God, Science and Humans
Following from a couple of rather heated discussions. Those wishing to avoid revisiting the territory should not open the lj cuts.
Two thousand words of insomnia-fueled, jittery neuron activity/pontificating, and rising. You have been warned.
Repeated assertion: All Christians are racists.
Other people would just say, 'clearly wrong' and forget it. Unfortunately, I was hijacked by my brain and insomnia - late night logorrhea and early morning research and redrafting resulted.
wikipedia checking:
Commonly accepted definition of racism (wikipedia seems an ideal source for such a thing). Same source for definition of the concept of race and for the contrast with ethnic group. These chimed exactly with my understanding. I would agree that race is a social construct as well. (Referencing an earlier comment of mine that 'racism' is in part an outmoded phrase as it references and reinforces the unhelpful and arguably invalid concept of separate human races, encourages 'thinking skin-deep' and the problem it expresses is more related to the rather wider idea of ethnicity anyway - 'ethnicism' rather than racism.)
I was wanted to clarify the different ideas of racism the sides in the dispute appeared to be using, as well as those about what Christianity involves.
Refutation 1: refuting racism by 'man' (after the qualification of 'racism' to people elsewhere who are mostly of another race)
Definitions of racism appeared to be an issue because, on challenge, the assertion was qualified; Christians (and the God they conceive) do not all chose to make the limited personal sacrifice which could significantly help all the most needy of the globe, so they do not value people ‘elsewhere’, and those suffering most in the world are elsewhere and racially different, so all self-professed Christians are racist. The Christian distribution map shows some obvious flaws with this and one by 'race' would argue that point still more convincingly. The reason Christianity was focused on was the doctrine that all are created equal and, everyone is your neighbour so there is a (second flaw) perceived logical imperative that every Christian should help all to the best of their ability and resources. It appears to be an extension of the Golden Rule’s (named ' the Meta-Golden Rule' by Vernor Vinge.) Christian variant, however "Judaism and Christianity teach that the Golden Rule and other moral commands on human relations are subsidiary to commands relating to God… Many people argue that Islam does not have a Golden Rule” but all cultures and faiths share a version. Not every logical extension of a doctrine is or can be a required observance. Charity - any intervention to help your neighbours - is a voluntary virtue, not a qualifying criterion of Christianity. I don't know of any category of society where they carry all their beliefs to their logical conclusion in every aspect of their life (thank goodness), so picking on Christians appeared to be unnecessary. The average human of whatever persuasion rarely gives much to their own significant disadvantage except to those close to home, though many open their wallets or clear out their unwanted brick-a-brak for the masses. But the others may as well be in the next suburb as the next continent. Humans can only cope with a clan of a certain size - we are hardwired only to connect to specific individuals in that way. Limited charity of the type described as racist seemed to be more an issue about limited individual emotional resources rather than racism - according to Robert Dunbar’s Social Brain hypothesis (which produced Dunbar's Number /the ‘monkeysphere’) the neocortical volume of primate brains defines the social group size. (I don’t know if this comes under the category of social neuroscience or was an advance example of the field.) Individuals and societies can care about general populations elsewhere in a sense but, as individuals, are only emotionally involved with about 150ish people. Ethnic representation is likely to correspond with your family and the fabric of the groups around you. A Christian’s emotionally-connected clan is as likely to be as ethnically varied as the atheist next door's. Ecuadorians, Chechens, Indonesians etc are equally the victims of Christian and non-Christian limited reach, apathy, and 'I’m alright Jackness'. Admittedly the proportion of extremely deprived and needy in the world isn’t equally distributed between the ethnic groups and the same is true of wealth. This doesn’t make the self-involved racist.
