Faith

In order to even begin to discuss the idea of faith and what it means we have to define it totally and definitely. The English word of faith just means you have a strong conviction, one way or the other, on a particular idea/person/entity. A more realistic understanding of the word and the idea that it represents, at least currently, is similar but is more specific. Faith is the belief in a concept that has zero proof at all, not only that, but the idea Requires there is no proof of concept in order for the term "faith" to be applied. We do not have "faith" that the Sun will rise in the morning, we simply know, based upon our understanding of the universe, that it is simply a irrefutable logical conclusion.

How is this concept even remotely accepted? I would understand if a small minority who were badly educated believed in this concept, but for the majority of our species to believe in it makes no sense.

To believe in something, without any logical reason to, is mind boggling. What is even more mind boggling, is that this idea is accepted as common practice. If we applied the idea of faith to everyday life we would be completely and totally incapable, as a species, to achieve anything at all. We live our lives, or at least should, by making the most statistically accurate choices as possible, ie we only make decisions on the basis that it has more chance of affecting us positively than negatively.

 

Faith, by definition, is taking a complete gamble on every choice. We see no evidence, we have no idea if it is the right choice, but we make the "leap of faith" dependant on our own unsubstantiated concept of the "right" choice. If there was ANY proof at ALL we would no longer be using faith but, rather, reason. Faith is intrinsically uncertain in nature.

So if we look at faith objectively, we will see that it is impossible to impact positively on our world, and I would say, by the same logic, it could not impact negatively on our world. Faith is however an example of an extremest belief system, which at its core, in almost any form, impacts very negatively on us as a society. So the only outcome for Faith to have is a small negative to a large negative effect, which I would say is clearly self-evident in the world today. We cannot therefore ever move forward, as a species, in an overall positive fashion, if the majority of us are faithful to a certain belief.

The Architecture of Thought

Human nature is to try understand our surroundings and in some way contribute to them, either to further our own existence or to help others in some way. Human curiosity is I think one of our most powerful attributes, the eternal need to search for more knowledge and to better understand our place in our environment. Now that's the basis for science as what science is constantly trying to do is discover how, why, when, where things exist. In order to make any headway along towards answering questions we have had to come up with a method, Scientific Method, that gives us the capacity to design experiments and processes whereby we can either explain something and predict it, or at least come up with a theory that gives us the best possible description. One of the cores of this Scientific Method is in order to measure something, to come to a reasonable conclusion, we have to limit any variables in that experiment so that any changes that are experienced can be attributed to the one known variable. If we observe changes in an experiment but there are two variables (ie potential contributors), how can we possibly know which one is responsible for the change or even how much each one contributed to that change? We can't, therefore it is imperative that all variables are removed except for one, so we can determine its affect on that change.

Most reasonable people will see this and agree without doubt it is the only way we can possibly measure things accurately. Why then is this same method not applied throughout all aspects of life? It certainly should be, or at least we should attempt to apply it. In this sense I find in order to apply this to everyday life we have to do something vital if its to be achieved. This is separating Emotions from Logical Thought Processes. I don't mean never use emotions, emotions exist for a reason and they hold value in our lives, obviously. However, in order to debate a topic and come to a reasonable conclusion we have to at least attempt to remove any variables that may affect the outcome. Probably the largest contributor to strong personal views is emotions. Now that is based on a variety of things, emotions themselves are based on the history of the individual and their experiences in life. For example if we were talking about a topic to do with something that has affected us personally we are unavoidably going to have a much stronger opinion on that topic. Now the actual experience is what probably shaped the belief, but it is our emotions attached to that which will affect how strongly we follow or defend that belief. 

So in order to debate something and attempt to come to a reasonable conclusion we have to remove these variables. So as I've said, first we Have To remove personal attachment to a topic and all the emotions attached to that. The reason I say that is because emotions themselves offer no potential value to a discussion, they hold no knowledge or information to any topic and therefore cannot contribute to any reasonable outcome. 

So if we are able to remove emotions from discussions we are left only with logical thought and an attempt at coming to a reasonable conclusion based on the information we have and the observations we can make. Many people attempt to remove emotions from a discussion (although frustratingly some people make no attempt at all), and in doing so think that any thought process that follows much be logical. This is a misconception, removing emotions from thought/discussion on a topic is only the most basic and first step (and yes, the most important). We have to continue the Scientific Method throughout our thought processes in order to be successful. The mistake that is made is thinking we can come to some sort of conclusion about a topic without removing any and every possible variable except for the one we hypothesize as being the cause to the affect of an experiment.

