User:Blue Hoopy Frood/Essays/Manifesto

Preamble

I became mired in conflict last fall because I naively assumed that Wikipedians would appreciate having logical flaws in articles pointed out. Instead, folks defended their cherished beliefs with the passion of religious fanatics. Because I challenged their faith, they labeled me as anti-science. If you are one of those culture warriors, here to dig up dirt on me (or even if you have less malevolent motives), let me tell you a little bit about myself.

Background

I was raised as an intellectual in a family of intellectuals. We worshipped the mind, believing we could master our environment through our superior understanding. I assumed all intellectuals are arrogant, and so justified my own arrogance.

I was also a compulsive skeptic, habitually poking holes in every argument I came across (which is much easier than formulating my own arguments, BTW). I still am, and still do. This compulsive skepticism can be a blessing in scientific and scholarly environments where people welcome constructive criticism and collaboration. It is a curse when people are defensive about their beliefs, particularly when the criticism is delivered with arrogance. It is likewise a curse when I want to believe certain matters by faith and have trouble doing so.

Freshman year of college, I vowed I would never believe anything I could not prove; knowing perfectly well that one cannot prove anything without depending on unprovable underlying assumptions. Thus, I effectively vowed that I would never believe anything. That didn’t stick.

I graduated from Carnegie Mellon before the term Internet had been introduced to the popular lexicon. At that time, CMU refused to offer an undergraduate computer science degree, because they didn’t think any company would hire someone whose education was so narrow. Over a decade later, I returned to school for a graduate degree in a discipline that relies heavily on machine learning. Since then, I have mainly worked with government clients to solve wicked problems involving vast amounts of data. I was a data scientist before data science was cool.

It was at grad school that a fellow student confronted me about my arrogance, and forever changed the way I view myself and my profession. I am still prone toward arrogance, but now view this as a flaw to be overcome, rather than a badge of honor.

Wikipedia

I discovered Wikipedia somewhere around 2005. (This account came later.) Ever since, I have been an avid consumer and casual contributor, mostly correcting typos, adding internal links, and the like. Before last fall, I used to tell friends and acquaintances that Wikipedia is the most reliable introductory source of information on virtually everything, aside from current events. I no longer believe that, having become acutely aware of systemic bias. Wikipedia is still my go-to for information on most topics, but whereas I used to assume the information was true until proven otherwise, now I am less credulous (or, dare I say, more realistic).

The upshot of last fall’s controversy is that I was hounded by someone whose avowed purpose was to “crush” me for my unbelief. I appealed for help from the Wikipedia community, but none was forthcoming. Waging culture wars is not high on my list of ambitions, so I chose instead to retire this account. I resurrect it now with the notion of perhaps re-addressing some of the issues that were summarily dismissed because of my iconoclasm. However, if the effort again proves futile, I’m out of here.

Terminology

Main essay: Terminology

I use the following definitions of terms, in contrast to Wikipedia usage.

factual proposition

An objective claim that is either true or false, once terms are adequately defined. The truth value need not be known, or, indeed, knowable.

fact

An objective claim that is objectively true. Strictly speaking, humans do not deal with facts, since our understanding is always filtered through flawed senses and reasoning. However, various propositions are backed by such compelling evidence that they can be treated for practical purposes as fact.

belief

One person’s understanding or view regarding a factual proposition. If two people hold contradictory beliefs, at least one of them is wrong (or, as often happens, they are defining terms differently).

theory

A formalized statement of a belief, using well-defined terms.

scientific theory

A theory that can be tested empirically and repeatably. Being scientific does not make a theory true, just as being unscientific does not make it false.

opinion

One person’s view on a subjective (i.e., non-factual) matter. Two people can hold contradictory opinions without either being “wrong” in any scientific sense.

value

A personal conviction about what ought to be, rather than what is. Values are like opinions in that they are by nature non-scientific (although they may be informed by scientific observations). However, they are like beliefs in that people conceive of them as true or false, right or wrong; and opposing values do not readily co-exist.

faith

An expression of trust, usually in a source of information, that allows one to hold and act on beliefs and values based on little or no tangible evidence, or even conflicting with evidence. Even belief in scientific theories is ultimately based on faith, either in one’s own senses, or in the testimony of respected scientists.

point of view

Wikipedia conflates all of these terms into POV, as do I occasionally for convenience. However, it then uses opinion interchangeably with POV. While I try in general not to quibble over definitions, I believe that this conflation of terms leads to confusion. In my opinion, the distinctions should be maintained, because I value clear communication.

