I had to laugh in raucous hilarity as I perused a recent blog by the ever opinionated Pastor Mike, taking sister Jo (a Catechist - which types he dislikes for usurping his "authority") to task for "using all common letters for the word GOD!" Actually, she didn't - she used: God, which is the appropriate English designation with a capital 'G' and the rest common (if Mikey would take the time to consult his Funk & Wagnalls)
But in the end, what's the big deal? It makes no difference since we're talking about a non-entity anyway. It's somewhat like arguing whether FSM ('flying spaghetti monster' acronymn) must have all letters capitalized, or it be denoted 'Fsm' or 'fsm'. Or debating on the actual existence of the "Trakuloooroeirsyxc" and the degree to which he, she or it influences anything. It makes no difference because no one is talking about a genuine entity.
At the root what we have are widely variant contentions on the validity of language. In Mikey's case, he employs a language (word) that has no basis in reality, so whether he uses all caps for "G-O-D' or not is immaterial. What do I mean?
The glory and tragedy of the human brain (which is finite and imperfect) is that it possesses the incredible capacity to generate symbols and sounds of language, for which there exists no corresponding entity in the real world! This means that humans are just as capable of producing meaningless noise as they are of producing information-based signals.
"Mars has completed three orbits of the Sun" generates information, but "The elephant-baboon jumped over Jupiter's last Moon" is gibberish. It is up to each person, as a critical thinker, to be able to distinguish these cases and thereby separate linguistic wheat from chaff. Merely because one can state or write a word is no assurance that anything substantive resides in the objective world. (I don't care how much anyone believes there is something substantive! That doesn't count!)
Thus, the task is for the language recipient to be able to separate out nonsense words from words that identfiy real objects. Even shades of meaning can render a word used wrong in a different context. For example, scientific instruments, measurements and errors have very specific terms which must not be carelessly applied. A spectroscope is not the same as a spectrophotometer, and a probable error is not the same as a possible error. Moreover, a theory is not the same as a hypothesis. If one term is incorrect in meaning, the entire edifice of the word collapses, and any "logic" applied collapses on its own accord. To argue from logic one must first avail oneself of the correct language- and meanings!
The situation is rendered much more untenable when a person invokes or employs words to portray an "existent" which hasn't even been validated ontologically. In this case, "God" enters - and is as likely to have ten different meanings to ten different people.
True, language entitles people to use it in ways not strictly scientific, but that doesn't mean that it's incumbent on me to find meaning in them all! If a religious charismatic approaches me and begins babbling "Owawaga ..boroagogoa....eeemoora", I'm under no obligation whatsoever to try to find "meaning" or significance in the ramblings. I don't have to run behind them to tape record their ....errrr... "speaking in tongues", then repair to my study to transcribe and decipher them. I'd have no more reason to do that than to pay attention to the incoherent rantings of a drunkard on the street. In either case it is patently obvious that the language used is devoid of informational content, and is comprised of noise only! This applies similarly to one who uses a word or term for which he claims existence in the objective world, but hasn't provided any necessary or sufficient conditions to ontologically validate that existence.
Because of the widely varying signal-to-noise ratio in all language, it's extremely crucial that no language or word (e.g. GOD) be taken literally without some further corroboration or testing in reality. This is where scientific analysis can play a role, in making language accountable to the real world-- as opposed to the hallucinations of a drunk in a stupor, the temporary psychosis of a charismatic, or the supernatural delusions of a religious believer. (Especially a hyper-delusional fundie who's entire waking reality is invested exclusively in a 2 3/4 pound book that's been corrupted more than a 2,000 year old drachma coin!)
A second and even more serious mind trap awaits the God- babbler. That is, in his most superificial definitions he always assigns to this term "GOD" - infinite and omni -attributes. But the problem is that according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem(s) an infinite number of axioms would be required to embody the claimed "infinite" entity. BUT, the finite human brain can never comprehend such a system that, by definition, possesses infinite axioms! Worse, any finite system (or brain) which does attempt it will inevitably introduce contradictions between the "axioms" (or attribute statements) it does assign. Hence the paradox of an infinite (assumed) Being unable to do one small thing to stop an impending evil. Actually, it isn't a paradox at all but a contradiction between the assigned infinite power (omnipotence) and infinite goodness (omni-benevolence) of the invented deity.
Any ultimate system with general properties commonly ascribed to God, including omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience, would fit this category. The Incompleteness Theorems exclude the possibility that humans can ever arrive at the equivalent of such an entity, since there are limits on the information we can process- both in terms of quantity and rate of neural processing. One is therefore fooling himself if he believes he's referring to anything substantive.
"Omniscience" as infinite information is, therefore, a meaningless noise, since it is a meta-logical, self-referential attribute that could only be recognized by an omniscient being.
