Politics and Religion

Defectors Say Church of Scientology Hides Abuse - NYTimes.com: "Mr. Davis, the church’s current spokesman, said Scientologists are no different from Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Amish who practice shunning or excommunication.
“These are common religious tenets,” he said. “The very survival of a religion is contingent on its protecting itself.”"

Found this comment on the practices of the Church of Scientology. I must say that mixing power and religion leads to this kind of political religion and it is therefore I firmly believe in having a private faith and then participate in whatever political circumstance that one might belong to. I hope faith is becoming something personal rather than something that other people shove down your throat. Being part of a politically oriented Church must be very difficult. Many conflicts with society. If this becomes prevalent, it might mean that society will fragment totally. Small popedoms all over the place.

When it comes to the meaning of life, it would be interesting to know if mankind could agree upon such an issue. Probably different people have different meanings that makes them tick. It is therefore ecumenics is a questionable goal. Some people might believe that enlightenment comes from advances in science whereas others might believe having a good time is more appropriate. You can make a pile of money and then help fund science or you can participate yourself in the actual pursuit. A Religious Humanist can also participate giving moral support and pay their taxes.

Jealousy?

Dick Erixon — I hjärtat rebell: "Sveriges Radios vetenskapsredaktion rapporterade nyligen om ny forskning i USA som visar att viljan till jämlikhet är biologiskt inprogrammerad i våra hjärnor. “Man har hittat ett fynd i hjärnan som tyder på att det finns ett basalt, inkodat motstånd mot ojämlika fördelningar, i det här fallet pengar”, sa Martin Ingvar, professor i neurofysiologi på Karolinska Institutet till Vetenskapsradion."

I should be fairly easy to prove this on people who are jealous. A non virtue character. Is this problem accounted for? Furthermore I don't think you can use the complicated word "jämlikhet" to discuss these data.

It would however be interesting to ask the question if it is possible to divide Alliansen and the Red-Greens into people that are not jealous and jealous, respectively. People differ in the degree to which they are jealous and in all probability this is a genetic trait, although it might be complicated inheritance with many genes involved.

They have had a discussion on SR.se OBS where the leaders of the political youth organizations have discussed the pros and cons of economic equality. If people work and get money for their work it is not the same as tested in the study above. If Bill Gates makes a discovery that many people like, he is not regarded as a person stealing from others. A healthy person rather become impressed.

Politics is more psychology than philosophy

Filosofi har inte med saken att göra Kulturdebatt SvD: "Filosofin bör hållas utanför politikens banaliteter. Detta bör konservativa intellektuella klargöra, skriver Roland Poirier Martinsson i debatten om högerns tankar."

Reading up on the recent debate on right wing political philosophy: Den upplysta konservatismen; Höger i röd kostym; Några förslag för en tänkande höger; Upplysningstiden som (konservativt) ideal; Upplysningens och konservatismens dialektik; Högeridéer missförstås avsiktligt; Högern har fel filosofer; Rätt konservatism, Rätt upplysning.

Well, it is clear from my perspective that political philosophy in fact started, for example Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, in their discussion of state of nature, as evolutionary psychology in its embryonic form. It could then be argued that Magnus Eriksson's article 'Högern har fel filosofer' might instead read 'Högern har inte tagit till sig tillräckligt av psykologin'. Ayn Rand is for example truly dreaful to read for a 'socialliberal' like myself which perhaps could be regarded as center-right.

If the right consider more psychological aspects, they would find that it is not possible with full employment and that all people cannot handle their own situation although evolutionary aspects tell that individualism must be permitted unbound for fastest possible progress. With a development perspective I would argue that science and religion will fuse first. Then they will both fuse with political science. There will however always be art and I sincerely hope that art will be allowed to develop from 'photography' to more experimental vistas.

When political philosophy has become psychology, and social liberalism the center-right, the "högern" is represented by those unwilling to change very much, "det var bättre förr" kind of guys. Such individuals are by definition in my humble experience are politically not very intellectual which is discussed in the articles above.

The center-left starts with the recognition of economical equality and to fill in on Poirier Martinsson's discussion of Johan Norberg's position, I have no idea why Norberg talks about voting for the social democrats.

Spiritual Energy and Astrology?

