Back in the Rim: language, censorship, religion, rationalism

[aramis]

The changes in numerous smaller issues have, in general, reversed the firmly held belief tht NO life exists off-world, including, but not limited to:
discovery of non-luminous extra-solar bodies by inference drawn from subtle redshift/blueshift variations in the parent stars.
Visual imaging of a non-luminous body in orbit around a star other than Sol, producing reflected light (estimated mass is superjovian).
Discovery of non-photosynthetic food-chains on earth in both deep ocean and deep cave environments.
Discovery of sub-icepack lakes in antarctica, and life therein.


Another series of continuously changing/widespectrum scientific beliefs has to do with dinosaurs: some say at least some were warm-blooded, others go so far as birdlike (feathered and warm-blooded) hile others suggest cool blooded or cold blooded.

Some more changes in establihsed sciences in the last 30 years...
Acknowledgement of 4th and 5th degree burns as part of the medical lexicon. (4th is extensive tissue destruction, 5th is charred to the bone...)

The true nature of electrons: Cloud, Particle, Wavicle?

How evolution could produce hive species.

General popular acceptance of evolution. (It wasn't generally accepted throughout the country until the early 70's, an even then was routinely being objected to by the creationist side; now most hardline anti-evolutionairies are being relegated to moving children to private schools.....

As for Tolkein: the whole matter of the ring is drawn from a number of anglo-saxon mythic sources... overlaid with elements of WWII rationalism and metaphoric allusions to WWII.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Most modern science research is in theoretical fields, whcih, BTW, are effectively religion.

False. There is a fundamental epistemological dichotomy between science and religion. Most fields of science are based on observation and logic, and at least in principle, open to independent verification or refutation. In certain areas, such as high energy physics for example, the question is not the whether a scientist should be believed or not, it is whether the equipment costs in repeating the experiment are worthwhile, or could be used to do other research.

You do make a decent point about how it is based on reality as observed. However, if reality is not related to the sensory data recieved by the mind, let alone how those perceptions are assembled into concepts and theories, then you have far more problems than you realize.

If reality is not related to what is sensed, then it can and has been argued that the senses are no basis for theorizing. Unfortunately, theorizing without some grounding in fact, while fun, is also pointless.

There is also the area of technology. Maxwell's research in electricity (and building on those who came before) led to the plethora of electronic gadgets, computers, radio, radar, etc. If the theory is wrong, then any technology based on those theories should not work. But they do.

In religion, the final arbiter is what God says. That is the end of the conversation. The end of the discussion. Such an approach does not work in science. We will bandy about Einstein's work, and take it as authoritative, (well mostly, but it is important that GR is not just Einstein's baby. It owes a lot to Schwartzchild, Eddington, Misner, Wheeler, Hawking et. al.) but the reason is not because of Einstein's elevation to godhood status. It is because his work has survived the test of time, of many attempts to refute it, and predicted and explained phenomena that had not been explainable before.

Science is not navel gazing, or any kind of mental masturbation. It is the basis of technology. It produces tangible, objective effects, like computers or rockets to the moon, or medicine. Failure to produce, gets your theories dropped, or written off as "metaphysics." A bit of a derisive term in the scientific community.

While there may be some superficial similarities in appearance, just because you don't have a 2 mile long electron/positron accelerator to play with does not make science a religion.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Straybow:
When it comes to it, it doesn't matter whether any religion is true, only that people incorporate belief in their culture.

This I have to disagree with in the extreme. It does matter what you believe. Because what you believe governs what you do. What you do has consequences, (like DUH! that is the whole point in doing what you do in the first place. Not for the act itself, but the consequences your action will generate.)

If you understand the universe as it really is, if your mental model is correct and corresponds with reality, then it gives you the ability to more effectively choose those actions from a list of potential alternatives that will achieve your goals. And avoid negative or detrimental consequences in the process. If your beliefs are wrong, then you are going to choose actions that will have unexpected and unintended consequences. In general, this can be deadly.

So it does matter what you believe. Because reality is out there and it don't give a damn. You either figure it out right, or end up miserable, dead or both.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by jatay3:
Old theories don't change until and unless there is evidence existing theories are broken. O
.................................................
Actually they do quite often. Don't people always talk about "old-fashioned ideas" as if there is something degrading about being old-fashioned.

I find this more political motivated than having anything to do with science. Any scientist wanting to make a reputation has to challenge the prevailing theories. And has to mount a successful challenge to that theory. If his efforts fails, well, its a failure.

Part of those challenges have nothing to do with science however and are more rhetorical in nature. "Old fashioned ideas" does conjure up something out of date, or no longer operational, or effective. But other than that, it is meaningless. An idea is true or false based on its concurence with reality, not its age. Its the difference between denotative and connotative meaning of words.

And I am not aware of any great and new discovery which made scientists believe in the possibility of alien life when once they dismised it's possiblity.

Urey Miller experiments conducted in the 50's (?) indicated that very simple atmospheres, not unlike what was thought to be like what the Earth had shortly after forming, would produce a host of biochemical or organic compounds. Organic chemistry with very simple ingredients.

