What Is History?

[desiresjab]

Either early or late, most people end up with opinions about history. These often change or are augmented throughout our lives. My own philosophy came about late. When we are young we often react to what we do not believe more than something we do believe. I grew more sure of what I did not believe, and finally to what I did believe about history.

[YesNo]

I view history as part of something real that is "absent", much like the anticipations of the future which is also absent. Even when we look at something in the present, we only experience one small aspect of the whole. Only that part is present to each of us.

[desiresjab]

I view history as part of something real that is "absent", much like the anticipations of the future which is also absent. Even when we look at something in the present, we only experience one small aspect of the whole. Only that part is present to each of us.

There are many true statements about history. I can say this. For tens of thousands of years the world was explained by storytellers. A lot of great stories came out of it, but that is all they were. The world stayed much the same until science came along. The storytellers did not want to give up power. They had no evidence, no power of prediction like science. Even with the storytellers still firmly in charge, scientific learning increased and the standard of living slowly climbed.

Now we recognize all storytellers for what they are except for the ancient ones. Many people still hold onto antiquated fairytales as their religious belief. Thousands of years of storytelling could not do for the world's inhabitants what science managed to accomplish in a few centuries. Now we have the best of storytelling and the best of science together. Folks who romantically wish they lived in a time past deceive themselves. A good film which showed the cognitive level of people in former times was The Name Of The Rose.

Nearly all things historical meant for our entertainment are hugely misrepresented. I checked out some episodes of that TV show The Vikings recently. It does not have the quality of writing of the Sopranos or Justified. It is mid level, sometimes stooping lower than usual. In one episode the wife of the Viking leader reminds him of his own words: Never go into battle without the odds in your favor. Then he answers her back: Who sets those odds?

At that point I am wondering, are these Vikings or Vegas pit bosses? The Vikings could not even write, yet here they are casually discussing odds. Fortunately, such lapses were rare. Still, I am sure the project amounts to what is called tabloid history.

Where do we get our notions? I have a goal to present people in an historical novel as they might really have been. Is it possible to entertain modern people this way? I think so. Flaubert did it with stunning historical accuracy for his time, and William Golding has certainly done it in The Inheritors. You will not hear any of his cavemen saying, "eighteen of the enemy are coming," or other such nonsense they could not have uttered.

[Ecurb]

The world is still "explained by storytellers". They're called "scientists" or (sometimes) "historians".

Scientific theories are stories that scientists invent to "explain" (be consistent with) the data.

IN addition, dj says, "Thousands of years of storytelling could not do for the world's inhabitants what science managed to accomplish in a few centuries." It is true that science has changed our world. But so did other forms of storytelling (including religion). It is difficult to judge the "value" of any kind of storytelling. There is little question that science has led to longer, healthier and more luxurious lives for many people. It also led to tens of thousands being incinerated at Hiroshima, and the potential for disasters, including climate change and nuclear holocaust. Perhaps this was predicted by the "myths" (or "fairytales") that you denigrate. Midas's Golden Touch seemed like a good idea at first, too. Wishes have unintended consequences in fairy tales, and technological advances have unintended consequences, too. If technologies based on science make our world uninhabitable can we then assume that science is a lousy method of looking for truth?

Why idolize utility (especially that as short-lived as that produced by modern science)? Preaching the virtues of the scientific approach to discovering the truth by positing the improvements in our lives created by scientific inventions reminds me of Born Again Christians who "know" the truth of the Bible because their conversion has allowed them to become happier, more useful people. If we grant that the first is a reasonable argument, we must grant that the second is.

[Danik 2016]

I think today even the historians talk about narratives. This means that there doesn´t exist an absolute true account of the past. What we have is different ways of looking, recounting and registering past events.

[desiresjab]

I think today even the historians talk about narratives. This means that there doesn´t exist an absolute true account of the past. What we have is different ways of looking, recounting and registering past events.

I feel this is correct. History is our greatest fiction. As individuals we have poor memory for the daily innundation of phenomema. We rely on patterns and tricks, but have actual memories of surprisingly few events. Should we then make impeccable historians? History is a different mess in each person's mind.

* * * * *

Folks like poor Ecrub should wake up and realize the storytellers of the past have been replaced, those that tried to explain the universe. Or maybe we should go on believing there are only four elements--earth, air, water and fire.

Stories and myths have value to human beings. So does actual understanding as opposed to superstition. For decades I have thought of many myths as predictions of the future. Certainly the future will produce unicorns and other hybrid beasts. They got lucky, that is all. I could think of all the myths of forgotten societies that will not come true. I am dead certain men have always looked at birds and dreamed of flying. A lot of myths, seers and soothsayers predict doom. That is the easiset prediction of all, since it comes to every person and every empire.

Old stories can be very poignant, they can tell us things about our natures that science cannot. Old stories make our bloody natures consistent through time. Only fools blame science for what other fools decide to do with knowledge. Old stories inform us that greed and blood lust preceded science, yet let us blame science, and indirectly knowledge, learning and understanding itself for our natures.

Old stories can help explain personalities and societies, everything about human dynamics, but as cosmology they are junk. Old stories know nothing about the structure of the universe and give no insights, because they are made up. That is why they are called stories.

