The Daily Cow

A friend of mine shared with me a research paper (also available here) which discussed the correlation between religious belief and measured intelligence (IQ). I wonder which way the causation goes, or whether there is a third variable that directly influences intelligence and religious belief. Is it that smart people are more skeptical of unproven (and in all scientific senses, unjustifiable) superstitions (intelligence => skepticism), or is it that the resignation of the inquiring scientific mode of thinking due to satisfaction derived from non-scientific sources causes believers to think less deeply about abstract things (unscientific belief => less inquisitive mind)? Or is it that by "religious belief" the real meaning is "Catholicism" (popularity of Catholicism => religious belief and lack of scientific curiosity)? (Since it's the most popular religion in the world) Or maybe, those with lower IQ tend to be more impoverished and are in need of "hope" (Need => religious belief)?

Religion, economics, mathematics and philosophy are just different perspectives on society and life. Although I have not discovered how I fit into the first perspective, the influences that latter three have had on me are obvious and many.

Two and half weeks ago on pi day (3/14 for those in the dark), when forced to reveal a "secret" that I thought would be interesting for others to know, I wrote on a piece of paper: "I have always told myself and others that I am a true utilitarian, but I don't know how far I would sacrifice my own welfare for the benefit of the whole"; and I accompanied it with a helpful diagram (blue denotes my portion of the hypothetical "economic pie" and gray denotes others'):

(For those who are wondering: No, it was not intentional for me to draw a pie on pi day)

When there is an obvious contradiction between the welfare of the self and of the whole, problems arise (the Prisoners' Dilemma, a scenario often discussed by game theory, is a common example). So what do I do when I am presented with an option that harms myself but benefits others (necessarily more than it hurts me)? What if the option harms others but benefits me (necessarily less than it hurts others)? A true utilitarian would be no less a utilitarian to himself than to his neighbor. But am I one?

Economics offers the solution: when the pie that provides for everyone becomes larger, systems of distribution can be arranged in a fashion such that everyone benefits more than before--when the rich get richer more than the poor get poorer, the rich can help the poor and both would still be better off, for example. Of course, the rich, after their generous deeds, are less well off economically than before, but often exchanges are reciprocal, so all involved will eventually benefit. Hence, ultimately, things can be arranged such that there is no conflict between a utilitarian perspective and one that prioritizes the welfare of the self over that of the whole.

Much of this is explained by game theory. The key is communication and cooperation among all those involved to achieve the most desirable outcome for all.

That is the conclusion one comes to when he has no external frame to adhere to--mainly religion, Christianity for example. What do you do? Please God. How? Believe in him and do "good" things. What things are good? Those that Jesus would approve. But what are they? Read the Bible. Huh?

Instead, the moral and ethical beliefs of people like me are based on welfare--doing things that are good for you, your community, your country, your planet. Does it matter if it's not in the Bible? Not really--if it increases total welfare (global trade), then it's good. If it decreases total welfare (War in Iraq), it's bad. If it doesn't affect others at all (whatever happens between two consenting adults), it doesn't matter if you do it or not. Hence, by not having an easy reference to query, we are forced to produce an understanding of ethics that is more rational, based on the concept of total welfare.

How do you define your morals? What examples of goodness do you look up to? How have they influenced your beliefs and understandings?

If there is one thing that I learned from Monday's discussion of religion, it is that whatever you believe in, you should not let yourself be a slave to its rhythms. If you cannot truly understand it--and I guarantee you that you do not understand it--you should not let your life revolve around it.

Too many times in the past has religion been used to justify some of humanity's most terrible deeds--religious persecution during the Roman era, the destruction and massacre of the Mediterranean Crusades, and several cases of state-sponsored genocide, just to name a few of the more known cases. Religion has lead to wars between countries and insurrections within. It made slaves out of most of the populace during the Dark Ages (serfs and peasants were told to work hard in return for reward in their afterlife and to avoid holy retribution). It was used to justify the terrible and paternalistic imperial conquests of the 19th century. And even in the present day, fanatics from both sides attempt to discredit each other. But why do we keep letting these injustices continue?

America's founding fathers recognized the innate problem with bundling religion with government and addressed that issue in the Constitution that still guides our country today. Keeping them together as one unit would amount to ruling a populace with fear--fear of something they could not possibly have understood.

