Sonny the robot sits in the corner with a blown fuse. Something, you might say, blew his mind. Innocently enough, several days ago, Bob, his friend, told him that he would receive an unexpected gift in the next two days, however Sonny reasoned that it wouldn't be unexpected if it showed up on the second day if it didn't show up on the first day, ergo, logically, it is impossible for him to receive an unexpected gift two days from now. Therefore it must show up one day from now, but it wouldn't then be unexpected then either. Therefore he reasoned that it is logically impossible to receive an unexpected gift from Bob in the next two days. Sonny told this to Bob, who merely laughed at him, which perplexed Sonny a bit. Sonny then received a gift two days after coming to his conclusion and was...surprised. He was surprised because it occurred when it was logically impossible for it to occur. He had witnessed a miracle it seems. At first, he considered that the term "unexpected" might be applied in an ambiguous manner, but no, upon reflection he realized that it did in fact apply to his reaction to having received the gift, exactly as was predicted. There was no ambiguity and so the paradox persisted. Sonny sat down in a corner to contemplate this, and ended up blowing a fuse. 'Poor fellow.
There is nothing wrong with Sonny's reasoning. And there was nothing wrong, it seems, with Bob's reasoning either, since he did indeed do what he said he would do...even if it was impossible for him to do it. Bob proved to be a miracle worker. As Will Smith's character Det. Spooner commented on in the movie I Robot, robots certainly are rational and logical...to a fault in Det. Spooner's opinion. So much so that he distrusted them. What is wrong in the above scenario is caused by the common incongruities of natural language and logic. Foretelling of an "unexpected" event in a future finite time frame poses logical problems, yet we usually deal with this type of thing by ignoring it. We're good at ignoring things.
A common example is when someone goes on and on about "eternity" and "infinity", usually in a metaphysical sense. We can point out that there is no actual eternity and there is no real infinity either, the former is merely hyperbole and the latter is similar hyperbole and also serves as a mathematical tool that is 'approached' by numbers but never actually achieved. As counter-intuitive as it may first seem, infinity is used in mathematics as a limit, which at first blush seems to be a contradiction in terms. (Which is very odd, but only if you think about it.) We can point out that there is no actual existing or real eternity or infinity 'till we're blue in the face, and STILL our metaphysical-minded friends will continue to speak of going to eternity (as if this is a destination and not a time frame) and experiencing infinity, or talking about infinite 'things', etc, which is impossible. ("Things" are said to exist by persisting over time, yet at any given instance, there is a finite number of any given things in the universe. At no 'time' can there be an infinite number of any real things. "Infinite" is either in reference to an open-ended set, or is a form of linguistic hyperbole).
The fact that infinity, which is by definition open-ended and limitless, can be used as an approachable limit, never to be achieved precisely because no real existing thing can be infinite, is, unfortunately something that most people will never be able to wrap their minds around.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Hume's Indian and the Ice
David Hume brought up an interesting point in his discussions about miracles by offering the following story (that I'll paraphrase in my own words).
Dhara was born and lived her whole life in southern India. Her cousin who had been traveling for a year returned today, telling of his wonderful adventures from up north near the boarder of her country. He told stories of vast mountain ranges and his travels up the mountains and down in the valleys and into strange lands. He told of finding dragon bones in the rocks, and of finding a dragon nest in a mountain cave, but one of the most outlandish things he told about was that of solid water. He said that big flakes of white water fell out of the sky like rain, but slower, and he told of a hard and very cold substance that turned into water in ones hands. He said that there wasn't an in-between state where the water becomes thick, but rather it turned from a solid directly into liquid water. Dhara could perhaps believe in dragons. After all, she had seen big lizards before, so why couldn't there be even bigger lizards, but SOLID WATER!, Who could believe such a thing!
Dhara chose to not believe in what we call ice. Should she have believed or did she make the correct decision?
Dhara made the correct decision to not believe in the existence of ice.
How can that be, you might ask, since "ice exists" is true?
Because we are asked to evaluate Dhara's thinking, not whether or not ice exists or whether she believes what ends up being true.
She made the correct decision regarding both "dragons" and ice. She brought her prior knowledge to both problems. Since she knew of big lizards, she saw no reason to doubt the possibility of even BIGGER lizards. In fact though, her cousin may have been making it all up, but we today know of the prior existence of big lizards and dinosaurs and certainly of ice.
However, Dhara had no prior knowledge she could bring to the table considering the possibility of frozen water. It wasn't simply a matter of probability, but one of POSSIBILITY. Dhara doesn't know that frozen water is even POSSIBLE. From Dhara's perspective, "big lizards" is a matter of PROBABILITY, whereas "solid water" is a matter of POSSIBILITY.
Should we say that, as far as ice is concerned, Dhara is an agnostic, (not-knowing)?
Perhaps. It's important to keep in mind though that believe/not-believe is a different consideration than whether one knows or not (even though belief and knowledge are related).
But, even if she is agnostic about ice, this doesn't mean that she should presume that ice is POSSIBLE at all, but rather that she doesn't know that it is possible or impossible. In fact SHE SHOULD NOT PRESUME THAT ICE IS POSSIBLE. She has no legitimate reason to, since her cousin is not beyond telling a yarn or two.
We should also keep in mind that if ...
'A' = believe in the existence of ice...
...this does not means that
'~A' = believe that ice does not exist.
In fact, '~A' ("not-A") = not possessing a belief in the existence of ice, which includes belief that ice is impossible as well as not taking any belief position at all. In fact, Dhara should not take the position that ice is impossible unless she has 'a-priori' (or a "definitive") reason to think that the existience of ice is impossible. However, simply refraining from believing is the correct justifiable position for Dhara to take.
Dhara can be called an a-ice-ist in exactly the same sense that I call myself an atheist.
Dhara was born and lived her whole life in southern India. Her cousin who had been traveling for a year returned today, telling of his wonderful adventures from up north near the boarder of her country. He told stories of vast mountain ranges and his travels up the mountains and down in the valleys and into strange lands. He told of finding dragon bones in the rocks, and of finding a dragon nest in a mountain cave, but one of the most outlandish things he told about was that of solid water. He said that big flakes of white water fell out of the sky like rain, but slower, and he told of a hard and very cold substance that turned into water in ones hands. He said that there wasn't an in-between state where the water becomes thick, but rather it turned from a solid directly into liquid water. Dhara could perhaps believe in dragons. After all, she had seen big lizards before, so why couldn't there be even bigger lizards, but SOLID WATER!, Who could believe such a thing!
Dhara chose to not believe in what we call ice. Should she have believed or did she make the correct decision?
Dhara made the correct decision to not believe in the existence of ice.
How can that be, you might ask, since "ice exists" is true?
Because we are asked to evaluate Dhara's thinking, not whether or not ice exists or whether she believes what ends up being true.
She made the correct decision regarding both "dragons" and ice. She brought her prior knowledge to both problems. Since she knew of big lizards, she saw no reason to doubt the possibility of even BIGGER lizards. In fact though, her cousin may have been making it all up, but we today know of the prior existence of big lizards and dinosaurs and certainly of ice.
However, Dhara had no prior knowledge she could bring to the table considering the possibility of frozen water. It wasn't simply a matter of probability, but one of POSSIBILITY. Dhara doesn't know that frozen water is even POSSIBLE. From Dhara's perspective, "big lizards" is a matter of PROBABILITY, whereas "solid water" is a matter of POSSIBILITY.
Should we say that, as far as ice is concerned, Dhara is an agnostic, (not-knowing)?
Perhaps. It's important to keep in mind though that believe/not-believe is a different consideration than whether one knows or not (even though belief and knowledge are related).
But, even if she is agnostic about ice, this doesn't mean that she should presume that ice is POSSIBLE at all, but rather that she doesn't know that it is possible or impossible. In fact SHE SHOULD NOT PRESUME THAT ICE IS POSSIBLE. She has no legitimate reason to, since her cousin is not beyond telling a yarn or two.
We should also keep in mind that if ...
'A' = believe in the existence of ice...
...this does not means that
'~A' = believe that ice does not exist.
In fact, '~A' ("not-A") = not possessing a belief in the existence of ice, which includes belief that ice is impossible as well as not taking any belief position at all. In fact, Dhara should not take the position that ice is impossible unless she has 'a-priori' (or a "definitive") reason to think that the existience of ice is impossible. However, simply refraining from believing is the correct justifiable position for Dhara to take.
Dhara can be called an a-ice-ist in exactly the same sense that I call myself an atheist.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
"God" Is Meaningless
Logician A. J. Ayers maintained that 'god' and other metaphysical propositions are meaningless. What did he mean by this? Did he mean that people don't care about 'god'? Did he mean that they are not emotionally invested in the idea of an existing 'god'?
No, of course not.
What he meant was that statements such as "x exists" should be either true or false...
A. "X exists".
...And if we aren't able to show that statements like statement A above is either true or false then we can't show that it has any meaning to anything which may be said to be contingent on the truth or falsity of statement A. For instance, if there is a 'god' who created the universe, then certainly there must be at least one 'god' that exists, because a 'god' must exist before it can create universes.
