faith and reason

Reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

Faith: the strong belief in something, esp. without proof.

While watching a Michael Coren show lately, his guest (a Bishop on Dec. 23, 9:30pm?) discussed the idea that a person, to lead a proper life (paraphrasing here), has to balance both faith and reason …that is, you can’t operate strictly by reason alone, yet at the same time you can’t operate only by faith (which he described as pure emotion) either. They both must be balanced when you approach anything …ideas, concepts, etc. He further went on to discuss the idea of evil …specifically why the Lord allowed evil in our lives. He essentially made the point that, ultimately, it’s something beyond words. We can’t explain why God chooses to work the way He does – why evil is present.

The phrase ‘beyond words’ kinda struck me and I had this thought …if the understanding of the actions of God and the questions of evil are beyond words, then perhaps reason can’t be brought into the picture because reason, naturally, is the product of words? Therefore, both God and the idea of evil are ‘un-reasonable’ …they are objects of faith alone because they are beyond our description.

He further went on to discuss the idea that our life, that is, our life on earth, is only part of a larger picture. He was of course referring to our eventual after-life and the entire grand process that awaits the faithful. But then that too, the concept of an after-life, is beyond reason simply because it is also beyond words. After dwelling on this for a bit, what I found interesting was that even though the Bishop professed that we require an equal amount of both faith and reason in our lives, when it came to issues like ‘evil’ and the ‘afterlife’, we tend to operate primarily on faith; reason is removed …or at least substantially reduced in its influence.

Then came this strange idea ….what if reason and faith are not so unrelated …that instead, faith may be an extension of reason, and that reason is the process that leads us to faith. Possibly? Or maybe I’m just confusing/messing with semantics?

Take the development of a theory for example. A scientist will come to a point where he must take a leap of faith. He has to propose something that is unverifiable …something that can’t be proven at that time because it’s a new extension of his current rationale or path of reason. Reason though, is the basis of this leap of faith …it precludes his next ‘best guess’. If his reasoning is unsound then this new premise will eventually fail, so any new ‘break-through’ must be founded on this reason (reasoning) that proceeds it.

Consider the idea of a boundary between reason and faith, with reason always preceding faith;

<———————-reason———————-||———-faith———->

To successfully extend this boundary, you must slightly tread into the realm of faith. If you’re successful, you’ve advanced that boundary further to the right …allowing faith to pull your work along. Reason and faith, in this situation, function together.

<———————-reason——————————-||——faith——>

Building off this idea, when a concept is pushed or brought too far to the right of this boundary, faith tends to overwhelm. Ideas and concepts that dwell primarily in faith are not explainable by reason because they’ve drifted too far from reason’s grasp …these may be concepts like God or evil or the after-life. They’re unexplainable (beyond words) because their proximity to this boundary is sufficiently wide enough to exclude reason from explaining them …instead, they are commonly held as concepts of faith. Interestingly enough, they’re not wrong per se, but simply an over-extension of reason’s grasp. They may in fact be proven (or commonly accepted) as correct, but only when time affords reason the ability to sufficiently close this large gap and shift this boundary to a closer proximity of the idea. The boundary of course, could be a matter of perspective …which I’ll get to in a few paragraphs.

What I’m trying to argue though, is that both reason and faith might be extensions of the same process, and as such are mutually dependent on one another. Reason is predominately of ‘worldly’ measures while faith could be said to be based more upon our beliefs …which might be our natural progressions from these worldly measures. Faith then, becomes the ‘carrot’ in front of the donkey that is reason. You might state that faith is needed for the advancement of reason …however, when faith extends itself too far, it will fail our tests of reason and drift into that ‘beyond words’ category of our lives. Of course living on reason alone is akin to spinning your wheels …it’s all fine if you’ve got no where to go.

