Explaining Physics to Ants

A Christian minister whose blog can be found at http://huntingfortruth.wordpress.com recently commented the following:

I like to think that whatever God is, there is a certain connection that humans seem to have with something transcendent, something larger than ourselves. I believe that we need not, necessarily, depart from the constructions of understanding the divine that exist today in most religions but realize that they are not absolute and that they characterize God in ways that say more about ourselves, our needs, our cultures than they say about an actual, transcendent, unknowable, divine reality.

So I consider myself, while a Christian Minister, to be on a holy exploration to encounter God in my living and then to live more like that one I have encountered. It isn’t so much that God doesn’t exist or that we haven’t rightly understood elements of God’s nature through our encounters where we, as humans, have bumped up against the Holy. Rather it is when we elevate what we have supposed to understanding from those encounters. When we declare those concepts as an absolute Truth, we then set up for ourselves an absolute canon that has to be defended and must be right because the origins of the concepts, which came from God as we understand him. Those concepts become idols to us, reflecting ourselves rather than the divine.

This mode of thinking has always mystified me.  I’ve encountered it many times, from students at major university divinity schools to inner-city pastors to soccer moms, and it seems to be one of the most popular religious philosophies of our day.  I’ll call it ant philosophy, because the relationship it describes between humanity and God is somewhat like the relationship between ants and humanity.  It claims that God communicating absolute truths about Himself to us is almost like a human trying to explain physics to ants.

Here is my confusion:

If God created the universe as we know it, thus exemplifying tremendous power and ability, it’s reasonable to assume He also has the power and ability to successfully communicate at least some absolute truths about Himself to humanity as this is much less of a feat.  This is especially the case if one considers humanity to be fashioned in His “image”, which I think most people could take to mean that God and man have a modicum of comparable attributes which facilitates relationship, and further, that God has a desire for relationship with man evidenced by creating man in this fashion.  This implies that God has the means and motive to communicate absolute truth about Himself to humanity.

If all this is so, how can one imply that a propositional claim about God always reflects something of the claimant, and to the degree that it does reflects a failing of God to achieve His ostensible aim of objectively communicating about Himself?  Such a situation would require an explanation as to why God chooses to fail in this when He almost surely has the power to succeed.

Ant philosophy denies that organized religions can ever be absolutely true, and yet, most ant philosophy proponents would agree that religions which encourage human sacrifice aren’t as “good”, in some sense, as those which encourage love, tolerance, etc.  This implies a standard of measurement by which religions can be compared, which implies some knowable absolute truth.

All truth claims must necessarily take an absolute stance; they must make objective comparisons and contrasts to define what it is they are claiming.  This is the foundation of rationality, the basis for human thought and knowledge.  One may claim that God is somehow above or outside of rationality, but if this is the case then all religious conversation should end there; there is no Holy into which we may bump, our minds aren’t fit tools with which to apprehend anything of God.

We are rational creatures, and if God wishes to communicate with us He must speak the language He has created us to speak.

Wagerin’, Pascal Style

The author of an A commenter on an excellent blog which can be found at http://timsmartt.wordpress.com/ posted the following comment recently:

I agree with the previous comment of Pseudome that Pascal’s wager has long been misconstrued as a claim of proof for the existence of the supernatural. I think of it not as a truth-claim, but as a pragmatic observation that one’s efforts should be directed towards one’s best interests. Expressed another way: I believe Pascal is trying to say that even if atheism is far more likely to be true, or more rational, what good would it serve? Personally, I would rather trade a mere lifetime of self-deception for an eternity of punishment.

Another point you raised in your post was that:

‘6. Pascal’s bluff doesn’t work because, there are infinite number of such “threats” possible, for avoiding the wrath of infinite number of imaginary entities.

Definitely.  Pascal’s wager is about the lamest theistic argument possible (although I’m sure there are other contenders).’

I concur, that, theoretically, there are an infinite number of possible deities; yet how could we possibly take into account an unknown, unrevealed deity, or deities? It would be impossible to garner any information about their attributes; and, therefore, they should be ruled out of the possible contenders for the authentic religion. Thus, this would leave only revealed religions in line for consideration. The task, then, in my view, is to identify the most reasonable or likely religious belief system.

My response is that Pascal’s wager, as traditionally interpreted, requires a pre-existing foundational assent to a world of only two possibilities: that of philosophical naturalism, or orthodox Christianity.  Pascal arrives at this particular set of dual choices in his Pensées through what I feel are rather arbitrary means.  Similarly, allowing only revealed religions to factor into our worldview ruminations also strikes me as arbitrary.  By which I mean, there’s no specific set of defendable criteria for the acceptance of only beliefs which have gained enough adherents as to be considered “revealed”, which is really the litmus test of this label.

