Magnitude and Resolution

I wanted to explore the idea that the difference between an atheist or agnostic worldview and a traditionally theist view is that of the order on which we look at the world. The metaphor as presented in class is fairly simple. In the macroscopic world, we have a lot of diversity. A pencil is not at all the same as a can of coke is not at all the same as a salmon. But look at things on a much smaller scale and all three are made up of the same kinds of atoms, really similar to each other, and on an even smaller scale, protons and neutrons and electrons compose all three objects. Now if we try to determine a set of rules to predict the behaviour of pencils and coke and salmon, well, we will find some similarities, and be able to compose a hefty list, but there are still definitely some descrepancies between the three, and now rule set on the macroscopic scale can account for them. Of course, people are intelligent, and understand that fish are not writing utensils, so we can still have macroscopic assumptions, and understand the reasons and conditions for exceptions. Drop a thing in a stream and it will move with the water. Of course, this is not always true for a salmon, which we can see will swim.

The discussion between Woody Allen and Billy Graham highlights this perfectly. Both men had working understandings of the world around them, which worked in very different ways. Graham had presented his themes: "If you drop an object in the water it will move with the water." and Allen had his obvious counters "Well what if you drop a salmon in the water that's silly." and Graham said "Well you know a salmon can swim, that isn't quite the same thing is it." But Woody Allen was seeking a set of rules that are universal, and to find such a set the universe must be explored on a completely different scaling.

We see attempts to understand human nature and life at different levels all of the time. Psychology explores the workings of the human brain in an attempt to understand our nature. Biology examines how the rest of our physical make up can genetically influence us. Nature vs Nurture. And modern art attempts to get us to question the level that we normally think of and look at our world from another scale.

Another good analogy is classical and modern physics. In highschool and early in college, physics students are taught dominantly classical models of physics as determined by the physicists of the 19th century and earlier. As it turns out, these models do not work for all situations, and in the past 100 years or so, great leaps in conceptualization have allowed for new understandings of physics with quantum theory and relativity. Now, I don't claim that the new models are entirely correct, but we are sure that the classical models do not account for everything, and yet students are still taught the old models! The classical models were based largely on macroscopic observation by early scientists without the microscopy techniques and advanced mathematics that modern scientists possess. They still are of great value today because they are macroscopic. It is easy to understand how rocks fall according to Newton, because gravity on earth is something we experience every day. However, it still stands that, though more complicated and requiring much more energy to learn, modern theories provide correct answers for a greater number of situations. They are more correct. Do they have more utility?

What's important to realize is that neither frame is stand alone. The macroscopic frame is simply higher order... too complex to fully analyze into simple system. It will not always be correct. Woody Allen brought up some examples where it didn't make sense. But we do not live in a microscopic world, and our more correct conclusions must still come from macroscopic experience. Ultimately, both frames are experiential, and this simply tells us that our efforts should not go to arguing the validity of one over the other. Instead, we should understand exactly how we experience the world, what sway we have over that experience, and the consequences personally and otherwise, of exactly how we choose to sway.

Electric --> Artistic :: Electromotance --> Artistromotance

Disclaimer: This post has nothing to do with the physics obviously involved in Pollock's paintings.

I find the difference between Pollock's abstract modern painting, and traditional examples of religious art pointed. The religious art has obvious intent behind it, while Pollock's intent, which may be "clear" to many critics, is less than transparent to a majority of observers.

What is the difference between these two artists and how we interpret their work. In the religious art, previously established symbols are used, while the abstract art doesn't include any physical symbols. Because of these recognizable symbols, observers familiar with them find meaning linked to those symbols as well as the painting. Pollock's art has no such attachments, and observers are free in their ideas. These two pieces of art are hardly comparable! They both have their value and place. Because the religious art is tied to religious ideas that are already establish, it has a base to build on and achieve more meaning, but because Pollock's paintings do not have this attachment, observers are more willing to criticize and to disagree. Disagreeing with established religious symbols is not always the easiest thing to do.

So both of these art pieces have different functionalities. Which is better? What exactly is the purpose of art which these works much satisfy? The religious art was meant to inspire wonder, modern art to inspire thought... we see commercial art all the time, aesthetically pleasing swirls on a can or box meant to inspire increased purchases. There is clearly no specific shared purpose, but thinking back to the cave paintings at Lascaux, the the purpose of which we don't know, we do know that its significance is as a symbol.

So I kinda started this big dicussion in class today...

On Atheism, atheism, and theism, and science. Katrina's take on Atheism (and please correct me if I've misinterpreted) is that scientific beliefs can replace traditional religious beliefs and generate a sort of mysticism. As the only valid belief, they hold a deeper significance than they would to a person with a different theist frame.
I would consider myself an atheist and a scientist. Scientific beliefs do not hold any mysticism for me. Does this make me a "half assed" Atheist? I appreciated what Ted said about Atheism. By the definition of the word, Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

Emily S said in class that she thought there was some ambiguity and blending of the concepts of atheism and agnosticism. I agree with Emily and would add, that there was a blending of athiesm with science. The brought up that science is not exclusive to athiesm, but I would go farther and explicitly say that science has no special tie to athiesm whatsoever. In many ways, the Rastafari movement and Haile Selassie can be compared to Athiesm and science. Just as some rastas proclaim Haile Selassie as God, some Athiests proclaim science. Though some Christians may think this Rasta belief foolish, we can recognize that we certainly should not blame Selassie. In the same way, theists disagreeing with athiest beliefs should not place blame on science. To me, this seems abundantly clear, but somehow a religion vs science debate does tend to crop up in uncontrolled environments outside the classroom.

