Religion and Models

I was thinking today about models.  No, not supermodels, as a nerd I was thinking about computer models.  Computer models such as those that try to forecast the weather or forecast climate change take our understanding of how the world works and try to look at what is happening now and test that understanding by trying to predict what will happen later.  Then I thought about religion and how it is also a model.  I truly think that religions, at least at their inception, have the same intent as the models we use in science.  That is to look at what is happening now, to try and understand the world, and come up with an algorithm for how to live better lives.  To take way the unpredictability of life, which often causes great stress and fear, and replace it with a set of principles which, if followed, can help one feel more peaceful about the future.  That feeling alone can give great comfort and lead to even great success.

What is also similar is the fact that there are often numerous models that try to do the same thing.  If we look at general circulation models that try to forecast climate change we can see that there are several in use today.  They have many similarities as there is much we universally understand about the climate, but then there are different assumptions that different groups of scientists might make that lead to differences in the outcome of the model.  This is not too different from religion since religions all have many similarities, yet enough differences that each one does not necessarily produce the same results.  The main difference here is that in science when we look at the results and they do not seem to do a good job of representing a true understanding of the world we make adjustments.  We reevaluate our understanding and we make changes.  With religion however changes are general not made.  Instead brand new religions crop up, or denominations split off from one religion to produce a similar religion but with slight changes.  This may not be completely unlike computer models either to represent natural processes either, however if a model was made to the point where it was completely accurate, everyone would use it.  And overtime computer models do get more and more accurate as understanding increases and constant testing allows us to make appropriate adjustments.  Another important difference is that a computer model can only be a useful tool if it produces meaningful results.  Religious models can be used as a tool regardless of whether they are good or bad models, sometimes to terrifying consequences.

As I child I had a Christian mother, and a non-practicing Sikh father.  But much of his family and friends practiced, and what was clear to me is that there were good people on both sides, who grew up with completely different faiths.  Either both sides were right, or both sides were wrong; meaning that either two different stories were true, or that neither story was the whole story.  It seems to me that the latter must be the case.  If we look at religion as a model and test its validity based on its intent, which is often to rise up against repression and gain freedom in the way of life you choose, to give purpose, to give peacefulness, to act generously and compassionately to those around you, religion might do pretty well.  We all know religious people that are good people and if you pay attention you will see good people of many faiths.  Faith has been proven scientifically to be a good thing and we should all recognize the benefit for it in our life. It seems to me that if God is an explanation to the universe at all and it is the correct model for our existence and purpose then the model should converge.  However after 10,000 years of civilization convergence does not seem any closer.  Perhaps there are fewer religions in some way, but human history shows that religions have been more often forced on to others as nations have been conquered rather than people flocking to it because it looks like a better way to live and that it looks like a better explanation for our existence.  And in some ways even if there are fewer religions they are replaced by denominations and different groups of people pick and choose parts of the larger dogma that make more sense for their particular circumstance in their part of the world.  And we must also recognize that there are plenty of secular humanists, atheists, agnostics who are also good people, who don’t prescribe to any religion and yet manage to have compassion, kindness, and generosity, thus demonstrating that peacefulness and happiness are not contingent on using a religious model.

It is proven, time and time again, that cooperation is what makes us better and more successful.  Therefore, we should be focusing on things that unify us as people and as a species.  Let’s not cling to what makes us different, but concentrate on what things make us similar.  Maybe we fear the loss of our individuality, but I submit that it will always be there.  Because successful cooperation might require some redundancy but it also works best when it is made up of a mosaic of people with different strengths and ways of thinking.   We can thus appreciate the differences that make us individuals, but take comfort and be peaceful in the things that bind us together.  I don’t believe this thought to be utopian in any way.  I don’t know what the future will look like or should look like.  I am no model.  I only recommend a direction or path; something new to try.  Who knows where It will lead, but it’s a pretty good direction to head in don’t you think?

Check your morality (written March 25th, 2013)

I went to sleep last night somewhat disturbed by a now former Facebook friend’s comments on story he posted.  And I should point out that to use the word friend here somewhat cheapens the word as this was simply a former student who friend requested me on Facebook.  And while there are many students current and former I consider friends, I truly hope I never cross paths with this person again.