For those of you that thought Astrology had disappeared since Johannes Kepler there is new information from the Pew Forum of an increase in people that believe in a spiritual energy in physical things like mountains, trees and crystals and in astrology (the position of stars and planets can affect a person's life) in the US. As much as 25% of people that have a conventional religion believe in such a fashion. Such pheomena need not be supernatural.

I find this very interesting because of my own religion Religious Humanism which is a kind of pantheism. The poll claims that more and more younger persons believe in this fashion so it is a trend that is coming in in this way. If the whole Universe is God, it might indeed have an affect on you that is unknown today.

Perhaps it is a sign of people respecting the unknown more than earlier. Respect for the power of science as a means of finding out more. That there is indeed more to find out.

It is otherwise conceivable that people might start to think that we will reach a new plateau of learning and like the Greeks be followed by a stage in history where not much new findings became known. I have heard from distinguished scientists that we just have this or that left to explain and I find this very odd.

The poll also describes that more and more people attend services of other denominations and even other faiths. This might mean that faith is becoming more of a private issue for the individual and that the congregation is losing influence or is substituted with other organizational forms.

If the development is the same in Europe, this would mean that we would get less and less problems from the religious differences of people.

Thanks to Charles M. Blow at the New York Times for the reference to the poll.

The Elliptic Planetary Orbit

Around 1605, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) found out from the astronomical observations of Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), a Danish nobleman from Scania (Skåne then Danish), the following empirical relations:

Kepler's Laws

1. The orbit of any planetary orbit is an ellipse with the sun at one focus.

2. A line joining the planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.

3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit (the semi-major axis of the ellipse is half the major axis which is the longest possible axis of the ellipse running through both foci).

Almost a century later Isaac Newton was able to derive Kepler's laws from his own laws of motion and the law of gravitation with the help of Euclidean geometry.

The "divine" perfect circle of planetary motion was crushed.

Kepler was born in the Free Imperial City of Weil der Stadt, now close to Stuttgart. Childhood small pox left him weak and with poor vision so that he could not perform astronomical observations himself although introduced to astronomy early and with a profound love for it. Kepler began as a theology student at the University of Tübingen but was becoming an excellent mathematician but also a skillful astrologer casting horoscopes for his friends. Carl Sagan has called him the first astrophysicist and the last scientific astrologer. At the time both the disciplines of astrology and astronomy was in existence.

In a student disputation he defended heliocentrism both from a theoretic but also from a theological perspective, maintaining that the sun was the principal source of motive power in the universe. Despite his interest in becoming a protestant minister, at the age of 23, two years earlier than Galileo, he became a professor of mathematics and astronomy at the School of Graz (later University of Graz). He actually later helped Galileo with observational support of the heliocentric theory when he was in trouble with the Catholic Church.

In 1600 Kepler and his family was banished from Graz as a result of the counter reformation. They refused to convert to Catholicism. He then returned to Tycho Brahe in Prague where he had had an earlier not so successful stint of collaboration. Brahe had been secretive with his data. Brahe was one of the last astronomers that worked without the telescope. When Brahe died in 1601, Kepler replaced him as the imperial mathematician with the mission of completing his unfinished work. Kepler had now access to the extensive observations of Brahe and his group and the following 11 years were the most productive in his life.

Data from Wikipedia

The Lid Opened a Little?

EUobserver / Racism at 'shocking' levels in EU, landmark report says: "Using language rarely found in the dry reports of EU agencies, the FRA described as 'shocking' the rampantly racist, anti-immigrant and Islamophobic experiences of minorities as they go about their daily lives."

Here is another one in Spiegel Online where Dennis Meadows, a US economist who wrote a book in 1972 that used modelling with that era of a computer to conclude that lifestyles had to be changed. He claims it is too late now and that we just have to hold on and see what happens. I recognize myself a little with this view on the matter. He says we don't have to save the Planet it will save itself. What we have to worry about is our civilization. Man survived the ice age. Africa now have to move to Siberia, instead of everyone moving to Africa.

Considering these two articles together it becomes evident that why it is so silent out there is because people are saying conflicting things. On one hand we have to globalize more so that the world population will start to decrease after 9bn. On the other hand people cry for blocking growth to save the climate. "Business as usual" is not good, they say. But Meadows says it is too late. If he is right there is no problem. The problem is perhaps that the climate fundamentalists claim that we can save the planet if we do this and this. Meadows says the only thing that would help is changing lifestyles.