If faith extends naturally from reason …what of reason that extends from faith? This is what I feel characterizes many debates that involve science and religion. An idea is presented that is ‘unexplainable’ by current means, but reason is still used to bolster its possibility (or probability) to the point that, even though the idea is technically unpresentable, it is still afforded the position or status of reasonable. It’s completely untestable by ‘worldly’ measures, but still contains enough reasonableness to grant it legitimacy, and to position it closer to this boundary than it actually is. Abstract thinking is much like this, as our ideas and concepts take flight from the practical and at times seem sustained by opinion and conjecture. You can argue the concept of God as reason extending from faith; conversely, you could argue the concept of evolution in the exact same way. You can’t witness God and you can’t witness evolution, but you can equally extend these ideas from reason and convince yourself that they are not only feasible, but that they undeniably exist. You might argue that the gap between the the concept of evolution and the boundary I mentioned is less than the gap between religion and that same boundary (or perhaps visa versa!) ….that’s a matter of perspective, and that perspective is based on how you logically approach the issue.

I suppose I’m trying to suggest a structure in which both faith and reason can be understood. There are many areas of our lives that are unexplainable, but that doesn’t prevent us from stopping what we are doing, upholding progress and trying to figure it out. Rather, we allocate these unknowns to certain positions along that path of faith/reason; placing our boundary at whatever spot makes the most sense to us logically …whatever spot give us the best understanding of our world and allows us to move forward with our views.

The world however, is not presenting itself in different ways to different people. It is what it is …and we’re just interpreting it according to our own desires and needs at that time we do. I feel we tend to live in two worlds though – one that is right in front of us and another that we want to be in front of us. Reason tends to be our now, and faith is simply reason projected. They both provide us with a method that allows us to understand, and in that sense they’re inseparable.

*i’m not entirely convinced by this post myself …i’ve changed many little things in effort to make it somewhat sensible, but i think that the ‘gist’ of what i originally felt is there …perhaps buried a little, but still there. at least i hope*

future:

• time regarded as still to come.
• events that will or are likely to happen in the time to come.
• used to refer to what will happen to someone or something in the time to come.
• a prospect of success or happiness.

Photos from Haitham Sabbah, c/o Body On The Line

Photo: Haim Horenstein/Reuters, c/o msnbc

morality and stuff…

“It is easy for people to feel that their own way of life is natural and God-given. One’s culture is not like a suit of clothing that can be discarded easily or exchanged for each new lifestyle that comes along. It is rather like a security blanket, and though to some it may appear worn and tattered, outmoded and ridiculous, it has great meaning to their owner.”

“We tend to think that the norms we follow represent the ‘natural’ way human beings do things. Those who behave otherwise are judged morally wrong. This viewpoint is ethnocentric, which means that people think their own culture represents the best, or at least the most appropriate, way for human beings to live.”

“….individuals in every society cling tenaciously to the values they have acquired and feel threatened when confronted with others who live according to different conceptions of what is valuable.”

These are a few snippets I pulled from an anthropology text I recently picked up. Needless to say, I’m looking forward to reading more when I get the chance. On a similar vein, I came across an Edge article by Jonathan Haidt titled ‘What Makes People Vote Republican’, and have been meaning to mention it for a while. In the article, he forwards the idea that Republicans are more moral than Democrats, and that Democrats, in order to further their cause, must do more to take up the Republican cause. This was all ‘pre-election’ of course (of which you might argue that the Democrats were successful on this front) …but I happen to think he makes a strong argument for a Republican edge in morality.

Among that, he also discusses a part of his early life where he was transplanted into a foreign culture. He eventually adjusted to these new surroundings and accepted these differences for being only that …differences. Nothing ‘good or bad’ – just different. He also talks about some early experiments that subjected both young children and college aged students to ‘created’ stories on which they were to judge the moral consequences of fictitious characters. He arrives at some interesting conclusions, and in the process comes to redefine his own views on morality.

It’s a neat and thought provoking opinion, and it’s not too long for a quick read.
Here are a few excerpts that caught my attention…

“people who call themselves strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally.”

“…morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.”

“…Richard Shweder was probably right in a 1987 critique of Turiel in which he claimed that the moral domain (not just specific rules) varies by culture.”

“Religion and political leadership are so intertwined across eras and cultures because they are about the same thing: performing the miracle of converting unrelated individuals into a group.”

“…Leviticus makes a lot more sense when you think of ancient lawgivers first sorting everything into two categories: “disgusts me” (gay male sex, menstruation, pigs, swarming insects) and “disgusts me less” (gay female sex, urination, cows, grasshoppers).”