The story was a fake actually, but this did not seem to deter him.  I suppose it was a pro-gun story, and while I am sure many of you know my views regarding this issue, and I have had many fruitful debates with friends about the issue, because there are meaningful arguments to be made on both sides, this was not a debate.  This was not even really about gun control actually, but I was exposed to a disturbing sense of morality.  The most unfortunate part is that this persons shadow is cast by many others in this country as well.  Often when one is disturbed by something deeply, it can take some time to put it into words, but I wanted to do so before I forget.  The story itself was about a woman who upon having her purse stolen shot the thief 6 times while trying to make his getaway.  The woman was arrested, and then acquitted.  In the story she asked on the stand why she shot 6 times, and her answer was that after 6 times, the gun would only click.  As I said the story is a fake.  This person posted the story with the word “ ‘Murica!” posted along with it.  Not telling for sure whether he was being perhaps sarcastic I simply posted the Snopes link.  There was no response to that.  Another of his Facebook friends posted that “this was nothing to celebrate”, indicating that she believe he was being serious and thought that this was a good thing.  He responded by saying that if he could “he’d give that chick a merit badge”.  So I responded with the obvious, well the story is a fake and besides no one deserves to die just for taking a purse.  His arguments devolved from there, also in conjunction with his other friend’s comments.  This other friend by the way is pro-gun as well, but also a morally reasonable human being.  Basically he believes that guns are a form of empowerment and that anybody who tries to take a material possession from another, that person has the right to gun them down.  I have seen comments from others in the gun debate that reveals that this attitude is not unique.

The initially disturbing part was how much this person celebrated that the person was shot 6 times, and that the person would have been shot more had there been more bullets in the gun.  If it was somehow morally okay to do such a thing, the fact that anybody would then have so much hate and anger to shoot 6 times or more for such an offense makes that person a much greater danger to society than a purse thief.  That being said of course I find it morally reprehensible to shoot anyone for theft of material items.

And even though it’s a fake story, both the person who posted and many others in this country, and perhaps this world, think that this is okay.  It left me wondering where the compassion and empathy has gone.  Where is forgiveness and understanding?  There are many possible back stories to a purse snatcher.  Perhaps hungry, perhaps has an addiction.  And we don’t even know what circumstances led to his behavior.  Child abuse, poverty, drug addicted parents, etc.  The idea that all of us as individuals can play jury, judge, and executioner for any crime no matter how minor simply because a personal possession has been taken is appalling.  It’s worse than supporting even the death penalty.  At least that person gets a trial.  Whether society is safer with guns or not is a different debate than the attitude displayed here.  Without empathy and compassion society is definitely not safer despite the assertions made by the person who posted this story.   I was finally able to reason why as I thought about a video I watched on the Qualiasoup YouTube channel that talks about how we develop morality in a society.  They talk about the fact that in a society the punishment for crimes must be tiered.  He uses the example of rape and admits while this is a horrendous crime if the punishment for rape was death, then the rapist loses nothing by killing his victim if the punishment is going to be the same (although sadly in our society rape is hardly punished at all).  Anyway, so even if it isn’t officially a law, that those who commit theft are put to death, in a society where this is seen as a morally justified is problematic.  To simply kill because of burglary, this would actually act to promote violence.  If you are likely to be killed by someone you assail, you are better off committing a greater act of violence against them in order to get what you need.  You might kill them or at least follow them until they are in a more secluded area and rob them with a gun.  You might make a wrong move and get shot, you might try to reach for your gun now and get shot, or shoot them.  In this society people die for invalid reasons.  In a society where gunning down someone for a petty crime is not seen as morally justified.  No one dies.  There is the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.  Who knows the purse snatcher may later feel guilty about what he has done and return the purse.  I find this to be a better and more moral society.

If you find yourself agreeing with the person who posted this story than I implore you to please remove me from your Facebook friend list.  I have ZERO place for you in my life.  I would sit down with the purse snatcher any day over you.  It chills my heart to even know you exist.  Where does such hate come from?  Perhaps I’ll never know.

What is Love? (written Nov. 12th, 2012)

Humanity has been trying to define this since the first musicians and poets, perhaps even earlier.  So I figured I might as well take my shot at it.

My central thesis is that love is too narrowly defined by society and as a result we don’t experience as much love as we are capable.  I am of the opinion that no feeling of love should be discounted and that love when it happens is always a good thing.  I am normally one that approaches everything from academic standpoint, but I am going to try and keep most that out here, because my opinions are a product of both what I have read, but also from experience.  And ultimately, regardless of what we might learn academically about love, much of the views we form about love does seem to be experiential.