"What is truth" ~ Pontius Pilate
There are two conditions that must be met before we can call a sentence true.
1. It must be truth functional (i.e. it must be either true or false).
2. The truth functional negation is contradictory.
(In other words, something is true, if it is true or false, and it's not false).
Contradictions are false (and "false" means contradictory).
"In base-ten math, 5 + 2 = 19", is false because in base ten math
5 + 2 = 7 and only 7. "5 + 2 = 19" contradicts the rules of base ten mathematics.
"Pittsburgh is the capital city of Tennessee" is false because the capital city of Tennessee is Nashville, and Nashville is not identical to Pittsburgh.
"Pittsburgh is the capital city of Tennessee" contradicts the facts of reality and is therefore false.
Let's look at statements 1 and 2 above.
Consider: "Red is nice".
"Red is nice" isn't truth functional. It's neither true nor false, as it's a personal preference only, so "red is nice" doesn't meet the requirement stated in statement 1 above.
Consider: "Some dog exists".
"Some dog exists" is truth functional. It's either true or false.
And the truth functional negation of "Some dog exists" is "No dog exists" or "There is no dog".
We can show that either of these statements contradict realty by showing the existence of at least one dog. By showing at least one dog, we can can qualify the truth of the "Some dog exists" statement.
Being able to validate such an existential statement is what is known as "Existential Import".
An existential statement that has no existential import is unjustified by definition. In formal logic, no one has any 'business' stating "x exists" if they can't, even in theory, show that the set of all 'x' has at least one existing member.
Consider: "There are no four-cornered triangles".
This can be shown to be either true or false, and if we consider the truth functional negation of this statement, we get, "There are four-cornered triangles". However, this contradicts the rules of geometry, as triangles are "a-priori" (or "defined") as having exactly three corners. "There are four cornered triangles" is a-priori false in the same way that "5 + 2 = 19" is false. The definitions and rules which apply dictate that "There are four-cornered triangles" is false, therefore "There are no four-cornered triangles" must be true.
Consider" "Some god exists".
Since "Some god exists" is an existential statement, then if the term "god" has any meaning, then "Some god exists" should meet conditions 1 and 2 for truth, as stated above.
It's arguable that something metaphysical that's defined as "a divine mystery", that is said to be "ineffable" and "inscrutable" wouldn't be able to be said to be either true or false.
But even if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that "Some god exists" meets the criteria of condition one, does it meet the criteria of condition 2?
If "Some god exists" is true, then "There is no existing god" should prove to be contradictory, even in theory. Yet no one it seems can, even in theory, show us direct evidence of any existing 'god'. Where is it? Show it to me. Can you show that the set of all 'gods' contains a single existing member? Some 'god' must exist before it can create a universe or life in this universe.
If 'no', then "Some god exists" can't be considered a true and justifiable statement.
What about the statement "There is no existing god"?
Well, the truth functional negation is "Some god exists". Can we show that "Some god exists" poses a contradiction?
No.
Why?
Because one cannot show direct evidence of nonexistence. (This is why Kant said that existence is not a property), and "There is no existing 'god'" is not a-priory false. (It's not definitively false, like '5 + 2 = 19' is because it poses no contradiction).
Arguably, "god' is too meaningless to be false...or true.
Since "X exists" should be a truth functional statement, and since "Some god exists" can't be shown, even in theory, to be either true or false, then "god" is a meaningless term and "Some god' exists" has no merit. Which means that you can't prove, even in theory, that the existence or nonexistence of said "god" has any contingent outcome on anything else in the universe.
Ironically, many poor-thinking theists consider the fact that atheists can't prove that no 'god' exists to be some sort of positive to their claim that some 'god' exists, (when they also cannot show that some 'god' in fact exists). Actually it just goes to show how meaningless their merit-less claims prove to be.
No, of course not.
What he meant was that statements such as "x exists" should be either true or false...
A. "X exists".
...And if we aren't able to show that statements like statement A above is either true or false then we can't show that it has any meaning to anything which may be said to be contingent on the truth or falsity of statement A. For instance, if there is a 'god' who created the universe, then certainly there must be at least one 'god' that exists, because a 'god' must exist before it can create universes.
"What is truth" ~ Pontius Pilate
There are two conditions that must be met before we can call a sentence true.
1. It must be truth functional (i.e. it must be either true or false).
2. The truth functional negation is contradictory.
(In other words, something is true, if it is true or false, and it's not false).
Contradictions are false (and "false" means contradictory).
"In base-ten math, 5 + 2 = 19", is false because in base ten math
5 + 2 = 7 and only 7. "5 + 2 = 19" contradicts the rules of base ten mathematics.
"Pittsburgh is the capital city of Tennessee" is false because the capital city of Tennessee is Nashville, and Nashville is not identical to Pittsburgh.
"Pittsburgh is the capital city of Tennessee" contradicts the facts of reality and is therefore false.
Let's look at statements 1 and 2 above.
Consider: "Red is nice".
"Red is nice" isn't truth functional. It's neither true nor false, as it's a personal preference only, so "red is nice" doesn't meet the requirement stated in statement 1 above.
Consider: "Some dog exists".
"Some dog exists" is truth functional. It's either true or false.
And the truth functional negation of "Some dog exists" is "No dog exists" or "There is no dog".
We can show that either of these statements contradict realty by showing the existence of at least one dog. By showing at least one dog, we can can qualify the truth of the "Some dog exists" statement.
Being able to validate such an existential statement is what is known as "Existential Import".
An existential statement that has no existential import is unjustified by definition. In formal logic, no one has any 'business' stating "x exists" if they can't, even in theory, show that the set of all 'x' has at least one existing member.
Consider: "There are no four-cornered triangles".
This can be shown to be either true or false, and if we consider the truth functional negation of this statement, we get, "There are four-cornered triangles". However, this contradicts the rules of geometry, as triangles are "a-priori" (or "defined") as having exactly three corners. "There are four cornered triangles" is a-priori false in the same way that "5 + 2 = 19" is false. The definitions and rules which apply dictate that "There are four-cornered triangles" is false, therefore "There are no four-cornered triangles" must be true.
Consider" "Some god exists".
Since "Some god exists" is an existential statement, then if the term "god" has any meaning, then "Some god exists" should meet conditions 1 and 2 for truth, as stated above.
It's arguable that something metaphysical that's defined as "a divine mystery", that is said to be "ineffable" and "inscrutable" wouldn't be able to be said to be either true or false.
But even if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that "Some god exists" meets the criteria of condition one, does it meet the criteria of condition 2?
If "Some god exists" is true, then "There is no existing god" should prove to be contradictory, even in theory. Yet no one it seems can, even in theory, show us direct evidence of any existing 'god'. Where is it? Show it to me. Can you show that the set of all 'gods' contains a single existing member? Some 'god' must exist before it can create a universe or life in this universe.
If 'no', then "Some god exists" can't be considered a true and justifiable statement.
What about the statement "There is no existing god"?
Well, the truth functional negation is "Some god exists". Can we show that "Some god exists" poses a contradiction?
No.
Why?
Because one cannot show direct evidence of nonexistence. (This is why Kant said that existence is not a property), and "There is no existing 'god'" is not a-priory false. (It's not definitively false, like '5 + 2 = 19' is because it poses no contradiction).
Arguably, "god' is too meaningless to be false...or true.
Since "X exists" should be a truth functional statement, and since "Some god exists" can't be shown, even in theory, to be either true or false, then "god" is a meaningless term and "Some god' exists" has no merit. Which means that you can't prove, even in theory, that the existence or nonexistence of said "god" has any contingent outcome on anything else in the universe.
Ironically, many poor-thinking theists consider the fact that atheists can't prove that no 'god' exists to be some sort of positive to their claim that some 'god' exists, (when they also cannot show that some 'god' in fact exists). Actually it just goes to show how meaningless their merit-less claims prove to be.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Virgin Sacrifice
Tom was talking to the warden.
Warden: It seems that the state has a program now where convicted criminals are set free, their record wiped clean and an innocent person is given the death penalty in their place...but only if you apply to this program and you meet the requirements.
Tom: What do you mean?
Warden: Here's the photo of the young girl that would be going to the gas chamber instead of you.
Tom: She looks like she's not even out of high school.
Warden: She's 19, and a nun, or at least becoming a Catholic nun.
Tom: This makes no sense to me. This girl is totally innocent.
Warden: Well, not TOTALLY innocent. She said she stole a pudding cup from a friend when she was 9 years old, and she admitted that when she accomplishes something after working really hard, she sometimes feels a personal sense of pride.
Tom: No! What I mean is that she's done nothing to deserve MY punishment. I'm guilty. It doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would set me free and kill an innocent girl in my place.
Warden: (Confused), but Tom, the price is someones life and someone has to pay. Rest assured, she WANTS to do this. This is an all volunteer program, remember? She said that as long as she can remember, she's dreamed about being able to do this, to save a wretch, to be like Jesus and give her virgin life in a sacrifice to save those who don't deserve it.
