God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Stephen Guerin-5]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:47 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I took Marcus statement to be primarily hyperbolic with a dash of rhetoric...  or vice-versa?   I also took Stephen's strong statement against it as a primarily rhetorical mode of bringing focus to the topic I think he really wants to talk about...

Yes, I recognize Marcus's "I hate religious people"  for what it was.

I also saw it as an opportunity freeze it in the spotlight to be studied. There is a hatred and disdain of religion by many in the "scientific" community. I find it misplaced and hope this dialectic tension between the religious and scientific may soon resolve in a modern synthesis of Science and Religion.

Marcus, consider the following from Max Planck:

"Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."

As the father of Action in quantum physics, can you glimpse where he might be pointing with "every generalized world view"? Even if you can't follow him, could you tolerate those that do? Here's more context for the above i from Planck's Wikipedia. Please give it some reflection - it's only 7 paragraphs :-)

Planck was a member of the Lutheran Church in Germany.[36] He was very tolerant towards alternative views and religions.[37] In a lecture in 1937 entitled "Religion und Naturwissenschaft" (Religion and Natural Science) he suggested the importance of these symbols and rituals related directly with a believer's ability to worship God, but that one must be mindful that the symbols provide an imperfect illustration of divinity. He criticized atheism for being focused on the derision of such symbols, while at the same time warned of the over-estimation of the importance of such symbols by believers.[38]

Planck was tolerant and favorable to all religions. Although he remained in the Lutheran Church, he did not promote Christian or Biblical views. He believed "the faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time." [39]

In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft", Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. He was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"[39]

Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent spirit (orig. geist). This spirit is the matrix of all matter."[40]

Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and Christian faith. He said: "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[41]

On the other hand, Planck wrote, "...'to believe' means 'to recognize as a truth,' and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary occurrences contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely."[42]

Later in life, Planck's views on God were that of a deist.[43] For example, six months before his death a rumour started that he had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God".[44]

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns out there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then it has to be this way and the “divine” has been cornered.   If nature can be some other way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to observe, then those are interesting qualifications or alternative models.   It’s all just provisional.

 

But all of these models are essentially unrelated to doctrines that humans have invented as a way to regulate group behavior and to exercise power.

 

A fun quote from my statistical mechanics text:

 

  The kinetic theory of gases came to be the next conceptual step.  Among pioneers in this discipline one counts several unrecognized geniuses, such as J.J. Waterston who – thanks to Lord Rayleigh – received posthumous honors from the very same Royal Society that had steadfastly refused to publish his works during his lifetime.  Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide on September 5, 1906 depressed – it is said – by the utter rejection of his atomistic theory by such colleagues as Mach and Ostwald.  Paul Ehrenfest, another great innovator, died by his own hand in 1933.  Among 20^th century scientists in this field, a sizable number of have met equally untimely ends.  So “now”, (here we quote from a well-known popular text[1] “it is our turn to study statistical mechanics”.

 

[1] D.H. Goodstein, States of Matter, Dover, New York, 1985

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 11:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

 

 

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:47 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I took Marcus statement to be primarily hyperbolic with a dash of rhetoric...  or vice-versa?   I also took Stephen's strong statement against it as a primarily rhetorical mode of bringing focus to the topic I think he really wants to talk about...

Yes, I recognize Marcus's "I hate religious people"  for what it was.

I also saw it as an opportunity freeze it in the spotlight to be studied. There is a hatred and disdain of religion by many in the "scientific" community. I find it misplaced and hope this dialectic tension between the religious and scientific may soon resolve in a modern synthesis of Science and Religion.

 

Marcus, consider the following from Max Planck:

 

"Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."

 

As the father of Action in quantum physics, can you glimpse where he might be pointing with "every generalized world view"? Even if you can't follow him, could you tolerate those that do? Here's more context for the above i from Planck's Wikipedia. Please give it some reflection - it's only 7 paragraphs :-)

 

Planck was a member of the Lutheran Church in Germany.[36] He was very tolerant towards alternative views and religions.[37] In a lecture in 1937 entitled "Religion und Naturwissenschaft" (Religion and Natural Science) he suggested the importance of these symbols and rituals related directly with a believer's ability to worship God, but that one must be mindful that the symbols provide an imperfect illustration of divinity. He criticized atheism for being focused on the derision of such symbols, while at the same time warned of the over-estimation of the importance of such symbols by believers.[38]

 

Planck was tolerant and favorable to all religions. Although he remained in the Lutheran Church, he did not promote Christian or Biblical views. He believed "the faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time." [39]

 

In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft", Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. He was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"[39]

 

Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent spirit (orig. geist). This spirit is the matrix of all matter."[40]

 

Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and Christian faith. He said: "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[41]

 

On the other hand, Planck wrote, "...'to believe' means 'to recognize as a truth,' and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary occurrences contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely."[42]

 

Later in life, Planck's views on God were that of a deist.[43] For example, six months before his death a rumour started that he had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God".[44]

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

So, when you were considering the risk of political violence and thinking about "flagging" the post, whatever that means, you were only trying to change the subject to something you'd prefer to talk about?

