(This title couldn't be more provocative.)
Does God exist?
No matter how infinitely asked that question may have been, no matter how it trembles on the verge of cliché-dom, it still inspires riot.
Our answers to this, which are tethered to our biases and to the survival value they confer us, are diverse, but ultimately, deep inside, they're the same.
The same, because we do hope that the future is rich in understanding that will have our disparate starting points collectively coming full circle (to the same, same thing, which, unfortunately, I do not know at this time. We can only hope it can avert cyclical idiocy and bloodshed).
I strongly believe we are ultimately on the same side, though for the time being, we seem not.
Whew. Well, does God exist?
I. Randomness & indeterminism = nonrandomness & determinism
For starters, let’s talk about randomness for a while. The concept of randomness is used to help tease out the statistical (read: not absolute) truths in experiments (in a process called randomization) in aid of advancing human knowledge and civilization. The concept of randomness is actually crude. When we don't sense any sense in an event, we deem it random. Or seemingly random. Random to our maths. To our equations.
Our very commonsensical handle on randomness would be the lack of predictability (intuition: the probability that a dice will roll one face is random; you can't predict it). Even in the hardcore sciences of chance and probability, statistics, mathematics, entropy, game theory, information theory, and quantum mechanics, the same connotation applies (though these disciplines define randomness in a very specific way).
And yet, what is random on one level and from one perspective is probably not random at all on another/from another.
You know what I'm getting at: What is random on the human scale of things (our calculations, models, simulations) is probably not random on the mega-scale of the universe.
What looks like unpredictable to our sharpest of human mental faculties and to our sciences and technologies (based on the laws we've discovered so far) may actually be predictable at some humongously profound, fantastic level, only that we still have not got a handle on it yet.
As an illustration, look at time. We, humans, think of 1 million years as a very, very long time, but on the scale of the universe, it’s just a blip.
Look at distance. We think of light-years as a humanly impossible distance, but on the scale of the universe, it’s just around the corner.
Look at weather. What would look like a case of indeterminism is probably deterministic, only that we haven't got any idea on how to render it deterministic.
Look at dark matter, dark flow, and dark energy. They signify we are groping in the dark. To the physical laws yet undiscovered, what darkness are we talking about?
Look at the concept of infinity in mathematics that keeps destroying our best equations, and keeps us from coming up with a plausible theory of everything. To the universe, what infinity are we talking about?
Bottom line: what is complex to us is actually simple. (I remember reading The Collapse of Chaos by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart - it plumbs complexity and chaos theories to state the simplicity in all that complexity.)
Or -- isn't that maybe the physical laws have set a limit on the human brain (e.g., have created the human brain) in such a way that the human brain will forever perceive some actual deterministic, nonrandom events as non-deterministic and random? In that case, poor us. (Maybe this is so to prevent us from achieving a type of technology that can destroy the universe or its physical laws).
Here is a thought experiment. Consider a box the size of the universe. Consider a specific point of space inside the box; let’s name this point as humanity. Now if you shake the box with a marble inside, the marble will appear randomly moving from humanity’s standpoint. The marble will probably hit point humanity with some small probability.
In contrast, the box couldn't care less. Random as it may appear to humanity, the marble's movement is contained in the box and the probability that it is inside the box is 1 or 100%!
So to recap, a thing that looks like random on the human scale of things and understanding, may not be random on the scale of the universe -- that is, from the vantage point of its physical laws.
By saying "nonrandom," everything in the universe behaves or is contained within the bounds of the universe’s physical laws.
II. Probability [intelligent life] = 100%
How is randomness related to our discussion? Some imporant events in the universe are considered by some as random and existent by chance. Not at all. For example, contrary to that view, the laws of the universe are such that they allow intelligent life to exist in absolute terms. At the scale of the universe, the existence of intelligent life is not random and non-deterministic at all. It is inevitable. The probability for its existence is 100% (well, at least at this point in time).