Be that as it may it is not such a stretch of imagination to assume that said new evidence is found. Not least because I find the idea that faster-than-light is not conceivably possible to be a bit presumptuous(note I say this statement with knowledge of my own lack of qualification in this particular field).

Well, my qualifications are only mildly better. I read a lot and I work as a tech at an atom smasher.

The argument against FTl travel, and why it is impossible under GR, has to do with the fact the energy requirements just to get to light speed are infinite. It wasn't until Alcubierre's 94 paper that a work around was discovered, consistent with GR, yet bypassing the infinite energy requirements. The logic of the paper is consistent not only with GR, but in turn with what is observed in reality. It still hinges of a few missing pieces, such as exactly how much exotic matter can be produced.

I am probably not explaining this very well. GR is accepted as true, not because Einstein said so, but because it matches observations and predictions with reality. To a degree that most theories would envy. (the only serious contender that I can think of is Bran Dicke, which posits a varible gravitational constant G, but otherwise is consistent with GR) It mathematical elegance I can see, but not sure I can convey that others, and is secondary anyway.

It is not a flaw in the theory or mental model of GR that led to the conclusion that FTL travel was impossible. It was the result more of a lack of imagination, and the failure to discover this work around. Which in point of fact, while the bubble may move FTL, objects inside are still subject to the limits.

 

[aramis]

Drakon:
Many, and I do mean a great many, bits of valid observations produce WILDLY wrong theories. Most of these get caught by peer reviewers, who have been experimenting in the same fields, and can point out that their prior results are not consistant.

Many experiments fail to find the errors in the theories because the experimentor fails to use a broad enough range of circumstances.

Replication alone is not proof of theory. Only multiple divergent experimental structures can even begin to make a theory validated, and then only validating it in so far as they show it to not be broken for X range of conditions.

General Relativity is a key point; GR is only proven in so far as MOST observations seem to follow its constructs; it fails to mesh with subatomic and quantum theores in a great many ways, and in nearly impossible to actually to manipulative experimentation upon. In fact, several of the "Great Minds" no longer accept GR except as a limited case theory (Hawking, amongst others) as it fails below certain thresholds. Thresholds, BTW, which were unknown to Einstein when he came up with the theory.

As for electricity experiments: one has no need to understand eletron tunnelling nor solid state electrophysics to build, use, nor devise uses for, transistors, which operate based upon these principles. In fact, many such "innovation driven" technologies are discovered by accident, and the theories to support them are to explain the differences from the predicted behaviour. One only need "know" that a junction of the proper materials in the proper thickness functions as a transistor, and arranged properly, one can form logic gates.

Likewise, Eddison didn't know/realize that DCdoesn't propagate well over distance, until he tried, even though he had a great ammount of knowledge of what to use it for, and how to make it.

Of the sciences, chemistry is probably the most stable; valence bonds explain adequately almost all known examples of compounds. Radioactive decay explains a few more. But for the most part, chemistry is a technology, not a science. (see below)

Likewise, in astronomy, the new data on the age of the universe, based upon useing new data (from hubble) puts the universe younger than the accepted age of the various elder stars. One of several errors could be happening:
1) the methodology for figuring age of the universe was wrong
2) the methodology for figuring the age of stars is wrong
3) the instrumentation is wrong
4) math errors are occuring.
5) the dataset may be incomplete

People forget that the concepts of subatomic particles are just over a centruy old; before that, there wasn't enough data, but chemists were well able to make compounds and molecules (and even in some cases predict the results) with the erroneous theories, which still, in many cases, work well enough for most applications. Newer theories simply produce better and wider accuracy levels. Most people will never need to know that an atom is made of neutrons, protons, and electrons, nor that electron flow is what electricity is, nor that aerodynamic lift is derived from the speed differential of air flow around a non-vertically symmetric shape. For most, we are approaching the vingian point... so long as you flip the switch, and it works, let specialists deal with it.

You are, it appears, confusing technology with science. technologies are the result of science applied in the world, and will work so long as the theory is "Close Enough".

Batteries have been known (and medicinally used) for thousands of years, but electricity is a mere few hundred years of knowledge. One need not have the science (electron transfer in acidic solutions of two dissimilar metals) to make, nor use, the resultant electricity, at least as a means of pain relief. One need not understand the chemistry of internal combustion to make a working combustion-driven engine, either internal or external combustion; it helps, but it isn't essential. One need not know the science behind how fires work to know that you can snuff it out by covering it or by cooling it... it helps, and the theory is bound to come sooner or later from the exposure, but it is not essential to actually DOING it.

One need not understand genetics to understand tht if you breed two like animals with unusual but rare traits, the children are likely to have the same traits; the technology of subspecies modification by selective breeding has been in use for thousands (posibly more than 10K, definitely 4K+) of years, but until Mendel, the reasoning why only some exhibited the desired trait was unknown, and Darwin gives us selection theory, and modern genetics gives us the methodology by which it occurs; Dawkins finally comes up with a model refinement thhat explains ants, bees, termites, and other hive creatures breeding strategem, as well as genetic disorders.

