Powered by glolg
Display Preferences Most Recent Entries Chatterbox Blog Links Site Statistics Category Tags About Me, Myself and Gilbert XML RSS Feed
Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 03:43 SGT
Posted By: Gilbert

- -
Logic's Swansong

I'm up to here in continuing with the rest of God's Debris (Part One) (Part Deux), much of the latter part of which is not that relevant to what i really want to say, so I'm winding up the review with nothing about the book itself. Just go read it if you want.


"Humanity needs a lesson in humility"(Source)

Richard Dawkins, atheist extraordinaire, suggested a Spectrum of Theistic Probability to categorize one's strength of belief in the existence of God. It ranges at one end from 1. Strong theist, which is movingly summed up by Carl Jung: "I do not believe. I know" (though Mark Twain might beg to differ, as "faith is believing what you know ain't so"), all the way to 7. Strong atheist, who would assert with equal vigour the non-existence of God(s).

Interestingly, Dawkins only claims to be "a 6.8", which leaves him open - just barely - to conversion in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Then again, as a professional scientist, he could likely do no less. Now, when faced with the same question, where would I place myself? The midpoint of the spectrum is described as "Completely impartial agnostic. God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.", which doesn't strike me as being an accurate description of myself. If I am not sure of a thing, I would hardly automatically assign even odds! Still, that didn't help in determining my own position, and after some consideration I had to say that that spectrum is not really all-encompassing.

Here, the words of Bertrand (Hi, Bert!) Russell may be the best:

"I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'. It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

 Therein lies the innermost roots of my concern. "God" is a loaded word; When it is mentioned, we instinctively think of "my God", and I daresay the conception of "God" held by different people, even of the same religion, are not exactly the same. There is some beauty in the ontological argument, even if it ends up logically flawed:

God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (imagined).
Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind.
God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).

The ultimate key, however, is that I cannot claim to know; Can something this perfect, for lack of a better concept, be known? Where do we find the words to approximate something without limit? Are our current mental abilities sufficient to attempt this? Will they ever be?


And I can prove it! (Source)

Consider a bunny, for in weighty matters cuteness assuages the strain - by all appearances, it is sentient; It feels when poked, and is subject to some form of pleasure and pain. But I would deem it an impossibility to teach a bunny to multiply (numbers, not more bunnies), and there are feats of logic far beyond mere multiplication. Hence I say that the maximum intelligence available to a bunny, as it were, is limited.

Does this apply to the human condition? We adorn ourselves with the sobriquet of sapience, but is this "self-awareness" the highest that can be? May we be as to some superior awareness, as bunnies are to us? Is our logic, even our system of counting numbers, the only logic that could be? If the amount of time it took for zero to be discovered is anything to go by, we could still be blind to many basic truths - what the chances that we are the last generation to have made all critical discoveries? Certainly this looks to be an unfalsifiable proposition, and probably is of little practical consequence.

So, the postulation of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent One - referred to by many names throughout the ages, but commonly understood as "God" nowadays, is not actually disagreeable to me; The thing I find incredible is that mere men, who if they look should realise just how great this Being is, can turn around and have the presumption that they can help to do Its Will. This alone would be sufferable, as most religions are rooted in some morality - but when the presumption is that they have the only correct way, which I see as an unfounded pride quite beyond mere temporal hubris, the world will surely again endure the excesses of zealotry, as it did during the Inquisition, and today in the shadow of terror.

Sadly, the properties of popular religions that aid in their survival are the very ones which encourage such behaviour - as men will not patronize a barbershop whose workers have bad haircuts, so will men sincerely looking to find God be attracted to religious institutions where faith runs deepest; But strength of conviction is no proof of morality, and exclusivity (we are the only righteous ones, we are Chosen) is the cheapest attraction, for men love to have their specialness affirmed; And though many may not think of it in these terms, as genes do not comprehend their full function, the effect nonetheless remains.

Have I ever quoted myself? I will do so now, a piece I wrote in April 2005:

"...Religions do change, get absorbed and go extinct with regularity, like species and companies. Yes, yes, it may be a disrespectful comparism, but true nonetheless.

Let us zoom out and look upon this Earth from a far wider viewpoint. If you had lived in ancient Egypt, your gods would have been Ra, Lord of the Sun, Maat, Goddess of Truth, Seth, the Strength, Thoth, Keeper of Wisdom, Hathor, the Celestial Cow, Horus of Law and Order and many others. Where are they now? And yet in their time their followers knew that they were eternal.

...The Greeks and Romans were once the leaders of civilization. They shared much the same pantheon, Jupiter being Zeus. In culture they had no equal. Their reputation spanned the ancient world. But today Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Athena, Ares and Dementer are studied only in childrens' tales. Once, they strode and threw lightning in their believers' minds.

