What I Think/Know/Believe

[Note: I'll use footnotes today because some of what I have to say will be better if it doesn't interrupt the rest of the text, which may be somewhat longer than usual.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I don't know everything. It hurts me to say so, but it's the truth.ⁱ No one does. It used to be easier – when there was less to knowⁱⁱ

Despite their exalted role in role in democratic theory, reporters were scarcely better than average citizens at mastering the torrent of information in the modern world.ⁱⁱⁱ

So what you “know” is what other people think – or at least what they tell you – what they want you to think. That is their “truth.”^iv And that's why I'm suspicious of “knowledge.” My view is the equal of theirs. And it's hard to know from the media what is fact and what is “alternative fact.”

According to Winston Churchill,^v

History is written by the victors.

So we can't even trust what the experts tell us is the past. And from time to time anthropologists and archaeologists also change their opinions. Ideally the new views are more accurate than the old, but who “knows?”

One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary.

Stephen Hawking speaks for science when he tells us^vi that the universe could have arisen spontaneously based on the laws of physics. And he has the formulas and the data to prove it. But it is less clear what the origin of those laws of physics is. So it is uncertain if all his formulas prove what he says. Copernicus considered the sun the center of the universe. Einstein exposed Newton's error in gravitational theory. Science makes mistakes. Today's established science is what scientists tell us it is, although later it may be disproven or changed.

And that brings me to the actual subject of this note – “knowledge” and belief. When I was brought up there wasn't much talk in my family about religion. My religious training consisted of a few hours a week, divided into too many sections to make a real understanding of any of them likely. I'll get to that. However it's the basis of ideas of belief and knowledge.

All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten.^vii It's a bit of an oversimplification, however it was a bestseller. Most of what I really need to know I learned from my “training wheels” – my parents – who gave me the gift of language and my earliest instruction in how to think. It was a gift that perhaps I have repaid by passing it on to my children. Childhood learning never leaves us.

There was one vital lesson, however, that I learned in my childhood from a science teacher. I'm not sure which one, but the good teacher presented me with a bit of wisdom that has always been with me. It's not deep. At least on it's surface. Yet it's the basis for all I know [sic – no quotation marks] about life. The lesson was that everything comes from something. It's an explanation of the aphorism “There's no such thing as a free lunch.”

The lesson – everything comes from something – is obvious. Nothing you didn't know already. Yet it is, in a way, the pillar on which the world stands. It was one of the original foundations of philosophy. Where did we come from? We're still arguing about it today because we don't know. The question formed the basis for most religions as well. Where did we come from? Evolution^viii is a fine concept but it's only the description of a tool, not of the craftsman.

For those who believe in what Hawking says, we came about spontaneously as a result of the random formation of the universe, the ultimate development of our solar system,^ix and evolution. I say “believe” because no one was around at the time of Creation to attest to what happened. What they consider to have been proved may have various formulas and equations to back it up, but no first-hand evidence.^x

“Proved.” What constitutes proof? For many, the equations of those we consider smarter than ourselves is all it takes. For others it is what is observable and verifiable.^xi For still others it is the appearance of the idea in a holy book. Many consider the last option mentioned as “superstition,” and based on “belief” rather than “knowledge.” But even those words are imprecise, because, as was mentioned, “knowledge” is sometimes incorrect and in need of correction, and “belief” is usually said to be confined to the acceptance of religious doctrines. But perhaps these ideas should be examined.

What do we know? Nothing really. We accept what we are told. We've learned from our parents and teachers, and their words were long ago accepted as truths that we don't question. We even judge future teachings on the basis of what they've taught us. Moreover the greatest of scientists, those who “stand on the shoulders” of predecessors, are relying on what their antecedents have said. And it may be wrong or incomplete. But it's the benchmark by which they judge everything else. How reliable is that? And how are the results of such teachings to be evaluated? Even when what an equation predicts is found to be reproducible, it isn't always clear if this is because it describes a tool and not what we know and understand to be a creative principle.

In a way, “belief” is the same. We accept what we are told because our teachers assert that it is the word of G-d. What is written, however, was written by humans and is subject to error or dispute. Yet belief is often accepted as settled knowledge and not to be contradicted.^xii They have been told something and they consider it fact. They believe they were “told” by G-d, and the words are more than belief – they constitute knowledge. And they expect the same belief of us.

To evaluate such a view it is important that we return to an earlier question: can you get something from nothing? And, as I mentioned, that also raises theological issues, for example, is there a G-d? It's hard to argue with the idea that belief and knowledge, as well as the concepts of proof, knowledge and, for that matter, right and wrong, are inextricably related to that question. And, having been taught while I was young that you can't get something from nothing, I'm inclined toward a Divine origin of the universe and life. When I consider Hawking's arguments, the first thoughts I have are questions: where did the laws of physics come from? Did they precede the origin the universe? Who decreed them? After all, you can't get something from nothing.

But Hawking apparently believes they were just there. Eternal truths? Are they the Divine creators? Even if that is the case, there is some unexplainable force that is necessary to account for creation. In this case it would be laws, but most people call that force “G-d,” although the name is not the point. More important is the concept. And even more important is the idea that what we “know” is really what we believe.