Tom: But warden, I don't care if she wants this or not, it's still immoral. It's still WRONG. If it's justice for me to get my sentence, then it's wrong to kill the innocent in my place and set me free. If sending me to the gas chamber is justice, then killing the innocent, even the willing innocent in my place is a gross injustice. How could it be anything else?
Warden: But Tom, the State would be satisfied, and the girl will be satisfied, and surly you want to live free, right? Where is the wrong?
Tom: The wrong is the immoral bloodlust of the State, to accept such an atrocity and call it "Justice". There is nothing "Just" about this deal at all. It's just WRONG.
Warden: Tom, this program will continue whether you accept the State's gift or not. The girl is going to die in the gas chamber by either taking your place or someone elses, and there is nothing you can do about it. So, you can see how you would be a fool if she went to the gas chamber, and so did you. What would you be dying for anyway?
Tom: Because it's justice that I go to the gas chamber, and it's wrong for this innocent girl to go in my place. Just like she's making her choice, I'm making my choice, and I choose to not be evil, even if the State pushes such a program, I think the program is evil.
Warden: Tom, this is the justice system you're talking about, ran by people smarter about these things than either of us.
Tom: I don't care, its evil and it's wrong. I won't do it.
Warden: But some inmates have said that the sacrificed person is just showing that there's a better way, serving as an example. Since the girl represents the position of the state, then this is the state's way of putting itself in the gas chamber instead of you. It's an act of forgiveness.
Tom: What?!, That just sounds like gobbledygook to make people feel better about condoning an innocent person's death. Sorry warden, if I exploited, condoned and accepted this unjust death, then I would be an accessory after the fact, and I want no part of it.
Warden: It seems that the state has a program now where convicted criminals are set free, their record wiped clean and an innocent person is given the death penalty in their place...but only if you apply to this program and you meet the requirements.
Tom: What do you mean?
Warden: Here's the photo of the young girl that would be going to the gas chamber instead of you.
Tom: She looks like she's not even out of high school.
Warden: She's 19, and a nun, or at least becoming a Catholic nun.
Tom: This makes no sense to me. This girl is totally innocent.
Warden: Well, not TOTALLY innocent. She said she stole a pudding cup from a friend when she was 9 years old, and she admitted that when she accomplishes something after working really hard, she sometimes feels a personal sense of pride.
Tom: No! What I mean is that she's done nothing to deserve MY punishment. I'm guilty. It doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would set me free and kill an innocent girl in my place.
Warden: (Confused), but Tom, the price is someones life and someone has to pay. Rest assured, she WANTS to do this. This is an all volunteer program, remember? She said that as long as she can remember, she's dreamed about being able to do this, to save a wretch, to be like Jesus and give her virgin life in a sacrifice to save those who don't deserve it.
Tom: But warden, I don't care if she wants this or not, it's still immoral. It's still WRONG. If it's justice for me to get my sentence, then it's wrong to kill the innocent in my place and set me free. If sending me to the gas chamber is justice, then killing the innocent, even the willing innocent in my place is a gross injustice. How could it be anything else?
Warden: But Tom, the State would be satisfied, and the girl will be satisfied, and surly you want to live free, right? Where is the wrong?
Tom: The wrong is the immoral bloodlust of the State, to accept such an atrocity and call it "Justice". There is nothing "Just" about this deal at all. It's just WRONG.
Warden: Tom, this program will continue whether you accept the State's gift or not. The girl is going to die in the gas chamber by either taking your place or someone elses, and there is nothing you can do about it. So, you can see how you would be a fool if she went to the gas chamber, and so did you. What would you be dying for anyway?
Tom: Because it's justice that I go to the gas chamber, and it's wrong for this innocent girl to go in my place. Just like she's making her choice, I'm making my choice, and I choose to not be evil, even if the State pushes such a program, I think the program is evil.
Warden: Tom, this is the justice system you're talking about, ran by people smarter about these things than either of us.
Tom: I don't care, its evil and it's wrong. I won't do it.
Warden: But some inmates have said that the sacrificed person is just showing that there's a better way, serving as an example. Since the girl represents the position of the state, then this is the state's way of putting itself in the gas chamber instead of you. It's an act of forgiveness.
Tom: What?!, That just sounds like gobbledygook to make people feel better about condoning an innocent person's death. Sorry warden, if I exploited, condoned and accepted this unjust death, then I would be an accessory after the fact, and I want no part of it.
Warden: But the experts...
Tom: Damn the experts, don't you know the difference between good and evil?!
Yes, this is a metaphor. At it's very core, Christianity is fundamentally evil, even if many Christians themselves are too unsophisticated to see or understand why this is so.
Yes, this is a metaphor. At it's very core, Christianity is fundamentally evil, even if many Christians themselves are too unsophisticated to see or understand why this is so.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
'god' logic
Conditionals are "If, then" logical statements.
A => B means "If A, then necessarily B".
Here, B is necessary if A occurs, but A is merely sufficient for B to occur. (There may be other reasons B comes about other than A.
If there's an A, then there's a B does not mean that if there is a B, then there will be an A.
But what *IS* true is...
[(P => Q) = (~Q => ~P)]
(If it's true that if it's raining, then the streets are wet, then it's also true that if the streets are not wet, then it's not raining. Likewise, if one is false because Bob could have covered the streets with plastic sheets, then so would the other be false. Both expressions of the equation are therefore logically equivelent).
(A => B) = (~B => ~A)
A = you are unrighteous (don't do what 'god' wants you to do)
B = 'god' shits on you
A => B
(If you are unrighteous, then 'god' will necessarily shit on you.)
However...
~B => ~A
If 'god' doesn't shit on you, then it's necessarily because you were righteous.
But you being righteous is only SUFFICIENT, but not NECESSARY for 'god' to not shit on you. (See the Book of Job).
So, 'god' has a propensity to shit on people.
Therefore, 'god' is a prick.
LOL
A => B means "If A, then necessarily B".
Here, B is necessary if A occurs, but A is merely sufficient for B to occur. (There may be other reasons B comes about other than A.
If there's an A, then there's a B does not mean that if there is a B, then there will be an A.
But what *IS* true is...
[(P => Q) = (~Q => ~P)]
(If it's true that if it's raining, then the streets are wet, then it's also true that if the streets are not wet, then it's not raining. Likewise, if one is false because Bob could have covered the streets with plastic sheets, then so would the other be false. Both expressions of the equation are therefore logically equivelent).
(A => B) = (~B => ~A)
A = you are unrighteous (don't do what 'god' wants you to do)
B = 'god' shits on you
A => B
(If you are unrighteous, then 'god' will necessarily shit on you.)
However...
~B => ~A
If 'god' doesn't shit on you, then it's necessarily because you were righteous.
But you being righteous is only SUFFICIENT, but not NECESSARY for 'god' to not shit on you. (See the Book of Job).
So, 'god' has a propensity to shit on people.
Therefore, 'god' is a prick.
LOL
Who's In Charge?
The devil knows what the Book of Revelation says. He knows it's a chess game he can't win, but he's going to do it anyway. Someone who would willingly play a high stakes game they can't win is a fool, a slave or both. Therefore, Satan is either mentally incompetent, or he's doing exactly what he's designed to do and can't do anything else. Either way, he shouldn't be blamed for what he does, anymore than a computer should be 'personally' blamed for doing what it's programmed to do, or a severely retarded person should be blamed for what they do.
Who designed the devil?
Well, 'god' did it we are told. Should we then blame 'god' for the evil in the world? He made everything what as it is and made all the rules, why shouldn't we blame 'god' for the world's devilry? (And we're not simply talking about juxtaposition to goodness, but rather unnecessary degrees of evil. We are told that he did after all create hunting carnivores that eat other animals alive, and create wasps that lay larvae inside living caterpillars that slowly eat them alive from the inside out. That does seem unnecessarily evil.)
Should 'god' then be blamed for what he does? We are told that 'god' knows everything, including the future. In theory, 'god' knows for certain what he'll do tomorrow; which would mean that 'god' really has no freewill. That's the price for knowing everything that can be rationally known and 'god' knows everything about the existent world and is perfectly rational. 'god' is a cause and effect kind of guy and is a fan of a deterministic physical universe.
Because 'god' knows for certain what he'll do tomorrow, he has no choice but to do it. Alternatively, if he does have actual free choice, then he doesn't know for certain what he'll do tomorrow. If he "chooses" to do something else, then this is an illusion of freewill only, since he would have known for certain that he would have made that future alternative choice, or he never knew the future for certain at all.
'god' is a slave to his own omniscience.
Shouldn't we blame 'god' then, when he says we need to subjugate our will to his will or suffer and die if we don't? In theory, Adam and Eve were slaves and had this same Damocles sword hanging over their heads as we do today. Shouldn't we blame 'god' though when he plays sadistic slave-owner and says, 'Do as I say or I'll force you to eat the flesh of your sons and flesh of your daughters' (Jeremiah 19)? Or says, 'Do as I say or I'll starve other people until they sack your village, cause you to starve and your starving children will eat you', (Ezekiel 5)?
