There are multiple responses I'd like to field to various comments, so I'll attempt to be concise and systematic in my replies. David - Thank you for the explanation of the selfish gene metaphor. In all of the modern interpretations of the original idea, I lost sight of the basic meaning of it, and thank you for pointing it out. It's quite sound, really, to think that certain genes are encouraged in populations if they grant attributes or characteristics that are beneficial for survival. It seems that some of the interpretations that have since come from that original notion are what seem suspect to me. Jim - I agree, the principles and methodologies of science and religion are not compatible and it is folly to apply them to each other. To go beyond that though, it seems difficult to truly apply that notion. Scientific minds think scientifically, and religious minds think religiously. How (or can?) these ideas, these ways of thinking mesh and form some logically/emotionally consistent world view/belief system? Is this a process of individualization? Is it this sort of hybridization something that should be taught or encouraged, or just the opposite? It's interesting to think about, and I can confidently claim I have little idea what to think of such notions, or even how one would go about it (or whether they should). Bill - Your suggestion of the "enslaving of minds" when colonial-era Europeans spread across the globe is interesting in a conversation that dances around the topic of history and the human condition. Considering the human mind's amazing ability to justify one's own actions to itself (an expression of fitness if I've ever heard of one), it'd seem to me that most likely these priests that went with the colonialists were there to spread "the truth" (read: whatever they defined the truth as, a very convenient definition for the converter). Thus, any of the aggressive cultural and social acts (of which there is considerable evidence) to "spread the word of God" (In this example, the Christian God and the religious/lingual/social framework that surrounds it) were entirely justified in the minds of the colonials. I think your alternative explanation of the interplay of history and religion in history is useful in seeing the issue from a different perspective, one typically not examined when many people learn about history. Wayne - I agree that the prehistory era polytheistic faiths were much more nature-oriented than later monotheistic faiths. I think this is mainly due to how people lived at that time: in nature. To use the western example, from 1,000 BCE to the present day, most humans lived in some degree of civilization, whether that was a city, town, or village (with exceptions, of course). Considering these structures were very much tied to the surrounding wilderness (nature), they were still separate from it, and considered as such. The priestly figures in society spent a few hundred, then a few thousand years surrounded by humans rather than animals, and slowly but surely "God" is no longer a animistic man/animal hybrid, but a man, a divine man no less, but still. As the old testament says, man was created in the image of God, and thus the religious belief system of humans evolved to one far more human-centered than nature-centered. Micah - Before we go into your topic, I have a disagreement with some of your initial statements. In your post, you said... "One must approach the discussion delicately for the sake of discussion; if the purpose is to discover truth. We all know from our courses in logic and critical thinking that, truth needs no defense. Truth exists independent of what anyone thinks, wishes or claims it to be. Thought and discussion, that attempt to exclude emotion (bias) will make the human species more fit, and it will be necessary minimize bias if we are to overcome the challenges that confront us. Science would not emphasize the need to minimize bias if it were not so. My disagreement is with your assertion that logic is the only tool suitable to expanding human understanding of truth. The ancient Greeks were familiar with the three appeals of debate: ethos, pathos, and logos (morality, emotion, and logic). While I agree with your idea that the truth exists independently of what people perceive or believe it to be, I disagree that logic is the only proper tool to be used to expand understanding. Considering that to the non-scientist (which represents the vast majority of the human population) an emotional or moral appeal is oft far more effective at convincing people of the "rightness" of a course of action rather than a logical appeal. Any adept politician could tell you this. We might consider this to be an "unenlightened" means of spreading understanding, but I think scientists often forget that logic and its prodigy are not always the most effective tools for spreading knowledge. I think Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" film was an excellent example of this: A predominantly moral, emotional argument supported by logic. Granted, when all three methods of debate are used together in harmony, the most effective arguments are made, in my opinion. That said, the ideas you present in your post are interesting and thought-provoking about how everything, from human thoughts to living and non-living systems, can be measured in terms of energy, and are constantly and consistently dynamic in their change and evolution. While I personally found this perspective intriguing, I'd argue a layman would read your post and have their eyes glaze over in short order. That isn't to say a layman should not seek education and understanding, no, but what I'm trying to say is that this isn't a convincing argument for the average modern human. If we wish to seek (and indeed, spread) truth and understanding of the truth, I think it behooves us to be as clear and simple in our communication as possible while avoiding the dangers of over simplification. In summary, truth is hard. - Derek E. Pursell