If the same question were asked of me – specifically where did G-d come from – the only answer I could give is that I don't know. I wasn't around at that time.^xiii The response to unanswered scientific inquiries is “I don't know yet,” with the implication that humans will some day be able to answer all questions. I don't believe that will be true of our origin. I don't think wise men will – reporters, historians, or scientists – have all the answers. I think we'll forever have to believe, not know.

July 6, 2017

i As I'll explain later, I don't know what the “truth” is.

ii Same thing. I don't accept the usual definition of “know.”

iii That's David Greenberg in his book “Republic of Spin” summarizing a view of Walter Lippmann early in the twentieth century. Unfortunately, although the technique of news gathering is much more advanced now – members of the media are more interested in expressing their own opinions (“truth”), and those of the owners of the organs for which they work than in providing relevant facts and context. It's called “advocacy journalism.” What has resulted is that there is little in today's press that is a straightforward and objective delineation of the facts; rather articles are intended to convince you to take a particular point of view.

iv Because they're certain that what they think is the “truth,” that's what they want you to think. Anyone with a contrary opinion is wrong, and possibly evil, trying to convince you of a false set of facts. Today we call such reporting “spin.” It's an activity primarily of advertising and public relations, and mainly on behalf of politicians, political views, and other products. Thus “truth” is often no more than opinion with an objective of swaying the listener.

v Or, at least, attributed to him. There were others, including George Orwell and Walter Benjamin, who made similar observations. At best, it's origin is uncertain.

vi In The Grand Design.

vii By Robert Fulghum. It was first published in 1986.

viii “Darwinism”

ix There is a free lunch.

x Atheists, like everyone else, are believers. Their religion, however, is science.

xi A newborn baby is observable and verifiable, but is it proof of a Creator or the random functioning of a randomly originated universe? Is a scientific formula any more convincing than a baby's formula?

xii “God Said It; I Believe It; and That Settles It!” For those who subscribe to that formulation, what they believe, they “know.” It's established fact.

xiii As G-d says in Job: “Where were you when I founded the earth?” And it goes on to list phenomena which I never observed. Indeed, who am I?

What Might Have Been

When I was young I went to Hebrew School, like all good Jewish boys. After my Bar Mitzvah the rabbi called my mother into his office and told her that he thought I should go into the rabbinate. She was appalled. She was the daughter of a rabbi on the lower east side of Manhattan early in the early twentieth century and she, and many of her sibs, felt they were in a “fish bowl,” always under the eye of members of the community and unable to develop in their own way and at their own pace. She was happy to get out. And she didn't want her grandchildren under the same pressure.

I'm glad about her decision, however for entirely different reasons (some of which I hope to clarify in a future essay). Most notably because although I was raised in the Conservative movement, my practice now is Orthodox. I've moved a little to the right, and Conservatism has gone far to the left. The rabbinate toward which I would have been directed then would have been in the Conservative movement. I would have been a misfit, and I would have been very unhappy. That's not to say that I don't think I would have been good at it. I suspect I would have. But as time went by I would have lacked conviction. I would have been playing a part rather than practicing a profession. I would have had trouble following the call of my vocation.

Part of the problem is that I don't know what I believe. Having been reared in a secular setting and having attended public schools, I was steeped in rationality, and never oriented to believe in a transcendent deity. I wasn't taught that it was untrue, but it was never an issue of great concern. What has resulted is uncertainty about the existence of G-d.

I know that this doesn't correspond to my claim of orthodox observance. But observance doesn't necessarily reflect belief. The “rules” I observe were recorded by men, although they may have been dictated or inspired by G-d. They seem to be self-serving, elevating the status of the Rabbis – past and present. And the absence of a “proof” of G-d's existence in a world that bases everything on rational proof makes belief difficult.

But the same rationality that questions a deity also teaches that effects have causes. Notwithstanding Stephen Hawking, you can't get something from nothing. There's no “free lunch.” Even Hawking relies on laws of physics to account for existence, but he doesn't explain their origin. We're here, and there is a Universe. Where did we come from? And where did the Universe come from? Perhaps these are simply philosophical questions, but even the most educated and the most rational among us would have difficulty answering them.

If there is no rational explanation, then, I'm left with the conclusion that there must be an irrational one – or, better, a supra-rational one. And while I have no explanation for G-d, I can only conclude that some supra-rational force exists – whatever people choose to call it. I'll call it G-d, but I readily admit that I don't know what I'm talking about. As the saying goes, there are more questions than answers. Questions related to theodicy are, perhaps, the most difficult to answer, but long ago I accepted the idea that applying rational standards to a supra-rational process was irrational. The Book of Job makes it clear that we cannot understand G-d's ways. And I can accept that ignorance. I'm not G-d. I try to follow all the law and pray three times a day even when no one (human) is watching me, because I feel I've done wrong when I cut corners.  I guess that means I'm a believer. There are proofs of divinity all around us, but none that an atheist would accept. That's his loss.

But that doesn't deal with the question of the rules I follow. Are they G-d's, or are they the “creations” of men? Is it divine Law I try to follow, or is it “tradition?” Were humans authorized to speak in G-d's name? Should I believe that everything written by our sages has a divine origin? That's what we've been taught.