Let’s now look at a similar impasse that is introduced by simply including “omnipresent” as an attribute of God in a metaphysical statement ABOUT God. “God is omnipresent and condemns those who disbelieve in Him to Hell” Superficially this may sound plausible to an orthodox religionist, maybe a conservative evangelical, but that’s because he or she isn’t thinking carefully enough about the implications of invoking the attribute. “Omnipresent” means what it states – not half present, not a quarter present, and not in some places or conditions – but in ALL. If one uses the term, one accedes to the meaning. One can't back out of the meaning when it becomes inconvenient to other purposes, like trying to condemn sinners or infidels to "Hell".
My contention is that, like the doublet statement, this is a statement of contradiction. There are two parts to the statement:
G = O
G ->U -> H
The first equates “GOD” (G) with being omnipresent(O).
If indeed omnipresence is a singular attribute and ONLY God can have it, then we essentially have an identity between the attribute and the entity. If then something exists and is omnipresent it must be GOD. (G = O). It cannot be anything else. (Which creates another problem for certain believers when they attribute so much ability, e.g. in temptation of billions, to "Satan" that the entity rivals "God" in omnipresence!)
The transactional statement G -> U-> H meanwhile implies an action, such that GOD (G) acts on the Unbeliever (U) to dispatch him or her to Hell (H) .
The contradiction arises when one makes the appropriate substitution of "G = O" into the second statement so that it becomes:
O -> U -> H
But if Omnipresence now guides the transaction, all elements must be defined by it since there can be only one omnipresence. Therefore IF G = O It must be also true that:
But in the end, what's the big deal? It makes no difference since we're talking about a non-entity anyway. It's somewhat like arguing whether FSM ('flying spaghetti monster' acronymn) must have all letters capitalized, or it be denoted 'Fsm' or 'fsm'. Or debating on the actual existence of the "Trakuloooroeirsyxc" and the degree to which he, she or it influences anything. It makes no difference because no one is talking about a genuine entity.
At the root what we have are widely variant contentions on the validity of language. In Mikey's case, he employs a language (word) that has no basis in reality, so whether he uses all caps for "G-O-D' or not is immaterial. What do I mean?
The glory and tragedy of the human brain (which is finite and imperfect) is that it possesses the incredible capacity to generate symbols and sounds of language, for which there exists no corresponding entity in the real world! This means that humans are just as capable of producing meaningless noise as they are of producing information-based signals.
"Mars has completed three orbits of the Sun" generates information, but "The elephant-baboon jumped over Jupiter's last Moon" is gibberish. It is up to each person, as a critical thinker, to be able to distinguish these cases and thereby separate linguistic wheat from chaff. Merely because one can state or write a word is no assurance that anything substantive resides in the objective world. (I don't care how much anyone believes there is something substantive! That doesn't count!)
Thus, the task is for the language recipient to be able to separate out nonsense words from words that identfiy real objects. Even shades of meaning can render a word used wrong in a different context. For example, scientific instruments, measurements and errors have very specific terms which must not be carelessly applied. A spectroscope is not the same as a spectrophotometer, and a probable error is not the same as a possible error. Moreover, a theory is not the same as a hypothesis. If one term is incorrect in meaning, the entire edifice of the word collapses, and any "logic" applied collapses on its own accord. To argue from logic one must first avail oneself of the correct language- and meanings!
The situation is rendered much more untenable when a person invokes or employs words to portray an "existent" which hasn't even been validated ontologically. In this case, "God" enters - and is as likely to have ten different meanings to ten different people.
True, language entitles people to use it in ways not strictly scientific, but that doesn't mean that it's incumbent on me to find meaning in them all! If a religious charismatic approaches me and begins babbling "Owawaga ..boroagogoa....eeemoora", I'm under no obligation whatsoever to try to find "meaning" or significance in the ramblings. I don't have to run behind them to tape record their ....errrr... "speaking in tongues", then repair to my study to transcribe and decipher them. I'd have no more reason to do that than to pay attention to the incoherent rantings of a drunkard on the street. In either case it is patently obvious that the language used is devoid of informational content, and is comprised of noise only! This applies similarly to one who uses a word or term for which he claims existence in the objective world, but hasn't provided any necessary or sufficient conditions to ontologically validate that existence.
Because of the widely varying signal-to-noise ratio in all language, it's extremely crucial that no language or word (e.g. GOD) be taken literally without some further corroboration or testing in reality. This is where scientific analysis can play a role, in making language accountable to the real world-- as opposed to the hallucinations of a drunk in a stupor, the temporary psychosis of a charismatic, or the supernatural delusions of a religious believer. (Especially a hyper-delusional fundie who's entire waking reality is invested exclusively in a 2 3/4 pound book that's been corrupted more than a 2,000 year old drachma coin!)