Water boils at 212 degrees farenheit at sea level. The ancients knew how to boil water. No big deal. A logger knows how to cut down trees. Does that make him an expert on forestry?

As far as science being just another made up story, please spare me that inanity, all. Mathematics is the purest reasoning available, and may not be contradicted in any universe whatsoever. Quadratic reciprocity is not some guys making up a story to stop people from slitting each others' throats or tithe to the temple. Science and math are discovered truths which apply to the universe and the mecahnics operant around our daily lives. Heavy rains, not angry river gods cause flash floods; angry people, not angry gods or angry science causes wars.

Global warming, if proven to be linked to us--tell me, ye naysayers, was that angry gods or greedy people, or was that just plain angry science that caused it by itself?

[Ecurb]

I feel this is correct. History is our greatest fiction. As individuals we have poor memory for the daily innundation of phenomema. We rely on patterns and tricks, but have actual memories of surprisingly few events. Should we then make impeccable historians? History is a different mess in each person's mind.


It seems strange that desiresjab continues to post on a literary board, yet has little interest in or understanding of literature. He persists in calling "myths" "fairy tales", and "histories" "fiction". No, dj, these are distinct literary forms.

Not everything reported in "histories" actually happened, just as some scientific theories are eventually proven to be incorrect. Nonetheless, histories attempt (supposedly, although there may be fraud) to give accurate accounts of the past. As anyone who thinks about it can confirm, reports about the results of scientific experiments or investigations are "histories" -- reputedly accurate reports about what has happened in the past. It seems improbable that science could be an effective method of discovering the truth if it ignored history. All scientific data is collected, recorded, and examined, and the record of it (history of its collection) serves to fuel scientific inquiry.

Math is not a science (a truism I report only because dj seems to think it is). Nonetheless, math involves story-telling. What is a mathematical proof if not a story about how one set of mathematical statements is logically derived from another set of mathematical statements? Stories need not be "made up". When we ask our friends what they did today, they report the history of their day, eliminating (we hope) the boring parts, and concentrating on activities we might find amusing or interesting. We hope, of course, for a good story, although we generally get an accurate but boring one.

Why dj keeps repeating his paean to science is unclear. Certainly I (at least) agree that science is an excellent way of trying to understand the universe, although when dj says, " Science and math are discovered truths which apply to the universe and the mecahnics operant around our daily lives" he is either exaggerating or dissembling. Math is a closed system, about which we can discover truths. It does not concern itself with whether it "applies to the universe" (Einstein showed that Euclidean Geometry does not). Science is a tactic and a technique, not a "discovered truth". When dj says, "Science is a discovered truth" he sounds like a Fundamentalist, talking about the Bible or the Quran. Science instead is a method of looking for the truth; a method that has often been successful (as far as we can tell), and has almost as often led us in wrong directions. It resembles myth, fiction, and history, in that it involves telling stories about the world; it is distinguished from myth, fiction, and history by the rules surrounding the development of these stories (just as myth is distinguished from fiction, and fiction from history by such rules).

[desiresjab]

It seems strange that desiresjab continues to post on a literary board, yet has little interest in or understanding of literature. He persists in calling "myths" "fairy tales", and "histories" "fiction". No, dj, these are distinct literary forms.

Not everything reported in "histories" actually happened, just as some scientific theories are eventually proven to be incorrect. Nonetheless, histories attempt (supposedly, although there may be fraud) to give accurate accounts of the past. As anyone who thinks about it can confirm, reports about the results of scientific experiments or investigations are "histories" -- reputedly accurate reports about what has happened in the past. It seems improbable that science could be an effective method of discovering the truth if it ignored history. All scientific data is collected, recorded, and examined, and the record of it (history of its collection) serves to fuel scientific inquiry.

Math is not a science (a truism I report only because dj seems to think it is). Nonetheless, math involves story-telling. What is a mathematical proof if not a story about how one set of mathematical statements is logically derived from another set of mathematical statements? Stories need not be "made up". When we ask our friends what they did today, they report the history of their day, eliminating (we hope) the boring parts, and concentrating on activities we might find amusing or interesting. We hope, of course, for a good story, although we generally get an accurate but boring one.

Why dj keeps repeating his paean to science is unclear. Certainly I (at least) agree that science is an excellent way of trying to understand the universe, although when dj says, " Science and math are discovered truths which apply to the universe and the mecahnics operant around our daily lives" he is either exaggerating or dissembling. Math is a closed system, about which we can discover truths. It does not concern itself with whether it "applies to the universe" (Einstein showed that Euclidean Geometry does not). Science is a tactic and a technique, not a "discovered truth". When dj says, "Science is a discovered truth" he sounds like a Fundamentalist, talking about the Bible or the Quran. Science instead is a method of looking for the truth; a method that has often been successful (as far as we can tell), and has almost as often led us in wrong directions. It resembles myth, fiction, and history, in that it involves telling stories about the world; it is distinguished from myth, fiction, and history by the rules surrounding the development of these stories (just as myth is distinguished from fiction, and fiction from history by such rules).

You seem desperate to convince others of my fallacies. Maybe you would feel better with a team surrounding you. I do not need a team to support me. What is your point, if I may pretend for a moment that you have one other than objection itself? I say mathematics is the backdrop of the universe. Then you say mathematics does not concern itself with the universe, math is storytelling.

