The Deification of Data

A month or so ago, for political reasons, I did a small amount of research into a school of economics called Austrian Economics. The first page of Google results was rather stark in contrast. There were pages on how Austrian Economics had predicted things that other schools had failed to do, and there pages that expressed criticism on the whole idea, suggesting that the predictions made were either lucky, incomplete or too vague, among other things. One of the critical pages linked to another, much longer criticism. This particular document, in short, said that the entire school was a joke because it rejected scientific principles in economics (saying many things in economics can't be analyzed with math and predictions due to the human element, as well as the sheer complexity of most economic populations), and said that it was invalid because it was little more than philosophy. The contempt for the concept of philosophy was clear in the writing, as well as the blind admiration of science.

This struck me as a little foolish, and a comment I read shortly after (I think it was on the same page as the document itself, but I can't remember) seemed to describe the flaw perfectly. The comment simply said "Science cannot prove itself except with philosophy." What a wonderful truth! Philosophy is the school of human thought. It has developed many tools throughout its existence, and science is certainly one of the most prominent, but its important to remember that science is simply a philosophy, based on human thought. There is no recursive, ipso facto proof to science. Science is not self-evident. It has not transcended human existence or thought. It only has more weight than most philosophies because we give it more weight. The only thing that validates science is acceptance and logic, and logic is philosophy.

This reinforced in my mind that humanity, whether on its own or with help from some outside source, is actually deifying science. We raise it above other disciplines, above other ideas, above even ourselves, and give it a status nearing on divine. Science is no more accurate than its methods and instrumentation, both of which are crafted by humans, whose perception we cannot challenge because we are all human. And, because of its deific status, if a few people did gain a perspective that is, in some or all ways, superior to science, they would be mocked, because we can not see it. The tyranny of the majority.

Now, I realize this sounds a bit paranoid, or overly Socratic. And, I agree. There's no point in arguing that science at its core could be flawed because human perception at its core could be flawed. It accomplishes little, because we are limited by that perception, and all we can do is work within it. However, my point is that science is not God, so why is anything that recognizes the weakness in it mocked for not conforming to the absolute majesty of Science with a capitol S? I personally think admitting that perhaps economics tries too hard to put traditional mathematical methods on overly complex and human systems is perfectly valid. Guess what else science can't accurately predict? The weather. Many animals have been able to predict weather more accurately than science for thousands of years. So, clearly, because they don't use math and science, they're bogus.

This can be looked at another way. How many atheists don't believe in science? I would wager very close to none. Certainly every atheist I've ever met treats science as their religion, allowing it to fill in all the holes in their understanding. And, in relation to my first post on faith, there is no way they personally understand the entire scope of what they are accepting as truth. They are not being skeptical and rigorous, as much as they might think they are. They are accepting a philosophy because it makes sense to them. And when someone else accepts another philosophy because it makes sense to them, the atheists get annoyed, haughty or even angry. I'm not saying all atheists are that way, certainly, but many are. They are so sure that their Science is God, they refuse to allow any other concepts into their lives. Which is, of course, exactly the opposite of what science stands for. Science has been, and will continue to be, proven wrong on many occasions. As instruments and methods improve, old things are proven inaccurate, or incomplete. Who knows what philosophy of the future awaits to debunk something that most of us hold self-evident?

Science is nothing more than a child of human thought. Religion, if it is a true religion, would truly be something with the capacity to transcend the capacities of mortal humans. Meaning, that people of faith have a reason to have a perhaps illogical respect for their creed, but people of science should, honestly, carry with them a healthy dose of skepticism for theirs. Don't be so quick to discredit something on the grounds of it not being science.

Absolute Power

As an initial disclaimer, this post will be part of a series of relatively shorter posts that I believe are requisite to understanding future posts. They are, in a sense, the foundation for rational comprehension of my religion.

Years and years ago (I'm not even sure how old I was... no older than fifteen, I think), I was contemplating the nature of God, His power, and the concept of sin. This contemplation led me to think up a thought experiment that rejected the concept of power corrupting, and, more accurately, absolute power corrupting absolutely.