Dawkins essentially disproves (to the believer) sepcifics about Darwin's view of selection. (Darwin was adamant that the unit of selection acted upon individuals, not species nor traits; Dawkins says the unit of selection is not the individual, but the various genetic traits carried by the individual). In truth, Dawkins merely REFINES and CORRECTS Darwin on the basis of new evidence that was unavailable to Darwin. Does Dawkins' theory answer all the questions about natural selection? No. Is it a better fit than the much more widely believed Darwinian model? SOme think so, others don't. Darwin's still the curriculum, even tho' Darwin's model CAN'T explain genetic diseases nor hive behaviour.

Likewise, 19th century techniques AND EQUIPMENT can be used to manufacture a substance that, while 1/3 the weight of aluminum, is as strong as steel, and better at heat shielding than what is used by NASA; the only reason it wasn't done then is that Titanium and Borosilicates weren't known then in either science nor technology.

Science is about belief RATIONALIZED by observation. And observaation could still prove us way wrong in our scientific beliefs.

Most credible Anthropologists flatly deny that there could be 7K years of civilization, nor a basis for the various flood myths; the indian oceanographic service found what appears to be a city on land that's been flooded for over 6.5K years. (Hancock, 2002, published by discovery networks) the predictions fail to fit the evidence, but until the evidnce is documented well enough and validated by various means, Hancock will be considered a bit of a nut. If, indeed, the Harrappans are the tail end of a several thousand years older civilization, it changes wholly a lot of theories about early human civilizations. Especially since the ruins appear to be 9km long... much larger than most preroman cities. Hancock also sugests that the "Beach rock" which many oceanologists put forth as "Natural Formation" may actually be remenants of stone age megalithic sites that are now submerged due to thr end of the ice age. Hancock is trying to do for Archeology and the earths sciences what Einstein did for classical and Atomic physics: find a way to make them work together.

The problem is that the minds that produce what is taught are often NOT the best informed. (many teachers are, sadly, 20+ years behind the times in their knowedge of science and technology; many professors are 5 to 10 years behind the curve, except within in their narrow niche. Then again, I had a prof for history of warfare who not only was a conscientious objector, but also thought the Somme was a "Modern" battle.)

 

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Drakon:
This I have to disagree with in the extreme. It does matter what you believe. Because what you believe governs what you do. What you do has consequences, (like DUH! that is the whole point in doing what you do in the first place. Not for the act itself, but the consequences your action will generate.)

If you understand the universe as it really is, if your mental model is correct and corresponds with reality, then it gives you the ability to more effectively choose those actions from a list of potential alternatives that will achieve your goals. And avoid negative or detrimental consequences in the process. If your beliefs are wrong, then you are going to choose actions that will have unexpected and unintended consequences. In general, this can be deadly.

So it does matter what you believe. Because reality is out there and it don't give a damn. You either figure it out right, or end up miserable, dead or both.

All that sounds wonderful, but is irrelevant to religion. Most of the goals we as humans strive for are no more effectively achieved through science as through religion: happiness, for example.

Warnings of deadly consequences to ill-formed choices has no impact on religion. Religion generally regards persecution as "proof" that the unbelievers are evil (in some cases as accurate an analysis as any secularist would make). Resistance of nature to man's progress likewise is no detriment to religion.

Besides, the fact is that religiously motivated decisions are no more likely to generate unintended consequences as secularly motivated decisions. You are fooling yourself if you think that rationalism provides any shelter on that count.

If FTL travel becomes possible, people will take whatever beliefs they have with them out there. Moving 5000 miles to a previously unknown continent was almost as frequently motivated by religion as by economics. Moving 50 million miles to another planet won't change anything, and moving 50 trillion miles to another star system won't change anything.

Those who believe don't have to convince you to validate their beliefs, so ultimately your attempt to "card" the theist before allowing her to take her religion to the stars IYTU is futile.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Drakon:
Many, and I do mean a great many, bits of valid observations produce WILDLY wrong theories. Most of these get caught by peer reviewers, who have been experimenting in the same fields, and can point out that their prior results are not consistant.

All failing peer review means is that you don't get published in that particular journal. And ultimately, that is all it means. Sometimes it is due to previous work, sometimes it is due to faulty logic or the numbers in the paper not adding up right, and sometimes it is for less rational reasons. But ultimately, all it means is a delay in publication. Especially with the web, that means less and less these days.

When you say science is a religion, what you are doing is confusing the fundamental epistemological difference between the two. Which is where they differ the most markedly. Any scientist that tries an appeal to authority argument to put down someone else theory would get laughed out on his ear. Science does not work like that.

Also you seem to be confusing Science with what is referred to as "Scientism". And in that case, you do have a point. Scientism is a philosophy based on adopting a specific collection of theories as fact. Science is really little more than an epistemological process and as opposed to the one used by religion as night and day. The PRODUCTS of that process, the theories, do sometime get adopted as fact, and belief structures get created, and that is Scientism. Not science.

I had not heard anything about Hawking rejecting GR. I know the math is a bit complicated and recursive, and Einstein himself thought the field equations would never be solved (And Schwartzchild proved him wrong almost immediately for one solution) but from what I have seen and heard, GR is still a going concern.

