Middle East boundaries

gcle2003 wrote: Mountbatten made a last desperate appeal. But he was only in place less than a year. His instruction from Lndon was that independence (in order to meet pre-war promises) had to be achieved by the end of 1947 at the latest. If agreement on a united India was not met by that time, then division it would have to be.   Of course you may believe that independence should not have been granted in that case but I don't think very many people would agree with you, including in fact Nehru and the Congress party.

As I recall it Mountbatten had several more years to achieve an independent India. I don't disagree with the decision to partition, I disagree with the manner in which is was done. It was fast, rash, and very poorly organised which directly resulted in disorder that cost over a million lives. He should have staged the paritition gradually and allowed time to resolve the Kashmir and Hyderabad questions rather than suddenly withdraw from Government.

Omar al Hashim wrote: gcle2003 wrote: Omar al Hashim wrote: Sorry, but all this shows is you don't understand religion or why people believe in it.  The least reliable evidence for why people believe in religion is the word of the people who believe in it. People who have a vested interest in explaining away other beliefs in order to justify their own are certainly less reliable. CV wrote: Why do people believe in religion Omar, as you see it? I don't believe that anyone can fully answer this question. I can say that I see Islam as integrated and fundamental to the natural world as I see any science. To deny it would be about as productive and logical as denying Electromagnetism. I cannot tell you why anyone would believe in Mormanism, but nevertheless many people do. What it certainly is not (at least for the vast majority of people) is a form of escapism or magical thinking. That is Atheist Dogma, a religious opinion used to explain away the beliefs of others without fully considering them. I too could use that line of reasoning to explain away atheism. They refuse to believe in God because they don't want to face up to the consequences of their actions. It's an easy way of escaping their responsibilities. The fundamental question though, that is, why I see both polytheism and atheism as absurd and un-scientific, and why you (I'm guessing, I don't actually know what your beliefs are) see any form of theism as absurd and un-scientific, I can't even begin to explain. But I do know that reasoned argument won't convince anyone of anything on the topic.

A thoughtful response Omar. However, I bet you can predict what is coming...

CV wrote: Magical thinking is, by definition, contemplation of supernatural forces influencing life events. If this seems inflammatory, we can drop the term.

It's not inflammatory, I completely agree. I don't believe in the supernatural, and I oppose superstition where ever I see it.

There is though a very large chasm between believing, and science. The two are not the same, in any relevent fashion

I am quite aware of that but that is not what I meant. I meant that I am equally convinced of both, I see them both as fundamental aspects of nature. I can convince you of one aspect (EM) but not the other, so they are not the same. But if you were to try to convince me my religion was wrong, it'd be like trying to convince me EM is wrong. You'd be going up against what I see as a significant body of evidence. In my brain, neither of them are escapism, both are dealing with the world as it is.

Relgion and Science are not the same, and in hindsight that was a very poor example on my behalf because I hit that religion-science nerve. I'll talk about science or religion but I don't want to talk about both because people get very confused between the two - which I gather is probably your point too.

Science means that a certain paradigm has been accepted (until such time as disproven) regardless of one's attraction or repulsion to it. It is based on the best evidence available to us, independently verified. There is an essential thread here that I'm sure you see. The follies of human weakness have been, to the extent possible, been cut out of the loop with science. Even scientists admit that they may color their findings, inadvertently, by allowing their own wishes, fears, and/or biases intrude on the findings of their experiments. Double blind experimental procedures are, of course, the result.

I am a scientist (Engineer) I mix with scientists of all fields, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that is a very idealised view of science. Science is sometimes even more belief based and dogmatic than religion (not that it should be of course)

Religion, however, is a belief system, outside of science, in which one simply decides, this is for me, I like it, or, no thanks, I think I will shop around. It is a way of life, and don't get me wrong- in many cases an admirable way of life, with aspects that should be strived for under any circumstances- but simply a personal decision.

Well, no. Shoppers aren't believers.

Another difference between science and religion is that there are very few vested interests in the former. Indeed, the core belief of science is that if new material comes to light, and passes the test of the scientific method, it must be adopted.

