Category: – Science

Categories
- Religion - Science Knowledge

A video on science and religion

Just a few thoughts from one of the contributors to this blog.

A document titled “One Common Faith” writes:

Religion is religion, as science is science. The one discerns and articulates the values unfolding progressively through Divine revelation; the other is the instrumentality through which the human mind explores and is able to exert its influence ever more precisely over the phenomenal world. The one defines goals that serve the evolutionary process; the other assists in their attainment. Together, they constitute the dual knowledge system impelling the advance of civilization.

Categories
- Empowerment - Science Development Discourse

Technology: Good or Bad?

It would be unrealistic to adhere to a retrogressive and romanticized notion of a “simple” life, in which technology is non-existent, and humanity subsists in some type of passively blissful coexistence with nature. It overlooks at once the inter-personal needs that technology satisfies with enhanced communication as well as the life-salvaging benefits of medical intervention, for examples. Retrogressive viewpoints for a romanticized past  are the result of rampant conservativism driven delusional by nostalgia.  It exists in the middle east, with Islamic revolutionary retrogression in the democratized states of the Arab spring, as well as in the United States with the spokespeople of the religious right. Retrogression exists anywhere conservatism blinds people to the evolving needs to which time subjects human societies. Its proponents become entrenched in and bolster the status quo against mounting evidence for desperately required change. An “ever-advancing civilization” is God’s own characterization of the human condition to which we are all contributors. It is this same retrogression that has prevented the recognition of progressive revelation in the manifestation of the various religions that have come to man from God over the centuries. Ever wonder why they don’t call it conservative revelation?

The concept of an ever-advancing civilization, material as well as spiritual, is central to our conceptual framework for social action, where we work for wholesale social transformation. It is inevitable that because of the never-ceasing tide of human needs and opportunities to improve social services and streamline infrastructure that our ever-advancing civilization will require a never-ending form of technological innovation, change, and development. As far as we are concerned, then, the challenge before humanity is not whether it should opt for high and sophisticated technology (eventuating in World War III) or low and simple technology (releasing humanity to care-free co-existence with mother nature) — this is a false choice, a false dichotomy. The question regarding technology, rather, is how to develop and apply technologies that are conducive to spiritual, and not only material, prosperity? And how in doing so does such technology organically extend the benefits of materially and spiritually prosperous civilization to members of the entire human race? Is technology doomed to be manipulated as the instrument of materialism forever? Are technological choices possible? What choices and how as a society can we make them? Share your comments below.

Categories
- Education - Empowerment - Governance - Oppression - Orthopaedic Surgery - Prevailing Conceptions - Religion - Science - Three Protagonists Development Discourse Health Care Human Nature Justice Knowledge Oneness Power

Artificial Scarcity & The Baha’i Faith

The Problem

.
ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY is a term used to describe the condition in which masses of people are deprived of their bare necessities, while wealth, resources, and infrastructure exist in sufficient proportion to provide for all. The amount of wealth and scientific technology available to humanity in the 21st century is more than at any previous time in human history. So why are the following statistics still true?
.
-There are 1 billion children living in poverty today.  
-Twenty-two thousand children die each day from hunger/malnutrition.
-Two point two million children die from preventable illnesses annually, due to lack of immunization.
-120 million children are not in any school (60% of these are girls).
-Over 1 billion people lack access to clean water (millions of women spend hours each day collecting water).
-Two billion people lack basic sanitation.
-One billion people are illiterate.
.
To put these statistics in perspective: it would take less than what the United States spends annually on dog food to solve any one of these global tragedies. Alternatively, it would take less than a tenth of 1% of what the US government spends on the military annually to do the same. 
.

Scarcity & Modernity

.
So with the increase in scientific technology and global wealth production, why is the number of people under poverty increasing, not decreasing? Humanity is richer and more technologically advanced than ever before, and yet the scale of suffering, and its proportion as a factor of global population is increasing. With the aid of science, agriculture industries produce more food than the entire species needs to survive, but hunger still persists. Millions of people die from preventable disease, for which vaccine immunizations have already been invented. The internet makes knowledge universally accessible, but education is still not universal. 
.
Privation is a condition being exacerbated by modernity, not alleviated by it, despite an ironic time-warp advance in agricultural technology and global productivity in the 20th cenntury. A complex result of international disunity, outmoded economic theories, cultural slogans, corporate and government exploitation of indigenous peoples, and squandering of natural resources, has artificially imposed scarcity as a defining feature of modern civilization, crippling the abundance and global prosperity of human civilization that is its natural state, by orders of magnitude.
.

It’s Origin

.
A particular conception of human nature which is implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, promoted in popular narratives can be traced back and identified as the Archimedian point from which the lever of human history pivoted in the trajectory of artificial scarcity . With the post-dark ages rise of the state-type known as ‘western democracy’, an implicit claim of superiority regarding its cultural values, was exported along with its plastic goods, fast food corporations, and sexualized media. Economic hegemony of the globe implied at least three metaphysical presuppositions, to a world fixated on materialism as its religion and new standard of truth. Understood to be the basis upon which western prosperity was ostensibly achieved, three assumptions stood out about human nature.
.
Human Nature is:
1) Material
2) Individualistic
3) Competitive
.
We are learning that human nature is not material but spiritual, not individualistic but communal, and not competitive but cooperative.
.

Science Devoid of Religion

.
Much of science is only acknowledged as true science until such time as it is disproven to be the fancies of personal bias amongst the elite who control thought in ways that benefit them through mechanisms of power: private and public grant funding, editors of academic journals, television and internet news media moguls, and industry-sponsored misinformation. A classic example is the transition from Newtonian to Modern Physics, the ecstatic character of which resembles mass religious conversion, more than the sterile stereotype of science fancied in popular imagination (See Kuhn, On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions). In orthopaedic surgery, the controversy over research on drugs like rhBMP-2, procedures like kypho- and vertebroplasty, and implanting of metal-on-metal hip prostheses, bear similar semblance to the effect of profit-motive over elite decision makers who lampoon their whims downhill as the edicts of gods from Mount ‘Science’, only to realize in retrospect a lesson which humility could have taught prior to the the cost in human life and morbidity. It is not science, but hubris that is to be blamed. 
.
Likewise, the  three assumptions of human nature popularized implicitly by materialism’s gospel of human betterment which was successfully exported along with US lifestyle’s addiction to instant gratification (salt, fat, sugar, sex, violence, and drugs), purported to be scientific as well. Again, not because of evidence, but because of arrogance.
.

The Science of Economics

.
The science of economics, taught in every school, has led humanity down a dark path,  because it is based on a flawed conception of human nature. According to the fathers of modern economic theory, which still holds sway in dominant market spheres today, actors in the marketplace can be characterized according to the following three principles. 
.
1) Human actors express unlimited material wants
2) The quantity of  desirable resources and wealth is limited and finite
3) Markets operate in an efficient manner
.
Principle one states that human beings are rationally self-interested actors in pursuit of maximizing hedonistic pursuit of insatiable material pleasure. Here, both self-interest and a materialistic conception of human nature are presupposed implicitly in the premise. Principle two states that resources and opportunities are limited. In the case of natural resources for example it holds them, implicitly to be non-renewable (viz a vis. fossil fuels but not solar power)  and in the case of educational opportunities (university admissions but not online courses, open-source code, Ruhi classes, or grass roots distance education) and employment opportunities (trickle down theory and not regulated, responsible, socially just policies). As such, it presupposes them to be scarce and insufficient. Principle three states that consumers will purchase good products more frequently than inferior products and as a result of Laissez-faire natural selection producers of poor products will fall out of business, leaving an increasingly superior quality of product available for sale in the marketplace (ignoring the effect of advertising, which is one of the biggest investments of corporate producers, designed explicitly to undermine rational self-interest and persuade consumers to purchase things that are not to their benefit. Also, ignoring negative externalities which lie beyond the purview of market actors, and are having a devastating effect on human society, viz a vis green-house induced climate change.)  Value ought to be determined by a commodity’s worth to human society, as opposed to its price, which in modern economic theory is left unregulated as the equilibrium point between supply and demand. To drive up price, supply is intentionally limited by providers, even in the case of necessities, to maximize their profit margin. As worth is divorced from price so to is universal prosperity impoverished by income inequality.
.

Reform in Retrospect

.
These “scientific” principles are more selfish, egocentric, philosophical beliefs, that are essentially metaphysical in character, with no amenability to scientific inquiry. More like Machiavellian or Nietzschean claims of human nature than empirical science. It should evoke the question in us all, “why has metaphysical speculation, personal conjectures, and supernatural philosophy been allowed to pass as science?” It makes science seem like prejudice, superstition, and ignorance, especially those branches of science that endorse these claims about human nature. The twilight of this conception of human nature is at hand, giving way under mounting evidence of success in ethical-collective-cooperative business models, but not before its effects had been baptized into law, dogmatized as inviolate, and employed in not only academic exercises, but also in application to global market operations, Geopolitical relations, ownership of natural resources, and even in the domestic policy arising in the wake of civil rights and social justice struggles.
.
Notwithstanding this, the most tragic victim of the material-individualistic-competitive conception of human nature is the education system. The fundamental principles of pedagogy upon which K-12 and university models of education have been adopted endorse a zero-sum grading curve, in which the success of one student necessitates the failure of his classmates, interpersonal competition fostered for internal class ranks, extinguishing creativity through emphasis on standardized testing, and social hierarchies that rarely relate to inherent talent but more often reflect access to opportunities family finances that enable credentialing like MD and PhD, exclusively and artificially maintained, through insurmountable tuition barriers.
.

