Blog

Dear SCI Subscriber:

This second installment of Snelson’s final and most significant lecture emphasizes the dire situation in which our species finds itself. It is now clear that organizing society around force and fraud has led to, inevitably, the same result – the disastrous downfall of each and every civilization in history. We don’t have a lot of time left to change our core paradigms to prevent what may be our final disaster – the end of our species via nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Snelson explains that the “Miseducation of the educated classes is the root cause of world war, world poverty, and world servitude.” But he also illuminates the golden signposts left for us down through the millennia of human history.

Respectfully,
Dave Woodward

Win-Win Theory on Unifying Science, Economics, and Religion – Part II

by Jay Stuart Snelson

Jay Stuart Snelson – 1985

Even if you are knowledgeable of the magnitude of the crisis facing mankind, the danger may be out of sight, and, therefore, out of mind. India and Pakistan, for example, have a long history of mutual hostility. Hindus of India and Muslims of Pakistan have already engaged in three bloody wars.

The first of these featured the largest and deadliest tank battles since World War II.

As avid warriors, they take their warring seriously, which now includes the Indo-Pakistan War I of 1965, Indo-Pakistan War II of 1971, and the Indo-Pakistan War III of 1999

What sacred paradigm spurs these holy wars between the Muslims of Pakistan and the Hindus of India?

The firmness of their faith braces their devout belief in the practice of win-lose religion:

• For Muslims to gain, Hindus must be forced to lose.
• For Hindus to gain, Muslims must be forced to lose.

To be sure, India and Pakistan are a long way from North America. Many would think, “Whether or not they go to war is their problem, not ours.” Or—is it our problem?

Thus far, faith in their win-lose religions has only incited conventional conflicts, causing the usual carnage of ancient and modern warfare.

But if Muslims and Hindus ever decide that it is time to unlock the fury of their unconventional arms—their lethal weapons of nuclear destruction—to wage a holy and glorious “Fourth Indo-Pakistan War,” the collateral damage could surpass all conflicts of human history.

If they incinerate themselves by launching their own cache of fifty to sixty nuclear warheads at each other, those far from the fury may cry, “What a tragedy—too bad for them—but fortunately we are nowhere near the conflict.”

If you know any people with such a Pollyanna mentality, wish them luck. Wherever they may be, there may be no safe harbor.

Most of you have never been to India or Pakistan, which are on the other side of the world.

But even if you live in California, or Nebraska, New York, or New Zealand you might as well be at ground zero. Here is why:

If there should ever be an Indo-Pakistan War IV, we have a potential for a catastrophe that even if you live in far off California, you and your family could become mortal statistics.

Americans Alan Robock, professor of climatology at Rutgers University, and Owen Toon, chair of oceanic and atmospheric sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, and their colleagues in research have reached this grim conclusion:

“New analyses reveal that a conflict between India and Pakistan, for example, in which 100 nuclear bombs were dropped on cities and industrial areas—only 0.4 percent of the world’s more than 25,000 warheads—they would produce enough smoke to cripple global agriculture. A regional war could cause widespread loss of life even in countries far away from the conflict.”

In short, these scientists have concluded that a “limited regional nuclear war…could blot out the sun, starving much of the human race.”

With deadly implications, it turns out that launching less than one-half of 1 percent of existing nuclear arms in some “minor” regional war may be enough to induce nuclear winter.

As destructive as nuclear and chemical weapons may be, an even more frightening weapon waits in the wings.

Weapons of biological warfare could trigger a global pandemic—a worldwide plague—that could wipe out humans faster than they could procreate.

The crisis for civilization and our human species has been rising since 1945. But what has Unifying Science, Economics, and Religion got to do with ending this crisis?

First I have to identify in a few words the underlying cause of the crisis.

It has to do with the quality of world education. There is a crisis in education that never makes the evening news.

We are on the threshold of destroying both civilization and our species due entirely to one decisive failure:

The fundamental cause of the crisis of human survival is the miseducation of the “educated classes.”