I started with a hypothesis of sorts: God is not corrupt, and he is all powerful. Thus, absolute power must not corrupt absolutely, or even at all. From this hypothesis, I came to decide I needed to start with a definition of power, and a definition of corrupt. The following are the definitions (roughly, anyway) I settled on.

Power: the ability to manipulate forces to carry out your will. I believe, in context, this is the most basic definition possible.

Corrupt: the tendency to perform selfish, greedy or abject acts. This is particularly done in the desire to gain more power or maintain current power regimes. This is definitely the more subjective of the two definitions, but I'm fairly certain we can all agree on a general definition implicitly.

I then crafted a hypothetical place to run my experiment in, and a hypothetical person to execute it. Coincidentally, this eventually grew into the setting and main character of a novel idea (no pun intended) I'm working on.

For the setting, I just let it be a world much like ours, with the same laws of consequences, and human behaviors. The test subject is a character who, compared to other forces on the world, is unbeatable. While he cannot control minds, almost all physical powers are within his grasp. Control of the weather, control of human life, control of kinematics, etc. He also possesses several intangible powers, such as political and economic control. Possessing such power, he soon gets it into his head to control the world. As he cannot be defeated, he doesn't truly have any physical difficulty doing so. In cliche fashion, he starts to follow the path to corruption, killing those who resist him, growing arrogant and spiteful.

At this point, several issues arise. First and foremost is, in order to say he has power, he must be able to manipulate forces to his will. Well, is this conscious or unconscious will? Meaning, he had some motivation to take over the world originally. The most probable candidates would be, to make it a better place in his eyes, or to become happier. Well, assuming he became 'corrupt' while obtaining this power, the world has not become a better place, by mass opinion. His opinion on the matter is irrelevant, because power is not subjective in this experiment. Thus, by becoming corrupt, he effectively became powerless, as he could not manipulate forces to do his will. If he desired to become happier in some way by doing these things, he will equally fail, as he will be decidedly alone and feared, and rarely loved. He cannot control thoughts or emotions, remember, so his happiness will be lessened, even if his pride conceals it. Thus he becomes powerless to truly do as he wished again, and simply becomes a slave of his very power he sought after, depending on it to smother his sorrow.

So, lets say he not only had this tangible, shallow power to manipulate the forces of the world, but also the wisdom to know what truly make the world a better place, and be happiest of all. This would, truly, be absolute power. In order to keep this power, though, he must not become corrupt, for the very act invalidates it. This is the power and wisdom of God. He is not corrupt because he has true power, and that cannot be corrupted, less it cease to exist.

This idea has been used several times already, and will continue to be used in later posts. This is a very brief version, as the full version will fill a novel or three, and as such certainly does not address all the minutiae of the issue. It does, I hope, present enough of the idea that you can work it through yourself. The argument rests in the definition of power being more than just conscious intent, but the consequences of that intent (sin).

Humility

Growing up, I could never understand why people thought creationism and evolution were separate, mutually exclusive concepts. I didn't understand where religious people got their basis for this stance, as the Bible is far from clear on how creation occurred, uses allegory quite often, and could just be a misinterpretation of what Moses saw. More importantly, I couldn't figure out why scientific people were so unwilling to consider the concept of some higher power, since science itself does not discredit this. Then, as I grew older, I started to realize that there was no such thing as an atheist. At least, not in the way many atheists like to think.

To explain this point further, I'm going to give a little example. I once encountered a person who was wearing a button that said, "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color." I thought this was a little odd, since, in fact, the definition of atheism is skepticism or lack of belief in a god and not in religion. I realize to most people, it's the same thing, but it isn't. Even dictionary.com defines religion as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe..."* and "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." Belief in a god is not a requirement to have a religion. So, yes, in fact, atheism is a religion, because its based on the principles of 'free thought' and skepticism and, in most cases, science.

Now, let me explain my earlier point of there being no true atheists (again, using the 'bald is a hair color' definition of the word). I've met a lot of atheists. I spend a lot of time with them. I think its tough to find an area of study with more atheists than mine. That being said, I think that, among theists, I have some of the more unique views. I have never met an atheist who, given an argument they haven't heard before, actually pauses and thinks about it (or, better yet, comes back later after much thought), tests it with everything they know, and then responds. Every single one has always replied with something dogmatic. I realize, to them, their answer is probably completely rational and logical. But to me, my answer is completely rational, and their answer is one sided. I don't believe in anything blindly. My religious belief is not illogical. I do not believe in something that goes against logic because God is 'mysterious' or some such thing. Who are they to assume that my logic is wrong, and their logic right? Who am I to assume the inverse? This very construction of logic is a person's religion; it is the basis and foundation of what they believe, and very few things can change that.

