Ratio and Rituo

What Are We, really?

[Rituo] So, tell me, what are we, then?

[Ratio]

We are human. We are organisms. What? Organisms? Why do you say that? It feels uncomfortable to put it so directly, doesn't it? Even though you perfectly know we are. Of course I know we are organisms, but I hope to think that as humans we are also a little bit more then that, don't you think? Don't tell me you are one of those friends-of-Earth extremists. Are you? No, don't worry. My point is the following. We have the same type of cells than other organisms do, we are made out of the same molecules as are plants, fungi animals and bacteria. We are indeed superior to other organisms in the

sense that we are able, more than individuals belonging to other species, to unravel the universe that surrounds us. But we are not the least superior in terms of number of individuals on planet earth nor in terms of total biomass we occupy. Likewise, we are not he only organisms having a culture.

Now you are being ridiculous! Are you telling me that animals have culture!? If you do not define 'culture' as being confined to the genus Homo then there is nothing stopping you from accepting that some other organisms have it too and I am not talking about just Chimpanzees or Orca's. But let me not go into this right now. The point is that humans are not superior to other organisms in as many ways as most people like to believe. Yes, I have heard. We are not the only animals capable of abstract thinking. That's right. Ah, but we are the only creatures being self-conscious! I am sorry, but that is not true. Same species as above

It feels a bit like when Deep blue beat Garry ten years ago.

How about this, then. Humans are able to decipher the universe that surrounds us in the process we call science. I bet no other organisms do much of science. Thanks for saving the little anthropocentric feeling left. Oh, but the worst is yet to come. Based on fossils records, our DNA structure, our whole biochemistry, ... sorry, let me rephrase: based on all repeatable experiments ever performed in all disciplines of Biology throughout history (including Human Biology) and based on countless experiments in Physics, chemistry and other scientific areas - we now know that we are a product of evolution and that evolution is an inevitable consequence of the energy piled up in a particular way on the young planet we call Earth. Duh? Isn't this the fundamental principle the whole of Biology is based on? It is not kind of new information, is it?

Spirit and Free Will

Knowing something and realizing it is are a different matter. For me the realization that there is something like evolution is still mind-blowing. I find that the anthropocentric education that we all enjoyed when we were little, clouds our thoughts even today. Even wellrespected molecular biologists who have direct access to a large body of evidence directly supporting the evolution theory sometimes do not realize that they are a product of evolution. Still no new information, there... Wait until you discover the consequences of this reasoning! If you understand we descent from competing molecules that evolved to bacteria that evolved to apes (remember, never call an ape 'monkey') that evolved to humans, then you must understand that so did our consciousness.

So you are saying that our consciousness (or if you prefer it,

'the capacity to be self-conscious') is coded for by the pool of DNA strands we all bare in every cell? Mind over matter? No darling, matter over mind! And yes, of course, not the separate thoughts are written in the DNA-recipe, but the ability to think is. OK, and how do you explain the spirit, then? There is no reason to believe and no evidence to support that there is such a thing as a spirit, except if viewed as that information that has been generated by an individual, distributed among other individuals and kept 'alive' longer than does the individual's body, i.e. the individual's meme pool. That's the spirit! No flashing lights leaving your body just before/after your death. Instead, the sum of information you distributed during the course of your live. This may have been understood by our ancestors but misinterpreted by many today. Why then, now your busy, restrict your reasoning to information carried from brain to brain? Yes indeed, there is no reason to restrict (and even if you would try, you would not succeed anyway) that the pieces of information discussed above need to be viewed as something that can be spoken out loud or kept locked in human neurons. Any impact on an organism's immediate environment ('extended phenotype') might pass for a spirit! This means that almost all other living creatures have spirits! I was being cynical

Oh, sorry. All the product of evolution, then? All the product of Charles Darwin's evolution theory.

This time I got you! You admitted that evolution is just a theory!

Ah, you see! Evolution is just a theory!

OK, I have to admit that scientists brought this one onto themselves. They use the words 'law' and 'theories' interchangeably, and this apparently confuses things for the non-scientists.

Sorry to stop you, but Evolution is a theory, not a law! I know a law when I see one. I don't have any problem obeying the law of gravity! Apparently, not everybody is acquainted with the way science works (alas, I even met scientists that should be placed in this category). To explain you how it works, I will tell you a story. Suppose you are a freelance astrologist, but a clever one. After some extensive training, you are now at the point were you can predict people's birthday within a margin of say a week based on an assessment of the subjects character. As a matter of fact I believe some can really do that! You know what, I once felt this special connection to an utterly stranger only to find out later that this person had exactly the same birthday as I did...

Yes, of course and David Copperfield can really...