--- On Mon, 5/17/10, Micah Moore <mmoore1...@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Micah Moore <mmoore1...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Monday, May 17, 2010, 8:29 PM This is a wonderful discussion, and it is one well worth having. The nature of this topic will elicit almost as many individual responses, as there are people. One must approach the discussion delicately for the sake of discussion; if the purpose is to discover truth. We all know from our courses in logic and critical thinking that, truth needs no defense. Truth exists independent of what anyone thinks, wishes or claims it to be. Thought and discussion, that attempt to exclude emotion(bias) will make the human species more fit, and it will be necessary minimize bias if we are to overcome the challenges that confront us. Science would not emphasize the need to minimize bias if it were not so. Any language has inefficiencies which hinder its users from precisely describing observations, repeated results or truth, and people often argue over terminology when the terms are, indeed, expressing the same concept. The following will attempt to express the relatedness of Science and Religion by starting with "Energy" and concluding with the collections of energy termed "humans". I hope that all who read it will consider it knowing that I realize it limitations as I write, but that I am joining the discussion for the very same fundamental reason that it is taking place. We must ask ourselves; "Do we really want to know?" It is very easy to take sides and blindly accept a claim. It requires energetic work in the form of kilojoules to put various amounts of thought and energy into examining different claims, but one can still arrive at a conclusion that is not the truth. No matter the belief system, we must ask ourselves if we really want to know the truth, no matter where the chips fall. Religion and Science are thought to be mutually exclusive by most discussing the issue, and both concepts claim to be a more a accurate representation of truth. They are different expressions of the same root cause. Most people will agree that different professions, disciplines, beliefs and life forms are related: physics, chemistry, biology, geology, psychology, sociology, economics, marketing, accounting, art etc... The general consensus is that they are related, but must do not or cannot consider the depths of the "universal" relationship of all energy forms. The concepts or mind strategies of Religion and Science are more related than most think. Conflict arises due to many variables or barriers that exist between systems and limit energy flow or "idea exchange". Language is a large barrier, and discussions of any topic are attempts to open energetic pathways, break down barriers, ultimately to arrive at a consensus(equilibrium). The purpose of this very discussion is so that the participants arrive at a more efficient "mind strategy" for viewing Science and Religion, whether or not they are aware of the energetic purpose. There are other variables are besides language; differential genetics, different informational stimuli, environmental stimuli, resource availability etc..., and these variables make "conflict" inevitable. A deeper understanding this topic is possible today because knowledge evolves, just like we evolve. It is almost certain that a deeper understanding will be possible for future generations. Any topic of discussion can integrate information from every subject that is known because energy is the base that gives rise to all expressions that exist or could exist. A deeper understanding of the "Ecology of Energy"(human behavior) will not be reached if the discussion does not incorporate all fields of knowledge. Keep in mind a word, sentence, paragraph, article, text, body language, sign language or any communication contains the amount of energy(in kilojoules) that it took to force air over the vocal chords, make hand signals, dance or write them. The amount of (kj) in any human communication does not equal the (kj) in the energy system, which it attempts to describe. The sides of the equation are not equal. Is it any wonder where so many sayings come from such as "words fall short", "words can't describe", "there's no explanation" etc? Literally, the energetics in language will fall short of precisely representing the other side. Communication will encounter electrical resistance(ohms), which produces energy loss in the form of heat. Discussions will get "heated". Tempers will "flare". Some will become "hot-heads". So, we must do what we can to lower resistance, to remain open, to remain objective and not waste our energetic efforts through "ohms" while discussing. This is the "information age", and we must look for the relationships between all that exists. Today, physics recognize energy systems and continues to discover the vastness of the system we call the universe. The total energy in existence and the systems that comprise the totality are currently, of course, inexplicably dynamic. The stability of energy systems is limited, and Newton's Laws provide valuable insight into the "conflict" that exists anywhere, in any form. "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed in formsystem to system." The discussion of conflict between Religion and Science must take into account the energy system called "humans" and their purpose. From the "Big Bang" came the known universe, galaxies, solar systems, planets, rock, weather cycles, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. They are all energy systems. Newton and Darwin cause us to believe that these systems did not always exist in their current forms nor will they in the future, even if we it takes many billions of years. This means that there is only relative stability and energy is always being transformed and transferred from one system to system. An herbivore(system) eats a plant(system). The herbivore's system transforms and transfers the energy in calories(calorie = 4.184joules), nucleic acids etc.., to regions of its system such as muscles, myelin sheaths, fat reserves. Everything