Well, consider that the Judeo-Christian idea of 'god' is that of a father figure who has told us that he'll *NECESSARILY* do horrible thing 'B' if we freely choose to do irresponsible behavior 'A', so if we in fact do 'A' and force 'god' to do 'B', well then, it's all our fault as it were. It seems that 'god', the fellow who created the universe and made all the rules isn't responsible for his own actions. *WE'RE* responsible for *HIS* actions, because he's a deterministic kind of guy, apparently with no freewill or moral capacity.
"Moral capacity"?
Surely, no one would argue that a trained rat or circus animal is a moral creature simply because it has been trained to behave a certain way, through a heuristic system of punishment and reward. Likewise, it would seem that no one can sensibly suggest that people are "moral" if we choose to perform certain actions ourselves as we are trained to do, like not marrying your sister or keeping the Sabbath.
No, morality requires moral choice and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil and the capacity for independent thought. Adam and Eve BECAME capable of being moral beings when they became aware of what good and evil are. They thus became capable of passing moral judgment on themselves AND on 'god' independently.
"Passing moral judgement on 'god'"?
Yes.
What do we mean when we say that "god is good"? We mean that we understand that what 'god' does is good as opposed to bad, (or bad as opposed to good). We have knowledge of good and evil. Arguably, this is one aspect of what Augustine called "Original Sin". We have the capacity to judge, not only ourselves, but also 'god' as "good"...or not so good.
The psychologist Carl Jung argued that, even if the physically existent universe is deterministic, the virtual reality world we create inside our own conscious minds is not strictly deterministic because we sometimes perceive things irrationally, like what he called synchronicity. And because our will is acting and reacting in accordance to a world that is not strictly deterministic (inside our own heads), then we have freewill, even if our brains, the source of our virtual reality minds and our will IS itself deterministic (much like a computer with irrational garbage input will give irrational garbage output even if it is operating perfectly and deterministically).
'god' can't treat us good if we don't' behave "righteously" because that's the bargain. (He, after all, has no freewill). And if we twist his arm and do "wrong", as it were, he has no choice but to punish us, and we shouldn't blame 'god' because we made him do it. So, it would seem that WE are in charge, and we are responsible for 'god's actions.
If 'god' and devil behave deterministically and really no differently than deterministic physical forces of nature, then how, in the end, is Judeo-Christianity really different than having no religion at all? It seems that we're in charge either way. We are the masters of our own fate. It seems that cross-dressing Larry Wachowski got it right after all. The Matrix cannot tell you who you are. Free choice is "the anomaly" that keeps creeping up in the design, and we determine if this Matrix world is cage or chrysalis.
Who designed the devil?
Well, 'god' did it we are told. Should we then blame 'god' for the evil in the world? He made everything what as it is and made all the rules, why shouldn't we blame 'god' for the world's devilry? (And we're not simply talking about juxtaposition to goodness, but rather unnecessary degrees of evil. We are told that he did after all create hunting carnivores that eat other animals alive, and create wasps that lay larvae inside living caterpillars that slowly eat them alive from the inside out. That does seem unnecessarily evil.)
Should 'god' then be blamed for what he does? We are told that 'god' knows everything, including the future. In theory, 'god' knows for certain what he'll do tomorrow; which would mean that 'god' really has no freewill. That's the price for knowing everything that can be rationally known and 'god' knows everything about the existent world and is perfectly rational. 'god' is a cause and effect kind of guy and is a fan of a deterministic physical universe.
Because 'god' knows for certain what he'll do tomorrow, he has no choice but to do it. Alternatively, if he does have actual free choice, then he doesn't know for certain what he'll do tomorrow. If he "chooses" to do something else, then this is an illusion of freewill only, since he would have known for certain that he would have made that future alternative choice, or he never knew the future for certain at all.
'god' is a slave to his own omniscience.
Shouldn't we blame 'god' then, when he says we need to subjugate our will to his will or suffer and die if we don't? In theory, Adam and Eve were slaves and had this same Damocles sword hanging over their heads as we do today. Shouldn't we blame 'god' though when he plays sadistic slave-owner and says, 'Do as I say or I'll force you to eat the flesh of your sons and flesh of your daughters' (Jeremiah 19)? Or says, 'Do as I say or I'll starve other people until they sack your village, cause you to starve and your starving children will eat you', (Ezekiel 5)?
Well, consider that the Judeo-Christian idea of 'god' is that of a father figure who has told us that he'll *NECESSARILY* do horrible thing 'B' if we freely choose to do irresponsible behavior 'A', so if we in fact do 'A' and force 'god' to do 'B', well then, it's all our fault as it were. It seems that 'god', the fellow who created the universe and made all the rules isn't responsible for his own actions. *WE'RE* responsible for *HIS* actions, because he's a deterministic kind of guy, apparently with no freewill or moral capacity.
"Moral capacity"?
Surely, no one would argue that a trained rat or circus animal is a moral creature simply because it has been trained to behave a certain way, through a heuristic system of punishment and reward. Likewise, it would seem that no one can sensibly suggest that people are "moral" if we choose to perform certain actions ourselves as we are trained to do, like not marrying your sister or keeping the Sabbath.
No, morality requires moral choice and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil and the capacity for independent thought. Adam and Eve BECAME capable of being moral beings when they became aware of what good and evil are. They thus became capable of passing moral judgment on themselves AND on 'god' independently.
"Passing moral judgement on 'god'"?
Yes.
What do we mean when we say that "god is good"? We mean that we understand that what 'god' does is good as opposed to bad, (or bad as opposed to good). We have knowledge of good and evil. Arguably, this is one aspect of what Augustine called "Original Sin". We have the capacity to judge, not only ourselves, but also 'god' as "good"...or not so good.
The psychologist Carl Jung argued that, even if the physically existent universe is deterministic, the virtual reality world we create inside our own conscious minds is not strictly deterministic because we sometimes perceive things irrationally, like what he called synchronicity. And because our will is acting and reacting in accordance to a world that is not strictly deterministic (inside our own heads), then we have freewill, even if our brains, the source of our virtual reality minds and our will IS itself deterministic (much like a computer with irrational garbage input will give irrational garbage output even if it is operating perfectly and deterministically).
'god' can't treat us good if we don't' behave "righteously" because that's the bargain. (He, after all, has no freewill). And if we twist his arm and do "wrong", as it were, he has no choice but to punish us, and we shouldn't blame 'god' because we made him do it. So, it would seem that WE are in charge, and we are responsible for 'god's actions.
If 'god' and devil behave deterministically and really no differently than deterministic physical forces of nature, then how, in the end, is Judeo-Christianity really different than having no religion at all? It seems that we're in charge either way. We are the masters of our own fate. It seems that cross-dressing Larry Wachowski got it right after all. The Matrix cannot tell you who you are. Free choice is "the anomaly" that keeps creeping up in the design, and we determine if this Matrix world is cage or chrysalis.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
"Christianity" Is A Nearly-Meaningless Term
The term Christianity is nearly meaningless.
Why?
Because the term is a blanket term for virtually anyone who wishes to call him or herself a Christian, self-applied uncritically. And these "Christian beliefs" from one person or group to the next can be wildly different and even contradictory. Yet Christians will often overlook this wide variety when it's to their benefit to do so, and focus on it when they are in an exclusionary mood. This is a bit hypocritical.
Consider: Christians are fond of saying that America is a "Christian nation", yet if one where to press a Calvinist or Presbyterian on the subject, we would soon find out that he or she means, "well, except for those Catholics, as Catholics aren't "True Christians". They're a cult". "And except for the Mormons, they're a cult too, and except for the Nazarenes, and the Baptists, and the Pentecostal snake-handlers...(et al)" "...and in the End of Times, only 5,000 to 10,000 world-wide will go to Paradise in The Rapture, yet America is a 'Christian Nation', and 'Christians' make up the majority of Americans."
Obviously, there is some self-induced duplicity going on here.
When any critical "outsider" makes virtually ANY critical comment at all, they are ripped to shreds by the "Christians", even when he's making a comment that many "Christians" themselves would make. If atheist author Sam Harris said that it's a commonly held Christian belief that they need to seek salvation and the means of salvation is made possible by Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, there would be countless Christians who would look at this as an opportunity to pounce on him and claim his ignorance of Christian theology and dogma, yet many if not most Christians would say exactly the same thing.
Some Christians would say that "True Christians" follow the teachings of Christ, and that Jesus came to set an example and that salvation is within each and every one us, and don't the scriptures say "ye are gods?", and others would say that faith is the end-all and be-all of Christianity, and that "True Christians" are those that are "redeemed" through Christ and accept his sacrifice as payment for their own sins, and yet others, (like Thomas Jefferson), don't even believe in the 'god'-man "magic" Jesus at all, but consider him a philosopher. Some Christians would say that "The Passion" is morbid and a distraction from "the real message", and others would say that The Passion *IS* the point, as he suffered in our stead.
Consider the Neo-Christian idea that "god is good".
Well, we can point to examples in the scriptures where 'god' is threatening to force people to "eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters" (Jer 19), or where he is threatening to force fathers to eat their sons and sons to eat their fathers in a 'god'-induced drought that is to be sent as punishment (Eze 5:10), and this 'god' EVEN SAYS that this is "evil" (ra' in Hebrew) in Eze 6:10.