...OK, I know - it all comes down to chance and the fact one that selectively remembers these kind of coincidences, but sometimes, you know... Right. Anyway, to carry on my story, your ability as astrologist promises to raise a lot of money in the future. By the time you start dreaming about what kind of tap you want in the bathroom of your future property, some clergyman approaches you to "manage" your money and use your case as an argument against the whole of science. You try to explain to him, that even though you have the ability the guess people's birthday, you don't accept any spiritual explanation for this. You try to explain to him that, in fact, you are not a believer at all. It is not because you have such charlatans walking around that suddenly all of religion is fake! No, that is true. I am sorry. That is not what I meant to say. Let me continue. You might try to stop him by explaining him that - if averaged for the planet and seen evolving gradually in time - science indisputably advances the net human quality of live.

I object, your honour. I think you are forgetting Hiroshima!

Overruled. I said 'on average'. Just take a look around you to realize how physics, chemistry, (human) biology, ... have wiped out plagues and other miseries from your live and the life of every other world citizen and increased human's life expectancy dramatically! Fair enough. Anyway, suppose that you try to explain the clergyman that actively working against science is not compatible with your principles, but that the clergyman won't listen. So I would have to build a strong case. Yes, you would have to find out for yourself what lies behind your capacity to guess people's birthday. First, you

state the question: How can somebody's character be related to the time of the year of this person's was born. After a literature study and a lot of thinking and perhaps doing experiments, you come to the conclusion that seasonally cycling hormones in the pregnant mother during the development of a given feature of the embryonic brain might be an important factor controlling future behavioural patterns recognizable by a trained astrologist. Is it so? That is not the point. Still hypothetical! Yes, of course, hypothetical.. So, that is your theory. To confirm this theory, you will have to design many decisive experiments and these experiments need to be repeated and verified by independent scientists. In order to be allowed to call your explanation a scientific theory, it should therefore be falsifiable, have predictive power (the outcome of new decisive experiments should be predictable) and it should not contradict with the bulk of other theories in science. Hmm... Neat! This would be as if all religions would want to prove that their all-mighty excludes other all-mighties. Well, that the word 'all-mighty' does not really have a plural form says it all, no?

But when I finally would confirm my theory, it would still remain a theory, wouldn't it?,

Yes, In science there are only theories. No dogmas! However, your theory will now be a little bit more accepted within, and outside, the community of scientists. Even after many years of gathering evidence - all reinforcing a given theory -, it still remains a theory. Thus, evolution is indeed a theory, but so is gravity! So is the fact that the Earth is round and that it turns around the sun and not the other way around.. But I would really prefer to call the gravity a law, if that's OK. Fine, but then do the same for evolution, for the amount of evidence freely available to anyone of us is startling. In

contrast, that god exists, let alone created anything is not a scientific explanation, for is not falsifiable and possible consequences of his existence or any other similar entity has ever been demonstrated. No miracles, no magic. And seriously, what do you think would happen if I would go back to the clergyman only to tell him that the concentration of the oscillating corticoid hormone H in a pregnant women in her xth week determines the production of a given foetal hormone h which in its turn predetermines some typical traits in the individuals later life? Then, the clergyman will definitely loss all interest in you. He will know that you are right since you showed him the evidence and employed an impeccable logical reasoning. He will know because every child recognizes an irrefutable logical argumentation if it sees one... ...maybe, but he won't admit it... No, because he is not used to question - let alone challenge - dogma's, something a scientist does all the time. So, in short, a scientist actively tries to understand the universe, whereas a 'believer' passively and blindly accepts whatever explanation is presented to him or her, encouraged not to go and look for answers elsewhere.

Let the believers be

In your eyes, I am a 'believer'! Yes. I followed your reasoning, and I get the feeling I am treated as a stupid.

No, I mean, not per se. You might have a more active centre in your brain controlling the process of believing in 'something else' or you could say that the series of events that occurred in my life led to me being a little bit more sceptical towards these explanations. But why attacking believers? Just let them be! In the past, I would have agreed, but that was before I realized to what extend religions slow down the acceptance of scientific evidence in the large. Not that every new

scientific theory should become accepted the same day it is published, not even after a year. But it would be nice that after 150 years of accumulating evidence all pointing to the truth of a universal chemical and biological evolution, it would become accepted by everybody. What is it with religion, any way? Do they really want to go through the humiliation again?

You mean after finally having to admit that it is the Earth that turns around the sun? Are religious leaders afraid to abandon their anthropocentric view of the universe? Maybe this is because they do not want to accept that humans are the result of a simple biological process. That humans are mere receptacles for genes that evolved a consciousness apparently because it happens to increase their chances of survival relatively to rival genes? What is frightening for you is the purest beauty for me. Can it not be that the sun is not there for us only? Yes all right, but you forget something! Religion brings morality amongst people.

They may do so, but that is really not there job. Explaining that stealing and killing is bad and love is good has nothing to do with god . Finding comfort in difficult times (think of the typical reaction to major catastrophes like 9/11 or the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean), mass services were given in churches, on town squares, etc... . Only people without a hidden agenda should do that job, for consolidation and morality should fully be uncoupled from religion. O, come on! Let them have it..