Artificial Scarcity of Education

.
How did the esotericization of knowledge come to replace what is the birthright of all humankind — universal education? The esotericization of knowledge is the single most grievous victim of the economic system that birthed artificial scarcity. Baha’u’llah writes, “What “oppression” is more grievous than that a soul seeking… knowledge…should know not where to go for it?” Knowledge has been artificially controlled by barriers to its generation, application, and diffusion. Barriers that include cultural myths about who has access to it, economic barriers about who can afford it, and popular barriers about what its usefulness and application can be. Furthermore, education suffers from internal corruption regarding its generation, and what kinds of subjects are investigated, reported and applied that are of specialized interest to wealthy urban technocrats and irrelevant to the majority of people.
.
The internet and cyberspace has created the possibility of exploding knowledge at unprecedented rates across millions of miles to peoples and lands who would otherwise never be able to communicate. Tuition is used to keep people out of universities, while the curriculum is already online wholesale. Exorbitant tuitions purchase for the student only the numeric digits of the password to access gigabytes of lectures and audio-visual material that is already uploaded online. This material could be used to teach graduate curricula in every shack or shanty town with a wifi connection accross the villages and urban sprawls of Africa and Latin America. False scales of prestige are perpetuated by cultural narratives originating in the enlightenment by which knowledge is conserved as the elite purview of credentialed experts (MD, PhD, etc.) by which masses are excluded from contributing to knowledge, but also from participating in its application to their own life situations. In this way a passive, recipient class is created which depends upon the knowledge and expertise of gatekeepers, prior to their own use of knowledge to advance towards prosperity. The inherent potential, volition, and talent of the masses is subjugated and destroyed in exchange for the experts to acquire their profits.
.
Disempowerment is profitable to the few. Yet prosperity for all demands that we enact the democratization of knowledge, revolutionizing the systems of pedagogy using modern day technology to achieve relevant and participatory education for all.
.

Applicability of Curricula

.
The content of research and educational curricula are set by intellectuals who are ironically distant from the life of the masses from which the most important questions of our generation arise. Academic content  is determined by individuals and systems with priorities alien to the communities and realities of the majority of people. Graduate curricula and research agendas are as irrelevant to the issues of privation and prosperity as they are to industry needs of employment markets. The education-to-employment market mismatch is an oversight which is staggering even from a materialist point of view. An unprecedented proportion of college graduates are working unskilled minimum wage jobs. The corporatization of the university has metastasized and is stealing nutrients from its parent-cancer, the broader unregulated capitalization of civilization. This is the nature of self-interest — it splinters until the tinniest atoms of existence are at war with each other.
.

Culture of Contest

.
Artificial scarcity squanders human and natural resources through conflict that is the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The narrative is sold that opportunities are scarce and competition between individuals needed to determine who deserves opportunity — inculcating a culture of contest, prescriptively. Similarly, this same logic is used to make economic decisions regarding the structural supply of goods and services in the form of policy and infrastructure that creates opportunity and education. The prevalent discourse about what is considered valuable opportunities for the actualization of human potential is likewise prescribed via education by the beneficiaries of a pacified and obedient labor force. As such, both the social structure and the minds of social actors, individuals and institutions, is handicapped in the reductionism of the prison of the scarcity mindset. A self-reinforcing cycle of human consciousness and social structures is established in which privation and inter-personal conflict are regarded as natural. Slowly, what should be a reprehensible externality is transmuted into a fact to be embraced by those functioning most virtuously within the system. Before any evil decision-making has entered, injustice is already prevalent, and no one is to blame.
.

Consumerism as Opiate

.
The material-individual-competitive conception of human nature exported by an imperialistic consumer culture has built scarcity into the economic paradigm as a means of maximizing profits but not prosperity for the world order. For the growing number of the oppressed, their economic situation is resembling more and more the feudal relationship that characterized wealthy land-owners and peasant farmers in medieval Europe. Instead of military force to induce compliance, the modern masters of social and economic control employ subtle mechanisms of consumerism and entertainment which act as opium to the human soul, lulling a satisfied and docile slave labor class into generational obedience. Myths of opportunity and the american dream maintain people in the belief that suffering and privation result from the failure of individuals and not from the nature of the socioeconomic system.Workplace specialization and a growing climate of worker insecurity drive laborers to increasingly monotonous occupations that necessitate increasing quantities of nightlife entertainment to cure and assuage the destruction of their God-given potential. Exploiting the bodies of the masses, unjust labor wages drain biological treasure, while consumerism and entertainment exploit financially, reabsorbing monetary treasure back into the system. In simple terms, the feudal lord owns the adjacent beer-hall, in which the peasants squander their family’s livelihood on substance addiction each pay-day. Like all opiates, tolerance to even the highest doses becomes inevitable. Income inequality and mass privation of an increasingly employed and impoverished majority cannot but lead to instability and a breakdown of law and order. As riches are increasingly concentrated in the hands of an elite minority, receptivity to alternative social orders grows amongst the populace.  Only those who question, and are attune to the searing of the Undying Flame of the Baha’i Revelation are awakening to alternative worlds.
.

Market-Share Vs. Pie-Size

.
Re-conceptualizing human nature as spiritual-communal-cooperative allows a transition from emphasizing an individual’s or business’s market-share as a proportion of profits, to emphasizing the total size of the pie available to everyone. Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith writes, “the advantage of the part is best to be reached by the advantage of the whole.” This revolution in economic theory and social policy implies a profound change at the level of culture, both as individuals and communities, and at the level of social structure and institutions. Unlike the pseudo-science of modern economics, a growing body of evidence is showing that when each individual or group works to further the productivity and usefulness of the entire market (ie: pie-size), it may entail that the group’s particular market-share decreases as a proportion, but notwithstanding this, their particular allotment actually increases in terms of its absolute quantity. This evidence flies in the face of the zero-sum conception of reality in which competitive and self-interested systems inculcate scarcity as a natural outgrowth of the economic paradigm. Ironically, selflessness conduces to prosperity. According to the Baha’i conception, scarcity is an aberration. The reality of the universe is abundance.
.
.
De Beers is a well known manipulator of diamond supply (via its leverage over a majority of global diamond mines) to fix prices at a high level.
diamonds
Categories
- Prevailing Conceptions - Religion - Science Discourse Human Nature Knowledge

A De-scription Pad

A ‘prescription’ is that which is laid down as a rule, an order, a precept.  A ‘description’, on the other hand, is a statement that indicates and notes observations.  Common to both words is ‘script’, which denotes a law or plan.  And ‘law’, of course, is a set of principles and rules that govern relationships and realities.

 

Current society’s conceptions regard prescriptions and descriptions as separate.  Are they?  Should they be?  What is, actually, the difference between them?  Are they the same?

 

Perhaps the problem lies in that fact that society promotes an overly-simplistic, and often bi-polarized, understanding of the world around us.  ‘Prescription’ is what ought to be, while ‘description’ is what we see.  However, under an understanding that human beings strive to progressively create social reality that increasingly reflects the principles that govern reality, description and prescription are the same thing.

 

Let us look at a few examples.  A farmer has certain prescribed actions and labors at certain times of the year – say, plowing in February, planting in March, fertilizing in May, and harvesting in July.  This systemic pattern of behavior occurs because the farmer has learned to progressively refine his description of the natural cycle of the crop.  In fact, one might say that the role of a farmer is to continuously learn to describe the laws that govern the life of the plant and prescribe a system to align his work with this description so as to most effectively yield crop.  A doctor, similarly, prescribes medicine in order to treat disease.  One who has diabetes might be prescribed 15 units of insulin at night to help lower blood glucose.  This prescription, however, is actually simply a description of how much more insulin the body needs in order to maintain normal blood glucose levels.  Through a systematic study of this particular disease, and learning to describe the pathophysiology of that human being, the doctor can prescribe a medicine that aligns itself with this description.  In the same way, an engineer prescribes a limit to the maximum weight that a bridge can hold, or prescribes an optimal flow of electricity to power an appliance.  However, these prescriptions are simply descriptions of the relationships and laws of physics that govern the materials of the bridge with gravity, or the flow of electrons with the circuits of the device – prescriptions are the application of description.

 

Society is similar to the examples of botany, physiology, and physics examined above.  Social advance is propelled through the generation and application of learning within two broad systems of knowledge and practice called science and religion.  Each serve to describe the world around us and its dynamics.  Religion articulates the values that are unfolding progressively through divine revelation, defines the goals of our social and spiritual evolutionary process, and increasingly clarify the spiritual forces and processes at work in the humanity’s life.  Science, of course, describes the laws that govern physical reality and is the instrumentality through which the human mind explores the phenomenal world.  The brief periods of human history in which these two systems operated in harmony have witnessed marvelous social development; for the prescriptions that people and social systems create for social reality come from some descriptive conception.

 

In the same way that no one would label 9.8 meters-per-second-squared as an arbitrary prescription of the earth’s gravitational pull on objects near its surface, similarly, the ordinance to pray a number of times a day is actually a description of the needs and dynamics of a human soul, according to an understanding of its nature.  Every prescribed law has an implied description.  What assumptions underlie this description?  Are those who act according to these prescriptions conscious that they are operating under descriptive assumptions, and therefore tacitly condoning a certain conception of human nature?  How well-aligned are the descriptions upon which these prescriptions are created with true science and true religion?  As an example, society prescribes laws within a competitive economic system; these laws, therefore, describe and assume human nature as competitive.  Yet, that is just one assumption; one can easily set aside this assumption for the more likely premise that cooperation is true human nature, and, based on this description, is the prescribed method of human interaction.  What can be done when one’s assumption of human nature differs from the description upon which social prescriptions are based?  Simple.  Operationalize these assumptions and give those around you a new pattern of behavior to describe; articulate these assumptions and give those around you a reconceptualization of human nature; build unity with others and put into place prescriptions based upon descriptions aligned with the harmony of science and religion.