Yes there is a distinct mismatch between GR and QM. And both seem to be true, but discarding GR does not seem to me to be the sensible solution. Especially with the large philosophic problems inherent in the interpretations of QM. (And we could probably bore each other to tears on that subject by itself)

As for Dawkins, he was talking about something completely different from Darwin. Memes ain't genes, and their effect on the physical world are less direct than those of genes. Memes operate via more LeMarckian rules rather than Darwinian, but considering the fact that we are talking about two completely different things, it is hardly surprising.

As for the astronomy thing you referenced, last I heard, there was really little problem. With Hipparchos (?sp) data and other resent distance calibrations, it looks like the universe is NOT younger than the oldest stars.

Here is the point. Even if you are right, and the latest theories do point to a problem, a contradiction, how are you going to find out? Do you reject logic and observation and depend on some alledged authority, some entity claiming to be the Creator to hand you the answer? Or do you rely on the scientific method, use logic and observation to obtain a better answer? That is the real difference between religion and science.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Straybow:

All that sounds wonderful, but is irrelevant to religion.

Actually it does. How many Baal worshipers do you know? When was the last time you even heard of an Aztec human sacrifice? Those and many more religions are dead, because their adherents are dead. In the case of Carthage, Baal did not prevent the Romans from salting the earth.

Humans, like any sophants everywhere I surmise, want a bigger better deal. And so will pick the religion that does aid them in achieving their goals, whether that is happiness, or longer life or what have you. (Just as they will pick any product that achieves their goal) Those that deliver, those succeed, whereas those that get their adherents killed off, tend to die out.

Even modern pagans and Satanists have had to modify their belief structures in order to simply survive. In the case of Satanists, their moral code has had to be heavily modified so that is conforms with (at least the resemblance of obeying) the law of the land. Drugs use is frowned up, as are curses and hexes. And human sacrifice, even if it was part of the original religion many thousands of years ago, is out.

Most of the goals we as humans strive for are no more effectively achieved through science as through religion: happiness, for example.

Here I disagree. To me, happiness comes from achieving goals (for the most part, at least the part that I have some control over) Science has been very effective at making me happy, as it has allowed me more ability to achieve more goals than, well I cannot remember a time where humans were more capable at achieving goals we may have.

There are some things we cannot do yet. But I doubt God is going to hand me a spaceship. At least using scientific reasoning, that epistemology, it has the possibility of being achievable.

You are fooling yourself if you think that rationalism provides any shelter on that count.

This is starting to turn nasty at this point. I do argue that rationalism does provide a BETTER alternative than an appeal to an authority. That when scientist debate such topics, they have to use evidence, logic and objectively verifiable first principles in order to make their case. For religion, all it is, is an appeal to what some guy said, and that is the end of the discussion.

Sort of like telling an opponent that he is "fooling himself" for disagreeing with you.

If you fail to see how that is better, well, I am not sure what I can say to convince you. I could recommend you read Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit" but it only tangentally related to this subject. But really all I have to do is stand back and let reality take care of you, and your belief structure.

Those who believe don't have to convince you to validate their beliefs, so ultimately your attempt to "card" the theist before allowing her to take her religion to the stars IYTU is futile.

This is so remotely unlike what I said that I find it insulting and highly dishonest of you to put it that way. I NEVER said anything about carding the theist. I said I would card GOD! How you are able to twist this up, I have no clue.

You say you talk to God, fine. Prove it. You say you can't produce the entity in question because of their incorporal nature, okay fine, I can work around that. What are the teachings, and how do they affect your interactions with other folks?

I don't care whether a theist takes their religion to the stars. I do care about how that theists belief structure will play out with the other colonists, how his moral structures affect his interactions with other folks, human and non-human alike? Is it a "kill the unbeliever" kind of religion? You ain't flying on my ship, that is all I will say.

It is the message that is most important. It is in morality that religion meets the hard road of reality. The whole point of morality is to govern your interactions exactly because of the unintended consequences that may or may not manifest itself. Some of those consequences can be fatal, as they were with Carthage, the Thuggees, the Aztec, and in several other instances.

You seem to have taken my arguments as a general hostility toward religion in general. Nothing could be further from the truth, although considering some other folks who have made similar arguments, I can see how it might be easy to confuse me for some other folks.

I do see that there is a right and wrong, independent of religion, independent of what folks who claim to speak for God say. Or rather, more or less effective at achieving the goals demanded of it. If a religion, or even a scientific theory, or heck even political or economic structures fail to achieve the goals that such were created for, then they will tend to die out. If something better comes along, then the original will die out as well. (Or at least, become a minor population trait)

I don't care who you pray to. I do care how you will react with me, whether you are a threat or not to me. I am perfectly willing to work out reciprocal rules of behavior. I won't insult your faith, or misrepresent what you have said, as long as you do the same to me.

 

[Straybow]

I said, "Those who believe don't have to convince you to validate their beliefs, so ultimately your attempt to "card" the theist before allowing her to take her religion to the stars IYTU is futile."