I also agree with Noelle in that, just because an Atheist doesn't have faith in a deity does not mean they don't have tests of faith. If anything, in a world where most uncontrollable and unexplainable events are attributed to divine influence or some higher order beyond human perception, I would think it more of a test of faith to maintain a positive demeanor while believing in the vast universe, rather than a guiding hand and watchful eyes.

Finally, a final question and answer. The lowercase atheist. What is his religious frame? Not capital Atheism, and not a kind of theism. Could nationalism stand in, some other group identity? How is nationalism not a religion in this case? Does nationalism not share group identity myths with war stories and the founding of our country? Manifest destiny! My answer to this question is that nationalism, in this instance can act as a religion. This is not to say it always is, or that it always isn't, or that we can find religion in everything or anything horrific like that. Rather, the definition of religion we have come to is beyond being something tangible. Nationalism is a level more tangible. It is strictly tied to countries, the people contained within a border on a map. Religion however, can encompass nationalism, or any ism really. We can reevaluate the associations we made between culture and religion. Culture heavily influences religion, because religion is part of culture, they are not two separate things. Religion is made up of culture. It is an abstract label for culture. Sometimes for nationalism, sometimes for theism.

Complete throwing the last finally to the wayside, the hardware software metaphor from the beginning of the term also ties into this. In our metaphor religion is software. Software is built in levels, ultimately data is stored in ones and zeros, but strings of on's and off's are decoded into letters, and letters are compiled to run higher level code. Different data structures to hold data for computer systems have strengths and weaknesses, and different uses. Some data structures though, are not fundamental, but template others. For example a priority queue is a structure that organizes data by importance. The data itself is stored in a different structure called a heap where "larger" things (e.g. higher numbers, characters closer to the beginning of the alphabet) are stuck on top. The priority queue is just a set of rules and restrictions a access methods that gets wrapped around the complicated heap structure, so that it is easier to use! In the same way, religion is a wrapper for cultural objects to make them more "user friendly". Religion is a nice interface for familiar users. Conflicts crop up from poor documentation and users working in other architectures. Miscommunication.

The End

Change. Again. Err, themes aren't changing, you better just read the last post.

In trying to understand our class discussion today, I ask myself, why are we asking how Jane Addams experience is different than our own? It is clearly the same in some ways, as we are all humans, and different, as we are different people. Of course, we are discussing social activism, so it's probably related to that. Rephrased, what about Jane Addams experience (other than her social activity...) makes her a social activist, and the majority of ourselves, not?

Well, first I would note, that even in Addams' own time, she said there was only a small group of women at Rockford that chose to take upon themselves the task of learning. That is absolutely similar to college now, where a majority of students work moderately, and benefit moderately, and continue on to live fairly moderate lives, while a few driven students learn everything they can and continue to do everything they can in their post educational lives. It is not then a surprise that most of us our not activists while Jane Addams is. A new question then. What uniqueness made Addams a social activist?

I would argue, in reference to my last post (which was far too long and I think can be allowed to contribute a little to this post too) that in Addams we see another push for change. When I say this, I do not mean on the level of society, as that would conform to the definition of social activism, but instead that Addams had drive to change herself. This would be consistent with Quaker ideas of Inner Light, but would easily be expanded into more of a personal philosophy. In trying to change herself for the better, and get outside the cave (Really, just read the last post. It's more cohesive.) she explored as much as she could academically when given the opportunity, and valued it so much that she tried to give this gift to others, putting herself in yet another new and unique situation. Change.

Maragaret Fell for Quakerism. Err, yeah. Long Post.

In Quakerism and Social Change, Heidi compares the Quaker concept of Inner Light to Plato's cave allegory. She likens the Inner Light to the real outside world, and that social change will occur in reality only with the help of this real inner light.

Heidi's analysis highlights the major pitfall in religion's roll in social activism. Their is one significant problem with the Allegory of the Cave. Men chained and shackled in a cave can see nothing but shadows on a wall, created by objects in front of a fire that is behind them. A prisoner released see that the shadows are in fact creatd by these objects for the real source of the shadows. Again, if he is taken outside the cave, he will see the sun, and realize that the fire, and statues in the cave are but poor imitations of the sun and real world. But why, after being deceived twice, would the man in the real world believe he has achieve ultimate truth? Could not the sun be just a larger fire in a larger cave with more colorful statues? There is absolutely no way to know that you have ever reached the "real world". In fact, a tenet of Plato's philosophy is that there is a "perfect" version of everything that exists in our world. For instance, a perfect square that all squares resemble. But even this is a tenuous assumption. One could just as easily assume a dynamic universe in which there was always room for change, and so always room for improvement.

Here is the short fall of religion in social activism. At every stage in the Allegory of the cave, all men believe they possess the truth. Even Plato assumes the cave dweller possesses the truth when the cave dweller enters Plato's world! In each case though, we see that the prisoner is actually wrong and does not know the truth.

