6 posts tagged “religion”
Here's a pop quiz about religion [1]. Look over the list of four countries, and try to identify what they all have in common. For bonus points, try to figure out which one is the USA!
Country A
Country B8.70% Christian
86.10% Muslim
3.00% Hindu
2.20% Buddhist/otherCountry C78.40% Christian
0.60% Muslim
0.40% Hindu
20.60% Buddhist/otherCountry D90.76% Christian
1.38% Muslim
0.12% Hindu
7.76% Buddhist/Other0.75% Christian
4.50% Muslim
0.05% Hindu
94.70% Buddhist/Other
For yet more bonus points, identify the other countries!
John
[1] You know - that thing that other people have.
Jupiter is shining bright tonight, and with good cause. Three hundred and ninety-nine years ago today, Galileo Galilei changed the world, the nature of science, and the meaning of religion thanks to Jupiter. Using an improved telescope that he had invented, Galileo looked at Jupiter and saw that it had three companions; by the end of the week, he had found a fourth and proven that these small starry messengers revolved around Jupiter. Being a savvy sort, he published his findings in Sidereus Nuncius, a short treatise that was dedicated to Cosimo II de' Medici and called the four moons of Jupiter “Medicean stars”. We now know them as Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, and Io [1] and call them the Galilean satellites.
His discovery was first used as a method for keeping time [2], but it had even deeper implications. Under Aristotle’s view of the cosmos, the Earth was the center and everything revolved around it. Things in the heavens were perfect and pure, and were in heaven because they were pure and perfect. Because the ideology fit so well with the dogma of the Catholic Church, it was adopted as Church Law – to challenge it was to challenge the very essence of belief [3]. Though some troubling differences had arisen between the pure circles demanded by Aristotle and the observed paths of the planets, these were smoothed over by Ptolemy’s “epicycles” of circles on circles. Questioning these ideas was dangerous at best and heresy at worst [4, 5].
Galileo did worse than question them: he made it possible for anyone to see that he was right and the Church was wrong [6]. By simply looking through the telescope, people could see these new moons of another planet. They could see the “jug-ears” of Saturn [7]. They could see the phases of Venus [8]. They could see the spots on the face of the Sun and the scars on the face of the Moon [9]. And they could see that the Milky Way was neither food of the gods nor a nebula but thousands upon thousands of stars like our, scattered across the sky.
Galileo was first rewarded for his discoveries and then punished for his hubris. He became a superstar in Pisa, and other city-states wooed him, trying to get him to move and to bring his beautiful ideas with him. But his ego led him to clash with others, making enemies out of supporters. Eventually, he was brought before the Inquisition for heresy and threatened with torture. He renounced his views and spent the rest of his life under house arrest [10]. It would be 206 years before the Roman Catholic Church would take his works off of the banned list and 376 years before the Vatican would formally clear him of any wrongdoing.
In opening the heavens to us, Galileo laid the foundations of modern science. He showed that clear logic alone (Aristotle’s approach) is not enough. Logic must be backed with evidence and hypotheses must be checked against observations. He also started us on the road to discover who else is out there.
John
[1] Named after the lovers of Jove (Jupiter). Remember that every planet has a system for naming its moons:
In addition, each planet and other body has a unique system for naming its features (e.g., great lovers for features on Eros). Names for newly discovered moons, planets, and features must be approved by the IAU to become “official”.
- Mars the dogs of war Phobos (Fear) and Deimos (Panic)
- Saturn Titans
- Uranus Characters from a Midsummers’ Nights Dream and the Rape of the Lock
- Neptune Nymphs and children of the sea god
- Pluto Workers in Hades
[2] Why is time so important? Because it tells you where you are! From the angle that the sun makes with the horizon at noon, you can tell your latitude (how far north or south you are). But you need to know the time in order to determine your longitude; this is why locations are given in minutes and seconds. If you know the time to within one hour, you can determine your location to within 1700 km. If you know the time to within 1 minute, you can determine your location to within 27.8 km. If you know it to within one second, then you can determine your location with an error of less than 0.5 km. Until the creation of the first accurate, sea-worthy chronometer [a], the stars were the only way to determine time at sea. Using the Medicean stars, Pisan sailors were able to navigate more easily and more quickly across the oceans; it was this that made Pisa a naval power to rival England in the 1600’s. 300 years later, Lewis and Clark used the same method as they tracked across North America. And all of this came from “pure” research!
[3] Or so the Church scholars would have you believe.
[4] Copernicus published his heliocentric theory on his deathbed, and was still reviled in sermons sixty years later. Giordano Bruno held to a heliocentric universe and was burned at the stake for it (and other heresies).