Originally posted by Drakon:
This is so remotely unlike what I said that I find it insulting and highly dishonest of you to put it that way. I NEVER said anything about carding the theist. I said I would card GOD! How you are able to twist this up, I have no clue.

Please don't get huffy with me here, I'm trying to keep this on topic. But to respond regarding my alleged offense (emphasis added):

Drakon (posted May 05, 2004 05:16 AM)
I think I have mentioned this before, but I feel it is necessary to "card" anyone claiming to talk as, or for God. You never know what other kinds of entities might be out there, and a someone with a few magic tricks might be able to make a fool out of you, unless you verify his identity.

(posted May 06, 2004 05:09 AM)
Part of this has to do with attempting to make MTU as realistic as possible. And maybe you have a point about "carding God" conceeding the question as to whether God exists. But I should point out that such is MY response to the claim by another as to their divine status/nature/existence. If there is no claim to divinity, (or alternately speaking for divinity), then there is no need to card them.

Or to put it another way, "Why does God need a starship?"

This is the context of my statement, and if I failed to make that clear I apologize. These quotes clearly show that you are limiting acceptible answers to those that agree with your RL worldview as though only people with your beliefs would be IYTU. I don't think that is an attempt at making YTU "realistic."

Now to a misquoting of me:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You are fooling yourself if you think that rationalism provides any shelter on that count.

This is starting to turn nasty at this point. I do argue that rationalism does provide a BETTER alternative than an appeal to an authority. That when scientist debate such topics, they have to use evidence, logic and objectively verifiable first principles in order to make their case. For religion, all it is, is an appeal to what some guy said, and that is the end of the discussion.

Sort of like telling an opponent that he is "fooling himself" for disagreeing with you. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, the full text of my paragraph is as follows:

Besides, the fact is that religiously motivated decisions are no more likely to generate unintended consequences as secularly motivated decisions. You are fooling yourself if you think that rationalism provides any shelter on that count.

Clearly irreligious (so-called rationalist) people are no less fallible than religious, and if you are offended that I make such an assertion you are only proving my point.

The topic is religion in Traveller, not religion in Drakon's belief system. You are trying to make this a matter of whether God is real to you, and I'm pointing out that it simply doesn't matter whether Christianity or Buddhism or whatever can be factually supported as a model of relations between a real deity/pantheism and humanity. It only matters whether existing religions, or new ones, might persist and effect worlds in a Traveller milieu.

It disturbs me that I have to waste my time responding to accusations of this sort. If you wish to discuss intricacies of theistic beliefs or your perceptions of theists do so in another forum.

 

[hunter]

Ok folks tone it down. You know religion is a touchy subject. Discuss it in relation to the game, fine. DO NOT attack others on these boards for their beliefs.

One and only warning before I get out the big stick...

Hunter

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Straybow:
This is the context of my statement, and if I failed to make that clear I apologize. These quotes clearly show that you are limiting acceptible answers to those that agree with your RL worldview as though only people with your beliefs would be IYTU. I don't think that is an attempt at making YTU "realistic."

Okay I see where the confusion comes in here. The quote is from a much maligned movie wherein God demands the use of a starship. And one of the officers asks this question, with the implication that such a demand is inconsistent with the concepts of a divinity. It has nothing to do with whether believers in a particular divinity will or should or would be allowed to travell.

This is what I get for referencing obscure movies.

You want to believe in your religion, fine. You want to posit a God, attribute him with certain characteristics and properties, go for it. Believe what you want to. And I will agree that keeping Earth based religions on earth after the discovery of FTL travel, is an impossible task. One that should not even be attempted.

Having said all that, this is a separate question as to whether I will ADOPT your belief structure. And another question altogether as to whether *I* would be willing to allow folks whose belief structures, or God, demands my death, to ride on my own personal starship. They might make for a nice villian, but whether NPC or Player, they'll have to find another ride.

It is only indirectly related to the religion. It is directly related to the fact that such a religion demands its adherents kill me. I really don't care about their reasoning or rationalization, who told them or what have you. I do care that they want to kill me. Call me selfish all you like, I plead guilty there. I am very much opposed to being murdered for any reason. And so, they can build their own space ships, because they ain't flying with me.

If you want to convert me, you are going to have to provide proof. And since God is incorporal, that makes it difficult to do so, for the missionary. Or rather those who claim to speak for God. So you look at what you have available, which means you have to look not at the teachings of God, but rather the teachings of those who claim to speak for God, since God ain't talking for himself.

many religions posit a single God. However a lot of religions posit other incorporate entities, such as Satan, angels, demons, oni, etc. who may possess characteristics that might allow misidentification of that particular entity as (a)God.

So just because someone steps up and says, "I am the way, the truth and the light, the Alpha and Omega" I am going to want to verify this entities identity, make sure it isn't lying, before I would trust it enough to essentially put my life in its hands. I think that is a prudent move at worst.

