Spiritual effects of climbing?

Jaren Watson wrote:

I'm pleased to see respectful, carefully considered points on both sides.

I am so impressed with that, especially  given the contentiousness of the subject and how often some totally neutral technical question unleashes a downpour of wrath.

DLDeville Deville wrote:

I think his atheism could have something to do with his intelligence and tolerance for fear. Religion/spirituality can be a panacea for a fear of death, failure, purpose etc... Without much fear of these, there isn't much that religion has to offer you. Now, logical thinking and critical reasoning leading one to atheism is a huge philosophical rabbit hole that I'm not going down, but it's a documented phenomenon that atheists tend to be better educated than the bible thumpers.  

Although, "Jesus, take the gear" would make a good route name.

"Jesus, Place the Gear" as you run it tf out.

Gave me a chuckle. Thanks.

Lee Durbetaki wrote:

The Greeks may not have been modern scientists, but neither were they constructing astronomical models using a religious dogma as a first principal.

I realize that the Old Testament was cited to support geocentrism, but so was the pagan Aristotle-who was completely ignorant of the Old Testament. The persistent myth that Gallileo was condemned merely for contradicting a geocentrism based on nothing other than religious belief is an ignorant caricature. One might as well claim that Medieval universities consisted of students parroting "God did it" in response to every question.

A very good account of the trial comes from Dave Sobel's Galileo's Daughter, where the real issue is made clear: Galileo made a point of embarassing Aristotelians, to the point that Galileo's long-time friendship with the Pope collapsed. The story of Galileo is has a lot more in common with the trial of Socrates than any religious martyrdom. Its just that humanity loves poetic justice.

The main take away from galileo's trial is that bedside manner matters a lot.

Spencer Parkin wrote:

I must be the worst troll to ever walk the internet....sorry for creating this flame war....no one will ever want to climb with me ever...  add fuel to the fire?

I really think it's dumb to put a quest for knowledge and truth into 2 different camps: 1) the religion camp, and 2) the science camp.  There's really more in common between religious and scientific people than we may think.  We're all trying to be honest with ourselves and others (we would hope--let's just assume that for the moment.)  We're all trying to be rational.  We all have a basic grasp of logic fundamentals (the converse, the contra-positive, proof by counter-example, proof by contradiction, inductive reasoning, etc.)  We all want to avoid arguments based upon logical fallacies (e.g., false generalizations.)  The real debate, in my mind, is whether there is any merit to believing something first without a shred of evidence.  For example, it is generally accepted among mathematicians that all non-trivial zeros of the Riemann-Zeta function lie in the critical strip.  This has been computationally verified up to the first million or so zeros, I believe.  There is no proof(!), however, that the Riemann-Zeta Hypothesis (RZH) is true, but many people believe it.  In fact, there are scores and scores of published proofs of various things that are based upon the premise that the RZH is true.  I would argue that those papers were written by people who chose to exercise faith.  I think a lot of people like to give faith a bad name, but I think it's quite fundamental, even to science.  You wouldn't even bother to test a hypothesis unless you believed doing so would teach you something new--that it would strengthen or weaken the hypothesis.

There are a few problems with this line of thought.

1. You're conflating "proof" in a mathematical sense (formal proofs) with "proof" in a scientific sense (evidence). There is not (as far as I know) a formal proof that the RZH is true, but there is evidence. You pointed out some of the evidence yourself: it has been computationally verified for millions of zeroes. The problem with evidence is that it's never complete, so you never know when more evidence might be discovered that disproves the previous evidence. This is why math values formal proofs: a correctly done formal proof doesn't change with further formal proofs. But it's still useful to form beliefs based on evidence, provided you remain willing to change your beliefs if more evidence arises. Papers written based on the assumption that RZH is true will likely be formally proven when the RZH is formally proven. Writing a paper based on evidence rather than formal proof isn't faith, it's a gamble based on an educated guess.
2. The deeper problem here is that you're arguing about the beliefs of scientists (not even scientists, really--you're talking about mathematicians--although I'll grant mathematicians are representatives of the scientific world view). Even if you prove that scientists believe something without evidence, you've only proven something about scientists, not about science. Just as religious people are imperfect practitioners of religion, scientists are imperfect practitioners of science. I'm sure nearly every scientist is guilty of believing something without evidence, but that doesn't mean believing something without evidence is acceptable within the scientific worldview.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

There are a few problems with this line of thought.

1. You're conflating "proof" in a mathematical sense (formal proofs) with "proof" in a scientific sense (evidence). There is not (as far as I know) a formal proof that the RZH is true, but there is evidence. You pointed out some of the evidence yourself: it has been computationally verified for millions of zeroes. The problem with evidence is that it's never complete, so you never know when more evidence might be discovered that disproves the previous evidence. This is why math values formal proofs: a correctly done formal proof doesn't change with further formal proofs. But it's still useful to form beliefs based on evidence, provided you remain willing to change your beliefs if more evidence arises. Papers written based on the assumption that RZH is true will likely be formally proven when the RZH is formally proven. Writing a paper based on evidence rather than formal proof isn't faith, it's a gamble based on an educated guess.
2. The deeper problem here is that you're arguing about the beliefs of scientists (not even scientists, really--you're talking about mathematicians--although I'll grant mathematicians are representatives of the scientific world view). Even if you prove that scientists believe something without evidence, you've only proven something about scientists, not about science. Just as religious people are imperfect practitioners of religion, scientists are imperfect practitioners of science. I'm sure nearly every scientist is guilty of believing something without evidence, but that doesn't mean believing something without evidence is acceptable within the scientific worldview.