As IR and other studies show, throwing money at deprived areas does not necessarily end the deprivation, so you can legitimately be a non-hypocritical Christian doing what is in your power to help those within reach and relying on contributions to NGOs to reach those you can't. On the other hand, many people give generously to charities - most wealthy western democratic nations' charitable sectors (and many NGOs) were born of specifically Christian philanthropic projects. It has been said that in most societies the various religious institutions have for millennia had a significant, sometimes principle role, as state-sanctioned public support systems for the needy (obviously often with a qualification hurdle). My father and others believe in tithing for that reason (though admittedly I don't think he gives a tenth of his income, I could be wrong). Obviously many Christians are in fact hypocritical, or at least wildly inconsistent. This is in part inevitable, as you can't help everyone equally - except by helping no-one at all (equal treatment is not always fair treatment). Christianity helpfully does not posit omnipotent flawless Christians, though Bush and Blair sometimes appear to project themselves as such. Do-gooders, Christian or otherwise can be dangerous things, and the level of danger can be more dependent on the degree of self-conviction than the attempted action (e.g. missionaries throughout history). The always implicit but often explicit inferiority of the efforts of the intended recipients of the aid to help themselves is often found insulting, especially where need for assistance is only perceived by the donor. Reappraisal of the unintended (and sometimes intended) effects of missionary work and charitable initiatives have made many people today, Christians included, uncertain about helping others - nervous that their efforts will prove counterproductive, backfire or just be resented.
Refutation 2: refuting racism by God
The thought was an incompletely expressed one. I take racism to be the
idea that members of other races are fundamentally less valuable. Now,
it seems to me that most of the injustice in the world is directed
towards members of certain ones. As such, it seems difficult to think
there is an omnipotent God who cares equally about everyone. The issue
is thus less about our own actions, and more about the standards to
which we hold hypothetical deities.
Lengthy rejoinder:
most of the injustice... towards members of certain ones. Currently - taking the long view, who knows? I hope we're not at the end of human history and one would have to assume that a god was taking a longer view.
Ah. This theory depends on the idea that any god is an interventionist one. (I have heard the rejoinder that the idea of a non-interventionist god is pointless, as is the idea of an omnipotent flawless being who chooses not to exercise his powers because they have chosen to give us free will.) Many mainstream versions of Christian dogma appear to assert exactly that, except: at some specific points precise guidance was provided; prayers which may be answered (so they and their contingent consequences are presumably assessed and selected between, which I find a particularly baffling contradiction, although I pray); and the forgiveness of the sins of the repentant (which I hope for, should there be an afterlife, although I'm sure I'm not repentant enough of everything which God sees as a sin [if sins in this sense exist and are judged see further below] especially the ones I've forgotten or may well repeat). (It also asserts a benevolent god who shares our concept of caring acts, not a god who doesn't give a damn equally.) This does appear to leave us with a God who sticks his finger in occasionally when it doesn't trip up other plans, which means there are plans, and judges us in this world as well as the next, even though this world is base. Queue endless theological debate about free will, predestination and the value of not taking on yourself the sin of murdering innocents while they are sinless to guarantee them a good life everlasting.) The unorthodox ideas of apocatastasis and Universalism protect the idea of God's fundamental benevolence by denying an eternal hell for sinners, which presumably would support the contention that suffering in this world is the result of a judgement against you.
The statement, "All Christians are racists," remains an uncharacteristically poor expression of your thought and unsupportable. Of course there was a time when it was believed that any affliction in this world was an expression of the disapproval of a god, or God, and thus the disproportionate suffering of non-white populations could be seen as a sign of disapproval. This was always inconsistent with the idea that this world is valueless compared with the next and we are judged on death or on Judgement Day. It was actually a carry-over from pre-Christian religious beliefs and explanations for affliction (visible in Greek mythology) and I believe was why the healing of the sick was by some accounts thought by the some contemporary jews to be a blasphemous departure by Jesus. The whole thing felt way too Dawkins-style evangelical atheist for my comfort. If atheism is self-evidently superior, no-one needs to argue on its behalf.
I do understand the thinking, 'if everyone who said they were a committed Christian (or follower of a faith similarly advocating charitable acts) actually went out and helped those who needed it, the world would be a better place: it isn't and therefore there are a lot of crap Christians/followers of faiths out there'. To an extent this is true, but because of my aforementioned reservations about do-gooding, I don't think it would eliminate the suffering in the world - it might just lead to more aggressive charitable evangelism (I typed 'vandalism' just then by accident). I also think it underestimates the level of neediness in the world. As an aside, one phenomenon often observed in churches is those who spend a lot of their time in charitable work through the church etc find their home life falling apart. My mother always commented on the striking divorce rate amongst those active in my father's church. (cf the English Christian saying 'charity begins at home.')
