So here is a simple argument. An argument is different than a proof. This is not a proof, but more like a thought experiment. Also, not everything in this argument aligns perfectly with my beliefs about God. It is an argument for argument's sake. So here goes. Answer each of these questions to yourself as honestly as possible.
1. There are an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe, each with an estimated 100 billion stars. What is the likelihood that somewhere out there, there is a being of such an advanced level of understanding and power that he/she/it has powers we would consider "Godlike"? That he/she/it can read our minds? That to he/she/it, distance is irrelevant, and that he/she/it can arrange situations to create a desired outcome? That he/she/it can even speak to our minds? To understand the strength of this argument, check out this. In sum, some artificial intelligence theorists suggest that once we are able to teach computers to improve their own intelligence through re-writing their own programming, artificial intelligence will explode. It will expand so quickly that it won't be long before these computers would be as much above humans in intelligence as we are above ants in intelligence. Their powers could truly be god-like. If such a thing is so easy to conceive and seems possible, why wouldn't it have already happened somewhere in the universe? Isn't it conceivable that we are already under the control of such a being, for whom distance could be irrelevant?
2. What is the likelihood that such a being would want to help us advance to a higher level of being? Based on what we know about ourselves (which is really our only point to extrapolate from), altruism and the desire to "make a difference" might continue up the chain to higher level beings. This is an assumption, but what better assumption could we make? If this being wants to help us improve, he/she/it is starting to sound like a benevolent, all-powerful God who could actually be involved in our lives.
3. What is the likelihood that such a being would want to help us in an "indirect" manner so as to avoid destabilizing our natural growth process as a species and as individuals? To understand this argument, think of the "Prime Directive" in Star Trek. Essentially, a higher level being simply appearing (or descending in a space ship in Star Trek's case) and telling the lower-level species what to do would rob those beings of the chance to have their own civilization, their own development process. Again, this is an assumption, but I think a reasonable one. This would explain why God doesn't just "prove himself" to everyone in a very physical way. It would also explain why there are so many religions: God may be speaking to chosen messengers (so as to maintain indirect contact), but mankind has a tendency to twist, take advantage of, and create counterfeit versions of any ideological teaching. This is just the reality of our human tendencies.
4. What is the likelihood that such a being would avoid detection by human attempts to prove/disprove he/she/its existence? What I mean by this is simply an extension of the previous point. A God-like being, trying to influence us in a moral, indirect manner would not want to be "proved." Such proof would be essentially the same thing as he/she/it revealing themselves directly. Such a being would be perfectly able to influence events without leaving a signature that would show up on our relatively crude scientific instruments. Such a being would be able to see such puny experiments coming well in advance.
6. What is the likelihood that such a being would only reveal themselves to sincere seekers? Sincerity, which we could define as a real intention to act on truth once it is learned, is by logical necessity an essential condition for real personal growth. If this being could see into our thoughts, why on earth would he/she/it reveal themselves to anyone who was not sincerely looking for that revelation? This would explain why religious seekers report all kinds of miracles and experiences in their lives, while those who are content in their secular lives don't report similar experiences. Many seculars conclude that the religious seekers are making these things up or are unable to see the difference between natural coincidence and divine intervention, but what if the difference is really that God intervenes visibly with some and not with others?
5. What is the likelihood that a God-like being would want to propagate its own kind (its species)? All we know about life indicates that this desire is deeply central to our psyches. Does the idea that God created man "in his own image" sound so strange with this in mind? No we have an even more Biblical sounding being on our hands.
My point is not to prove anything, but rather to show that belief in a God is not irrational, based on what we know of the universe and about life. It actually makes sense rationally, whether it is empirically true or not. The God I have called into possible existence through this post matches with the God that is taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to which I belong (although there are many important aspects of our belief in God that I couldn't cover here). Essentially, He is a morally perfect being who has gained all of the power and knowledge which it is possible to gain. He is perfectly able to keep any promise He makes, because of his power and knowledge. He was once a man like us, but is now an exalted man. He spends His time and finds His joy populating the universe with more of His children, and helping them to ascend to higher and higher levels of existence.
Your first point assumes that life, technologically advanced species, etc. have arisen elsewhere in the universe. Earth is the only data point we have in regards to life in the universe, and so to make any statement on the probability of life beyond earth, especially technologically advanced life, is unreasonable. To assume that we know anything about life on other planets, or that we can assign a probability of their existence based on the lone sample we have (Earth), would be just as irrational as an alien assuming that it knew everything about humans after meeting only one person. I don't think it is reasonable to assume their is advanced life in the universe, or to even determine how probable it may be. I also think comparing a technologically advanced civilization/individual with a deity is an unreasonable comparison. If I could go back in time even a few hundred years with today's technology and knowledge I may seem god-like. But I would not be a god. A civilization or individual that is several hundred years more advanced then us today would be the same. They aren't gods. They may be impressive, but not worthy of worship. There is no reason for me to give them unwavering obedience. The same is true no matter how powerful or intelligent an entity may be. Just because it is easy to imagine that a hyper-advanced, AI or organic entity could exist and even control the known universe, doesn't mean it is true or even possible. While their are experts that think these things may be possible, there are plenty who also disagree. Without more information there is no reasonable position on the matter other than "I don't know."