At first, the implications of all this are dire. We can never know the Truth! BUT, there is a clear gradient of improvement. The prisoner learns and expands his world. Rather than achieving Truth, we can strive to achieve truths. In the stretch of human history as we know it, there has never been a perfect human society on a large scale. Regardless of whether or not there is an "outside real world" we have never been able to correctly assume we are outside, and so it would seem we shouldn't!

Religion is absolutely a way of gaining truths, but we are not out of the cave. Naturally, there is a progression towards the outside of the cave, and part of that progression is by religion and towards social betterment, but to say that religion, or a careful analysis of religion, or an Inner Light, or any one thing as much progress as it may allow us to make towards the outside is our Truth is to start believing in shadows.

To return to the topic... in Margaret Fell's writings we all recognize something strong and good, something progressive that has contributed to gender equality, something we value a lot in modern society. I would argue that the good we see in this is not the underlying religion, or even the underlying progressiveness, but the push against the stagnation of her own times.

The Flame and the Void

Silent reflection and thoughtfulness crops in in different forms in many cultures here and there. Traditional images of meditation come from Eastern Asian cultures. Prayer, (as in the Quaker case) is also a form of meditation. What is the place of such an unstructured empty activity in the structure of a formal religion?

One of my favorite book series is The Wheel of Time. WoT is a fantasy series, and in it, sword masters learn to go into a meditative state while fighting. By allowing the mind to go blank and let go, a state of control is achieved which could not have been before, with idle thoughts and worried skittering back and forth in consciousness. This is symbolized by the flame and the void. The flame consumes everything that enters the mind, burning it away, and is surrounded by pure empty space. This is somewhat of a fantastical description of meditation, but it illustrates some of the high points of what meditation can achieve, in and out of relgious contexts.

I will confirm that meditation is often a way of gaining self control. In Ninjutsu, (the course offered at the rec center actually) we often practice breathing excercises after class to relax after getting somewhat battered. Just a few moments of controlled breathing and an empty mind leave you feeling less tired than minutes before. It is a method to slow your body down and allow yourself to loosen. By the same power, rapid breathing is a method to fire yourself up, and breathing into different locations in the chest can strongly influence moods.

In religion too, meditation is a form of self guidance and control. Prayer allows one to resolve inner conflicts, to be calmer and happier. Again, the traditionally thought of form of meditation is performed by monks.

This simple ability to be able to self steer in many aspects of life is of significant value, and perhaps meditative prayer (not necessarily to any god) should be utilized day to day, even outside of religious contexts.

Q&A

The Portugese view on Ethiopia highlights many Ethiopian cultural quirks that are clearly resultant from their religious practice, but have lost their religious nature, and become purely cultural. One example of this is circumscision which the ethiopians continue to practice for aesthetic preference (62). Another example is the armies practice of not carrying its own supplies do to the religious tradition of hospitality (80).

The answer to questions of "why is Ethiopian culture the way it is" is simply "because of religion." We saw also, in the themes of the Kebra Negast, that Ethiopia's religion developed out of their cultural situation. Imtiaz discusses this cycical relationship.

Religion also participates in a cycle of questions. During the very first class, we discussed the purpose of religion, and highlighted "provided answers to unknown questions" as a main utility of religion. We see that religion answers where the culture of Ethiopia came from and why it should be the way it is, but why is religion the way it is? Because of the culture before it? The abstract relationship between culture and religion is also cyclical, perpetuating questions of causality and getting us into somewhat of a logical muddle.

I think this suggests that we might be wrong in looking to religion to answer questions, and instead, it only tells us that it's okay in some cases to not know.

A Sidenote On Trends and Individuals.

Three statisticians go duck hunting. Before long, their dog chases a duck out of some grass. The duck takes flight. The first statistician fires his rifle, shooting three feet above the duck, the second statistician fires three feet two low, and the third statistician shouts "We got 'em!"

Trends do not always reflect individual cases!

In her post about the Rasta movement, Carissa outlines some striking similarities between the Ethiopian identification with Christianity, and the Rasta identification with Ethiopia, and notes that "both movements were intimately connected with their cultural environment." This is absolutely true, but what social movement is not deeply connected to the cultural environment that created the necessity for it?

As we have discussed in class, cultures and religions do change very much over time. It is valuable to see that religion, in these two examples, does very much serve to create a sense of identity for many of their adherents. This is not necessarily true for every individual Ethiopian or Rastafari, particularly in modern times, removed from factors that directly influence the development of these belief systems. How often in every day life do many of us think of our own religious identities? Some certainly may, but I certainly don't with any regularity. It is inappropriate to analyze a belief system which is strongly based a sense of individuality, and "looking from the inside out" from a completely external point of view, that sums the purpose of the religion, as an over trend of some possible use of its adherents.

The Rastafari way should be used to analyze itself. As an individual, I can see value in believing that there is more value in interpretting life for myself than applying an algorithm to everything I stumble across. I may not choose to believe in a living reincarnation of god walking the Earth, but I see strength and ideals in a return to nature.

Yeah-yeah-yeah, well!
Uh! Open your eyes and look within:
Are you satisfied (with the life you're living)? Uh!
We know where we're going, uh!

Marley's lyrics speak not of seeing trends and analyzing the abstracts of religion, but knowing one's self, and living life with "eyes open."