So perhaps to start, we should look at what we love.  I feel that love deepens in accordance with the complexity and changeability of what we love.  Which is why loving another human being is the most satisfying, but also the most difficult and sometimes rather perilous.    I feel that this is one of the reasons why people find it easier to show love towards pets, because they are relatively simplistic in comparison to humans, and are less likely to change in personality.  Provided you show love and care they will give back that love in care.  In many ways I feel this is the attraction of God as well.  However a religion defines God, God while perhaps quite complex is also unchanging and I think many people find this appealing.

In the realm of other humans, we feel love towards family, we feel love towards friends and lovers.  As a quick academic aside there is an evolutionary reason for feeling love towards family (genetic interest), love towards friends (reciprocal  altruism) and love towards those we have sexual relationships with (both genetic interest combined with reciprocal altruism for the purposes of helping offspring survive).    But putting this aside, I believe that we categorize love we feel towards different people, but I would see the feeling of love is often indistinguishable only the way that express that love is different.  This is for obvious reasons and that is important, but in general I feel that when we over categorize love and in essence try to define it under narrow criteria we lose some of its value and joy.  For instance we accept the fact that if we have a second child that we can love that new child as much as the first.  You can love your mother just as much as your father or one cousin just as much as another.  And this would be true for friends also.  Now obviously all these people are slightly different and so how you express and show that love towards them or the reasons why you love them will be different.

What we don’t accept is that when you fall in love with someone, that you can’t fall in love with someone else and still feel the same love you felt for another person.  There is some logic to this of course.  Part of this has to do with the act of “falling in love”.  Falling in love is quite the emotional roller coaster.  The physiological changes are immense, and anybody who has had that to happen will know that they are literally not in their right mind for a good period of time. There is a reason for the expression “love is blind”.  The act of falling in love often defies reason, which makes it more wonderful because that sort of loss of control is so intense and so unique that it makes the experience very spiritual.  This is probably a good thing again from an academic standpoint because you want the experience to feel very significant since the care of offspring is a long term commitment. (And yes I know that we don’t have to create offspring, but that is the evolutionary goal of all life of which we are included).   The key is that intense feeling of being “in love” fades, which is not to say that love gets worse, but the way it feels simply changes.  You get your sanity back. J  That feeling is not supposed to last 20 years and probably not even 10 years.  The point I’m trying to make here is that nature has not prescribed how many times we are supposed to fall in love, only that we will fall in love, possibly multiple times.  This feeling cannot be control, you do not choose who you fall in love with, it just happens.  Just because you are already with someone doesn’t mean it can’t happen again.  I feel that we as a society we find it easy to condemn that person and this is wrong.  However, I think also if you are with somebody already and you fall in love with someone else, we too often tie more meaning to that than there really is.  We can turn our lives upset down, and leave the person we are with for what we think of greener pastures, only to find ourselves, after the “falling in love” feeling fades to the same problems we had before.

I truly believe that our ability to feel love is unlimited, but what we are limited by is energy and time.  This is the only limit that can be fairly placed on love.  In life we must make choices.  Perhaps not about who we love more, but who we expend more of our time and resources on in expressing that love.  The amount of love you can show one child if you only have one, as opposed to 3 children is clearly more, even if you feel the same love for all your children.  We often regret most not being able to express love in proportion to our feelings.  And this can be a sad truth in life.

Love is beautiful.  Love inspires.  Love gives strength.  Love helps you grow and learn.  Love makes us better.  Even if we have limited time and energy, we should try to never be jealous when someone we love feels more love in their heart for more in this world.  Love is a good thing, and often means the most when you love without having a good reason to.  Love also happens rarely, which makes it special when it happens to you, and it should always be cherished.

Perhaps the only thing that all love has in common is that it hurts when one is rejected: whether it is a friend, a parent, a child, a lover.  We might feel that hurt in different ways, but it all has the power to give us sleepless nights, sobbing, stress, and depression.  So maybe Haddaway had it right all along in answering the question.

What is love?

Baby don’t hurt me, no more.

 

But isn’t this also what makes love beautiful?  If love was so certain I truly feel that the joy would not be as a great.   Choose to feel the joy, and life will always feel full.  I am thankful for all those in this world who have touched my heart and soul.  I promise to keep reminding you of how thankful I am for that, and hope I can touch your heart and soul in return.

