User:Thepigdog/Religion

Religion is a set of beliefs that promotes a moral code, along with co-operation and relationship between people.

Religion is also a system of belief, based on faith, which resolves psychological stress related to mortality and lack of meaning or worth, by denying the truth of mortality, and asserting meaning and value to life.

Faith is defined as belief, without proper evidence. Religion seeks to explain, and give moral guide lines for the practice of life. Religion is characterized by a reward after death, that acts as the motivation for the observance of a moral code during life.

Proper evidence is the application of Occam's razor, and inductive probability to the description and prediction of events. In application to human fallibility and capacity for self deception, this principle has evolved into the scientific method. Religion is in opposition to scientific principles, although an individual may readily uphold both scientific principles and religion through compartmentalization.

Belief with good evidence is science. Belief without good evidence is bullshit (also called religion). The probability of a fact being true, without good evidence is one over 2 to the power of the number of bits of information needed to describe the fact. For any complex fact this is a very small number. Good evidence arises from theories that simplify the description of the world (reduce the number of bits of information needed to describe it).

Religion is a response to the deep psychological stress inherent in a beings consciousness of the powerlessness, and lack of meaning of the beings existence, and ultimate mortality. Increasing psychological stress increases religiosity. Religion is a response to psychological stress, in people that have not developed other methods to accept and cope with it. Attempts at evidential argument are not necessarily useful in dealing with religion, and may even be psychologically harmful, as they breakdown the belief structure without giving the individual the psychological mechanisms to deal with the stress. Religion may be understood in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The inability to achieve the satisfaction of needs shapes the expression and direction of religion.

Religion has also been used as a mechanism for the leaders of a group to control the actions of others, in order to form a co-operative society. The use of religion as a mechanism for leadership and social control appears to have played a key role in the early development of civilization.

Religion and culture
Religion, in may cases, provides a formal structure for the interaction between people. This enhances community, by encouraging people to meet together. Religion may be considered as an aspect of culture, as an agreed set of rituals observed by a community.

Moral codes
The moral codes associated with many religions promote healthy interactions, and social co-operation between people. They are an agreed set of rules adopted by a community that promote co-operation, mutual benefit and psychological growth.

Moral codes have an advantage over legal codes, in that the codes of behaviour are maintained voluntarily and set as a goal. This compares with legal codes which are maintained by punishment.

A moral code may be considered as the payload delivered by a religious belief. In this view the purpose of religious belief is to encourage observance of a moral code for the mutual benefit of society.

Religion taken literally
For the most part the literal facts asserted by religion are without basis in evidence. Too much focus on the literal belief in the assertions of religion probably indicates the need for a re-assessment of your religious belief.

The primary focus of religion should be to provide a shared set of moral rules and values that enhance daily life and relationships between people. Where religion goes beyond this role it may cease to be a positive influence.
 * Religion should focus on the relationship between people.
 * Religion should be open and inclusive, welcoming people with other beliefs.
 * Religion should accept that many things are unknown, or outside the scope of religion.

We don't know if there is an afterlife. From an evidential point of view it is not a proper area of consideration. It is irrelevant to the business of living this life.

Choosing to lead a good life now is a choice we should make, without the need for any external reward. It is a choice we should make because we want to. What is the virtue in good behavior that is only motivated by the promise of reward?

What is evidence
The term "evidence" has a clear meaning in probability theory. This meaning differs from the term proof used in logic and mathematics. Proof is a means of demonstrating a statement true if other statements are true.

Simply speaking "evidence" is obtained from the making and conforming or predictions. In the experimental method, predictions are made before observations, and there is strict control on the experimental procedure. This is to avoid the human ability for self deception.

In probability theory there is no requirement that the prediction proceed the observation. All that is required for there to be evidence is that the construction of the theory creates a representation of the observations that is simpler (in a technical sense) than the observation itself. This principle is encapsulated in Occam's razor, which states that,
 * "All things being equal, the simplest theory that explains the observations is the most likely to be true".

This principle has been expanded as minimum message length and minimum description length.

The primary logical structure used for evidence is inductive inference. Inductive inference states that if some set of facts is observed to be true. A hypothesis that implies the observations has a relative probability based on how much "simpler" it is.

Simplicity in this case is a technical term related to the amount of data needed describe the theory (represented in bits). An informal understanding of simplicity may be used in most cases.

Relative probabilities allow the comparison of theories, but do not give an absolute likelihood for a theory. For most purposes, relative probability is sufficient. Absolute probabilities may only be found by considering all theories simpler than the observed data. This allows the normalization of the probabilities so that the sum of all probabilities, along with the probability that the data is unexplainable, add to 1.