Likewise, Wikipedia plays fast and loose with the term fact, treating it as synonymous with orthodox theory. I wonder how many currently accepted “facts” future generations will look back on, and laugh at our ignorance.

Empirical convictions

Main essay: Beliefs

There are many beliefs and opinions I have come to hold strongly based on personal experience. For example:

Science

Many factual propositions are either objectively true or objectively false, once terms are adequately defined. They cannot be true for one person and false for another. In other words, there is such a thing as absolute truth.
The scientific method is arguably the most effective way to develop a rational understanding of the physical world, and apply that understanding to solve practical problems.
Science does not produce absolute truth. Rather, it generates theories, i.e., formalized beliefs. (As an aside, machine learning devotees sometimes use the term truth to refer to training data, even data that’s known to contain errors. I find this irritating.)
Scientific inquiry cannot progress without skepticism. A scientist ought never confuse theory with truth. Rather, they should continually seek new evidence to challenge existing theories, and welcome critique of their reasoning and conclusions.
Humility is thus an essential element for scientific inquiry. If you lack the humility to recognize your own ignorance and limitations, it will limit your effectiveness as a scientist.
By definition, any hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical evidence is not science (which doesn’t make it false). There are thus many questions that science cannot begin to answer, e.g.:
1. “Why” questions: Why does the universe exist? Why do I exist? Why do people hate each another?
2. “Should” questions: How should I treat those who are different from me? How should I respond to those who hate me because I’m different? How should I respond to logical errors in Wikipedia articles?
3. Questions beyond the physical universe: Are there more than three spatial dimensions? Are there other universes? Where did the “big bang” come from? Do humans have an immortal soul? Does the universe have an intelligent creator?
There are also many questions that could conceivably fall within the realm of science, but are beyond our current understanding, e.g.: How does gravity work? What makes nuclei hold together? Why does the Fibonacci sequence keep turning up in nature? How and when did the law of Moses originate?
No one has the time or opportunity to reproduce every scientific experiment. For example, I, personally, have never performed an experiment to verify the existence of atoms, let alone subatomic particles. However, I have faith that those who claim to have performed such experiments (and created technologies based on atomic theory) are being truthful, and are not substantially in error. In other words, I take it on faith that the science behind atomic theory is reliable.
All of human experience, including science, depends fundamentally on faith. We cannot function without putting our faith in things we cannot prove. Those who claim not to have faith are deceiving themselves.
Atheism is an expression of blind faith. Whereas other religions rely on the testimony of witnesses, atheism has no such witnesses, let alone scientific evidence.

People

The world is a better place when people are characterized by humility, seeking to understand and live in harmony with one another. The world is an ugly place when people are characterized by arrogance and malice, seeking to elevate oneself and bring others down. The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:CIVILITY, define a good approximation of an ideal community; although, like most ideals, they often remain elusive (or outright ignored).
Many conflicts result from insufficient effort to understand one another’s viewpoint. Often it’s as trivial as defining terms differently and not realizing it.
Seeking out “us vs. them” conflicts is ingrained in human nature, an aspect of what was traditionally called sin or evil. People are adept at coming up with reasons to hate, including (but not limited to): skin color, religion, economic inequality, political ideology, moral convictions. To whatever extent humanity manages to resolve differences in these areas, we will always find other excuses to hate.
People are fundamentally biased. This is a survival trait, since our biases allow us to make actionable decisions based on incomplete evidence. However, our biases also lead to many false conclusions, and feed the “us vs. them” mentality. Even well-intentioned people who are aware of their biases fall foul of them (myself included). This is another reason why humility is so crucial, and why we need to seek out contrasting viewpoints.
Many people who call themselves scientists are not. That is, they have no clue what the scientific method entails (i.e., skepticism). Rather, they place their faith in the orthodox views of prestigious scientists, and scorn those who challenge their beliefs. Science to them is a religion, with all the positive and negative connotations. I refer to such people as orthodox secularists. (I have no idea what proportion of Wikipedians this description applies to, but you can hopefully recognize if you’re one.)
The Biblical depiction of humanity matches my experience of human behavior better than any other worldview I have encountered.
People who live according to Biblical principles make the world a better place, for them and for others around them.

Received convictions

There are many other beliefs I hold as convictions based on faith in sources I deem reputable, though I have little or no direct empirical evidence to support them. For example:

Scientific convictions

The earth is one of many bodies orbiting the sun.
All matter is made up of atoms (barring massive compact objects such as black holes).
There is no correlation, let alone causation, between immunizations and autism.
Covid-19 developed by chance in the wild, not in a government or commercial laboratory.
There is no scientific reason to suppose hydroxychloroquine is efficacious against covid-19.
There is no scientific reason to suppose mail-in ballots introduce bias in favor of one political party or another.
Climate change poses an existential threat to civilization as we know it. (The human race will probably survive.) The outcome is inevitable barring drastic change. A remarkable number of politicians seem unconcerned what kind of world they’re leaving their great-grandchildren.

