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.