[net.religion] God exists

rob@hhb.UUCP (Robert R Stegmann) (05/21/84)

What I want to say about religion
after reading most of the current discussions on the net

Here are some ideas which occurred to me after reading many of
	the articles in net.religion, to which I just subscribed.
	I hope they prove entertaining, if nothing else.

I feel, in general, if one argues about a priori definitions, ones
	arguments break down into mudslinging.
	Rather, one should argue about the consistency and
	provability of theorems within a system.
	If you don't accept the a priori givens and axioms
	of any logical system, you cannot say anything
	meaningful about its postulates or theorems.
	You can only say that you won't believe anything
	built up within the system, because its foundations
	are not solid.  Take a look at a translation of
	Euclid's Geometry.  I'll wager that if you were
	to argue with him about what a 'point' is, he'd
	just ignore you.
	If you do accept them, however, it then becomes
	possible to find logical inconsistencies, paradoxes,
	and fallacies (if they exist), and it becomes possible
	to 'prove' theorems.  If the system is riddled
	with doubt, it would be of little value.
	But let's not forget that Godel showed that any logical
	system of sufficient power contained true theorems
	that were not provable within the system.
	So, one can be just as content with the unprovability of
	the theorem 'God exists' (and we shouldn't even be arguing
	the point, if 'God exists' is a DEFINITION (how boring!))
	as we can with the 'unprovability' of Fermat's last
	theorem, or the 'non-existence' of a formula for primes.
	As long as a theorem is useful, consistent within the
	system it is built in, and not subject to counterexample,
	there is no need to discard it.  But if it doesn't add any
	power to the system, it is just so much excess baggage,
	and if it actually leads to problems, it weakens the
	system!  The principle of Occam's Razor applies to
	hypothetical explanations dealing with theories of causality,
	NOT to purely logical constructs.  It is grounded in
	the fundamental behavior of probabilistic systems, where,
	if a phenomenon is observed, it can most profitably be
	assumed that the phenomenon was caused by the simplest
	(ie most probable) sequence of antecedents.  It does not
	follow that the antecedents of a proof need be the simplest
	possible - there are no probabilities associated with
	definitions, axioms, or postulates.  The theorem
	'God exists' certainly enriches the religious belief system.
	And there has, as yet, been found NO counterexample.
	Why should it be discarded out of hand?  Show how it leads
	to fallacy WITHIN the religious belief system!

It is not necessary to postulate free will to justify the
	punishment of criminals.  Even if men are automata,
	punishment is still logical - it becomes the system's
	way of correcting malfunctioning parts.  Do white
	corpuscles have free will?  Is it necessary that
	pathogens have free will in order to justify their
	destruction by the body's defenses?  Does EMI have free
	will?  Is free will necessary to justify error correcting
	codes?

Mystics argue that man cannot (even MAY not) state anything
	about God (or ascribe 'it' various characteristics).
	Is existence a precondition of
	perfection?  Does God HAVE to exist to be perfect
	(as Aquinas thought)?  What other characteristics does
	man usually force upon the Diety?  God is this... God is that...
	For sheep, we seem to have the shepherd pretty well
	pegged!

Can modern man rise above carrot and stick morality?  Faith apart
	from works is condemned as 'empty'.  How about works apart
	from faith?  Is righteousness, without anticipation of
	reward or fear of punishment, without merit?  Or is it the
	best kind?  Are those churches which attempt to influence
	people toward righteousness via promises and threats
	doing mankind a disservice by 'corrupting' or making cheap
	his goodness?  How can I prove I was acting 'right' uninfluenced
	by fear or anticipation?  I might just be saying so.  God
	would know, but why would he condemn those unbelievers
	who nevertheless act 'right'?  Which is more important to
	God, faith or works?  Which is more important to society?
	Historically, religions served as codified law for many
	societies, instructing the populace as to what constituted
	constructive social behavior, and proscribing punishments
	for specific transgressions, as well as attempting to
	frighten would-be sociopaths into line with threats of
	ever-lasting punishment.  Where secular law conflicts with
	religious law, which should take precedence?

When prayers come true, might this be a manifestation of the
	power of the collective human psyche, rather than divine
	intervention?  Investigation of
	both phenomena, ie psi and prayer, might be pursued
	with similar methods.  It is said God doesn't stoop to
	answering prayers that are effected merely to establish if
	prayer works.  But it would seem to me that incontrovertible
	evidence that prayer works would have a LOT of people
	praying heartfelt prayers for all sorts of things
	(honorable as well as dishonorable intentions) in no time.
	It might also finally convince some skeptics.  Given the
	good that might come out of this, why would God still
	decline?  Maybe he wants to keep us guessing as long
	as possible.  Or maybe the evil would be greater than the
	good.  Perhaps God wishes us to rely more upon ourselves
	than come to be dependent upon a benevolent djinn.
	Regardless, it would appear that even if laboratory experiments
	produced verifiable results, we would still have to
	decide if God, or man's psyche were responsible.  And
	given current techniques of brain research, this might be
	difficult at best.  So we would have yet more ambiguous
	evidence, and be no closer to the 'truth'.

It is hypothesized that the reason mankind has religions and other
	types of organizations is because he retains primitive
	vestiges of behavior patterns relating to dominance/
	aggression that used to be but are no longer necessary
	to 'tribe' survival. (Sagacious Sagan)
	In laboratory experiments, extirpation of a gland in the
	brain, called the amygdala, reduces or eliminates
	dominance/aggression behavior (in animals, of course - I
	am unaware of related experiments with brain-damaged
	people).  Do you ever feel like a monkey bending over for the
	dominant male when you 'worship' God?  Why does it seem
	good to 'submit' to God's will?  Are you surrendering the
	terrifying responsibilities of leadership?