I don't know and I don't care. There's enough that I can't answer that is so much more profound than this that I don't have to focus on it. If it's only tradition that I follow, I can live with that. My heritage and my people have much to offer humanity – if only humanity would recognize it, rather than resent it and us.

Perhaps I'm a misfit similar to what I would have been had I entered the rabbinate. Pascal based his wager on the odds. After all he was a mathematician, and a scientist like him tried to be rational. But in a way I'm more rational, basing my acceptance of G-d on the logical belief in cause and effect. Still the rationalists of modern times cannot accept anything they cannot prove. So, from their perspective, I've been misled. And I'm following precepts that have no basis. Many of them – and I'm most aware of some of the scientific and medical precepts in Jewish religious teaching – are either not well thought out or are flat out wrong. Which, despite the apologetics, suggests to me that they were the ideas of humans rather than being divine precepts. Maybe they have value in the understanding of the eras in which they were written. But as we have been admonished to follow the teachings of the rabbis of our times – and their exposition of the words of their predecessors may differ from what was taught in the past – so, too, we are well advised to follow the explanations of modern medicine and science.

I'm a physician, not a rabbi. I might have been a rabbi – indeed, I have a son who is one – but things didn't work out that way for me. So be it. In a way I'm glad. I can accept my ignorance about religion without having to defend it and explain it to others. And without having to abandon it because I can't always understand it. I'm not a misfit. But I might have been one.

Fiddler On The Fence

It's not only about G-d. Everyone believes in G-d – even atheists. They deny it and use other terminology, but they have the same questions about the origin of everything that we all do. If they choose to ascribe it all to gravity, as Stephen Hawking does, or the laws of science in general, it is hard to disavow the idea that even the laws of science had to come from somewhere. Unless you believe that they always existed – that they are eternal.

“Believe.” “eternal.” “the laws of science had to come from somewhere.” Those are religious ideas and bespeak a deity of some sort – even if it's science itself. And unless one accepts ancient mythologies, or is an adherent of of a polytheistic religion, it is likely that you accept the concept that there is only one G-d.

Larycia Hawkins, a professor at Wheaton College in Illinois, decided to wear a headscarf during the Advent season as a gesture of solidarity with Muslims. In doing so, Hawkins quoted Pope Francis, saying that Christians and Muslims "worship the same God."

Professor Hawkins (Political Science) was suspended from her position at a Christian college because her statement was in conflict with the principles that the college was teaching. I'm neither Christian nor Muslim, but I accept the formulation of Pope Francis that she cited. My only modification, and it's certainly not a minor one, is that the beliefs about that G-d, and the ways that we worship, vary greatly. While the non-Abrahamic religions may have other teachings, Islam and Judaism among others rely on post-biblical interpretations for authority (and Catholicism credits the Pope with infallibility in understanding faith and morals), Protestant doctrine is different and, according to Wikipedia,

“The belief in the Bible [i]s the highest source of authority for the church.”

moreover

“The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between G-d and the people.”

Their view is that every believer must read the Bible, and all would practice according to their own understanding without the need for ordained priests as “mediators” between G-d and themselves. It's very democratic, which makes it very attractive.

But it's certainly not the path of Islam or Judaism. Both rely heavily on authority, and assume a greater understanding of the holy doctrines, by an educated, if not necessarily ordained, minority. Both teach and follow ancient traditions. Unfortunately, for many Muslims that extends beyond the peaceful adherence to religious principles and mandates the spreading of their rules to everyone, by whatever means are necessary. And that includes force. Too many believe that until Islam and its laws are universally accepted, they must continue war on those who reject their precepts. And we see evidence of that war every day.

Judaism has a different approach however. It's not a proselytizing religion and doesn't force its precepts on anyone. Which is not to say that its practices are accepted by all Jews. In fact, Jewish history is filled with disputes about the meaning of the laws and precisely how they should be observed. But the arguments and different opinions – even if rejected – are preserved for the edification of future generations and even minority views may have some standing. Minority opinions may become the “traditions” of various Jewish communities, and there is wide variation in practice, even among the orthodox, without the need to conceal any of the ancient traditions. Disagreements may exist but violence is not the way they are usually settled. Just more disputes and debates. And there are plenty of them. As they say, “Two Jews, three opinions.” So there are many occasions when an individual may be uncertain about the “correct” practice – when two different traditions seem equally reasonable. Or unreasonable.

But there are rules for the interpretation of the laws. The main source, of course, is the Bible. That's the case with all of these religions. After all, it's the word of G-d. Fine. But it's not always clear what is meant, so there's a need for interpretation and for guidelines. Is everyone who reads the Bible equally capable of interpretation? Judaism has accepted the principle that the most important criterion is antiquity. The longer ago an authority lived, the more reliable is his opinion. After all, he's closer to the time of the giving of the Law, to the time when all of Israel heard the words of G-d.

