is.
This philosophical abomination is used across the political spectrum, but has been particularly prevalent in the Obama administration.
It is an abomination because it presumes that only one side of an argument is valid. That is almost never the case in the political arena. It dismisses the opposing ideas out-of-hand, giving them and their adherents no due respect. It presumes that opposing opinions are not valid, or are morally and/or intellectually inferior, while implicitly exalting the speaker's ideas. It is pure intellectual and moral arrogance.
Watch for this tactic, and see it for what it is.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Knowledge Gap
The headline goes something like this: "Wide gap between scientists and public on scientific issues."
Here's why this should be no surprise, and why the focus is on scientists rather than other kinds of experts.
Anyone who develops expertise in an area distances themselves from the average person's level of understanding in that area. Whether a carpenter or chemist, physicist or physical therapist, farmer or pharmacist, the expert develops a depth of knowledge on their topic that Joe Public will never attain. When detailed discussions ensue, Joe Public is quickly out of his depth; he cannot sustain an intelligent conversation at the expert's depth.
And so the headline should be no surprise, because there is a wide gap between public understanding and experts' understanding on almost any topic.
The problem is, no one doubts a carpenter or a farmer. Pharmacists are trusted implicitly, as are most personal physicians.
But something happens when an astrophysicist explains how old the Earth and the universe are, or a paleontologist explains how life forms have changed over time. These topics are suddenly not so close to Joe Public. They're not something the average person can relate to. The deep, technical details that the expert deals with daily are foreign to Joe Public, and so a distrust or skepticism develops. He doubts the experts. He doesn't doubt the scientists who make flight possible, and new medicines, and the internet, and electricity -- he is happy to use those without a second thought. But for some reason he doubts the experts on other scientific topics.
I think scientists are the target of public skepticism because many science topics are unfamiliar, hard to relate to, and abstract to the average person. The issues may have implications for public policy, and may contradict the world model Joe Public has set up for himself. But if we were to formulate a survey like the ones that create the headline, but instead survey people's understanding and trust of farmers or computer engineers or architects or accountants at deep enough technical levels, I think we may find the same kinds of gaps in understanding and trust.
Here's why this should be no surprise, and why the focus is on scientists rather than other kinds of experts.
Anyone who develops expertise in an area distances themselves from the average person's level of understanding in that area. Whether a carpenter or chemist, physicist or physical therapist, farmer or pharmacist, the expert develops a depth of knowledge on their topic that Joe Public will never attain. When detailed discussions ensue, Joe Public is quickly out of his depth; he cannot sustain an intelligent conversation at the expert's depth.
And so the headline should be no surprise, because there is a wide gap between public understanding and experts' understanding on almost any topic.
The problem is, no one doubts a carpenter or a farmer. Pharmacists are trusted implicitly, as are most personal physicians.
But something happens when an astrophysicist explains how old the Earth and the universe are, or a paleontologist explains how life forms have changed over time. These topics are suddenly not so close to Joe Public. They're not something the average person can relate to. The deep, technical details that the expert deals with daily are foreign to Joe Public, and so a distrust or skepticism develops. He doubts the experts. He doesn't doubt the scientists who make flight possible, and new medicines, and the internet, and electricity -- he is happy to use those without a second thought. But for some reason he doubts the experts on other scientific topics.
I think scientists are the target of public skepticism because many science topics are unfamiliar, hard to relate to, and abstract to the average person. The issues may have implications for public policy, and may contradict the world model Joe Public has set up for himself. But if we were to formulate a survey like the ones that create the headline, but instead survey people's understanding and trust of farmers or computer engineers or architects or accountants at deep enough technical levels, I think we may find the same kinds of gaps in understanding and trust.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Ballghazi
Tom Brady's favorite opera? Deflator Mouse.
His favorite movie? Lords of Flatbush.
His wife's favorite shoes? Flats.
Where does he live? In a flat.
His favorite kind of weather? Low pressure.
What does he do after a game? Depressurizes.
His favorite movie? Lords of Flatbush.
His wife's favorite shoes? Flats.
Where does he live? In a flat.