that happens or could ever happen involves energy transformation and transfer, guaranteed! Currently, we only know energy to exist in the biological system, on the outer edge of the "Milky Way", in this solar system. The lithosphere, pedosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere are all energy systems that are transforming and transferring energy. The elements, mixtures, compounds etc... that comprise these systems have charges that predispose them to different behavior(reactions) when exposed to others based on respective molar ratios. Of course, the total number of possible reactions is astronomical. If we include stimuli from solar input, gravity and others not mentioned or known, the behavior of the human system form becomes dynamic to the extent "words cannot describe". Therefore, interactions will be exponentially dynamic; conflict will be that dynamic. Personal beliefs, morals, values, cultural differences, societies, economies and governments follow the same laws. Is it any wonder then, that we see the various expressions of energetic behavior that exists: conflict, agreement, peace, war, hate, love, crime, charity. It appears to be random because the order is unknown. All energy has an electric charge, whether we can currently measure that charge or not. We will only term it "neutral" or "random" until it can be observed, measured and known. These differences in charge, even if minute, predispose charges to "behave" differently and at different rates with others, but energy is always being transformed and transferred. All energy forms are "in the business" of transforming and transferring (processing) energy, which can make broader views seem random or chaotic. These are necessary concepts to understand, when examining the the seeming conflict of Science and Religion because a concept is a form of energy(electric charges) that exist within the electrical structure of neurons. So, the question may be: How is this related to Science and Religion: Dogmatic Conflict? Science and Religion are concepts(energy) that play a large role in the human system. As previously stated, concepts are energy in the form of electrical charge in the CPU(brain) of the human system. A concept that makes a given genetic code, in a given environment more efficient, is by definition fitness. Belief systems of humans have evolved(energy transformation and transfer) just as the the human genetic system has evolved. An energetic behavior that is more efficient in a given system(environment:local, regional, global) by definition will work better. Reproduction is an energetic behavior. Some biotic systems utilize "sexual reproduction". Newton and Darwin tell us that those with the best combination will by definition work better. Efficient systems will reproduce themselves in greater numbers and represent a larger percentage of the total. Biological fitness is this process. A biological system is an energy system. The local, regional, global environment are systems of energy. The organisms that work best in a given environment will by definition be more fit. The system of earth allowed for the increased processing power of the human CPU. Concepts(programs) that increase the efficiency of the human system within the environmental system, are more fit concepts. Through time and changing conditions, the fittest concepts will proliferate. As the human primate became "self aware", increasing RAM has been favored just as overall memory capacity of the hard drive. Human brains that could store more stimulus in form of memory and simultaneously run multiple programs, have proven to be more "fit". Looking back, mind strategies were limited by the brains(capacity) which stored and utilized them. Population growth is a change in the environment(system) just as a change in the number of trees, amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or volcanism. The presence of more people dictates that the total energy of the solar system did not change but where it existed. So increasing population, along with all changes in climate etc..., favored the evolution of human the human brain and the concepts it used. Hunter gatherers could not have this discussion. The first agrarian societies could not have this discussion. From the Mesopotamian to Persian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Ottoman, British, American and others not mentioned, concepts have transformed and transferred. At one time there was no concept, primates were not capable. As primates evolved, electrical activity in their brains(concepts) that made them more efficient in the environment evolved as well. It is not coincidence that if we go "around the world in 60 seconds", we see the why there is such great variety in "beliefs", "non-belief", "values", "culture", "religion" and "Societies". As the number of people have increased, so has the variability of our interactions and the need to understand it. Science could only progress slowly, as the number of brains increased. As time progressed the best mind strategies "hashed" themselves out, while more brains allowed for "brain" division of labor and specialization. All the way through the "Dark Ages" to the "Enlightenment". Gradually, "Science"(concept/mind strategy) is replacing what use to work for the given conditions that the human brain encountered. We know that "Religions" were in place in their respective regions because populations were relatively isolated. If those "Religions" had been inefficient "brain wave" processes, they would not have resulted in higher numbers of human energy systems(population) in those areas. Science, overall, has made us more efficient in our environment, as changes in environment occur. "Knowledge is Power" literally, in kilojoules. Through time, environment will filter knowledge that is beneficial. We only need to look at the fossil record to realize that the "filtering" process is never a smooth process. In our species, there will be "turmoil" in the evolution of mind strategies, and reaching a consensus between two or seven