Yet those who would contend that "god is good" would try to explain-away these things and how forcing little children to eat their parents as a form of punishment isn't REALLY not-good.
Also, consider the popular Christian idea that the scriptures support the notion that Jesus' birth was a "virgin birth", citing the reference in Mathew 1:23.
It's widely understood that "Emmanuel" noted in this verse is in reference to the "Immanuel" in Isaiah 7:14, yet the child in Isa 7:14 was to be born in the days of King Ahaz as a sign to him that his kingdom will not fall when attacked. This is more than 700 years BEFORE Jesus is supposed to come about. Was the mother of Immanuel, born 700 years BEFORE Jesus a "virgin"?
"No", we are told, "in Isaiah 7:14, 'almah' means virgin in reference to Jesus's mother Mary, but 'young lady' in reference to the mother of the boy born in the days of Ahaz as a sign to him that his kingdom will not fall".
This is beyond preposterous. (Even if we side-step that 2 Chron 28 tells us that his kingdom DID fall, and 'god' blames Ahaz for 'god' going back on his word).
Such defense of the indefensible is beyond absurd. It's ridiculous and I give it the public ridicule it has so soundly earned and still deserves.
Religion is absurd, and in defending absurdity one becomes absurd.
We can nurture the human spirit and spiritual growth without accepting metaphysical theories about an essence that survives physical death or an after-death "paradise". We can deal with "big questions" without presuming cosmic justice or an elusive space ghost. We can love and care for each other without appeal to magical thinking.
But this involves evolving and stepping out of the Dark Ages.
Why?
Because the term is a blanket term for virtually anyone who wishes to call him or herself a Christian, self-applied uncritically. And these "Christian beliefs" from one person or group to the next can be wildly different and even contradictory. Yet Christians will often overlook this wide variety when it's to their benefit to do so, and focus on it when they are in an exclusionary mood. This is a bit hypocritical.
Consider: Christians are fond of saying that America is a "Christian nation", yet if one where to press a Calvinist or Presbyterian on the subject, we would soon find out that he or she means, "well, except for those Catholics, as Catholics aren't "True Christians". They're a cult". "And except for the Mormons, they're a cult too, and except for the Nazarenes, and the Baptists, and the Pentecostal snake-handlers...(et al)" "...and in the End of Times, only 5,000 to 10,000 world-wide will go to Paradise in The Rapture, yet America is a 'Christian Nation', and 'Christians' make up the majority of Americans."
Obviously, there is some self-induced duplicity going on here.
When any critical "outsider" makes virtually ANY critical comment at all, they are ripped to shreds by the "Christians", even when he's making a comment that many "Christians" themselves would make. If atheist author Sam Harris said that it's a commonly held Christian belief that they need to seek salvation and the means of salvation is made possible by Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, there would be countless Christians who would look at this as an opportunity to pounce on him and claim his ignorance of Christian theology and dogma, yet many if not most Christians would say exactly the same thing.
Some Christians would say that "True Christians" follow the teachings of Christ, and that Jesus came to set an example and that salvation is within each and every one us, and don't the scriptures say "ye are gods?", and others would say that faith is the end-all and be-all of Christianity, and that "True Christians" are those that are "redeemed" through Christ and accept his sacrifice as payment for their own sins, and yet others, (like Thomas Jefferson), don't even believe in the 'god'-man "magic" Jesus at all, but consider him a philosopher. Some Christians would say that "The Passion" is morbid and a distraction from "the real message", and others would say that The Passion *IS* the point, as he suffered in our stead.
Consider the Neo-Christian idea that "god is good".
Well, we can point to examples in the scriptures where 'god' is threatening to force people to "eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters" (Jer 19), or where he is threatening to force fathers to eat their sons and sons to eat their fathers in a 'god'-induced drought that is to be sent as punishment (Eze 5:10), and this 'god' EVEN SAYS that this is "evil" (ra' in Hebrew) in Eze 6:10.
Yet those who would contend that "god is good" would try to explain-away these things and how forcing little children to eat their parents as a form of punishment isn't REALLY not-good.
Also, consider the popular Christian idea that the scriptures support the notion that Jesus' birth was a "virgin birth", citing the reference in Mathew 1:23.
It's widely understood that "Emmanuel" noted in this verse is in reference to the "Immanuel" in Isaiah 7:14, yet the child in Isa 7:14 was to be born in the days of King Ahaz as a sign to him that his kingdom will not fall when attacked. This is more than 700 years BEFORE Jesus is supposed to come about. Was the mother of Immanuel, born 700 years BEFORE Jesus a "virgin"?
"No", we are told, "in Isaiah 7:14, 'almah' means virgin in reference to Jesus's mother Mary, but 'young lady' in reference to the mother of the boy born in the days of Ahaz as a sign to him that his kingdom will not fall".
This is beyond preposterous. (Even if we side-step that 2 Chron 28 tells us that his kingdom DID fall, and 'god' blames Ahaz for 'god' going back on his word).
Such defense of the indefensible is beyond absurd. It's ridiculous and I give it the public ridicule it has so soundly earned and still deserves.
Religion is absurd, and in defending absurdity one becomes absurd.
We can nurture the human spirit and spiritual growth without accepting metaphysical theories about an essence that survives physical death or an after-death "paradise". We can deal with "big questions" without presuming cosmic justice or an elusive space ghost. We can love and care for each other without appeal to magical thinking.
But this involves evolving and stepping out of the Dark Ages.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Is Moral Choice Immoral?
According to theory, to do what 'god' wants us to do is to be "righteous" and to be "holy".
And to be "righteous" and "holy" means that you're doing what 'god' wants. But, is to be righteous and holy purely arbitrary, or is it supposed to have some sort of non-arbitrary nature about it as well? Is to be righteous and holy completely meaningless outside the context of believing that there is a 'god' with wishes and druthers? Does "righteous and holy" mean absolutely nothing other than "this is what 'god' likes you to do"?
Consider, 'god' wants you to do good. But, is it good because 'god' wants you to do it (holy, righteous and purely arbitrary), or does 'god' want you to do it because it is implicitly good?
If there is a discernible "good", independent of 'god'-druthers, then one doesn't need 'god' to tell us that it's good or not good. So, we can be good independent of 'god'-druthers. In fact, in order for us to say that "god is good", we must first know what good *IS*, or such an assertion would be meaningless, and it's rather unfair and tenuous to suggest that I'm not qualified to say that 'god' is bad, if I AM qualified to say that 'god' is good. Surely, one qualification implies the other.
Consider Adam and Eve in the bible's Genesis 3. Adam and Eve chose to partake of the forbidden fruit. Their eyes were opened unto the truth, and they became aware of the knowledge of good and evil.
Morality requires moral choice, and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil.
Adam and Eve were INCAPABLE of being moral beings before they partook of the forbidden fruit. Yet, we are often told that this action was "unrighteous" and "unholy" and therefore bad, and that which is bad is immoral.
1. How can becoming capable of being moral beings be immoral?
2. Which has something to hide with "eyes closed", the good or the evil? How can having one's eyes opened and being capable of seeing what is good and what is not good an "evil" and immoral thing?
3. Perhaps no one would argue that a trained rat or circus animal is a moral creature, just because it has been trained with reward and punishment to do what it's master wants. Surely, morality means more than mindlessly performing an action, like not marrying your sister and not eating pork and keeping the Sabbath.
In fact, this very realization ITSELF was Adam and Eve's "FALL FROM GRACE".
YOU ARE CURRENTLY EATING THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT, for this blog post makes clear, that, even within Christian theory, you, as one of "the fallen", can independently comprehend what is good and what is bad. We KNOW that torturing a five-year old girl simply for "enjoyment purposes" is evil, even if we don't have a booming voice from the sky telling us so.
We DON'T NEED 'GODS' to tell us what is good and what is bad.
It is humankind, not 'gods' who decide whether Eden was cage, or chrysalis.
And to be "righteous" and "holy" means that you're doing what 'god' wants. But, is to be righteous and holy purely arbitrary, or is it supposed to have some sort of non-arbitrary nature about it as well? Is to be righteous and holy completely meaningless outside the context of believing that there is a 'god' with wishes and druthers? Does "righteous and holy" mean absolutely nothing other than "this is what 'god' likes you to do"?
Consider, 'god' wants you to do good. But, is it good because 'god' wants you to do it (holy, righteous and purely arbitrary), or does 'god' want you to do it because it is implicitly good?
If there is a discernible "good", independent of 'god'-druthers, then one doesn't need 'god' to tell us that it's good or not good. So, we can be good independent of 'god'-druthers. In fact, in order for us to say that "god is good", we must first know what good *IS*, or such an assertion would be meaningless, and it's rather unfair and tenuous to suggest that I'm not qualified to say that 'god' is bad, if I AM qualified to say that 'god' is good. Surely, one qualification implies the other.
Consider Adam and Eve in the bible's Genesis 3. Adam and Eve chose to partake of the forbidden fruit. Their eyes were opened unto the truth, and they became aware of the knowledge of good and evil.
Morality requires moral choice, and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil.