Looking out from the inside, I think that the Rastafari movement and Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity are both shaped strongly from the cultures where they were born as well as the urgent needs of the people of the time, but as an individual, I know that nothing I believe could ever influence the escape of culture, and also that my uses of my beliefs are very different from the uses of others who share them. I would hate and do hate to be grouped with a cluster of people by the functionality of our shared belief. Marley, the Rastafari movement, and internal feelings can tell us, that religion is not about what the functionality of a belief is, but simply whether or not the belief is functional, to you, or me, or I-an-I, or whoever holds it.

Watch Out Hollywood!

Part two of the Kebra Negast was certainly more cinematic than part one. David the King of Ethiopia receives the Ark of the Covenant by the Will of God, and is whisked away magically, hovering across deserts and seas to reach by the power of heaven, in some sort of sci fi fantasy setting. But beyond the spectacular imagery, God has chosen Ethiopia as the protectors of his divine word. This could certainly be Ethiopia carving their own role in the history of the religion that they have chosen.

Another meaning in the transfer of the Ark, is, in the them of my Iconography post, the ban against the worship of object idols. King Solomon greatly values the Ark itself, mourning on and on for excruciating pages its loss, and preparing to kill for its retrieval, forgetting its power, that delivered Jerusalem many times from enemies. If the Ark is of such power, how could it ever be stolen by unworthy. Contrastingly, David does not seek possession of the Ark, but only something to think of it by, a symbol to prevent his people from returning to idol worship, and ends up possessing the Ark itself. The Ark (or metaphorically, the power which the Ark represents) is held only by those people who recognize it as a symbol.

This again represents a transfer of ownership to the people of Ethiopia. In recognizing the symbolism of the Ark, they are the inheritors of the wisdom of Solomon and Jerusalem. This is another identification with religion by Ethiopia.

Women are Hell

Emily S, in Metropolis continued discusses religious symbolism in Metropolis as well as possible meaning behind "Hel," the name of Fredersen's wife (and Freder's mother). To me "Hel" stood out as a sort of alias for the Maria robot, the machine's true identity, and I have approached the question from this angle.

I too was intrigued by the robot formerly known as Hel, in the movie Metropolis, so I did a little internet investigation to find out what Fritz Lang's choice of name might mean.

"Hel" is the Old English root for the "hell" that we use in modern English, with the meaning "to hide or conceal." Exploring this meaning, the name could be reflective of the roboMaria's deceptive nature, or the hidden agendas of Fredersen and the thinking class, or the hidden malevolence of Rotwang.

More interesting, is that the Norse "Hel" having the same root, developed somewhat differently than its English counterpart. In Norse mythology, Hel is the daughter of Loki (the trickster, a non deity, but adopted brother of Odin), one of his three children, imprisoned by the Norse pantheon until they become free in the destruction of the world, and combat the gods at Ragnarok. This roll, while decidedly not good, plays a critical part in Norse mythology. With her siblings Jörmungandr (the world serpent) and Fenrisulfr (a gargantuan wolf) Hel is to lead an army of dead against the (good) Norse gods, and die, but succeed in taking the lives of most of the pantheon in her defeat. As the only honorable way to die in the Norse belief system is in battle, Hel and her siblings are securing the fate of the Gods by fatally wounding them in combat. Similarly, in Metropolis, the robot Maria causes great destruction by inciting rebellion among the workers, but is a necessary catalyst in the sequence of events that leads to resolution and peace between Fredersen and the leader of the workers. Hel leads an army of the dead to the salvation of the Norse pantheon, while the robot Maria leads an army of workers to the salvation of the thinking class (as they are no longer trapped in their contructed and somewhat dysfunctional society).

What is the value of these reflections? Perhaps, simply, that evil (or chaos, or whatever it is that you suppose causes trouble) has its place. Good and order cannot exist without their counterparts. Beyond this rather common reflection, something incredibly destructive and costly can result in something priceless. Though rioting and floods are certainly not good in themselves, in Metropolis they bring about resolution between unhappy classes that fail to communicate with each other. As a piece, it lends us insight. Do not dwell on the bad, but instead, what good can be made of the turmoil which has resulted.

Iconography.

In the first reading from the Kebra Negast, we are struck with many instances of icons, some of which are "idols" and other which are Christian. The treatment of these icons is not always consistant, however, and exploring the verious icons yields insight on their meaning.

First Abraham denounces his fathers sale of wooden, metal, and stone hewn idols, bowing to the "Creator of the heavens and the earth," at which point "He removed fear from him" (10). Moses is then instructed to construct the Ark of the Covenant. Yet, is this not just another construction of wood and metal to be worshipped? Page thirteen tells that the arks purpose was the containment of God's Law, not to be worshipped itself. The Queen of Ethiopia also recognizes the value of wisdom over gold or silver, in another rejection of material idols over less tangible but more valuable abstracts (22).

How can we resolve some of the conflicts we see between the Queen and Abraham's rejected idols and Moses' ark?

First, we might note the nature of the ark. When God commands Moses to build the ark, it is for the purpose of containing God's Law and some other major and minor artifacts. The passage describes the contents of ark as spirtual, made by God not the artificer, man. The contents are magnificent and spiritual. "A habitation of His glory" and "a habitation of the Godhead, Whose habitation is in heaven" (13). All of this seems to suggest that the ark, the box itself, contains nothing physical. Since the spiritual things it contains cannot are not at all physical, it is merely a physical symbol of more important things. This icon is only valuable when viewed as a symbol, and not as just an object.