Ha! I wish. But it's more like, "if new material comes to light, is published in the right journals, suits your preconceived beliefs (which no doubt influence which journals you read), and you stand to gain from it or will suffer from peer pressure if you reject it, then it must be adopted".

When we take a look at the most common human emotions, hopes, and fears, then vested interests become all too apparent in religion. The big questions- fear of death, ultimate meaning of life, guidelines for ethics and morals- the answers are all there, in easy form. Just read the book. The problem is of course that there is no one book that can cover the complexity and majesty of the universe....it is simply the quick and easy answer for those that fear uncertainty, and the often perplexing aspects of just being human.

Again, my point is this is not true. I don't fear death, the meaning of life is 42, I wouldn't mind being promiscous, and religion by no means reduces uncertainty. This is just a simple way of explaining away something far more complicated.

Just a comment on India and Mountbatten.

If you don't read authoritative accounts there's no hope ofyou're getting things even half right. I assume you think the Errol Flynn liberated Burma (and even that Errol Flynn was American). You know, like Americans capured the Enigma machine. Hollywood stuff.

Science asks "how?", philosophy (thus religion) asks "why". End of the conservation.


edit: I mean "conversation"


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 11 Mar 2012 at 13:38

Captain Vancouver wrote: Science may take a long time to answer "why", but religion does not answer that question either. It merely provides a superficial story. Why this story? Why any story?

No, you don't get it. Science asks how rain occurs and gives an answer. Religion asks why rain occurs and gives an answer. So you are saying you don't believe explanation of religion. You can't answer why question with science. Because it wouldn't be science. If you insist, you will end up with "it has no purpose, just occurs, life has no purpose, you have no purpose, I have no purpose". Honestly, how science can answer that? Science is interested with material, not with ideas. That's philosophy.

Why, Mr. Anderson? (exactly ending up same as I said)



Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 11 Mar 2012 at 18:32

We agreed to disagree.

On the question of the question 'why':

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this CV. I didn't have the time to put in a well thought out post.

But now I have read your post carefully, I don't actually have much to say. You didn't understand anything that I said in my previous post. Again all you have done is repeated your religious position. I know what your position is, it's a common position nowadays, I want you to defend your position or admit that it is religious.

I challenged you to prove that "Religion on the other hand starts from avoidance of rigour- the exact opposite. It flees open investigation, and demands one accepts myth and magic without questioning. The type of bias and faulty process you describe are a mandated part of religion, not just a fringe that is not functioning as intended.", partly an unfair challenge because I know that it is impossible to do so. If you can't prove it then admit it is a belief! Don't repeat meaningless mumbo-jumbo about science, I know my science and aren't about to be fooled by my own reflection.

And the scientific principles that have verified that spitting in the mud produces humans, or that the Red Sea could part if God is angry enough, or that the earth was made in seven days are...?

I'm referring to Hadith science.
(And we don't believe that the earth was made in seven days. Not literal days that is.)

I'll attempt to be more articulate, if I haven't been clear. You seem to want to lump science and religion together, as simply two different, but equal belief systems.

No quite the opposite in fact.
I am trying to saying they are unrelated, that is the two philosophies have nothing to do with each other (The correlation between them is a small number), you seem to be saying that one is the opposite of the other (the correlation between them is a large negative number).

But, while the two are unrelated they are both practiced by humans, and humans introduce certain behaviour that means the practice of both (and every other philosophy) is slightly related (a small-medium positive number).

I'm saying your descriptions of science and religion are both wrong for the same reason: you've ignored how people deal with a philosophy.

Any particular person will have a certain degree of faith in science and emperical evidence for religion, because the mechanisms that people use to accept or reject any particular idea are highly related. This applies for any other ideology as well.

CV wrote: I guess I am not a member of one of those particular populations. Perhaps they are underrepresented in damper climates.

I think the problem is that I am trying to get you to think in a way that you have never thought in before. People abstract concepts away and make huge extrapolations based on their experiences. Recognising each thing for what it is - a empirical fact, a belief based on extrapolation, or an abstraction to make something simpler, is incredibly difficult. When I said "Any particular person will have a certain degree of faith in science and emperical evidence for religion", I meant every person.