Ho, Ho, Ho…

Merry Christmas Kids!

fartlek

It’s not what you think kids. Essentially, it’s varying the pace of your run, but for a more complete explanation you might want to check out this site (place cursor here and then push down with your mouse button).

Lately, since I’ve been doing my runs indoors at the Kinsmen center, I’ve gotten pretty consistent with adding them in. I tried this a few years ago but didn’t really keep it up as much as I should have, but the convenient thing about the Kinsmen track is that it lends itself quite nicely to a steady on/off pace. The track itself (the upper deck that is) is about 250+m in length …and while that kinda sucks for any real long distance running, it is nice for 2 or 3 mile runs. What I’ve been doing is this: running a mile (6 laps), then running 4 (or 6) ‘fartlek’ laps (doing an 80-100m sprint with the remaining distance for a light jog/cool down), and finally finishing off with 2 regularly paced laps …or occasionally another 6 to round out 3 miles. It’s been on and off for over a month now, and I think my recovery times are getting better. Depending on how I feel of course, I may push the sprints close to full-out, but usually they’re around a good 400m pace …at least going from what I remember my old 400m’s to be like??

I’ve been doing these runs after my workouts too …which is why they’re not more than 3 miles. The cold has made a wuss of me, and I’ve yet this winter to get outside for any longer 10+ k runs. I was still doing the bike thing into work up until the snow finally came for good (3+ weeks ago?) …but I’m not worried about my endurance suffering too much this winter. I’ll do stuff or course, but it’s not like I’m planning for any ‘event’ so what the heck …I’ll just do what I can. I’ve been hoping to add on some weight for a while now …so maybe this will help out with that.

Also, I just wanted to mention that I made a donation to Wikipedia lately. I kinda thought about it for a bit, then decided that the internet would be a ‘less informative’ place to search around if it weren’t for this site. Yes, I do understand how Wiki content is put in place …and if there’s anything drastically important that I need information on, I’ll always check/reference with original sources. It is handy for quick searches or if you’re ’skimming’ about a subject – and for that, I happen to think my donation (the price of a book) is not out of line.

I also made a donation to the freeware app Cyberduck lately as well …maybe it’s the Christmas spirit in me?

Banner from Wikipedia

sunday night…

Last night was kinda fun!

The King Muskafa’s have been doing their regular Sunday night shows at On The Rocks since June now and it’s been, at times, somewhat of a mixed bag as far as ‘fun’ nights go. Don’t get me wrong, they’re all fun, it’s just that some are more fun

Audrey was sitting in on trombone for us and Kurtis, our semi-recent drummer guy, is getting more and more comfortable with our sets. Although it was kinda freezing outside, the holidays gave us a good crowd that hung around for the whole night (Winnipeg dancers – Whooooo!). Funny thing though …I didn’t drink anything. That’s not so remarkable of itself, but as far as attitude and general silliness goes (which kinda happens when I drink) you wouldn’t have known the difference. Even when I got home I was still kinda ‘up’ for things. I don’t know …it’s just strange for me, especially lately, but it was a welcome departure from the norm. Hummmm.

Anyway, a good and long time friend of the band, Darcy, made us some chocolates for Christmas (she’s a prof. baker and cake maker extraordinaire) so perhaps it was the sugar high of sorts. The pre-gig slurpee may have been part of the picture as well …which, in case you’re unaware, stays perfectly fine in your car when the outdoor temp is in the -20’s. A few people that I hadn’t seen for a while were also there, which was nice, and although I forgot (re: couldn’t find!) my ear plugs, I didn’t really notice them ringing all that much when I finally got to bed …which also means no headache.

So yeah, it was all good.

I’ve got some little holiday get-to-gethers to attend to over the next few days and as usual, some last minute ‘Christmas Presenting’ to finish up (see how I skillfully avoided the term ’shopping’). Of course there’s the weekend and next Sunday as well …our old buddy Steve is coming in on guitar again, so that should be sweet. But like I said, it was good. Everything was good. And like I also said …hummmmm?

Kurtis - the drummer. Picture from previous week ...not that you'd notice

Faith Hill part 2

You know (continuing on from last post), it’s not a big deal normally …and I’m really not blaming him. I think I did of course, but now that I’ve had a while to think on it, I’ve realized that perhaps I’ve brought it on myself. I mean, I don’t have to take an interest in what he does …and why can’t I just do what I do?