On 9/24/20 11:15 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> As a list admin, this might be flaggable.  I'm not sure if expressing hatred of a protected class of people in of itself is hate speech- it seems to be at least up to the line. Ie, replace with "The two groups I hate more than cops are gays and black people" - would I have a responsibility to intercede?
>
> As I consider the impotence of this group to take political action and incite political violence I consider the statement low to zero risk. I will take no action as a list admin. Intellectually, I would like to know where the line of hate speech is.

On 9/24/20 11:32 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> Yes, I recognize Marcus's "I hate religious people"  for what it was.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Steve Smith]

Stephen wrote:

I also saw it as an opportunity freeze it in the spotlight to be studied. There is a hatred and disdain of religion by many in the "scientific" community. I find it misplaced and hope this dialectic tension between the religious and scientific may soon resolve in a modern synthesis of Science and Religion.

I fall down in trying to interpret most if not all of the language of the Anthropomorphised "Higher Power", and even the "Higher Power" talk evokes in me the myriad extant very human failed ways of ordering and understanding society.

Marcus, consider the following from Max Planck:

"Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.

It doesn't surprise me that the Grand Old Men of Science from as early as the Enlightenment but more notably the Fathers of Modern Physics would be steeped in, and not (openly?) questioning the metaphorical target domain of a patriarchal Heaven over Earth.   I was not raised with much of that, though it was in the water (more like flouride than selenium) so I am neither acutely reactive to it, but neither can I find traction to use it as a starting point.  As for me, I have to decode the anthropomorphisms into something much more neutral (risking losing important nuance) before I can re-encode it into something relevant for myself.

I DO find it a very interesting, even fundamental question... but possibly too general to make useful without further refinement.

My own preferred reference embedding is closer to the greek   Cosmos, Logos, Chaos, Mythos... but that may fall dead on many as well.

- Steve

PS. I probably won't make vFriam but I do think the in-person, verbal mode, works well/differently for many, so I look forward to some tangential motion through the convening of "the Mother Church" to use Nick's idiom.

As the father of Action in quantum physics, can you glimpse where he might be pointing with "every generalized world view"? Even if you can't follow him, could you tolerate those that do? Here's more context for the above i from Planck's Wikipedia. Please give it some reflection - it's only 7 paragraphs :-)

Planck was a member of the Lutheran Church in Germany.[36] He was very tolerant towards alternative views and religions.[37] In a lecture in 1937 entitled "Religion und Naturwissenschaft" (Religion and Natural Science) he suggested the importance of these symbols and rituals related directly with a believer's ability to worship God, but that one must be mindful that the symbols provide an imperfect illustration of divinity. He criticized atheism for being focused on the derision of such symbols, while at the same time warned of the over-estimation of the importance of such symbols by believers.[38]

Planck was tolerant and favorable to all religions. Although he remained in the Lutheran Church, he did not promote Christian or Biblical views. He believed "the faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time." [39]

In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft", Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. He was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"[39]

Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent spirit (orig. geist). This spirit is the matrix of all matter."[40]

Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and Christian faith. He said: "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[41]

On the other hand, Planck wrote, "...'to believe' means 'to recognize as a truth,' and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary occurrences contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely."[42]

Later in life, Planck's views on God were that of a deist.[43] For example, six months before his death a rumour started that he had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God".[44]

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Stephen Guerin-5]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 6:17 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, when you were considering the risk of political violence and thinking about "flagging" the post, whatever that means,  you were only trying to change the subject to something you'd prefer to talk about?  

 

Good question, Glen.

 "Flagging" a post to me would have been a list admin email of the sort:

   "In the judgment of the List Admin, this speech is considered hate speech and will not be tolerated in this forum. This is a warning. Any posters that use this type of language will be given a public warning and if their post behavior continues they will be unsubscribed"

I think my original post was clear. As list admin, I did not feel Marcus post called for this type of action/flagging. I gave one reason that the risk of inciting violence was near zero and my follow up post which you quote is I also understand the sentiment behind Marcus's post.

And then I concluded the "list admin" portion of my post as intellectually wondering what constitutes hate speech. In my little corner of the world, I've never had to make that determination as a manager or any other position of authority. Nor have I been part of large enough organizations to sit through seminars listen to this sort of expertise. I did find your EricC reference interesting in this regard if a "majority" could be a protected class. Relatedly, I came across this WaPO article of a First Nation/Native woman yelled "I hate white people" and then punched a lady in the nose and it was judged not a hate crime.

I hope I was clear in the 2nd part of my post replying as a list member and "religious"  person to bring up what I wanted to talk about.