The lengths of the shortest description of the observations using two theories gives the relative probabilities of the theories. In practice a theory that explains the observation with 32 less bits of information is already more than a thousand million times more probable.

An example
Frank is discovered in possession of a knife that fits the stab wound of a murder victim. When questioned by police Frank claims that it was not his knife used in the murder. However Franks knife is hand made and has many features observed in the stab wound.

One theory is that Frank is not telling the truth. This theory is simple because the shape of the knife explains the stab wound.

It is also possible that another similar knife was used in the murder. This theory is more complex. It does not use the shape of Franks knife to explain the shape of the stab wound.

The amount of detail (or data) represented in common between the shape of the stab wound and the shape of Franks knife is the data explained by the theory. An alternate theory that some other person did it does not have this explanatory power.

This gives a relative probability that Franks knife was used in the murder.

However an absolute probability may only be obtained by considering all possibilities. If later it is discovered that Bob has an identical knife then it is equally likely that Bob or Frank's knife was used in the murder.

The process of accumulating evidence will provide data, and various hypothesis will be considered. There is never complete proof. There is only evidence. It is always possible that an alien abducted and murdered the victim. But this theory does not explain the murder, or the shape of the stab wound. Without explanatory power such a theory is not useful.

We consider a theory proved beyond reasonable doubt when all possible reasonable theories have been considered, and one theory is significantly simpler (has significantly more explanatory power) than all others.

In comparing two theories we consider one theory disproved if the other theory is significantly simpler.

The difference in the number of bits exponentially increases the relative probability of the simpler theory.

Psychological stress
Psychological stress may be summarized as,
 * An alarm or warning system in the brain.
 * Triggered by particular facts.
 * Causes the release of hormones.
 * Long term stress is damaging for health.

Examples of facts that cause psychological stress are,
 * Knowledge of impending death.
 * Lack of control.
 * Lack of meaning or purpose.
 * Failure to achieve individual needs, as described in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Resolution and coping mechanisms
Coping mechanisms
 * Acceptance
 * Denial

M. Scott Peck describes,
 * Mental health being the alignment of mental world with actual world.
 * Neuroses result from not doing the mental work to accept and process the evidence.

Common religious beliefs
Religion asserts,
 * Afterlife (continued existence physical death)
 * There is a meaning and purpose to life, by reference to a higher authority (sometimes in the form of a God or gods).
 * Faith (belief without evidence).

Deduction
The theory is that,
 * Religion is a coping mechanism for psychological stress based on denial.

The explanatory power is that common facts asserted by religion deny the facts that cause the stress.

The observation that an individual is more likely to to have a religious orientation in a dangerous situation is also explained by this theory.

Note that this theory would not predict that an atheist would usually become religious in a dangerous situation. The atheist may have developed other coping mechanisms for stress, that the religious person has not needed to. Only when coping mechanisms are overwhelmed would we expect to see an increase in religiosity.

Although in the short term denial removes stress, in the long term it is not a healthy coping mechanism.

There is no evidence for,
 * Afterlife.
 * Theism.
 * Dualism.

Problems with religion
As with all denial mechanisms, religion is a refusal to face the truth of the situation. This has direct and indirect effects.

Direct effects
 * An unjustified belief about the world.
 * Denial of facts that challenge the religious belief system.
 * Time spent reaffirming beliefs that are not soundly based on evidence.
 * Grouping of people by religion, with intolerance to people of other religious beliefs.

The individual subconsciously knows that their belief is not soundly based. This forces them to put effort into maintaining their belief. All new facts may threaten their belief system, leading to inability to accept new facts, and a rigidity of thought and belief.

Indirect effects
 * Resistance to accepting new ideas.
 * Rigidity of thought processes.
 * Dissonance between the conscious and unconscious mind.

Resistance to scientific discovery
Organised religion has resisted,
 * Sun centered movement of the universe.
 * Evolution

Sun centered movement of the universe
The Catholic church's opposition to the change from an earth centered to a sun earth centered universe was a minor incident in science. The ideas were still successfully spread.

Evolution
There is continued destructive resistance to evolution, that is often hysterical and irrational. Some aspects of evolution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Relative probability estimates for the decent of homo sapiens from chimpanzees indicate almost total certainty for this theory relative to independent creation. Extremely high relative probabilities apply to the decent of a large part of the phylogenetic tree from a common ancestor, relative to individual creation. For most species, it is not reasonable to assert that the species did not descend from a common ancestor, without proposing another theory which has more explanatory power than the existing theories.