You are not an exception, the whole reason we are having this conversation is because you displayed in your posts such an exceptional and deep faith and belief that you could not understand why people would choose to believe otherwise. Your explainations of religion are completely without evidence or hope of evidence, and the only thing worse than your descriptions of religion are your descriptions of science, where you've completely confused your faith and actual reality. You're paying absolutely no attention to what can be proven true and what can never be proven true.

What's more you seem to be totally confused about logic. I told you before, logic can lead you to the wrong conclusion just as often as it leads you to the right one. If logic is to be useful it must be tempered by some sort of rational check, but what people consider to be rational is different. Religion is Logicial. I can make a logical proof of Christianity, but I don't believe in Christianity.

In order to demonstrate how much of your last post is completely unverifiable belief, I am going to go through your post piece meal and label each statement fact - you can demostrate what you said to be true, or belief - you can never prove what you said it is a faith based or mythical statement. If you disagree with my categorisation I ask only that you either provide a counter-example (in the case of fact) or provide evidence (in the case of belief.

There is a massive difference in the way one goes about accepting religious doctrine, and accepting scientific evidence

Belief.

With religion, observations were claimed, ideas formed, and these were transmitted down through time, usually through writing.

Fact. But not one exclusive to religion. Everything, from horticulture to Jane Austin, fits that description.

In addition, these ideas have been modified to fit the values and culture of the times somewhat. Burning witches at the stake is now considered bad form; 400 years ago, it was seen by many as a wise precaution.

Fact.

One can either accept this body of written material, or reject it. That is the extent of the analysis.

Belief.

Show me the evidence today that there are demons, angels, heaven, hell, or any other religious manifestations. There is none.

Fact. But as I hope I'm showing you there's no evidence for a lot of other things people believe are true either.

Belief in these means making a statement somewhere along the lines of: 'but it  must be, because........'.

Belief. That's a very cartoonish view of human reasoning.

The problem with this is that by simply claiming it must be, one is never sure how much subconscious bias one is injecting into the system. Bias is something humans are good at- indeed expert at. Our emotions tend to run roughshod over all sorts of behaviors and ideas, often in ways that are not recognized.

Fact - one very close to the point I'm making. Recognise your own bias now!

Even if one is immaculate (sorry, just had to throw this in) in the way they conceive these things, with no contamination with bias, saying something is so because someone wrote it down, and then many afterwards have believed it, is a light year away from scientific evidence. Many, many beliefs that were taken to be rock solid in the past have been shown to be wrong-headed at some point.

Kudos for the pun!
I can't categorise this one because this statement is internally inconsistant (it's illogical). All scientific evidience is something someone wrote down. I base my discoveries by saying something is so because someone wrote it down. If the base work was biased I inherit that bias. If you follow anything blindly you're likely to to discover you're wrong-headed!

Indeed, even religion itself has backtracked in the face of mounting credible evidence about the universe, in order to not loose face completely in the contemporary world.

Belief. That the catholic church decided to support Aristotle and has since reneged is not indicitive of religion because Aristotle is not a religious author. It was meddling outside of religion. Nor should any religion other than the Catholic Church be lumped with the sins of the Catholic Church.

Astronomers were killed for their impertenance a few centures ago, now the Vatican has its own observatory

Belief.
Who was killed? The Vatican has had it's own observatory since at least the 16th century - before Gallieo.

Religious ideas survive because, I suspect, they serve such a vital need in explaining away the most fundamental existential questions we have. We have a need to have meaning. But meaning seized upon for the sake of comfort, without substantial support, is IMO ultimately unsatisfiying.

Belief.
BS too in my opinion.

You have mentioned having faith in science. But again, science is the methodology that rejects faith.

Belief - a prescriptive one that states the world ought to be like this (One that I share mind you). Regardless, having faith in science can be quite separate to the methodology of science

Having faith in the way things will turn out after a hypothesis is put to the test is to science what mice are to cats- something to be banished, or else savaged out of existence.

Belief. Plus I doubt how much time you've spent with cats.