Miseducation comes in the three main arenas of education:

1. Miseducation on which physical causes lead to which physical effects.
2. Miseducation on which biological causes lead to which biological effects.
3. Miseducation on which social causes lead to which social effects.

The most social destruction follows widespread miseducation on which social causes lead to which social effects.

How serious is the world-wide problem of widespread miseducation?

Miseducation of the educated classes is the root cause of world war, world poverty, and world servitude.

That’s pretty serious and that’s a rather bold claim.

To substantiate this claim, it is important to precisely define the key term: miseducation.

Whenever anyone claims to have a science in any field of knowledge, to have a science—and not a pseudo science—the science must be founded on semantic precision.

Thus, Win-Win Theory is a science founded on semantic precision. Therefore, here is a precise definition of miseducation:

Miseducation is any increase in any individual’s misunderstanding of which physical, biological, and social causes lead to which physical, biological, and social effects.

In defining miseducation, there is a corollary that follows.

It is the definition of education, which has the potential to revolutionize education from kindergarten to graduate school wherever it is applied as the central theme of education.

Education is any increase in any individual’s understanding of which physical, biological, and social causes lead to which physical, biological, and social effects.

In today’s so-called schools of higher learning—especially outside of the physical and biological sciences—students are largely gaining a miseducation on which social causes lead to which social effects.

This travesty of education cannot continue indefinitely, at least not after the advent of the nuclear age.

Either the world’s colleges and universities will supersede the downside of miseducation with the upside of education, or the human race will perish from self-extermination leading to self-extinction.

Although it is often embarrassing for me to be classified with other Homo sapiens, nonetheless, it would seem to be an unfortunate loss if we should become extinct through the calamities of institutionalized stupidity.

If we are going to unify science with economics and religion, we had better have a clear understanding of the nature of science. This means it should be precisely defined:

Science is the observational (a posteriori) method of identifying and verifying the causes of physical, biological, and social effects.

In contrast, if we want to avoid being caught up in the misadventures of pseudo science, we had better understand what pseudo science is.

Pseudo science is the imaginary (a priori) method of determining the causes of physical, biological, and social effects in the name of science.

In the end, there are only two approaches to understanding cause-and effect:

Imagination of causality or observation of causality.

In the physical sciences, through the work of Galileo, Newton and others, imagination of physical causality has been superseded by observation of physical causality.

In the biological sciences, through the work of Pasteur, Darwin, Mendel, and others, imagination of biological causality has been superseded by observation of biological causality.

One of the aims of Win-Win Theory and the Science of Social Causation is to play a role in superseding the imagination of social causality with observation of social causality.

The most profound paradigm shift in human history is the ongoing shift away from reliance on imagination of causality toward reliance on observation of causality.

I have defined science, which is rarely defined by anyone, including scientists.

In a world were pseudo-science is often masquerading as science, it is critical to draw a precise line of demarcation between science and pseudo-science.

I will now define economics. Like science, economics comes in two brands. I will differentiate between Win-Win Economics and Win-Lose Economics.

Win-Win Economics is the a posteriori (after observation) science of maximizing the causes of prosperity and minimizing the causes of poverty through voluntary exchange.

Once you have a precise definition of win-win economics, it is easy to define win-lose economics.

Win-Lose Economics is the a priori (before observation) pseudo science that claims to maximize the causes of prosperity and minimize the causes of poverty through institutionalized involuntary exchange at gunpoint.

Of course, all Marxian economics is win-lose economics at gunpoint. All interventionist economics is win-lose economics at gunpoint.

Finally, in unifying science, economics and religion, we have to define religion.

Religion is any a priori belief system on divine deities and their commands to humans on what to believe and how to act.

Now that I have defined science, economics, and religion can they somehow be unified? Do they have anything in common that could lay a foundation for unification?

This is a formidable problem because:

Science is an observational (a posteriori) discipline and religion is an imaginary (a priori) discipline.