billion people is quite the process, due to the limits of communication(pathways). Different pathways offer differing amounts of resistance(ohms), which is why things become "lost in translation". From the first who were self aware to the polytheists, monotheists, the Enlightenment and beyond, efficiency(fitness) will emerge in any form or process of energy behavior(expression). This energetic process that we call existence(the universe/energy) will transform and transfer(evolve) just as it has always done. We must remember the vastness/dynamics/sheer complexity of what we call life(i.e."have open minds"), and remember that every thing, process, behavior, thought, "Concept" and discussion are a part of that beautiful system. Whether a vocalization(energy transfer) calls it "God", "Mother Earth", "Creation" or the "Big Bang", they were produced by the same complex interactions of "energy", and through time, environment will select what works best(fitness). Remember, language(words) are limited when they themselves do not contain an equal amount of energy, as the energy systems which they attempt to describe. Respectfully, Micah J. Moore ________________________________ From: James Crants <jcra...@gmail.com> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 10:36:40 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Derek, I think you're right that scientists are apprehensive about religion and spirituality because they deal with concepts that are outside the bounds of science. Any idea about anything supernatural is completely untestable. If you try to apply the scientific approach to such topics, you are stuck with either agnosticism (because questions about the supernatural are scientifically untestable, so we should no pretend we have scientific answers to such questions) or atheism (because assuming the presence of supernatural things on top of all we can demonstrate to be true is less parsimonious than assuming their absence). On the flip side, though, I think the attempts by many religious people to apply religious belief to things that are well within the bounds of science cause even more apprehension for scientists. I think we see that in some of the characterizations of religion we've seen on this forum (ie, religion is about blindly believing things taught to you by religious authorities, regardless of or even in spite of concrete, compelling evidence to the contrary). Believing things about the natural world without or in spite of evidence and logic isn't compatible with the philosophy of science, so if one equates all religion with that kind of belief, science and religion must be considered mutually exclusive, and religious people must avoid topics where the evidence contradicts their beliefs, or stay out of science altogether. And is it any wonder that we don't like religion invading our turf? We get religious opposition on the age of the universe, the existence of dinosaurs (non-contemporaneously with humans), the occurrence of biological evolution, and even global warming. Add to that all the times our findings are overridden by plain old politics and the refusal to believe whatever is inconsistent with one's worldview, and it's no wonder we get cranky at anything (like religion) that lies behind a wide array of irrational beliefs. Still, it's not accurate to say that all religion involves believing things in the absence of evidence. I strongly recommend books by Karen Armstrong for anyone who wants to understand how this can be. "A History of God" is pretty dense, but it really puts our modern Christian literalism in perspective, relative to the history and breadth of the Abrahamic religions. "The Spiral Staircase" is an autobiography, but since most of her life story revolves around theology and religion, is still provides some insight into a wide array of religious subjects. I'm reading "The Case for God" now, and it mostly seems to reiterate points from her other books, but it's more accessible than "A History of God." Jim Crants (P.S. David McNeely said all I would have to say about the selfish gene model, but if you really want to know what people here think about it, I would recommend starting a new discussion.) On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Derek Pursell <dep1...@yahoo.com> wrote: > That's fine Mr. Roper, it is nothing, haha! To continue with the topic at > hand though, the principles of the person being their own judge on the > matter and being able to explain to someone's self-satisfaction seem sound > standards. Granted, some people will inevitably be more difficult to satisfy > than others, but that can be readily assessed by noting the extent of one's > knowledge on a subject. > To quote from earlier: "So, as scientists, when we don't know enough about > a subject, we should suspend judgement of that subject, or learn more. But, > we should definitely > NOT feel obliged to have opinions about that of which we know nothing. > Religion is often just that - forming opinions on that about which one > knows little or nothing." > While I would generally agree that this is true, there are issues presented > in this statement. Since science is based off the notions of rationalism, > empiricism, the sensory and the provable, it is a 'relatively' simple and > straightforward process to acquire and learn new knowledge on the subject in > question. Religion, and its precepts of faith, relying upon intuition before > logic, on the idea of "the unknowable" or "unprovable" prohibit the > application of scientific principles to understand religious questions. I > think this is where many scientists acquire their apprehension of > spirituality and religiosity in general: they try to apply the scientific > principles and methodologies (how they've been taught to think, act, speak, > live) to something where such ideas do not work and do not apply. It is > trying to understand something unreasonable with reason, and that itself > seems absurd. It isn't as if there is anything wrong with trying to > understand "old" > human knowledge with "new" human