not all environmentalists are tree hugging hippies

part 2: to Fran about what I believe

There are lots of everyday things I believe. I am pretty sure the people I care about love me too. I am confident the world will be there when I wake up in the morning. The 'people are generally good' thing is problematic. I except most people want to be nice most of the time but this is pretty damn milk-toast. I guess I'm trying to explain my personal definition of rational humanism. Still, that's more of a hope than a belief.

After giving the subject more intense consideration than I have in years I come back to one thing; some of the things I believe are false. I am pretty sure that's true. And I think this is a valuable belief. We have to be open minded and be able to let go of ideas. At best we can tentatively accept a principal otherwise we are slaves to ideology. The universe is complex. We understand mostly through modeling and metaphor. We have to know that are models by definition are simplistic and leave out more than they capture.

There is also a point about determinism – the idea that if we knew enough about the universe and how it works we would be able to predict everything that happens forever. See I just don’t think we live in that kind of a universe. Here is an example – a pool table. If you knew the exact position of every ball, the exact size of every hole, every bump, splinter and speck of dust on the table – if you also knew exactly how much energy the ball will absorb when hit vs. how much energy it would carry away. Then if you knew precisely the strength and direction of the stroke, you would be able to calculate the resting position of all the balls after the break. That’s determinism. There are two things about the universe we live in that make the pool table metaphor impossible. One is Chaos theory - you know, the ‘butterfly effect’? The idea is that very tiny differences in initial conditions can make a very large difference in how things turn out. And speaking of tiny differences, that brings me to point two – quantum physics. See, it’s all about the quantum. Ahem. Specifically the Uncertainty Principal. This principal is about the limit of what we can know regarding the location of a particle and how it is moving. It’s not about measuring particles well it is but bear with me: it is about the fundamental limits of the know-ability of the universe. Basically, if we know anything about the speed of a particle that limits what we know about its position.

So at its most granular level, there is no certainty. Chaos theory says even the smallest cause eventually has macro effects.
So ironically, that is the only thing metaphysical thing I am sure of.

part 1: to Fran after narrowly skirting the whole atheist topic (again)

Thank you for pulling back from telling me what I believe last weekend.  You obviously know how annoying that is.  We don't get into this discussion very often so it may be hard for you to know exactly what I really do believe.  First, I am not by any stretch an agnostic.  Let go of that.  I never wonder anymore if there is a God - that was me in High School.  When I say I wish I could believe or I wish God did exist, that is exactly what I mean.  The idea of someone out there watching out for us and the whole footprints in the sand thing is sweet.  And of course, some kind of afterlife - any kind would do.  On the other hand, the world is a pretty messed up place for a lot of people so maybe the idea of a creator is a really horrible thought. 

But no, I don't buy it.  It's not just that there isn't any proof or that the arguments people make are so ridiculous.  It really just doesn't make any sense.  We live in a cosmos ruled by entropy.  There is nothing sustaining the world, everything is sliding down hill.  It's not proof and the eschatolon is a part of christian theology but it suggests to me that stuff just happens, no plan, no guidance: things just are.

Any kind of supernaturalism irritates me - as you know.  So, why?  Was I traumatized by the Easter bunny as a kid?  Am I still angry at my father and reject his calling?  I don't know for sure - not about the Easter bunny but about my Dad.  I remember loosing my belief gradually and being very involved in the church right up to the end. 

I want to believe people are good.  But let me explain what I mean by good.  Clearly this is not about 'pleasing unto God.'  I don't think good is an eternal objective abstract metaphysical etc. verity, I think it is a very concrete behavior pattern coming from a specific evolutionary effect.  Early in human history we fought for the remains of large kills.  Chimps stayed in the forest to hide from large carnivores while our ancestors went out among them.  Tools were important but almost secondary to our ability to act in a group.  This is how early humans stayed safe and got the high energy food they needed to be active and feed large brains.  Acting in a group required us to anticipate each other's actions often quickly and with little communication. How?  You know what I think, object relations. 

We have little people in our heads.  Forget about how they got there and all that, bottom line is when we want to know how someone is going to act a tiny part of us identifies as the other and tells us.

So life, in our heads, really is but a stage.  Good is objective in the sense that it can only be judged by someone else - we are responding to the chorus, either the majority or the loudest voice but it is entirely ourself.  When we perceive someone else is in need or in pain it is a part of ourselves we are perceiving. We act in a manner that moves us away from pain and towards the satification of drives.

to the young earther who said, "but evolution is just a theory"

First, let me apologize for my flippant response. I said, 'you obviously don't know what a scientific theory is.'  While this was clearly true, why would I expect you to be interested enough to learn about how science works?  Other than, of course, offering your opinion in the first place.

Here is what I wish I had said; You are correct.  And you are nearly at a very important distinction between science and myth, science doesn't claim or need to be true.  Science just has to work. 

A central component of your belief system is God is the source of absolute truth.  This truth comes to humans through the written word and the voice of His Prophets, like your Dad in his garage church.  We struggle with the revealed truth because God's Absolute Truth in beyond human comprehension.  Could this be the real reason why fundamentalists have such issues with atheists: we do not accept the authority of the revealed Truth?

Science has no need of absolutes.  An answer that works 95% of the time is good enough (p).  I imagine this is hard for you to think about, there are no absolutes, everything is relative.  I would also like to imagine that you would ask, why?  Why give up the comfort and surety of AT for p?  In the words of my favorite webcomic author because, "science works bitches."  Exploring the world through rational/empirical methods is the only thing that has ever worked to help us learn about the world.  Experience and trial and error have lead to techniques that help us to function, but science shows why things work.  We don't need an Ultimate knowledge, we just need to be able to predict what will happen next.  That's what science does. 

Yes evolution is just a theory - so is gravity. You might say 'but I can see gravity working'. No, you see things falling to the ground.  Gravity is why that happens.  And we know that gravity is wrong, relativity does a more accurate job of describing why stuff falls to the ground.  We still use gravity to predict how the planets move because it is simpler and it is good enough for most things.

to Dana

Last summer I went to Oregon for a funeral and wound up in a conversation with my conservative cousin.  We did not have much time and we never got to finish.  Here is some stuff I wish I had said.

Thanks for sharing about your lazy friend who collects welfare.  I think I see where you were headed interjecting this into our conversation about stimulating the economy.  I don't like paying taxes either.  But there are a few points to your argument that Glenn Beck may not be encouraging you to examine. 

1. specific examples don't prove anything.  One underserving person does not invalidate the need for public assistance.  Dude, I you forgot I was a Social Worker: there are people who actually need help and cannot do for themselves.  Mainly they are women with kids who have left their husbands.  Why don't they stay, you ask?  Because they were tired of getting beat up or are worried about their kids getting beat up or raped/pimped.  I know you don't see that much but I did. Ok, mostly the getting beat up part. 

2. you are not the only one with values.  You are telling me people should keep what they earn and get what they deserve.  I believe people seldom are compensated for what they actually produce.   Further, I think we have an obligation to care for the people who need help and as a society we need to plan for the future to help people meet their own needs and be productive.  So who's values are better or more important?  It doesn't really matter. We can't make policy decisions based on ideology and expect positive results in the real world.  We need to look and see what works and use that information to guide policy.  Right now there is not enough buying happening.  The only way to change that is to give money to people who will spend it.  That means taxing the very richest people, who do not produce and who save their income, and subsidise the poorest.  Money given to a poor person will get spent. 

In the end, if your friend has more cash he will buy more stuff at your convenience store, are you going to refuse his cash if he got it as a handout?