-Stephen

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 6:17 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, when you were considering the risk of political violence and thinking about "flagging" the post, whatever that means, you were only trying to change the subject to something you'd prefer to talk about?

On 9/24/20 11:15 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> As a list admin, this might be flaggable.  I'm not sure if expressing hatred of a protected class of people in of itself is hate speech- it seems to be at least up to the line. Ie, replace with "The two groups I hate more than cops are gays and black people" - would I have a responsibility to intercede?
>
> As I consider the impotence of this group to take political action and incite political violence I consider the statement low to zero risk. I will take no action as a list admin. Intellectually, I would like to know where the line of hate speech is.

On 9/24/20 11:32 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> Yes, I recognize Marcus's "I hate religious people"  for what it was.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

Excellent! That answers it nicely. I just wasn't sure if that *was* the flag or if you were saying it didn't need a flag and merely using it to segue.

Yes, there's some slippery ground around "protected classes", which is why the composition of the SCOTUS is so important.

On 9/25/20 8:15 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
>  "Flagging" a post to me would have been a list admin email of the sort:
>    "In the judgment of the List Admin, this speech is considered hate speech and will not be tolerated in this forum. This is a warning. Any posters that use this type of language will be given a public warning and if their post behavior continues they will be unsubscribed"
>
> I think my original post was clear. As list admin, I did not feel Marcus post called for this type of action/flagging. I gave one reason that the risk of inciting violence was near zero and my follow up post which you quote is I also understand the sentiment behind Marcus's post.
>
> And then I concluded the "list admin" portion of my post as intellectually wondering what constitutes hate speech. In my little corner of the world, I've never had to make that determination as a manager or any other position of authority. Nor have I been part of large enough organizations to sit through seminars listen to this sort of expertise. I did find your EricC reference interesting in this regard if a "majority" could be a protected class. Relatedly, I came across this WaPO article <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/> of a First Nation/Native woman yelled "I hate white people" and then punched a lady in the nose and it was judged not a hate crime.
>
> I hope I was clear in the 2nd part of my post replying as a list member and "religious"  person to bring up what I wanted to talk about.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

If a sitting president lost an election and did not concede to a peaceful transition of power, it stands to reason the transition is likely to be unpeaceful.  If someone non-impotent like Bernie Sanders were, in effect, to incite the sort of people prone to that, I don't think the first thing I would do is wag my finger at him.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 8:21 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

Excellent! That answers it nicely. I just wasn't sure if that *was* the flag or if you were saying it didn't need a flag and merely using it to segue.

Yes, there's some slippery ground around "protected classes", which is why the composition of the SCOTUS is so important.

On 9/25/20 8:15 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
>  "Flagging" a post to me would have been a list admin email of the sort:
>    "In the judgment of the List Admin, this speech is considered hate speech and will not be tolerated in this forum. This is a warning. Any posters that use this type of language will be given a public warning and if their post behavior continues they will be unsubscribed"
>
> I think my original post was clear. As list admin, I did not feel Marcus post called for this type of action/flagging. I gave one reason that the risk of inciting violence was near zero and my follow up post which you quote is I also understand the sentiment behind Marcus's post.
>
> And then I concluded the "list admin" portion of my post as intellectually wondering what constitutes hate speech. In my little corner of the world, I've never had to make that determination as a manager or any other position of authority. Nor have I been part of large enough organizations to sit through seminars listen to this sort of expertise. I did find your EricC reference interesting in this regard if a "majority" could be a protected class. Relatedly, I came across this WaPO article <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/> of a First Nation/Native woman yelled "I hate white people" and then punched a lady in the nose and it was judged not a hate crime.
>
> I hope I was clear in the 2nd part of my post replying as a list member and "religious"  person to bring up what I wanted to talk about.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[jon zingale]

"I've been believing in nothing since I was born, it never was a question."
- Polly Jean Harvey

In my experience, adding God to a conversation has done very little to move
things forward and has often left many dead where they stood. Surprisingly,
while both witnessing police violence against individuals as-well-as
religious violence against investigative conversation, I continue (likely
against my best judgment) to hold space for either to behave humanely. Being
told to accept the frame that at the end of my thinking I will find that I
have been thinking about God has its opposites, beliefs are discovered not
chosen. Even Einstein died not believing quantum physics. It wouldn't
surprise me that Planck would have a hand in baking-in the quantum woo.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[jon zingale]

Assuming that there is not a peaceful transition, which organizations do you
believe will back the coup: Pentagon*, GOP, EPA, SCOTUS, USPS? I hope that
speculating about the loyalties of institutions may help the analysis, and
fundamentally I hope that FriAM is a group of thinkers before that of being
dandies.

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/22/covid-funds-pentagon/



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Stephen Guerin-5]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns out there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then it has to be this way and the “divine” has been cornered.   If nature can be some other way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to observe, then those are interesting qualifications or alternative models.   It’s all just provisional. 