The recording of recipes for constructing proteins in the DNA, which are transcribed by RNA has also been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

The actual statement of survival of the fittest, is something of a tautology if we define the fittest to be the ones that survive. The preservation and variation of traits from generation to generation is needed to implement the natural selection mechanism.

Other aspects of evolution are not as easily understood, although there has been considerable research and progress,
 * 1) cell differentiation.
 * 2) The origin and function of meiosis.
 * 3) Understanding of the origin of life.

These are the subject of active research. No doubt more understanding will arise from further research. It is a proper area of research and should be free from interference from religious interests.

Evidence for evolution disproves beyond reasonable doubt a literal interpretation of the creation myth.

Abiogenesis plausibility calculations
For abiogenesis we require,
 * A naturally occurring soup of the required chemicals.
 * A mechanism for the natural combination of the these chemicals into random sequence (polymers).
 * A natural process of polymer replication, based on templates.
 * Lipid cell membrane.
 * The existence of a short enough sequence that promotes self replication.

An approximate estimate of the length of this sequence is given by
 * 500,000,000 years.
 * 31536000 seconds in a year
 * 1000 combinations a second
 * At 1,000,000 locations on earth.

= 10E25 which is 2 to the power of 83 bits.

So the existence of sequence in the order of 80 base pairs that enhances self replication would lead possibility to the theory. A much shorter sequence would be more plausible. At this stage it is not clear if or how abiogenesis occurred. Further evidence is needed.

Limitations of our understanding
We understand from science that we are in a universe that created us.
 * The universe created us.
 * We understand the behavior of the universe (more or less).

If we then ask "Why do we believe our reasoning is correct?" we are left in a perilously cyclic situation. Every argument we try to make about our reasoning being correct is based on our reasoning being correct.

Suppose the universe created us such that we believed we are correct, but actually we are completely mad. Then if mad we would not detect out insanity.

The cosmological argument
The human heart refuses to believe in a universe without a purpose. Immanual kant.

This is a variation on the Cosmological argument.

Suppose we assume a couple of axioms of causality,
 * Everything has a cause.
 * Nothing causes nothing.

By nothing we mean, that which can be described with zero bits of information.

Then we can argue,
 * Everything has a cause
 * Nothing has no cause
 * By induction we must eventually get back to something with no cause.
 * Therefore everything came from nothing.
 * Nothing causes nothing.
 * There is nothing.

But clearly we exist. This is a contradiction.

Information cause argument

 * 1) A thing is defined as being describable by a quantity of information greater than zero.
 * 2) A cause is a statement, about other things that determines all the information describing the thing that is caused.
 * 3) The cause cannot use information from the thing that is caused in determining the information about the thing that is caused
 * 4) Everything, has a cause.

For example a dog. The cause of the dog must allow me to construct a description of the dog without referring to the dog. If the dog has red fur, I cant use this property of the dog in determining that the dog has red fur, or any other property of the dog.

In other words without referring to the dog, the cause tells me the information about the dog.

A god can be described by information and is therefore a thing. therefore a god cannot cause itself.

Consideration of the cosmological argument
The simple resolution is to drop one of the axioms. But then we have somethings can come from nothing.

So if a big pink elephant appears in the middle of the cricket pitch can we simply believe it came from nothing? Such a statement would be unreasonable. Is there any explanation of our existence that we could accept? If it is that easy for things to come into existence why are there not many things coming into existence for no reason.

Is it possible to reason without assuming cause and effect? Inductive inference does not need cause and effect. But inductive inference cannot be used to explain our existence.

Resolution of the causality argument
The only other conclusion we can reach is that there is some fundamental fallacy, or limitation of our reasoning process, which we are not aware of.

Whatever it is we have no choice but to keep reasoning on as best we can.

The strange thing is that we exist
In arguing for the plausibility of abiogenesis it is tempting to argue from the anthropic principle. This principle might effectively allow us to ignore the probabilities. We could argue that we are consciousness and exist only because abiogenesis. Therefore no matter how unlikely it is, a priori, it is a certainty, because otherwise we would not be here to witness it. No matter how improbable, given enough planets it becomes probable. And if not in our universe perhaps in a multiverse there is one planet in one universe, with life on it and we are on it.

I think this argument puts us on very shaky ground. The one thing we don't understand is why any of this exists. And yet somehow by conjuring up all possibilities of existence it becomes likely that abiogenesis occurred. There is something very unsettling about the argument.

A more satisfactory result would be to demonstrate a natural process that has a reasonable probability of starting life, in the environment of the early earth.