As to the second point. Telling someone they are "fooling themselves" is not an argument in the slightest. You disagree, that is obvious. You think you are right, well duh! But just because someone disagrees with you, does not mean they are in any way "fooling themselves". It may be based on their own experiences, experience you do not share. Using the terms "fooling yourself" is simply an attempt to cease the discussion, to silence the opponent, rather than further your argument.

My experiences show me that scientific epistemology has been proven more effective at achieving an adequet world model than any alternative, including the "appeal to authority" that is used in religion. It is less likely to result in "unintended consequences" than religious epistemology, or for that matter, a vaste majority of religions.

A big chunk of this is secondary. The real goal of either process is to get a workable and useable mental model of the world we live in. From that model, we can perform off line simulations in our skulls (or around a gaming table) and figure out what would happen if we choose a particular action. Explore the potential consequences, both intended and unintended without risking real world physical trauma in the process. There is a great evolutionary advantage in that.

What is key is the product of the process, rather than the process itself. Does the model work? In religion, we are primarily talking morality, and again this is where the rubber meets the road, because there are consequences to the choices we make, even ones based on our moral codes.

This is also where memetic evolution comes in, as bad or wrong ideas end up dying out, end up making their adherents miserable, or a threat to other religions and philosophic structures, or rather, the people holding those different structures. Such as the threat from those who declare all unbelievers should be put to death. Those beliefs tend to die out, become marginalized and cease to be a major cultural factor. Those that do have it "right" whose consequences are less externally threatening, as well as achieving the purpose of having a model in the first place, (life and happiness) will survive.

The topic is religion in Traveller, not religion in Drakon's belief system. You are trying to make this a matter of whether God is real to you, and I'm pointing out that it simply doesn't matter whether Christianity or Buddhism or whatever can be factually supported as a model of relations between a real deity/pantheism and humanity. It only matters whether existing religions, or new ones, might persist and effect worlds in a Traveller milieu.

Then you misunderstand my purpose. Again, I am not arguing against any particular religion (which the possible exception of those that want to kill me. I find I am opposed to them catagorically.) What I am trying to do is analyze how religiously (or for that matter scientifically) derived belief structures and philosophies affect culture. I think from looking at the past, positing Traveller religions that are believable is far more easy, than randomly assigning traits and attributes to a religion, or other belief structure.

Some traits will be detrimental, and lead to the destruction of its adherents. Some of those detrimental traits may be far less obvious than one might think at first glance. Recently there was a documentary, that made the point that it was the Norse belief in Ragnarok that made it easier for Christian missionaries to convert them. What other traits and concepts out there do not kill off its adherents, but only make it easier for another belief structure to steal their population?

You want to posit a world that worships say a Cthulu-esque god, that promises destruction to its believers, I don't see that as going to work in and of itself. It is going to need something else, or else folks will pass it up, follow another power. If you have a belief structure that sees, say other sophonts as things only to be killed, again, you got problems there.

Religion has been a major driving force in human history and culture, well, since the beginning of history, if not long before that. Traveller, rightly in my opinion, says very little on the subject. Rightly, because too often even an attempt at rational discussion of the effects, as well as causes of this central pillar of culture does produce hurt feelings and animosity. For some, it is a touchy subject, and any attempt to analyze it rationally is seeen as an insult, regardless of what data might be gleened. Too many folks take it personally, and frankly, because the epistemology is what it is, that is problematic.

 

[Drakon]

Lets step back for a second and look at what we are trying to do here. What we are talking about is designing cultures for a Traveller Universe. Cultures have several components, of which religion and philosophy are two key ones, and I would contend, fundamental ones as well.

What a culture is, basically, is a collection of ideas or "memes" adopted by a population. These memes can range from the, well, physically trival, such as what constitute proper clothing, whether to eat meat on Fridays, or mixing cotton with silk, to the more important, when is it okay or acceptable to kill another person.

Whether you are talking about philosophy, science or religion, the product of these methodologies are we'll call "world views" If your world view posits, say, a Master race (grouping of some sort), this will alter your range of potential actions differently, than a competiting meme, such as the rejection of any notion of Masterness (?)

World views govern actions of the population. If you think I am a threat, you are going to defend yourself. If you don't see me as a threat, you will act differently. Then we have a feedback loop whereby it is apparent that the universe (as well as the GM) don't give a tinker's damn why you do what you do, but will dole out consequences based solely on your actions. Not your reasoning, rationales or any of the mental efforts required to come up with that choice.

Biological entities have certain threats to their existence, there are things that will kill them. Kill the body, the mind goes with it. (Where it goes, is left as an exercise for the reader

) Kill enough, the culture dies out, and survivors will note the effect that certain memes had on the survivablity of the culture and take actions to prevent suffering the same fate.

Among these threats are:1) "Nature". There are things like asteroids, super novas, plagues, preditors, anything of a more or less mechanical nature (and yes, for the purposes of this discussion I include most animals as well) that can kill or at least make the sophant miserable. 2) "Machines". This catagory includes things built and created by sophants whose unintended (or possibly intended) consequence is as a threat to the survival of sophants. The key factors here is this is essentially something that man does to himself, creates himself versus finding out in the wild.