Historical convictions

There was a man named something like Plato around 2400 years ago who wrote the Phaedo, the Republic, and numerous other works.
There was a man named something like Jesus around 2000 years ago who started a movement that radically changed much of the world, although he received no earthly benefit from it.
There was a man named something like Mohammed around 1400 years ago who started a movement that radically changed much of the world, to his great advantage.
There was a man named William Shakespeare who lived in the 16th and early 17th centuries and wrote all or most of what we now know as the works of Shakespeare.
Some six million Jews and millions of other people died in Nazi death camps.
Untold millions died in Stalinist purges.
The United States devastated two Japanese cities using nuclear weapons.
Humans first set foot on the moon in 1969.
In 2001, terrorists crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and (not by design) a field in Pennsylvania. No national government was involved in planning the attacks.
Barack Obama was born a United States citizen.
The Benghazi incident was real, but the hype and accusations around it were whipped up by entertainers and politicians for selfish motives.
The Mueller report documented abundant evidence of systematic subversion of law and conspiracy to commit perjury and other felonies. (I read parts and skimmed others.)
The world in 2020 has seen the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu; the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression; and the greatest risk of global war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. In addition, the US has seen the worst civil unrest since the race riots of the 60s (shortlived, thankfully); and escalation of the greatest subversion of rule of law since J. Edgar Hoover. Whatever comes next, the year 2020 will be remembered as a pivotal time in history.

Tentative beliefs

There are many other beliefs I hold loosely, based largely on the claims of others, that may one day be proven wrong; and I’m okay with that. For example:

Scientific beliefs

Cosmology

The age of the solar system is measured in billions of years.
No physical body can achieve the speed of light. Approaching anywhere close does really weird stuff. (Einstein managed to figure this out without computers or modern telescopes, which will never cease to astound me.)
There is one and only one physical universe; or, at least, if there are others, they are distinct from one another, not close copies. (A multiverse theory makes for entertaining fiction, but is scientifically unsupportable.)
Dark matter and dark energy hypotheses are just fancy ways of saying we don’t understand what’s going on. Efforts to verify the existence of dark matter scientifically have consistently failed. No one has yet come up with a way to verify the existence of dark energy. (And yet, some people continue to swear by them as fact. Such faith is inspiring.)

Human origins

Human beings descended from the earliest life forms through a process of natural selection. (Where those earliest life forms came from remains an open question.)
As a logical corollary, either there was a first human being (by some appropriately specific definition, such as DNA profile), or else there was a cohort of human beings who came into existence simultaneously. I find the former hypothesis more scientifically plausible.

Historical beliefs

There was a man named something like Abraham (or Abram) who was the progenitor of today’s Jews and Arabs.
There was a man named something like Moses who rallied the ancient Israelites and gave them a book of law that he said was from God. Many later authors added on to his work, resulting in what we now know as the Bible.
The book of Genesis, at least the first few chapters, was most likely a compilation of oral traditions that were ancient by the time of Moses, that someone (perhaps Moses) wrote down.
There was a man named something like Homer who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey, and doubtless many other works as well.

Christianity

Main essay: Christianity

Senses

In my experience, there are at least six senses of the term Christian in common use. As with other analogous terms such as Muslim, the senses are often confused in media and public discourse, fueling miscommunication and distrust.

1. Ethnic: This sense is found in statements like: “My parents were Christians, so I am a Christian.” “I am of European descent and not a Jew or a Muslim; therefore I am a Christian.” “Lebanon is 40% Christian, 54% Muslim, and 5.5% Druze.” In this sense, saying “I am a Christian” is no more or less significant than saying “I have dark skin” or “I have blue eyes”. It is simply a fact of birth. Ethnic Christians are not substantially different from those of any other ethnicity. Most of them try to be decent people; try to raise responsible children; and want to leave their children and grandchildren a favorable legacy.

2. Cultural: Cultural Christians are usually ethnic Christians who were raised in one or another Christian tradition. They typically “go to church” at least a couple of times a year. Depending on their tradition, they may attend mass and confession; abstain from alcohol, cigarettes, and Sunday sports; sing traditional hymns; or sing emotional choruses with raised hands. Cultural Christianity can grant a sense of identity, but can also lead to a feeling of empty tradition; or, worse, an “us vs. them” mentality. (To be clear, I see nothing inherently wrong in any of these traditions. I just think traditions are an unsatisfying end in themselves.)