Islam is interesting because it postulates a similar God to Christianity, values charity, has a tithing system and yet, at least according to some of my reading, also posits an interventionist God who writes our fates when we are born (through a particular type of divine agent). This may not be canonical. So the Islamic God judges and punishes sin having predestined people to it, in many cases by fating them to not convert to his true religion and woes in this life are deliberately inflicted on people individually. My apologies if this betrays a total misapprehension. If correct, giving me a satisfactory reason for this fundamental self-contradiction would be impressive.
There is no informed choice between available religions, just personal conviction. My thoughts on God are rooted in my Christian upbringing but mostly heretical, often inconsistent and do not necessarily provide a helpful code for living, not-least because I do not believe we have reliable guidance on what an omniscient omnipotent being would want from us (behaviour-wise or otherwise) and by definition we cannot second-guess the values or priorities of something beyond our comprehension. You can only guess God's intent if God did make humans in his image and we are not an inferior copy. This is not what I believe and I distrust anyone's claim to know what God wants of us, or in fact that God wants anything of us. All religions claim to do this and have a long archive of human reasoning supporting and explaining why their current doctrine is correct. I do not pretend to be wiser than every single contributor and certainly not than their cumulative efforts but the task they have set themselves is impossible and the ignorance a lifetime is too short to address means that, were a single faith and church correct, I cannot rely on myself to identify it. I try to be good (and often fail very badly) because I think that is something worth trying for in itself and for its effect on the people and world around us. I think worship coerced by societal pressures or for personal preservation beyond the grave is valueless conformity rather than faith. You should love God to love God and believe because you believe: be good because good is good. I have a lot of trouble with working out what good is and following that, but then so does everyone who cares about such things, regardless of creed. In the end, you are only left with your own judgement, or your failure to exercise it, however much advice you get from sources you respect.
My belief in God is a product of
For the record, if this is our one world and one life, we need to make the best effort possible at this one; if this world is base and the worldly of no value, but we might be judged on it and we can't confirm the afterlife, we need to make the best effort possible at this one. An afterlife is a great argument against suicide though, unless you believe that the next one will be better or that you can repeat it in them all until you find an exit.
I am not going in to a discussion of the afterlife or whether or not we are in fact judged. Holding a belief that we will be judged imposes behaviour on that basis.
Some of the wikipedia entries consulted but not linked above:
Afterlife (external)
Predestination in Christianity Judaism and Islam:
Qadr.
Creed
Ethics in religion
The Abrahamic religions
Judaism
Creed/doctrine and ethics in Islam:
Because morality and submission to God are inherent in humans, ‘heedless’ behaviour is a betrayal of our own nature at the same time as a betrayal of God.
According to wikipedia, Shia principles include an upholding an ideal of justice (adalah) among the central tenets and enjoining what is good and forbidding what is wrong as two of the important practices., while Sunni’s assert that "nothing is good or evil per se, and that what God commanded people to do became good by virtue of his command, and what he forbade became evil."
Isn't it nice to be able to ramble on for ages in a utterly one-sided way? Now everyone else can have a free go, should they want to, at digressing or rebutting it all or any part, if anyone has waded all the way down here. I guess they can tear my world down.
What is scientific?
Curiously Wikipedia's 'science' entry claims social science as one of two main empirical branches of science immediately after giving a broad but relatively hard definition of science (maths and logic forming the third branch, formal science, distinctive in that a prioi methods are used) but in social sciences the following appears:
"The word "science" is older than its modern use, which is as a short-form for "natural science". Uses of the word "science", in contexts other than those of the natural sciences, are historically valid, so long as they are describing an art or organized body of knowledge which can be taught objectively. The use of the word "science" is not therefore always an attempt to claim that the subject in question ought to stand on the same footing of inquiry as a natural science."
In soft science:
"When soft science refers to a natural science, it is usually used pejoratively, mainly due to the term's association with social science, implying that a particular natural science topic described as "soft" does not belong to the field of natural science.
