Are Conservatives (in the West) on the wrong side of history?

  Of all the oft-repeated myths regarding Conservatives, this one, in my opinion, is just the silliest. Yet I hear it all the time. History, just like evolution, has no specified direction. There is no end goal. Yes, I understand that the concept comes from the Hegelian understanding of history, but this is so vague in that it can be interpreted in any way that lines up with the confirmation bias of the proponent. For Hegel, the Prussian state was the ideal that history was marching towards; for Left Hegelians, it was the classless society (or a version thereof), and for Nazis, it was a Third Reich with Lebensraum.

History is not marching to a preordained beat as though it was intentionally designed to do so. File this wishful thinking. Events happen, and we, as a society and a civilization, respond to them. Perceived trajectories are constantly in a state of flux.

Does humanity need religion for its values, or can we obtain these from secular-based philosophy?

 The answer is both yes and no. Opinions will differ based on what type of society we personally prefer living in.

What is certain, though, is that if we wish to replace one value system with another, we better make sure that the alternative system has empirical worth. The burial grounds of the planet are littered with the victims of failed ideologies.

Navigatng the Chaos - Part 9 - When do People deny the Science?

 People deny science when they:

• Politicize the science

• Insist that the science in one area or another is settled (science is never settled)

• Argue that there is only one specific form of the scientific method

• Draw conclusions that extend beyond the specific area of investigation

• Prejudice Rationalism over Empiricism

• Insist that public opinion determines the result

• Deny whole bodies of research as the outcomes may be inconvenient to the status quo

• Fail to challenge the bias of authority (people in power)

• Fail to report on the limitations of a specific scientific model

• Use terms that have no meaning in a scientific sense

• Promote pseudo-scientific junk that has an emotional utility

• Selectively use statistics to distort the result

• Fail to insist that experiments ought to be replicated

• Fail to understand the limitations of science and employ its methodology in areas that extend beyond the material

• Insist that science 'proves' something when in reality, it provides more evidence in support of (or against) a certain model - science is inductive, not deductive.

Navigating the Chaos - Part 8 - Science and G-d

 It is amazing how many people on both sides of the political/worldview divide have the impression that if you believe in God, you cannot truly be a man of science. My students constantly bring this point up and are surprised when I tell them that the two are not mutually exclusive. While it is true that no likely definitive proof for God exists within the frame of logic that underpins science, this in no way invalidates God.

Let us not forget that science operates within limits - limits set by empirical evidence and the self-contained rationalism that allow us (as scientists) to infer from the evidence available. Like any system of knowledge, it also accepts certain constructs a priori, and as Kurt Gödel showed with his Incompleteness Theorem that even Mathematics (as a system of logic) could not be verifiable within itself. Nevertheless, science is the best system for elucidating the mysteries of the universe as it constantly requires more stringent levels of checking and retesting. Couple this with the strength of Karl Popper's falsification argument, and it is easy to see why science is successful as an epistemological tool.

I am most certainly not a biblical literalist in that I see what purports to be the bible as a mixture, albeit a valuable one, of oral history and ancient mythology. I have also dismissed the scientific validity of intelligent design. Darwin's descent with modification makes sense to me, but at the same time, I am skeptical of the random mutation arguments so favored by the various Neo-Darwinian schools. I am more inclined to see evolutionary changes being driven by systems of self-organization. A methodology that is likely to be explained by science, although not within the dominant paradigm from which it currently operates at present.

Physicist-theologian Ian Barbour writes extensively about the interaction of science and religion and posits a four-facet model dealing with the relationship between these two avenues of human thought to be very useful.

In summary, Barbour (a Templeton Award winner) sees the two mechanisms of science and religion through the eyes of four different models: 

Conflict: Where they butt heads viz. Scientific Materialism versus Biblical Literalism

Independence: Where they ignore one another - Separate Domains and Different Languages and Functions

Dialogue: Interaction in the area of Limit-Questions. Parallels and Common Methodologies

Integration: Incorporating the two dynamics together within the framework of Natural Theology, Theology of Nature, or Barbour's favorite Systematic Synthesis.

Barbour analyzes these models in the areas of Astronomy and Creation, Quantum Physics, Evolution, and Continuing Creation, Neuroscience and Human Nature, and finally, God and Nature.

From this work, I take much solace in an integrationist model that seeks to build connections instead of divide. For me, this makes the most sense, and it is from this platform that I see the world - open to reason but at the same time mindful of a greater presence that exists.

Navigating the Chaos - Part 7 - What is Good Science?

 Good Science is the pursuit of knowledge derived from questioning. It is the science that looks at a phenomenon and attempts to elucidate its workings through rational thought and empirical investigation. It strives to be as objective as possible in its process. Conclusions are eventually drawn following the thorough analysis of evidence, but the conclusions must not extend beyond the assumptions that so define the research.

