DISQUS

"What does this system lack in terms of a replacement for religious belief?"

I'm not sure it lacks anything as a replacement for religious "belief", but I think it may lack something as a replacement for religion completely. I say "may" because I'm not absolutely sure, just suggesting a theory.

Imagine there's two types of religion under the same label. One type you could call "faith" or "belief", as it involves learning scriptures, following moral codes and repeating prayers. You could see this as the outward form of the religion, or the established church.

The other you could call "personal religious experience" or "mysticism". In Islam this would be Sufis vs the Mullahs. In Catholicism the Contemplatives vs the priesthood. In Buddhism possibly Zen vs the more church-like sects.

Now I'm not saying that any religious person has to belong to one or the other. It's possible to say prayers and have a religious experience, for example. But I think your life stance may be only replacing the first aspect of religion and not the second.

To put it another way, imagine a number of aesthetic senses. A love of music, for example, or a love of learning. Perhaps a sense of humour. Each of these is a different way of perceiving the world. You'd say to someone who has no sense of humour that they are missing some of the fun of life - yet there's nothing of a sense of humour in the secular humanist life stance. It's like Goedel's theorem - something may be true, but outside the model.

I suggest, perhaps, that religious experience is like this - like hearing the melody in a piece of music. It doesn't come with any prayers or creeds, but to miss it may be to miss something quite beautiful.

"What does this system lack in terms of a replacement for religious belief?"

I'm not sure it lacks anything as a replacement for religious "belief", but I think it may lack something as a replacement for religion completely. I say "may" because I'm not absolutely sure, just suggesting a theory.

Imagine there's two types of religion under the same label. One type you could call "faith" or "belief", as it involves learning scriptures, following moral codes and repeating prayers. You could see this as the outward form of the religion, or the established church.

The other you could call "personal religious experience" or "mysticism". In Islam this would be Sufis vs the Mullahs. In Catholicism the Contemplatives vs the priesthood. In Buddhism possibly Zen vs the more church-like sects.

Now I'm not saying that any religious person has to belong to one or the other. It's possible to say prayers and have a religious experience, for example. But I think your life stance may be only replacing the first aspect of religion and not the second.

To put it another way, imagine a number of aesthetic senses. A love of music, for example, or a love of learning. Perhaps a sense of humour. Each of these is a different way of perceiving the world. You'd say to someone who has no sense of humour that they are missing some of the fun of life - yet there's nothing of a sense of humour in the secular humanist life stance. It's like Goedel's theorem - something may be true, but outside the model.

I suggest, perhaps, that religious experience is like this - like hearing the melody in a piece of music. It doesn't come with any prayers or creeds, but to miss it may be to miss something quite beautiful.

"So for the purposes of the rest of this piece I’ll assume that you do agree with my main premise."

I'm not sure if this is the sort of critique you want, but I believe that your premise is incorrect. You say:

"I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other."

... however this is the same argument used by Einstein in his "God does not play dice with the universe" quote.

Unfortunately for that theory, numerous experiments in quantum physics has shown that He/She/It does in fact play dice. For example, atomic decay is random at the atomic level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

What this means is that although large numbers of atoms may obey a statistical average, there is no way to predict when any given atom will decay. There have been mathematical studies of such decays, using methods which show the resulting number sequences are random.

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness...>

Hence, at a fundamental level, the universe is not predictable. I don't want to push this argument all the way up to say it is a proof of free will - just that your own argument comes from a premise I don't believe is supportable.

"So for the purposes of the rest of this piece I’ll assume that you do agree with my main premise."

I'm not sure if this is the sort of critique you want, but I believe that your premise is incorrect. You say:

"I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other."

... however this is the same argument used by Einstein in his "God does not play dice with the universe" quote.

Unfortunately for that theory, numerous experiments in quantum physics has shown that He/She/It does in fact play dice. For example, atomic decay is random at the atomic level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

What this means is that although large numbers of atoms may obey a statistical average, there is no way to predict when any given atom will decay. There have been mathematical studies of such decays, using methods which show the resulting number sequences are random.