When "soft science" is used to refer to social science, the reference are not usually used pejoratively because it is accepted that that social science isn't as objective, and thus as open to interpretation as natural sciences such as physics or chemistry. [citation needed]
"The term is often employed by social scientist themselves without any projective implication though some might use it for self-deprecation."
From the inconsistency of the science entries, an ongoing confusion or process of change in our understanding of what is science and what is scientific can obviously be inferred.
The increased understanding gained within all branches remains worthwhile, but gains in "soft" areas may be more valuable because the fact that they are "soft" indicates (as [you] pointed out) how much our understanding in these areas needs to grow; consistent certainties are damn useful but the uncertainties in all fields reveal that the systems are more complex than previous theories allow for. Where the complex systems are us, the fact that we know so much about the universe yet so little about ourselves perhaps makes us a foolish 'intelligent' species, and should remind us to beware hubris in all our endeavours. Early twentieth hard science contained some (with hindsight) pretty ropey scientifically rigorous and peer-supported hypotheses, which it took a lot of further data to displace. These usually left a swathe of inexplicable exceptions. Is social scientific knowledge really any less valid than that, or merely younger? (I would like to restate my belief that, because humans are occasionally and inexplicably inconsistent, illogical and self-destructive, detailed scientific predictions for every situation will forever elude us, unless we acquire a God-like omniscience as to all the variables in each case, or [shudder] exercise a degree of control over society and individuals which vastly reduces either the potential influences, the range of behaviours available, or both. History is hindsight exposing the pertinent variables.)
As [you] stated, we cannot always base our decisions on absolutely reliable data, sometimes we have to make do with the most reliable data available, shaky though it may sometimes be. The best knowledge available, rather than complete knowledge.
In social neuroscience the hard and soft sciences appear to be recombining.
Neologisms of the day "ethnicism" (also "domecratic" (doh-me-cratic): ruled by the hard cold logic boffins)
Failed invention "re-debramblerizing."
Those damn birds, they are a-singing now.
Two thousand words of insomnia-fueled, jittery neuron activity/pontificating, and rising. You have been warned.
Repeated assertion: All Christians are racists.
Other people would just say, 'clearly wrong' and forget it. Unfortunately, I was hijacked by my brain and insomnia - late night logorrhea and early morning research and redrafting resulted.
wikipedia checking:
Commonly accepted definition of racism (wikipedia seems an ideal source for such a thing). Same source for definition of the concept of race and for the contrast with ethnic group. These chimed exactly with my understanding. I would agree that race is a social construct as well. (Referencing an earlier comment of mine that 'racism' is in part an outmoded phrase as it references and reinforces the unhelpful and arguably invalid concept of separate human races, encourages 'thinking skin-deep' and the problem it expresses is more related to the rather wider idea of ethnicity anyway - 'ethnicism' rather than racism.)
I was wanted to clarify the different ideas of racism the sides in the dispute appeared to be using, as well as those about what Christianity involves.
Refutation 1: refuting racism by 'man' (after the qualification of 'racism' to people elsewhere who are mostly of another race)
Definitions of racism appeared to be an issue because, on challenge, the assertion was qualified; Christians (and the God they conceive) do not all chose to make the limited personal sacrifice which could significantly help all the most needy of the globe, so they do not value people ‘elsewhere’, and those suffering most in the world are elsewhere and racially different, so all self-professed Christians are racist. The Christian distribution map shows some obvious flaws with this and one by 'race' would argue that point still more convincingly. The reason Christianity was focused on was the doctrine that all are created equal and, everyone is your neighbour so there is a (second flaw) perceived logical imperative that every Christian should help all to the best of their ability and resources. It appears to be an extension of the Golden Rule’s (named ' the Meta-Golden Rule' by Vernor Vinge.) Christian variant, however "Judaism and Christianity teach that the Golden Rule and other moral commands on human relations are subsidiary to commands relating to God… Many people argue that Islam does not have a Golden Rule” but all cultures and faiths share a version. Not every logical extension of a doctrine is or can be a required observance. Charity - any intervention to help your neighbours - is a voluntary virtue, not a qualifying criterion of Christianity. I don't know of any category of society where they carry all their beliefs to their logical conclusion in every aspect of their life (thank goodness), so picking on Christians appeared to be unnecessary. The average human of whatever persuasion rarely gives much to their own significant disadvantage except to those close to home, though many open their wallets or clear out their unwanted brick-a-brak for the masses. But the others may as well be in the next suburb as the next continent. Humans can only cope with a clan of a certain size - we are hardwired only to connect to specific individuals in that way. Limited charity of the type described as racist seemed to be more an issue about limited individual emotional resources rather than racism - according to Robert Dunbar’s Social Brain hypothesis (which produced Dunbar's Number /the ‘monkeysphere’) the neocortical volume of primate brains defines the social group size. (I don’t know if this comes under the category of social neuroscience or was an advance example of the field.) Individuals and societies can care about general populations elsewhere in a sense but, as individuals, are only emotionally involved with about 150ish people. Ethnic representation is likely to correspond with your family and the fabric of the groups around you. A Christian’s emotionally-connected clan is as likely to be as ethnically varied as the atheist next door's. Ecuadorians, Chechens, Indonesians etc are equally the victims of Christian and non-Christian limited reach, apathy, and 'I’m alright Jackness'. Admittedly the proportion of extremely deprived and needy in the world isn’t equally distributed between the ethnic groups and the same is true of wealth. This doesn’t make the self-involved racist.