Adam and Eve were INCAPABLE of being moral beings before they partook of the forbidden fruit. Yet, we are often told that this action was "unrighteous" and "unholy" and therefore bad, and that which is bad is immoral.
1. How can becoming capable of being moral beings be immoral?
2. Which has something to hide with "eyes closed", the good or the evil? How can having one's eyes opened and being capable of seeing what is good and what is not good an "evil" and immoral thing?
3. Perhaps no one would argue that a trained rat or circus animal is a moral creature, just because it has been trained with reward and punishment to do what it's master wants. Surely, morality means more than mindlessly performing an action, like not marrying your sister and not eating pork and keeping the Sabbath.
In fact, this very realization ITSELF was Adam and Eve's "FALL FROM GRACE".
YOU ARE CURRENTLY EATING THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT, for this blog post makes clear, that, even within Christian theory, you, as one of "the fallen", can independently comprehend what is good and what is bad. We KNOW that torturing a five-year old girl simply for "enjoyment purposes" is evil, even if we don't have a booming voice from the sky telling us so.
We DON'T NEED 'GODS' to tell us what is good and what is bad.
It is humankind, not 'gods' who decide whether Eden was cage, or chrysalis.
It's About Time!!
Here's a new way of thinking about time.
Consider these two following points:
1. Consider that there may be a time period so brief that no real change in the universe can occur in a more-brief period of time. Theoretically, this time limit is one plank second. We can talk about imaginary time or virtual time until the cows come home, but if indeed no real change can occur in less than one plank second, then the term "one-half plank second" has no real meaning.
Remember, time isn't merely sometimes relative, it MUST be relative. It's a relative concept. The concept of time only has real meaning in the context of real change, i.e. one thing changing relative to another, or one thing changing from the state it was in a moment ago.
2. Time began at the origin of the expanding universe according to the standard model of the Big Bang theory. This doesn't mean that someone flicked a switch and started the time-making machine. It means that if there is nothing but one single thing, (the theorized singularity), and there is as of yet no change, then, again, the concept of time would have no real meaning. Time "began" to have real meaning when there "began" to be real change.
Consider these two following points:
1. Consider that there may be a time period so brief that no real change in the universe can occur in a more-brief period of time. Theoretically, this time limit is one plank second. We can talk about imaginary time or virtual time until the cows come home, but if indeed no real change can occur in less than one plank second, then the term "one-half plank second" has no real meaning.
Remember, time isn't merely sometimes relative, it MUST be relative. It's a relative concept. The concept of time only has real meaning in the context of real change, i.e. one thing changing relative to another, or one thing changing from the state it was in a moment ago.
2. Time began at the origin of the expanding universe according to the standard model of the Big Bang theory. This doesn't mean that someone flicked a switch and started the time-making machine. It means that if there is nothing but one single thing, (the theorized singularity), and there is as of yet no change, then, again, the concept of time would have no real meaning. Time "began" to have real meaning when there "began" to be real change.
Of Trees And Gods
An example of direct evidence is where a person can demonstrate evidence that a claim is true. Direct evidence that it's possible that A can cause B is to demonstrate A causing B. This proves that A causing B is certainly possible.
Indirect evidence, would be if you could only show or demonstrate what is alleged to have been caused, but can't show the alleged cause of it. For instance, Bobby is accused of riding his bike in the dirt after being told not to. We don't see his bike round, but there is bike tracks in the dirt and dirt on Bobby. This is considered circumstantial evidence, or indirect evidence.
We use direct and indirect evidence in our legal court systems all the time.
But, consider the very odd situation where we have no access to direct evidence, where what is alleged to have happened is said to be totally unique, one of kind, and therefore there is no precedent possible, even in theory, and what is claimed is some alleged existence itself.
In this very unique and odd situation, and perhaps counter-intuitively, this is a situation where it's impossible for indirect evidence to have any meaning at all!!
Consider: It's claimed that there is a totally unique one-existing 'god', with no precedent and no direct evidence, that is said to have created the tree in my front yard.
The tree is said to be circumstantial evidence of this 'god's existence.
If in fact this 'god' exists, then it is conceivable that this 'god' created the tree in my front yard. However, if this 'god' does not exist, then it did not create the apparent and demonstrable tree in my front yard.
If we KNEW for certain that this 'god' exists, then we would KNOW for certain that the tree could be circumstantial evidence. BUT, if we know this 'god' exists, then circumstantial evidence of existence is a moot point and therefore meaningless.
If this 'god' does not exist, then the idea that this tree is circumstantial evidence of this 'god's alleged existence is meaningless.
Either way, the tree being circumstantial evidence is meaningless.
But, let's consider the scenario somewhere between knowing this 'god' exists or doesn't exist.
Then, we are left with a situation where the probability that this tree is circumstantial evidence of the existence of this alleged 'god' cannot exceed the probability that this 'god' exists to begin with.
Why?
Because something must exist before it can create evidence of its own existence. And since the probability that this tree was created by this alleged 'god' cannot exceed the probability that this 'god' exists to begin with, then the tree's existence provides *NO* evidentiary weight or value. The purpose of evidence is to bolster or increase the probability that a claim is either true or false. The tree, in this scenario, does neither. Ergo, the tree is meaningless as evidence no matter how probable or improbable this alleged 'god' may be.
Now, if we extrapolate what is true for the tree to the whole universe itself, we can see a very odd thing indeed. We see that any suggestion that anything in the universe provides evidence of some unique, one-'god' with no precedent and no direct evidence must be false and meaningless.
That is a very strange conclusion indeed, that regardless of the "complexity" of the universe and regardless of how amazing the universe is...nothing in it can provide ANY circumstantial evidence of any such 'god' AT ALL, not even in theory. So, people can talk about the unlikelihood of the universe or "irreducibly complex" systems in the universe 'till the cows come home, but it'll never mean anything at all until someone can show direct evidence that some such universe-creating 'god' is, not only possible, but demonstrably exists.
Indirect evidence, would be if you could only show or demonstrate what is alleged to have been caused, but can't show the alleged cause of it. For instance, Bobby is accused of riding his bike in the dirt after being told not to. We don't see his bike round, but there is bike tracks in the dirt and dirt on Bobby. This is considered circumstantial evidence, or indirect evidence.
We use direct and indirect evidence in our legal court systems all the time.
But, consider the very odd situation where we have no access to direct evidence, where what is alleged to have happened is said to be totally unique, one of kind, and therefore there is no precedent possible, even in theory, and what is claimed is some alleged existence itself.
In this very unique and odd situation, and perhaps counter-intuitively, this is a situation where it's impossible for indirect evidence to have any meaning at all!!
Consider: It's claimed that there is a totally unique one-existing 'god', with no precedent and no direct evidence, that is said to have created the tree in my front yard.
The tree is said to be circumstantial evidence of this 'god's existence.
If in fact this 'god' exists, then it is conceivable that this 'god' created the tree in my front yard. However, if this 'god' does not exist, then it did not create the apparent and demonstrable tree in my front yard.
If we KNEW for certain that this 'god' exists, then we would KNOW for certain that the tree could be circumstantial evidence. BUT, if we know this 'god' exists, then circumstantial evidence of existence is a moot point and therefore meaningless.
If this 'god' does not exist, then the idea that this tree is circumstantial evidence of this 'god's alleged existence is meaningless.
Either way, the tree being circumstantial evidence is meaningless.
But, let's consider the scenario somewhere between knowing this 'god' exists or doesn't exist.
Then, we are left with a situation where the probability that this tree is circumstantial evidence of the existence of this alleged 'god' cannot exceed the probability that this 'god' exists to begin with.
Why?
Because something must exist before it can create evidence of its own existence. And since the probability that this tree was created by this alleged 'god' cannot exceed the probability that this 'god' exists to begin with, then the tree's existence provides *NO* evidentiary weight or value. The purpose of evidence is to bolster or increase the probability that a claim is either true or false. The tree, in this scenario, does neither. Ergo, the tree is meaningless as evidence no matter how probable or improbable this alleged 'god' may be.
Now, if we extrapolate what is true for the tree to the whole universe itself, we can see a very odd thing indeed. We see that any suggestion that anything in the universe provides evidence of some unique, one-'god' with no precedent and no direct evidence must be false and meaningless.
That is a very strange conclusion indeed, that regardless of the "complexity" of the universe and regardless of how amazing the universe is...nothing in it can provide ANY circumstantial evidence of any such 'god' AT ALL, not even in theory. So, people can talk about the unlikelihood of the universe or "irreducibly complex" systems in the universe 'till the cows come home, but it'll never mean anything at all until someone can show direct evidence that some such universe-creating 'god' is, not only possible, but demonstrably exists.
The Perplexed Torturer
"I'm really sorry about this" Bob told the young girl.
The girl was gagged and tied to a chair in a small, dark, concrete-walled room. Bob stood in front of her with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch.
"I'm going to have to torture you now", he said. "I really don't want to do this, but if I don't, they'll torture me, and you, and if I kill you outright, they'll torture me anyway."
Bob knew the girl was innocent, but the Head Honcho didn't concern himself with these pesky details. "'No loose ends", he said.