However, that’s the glitch with me …I hate, after trying to understand something, not understanding it. I’ve seen different sides of both believers and non-believers, and I’ve partially conceded religion to a matter of genetics. Partially …at least it makes more sense from that perspective. Many non-believers accuse believers of being disillusioned and weak-minded. Many believers accuse non-believers of being faithless, unenlightened and closed-minded. Yet at the same time, these different types of people are completely similar. I know non-believers who are smart and gifted, and I know believers who are smart and gifted. I know believers who are lamp-post dumb and I’ve known non-believers who are even dumber. The roomie, for example, was an honors student, is a math whiz, has a superior command of language and an uncanny degree of persistence toward anything he chooses to become involved with. Lol, I’m the opposite. I suck at math, suck at speling, and have an abysmal attention span.

But things get in my craw though …and religion is something that’s been there for a while, I can’t resolve it to my liking and maybe it’s because of this that I’ve used him as a scapegoat. I came across an interview with Feynman (click here) that I kinda enjoyed. He describes peeling an onion layer by layer …always looking for what’s beneath the next, and the next, and the next etc. There’s no end in sight from my perspective …and I feel the end we wish for is only our own ‘neat and tidy’ projections onto this infinitely layered onion that is this world of ours. We try to explain things so that they fit with what we experience …and when we can’t, we assume we will. I find science nice because it allows for a change to take place; we project a certain idea and if it fails, we allow ourselves to readjust our sites and continue on to yet another future failure. Failures are good because eventually, as I perceive the scientific goal, we’ll understand more and more of what we don’t. I find certain aspects of religion nice as well …it provides support, a successful recipe for living, a moral compass, values, strong family and community relations, it gives hope in uncertain times and in certain circles it provides for our eventual demise. It gives meaning to our life …but then meaning can be found without religion as well. Religion and spirituality always seem to be ‘piggybacking’ on science as of late too. Bishop Spong seems to rewrite/reconsider the Testament to accommodate modern ideals and advances …similarly with O’Murchu and Quantum Theology. Perhaps these are just bridges between religion and science …whose goals, interestingly enough, I find at times quite similar.

But that’s just me.

What I enjoy about music (or anything creative) is that it allows me to be in a single moment. It changes my perspective and gives me the freedom of not having to conceive of ‘goals’ or ‘ends’. It doesn’t propose a future, yet at the same time it creates something new.

I miss being able to do that as much as I use to.

Faith Hill and friends

Religion is on my %^&*(#@ mind because my room-mate is constantly occupied with it …therefore, when you share the same living quarters with a person who is spending most of his waking day on religious issues then you can’t simply turn it off. You can’t turn off the pod-casts, you can’t turn off the dvd’s, you can’t shut out the conversations with his family, you can’t shut out the christian-based tv shows and movies, you can’t ignore the shelves filled with books on christianity, you can’t ignore the magazines and articles scattered around the house, you can’t tune out the christian music that’s practiced for church or listened to for pleasure, you can’t ignore the fact that he’s obsessed with internet forum ‘fights’ with non-believers and finally you can’t ignore the fact that this wasn’t always the case with us and the fact that things have changed.

Sure, we try to do stuff once in a while …but I find that these things are either forced or have to happen whenever it’s convenient for him. Yes, I can ask him to do things …but should I have to? Yes, I don’t help the matter by standing aside and not saying anything about it, but you know what …I honestly feel I shouldn’t have to. We’ve been room-mates for close to 15 years and a large part of our success with living together was that we just simply worked. Our schedules have always fit (and still do) and they allowed us both time apart and time together. It was a natural situation that just clicked, and if I stood up to ask him to change what he’s doing, it’s be the first time …and it’d be wrong to do. It’d be denying him the same freedom to do what he wants that I need to do what I want. We’re just not meshing anymore.

It’s not that hearing about Jesus Christ annoys me, and I’ve learned a lot about the Christian Faith and about the feelings and thoughts that practicing christians have (both good and bad!), but it’s simply a case of too much. There isn’t a day that goes by where I’m not forced to consider religion. That’s wrong. Coming to an understanding on your own terms about it is one thing (and I won’t deny that a God may ‘reveal’ himself to me at any moment!), but being mentally inundated from many different angles has started to take its toll on me …and I need a break.