I brought up Planck's views for two reasons:

• His views on religion and his rejection of its foundation of miracle and superstition 
• His challenge to the most sophisticated of scientists with "generalized world views" that an understanding/model of "God" is a worthy goal for a scientist.

While I think Action and Bidirectional Path Tracing in Dual Fields is a potential model (Glen and Jon can unpack that in a steel man) I don't want to get distracted by the "How" the synthesis might happen. To borrow from Eric Smith in the Jim Rutt Podcast: "we shouldn’t try to spin scenarios at this point". 

And for full disclosure, upon reflection, my post was mostly targeted at Eric Smith after I saw his comment on Marcus's post.

First was to use Marcus's post as a reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science have for Religion which we've talked about in the past and second to potentially engage Eric as one of the few scientists I know with a sufficient "generalized world view" to see the most basic patterns in Science and attempt a synthesis. If not leading the synthesis, at least playing bullshit detector and helping in pointing out potential formalizations.

FWIW,  Eric's close colleague, the late Harold Morowitz, expressed similar views as Max Planck. 

     see: https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Joy-Local-Pain-Scientist/dp/0684184435 

I know Eric is resistant at the value or even the worthiness of this pursuit. I put this out as a public challenge to Eric and he can decline.  I think it could be one of the greatest scientific contributions of our time. 

To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p  (meant in humor)

-Stephen

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

Hey now! Pigs are pretty damned smart.

On 9/25/20 9:41 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p  (meant in humor)


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Still wishing Gertrude well in her integration with the Borg.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 9:46 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

Hey now! Pigs are pretty damned smart.

On 9/25/20 9:41 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p 
> (meant in humor)


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[David Eric Smith]

Hi Steve,

I thought about trying to reply, because I got tangled in some small activity of this kind a month or two ago, but wasn’t sure there was much value to what I had to say.  People are all different.  There are patterns I think I see, but I expect that umbrellas like “religious” are so big they mostly cover people who would say my patterns don’t apply to them.

The other reason I didn’t write is that, in yet a third conversation, I repeated this to somebody in the past week, and twice in a week is too many times to hear my own voice.

But here was how any of this came about.

There is an Iranian student, who a year or two ago was working in China and looking for a job that it turned out I didn’t have to offer him.  But he keeps in touch and sends me a harangue from time to time.  He seems to find this question compelling.  Anyway, I got one of these harangues a few months ago: “Mr. Eric, can you explain to me why you don’t believe in God.  Is it because of a contradiction with science?  What would it take to convince you that God exists.”

Everything about that sentence is made for Richard Dawkins, because this is exactly where he wants to play in the world, and goes against everything about the way I want to say anything.  So, now what to do?  Should try to answer respectfully and not be rude.

Anyway, I’ll save you most of the length.

There is a way I perceive religious people, which does not imply bad intent, but is a kind of way of being that has repelled me as long as I can remember, though I tried to be obedient for decades at first.

I imagine my best self as I was as a very young kid.  What I did was pay attention to things, which at _its_ best took the form of getting totally absorbed in trying to look at them as their own selves, in whatever were their own terms.

To me, what the religious person does when he sees someone doing that is go and shove a postcard in front of that person’s face, to get in the way of whatever he was trying to look at, and carrying an image of the religious person’s need to be important where he isn’t.  That is: things are not allowed to be what they are for their own sake; they are given permission to exist only to the extent that they exist “for” the religious person’s need to matter.  This to me is the primordial human character defect.  (I don’t say this as a judgment of anybody, or to suggest I don’t have it; only that it bothers me and I see it as a problem.)  When I read Sartre or I guess Camus, what I see in them is an asserted answer to Nietzche’s problem of Nihilism: people need to learn to be comfortable seeing themselves as small as they are, and for most things as irrelevant as they are, and out of that clear view, to decide that is enough for them to have the things they need to live: comfort in what they are doing, required degrees of commitment, the ability to handle trouble and continue to make an effort, self-control, and so forth.  In the frame of what I was answering the Iranian student, the defining characteristic of religion is the need to perceive yourself as being something more than you really are, to have enough to live.  

Where science comes into it is several things, and I’ll spare you some of the maybe-more-original parts of that.  The hackneyed part of it is that you can’t work to see things clearly if you have a need, the satisfaction of which against certain views, is more important to you than getting the views right.  It annoys me when people like the 4 horsemen say stuff like this, because I think they do it out of disdain and a wish to dominate, saying people should just set aside their arbitrary and perverse needs, implying that the horsemen, being better than the rabble, have handily done that.  That has, to me, the anti-empirical feel of telling vertebrates they shouldn’t have eyes put together backward; they have the eyes they have.  Part of clarity is allowing the possibility that they need falsehood to function.  If that is part of what science has to work against to get a clear view of anything, then that is what it is.  One doesn’t deny the need for crutches if it exists.  But if they are crutches, it would be good to know that.