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. It is all based on what assumptions you prefer--I actually think it is unreasonable to suppose that out of 100 billion x 100 billion stars there is not life that is very highly advanced. With the research we have into the strange realms of quantum mechanics, etc, we might suppose that a being might be able to manipulate the probabilities at the quantum scale to pretty much do what they like. And then there is string theory, which I don't know much about, but it seems even more manipulable. Yes, it is all speculation, but I don't think it is unreasonable speculation.
DeletePerhaps I should have said that this argument hangs on the assumption that life as we know it bears relevance to what else is out there.
DeleteSorry for the late reply. For the record, I don't want to come off as argumentative. I enjoy debate. In my opinion it is one of the highest forms of learning. I am not trying to convince you that I am correct. It is more like I am looking for the flaws in my own thinking. That being said, I agree that this argument hangs on the assumption that life as we know it bears relevance to what else may be out there. My point is that this assumption in and of itself is unreasonable. We have no knowledge of any life beyond earth, so no one is really qualified to say anything about life beyond earth. The universe may be teeming with life, or there may be very few planets with life at all. It is not impossible that earth is the only planet with life. Without more data it cannot be determined if that is likely or even unlikely. My original comparison of your assumption with an alien determining the likelihood that humanity is a certain way based on meeting one person was off. I think it is actually like an alien determining the likelihood of certain human characteristics without having ever even met a human at all. Simply put: I think saying life beyond earth is likely OR unlikely is an unreasonable assumption due to a complete lack of data. My argument is NOT that I don't think there isn't life out there. I am aware that the universe is massive, therefore even highly unlikely events probably happen fairly often. That being said, without any data or evidence whatsoever favor either the likelihood or the unliklihood of life beyond earth, we have nothing to go off of. The only reasonable position until we have any data at all is "I don't know." I know it may seem like I am being nit picky, but the foundation of your thought experiment is this point, and since it is a complete unknown it weakens the whole chain of thought.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour second point suffers from one of the already mentioned issues I had with your first point. It is irrational to assume anything about an advanced being without more data than what humanity currently has. To assume that an advanced race/individual would be altruistic is unfounded.
ReplyDeleteWith your 3rd, 4th and 5th points there is a crucial piece of information that is left out in your thought experiment. In almost all religions, belief in that religion's deity is required. Even in the LDS faith, if I lived my whole life as a Buddhist and then died and found out in the spirit world that Jesus is the only way to salvation, I would have to accept Christ or be damned. Most religions seem to believe in the type of entity you described above, at least in the since that god is "hidden", and they claim their deity is perfectly just and benevolent. The problem is, you can't have a just god who is hidden, if that god requires belief in him as a prerequisite for salvation. I will make an analogy to illustrate this point: Imagine that you woke up tomorrow with no memory of anything up to that point. After a few hours of meeting and talking with people you have learned that there is a king and at the end of the week he is going to come and judge everyone based on how they followed his law. Luckily, a guy down the street claims he knows the king and he can explain the laws to you. Another guy you meet says he received a letter from the king. The 2nd guy's letter and the 1st guy's explanation of the law more or less agree, so everything seems fine. But then over the next few days as you go from neighborhood to neighborhood, you realize everyone supposedly has notes from the king, or claims to have met him, but they all contradict one another. You are now confused and have no idea what the law really is. Everyone tells you to trust your feelings. If you truly want to understand the law the king will tell you in your heart. The problem is, everyone claims they "know" the law and the only evidence they have are their stories, writing and feelings, non of which have any proof. At the end of the week the king comes and it turns out the neighborhood 5 blocks down the street had the correct set of laws. The king imprisons everyone else and claims his laws are perfectly just.
I agree you have brought up a conundrum. In religion, there simply is no way around the fact that only you personally can know if it is true. Yes, everybody says their version is true. That makes it confusing if you give credence to everybody's version. But by a purely logical view of the situation, just because everyone says theirs is true has no bearing on whether or not you can know that yours is true. People have many reasons for twisting and manipulating their beliefs. A prerequisite for belief in religion is that you must be certain that if you are 100% sincere, you will have a 100% chance of ending up in God's good grace. When the king comes, that is all he will care about.
DeleteA hidden God actually makes sense, because his purpose is to teach us morality, not to teach us obedience by fear. If he were visible, we would all obey out of fear of punishment. This would counteract the reason for our earth life, in the LDS view. Being invisible, we have to learn the principles of morality based on faith, which requires that we experience and come to believe in the inherent "rightness" of God's commandments. One gets to the point where one would follow them even if there were no God, because they simply bring the fruit that they promised.