[5] The Roman Catholic Church wasn’t the only group that wanted a geocentric universe. Nearly 1800 years earlier, Aristarchus had been threatened with expulsion from Samos for impeity because he had suggested that it was silly for a huge Sun to orbit a tiny Earth and wanted to have it be the other way around.
[6] While doing so, he also implied that the Pope was an imbecile. Many scholars believe that it was this, rather than his embrace of Copernican theory, that led to his troubles. Note to self: Don’t piss off the absolute ruler of the nation you live in when proposing a radical change to that nation’s beliefs…
[7] Or at least, most of the time, they could see them. This was one of the things that caused Galileo trouble – the rings are tilted and so change their apparent shape and width as Saturn moves in its orbit. When Galileo first saw them, Saturn was directly behind the Earth, so the rings stood out like the brim on a sombrero worn by a man standing behind you. When Galileo was trying to gather support, Saturn had moved in its orbit so the rings were nearly edge on (imagine that man and his sombrero moving over to your right – notice how the brim appears to get smaller?) and very difficult to see. As is the case with modern net trolls, Galileo’s enemies used this one change to argue that everything he did was a lie.
[8] Under the geocentric model, only the new and crescent phases were possible as Venus had to orbit between the Sun and the Earth. In the heliocentric model, all of the phases could be seen (and were).
[9] Not only did these allow Galileo to check Aristarchus’ estimate for the size of the Moon by comparing its mountains to those on Earth, it went directly against the belief that the Moon and Sun were perfect and pure bodies. The sunspots also allowed Galileo to measure the Sun’s rotation (another impossibility, according to Aristotle).
[10] Legends to the contrary, he is unlikely to ever have said “eppure si muove” (“And yet it moves”). To do so would have been foolhardy and needlessly brave – and Galileo was neither.
[a] Detailed in Sobel’s magnificent Longitude. England and France were locked in a battle to develop a way to determine time at sea (with Brussels a distant third); as a result, each had their own Prime Meridian. Britannia ruled the oceans because it was able to solve the problem before France.
[b] Galileo's finger, saved as a reliquary. Shown as requested by MadTante.
If you could change a moment in history, which one would you alter and why?
The Big Bang [1], because i really, really think that pi ought to be equal to three...
John
[1] Amusingly, this appellation was originally intended to be derogatory. It was awarded to the theory by the chief proponent of the then-accepted steady state theory which held that space had always existed and had always been expanding with new stuff being created in the empty bits being created between. In the face of Olbers' paradox and evidence from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the Big Bang became accepted as the most likely explanationo fro the Universe's current state.
In economics, there is a famous paradox known as the efficient market hypothesis. Essentially, it says that the market is efficient (i.e., has stocks priced at the real value of the business) only as long as the people who buy the stocks don’t think that the market is efficient. By seeking out information about each business and using it to gain a temporary advantage, the buyers create a market that is efficient over the long term [1].
In other fields of human endeavor we face a similar paradox. When and how much trust or deference should be given to our leaders, be they religious, political, or scientific, given that they are first and foremost human? If we trust blindly, then the leaders become corrupt as surely as water flows to the lowest point available. But if we refuse to trust at all, then we are forced to become universal experts and will fail as surely as isolationists live in Wyoming. So how can the paradox be resolved?
In the words of Governor Reagan, “Trust, but verify”. Given that people are human, they are prone to mistakes, to corruption, and to simply being honestly wrong about some things. So before you accept some person or some group’s word as being absolute, ask yourself a few questions:
The first question is “Has your group ever changed its mind (collectively speaking) on anything?” The Southern Baptists split from the Baptists over the question of slavery (they were for it). The Roman Catholic Church used to allow abortion until the 42nd day of pregnancy (the 90th for female fetuses). The US Government used to allow the sale and use of marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. The US Military used to encourage the decimation of native groups. The Republicans used to be in favor of free and open immigration.
Each of these groups has changed its mind about their earlier positions on not just these issues, but many others. Thus, the position that any group takes on any issue should be viewed not as an eternal stance but as a provisional one, subject to change as new information comes in [2]. The positions themselves should be judged not just on how long they’ve been held, but also on how well they reflect reality.
Does your group hold that there are only two sexes? That the Earth is only 6,000 years old? That any particular subspecies is smarter/better than another? That sexuality is fixed? That monogamy (or polygyny) is the natural state of man? All of these positions are flatly contradicted by what we see and know. As with truthfulness, if a group is wrong on one position then is likely to be wrong on others; if it has changed its views on one idea then it may change on others as well.
The second question is “Has your group ever had bad leaders?” The popes are notorious for their love affairs and misuse of the Holy See for personal gain. Mullahs of every stripe have used their religious authority to promote their worldly agendas [3]. Unworthy men, from the inept Hoover to the bungling Bush, have been president and used the office to promote their friends and punish their enemies [4]. And of corrupt, incapable, or simply stupid generals, there is no end.