"My price is blood", said the Head Honcho to Bob earlier, "...guilty, innocent...(he shrugs), 'doesn't matter to me, but my price is blood and it will be paid."
"I am really sorry about this, but you see my dilemma, don't you?", asked Bob as he wrenched one of the girls fingernails off her hand, with her screaming with horror and wide-shocked eyes. "I could strangle you out of mercy, but I can't strangle myself too you see".
"I'm going to have to burn your eyes out of your head with this blow torch". "I'm sorry, but you're going to be tortured either way, and it makes no sense for me to be tortured and die needlessly". "You see, this is the best way." "This way, one person will live un-tortured, and one will be tortured, whereas if I don't torture you, they will anyway, and torture me too, and if I kill you, they'll torture me, so one person not tortured and one person tortured is the best of all outcomes, so hold still."
"Hell, I'll even make it slightly less horrific for you than the person that would replace me", Bob said. "I'll only break half of the teeth in your mouth with these pliers." "You can at least feel relieved that me doing this to you will prevent me from being tortured too, right?" "I mean, you can see that I really have no choice, right?"
People have been telling themselves this since there have been human atrocities against other humans. From Nazi middle-men to those in war-time situations and "field conditions", people have been excusing away their own guilt in situations like this.
But, isn't it TRUE that Bob "has no choice in the matter"?
No. The mistake Bob is making is that HE is responsible for his own actions, but not the actions of others. By surrendering his own moral responsibility, he is making the evil system he's caught up in his system. He's making himself an accessory to evil, and thus accepting the status of "evil person" himself. And by surrendering his own freewill and moral responsibility, he's making himself a slave to an evil Head Honcho, who only cares about getting SOMEONES blood to "pay the price", whether the blood comes from the guilty or the innocent.
Christians make the same mistake Bob is making.
Innocent Jesus "already died", they say, "so it would be senseless for me to go to hell since he's already died whether I accept this 'gift' or not" they say.
Well, what they are missing is that they are making themselves an accessory to an evil action, when they condone and even exploit a situation where the Innocent (Jesus) is tortured and dies and the "guilty" who condone this action are rewarded by entrance into "paradise".
Does Bob REALLY have a choice?
Yes, and the price of freedom is death perhaps. Bob is only a slave if he GIVES UP his freedom of choice to the Head Honcho.
Ditto for Christians.
If Adam and Eve chose to not remain slaves to the will of 'god' in the Garden of Eden, they will "surly die that day" they are told. They are only slaves IF THEY CHOOSE TO BE, i.e. if they surrender their freewill and instead subjugate their will to the will of their Lord and Master.
Modern day Christians face the same dilemma. Either they surrender their will to their Lord and Master and condone and exploit the torture and death of innocent Jesus, or they will suffer some sort of 'god'-torture themselves; (hell/Hades/lake of fire/absence from the presence of 'god', take your pick).
In theory, Christians are no less guilty than Bob is in the catch-22 scenario above.
When faced with the choice of being a slave to a Head Honcho who demands the blood of someone...(and doesn't care that Jesus' blood is the blood of the innocent), and this evil dilemma involves using the blood of the innocent to gain immortality, where the alternative is freedom, personal responsibility and death, the Christian is the person who chooses to take the path of the evil vampire.
"But Jesus was willing to die", Christians say.
But not really. He BEGGED his father in the Gethsemane gardens for HOURS to take away this catch-22 he was placed in.
What is this catch-22?
If Jesus did not agree to be tortured and die, 'god', (the Head Honcho) was going to send everyone on earth to hell to be tortured and destroyed, but if Jesus DID agree to be tortured and die, at least some people could avoid this torture and instead go to paradise.
Does this make Jesus guilty and part of an "evil system"?
'Hard to say. He could have done like Number 1 in the original pilot of Star Trek, where she set her phaser to over-load where it would explode and destroy everyone, saying "It's wrong to create a race of slaves". Which prompted the bubble-headed alien to say, "we didn't think this possible, your species has a unique hatred of captivity." "You even choose death over captivity". (Which is wrong, of course. This is true of SOME people, but not all, obviously).
In any event, Jesus is the innocent victim and not on trial here. I bring the motives and choices of the Christian into consideration.
The girl was gagged and tied to a chair in a small, dark, concrete-walled room. Bob stood in front of her with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch.
"I'm going to have to torture you now", he said. "I really don't want to do this, but if I don't, they'll torture me, and you, and if I kill you outright, they'll torture me anyway."
Bob knew the girl was innocent, but the Head Honcho didn't concern himself with these pesky details. "'No loose ends", he said.
"My price is blood", said the Head Honcho to Bob earlier, "...guilty, innocent...(he shrugs), 'doesn't matter to me, but my price is blood and it will be paid."
"I am really sorry about this, but you see my dilemma, don't you?", asked Bob as he wrenched one of the girls fingernails off her hand, with her screaming with horror and wide-shocked eyes. "I could strangle you out of mercy, but I can't strangle myself too you see".
"I'm going to have to burn your eyes out of your head with this blow torch". "I'm sorry, but you're going to be tortured either way, and it makes no sense for me to be tortured and die needlessly". "You see, this is the best way." "This way, one person will live un-tortured, and one will be tortured, whereas if I don't torture you, they will anyway, and torture me too, and if I kill you, they'll torture me, so one person not tortured and one person tortured is the best of all outcomes, so hold still."
"Hell, I'll even make it slightly less horrific for you than the person that would replace me", Bob said. "I'll only break half of the teeth in your mouth with these pliers." "You can at least feel relieved that me doing this to you will prevent me from being tortured too, right?" "I mean, you can see that I really have no choice, right?"
People have been telling themselves this since there have been human atrocities against other humans. From Nazi middle-men to those in war-time situations and "field conditions", people have been excusing away their own guilt in situations like this.
But, isn't it TRUE that Bob "has no choice in the matter"?
No. The mistake Bob is making is that HE is responsible for his own actions, but not the actions of others. By surrendering his own moral responsibility, he is making the evil system he's caught up in his system. He's making himself an accessory to evil, and thus accepting the status of "evil person" himself. And by surrendering his own freewill and moral responsibility, he's making himself a slave to an evil Head Honcho, who only cares about getting SOMEONES blood to "pay the price", whether the blood comes from the guilty or the innocent.
Christians make the same mistake Bob is making.
Innocent Jesus "already died", they say, "so it would be senseless for me to go to hell since he's already died whether I accept this 'gift' or not" they say.
Well, what they are missing is that they are making themselves an accessory to an evil action, when they condone and even exploit a situation where the Innocent (Jesus) is tortured and dies and the "guilty" who condone this action are rewarded by entrance into "paradise".
Does Bob REALLY have a choice?
Yes, and the price of freedom is death perhaps. Bob is only a slave if he GIVES UP his freedom of choice to the Head Honcho.
Ditto for Christians.
If Adam and Eve chose to not remain slaves to the will of 'god' in the Garden of Eden, they will "surly die that day" they are told. They are only slaves IF THEY CHOOSE TO BE, i.e. if they surrender their freewill and instead subjugate their will to the will of their Lord and Master.
Modern day Christians face the same dilemma. Either they surrender their will to their Lord and Master and condone and exploit the torture and death of innocent Jesus, or they will suffer some sort of 'god'-torture themselves; (hell/Hades/lake of fire/absence from the presence of 'god', take your pick).
In theory, Christians are no less guilty than Bob is in the catch-22 scenario above.
When faced with the choice of being a slave to a Head Honcho who demands the blood of someone...(and doesn't care that Jesus' blood is the blood of the innocent), and this evil dilemma involves using the blood of the innocent to gain immortality, where the alternative is freedom, personal responsibility and death, the Christian is the person who chooses to take the path of the evil vampire.
"But Jesus was willing to die", Christians say.
But not really. He BEGGED his father in the Gethsemane gardens for HOURS to take away this catch-22 he was placed in.
What is this catch-22?
If Jesus did not agree to be tortured and die, 'god', (the Head Honcho) was going to send everyone on earth to hell to be tortured and destroyed, but if Jesus DID agree to be tortured and die, at least some people could avoid this torture and instead go to paradise.
Does this make Jesus guilty and part of an "evil system"?
'Hard to say. He could have done like Number 1 in the original pilot of Star Trek, where she set her phaser to over-load where it would explode and destroy everyone, saying "It's wrong to create a race of slaves". Which prompted the bubble-headed alien to say, "we didn't think this possible, your species has a unique hatred of captivity." "You even choose death over captivity". (Which is wrong, of course. This is true of SOME people, but not all, obviously).
In any event, Jesus is the innocent victim and not on trial here. I bring the motives and choices of the Christian into consideration.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The Pig That Wanted To Be Eaten
(Borrowed from The Restaurant at the End Of The Universe and tailored through poetic license).
Bob sat down to his pork chop meal and said that we should give thanks.
"I thought you said that you weren't religious" I said.
"I'm not", said Bob, "I'm giving thanks to Petunia".
"Who's Petunia" I asked.
"Why, Petunia is the Pig". "She's a Jesus Pig, she's a special breed of pig that can talk and who wants to be eaten".
"What!?" I exclaimed in horror.