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness...>

Hence, at a fundamental level, the universe is not predictable. I don't want to push this argument all the way up to say it is a proof of free will - just that your own argument comes from a premise I don't believe is supportable.

"So for the purposes of the rest of this piece I’ll assume that you do agree with my main premise."

I'm not sure if this is the sort of critique you want, but I believe your main premise is incorrect. You say:

"I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other. Just because there are trillions and trillions of them doesn’t make their interactions magical (or even special)."

... but this is exactly the problem Einstein had that led him to give the famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe." The thing is, according to quantum theory, He/She/It does.

Take nuclear decay, for example. You simply cannot predict when any individual atom will decay. You can perform a statistical analysis of any large enough grouping, but for any one atom, there is no telling. There have been statistical analyses done, and they show that the resultant decay follows all mathematical tests for randomness.

Hence the universe is, at a fundamental level, not predictable. The question of free-will vs determinism is a wider issue and I think I personally agree with the person above who said that both are true depending on how you look at it. But I don't think your proof above has a supportable premise.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompletenessofquantum_physics

... unless, of course, I've misunderstood your argument.

"So for the purposes of the rest of this piece I’ll assume that you do agree with my main premise."

I'm not sure if this is the sort of critique you want, but I believe your main premise is incorrect. You say:

"I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other. Just because there are trillions and trillions of them doesn’t make their interactions magical (or even special)."

... but this is exactly the problem Einstein had that led him to give the famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe." The thing is, according to quantum theory, He/She/It does.

Take nuclear decay, for example. You simply cannot predict when any individual atom will decay. You can perform a statistical analysis of any large enough grouping, but for any one atom, there is no telling. There have been statistical analyses done, and they show that the resultant decay follows all mathematical tests for randomness.

Hence the universe is, at a fundamental level, not predictable. The question of free-will vs determinism is a wider issue and I think I personally agree with the person above who said that both are true depending on how you look at it. But I don't think your proof above has a supportable premise.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompletenessofquantum_physics

... unless, of course, I've misunderstood your argument.

Daniel Miessler Weasel, the problem is that just because the outcomes from our decisions are random doesn't make them any more the result of free will. I'm not trying to prove, necessarily, that the universe is fully deterministic--only that humans are ultimately just variable combinations, and that our "free will" is an illusion.

Anonymous Weasel - Einstein said that because he was disagreeing with your theory. LOL!

Can someone please explain to me what randomness has to do with the free will debate? Seriously, I'm trying to understand. Make them little words with small logical steps.

Oh, and I just noticed:

"Would crime and gun violence be eradicated if everyone were armed? No. But it sure couldn’t be any worse than places like the UK where guns are supposedly banned."

... Do you really think the UK is awash with crime?. That anywhere else couldn't be worse? Is that what the papers say over there?

We're actually quite nice and safe, you know. I don't spend each day fighting off armed gangs, I have a comfortable standard of life and feel totally free to walk around.

You should take a holiday and see for yourself. It's quite unlikely you'd be killed, honest.

Oh, and I just noticed:

"Would crime and gun violence be eradicated if everyone were armed? No. But it sure couldn’t be any worse than places like the UK where guns are supposedly banned."

... Do you really think the UK is awash with crime?. That anywhere else couldn't be worse? Is that what the papers say over there?

We're actually quite nice and safe, you know. I don't spend each day fighting off armed gangs, I have a comfortable standard of life and feel totally free to walk around.

You should take a holiday and see for yourself. It's quite unlikely you'd be killed, honest.

I'm not sure the analogy works the way you think it does. Imagine running information security for a large bank central office. If you make it secure, criminals would be tempted to go elsewhere, yes. But security is defensive, not offensive.

Also, you don't arm the entire population who work there with security tools and ask them to shut down crackers. Instead you rely on a set of trained professionals. In a city this would be your police force.