There is no single definitive scientific method, but there are broad procedures that extend from the initial observation through hypothesis to the investigation, analysis, and subsequent conclusion(s) for any inquiry.

Scientists are not guardians of truth but agents of clarification that peel away the fog of noise in an attempt to model more accurately the workings of the world. They are, of course, free to philosophize and speculate about the significance of their findings (something I personally call the extended objective), but these speculations should not overwrite or even overextend the mandate of their original research. 

The individual Scientist is bound to understand the limits of their findings which ultimately calls for an appreciation of the restrictions of their respective disciplines. Science is not a religion, nor should it be vaunted as one; however, it is the best tool that we humans have for understanding the material world. It is indeed very powerful, but it is ultimately confined to the milieu of matter/energy.

Navigating the Chaos - Part 6 - The Purpose of my book Navigating the Chaos

 It isn't easy to make sense of the chaos that is modern-day reality. Transformational change, information deluge, and a preponderance of bad ideas often leave us feeling isolated in a world that seems to be edging closer to an expedited collapse.

Post-truth has made itself heard across virtually every intellectual discipline, leaving one navigating a turbulent pathway to a workable clarity.

It is my experience that if you wish to live a life of meaning that you also have to adhere to beliefs that are well thought out, clear, and based on sound reasoning and logic.

I would say that my eventual goal is making sense of the universe. A cynic would claim that such a task is futile, fraught with obstacles, and ultimately a bridge to eventual disappointment. Perhaps this is true, but I would not renege on the journey, its path may be convoluted, but the serendipity that it invites is overwhelmingly rewarding.

Navigating the chaos is a formed-in-the-fire product of me wrestling with a multiplicity of ideas that I have come across in my stay on the planet so far. It is a consequence of both my practical experience and independent inquiry that reflects issues as diverse as the nature of science, the ebbs and flow of history, and the trajectory of our future.

A great deal of what I write here is based on my judgment that I have endeavored to substantiate with evidence and reasonable speculation. I will admit when I am at a loss and most certainly welcome the reader to challenge my conclusions.

Over the years, I have learned that all issues are not as clear-cut as their champions make them out to be, and in virtually every case, one's personal position is a derivative of the net information available. While it is necessary to have principles, it is equally important to listen to contradictory standpoints, which is why the free flow of ideas is so critical to any debate.

Navigating the Chaos - Part 5 - Thoughts on Buddhism

 There is an essence to Buddhism that, at first glance, appears to be extremely soothing. As a philosophy, it puts on a kinder face that, to so many, appears to be more welcoming than the harshness of the Judeo-Christian belief system. One such facet that has engendered one to think of Buddhism in a more enlightened framework was the replacement of the all-powerful judging God viewing each and every one of our actions with the belief in karma that argues that every action has a consequence to it. In reality, both God and the karmic system function to guide our actions toward doing what is the 'good.' 

Bad acts in the Buddhist world invite bad karma, which leads to suffering. In Western theology, these acts are punished by the wrath of God that, too, leads to suffering. So what we have here are alternative explanations for the same outcome. But are they really alternatives, or is the one, karma, perhaps merely a description as to how God meets out justice? My problem with the karma view on its own is that it is too convenient and mechanistic. It provides for the predictability of outcomes that deduces B from A. In short, it is deterministic, like the theological version of classical physics. The complexity of human nature fits neatly into an equation of fortune that 'makes it all too easy.' 

I believe that consequences are murkier on the outcome of action because the ultimate decider of our fate is Ein Sof, and Ein Sof's logic is not so simplistic. We, for example, cannot explain why infants die at such a young age. Ein Sof must clearly know the reason. 

People once believed that the rules of mathematics and classical mechanics could be used to predict the future history of the universe with complete certainty. Quantum Mechanics (uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality, etc.) threw this 'certainty' on its head. Now it appears that the universe is more intricate and unpredictable than we could ever imagine. There is a logic there, but it is hidden behind a complex veil that I am not convinced we will ever breach. The same is true of the exact repercussions of our actions.

Navigating the Chaos - Part 4 - Why Free Will Matters.

Free Will gives us a choice. We are no longer automatons. However, a consequence of Free Will is a bad choice that can lead to pain and suffering. Free Will can also lead to a life of greater harmony. Both consequences need to be present. Otherwise, our Free Will is meaningless. Existentialism also deals with this issue but has a different basis - it argues that in a world of no innate meaning, we are free to make a choice, but we have to live with the consequences of our choice.

Navigating the Chaos - Part 3 - Why do many People hate truth tellers?

 The problem, in the words of Jack Nicholson (taken from A Few Good Men), is that we 'cannot handle the truth.'