When we quickly descend to the point where everything may be called a story then I know you are capable of beating old ground to death, and it is probably you who do not belong on a literature forum. So what that you can say the words science and math are merely stories like all the other tales? Many books have been written called the story of math or the story of science. That makes them merely stories to you. What you have admitted is that you cannot tell math and science from fiction and mythology. That should gain a great following.

Yes, I am on a literature forum. You appear to have a problem with that. People should only discuss within the parameters of what you find acceptable, is that right? I am just pouring out paens to science and math, don't mind me.

Assuming you might have a few, have a go at presenting some of your own ideas rather than trying to be my personal critic. When you read me you get my ideas, not someone else's. Go ahead, you have the microphone. I don't think you can do it. I don't think you can make sense to anyone but yourself.

Science and math are not the same thing, since you have accused me of that belief. The "story" of science is one of self correction, something religions never admit to indulging in. Math never corrects itself because it never has to. The laws of math are the ineluctable laws of the universe. They are that which cannot be changed and cannot be different from what they are. What do you have to say about exactly that? Do you object? If so, how?

Or are you going to foolishly insist that mythology and stories et al are just as good for investigating the physical laws of the universe as science and math? Answer. Let's get this part over with, or I will not even go on with you. Thousands of years of meditation and prayer got people exactly nowhere. Either agree with me or explain to me the benefits of all that prayer and meditation. Most people died around forty. Their gums had already rotted out. Then God or a myth informed them they should brush their teeth. Is that how you see it?

[Ecurb]

I am not "desperate" to convince others of your fallacies. Why would I despair of my ability to perform such a simple task?

What confuses me is your seeming inability to understand what constitutes a "story". You appear to claim that I think math and science are "merely stories like all the other tales." However, I have clearly stated that mathematical proofs and scientific theories are stories that follow particular rules. It is only because you appear to disapprove of "stories" that you dislike this claim. That's why I find it strange that you are posting on a literary board. Why would someone who disapproves of stories post here?

When you read the newspaper, you are reading news "stories". Neither I nor any other intelligent person would claim that news stories are "merely stories like all the other tales." They are a particular kind of story, subject to particular rules about verification and substantiation. The same is true of mathematical proofs, scientific theories, histories, and fairy tales. That's because a story is: "A narrative or recital of events or series of events, whether real or fictitious." (acc. my dictionary).

These are not "my own ideas". Instead, they are shared by practically every educated person in the world.

As far as whether math "investigates the physical laws of the universe", it doesn't. That's the role of science. I don't think I'll bother "explaining to (you) the benefits of prayer and meditation", because all you seem to care about is the quality of people's teeth, and you appear particularly ignorant about the facts about human longevity. It has never been the case that most people died around forty. Instead, the AVERAGE life expectancy was forty, because people died at a variety of ages -- many in childhood, many in childbirth, and many when they were older. Thousands of years ago, many people lived into their 80s (Sophocles, for one, into his 90s), and, in fact, 40 was probably the least likely age for a person to die (they were more likely to die in childhood, or at younger child-bearing ages, or when they were older).

[desiresjab]

I am not "desperate" to convince others of your fallacies. Why would I despair of my ability to perform such a simple task?

What confuses me is your seeming inability to understand what constitutes a "story". You appear to claim that I think math and science are "merely stories like all the other tales." However, I have clearly stated that mathematical proofs and scientific theories are stories that follow particular rules. It is only because you appear to disapprove of "stories" that you dislike this claim. That's why I find it strange that you are posting on a literary board. Why would someone who disapproves of stories post here?

When you read the newspaper, you are reading news "stories". Neither I nor any other intelligent person would claim that news stories are "merely stories like all the other tales." They are a particular kind of story, subject to particular rules about verification and substantiation. The same is true of mathematical proofs, scientific theories, histories, and fairy tales. That's because a story is: "A narrative or recital of events or series of events, whether real or fictitious." (acc. my dictionary).

These are not "my own ideas". Instead, they are shared by practically every educated person in the world.

As far as whether math "investigates the physical laws of the universe", it doesn't. That's the role of science. I don't think I'll bother "explaining to (you) the benefits of prayer and meditation", because all you seem to care about is the quality of people's teeth, and you appear particularly ignorant about the facts about human longevity. It has never been the case that most people died around forty. Instead, the AVERAGE life expectancy was forty, because people died at a variety of ages -- many in childhood, many in childbirth, and many when they were older. Thousands of years ago, many people lived into their 80s (Sophocles, for one, into his 90s), and, in fact, 40 was probably the least likely age for a person to die (they were more likely to die in childhood, or at younger child-bearing ages, or when they were older).

Everything by your rules is a story. Your proposition is so weakened, why should I object then?

I stand on my general thesis that human history is nearly an unbroken dark age from which we finally emerged through science. There were ages of relative enlightenment here or there from time to time, but pillaging hordes kept burning civilizations to the ground.

A significant portion of our modern increase in longevity is indeed due to our lowering the infant mortality rate. But it would take a churl to insinuate this itself was due to anything other than science.

It is true I think more highly of peoples' teeth than I do of their religions. For thousands of years religion had them on hold hoping for the next world, never improving their physical lots here, while their teeth kept them chewing meat.