[The mathematician Amir Aczel, using the conjectural Drake equation, even went on to say that the probability of intelligent life on another planet is likely 1 or 100%! That is, there must be at least another one intelligent life form out there. This is in spite of the Fermi Paradox ("If that's true, where is everyone?" - LOL; nice one, Dr. Fermi. You meant, where in terms of our senses and instruments?).]
III. Intelligence and consciousness as properties of the universe
Intelligence and consciousness, or at least the best definitions of them that we humans have come up with at this point of time, are the inherent properties of the universe (think anthropic principle; think biocentric theory).
Sure, some forms of intelligence and consciousness at some level are not yet understood by us. Even by the time we understand human intelligence and consciousness to the fullest, we may still be way, way far from grokking what really intelligence and consciousness are all about beyond the human point of view. In that case, the assumptions we have about intelligence, as inherent in the equations such as Drake's, are weak.
Now observe. These physical laws, many of them not understood or even misunderstood by humanity, create phenomena that are awe-inspiring, whether life-giving/supporting or life-destroying. Awe-inspiring to the point that most of humanity would give classical god-like attributes to the physical laws.
And this has been so, because human intelligence and consciousness has a tendency to unconsciously metaphorize the ungrokkable physical laws in our attempt to personally relate to them (“they are human in behavior; I can relate to that”).
While outright unconscious metaphorization, which has spawned religions, is crude in some way, it helps us achieve a sense of things. Both unconscious metaphorization and theoretical physics have survival values and attempts at closure appropriate to their time and contexts. Unconscious metaphorization is similar to the darkness of dark matter and dark energy in theoretical physics (e.g., we are groping in the dark about them; they are unobservable; hence, we give them names). Many things are without hard evidence. May things are agreed by i-get-you’s.
But theoretical physics is, to my mind, better in that it acknowledges that its assertions are theoretical, conjectural and, if validated by our human devices, only approximate. In addition, it is dynamic and particular. In contrast, religion, unconscious metaphorization, and spirituality are all static: the truth is general and rigid; a monolith; it has been that way for eons.
However, no matter how crude it may be, unconscious metaphorization is one of humanity’s survival/coping mechanisms. Proof: many religions in the ancient world and today serve their environments in a positive way. Blind faith in something true or false, regardless of whether it is monotheistic, polytheistic, atheistic (e.g., Buddhism) does make sense.
It allows meditation, trance, and peace of mind. It floods people with endorphins. It encourages positive thinking, and creates advantageous self-fulfilling prophecies of success in love and money. It reinforces morality and ethics. Blind faith is correlated well with positive things across most if not all religions. (The challenge is for theoretical physics to match that -- well, theoretical physics does.)
And yet, like all things human, unconscious metaphorization (blind faith) polarizes people. It is condescending. It has spawned a great deal of violence and resentment among the many of us.
To me, a better form of metaphorization is the abstract, philosophical, and impersonal god of Einstein and Spinoza. To them, “god” is nature itself: the universe as a whole and its physical laws, not some Odin, Zeus, Shiva, Jehova or Angel Locsin . But hey, in fact, I think Zen Buddhism holds the same view!
Because of the behavior (what a metaphor for a term) of the physical laws, manifest in the cause and effect of things, they can actually be god-like. Isn’t it ironic?
I may detest the classical definition of god, but I am now using this old metaphor to metaphorize and express our present metaphor. The difference between the old metaphor and our new metaphor is that this time, we are conscious that it’s only a metaphor – the literal metaphorical figure of speech.
Okey, now. Here is an Illustration on the evolution of the meaning of god for our purpose:
1. OLD/CLASSICAL METAPHOR/OLD CONCEPT OF GOD: the laws of nature unconsciously metaphorized (e.g., blind faith) as a god concept with human/anthromorphic or animal features - usually an omnipotent omniscient conceited male/royal figure and his posse.
