What Is True?

Many intelligent people say that we hold to what is true according to what is "proven" or, at least, "provable."

I suggest that that what we consider "proven" is largely subjective. Something can be considered "proven" or even "true" en masse--that doesn't "make it true." The world was not flat, even when "everybody" thought it was flat. There are people today who are convinced that the moon landings were faked, and they can "prove it."

How do we "acknowledge" or "choose" what truth is?

I think "proof" has little to do with it. I think it comes from three things:

1) Authority (I've been told something is true, so I believe it; whether it's my parents, or some scientist, or a television commercial).
2) Intuition (Something just "seems true" and "makes sense")
3) Experience (I know this is true because I've experienced it)

None of these, on its own is foolproof. It's obvious that authority can be wrong; whether it comes from a parent, a teacher, or a man in a white lab coat. How do we know that authority can be wrong? I think we grasp that concept intuitively and we have probably experienced it.

Intuition on its own is not foolproof. Quantum theory is highly counter-intuitive. Yet those scientists tell me it's true (authority) and I experience what are the practical applications of quantum theory by using this computer, microwave ovens, CD players, etc. This is my experience at work (which also works with my intuition to tell me that it's unlikely that "all these scientists" have co-ordinated a big lie about quantum theory).

Finally, experience is a great evaluator of truth, but a good dose of LSD can severely alter experience so that it no longer represents reality. Further, even my own memories can be affected through the power of suggestion.

Even "proof" itself is a combination of authority (what we know that has been "proven" in the past), experience (the prediction, experiment, and results), and intuition (that the experiment accurately measures a reality that can be accurately measured (itself a presupposition)).

We "grasp truth" using two or three of authority, intuition, and experience, but there are foundational "truths" within this system that we cannot prove. Proof itself is not a basis for truth.

Progressive technology...?

Have you heard of Moore's Law when it comes to computer processor speeds? "Moore's Law describes an important trend in the that can be inexpensively placed on an history of computer hardware: that the number of transistors that can be inexpensively placed on an integrated circuit is increasing exponentially, doubling approximately every two years" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law), basically meaning our computer processor speeds are doubling approximately every two years.
Proposed in 1965, this "law" is still manifesting in our home computers, digital cameras, etc., etc., etc.
I think we need to propose a similar law for razors. Way, way back in the day, my dad shaved with a "safety razor" with a single blade. Sometime within the first couple of decades of my life, a second blade was introduced. Then in the '90s--three blades!
Guess what I got for Christmas? A razor with no less than six blades!!! (Okay, one is on the back for trimming.)
I think within a year or three we will all be scraping our cheeks up against a panel of 20 or so blades (called a "razor") on the wall of our shower. Within a decade, the stack of blades will be taller than the average man...

The Whiff of God?

A friend and philosophical opponent of mine said this in an online forum:

"For a supernatural power[e.g., God] to materially affect the phyical universe there still must be some sort of residual physical trace that has the whiff - and the sole whiff - of supernatural action; in other words, it has to be a material effect for which no material cause can even be proposed in principle. That would fit the bill for my test of sending an unshielded man into the core of a nuclear reactor and having him walk out again, unscathed, after a month: there's no material cause for that particular effect that can even be proposed. The only explanation would be "magic" - supernatural action, in other words."

The idea is that if God is real and created the universe, surely there would be some incontrovertible and ubiquitous evidence that cannot be explainable through naturalistic means. After thinking about it for a while, I came up with the following possible "whiff":

Mathematics.

Mathematics contains uncanny coincidences, symmetry, and beauty for which there is no naturalistic explanation. Mathematics is ubiquitous and incontrovertible. Some examples that are downright bizarre:

e=2.71828 18284 59045 23536... (The mathematical constant e is the unique real number such that the value of the derivative (slope of the tangent line) of f(x) = e^x at the point x = 0 is exactly 1. The function e^x so defined is called the exponential function, and its inverse is the natural logarithm, or logarithm to base e. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant))

i=

π=3.14159 26535 89793 2384... (Pi or π is one of the most important mathematical constants, approximately equal to 3.14159. It represents the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter in Euclidean geometry, which is the same as the ratio of a circle's area to the square of its radius. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi)

These three important numbers appear unrelated. One is an "imaginary unit" and the other two are irrational constants. And yet, remarkably, the following mathematical equation is true:

"It is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth." - Benjamin Peirce (taught mathematics at Harvard University for forty years and died in 1880. He believed mathematics to be "study of God's work by God's creatures").