 

Civilization advances through our descriptions.  The reality of man is his thought.  Social reality, on a certain level, is subjective and built through conceptions.  Conceptions are formed through discourse with fellows and through observations of behavior of those around.  Observe cooperation and speak about it with others, it will become one’s conception of human nature.  And conceptions of human nature become social reality.  This is why, whether or not you’ve read this prayer before, we all pray “confer upon me thoughts which may change this world into a rose garden”…it describes a longing of the human soul.

 

.

Categories
- Empowerment - Primary Care - Religion - Science Development Discourse Health Care Justice Knowledge

The Structure of Future Scientific Revolutions

Science is in its infancy. It will evolve, change, and grow until it achieves a more mature form. To date, the human experience suffers from an underdeveloped understanding of the nature and scope of the scientific enterprise. Those who suffer from this misunderstanding are scientists themselves most of all. Popular culture imagines science to operate at a superficial level of significance, with technocratic objectives, outlandish methods, and esoteric membership rolls. Scientists strive for this image sometimes, and so perpetuate an unwelcoming stereotype, despite the fact that they are privileged to be engaged in a noble enterprise that is the heritage of the entire human race. Above all, one would anticipate that scientists would know its worth and potential and lead the way in democratizing the generation, application, and diffusion of knowledge to encompass all people.

By restricting membership in a scientific community to an elite circle of like-minded personalities, who share a particular culture, upbringing, and socio-economic status the scope of what questions emerge to scientific investigation is narrowly restricted. This hierarchical structure is maintained by the use of elaborate accreditation systems (such as MD, PhD, and the like) and exclusive membership policies in professional societies. The structure is reinforced by a disciplined academic hierarchy, not unlike those of a church order or ecclesiastic organization, like the Vatican or Caliphate. Though their subject matter differs, their use of dogma and ritual to perpetuate it, does not. As a result only a tiny minority pose the problems to be researched for the benefit of humanity. These questions arise from the interests of a miniature subset of the collective brain power available to humankind, and in the process skew the representation of humanity’s fundamental interests.

The foregoing analysis explains the structural impediments preventing the scientific enterprise from attaining its full stature as the driving force and bulwark of human welfare. This will change in the future. Statistical power is born of the sample size of the population being studied. By restricting research subjects to the interests, purview, and aspirations of an elite, the questions really needing answers, the life-and-death circumstance facing humanity have been relegated out of the research agenda. Research topics of infectious disease, sanitation and fresh water, agriculture and irrigation, public health policy, and vaccinations are some of the most important issues in medical science today, affecting millions.

Statistical power in defining specific problems facing the largest number of humans in the most severe way should be the ideal. Therein should science find its priorities defined. Instead decision-making power lies in the hands of individuals at the top of grant-lending and fund allocating agencies, or in the personal vantage point of chief editors of peer-reviewed journals. The number of people polled in the decision as to what questions deserve investigation in this way never exceeds a handful of individuals, and these are often in competition with each other or finally coerced by market or governmental forces that displace their decision-making even further from what matters, the well-being of the majority. This structural arrangement is inadequate to address complex and wide-sweeping needs.

Whether this scientific structure has arisen due to unregulated expedients accumulating inadvertently over time to define who sits at the decision-table or if it is the direct result of corrupt forces on regulatory mechanisms like the cultural analogue of corporate money on politics, the fact of the matter is that scientific goals are driven in large part by popular consumer values for technologically enhanced entertainment and consumer-satisfying commodities like iPad’s and video games. No doubt these are useful to a subset of individuals who seek to have their work efficiency enhanced or their children pre-occupied and off the streets. But what cannot be denied is the selfishness of this position, and the motivations that lie at the bottom of this type of science. What is needed is conscious effort to engage in discourse regarding issues of scientific reform and encourage ongoing dialogue on the nature and structure of the premises underlying the agenda of science and its priorities.

Science cannot reform its own structure from within, because it responds to market pressures and consumer demand. Economics has run rampant determining western middle classes destiny politically, economically, and scientifically. An external influence is necessary to prescribe in part to science its core values and give it direction. Science is the machine, it must be given a directive. In the absence of clear public interest, obscure private interests co-opt the machine and employ it to selfish ends. While allowing science to recommend its own opinions of what remains possible and tactically feasible, an understanding that values must be prescribed from an external source, and cannot be left to emerge naturally from within the field itself is necessary. Dysregulation always implies corporate co-optation as a rule — as evidenced by politics, finance, globalization, and now science. The parasite is familiar, the host is diverse.

In the process of structural revolution, the democratization of science will require us to insulate funding agencies and influential scientists from financial forces in the industry, academic pressures from the university, or market pressures as healthcare becomes increasingly monetized. The democratization of science will mean that it is determined by universal participation in a survey of human needs. The generation of knowledge regarding research priorities bubbles up in response to the appropriate system of training grassroots initiatives to engage laborers of all kinds. Systems for grass-roots training will allow the masses to build consensus on the most pressing demands of their respective industries, synthesize response in the form of experimental interventions, and coordinate solutions in segments before extrapolating to global practice. Only in this way will the enterprise of science become informed by the diverse needs of the real humankind.

A process of increasing democratization in which fewer and fewer individuals call the shots for what is on the list of priorities and an ever-increasing number of unskilled laborers engage in dialogue that allows the organic assimilation of the experience of millions into an objective representation of what concerns humankind. These should then come to dominate public discourse, resource earmarking, priority setting in scientific agendas, and the daily concern of scientists. This is the transformation that so crucially beckons science into the 21st century.

In an age when social constructs are being torn down all around us, religious dogmas uprooted, social conventions systematically dismantled, gender roles questioned and experimented with, rules of personal conduct and language utterly recreated, and the very tempo of life on the internet re-envisioned — is it possible to constrain what constitutes the most powerful force for progressive civilization behind a veil of anachronistic and outmoded stereotypes of self-righteous elderly males donning lab coats and scheming over a slew of chemistry beakers and petri dishes, erlenmeyer flasks and bunsen burners? Is this image even tenable in any age of internet traffic and lightning media, of the democratization of skills, of the open-sourcing of software, and the free-flow of knowledge ? Why have we allowed stereotypes to restrict the prospects obvious to a dreaming and visionary world that can see the potential application of science to the betterment of the whole of humankind with participants numbering in the millions from every walk of life and every cultural persuasion? Such a prospect ought to invoke in the mind of an objective observer the promise of human longevity wrought by universal participation in the task of researching and discovering solutions to global impasse’s, with completely open source modes of disseminating research conducted and methods employed.

Ownership assumed across a representative spectrum of the human species would allow the generation of sufficient data to converge on statistically adamantine findings — discoveries the like of which humanity could never before have found, and which humanity could never before have felt so confident would benefit all equally. We all await the rise of science, the last great democracy.

child getting water

Categories
- Religion - Science Development

The Scientist Believer

Development as an enterprise will fail until it studies the inter-penetration of reason and faith, the same way that students who memorize by rote repetition will always be 2nd best to the genius who understands the essence of composing music. Just ask that guy who was jealous of Mozart in the movie Amadeus.

Materialism has an exclusive claim on rational approaches to development the same way that Desperate House Wives have a claim on their husbands: They scream as loudly as possible about how’s he’s faithful to them, but everyone watching kinda knows that there are alternative rational approaches to development.

Scientists stating their religious beliefs explicitly are not saying other views are wrong, anymore than people posting beautiful pictures of their travels on facebook are saying other landscapes are ugly or should be removed. The vastness of truth prevents conflict between anything more complex than religious fanaticism and ideological fundamentalism.

The freedom from criticism enjoyed by science under the aegis of moral relativism is like the mass shooter who killed off all the annoying people at his postal office before he finally turned the gun on himself. Like a loose cannon, moral relativism is beginning to question the assumptions at the foundation of the scientific enterprise.

 

super nova

 

 

 

 

Categories
- Religion - Science Development Justice

5 Aphorisms on Science, Religion, and Development

1. I feel like science is that family that screams at each other all saturday night long waking up the whole neighborhood and then shows up to socialize at a local potluck pretending like nothings wrong and acting like no one knows they’ve got issues. Each scientific field claims their version of the scientific method is the “correct” one — like teenage girls. News flash: you can’t all marry Robert Pattinson.

2. I feel like avoiding discourse about the values underlying scientific research because God and the soul can’t be proven, is like avoiding talking about morals with your children because you can’t control everything they’re going to do when they grow up anyway — so why try?

3. I feel like development needs to avoid thinking of native religions like a cultural idiosyncrasy of the people, the same way we’ve outgrown the notion that racial dialogue is the emotional need of African-Americans. Wake up call privilege: There’s truth to people’s perspectives.

4. I feel like because the poverty gap is getting bigger than ever before, development needs to come up less with grand projects and listen more to the needs and potential of indigenous people. Remember the middle-aged mom who forced her 3-year-old girl to compete in beauty contests? Hey mid-life crisis: your failed goals are not your daughter’s misfortune.

5. I feel like the separation of church and state in development is like the separation of truth and justice in the legal system. Truth comes out of attorneys paid to represent their client the same way that prosperity comes out of westerners paid to trivialize the beliefs and motivations of indigenous people. Rethink your model: Motivations and Outcomes are connected, in the courtroom and in the farmland.