Mud, darkness and blood was the world for the common man. Rotting teeth were a big part of it too.

Great men often worked in isolation, with no way to communicate their findings to other geniuses. We got started several times, but fell back. Thousands of years with an abacus, which is essentially a place notational system for numbers, amazingly failed to produce among us a written place system. Creatures of habit and mud. After Fiobinacci had introduced the west to the place system learned in his travels, there was of course resistance to change. Contests were held between those using written arithemtic and those with the trusty abacus, to expose the newfangled methods as inferior.

It took this place system in the hands of Europeans to finally lift the world out of darkness, and to set off a social revolution that restructured society. It had been a long road. Learning must be converted into technology before it can lift the world. This takes a long time and a lot of geniuses.

That is my overview. Humans were ruled by superstitions for thousands of years. Math and science are not superstitions to me, though I think they are to you just another set of rituals proceding by a certain set of rules, and which purports to know something which was simply made up by its devoted practitioners. I see them as devoted but I don't think they made up anything. I don't think Maxwell made up the laws of electromagnetism. He discovered them. Those laws are written in differential equations. Because mathematics uses a process, you are happy to say it is only a story. By story I mean something someone made up.

Before science the stories that explained the universe to the masses were certainly nothing but made up tales that might have comforted them but did nothing else. If you are saying science and math are made up tales, then we certainly have a beef, mister. Math is more pure than science, but the language of science is math. Math is that which cannot be otherwise in any universe.

[Ecurb]

I despair, dj, of your capability of understanding me. After I wrote a long post explaining that there are
different kinds of stories, some fictional and some non-fictional (like the news stories I mentioned), you write:




Math and science are not superstitions to me, though I think they are to you just another set of rituals proceding by a certain set of rules, and which purports to know something which was simply made up by its devoted practitioners

and then:


Because mathematics uses a process, you are happy to say it is only a story. By story I mean something someone made up.

How can a discussion take place if people insist on speaking different languages? You refuse to make any attempt at understanding me. Sigh.

In addition, you appear to be ignorant of basic logic, philosophy, common sense, and historical knowledge. You write:


I don't think Maxwell made up the laws of electromagnetism. He discovered them.

Clearly, the "laws of physics" (including those of electromagnetism) are different from physical activities. They are abstractions describing physical events. These abstractions are phrased in language (whether mathematical of not), like stories are. To suggest that the "laws" (abstractions describing and predicting physical actions) exist before they are "discovered" is actually a religious point of view. Some "cosmic clockmaker" (as Newton would call Him) invented the rules first, and then set the universe in motion. We puny human can "discover" the already existing rules (laws of physics) by examining the universe.

That's fair enough -- but it seems inconsistent with your worldview, dj. The more reasonable, atheistic notion would be that objects in motion continue in motion until acted on by an outside force, humans looked at them doing so, and then humans (Newton, in this case) invented "laws" describing and predicting how this motion will proceed. The "laws" did not exist before humans invented them, because "laws" are linguistic abstractions describing the physical events. The laws don't create the physical events; the physical events create the laws.

All this is obvious. Indeed, many of the "laws of physics" (including some of Newton's) have been falsified by new, astronomical data (Einstein). So it is clearly the case that Newton could not have merely "discovered" inviolable "laws" when the laws turned out not to be laws at all.

Also, dj, if you read literature (including fiction and history), you could not reasonably hold such opinions as:


For thousands of years religion had them on hold hoping for the next world, never improving their physical lots here, while their teeth kept them chewing meat.

Since when do most religious people "never (hope to improve) their physical lots here"? A simple glance through ancient literature, or histories of Europe in the Christian ages would show you that many religious people were ambitious to improve their lots in this world. Indeed, it is only modern World Religions (like Christianity and Islam) that emphasize "hoping for the next world" -- and plenty of Christians like improving their lots in this world. The ancient Greeks held out no hope of glorious afterlife, as you would know if you read about Odysseus' journey to the Underworld.


I stand on my general thesis that human history is nearly an unbroken dark age from which we finally emerged through science. There were ages of relative enlightenment here or there from time to time, but pillaging hordes kept burning civilizations to the ground.

Well, that trend appears to be continuing, given ISIS. Nobody (at least not I) doubts that scientific and technological advances have dramatically improved modern life in terms of standard of living, longevity, etc. Nonetheless, I repeat the argument I made in an earlier post: utility and personal benefit are not good arguments in favor of the truth of a particular worldview. Indeed, they are cowardly arguments. After all, the Christian might argue that he is happier with his lot in life than the atheist scientist (despite the relative health of his teeth). Does that mean that Jesus is God? It's a non-sequitur, as is your argument that because science has improved the physical well being of mankind, it MUST be the best tool for discovering the truth.

[desiresjab]

I despair, dj, of your capability of understanding me. After I wrote a long post explaining that there are
different kinds of stories, some fictional and some non-fictional (like the news stories I mentioned), you write:



and then:



How can a discussion take place if people insist on speaking different languages? You refuse to make any attempt at understanding me. Sigh.