And the mighty ones of the Aztecs! How they have fallen! Xilonen, to whom maidens were sacrificed; Tlaloc devoured the sick. Huitzilopochtli disposed of the prisoners, while noble Tezcatlipoca accepted only volunteers. Now their temples lie empty, though at one time tens of thousands met death in their honour. Quetzalcoatl has been laid to rest.

And Zoroastrianism! It was enlightened before its day. They had gender equality, promoted cleanliness, valued hard work and charity, and condemned oppression of other human beings. So they hold fire in high regard, but were by no means arsonists. Maybe they were not ruthless enough: they did not proselytize. Thus Zoroastrianism became a stepping stone for its juniors, Judaism and Christianity. They are now a shadow of their former glory, having a couple hundred thousand adherants.

And where are the gods of our fathers? The unorganised pagan deities? Surely at one time in an ancestral village in a corner of China, they had lit incense for some local spirit. No one cares, they are but small gods, irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. But they were respected, and worshipped once upon a time.

So why all this? Simply, to all things come an end. Who knows what even a mere thousand years may bring? Before you believe in a god, cast your mind back to that shepherd boy in ancient Egypt; the scholars in ancient Greece. Are we that different that our gods may exist forever? In the fullness of time, a kid from Later Earth will point his finger at a picture and ask, Mommy, what's that?

"Oh, one of the gods of the Old Religions."

"How fascinating! Tell me more!"

"Not now, dear, let us go and worship Tyrintian-II the Greater first. We're almost late."

 Note the emphasis on "a". Verily, it may be true that all the gods that all the people that ever lived have worshipped, are in essence the same God; But when men lay their baggage on the Divine, when they maintain that He did this, or commanded that, or desired thus - I cannot feel but it detracts from His perfection. The story of Saint Augustine, I read as part admission thereof:

"In his contemplation Augustine decided to take a walk along the seashore. There he saw a child playing in the sand near the shoreline.

Having dug a hole in the sand the child was bringing over handfuls of water from the nearby ocean to fill the hole. When Augustine asked what the child was trying to do, the boy replied that he wanted to empty the entire ocean into the hole he had dug in the sand. 'But that's impossible, Augustine observed, 'can't you see the ocean is infinitely greater than the hole you have dug in the sand?' At that moment Augustine realized a profound truth: it is equally impossible to fill one's limited mind with the immensity of the mystery of the Holy Trinity."

 Without going into any specifics about the Trinity, it can be easily seen that the concept of God Himself cannot be smaller than that; And yet it is claimed that God can be obeyed! To obey must imply the knowledge of His will, and I am eager to behold with my own eyes the holy grandeur of the man who deigns to know (or interpret) God's will.

And these words may not be as heretical as they look at first sight (perhaps a pity!) - a primer on the evolution of Christianity will reveal that religious leaders have had their differences with the prevailing church more than once, with the most significant break perhaps coming with the Protestant Reformation as a reaction to the perceived corruption of the then Roman Catholic Church; It could be said to be progressive, in giving a recognized God directly to the people by refusing to acknowledge papal authority. Similar schisms are found in other mainstream religions (Sunni & Shi'a Islam, Theravāda, Mahāyāna & Vajrayāna Buddhism, etc). So which denomination/sect/school is to say who is the original?

Again I cannot resist quoting the very readable Russell:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time..."

 Dawkins builds on it...

"The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first."

 Well, it is getting very late, or less early as may be the case, and it is time to settle on a conclusion to this topic for the foreseeable future. After all this talk, or nonsense as it may be, where does it leave me? I can say with some certainty that I am not a praying man, and that neither my derision nor my obsequience is of any significance towards a supreme being I could never pretend to understand; But if I would pray, I would pray for the end of such pride so thinly veiled in poor humility, the love of fellow men being the cornerstone of grace, and the sweetness and light of a bunny innocent of being cute; But I do not pray, so it is moot.


Sic transit gloria mundi
"Thus passes the glory of the world, Servant of the Servants of God"
While there is much to be disagreed with, some of the sentiment is well appreciable.

They say God is Good. I believe in Good.



comments (0) - email - share - print - direct link
trackbacks (1) - trackback url


Next: No Pictures, Please


Related Posts:
Final Push
A Matter Of Perspectives
A Puff of Logic (Part Deux)
Final Days In Italy
Adiós Spain Hello England
Back to top




1 trackback

Linkback by

...t omnibenevolent&lr=213&noreask=1'исходному запросу «smbc omnipotent omniscent omnibenevolent» ничего не нашлось. Результаты по исправленному запросу. [bert's blog - Logic's Swansong] So, the postulation of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent One - referred to by many names throughout th...


July 13, 2011 - 04:37 SGT     

Copyright © 2006-2025 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.