 

lightening over the sun

Categories
- Language - Religion - Science Justice

The Circulatory System and the Beauty of Language

People have been inquiring as to the connection between the concepts of the circulatory system and the beauty of language. The human cardiovascular system is the symbol for justice in the world of nature. The means of distribution and circulation in it are perfect and provide us with a metaphor for understanding how human society should be structured. Society should mirror the institutional organization of the heart, arteries, arterioles, perforating arteries, capillary beds, venules, veins, and vena cavas. Local metabolite build up triggers vasodilation and increased flow. Similarly, hard work should merit more resources and nutrients. Vital organs have auto-regulatory mechanisms that maintain blood flow within a narrow window. Incorporated in society should also be equivalents for these sophisticated systems of chemical communication employed by the circulatory system in its responsibilities to arrange and order blood flow to and from various tissues and organs,  assess anatomic needs, differentiate distributions of flow based on organ function and physiologic state, and govern overall oxygen and glucose consumption to eliminate extremes of excess and privation. Privation would result in tissue necrosis and infection, while excess would produce disease states like diabetes and vascular disease. In the body, no tissue starves while another feasts on nutrients. The body manages to balance supply and demand to achieve organismic prosperity. A concept equally applicable to human society.

The human cardiovascular system distributes glucose and oxygen in a way that maintains balance in the whole organism to optimize its function and performance in life goals such as work and business and caring for family (some of which may require brain power consuming glucose or manual labor requiring oxygen in the muscles). The ideal regulation in human society likewise achieves coherence between the diverse populations within society, balances labor and the finance markets, and eliminates the extremes of wealth and poverty. When human masses have a just distribution of access to opportunities of education and employment the whole society prospers. Justice predisposes to society-wide prosperity.

The relationship between the metaphor of the circulatory system and the beauty of language is through the drive to search for meaning in the universe, which is intrinsic to human nature.  Language is the medium by which our minds probe and understand reality. Languages are of different kinds such as the language of science or the language of poetry, yet they all expresses a measure of meaning. Religious Writings maximize the richness of meaning, sometimes enduing each word with up to 71 different meanings. Religious Writings in this way may by mystical and lack simplicity or clarity. Scientific writing on the other hand aims to maximize clarity, but in so doing narrows the meaning of words and sentences. Science often defines ‘technical’ terms which convey only one, very precise meaning. Though scientific studies are not rich, the added influence of permutative inquiries progressively contributes to knowledge over time. Conversely, religious texts are progressively applied, and in iterations of  interpretations and refinements of application their rich meaning becomes manifest and gains clarity. A single scriptural phrase can be used to apply to diverse fields as it unfolds its enormous storehouse of meaning to improve human life. The clarity of science, and the richness of religious scripture drive the two major unfolding knowledge systems that shape human progress and the path to prosperity.

The misunderstanding that science and religion deal with mutually exclusive subject matters is fading. Science and religion are two systems of knowledge and praxis with regard to our reality, which is one. Science to date has dealt largely with phenomena that drive technological progress. While religion has been stereotyped as concerning itself solely with matters of the soul and a beyond. A new Revelation offers a vision of religion that deals directly with social, political, economic, medical, agricultural, and legal matters. We should seek to apply what is Written to reality.

In this day and age science and religion must collaborate to come to bear on matters of global import to improve human life. Themes such as governance and the laws of the land, social theory and the modeling of social institutions, economics and the writing of tax codes and national budgets, legality and the disarming of civilian life, finance and the attenuation of wealth inequality, are examples. Religion can inform national priorities for example that wisely reduce military budgeting while scientific research on the other hand can supply the evidence and rational footing that demonstrate the correlation between the prevalence of firearms and the rate of violent crimes in society. As one illustrative example, this gives us a glimpse of what the collaboration between science and religion makes possible.

Language is the structure of thought. And thought is the reality of man. Therefore the reality of man is mirrored in the beauty of language. Our deepest thoughts seek to express the heart of the universe. When a soul-refreshing truth is found it seeks to find expression through our tongues. Contentment results from perceiving a beauty that motivated the creation of existence itself. That beauty is a fire burning in the heart of Sinai, and that soft glow that binds you to it is Justice. Justice is the best beloved of all things that emanate from that burning fire. Justice is a gift to humankind from the depths of that fire’s furness called Revelation. Justice travels from the realm above to our own as a treasure. We as human beings are each in possession of our own sense of justice and strive to apply and unfold the reality of this light the world over. Like a blanket, as we labor the light of justice slowly encompasses the globe.

Justice gives to all according to their need, and employs all according to their talent for the benefit of all. It rewards all in proportion to their labors, and in its unerring wisdom, it regulates the flow and distribution of resources. Justice demands universal participation and ensures universal prosperity. Like an organism, it is the justice of the circulatory system that our spirit recognizes in the beauty of language that has been gifted to us from Revelation. The metaphor of the human circulatory system is the symbol which our soul describes when it sees this gift from on-high.

“The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.”

Universal House of Justice Pillars Alight

Categories
- Empowerment - Governance - Science

Weapons – A Statistical Update

It was said:  “It hath been forbidden you to carry arms unless essential” “beyond that which is necessary to insure the internal security of … countries.” Good “people need no weapons of destruction, inasmuch as they have girded themselves to reconstruct the world. Their hosts are the hosts of goodly deeds, and their arms the arms of upright conduct, and their commander the fear of God…Such hath been the patience…the resignation…of this people…that they have suffered themselves to be killed rather than kill.”

The frequency of Gun Rampages (Mass Murders) has gone up each year for the past 10 years, demonstrated by recent research (Figure 1.)

Gun Rampages

There were a record number of mass shootings in 2012. The spike in Gun Rampages coincides with the period 2009-2012 when approx. 100 state laws were passed into legislation making it easier to legally purchase, carry, and conceal firearms. Some examples of these new laws include:

  1. In Missouri, citizens can carry a gun while intoxicated and fire it while intoxicated assuming the motive is “self-defense”
  2. In Kansas, gun permit holders are permitted to carry concealed weapons inside K-12 schools
  3. In Utah, an individual under felony indictment is permitted to purchase a gun, and a person charged with a violent crime may retain a concealed weapon permit
  4. In Nebraska, an individual who has pled guilty to a violent crime in the past is allowed to purchase a firearm permit
  5. In Louisiana, permit holders are permitted carry concealed weapons inside houses of worship
  6. In Virginia repealed the law that requires handgun vendors to submit sales records and mandated the disposal of all such previous records on file

(Source: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence)

The deadliness of  each instance of Gun Rampages is increasing as well, in part due to the superior quality fire-power (military grade assault rifles and high-capacity magazines) being used (Figure 2.)

gun rampage annual deaths

The Texas University study calculated statistics that show the majority of Gun Rampages were carried out by men stocking multiple weapons with over 50% of them preferring assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

There were three instances of men who intervened against a shooter out of 83 total Gun Rampages (between 2000-2010). All three men were trained professionals. Two were police officers who were off duty, and 1 was a US Marine. No Gun Rampage was halted by a lay person carrying a privately purchased firearm. Out of 83 total Gun Rampages from 2000 to 2010, the prevalence of personal firearms (300 million in the US) has not contributed to preventing One Gun Rampage incident.

The question now is whether social policy will be shaped by rationality, data, and evidence-based reason, or will manufacturer’s profit margins, a culture of violence and egotism, and political corruption shape the future.

***

“Every means that produces war must be checked and the causes that prevent the occurrence of war be advanced — so that physical conflict may become an impossibility…”

Categories
- Religion - Science Development Discourse Health Care Knowledge

Poverty and Revelation

Poverty is as ineradicable as the house-fly! The misguided conviction that material resources exist, or can be created by scientific and technological enterprise, to entirely eradicate poverty is a myth of global scope. Social scientists are hardly necessary to uncover the reason for this manifest paradox: scientific  and  technological research pursue a  set  of  priorities set by financial interests and corporate investors. This elite technocratic minority is pursuing its own vision of middle class consumer desires and marketing entertainment. Science and technology therefore are the pet projects of a wealthy elite and their professional priorities. If scientific research does impact the lives of the masses it does so because it is tangentially related to the real interests of the generality of humankind.

A radical reordering of these priorities will be required if the burden of poverty is finally to be lifted from the world. Such an achievement demands a determined quest for appropriate values, a quest that will painfully purge humankind of both its spiritual mis-orientation and scientific structure. Religion must lead the way in setting new priorities, with humankind and the generality of the masses as its beneficiaries. The agenda must be set by the most dire and widespread of global human needs. With research topics that identify agriculture, education, sanitation, infectious disease, and other issues as the thrust of scientific and technological advancement.

Mainstream religion will be severely handicapped in contributing to this undertaking as long as it remains a prisoner to outmoded traditions, sectarian doctrines which cannot distinguish between metaphors in their scripture designed to motivate people, and stories told to 6th graders to keep them from misbehaving in the teachers absence. Contentment and mere passivity are not the same thing, and mainstream religion must learn to express the distinction which entails keeping up with modern trends in social justice and moving beyond an obsolescent past of sexual and racial prejudices.

Ascetic interpretations of mainstream religion which teach that poverty is an inherent feature of earthly life, the escape to which lies only in a world beyond, deserve to pass like the tide of eurocentric prejudices that we have passed beyond already, into the next world. Humanity no longer requires ancient religious practices to inform its scientific agendas, research values, or social priorities. To participate effectively in the struggle to bring material well-being to humanity, the religious spirit must find — in the Source of inspiration from which it originally flowed — a new commitment to life in the 21st century. New spiritual concepts and principles must be conjured up, or if none can be found then new religions must be embraced.