This is a profound coincidence, but it is not alone. Mathematics abounds with these coincidences, from the pattern created by prime numbers (see Ulam's Spiral), to commonplace coincidences like the following:

135 = 1 + 3² + 5³
175 = 1 + 7² + 5³
518 = 5 + 1² + 8³
598 = 5 + 9² + 8³

12² = 144
21² = 441

13² = 169
31² = 961

There are more like this--many more.

(Special credit to www.futilitycloset.com for a great collection of mathematical oddities among other oddities).

Creative Cooking

Sometimes, when you're cooking, and things don't go just the way they should, there are ways to make the most of it. Under "normal conditions" you can't take pictures like this...

Toothpaste Fear-based Advertising

Toothpaste used to be advertised based on what it did for your teeth. Now it's advertised based on what your "dentist will be looking for." It seems we have more to fear from our dentist than from our teeth rotting out!

Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox

On Wednesday night, Richard Dawkins (noted author of The God Delusion) debated Christian apologist and professor of mathematics and philosophy of science at Oxford University, John Lennox.

It was broadcast online, and I listened in.

To begin, let me say that from what I have read of Dawkins, I have found him to be aggressive, confrontational, boorish, and smug. Surprisingly (to me), without weakening his strong opinions, he came across very well-spoken during the debate. Of the two, I found Lennox to be a little more aggressive (no doubt he would credit this to being on the defensive in the atheistic fortress of academia--he has related how he was ambushed by a bunch of professors while in graduate study who advised him that if he ever wanted to "make it in science," get rid of the "god thing).

I couldn't help but walk away feeling that Lennox had "won" the debate. To be fair, I'm on his side, he's had a lot of time to read The God Delusion and formulate his attacks, and Dawkins had to respond on the fly.

Further, the forum for the debate was annoying. Although they allowed Dawkins the "last word," every time the two were starting to really get into it, the moderator would interrupt so they could move onto the next point, which would be highlight a portion of the book, give Dawkins and opportunity to explain his position, and the allow Lennox to rip it apart, with little opportunity for Dawkins to rebut.

Frankly, if they had just given them time and let them go, it would have been much better.

The best argument between them concerned the "evil of religion." Dawkins conceded that religious belief was not evil, but that it was specifically fanaticism. In the book, Dawkins had said that all religion was dangerous because it denied people the opportunity to question belief. Lennox responded at least twice that his Christian upbringing was not "brainwashing" but that he was encouraged to read a variety of material, including Marx and Russell. Lennox then went after Dawkins on what basis he could decry religious belief as "bad" or "evil," appealing back to Dawkins's The Selfish Gene in which Dawkins says that human behavior is neither "bad" nor "good," but is merely the "dance of the DNA."

Dawkins said that what we should be doing as humans is "rising above evolution"--I assume he means rejecting that "dance of the DNA" and making conscious decisions. He said that any time a human being chooses to use birth control and enjoy sex for pleasure rather than just procreation he is "rising above evolution." I was surprised that Lennox didn't challenge him on who was doing the "rising over evolution." Surely Dawkins is not appealing to a "soul" of some kind that has influence over the material? It seems to me that the concept of a "soul" would be foreign to a naturalist/materialist like Dawkins.

In his closing comments, Lennox went all preachy, talking about Christ and his resurrection. No doubt this is due to a fervent commitment to "preach Christ" at every opportunity. I'm not sure, in that crowd, that it was the right thing to do. Dawkins responded in his closing comments with what I found to be his strongest argument (though it was entirely an emotional argument). He criticized Lennox for abandoning his strong scientific arguments for deity for what he called the "petty" story of the resurrection of Christ.

All in all I enjoyed listening to the debate. I found it online in .mp3 format so I may be able to send it to anyone who's interested.

A Little Disappointed So Far...

Casually following the provincial politics lately, I must say I'm quite disappointed with the Conservative campaign. Instead of telling us "what's wrong with the Liberal government" and "what the Liberal government didn't do," why don't you tell us what you plan to do!

I did hear one plan on the radio--to legalize the sale of wine-making and beer-making kits at the grocery store. Yay! Bright change for the future! That the best you can do?

There's also the issue about providing funding for private schools. Frankly, I'm a little ambivalent about that. There are pluses and minuses. Parents with children in private schools are still paying taxes that go towards public schools. It also seems unfair that Catholic schools get government funding but other private schools do not. Then again, I heard second-hand that Tory wants public funding going to private schools so that the government can have a finger in that pie in terms of education. It seems to me that it's just a way of making private schools more public.

But the negative campaigning is what is really putting the sour taste in my mouth when it comes to the Conservative party. Really makes me not want to vote for them.