Keeping an open mind, and accepting whatever result comes is the centerpiece of this method. In this context, science embraces religion. If some reasonable evidence presents itself that we really are ruled by God, or gods, then it would be integrated into the system.

Belief.

Believing in science means subscribing to no worldview, no set of dogma, no belief at all. This is so because one has to be ready to instantly change some, or all, of presently held ideas, if reasonable evidence comes available that would indicate this.

Belief.
One that is so mindbogglinly contray to evidence I can't believe you can possibly believe it.

Now, having done that, remember one thing about our beliefs.

I worship not that which ye worship
Nor will ye worship that which I worship
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship
Nor will ye worship that which I worship
To you be your Way, and to me mine.

 

CV wrote: I have no faith in science. At least, not the sort of science you seem to want to present here; a quasi-religious, inflexible, philosophy about life. ... A quick question before we go any further Omar. If your opinion of science is so low, how are you making the judgement of what  is fact? ... Science is a method that attempts to reduce bias as much as possible. Do you have a better method? ... Omar al Hashim wrote:   You have mentioned having faith in science. But again, science is the methodology that rejects faith. Belief - a prescriptive one that states the world ought to be like this (One that I share mind you). Regardless, having faith in science can be quite separate to the methodology of science   Not sure what you mean here. ... Omar al Hashim wrote:   Having faith in the way things will turn out after a hypothesis is put to the test is to science what mice are to cats- something to be banished, or else savaged out of existence. Belief. Plus I doubt how much time you've spent with cats.   Grade 10 science. Find some kid's old text book and look it up. You're right about the cats.

These are all essentially the same point, something I haven't made clear at all. When people say 'science', there are essentially three things they referring to:

1) 'True Science': A way of presenting an argument and of organising your thoughts. This is a tool, an extremely useful tool, that comes naturally to some people (including myself). This is clear and skeptical thinking that everyone should aspire to.

2) Institutional Science: This is how "science" is practiced, it includes journals, universities, any organisation of people, and the division of science into different fields such as Engineering, Physics, Medicine, Biology etc. Human nature is an unavoidable part of this, and depending on the field and time, there is a significant amount of sectarianism, egos, hubris, vested interest, pressure to conform and other vices that exist even (or perhaps even more than normal) in a community that is predominately made up of people who think and encourage thinking like one. I am also a member of this community.

3) Belief in Science: These are beliefs, myths, superstitions, religious opinions, pseudo-scientific and anti-scientific attitudes that have risen around (1) and (2). A quasi-religious, inflexible, philosophy about life as you put it. These beliefs are most common with people to whom (1) comes with difficultly and don't understand (2), however some fields of science, particularly the more sectarian ones, display large numbers of people with these beliefs.

I strongly oppose (3), as I feel that anyone who values (1) should. When I am going through and labelling something you said as a belief, I mean it is part of (3). It is not something that can be established by a well presented argument and does not come from organised thoughts. Only (3) is or has ever been in conflict with religion, but (1) has more or less always been in conflict with (3).

Having said that, I do admit that some of the beliefs around science help form the basis of (2). For example it is very useful that lay people continue funding us. Certain faith based assumptions are necessary to get anything done at all - for example that the laws of science are fixed*, or that this direction of research will turn of fruitful**.

* This belief is from the Quran and entered into science in the 8th century.
**This is a common cause of sectarianism as people's faith varies.

CV wrote: I would very much like to see your proof of Christianity, or of Islam for that matter. You presentation of evidence in these areas has been sparse so far.

Yes it has. I don't want to get into it because I don't wish to sidetrack the discussion. It is sufficient to realise that most religious people feel that their religion (whatever it may be) is logical and rational.

CV wrote: Omar al Hashim wrote:   There is a massive difference in the way one goes about accepting religious doctrine, and accepting scientific evidence Belief.   (1) One accepts what was written down a thousand years ago by a pre-science, pastoral people.  It sounds a little wild, but what the heck, it's a great story.   (2) All the world's previous body of knowledge is brought to bear on a certain question. Experiments are designed which must be repeatable in other locations, the results of which remain open to verification by others, indefinitely.   Is massive too strong a word? What are some other ones?