As IR and other studies show, throwing money at deprived areas does not necessarily end the deprivation, so you can legitimately be a non-hypocritical Christian doing what is in your power to help those within reach and relying on contributions to NGOs to reach those you can't. On the other hand, many people give generously to charities - most wealthy western democratic nations' charitable sectors (and many NGOs) were born of specifically Christian philanthropic projects. It has been said that in most societies the various religious institutions have for millennia had a significant, sometimes principle role, as state-sanctioned public support systems for the needy (obviously often with a qualification hurdle). My father and others believe in tithing for that reason (though admittedly I don't think he gives a tenth of his income, I could be wrong). Obviously many Christians are in fact hypocritical, or at least wildly inconsistent. This is in part inevitable, as you can't help everyone equally - except by helping no-one at all (equal treatment is not always fair treatment). Christianity helpfully does not posit omnipotent flawless Christians, though Bush and Blair sometimes appear to project themselves as such. Do-gooders, Christian or otherwise can be dangerous things, and the level of danger can be more dependent on the degree of self-conviction than the attempted action (e.g. missionaries throughout history). The always implicit but often explicit inferiority of the efforts of the intended recipients of the aid to help themselves is often found insulting, especially where need for assistance is only perceived by the donor. Reappraisal of the unintended (and sometimes intended) effects of missionary work and charitable initiatives have made many people today, Christians included, uncertain about helping others - nervous that their efforts will prove counterproductive, backfire or just be resented.
Refutation 2: refuting racism by God
The thought was an incompletely expressed one. I take racism to be the
idea that members of other races are fundamentally less valuable. Now,
it seems to me that most of the injustice in the world is directed
towards members of certain ones. As such, it seems difficult to think
there is an omnipotent God who cares equally about everyone. The issue
is thus less about our own actions, and more about the standards to
which we hold hypothetical deities.
Lengthy rejoinder:
most of the injustice... towards members of certain ones. Currently - taking the long view, who knows? I hope we're not at the end of human history and one would have to assume that a god was taking a longer view.
Ah. This theory depends on the idea that any god is an interventionist one. (I have heard the rejoinder that the idea of a non-interventionist god is pointless, as is the idea of an omnipotent flawless being who chooses not to exercise his powers because they have chosen to give us free will.) Many mainstream versions of Christian dogma appear to assert exactly that, except: at some specific points precise guidance was provided; prayers which may be answered (so they and their contingent consequences are presumably assessed and selected between, which I find a particularly baffling contradiction, although I pray); and the forgiveness of the sins of the repentant (which I hope for, should there be an afterlife, although I'm sure I'm not repentant enough of everything which God sees as a sin [if sins in this sense exist and are judged see further below] especially the ones I've forgotten or may well repeat). (It also asserts a benevolent god who shares our concept of caring acts, not a god who doesn't give a damn equally.) This does appear to leave us with a God who sticks his finger in occasionally when it doesn't trip up other plans, which means there are plans, and judges us in this world as well as the next, even though this world is base. Queue endless theological debate about free will, predestination and the value of not taking on yourself the sin of murdering innocents while they are sinless to guarantee them a good life everlasting.) The unorthodox ideas of apocatastasis and Universalism protect the idea of God's fundamental benevolence by denying an eternal hell for sinners, which presumably would support the contention that suffering in this world is the result of a judgement against you.