My feeling is similar to the one I read Jon as expressing: I just feel no empathy for the position that the religious compulsion is inevitable and everyone must ultimately admit he feels it.  I think the thing I feel is a wish for my mind to be quieter, and to be able to do what I am doing plainly and simply.  I think I also would like to give the world the respect it deserves, by granting that it has terms that are not about me, and that it might be a good experience to take some of them in.  I don’t know why I have that sense that respect for the world is a good thing; it probably is a sense that the kind of person who could have it would be a good person, and it would give me some peace of mind if I thought I were trying to be such.  I think I accept these preferences the way I accept feeling hungry or sleepy; they came in the hardware and to ask “why” they are there is a different discussion than asking how I will act within them in the next moment.

So I don’t know.  I don’t find the question of religious sensibilities a moving one.  I recognize that it has a version that is independent of the role religions play as social channels for bullying (and less negatively-worded necessary forms of getting some restraint or motivation from people in collections), and I am happy to put aside the social-dominance problem as a separate one, that uses religion as it uses anything else available, say family loyalties (hence all the etymologies like “patriotism”, “fatherland”, “alma mater” and so forth).  But even if we just talk about the mystical branch, I don’t really get what people believe they are talking about, on the belief that all of them are referring to the same thing, that is different from just aspects of living that one might want to be attentive to.

Getting interrupted here, so will stop.  But I’m not sure I have any more I could think of on this.

Best,

Eric

On Sep 25, 2020, at 12:41 PM, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns out there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then it has to be this way and the “divine” has been cornered.   If nature can be some other way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to observe, then those are interesting qualifications or alternative models.   It’s all just provisional. 

I brought up Planck's views for two reasons:

• His views on religion and his rejection of its foundation of miracle and superstition 
• His challenge to the most sophisticated of scientists with "generalized world views" that an understanding/model of "God" is a worthy goal for a scientist.

While I think Action and Bidirectional Path Tracing in Dual Fields is a potential model (Glen and Jon can unpack that in a steel man) I don't want to get distracted by the "How" the synthesis might happen. To borrow from Eric Smith in the Jim Rutt Podcast: "we shouldn’t try to spin scenarios at this point". 

And for full disclosure, upon reflection, my post was mostly targeted at Eric Smith after I saw his comment on Marcus's post.

First was to use Marcus's post as a reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science have for Religion which we've talked about in the past and second to potentially engage Eric as one of the few scientists I know with a sufficient "generalized world view" to see the most basic patterns in Science and attempt a synthesis. If not leading the synthesis, at least playing bullshit detector and helping in pointing out potential formalizations.

FWIW,  Eric's close colleague, the late Harold Morowitz, expressed similar views as Max Planck. 

     see: https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Joy-Local-Pain-Scientist/dp/0684184435 

I know Eric is resistant at the value or even the worthiness of this pursuit. I put this out as a public challenge to Eric and he can decline.  I think it could be one of the greatest scientific contributions of our time. 

To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p  (meant in humor)

-Stephen

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,XJsDQMWjUWgyqrjt5O3iLzu20fH7zMkJKpehl_ofOYZlLI9XzYSLBQn9JPQkYd0z6Ui1wnnnTVUbsj2vwidjtLvmadnXAZBtowHqSW9jKaPq_TJJcWoBo4jRdg,,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,diFrEA81f4OciGIz3k92Jn57XNqgjgOQxZBUYwDbtBaw9sUA5WRUivkAj9QwXEVvxwWtV2MnCqp8dfge46uLH2Zm1KImeKFYRVba_TY1yaoVx0U,&typo=1

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

I'm not clear on whether dandy is an insult, or not ... But I don't think the Pentagon will support Trump. Despite some popular rhetoric, our military is mostly strategic, which is what allows us to be all volunteer. Brute force things get a lot of press. But it's the subtle work that does the heavy lifting. And Trump is way too sloppy and disengaged to be part of that crowd. ... Now, were he competent as opposed to merely evil, they might back him.

With no data, I expect a large share of the GOP to back him. Parties, including the Democrats are, solely, mechanisms for gaining and maintaining power. That the Democrats are slightly left is the only reason they show any ability to govern.

I don't regard the EPA as a significant player. So it doesn't much matter what they'll back. But my guess would be that most people who work there would not back Trump. The USPS seems the same, except for their union, which I would not expect to back Trump.

If much of the GOP money is "dark", then that's where the Trump support will come from. Any sunlight shed on the individuals and corporations that provide such support helps identify those who want to gain and maintain their power. One worry I have are the gov/corp hybrids like utility companies, power, water, etc. (in which I include oil refining/delivering and internet service like Century Link and Comcast). I'm not *as* concerned about corps like Microsoft or Apple because, like the EPA and the Pentagon, their constituents are well educated and subtle/strategic in ways the constituents of the utilities are not (necessarily).