For example, if a bank was to be secured for information security, you'd do:

a) set up a policy from the top saying what is and isn't allowed
b) implement with trained professional staff
c) give education to everyone else about what to do/watch for
c) Implement network scanning/monitoring
d) set up a policy to ban hacking tools, and make everyone know the penalties
e) test responsiveness
f) technology/firewalls and so on
g) etc

What you don't do is

h) ask all your staff to bring metasploit to work and try to hack back at any attacker (or anyone they think is an attacker).

Security response is and should be the purview of trained professionals with legal guidelines. And if a criminal knew their gun would be discovered at the boundary, yes they would probably go somewhere else.

It's true in the Uk that criminals often have guns - but a lot of crime is still limited to knives, kicking and punching. Also, we have unique problems due to government neglect of the police force, red tape and social changes in behaviour, so you'd be better comparing it to somewhere like Sweden which is more egalitarian. I'd still rather live here than a "polite" society like Somalia where every kid is armed, though.

By the way, I'm still not saying there isn't a deterrent effect - just that I don't think the information security analogy holds.

I'm not sure the analogy works the way you think it does. Imagine running information security for a large bank central office. If you make it secure, criminals would be tempted to go elsewhere, yes. But security is defensive, not offensive.

Also, you don't arm the entire population who work there with security tools and ask them to shut down crackers. Instead you rely on a set of trained professionals. In a city this would be your police force.

For example, if a bank was to be secured for information security, you'd do:

a) set up a policy from the top saying what is and isn't allowed
b) implement with trained professional staff
c) give education to everyone else about what to do/watch for
c) Implement network scanning/monitoring
d) set up a policy to ban hacking tools, and make everyone know the penalties
e) test responsiveness
f) technology/firewalls and so on
g) etc

What you don't do is

h) ask all your staff to bring metasploit to work and try to hack back at any attacker (or anyone they think is an attacker).

Security response is and should be the purview of trained professionals with legal guidelines. And if a criminal knew their gun would be discovered at the boundary, yes they would probably go somewhere else.

It's true in the Uk that criminals often have guns - but a lot of crime is still limited to knives, kicking and punching. Also, we have unique problems due to government neglect of the police force, red tape and social changes in behaviour, so you'd be better comparing it to somewhere like Sweden which is more egalitarian. I'd still rather live here than a "polite" society like Somalia where every kid is armed, though.

By the way, I'm still not saying there isn't a deterrent effect - just that I don't think the information security analogy holds.

Isn't point (1) changed by letting people have guns? It doesn't seem like an independent variable compared to the other two. Or, to put it another way, shouldn't it be a result of the math, rather than an input?

Also, I'm speaking from a British perspective here - and I understand there's a huge disconnect between the way our two countries treat guns - but I wonder if you could elaborate on point (2)?

The reason I'm confused is that you have the assumption there will be a positive deterrent from letting people carry guns. Yet in the UK, we set up our gun laws on the principle that criminals are encouraged rather than deterred by an armed population. This is for two reasons:
i) If everyone has a gun, the criminal is more likely to have one
ii) If everyone has a gun, the criminal has to make their initial hit much harder.

I'm not saying we're right, just that I've never seen anyone over here suggest there might be a positive effect from giving people guns. Even in the US, I always thought the main argument was protection from the government, not criminals (though it may be that I don't understand the constitution).

What about a different equation? Something like:

If gc + ga + ng < nn
... then people should carry guns

where
gc = gun crime
ga = gun accidents
ng = non-gun crime if there are guns in society
nn = non-gun crime if there are no guns in society

Isn't point (1) changed by letting people have guns? It doesn't seem like an independent variable compared to the other two. Or, to put it another way, shouldn't it be a result of the math, rather than an input?

Also, I'm speaking from a British perspective here - and I understand there's a huge disconnect between the way our two countries treat guns - but I wonder if you could elaborate on point (2)?

The reason I'm confused is that you have the assumption there will be a positive deterrent from letting people carry guns. Yet in the UK, we set up our gun laws on the principle that criminals are encouraged rather than deterred by an armed population. This is for two reasons:
i) If everyone has a gun, the criminal is more likely to have one
ii) If everyone has a gun, the criminal has to make their initial hit much harder.