The statement, "All Christians are racists," remains an uncharacteristically poor expression of your thought and unsupportable. Of course there was a time when it was believed that any affliction in this world was an expression of the disapproval of a god, or God, and thus the disproportionate suffering of non-white populations could be seen as a sign of disapproval. This was always inconsistent with the idea that this world is valueless compared with the next and we are judged on death or on Judgement Day. It was actually a carry-over from pre-Christian religious beliefs and explanations for affliction (visible in Greek mythology) and I believe was why the healing of the sick was by some accounts thought by the some contemporary jews to be a blasphemous departure by Jesus. The whole thing felt way too Dawkins-style evangelical atheist for my comfort. If atheism is self-evidently superior, no-one needs to argue on its behalf.
I do understand the thinking, 'if everyone who said they were a committed Christian (or follower of a faith similarly advocating charitable acts) actually went out and helped those who needed it, the world would be a better place: it isn't and therefore there are a lot of crap Christians/followers of faiths out there'. To an extent this is true, but because of my aforementioned reservations about do-gooding, I don't think it would eliminate the suffering in the world - it might just lead to more aggressive charitable evangelism (I typed 'vandalism' just then by accident). I also think it underestimates the level of neediness in the world. As an aside, one phenomenon often observed in churches is those who spend a lot of their time in charitable work through the church etc find their home life falling apart. My mother always commented on the striking divorce rate amongst those active in my father's church. (cf the English Christian saying 'charity begins at home.')
Islam is interesting because it postulates a similar God to Christianity, values charity, has a tithing system and yet, at least according to some of my reading, also posits an interventionist God who writes our fates when we are born (through a particular type of divine agent). This may not be canonical. So the Islamic God judges and punishes sin having predestined people to it, in many cases by fating them to not convert to his true religion and woes in this life are deliberately inflicted on people individually. My apologies if this betrays a total misapprehension. If correct, giving me a satisfactory reason for this fundamental self-contradiction would be impressive.
There is no informed choice between available religions, just personal conviction. My thoughts on God are rooted in my Christian upbringing but mostly heretical, often inconsistent and do not necessarily provide a helpful code for living, not-least because I do not believe we have reliable guidance on what an omniscient omnipotent being would want from us (behaviour-wise or otherwise) and by definition we cannot second-guess the values or priorities of something beyond our comprehension. You can only guess God's intent if God did make humans in his image and we are not an inferior copy. This is not what I believe and I distrust anyone's claim to know what God wants of us, or in fact that God wants anything of us. All religions claim to do this and have a long archive of human reasoning supporting and explaining why their current doctrine is correct. I do not pretend to be wiser than every single contributor and certainly not than their cumulative efforts but the task they have set themselves is impossible and the ignorance a lifetime is too short to address means that, were a single faith and church correct, I cannot rely on myself to identify it. I try to be good (and often fail very badly) because I think that is something worth trying for in itself and for its effect on the people and world around us. I think worship coerced by societal pressures or for personal preservation beyond the grave is valueless conformity rather than faith. You should love God to love God and believe because you believe: be good because good is good. I have a lot of trouble with working out what good is and following that, but then so does everyone who cares about such things, regardless of creed. In the end, you are only left with your own judgement, or your failure to exercise it, however much advice you get from sources you respect.
My belief in God is a product of
- my stubborn adherence to the idea that we don’t know enough about the universe to rule it out, even if many assert it’s unprovable, unnecessary or damaging, coupled with
- exposure to the idea of multiple universes in which different possible out comes are expressed (recently revived) at an impressionable age (blame Dr Who, blame Star Trek) and fondness for the concept of a multiverse; the ontological argument, which I know is a 0G-spider's doily.
- my stubborn adherence to a belief that we need the unknown and unknowable because it feeds a vital part of our psyche; that the spiritual, however expressed, is essential and also that without it there is insufficient to hold back the innate, arrogant and treacherous sense of human superiority.