That's the problem though. The words of ancient sages are, too often, viewed as dispositive. They're final. But while we treat them as divine they're nothing more than the words of men. However much inspiration and wisdom they contain, however well they have stood up through the years, however they may have been accepted by others, they are the words of men. And there is ample room for interpretation of these words as well. Not every interpretation, especially some of the more recent ones, is consistent with the underlying philosophy of the religion, but the encouragement of discussion by those conversant with the views of our sages, gives Judaism much of its strength. As does honest disagreement whose aim is to understand and fulfill G-d's wishes. "These and These Are The Words of the Living God."

Humans can never know G-d's wishes. We may adopt traditions with the intent to fulfill them, but we can never be sure. Different religions worship in different ways, as do different branches of a single religion. Our practices are ours, and we mustn't force them on others. Intent is what counts. Important as it is to follow the words of our sages, to respect the authority of their erudition and the wisdom of their rulings, unless the underlying purpose of your actions and traditions is to do what you believe G-d wants of you, you are following the words of men.

Get off the fence.

The Age Of Enlightenment – See It Now

There was a time when everyone believed in something. Most people accepted some form of worship, and only a few weren't convinced of the reality of religion.

The Age of Enlightenment changed that. In the view of many it was a change for the better. The exposure to new ideas, and the discrediting of many of the views and beliefs of the past, however, left some confused. To a degree, the same process had already occurred both during the Renaissance and the Reformation, but an entirely new dimension was lent to scholarship during the period of “enlightenment.”

Earlier explosions of learning had helped people understand the past; it had increased their knowledge of the ages that had preceded them – that had helped to form them. Or, when it came to the Reformation, it had rationalized their belief system by providing a group of new theologies more acceptable to a disenchanted populace than what they had been practicing. And in doing so it left them with ideas and faith that were stronger and more palatable than the ones which they had been taught, and under which they had lived.

But the Age of Enlightenment was one that tore down rather than built up. Certainly there was an increase in the appreciation of the natural sciences and of philosophy, however the new knowledge that was being developed had the effect of teaching everyone that what had been experienced in the past was erroneous. Old rules were abandoned, and old governments overthrown.

The American and the French Revolutions provided liberty to people who had been oppressed for as long as they could remember, and the exhilaration of self-rule and of freedom from the control of the unjust system that had enslaved them marked the beginning of a new era of Good.

Good, but not G-d. Nothing couldn't be explained rationally. There was no need for the mythology of the past. And that's all religion was. There was a scientific justification for everything. There was no need for any extra-rational system of thought. Religion was “the opiate of the masses,” and its only value was to keep everyone quiet and subservient. It was debunked. Stephen Hawking has taught us that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” That finished off whatever was left of faith. There was no need for an extra-rational explanation.

While Hawking's “explanation” simply pushes creation back, and doesn't really explain anything, it, and the societal changes and dogmas – Hawking's and those that came before it – that have accompanied “rationality” and the Age of Reason – another term for the period of “Enlightenment” – left many with a spiritual vacuum. Unfortunately it is a vacuum that too many were eager to fill.

For many the path to fulfillment involved a return to the religion of their past and of their family, but others had nothing in which they could believe and they sought both a new set of truths that would make sense of the world around them and a teacher or a guru who would lead them. They were a mass ready to follow a prophet who promised them the foundation they lacked. And they were ready to follow the teachings of their new leader without any thought about their validity. The invalidation of religion was the opiate of these not really liberated masses.

Sadly nothing has changed. We've had Jonestown and Heaven's Gate but people continue to seek the answer to the emptiness they face. And too often the prophets of our day have single item agendas – political, religious, or scientific – and they are impervious to reality; submissive followers are unable to deal with any views but those of their leaders, for those views have been accepted as their own. They are unable to compromise on political or social issues. Or, when it comes to religion, they are unwilling to allow others the choice of accepting another set of beliefs.

An example of such religious intolerance, and of the terror to which it may lead, is the San Bernadino massacre. Tashfeen Malik's allegiance to the Islamic State and its leaders, and Syed Farook's loyalty to a cause, are sad reminders of the power of an idea and the weakness of hollow individual wills. All it takes is a single-minded Svengali and people desperate to believe in something. It is the blindered leading the blind. Unfortunately we have too many of both. And we have too many examples of the violence that accompanies the intolerance of some.

There is no returning to the past. The jinii is out of the bottle. And we see what horror it can create. The Age of Enlightenment solved some problems but caused others. There are many paths to political, social, and religious truth – not a single one that everyone must follow. Until that idea becomes our path to enlightenment, intolerance and the refusal to accept other views will continue to cause societal dysfunction. A new Age of Reason in the future, one that has the dimensions of spirituality and tolerance, will be needed for that.

Just The Facts Ma'am

That's all Joe Friday ever wanted. Just the facts. But I think he was asking more of people than they could give. His aim was to take all opinion out of the story being relayed to him. The only thing he was interested in was a description of the events that the witness observed. Just the facts.

That's not how things work however. Distinctions between “fact”ⁱ and “belief” may be difficult to identify, and there are also the problems of “opinion”ⁱⁱ and previous experiences unrelated to the current question entirely, but governing the way one interprets it. Not to mention confabulation and prevarication secondary to potential benefit from remembering an event in a way favorable to one of the participants, or fear of the consequences of an accurate recounting of what was observed.