A second and even more serious mind trap awaits the God- babbler. That is, in his most superificial definitions he always assigns to this term "GOD" - infinite and omni -attributes. But the problem is that according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem(s) an infinite number of axioms would be required to embody the claimed "infinite" entity. BUT, the finite human brain can never comprehend such a system that, by definition, possesses infinite axioms! Worse, any finite system (or brain) which does attempt it will inevitably introduce contradictions between the "axioms" (or attribute statements) it does assign. Hence the paradox of an infinite (assumed) Being unable to do one small thing to stop an impending evil. Actually, it isn't a paradox at all but a contradiction between the assigned infinite power (omnipotence) and infinite goodness (omni-benevolence) of the invented deity.
Any ultimate system with general properties commonly ascribed to God, including omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience, would fit this category. The Incompleteness Theorems exclude the possibility that humans can ever arrive at the equivalent of such an entity, since there are limits on the information we can process- both in terms of quantity and rate of neural processing. One is therefore fooling himself if he believes he's referring to anything substantive.
"Omniscience" as infinite information is, therefore, a meaningless noise, since it is a meta-logical, self-referential attribute that could only be recognized by an omniscient being.
Let’s now look at a similar impasse that is introduced by simply including “omnipresent” as an attribute of God in a metaphysical statement ABOUT God. “God is omnipresent and condemns those who disbelieve in Him to Hell” Superficially this may sound plausible to an orthodox religionist, maybe a conservative evangelical, but that’s because he or she isn’t thinking carefully enough about the implications of invoking the attribute. “Omnipresent” means what it states – not half present, not a quarter present, and not in some places or conditions – but in ALL. If one uses the term, one accedes to the meaning. One can't back out of the meaning when it becomes inconvenient to other purposes, like trying to condemn sinners or infidels to "Hell".
My contention is that, like the doublet statement, this is a statement of contradiction. There are two parts to the statement:
G = O
G ->U -> H
The first equates “GOD” (G) with being omnipresent(O).
If indeed omnipresence is a singular attribute and ONLY God can have it, then we essentially have an identity between the attribute and the entity. If then something exists and is omnipresent it must be GOD. (G = O). It cannot be anything else. (Which creates another problem for certain believers when they attribute so much ability, e.g. in temptation of billions, to "Satan" that the entity rivals "God" in omnipresence!)
The transactional statement G -> U-> H meanwhile implies an action, such that GOD (G) acts on the Unbeliever (U) to dispatch him or her to Hell (H) .
The contradiction arises when one makes the appropriate substitution of "G = O" into the second statement so that it becomes:
O -> U -> H
But if Omnipresence now guides the transaction, all elements must be defined by it since there can be only one omnipresence. Therefore IF G = O It must be also true that:
O = U (U) O = H . (Where (U) denotes the union of the two sets 'O' and 'U' meaning that O (0mnipresence) must subsume 'U', unbelievers.
So:
O -> U -> H = O -> O->O
In other words, omnipresence (of G) extends to the Unbeliever, and also to H (Hell)!
Therefore IF the following statement is true:
“God condemns those who disbelieve in Him to Hell”
And if “God is Omnipresent” , Then: “God condemns himself to Hell – which is also Himself” must also be true, since:
O ->->O-> O
Religionists may decry this as some kind of devilish “trickery” but it isn’t. It's simply faithfully using the believer’s own language (claiming that his deity is “omnipresent”) and following that through to its logical conclusion in a specific statement frequently made by orthodox believers. If the believers don’t like it, then they need to ditch the attribute. (This is exactly why thoughtful Christian believers are now reconsidering the Socinian deity which is assigned non-infinite properties and no omni-attributes. For example, the Socinian deity is not "omniscient" but can only know what its most sentient beings know- that is the most it can work with.)
This is intended to show what sort of labyrinthinine messes the human mind can get into when it doesn't test language use and merely adopts a word without accountability.
In this light, French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion (‘God Without Being’, 1991) was quite correct in challenging people to think of --G---O--D-- non-conceptual way. That is, only with a strike through when the word is written, to indicate no one has the capacity to describe, grasp, conceptualize or manipulate the underlying entity. Or say it without uttering meaningless drivel.
Because of the mutually self- limiting nature of ultimate-omni attributes, author James Byrne ('GOD') acknowledges all statements made by humans to do with God must be either incomplete or more often, contradictory. (And the Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem(s) assure this).
It is more productive and practical, as Byrne avers, to regard "God" (if one must invoke the noun at all) as a "regulative ideal". Such an ideal for human use does not necessarily preclude a transcendent Being, but doesn't require it either. If one does insist it has a reality backing, he must at the very least provide those pesky n-s conditions.