So why do so many 'open minded' atheists outright deny the opinions of other people? Why do so many outright religious 'nuts' deny the opinion of science? Well, for one, there's biology against us. The last time I went to the Science Museum of MN, there was an exhibit on child development. Among the items in the exhibit was a rather fascinating description of the way a brain grows. (Keep in mind at this point that I'm no neuroscientist, and am going to paraphrase heavily due to imperfect memory.) It turns out, that when we are born, there are a ton of little 'paths' between our neurons. When we make an observation, or need to solve a problem, a rather roundabout path is taken from point A to B. As we grow and continue to make observations, unused paths actually go away. This allows the signal from A to B to travel a much straighter path, making the thought faster. This change allows for the development of experience, a way to react to known situations faster and more effectively. However, it also decreases the ability to effectively encounter new situations. New, unfamiliar thoughts are actually more difficult to have. Thus, our thoughts deteriorate into the most probable state. It takes genuine effort to have a new thought. It becomes increasingly difficult to see things from another perspective. Open-mindedness is not biologically easy.

So, some people reading this may assume that I'm telling people to constantly put forth the effort to see everyone's point of view, to always challenge their own with every new thought or idea they encounter. While, ideally, that would be a good thing, there is simply not enough time to do this. The more we learn, the more we have to test new ideas against, which means reconciliation takes longer. If we truly tried to be open-minded, we would soon run out of time to do anything else.

My real point is this: you are not open-minded. Do not assume someone is crazy, or irrational just because they don't make sense to you. They are not crazy; they simply have a different religion than you. If a person's beliefs or behaviors concern you greatly (either in a good way or a bad way), then perhaps you should talk to that person, try to see things from their point of view. It will require genuine effort and will, however. Even if you fail, that doesn't mean they are wrong. We, as a political, religious and economic world need to stop disrespecting those who think differently from us. Christians are not crazy. Mormons are not crazy. Muslims are not crazy. Atheists are not crazy. Democrats are not crazy. Republicans are not crazy. Socialists are not crazy. Libertarians are not crazy. Respect people, no matter what they believe, because they could always end up being right. If you can find the balance of respecting others while standing up for what you believe, I think you'll end up much happier and more successful. This is, after all, true humility, and the meek shall inherit the earth.

*[ The first definition mentioned does actually go on to mention gods; however, it specifically says "especially..." meaning that it can exist without the aftmentioned content.]

Effective Omnipotence, and Einstein's Argument

So, first I want to apologize for taking so long to post again. To be frank, I don't really have a good reason for it. I have some bad ones, though, and sure enough, I'm going to attempt to use them to justify my actions. The break started with a good reason: I was having difficulty writing anything (or, in my case mentally writing anything, since I usually write things in my head before actually giving them physical form) that wasn't absurdly verbose. I had that list of topics I wanted to write about, but it seemed like every time I started to brain-write one, I'd find that I was actually writing about all of them at once... and it was getting too much for my poor consciousness to handle. So I started making notes here and there, hoping I would eventually find a way to break them up. After a while of that absolutely NOT working, I let my attention slide a bit.

So, several weeks and excuses later, I decided I'm going to do something completely unusual for me. I'm going to just sit here, typing away on my lovely keyboard, and see what happens. I'm not even going to go back and check what I've written (well, okay, that's a lie... but I'll try to minimize second-thinking). Stream of consciousness for the win, right?

There's a rather ironic problem with certain theological perspectives out there. I think most people will understand why its ironic fairly quickly. You see, the problem with many theological arguments (both for and against it) is that they assume that God is omnipotent. Now, before anyone accuses me of blasphemy for saying He isn't, read on. If, after you've read everything, you still want to, feel free.