In Abraham's situation, he also rejects physical idols for something more abstract. He turns to the horizon and speaks to a Creator that he cannot see. After this faith in the abstract, God apparently physically manifests and speaks to Abraham, and takes away his fear. But whether or not a physical manifestation occured, it was still merely representative of Abraham's Creator, as it was not physically a fiery man in the fiery chariot who formed the earth and the heavens.

Abraham overcomes his fear when he stops believing in physical idols and believes instead chooses to believe in his idea of a Creator. (We must remember that this decision was made before any physical manifestation, whether or not such a manifestation happened). The Queen of Ethiopia reasserts this message, in her love for wisdom. She explains that wisdom is more valuable than gold or silver, because wisdom cannot be lost or stolen, and is held in the heart, not the physical world.

Empiricism, A Religious Experience.

In Blending and Religious Beliefs Carissa asserts that "the fact is that religion and empiricism are very different." But it is not really the case that religion is all intangibles and empiricism is all concrete. An example from science, the bastion of empiricism is electric field and electric potential. I am learning about these things in Electricity & Magnetism this term. Although their results are very tangible, we have matter, we can observe and move electrons, all sorts of electromagnetic wave based technology, an electric field itself is very intangible. I can't feel it or touch it or see it, yet I believe it exists because I see it's results. In the same way, one could argue that although you can see or touch or feel any god, you can see divine results. But an empiricist understands too that it is possible that the electric field does not exist! If it didn't, however, it would not deny the real phenomena that we observe and attribute to electric fields. Ultimately, we know that electric fields are a tool, and a model for us to understand these phenomena, and what we call it is arbitrary and (hopefully) conveinant. Religion can be viewed in complete the same way (it is the view that I take). It is absolutely possible, perhaps even likely, that there is no existing god, but god as a model can exist and explain the phenomenon around us. Naturally, physics explains fundamental natural phenomena, and god explains things that are much more complex and interweaved into society. We use god as a model to predict things in the world around us. How people ought to act, how we should expect them to act. How we should expect our society to function, and how successful it will be based on our dynamics. Occasionally, in science, a model will be disproven, contradicted by some observable physical phenomenon. But we cannot lose sight of our goal. The model was created to explain the phenomenon, and if it contradicts with what is in front of our eyes, then a new model is required. In the same way, as society defies and breaks the bounds of what religion can explain in human nature, religion evolves and reforms. In this way, religion and empiricism are absolutely the same: tools and models for understanding the world around us.

Of Religious Persuasion.

The Zohar stands out to me as an exemplar of religious texts. It's tone (though certainly partially due to translation is conversational. The narrator is not an orator that lectures to the reader, but a fellow discussing religion. Certainly, the Zohar has an opinion, but it attempts to persuade the reader. More specifically, there are elements of the Socratic method, that is, the Zohar poses questions to lead you along it's argument. On the first page of the article "If this is so with the angels, how much more so with the Torah who created them and all the worlds and for whose sake we all exist!" Page fifty-four contains a particularly good example with the discussion of Adam's sin. "'He drove out et.' Et, precisely! And who drove out Et? 'Adam' Adam out Et! The Zohar is strong in that it approaches religion in an analytical sense. It focuses on small passages and ideas and analyzes them closely for metaphorical meaning. Why is it so different in tone than passages read from the bible? It is even proper to classify the Zohar as a religious text? It analyzes religious passages, but so might a criticism and argument against religion. It's emphasis is analysis, and not new metaphor. Is an art criticism artistic? An article about baseball athletic? In the Zohar, we see a new perspective on religion, and in it's conversational and personal speech, we see that it is a model for individuals, humans, to analyze religion by. Contrastingly, the direct story told in Lamentations or Genesis is not a direct model to show how we should think about metaphors, but are the things to think about. Is a move to abstraction and meta analysis a trend with time? All of us now have taken yet another step back, in a class where we think about how we think about religion. In 2200 perhaps students will take Introduction to Religious Studies Studies.

Animal, Vegetable, Mineral

What is the difference between people and animals? Genesis puts forward that man has dominion over animals. No other animals display the capacity for abstraction and metaphor displayed by humans. (Perhaps religion is an excellent example of the kind of thing that separates animals and people.) At times we envy animals. Their lives are simple, instinctual, and innocent. It was this attraction that lured Timothy Treadwell in the documentary Grizzly Man to live with and protect bears.

In her post about the movie, Noelle brought up a very good point. Only modern humans, overwhelmed with the complexity of society and technology in a fast paced world would fantasize about the simplicity of animal life. The hunter gatherers competeting with animals for food, and hunting and fighting for survival would nearly have this lifestyle, and not idealize it.