Then the very unpleasant truth surfaces mercilessly. Should we go back to the caves and all live as they do in Afghanistan instead of trying to change their lives? The glory of our civilization was all a hoax. Or should we hope that the industrialized countries will come up with solutions also for the rest of the world. Meadows says that we should not have 18 pairs of shoes. What happens if it is not enough for people to have the three pair of shoes that he prescribes to save our civilization? Well, for the time being we would have to accept an outsideship and one main goal would be to eliminate it using science.

If science is the solution it is very bad that it is being discredited and politicized currently. It is bad that the schools in the Western world suffer from an apparent lack of motivation which is perhaps not so strange if doomsday prophets continue to sing their songs in the vein of the interview with Meadows. What remains important, however, is that for prosperity to rein it is necessary for individuals to work freely and searching for a solution to the world outsideship that is just going to be another hurdle on the track.

I must say that I come down more on the hopeful side of 'business as usual' than on the gloomier sustainable growth side because the whole system evolves from hope and the current situation. Eventually when we solved the population crisis by globalizing completely, which results in lower birth rates, sustainability must ensue.

Are we dumber now?

Sverige har hamnat på efterkälken Brännpunkt SvD: "De senaste 20 åren har en enda svensk fått ett Nobelpris (Arvid Carlsson, medicinpriset år 2000). Under de 20 åren dessförinnan, 1970 till 1989, fick nio svenskar ta emot Nobelpris."

I would like to introduce another perspective in this debate. It is reasonable to suppose that today's kids are not less intelligent than their predecessors. Then why are they not as good in mathematics or physics? Are they occupied with something else as for example "rollspel", ie, games where you try to outsmart your friends?

It takes time to learn how to con people and it is not beneficial for the ambiance in school which can be seen in the increasing problem with "mobbing". My question is if the children of today have grown up without their traditional family bonds? Without their parents guidance? Is it really a problem with the school but rather with "skolorna"?

Another type of solidarity

Jan Thurins tankar: Leta efter resultat för wallström: "Det är naturligtvis bra att smutsa ner så lite som möjligt men det verkar som om vi kommer att nödsakas att ta en risk med en ökad temperatur för att de fattiga på jorden skall få det bättre.

Solidaritet kräver denna risk.

Jag har inte sett någon dra denna slutsats och gör det därför själv. Jag tror det är att fördedra att se på problemet som ett måttligt risktagande snarare än som en analkande domedag.

Jag inbillar mig att det är fler än jag själv som gör denna bedömning."

Remembered that I had written the above after reading Johan Norberg's column in Metro today. Norberg was apparently one such person but I have not seen anyone else since I wrote the above in March 25, 2008.

OK! Don't talk about the bad stuff. Instead focus on the good stuff and the bad will disappear?

Charlemagne's notebook The Economist: "And the results of sober, sustainable growth are not the same as those from a consumption-based society. How will we find sources of alternative jobs? The ecological revolution has to create a lot of jobs."

I love a sunny story. Tax money is going into this right now but as I wondered earlier why is the civil society not following suit? Jacques Delors, who is a socialist, and who said the above, believes in green technology as does Obama and seemingly everyone else. I have heard people say this is a new industrial revolution. Thomas Friedman at the New York Times writes today that we don't have anything to lose from going head over heel into this new phase in our life. Even if man is not culpable for climate change what could we possibly lose from cleaning up the place.

When I talked about the trans-Atlantic axis as a unified force into the next level the other day, I had sustainable growth in mind. China might forcefully follow suit trying to outshine the US in world opinion as the good guy on the block despite its need for growth. After all they are not bogged down in two war zones.

But why the gloom? Why is not everyone dancing on the roof?

The Environment?

Ett mirakel krävs i Köpenhamn Brännpunkt SvD: "Klimatförändringen kan inte lösas isolerat utan måste ses som en del av en större kris, i form av överutnyttjandet av många viktiga ekosystem. Klimatavtalet måste följas av ett avtal om hållbar utveckling. Ett sådant avtal förutsätter helt andra spelregler för ekonomin och världshandeln än dagens."

Continuing my read-up on climate change. Johan Rockström, Director of Stockholm Environmental Institute, and Anders Wijkman, Tällberg Foundation, seemingly want the world to be governed in another fashion. The Economist with its Special Report on Climate Change delivers a calm and nice appraisal of the situation. Yes, climate change can technically be taken care of and yes, it is affordable. The question is how, apparently.