What do I mean by understanding, then? It is being able to communicate with certainty a belief or knowledge you have. Consider this example:

1. First, you are a one-dimensional ant (a line segment) living in a one-dimensional universe--an infinite line. You have two perspectives, front and back. In this frame, it would be absurd to claim to know what is up, down, left, right, because those perspectives are simply unavailable to you.
2. Then, you become a two-dimensional (a finite flat shape like a circle or a square) ant living in a two-dimensional universe--an infinite plane. You have four perspectives now: in addition to front and back, you can see left and right. At this point, you can understand what a one-dimensional world would be like, but it would be equally absurd to claim to know what is up and down.
3. Finally, you become a three-dimensional (a finite shape with volume like a sphere or a cube) ant living in a three-dimensional universe--an infinite space. You can finally understand the six directions we are familiar with and the previous dimensions. But what comes next? We cannot know. Some say time, but if that were true, we would be able to look back and forward in time with as much precision as looking backward and forward in space--but we cannot.

My point is that although it is easy to understand the universes whose dimensions are equal to or smaller than the one in which you live, it is pure vanity to claim anything about universes whose dimensions are greater than the one in which you live (Linear algebra freaks, you can relate all these together using familiar terms such as vector spaces and subspaces of those vector spaces). Regardless of whatever may exist beyond our ultimate level of perception, we cannot speculate on their properties.

Because there is no way of knowing what exists outside of our range of perception, regardless of what other human sources tell you, it is futile to live a life revolved around the "super"-spaces (a "space" of which our current space is a subspace). Christians for example may claim that the Bible is composed of the word of God, written by Jesus's disciples, and therefore that claim must make the Bible the truth and Christianity valid--but how different is that from a 2D ant listening to another 2D ant explain what he asserts the 3D ant told him about the world beyond?--that there is up and down in the 3D universe, when the 2D ant has no way of understanding what that could possibly mean?

When people speculate on the properties of the un-understandable, they make tragic mistakes (as I've mentioned above) and conflicting conclusions. Muslims are convinced that "all religions other than Islam are heresy and error," and that heretics go to their equivalent of hell. Protestants believe something along the same, and so do Catholics. Buddhists and Hindus have completely different mindsets based on reincarnation. But realistically, at least one of these beliefs is wrong; you cannot both go to Islamic hell and Protestant heaven while being evaluated in the Catholic purgatory. (and plus, did God just build a new waiting room when Martin Luther created his own strain of Christianity? That surely does not make sense) Is it the fault of the Buddhist monk to never have heard about Jesus? Does he deserve to go to hell because of it? Certainly, you can see the vanity in attempting to question the unquestionable and attempting to understand what we cannot understand.

And what about moral beliefs? Why can't the code of ethics to which we all adhere be based on common sense and personal experience? Why must there be a set of things that Jesus and Moses say we should do and should not do? Why can't we simply apply our common sense? Surely, Jesus did not foresee the advent of computers and the Internet. Is it okay to spread viruses to unprotected computers because Jesus did not mention anything about it? As you can see, religion should, by no means, be the official framework on which everyone's morals are based.

Everyone, live your life around what is real and what can be understood, and leave the unreal and impossible-to-understand to your afterlife, if you believe there is one. Do not dwell on what goes on beyond your range of vision, for you will never understand as long as you are trapped in this universe, and do not make the understanding of the un-understandable be your life goal; those attempts will only be in vain.

I thank everyone for their time and hope that I offended no one with this post. Regardless, I invite everyone's honest thoughts into this discussion. I am strongly interested in hearing everyone's inputs.

Michael Huckabee worries me. A lot.

Since President George W. Bush was elected in the year 2000, the country has shifted immensely to the right. Not only have taxes been raised on the lower class, but also the United States has engaged in some messy conflicts, and continues to point it's self-proclaimed middle finger at the rest of the world. Our middle finger continues to show up the world, even as we have lost much of the political and diplomatic clout obtained under the Clinton administration. George W. Bush, master of incompetency, has ushered in a new age where the United States is no longer a global superpower -- we just live as one through a proverbial political wet dream.