In addition, you appear to be ignorant of basic logic, philosophy, common sense, and historical knowledge. You write:



Clearly, the "laws of physics" (including those of electromagnetism) are different from physical activities. They are abstractions describing physical events. These abstractions are phrased in language (whether mathematical of not), like stories are. To suggest that the "laws" (abstractions describing and predicting physical actions) exist before they are "discovered" is actually a religious point of view. Some "cosmic clockmaker" (as Newton would call Him) invented the rules first, and then set the universe in motion. We puny human can "discover" the already existing rules (laws of physics) by examining the universe.

That's fair enough -- but it seems inconsistent with your worldview, dj. The more reasonable, atheistic notion would be that objects in motion continue in motion until acted on by an outside force, humans looked at them doing so, and then humans (Newton, in this case) invented "laws" describing and predicting how this motion will proceed. The "laws" did not exist before humans invented them, because "laws" are linguistic abstractions describing the physical events. The laws don't create the physical events; the physical events create the laws.

All this is obvious. Indeed, many of the "laws of physics" (including some of Newton's) have been falsified by new, astronomical data (Einstein). So it is clearly the case that Newton could not have merely "discovered" inviolable "laws" when the laws turned out not to be laws at all.

Also, dj, if you read literature (including fiction and history), you could not reasonably hold such opinions as:



Since when do most religious people "never (hope to improve) their physical lots here"? A simple glance through ancient literature, or histories of Europe in the Christian ages would show you that many religious people were ambitious to improve their lots in this world. Indeed, it is only modern World Religions (like Christianity and Islam) that emphasize "hoping for the next world" -- and plenty of Christians like improving their lots in this world. The ancient Greeks held out no hope of glorious afterlife, as you would know if you read about Odysseus' journey to the Underworld.



Well, that trend appears to be continuing, given ISIS. Nobody (at least not I) doubts that scientific and technological advances have dramatically improved modern life in terms of standard of living, longevity, etc. Nonetheless, I repeat the argument I made in an earlier post: utility and personal benefit are not good arguments in favor of the truth of a particular worldview. Indeed, they are cowardly arguments. After all, the Christian might argue that he is happier with his lot in life than the atheist scientist (despite the relative health of his teeth). Does that mean that Jesus is God? It's a non-sequitur, as is your argument that because science has improved the physical well being of mankind, it MUST be the best tool for discovering the truth.

You understand so much according to yourself, and I understand so little. You cannot even read my sentences. I am not here to argue with a halfwit. This is not a discussion, no matter what you think. In truth you have nothing I need to understand. Your understanding consists of instructing me that I am full of it, and other priceless gems such as there are fictional stories and non-fictional. I am too old to waste time on imbeciles.

[Ecurb]

Y I am too old to waste time on imbeciles.

Run as you might, you cannot get away from yourself.

By the way, if the laws of physics are "discovered" instead of "invented", how come they are so often incorrect, and have to be modified or eliminated? Can Columbus "discover" a continent, only to have it disappear? Or are the "laws of physics" often in need of modification because rather than being eternal ("divine"?) truths humans can "discover", they are "made up" by scientists in an attempt to describe and predict reality, and, like other human inventions, can be in error?

[desiresjab]

Unfortunately, this forum appears not to have a blocking function for bothersome churls. Run along now, Ecrud, and stop pestering the grownups.

[Ecurb]

One more point, and I'll be done with this infernal argument. Returning to the op, history is "that branch of knowledge concerned with past events, especially those involving human affairs; a record or account, usually written, of past events."

This being the case, science is dependent on history, while history can be independent from science. Experimental scientists record the methods and results of their experiments -- that is, they write a "history" of their experiment. Astronomers record the sky, then look at it again weeks later a compare what they see to the record. Were it not for the history they had recorded, they would not discover planets. Medical researchers give some people drugs and other placebos, then they take the "medical history" of all the participants to determine if the drug takers got better results than the placebo takers. Without "history" scientific research would be impossible.

In addition, Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants..." In other words, he knew the history of scientific research in the fields in which he was interested (alchemy, for example). Our personal histories, supplied to us by our memories, include everything we learned in Physics 101, which, in my case, is not very much. Nonetheless. it is clear that history is essential for the furtherance of human knowledge; without it science could not exist.

[desiresjab]

One more point, and I'll be done with this infernal argument. Returning to the op, history is "that branch of knowledge concerned with past events, especially those involving human affairs; a record or account, usually written, of past events."

This being the case, science is dependent on history, while history can be independent from science. Experimental scientists record the methods and results of their experiments -- that is, they write a "history" of their experiment. Astronomers record the sky, then look at it again weeks later a compare what they see to the record. Were it not for the history they had recorded, they would not discover planets. Medical researchers give some people drugs and other placebos, then they take the "medical history" of all the participants to determine if the drug takers got better results than the placebo takers. Without "history" scientific research would be impossible.

In addition, Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants..." In other words, he knew the history of scientific research in the fields in which he was interested (alchemy, for example). Our personal histories, supplied to us by our memories, include everything we learned in Physics 101, which, in my case, is not very much. Nonetheless. it is clear that history is essential for the furtherance of human knowledge; without it science could not exist.

I don't disagree with anything in this post. An interesting footnote on that Newton quote is that some reserachers have speculated it may have contained a veiled slight to Robert Hooke, Newton's great rival in the Royal society, who was a very short hunchback. Who knows? But research has shown Newton experienced intense vitriol toward all rivals, going so far as to excoriate Leibnitz's reputation even after his death in an official Royal society review which he authored psuedonymically under the guise of an independent panel.