In what I'm going to coin 'general culture' (a decidedly nonsense word), omnipotent means all powerful, capable of doing anything. That seems like a good definition of God's power, at very first glance, but it really isn't. In fact, God is absolutely not omnipotent. He can't be, if mortal logic has any merit at all (and, for sanity's sake, I'm going to assume it does).

Alright, so why can't he be? Well, for starters, there's the famous argument of, if God is all-powerful, why is there pain? Why is there suffering? Why is there sin? At this point, I immediately think something like, "well, of COURSE there's pain! People still have agency! They can still make bad choices!" Okay, but... why? Not much harder to answer that one, either: "because we learn through our mistakes; the ability to make decisions -- and be aware of their consequences -- is literally what makes us sentient!"

Here's where Socrates starts to get annoying. If God can do absolutely anything (and, at this point, you may actually have to change your definition of omnipotent), why can't he just make us perfect, make us as happy as is possible (wait, possibility and omnipotence? Oh man... headache), make us already know all those consequences, give us the respect we need, and have the whole thing be done?

Well, see, as far as I can determine, there isn't an answer to that. The Socratic method just won out over omnipotence. Or did it? At this point, I'm going to coin another nonsense term, "effective omnipotence." It is being defined, for the purpose of distinguishing between it and true omnipotence, as the ability to do everything possible. Accepting such a clause requires the acceptance of several prerequisites. One, that there are actually laws that govern the universe (or, if not that, then whatever indefinable hypersphere it resides in). Two, that absolutely nothing has EVER existed or ever WILL exist that could break these laws. I may expound upon that last one in a later post, but for now, I'm going to assume most people can understand why that is.

A second reason is (and I doubt this will be news to many people at all) He's said he isn't. I mean, okay, He never actually came out and said the words "I am not omnipotent," but I suspect that's because he expects us to be able to figure out that he means effectively omnipotent. And that, he is. However, there are several obvious things He cannot do, by his own admission:

• He cannot, to any extent, rescind or reduce the agency of man. I actually addressed this in an earlier post. The power of the priesthood (God's power, and thus the effectively omnipotent power) cannot be used to make people do things. Even the intent to do so is evil, but the task itself is impossible. (DC 121)
• He cannot actually, really, create anything. He doesn't state, and may not be able to explain, what 'creation' actually means. What we define as the basic building blocks of matter/energy may not be truly elemental, but at some point, things can no longer be reduced anymore. This applies to intelligence (DC 93:29) and all matter (in its most elemental state). (I know this is explicitly stated somewhere, but I cannot remember or find where. It can be easily inferred from Abraham chapter 4, however.)
• He cannot violate a covenant. It is unclear whether this is actually an impossibility, or an effective impossibility (yes, now I'm just being mean), but I'm going to assume its actually impossible.

Alright, so I'm hoping at this point people agree with me; at least, in the LDS faith, God is not omnipotent. If I've failed to make that point, express your concern in the comments, and I will try to address it later. More importantly, however, giving these very slight limitations to God's power actually validates the entirety of the doctrine. There is suffering because God can't force us to do things, even if he wanted to, and he can't give us the knowledge of good and evil, unless we make mistakes. Adam had to fall, he had to make a mistake, because without making a choice, he would have never learned of consequences. This is the counter argument to the argument against sin.

Now I'm going to make a slightly non-sequitur transition to Einstein. It'll make sense shortly, I promise.

 A relatively common Deist argument (for those unfamiliar with the term, a Deist is someone who believes in a God, but in general has no specific beliefs beyond that), is the very argument that led Einstein, once an atheist, to become a Deist. The argument lies in the problem of a beginning. Before Einsteins theories of relativity, it was assumed the universe always existed (this idea always had some problems, primarily the issue of starlight). While slightly difficult for some people to comprehend, something never beginning is actually very science-friendly. With relativity, however, it was shown that the Universe's history could be tracked back to a singular convergence -- the Big Bang.

The issue with the Big Bang, of course, is what started it? It's a common, easy to make argument to assume that God did. Critics place this argument into the "God's in the Gaps" theological school, and thus disregard it. And its easy enough to disregard in standard Christian theology. However, LDS theology is peculiar, and rather distinct. While it is not stressed or even, really, taught, it is well known that Joseph Smith said that God was once a Man, that the whole creation cycle has happened before, and that via apotheosis,  a select few will continue the cycle, presumably in other Universes on their own.