That's all I got, though.

On 9/25/20 9:31 AM, jon zingale wrote:
> Assuming that there is not a peaceful transition, which organizations do you
> believe will back the coup: Pentagon*, GOP, EPA, SCOTUS, USPS? I hope that
> speculating about the loyalties of institutions may help the analysis, and
> fundamentally I hope that FriAM is a group of thinkers before that of being
> dandies.
>
> * https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/22/covid-funds-pentagon/


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

A datapoint from the corporate world:  I see very overt support for those protesting the treatment of Breonna Taylor.    Workforce and customers are diverse and sophisticated, and it is no-brainer to take the high road.    Some of these companies have bigger revenues than some countries and are not tied to the politics of any one of them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 12:36 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

I'm not clear on whether dandy is an insult, or not ... But I don't think the Pentagon will support Trump. Despite some popular rhetoric, our military is mostly strategic, which is what allows us to be all volunteer. Brute force things get a lot of press. But it's the subtle work that does the heavy lifting. And Trump is way too sloppy and disengaged to be part of that crowd. ... Now, were he competent as opposed to merely evil, they might back him.

With no data, I expect a large share of the GOP to back him. Parties, including the Democrats are, solely, mechanisms for gaining and maintaining power. That the Democrats are slightly left is the only reason they show any ability to govern.

I don't regard the EPA as a significant player. So it doesn't much matter what they'll back. But my guess would be that most people who work there would not back Trump. The USPS seems the same, except for their union, which I would not expect to back Trump.

If much of the GOP money is "dark", then that's where the Trump support will come from. Any sunlight shed on the individuals and corporations that provide such support helps identify those who want to gain and maintain their power. One worry I have are the gov/corp hybrids like utility companies, power, water, etc. (in which I include oil refining/delivering and internet service like Century Link and Comcast). I'm not *as* concerned about corps like Microsoft or Apple because, like the EPA and the Pentagon, their constituents are well educated and subtle/strategic in ways the constituents of the utilities are not (necessarily).

That's all I got, though.

On 9/25/20 9:31 AM, jon zingale wrote:
> Assuming that there is not a peaceful transition, which organizations
> do you believe will back the coup: Pentagon*, GOP, EPA, SCOTUS, USPS?
> I hope that speculating about the loyalties of institutions may help
> the analysis, and fundamentally I hope that FriAM is a group of
> thinkers before that of being dandies.
>
> *
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/22/covid-funds-pentago
> n/


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[thompnickson2]

reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science

 

Yeah.  Richard Dawkins and three other loonies.  I was in a chatgroup with hard scientists, etc., from all over the world for about a year, and I was the only avowed non-religious person on the chat.  The european physicists were all dedicated cartesians seeking truth in the real world … I e, the world that god knows and we aspire to know.   Any belief in a world beyond experience is a religious belief. 

 

I persist in thinking the key word is “hate”, here.   The way you speak these “many”,  with their “deep distain and hatred” in such sweeping terms, it seems that you hate them.  So what exactly is hate.  I think it’s an attempt to recruit allies to expell the target from one’s universe, to exile them. But Frank is right:  There is an element of “get thee behind me” in hatred.  You cannot hate what you don’t feel in some degree attached to.  So the key to resolving hatred is to find the tie that binds one to the thing one hates, and snip it.  Once you have done that, one doesn’t need allies any more.   You just walk away.

 

So, Steve.  What do you find attractive in the scientistic denial of faith?  I am guessing that it has to do with their claim of certainty. But certainty is something that ony a religious person can have.    Or, to put it round the other way, Whenever we speak with  certainty, we are speaking from the religious side of ourselves. As I am doing right now.

 

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 10:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

 

 

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns out there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then it has to be this way and the “divine” has been cornered.   If nature can be some other way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to observe, then those are interesting qualifications or alternative models.   It’s all just provisional. 

 

I brought up Planck's views for two reasons:

• His views on religion and his rejection of its foundation of miracle and superstition 
• His challenge to the most sophisticated of scientists with "generalized world views" that an understanding/model of "God" is a worthy goal for a scientist.

While I think Action and Bidirectional Path Tracing in Dual Fields is a potential model (Glen and Jon can unpack that in a steel man) I don't want to get distracted by the "How" the synthesis might happen. To borrow from Eric Smith in the Jim Rutt Podcast: "we shouldn’t try to spin scenarios at this point". 

 

And for full disclosure, upon reflection, my post was mostly targeted at Eric Smith after I saw his comment on Marcus's post.

First was to use Marcus's post as a reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science have for Religion which we've talked about in the past and second to potentially engage Eric as one of the few scientists I know with a sufficient "generalized world view" to see the most basic patterns in Science and attempt a synthesis. If not leading the synthesis, at least playing bullshit detector and helping in pointing out potential formalizations.