Science claims to discover causality through observation, religion claims to know causality through imagination without observation.

To solve this incompatibility between science and religion, this question can be asked:

Is there a central element of all major religions, which is a fundamental religious principle that when applied by the faithful, can be observed and verified to foster social effects that nearly everyone wants, namely, world peace, prosperity, and freedom?

On the premise that most people prefer peace over war, prosperity over poverty, and freedom over servitude, here is the question:

Is there a religious principle that we can observe to bring these lofty aims to fruition, when such a religious principle is practiced by believers—and nonbelievers as well?

Historians of religion have long noted a rule of conduct that is common to all religions.

From the time you were a child, you have heard of this rule—known in our time as the Golden Rule. The idea of the Golden Rule is an old idea—a very old idea, indeed.

The Persian religious teacher, Zoroaster of Babylonia (now Iraq and Iran), defined one of the earliest examples of the Golden Rule.

Zoroaster also envisioned the ongoing battle between good and evil. This was some six centuries before the birth of Jesus and the founding of Christianity by his apostle Peter, and Paul of Tarsus.

From 600 b.c.—some twenty-six hundred years ago—we have the:

• Zoroastrian Golden Rule (c. 600 b.c.)
• Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.
• Shayast-na-Shayast, 13.29,
• Zoroaster (c. 628 b.c.–c. 551 b.c.)

A century later—twenty-five hundred years ago—we have the:

• Hindu Golden Rule (c. 500 b.c.)
• This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.
• Mahabarata, 5, 1517
• Krishna Vyasa (c. 500 b.c.)

In the same century, the:

• Buddhist Golden Rule (c. 500 b.c.)
• Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
• Udana-Varga 5, 18
• Gautama Buddah (563–483 b.c.)

Also in the same century, the:

• Confucian Golden Rule (c. 500 b.c.)
• Is there one maxim which ought to be acted upon throughout one’s whole life? Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.
• Analects of Confucius,15, 23
• K’ung-tzu [L., Confucius] (551–479 b.c.)

Again, in the same century, which is twenty-five centuries ago, Lao-tzu gave us the:

• Taoist Golden Rule (c. 500 b.c.)
• Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
• T’ai-Shang Kan-Ying P’ien (“The Treatise of the Exalted One on Response and Retribution”) Lao-tzu, Taoist founder

Five centuries later, one of the most famous religious leaders in Jewish history, Palestinian rabbi, Hillel, gave us the:

• Judaic Golden Rule (c. 30 b.c.)
• What is hateful to you do not to your fellow men. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary.
• Talmud, Shabbat 31a, Hillel Ha-Babli
• Hillel says, here is the entire rule of behavior in one sentence. “The entire law”—the Torah, which is the first five books of the Old Testament—is merely commentary on how to apply the Judaic Golden Rule, which says, What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men.

Nearly a century later, we have the:

• Christian Golden Rule (a.d. c. 100)
• So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets.
• Matthew 7:12
• Jesus of Nazareth (c. 6 b.c.–a.d. c. 30)

And twelve centuries after the Christian Golden Rule, we have the:

• Islamic Golden Rule (c. a.d. 1300)
• No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
• Al-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths, No. 13
• Imam Yaha ibin Sharif al-Nawawi (a.d. 1234–1278)
• Prophet and teacher, Muhammad (a.d. 570–632)

The ancient Golden Rules, as an overarching code of ethics for all humans, share a common theme. They directly discourage win-lose behavior while indirectly encouraging win-win behavior.

Due to its priceless social value, this rule of rules for human behavior is truly “golden.” To go beyond a general acceptance of the Golden Rule, toward the general practice of the Golden Rule, an ironclad case must be made for its universal equity, utility, and morality.

In the third and final installment of his “Win-Win Theory on Unifying Science, Economics, and Religion,” Jay will lead you to the solution for creating a peaceful, prosperous, and free society.