Thanks for setting me straight.  I'm full of stupid statements; I really should not have started this whole thread.  I have a habit of sticking my foot in my mouth, and I do not claim to be an authority on any subject whatsoever.

Unless my understanding is incorrect, the "weakness," if you will, in math proofs (if there was any such thing) is that ultimately they all rest upon some set of axioms.  These are things that we just take for granted as being self-evident, such as the pigeon hole principle, or the well-ordering principle, or the axiom of choice, etc.  In most cases, they're so blindingly obvious that we don't give them any formal proof, or to give them such a proof would require even more blindingly obvious axioms that perhaps we can't find.  I would argue that we're taking these axioms on faith.

I guess one of the points I was trying to make in this entire thread is that faith is a reasonable and useful principle in itself, and has an applicable scope that goes way beyond the religious context.  I believe it's being used by everyone on a daily basis, whether they know it or not.

I do not know what faith is exactly, but I think it is strengthened or weakened with evidence (which can take various forms, physical or, yes, even spiritual.)  In the very beginning, however, it may rest on nothing at all but one's own will to believe, and I think that may be where most people have trouble with it.  They require a sufficient enough amount of evidence before any belief.  I think there's virtue, however, in being willing to believe something before you have any evidence.

Spencer Parkin wrote:

Thanks for setting me straight.  I'm full of stupid statements; I really should not have started this whole thread.  I have a habit of sticking my foot in my mouth, and I do not claim to be an authority on any subject whatsoever.

Unless my understanding is incorrect, the "weakness," if you will, in math proofs (if there was any such thing) is that ultimately they all rest upon some set of axioms.  These are things that we just take for granted as being self-evident, such as the pigeon hole principle, or the well-ordering principle, or the axiom of choice, etc.  In most cases, they're so blindingly obvious that we don't give them any formal proof, or to give them such a proof would require even more blindingly obvious axioms that perhaps we can't find.  I would argue that we're taking these axioms on faith.

I guess one of the points I was trying to make in this entire thread is that faith is a reasonable and useful principle in itself, and has an applicable scope that goes way beyond the religious context.  I believe it's being used by everyone on a daily basis, whether they know it or not.

Faith is not blind or ignorant belief.  It is strengthened or weakened with evidence (which can take various forms).  In the very beginning, however, it may rest on nothing at all but one's own will to believe, and I think that may be where most people have trouble with it.  They require a sufficient enough amount of evidence before any belief.  I think there's virtue, however, in being willing to believe something before you have any evidence.

Hey, heaps of people enjoyed this, or it wouldn't go ten pages.

Evidence for "blind faith"? How about the extreme power of the placebo effect? Or "faith", or a failing of, making the difference to that climb you just sent, or....not.

Evidence (most) of us "believe"? The very shortest and most heartfelt of all prayers: that sharp intact of breathe just before the shit happens. Or, the closed eyes for the length of a single breathe, just before you glance over to see if your partner is alive, or a mangled mess. Or, fervently wanting a "redo" of that moment you just fucked up. 

Been there, done all of those.

Diety or not, "faith" is all that gets us through, sometimes. I would posit that climbers rely on it more than some of the "faithful" do. 

Best, OLH

Spencer Parkin wrote:

I guess one of the points I was trying to make in this entire thread is that faith is a reasonable and useful principle in itself, and has an applicable scope that goes way beyond the religious context.  I believe it's being used by everyone on a daily basis, whether they know it or not.

I do not know what faith is exactly, but I think it is strengthened or weakened with evidence (which can take various forms, physical or, yes, even spiritual.)  In the very beginning, however, it may rest on nothing at all but one's own will to believe, and I think that may be where most people have trouble with it.  They require a sufficient enough amount of evidence before any belief.  I think there's virtue, however, in being willing to believe something before you have any evidence.

Whether people act on faith is poor evidence of faith being a reasonable and useful principle. People do all sorts of unreasonable and useless things for all sorts of unreasonable and useless reasons.

How do you distinguish "faith", which you describe as "being willing to believe something before you have any evidence", from "gullibility" or "naivete"? "Faith" has a positive connotation while "gullibility" and "naivete" have negative connotations, but besides the connotation, both fit your definition of "being willing to believe something before you have any evidence".

David Kerkeslager wrote:

Whether people act on faith is poor evidence of faith being a reasonable and useful principle. People do all sorts of unreasonable and useless things for all sorts of unreasonable and useless reasons.

How do you distinguish "faith", which you describe as "being willing to believe something before you have any evidence", from "gullibility" or "naivete"? "Faith" has a positive connotation while "gullibility" and "naivete" have negative connotations, but besides the connotation, both fit your definition of "being willing to believe something before you have any evidence".