The way people think and how they accept or reject an argument is generally the same. If you want to convince me of something it must be a clear and reasoned argument without obvious (to me) holes in your evidence. It also helps that your argument is cool, useful, and leads to boldly going where no man has gone before.

Pre-science pastoral people doesn't mean unscientific and stupid either. By pre-science you mean pre-(2), since there cannot be a pre-(1). Since most people today are ignorant of science, their opinion is just as irrelevant regardless of whether they are living in cities or raising sheep on pastoral runs. One of the best theories of land management in Australia comes from a pre-science pastoral person, and virtually all the land is run by pre-science pastoral people (excepting of course the agricultural people). Disregarding a persons argument just because they lived thousands of years ago is very unwise and very unscientific (un-(1)).

Excepting science of course, that must go through a few more steps before being accepted in reputable publications.

I've published two papers in IEEE journals, both as an undergrad. Getting published is mostly about pleasing egos and conforming. A journal is part of (2), and 'reputable' is often a synonym for bullying someone for holding an idea they don't like.

A paper on electro-dermal alergy testing can be published in the IEEE, because Engineers are quite happy to accept that variations in the resistance of a person mean something, but wouldn't see the light of day in an alopathic medical journal, because medical science doesn't want to admit the possiblity of things they don't understand.

But my actualy point was the idea-observation-writing-transmission formula is way to general to have a meaningful point.

Omar al Hashim wrote: Show me the evidence today that there are demons, angels, heaven, hell, or any other religious manifestations. There is none. Fact. But as I hope I'm showing you there's no evidence for a lot of other things people believe are true either.   This is a baby and bathwater arguement, if I can put it that way. Nothing is proven 100%. But in the real world, we move ahead, and make reasonble assumptions, as we must. Do you believe gravity is a reasonble theory? Of course you do, and like all others, will act as though it is proven, until such time as some new evidence comes to light that may change it. Some theories have a mass of evidence behind them, some very little. Throwing everything out because in an abstract sense, nothing is completely certain is nonsensical.

It's not being able to tell the difference between the baby and the bathwater. The bathwater is useful when we need to wash the baby, but there is no point trying to put clothes on the bathwater.

Omar al Hashim wrote: Belief in these means making a statement somewhere along the lines of: 'but it  must be, because........'. Belief. That's a very cartoonish view of human reasoning.   I don't mean to be cartoonish, but that's as good a way to put it as any. It must be, because it's God's will. It must be because it is in the scriptures. Where is the further analysis? And I don't mean other religious scholars debating which is the true word of God, base on their own personal sentiments.

Everybody has some reasoning to justify their beliefs. With the possible exception of the case when they are unaware of their own beliefs, but even then, they usually have some reason for them.

Omar al Hashim wrote: Indeed, even religion itself has backtracked in the face of mounting credible evidence about the universe, in order to not loose face completely in the contemporary world. Belief. That the catholic church decided to support Aristotle and has since reneged is not indicitive of religion because Aristotle is not a religious author. It was meddling outside of religion. Nor should any religion other than the Catholic Church be lumped with the sins of the Catholic Church. Astronomers were killed for their impertenance a few centures ago, now the Vatican has its own observatory Belief. Who was killed? The Vatican has had it's own observatory since at least the 16th century - before Gallieo.       The Inquisiton tortured and killed many over a long period because they were a threat to a fragile belief system. It is disingenuous to suggest, even obliquely, that the Catholic Church had any sort of liberal views about science as early as the 1600s.

You can't have a liberal view about science, it's either right or wrong, not liberal or conservative.
... Or at least should be, but because of (2) sometimes it is.
I am not aware of any astronomer being killed by the inquistion for his astronomy. I have found one who was killed, but he was killed for his beliefs about God, not about the solar system.

This is a prime example of religious myth surrounding science. Believing something happened that never happened. Copernicus was employed by the Catholic Church - the Prince-Bishop of Warmia. No-one was killed for Astronomy by the Church, and the Church was the Primary sponsor of Astronomy in Europe in the 16th & 17th centuries. The argument over heliocentrism is extremely similar to the arguments over homeopathy, or other disputed scientific concepts today. One researcher rubbishes another, someone refuses someone else publication. Certain ideas are taboo. Wow, sounds like Biology.