The ease or lack thereof of gathering data about a given possibility has no bearing on its likelihood, so I believe we must hold our beliefs very loosely in consideration of the fact that we make our choices based on our current load of information.  We must be prepared at any time to disavow all our previous positions if new and credible information undermines the foundations of said positions.

Ralph Waldo Emerson understood this and stated the idea thusly:

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Something Found

lookingforsomethingtofind, a very thoughtful person, commented on an earlier post. I hope it’s okay that I copied it to a new thread for easier discussion.

lfstf said:

Let me start off by saying I respect religion. One thing about this argument that the world is not as it should be, is that there is a way the world should be. The basis of this, is saying that this world is somehow to the benefit of humanity, to me I see a universe apathetic to all, natural disasters etc… As to why people act the way they do, it is in my opinion due to the instincts we devolped in an once more savage world. I want something, or I want to gain control, I will fight you for it, then I am less likely to be killed, because I have food, land, and have conquered those competing with me. What we have is a world, where people act out of self interest for the most part, in the backdrop of a universe that just is.

I agree with much of this, but the issue then becomes, why is altruism ever found at all? It’s a self-defeating strategy for survival for the most part, despite what many people stretch game theory to say. Yet we respond to altruism instinctively as one of the highest goods, if not the highest. This is a very strange finding that naturalism doesn’t explain very well.

Morally should we be better to each other, yes. Why is there need of a God, no evidence I can see points to it, ancient peoples were notirously superstisious, most documents about Jesus were written after his death, Jesus was a common name, it could very well be that it got exaggerated either on purpose of by accident over time. Also according to Judaism he does not fit the description of what the myssai should be.

There are many, many arguments against these statements, but it’s all kind of inconclusive on both sides.

On the other hand, if we assume god is powerfull but not all powerfull the argument become easier. Here is one bit of evidence that points to it. God had to give up his own son to bring humanity forgivness, that implies that there was no other way, or the other possible way would not have been effective. So God was constrained by some rules of existence, he would have to do A to get B.

He could not simply declare, that you don’t have to do, or don’t have to roam earth, and you Jesus we still understand humanity, and save it. Now perhaps maybe God set his own rules and limits which he himself cannot break, maybe he was created by some being above him, that is fully incomprehsible to us, and comprehenisble to god in the same we we try to understand him. Or maybe he created himself.

Frankly I’m amazed that you realize these things, because soooooo few people do. The standard answer to this (a variation on the classic Euthyphro Dilemma) is that God is limited by His own nature, i.e., since He is all-good, He can’t do any evil. Since He is all logical, He can’t do anything illogical, etc. Accordingly, there doesn’t have to be anything higher than or outside of Himself which limits His abilities. I think it’s a pretty good response.

Also god maybe active, but purposely trying to be undetectable some type of test of faith. Also if the good go to heaven, then those who suffer here, we go to heaven, feel fine, those making what happens on earth rather inconsequential.

That’s a big sticking point for me. He certainly wasn’t trying to be undetectable in the Bible, was He? I’ve heard decent answers for why this is different today, but it still irks me.

Or his wisdom is so infinetly above ours, that his decision make perfect sense, for us to try and figure it out, would be like asking a termite to play chess. Then any need for reasons, evidence a rational ceases. Still it seems like a rather cheap way out, not to mention boring. That doesn’t make it any less likely.

Fully agreed on all these points.

All that being said, my personal conclusion is that there is no God, we must search for our own meaning, or live without meaning. Really it is up to us, so we rather than focusing of the supernatural should try and build a better world in the here and now. (I know I am a bad speller)

I haven’t reached a conclusion yet, but I do think if life doesn’t have objective and inherent meaning/purpose (i.e. we must make our own), it’s pretty strange that most people live as if it does.

Thanks for weighing in, this is one of the best comments I’ve received yet.

Step Toward Interesting Thoughts

Another interesting comment came my way from Paul from http://steptowardtransparency.wordpress.com.  Paul has great taste in music, so I figured I’d hear him out.

He says

1) It’s so incredibly easy to look at the broken state of this world and cast away any thoughts of a benevolent God. But the very assertion of “how things are” and “how they should be” insinuate a presumptuousness not fitting for a person “in search of Reality.” And trying to salvage pure truth from something on which you’ve piled layer upon layer of bias is only setting yourself up to be deceived.

A broken world doesn’t defeat theism for me, though it certainly raises some hard questions.  The sense of “how things should be”, a sense that things are not quite right with the world, which seems to be inherent in people, actually lends some weight to theism.

2) I ask you not to judge Christ and his teachings on what has become of Christendom

That’s easy enough; it’s much easier to judge Christ regarding His apparent silence and non-interventionism.