And all of this presumes that the observer is accurate and remembers what he saw. But that's not at all certain.ⁱⁱⁱ What we see is based on what we expect to see, what we want to see,^iv and what we have seen in the past, as much as what has actually taken place. Numerous studies call into question the accuracy of eyewitnesses. Juries may believe the word of an “honest citizen” rather that of a “criminal,” but eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

-----------------------------------------------------------

One of society's big problems nowadays^v is bullying. The most obvious kind relates to physical abuse, but it's not the most common. Chalk that up to verbal violence.^vi One child will belittle the ideas of another as evidence of his own superiority, often using “facts” that he has made up. Whether we agree with his view or not is beside the point. We may not believe there is a Tooth Fairy, but that is not proof that there is none; we may personally doubt the existence of Santa Claus, but as Francis Church pointed out to Virginia,^vii in fact, there is one. Scientific documentation may not always be obtainable, and it is not always necessary.

The most important question then is what constitutes a fact. The word itself is from the Latin factum – something done – and, consequently, refers to something that is true: provable, demonstrable, observable, repeatable, and has predictive value.^viii Most of the definitions are variations on this idea – that a fact is true and verifiable.

But that's not all on the subject. For example, Collins's World English Dictionary^ix includes in its definition of fact: “philosophy a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement,” and, when it comes to legal issues, “(q)uestions of fact are decided by the jury, questions of law by the court or judge.” And one of the statements of the Merriam Webster Third New International Dictionary^x is that a fact is a statement “purporting to contain something having objective reality.” Purporting. So the claim that something is a fact doesn't make it true, and it doesn't guarantee that it should be believed. Label something as a fact, though, and most people will consider you a fool if you don't accept it. Evaluation is no longer necessary.^xi Once everyone believes something is a fact, it is a fact.

But, as James Randi said, “No amount of belief makes something a fact.”^xii Randi has spent his life disproving beliefs, maintaining that only scientifically approved facts are worthy of acceptance. Facts like the four elements and phlogiston. Facts like the centrality of the earth in the universe. And, of course, facts about matters visible to all and known by all – like the fact that the earth is flat. That's certainly reproducible. But not all of science's past judgments are still believed.

For facts are really beliefs, some of which have mathematical or scientific basis and some of which are demonstrable and observable. But there are other facts for which there is no scientific foundation. That doesn't mean they are untrue. There were electrons before they were first demonstrated, and the sun was the center^xiii of our solar system even before Copernicus, but we couldn't prove it. And there were cells before Hooke, and laws of physics before Newton. There was even Truth before there was mathematics.

But we consider facts to be theories until we have the tools to “prove” them. Whether the proof is by direct visualization or an inference from mathematical theory, it takes a tool^xiv to make something into a fact. And it takes belief, Randi notwithstanding.

For some, the written word constitutes fact. Will Rogers averred: “All I know is just what I read in the papers.”^xv Unfortunately newspapers have their own agendas, and most reporters adjust their dispatches to coincide with the publication's philosophy. And many – “advocacy journalists” – present their own biases intermixed with the hard news. Even stories of scientific advances are notoriously unreliable.

Others prefer to make their own decisions without direction from journalists who may be biased. All they want to see are the pictures, whose content they'll judge for themselves. No captions are necessary. They ignore the fact that the pictures may be censored by some regimes, and those that do appear in the papers are chosen by the same people they don't trust for text. And Photoshop has ended the reliability of photos forever.

What, then, are facts? The best I can do is to view them as strongly held beliefs which may or may not have evidence to support them. Skeptics like Randi will often dispute the evidence anyway, but no one is required to accept his definition of truth any more than he accepts that of others. Before Einstein, Newton's laws of physics were indisputable. Who knows if Einstein's will be disproved. What we now believe science proves, may ultimately be shown to be wrong, but we are not compelled to use the scientific playing field in any case. The spiritual field is just as valid, as is the perspective of a particular culture. Facts are not as cut and dried as Sgt. Friday would have us believe.^xvi Nor are beliefs.

One thing is clear however. No amount of fact invalidates a belief. Even Randi's belief in the incontestable credibility of science.

Next episode: “Proportionality” – The measure of all things can't be measured.

I        As will become clear, I don't always place what people call “facts” in high esteem. I usually view them as having scare quotation marks, but using those at all times would be unwieldy in an essay of this sort. So don't look for them, but understand that I often don't take them seriously, and neither should you.

ii        Some might even say bias.

iii        You can fool some of the people all of the time.

iv        And we remember what we want to remember.

v        It's not a new problem at all, but all of a sudden it's become one of our major concerns. We should have dealt with it a long time ago.

vi       The persistence of this form of abuse into marriage is beyond the scope of this endeavor.

vii      Editorial in the New York Sun, September 21, 1897.

viii     Actually that's not completely accurate (though it will do for our purposes). “Fact,” comes from “factum” derived from Latin facere, and describes something that has happened. Already. So it's not really a fact that “the sun will come up tomorrow” – despite Annie's protestations. Based on our experience, however, we believe it to be true. But fact and truth are not synonyms.

ix       www.collinsdictionary.com

x        Springfield, Massachusetts, 1971.

xi       You can fool all of the people some of the time.

xii      http://www.atheistrepublic.com/gallery/no-amount-belief-makes-something-fact-james-randi

xiii     Well not really the center, but close enough. Certainly all the planets rotate around it. As far as we know.

xiv      Like a magnifying glass or electron microscope.

xv      Rogers only feigned his simplistic trust. He knew the papers were full of nonsense and used them as a comic prop. In fact, he viewed “just what I read in the papers” as “an alibi for my ignorance.”

xvi      You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

The Science Of G-d

I used to be confused.

