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