Religion with Authority Divine in origin; religion with Revelation satisfying in volume; religion with administration democratic in representation; religion with followers selfless in unity; religion with education first rate in its caliber and accessible globally — religion with values worthy to restructure the priorities of scientific research, is needed to answer the question of poverty.

Poverty

Categories
- Education - Prevailing Conceptions - Science Discourse Human Nature

Economics and Human Nature

Our theory of economics is predicated on the assumption that people and wants grossly outnumber opportunities and resources in our society. This is why competition is the basis for our economic system. Biology is as much a testimony to this fact, in the Darwinian interpretation, as the social reality is which denies people jobs and education on the basis of competitor’s performance.

The competitive theory of economics is based upon the ratio of goods to wants. The competitive theory of evolution is based upon our observation of the disproportionate reproductive resources claimed by the fittest members of a species. One of these theories has scientific evidence in support of it. How can we demonstrate the falsity of the competitive theory of economics without overcoming the facts on the ground that wants exceed goods? We must arrange for a new situation in which the wants do not exceed the goods. This set of facts will be more consistent with a new theory of economics and will not require competition. This organization will allow for the deconstruction of the competitive theory of human nature. Without a change in the structure of the market and the social order, how can the same facts (wants>goods) give rise to a new set of interpretations about social and economic reality (that human nature is actually cooperative)?

It is naive to think that we can think up an alternative theory of human and economic nature without a subject matter to work with, an empirical reality to examine, and a group of people who enact and experiment by which we learn. Initial conjectures, even of an enlightened and inspired nature, can only carry us so far. New food is needed for thought. New experience is needed for reflection. A constant stream of empirical data informs, refines, and alters working theories. Understanding the application of theory, both in terms of individual growth and social progress, increases manifold when study and service are intermingled concurrently. There, in the field of service, knowledge is tested, questions arise out of practice, and new levels of understanding are achieved.

What structures can you think of which demonstrate a distribution of resources and needs that allows the corroboration of the cooperative theory of human nature?

Categories
- Consultation - Governance - Oppression - Religion - Science Discourse Knowledge Oneness

Climate Change and Political Partisanship: Why is the Truth So Divisive?

Every intelligent mind that evaluates the causes for global warming concludes that human-induced green-house gas emissions are responsible for Earth’s atmospheric average temperature increases. The only people who disagree with this are fringe scientists and few in number. For mysterious reasons, politicians are highly polarized on this debate. This scientific question has therefore become politicized. Since the early 1990’s the debate has typically fallen along partisan lines. The question needs to be asked: ‘Should we raise awareness of the facts surrounding climate change and risk igniting partisan warfare?’

To investigate the scientific validity of an issue, to raise awareness and form thoughtful opinions, and to act on these views as citizens with our purchasing-power and electoral choices — all this seems a human duty and a moral responsibility. However, what if we also hope to avoid becoming embroiled in partisan conflict, and consider exacerbating its divisive character, by throwing fuel onto a fire, equally unacceptable? An alternative is to refrain from speaking altogether. This however, would imply remaining silent on matters of conscience.

To many it would be unconscionable to hold their peace on matters of importance to one’s community, the environment, and the world. As responsible citizens of one common homeland, if we know something we would wish to share it, especially if  it is of betterment to the world. Who wouldn’t want others to benefit from it, to stimulate large numbers to investigate it, to improve collective conditions and avert disaster?

Pursuit of truth is natural. The desire to teach it is equally natural. The facts compel our conscience to declare that human fossil fuels and deforestation are responsible for climate change and truly threaten life on earth as we know it. How can public information and unbiased investigation into the topic be promoted, while not attracting the label of partisan bickering? How can one be true to one’s conscience but at the same time avoid being drawn into conflict with partisan representatives and economic special interests?

Partisan demonizing carries with it a debilitating affect on intelligent discourse. Climate change is after all, an issue of global importance and collective human destiny. Is it possible to contribute wisely whilst remaining free of quarrel in a social environment charged with partisan bickering and economic second agendas?

Holding discourse hostage with the threat of demonizing and castigating alternative viewpoints undermines the truth-discovering power of consultation, cooperation, and collective action.

Dear Sandy: Will humankind put aside partisanship before the Earth overheats our species?

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Objective Spiritual Reality

Considering how difficult it is to judge objective statements about social reality, it is even more challenging with spiritual reality.  However, spiritual reality exists, human language can attempt to describe it, and therefore, it is possible to make objective statements regarding spiritual reality.  Throughout this blog there have been numerous such claims.  One simple one is that “justice is a faculty of the human soul that enables one to see with one’s own eyes”.  The nature of this statement is objective – it describes an ability of a human being to discern truth through an investigative process free from prejudice, an ability that is inherently latent and needs to be developed.  This type of claim, along with its implications, can be observed, studied, and analyzed.

Yet, not all statements about spiritual nature are objective – many, such as personal feelings when reading spiritual writings, meditating, spiritual experiences, etc, fall into the category of subjective yet valid statements.  However, the existence of this category of observations about spiritual reality does not negate the ability to make objective statements.  Thus, someone can describe a subjective spiritual response to a prayer, and also put forth a thoughtful objective claim regarding a human being’s relationship with prayer.  One has to distinguish between subjective experiences and objective claims, for – just like with social reality – many try and pass off vain imaginings as objective.

That some people disagree with some statement on spiritual reality also does not negate the objectivity of that statement.  As a parallel example, regarding the objective statements made about the interaction of light with an object giving rise to its property of color, most words used only have meaning to those intellectually trained in physics – for others, the statement is meaningless.  With spiritual reality, then, objective statements would be less meaningful to those whose spiritual susceptibilities haven’t been developed – they wouldn’t understand nor accept such statements.

To practice justice implies that one knows through one’s own knowledge, not through the biases of society’s classroom, pulpit, or media.  Just like with the science of physical reality, objectivity is not altered by subjective experiences nor by the disagreement of people.

What are some objective observations regarding spiritual reality?  How can you test them?

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Claims About Social Reality

The physical and material aspects of our complex reality are not the only ones with objectivity – the human mind is able to make objective statements about all of reality, including social and spiritual reality.  As an example related to social reality, one can claim that “one of the causes of violence in certain countries is pervasive social injustice”.  This statement contains a relationship between two observable phenomena, namely violence – demonstrated by crimes like robbery, murder, assault, and by increased need for police, security, and gated homes – and social injustice – shown by analyzing conditions of certain segments of the population, and interactions of certain groups of people with social institutions.  One can then observe societies to see if there is a positive correlation between the two.  Of course, correlation is not causation, but the statement claims that injustice is “one” of the causes, and therefore has some degree of objectivity to it.

One point to note is that objectivity is not synonymous with truth.  Furthermore, subjective statements can easily be presented as objective.  For instance, consider a hypothetical situation of a doctor who hires poor employees and pays them low wages, who sees poor people as patients and charges them high prices for unnecessary medical testing, and works in a system that blocks their progress.  This person would not make the subjective statement “I like to profit off poor people”.  Instead, this person would make the objective claim “poor people are lazy and uneducated and therefore stay poor”.  Because objectivity can be tested, it should be straightforward.  However, an observer can be biased by his or her own subjective judgements.  For instance, he might see that his family members worked hard and then became wealthy, or that a lazy person lost his job and became poor, or even notice a poor person who was also lazy.  From these limited, yet objective, observations, the observer would accept the claim that the poor are lazy.

However, a more thorough analysis will reveal this statement false.  Hard work is not the only factor in the generation of wealth – it also includes starting capital, access to credit, technical knowledge, fair wages, and a somewhat just social structure.  All of these factors need be to examined and controlled for if one is to scientifically and objectively link work to wealth; and even observations need to be made about the resulting amount of work done when opportunities are given to the poor.  It becomes clear that subjective prejudgements about social reality, often false, can be disguised as objective.

Can you think of other statements that pass as objective, yet in reality are subjective?

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Objectivity and Reality

Notwithstanding that all social conventions, including language, are built from shared understanding that are to some extent ontologically subjective, they are not completely arbitrary. Language – as well as social reality – is built upon objective reality itself. Words and conventions have become abstract representations and codifications, respectively, of the complex dynamics of human beings within reality. There are a number of realities that interact together to form social reality. Both physical reality and its forces along with spiritual reality and its forces influence human thought – which is the reality of a human being. These three realities come together to shape social reality, which itself also influences human thought. Language both builds and is built upon this reciprocal interplay between human thought and society – and ultimately, rests upon the objective spiritual and physical realities themselves.

Let us take our previous post’s somewhat objective statement a bit further. Instead of simply claiming the color of something to be “green”, the property of an object that determines it to be “green” can be explained:
The color of a thing arises from its interaction with light. In order for something to be visible, light – composed of packets of energy called photons or particles – hits an object, interacts with it, and emits photons back into our eyes. Visible white light from the sun (or a bulb) is actually a mixture of a range of frequencies by which its photons vibrate – each one corresponding to a color on a spectrum. Frequencies are measured by the photon’s wave cycles per second. When this white light interacts with something, some frequencies are absorbed and others are reflected. The frequency of the reflected photons determine what color this object appears to be in a beholder’s eye.