These bad leaders do more than damage the stature of their group. They can, and in many cases have, used their influence to insert their personal views as sacred writ, literally in many cases. The changes in the King James Bible made at his insistence are notorious, as are the varied interpretations of the wiccan rede. And once these personal biases are made law, they have a way of sticking around. Savonarola’s influence on sumptuary laws continues to this day (where do you think the luxury tax came from?) as do Augustus’ prejudices on prostitution (where did you think all those blond jokes came from?).
The third question you should ask is “What can I not ask?” It is in darkness that rot and corruption grow, and they are only destroyed with light and understanding. Taboo topics create pools of darkness where moral and intellectual decay can take hold. If your group forbids asking when something happened, or how we know that it happened, then what is to keep them from forbidding you to ask why your priest was relocated or where your taxes go or what acts they have done in your name?
As the Pentagon Papers showed, secrecy is not the best defense for a vibrant and healthy democracy. The US government is notorious for using its powers of secrecy to cover up mistakes and errors or simply to shield itself from lawsuits. In addition, such measures breed more questions than they suppress. That which is hidden automatically becomes attractive [5] and create rumors. At this point in time, the majority of Americans do not trust their government to tell them the truth about UFOs, much less where their taxes are being spent.
The final question is “How are those who disagree treated?” Are those who challenge the group’s beliefs shunned or excommunicated? Are they put into jail? Are they tortured or physically punished? Are they killed? The more severe the punishment is for contrary beliefs, the more likely it is that the central beliefs cannot and should not be sustained.
The military faces this problem every day. No chain of command can survive if every private has the right to overrule his superiors, just as no group can survive if every believer has a radically different interpretation of its isms. In the military, they have classes of orders that must be obeyed without hesitation; failure to do so gains the soldier long stays in unpleasant surroundings followed by being kicked out of the service. A few of these orders do allow for summary executions (e.g., cowardice or collusion with the enemy in the heat of battle), but those are rigidly proscribed. Complementing these are the orders that soldiers are forbidden to obey (e.g., torturing or murder of prisoners or civilians); failure to report these to the appropriate authority makes the soldier liable for the same sort of punishment as the perpetrator [6]. There are, of course, gray areas in determining where an order falls, but they are fewer than one might think.
Similarly, if I were to submit a paper for publication in Geophysical Research Letters suggesting that the Earth were hollow inside, the worst that would happen to me is that I would find it difficult to get the paper published and might find my other research questioned. Were I to fabricate results in support of my thesis, then all my work and perhaps even my degree would be questioned; in science, this is the equivalent of a death sentence, as I would have to begin ab initio with a new adviser (assuming that one could be found who was willing to give me a second chance).
So ask yourself the four questions outlined above whenever any group’s representative tries to use an argumentam advericundiam. Ask them why you should believe them, and what their evidence is. A true expert will be both willing and able to explain their reasoning; only a fake will accuse you of impiety for even asking the question in the first place.
John
[1] The creators of this hypothesis won the Nobel prize for it; the economists who detailed its limits due to emotions and information disparities won another.
[2] However they may not change their position immediately on any given issue. It took nearly 400 years for the Catholic Church to apologize to Galileo, though they did say that Darwin might be right in a mere fifty years.
[3] Thereby providing a greater insult to Islam than any Danish cartoonist ever did.
[4] Though many of the worthier notables to hold that office have been no prized, either. Lincoln was notoriously racist, Jackson was homicidally irascible, and Kennedy was an unrepentant libertine.
[5] Which is why the best porn magazines never show people completely undressed; they are always partially hidden in some way in order to enhance their pulchritude (and our prurient interest).
[6] This was the central failure at Abu Ghraib – if there were orders issued to torture the prisoners, the soldiers had the legal and moral responsibility to refuse the orders and to report them to the AG.
A nascent friend and I were talking yesterday. He’s got a friend in the same position as Ken; it is all over but the shouting, and the doctors are about ready to admit that there is nothing more that they can do [1].
So what happens next? Well, that’s where the discussion got interesting. You see, a terminally ill person [2] has the right to decide if extraordinary measures should be taken. Say, for example, you have brain cancer and suffer from a heart attack. Do you want them to try to bring you back, just to die all over again? Or do you want to take the first express train to your eternal reward [3]? Have you signed a "Do Not Resuscitate" order (a DNR in hospital-speak)?
