Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Story Problems

Remember the process of learning math? First we were provided numbers, and what they meant so we could correctly circle “3 pennies.” Then we were taught that putting together “2 Pennies” with “3 Pennies” produced “5 Pennies.”

Soon we had those arithmetic sheets. You know the ones. With 100 questions of:

“2 + 3 = ____”
“1 + 2 = ____”

The challenge was how many one could do within a certain time, so we could learn to add more quickly. As our education progressed, eventually we were introduced to “x.” It seemed amazing whereas up that point letters and numbers were strictly forbidden from intermingling, once Algebra came along, we were free to incorporate “x” and all its friends like “y” and “z” and the other letters.

We solved for “x.” We had little idea that the rest of our mathematic career would be wholly consumed with finding that enigmatic “x” (and all its friends.)

Wouldn’t it be neat to go back to those sheets of problems, now that we know about “x”? Happily we could have answered each question “x,” “x,” “x,”… “2 + 2 = x” is a perfectly legitimate math equation. The teacher could not mark us as incorrect, because technically 2 + 2 does equal “x”!

Of course that is silly. The reason we did those problems was to learn information, not to merely provide a technically mathematically correct statement. We learned “2 + 2 = 4” so that someday when we see “2 + 2 = x” we could use the basic math skills learned to discover more than just “x.” We would learn that “x = 4.”

Yet as silly as that is, it is a technique I often see employed in our discussion about God. “God” is used (in the place of “x”) to make a logically possible statement, yet it really doesn’t provide us with any new information.

“How did the universe come into being?”
“God.”

“Who establishes morality?”
“God.”

“How did life come from non-life?”
“God.”

The answer of “God” becomes a convenient tool by which a person can appear to have a resolution, yet upon closer inspection, we haven’t learned anything new at all. O.K, so “God” made the universe. How did God create Time? How does supernatural “cross over” to natural and affect the natural plane? Was God involved at only the Big Bang, or at various times along the way, or intimately active with every single nuance and step?

Did God create Freewill to do evil, if he can’t do evil? If God know everything, how could he create humor which depends on surprise? Did God create suffering? Is God complex or simple?

Numerous people confidently answer the question of how the universe started with “God” yet provide a variety of answers to these questions. Even within a particular religion, such as Christianity, the problem of theistic evolution, vs old earth creation vs young earth creation vs open theism, vs complete God control rages as Christians who equally agree as to the “God” that made the universe, fight over what that particular God looks like.

It’s like everybody agrees the answer is “x,” but no one can agree as to what number “x” is!

We so often see the confident, almost arrogant claim of “absolute morality” vested in a God. Yet the simple question, “Can God Lie?” remains a puzzle. When is genocide acceptable? When must a murderer be punished? When can they be shown mercy? What is the degree of punishment for what infractions?

Again, even with the agreed starting point of “God,” depending on the particular theist one talks to, these questions start to fragment off into differing and competing answers.

Is saying “God” any better than answering a second-grade question of “2 + 2” with “x”?

It is fun to watch pages and pages of material and time wasted on “who has the burden of proof in the discussion on God?” Atheists claim that since theists are making an affirmative statement: “There is a God,” the burden must squarely rest on the theist. That it is far more difficult to prove a negative, so atheists complain arguing “There is no God” is akin to arguing “There is no Easter Bunny” or “There is no invisible flying spaghetti monster.”

Theists claim that God-belief is so universal, and of such a majority, that since atheism is the minority position, clearly the burden should be on the atheist.

The tussle back and forth limps on to this day.

Frankly, I don’t mind assuming the burden of Proof. The only thing I ask is that the theist provides me with a description of their God. Tell me what “x” is, before I start to discuss whether it is a correct answer!

“God” is this nebulous answer that we grapple with trying to determine how possible it is, in light of the universe we observe, and because the theist leaves the answer deliberately mysterious, we feel as if we are wrestling with the wind! We are informed that this God is so much more powerful, so much more knowledgeable, not to mention not even material, so there is no possible way in which we could ever comprehend its existence. That if we had this knowledge and understanding, in addition to our observation, we would clearly understand that such a God exists.
If it was put into a math equation, it would look like this:

“Universe + Unachievable knowledge = Certainty that God Exists”

The only thing that is a constant number in that equation is: “Universe.” Everything else remains unknown! I feel as if we are discussing a problem similar to:

“2 + y = x” (Ain’t math fun?) Then we debate what is “x”? A bit useless, as whatever “y” is, will make a big difference as to what “x” is!

If “y = 8,” then x would have to be “10.” If “y” is 4, then x is “6.” If “y” has to be somewhere between “0” and “100” then x has to be between 2 and 102. But without knowing what “y” is, x could be just about anything!

Worse, we discuss concepts such as “freewill” and “consciousness” and “morality” and “love” and “life,” all of which add a different variable within this equation. Simply saying “God” is not enough. It is as if the person has said, “The Answer is ‘x,’” when every book, every teacher, every professor and every answer key as a different solution and a different answer as to what “x” is.

We also learn that whatever “x” was in the first math problem does not mean that “x” will be the same number in the next. Yet somehow, when using “God” in the place of “x” we are to presume it is all one and the same.