No, they are not acting responsibly by helping the needy the way they do. Religious leaders are experts in creating the problems they are planning to solve in the future. They always want something in return.

Not with scientists, so? Science helps in a democratic, fair, transparent, balanced, and morally acceptable manner. The scientists explores the galaxy and subatomic particles, but also revolutionize agriculture, medicine and help people all over the world by

providing technology and knowledge, and with that a freedom of speech and thought for you can only have that freedom if all the facts are presented to you in the first place. Indeed, a scientist also teaches, and he does so only for the sake of it. No hidden agendas there, no mission. The word of a scientist is the truth, for that is the only language a scientists knows. If he does not know something, he will tell you and if you ask him for some evidence of what he said, he will present it to you, for that is what a scientist is best at. When, however, a clergyman teaches, he might hidden agendas, financial and political ones. He may of course sometimes tell you the truth, but there is no way to tell when he does and we he doesn't, for he will not bring you much physical evidence. In short, and every self-respecting democracy this is already implemented, religion should be fully uncoupled from education. Religion and education have been separated a long time ago... You would think. Despite the law and the clear principles behind it, religion still tries to infiltrate into the education infrastructure. Let me show you a paragraph published by a Christian organization: "The main objective of UCSIA, inspired by a Christian belief and in a spirit of openness and tolerance, sustained by the members of the Society of Jesus and of the Antwerp University, is to provide for an international and interdisciplinary platform that supports and stimulates

academic research, higher education and community service regarding themes that express the Christian ideology thus serving the faith and contributing to a more just society. (Article 3 - Articles of Association)."

Where did you got that from?

Why? You don't believe it? The UCSIA is connected to the University of Antwerp, Belgium. The above paragraph is the organization's mission statement.

Science versus religion

But it is not all just differences between science and religion.

Both are schools of thought trying to make sense of what surrounds us, albeit in a very different way Luckily, science is preferred over religion in the classrooms of civilised countries. It is a shame, though, that this is not yet the case for many developing countries and some states in North-America. Except for the opposite way of observing nature, science and religion are also governed differently. While religion is dictated by a few powerful people in the Vatican, no such infrastructure exists in science. Science is navigated by all scientists simultaneously (plus many non-scientists) and is therefore a democratic process. There is no point for scientists to gather in large numbers and listen to a leader figure.

Ha, but they do sometimes come together at conferences. In smaller numbers, I agree but still up to a few thousand! Yes, but the real difference is that all scientists (PhDstudents as well as Professors) are allowed, and even urged, to present their own data themselves if they believe it is of significant value for the rest of the community. That is democracy. That is fair play. Sorry to interrupt you, but do you realize that some of the

scientists are believers too?

Yes, even though they still represent a minority, I know they exist. I guess you do not agree with that, do you? Listen, can you happily believe in contradictory explanations?

What? No. Of course not. But, why? Because they are contradictory, you just said so. All the evidence ever collected by humans point towards a single reality, right?

Yes, for so far I know and therefore there are no different realities for different individuals

No, but there may be different interpretations of the same reality! and since there exists only one way to logically arrive at conclusions starting from this reality it cannot be that an intelligible individual believes in mutually exclusive explanations for the same evidence. assuming there is only one logic You can not believe that the earth is the centre of our solar system and also believe that the sun is. bringing that up again, are you It is either the earth or the sun. Both explanations are mutually exclusive. I think you just said that a few times already, now. Well, the same is true for science and religion. You cannot accept scientific explanations (in general) and simultaneously believe in a super power, an al-mighty being or alike. Why did I expect this? Both lines of thoughts are not compatible. On the contrary,

they are completely opposite. One adopts a logical, systematic and fair way of unravelling our world called "the scientific method", the other line of though is merely the acceptance of an explanation not even closely resembling reality. And yes, I met respected biologists that work daily with nucleic acids, but still believe that "there must be something after death", or comment that "it cannot be that your mind, your spirit is completely confined within your brain, can it?" and even "How can such a complex world be evolved by the simple process of evolution?". Tiny bit exaggerated, no? Sadly, no. I wonder how they get trough the day keeping those different lines of thought separated, abandoning the scientific method at times and picking its fruits when it serves them. Why can they not face the consequences of this duality? How persuasive can a meme be? But please, let us remember we are talking about a small minority of scientists .

It was a pleasure ...

For me too! Thanks for being so open.

 Here, culture is defined as a set of patterns of the 'extended' phenotypes (sensu Dawkins) distinguishing a community of a given species from other communities belonging too the same species. A pattern of extended phenotypes could be typical behaviours (meme-sets) like celebrating Halloween in humans or opening milk-bottles in sparrows, typical language features like those found in Orca pods or ... this will probably become a separate discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture and links therein. Richard Dawkins analogy: the DNA pool of a individual is like a recipe for its development rather than a blueprint of its cells, organs, ... Mission of UCSIA (Visited on 04/04/06), UCSIA.
http://www.ucsia.org/main.aspx?c=*UCSIAENG2&n=26475