Instill and enforce loyalty

PSI Blog 20170531 Instill and enforce loyalty

We all need to respect religion—or else. As I maintained over a decade ago when I reviewed Dawkin’s “The God Delusion,” the evolutionary purpose of religion is to instill and enforce loyalty.[1] Dawkins had failed to emphasize this all-important factor, suggesting that religion was merely vestigial in nature. Religion is vestigial alright, but it continues to dominate the globe, with 90% of our 7.5 billion population being affected. Now comes a much-needed book that mostly gets it right: Adam Wadi’s “Atheism For Muslims: A guide to questioning Islam, religion and God for a better future.”

After much apologizing to his family, friends, and an institution likely to take offense, Wadi gets on the right foot by telling us that, in general “Religion creates this sense of belonging and purpose in people with the goal to achieving one outcome: submission” (p. 27). He says that the definition of “Islam” is “one who submits to God’s will” (p. 124). He then goes through the Qur’an, using numerous quotations to demonstrate how nearly every page instills and enforces loyalty in a way similar to a book that made the scene 600 years earlier. Both holy books continually warn believers and nonbelievers that they are to ignore the contradictions and to do as they are told. Any criticism (blasphemy) or traitorous rejection (apostasy) is not to be tolerated. Above all, believers are to be “god-fearing” in the same way they are to fear the power of the King, Queen, or der Führer.

Loyalty makes a social group extremely powerful. There is nothing like a couple, family, tribe, state, or nation that is on the same page, defending its policies to the death, if necessary. In a world still dominated by feudalism such loyalty remains critical in protecting against the inevitable invaders. That is why capitalism also needs to harness religion for its necessary expansion. Soldiers who do not expect to experience living after dying are no match for those that do.

Wadi admits that he is unlikely to dissuade many of his more tentative readers to atheism, particularly those facing the possibility of severe punishment. Rather, he wishes to give hope to folks who already are taking that path. In the spirit of a true educator, he has outlined the reasons for belief as well as disbelief. He points out that both holy books cagily provide believers with support for dreams that surely will come true if they only follow orders properly. As Wadi says “After all, that’s all religion is, people choosing the stories they most want to believe in whether they are true or not.” “Eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek” need not be a contradiction. Just choose whichever suits the occasion.

I learned a lot about Islam from Adam’s explication. For instance, I was unaware that much of the Qur’an was based on the old and new testaments. I had always thought that the reformation started with Luther five centuries ago, but it actually started with Muhammad nine centuries earlier. The Qur’an claims to be complete, perfect, and unchangeable: “There is no changing the words of God; that is the mighty triumph” (Qur’an 10:65). But as in Protestantism, there have been many reforms. For example, the Sunni sect forbids images of Muhammad (the last prophet), while the Shia sect often permits them. There is no mention of the promised 72 virgins in the Qur’an (that is part of a “reform” or interpretation called the Hadith). The Qur’an condemns blasphemy, “but doesn’t specify a punishment for it in this life, only the next” (p. 289). I learned that Muhammad was a pacifist in Mecca and only became a militarist when he moved to Medina. His popularity grew as a result, with growing populations embracing its utility (i.e., “instill and enforce”) for expanding throughout the world.

Wadi: “If Islam is indeed true, you’d think its followers wouldn’t have to use fear and intimidation so much to get children to practice it devoutly” (p. 226).

This is the line he got while growing up Muslim:

“Here’s the way it is. Everyone else is wrong. They’ll likely burn in Hell for not following the rules, regardless of how good a person you think they are. This is how it’s always been. So you should be fearful if you don’t believe it too. Otherwise God will punish you and you’ll burn in Hell forever” (p. 226-7).

One other quote is worth the price of the book:

"We are not living in the most dangerous time in human history, we're living in the most fear-mongering time in human history” (p. 43).

I like that quote because it reflects Pinker’s data showing exactly that.[2] Fear-mongering is good for sales, whether for anti-virus programs, alarm systems, or religion.

Here are some other great quotes from the book:

“From a scientific standpoint, human life has absolutely no meaning to it, regardless of what any religion says.” “So, it’s not religion which gives us meaning, it’s us that gives religion meaning” (p. 318).

“There’s a myth that people who don’t have a religion have nothing to live for. But it’s the opposite. We have nothing to die for. We have everything to live for.”

“Religion and science have both given us opposite accounts of the world we live in.”

“I’m quite conscious of the fact that you can’t reason people out of something they didn’t reason themselves into.”

Not everyone gets everything right. Here are some quotes not in tune with univironmental determinism:[3]

“I am agnostic when it comes to the belief of whether or not there is a higher power out there…”

“We all have the free will…”

He gives an interesting, partially factual, 60-step description of the evolution of the universe, without realizing that today’s cosmogony is religious.[4] Hubble did not discover that the universe was expanding.[5] He merely observed that cosmological redshifts correlated with distance. Wadi repeats the conventional view that most of the universe consists of “dark energy.” Like most every regressive physicist and cosmogonist, he does not realize that energy does not exist—it is a calculation.