This explanation that accompanies the statement “that thing is green” is much more objective. It’s true, this paragraph – as with all of language – includes many names that are based on social convention. For instance, why is it named “light” or “frequency”? However, the naming included in this previous paragraph is not simply subjective social convention – there must be some agreement as to the underlying reality on which these names are based. One who agrees with this paragraph must have at least a basic level of understanding of physics to understand that “light” is made up of “energy packets” characterized by “frequency”. Furthermore, this paragraph goes beyond naming – it establishes relationships between concepts (X is composed of Y which is characterized by Z) and attempts to explain them a bit (Z is some unit of space per time). Regardless of the naming, these relationships and explanations are objective. To agree with this paragraph is not a matter of convention – it is based on reality itself.

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Language as Social Convention

In understanding the role of objectivity in language, two types of statements have been presented – personal preferences, which are entirely subjective; and social conventions, which are subjective in their creation or existence yet objective in their influence and knowledge.  Let’s move progressively towards a more objective statement.

Two examples of social conventions presented last post were traffic lights and money.  So, what about the statement “That traffic light is green” or “That dollar bill is green”.  This is certainly not a personal preference, nor subjective – all people looking at these objects can reach this valid conclusion.  Furthermore, this is not societally or culturally dependent; a green light or a green bill taken elsewhere will still hold the property of green color – it is apparently an inherent property of that bulb or that ink.

Is this, then, an entirely objective statement that informs us about reality?  Upon further analysis, this statement still is based on a social convention.  Language, as has been discussed earlier, is itself a social convention.  The main point of the statement about the traffic light or the dollar bill is its green color.  However, the term “green” is simply a name that, like all other names, was at one point or another agreed upon – the naming process of language, being a social convention, is also ontologically subjective and epistemologically objective.  Additionally, languages, both between and even within, contain myriad connotations, subtle meanings, and context-specific interpretations.  In order to understand the concepts, ideas, and underling reality being conveying through the vehicle of language, one needs to go beyond names…one needs to get to the objectivity that those names symbolize.

.

Categories
- Language - Science Development Discourse Human Nature

Social Conventions – Objective or Subjective?

Objectivity – another desired quality of the language of science – is a term loaded with connotations and interpretations; it’s rarely a straightforward concept.  It helps to contrast it with subjectivity.  An entirely subjective statement is one of personal preference, such as “daffodils are the prettiest kind of flower” – this might be a consensus among a large group of people, but is not in universal agreement.  Something that is in agreement with others is not necessarily objective, nor is it necessarily truth.

There are certain things, however, that are somewhat objective because of their agreement amongst individuals.  Social conventions are of this nature.  Money, for instance, is a great example.  A particular piece of paper is money not because of any physical qualities it possesses (it’s just a piece of paper with ink), but because social agents have agreed on it and created it.  In this sense, it is ontologically subjective – meaning, its existence is contingent on human consensus, and it has no meaningful existence otherwise.  However, at this point, determining whether a piece of paper is money isn’t a matter of personal preference; no one could say that a five-dollar bill isn’t five dollars.  It is epistemologically objective – meaning, our knowledge of this social convention, and its influence and effects, are based on ascertainable facts, independent of individual opinions. Because of it’s subjectivity, collective thought determines what society is; though because of it’s objectivity, collective thoughts are, in part, determined by society.  However, those of us who aim to contribute to the advancement of civilization will benefit from understanding the subjective aspect of society.

Social reality, including rules, conventions, codes, is built on shared understandings – it is an expression of human agreement.  A red light means “stop”, and a green light means “go”; but there is absolutely no reason that it couldn’t have been the opposite.  Yet, social reality shapes human relationships and interactions, forms human thought and understanding, and directs action and conduct.  There is a profound reciprocal relationship between human thought and social reality – each affects the other, and a change is either necessitates a simultaneous change in both.

What are the implications that social reality is ontologically subjective?

What are the implications that social reality is epistemologically objective?

If a large enough amount of people believe something to be true, does it become social convention?

What about the inertia built into the social structures that exist?

 

.

Categories
- Language - Science Justice

Consistency

The statements of a language that seeks to be rational must also be internally consistent. Obviously, premises and claims cannot contradict each other, otherwise, truth could never be sought, and reality could never be adequately assessed. The importance of consistency is that it is a direct requisite for justice – if justice is the faculty of the soul that enables the mind to differentiate truth from falsehood and understand through one’s own knowledge, then one must strive for consistency in one’s perception and analysis, and the actual reality. This path to coherence requires constant reflection. And as words, thoughts, and actions all influence each other, consistency in words becomes even more important – for consistency within and between thoughts and actions is also praiseworthy. One cannot believe one thing and do the opposite. Consistency expresses itself as a commitment to long-term action informed by vision; as thinking in terms of process; as a learning mode characterized by action, reflection, and consultation; as being uncompromising in principle, never sacrificing values for practicality; as maintaining resolve in purpose; and as aligning methods and approaches with goals and ends, and with humanity’s innate nobility.

Consider the following reasoning:

– A humble posture of learning is essential in order to contribute to the advancement of civilization.
– The western systems are the most advanced in the world.
– The advancement of civilization is conditioned on establishing western systems.

Are these statements consistent? What are the assumptions underlying them? What is the relationship between them? How was this conclusion reached?

What are some other examples of inconsistency you see in society? Do they correlate with injustice? Do you see examples of consistency and justice?

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Rationality

In addition to clarity, another important characteristic of the language of science is rationality.  Again, as language informs thought, using rational language helps create reasonable thought.  And because words and thoughts influence actions, a language that seeks rationality will translate into action that strives to be strategic, efficient, sustained, and with long-term vision.  What is rationality?  What is logic?  What is the process of reasoning?  A quick wikipedia or google search demonstrates the difficulty of this subject.  Instead of going through philosophy 101, a few basic principles can be explored with the aim of applying them into language, thought, and action.

Rational thought and statements result from a process of reasoning.  One type is deduction – reaching a conclusion that follows from premises.   “All iphones have a camera” + “Your cell phone is an iphone” = “Your cell phone has a camera.”  Theoretically, this type of reasoning is comforting – if the premises are true, clear, absolute, and relevant, then the conclusion is correct.  However, this type of logic is highly limited; rarely do we have these types of premises regarding social reality.  Instead, the premises could be false, ambiguous, or conditional. “Some iphones have a camera” would lead to “your cell phone might have a camera – not sure”, which is unclear.  “Your sandwich is an iphone” would lead to “your sandwich has a camera” which is just not true.  (And please comment below if it is).

Another process is that of induction – to create generalizations from observations.  “The iphones I’ve seen have cameras” and thus “All iphones have cameras”.  In order to have correct and clear inductions, the number of observations made must be large and in diverse conditions.  The more observations one makes that fit one’s generalization, the more confident one is of the truth of that statement.

The above examples are but two of many processes of logic.  They are very simple, and just go to show the basics of rationality in language and thought.  In everyday life, however, there is much more than rational thought that is needed.  Regarding the simple process of deduction, where do the premises come from?  What assumptions underlie them?  Consider, for instance, the following:

– Poor people steal more than rich people.
– Joe is poor, and John is rich.
– I should trust John over Joe with my car keys.

The logic is sound, but where did the first premise, in particular, come from?  What assumptions underlie it?  How is logical reasoning being deceptively used in our society to manipulate and distort views of reality?

Similarly, with inductive logic, what assumptions lead to the lens through which observations are made?  And what assumptions form the framework through which observations are interpreted?  If one wanted to use induction to determine whether collaboration or competition leads to more productivity, one would set about observing instances of competition, instances of collaboration, instances of productivity.  What factors determine the conditions of these instances?  What constitutes productivity?  What are the mindsets of those competing and collaborating?  Obviously, rationally is important – but it is not without a conceptual foundational built on assumptions about human and societal nature.

 

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Clarity

Human beings understand reality through conceptualization.  For material and concrete objects, language naturally defines them easily.  As concepts become more abstract – such as regarding the social and spiritual reality – this becomes more and more difficult.  The language of science, however, is well equipped to meet this challenge, for it progressively moves towards precision and clarity when describing concepts.  As its methods to achieve clarity, science uses repetition of language with slight alterations each time, identification of subtleties and implications in word choices, realization of possible logical contradictions at a later time, and a vision to take creative and calculated leaps forward.  Gradually, using these processes, the language that science uses in understanding a concept becomes unambiguous and takes on unique meaning.

The quest of scientific language to be precise is not a mechanical, cold, and sterile set of operations; nor is it mutually exclusive with certain spiritual faculties that have always aided in scientific discovery.  The role of imagination, intuition, and attraction to beauty have always characterized the scientific enterprise.  After all, the role of science – just like the role of religion – is to unravel the mysteries of reality and witness the marvelous beauty inherent in the order of the universe.

Inseparable from clarity of language is clarity of thought.  Many of the requisite characteristics of successful consultation are also needed for clear thinking. These include eliminating false dichotomies, tolerating temporary ambiguity, being detached and dispassionate with one’s ideas, thinking in terms of process, being flexible and open-minded in considering views, relating the practical to the principle, adopting a wider vision, attention to details, and very importantly, the ability to understand and identify causality on a complex level.

What are your thoughts regarding the clarity of current speech?  In education?  In politics?  In medicine?  In music and entertainment?  In relationships?  In family?  In friendship?

 

.

Categories
- Language - Religion - Science Discourse Knowledge

Language and Civilization

Reality has physical and spiritual dimensions.  Indeed, the world civilization that beckons humanity is one that will achieve a dynamic coherence between these two requirements of social life.  If reality is more complex than just the physical universe, then a limited description would be inadequate to fully explore and understand it.  In recent times, because of the relative success of the field of science, particularly physics, the prevailing thought is that science is adequate to explain reality.  The assumptions implicit in this belief are that 1) reality is purely physical or material; 2) science, alone, can explain the mysteries of this purely material reality.  But, again, these are just assumptions.  There are alternatives as well – equally plausible – that have been advanced throughout this blog.  1) Reality includes levels beyond matter – including social dynamics, human consciousness, and spiritual reality; 2) if reality includes both physical and spiritual components, then both science and religion are needed to understand its mysteries; 3) understanding of reality does not equal reality itself – understanding evolves.