Now obviously it is not always possible to achieve this goal of ultimate measurement by the removal of variables, especially in the practical world. This is where reasoning comes in. We wouldn't need reasoning if we could measure everything precisely. Essentially my understanding of reasoning, and hence the thought process I follow, which I (unfortunately) find extremely rare, is, a careful calculation of statistics and odds. I think everyone uses this to a point, but for some reason it breaks down when applied to certain topics (I would venture one of the major reasons are those fidgety emotions). I think the examples for this are endless and when you consider many day to day choices you make you should arrive at the same conclusion, so I will venture a few basic examples to show the source of the thinking I'm referring to:

When you travel on an aircraft there is the possibility of the plane crashing and obviously death. You take the trip anyway, why? You have come to the conclusion that the Odds of Your plane going down are so small that it is worth the very small risk, you don't really have to worry about it that much. You are willing to get on that flight because reasonable thinking says the odds of your survival are pretty good. This example can be applied to numerable other transportation methods and unrelated risks.

When you purchase an item with good reviews or with a good name brand, you are purchasing that product on the idea that out of all the people that have used the general response has been positive and has indicated the purchase is worth the price (or it is at least advertised as such which essentially means our motivations are the same anyway, even if the product owners motivations differ.) So you are looking at the statistical average and coming to a conclusion that the most Likely outcome is that it is a good purchase and so you can feel comfortable making that purchase.

I believe that if people were able to follow the same logical thought patterns, as outlined, because the entire process is derived at a statistical likelihood of a Positive outcome, then the ultimate combination of day to day choices, based upon this method, have to tend to a positive outcome. That statement is carefully constructed in the sense that we should always take the most reasonable and statistically viable option in decision making Because the combination of all our decisions will have to, statistically, as already stated, tend towards a positive result.

I think though processes are very complex and this is just touching on an aspect of our thinking process but I do think its important from a personal and societal point of view. One benefit that I'll mention but not discuss is the potential for removal of punishment for "wrongful" acts and focus only on education or correction of the so called "wrongful" act. If someone was always able to justify a choice and action by being the most reasonable choice they could have made in that situation (based on the information they had), then how could that ever be classified as the "wrong" choice? They would have made the best judgement possible based on reasonable deduction, for example if a driver swerved out of the way of a child in the road only to hit a family on the side, how could he be judged as wrong? He would have had to make a judgement based on the information he had and come to the most reasonable action which was to avoid the child (the phrase reasonable takes into account that a reasonable conclusion takes into account all factors including time limitations, ie seconds to react).

So to agree with a person I haven't met but I feel is extremely Reasonable, Peter Joseph, the most probable and therefore reasonable action to take in the current world to address the growing number of massive issues, is a Shift in thinking and thought process to a objectively based method - Scientific Method.

Family

This is quite an interesting topic. The word or idea of "family" is so universal and accepted it would almost seem that any discussion on it would have to be personal. The idea of family however I believe is quite a bit more complicated (or at least should be) than what it may seem.

Family is essentially just the blood connection between people, so essentially the sharing of genetic material. Why is it then we have such a large emotional connection to family? (Or at least the majority of people have or are expected to.)

I think our natural devotion to family is obvious, it stems from our survival instincts and is one of the reasons are the most successful species on the planet. Our strong social bonding and tendency to help each other have catapulted us way ahead of any previous or current living creature. So over time it would not surprise me that natural selection has only strengthened that family bond.

Having realised the value of family to our species, and the emotional bonding as a result (emotions will ensure we are socially constructive as opposed to focussed just on our own individual existence), I think the personal value placed on the genetic definition of family is questionable.

A lot of value is placed upon blood connections between people, we value that person if for nothing else then purely for that connection. I would argue that there is a value to that connection it isn't anything comparable to the social expectant value it holds. I think the perfect example is that of adoption, the child becomes a part of a "family"; even there is no genetic connection at all (except for some artificial selection). That child will grow up with the same value placed upon family members as those who are genetically connected to their up-bringers.

This example alone indicates something transcendent of the traditional idea of family links, perhaps with a connection to the earlier source of family in reference to survival instinct. As we know that survival connection should break down or at least reduce when we become independent, but it doesn't reduce enough or even at all. So where is the value that natural families share with orphan families coming from?