“What has every culture included within its society?”
“God.”
“Right. Therefore my God exists.”

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Where did we make that leap? Just because the answer to the first question is “God” does not mean much. In fact, more people disagree than agree with your particular concept of God.

“The universe requires a designer.”
“Okay….”
“Therefore my God exists.”

No. At best one has proven a deistic type entity exists. Over and over I see this leap from “here is an argument for God—therefore the Calvinistic Protestant Christian Inerrant Literal Bible God exists.” It presumes that all “x’s” are the same. If Intelligent Design proves “x” exists, and the Christian is attempting to prove “x” is “God” then the jump is made—Intelligent Design proves the Christian God exists.

No, not all “x’s” are the same.

Look, you want these arguments for God? You want them to prove something? You want “God” to be a real answer? Give us more than a three letter word. Give us some concrete descriptions of what this answer is. Don’t answer every question with the same “x.” Give us an answer that has some information within it.

12 comments:

  1. Does this mean we should start calling God "Mister X"? No, "Professor X." No, no, wait... "Racer X."

    ReplyDelete
  2. What is the state of the universe prior to the Big Bang? Is that knowable or only theoretical?

    Point being that the origin of our worldviews all stem from ignorance.

    x as origin is ultimately unknowable.

    The Christian proposes that the ultimately unknowable is more known through our worldview than by the atheistic proposition.

    How was the universe created?

    Neither you, nor I nor anyone else will ever know in this life.

    Who created the Universe?

    Well, at least we Christians have some idea.

    The atheist must profess ultimate ingorance on both parts.

    Grace and Peace,

    -JD

    ReplyDelete
  3. jdlongmire,

    Welcome, my friend. It truly seems a long, long time ago since we first spared in a different place. Yet you seem a familiar face among many newcomers. As if we can pick up a conversation left at a pub many years ago with little thought of the time between.

    You are quite correct that we do not have the technology to look past the Big Bang. Anything as to the state of the universe prior to that is theoretical. Obviously I hope that humanity is able to continue to expand its knowledge in the next 100 years at a similar rate as the past 100 years, and perhaps we have better knowledge and theories then. Who knows?

    Sure Christianity “proposes” that prior to the Big Bang is “more knowable” than those of us that say “I don’t know.” Not sure that makes it any better. If I propose that the universe consisted of big fluffy piles of pink cotton candy; does that inherently make my proposal “better” than saying “We don’t know?”

    Yes, we are ignorant of what existed prior to the Big Bang. Why is that a bad thing? Why must we insist on putting a name upon it? Must everything have a solution right now!

    In fact, you make the point of my blog entry. You say that theists and non-theists do not know. I agree. But then you go on and say, “at least Christians have some idea.”

    Why is making up “some idea” better than the honesty of “We don’t know.” You really cannot have it both ways. If we both, theists and non-theists alike truly have no idea, then going on and saying, “But I propose ‘God’” is the equivalent of my proposing piles of cotton candy.

    I am not trying to be facetious as much as pointing out that my theory of cotton candy would be questioned by you. You would ask why I think cotton candy existed prior to the Big Bang.

    If I told you, “Because it is a better answer than ‘I don’t know,’” would you find that compelling? Or would you question what is it about cotton candy, and its properties that would make me say it existed prior to the Big Bang? It is the same with me. Simply avoiding “I don’t know” with “Ah-ha! I propose God, and by my proposing something is better than your not knowing” is not very compelling.

    Because I immediately start asking about your God. And you reply “I don’t know. He is mysterious.”

    How come YOU can say “I don’t know” about your God and I am supposed to accept that, but I can’t say “I don’t know” about what existed prior to the Big Bang?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hiya! Glad to resume our conversations - been a while - and I certainly like the "focus" of this type dialogue. Assume you don't mind me exerpting some of this to my blog if I find it useful?

    So to your summary point:

    How come YOU can say “I don’t know” about your God and I am supposed to accept that, but I can’t say “I don’t know” about what existed prior to the Big Bang?

    It is not so much that you say "I don't know" - you say, "I may not know how or what, but I DO know that God did not do it!"

    That is the atheist defacto proposition.

    You seem to be inconsistent.

    Unless you have changed your base worldview since we chatted last and have become agnostic...

    -JD

    ReplyDelete
  5. jdlongmire,

    Oh, steal away! If you want to use it, I would be pleased for you to utilize it. My only concern about people using my writing (that they would intentionally misrepresent what I say) I do not have with you.

    You may be as wrong as one can be in the world of theism (ribbing ya) but you are honest as the day is long.

    I say a God did not do it, because there are other reasons I say a God does not exist. I equally say a God does not answer prayer, does not inspire writing, and does not bowl to make the sounds of thunder.

    It is not a great leap to say that God did not create this universe. But being convinced there is no god, does not mean I know what existed prior to the Big Bang. Is it possible a God existed prior to the Big Bang, and it killed Him? Maybe. (Difficulties with even that theory.)

    If that makes me an agnostic—well label me “agnostic.” I’ve been called worse. (And the agnostics probably don’t want me. He He.)