However, even if you have signed a living will and included a DNR, the doctors may not honor it. Why not? Blame your relatives [4]. If any relative (parents, siblings, or {in some extreme cases} even cousins) objects to the DNR, then the doctors will go ahead and try to resuscitate you. Partly this is because doctors hate to admit that they have lost, but partly it is because hospital administrators know that if they don’t try to save you after a relative has requested it, then they’ll get sued. If you make it and get upset, they have a much easier case (“Hey, we saved his life” “No, you ruined my death” [5]) than the other way around (“They just stood there and did nothing” cried sobbing mother). If they are going to get sued either way, then they may as well do what they want to…
Which brings me to the question that led off this polemic: What the hell is so scary about heaven, anyway? Why delay that last ride if there's no chance of a cure? Let’s assume that the Christian God exists and that the person in question has met all the entry requirements for Heaven [6]. If this is the case, then why delay the takeoff flight [7]? Isn’t it better to be in the arms of Heavenly Father [8] than down here struggling to breather?
Why do soi disant “Right to Life” organizations campaign so hard to keep people, especially brain dead people, on ventilators and other tools to force those bodies to keep slogging along? Why do they feel they have the obligation [9] to butt into a deeply personal decision? Why can’t they just “let go and let God”? Why do they want to keep the poor schlemiel from going to Heaven?
Logically, this makes no sense to me. If I know you’ve got the winning lottery ticket, I’m not going to say “Sorry, but you’ve got to play the game a few more times before you can collect.” If you’ve got a tax rebate coming, I’m not going to insist that you pay taxes on it before you can cash the check [10]. So why do this on something that is so much more important?
Any ideas?
John
[1] In the meantime, of course, they are putting my friend’s friend through all sorts of painful tests. The height of this absurdity is the test to see if my friend’s friend is a candidate for surgery that the doctors have admitted she isn’t strong enough to endure. Doctors hate to admit that they’ve lost.
[2] Or a perfectly healthy person, for that matter. I have a living will, complete with a DNR order. When I die, it will be over and that is final. Just toss me into a baggie and burn me as a memorial to my cooking. Scatter the ashes. No cenotaph, no tomb, no memorial plaque. Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints - taken to its logical extreme.
[3] Assuming that you have one coming to you, of course. As for myself – well deity and I are going to have a few words about how things have been run…
[4] And the doctors. Doctors hate to admit that they’ve lost.
[5] Geek points for the reference!
[6] This simplifies the discussion considerably, especially as it is groups associated with this cult [a] that typically raise the largest stink over this issue.
[7] Nota bene: I do not refer to assisted suicide here. That is an incidental issue that we can discuss in another post.
[8] As the Mormon sect of the Christian cult [a] calls their supreme deity.
[9] Leaving the question of “Do they have the right?” out of this as well.
[10] Insert obligatory Nigerian scam story here…
[a] “Cult” being used in the exact, anthropological sense. If you don’t like it, then get another term into the literature.
Madmouser had a post about what happens at church and the appropriate dress, which got me to thinking - when did this artificial separation of church and life [1] happen? When did people decide that church was church and life was life and never the twain should meet.
Of course part of it goes back to those groups with hereditary priests, such as the Jews, the Maya, and the Republican party [2]. But how could it persist in this age of pagan religions such as the Baptists [3] and the Roman Catholic Church [4]?
My feeling is that there are three factors behind it. First, we are just lazy beings. We like to have someone else propitiate the gods and take care of the little things so that we can concentrate on getting our work done and making lots of babies (not necessarily in that order). Second, because most of the Europeans come from a tradition of hereditary/outside priesthood, the tradition is a familiar one and so is assumed to be good [5]. And third, there seem to be those who view their time in the world as something to put up with while they wait for the Cosmic Bus to come get them, and others who run around like Riki-Tiki-Tavi, enjoying the hell out of this lifetime and wondering how the next life could be better than this one [6].
So how do I go to church? I have been to church naked and in a tux, wearing sandals and patent leather shoes, with a close shave and unbathed for a week, by myself and in a crowd of thousands. That's because every day I go to church, only other folks call it "the world". For me, every part of this Earth, this universe is sacred, and every act in it from eating to crapping to living to dying is a celebration of life. It isn't always fun, and it isn't always pretty, but it is the single best repayment that I can think of for that which created me.
John
[1] Which is not to be confused with the separation of Church and State [a].
[2] OK, that last one was a joke. What - I'm not allowed to joke about religion?
[3] Not my description - Cotton Mather's.
[4] Ever wonder what "pontifex maximus" means? It is the name of a Roman high priest, who is responsible for taming the Tiber river every year. And then there is the wedding of the Venetian Bishop to the sea every year...
[5] That not all that is traditional is either good or necessary is another matter.
[6] Shitty bits and all - the most flavorful grapes are those with pips, and the most beautiful sunsets are those with some clouds.
[a] Which I am for, as I certainly don't want someone else's church telling me how to live my life. Given that turn-about is fair play (and inevitable), any ruling that my church might make to restrict the rights of other churches would eventually come back to bite us in the ass...
