Faith vs Proof

Since no-one has told me I'm an idiot yet, I'm going for the big one, you know, keep lining them up and knocking them down. And trying to get crushed only some of the time.

Making a huge generalisation, there are two main types of blogs; those trying to sell things, and those about Jesus. Since this blog is neither, I can poke fun at either. And Jesus¹ is up first.

There are two main schools of thought about how the universe came to be; benevolent, omnipotent entity against statistical probability. The benevolent, omnipotent entity school is supported (or followed) by those who belong to an organised religion. The statistical probability school is supported by those of a scientific bent who, by the nature of their work, need to prove that it works. And if Proof denies Faith, you can't have both.

The vast majority (I believe its over 95%) of people on this planet are "affiliated" with one of the major religions. Chances are there is an overlap in the two schools; those of a scientific mindset who practice a religion. This would imply that you can have both, or that these people are either bad engineers / scientist, or lapsed religious types.

Organised Religion has, in my humble opinion, a chequered past in that it goes to great lengths to foist its beliefs on others. Most notably in South America, where thousands of indigenous peoples have been forced to embrace Christianity, or be "purified"; read as "shot" ².

Scientists too attempt to foist their beliefs / findings / proofs on others, in an attempt to ratify their life's work. I suppose, in a small way, each scientist is the leader of their own little religion, trying to bring others to their cause, except they use evidence and reasoning, instead of relying on blind faith and the sword.
Being objective, science hasn't been around as long as religion, so The Sword as a means to an end isn't really an option for Science. I'm sure some scientists are pretty cut-throat in their dealings as well.

Religion, in the same way as Planning, is Man's attempt to impose order on the chaotic universe, in an attempt to understand it. But so is Science. So Science and Religion appear to be two disciplines with the same goal and differing methods.

But Religion requires that you accept that the universe and its wondrous variety is the work of the omnipotent being, and not worry about the How, which isn't a mechanism for understanding the universe, merely with being comfortable with how it is.

Science, on the other hand, very much wants to know How, as Human beings are generally an inquisitive lot. If we accept the omnipotent creator, why would He/She/They/It create a being, one of whose defning characteristics is curiosity, who would attempt to identify their origins, if such an act is heretical?

¹ Was he really Puerto Rican? We'll never know.
² You may be able to tell that I don't have a great deal of time for organised religion, but I'm trying to be objective here. If not, it gives your religious people a get out clause.

Eclipses

Does it bother anyone else that during a total Eclipse of the sun by the moon, the Moon is juuuuust the right size to block all but the sun's corona, giving us a spectacular "ring of fire"? Isn't it a little bit too convenient?

If religious types really wanted to convert people, that's the kind of thing you need to be selling as divine creation, rather than saying you'll rot in Hell ¹.

From a planetary mechanics point of view, I'm sure the equations probably balance out. If you assume that the supposition that a prehistoric Earth impact ejected the material to make the Moon is correct, then it may be that the relative masses and densities of the two bodies involved are such that the Moon automatically assumes the correct orbit to provide nice eclipses. Maybe that's just how moons work.

It's almost like Archimedes getting into the bath and displacing his volume in water, which is juuust enough to cover the floor to exactly the depth required so that when Archimides got out, he slips and falls back in. OK, so it's nothing like that.

If you do accept the Creationist dogma for a second, it would stand to reason ² that what is for The Moon is for all moons. But would He go through all that trouble making nicely positioned and sized moons, only to give Life to one planet only? Maybe he couldn't be bothered. Maybe He got to late Saturday afternoon, tired after a full week creating the Universe, the footie is on the telly, last job in the Job Jar is "create eclipsing moons" and He thought "No, Its Chelsea Versus Liverpool. Screw Their Nicely Eclipsing Moons. They Can Be Happy With What They've Got. Or Else." Doesn't sound much like the popular depiction of God thus far does it? Ooh, Deity as Couch Potato Footy Fan, there's a concept. Maye I should write a book and sell the film rights to Tom Hanks.

Errr.......Eclipses! Very pretty, little bit too convenient, but very pretty all the same. I'm sure there is a rational, science-based reason for it. Answers on a Postcard.

¹ Wouldn't you have to believe in God, and hence Heaven and Hell, before this threat carries any weight?
² Sorry, used "reason" in the context of Religion there.

Man vs Nature

Recent events have reminded us just how powerful and destructive Nature¹ can be. Only by Man fiddling with Nature in naughty ways (atomic bombs) can he even begin to emulate the power of Nature.

After filling up the car with petrol at £1 a litre (you lucky American drivers!), it occurred to me that Nature is protecting itself, applying some draconian measures to ensure that some measure of equilibrium is maintained.

The fact that the petroleum-producing capacity of one of the biggest polluters in the world was severely limited possibly is an indication of a cause-and-effect loop. We produce petroleum, we drive our cars, destroy the ozone layer, heat up the oceans, which drive the hurricanes that destroy our ability to produce petroleum.

I'm aware that I'm attaching the idea of conciousness and awareness to an "unintelligent" planet, but there may be an argument that when a system reaches the complexity of a planet, with all its associated process, a change to one element leads to a equilibrating change by another; i.e. the system protects itself, albeit reactively.

This is not what environmentalists would want to hear, but indications are that each atrocity visited on the planet is met by a counter-attack from the planet. It may be that no matter how badly we behave, we will always get a slap.

Take the Boxing Day tsunami. A hundred years or so ago, the number of dead would be two orders of magnitude smaller. The only reason so many died is that so many were alive in the first place. Same goes in Africa. The land can only support so many people, so those it cannot support don't make it. Callous though it sounds, sending aid only prolongs the suffering. Aid doesn't adjust the properties of the region, it merely postpones the effects of that region.

The only way out of the loop is to alter the properties of the region; e.g. irrigate the whole of Africa. However, this is somewhat beyond the Will, if not the Wit, of Man. I suspect that if we were to do so, Nature would come up with some way of defending itself.

Attempts to homogenize the world into a evenly-productive sphere would only cause stagnation. Nature requires extremes and differences to drive those processes which allow Life, and therefore Man, to exist.

So, I think that there will come a point where Nature's retaliation to our relentless rape and infestation of the planet will meet the rate of our infestation and an uneasy calm will ensue. That's when things will get interesting.

¹ I'm not including animal life in my definition of Nature. Animal life, humans aside, have the least impact on the planet. I think, anyway.