The present thread came out swinging with an overview of the average condition of mankind throughout history and how the curve suddenly exploded upward when science became the dominant methodology of uncovering physical consistencies we basically call truth. Those events have more connection than do the Yankees were dominant during prohibition.

It was more an artist's rendition of history, not so analytical. Ask Picasso what history is, he will paint you a strange picture with much misery and conflict and ignorance. Let us call it standard of living. Indeed it is a lower standard to use an outhouse instead of an indoor commode, to steer a horse-drawn buggy instead of a car, to be put to servitude as a child instead of receivng a mandatory education, to use leeches, animal horns and chants instead of pharmaceutical medicines.

The institutionalizing of science as the leader "forward" was only possible once the philosophy of science had duked it out socially with religion and come to a Mexican standoff with a compromise of dualism.

Everything from satellites to computers to mandatory mass education, came about (not coincidentally) only when we refused to let religion dictate physical truth to us anymore. The dualism many abhor was necessary to confine the truths of religion to an abstract region of the soul and out of the way of advancement.

For thousands of years brilliant individuals made life easier for many, tiny isolated step by step. The screw of Archimedes certainly improved things. Uncle Ben's bifocals and lightning rods did too. They were experimentalists, abstact thinkers and tinkers.

The unleashing of the techologies made possible through catalogued science and the growth of math exploded our comforts and awareness upward. We know so much more than the man of 1860 about the bigger picture, not to mention the man of 1060. To William the conquerer or Charlamagne a decent modern eleven year old would be a mathematical genius and treated as such, perhaps considered a wizard, able to divide troops or grain shipments at his whim and multiply from either memory or technique without an abacus.

Math is not a fictional story, never gets its facts wrong, never has to correct itself. The propositions of mathematics seem true whether anyone is there to form them or not. I do not think something else was true before they were formed. The forest had as many trees after someone counted them as it did before, so to speak.This gives numbers an eternal quality. Our simple number line marking off the whole numbers with all their infinite properties cannot and never could be different from what it is now. The relations of numbers do not change and shift around within an axiomatic system. To say that mathematics is foundational to the universe seems like it could be an understatement. In the system of integers an+bn never equals cn, end of story. It can be proven beyond any dispute from reasonable men. Hardcore proof.

Science is different. How do you prove that the boiling point of water averages 212° at sea level? You do experiments and keep a record, a history, a story of your results. Only repeatability and predictability prove such scientific facts. To work backwards starting with air composition, atmospheric pressure, water density et al is unbelievably difficult. The same thing that makes math true is what science leans on, for math is always repeatable within a system and always predictable. That's what a theorem is.

No amount of experiment would suffice to prove to a mathematician that the prime numbers are infinite in number. That there are no additional Brownian pairs up to two billion factorial has been numerically shown, but no one considers it a proof. *Factorials grow faster than powers. It would take more universes than there are stars in this universe to contain two billion factorial atomic particles. By 1022, 22! (twenty-two factorial) has already outpaced the powers and will accelerate its lead. It will eventually outpace any base.

It was scientific truth in overwhelming abundance that finally overhthrew the grip of superstition enough to proceed. Religion originated out of superstition the way language originated in grunts and squeals. Religion is completely superstition supported in so-called phenomena that cannot be numerically defined and are therefore not scientifically approachable so far as we know. Good riddance. That is its stubborn domain. But should that domain in the future prove to be scientifally approachable through the ingenuity of some domain-busting abstract thinker, science will have to annex more of religion's mysterious territory by force. Only that which can be numerically defined can exist. That is just the universe we live in and the only kind possible. Because we have not yet learned to numerically define spirits and souls and the like does not mean those things do not exist, and if they do exist, that they only started to exist once we defined them. Before a proper law can be formulated I believe all its principles are operant. This seems only reasonable to me. Newton only caged the operant dynamics of falling objects in an inverse square law because that is the law that was operant. Otherwise he couldn't do it. Numerically defined.

It sounds like a big tautology, and it is. The universe is all tautology, all its operant principles a snap to spot and connect if you only know the correct theory. We are embedded in a tautology so complex that we can only unfold its obvious nature slowly and a step at a time. Sometimes we take a big step. That is how I see the structure of the universe and very existence.

But since there are infinitely many emergent properties to unfold, we can never know them all or get to the end of it, so there will always be mystery and the unknown, which could turn out to be anything except numerically unapproachable. There will always be fictional literature and poetry of some type, there will always be music and visual arts of some type. Ingenius writers will find a way to composee believable mysteries even in a future when it seems like Big Brother would know everything. I own up to these Platonic beliefs. I did not always hold them. I had to come to them the old fashioned way—in an armchair.

Since art is not lost but continually unfolds even more interestingly in a universe which is nonetheless fated to be a tautology of mathematics if it ever could fully reveal itself, I am only too happy to own up to my Platonic sympathies regarding the primacy of number in the structure of existence. Even for non existence we have a number—zero.

Human imagination does not lose any quality with these admissions, once they are understood correctly, but imagination gains.

[YesNo]

I recommend reading Alvin Plantinga's "Where the conflict really lies : science, religion, and naturalism". He doesn't see the conflict between religion and science that you do. If you would like, I could get that book from the library and we could go over it in this thread.