I’m looking forward to him leaving for a week on holidays, but then it’s also the time that I have to spend with my family – so I end up screwing myself out of any rest-bit I might get. As much as I hate the thought of having to move (location is prime and the situation is financially perfect) I think I might have to. What else am I gonna do? Lol, sit here in my room and screw around on the stupid computer or go into the living room to watch the Faith Hill Christmas special! Here’s his current ‘facebook status’ …”Room Mate is watching Faith Hill’s soundstage Christmas concert on KSPS right now. Join me.” *shaking head sideways not up and down* Multiply this position many times a day and spread it out over the last year or so (the heavy stuff that is) and you’ll start to get the picture. He’s not a bad guy, I’m not saying that – in fact, he’s my most trusted friend. But like I said, we’re just not meshing now – and I have to blame it on his renewed interest in religion. Just for arguments sake I could suggest that it’s my fault for not wising up to join in with the Good Word …and if that’s the case then I accept responsibility. Either way, the mesh has unmeshed itself.

Life doesn’t always suck for me, and most of you know that, but I honestly think that it’s bringing me down and my sanity is slowly being eroded. I need that sanity too …especially when it runs amok because that’s where I get a lot of my creativity from. I’m being forced to do my creative stuff during the time when he’s not around …which means it’s turning into a scheduled thing …which works but in moderation. So that’s what sucks …and I think it’s reflected in this blog …ever so slightly. So I apologize.

Thought I’d share cause what the hell, it’s still my blog right

Btw, did you read my ‘What if…’ poem just below?  C’mon already!

What if…

What if I lived a million what-ifs?
What if I lived but two?
What if I changed my what-ifs mid-stream,
or steered a what-if to you?
What if my what-if had made a big splash,
or what if it slipped down the drain?
What if it simmered like late morning eggs
that simmered like late morning rain?
What if, upon, a late moving bus,
my what-if had fallen asleep -
and what if it woke a moment too late
and failed some what-ifs to meet?
What if I’d thrown my what-ifs aside;
contented, cemented in fear -
and opted for something a bit more risque…
would that make my what-ifs more clear?
These what-ifs are fickle and strange little gaffes
who thrive like an ear to a name,
and when you think what-ifs have taken their leave
they’ll soon reappear – much the same.
For what-ifs are what-ifs …as simple as that,
and what-ifs are here for the ride.
And those who profess to be ‘what-if free’…
they profess, but what-ifs they hide!

RIAA change of tactics

It seems the RIAA is changing their tactics regarding file sharing …rather than going after individual users, it now wants to shift its focus on ISP providers. You can read more about it here.

The EFF (of which I regularly receive their EFFector email newsletter) has offered up the idea of a Voluntary Collective License with which to compensate songwriters and artists. It’s a strong departure from policies the RIAA currently operates on, but when you propose to virtually eliminate the idea of ‘big business’ from music, you’re going to raise the ire of that big business itself. The EFF’s voluntary collective license proposal is not such a ground-breaking course of action though …it’s been done before and has proven successful;

“Songwriters originally viewed radio exactly the way the music industry today views KaZaA users—as pirates. After trying to sue radio out of existence, the songwriters ultimately got together to form ASCAP (and later BMI and SESAC). Radio stations interested in broadcasting music stepped up, paid a fee, and in return got to play whatever music they liked, using whatever equipment worked best. Today, the performing-rights societies ASCAP and BMI collect money and pay out millions annually to their artists.”

One of the great benefits of this system is that the small independent artist would no longer need the assistance of ‘big music’ to make money. Promotion would still be important of course, but it would neatly separate itself from the art. “…independent artists no longer need a record deal with a major label to reach large numbers of potential fans—so long as you have any fans who are sharing your music online, others will be able to access your music on equal footing with major label content. In other words, digital distribution will be equally available to all artists.“

If you’re at all interested, check out the EFF proposal and decide for yourself if this truly isn’t a better way to go. If you have concerns, let them know. Or me too for that matter