My point was not to focus on obedience or fear, but on justice. I understand that in the LDS tradition God wants us to choose to be good and follow him. Focusing on that ignores that fact that no matter how sincere I am in my quest for truth, if I haven't accepted Christ by the time my final judgment day roles around, I will be damned. If the LDS faith is true I could live my whole life completely perfect in act and thought, except for my skepticism towards the divinity of Christ, and I would be damned for that (By damned I mean not able to progress for eternity, cut off from God, etc.). That is not a perfectly just system. Punishing me for eternity because of something I didn't know cannot be perfectly just. I have no way of knowing whether or not god is real without some kind of evidence. Feelings don't cut it. That is subjective, not objective. It is true that just because everyone has conflicting beliefs doesn't effect whether or not I can determine if my beliefs are true. But I would require evidence beyond feelings to make that determination. Because feelings/spiritual experience is subjective, and because people have experiences and feelings that confirm a whole myriad of conflicting beliefs, it is impossible to rely on spiritual experience as proof or evidence. I could prove my spiritual feelings as true, but I would need something beyond those feelings. What then is there? Scriptures? Prophets? But the way I find out if those are true or not is thru the same feelings that I cannot confirm as true to begin with. Sure prophets and scriptures promise blessing if I follow their council, but the blessings are vague. LDS leaders even talk about how many blessing come as spiritual rather than physical blessings. There is no general conference talk or scripture that tells me if I read so many verses of the Book of Mormon, pray everyday and study hard that I will get a 100% on my next exam. It is possible to get a 100% on the exam without doing those things. The point is, even with the test of obedience, since these promised blessings are vaguely worded they could be anything. Since they could be anything, all I have to do is attribute every good thing that would have probably happened anyway as a blessing. If I want to see blessings I will, if I don't I won't. So it is still entirely subjective. I still can't say in any way that I have any sort of knowledge in regards to the truthfulness of LDS doctrine. The same is true for most other religions as well. If I am sincere and try hard, it doesn't matter. I will still be damned if I don't accept Christ, if the LDS faith is true. And it is more than just my skepticism vs. the LDS faith. Most religious belief systems require that you accept their god or prophet or face damnation. So you are just as likely to be damned as I am, just because you accept Christ, and not one of the other thousands of gods that demand your belief, regardless of how good you are.
Deletehe point of that story is that the king's laws obviously aren't just, and the same is true if there is a god out there that demands we believe, but hides from us. In a perfectly just system of law, perfect knowledge of the law is required to allow for accountability. If the law is unknown, or can only be received through less than reliable sources (such as scripture, prophets, visions, or feelings, which most religions have), then one cannot be held accountable for their actions. If they are held accountable then the system is not just. I am not arguing that a deity would have to make all things known to us; the only thing that must be revealed is that the deity actually exists and what the deity's commands are. This would not negate our ability to learn and grow at all, nor would it diminish our ability to choose. In LDS theology one of the most important decisions we ever made, the choice to come to earth, was made in the presence of God. Not everyone made the same decision, proving that we have complete agency even with complete knowledge of a god's existence. I know your hypothetical questions are not LDS doctrine specific, so these arguments may not hold up for a more generic concept of the divine. However, it is still unreasonable to expect that a deity would want to hide itself or that hiding itself would even be beneficial.
ReplyDeleteFor your last point, once again, there is no reason to think that a deity or advanced civilization would even want to reproduce. The universe could only support a limited amount of immortal hyper-advanced entities, so it may even be more reasonable to assume such a being or beings would NOT want to reproduce.
Overall, I think these hypotheticals were well thought-out and gave me a lot to contemplate, even though I disagree with your conclusions.
Thanks I appreciate that. I hate it when people bring out thoughtless arguments for God. I'm trying not to do that. I think I spoke to the rest of this comment in my previous comment. I guess I disagree that our ability to learn and grow would not be effected. That is a large topic in and of itself though.
DeleteWhy would knowledge of a perfectly good, just and loving good cause fear? How would it prevent us from growing? Did Joseph Smith stop learning, growing and progressing at the age of 14 after he saw God and Christ? Was the prophet Mohammed a perfect person void of any mistakes after communing with the angel? Didn't Cain kill Abel after conversing with God? I am fully aware of the laws and the existence of law enforcement. That doesn't create fear. It allows me to live my life. If I had know idea what the laws were or who law enforcement was, I wouldn't even be able to leave my house in the morning because of fear of being imprisoned or killed. It is the other way around. Knowledge allows for agency, accountability and further growth. Ignorance retards growth, prevents accountability and agency and creates fear.
DeleteI forgot to mention in my argument about a just god, that I am not trying to say that there is no god. There could be a god, and that god may not even be good or just. It could be that the deity in control of this universe is one of destruction. Or it could be a god that is just that has no concern what people believe. That was the point of my argument; that a hidden god cannot be just if it demands our acceptance of it and obedience to it without certainty in regards to the deity's existence and commands,
ReplyDeleteThe "hidden God" topic would be fun to get into further. Do you know if any well-known philosophers have discussed this question?
DeleteI haven't really looked. If I come across anything I will let you know.
Delete