FWIW,  Eric's close colleague, the late Harold Morowitz, expressed similar views as Max Planck. 

     see: https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Joy-Local-Pain-Scientist/dp/0684184435 

 

I know Eric is resistant at the value or even the worthiness of this pursuit. I put this out as a public challenge to Eric and he can decline.  I think it could be one of the greatest scientific contributions of our time. 

 

To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p  (meant in humor)

-Stephen

 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Frank Wimberly-2]

Nick,

Did you ever read "Brideshead Revisited" by Evelyn Waugh?  Or see the PBS production.  The patriarch of an English Catholic family who is an avowed atheist in a moment of oblivion on his deathbed crosses himself as he takes his last breath.  A rigid Freudian would say that he was unintegrated.

I often wonder if we will have an epiphany (root meaning visit from God) as we die.  A friend who had open heart surgery while his heart was stopped said, "No, Frank".  But he wasn't really dead.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 4:04 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science

 

Yeah.  Richard Dawkins and three other loonies.  I was in a chatgroup with hard scientists, etc., from all over the world for about a year, and I was the only avowed non-religious person on the chat.  The european physicists were all dedicated cartesians seeking truth in the real world … I e, the world that god knows and we aspire to know.   Any belief in a world beyond experience is a religious belief. 

 

I persist in thinking the key word is “hate”, here.   The way you speak these “many”,  with their “deep distain and hatred” in such sweeping terms, it seems that you hate them.  So what exactly is hate.  I think it’s an attempt to recruit allies to expell the target from one’s universe, to exile them. But Frank is right:  There is an element of “get thee behind me” in hatred.  You cannot hate what you don’t feel in some degree attached to.  So the key to resolving hatred is to find the tie that binds one to the thing one hates, and snip it.  Once you have done that, one doesn’t need allies any more.   You just walk away.

 

So, Steve.  What do you find attractive in the scientistic denial of faith?  I am guessing that it has to do with their claim of certainty. But certainty is something that ony a religious person can have.    Or, to put it round the other way, Whenever we speak with  certainty, we are speaking from the religious side of ourselves. As I am doing right now.

 

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 10:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

 

 

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns out there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then it has to be this way and the “divine” has been cornered.   If nature can be some other way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to observe, then those are interesting qualifications or alternative models.   It’s all just provisional. 

 

I brought up Planck's views for two reasons:

• His views on religion and his rejection of its foundation of miracle and superstition 
• His challenge to the most sophisticated of scientists with "generalized world views" that an understanding/model of "God" is a worthy goal for a scientist.

While I think Action and Bidirectional Path Tracing in Dual Fields is a potential model (Glen and Jon can unpack that in a steel man) I don't want to get distracted by the "How" the synthesis might happen. To borrow from Eric Smith in the Jim Rutt Podcast: "we shouldn’t try to spin scenarios at this point". 

 

And for full disclosure, upon reflection, my post was mostly targeted at Eric Smith after I saw his comment on Marcus's post.

First was to use Marcus's post as a reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science have for Religion which we've talked about in the past and second to potentially engage Eric as one of the few scientists I know with a sufficient "generalized world view" to see the most basic patterns in Science and attempt a synthesis. If not leading the synthesis, at least playing bullshit detector and helping in pointing out potential formalizations.

FWIW,  Eric's close colleague, the late Harold Morowitz, expressed similar views as Max Planck. 

     see: https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Joy-Local-Pain-Scientist/dp/0684184435 

 

I know Eric is resistant at the value or even the worthiness of this pursuit. I put this out as a public challenge to Eric and he can decline.  I think it could be one of the greatest scientific contributions of our time. 

 

To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p  (meant in humor)

-Stephen

 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[jon zingale]

Thank you for your thoughts. The organizations mentioned in my earlier thread
were mostly thought up off-the-cuff because each evoked something for me at
the moment, humorous or otherwise. I feel disappointed that the pentagon
would use the 1 Billion dollars, earmarked for COVID relief, as they did. It
doesn't give me much faith that the "subtle and strategic" actors making
decisions for the pentagon are competent or compassionate. If I wished to
make predictions that are grounded in the facts of past actions, to justify
my faith in that institution, where would I look? To be clear, I do not
intend *dandy* as an insult. Rather, I wanted a label to juxtapose against
the at-times awkward and vulgar struggles of a thinking person doing the
work.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Gary Schiltz-4]