His favorite kind of weather? Low pressure.
What does he do after a game? Depressurizes.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Wealth: The False Premises
Complaints about "wealth inequality" are common and even popular, but are they based on facts? I think there are some false premises in current public discussion of wealth.
First false premise: The very wealthy take wealth away from others. This assumption goes uncontested in all the news outlets I've seen, yet it's completely false except in cases of theft or despotism. Take any very wealthy person (who is not one of the exceptions) and examine how they accumulated their wealth, and you'll see that they earned it, were very lucky, inherited a portion of it, or some combination of these. Wealth is not a finite quantity. If Bill Gates did not exist, for example, the wealth he created would simply not exist. He didn't take it away from anyone.
Second false premise: The wealth "gap." Wealth is a spectrum, with people at every income level from the lowest to the highest. There is no gap in the spectrum. Comparing two extreme or random points of any data spectrum is a relatively meaningless exercise. For example, the highest recorded temperature on earth is about 70 degrees F higher than the annual average temperature in Duluth, Iowa. So what? What matters is the spectrum and its shape.
Third false premise: Use of the phrase "wealth inequality." Attempts at wealth "equality" have always been associated with despotism and oppression. There has never been any such thing as "wealth equality," nor is it achievable where anything that can be called "wealth" exists because individuals' capabilities, opportunities, and desires are unequal. The phrase is, in the real world, meaningless.
First false premise: The very wealthy take wealth away from others. This assumption goes uncontested in all the news outlets I've seen, yet it's completely false except in cases of theft or despotism. Take any very wealthy person (who is not one of the exceptions) and examine how they accumulated their wealth, and you'll see that they earned it, were very lucky, inherited a portion of it, or some combination of these. Wealth is not a finite quantity. If Bill Gates did not exist, for example, the wealth he created would simply not exist. He didn't take it away from anyone.
Second false premise: The wealth "gap." Wealth is a spectrum, with people at every income level from the lowest to the highest. There is no gap in the spectrum. Comparing two extreme or random points of any data spectrum is a relatively meaningless exercise. For example, the highest recorded temperature on earth is about 70 degrees F higher than the annual average temperature in Duluth, Iowa. So what? What matters is the spectrum and its shape.
Third false premise: Use of the phrase "wealth inequality." Attempts at wealth "equality" have always been associated with despotism and oppression. There has never been any such thing as "wealth equality," nor is it achievable where anything that can be called "wealth" exists because individuals' capabilities, opportunities, and desires are unequal. The phrase is, in the real world, meaningless.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Ignorance and Experience
There are fundamental problems regarding important discussions about climate, energy, federal fiscal policy, foreign policy, terrorism, and many other subjects, that I think few recognize but we all need to understand to be more effective and responsible participants in the discussions. I'll try to explain my take on them.
The first is, "the ignorant cannot know what they do not know." A correlary might be, "knowledge reveals boundaries," or "only those who have studied a topic extensively know how much they don't know." This is a problem because the ignorant talk and think and form opinions without realizing how wrong they might be. We see this every day in public discourse from Facebook posts to blogs to opinion pieces to talk radio shows to politicians' speeches.
The second is that our personal experiences often override other facts in our minds. There are many examples including politics, economics, and social issues, but good ones to quantify are natural Earth systems (climate, river floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions). One human lifetime is too short relative to natural cycles to give a meaningful sampling. If we have a hot or wet or cold or dry decade, many conclude that the climate is changing. If several big earthquakes occur close together, many conclude that we're having more earthquakes. If big floods occur in a short period of time, many conclude that floods are increasing. The fact is that all of these things happen in much more complex cycles and patterns (often random) than any of us will experience in our lifetimes. None of us has lived in an ice age, for example, and yet our ancestors did. Our perceptions, then, are only of a small part of the whole story, like the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
How can we personally deal with these issues? First, to carefully evaluate how much you really know about a subject before forming a solid opinion, ask useful questions like these: How many hours have you spent studying it? (It takes thousands of hours to become an expert). What were your sources of information, experts or opinion-makers? (Stick with experts). Can I put this information into the bigger context of the total possibilities? (If not, you probably don't understand it well).