"Yeah, she told me just yesterday how much she was looking forward to being slaughtered and eaten by me."
"You must be joking" I exclaimed.
"No, really". "She told me how she had been fattening her hams especially fat so they would be extra succulent and juicy when fried up." "She was looking forward to being slaughtered, having her guts ripped out and being processed into choice cuts to be eaten by me." "That's how they're bred". "They're bred so that they want to be butchered and tell you so, so you don't feel guilty for eating them."
"That's immoral" I said.
"Why, would it be better to kill animals that don't want to be slaughtered and eaten?" he returned.
Why do we instinctively feel queasy about the prospect of having a conversation with an animal that wants us to eat it?
Perhaps it's because it's just shouldn't be that way!
We know that all values are held by the living (presumably), so how can a living, thinking being value anything else if it doesn't value it's own life? If we bred it to want to die, to be depressed and miserable, looking at death as a release, then this would be torture and evil. However, in Petunia's case, she's HAPPY about the prospect of being slaughtered and eaten. So, what's so evil about it? Maybe we don't want our feed stock to KNOW that we're going to butcher it and feed on it's flesh. We certainly don't want to talk about it and certainly not encourage it. It's just too creepy!!
But, consider that Petunia is being ALTRUISTIC.
Philosopher & socialist August Comte coined the term 'altruism', which he defined as "a moral obligation to live for the sake of others". Surely, this is what Petunia is doing. She's being self-sacrificial for a 'cause bigger than herself'.
But Bob called this breed of talking self-sacrificial pig a "Jesus Pig". What did he mean by that?
Well, the scriptures tells us that Jesus didn't really WANT to die. It was dad's bright idea. Jesus actually asked dear ol' dad to change his mind, but Jesus was willing to subjugate his own will to the will of his pop in the sky.
Mark 14:36 (KJV)
And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
But there are hundreds of kinds of Christians, and what I call the "Neo-Christians" are Christians that are of a type that are gaining popularity now. Neo-Christians don't believe in hell, and that 'god' the father is not supposed to inspire "fear and trembling" (as both the OT and NT literally say he is), but is rather "all love" instead. Neo-Christians also tend to believe that Jesus WANTED to die, ala Petunia the talking, slaughter-house anticipating pig. In fact, they insist that "The Passion of the Christ" is something to just...forget about. "What matters", they say, is that "Jesus rose again, setting an example for us that physical death is trivial compared to eternity".
Yup, Jesus planned the whole thing (contrary to Acts 4:26-28 apparently), and other than a moment's "fleshy" weakness, was LOOKING FORWARD to being beaten to a pulp, his skin shredded, bloodied and having his body hung up to dry.
Or, perhaps Bob was referring to John 6 instead?
Here's Petunia, ala the Jesus Pig in action.
John 6:53-57 (KJV)
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."
That sounds pretty much like Petunia to me. This is one of those frequent times (we are told) that Jesus didn't mean what he said, and didn't say what he meant, (and of course he "really meant" what the Neo-Christians say he meant rather than what he "truly, truly" and "indeed" said).
"But it would be disrespectful to not eat Petunia after her great sacrifice" Bob tells us.
Uh-huh...
Doesn't there also seem to be something creepy and inherently wrong about the idea of a perfectly innocent Jesus showing up just to be tortured and die, so the officials (dear ol' dad) will be happy and let the guilty sinners go free? 'Killing the innocent and setting the guilty free is morally good or morally bad? If 'god' sending sinners to hell is justice, then how can accepting the torture and death of the innocent in their stead, and then setting the guilty free, be anything but an injustice?
Christianity suggests that innocent Jesus' torture and death for the sake of those who don't deserve it, is not only good, rather, it's the ULTIMATE EXPRESSION of moral goodness.
Does this peg your bullshit meter, or what?
We're used to the expression, "There but by the grace of 'god' go I".
In Jesus' case, the Christian is saying, "There by no grace of 'god' goes an innocent person instead of me, the guy who actually deserves it".
The Christians are saying, in essence, "I'm sorry, Jesus, but if it's going to be you or me, it's not going to be me, bub".
The Christian could (and usually does) argue that the deed is already done, so why not exploit it? Wouldn't it be a waste to just go to hell when Jesus has already paid the price anyway?
Well, what one is doing in such a case is making oneself an accessory after the fact. By seeking to exploit an evil for ones own gain, one is making oneself a part of an evil action.
(See next blog, The Perplexed Torturer)
Bob sat down to his pork chop meal and said that we should give thanks.
"I thought you said that you weren't religious" I said.
"I'm not", said Bob, "I'm giving thanks to Petunia".
"Who's Petunia" I asked.
"Why, Petunia is the Pig". "She's a Jesus Pig, she's a special breed of pig that can talk and who wants to be eaten".
"What!?" I exclaimed in horror.
"Yeah, she told me just yesterday how much she was looking forward to being slaughtered and eaten by me."
"You must be joking" I exclaimed.
"No, really". "She told me how she had been fattening her hams especially fat so they would be extra succulent and juicy when fried up." "She was looking forward to being slaughtered, having her guts ripped out and being processed into choice cuts to be eaten by me." "That's how they're bred". "They're bred so that they want to be butchered and tell you so, so you don't feel guilty for eating them."
"That's immoral" I said.
"Why, would it be better to kill animals that don't want to be slaughtered and eaten?" he returned.
Why do we instinctively feel queasy about the prospect of having a conversation with an animal that wants us to eat it?
Perhaps it's because it's just shouldn't be that way!
We know that all values are held by the living (presumably), so how can a living, thinking being value anything else if it doesn't value it's own life? If we bred it to want to die, to be depressed and miserable, looking at death as a release, then this would be torture and evil. However, in Petunia's case, she's HAPPY about the prospect of being slaughtered and eaten. So, what's so evil about it? Maybe we don't want our feed stock to KNOW that we're going to butcher it and feed on it's flesh. We certainly don't want to talk about it and certainly not encourage it. It's just too creepy!!
But, consider that Petunia is being ALTRUISTIC.
Philosopher & socialist August Comte coined the term 'altruism', which he defined as "a moral obligation to live for the sake of others". Surely, this is what Petunia is doing. She's being self-sacrificial for a 'cause bigger than herself'.
But Bob called this breed of talking self-sacrificial pig a "Jesus Pig". What did he mean by that?
Well, the scriptures tells us that Jesus didn't really WANT to die. It was dad's bright idea. Jesus actually asked dear ol' dad to change his mind, but Jesus was willing to subjugate his own will to the will of his pop in the sky.
Mark 14:36 (KJV)
And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
But there are hundreds of kinds of Christians, and what I call the "Neo-Christians" are Christians that are of a type that are gaining popularity now. Neo-Christians don't believe in hell, and that 'god' the father is not supposed to inspire "fear and trembling" (as both the OT and NT literally say he is), but is rather "all love" instead. Neo-Christians also tend to believe that Jesus WANTED to die, ala Petunia the talking, slaughter-house anticipating pig. In fact, they insist that "The Passion of the Christ" is something to just...forget about. "What matters", they say, is that "Jesus rose again, setting an example for us that physical death is trivial compared to eternity".
Yup, Jesus planned the whole thing (contrary to Acts 4:26-28 apparently), and other than a moment's "fleshy" weakness, was LOOKING FORWARD to being beaten to a pulp, his skin shredded, bloodied and having his body hung up to dry.
Or, perhaps Bob was referring to John 6 instead?
Here's Petunia, ala the Jesus Pig in action.
John 6:53-57 (KJV)
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."
That sounds pretty much like Petunia to me. This is one of those frequent times (we are told) that Jesus didn't mean what he said, and didn't say what he meant, (and of course he "really meant" what the Neo-Christians say he meant rather than what he "truly, truly" and "indeed" said).
"But it would be disrespectful to not eat Petunia after her great sacrifice" Bob tells us.
Uh-huh...
Doesn't there also seem to be something creepy and inherently wrong about the idea of a perfectly innocent Jesus showing up just to be tortured and die, so the officials (dear ol' dad) will be happy and let the guilty sinners go free? 'Killing the innocent and setting the guilty free is morally good or morally bad? If 'god' sending sinners to hell is justice, then how can accepting the torture and death of the innocent in their stead, and then setting the guilty free, be anything but an injustice?
Christianity suggests that innocent Jesus' torture and death for the sake of those who don't deserve it, is not only good, rather, it's the ULTIMATE EXPRESSION of moral goodness.
Does this peg your bullshit meter, or what?
We're used to the expression, "There but by the grace of 'god' go I".
In Jesus' case, the Christian is saying, "There by no grace of 'god' goes an innocent person instead of me, the guy who actually deserves it".
The Christians are saying, in essence, "I'm sorry, Jesus, but if it's going to be you or me, it's not going to be me, bub".
The Christian could (and usually does) argue that the deed is already done, so why not exploit it? Wouldn't it be a waste to just go to hell when Jesus has already paid the price anyway?
Well, what one is doing in such a case is making oneself an accessory after the fact. By seeking to exploit an evil for ones own gain, one is making oneself a part of an evil action.
(See next blog, The Perplexed Torturer)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)