The story of Passover, as it is told in the old testament,
	is disturbing - was it necessary for God to kill the
	first born of those Egyptians who held no political
	power and were in no way responsible for the slavery
	of 'his people'?  Even the first born of the ANIMALS?
	Should the ASPCA prosecute God?
	Those who fear the old testament God do so with reason.
	Those who would follow the Bible literally, particularly
	the old testament, might be a danger to modern society.
	Shall adulterers/esses be stoned to death?  Shall we
	lop off the hands of thieves?  etc...
	There is always the danger that those who believe they
	are divinely inspired will decide that they need answer
	to no secular authority, and take matters into their own
	hands, especially if they perceive society to be increasingly
	evil (Gommorah-ized ?) and they believe it to be their
	responsibility to set things right.  This is a major reason
	so many people fear organized religions - why when people
	like Rev. Moon, who do seem to abuse their power, are
	punished, people like it.  Fear, too, is a dangerous thing -
	it can erupt into violence and repression.  The founding
	fathers of the USA seemed to appreciate this, when they
	strove to create a society in which people could form
	whatever organizations they desired and be protected from
	abuse, but where no organization could, without consent,
	impose upon the whole population.  The government of the
	Soviet Union also seems to fear organized religion.
	And fear makes some people mean, too.  Which could explain
	all those mean skeptics.  What kind of guarantees can
	a church offer to insure that its followers will not
	attempt to impose their will upon unbelieving members of
	society?  Many churches in the USA offer no such guarantees
	at all, in fact some do actively attempt to impose their
	idea of morality on all!  Is it unreasonable that when
	people like Rev. Fallwell, et al, attempt to legislate
	morality, that people become upset?  Some churches seem to
	have forgotten the concept of tolerance that allowed
	them to exist in the first place!  It seems that even God
	was intolerant of the foibles of society - when he leveled
	Sodom, when he flooded the Earth.  Do churches hide behind
	laws they feel themselves unbound by?  Why should society
	tolerate religions when rarely do they tolerate society?

God gave us free will in order that we may love him freely.
	God desires, even requires our love (or else).
	But people caution against praying for frivolous things,
	reminding us who is the 'master' and who the 'servant'.
	In a love relationship, are there supposed to be
	masters and servants?  Does God (like Rodney Dangerfield)
	merely want respect?  Not that respect isn't a component
	of love.  But respect in a relationship should be
	mutual.  How does God evince his respect for man?
	By flooding him out en masse?  By condemning ignorant
	men to eternal damnation?  By playing
	hide and seek?  Imagine engaging a child in a game of
	hide and seek, then hiding where he had no chance of
	finding you until you chose to reveal yourself.
	Does that seem a little cruel?  How about if the child
	had no choice but to play, and would be punished
	severely for quitting the game?

We might not be able to fathom the reason for evil existing in
	the world - evil might be necessary in order that we may
	appreciate good more deeply.
	But is it necessary for whatever purpose, to have evil
	in reality?  Would the conception of evil not be enough
	to appreciate good?  Or is mankind's cognitive ability so
	limited that he must be subjected to real evil to fully
	understand it?  Think of the kinds of 'real' evil -
	murder, adultery, stealing, etc,
	are these things so much more horrible in reality than in
	imagination?  It is said that horror movies of the past
	were better precisely because they left some
	things to the imagination, which could dream up
	more horrible things than reality could supply.
	How horrible is 'everyday' murder as opposed to the kind
	depicted in Friday the 13th?
	(Remember that some people can kill without
	remorse - even 'normal' people can blank out their
	sensations).  If you had to teach a lesson, and you
	had a choice, would you really cause evil, or would
	you try to demonstrate it symbolically?  If you tell
	a child not to touch a hot stove, do you go ahead and
	let him touch it anyway to prove your point?

Mankind is no longer in paradise, because he tasted of the
	forbidden fruit - that imparting knowledge of good and
	evil.  Therefore man has the capability of recognizing
	evil when he sees it (or else we were punished yet
	gained nothing, another cruel joke).
	Anyway, if man cannot truly recognize evil, then he has no
	business apologizing for 'sins', since he cannot therefore
	recognize evil in himself.
	But if he can recognize it, is he not entitled to
	wonder aloud why God allows it to exist?

I think it might be an entertaining (if not instructive)
	exercise to develop a 'calculus of religion'.
	State your definitions and axioms. (They must be
	'common sense' enough that they don't immediately
	spark debate!)  Then propose some basic postulates
	and give their constructions or proofs, and develop
	some interesting theorems.  Maybe one of those
	theorem-proving/finding programs could be used!

	I mean, most skeptics' complaints center around the
	seeming excesses of religious belief systems in
	demanding that too much be taken on faith.  If one
	could build a logical structure on a small set of
	compelling givens, wouldn't it be valuable?  The
	argument that religion and science are fundamentally
	at odds doesn't satisfy me.  Any belief system -
	mathematical or social or theological - that can be
	entertained by the human mind, should conform to
	some basic principles of logic.  It is a wonder to me
	that, considering all the deep thinkers who have had
	a religious bent through the ages, that no effort
	has been made to thoroughly formalize religion;
	to battle the skeptics on their own ground.

	Any budding Booles out there interested?

						rob

		{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!philabs!hhb!rob