This isn't in response to Nick, just a convenient place to hit "Reply" in a thread in which I've already deleted most of the past messages. My own take on why to hate religion and/or religious people is based on my upbringing in and around a population of fairly uneducated, intolerant religious bigots in northeast Kansas. There was one, and only one, "true" way to believe, and that was a "fire and brimstone" authoritarian father figure as "God", and us poor mortals as worms whose only hope to escape painfully burning for eternity in hell, was to admit how much filth we are and beg humbly and fervently for forgiveness for being that way. I grew up believing all that crap. I loved nature, so I was drawn to biology. Unfortunately, my high school biology teacher was a deacon in the Baptist church and fervent creationist. I went to University to study biology, with a huge chip on my shoulder, determined to prove these evolution-believing numbskull professors of their folly. I basically wasted the first three years of my college education believing that creationist shit. Somehow I finally saw through it and became a "born-again atheist". My hero is Richard Dawkins. In my case, that was the only way I had been exposed to religion, and once I rejected it, I've found it much easier (maybe I'm lazy) to reject religion out of hand with the same fervor that those intolerant people of my childhood did, and continue to, embrace it.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:04 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science

 

Yeah.  Richard Dawkins and three other loonies.  I was in a chatgroup with hard scientists, etc., from all over the world for about a year, and I was the only avowed non-religious person on the chat.  The european physicists were all dedicated cartesians seeking truth in the real world … I e, the world that god knows and we aspire to know.   Any belief in a world beyond experience is a religious belief. 

 

I persist in thinking the key word is “hate”, here.   The way you speak these “many”,  with their “deep distain and hatred” in such sweeping terms, it seems that you hate them.  So what exactly is hate.  I think it’s an attempt to recruit allies to expell the target from one’s universe, to exile them. But Frank is right:  There is an element of “get thee behind me” in hatred.  You cannot hate what you don’t feel in some degree attached to.  So the key to resolving hatred is to find the tie that binds one to the thing one hates, and snip it.  Once you have done that, one doesn’t need allies any more.   You just walk away.

 

So, Steve.  What do you find attractive in the scientistic denial of faith?  I am guessing that it has to do with their claim of certainty. But certainty is something that ony a religious person can have.    Or, to put it round the other way, Whenever we speak with  certainty, we are speaking from the religious side of ourselves. As I am doing right now.

 

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 10:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

 

 

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns out there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then it has to be this way and the “divine” has been cornered.   If nature can be some other way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to observe, then those are interesting qualifications or alternative models.   It’s all just provisional. 

 

I brought up Planck's views for two reasons:

• His views on religion and his rejection of its foundation of miracle and superstition 
• His challenge to the most sophisticated of scientists with "generalized world views" that an understanding/model of "God" is a worthy goal for a scientist.

While I think Action and Bidirectional Path Tracing in Dual Fields is a potential model (Glen and Jon can unpack that in a steel man) I don't want to get distracted by the "How" the synthesis might happen. To borrow from Eric Smith in the Jim Rutt Podcast: "we shouldn’t try to spin scenarios at this point". 

 

And for full disclosure, upon reflection, my post was mostly targeted at Eric Smith after I saw his comment on Marcus's post.

First was to use Marcus's post as a reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science have for Religion which we've talked about in the past and second to potentially engage Eric as one of the few scientists I know with a sufficient "generalized world view" to see the most basic patterns in Science and attempt a synthesis. If not leading the synthesis, at least playing bullshit detector and helping in pointing out potential formalizations.

FWIW,  Eric's close colleague, the late Harold Morowitz, expressed similar views as Max Planck. 

     see: https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Joy-Local-Pain-Scientist/dp/0684184435 

 

I know Eric is resistant at the value or even the worthiness of this pursuit. I put this out as a public challenge to Eric and he can decline.  I think it could be one of the greatest scientific contributions of our time. 

 

To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p  (meant in humor)

-Stephen

 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

Well, I can only go on the sense I have. It's not that I trust them to avoid *evil*. But I do trust them to avoid chaos. Trump is chaos. That's why I say if Trump were competent but still evil, I suspect the Pentagon *would* back him. I think it's wrong to use words like "compassionate" w.r.t. them. As it is, someone like Biden is more of a known quantity.

But re: reallocating $1B, it's reasonable that if you delegate some task (like spending money) to an agency, you avoid micromanaging how that money is spent. And the Pentagon is quite comfortable making its own decisions when delegated to. So, their reallocation isn't a surprise at all.

Re: predicting how they will spend money delegated to them -- Just follow the various defense contracts and their recipients. E.g. https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/ It's also handy to buy a tiny bit of stock in the publicly traded contractors. You get reports, proxy vote docs, etc. that way. I used to follow Lockheed Martin quite close since I used to work there and still have friends who work there. There are also lots of academic sites that dovetail. You can search conference attendee lists for .mil addresses and such to infer a little intel. I doubt it's worth the effort, though.

On 9/25/20 4:11 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> I feel disappointed that the pentagon
> would use the 1 Billion dollars, earmarked for COVID relief, as they did. It
> doesn't give me much faith that the "subtle and strategic" actors making
> decisions for the pentagon are competent or compassionate. If I wished to
> make predictions that are grounded in the facts of past actions, to justify
> my faith in that institution, where would I look?
--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/