I used to wonder about the evidence that put all that I had learned about my religion into question; about the “higher biblical criticism” that tried to tear down the meaning of the Bible and convert its contents into a work of literature. There were also occasional archeological findings which corresponded to biblical accounts, but a lot of questions remained unanswered. So I continued to wonder.

Then I read a book entitled “The Science of God” by Gerald Schroederⁱ and I no longer wonder. My attitude has changed.

Schroeder demonstrates, using Einstein's theory and quantum mechanics that the gulf that I once thought existed may not be as real as I had believed (!) – that the two are compatible. I no longer wonder. Science has provided the tools to show that belief is not irrational – that there is evidence for biblical claims and a reasonable and logical explanation for some of the most troubling assertions which may be found in the Bible.

But I regret the work I just read because it is an apologetic which is based on a perceived need to show that compatibility – between science and religion – and it is an attempt to show that belief is factually justified.

That, however, changes it from belief to knowledge. So as reassuring as the “facts” are, I resent them. They make religion rational, and that's not what it's all about. Schroeder has picked up the scientists' cudgel, rather than throwing down one of his own. He has accepted and validated their language and decided that theirs is the appropriate playing field. He leaves room for scientific refutation of his views when he might have pointed out that such arguments are irrelevant. And that's a mistake – it's better to accept “their” scientists' problemsⁱⁱ than “our” scientists' solutions.

Can we “know” what Hashem “wants?” No. Can we figure it out? The more scientific discoveries that are announced – discoveries which demonstrate a correlation with the Bible – the more it becomes obvious that belief, not science, should be the benchmark. Science is merely catching up. Yet we glory in those discoveries, and that defeats the entire purpose of religion, for we have accepted the scientific point of reference. We've “shown them,” using their own tools.

Of course the rationalists find the religious perspective incomprehensible. They have challenged believers to demonstrate its rationality.ⁱⁱⁱ But they have not been challenged to adopt a spiritual approach to their positions. We accept their perspective while they reject ours. It's not what is currently referred to as a “level playing field.” Scientists, although they rely heavily on belief today,^iv contend that no belief makes no sense. Theirs certainly doesn't, for while living by it, they deny its existence.

There are three kinds of belief. Belief is not monolith any more than science. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

The first type of belief (literally) is the kind demonstrated by a child. It reflects an acceptance of what he was taught by parent or teacher. It was usually presented without any counter argument and there was no reason to question it. It is fact! “How do I know? The Bible tells me so.” For many, this childish kind of belief persists throughout life. There are certain unquestionable truths which you believe (know) to be correct because that's what you've always been told and in your circles it's an accepted truth.

Others see “facts”^v as the basic building blocks of belief. Indeed, they actually reject the term “belief,” preferring to designate their views as “knowledge.” It is the belief of the scientist. It is “adult” belief, requiring proof.^vi But it's really not very different from a child's belief. It's an unshakable conviction based on what you've been told “and in your circles it's an accepted truth.” The one major difference from the certainty of a child is that this scientific “belief,” however convincing it may be, is subject to change at a moment's notice. All it takes is a new fact, and a new belief will be substituted for the old. Without second thought or embarrassment. Belief is both absolute and infinitely changeable.

There is also the belief of the convinced convert, and the individual who has “strayed” from the path which he may^vii have been taught as a child. Many of these people have come to the conclusion that the path they have chosen to follow is the “true” one. Whether or not they have good evidence to support their new beliefs, they have no doubts about their veracity.

And so it seems that everyone has some belief about religion – whether it is a belief in it's validity or it's falsity; whether a belief that spirituality or science holds all the answers.

But that's not the case. There are many who aren't certain. We call them “agnostics” (without knowledge) because we are wedded to fancy Greek terminology, but suggesting that they uniformly lack knowledge or belief is not accurate. Indeed, some of them are very well educated on the issues, but confused about the ultimate answers. And some of them are very observant of their religions, whether from a desire to maintain traditions, even if they don't fully accept them, or out of the hope that they are correct and the wish to be on the “winning” side.^viii

But many agnostics believe that no one can have actual knowledge of the existence or absence of G-d. And in this respect they're right. After all, that's what belief is. There's no point in using science to give evidence one way or the other. Even if that were possible – which it isn't – it would be counterproductive. Efforts to do so, like those of Schroeder, may have some didactic value, but they have noting to do with belief.

So I remain confused. But I now realize that I can never have answers, and that that's the way it should be.

Next episode: ““Rules” – They're clear but you're not.
 