I'm not saying we're right, just that I've never seen anyone over here suggest there might be a positive effect from giving people guns. Even in the US, I always thought the main argument was protection from the government, not criminals (though it may be that I don't understand the constitution).

What about a different equation? Something like:

If gc + ga + ng < nn
... then people should carry guns

where
gc = gun crime
ga = gun accidents
ng = non-gun crime if there are guns in society
nn = non-gun crime if there are no guns in society

I agree with your thesis, but not the conclusion.

I think Bush really does believe he is doing the best for others. He probably is trying to leave the world a better place. But I disagree that this leaves him, or anyone else immune from the tag "evil", because of good intentions.

Consider some more clear cut cases:

Adolf Hitler believed he was doing good in wiping out the Jews. He believed it was good for Germany to have Lebensraum. He believed that the world would be a better place with one pure Aryan master race in charge. If you say he wasn't evil, then you remove much of the meaning of the word. Yet I think if you were able to read his mind you would find out he honestly believed he was doing right.

Pol Pot believed he was doing good in going back to year zero. He believed that people would be better off without the corrupting effect of technology and education. Again, good intent in his own mind, but woefully wrong about the effects.

Osama Bin Laden believed he was doing good in killing thousands of Americans to bring attention to his cause and strike at the heart of the country he believed was oppressing Muslims. He honestly believed (as far as I can tell), that the world would be a better place if those thousands died. Again, good in his own mind, but terribly wrong in actuality.

I actually wonder if there are many people who knowingly do evil. Most people in these positions seem to have logical dissonance in thinking of themselves in this way, and begin rationalising their actions to themselves in a way that makes them the heroes. Or so it seems to me.

My own belief is that it is ok for people to harbour all sorts of terrible thoughts as long as they are not doing anything about it. I have no idea whether Bush is evil or not. I'm not sure I have the right to judge him either. But I do believe it is our acts that are evil, or wrong, or criminal - not our intentions. And the act of invading Iraq, and the execution of that act, seems to me evil: against international law, ill thought out, and with much misery in its wake.

As an old proverb has it - if wishes were horses, then beggers would ride. A man might imagine stealing a horse every day. He might even get up in the morning intending to, only to change his mind at the last minute. He is only a criminal when he actually does so.

I agree with your thesis, but not the conclusion.

I think Bush really does believe he is doing the best for others. He probably is trying to leave the world a better place. But I disagree that this leaves him, or anyone else immune from the tag "evil", because of good intentions.

Consider some more clear cut cases:

Adolf Hitler believed he was doing good in wiping out the Jews. He believed it was good for Germany to have Lebensraum. He believed that the world would be a better place with one pure Aryan master race in charge. If you say he wasn't evil, then you remove much of the meaning of the word. Yet I think if you were able to read his mind you would find out he honestly believed he was doing right.

Pol Pot believed he was doing good in going back to year zero. He believed that people would be better off without the corrupting effect of technology and education. Again, good intent in his own mind, but woefully wrong about the effects.

Osama Bin Laden believed he was doing good in killing thousands of Americans to bring attention to his cause and strike at the heart of the country he believed was oppressing Muslims. He honestly believed (as far as I can tell), that the world would be a better place if those thousands died. Again, good in his own mind, but terribly wrong in actuality.

I actually wonder if there are many people who knowingly do evil. Most people in these positions seem to have logical dissonance in thinking of themselves in this way, and begin rationalising their actions to themselves in a way that makes them the heroes. Or so it seems to me.

My own belief is that it is ok for people to harbour all sorts of terrible thoughts as long as they are not doing anything about it. I have no idea whether Bush is evil or not. I'm not sure I have the right to judge him either. But I do believe it is our acts that are evil, or wrong, or criminal - not our intentions. And the act of invading Iraq, and the execution of that act, seems to me evil: against international law, ill thought out, and with much misery in its wake.

As an old proverb has it - if wishes were horses, then beggers would ride. A man might imagine stealing a horse every day. He might even get up in the morning intending to, only to change his mind at the last minute. He is only a criminal when he actually does so.