Grizzly Man also illustrates a measure of fear that people are not in fact meant to have dominion over animals. The helicopter pilot, for example, judged Treadwell very harshly for putting himself in a position where he was not in direct power over the bears. Why would the pilot think Treadwell such an idiot after surviving successfully for many summers in the woods? He was clearly competent in some regard. The movie made clear however that Treadwell died in a way that he saw fitting, and so the bear really did not break Treadwell's will. In this way, the bear is still within Treadwell's dominion. People predict animal behaviour regularly, and the question of our relationship really has little to do with animals, and everything to do with how humans should fulfill their end of the relationship.

lim god -> ∞

Time is an important concept to people, and not as well understood as many might think. Historically, people assumed time to be constant, and only with the onset of modern physics was it discvered that in fact, time can dilate, and different reference frames moving at different speeds will experience time and space quite differently. This is not precisely pertinent in Lamentations, where we do not have speeds approaching c, however the historical misperception of time points out we may not understand it as well as we think. The Bible creates many questions about time. In Genesis, while God is creating the sky and the stars and the water and the earth, before there is a sun and moon, how is there any measure of a "day" as we think of it? More specifically concerning Lamentations, we are presented with a superficial contradiction between God's "day of anger"(2.1) and the eternity of His love and mercies (3.22). Non superficially, this is not really a contradiction. We really just have two statements: God has a day of anger. God has an eternity of mercy. To understand this we must look at how to interpret God's anger and mercy. We see God's anger directly resulting in the fall of Jerusalem. God is portrayed as "like an enemy" and firing arrows at Jerusalem, allowing destruction to wrack his own temple. God's "anger" is what we might call "bad stuff." There is no direct portrayal of God's mercy in Lamentations, but it is clear that is something different than anger. So "bad stuff" is a day, passing, and eternity is something else. This seems like a pretty vague comment, but even in it's indescription there is a powerful statement of hope. "Bad stuff" is not the constant that ties the universe together, and endures over time. Rejoice and have hope! Tomorrow always has the chance to be better.

Also related to time is the idea of causality. If mercy or "other stuff" is the constant through time, what brings about the bad stuff? In Lamentations, the fall of Jerusalem is brought about by the sins of her people. This is even admitted by the author, he says "My transgressions were bound into a yoke;" (1.14). The bad stuff happening to Jerusalem is caused by her own sin, her own fault. This adds a little to our Hopeful Message. People make mistakes and bad stuff happens, but this is passing, and tomorrow is another chance to take better actions!

From these simple metaphors we are left with a conceptualization that allows us to keep trying. If bad is constant, why try to fight it? If there is no redemption from mistakes, why continue living once a mistake is made? That is not a model to live by. God's mercies are "new every morning" (3.23). We see that indeed, tribulations are character building. "It is good for one to bear the yoke in youth," (3.27). All of this can be interpretted in a traditional religious sense, but even to the less pious, whether or not you believe in God or a god or no god, we gain a powerful utility from a model for endurance in the face of obstacles, opposition, and tragedy in life.

Effigy Almond Joy Builders

The gist of this article goes something like, the Late Woodland people in Wisconsin constructed massive mounds of earth in forms representing their societal classes and spiritual realms. These realms were divided into air, earth, and water, and represented by various animal and human forms, as well as some more mysterious geometric shapes.

In many ways, this reflects the paleolithic art that we saw from early humans. Symbolic reflections of animals. The notable difference would be the immense scale and the lack of naturalism. Even so, humans have not progressed to the abstract symbols (such as the cross or Star of David) that we see today. There system of belief is in a sense very accurate. Their "sky", "earth", and "water" could reflect and explain the states of matter found on the Earth. This would support the idea that religion explains something not understood abstractly. It's all rather mysterious, these giant piles of dirt in shapes. Why are we, now, in the future with our great technology intrigued by these man-made hills. It's clear that the construction of these mounds was daunting, and I find it amazing that people who needed to worry about finding food took the time to build immense piles of dirt. Clearly these mounds were not build out of boredom or curiosity. How is it someone can hold a belief so dearly as to drive them to do something apparently irrational, something out of their way, and other people can be clueless as to what that belief might be? That is the intrigue of religion.

This post seems a little flaky, but I guess, what I'm getting at is, as humans, we inherently care what the people around us believe. We can't even be sure that our senses aren't deceiving us, so belief is an inherent part of an attempt to live a productive life. We seek verification of our beliefs, we are threatened by apparent inconsistencies, potential flaws in the necessary assumptions we make. From that need comes our inherent interest in the religions of the people around us, past and present, and also the anger and fear and hate, that cause people of different faiths to take each others lives. Well, that's my belief anyhow.

Attaining Nirvana

Where do bad folks go when they die?
They don't go to heaven where the angels fly,
They go to a lake of fire and fry,
see them again til the Fourth of July.

God-Jesus Robot

Sarah highlights that in many ways technology has expanded and strengthened religion. I agree with Sarah's observations; technology in many ways has enabled communication and connectedness where it wasn't before. At the same time, there are also definite detriments connected to the onslaught of technology, not least of all, pushing clashing cultures together. Taking the good and bad together, technology has, simply put, changed religion. This seems like a rather shallow observation, so let's take a step back.