    I know God did not do it for the same reason I know that Dragons, or Leprechauns, or the Loch ness monster or invisible knee-hugging creatures did not do it. None of them have the remotest possibility of existing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, steal away! If you want to use it, I would be pleased for you to utilize it. My only concern about people using my writing (that they would intentionally misrepresent what I say) I do not have with you.

    You may be as wrong as one can be in the world of theism (ribbing ya) but you are honest as the day is long.


    har, har...but, thanks, I do appreciate the trust, though.


    I know God did not do it for the same reason I know that Dragons, or Leprechauns, or the Loch ness monster or invisible knee-hugging creatures did not do it. None of them have the remotest possibility of existing.

    You know? How?

    Let's work with the "imaginary creatures"...

    Take any one of the creatures you have mentioned - deal with them on the basis of experience, reason, observation and historicity and you elimate them very quickly as mythology/fantasy.

    You can't dismiss God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) so easily.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You are quite correct that we do not have the technology to look past the Big Bang. Anything as to the state of the universe prior to that is theoretical. Obviously I hope that humanity is able to continue to expand its knowledge in the next 100 years at a similar rate as the past 100 years, and perhaps we have better knowledge and theories then. Who knows?

    Who knows, indeed?

    It is nice to see you have a statement of hope, but what do we really know about the universe that is substantial? We have some details that we didn't have before, but it is paltry in comparison to the scope of information available in the Universe.

    I just think it seems a little presumptuous to say that God is an absolutely null proposition.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mmmm… Provide me with the methodology of how own eliminates myths such as dragons, leprechauns or Loch ness monsters and I will apply it to your God. Since I already have.

    So I am presumptuous. I can live with that.

    jdlongmire, when I say “know” I am saying I have a strong enough percentage of certainty to be beyond, “I think” or “perhaps.” Say (for argument’s sake, since it would be hard to place such a number) 95% certain. Is there some 5% possibility that God created the universe? Sure.

    Eliminating possibilities is different (and easier) than proposing possibilities.

    If we have a human murdered between a certain period of two hours, it is easy to eliminate those who could not be in his/her vicinity within that time. A person who was 20 hours away, for example, is eliminated.

    But if we are going to propose a murderer, and claim they fit the credentials, there has to be something more than just popping out a name for the sake of putting a name on it.

    I am saying a god that does not exist couldn’t create the universe. Saying “God did” proclaiming that this is better because you didn’t say “I don’t know” but then immediately being unable to explain or describe or define that thing called “God” is not that earth shaking.

    Is “I don’t know what did create the universe, but within my limits of my human knowledge as I have today, dragons, leprechauns, loch ness monsters and God did not” less presumptuous?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The presupposition that God's non existence or otherwise enters the
    the area where I posit Invisible, Undetectable Purple Elves make gravity.

    Completely consistent with the observable universe's behaviour, it even has the advantage of obeying Newton's laws, the inverse square law, and Special and General Relativity with no embarrassing infinities... However, it is almost certainly wrong. Can one prove it wrong? Not really... being invisible and undetectable means one can only observe the effect. One ends up one the end of likely hood. Are Invisible Purple Elves likely? Hell, no... Neither are Unicorns or Dragons.

    Sound like a deity anyone knows?

    BTW, the question of 'before' the Big Bang is a non-question since it's not within the frame work of Space-Time. What was 'before' time? IF there's no time, what does 'before' mean? Define 'before' without recourse to some sense of temporal linearity, please.

    ReplyDelete
  11. BTW, the question of 'before' the Big Bang is a non-question since it's not within the frame work of Space-Time. What was 'before' time? IF there's no time, what does 'before' mean? Define 'before' without recourse to some sense of temporal linearity, please.

    Just popping in - will respond more later, but this just struck me.

    So - how is this any different that the position that God is mysterious, when we run up against the extent of our knowledge?

    Answer: it is not.

    -JD

    ReplyDelete
  12. Harlequin,

    You are correct, of course. “Before” when referring to the Big Bang IS meaningless. I have a difficult time wrapping my hands around the initiation of time, from either a theistic OR a naturalist position. Neither make sense, both make my head spin.


    Jdlongmire,

    It isn’t any different to say God is mysterious. But that phrase raises two problems:

    1) If “Big Bang is mysterious” and “God who made the Big Bang is mysterious” is the equivalent, why do we need “God” in the first place? It only adds a problematic, unnecessary element to an already difficult question without him.

    2) If theists stuck with “God is mysterious” I could live with that. They don’t They tell me about his morals, his truth, his justice, his absolutes, his creative power, his goodness, his love, his inspiration, his place of existence, his trinity, his election, his predestination, his knowledge his spirit, his character, and countless other items about him.

    And as I attempt to explore and investigate the viability of those claims, when backed into a corner, “God is mysterious” is tossed out as a desperate defense to the inability to respond.

    If you want “God is mysterious”—good. Have it. But when you start to describe God in non-mysterious ways, don’t be surprised if I become less and less impressed with the defense of “God is mysterious.” Clearly you don’t believe that claim in practice.

    ReplyDelete