However, it is interesting to note that energy companies like BP and Shell lowers their investments in renewables currently. Is this because there is large amounts of money invested in 2010 and 2011 as stimulus money and they want to see what's happening with these tax funds? Or is it because profits are nowhere in sight, for a while? Solar electricity cost ten times as much as coal electricity.

It is questionable if climate change will make the world centralize government. It seems more likely that a fight on preeminence in green technology is going to ensue. At least the Chinese seems to think like that. Hu Jintao will run China like a green technology company, the engineer he is, and try to win market shares. He currently, alone in the world, sits on a pile of money and invests galore. In my ignorance I can't help wondering why BP and Shell don't take him up on this?

Tolerance??

Spinoza was born 1632 in Amsterdam by Jewish parents that had fled from the Iberian penisula being so called marranos, ie, Jews that publicly were Christian but in the dark retained their Jewish faith. However, due to Spinoza's free thinking he was demoted from his Jewish congregation 1656 with the words: "He'd be damned during the day, and during the night. Damned when he is asleep, damned when awake. Damned would his entry be and his exit. May the Lord never forgive him".

It still matters where you live on Earth but things have improved. I respect people of faith, but, like the Humanists, I have little understanding for the cumbersome dogmatics that one encounters in the standard Abrahamitic religions. It is a wonderful literary heritage but my adoration stops there. As the first posts in my blog "etiketted" "scriptures" clearly show, religion have been countering the development of science and prosperity by reason over the 350 years from Spinoza's departure from the established religion of the day. My faith of today is similar to that of Spinoza. It is a faith free of interference to scientific and philosophical thinking. Perhaps it will be possible for me to write about my faith today. It wasn't for Spinoza.

In the program 'Konflikt' on the radio P1 yesterday the prospective joining of Turkey with the EU was discussed. It seemed that a person speaking for Turkey's entry used arguments of islamophobia rather than recognizing distinctive differences in the freedom of the press and the democratic set-up as the reason for the unlikely entry of Turkey any time soon. I don't think the religion Islam is a problem in Europe as long as it is not political Islam. Faith should be private. It should not be a state matter. It is the responsibility of the Muslims to keep it private.

The decision of Switzerland to ban the minaretes is similar to the de-veiling of Muslim women. There are situations where a veil is not recommended, like in the upbringing of other people's children, but other than that the liberal stance of allowing for Islam and its attributes should encouraged. The sounding of church bells could be as annoying as the howling of a muezzin.

Carl Bildt was interviewed in the radio program. Being a strong proponent for early entry of Turkey into the EU, he argued for the increased safety for Europe in having open doors for Turkey in this direction rather than Turkey opening doors in the other direction. However, it seems to me that Turkey might be able to improve Iran by example, a feat that the West is completely unable to do. There are signals in the literature lately that Turkey already in principle have given up membership in the EU and instead is directing its attention elsewhere. If they really believe in democracy they can influence others, otherwise they will fail. It is a good test. A failed democratic state the size of Turkey in the EU would be a disaster.

Oxygen--Priestley-Scheele-Lavoisier

The discovery of oxygen 1773 which was made in an era where Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), Carl Wilhelm Scheele (1742-1786) and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794) all contributed to the discovery. Lavoisier, despite being a member of the French Academy of Sciences was beheaded during the French Revolution. The judge said "The Republic needs neither scientists nor chemists; the course of justice cannot be delayed". Priestley due to his unitarianism and support for the French Revolution had to flee to the United States, his house and church torched by a mob. Scheele, although probably the first to discover oxygen, did not get credit for it since Priestley did publish it earlier. Scheele, like Linné, made Sweden a front nation in science during the 18th century.

Robert Boyle (1627-1691) showed in the end of the 17th century that air was necessary for combustion. He was among the founding members of the Royal Society in London 1660, the first institute dedicated to scientific pursuit.

These scientists in essence all worked to disprove the 1667 theory of phlogiston. It was believed that a fire-like element called phlogiston was contained in combustible bodies, and released during combustion. The theory was an attempt to explain combustion and rusting which is today understood as oxidations.