The Greek word, Teknos, originally referred to not what we think of as technology today, but to art. Modern technology and art are not so different, they tend towards different purposes, but are both creations. In the societal shift from the late Paleolithic era to the Pleistocene, we see a change in human society from nomadic hunter-gatherers to a more agrarian and rooted lifestyle. In his article, Guthrie points out this change in lifestyle was accompanied by a shift in the model of religion. I think that it is important to note that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is nature dependent. Game and edible flora all grow naturally until found and hunted/gathered. The agrarian lifestyle, while still at the mercy of weather, is more calculated. The farmer produces... creates... his own food. The shift from hunter-gatherer to agrarian lifestyle is a shift from being one element or player in nature, to being one who manipulates nature for his own intention. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the mental shift from hunter to farmer and from less technology to more is reflective of the shift in art, from naturalistic reflective art to abstract but purposeful creation.

What does this tell us about technology and modern religion? If our art and our metaphor reflect our lifestyle and technology, perhaps our hardware software metaphor isn't so far off the mark. Furthermore, if it is as Guthrie suggests, then our religion, which is but a form of metaphor, is reflective of our lifestyle, which is reflective of our climate! Guthrie explains that a shift in the orbit of Earth around the Sun rapidly increased the average temperature of the planet, softening our glacial climates into more temperate ones more favorable to humans, along with many kinda of life. This shift made farming as a lifestyle feasible. This viewpoint is further supported by Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, where he argues that all differences in human societal development and culture are resultant from climatic and geographical differences. If this is the case our technology, and likewise our religion, is entirely a consequence of our surroundings.

I must add a disclaimer to this post. I absolutely believe in causality, and to me, it is entirely feasible that religion and our idea of God is only a mental abstract, and completely resultant from our environment. This, to me, does not retract from religion at all. It does not mean that religion is wrong or false, only that it is abstract. If anything, this makes it more diverse in its application and though we must interpret the meaning of its metaphor, as a pure abstraction it is more powerful than it could be any other way.

Technology and Religion

Early in his article, Dale Guthrie points out that the common approach to interpreting paleolithic art is to impose some sort of shamanistic or magical symbolic code onto it, but this is not necessarily a justified interpretation. Indeed, I think there is value in this perspective, in that most certainly this art was not made for us, but for the artists or their contemporaries. Of course, the art could reflect magical thinking, but to assume that it does is completely unfounded.

There are countless speculations about what paleolithic art might represent, but we can be fairly certain that it was made by early humans for early humans. If we allow these early humans to act as a model for human nature, this would indicate that artists create art for themselves, or humans create metaphors for themselves. Religion, held as a personal metaphor, is created and understood for the benefit of the humans who believe it.

But how does this account for the social communities that form around religions? The notable difference between what we assume of paleolithic communities and modern communities, is connectedness. Today technology allows humans to live in dense population, and in the last century, to communicate with other individuals a world away. Lacking technology, early humans could not communicate or travel great distances, and their society was not stratified. Symbols could easily have uniform meaning in small groups. The size that modern society has grown for leaves room for drastically different upbringing and symbolic interpretations, creating the religious conflicts we know today. Technology, in effect, "ruins" religion. Technology is yet another reflection of our ability to create. This raises many interesting questions as to similarities between religion/art and technology.

The Word of God

Stephanie Zastrow got me thinking about the devisiveness of religion in her recent entry where she talked about some of her personal perspective, experiences with religion, and how religion acted as a devisive force in her own life. Even the most devout of us cannot deny that religion, as much faith as you may have in God or some god, is not always Good in the hands of men. But... let's not put all the blame on religion quite yet. In our very own classroom, there is tangible dissension not only between atheists and theists, but also between scientists and literal interpreters. (Allow me a small aside in which to say that science and religion are not at odds. While there are many well known atheist scientists, and also prominent creationists etc. denying science, there are also well known theist scientists, such as Albert Einstein.) My point is in illustrating these conflicts is not to exacerbate anything, which we are handling maturely, but to point out that certainly division occurs over other ideas. Science can be divisive, creating distinct academic camps. Social sciences and more humanity oriented disciplines create academic rifts as well.

So what is my point in all of this? People argue, we all know it. But what do these divisive ideologies have in common? Metaphor. Symbolism. Language. Let me justify my position. The most divisive modern issues are those without clear answers. No one's ever been killed over the sum of two and three. But religion, philosophy, ideas. These things cause our society to be dynamic, and to be violent. People fight for what they believe to prove that it is Right. The article Singing Neanderthals notices that symbolism and metaphor are central to verbal languages. The author observes that the long time stability and static state of Neanderthal society may be indicative of a lack of the benefit of abstract metaphorical thought, which in turn would suggest a lack of verbal language. His continuation of suppose that the Neanderthals formed ugly, hairy 5'2" choirs is definitely interesting, but hardly conclusive. I would venture to guess, however, that many of us (let me know if my guess is completely off the mark, I'd like to know if I'm wrong) found the article compelling and convincing. Why is this? I myself would have liked to believe this fantastic theory. The very article itself is a work of language. The authors cutting skepticism on the "symbolic Neanderthal artifacts" and optimistic and romanticized depictions of frenzied displays of dance and song, and tender caring humming and singing to loved ones, gives us a lovely story to visualize in our heads, and every reason to disbelieve the contrary evidence. Now, I'm not denying the possibility of Singing Neanderthals, but the article was a popularization of a social science already strained to it's limits to have evidence whatsoever, and not conclusive at all! Despite the severely inconclusive evidence presented, the article does not come off as severely inconclusive, but instead, as a reasonably well formed support of a Hmmmming, singing language used by a pre human species. Steven Mithen does not use language to evaluate his evidence, he does that on his own, and then uses language to paint a portrait, to make his idea beautiful, acceptable, to readers, to us, to all who receive the language.