Despite those few quibbles, “Atheism for Muslims” is a good read, especially if you would like to find out what Islam and the Qur’an are all about.

---

[1] https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2007/07/evolution-of-religion.html?m=0omenon. 

[2] Pinker, Steven, 2011, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined: New York, Viking [http://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature].

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory (coming soon): Berkeley, CA, Progressive Science Institute.

[5] Sauvé, Vincent, 2016, Edwin Hubble... and the myth that he discovered an expanding universe, Accessed 20161030 [http://tinyurl.com/j6txbl5].

Temperature and the watched atom

PSI Blog 20170524 Temperature and the watched atom

Henk:

Thanks for the comment. You always have an interesting take on physics. Please let me edit your comment so it will be more understandable to the audience:

Hi Glenn, I read the article 'Zeno effect' verified: Atoms won't move while you watch. So, my question is: is an atom an atom then?

[GB: Of course, but the idea expressed in the article is bogus. There are no such things as microcosms that are not in motion and how much they move has nothing to do with whether someone is watching.]

It seems like the situation that a coach has stopped, which can be verified, but the passengers, behind the blind windows, can't be seen and are moving around?

[GB: Right, the coach (a microcosm) can be at “rest,” but its submicrocosms will not be at rest.]

I know that small entities are used in physics, I read '(....).000000001 degrees above absolute zero.' Another question arises: what does that mean, being nearby absolute zero?

[GB: Temperature is defined as vibratory motion, so that means that, once again, physicists have been unable to find perfectly empty space that contains nothing at all. There is always something there, and it is always moving. That is why the intergalactic temperature was measured at 2.7 degrees Kelvin instead of 0 degrees Kelvin as predicted by Einstein. Note that it is possible to get very close to 0, but not actually possible to get to 0.0000…. That is because the universe is infinite, which means that space is infinitely subividable and that absolute zero, like absolute anything is not possible in nature.]

I once studied the Carnot cycle to get some idea what temperature is and the explanation why absolute zero was introduced. But, still, I do not know what temperature is. I then read in the cited article: Temperature is a measure of a particle’s motion.

[GB: Correct. If particles did not vibrate, you would never get burned by a fire.]

Hence, I can use the field of thermometry to measure the speed of my car or when I walk?

[GB: No. We only use that for vibratory motion. For instance, the vibrations of the aether will cause you to have vibrations in your skin that cause sun burn. These motions are side-to-side and are not in a uniform straight line as you observe for your car and for your walk.]

How then, do I know that p.e. 45 degrees above corresponds in a unique way to some velocity?

[GB: Velocities are measurements we use to describe the motion of a microcosm with respect to another microcosm. Again, henk, you are not far off, because any motion at any scale could be considered a “temperature.” In other words, the vehicles traveling to the city during the morning rush hour display a sort of “temperature,” which is high at times and low at other times. In other words, it is useful to think of “temperature” and activity as being the same phenomenon. ] 

Free will, meaning, and the “self”

PSI Blog 20170517 Free will, meaning, and the “self”

From joogabah:

And I completely deny free will. But the determinants are on the level of meaning, not physical motion.

[GB: Sorry, but the universe does not have any meaning. If you want that, you will have to invent it yourself. All determinants are physical. That is what it means “to deter.” Not having free will means that any meaning you devise is the product of a long chain of events.]

Language gives us the ability to self program, instead of relying on static instinctual responses, and it is this uniquely human ability that I believe people confuse as "free will".

[GB: Sorry, but there is no such activity as “self programming.” Any phrases with the word “self” in them are attempts to claim free will where there is none. It is the vain attempt of systems philosophers to isolate the microcosm from the macrocosm. All actions are univironmental.]

Even tho everything is determined, it is also true that humans are self-programmable to an extraordinary degree.

[GB: Not possible at all. There is no “self programming” in the same way that Newton’s body cannot change itself. The only possible changes come from a collision from the outside—nothing “self” about that. Every activity is causal (F=ma). If you want the illusion of "changing yourself," you will have to change your environment.]

Instead of punishing people for bad behavior (unless that is the only possible check at a particular level of social development) it would be far more productive to discover and control the social and linguistic determinants that lead to undesirable behavior.

[GB: Agree.] 

Materialism vs immaterialism

PSI Blog 20170510 Materialism vs immaterialism

After I suggested that he read "The Scientific Worldview," joogabah wrote:

 Yes, I did read it. I'm trying to express religious ideas from a materialist paradigm without contradiction.

[GB: Sorry, joogabah, but that cannot be done. That is because materialism and immaterialism are opposing assumptions, as I explained in the discussion of the First Assumption of Science. Typically, an immaterialist will say: “There must be something beyond matter in motion.” That is why we define “things” as xyz portions of the universe. “Matter” is the abstraction for “all things,” so the immaterialist must be using a different definition for “something,” which is purely imaginary. That “something” cannot possibly exist, because existence can only be a property of an xyz portion of the universe.

Of course, we all need to study religious imaginings so that we will understand the 90% of the folks who live their lives by them. While most of those imaginings have no physical evidence to support them, they still have an evolutionary purpose: to instill and enforce loyalty.]