I        Broadway Books, New York, 1979.

ii       The scientists can't really explain the origin of the laws of science which they expound, or the source of the speck which, at the time of the “Big Bang” served as the “ancestor” of the universe. They dance around their problems or leave them for future generations.

iii      The idea that they challenge believers to prove the rationality of their religious views is silly, and simply shows that they have no concept of what religion is.

iv       “Logic,” “evidence,” and “theory” are among the terms scientists now use to reflect belief just as they once believed in alchemy and the like. As it says in Ecclesiastes (which, by the way, is a religious book), “there is nothing new under the sun.” That's the same sun that they once believed rotated around the earth.

v        What is a “fact?” That requires a separate discussion, which I plan to engage in sometime in the near future. But, in short, it's something its proponent believes to be provable, or so obvious that it requires no proof.

vi       As such, of course, it is not more than belief in the actuality of what they consider facts. As we have seen, today's facts are tomorrow's “old wives tales.” (N.B. I do not wish to demean old wives. Nor, for that matter, old husbands, of which I am one.)

vii      Or may not. The childhood religious education of some is lacking. But after considering the various options, and often based on study on their own, some decide that their own religion makes the most sense.

viii     Pascal's Wager is an example of this kind of approach.

Cogito Ergo Sum – Pars II

                                                                                                           

It goes without sayingⁱthat even before science learns how to insert thoughts – and they willⁱⁱ– there will be ways found to read thoughts from the outside. It's already possible to identify the areas of the brain that are active in relation to a variety of stimuli, so it can be determined what“turns you on.”ⁱⁱⁱ Thoughts used to be considered sacred and beyond legal consequence. A couple of examples of that philosophy are the German song, Die Gedanken sind frei(thoughts are free) and a line from Frank Loesser's Standing on the Corner which says “Brother, you can't go to jail for what you're thinkin'.” The time will come, however, when you can. Right now all they can do in some jurisdictions is charge you with loitering.

The insertion of ideas, however, is not new. And it needn't be surgical. For better or worse it's always been with us. We call it education, but we try to limit the particular concepts our children learn to those with which we, ourselves, are comfortable. And we look for the“best” schools and teachers to implement the program we have prescribed. We want to choose the school district or, in some cases, a particular school – secular or parochial – to instill both the desired facts in our children and the techniques for working with them, and the “proper” outlook, which is sometimes more important than the facts. And, during this period of information acquisition, youth, we want to shield our children from ideas that we view as detrimental – whether because they are wrong or because we consider them contrary to our own ideas and, thus, confusing and misleading.

When it comes to “proper outlook,” most people usually accept the one that is available at no cost, the one usually described as public education, although some families will opt for a parochial^ivor a private school – even at what may be a significant cost – in order to promote a particular set of values or to improve the chances of a particular outcome that is likely to result from, the attendance at a desirable (type of) institution.

The“promotion” of thoughts, values, and philosophies in a parochial school is often viewed as restrictive and coercive by “liberal”citizens who don't use them, but the techniques they use are no different – and perhaps less harmful – than those used by the state in general.^v Under the usual circumstances the education our children receive –public education – is whatever is believed by the majority,^viand minority viewpoints are either ignored or belittled. It's usually some form of default to generally accepted ideas without much attention to details. In some instances, however, there may be a specific intent to indoctrinate the students into “correct”beliefs and “knowledge.” George Orwell, in 1984,^viishowed what can be done with the recasting of history, the“correction” of existing texts, careful crafting of the message, and the creative use of language. If there are no time constraints, if it can be done over generations, and no one will notice or care. Soon enough the information people are taught to believe becomes common knowledge. First “knowledge,” and then memory. Mythology and old wives' tales are well accepted in our society already. Who is not aware the George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and admitted his transgression, and that vitamin C will prevent or cure the common cold? In the next generation these will be the truths that everyone knows.

The education, provided by those who will seek community through uniformity of knowledge will be greatly assisted by technological advances, as well as by the popular desire for test score improvements and a common curriculum for all – however inappropriate it is for many of the students. Disingenuous innovators will, with feigned diffidence claim they are “standing on the shoulders of giants.” What is actually the case is that they've had an education and are working with more information than previous generations – the real giants – had. The idea, as they express it, sounds modest but noble, yet it is too often camouflage for calculated misrepresentation. And with the internet and all the social media outlets, false “truths” and spins, that “calculated misrepresentation” can be disseminated instantaneously. If it doesn't stick the first time, it can be presented again and again. After all, one of the basic techniques of education is repetition.

So the public may be horrified by scientific advances,^viiiwithout realizing that the advances research will bring some day by techniques now viewed as science fiction, have been present in less dramatic form since the dawn of civilization. And so, as with so many other things, before we take issue with what's to come, the perils of the future, it's vital that we evaluate what we have and what we've been taught is right. That, itself, may hold some dangers that need reconsideration. If I am what I think, I may not be what I think I am.

Anyway, that's what I think. At least I think it is.