knowledge, but there are many cerebral > pitfalls to be avoided in my opinion. I've been reading "Why we do it: > rethinking the selfish gene" by Niles Eldredge (a book I'd highly recommend > if one is interested in evolutionary biology, and it is written with > sufficient clarity that non-scientists can understand it). His central point > I find striking, in that the modern interpretations of some evolutionary > biologists that propagate Dawkins' "selfish gene" idea are assigning traits > we'd typically assign to specimens of a species (sexual selection, the > general struggle for continued existence), to genes, the mechanics of > organisms and species. I'm very curious as to what people think about the > selfish gene idea here, considering the pool of intellectual heft here to > weigh upon it. > - Derek E. Pursell > > --- On Sun, 5/16/10, James J. Roper <jjro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: James J. Roper <jjro...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? > To: "Derek Pursell" <dep1...@yahoo.com> > Date: Sunday, May 16, 2010, 1:45 PM > > Sorry Derek, > I realized I called you Dave just AFTER I clicked the send button. I > indeed did mean you, and not Dave, whoever he may be. > Cheers, > Jim > > > On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 18:55, Derek Pursell <dep1...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Mr. Roper makes an excellent point here; the value of establishing that one > should not have an opinion (interpretation: bias?) before studying or > gaining further knowledge of a subject is invaluable to the pursuit of > knowledge. This principle applies for scientific and non-scientific > purposes. This idea, so presented, does bring up another question: what > would we like to define as "sufficient knowledge" in order to justify having > an opinion on a subject? From my personal experience, people tend to form > opinions on subjects relatively early in the process of learning about them > (if indeed, any meaningful degree of learning takes place), so the perils > are obvious. Granted, the definition of "sufficient knowledge" is broadly > interpretative and would vary from subject to subject, but it can be > troublesome because of the age-old issue of how people define and use the > same word to mean many different things. > > > The problems surrounding definition and how words are understood and used > is something that is best solved by the evolving pursuit of greater > education, for all people. Not to send the topic too far askew, but if we'd > like to make the normative suggestion that people -should- learn more about > a topic before forming an opinion on it, how do we go about creating that > education and awareness, especially considering that the traditional > academic structure of learning is not something that all people have access > to? The internet has done wonders to help people to this effect, but the > pursuit of knowledge remains implicitly voluntary. Granted, it almost always > has, but it seems to suggest that to better educate the public at large with > the necessary (Interpretations: knowledge of what, and to what degree?) > education that is required, that the traditional K-12 + College/University > structure needs to evolve to suit the needs of the people. How to go about > doing > > > that, oy, that is a topic in and of itself. > > -Derek E. Pursell > > > > --- On Sat, 5/15/10, James J. Roper <jjro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > From: James J. Roper <jjro...@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 1:38 PM > > > > I think that some of us may forget about the possibility of NOT forming > > opinions. > > > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 18:50, Frank Marenghi <frank_maren...@hotmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > I agree with Mr. Sibley. It would be impossible for each of us to weigh > all > > > of the evidence available on every issue and come up with our own > rational > > > conclusions > > > > > > On those things we know little or nothing, we do NOT really have to have an > > opinion. I am reminded of a lay friend who told me outright that global > > warming was not happening (I think she thinks it is a communist plot). I > > asked her, why do you even HAVE an opinion on this matter, when you know > > nothing of the subject? > > > > After all, if it is, or is not, occurring, it is not a matter of opinion. > > Just like evolution - not a matter of opinion. So, if the situation is > > such that I cannot weigh ENOUGH evidence, I don't come to conclusions > > either. So, if someone asks me what I think of the grand unified theory of > > physics, I will say, I don't know enough to form a good viewpoint. That is > > a much freer position, and more logical for a scientist. Read Futuyma's > > review of the book "What Darwing got wrong" (the review is titled "Two > > Critics Without a Clue") and you will see what happens when ill-informed > > people try to make an argument based on insufficient knowledge of a > subject. > > > > So, as scientists, when we don't know enough about a subject, we should > > suspend judgement of that subject, or learn more. But, we should > definitely > > NOT feel obliged to have opinions about that of which we know nothing. > > Religion is often just that - forming opinions on that about which one > > knows little or nothing. > > > > Cheers, > > > > JIm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > James J. Roper, Ph.D. > > > > > > > Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics > > > of Terrestrial Vertebrates > > > > > Caixa Postal 19034 > > > 81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil > > > > > E-mail: > > jjro...@gmail.com > > > Telefone: 55 41 36730409 > > > Celular: 55 41 98182559 > > > Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064 > > > Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715 > > > > > Ecology and > > Conservation at the UFPR > > > Home Page > > > ArsArtium Consulting > > > In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