Lavoisier was the first to publish the disproof of the phlogiston theory. Priestley and Scheele did not use their discoveries of oxygen to bring down the phlogiston theory. This is a very important discovery since the understanding on the metabolism of biological cells rest on oxidation and the continuation of Harvey's discovery of the systemic blood circulation follows from this understanding. Ibn al-Nafis (born 1213) was also closing in on biological oxidation but could not have understood it completely since he only discovered the lung-heart circulation and not the systemic circulation that brought something in the air to the tissues in the body.

People believed in vitalism, a doctrine where the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from biochemical reactions. It was not until Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)demonstrated that biochemical reactions took place in biological tissues with fermentation in yeast that this paradigm changed. Lavoisier had also worked with Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827) demonstrating that respiration in essence was a slow combustion of organic material using inhaled oxygen, "la respiration est donc une combustion". He had used a calorimeter to investigate respiration and heat production in a guinea pig.

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) is also believed to have discovered that a portion of air is consumed during combustion and respiration. However, many with him have obviously realized that humans and animals cannot live without air.

Data from Wikipedia

The reason why people are not in such a hurry?

Mike Hulme: The Science and Politics of Climate Change - WSJ.com: "The citizens they rule over have minds of their own. In the U.K., a recent survey suggested that only 41% believed humans are causing climate change, 32% remained unsure and 15% were convinced we aren't. Similar surveys in the U.S. have shown a recent reduction in the number of people believing in man-made climate change."

I guess this is the reason we don't think the philosophers should rule the world like Plato said.

An earlier meeting of climate scientists in Copenhagen

Hopes of climate change accord 'are sinking' - Times Online: "“We all hope that Copenhagen will succeed but I think it will fail. We won't come up with a global agreement,” Professor Anderson said. “I think we will negotiate, there will be a few fudges and there will be a very weak daughter of Kyoto. I doubt it will be significantly based on the science of climate change.”"

It seems that Hansen in the earlier post alludes to the statement that COP15 will not be based on the science of climate change. Perhaps I have been fooled to believe that there is a relationship of trust between the political domain and the scientific domain that seems to be non-existent?

The cited meeting last March was one of climate scientists only that wanted to bring forward a status report on climate change for politicians in COP15.

First Climategate, then a farce?

Climate scientist James Hansen hopes summit will fail - Times Online: "A leading scientist acclaimed as the grandfather of global warming has denounced the Copenhagen summit on climate change next week as a farce"

Well, I thought I'd take the opportunity to learn a little about where the climate change debate is standing during the COP15 meeting. However, I'm surprised over the heavy attacks towards the meeting. It indeed seems confusing now. On the radio somebody said that there is no opposition anymore against the main tenets of climate change, ie, the temperature rise and the culpability of mankind. I'm apparently supposed to draw the conclusion that yes something should be done but there is no consensus on what exactly?

Now a so called grandfather of climate change is against the meeting itself and an icon like the cap and trade system. He wants to tax carbon directly instead. He is apparently telling people to start the same civil unrest as during the Vietnam war in the US in the process.

COP15 is an interesting feature. It is a measurement of what the world currently can muster on collaboration in the face of supposed danger. Should I draw the conclusion that there is not sufficient danger? Or is it that it so happens that the world is just emerging from a financial crisis that would make a suggestion to tax carbon directly economical suicide.

Is James Hansen a clown rather than COP15 being a farce?

In the wake of "Climategate"

Richard S. Lindzen: The Climate Science Isn't Settled - WSJ.com: "Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned."

Well, I took the liberty of reading the Wikipedia article on Dr. Lindzen, a meterologist at MIT, and he is apparently one of these in the field that people have severe problems contradicting. It is not only The Wall Street Journal that contribute with scepticism towards current conclusions on climate change The Economist is also noting in the wake of "Climategate" that the science involved are predictions that constantly need upgrading for better reflecting reality.

They claim: This newspaper believes that climate change is a serious threat, and that the world needs to take steps to try to avert it. That is the job of the politicians. But we do not believe that climate change is a certainty."

In the Wikipedia article, however, one finds a note that tells that the politicians with the Kyoto agreement didn't do much, next to nothing, to stabilize the CO2 levels. This is a Lindzen argument which he claims there is no controversity about.

Politicians have therefore not so far had much luck in combating climate change. Even if the CO2 problem is not fruitfully contributing positively to our climate, reductions of all kinds will of course dirty down our planet less and therefore have other positive effects.