Relate Philosophy to Religion (4)

Jia L (John) Han

Now come to the core part of this series, i.e., the relations among various disciplines including philosophy, sciences, and theology.

Perhaps it is better to start with an example. (My previous write-ups [P1-P3] could be too abstract for some of you. If you do not read them carefully, you could miss many important points. Starting with an example could be better since it provides meat rather than just abstract narratives.) In the late 90s I worked as a software engineer at Lucent in Columbus, Ohio. My work was boring and tedious. I began to consider applying my previous research results to industry, i.e. starting a hi-tech venture. With this goal in mind, I read WSJ and investment books more carefully. One day I came across a long report in WSJ that covered the 1997 Nobel Economic Prize. The Prize of that year was awarded to Robert C. Merton and Myron Scholes. They proposed a mathematical formula to price options for stocks ([1] gives a good, easy-to-read overview). I thought to myself: This could not be correct. I had very good knowledge of AI and computational modeling then. The stock market is extremely complex. If one can find a way to model the (option) market with a relatively simple formula that Merton and Scholes proposed, then the implications of this formula are at least one thousand times larger than just the stock market. Even though I knew nothing of economics or finance at that time, I knew that their result was extremely unlikely. Otherwise, most textbooks in social sciences including political science, economics, and sociology must be rewritten. Less than one year later Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), which was based on their theory, collapsed. You may wiki LTCM to find more details. (you might also be interested in my article in Chinese in [2]).

It is possible to learn several things from this example. First, even with no detailed knowledge or theory (here knowledge of economy or finance), one can draw conclusions of some type: the complexity precludes certain types of solutions. Second, methods applicable to natural sciences no longer apply to economics (also might be some other social science such as political science). (This had been mentioned in [P2].) New approaches are needed. [P2] mentioned 3 learning methods: rote learning, natural science learning, and Socrates’ dialectics. The first 2 are no longer useful. Only Socrates’ dialectics or methods developed from it are useful. This is probably the main reason why it is difficult for many Mainland Chinese to learn social sciences and philosophy; they try to apply the wrong methods, methods from natural sciences. Third, experiments alone cannot decide the truth. Many Mainland Chinese believe that truth can be experimentally tested (实践是检验真理的唯一标准) (quoted in [P2]). This creed may be useful in pure physical sciences but not in philosophy or social sciences. As I said in [P2], such tests were known to be WRONG in philosophy at least since Plato.

Supplements for Chinese readers

Most Mainland Chinese are completely ignorant of how difficult social sciences are. In [2], I mentioned that if someone can solve investment problems from the first principle that person at the minimum is ten times better than Newton or Einstein (比十个牛顿爱因斯坦数量级的科学家加起来都要厉害 ). Why? According to the Bible, materials are first-order creations [P3]. Investment/finance are branches of economics that deal with activities of millions of human beings, and human beings belong to the highest creations. Therefore, it is much more difficult to find universal laws in these disciplines. In another article I wrote during the GFC [3], I said that the problems that Newton and Einstein solved are simple (at least from God’s viewpoint). Difficult problems are yet to be solved. Probably only GOD can solve economic problems. (说白了，以前的伟大科学家如牛顿爱因斯坦把简单问题解决了，难度高的问题都留在后面呢。大概经济学最终解答属于Ｇｏｄ。[3]) If you think about it, neither Newton nor Einstein had shown little ability to solve any economics or political science problems.

Compartmentalization

Because complexities of problems in fields of social sciences, philosophy, and theology are extremely high, it is often beneficial to compartmentalize parts of a problem so that you can study the rest. In other words, you may bypass difficult parts for now. I shall refer to these parts as boxes. They can be either black boxes or boxes that you have some knowledge of but too difficult to solve. Compartmentalization allows you not to bog down in difficult parts. BTW, compartmentalization may also be used in natural sciences, and often is.

Sometimes such boxes are not too difficult to solve. However, many boxes are hard and some can be very hard. One type of hard boxes concerns God. God in the biblical (Christian) sense is unknowable (see [4] for more). If you encounter something that involves God or religion, you might want to compartmentalize it in a box. A person can be a believer, an atheist, or an agnostic, as mentioned before. A believer may want to leave God and religion out of discussion. An agnostic may want to leave God and religion out because he/she then can discuss freely and with confidence. As for atheists, they are most likely wrong. I will explain this point later. Thus, compartmentalization provides a platform for people with different convictions of God to communicate and discuss.

Top, Bottom, and Related Strategies

Most of you are familiar with program analysis in computer programming, therefore know what top-down and bottom-up mean. Through the years, I have developed a strategy that combines top view and bottom view. What I mean is that I first get a top view of my task or goal. From time to time I will take stocks to see where I am in the top view and the available tools. I have done research in various disciplines and this together with compartmentalization serves me well. At the minimum it improves efficiency, i.e. helps me not waste too much time on local problems. It also helps me to avoid directional mistakes. I do not have a name for this strategy and had no intention to discuss it with anyone, only as a private, rule of thumb type. Then, I came across a book by Plato, Statesman [5]. Plato wrote three major books on political philosophy: Republic, Law, Statesman. I have not had a chance to study Statesman but I bought a copy. When I glanced at its preface, I discovered that one approach mentioned is similar to the above mentioned of mine (not exactly the same but the idea is similar). This example shows that Plato indeed was a great thinker. (I also should add that these translators did a very good job. The preface explains the ideas, the style of this book very well. This way I have a sense when I need to read this book.)

Socrates’ dialectic method is very powerful. It covers many strategies including mine in the above but the reverse is not true. Note that Socrates proposed almost no doctrines. Plato proposed a few, the most important one was FORM. This was one key difference between Plato and Socrates.

Implications of Genesis

Genesis tells us that there are at least three types of things in the universe: materials, low-level creatures, and human beings [P3]. Note that the complexities of things are different from the complexities mentioned earlier. The complexities in Genesis are hard while the complexities in computer modeling, or even in philosophy, are soft. Here soft means that human ingenuity might be able to model it, if not now maybe in the future. Hard rules out the possibility of modeling. Think about it. If humans can model them completely, then does it imply that humans can simulate God?

References:

1. Niall Ferguson, "The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World," Penguin Books, 2009.

2. 韩家亮：次贷危机和投资浅谈 http://hx.cnd.org/?p=30258 — ‘比十个牛顿爱因斯坦数量级的科学家加起来都要厉害’

3. 韩家亮：关于当前经济危机的几点看法 http://hx.cnd.org/?p=30550 — ‘说白了，以前的伟大科学家如牛顿爱因斯坦把简单问题解决了，难度高的问题都留在后面呢。大概经济学最终解答属于Ｇｏｄ。’

4. Diogenes Allen, Eric O.Springsted, "Philosophy for understanding theology," Westminster John Knox Press; 2 ed, 2007.

5. Plato, (Eva Brann, Peter Kalkavage, Eric Salem, eds) “Statesman,” Focus, 2012.

6. Steven B. Smith, "Political Philosophy," Yale University Press, 2012.