Thoughts of music after a wonderful concert (written Sep. 19th, 2012)

I really need to get to more concerts.  I realized last night what the difference is between listening to the music on your iPod or CD player.  The quality is usually better from the studio, but what you don’t get to see is the faces of the musicians as they play their music.  Stage AE in Pittsburgh was a wonderful venue.  Even though you had to stand there were no bad spots.  There couldn’t have been more than 1000 people there and we were standing only 20 ft away from the performers.  You could see their facial expressions, you could see their hands move, their feet move.

Art comes in a number of forms but for me music and dance are different because they allow us to see the expression through the human form which I find to be ultimately more inspiring somehow.  I’m sure a lover of other art forms such a paintings, or sculpture would say that they love to see the expression captured in a stationary object that seems to come alive as a result of the artists expression.  I suppose these things come down to preference.  For me the connection between movement and music and then music to poetry stimulates my soul and intellect in a way that I cannot fully explain.

Both the opening band and the main attraction were wonderful last night, but in completely different ways.  Half Moon Run was the opening band.  From their first chord you could tell that these were musicians, serious about their music, hell bent on finding a way to express their souls through the medium of music.  By looking at them you could see how lost in their music they were.  It was as though they didn’t think of as an audience but simply a group of friends they had over to their house for intimate gathering.  One of those parties where maybe there is some sort of fire, good conversation, and some good wine, and then as the evening draws late somebody picks up a guitar, sits down at a set of drums, and then you hear the voices singing in harmony, with feeling, and with soul and you know your conversation is over and that you have to listen.  It all feels intimate and you feel closer to the person you are standing next to.  I tend to be drawn to bands with good harmonies and their harmonies, live I might add, were flawless.  Good harmony turns the voice into an additional instrument.  It tells the audience we may be 3 individuals, but at this moment in the song we are one, what we have to say or what we have to express is a collective and it is beautiful and you really have to hear it.  And you have no choice but to agree.  These guys were fantastic.  So good you hope they don’t become famous because I know I’ll have to see them again, and I’d hate to have to be so far away from them because they are beautiful to watch.

If Half Moon Run was the end of an evening, the main attraction, Metric, was like dawning of a new day.  Full of energy.  A force that propelled you to move and yet at the same time you knew it was exactly what you wanted to do.  Metric uses synths a lot, and for a lot of people this is often turns people off, but synths have come a long way since the 80’s and make no mistake the members of Metric are artists when it comes to making music.  Their set was much more of a show, a performance.  The knew the audience, they loved the audience and their music was a spectacle for all the senses.  Emily Haines is an excellent lyricist.  Her words are expressive and her voice makes her ideas soar.  Their music itself is not as strong as Half Moon Run but it’s not trying to be.  Everything about their music is genuine, the band is their music and that’s really the most important thing you can ask for from a musician.  You may not like it, but they are creating what they want to create which is why their music is not “pop” music.  And if you pay attention you can see that it is more complex than your average pop song.  Emily Haines in my age and the energy she brings to the stage heartens me that age does not matter because when there is music you can be young, or really be any age you want.

The important thing is to engage yourself in music.  If you can’t make music yourself, go see someone play.  Solo or in a band.  Get as close as you possibly can to them so that you can excite more than just your ears.  Wonderful musicians are incredible to watch.  Music is a great way to lose yourself for awhile and just immerse yourself in beauty.

Thoughts on September 11th (written September 11th, 2012)

September 11th, 2001 was certainly the most horrific disaster to happen in a country I was living in, and it is hard to forget the memories from that day as you watched footage of people crying, hearing stories of people having to make choices between being engulfed in flames or jumping out the window of a high office floor in the world trade center, or a stewardess on a plane saying goodbye to a loved one over the phone before the plane went down.  And we remember the strength of all those people who responded not only that day, but in the clean up afterwards.  A strength that not many of us perhaps have.  Not even knowing how their health would be impacted years later.

I see many people posting “never forget”, but the truth is people will forget.  Perhaps not those who lived through it, but human civilization will go on and in 70 or 80 years September 11th will be but a historic event in which nobody was even alive for.  In my lifetime I have seen the change in attitude in remembrance towards WWII.  Twenty years ago there were many WWII veterans left alive and that direct link to a war in which countless people died allowed our solemn feelings to remain strong, but now it too has become an unconnected historic event.  We know the loss of life was great, but other than that, few of us can really understand what it was like, and there are few left who we can even talk to share with us their memory.