For the record, if this is our one world and one life, we need to make the best effort possible at this one; if this world is base and the worldly of no value, but we might be judged on it and we can't confirm the afterlife, we need to make the best effort possible at this one. An afterlife is a great argument against suicide though, unless you believe that the next one will be better or that you can repeat it in them all until you find an exit.
I am not going in to a discussion of the afterlife or whether or not we are in fact judged. Holding a belief that we will be judged imposes behaviour on that basis.
Some of the wikipedia entries consulted but not linked above:
Afterlife (external)
Predestination in Christianity Judaism and Islam:
Qadr.
Creed
Ethics in religion
The Abrahamic religions
Judaism
Creed/doctrine and ethics in Islam:
Because morality and submission to God are inherent in humans, ‘heedless’ behaviour is a betrayal of our own nature at the same time as a betrayal of God.
According to wikipedia, Shia principles include an upholding an ideal of justice (adalah) among the central tenets and enjoining what is good and forbidding what is wrong as two of the important practices., while Sunni’s assert that "nothing is good or evil per se, and that what God commanded people to do became good by virtue of his command, and what he forbade became evil."
Isn't it nice to be able to ramble on for ages in a utterly one-sided way? Now everyone else can have a free go, should they want to, at digressing or rebutting it all or any part, if anyone has waded all the way down here. I guess they can tear my world down.
What is scientific?
Curiously Wikipedia's 'science' entry claims social science as one of two main empirical branches of science immediately after giving a broad but relatively hard definition of science (maths and logic forming the third branch, formal science, distinctive in that a prioi methods are used) but in social sciences the following appears:
"The word "science" is older than its modern use, which is as a short-form for "natural science". Uses of the word "science", in contexts other than those of the natural sciences, are historically valid, so long as they are describing an art or organized body of knowledge which can be taught objectively. The use of the word "science" is not therefore always an attempt to claim that the subject in question ought to stand on the same footing of inquiry as a natural science."
In soft science:
"When soft science refers to a natural science, it is usually used pejoratively, mainly due to the term's association with social science, implying that a particular natural science topic described as "soft" does not belong to the field of natural science.
When "soft science" is used to refer to social science, the reference are not usually used pejoratively because it is accepted that that social science isn't as objective, and thus as open to interpretation as natural sciences such as physics or chemistry. [citation needed]
"The term is often employed by social scientist themselves without any projective implication though some might use it for self-deprecation."
From the inconsistency of the science entries, an ongoing confusion or process of change in our understanding of what is science and what is scientific can obviously be inferred.
The increased understanding gained within all branches remains worthwhile, but gains in "soft" areas may be more valuable because the fact that they are "soft" indicates (as [you] pointed out) how much our understanding in these areas needs to grow; consistent certainties are damn useful but the uncertainties in all fields reveal that the systems are more complex than previous theories allow for. Where the complex systems are us, the fact that we know so much about the universe yet so little about ourselves perhaps makes us a foolish 'intelligent' species, and should remind us to beware hubris in all our endeavours. Early twentieth hard science contained some (with hindsight) pretty ropey scientifically rigorous and peer-supported hypotheses, which it took a lot of further data to displace. These usually left a swathe of inexplicable exceptions. Is social scientific knowledge really any less valid than that, or merely younger? (I would like to restate my belief that, because humans are occasionally and inexplicably inconsistent, illogical and self-destructive, detailed scientific predictions for every situation will forever elude us, unless we acquire a God-like omniscience as to all the variables in each case, or [shudder] exercise a degree of control over society and individuals which vastly reduces either the potential influences, the range of behaviours available, or both. History is hindsight exposing the pertinent variables.)
As [you] stated, we cannot always base our decisions on absolutely reliable data, sometimes we have to make do with the most reliable data available, shaky though it may sometimes be. The best knowledge available, rather than complete knowledge.
In social neuroscience the hard and soft sciences appear to be recombining.
Neologisms of the day "ethnicism" (also "domecratic" (doh-me-cratic): ruled by the hard cold logic boffins)
Failed invention "re-debramblerizing."
Those damn birds, they are a-singing now.