3. Political: Political Christians intentionally incite “us vs. them” conflict, manipulating ethnic and cultural Christians for selfish political ends. They wave their Bibles in front of TV cameras, and try to instill in their followers a sense of arrogant superiority, persecution anxiety, or both. The Bible warns not to have anything to do with such people. Unfortunately, since these are the sorts of so-called Christians who gravitate to the spotlight, they are the image many people associate with the terms Christian or evangelical (another term with multiple understandings). When Christians go to war with each other or with outsiders, either literally or figuratively, they are acting as political Christians in the worst sense.

4. Mystic: A mystic Christian, as I am using the term, believes that God is a subjective experience, rather than an objective entity with a character and a will. Thus, no one can tell someone else that their view of God is wrong; in this sense, so-called beliefs about God are effectively opinions. A mystic Christian tends to consider themselves spiritual (whatever that means), and to believe in a Jesus who looks a lot like them: kind of fluffy and cuddly, accepting everyone just as they are, without imposing any moral demands (other than tolerance). If they believe in heaven, they most likely think everyone is headed there eventually, although some have further to go than others. If they were to associate with a different crowd, they might just as easily become Buddhist, Hindu, or Baháʼí, with no discernible change in how they believe or act.

5. Biblical: Biblical Christians have chosen by faith to commit their lives and souls in submission to Jesus as revealed in the Bible. They believe that the authority of the Bible trumps their personal preferences and opinions; that the purpose of life is to love God, love their fellow human beings, and share the good news (“gospel”) of Jesus Christ with others. Naturally, they often fail. However, believing that Christ has forgiven them through his sacrifice (hence the “gospel”), they seek to foster a community where they encourage each other to stay on track and grow in their faith; and forgive, restore, and encourage one another when they fail. This is the intended meaning of evangelical for most people who identify as such. Note that Biblical Christians might be found in a variety of Christian traditions.

6. Eternal: Particularly in evangelical circles, some maintain that the only meaningful definition of Christian is an objective, supernatural one; where a Christian is one who has been reconciled with God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and will be spending eternity in heaven. The downside of the eternal interpretation is that only God can know for sure who is a Christian.
Paradoxically, evangelicals also emphasize assurance of salvation; i.e., confidence that your eternal soul is secure, thus freeing you to be motivated in your behavior by gratitude and love rather than by fear and shame. There is strong Biblical support for this view. However, since it is impossible to evaluate an eternal view scientifically (which, you may recall, does not make it false), believing it requires a level of faith that does not come easily to those prone to skepticism.

Most evangelicals would probably conflate the last two senses. I differentiate them in acknowledgement that one can choose to live by faith as a Biblical Christian, without ever experiencing complete confidence in the eternal reality behind it.

My faith

I self-identify as an evangelical (Biblical) Christian, in that I have committed my life and soul to strive to live in submission to Christ, according to Biblical principles (which, it is worth repeating, entails acknowledging that I often fail). Am I a Christian in light of eternal reality? God only knows. I envy those who possess the calm assurance of faith that I find so elusive.

I try to distance myself from cultural Christianity, or at least be aware of the distinctions between my own Western culture and Christianity as established in the Bible. I hold nothing but loathing for those who politicise Christianity, turning what ought to be a gospel of love into an instrument of hate, and so bringing shame on the name of Christ.

Incidentally, I hold no such loathing for non-Christians, most of whom are decent, ordinary people; and with some of whom I have deep personal connections. Indeed, even for those orthodox secularists who wage war and spread hatred in the name of their beliefs, I feel more pity than hatred; although I certainly don’t like it when they come after me or those I love.

Does my chosen faith preclude me from rational scientific inquiry? Don’t be absurd. If you’ve forgotten, go read my background again.

Invitation to dialog

I welcome opportunities for mutually respectful discussion/debate, and particularly invite folks to point out holes in my arguments, politely. Don’t be surprised if I do likewise.

Do I have biases? Of course. So do you. That doesn’t mean we can’t get along like civilized people. If you see evidence of unconscious bias in my claims, here or elsewhere, please let me know, gently.

I have no desire to argue about matters of faith. Science has little bearing on such debates, and no one is likely to be persuaded. On the other hand, I am always happy to discuss matters of faith in an effort to improve mutual understanding.

I will not respond to diatribes against me. If you are incapable of civility, I won’t waste my time on you.