With the understanding that words influence both thoughts and actions, and with the above assumptions in mind – that science and religion are two complimentary systems of knowledge that, over time, gain understanding of our complex reality – the topic of language takes on paramount importance, particularly the language of science and the language of religion.  The next few posts will explore this topic.

Language, for the purposes of discourse, must be rich enough to explore issues at a depth that accompanies action.  It is the medium through which we communicate observations, create models of reality, articulate theories of dynamics, explore sentiments, describe the world’s operations, and even prescribe relations and behaviors.  Crucially, it allows for shared understandings to exist between one individual’s mind and others’ minds.  Otherwise, collective knowledge about the objective reality that exists outside of our minds would be tremendously difficult to generate, and our connections to each other would be extremely limited – to the point where we wouldn’t really have society.

To advance civilization is to construct a new social reality, and social reality emerges through language – words are the building blocks of civilization. In other words (pun intended), social reality is the operational expression of words and the meanings of them that society has agreed upon.  However, it is important to note that language is itself a social construct – a component of social reality.  Thus, like all social constructs and conventions, it can be changed.  And a change of language becomes a change of civilization.  Therein lies the power of discourse.

.

Categories
- Consultation - Empowerment - Religion - Science Development Justice Knowledge Oneness Power

Beyond Modernism and Post-Modernism

Historically and currently, the relationship between power and knowledge has been strained and complex, to say the least.  Recently, “modernism” – which has constructed systems of knowledge around truth-claims about social reality – has come into critique by “post-modernism” – that these systems have been created through the operation of privilege and power, resulting in an unjust and inequitable social reality that brings modernism’s remarkable advances to only an elite minority.  Post-modernism, however, has reacted to an extreme position, asserting that all knowledge is grounded in power dynamics, that knowledge is oppression, that no truth-claims are more valid than others.  Instead of a solution, post-modernism has replaced all thought with endless critique.

Perhaps the following premises can help:
1)  Human comprehension is limited, human perspective is diverse, and social reality is complex and multifaceted.
2)  Science and religion, two systems of knowledge and practice, yield partial and tentative, though valid, insights into this reality.
3)  Over time, through a reflective learning process, humanity can judge the relative validity these insights (or truth-claims) against the goal of advancing civilization.

This is a consultative, evolving, and adaptive approach to knowledge.  It can be protected from oppressive uses of power by a) drawing in any and all diverse insights and perspectives, experiences and reflections, and constructive criticism from all people, and b) being guided by spiritual principles such as oneness, justice, interdependence, compassion, honesty, cooperation, etc.

This approach resolves the tension of knowledge and power, currently taking form as the crisis of modernism and post-modernism.  More importantly, it empowers humanity to take charge of its own destiny and the advance of civilization through the generation and application of knowledge.

Categories
- Religion - Science - Three Protagonists Knowledge

Walking a Path

That one who generates knowledge can be likened unto a scout evokes images of walking a path, which perhaps can be an analogy to the process of generating and applying knowledge.  Let us expand on this analogy.  Firstly, walking a path is a collective enterprise, not an isolated act; a path invites the participation of many and can be known by all.  A path has an end point and necessitates a structured, defined, and logical progression forward; but the actual course is not a straight line – thus, progress is mapped out, by multiple groups, through periodic reflection on current position and factors, at which point, the course and direction can be adjusted.  In this way, uncharted territory and related lines of exploration can be charted, and a fuller picture of the landscape can be obtained.  Walking a path implies constant movement and active effort, and yet the pace is not fixed; all strides are accommodated.  Those who walk this path require skills and abilities, qualities and attitudes, and it is through walking with others that these capacities are developed, not in isolation or off the path – there is no “practice” path; all actions are within a social context.  And of course, this path is not mapped out from the beginning; the horizon in the distance beckons those who walk and provides the general direction and goal, while the lamps that illumine their footsteps are the systems of knowledge and practice of science and religion.

One note about pace.  Although it is fostering a natural and unified process of forward movement with others that is important, and not reaching the end goal in a disunified manner, still there must be value placed on the speed of exploration.  The rate of progress of organic social processes can be increased, while still maintaining requisite characteristics of unity, justice, and humility.  The relationships between individuals, communities, and institutions, all walking this path, and their ability to engage in an ongoing learning process – defined as consultation, action, reflection on action, and study of science and religion – is what will determine the pace of progress.  In short, as has been a theme throughout, the advancement of civilization is propelled by the generation of knowledge within a learning mode and the development of proper relationships between its three protagonists.

Categories
- Religion - Science Knowledge

Wisdom, Science and Religion

Wisdom – the unification of knowledge and action – is a spiritual capacity of every human being. The origin of an individual’s wisdom is the acknowledgement and embodiment of the teachings of God through the Manifestation of God. The Manifestation quickens the spiritual condition of humanity and empowers the capacity of wisdom; the teachings enable humanity to acquire knowledge about reality more fully, to understand its meaning, and thus provide opportunities to exercise wisdom.

Wisdom is the proper use of knowledge – towards betterment. An individual seeking wisdom is constantly informed from the twin systems of knowledge: science and religion. True religion must be distinguished from traditions, and true science from dogmatic materialism. A community’s practices are not equal to Revelation itself. Humanity strives to understand meaning in the Revelation, and this understanding has limits. It is this understanding – which we term the system of religion – that can degenerate into superstitions unless weighed in the light of scientific reason. And scientific assertions are not equal to the Laws of the physical and biological universe. Humanity strives to understand physical reality, and this limited understanding – terms the system of science – must be directed and illuminated by true religion lest it becomes idle.

All can manifest the quality of wisdom through applying the knowledge of religion and science towards individual and collective transformation.

.
Please refer to Figure 2

.

Categories
- Oppression - Religion - Science Knowledge

Fanaticism and Ridicule: Science and Religion

Currently, there are some who resist the reconceptualization of science and religion.  They fragment science and religion, and dismiss one for the other, claiming that only one or the other has led to humanity’s successes. How often is it that we hear religion caricatured as a superstition of idle fancy, or a hollow ritual of football-detracting compulsion. How often is it that we hear the thunder of ‘hail to science’ with the glorification of the latest cell phone mobile technology; and how often is it that we read of principle-compromising cover-ups of Church-father molestation scandals. If Thor ‘God of Lightning’ was real, one would think that we worshiped him as he flowed in our power cables.

 

A Mendelian punnet square emerges with fanaticism and ridicule on the Y axis and religion and science on the X (Figure 1). People often fall into habits of speaking fanatically about the exclusivity of science as a source of human betterment, or the monopoly that religion exercises over truth. Both are caricatures of reality, and neither adequately describes it. A discourse that ridicules religion as an empty ritual and a superstition for the ‘masses’, co-exists with a view in society that mocks science as a) a theoretical preoccupation of the disconnected elites, or b) a dangerous and heretical arrogance before the angry, angry Lord. The dichotomies of this punnet square are to be utterly and wholly discarded. The present discourse pays no attention to these ways of compartmentalizing our epistemic experience and collapses these dichotomies under the view: reality is one, knowledge of reality is multi-factorial, and ultimately represents only diverse views of a single entity.

 

We propose an alternate schema that reconclies these epistemic systems (Figure 2). We start with the understanding that reality is one (R1=S1). Science and religion are two systems of learning about it. Religion offers the Revealed Word of God and its authoritative interpreters (R2), and science offers the physical universe as an experience of facts and laws we can all observe (S2), as the first level of the two great systems. The interpretations and methods for justification of ethical commands in religion (R3) and the standards and justifications offered by the scientific method (S3) are the next level of knowledge offered by these two systems. Practical knowledge of daily spiritual disciplines as an individual and cultural norms of the collective within a community (R4), and technology and practical knowledge of scientific inquiry in application (S4), constitute the third layer and final of these two knowledge systems. They both intertwine to produce the harmony and betterment of the human condition and human society.

Categories
- Religion - Science

Fruits of Assumptions

The last post mentioned some equivalent basic assumptions that underly science and religion as systems of knowledge.  All of these assumptions or articles of faith cannot be empirically proven, but rather, their validity is shown over time as they are operationalized – in other words, put into operation and practice.  The fruits of science, under these assumptions, have yielded their fruit – advances in communications, abilities in the health field, mass transit, to name a few – and we now have confidence in the premises of science.  Thousands of years ago, however, when the scientific enterprise began, these assumptions would have appeared radical and would not have been empirically verifiable.

The fruits of religion are less obvious, and the corruptions more apparent; leaving in many observers a skeptical stance.  However, religion’s positive contributions to humanity’s history cannot be overstated.  It is the leading force impelling civilizations, moral codes, unification, and many of the world’s moral, intellectual, artistic, and social advancements.  It has been the chief source of meaning, order, and guidance throughout human life.  Historically, religion’s generating influences have been geographically concentrated, progressively widening in scope in a punctuated manner with the advent of new religions, extending from the tribe to city-state to nation.  In time, through the continued operationalization of its underlying assumptions, the fruits of religion will be self-evident in the form and function of a world civilization.

Both science and religion are based on articles of faith, which can only be verified over time and through putting them into practice and application.  What fruits of assumptions do you see in daily life?