Language could, using identical evidence, spin this article in completely a different direction. Language is incredibly powerful and dangerous in it's ability to distort and create in that way.

Returning to the topic at hand, we've now read four very different articles: the beginning of Genesis, a newspaper article, a casual internet science expose, and a passage from a book. All of these thing talk about the beginning of humanity as we know it, but their language is absolutely different. Sarah Marheine, in her post, illustrated how the language in the bible and the language of science do not necessarily conflict, though they not at all the same. I have heard (and I can't cite this, but I do think it is a good example) that in Orthodox Judaism there is a belief that a)The Torah is the Word of God and is absolutely true, and b) some general belief in rationality and science apparently, amalgamating in c) if there is some apparent conflict between the Word of God and Science, then, in actuality, there is no conflict, it human minds are yet unable to comprehend how they are the same. This is a compensation for this feebleness of language.

So what I'm really getting at is What exactly do you mean? Not to turn this into a philosophy course, but, words all words are metaphors. How do we learn the color red? A red chair, a red book, a red sweater. Our collective knowledge of all these experience we roll together into an abstract concept of red, but no one will have seen exactly the same things, and so no one will have the same red metaphor. Religion, based on archaic and translated texts, is especially susceptible to these little language spins created by us imperfect humans, and even our own beliefs and convictions will be shallow if we don't explore the meanings and origins of the words in which we form them.

Defining local, global, and religious variables.

First, I will define religion as I am using it in the below paragraphs. Religion is a system of beliefs, a life philosophy, which someone applies and lives by. By this definition "religion" does not just refer to formal religions in boxes, so to speak, but any structure, or lack thereof that a person might live by. Every person has their styling of religion by which they live by, which may or may not fit a name. The answer to the question, "Can we define religion," is "Yes!" and we absolutely must if we're to get anywhere! A definition does not necessarily have to be universal, but it is of the utmost importance that as individuals we are specific and precise about the things we mean when we speak. This is, if anything, more true for abstracts and importants such as religion.

Second, as promised, I will extend the hardware-software metaphor. I'm not claiming any of this is logically conclusive, but let this metaphor be accurate, then what would it suggest?

To summarize, briefly, what was said in class, the hardware and software of a computer can be said to symbolize the physical human and his religion, respectively. The essential idea here is that all computers are physicall built in a similar manner, in that they contain similar components to serve similar computational tasks. The abstract purpose of a computer might be very different. Computers might be used to pursue computational results in science, to connect together phones or other computers and serve as network enablers, or to provide a personal interface, for email, text editing, and numerous other features. Many kinds of software serve many different purposes, and so many interpretations of religion serve different people in different ways.

It is also clear that culture influences the shape that religion takes, and another extension of the metaphor in class relates how an operating system exacts parameters under which software must fit and be developed within. Furthermore, software local to a certain operating system tends to be more compatible with software sharing its operating system. religious within a culture tends to be more cohesive then religions across cultural barriers. With a little effort at understanding the underworkings of a piece of software, it can be altered slightly to be compatible with almost any other modern operating system. I certainly take stock in this and find value in striving to understand what exactly makes my religious "flavor" compatible with me, and what details, maybe unimportant, are incompatible with others.

Another reflection is that while software is the important part of computing... computers would be without value without software and algorithms... it is restricted by hardware. In science, the accuracy and speed of computation is limited by what technology is available. Software is constantly pushing the bounds of hardware, and faster processors and bigger hard drives are sought after to increase the capabilities of our software. Since software is abstract it has no limits, and hardware will always be the cause of the system bottleneck. Carrying through the metaphor, our bodies and minds limit what we can do with our religion, and the most capable minds can thus "run the newest version" and have the potential for the strongest use of religion. We should then strive to make the most of our minds. Of course, this is easy to say, but what exactly is making the most of your mind?

Software is produced mainly by either large companies, or by many users through open source. Commercial religion reflects greater planning ahead of time, is compatible with other software made by the company, and often has few or no (large) bugs when it is initially created, however, it is also often specifically made to be incompatible with competitor products. Open source, contrastingly, is user developed, and though system specific, is often developed in parallel for many systems. Bugs are fixed quickly. Changes happen rapidly to meet user needs. Occasionally it is harder to get different pieces of open source software to run smoothly together. Fortunately user demand results in rapid solution development. I would interpret commercial software as parallelling more formal "book" religion, our religion in boxes. Formal religions often intentionally denounce each other and are "incompatible." There adherence to rules and accepted practice make them slower to change. There is no strong modern parallel to "open source religion." Religious communities exist, but very few consciously work to dynamically change to suit the religious needs of their adherents. What would be necessary for a consciously dynamic religion?

Perhaps an overextended metaphor, but valuable nonetheless, at least to one person.

Intro to Religious Studies

First post.

This is not a reflection on anything, I'm just breaking blogger in. In the near future, I am going to take the hardware software metaphor way too far. But really, as long as a metaphor is just a metaphor, how can you ever take it too far.

This blogger has a pretty clean layout. Hmm.
[Edit: Mrf. Silly buggy thing doesn't like images or rogue html.]

Okay, bye.