3) "Man". Competing ideologies and cultures, as well as their adherents can pose a threat to existence. Part of this threat may take the form of open hostility. But another part can simply be offering a "bigger, better deal" to the host or main culture in question. I do conjecture that any successful sophant wants to live, and wants to be happy. If another culture appears to satisfy those desires, however they may manifest themselves, folks will vote with their feet.

The last catagory 4) is "Himself". Some ideas are simply suicidal, whether intentionally or unintentionally is irrelavant. Dead is dead. Some ideas simply make one miserable, which can lead to the thinking that suicide may be perferable to a miserable survival.

You may have thought it would be great fun to strap that JATO bottle to the roof of you car, but you still won't be able to steer and will smash into that wall at a high rate of speed. You may think nilisim makes you cool, but it also makes you miserable (or angry, or violent even) these can be detrimental for your long term survival.

For a culture to succeed, to survive, it has to provide the tools to its population to guard, protect and defend against these threats. It has to provide a mental model or world view that is consistent with reality enough to predict the outcomes of potential actions.

If your world view includes say, an understanding of nuclear weapons and rocketry, and you have an incoming asteroid, you have at least a chance of keeping that asteroid from killing the planet. If such knowledge is excluded, for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, whether it is "Jewish physiks" or "Not what God says" or simply because the culture never stumbled across it, well, when the asteroid hits, there goes the whole show. If you have the items, but refuse to use them, again, for any reason whatsoever, the asteroid will still hit, and the culture still dies.

So, recognizing the potential hazards to a population can be very important to figuring out just what concepts a culture has to contain, which concepts it must reject, and whether that culture has a chance in this evolutionary universe, or realistically plausible for your Traveller campaign.

 

[mormonyoyoman]

Originally posted by Drakon:

Okay I see where the confusion comes in here. The quote is from a much maligned movie wherein God demands the use of a starship. And one of the officers asks this question, with the implication that such a demand is inconsistent with the concepts of a divinity. [/QB]

Just in case no one has mentioned it, the character in the movie *Star Trek V: the Final Straw* was definitely established as NOT God the Father (Elohim, Jehovah, YHWH, "I Am," or any derivative thereof) but a rather satanic being. Indeed, the fact that the entity was imprisoned on the planet indicates that (Hard as it is to believe) Shatner was familiar with John's revelation that tells of a future time in which Satan would be bound for "a little season."

SOMEone had to mention the title of "much maligned movie" -- and it probably deserves much of the malignment it's received (Not even its own title music!) though it does work MUCH better on the small screen than it did on the large. If one takes it as a lost episode of the original series, it fits quite well into third season. (What we fans won't do to make continuity fit!)

 

[Straybow]

Yes, myym, I'm well familiar with the horror that is ST V, and the quote cited.

I quoted entire sections of Drakon's posts so to include context, but I was focusing on the highlighted phrases in light of all the stuff he was yammering about.

I wasn't about to go all the way back to p.9 and include hundreds of words for context, I just chose a couple that seemed to sum up Drakon's premise without repeating the parts I was deliberately side-stepping as inappropriate for this forum.

Originally posted by Drakon:
I think from looking at the past, positing Traveller religions that are believable is far more easy, than randomly assigning traits and attributes to a religion, or other belief structure.

Thanks for clarifying your intent, but I fail to see how any of the things you posted over the last few pages were aimed at such a goal or added anything to anybody's understanding of either current religions or religion as a flavoring for Traveller worlds.

I treated your initial inquiry about the role of God as a transcendental influence (as interpreted by believers of various sorts). I don't intend to debate (or concede) any other aspects of your posts. This just isn't the place.

 

[Drakon]

Well some of this is unfinished, working them through in my mind and out my fingers. Sometimes at the beginning of the journey, its hard to see the destination. And I had thought that since this is a Traveller forum, that such a context was implied from the outset.

If you still see no value in my postings, you are completely free to ignore them. A lot of other folks do.

Also I think we may have gotten sidetracked somewhat along the way. I'll let you go back and figure out how and where. Going back to my intial posting on this thread, I was trying to point out the evolutionary effects on culture, which in turn affects religions.

Or more precisely, religion is a major influence on a culture, which in turn is part of the determination as to whether that culture and its religion can survive. A giant feedback loop.

In order to figure out how to game a religion (create a religion for a game) you have to look at how it will integrate into the game. In Traveller, I don't think too many folks include God as an NPC. Which leaves the followers.

To a large extent, you can divide up a "world view" into a number of interconnecting parts. Some of these parts, in Traveller, end up as really nothing more than color text. Does it matter what the Creation myth of the Droyne is? Not really, except where it impinges on the behavior of the Droyne, toward others like the players or the NPC.

Among these parts are: Epistemology, which as we have discussed, is how it is we go about finding answers to the questions we have. Do we accept some authority? Or do we seek out the answers ourselves, using observation and logic? Metaphysics which include the theological question ("Does God exist? What is He/She/It like, what are His properties, characteristics, attributes? How will he act or think in response to any particular situation?). Metaphysics used to includ Cosmology, before scientist started finding evidence for their theories both in particle physics and astronomy.