I have a bunch of examples for you (Dawkins being one of them, he is basically all (2) and (3) and very little (1)) but I have run out of time writing this and have to do real-world things. I'll post this and hopefully get back to it before your next post.

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 31 Mar 2012 at 02:52

Omar al Hashim wrote: ...These are all essentially the same point, something I haven't made clear at all. When people say 'science', there are essentially three things they referring to: 1) 'True Science': A way of presenting an argument and of organising your thoughts. This is a tool, an extremely useful tool, that comes naturally to some people (including myself). This is clear and skeptical thinking that everyone should aspire to. 2) Institutional Science: This is how "science" is practiced, it includes journals, universities, any organisation of people, and the division of science into different fields such as Engineering, Physics, Medicine, Biology etc. Human nature is an unavoidable part of this, and depending on the field and time, there is a significant amount of sectarianism, egos, hubris, vested interest, pressure to conform and other vices that exist even (or perhaps even more than normal) in a community that is predominately made up of people who think and encourage thinking like one. I am also a member of this community. 3) Belief in Science: These are beliefs, myths, superstitions, religious opinions, pseudo-scientific and anti-scientific attitudes that have risen around (1) and (2). A quasi-religious, inflexible, philosophy about life as you put it. These beliefs are most common with people to whom (1) comes with difficultly and don't understand (2), however some fields of science, particularly the more sectarian ones, display large numbers of people with these beliefs. I strongly oppose (3), as I feel that anyone who values (1) should. When I am going through and labelling something you said as a belief, I mean it is part of (3). It is not something that can be established by a well presented argument and does not come from organised thoughts. Only (3) is or has ever been in conflict with religion, but (1) has more or less always been in conflict with (3). Having said that, I do admit that some of the beliefs around science help form the basis of (2). For example it is very useful that lay people continue funding us. Certain faith based assumptions are necessary to get anything done at all - for example that the laws of science are fixed*, or that this direction of research will turn of fruitful**. * This belief is from the Quran and entered into science in the 8th century. **This is a common cause of sectarianism as people's faith varies. CV wrote: I would very much like to see your proof of Christianity, or of Islam for that matter. You presentation of evidence in these areas has been sparse so far. Yes it has. I don't want to get into it because I don't wish to sidetrack the discussion. It is sufficient to realise that most religious people feel that their religion (whatever it may be) is logical and rational.

Omar al Hashim wrote: Right, first Dawkins. When you mention Dawkins, I suspect you are referring to books such as the God Delusion, but I wish to start a bit earlier in his career. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. He publishes papers and books about one of the theories of evolution (named the Dawkins school I think). His major or at least most famous contribution is the 'selfish gene', that each gene competes with others to get itself reproduced. My favourite work of his is the meme, applying that same competetive reproductive concept to ideas. Now, I think the meme is a great idea. It is cool, it is useful, and it's boldly thinking where no-one has thought before. But it is not science. It is philosophy. Great philosophy mind you. Niether for that matter is the selfish gene, this also is not science. At best, he might be able to fight his way into mathematics. There is no possible way evidence could be provided for them or reason why you'd want to look for it. They are basically frames of reference. Changing a reference could be useful in understanding something else, but that is to overcome the limitations of the human brain and is not descriptive of the workings of the universe.

Omar al Hashim wrote: Second, Einstein. Don't misunderstand me when I say this, I have a huge respect for Einstein but I wish to show you how (2) affects everyone. Undoubtably you have heard of E=mc^2, and maybe also Einstein's saying "God does not play dice with the Universe"? E=mc^2 is an equation that falls out of the theory of special relativity that forms the basis of Quantum Physics. Despite this, Einstein was a solid opponent of Quantum Physics. He did not like and opposed the place of probablity in physics, and remained opposed to Quantum until his death. "God does not play dice with the Universe" is a statement by Einstein ridiculing Quantum. Niels Bohr, one of the architects of Quantum physics, was remarking about the success of Quantum physics as an eventually accepted theory when he said "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." He couldn't have been more right.