You are basically assuming there is a conflict between science and religion. There may not be as much conflict there as you suspect.

If I want to take this to a science arena, I need only point to quantum physics and the big bang to find a justification for a religious perspective on reality.

However, the bottom line for me is that, whatever you might say about religion, I just have to point to the Khmer Rouge, Maoism, Naziism, or Stalinism to justify a condemnation of atheism. The problem with atheism is that it is a form of dehumanisation.

[Ecurb]

DJ's outline of the benefits of science is reasonable; his outline of the foolishness of religion is simplistic.

Nobody doubts the benefits of scientific inventions. DJ says, "the average condition of mankind... suddenly exploded upward when science became the dominant methodology of uncovering physical consistencies we basically call truth." This is accurate, if the "condition of mankind" refers to his physical well-being -- longevity, health, and physical comfort. Since the realm of science is the physical world, it makes sense that scientific advances can help us improve our physical conditions.

However, it seems that the condition of mankind has NOT exploded upward in other ways. Poetry is little better than it was when Sappho, Homer, Shakespeare and Dante were practicing the art. Painting may not have "exploded upward" since the time of Rembrandt, El Greco, and Caravaggio. Many experts think Mozart and Beethoven still represent musical peaks from which the movement has not been "upward".

I use these examples because they may resonate with LitNet members. But human happiness, joy, and fulfillment are not precisely correlated with physical well being. "Man does not live by bread alone," as some religious seer once said. So while we should recognize the benefits of science and technology, it's also fair to recognize its limitations. Indeed (as YesNo pointed out) attempts to apply scientific methods to improve government and society (Marxism) have not been unqualified successes.

In addition, mathematical systems are "valid" (when properly worked out), but, as Godel proved, they cannot be both consistent and complete. Instead, they depend upon meta-statements (from outside the mathematical system). Math is a "story" -- Euclidean geometry is the story of what can be logically derived from a small set of theorems and definitions. This story may or may not be "fictional" (Lewis Carroll's logic puzzles provide an example of "fictional" logic -- logic based on absurd and fictional premises).

Finally, DJ says, "Religion originated out of superstition the way language originated in grunts and squeals. Religion is completely superstition.... " But "superstition" is not like grunts and squeals -- it is a complex system of human beliefs. In addition, DJ's dismissal of religion is like saying, "Shakespeare's plays originated out of meaningless grunts and squeals." That may be true, but how does it add to our understanding of Shakespeare?

Religion is multifaceted, consisting of myths, rituals, theology and moral instruction. Myths are not a form of inaccurate science so much as they are a form of (possibly inaccurate) history. They are generally stories about the past. When we are enjoined, "Do not commit adultery", or "Love your neighbor as yourself" we cannot look to science to discover whether these moral imperatives are reasonable. Science answers questions about the physical universe, it cannot answer the question of what we "should" do, only of what we "can" do.

It is true that some literal interpretations of religious texts conflict with modern scientific theory, and even most religious people have abandoned these interpretations. Ancient technologies could turn water into wine, by planting vineyards, watering the grapes, collecting and fermenting them. In the Wedding at Cana, Jesus (supposedly) sped up the process. Nonetheless, however well modern science understands the process of fermentation, and the affect of alcohol on the human brain, it cannot quite explain why "wine maketh glad the heart of man". For all our medical advances, a scientific approach to Joy escapes us, and we turn to art, or music, or poetry, or fiction, or (even) myth to seek what we cannot find in the material world that is science's realm. In Universities these things are called "Humanities" and scholars study them, just as other scholars study the "Sciences".

[desiresjab]

Very good. I agree with much of what you say, but have a few quailifications and notes. Math or science can probably do little for painters that it has not already done; for poetry it never could do much other than inspire awe; in music its greatest technical acheivements came from Pythagoras with the diatonic scale and Bach and his immediate predecessors with the equal tempered system. The golden ages for all three roughly coincide with the Age of Reason. Lots of development time for all three since that time. In film making, a more recent art, technical acheivments are far from through influencing the genre to greater heights, methinks.

Like you say, we will pit the greats of yesteryear against those of today in the former three fields confidently. It is also worth noting that the greatest of the ancients were apparently as good any man yet born at abstract thinking, that area considered most important on IQ tests. Without a helpful number system, the Greeks yet mangaged with geometry to uncover many properties of the natural numbers. That is awfully smart. Could Newton or Einstein have done any better with the old tools? I truly doubt it.

In morality we have perhaps improved.

Science is not supposed to make people joyful or moral and makes no such claims. Sometimes others might have tried to make such claims for science.

The import of Godel is quite large philosophically, but a minute impediment mathematically. We can generate propositions we cannot answer, and cannot show if they are answerable or not. Gauss intimated that Fermat's last theorem was such a proposition for him. He did not say that it absolutely was, for Gauss was never wrong with a conjecture. Are proofs possible for the Goldbach conjecture, The twin prime conjecture and Brocard's problem? There is no way to know until they are proven. Until that time they are undecidable.

The silly thing about religion is when modern people insist on literal interpretations of the old texts. No person in their right mind thinks Moses parted the red sea or any number of so called miracles.