Now, while the specifics of the whole process are decidedly unclear, and it seems the leadership of the church intends to keep it that way, and focus on more 'standard' doctrine (line upon line, after all), the basis already known is enough. "One Eternal Round," lyrics from "If You Could Hie To Kolob," could not better describe the notion that science is most comfortable with.

See, the critics who dismiss the Deist argument, say that, if an eternal God created the universe, but the universe had a beginning, what happened before then? And who created God? There are counter arguments, of course, but it boils down to them saying (and rightly so, I believe) that such an argument answers one paradox with another. However, if Gods have been creating universes and other Gods forever back through time, and will for ever forward in time, there is no paradox; this is already accepted scientific canon.

Upcoming Blog Posts

This is mostly for reminding myself about what I want to write:

The Love Conspiracy: This is, quite possibly, the culmination point of this blog. The Love Conspiracy addresses both ancient and modern issues with emotion, sexuality, and love. It is the sum total of my original theory on the fallacy of the physical, the decay of marriage, homosexuality and heterosexuality and the decay of art and the expression of love.

Unbridled Change, the path to Stagnation?

Brainwashing and Old Dogs - Why regular scripture study and church attendance isn't brainwashing, in terms of neuroscience.

The Best Path - an argument for why sometimes good enough just isn't good enough.

Multidisciplinary Action - logic and supporting evidence that science alone cannot possibly explain everything, nor can theology.

Adventures in Allegory - a possible explanation for why scripture can seem so confusing, and how you write for everyone.

Righteous Anger - What is it, really? What is its purpose?

Gap Theology, the Antithesis of - Why God isn't just in the gaps.

Patriarchal Order

The Sunday school lesson today was on 1st Corinthians, chapters 11-16. For those of you who don't know (which is probably most of you), Corinthians is my favorite book in the New Testament, specifically chapter 15.

The lesson started off with a discussion on patriarchal order, and the relationship between man and wife. This particular belief of the church is often under attack, and is a source of dissension among investigators. Being male, however, I never put much thought into why it was in place, what it really means, etc, until recently.

That being said, it has recently become an important issue for me to understand, for reasons some of you may know. As such, I have put a decent amount of time and study into the subject.

The teacher brought one particular thing out very well; he stated that many people confuse a patriarchal order with a patriarchal society. In the latter, men are superior, or dominant over women; there is no equality. The church's order is not, by any means, intended to be that. Thinking that the church's interpretation of patriarchal order is the same as the world's is a severe mistake.

Before I go into specific doctrine, I'm going to start with a little anecdotal evidence; sometimes the best kind, when dealing with a social organization. If you were to go to any priesthood meeting where married men are prominent, I all but promise you that at some point in the meeting, the instructor will make a comment about how his wife is a better person than he is. Taking that farther, if you were to ask any married, priesthood holding member if he thought his wife was a better person than him, he would say yes. I am not kidding; we all think that women are more worthy than us. This should be fairly obvious; demographic data consistently shows that crime rate among men is much higher than women. I don't even need to cite sources, because a quick google search returns hundreds of applicable results.

Now for something a little more concrete.

Since the lesson was on Paul's first letter to the saints in Corinth, we'll start there. There are a couple key verses. The first is establishing the order, which is verse three in chapter eleven, "...the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God." (11:3) this states, quite simply, that the Patriarchal Order is really just that, an order. More importantly, while it doesn't state it explicitly, modern revelation explains that this order only holds true while the man is acting in righteousness. This verse says that implicitly, because if the man is not acting in righteousness, then his head is not Christ, so the order is broken.

So, now the question is whether this order somehow grants men a high rank, or dominion over women. "...neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (11:11) This verse, along with a plethora of modern phrases from presidents and apostles of the church, make it quite clear that the answer is a resounding "No!" In fact, practicing unrighteous dominion is a serious sin. Just to make it even clearer, in the third official declaration of the church, The Family: A Proclamation to the World, it says, "fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

For me, the next question I would ask at this point would be (and has been), if man and woman are equal, what is the point of the patriarchal order? While there may well be a concise answer to this already, I have been unable to find it, so what follows is my speculation.