In order for us to function in the world, we have a tendency to create structures of coping that center around the way things ought to be, not how they are. We are all guilty of this and, in time, often turn the 'ought' into the 'is.'

This may serve us well until reality comes around to remind us of our short falling. When our deception is revealed, we are forced to re-evaluate our ingrained paradigm creating much anxiety and angst. The natural response is to prevent this re-evaluation from happening in the first place, which we implement by turning our anger.

Navigating the Chaos - Part 2 - A Quick thought on Prayer

Prayer must come from the heart. I prefer to produce my own prayer words that are of a personal nature. I realize others prefer pre-written templates or established prayer. It is their choice. The way I see it, prayer opens up a lane of necessary communication with a transcendence that enriches and makes more meaningful the notion of belief. On a communal level, it acts to provide solidarity between like believers in a specific system. Psychologically it may act as a mechanism to provide and enhance the clarity of thought.

 I think that not a day goes by without me contemplating my relationship with Ein Sof. This cuts to the very core of who I am as a being, and without such personal dialogue, I would certainly be much poorer. However, in a way, I am envious of the soul who has no doubt about their faith as they appear to have contentment that has escaped me so far. My faith comes not with ease; it is a tug-o-war complicated by the rivulets of thought that color my essence. I constantly joust with my belief and have, throughout my life, gravitated from one locale of inner comfort to another

Navigating the Chaos - Part 1 - My Personal Belief Structure

 I am by nature a scientific rationalist and consequently seek proof for my beliefs and avoid as much as possible any leaps of faith. However, I am also aware that science is bound to the material world and consequently has a limited realm through which it can access knowledge.

On a personal level, I have dedicated much of my life to science, but I am consciously aware of its zones of applicability. Having said this, I will exhaust all scientific explanations before deferring to an extra-material analysis in grasping the phenomenology of events. I owe this to myself. In a sense, I am a skeptic, not a logical positivist, but a realist armed with Occam's Razor but cognizant at the same time of the extra-material universe. 

I personally believe in an essence that extends beyond the physicality of the matter/energy universe. Perhaps this is a function of my individuality (so defined by my genetics and environmental history), but as much as I have tried to shrug off its presence and succumb to scientific materialism, I simply cannot. 

The Kabbalistic concept of Ein Sof, which translates (from the Hebrew) as 'without an end, appeals to me.' This makes the extended point that to truly define the essence is to actually limit it. All power, I believe, ultimately resides with the Ein Sof, which cannot be fully articulated, reduced, or even truly conceptualized. However, its presence is ubiquitous. 

I envision Ein Sof as multifaceted, and this is a consequence of omnipotence. It can be perceived on many levels. The Spirit God is 'the transcendence' from which our souls originate, and the personal God is the one that I communicate with. However, they are intrinsically linked as one.

The way I see it is that individual souls are derived from the Ein Sof. Our abstraction from the Ein Sof does not in any way reduce the Ein Sof as it supersedes the material. The laws of physics do not limit the Ein Sof as all its constraints and realities are ultimately a product of the Ein Sof. The Ein Sof is consequently the cause of why something, as opposed to nothing, exists

As Ein Sof Derived Souls, we can interact with the Ein Sof by following the path of goodness. This involves the extension of our sense of self and a concerted focus on the positive growth of our being and the assistance of others

In the Hindu Uppanbishad, it is written - That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.

The Ein Sof is similar to the Uppanbishad definition of the Infinite Soul - Brahman. I am actually very much taken by the Hindu understanding of our individual soul - the Athman - being in its essence a derivative of the Brahman. As mentioned, we can approach the Ein Sof/Brahman by performing meaningful acts of goodness.

Others have addressed this dynamic but have unfortunately allowed themselves to lose focus in the vortex of cultural noise. Meaningful belief has to extend beyond this 'noise' to reclaim the connection with the Ein Sof. This brings us the greatest joy.

The direct approach toward goodness involves the elucidation of perspective. This substantiates itself in the prioritization of goals, daily events, and thoughts. Perspective is triage for the mind; it places our challenges in context so that we never lose sight of the goodness of the Ein Sof. 

Meaningful acts are tantamount to acts of kindness – an extension of one's sense of self to include the other. Martin Buber wrote about this in the 'I and Thou.' These bring one closer to Ein Sof and allow us to appreciate its magnificence. Life also has to be lived with purpose. In doing so, we discover the Ein Sof 'Spark.'

We must be thankful for what we have. I call this a consolidation of reality. Once such a step has been undertaken, the mind framework towards goodness is rooted. This catalyzes the drive.

I would argue that each morning until the end of the day, we awake with a new opportunity (for the most part) to prove and better ourselves. We should appreciate that we have life and act to help others.

My Book Navigating the Chaos