Powered by glolg
Display Preferences Most Recent Entries Chatterbox Blog Links Site Statistics Category Tags About Me, Myself and Gilbert XML RSS Feed
Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 23:25 SGT
Posted By: Gilbert

- -
A Puff Of Logic (Part One)

It's more than halfway through Super Slack Week. Ahhhhhh. Here's the book recommendation of the moment:

 From the creator of Dilbert, who in turn is the nominal owner/servant of the leader of Dogbert's New Ruling Class (DNRC, current membership almost half a million, you can join too!), an earth-shattering, paradigm-shifting, hyperbole-inviting novella. Oh, and it's a free download to boot, so don't be shy.


Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

First off, in the author's words, it's a "132-page thought experiment wrapped in a fictional story". There's "no violence, no sex, no offensive content (not to everyone, as it turns out)", and worst of all, no Dilbert. But don't delete it yet. There's a PG-14 rating slapped on it, so it can't be all snooze-inducing.

Also, "The story's central character has a view about God that you've probably never heard before. If you think you would be offended by a fictional character's untraditional view about God, please don't read this."

Fair warning. Ready? Actually, it would probably be best if you actually read the novella before continuing with the blog post, but I accept that probably ain't gonna happen. So let me spoil some of it for you.

The first deep question posed is whether, when a person carries a package to a house, the person is delivering the package, or the package is delivering the person. I would say it's semantics, so let us move on.

The next question is that of the compatibility of the omniscience of God versus the free will of humans, or in slightly fewer words, theological determinism. The apparant paradox is:

1. Being omniscient, God knows all the future.
2. People have free will.
3. From (1), since God knows the future, all our choices are already determined.
4. From (3), people cannot be said to have free will.
5. Therefore (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive.

The Abrahamic religions appear split on this, even within themselves; Calvinism (no, not he of the Calvin and Hobbes fame, but rather after John Calvin, whom the Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes is named after) refreshingly asserts that "...[predestination is] the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. Not all are created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death."

I.e, who God saves is the business of God himself - One of the five points of Calvinism is "God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy." So one can try one's honest best to do good in this world, yet be condemned to Hell. Without any pretension, I have to salute sincere adherents to this particular creed from the bottom of my heart.

More generally, there appears to be no simple logical solution to the omniscience-free will paradox - so, the naive conclusion is that if God is not omniscient, why call him God? If we do not have free will, then why bother? Alternatively, a common answer is that God is atemporal, that time has no meaning to him, there is no "future", so to speak; But this is only Page Twelve of the novella, so we had better continue moving on for now.

Excerpt, Page Fifteen:

"... Do you also believe God experiences anger and forgiveness?"

"That's part of the package," I said, committing further to my side of the debate.

"So God has a personality, according to you, and it is similar to what humans experience?"

"I guess so."

"What sort of arrogance assumes God is like people?"

 And yet, the God of the Old Testament especially does behave emotionally, as far as I can tell, as a human. But He works in mysterious ways, and being God He can behave as He pleases, so we shall pursue that later.

Excerpt, Page Twenty-one:

"Every generation of humans believed that it had all the answers it needed, except for a few mysteries they assumed would be solved at any moment. And they all believed their ancestors were simplistic and deluded. What are the odds the you are the first generation of humans who will understand reality?"

 following on...

"Computers and rocket ships are examples of inventions, not understanding. All that is needed to build machines is the knowledge that when one thing happens, another thing happens as a result. It's an accumulation of simple patterns. A dog can learn patterns. There is no 'why' in those examples."

 One small step for dogkind, one small step for humankind.

Some more stuff about where free will is located, then one of the prize passages:

I needed reinforcements. "Look," I said, "four billion people believe in some sort of God and free will. They can't all be wrong."

"Very few people believe in God," he replied.

I didn't see how he could deny the obvious. "Of course they do. Billions of people believe in God."

The old man leaned towards me, resting a blanketed elbow on the arm of his locker.

"Four billion people say they believe in God, but few genuinely believe. If people believed in God, they would live every minute of their lives in support of that belief. Rich people would give their wealth to the needy. Everyone would be frantic to determine which religion was the true one. No one could be comfortable in the thought that they might have picked the wrong religion and blundered into eternal damnation, or bad reincarnation, or some other unthinkable consequence. People would dedicate their lives to converting others to their religions..."

"... They say that they believe because pretending to believe is necessary to get the benefits of religion. They tell other people that they believe and do believer-like things, like praying and reading holy books. But they don't do the things that a true believer would do, the things a true believer would have to do."

"If you believe a truck is coming towards you, you will jump out of the way. That is belief in the reality of the truck. If you tell people you fear the truck but do nothing to get out of the way, that is not belief in the truck. Likewise, it is not belief to say God exists and then continue sinning and hoarding your wealth while innocent people die of starvation. When belief does not control your most important decisions, it is not belief in the underlying reality, it is belief in the usefulness of believing."

 Okay, there are quite a few holes in the argument, but it is thought-provoking nonetheless. Part of the problem I guess is that people cannot really imagine what "eternal damnation" etc is like - For instance, I have not broken my arm before; If asked to imagine how painful breaking my arm would be, I could try to remember the most painful sensation I have experienced, and then try to imagine something more painful than that, which I believe is nothing confronted with the reality. Quite assuredly, I cannot begin to comprehend infinite pain, so perhaps in a way the capacity to believe as stated is limited by the imagination.

In any case, people tend to pick and choose their beliefs; For instance, many decent Christians today, I believe, abhor slavery, and yet the Bible (and until recently, the Church) nowhere speaks out against it, instead "referencing and condoning" it. The everyday practices of the past may be the barbarism of the present, but where then lies an eternal truth? Of course, the references to slavery may just be brilliant metaphors, in that case the choice of religious teacher is of overriding importance.

Further, there now exist many dozens of denominations of Christianity, each of whom differ in some points of faith, and where they differ two denominations cannot both be right in that respect, can they? But if that point were not important, could it not just be put aside, in view of the greater picture? If that point were important, then what is the value of the denomination that happens to be in the wrong? Lest I be accused of unfairly picking upon Christianity, I have to state that much the same divisions likely occur in other religions. Can't resist inserting this joke, previously on Edchong's blog:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.
Me: "Well, there's so much to live for!"
Him: "Like what?"
"Well... are you religious?"
He said yes.
I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God!"
"Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

 "The best any human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. This is why people of different religions can generally live in peace. At some level, we all suspect that other people don't believe their own religion any more than we believe ours."

 This can be controversial. Would any professed believer actually come out and say, "I only sorta believe"? Defeats the purpose, doesn't it? But the fallacy here is that people might believe, and just not be strong enough to act on those beliefs. Oh, and "Atheists also prefer delusions", so Adams doesn't play favourites here.

And so, why?

"Religions are like different maps whose routes all lead to the collective good of society. Some maps take their followers over rugged terrain. Other maps have easier paths. Some of the travelers of each route will be assigned the job of being the protectors and interpreters of the map. They will teach the young to respect it and be suspicious of other maps."

 How true. As the Jesuits said, "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man."

To be continued...



comments (0) - email - share - print - direct link
trackbacks (0) - trackback url


Next: Intermission


Related Posts:
Takeoff Imminent
Logic's Swansong
A Puff of Logic (Part Deux)
Final Days In Italy
AWAREness By Hams
Back to top

Copyright © 2006-2025 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.