Paul also says

I just want to try to impress upon you that it’s you that has everything to gain or lose based on your beliefs; don’t let your inability to corroborate a benevolent God with a starving infant or a Son of God with ungodly ‘believers’ be your stumbling block.

Though it’s distasteful, I can conceive of a benevolent God who has justified reasons for allowing starving infants, and I can easily imagine that the “followers” of an existent God could be poor disciples.  What’s very difficult to understand, however, is why a God would be exhaustively involved in humanity for a certain epoch of time, then suddenly and seemingly arbitrarily turn completely silent.  It’s much easier to imagine that the recorders of the claimed divine experiences were using symbolic language to pass on cultural and moral traditions, a kind of didactic story telling, and that there actually is no God.

Thanks to Edwin

Edwin from http://meinwords.wordpress.com/ was kind enough to be the first person to comment on my blog.

Not only was he first, but he crafted an obviously well thought out comment, for which I’m very appreciative.  Edwin’s interesting statements bring up lots of issues regarding which I’ve given much thought.  I’ll note my questions and reactions below:

1. There is reality, outside our minds.

- I heartily concur; I’m quite certain of this.  I also have much confidence that our minds are fit tools for apprehending said reality, in contrast to Kantian conceptions of a noumenal/phenomenal distinction.

2. Reality needs defenders.

- I can go along with this to a certain degree.  Certainly there is such a thing as erroneous perception and/or understanding of reality.  Whether one’s errors can or should be corrected by another is something I’m undecided about.  A person would need to be awfully confident in their view to feel comfortable with correcting someone else.  Apprehending that two and two are four is very different than considering all the complexities of reality and determining probable theory correlation.

Edwin notes here

…it is amusing to note that the christian almighty imaginary friend is not almighty enough to leave evidence that can convince 4 billion non-Christians, although the christian almighty imaginary friend is all-knowing enough to know what it would take to convince the 4 billion non-Christians of its existence in a jiffy, and thereby give them the salvation It desperately wants everyone to have, through, among other things, a faith in Its existence.

…to which I respond that I think it’s at least conceivable that this hypothetical being could have some justifiable motive for not overwhelming the “unfaithful” with theistic awareness.

3. As mere humans we have to rely on evidence if we need to explore reality.

- Sure.  However, there’s no such thing as evidence which is fundamentally self-analyzing.  All evidence gets analyzed in light of precedent, prejudice and preconception.

The statement

democracy which ensures no powers are unchecked

seems to put a lot of faith in democracy.  In any true democracy the power of a plurality is totally unchecked, even if it’s against 49% of everyone else.

4. To see if a worldview holds true in reality, we should first check to see if it corresponds with reality, before checking to see if it is consistent & coherent.

- Very good point.

5. Entities that can cause  types of effects are more improbable to come into existence purely due to random chance, compared to entities that can cause  types of effects for all integers .

- I’m not sure how probability theory, which in my understanding requires at least a basic conception of causality, can speak to a postulated being who is described as uncaused (and therefore never “comes into existence”) and outside of time (thus being immune to causality which requires time).  I would imagine that Edwin would characterize such questioning as “desperate” or “sneaky” based on his statements in this section, but I’m not clear on why this would be.

6. Pascal’s bluff doesn’t work because, there are infinite number of such “threats” possible, for avoiding the wrath of infinite number of imaginary entities.

- Definitely.  Pascal’s wager is about the lamest theistic argument possible (although I’m sure there are other contenders).

7. I attempt to define morality like this: “Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing” by Thales of Miletus (624 BC–546 BC).

- Such a morality is either utterly subjective, in which case there can be no basis for justice and right living, or it presupposes a general and binding objective morality to which all sane and thoughtful men acquiesce.  If the latter, the basis for morality remains unexplained.

I Am All Ears

I Am All Ears is a different kind of blog.  Instead of mostly being about me, it will mostly be about you.

You see, I need your help.  I want to make sure I’m living in accordance with reality, but I’m having trouble determining what reality is.  Specifically, I want to determine if there is a God or not.

This is where you come in.  Atheists, Mormons, Dervishes, I need your perspective and arguments.  Please comment in my posts with your strongest apologetics for your beliefs.  I’ll weigh them all carefully, objectively and most of all, openly.  You can have an enormous impact on my life and thinking, so please carefully consider your words.

Please note that I’m skeptical, rational and free thinking, so no “you just have to have blind faith” arguments will fly.  I’m extremely familiar with the Christian Protestant Bible and hold it in high regard, but please don’t base arguments solely on biblical authority without first establishing the rational basis of said authority.

Thanks for your help, and I look forward to the discussion.