For the evangelicalist this is made even more formidable in difficulty since he must not only show his regulative ideal (embodied in the term 'God') defines what he intends it to (using the necessary and sufficient conditions) but that it is also consistent. For example, if his entity is putatively "omni"-based this would entail the property of being omni-loving or 'ALL loving" too. But how can this be rendered consistent with an entity that permits children to be slaughtered by a She -bear (e.g. 2 Kings 2, 23:24 ) or an elder son allowed to be stoned to death for mere insolence to his parents (Deut. 21: 18-21 )? Punting, by asserting "infinite justice is also part of the entity" doesn't cut the mustard since clearly by allowing either of the two events described in the "good Book" - which Pastor Mikey has offered me as a future "cure" for any food poisoning - see photo) means the justice exceeds the love. (Btw, thanks Mikey, but I believe I will stick with the Echinacea! It's already been tested and passed, while your KJV hasn't passed any real tests!)
Above all, any divine love that is truly predicated on being "all loving" means it must also be unconditional. If not, and if a homicidal "justice" is initiated for a mere slight (calling an old prophet "baldy" or a son's mere back talk) then we have cruelty (not even justice) trumping any kind of love which means the entity is merely a tyrant. But this very example discloses the pitfalls of language when a meager, over eager human brain tries to accommodate something that's impossible to define - even if it existed!
Or more likely as James Byrne and Jean-Luc Marion would put it:
"A limited and corrupted cartoon created by a limited human brain employing language which has no counterpart in reality"
So:
O -> U -> H = O -> O->O
In other words, omnipresence (of G) extends to the Unbeliever, and also to H (Hell)!
Therefore IF the following statement is true:
“God condemns those who disbelieve in Him to Hell”
And if “God is Omnipresent” , Then: “God condemns himself to Hell – which is also Himself” must also be true, since:
O ->->O-> O
Religionists may decry this as some kind of devilish “trickery” but it isn’t. It's simply faithfully using the believer’s own language (claiming that his deity is “omnipresent”) and following that through to its logical conclusion in a specific statement frequently made by orthodox believers. If the believers don’t like it, then they need to ditch the attribute. (This is exactly why thoughtful Christian believers are now reconsidering the Socinian deity which is assigned non-infinite properties and no omni-attributes. For example, the Socinian deity is not "omniscient" but can only know what its most sentient beings know- that is the most it can work with.)
This is intended to show what sort of labyrinthinine messes the human mind can get into when it doesn't test language use and merely adopts a word without accountability.
In this light, French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion (‘God Without Being’, 1991) was quite correct in challenging people to think of --G---O--D-- non-conceptual way. That is, only with a strike through when the word is written, to indicate no one has the capacity to describe, grasp, conceptualize or manipulate the underlying entity. Or say it without uttering meaningless drivel.
Because of the mutually self- limiting nature of ultimate-omni attributes, author James Byrne ('GOD') acknowledges all statements made by humans to do with God must be either incomplete or more often, contradictory. (And the Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem(s) assure this).
It is more productive and practical, as Byrne avers, to regard "God" (if one must invoke the noun at all) as a "regulative ideal". Such an ideal for human use does not necessarily preclude a transcendent Being, but doesn't require it either. If one does insist it has a reality backing, he must at the very least provide those pesky n-s conditions.
For the evangelicalist this is made even more formidable in difficulty since he must not only show his regulative ideal (embodied in the term 'God') defines what he intends it to (using the necessary and sufficient conditions) but that it is also consistent. For example, if his entity is putatively "omni"-based this would entail the property of being omni-loving or 'ALL loving" too. But how can this be rendered consistent with an entity that permits children to be slaughtered by a She -bear (e.g. 2 Kings 2, 23:24 ) or an elder son allowed to be stoned to death for mere insolence to his parents (Deut. 21: 18-21 )? Punting, by asserting "infinite justice is also part of the entity" doesn't cut the mustard since clearly by allowing either of the two events described in the "good Book" - which Pastor Mikey has offered me as a future "cure" for any food poisoning - see photo) means the justice exceeds the love. (Btw, thanks Mikey, but I believe I will stick with the Echinacea! It's already been tested and passed, while your KJV hasn't passed any real tests!)
Above all, any divine love that is truly predicated on being "all loving" means it must also be unconditional. If not, and if a homicidal "justice" is initiated for a mere slight (calling an old prophet "baldy" or a son's mere back talk) then we have cruelty (not even justice) trumping any kind of love which means the entity is merely a tyrant. But this very example discloses the pitfalls of language when a meager, over eager human brain tries to accommodate something that's impossible to define - even if it existed!
Or more likely as James Byrne and Jean-Luc Marion would put it:
"A limited and corrupted cartoon created by a limited human brain employing language which has no counterpart in reality"
No comments:
Post a Comment