 

Categories
- Religion - Science

Underlying Assumptions

There are commonalities between science and religion as systems of knowledge that help conceptualize them as complementary and reciprocal.  The first is that they both derive from  assumptions and articles of faith.

Religion assumes the existence of a Divine and Transcendent Reality, an Unknowable Creator referred to as God.  Religion then assumes that, although humanity cannot know God’s essence, we can perceive attributes of God and intimations of Divine will through revelation.  Religion further assumes that we can learn to apply these revealed teachings towards the betterment of humankind.

Science assumes that the phenomenal world, apparently chaotic, is actually governed by universal laws and principles which constitute a hidden order.  Science then assumes that humanity can increasingly understand these hidden laws and principles through systematic and rational methods.  Science further assumes that we can apply this knowledge towards the betterment of humankind.

These articles of faith are almost identical – in one system, applied to physical reality; in the other, to spiritual reality; though in both, being applied to human social reality.

How do you see these common assumptions operating in your field?

Categories
- Oppression - Religion - Science Knowledge

Crisis of Knowledge

The advancement of a civilization aiming to achieve a dynamic coherence between the material and spiritual dimensions of reality recognizes that science and religion are the two reciprocal knowledge systems that impels its advance.  History gives rare, yet significant instances when these two systems have been complementary in their practice, and the resulting productivity of that society has been immense.

What is the state of these two systems today?  Few would argue that they are in crisis.  For religion, obvious signs include an almost endless fragmentation into irreconcilable factions and sects; the spread of religious intolerance, prejudice, and violence; the increasing corruption of its institutions; and its close-minded rejection of science.

For science, signs are less obvious, since it has brought humanity accelerated rates of technological advance.  However, science, too, has experienced a severe fragmentation as competing fields and disciplines view the world through their increasingly reductionist perspectives; it has created prejudice against anything associated with spirituality or religion, in a blind and close-minded fashion; it has disempowered most of humanity, who now view the generation of knowledge as exclusive to specialists and experts; it disproportionately serves the interest of a privileged minority by being directed by concentrations of wealth and power; and the priorities and values imposed on it have produced efficient methods for mass manipulation and weapons of mass destruction.

Clearly, fresh conceptions of each are overdue, conceptions that recognize their complementarity and coherence.

Categories
- Empowerment - Religion - Science Development Knowledge

Science and Religion

All human beings have spiritual capacities that can be revealed to contribute to humanity’s development and betterment.  This process of empowerment occurs through access to knowledge, both self-knowledge and knowledge of reality.  This knowledge is in two repositories of science and religion – for capacity building is concerned both with the qualities of the mind and the unique endowments of the soul.  For example, seeking unbiased truth is a scientific skill, but this skill’s contribution to civilization’s advance requires detachment and truthfulness.

Thus, the advancement of civilization is propelled through these two systems of knowledge, religion and science.  Both evolve over time as humanity has evolved.  Both are practiced collectively by communities.  Both operationalize underlying assumptions.  Religion discerns values through Divine revelation, that define the goals of humankind’s advancement; while science is the instrumentality through which the mind explores reality and attains these goals.

Science without religion looses proper direction and, as we have seen, results in a destructive materialism.  Religion without science looses connection with reality and, as we have seen, becomes blind imitation and superstition.

What are some instances now or throughout history when science and religion have been in harmony?

Categories
- Science Justice Oneness

Defender of the Interests of All Humankind: Justice

Ideals are wonderful as they are, but what really can we say are the practical implications for speaking or believing in a principle as lofty as the spiritual concept of ‘Justice’? Are its implications for social and economic development really as profound as they seem to be presented? Are we not hedged in and confined on many sides by practical, real-life constraints about what can be done? What can we do as a student, a mother, a school teacher, an engineer, a sick person, a doctor, a para-military force, a grocery bagger at the local Walmart, a child playing in the dust of a day care sandbox? As organizations, governments, and multi-national corporations, perhaps the question seems as tenuous to answer as it does for the individual. Equally futile it seems for collectives and individuals alike. As individuals or communities, the question begs of itself, it inquires of Justice, the question asks the principle, “What really can be done?” What can one sincere heart do, if she or he wanted to, to assist in the materialization of the structure of justice in the world we live in? The enthusiastic social activist says, “what am I to do?” The vengeful communities of the disadvantaged conglomerated into like-minded and similarly victimized social sub-factions, appropriately named and extant on every college campus, ask, “what are we to do, if we wish to enact the principle of Justice within society?” Finally, the corporation and materially rich institution says to itself, “what”, as it inquires, “am I do to about my conscience – it being that I seek to see Justice realized world-wide before my days on this earth come to an end?” So speaks the voice of Justice as it ponders its destiny during its days in the hearts and minds of women and men, communities, and institutions. So speaks the discourse on Justice as presently manifest in human deliberations, thoughts, and discourses of society.

Practical Implications of the Principle of Justice: From Ideals and Concepts to Realities and Reconstruction

I built this iPad, says the late CEO. I built this iPad for $800 bucks a piece. A cost of this technology was the human lives I destroyed to manufacture the 10 million units I sold on American soil with Chinese sub minimum-wage labor. Suicide, STD’s, family unit decimation, mass relocation, biohazardous dormitories, temporary economic surges with counteracted depressions, itty-bitty living space – these are all my concerns regarding the building of my iPad. iPad is progress, however. iPad is science, speaks the conscious pride of our people, boasted on CNN for all to glory in. Behold, as if to say, our human ingenuity. iPad is a cultural phenomenon, an accomplishment felt for all by all. It redounds to the conscience of the species as a symbol of the transcendent genius of our race. Beggar and orphan alike delight in its beauty and efficiency. CNN reports: Chinese orphan sells kidney for iPad II.

Justice implies that progress cannot be defined in terms of this situation. That which progress consists in must rather be of utility to a larger majority of possible beneficiaries of human struggle within our global population. That which constitutes scientific and social progress must answer the global travesties of shortages of infrastructure in literacy, education, health, peace and security, non-corrupt governance, intellectual open-mindedness and freedom from the ravaging influence of materialism. Misapplication of the priorities and resources of science towards esoteric playthings for the fetishes of an elite minority is no science at all.  Inventing contraptions to satisfy the entertainment quest of an increasingly parasitical technocracy is nothing for our species to take pride in. Addictions progressively increase in the cost to the buyer and in the quantity of stimulant needed to generate the effective euphoria. Western elite technocrats are at the tipping point where fetishes become desperate and insatiable and break under the crushing exhaustion of the world’s collective resource-cash unable to satisfy the irresponsible habits of consumption. Cars and global warming. Alcoholism and social responsibility. Television and activism. Night clubs and emotional integrity. Apple products and Foxconn’s rural genocide. Ultimately, concern for justice prevents humanity from defining progress in a way that endorses sacrificing  the well-being of global prosperity and the planet itself to technological breakthroughs for privileged minorities. In design and planning, Justice ensures that limited resources are not diverted to the pursuit of projects extraneous to a population’s internal social and economic needs in structure, application, or resource-allocation. Need is the imperative here. Massive global need determines the fact that social solidarity, literacy, agriculture, healthcare, and international relations are the topics in which glory can be achieved in inventions. Not hand-held 3G enabled contraptions. Development programs that inculcate just and equitable goals will engage the commitment of the masses of humanity. Mass commitment and coordination is the sole force upon which the generation and application of solutions to universal and important human needs fundamentally depends. Virtues such as honesty, a dedicated work ethic, and united collaboration are harnessed towards the achievement of enormously challenging global achievements. Every member of society, every institution, and every social community or group  has the capacity to learn to trust the unity and cooperation of the collective as a destiny that champions the rights and participation of every contributor, and assures the benefits and basic standards to which all are entitled, and most importantly, that applies the products of science and endeavors that utilize planet earth’s inherited human and material resources for the prosperity of all individuals equally, equitably, and with an unerring justice.

Categories
- Religion - Science - Three Protagonists Development Knowledge

History of the World, Part 4

Humanity’s social life is evolving towards fruition of a world civilization.  This process is propelled by two complementary systems of knowledge and practice – religion and science.  Both of these systems advance human insights into the same reality.  Both use similar faculties of the mind and soul, such as reason, imagination, attraction to beauty, and commitment to truth.  Both have underlying assumptions, a language, methods, and both progress over time.  Science without religion becomes blind materialism, and religion without science becomes superstition.  Together, they advance civilization.  What are some examples of past societies where the two were in harmony?

The source of true religion is, has been, and will continue to be the Manifestation of God.  Thus, the ultimate cause of the advancement of civilization is the education given to humanity by the Manifestations throughout time.  They bring teachings according to the requirements of the age, and their teachings unfold progressively over time.  There is but one religion, as there is but one humanity.

We know that humanity’s evolutionary process is cyclical in nature, like seasons of a year.  These Manifestations bring periods of spiritual vigor, akin to a springtime.  We are currently living in such a transition time of regeneration, where there is an interplay of two sets of forces.  The first is the disintegrative force – bringing turmoil, suffering, destruction, and at the same time, collapsing the obstacles and breaking down hindrances on the path towards world unity.  It is haphazard and chaotic in its application, and mysterious in nature.  The other is the integrative force – systematic, steady, calm, persistent, as it gives rise to new systems founded on oneness and justice.  It is manifest through cooperation, reciprocity, and mutual aid, and through the spirit of world solidarity we increasingly see.

This cyclic, organic, evolutionary process of the advancement of civilization – propelled by knowledge, vitalized by the Manifestation, shaped by integrative and disintegrative forces – is nonetheless largely determined by human agency.  It is on the will of our three protagonists – individuals, communities, and institutions – that depends the outcome of our unfolding drama.