I think that's a really good question, and highlights an element of risk inherent in choosing to have and exercise faith.  I think that the virtue of faith is best explained by the parable of the sower, which is worth study.  Extending the analogy in the parable to what you describe, I think that some seeds may be true, and some false.  It's in how these are received and which we nourish that may determine whether our faith is good or bad, I suppose.  But regardless of the seed, if we (the soil) are "stoney ground," or otherwise unprepared, then the seed can never take root.  I think along the way there is some discernment and honesty that plays into all of it.  I believe that it is also implied in the parable that only true seeds would actually grow.

This parable can be found in each of the 3 gospels.  I don't think that Wikipedia correctly interprets the parable.  Jesus gave his own explanation of the parable, if I recall correctly.

In this thread I think it's safe to say that I've lost the case for faith...I'll admit that right now.  The Apostle Paul defined faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," a thought-provoking description, but one that I must admit leaves me with more questions than answers.  A guy named Moroni said, "faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith."  And lastly, Paul said, "without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."  I don't think I'll ever fully understand faith, personally.  But I have faith that it's an important principle.  ;)

I've always considered what faith I have as axiomatic: it informs my more complicated, evidence-based beliefs, but can't really withstand demands of evidentiary support itself.

In general, I expect the same of other people. Indeed, my experience of the conversion process is that it's basically an emotional, irrational move, regardless of the direction. That is, I can't give a decent explanation for why I believe physical laws to be, in principle, knowable, or that effects must follow consistently from causes. I suppose I have faith that they do. So it goes with religion, except the axiom relates to the existence, actions, and intentions of Jesus, Mohammed, etc.

This is a helpful passage on faith as belief that does require evidence. Once evidence is called for, can it still be considered faith?

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

climbing friend,

do you believe in the alien?

Aleks Zebastian wrote:

climbing friend,

do you believe in the alien?

Who is this directed to?

climbing friend,

all humankind reading on these wordz

Aleks Zebastian wrote:

climbing friend,

all humankind reading on these wordz

I believe in the fragility, resiliency and compassion of all humankind!

Spencer Parkin wrote:

I think that's a really good question, and highlights an element of risk inherent in choosing to have and exercise faith.  I think that the virtue of faith is best explained by the parable of the sower, which is worth study.  Extending the analogy in the parable to what you describe, I think that some seeds may be true, and some false.  It's in how these are received and which we nourish that may determine whether our faith is good or bad, I suppose.  But regardless of the seed, if we (the soil) are "stoney ground," or otherwise unprepared, then the seed can never take root.  I think along the way there is some discernment and honesty that plays into all of it.  I believe that it is also implied in the parable that only true seeds would actually grow.

This parable can be found in each of the 3 gospels.  I don't think that Wikipedia correctly interprets the parable.  Jesus gave his own explanation of the parable, if I recall correctly.

The Scientist uses "faith" all the time in the process of discovery. Continually there is an "intuitive" leap that posits something might be so without evidence and then the search for that evidence commences. 

Sometimes failure results, sometimes the Theory of Evolution. Darwin saw that something was there before him, linked in a way no one else ever saw...he then crafted his hypothesis into a working theory that has been verified by literally thousands of experiments since, without a single verifiable contradiction.

And take the Bible's commandment to circumcise males...it was taken on faith that this edict was good for humankind and it turns out that there IS good reason for circumcision...Males that are cut in this fashion have a lower incidence of STDS as the foreskin harbors the disease causing organisms longer resulting in more infection. It is being used in Africa today to slow the spread of HIV (though its use is not widespread).

Same with the sex out of Marriage bit...massive Pandemics have been spread through sexual contact (see Small Pox, likely spread by the rape of indigenous women etc). So its not all old fuddy duddies trying to keep the kids down.

Leaving aside "safe sex" of today many of these "commandments" or apparently superstitious beliefs likely are the result of intuitive leaps and then were followed on "Faith" without the slightest bit of what a scientist would call "evidence based knowledge" etc etc. and real benefit resulted...and easier to enforce when it was supposedly "God's Will"...

Heck, many of my patients take on "faith" that my treatments and prescriptions are good for them.

Creation myths may be the same...after all, the very matter and fabric of our being was THERE...if recycled and reprocessed a few times since...maybe we remember...or at least we are struggling to remember....."let there be light" is remarkably accurate....:)

Aleks Zebastian wrote:

climbing friend,

do you believe in the alien?

Do you have a green one?

Old lady H wrote:

Do you have a green one?

I tote 'em with me to the crag all the time.

Seriously though, I'm impressed with the level of civil discourse that this thread has settled into, courtesy of level heads like OLH and Dr. Watson. I sincerely hope against all hope that MP becomes more like this. Prolly just jinxed the shit out of this thread, more likely.

Also, yer gunna dai!

Old lady H wrote:

Do you have a green one?

climbing friend,

ho ho ho! ha ha ha! Ho ho, ha ha, myah, hah hah! You make funny!