It is well known and well documented in the church that without the priesthood, the powers, and blessings, of heaven are completely inaccessible. "The rights and powers of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and [the] powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness" (D&C 121:36)* This means that just following the commandments isn't good enough: there must needs be some force or power to get us there. This power is the the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. This was later renamed the Melchizedek Priesthood. The original name has a very important meaning, however; it quite clearly specifies that the priesthood functions via order. This is really no surprise, as the Lord's "house is a house of order." (D&C 132:8)

It is also true that a man cannot have full and eternal access to His priesthood without being married, and a woman cannot have access to the blessings of the priesthood without a husband. Furthermore, a woman cannot hold the priesthood of God the Father, because He is a man, but she is a necessary component of that power. As the first quote on this blog states, there is a Heavenly Mother, as well as Father; Heavenly Father's power has two halves, and two halves must wield it. We are taught that righteous women will become "queens and priestesses in Heaven." These women can only do so, as the men, inside the covenant of Marriage.

In the end, it boils down to basic thermodynamics: order versus entropy. It may also be an unbreakable law of the Universe, one that science cannot determine because it has no testing medium. The Order is only valid when the unit is righteous; in other words, it is only valid when all members are as one, just as God the Father and Jesus Christ are one in purpose. There must simply be a direction, or an order, to the authority and blessings. In short, I believe it is this simple: the ultimate blessings we can receive come from the Father, through his Son (the atonement), to a worthy man and then to his worthy wife. Men look to Christ, Christ looks to the Father, woman looks to husband.

It is an order of respect. It also happens to go in both directions.

EDIT: I've been thinking a lot on this subject lately. Its a rather potent one, filled with many of the core principles of the gospel. I think I came up with a fairly good analogy. Creation power (or organization power, priesthood power, etc) can be aptly compared, I think, to that of water going under a mill. There is a reason a man cannot have any power without a woman to hold it with, and why being kept from having spirit children is considered damnation. The power must flow. It cannot stop at anyone. If it does, it is damned, and it cannot drive or do any work. Thus, it must flow from man to woman, and then from woman to children, and the cycle repeats... into eternity.

*[In fact, while we're in D&C 121, a little aside, "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood" (121:41) "when we... exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men... Amen to the priesthood or authority of that man." (121:37) This is how and why Satan fell in the war in heaven; he tried to use the Order of God (the priesthood) to bend mankind to his will. This is not only impossible, but attempting to do so is, evidently, a quick way to lose all authority you had. Satan did not like this limitation, and so he rebelled, became the Father of Lies, fighting against the universe itself. It is quite common for people to think what little authority they have can be used in this way, and this is why "many are called, but few are chosen." Ben Parker's words of "with great power comes great responsibility" were extremely true.]

Look at the Long View

So my mother has this wonderful policy of writing down a shorthand version of every Father's Blessing I get. At least, most of them. Having just moved, I was rummaging through some stacks of paper in an attempt to get them organized, and somehow, this typed recording of the most recent blessing I'd received, shortly before my dad left for Colorado, was on top. I'm not sure how it got there, because the rest were financial documents and the like, but there it was. I unfolded it and read it over.

About halfway down, my mother recorded the part where my father blessed me with wisdom, and the ability to 'look at the long view.' I stopped reading momentarily at that point, because I have been thinking to myself, over the last six months, that its quite amazing how much my view of things has changed. In a very short time, I've started to see things in a completely different way. I thought it was amazing how much I've changed in so little time, but seeing it on paper shocked me even more. Would I have ever recognized the hand of the Lord in inspiring my father to say those words if my mom had never written them down? Most certainly not! Thank you, mother! Seeing personal prophesy come true certainly helps strengthen one's belief!

And that phrase, look at the long view! I'm not sure if those words were my dad's, or my mom's interpretation of them, but how true they are! That very thing is the difficulty the world has. With all the data analysis, social justice and political backbiting, its easy to find multiple reasonable explanations for things... but if you have the wisdom and experience to extrapolate far into the future, only one path becomes rational. And, of course, no one alive can possibly have the experience to truly see that perspective. Getting even a glimpse of it is truly amazing.