This I think is the direct relationships we build with people and beyond that, the inevitable conclusion that the people you will have grown up with will have imparted part of themselves onto you. We have a pure connection to these people because they are a inevitably a part of what makes us up. I think this is evident in abusive households where a connection is reversed into adversary and so the "family" members contribution to that persons make up is stopped or restricted. The relationship is no longer something that is invaluable, it becomes disposable because it no longer contributes positively to lives. This is also demonstrable in the instance of family connections being broken due to massive changes to personal beliefs and principles, that deeper understanding of each other is compromised and middle ground is destroyed.

Essentially I think the value of the idea of traditional family is limited. I think what transcends the genetic link and is far more valuable because of that, is the personal connection between family members and the inevitable valuable exchange that goes on. This is where I think people who are referred to as "friends" could also fall into what I think is a more real description of family - reducing the importance of genetic link and emphasizing the importance of personal relationships.

Nature vs Nurture

I've had this debate with myself a thousand times and with others a few less and I always come to the same conclusion. People are built, constructed and are ultimately a product of their environment. Now that might be an uncomfortable thought for many, and I think, for some, potentially quite comforting, but just like matters relating to God, Religion, Science or any attempt at reasonable discussion, I don't think that our comfort level when thinking about the topic should have any relevance to actually coming to a conclusion.

If you look at people all over the world, what they are like, what they think like, their beliefs and social norms they vary at the most basic level by geography. Obviously people living together, under similar conditions and circumstances are going to tend towards a unified society and beliefs. They deal with the same problems and use each others solutions and more importantly the Description of Why those solutions work. For example ancient astrologers attributed their ability to predict weather patterns and predict certain climatic events as some divine inspiration and choosing which made them immensely powerful and important. As long as their "solution" held up, then their description of how they came to that solution was irrevocable. So these descriptions of the world are imprinted with ultimate authority upon the youth, as is only natural, as they are the best possible ways the elders know how to survive in the world.

To look at more specific examples the obvious choice for me is religous beliefs. Undeniably the majority of people brought up in a particular religious household will follow that same religion. The reasons for that are pretty self explanatory in that obviously, just as with any other belief or solution a elder has, religous practice is not only followed by the elders but either forced or suggested to the youth. I would certainly also venture that the level of devotion and practice of that religion by the youth is directly proportional to the devotion and practice by that of the elders.

 The one large critisism of that is people often will refer to the many people who have switched from being completely devote to one religion to another or no religion. I think that is a pretty hollow critisism in the sense that the variables in those individuals to me seems self evident. The people who do switch I think are massively in the minority and I would also claim that a large portion of that minority were brought up in a way, as mentioned before, that their lack of devotion to that particular sect is proportional to the level of devotion of their elders ( ie their parents perhaps believed in the core religion but didn't practice much or any of what I refer to as religious reinforcers - church, praying, reading of religeous texts, etc).

This interestingly brings up another point which has taken me a while longer than I would have hoped for to think of. I kind of assumed the nature vs nurture debate would have a definite or perfect answer, which I have long since realised either doesn't exist for most things or is impossible to determine. In this case I think the ratio of who someone is in terms of the source of their attributes and personality is completely variable. I used to just assume there would be an answer such as 80 percent nurture and 20 percent nature. But I think the level of influence of nurture in your makeup over nature is quite obviously proportional to the Level of nurture. For example I think a lot of the people who break the mould of an abusive family history and go from rags to riches, do so purely due to the Lack of nurture they receive, and so their inherent nature is brought through a lot stronger and so, they are, in my opinion, more nature than nurture. Although I must acknowledge this last point is only true to a point and true to a certain defintion I placed upon the idea of "nurture", they are still highly influencable by their respective environments.

So if your nature vs nurture ratio has no definite answer then is it safe to say they are equal and completely dependant on circumstance? No, I don't think so. I think "nurture" is far more powerful than any inherent "nature". So essentially I believe a highly capable "natural" without "nurture" is at a disadvantage to a equally incapable "natural" with high levels of "nurture". So finally, "nurture" is more powerful than "nature".