There is also Morality, which I see as the fundamental and the most important aspect in a religion. Here is where all the theorizing, beliefs, etc. meet the road and get tested by reality, (As well as the artifical reality we create in games) Morality governs how people are "supposed to" or "should" behave. Morality also forms the basis for Law, Political Structures, and Economics.

I can, and I think I have, pointed to many real world religious and philosophic memes available on this single planet to show how evolutionary effects results from the choices of memes adopted.

I see religion as not too different from philosophy in most respects. To some extent they vary in epistemological method used, and while the concluding metaphysics and the rest vary widely, the product is the same. A world view, or mental model of the universe, that folks use to pick their actions in the real universe.

Generally speaking sophants are going to pick and choose a world view that they think will keep them alive and make them happier. Having an accurate "map" or world view is better than having a wrong map, or an incomplete map. But any map is better than no map at all

With a wrong map, one can compare the map to the territory, and find and FIX defects in the map. Being hung up about having no map can lead to hesitation, and in some circumstances, that can prove fatal, if not render the individual unhappy, unable to accomplish his desired goals.

Hopefully he fixes it before it leads him astray and gets him killed.

 

[Straybow]

Not really. Man survived for millennia without any kind of "map," and now that we have a scientific map of the territory we don't make much use of it. Making and fixing the map is itself a process impeded by egos and dogmas. Decisions in personal matters or politics are based on simple selfishness, stretched a bit to include spouse and offspring (but in some cases not even that).

If it were not so this world would be a very different place.

 

[Drakon]

I don't think so. We all have maps, because, well we ain't got rocks in our heads.

We have mental images of rocks, combinations of various sensory data, and other forms of information that combined create our perception of rocks. Perception and sensation I see as two distinct different things.

I use this as an example from my submarining days. When a target (any object not the ship) is spotted, it is assigned a letter based on the specifics of the equipment picking the target up, and then a serial number. Sonar picks up a ship on its passive listening gear. They call the target "Sierra 9" Sierra for Sonar, and 9 for being the 9th object sonar has picked up this duty cycle.

Other sensors would be Victor (visual, looking at it through the periscope,) and Romeo for radar.

Now, after a bit of checking lets say it is noted that Sierra 9, Romeo 4 and Victor 13 all appear in the same place, and despite the fact that each system gives different data, the Captain may note that these all seem to come from the same object and will change its designation to "Master 1" (as an example.) From sonar, you can tell how many screws, how many blades per screw and how many turns. From that data you can get an idea of speed.

From radar, you can get an idea of size, and also tell what radar the target has operating. And of course looking at the thing can tell you a lot.

But the key point is that the captain does not have the ship inside his skull. All he has is the mental impression, or perception of the vessel. All he has is the map.

Mankind, since the rise of intelligence has had maps in their skulls. Real rocks and other objects, just don't fit, there ain't enough room.

Now you are right that for most people, "Fixing maps" is impeded by egos, dogma and greed. I see a difference between greed and selfishness however. To me, selfishness is a required trait for survival. If you don't care whether you live or die, no one else is either. And that makes it more likely you will die.

Or to put another way, altruists are food. And those who preach altruism are themselves acting selfishly.

 

[Drakon]

The trick is to figure out which memes work, which are, for lack of a better term, 'self sufficient' and which are actually self destructive. It can be only a matter of degrees, this meme may be better at self support than that one. It does not have to be perfect, just better than the alternative. (Looking at it in a relative versus absolute way. You don't have to be perfect, just better than the real world alternative. And perfection is rarely a real world alternative.

The "One True Faith" meme is a good example of a mixed bag. Without at least some version of this meme, the meme does not get propigated through a population. But it can very easily lead to attempted subjigation or destruction of competing cultures and memes, or coersive conversion. Which in turn, leads competing memes to defend themselves. And that can ultimately prove self destructive to the original culture.

Altruism sounds like a good idea on the surface. But it also has a problem of being self destructive in the long run. And leaves selfish bastards as 'free riders' on the efforts of the altruist.

While "One True Faith" is more metaphysical, altruism and selfishness directly impact the moral code. And the moral code is really where the major concern is, because that is what determines a being's interactions with reality and other players/NPCs. While metaphysics will determine to a large extent the moral code, sometimes different metaphysics will reach the same code, and have the same effects, despite the difference in metaphysics.

Which is why you find the Golden Rule not only in Matthew, but in Confusious' Analetics.

 

[aramis]

Drakon:

Dawkins was NOT talking about memes, he was, in fact, talking GENETICS. Or have you not read his works? He does discuss memes, but as an aside in an appendix. But dawkins is mostly about genetics.

 

[Drakon]

You lost me here Aramis. I have not read "The Selfish Gene" I have read a lot of stuff about it, including a presentation of Dawkin's theory of memes. Are you saying that Dawkin was arguing that his mememics has a physical structure, like genes? I find that very hard to believe.

I am less concerned about who said what about which than I am about whether what was said was true, an accurate model of reality. It is clear to me that memes evolve under more Lemarkian lines rather than Darwinian, that they can pass aquired traits on directly, especially in this age of the internet.