So what can we remember from great wars or great tragedies that can benefit humanity in the long run?  I believe at its heart September 11th is an example of the dangers of extremism.  The terrorists who hijacked the plane were all rich Saudi’s who flourished in an area where poverty was great, education is not equal, government is corrupt, and separation of church and state is not prevalent.  In these conditions extremism and indoctrination take a foothold and are hard to get rid of. The terrorists of 9/11 were all firm in their belief that they were doing God’s work.  And that belief led them on a course to cause great destruction. If wars and tragedies like 9/11 are to be prevented it seems that answer lies in raising all people up so that there is equality, so that there is the opportunity for self-determination and personal success.  A man will believe in any cause if he feels that that cause has a chance to feed his family.  He may also believe in that cause if his life is too difficult and all he can hope for is some afterlife prescribed by the culture he grows up in.  I believe if we wish to stamp out extremism and leave it on the margins we must focus on helping our fellow human obtain earthly rewards not otherworldly ones.  We must raise him up through compassion and education and we must show that compassion equally regardless of their religion or geographic region.  Just like good parents treat their children equally regardless of whether their interests are similar to the parents, we must also try our bests to help those in need with that same kind of love and care.  Extremism has no reason to flourish in such an environment.

As we move forward I believe it is important as a country to develop foreign policy that is inclusive and not divisive.  We must continue to make sure everyone has basic human rights even if they subscribe to a different religion or are being oppressed by a country that is our ally.  Despite the fact that I disagreed with going into Iraq I actually do agree with the idea of trying to help rebuild that country despite how much it has cost us.  This is a lesson that was learned from WWII.  After WWI the world left Germany a destroyed place, forbid them to form a military and the poverty there was great.  Thus it was not surprising that someone like Hitler would be able to take over.  A person who would clearly be seen as a mad man in any other society that had a high standard of living and greater economic equality amongst the people. And in general we have been doing this as a world, and hey it’s been almost 70 years and no world war…that has to mean something.

Peace be with you on this day, especially to those families that were directly affected by this horrible tragedy.

My lonely views on politics in this country (written Jan. 31, 2012)

Republicans:  I agree the national debt needs to be decreased and that government spending is high, and the answer to fiscal responsibility is not always in raising taxes.  I would love someone to come into the government and truly make things run more efficiently.  However there are some things that cannot win me over.  You cannot just cut government spending indiscriminately without evaluating the worth of that program.  You cannot make religious beliefs part of government policy.  You cannot tell me that a woman does not have the right to choose what to do to her body. You cannot tell me that sexual orientation disqualifies a person from civil rights that everybody else enjoys.  You cannot tell me that all people are poor because they are lazy.  You cannot tell me that the government is pure evil for wanting taxes and yet corporations have our best interest at heart.  You cannot tell me to ignore scientific evidence or tell me that education is of diminished value and that teachers don’t deserve the pay they have.  You cannot tell me that the death penalty is humane and lowers the rate of violent crime, when numerous developed countries that don’t have the death penalty have much lower rates of murders.

Democrats:  You cannot whine about the world being against you.  You had the majority for 2 years and you failed to take a stand on important issues that you claimed you believed in like closing Guantanamo, and tougher stands on climate change.  You need to have definitive plans of action, and you need to act on them.  You need to make government programs run better and more efficiently before you start adding a whole bunch of new ones.  You need to make me believe that you have convictions about what you say you believe in, over worrying about losing your job.  Show some backbone.

Both:  You cannot spin statistics about the economy, jobs or welfare to make it look like one party’s fault.  This insults my intelligence, and if you’re intelligent enough to know what you are doing, then shame on you.  You should be teaching instead of deceiving.

People:  There are real problems in this country.  If you had plenty of jobs and opportunities as you did in America’s past, perhaps many other issues would fall by the wayside.  There are greedy politicians and corruption in government, as there are in big business and corporations.  No side is completely innocent and it is our job to not just believe what they feed us.  Get smarter and learn how to understand the information that is out there.  Many of you, poor or wealthy do work hard: continue to do so.  There is value in it, regardless about whether it feels like it’s paying off.  You gain self-respect by doing as much as you can to better yourself and survive on your own.  When you can, help those in need (time or money), whether you give that help here or around the world.  Extreme wealth, when kept to oneself does little to increase happiness in this world.  Regardless of what you believe in, your existence in this world is limited so if you have the means make your mark by showing the world the size of your heart, not the size of your bank account or home.