The main driving force behind this is that of religion. Religion has repeatedly damaged the appeal for pragmatism, which I plea for in this post. Religion hurts America more than it helps because the driving force behind it is the afterlife. What goes on now hardly matters to most politicians, because when the end result is heaven, finding health care reform shouldn't really be a top priority. Rather, the top priority is to make those who aren't a certain religion (in this case, Christianity is the ideal religion we speak of, non-withstanding of sects within) Christian, and join them in their path to salvation.

Understandably so, it makes sense. If you're on this earth now to prepare for salvation later, then the only thing that matters in this world is to do God's bidding, or in other words, "spread the good news about His gospel". Alas, fixing social security, finishing and completing the war in Iraq, and even rescinding support for Israel are things that won't really matter. Why? Because when the end result is heaven and not decomposition, the people who run in politics, specificially American politics, are more or less martyrs to the cause at hand -- advancing Christian supremacy. Hence George W. Bush continues to reject stem cell research, push forward on Iraq (and Iran and North Korea?), all while championing his set of non-existent moral values.

So what does this leave atheists with? Absolutely nothing. While I sympathize with those who do decide to follow a faith (that's 86% of the world here), I've also been feeling a bit more for the other 14%, those who don't choose to open up a holy book, pray before a meal and walk around on Sunday (Jehovah's Witnesses) telling others that they need to be saved from being damned. This country, the United States, while opening up borders for many individuals, closes them up as well, especially for the atheists who reside. While a Christian may go to heaven regardless of whether health care or social security passes, what about the atheist who wants to live a secure life now? What about the atheist who wants to live longer and get health care benefits, or be able to recieve money to live off of before they die? They may not have pearly gates to look forward too after they decease, but they too deserve a chance at living their way.

This brings me to another question: Why does religion even matter in the scope of American politics? Admittedly, Purtians did start this country, but that was 400 years ago. No longer are we dealing with famine and the cold, but more advanced issues such as stem cell research, abortion, health care and the ongoing war against terror, a conflict against a subtle and invisible group of people. Obviously, while a candidate's moral values are important because those qualities do factor into political decisions, why should one being Mormon, Christian, Catholic, Orthodox, or any other religion matter? In all those religions, the central tenet is Jesus, with a few switched things here and there (eucharist for Catholicism, etc...), but even on a larger scale, it should not have to interfere with whether you build that new highway or not. With that in mind, why would anyone, in their right mind, like Mr Huckabee, decide to go after Mitt Romney and attack his mormon (or any religious) ways? You may think that someone's devotion (or lack of) may factor into their daily political work, but honestly, it doesn't even work that way -- there are many students and friends that I know who claim themselves to be labeled religious but it does not affect the way they perform at school. Would it not be more pragmatic to attack them on their stances towards whichever political belief?

My plea for pragmatism in 2008 is that we can turn away from this religious orthodoxy that has begun to plague the United States. The religious atittude that plagues this country has sapped it of needed pragmatism, and replaced it with the needs of the afterlife, refusing the atheists and non-religious individuals in this country a chance for life now. If Mr Huckabee, or anyone similar, gets elected, expect this country to get worse. And using the word worse is being nice about it.

So, atheists are wealthier? Tell that to any person who has a well-balanced faith, and they'll tell you that means absolutely nothing to them.

The thing is, God has always been a part of anything in this world, no matter what. Take away all the GDP, GNP, production and money that could have been spent, and you aren't going to make anyone happier or sadder. Is it a tragedy that many of us spend our Fridays, Saturdays and Sunday mornings (and in the case of some devout Catholics, every day of the week) worshiping a higher entity? If you're an economist or a capitalist, yes, because you are losing out on potential profit. But if you're religious, honestly, this life doesn't matter. You're here to serve your God, do your duty of spreading the faith, and joining him post mortem. Never mind that your atheist friend has more cumulative wealth, because hey, you'll be with God when you die, right? And he's worth way more than say, the combined worth of Facebook, Microsoft and Apple, put together.

So honestly, God wastes GDP. It's a tragedy, and I agree. But can we do anything about it? No. God has been rooted in our minds and souls since time has begun, and so have the supply and demand curves that run our society. They will continue to compete as long as there is something to be traded, and both sides will gripe as long as there is something to gripe about. And the thing is, when someone has enough faith in their God to keep on believing their God, nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to change their mind. God doesn't care about supply and demand guys. He cares about who believes that he exists.

Speaking of which... is he done with the laundry yet?