So a lot of people have moved on, as you noted, and no longer claim literal belief in these matters. Let's face it, let's be honest, they are picking and choosing from among what their God tells them to believe. They as good as admit their God did not create the world as descibed in "His" holy text. There is no reason to suppose the rest of it is true, once his ominpotence has been relinquished by his followers. The Bible was wrong once, it is reasonable to assume it is full of a lot more malarkey than just its supposed miracles.

Religion comes from fear. Fearful, pre-language people grunted and squealed and hollered, they did not whistle and skip. Make any modern person scared enough and he or she will revert to squealing and squalling.

If the Bible were chopped to the size of a first book of poetry with the golden rule as its title, it would be more applicable. As it is, good advice is buried in mountains of bad counsel. The same is true of the Koran, except it is already the size of a first book of poetry, which means chopping its nonsense out will be easier. I do not think such nonsense as the Red sea opening, or killing both a woman and her beast friend for having sex, or a man riding a magic carpet to the moon, make anyone more moral.

Once people have weeded out everything that is nonsense, why call the rest a holy book. It is just a book, now edited and meaningful. That's OK, because God did not write it or inspire it in the first place, we did.

[YesNo]

The silly thing about religion is when modern people insist on literal interpretations of the old texts. No person in their right mind thinks Moses parted the red sea or any number of so called miracles.


What do you see good in religion?

[Ecurb]

Religion comes from fear. Fearful, pre-language people grunted and squealed and hollered, they did not whistle and skip. Make any modern person scared enough and he or she will revert to squealing and squalling.


.

Statements like this seem to me simplistic. First of all, many facets of religion have nothing to do with the afterlife, fear, or salvation. Second, many religions place little or no emphasis on the afterlife -- ancient Greek religion thought death was horrid for everyone. How does this ameliorate fear? Surely Christianity and other religions must SHARE something basic before we can say "religions are based on X."

Finally, how does Christianity alleviate fear? Isn't it often said of a Christian that he is a "God-fearing man"? Isn't the possibility of hell far scarier than any atheistic view of death? "What dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause," said Hamlet. Religion (or Christianity, at least) serves to make people more fearful, not less.

Religion is not "based on fear" or on any one human emotion, historical incident, or societal need. It developed over many millenia, influenced by political, cultural, linguistic, and artistic norms. It constitutes one of the great achievements of mankind. That's why departments of Comparative Religion and Theology are among the Humanities at Universities, along with History, languages, art, philosophy, and literature. Many of the great geniuses of history spent their lives studying religion, writing about it, and trying to achieve its ideals. Indeed, some became so consumed by it, that they almost did achieve religious ideals, rising to levels of mystic enlightenment that the rest of us can comprehend about as well as I comprehended Godel's proof, when I read it in its original mathematical form.

[desiresjab]

What do you see good in religion?

Belief itself is a powerful ally. God-fearing folk find it easier to accept the God who has already been formulated for them. Belief and the support of ministering folk is responsible for turning many lives around and saving many more.

Because many wars wore a religious cone, I do not condemn religion for these wars but man himself. We have a brutal nature, as told of Cain and Able and foretold of us. That was not a hard diagnosis, even for the time, I am sure.

Nor can I prove that religion was not the instrument which could touch some aspect of us with a civilizing hand, or we would be more brutal. Religion had to tap fear to tame us, is one view, but it is not all one thing and none of another. We built religion as we went.

[desiresjab]

Just as alchemy evolved into chemistry, the superstitious howls of our antecedents evolved into religion, as you say, over a long period of time. Defining religions is an arbitrary matter. One can throw in Confucianism to widen the parameters. Does one insist that Buddhists are athesists?

The principle character of religions has been to have Gods, to gain their favor through various deeds such as sacrifice and other forms of devotion. There is prescibed prayer and meditation, rituals. The word worship is pretty generally applied in these comparitive religion courses.

Their have been a lot of angry, tough Gods, who could run a gang on the Jersey shore. You have to appease the gang boss with his tribute, so you pay for your protection.

I will not go so far as Bertrand Russell who said (paraphrase) the only accomplishment of religion through the ages was a decent calander. I would give religion more than that, but am not prepared to say its overall influence has been positive. That is a whole lot of individual events to add up. I have to think of every witch burned at the cross, every head severed by a scimitar, every kid raped by a soldier of God, every kid molested by a priest.

The way I see it, we were doing these things before religion, and simply continued doing them, and I doubt if religion made them worse, so it is then reasonable to assume that religion might have ameliorated some blood lust here and there. Probably not a great deal though. That is not my argument. My argument is against those who cannot shape God for themselves, but rather wail to the cave echoes of paleolithics.

Instead of consulting a soothsayer or slaughtering a lamb, all that haggling and supplicating has been replaced by Game Theory. That tells you the best time to sell your grain, fatten your kine et al.

Nor do I even want religion divested of its mystical character. But I do dislike such platitudes as "it was God's will." It is a lot just to assume a God, but to assume it also has a Will whose perfect nature steals babies away in the night for its own grand purpose which we will soon understand, is enough to sicken.

An afterlife is what I hope for, sir, as all of us are wont to do, methinks. An eternal afterlife/lives without a God ever showing up is fine with me. If it has to have a God in it, so be it, I will take that one, too.

So you see I am really not against religion but the retention of paleolitic superstitions as guidance.