So I think, as mentioned before, this is a very uncomfortable conclusion for many people, especially those who would frown upon their "nurturing" as a youth. But I think we can avoid that by agreeing we are a construction of All our past experiences and we can essentially choose which experiences define us as people. Another potential hurdle on the way from discomfort to comfort is a large belief we are a unique person as defined by our physical and genetic charicteristics. For example we grow and learn more but essentially remain the same core person. I think this is a source of confidence for many people because it gives them a rock solid foundation which is unshakable, somewhat comparable to the unreasonable idea of "Faith", a sort of lighthouse in a hurricane of uncertainty.

So instead of this idea I believe (reasonablely conclude from the evidence, not a emotional belief) we are as liquid and mouldable as we want to be. Yes many people do have foundations of stone based on their sense of uniqueness or religion or whatever it may be but I would suggest those foundations are self imposed, ie they are stone because you Believe them to be stone, as opposed to some intrinsically defined core we cannot change.

I think the conclusion of this is also somewhat variable. We can realize our changeability and yet, if we wished, still create a unshakable core of what we could perceive as "ourselves" as long as we believe it to be true.

This is quite a short description of a million and one debates I've had with myself, but I think it projects some level of the Idea that we are essentially a construction of experiences. Early on we are a combination of other people ideas and outside influence, and, as time goes on, we become more aware of the that construction and essentially architect ourselves by choosing our future experiences and how we view them. 

It's a matter of Principle

Recent events have turned my gaze once again to this idea of personal "principles". I'm struggling to grip the level of devotion to which these principles must be followed. I've always been vaguely arrogant about following certain principles that I live by and only recently accepting of the idea that they change and mold with the times, as well as your own personal perspectives.

The real world is, unfortunately, far more grey, than the idea of a clear black and white distinctions between choices and actions of: good and evil; right and wrong; than heroic fiction would have you believe. Although this is true for normal decisions, like whether to give the hobo/charity worker the £2 you were going to waste on a comfort item, it's when it becomes personal that choices become difficult. If something appeals very strongly to your principles and yet to pursue it may be completely futile, or worse: negatively effect your life, then surely your logic must refer to the trusted reward vs risk/cost model. For example, you're not going to pay £1000 for a random lottery ticket. The problem with that logic however is the very nature of "principles", we use the reward vs risk/cost model daily, without pause, because obviously it's the only way we can gain assets as opposed to lose assets. The idea of "principles" however is that it transcendent of the "now" or direct consequences and refers to something that is far more important than personal gain/loss. So do we choose to follow principles on that basis or do we sometimes decide its risk/cost is too much and so essentially place a distinct purchase value on those same principles?

This is all very complex and confusing and despite me trying to find some sort of universal calculator that can decide how we value certain principles, and how we follow those principles, I think that's impossible. The problem is we're only scratching the surface, the awful reality is that this can become even more complicated when the risk involves others and yet you the one making the decision. How can you justify risking something that someone else values for your own selfish "principles" (especially if you have no direct link to the particular situation)? Who's to say your set of personal principles are the correct ones?

I feel extremely frustrated by these extremely murky and grey areas, partly due to the fact I grew up reading many fantastical, heroic novels whereby the hero goes to great effort for some pure ideal such as saving his people/kingdom/world from the dangers of some malevolent and evil forces.
These stories are important but I don't think they address the more day-to-day and realistic problems of non-contrasted moral/life decisions. I think that fighting for good against evil is a pretty easy choice, I think the real question comes in when there is no good and evil but rather conflicting views.

I think this is a pretty messy analysis and potentially full of missed arguments and lost statements, but I do hope it coalesces into some sort of meaningful conclusion. A "Right" or "Wrong" decision is very rare in real world activities, all one can be expected to do is to make the best judgement based on their own knowledge and their own principles, and to actually Make that decision. I think there is a value to decisiveness when coupled with principles, although there certainly is a delicate balance. I think it's more likely the definition of "Wrong" should be associated with absence of actually Trying to make the Right choice as opposed to the final outcome, and vice versa.

New Blog Style

I've decided to change my blog approach. I constantly find myself thinking of ideas and arguments that I don't always have the opportunity to express. I think what I'm going to do now is just post ideas and arguments that I often have with myself. If people find it interesting then great, I'd love to hear other views, if people find it boring or offensive then I apologize and you don't have to read it. Anyway, not going to post anything right now but the next time I have a heated argument with myself I'll release those scraps of genius to the world (or more likely just scraps, full stop).