2. Mistaking a class IV civilization (e.g., highly advanced aliens) for the old metaphor. Meaning, unconsciously metaphorzing these aliens as an omnipotent, omniscient male king-like figure, etc. Today, if a class IV civilization exists, it would be easy to mistake it for a god. All the more during BC and early AD.
3. Consciously metaphorizing a class IV civilization as a god (in the same way that we say that Michael Jordan is a god; of course, we know that MJ is not a god but we adore him; hence, the figure of speech.)
4. CONSCIOUS METAPHOR/NEW CONCEPT OF GOD: laws of nature consciously and deliberately metaphorized (with a wink in our eyes) as an old god concept as if almost in a parody; but deep inside, seriously deconstructing/redefining god as the universe itself and its physical laws.
This new metaphor is what the god of Einstein and Spinoza is all about: taken as a whole, the physical laws do behave god-like and even quasi/meta-intelligent and quasi/meta-conscious – quasi/meta-intelligent in the sense that they are info-driven, info-intensive, complete with processing power (similar to info-driven chromosomes! Heck, similar to the human brain itself!); quasi and meta to the extent that we define A.I. in science fiction as such.
VI. Anthropocentrism: fail
But saying that the universe is meta or quasi is, of course, anthropocentric. At the macro level of the universe, the quasi-intelligent, quasi-conscious aspect to the physical laws may be actually intelligent and conscious not in an anthropocentric way that our puny anthropocentric brains can anthropocentrically muster at this point in time.
Anthropocentrism is a curious subject. Both God advocates and atheists can be accused of anthropocentrism and bias. Both opposing sides of classical intelligent design and atheism are anthropocentric/biased. They smack of arrogant certainty in their arguments.
Biased: "I can't just believe that this life of ours did not come out of some intelligent design [intelligence here is classically, anthropocentrically defined]."
Biased: "I can't believe that life came out of intelligent design [intelligence here is classically, anthropocentrically defined]."
Both positions can be reconciled if intelligence is re-defined.
From the perspective of the still not understood intelligence of the universe, human intelligence and consciousness might turn out to be the ones that are quasi and meta. That is, it could have been a case of a major reverse metaphor all along! Our brains might actually be a crude metaphor of the universe's. The universe creating meta-consciousness in its own image! Our meta-consciousness just an extension of the universe.
But alas, we don’t understand much the universe and its physical laws.
Who knows where the progress of our god concepts will take us: from unconscious metaphorization (blind faith) to conscious metaphors (bordering on parody, using the old concept of god) to genuine total de-metaphorization in the remote future – the deliberate, sincere, evidence-based and true equating of physical laws (many of which will be discovered in the future) to a new, less anthropocentric, less arrogant, anti-classical definition of godliness.
VII. So, does God exist?
Or in other words, do I believe in God?
Yes and no.
NO, not in a jealous, ego-centric, literally male god who is so conceited he requires daily worship and devotion (otherwise, say hello to fire and brimstone).
NO, not in an unconscious metaphor.
But YES, in the god of Einstein and Spinoza. Yes, in the new metaphor.
YES, maybe in our patrons, those quasi-gods if they exist and are higly advanced: those goddamned aliens, who are conceited or not, or morally ascendant or not; who, by virtue of being a class IV civilization, have god-like attributes and thus are worthy of our regard; who were able to create us IF that might the case be (in the same way that we, eventually as post-humanity, will create robots in our own image, e.g., cylons); who might want to destroy us if we become too powerful for comfort.
Yes, in Dudeism (thanks, Mogli for converting me to this!).
Yes, in that we are all in the same boat.
And maybe yes, for peace, love, tolerance and the better side of culture and tradition. We do not aim to ram our positions down people’s throats and come across as ranting bigots (like the bigots of religions, the atheist Richard Dawkins is too arrogant and too militant). Otherwise, it would be a boring world littered with people with the same belief. The virtue of crop or species diversity applies to human thinking.
Echus!
Gusto mo ba makatulong ?
It’s supposedly the Armageddon, sortof, in America right now. Or Day 1, Year 1, AA* around here. :)
Posts