This is not to say that we cannot form valid opinions without becoming experts. We can, but it is vital to recognize the limits of our understanding and the bias that our personal experience puts into our minds. That just may change our conclusions.
Summary 1) Recognize the limits of your knowledge. 2) Study. 3) Get information from subject-matter experts only. 4) Recognize the bias of personal experience.
The first is, "the ignorant cannot know what they do not know." A correlary might be, "knowledge reveals boundaries," or "only those who have studied a topic extensively know how much they don't know." This is a problem because the ignorant talk and think and form opinions without realizing how wrong they might be. We see this every day in public discourse from Facebook posts to blogs to opinion pieces to talk radio shows to politicians' speeches.
The second is that our personal experiences often override other facts in our minds. There are many examples including politics, economics, and social issues, but good ones to quantify are natural Earth systems (climate, river floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions). One human lifetime is too short relative to natural cycles to give a meaningful sampling. If we have a hot or wet or cold or dry decade, many conclude that the climate is changing. If several big earthquakes occur close together, many conclude that we're having more earthquakes. If big floods occur in a short period of time, many conclude that floods are increasing. The fact is that all of these things happen in much more complex cycles and patterns (often random) than any of us will experience in our lifetimes. None of us has lived in an ice age, for example, and yet our ancestors did. Our perceptions, then, are only of a small part of the whole story, like the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
How can we personally deal with these issues? First, to carefully evaluate how much you really know about a subject before forming a solid opinion, ask useful questions like these: How many hours have you spent studying it? (It takes thousands of hours to become an expert). What were your sources of information, experts or opinion-makers? (Stick with experts). Can I put this information into the bigger context of the total possibilities? (If not, you probably don't understand it well).
This is not to say that we cannot form valid opinions without becoming experts. We can, but it is vital to recognize the limits of our understanding and the bias that our personal experience puts into our minds. That just may change our conclusions.
Summary 1) Recognize the limits of your knowledge. 2) Study. 3) Get information from subject-matter experts only. 4) Recognize the bias of personal experience.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
A Missed Historic Opportunity
President Obama, as the first non-White president, missed a truly monumental opportunity to take his place in History. When protests broke out around the country about two Black men being killed by police, the President could have stepped in as an authority figure to settle down the inflamed emotions. He could have issued words of wisdom to mend the divide and heal the wounds, to address the deep distrust some have about police and the legal system. He was in the historically unique position to say, "My people!" and begin to heal generations of problems.
Instead, the President took the outrageous and illogical position of blaming the police. In neither case was race a factor, and yet the President took the side of the protesters and fanned the flames.
Not once did he point out that the man in Ferguson died because he refused to cooperate with the police. Not once did he point out that the man in New York was resisting arrest, doing something illegal, and died because of pre-existing serious health problems. Not once did he call for all citizens to respect and cooperate with the police, and to respect and honor the evidence judged by the grand juries. And not once did he call on the protesters to do their part to heal the wounds.
Without the protesters admitting the facts of the cases, without them seeing that there was no racial component to either case, and without them living in the world of truth and facts, they will continue to live in a land of illusion where emotions rule and there can be no healing.
The President only blamed the police.
And for that, he will go down in history as a footnote instead of as a great leader.
Instead, the President took the outrageous and illogical position of blaming the police. In neither case was race a factor, and yet the President took the side of the protesters and fanned the flames.
Not once did he point out that the man in Ferguson died because he refused to cooperate with the police. Not once did he point out that the man in New York was resisting arrest, doing something illegal, and died because of pre-existing serious health problems. Not once did he call for all citizens to respect and cooperate with the police, and to respect and honor the evidence judged by the grand juries. And not once did he call on the protesters to do their part to heal the wounds.
Without the protesters admitting the facts of the cases, without them seeing that there was no racial component to either case, and without them living in the world of truth and facts, they will continue to live in a land of illusion where emotions rule and there can be no healing.
The President only blamed the police.
And for that, he will go down in history as a footnote instead of as a great leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)