Next episode: “Don't Put A Cold In Your Pocket”- Common sense but not Thomas Paine.

i           But I'll say it anyway.

ii            Surgery has already been employed to govern thought. Lobotomy was designed to sever pathways of emotional thoughts, allowing the victims to be more manageable. We now use mind-altering drugs to achieve the same results, but what we're learning may also teach us how to surgically change thought patterns. And we're experimenting with the transfer of genetic material to prevent, treat, and possibly cure diseases, so why not use the injection of facts as a cure for ignorance? It will be especially useful in those likely to have low IQs. Obviously that kind of procedure will be more difficult, but when scientists set their minds to solving a problem, it eventually gets solved, though it may take a long time and may be a problem better left unsolved.

iii         How long will it take before the techniques are refined and more specific information, perhaps individual thoughts, ideas, and memories, can be determined? Who knows? But it's only a matter of time.

iv          While a parochial school is usually chosen in order to have a particular religion inculcated in its students, the “public” schools similarly inculcate religion – the secular religion of the society in which the students live. (Although uncommon, there are occasions when a parochial school of another religion is chosen because of the quality of the education.)

v         Actually, it is not only the schools that do this, but the media. In their editorials, which are often repetitive messages emphasizing a particular viewpoint, they hammer home to susceptible readers the virtuous way to understand a particular situation or idea. Their way.

vi        Depending on sophistication and intent, that may be old wives' tales and mythology, or brainwashing and “reeducation.”

vii       Following the lead of the USSR and other totalitarian governments.

viii      As will many scientists.

Cogito Ergo Sum

 

                                                                                                          

That's what I thought; That's what I thought; That's what I thought; That's what I thought.

But I was wrong on all counts. And everyone makes the same mistake.

“I thought services started at 9 o'clock.”ⁱ That's what my friend said. “Thought.” One of mankind's greatest sources of error.ⁱⁱ Thought is too often a substitute for actual knowledge, and too often thought is confused with knowledge. For what you “know” may not be true. Certainly, as you get older your memories and your “knowledge” have a way of losing their clarity. The transmission of information from one neuron to the next isn't a sure thing. Sooner or later the memory – which is presumably some kind of chemical formulation which is passed along the neurons or resides in one of them – become corrupted, and words, ideas, and memories drop out. So grants will be sought and written to determine how to solve this problem. What, specifically, is the nature of an idea and where, specifically, is it located?

And this is where science fictionⁱⁱⁱ enters the picture. Once scientists discover how specific thoughts are encoded and recovered, and the location at which they are located, it won't be long before they figure out how to implant false ideas at those locations. Efforts to restore information will be superseded by those to implant it. Déjà vu will become reality.

The first step is anatomical. Where are thoughts located? That's not the only challenge, but it's an important one. It will probably be a while before we get the kind of answer we need, but the work has been going on for a while and we now know a little about thoughts and memories and their locations in various places in the cerebral cortex, in the frontal lobes and the basal ganglia, and in some other spots, but it will take more research before we can refine that knowledge to what we need. If the whole thing is going to work – if we're going to be able to implant thoughts the way we are learning to do with genes^iv – we'll need to know about which neurons to choose and how to get the new “fact” to stick. And of course we'll have to know what to insert to achieve the desired result.

So, needing a subject for experimentation, we recall that animals can be taught, if they have the physical apparatus both for the placement of the ideas and the performance of the acts that the encoded idea contains. They'll be the test subjects.^v After the chemical components, or the nucleic acid sequences of specific ideas are determined, and once the particular sites in the brain are identified, someone will come up with a way to insert the idea where it needs to be.

And then we'll start doing it on people. There will be numerous legal and ethical questions but they always lag behind the scientific accomplishments so it's unlikely that they will slow down the “critical” research.^vi First there will be the prisoners. Many of those destined for death will certainly be willing to offer their brains for experimentation in exchange for their lives, or for some “consideration” for family members. And once the techniques are perfected, there are likely to be some, among the elderly, who may find hope in the idea of restoration of memories. And the idea of a treatment for dementia will be extraordinarily appealing. Think of the savings for any health care program.

It will soon be noted that learning is nothing more than the acquisition of facts, so why not speed up education on the operating table? (Or “re-education,” as brainwashing is often labeled.) It is not hard to imagine a time when some amoral accountant will point out that it's cheaper to inject education – perhaps in newborns – than to pay for years of education. Of course the universities and other paid educational institutions will object, but what's wrong in having a child of Pre-K age who has the knowledge of a Ph.D? And, since the original advances in this field are likely to come from our country, perhaps we'll be able to catch up in all those surveys of education that show us behind so many countries in the free world.

Next episode: “Cogito Ergo Sum, Part Two” – The more I think about it,^vii the more I realize there's a lot more to be said.

i       It had been announced a week earlier that it would be 8:45.

ii      “Think” and “assume” are two ideas that can only get us into trouble. Both should be used with great caution and the knowledge of the risks inherent in their use – both in terms of the words themselves, and the process they reflect. If it ain't “know,” it ain't reliable. But sometimes that's not true either. Please continue with the text.

iii       Fiction at least for now. But science usually has a way of catching up with both the imaginable and the unimaginable.

iv      We're experimenting now with the transfer of genetic material to prevent, treat, and possibly cure diseases so, it will be argued, why not use the injection of facts as a cure for ignorance. It will be especially useful in those likely to have low IQs.

v      The guinea pigs, whatever their species.

vi      In fact, those doing the research will be happy if the lag is long, or even unending, so that they have the time to get whatever information, fame, or patents they seek.

vii     Yes, “think.” No one has injected me with anything yet. The fantasies are all mine.