The reason is that I think religion is doing something essential in human societies that is not considered when one simply views it as "false".

[GB: Social groups without loyalty could not exist in a hostile world. Overpopulation by neighboring tribes forces those tribes to seek resources necessary for their survival despite the necessity to trespass or invade. In those cases, war is inevitable. That is why religion and war go hand in hand. However, loyalty can be engendered without religion. Many atheistic social groups do just fine without it.]

 Religion is a commentary on the human condition and it addresses our linguistically determined subjectivity, which is the only reality we actually experience.

[GB: Sorry, but subjectivity does not require language. Most animals have subjectivity whether they have language or not.]

To reduce reality to matter in motion is to ignore that part of it that exists as us.

[GB: Sorry, but we are all microcosms, portions of the universe consisting of matter in motion. Anything that “exists” is matter.]

We are a jumble of myriad linguistic constructs.

[GB:  False. We consist of matter. We use linguistic constructs; we are not made up of linguistic constructs.]

That is what animates us.

[GB: We are animated by the univironment, the infinite matter in motion inside and outside us. Language is unnecessary for us to be animated.]

That is our "soul".

[GB: There is no such thing. That belief comes straight out of religion.]

It is thousands of years old, and it has become the primary information system in our species, eclipsing DNA, because of its ability to bring about change orders of magnitude faster than biological evolution.

[GB:  False. Language is part of biological evolution. All evolution is at times slow and at times fast.]

It is that creative process and its seemingly limitless potential that we worship as our creator, because language precedes us even tho the species developed it - new individuals are literally created by it.

[GB:  Sorry, but “worship” is supplication to another microcosm (predator, priest, president, or other microcosm powerful enough to do us harm).  We are not created by language; we create language. That is something that an immaterialist like Deepak would dream up, with this idea that consciousness created the universe instead of the other way around.]

There needs to be a part of materialism that addresses this, and until there is, religion will have something that more closely resembles lived experience, because it addresses human subjectivity and rational, linguistic meaning.

[GB: Since the universe and ourselves consist only of matter in motion, we have no choice but to understand subjectivity and “rational, linguistic meaning” in those terms. All language requires a subject (matter) and a verb (motion).]

We are not our bodies.

[GB: Egads! What else could we be? When our bodies are gone, we are gone.]

Our bodies enable our existence.

[GB: True.]

When I say “Glenn”, I am addressing years of linguistic, rational development, not human tissue.

[GB: Sorry, but I do not pretend to be anything else, although that human tissue does seem to have recorded a bit of linguistic, rational stuff.]

Not matter, or the blind motion of matter, but consciously perceived meaning, whose determinants are not the collision of particles but conscious, rational deliberation.

[GB: Sorry, but matter is not always blind. Materialists are careful not to denigrate matter, because that is what we are, including the 80 billion neurons that help us to “consciously perceive meaning.” Consciousness is the motion performed by those neurons. Like all microcosms in the infinite universe, they cannot operate without the “collision of particles” that you seem to despise.]

For the latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

Negative mass?

PSI Blog 20170503 Negative mass?

Thanks to George Coyne who writes:

Glenn:

You might find this experiment of interest.  Wikipedia states: Prof. Peter Engels and a team of colleagues at Washington State University observed negative mass on the 10th April 2017 when they created new negative mass by reducing the temperature of rubidium atoms to near absolute zero, generating a Bose-Einstein condensate. By using a laser-trap, the team were able to reverse the spin of some of the rubidium atoms in this state, and observed that once released from the trap, the atoms expanded and displayed properties of negative mass, in particular accelerating towards a pushing force instead of away from it.

From the BBC on April 19, 2017: Physicists observe 'negative mass'

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39642992

[GB: This interpretation that “negative mass” has been produced is a wonderful illustration of regressive physics. It is true that the definition of mass is “the resistance to acceleration.” As you can see from the figure below, any impacts by supermicrocosms from the macrocosm will increase the mass of a microcosm. In other words, the momenta of the submicrocosms within the microcosm will increase. This is nothing more than Newton's Second Law of Motion acting across the microcosmic boundary. In other words, a “push” across that boundary will increase the motion of the insides of that microcosm before it accelerates the microcosm as a whole. As was explained in the neomechanics section of “The Scientific Worldview,” the microcosm will tend to expand as those submicrocosms within the microcosm impact the microcosmic boundary on all sides. The regressive physicists involved in this study have disingenuously misinterpreted this push-back as “negative mass.” It cannot possibly involve a decrease in mass, because any push-back by the submicrocosms within the microcosm only makes it even more difficult to accelerate the microcosm. Again, mass is the resistance to acceleration. Without acknowledging the submicrocosms producing this effect, regressive physicists are forced to invent yet another absurd ad hoc that makes no sense: “negative mass.”]

Neomechanical interactions illustrating that absorption of motion involves mechanical collisions described by Newton's Second Law of Motion (from Borchardt (2007), Fig. 5-3).[1]

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].