Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts

Omnipotent, yes, omniscient, yes, but omnicognizant?

It is often asked: (a) how can our almighty, all-loving and good God permit tragedies such as the holocaust and/or one’s own marriage break-up? (b) how can such a complex universe come into being without being designed by an intelligence at least as great as that of a human?

Now as far as I can tell from the Bible, the deity has infinite force at its disposal, and has knowledge of everything, at least in the present, and presumably in the past. But as long as humans have free will, not the future. Thus the deity had to destroy all humanity except Noah and his family, for being unexpectedly evil.
This leads to another issue: can the deity change the laws of logic and mathematics? To my mind, if a deity ‘wishes’ to ordain that two plus two makes five, all it can do is persuade humanity to name 2+2 as ‘five’, or something like Indo-European*phenchwe. Even then humans have the free will to take up the idea and the free will to make *phenchwe evolve into five, fünf, punch, etc. Otherwise, if the deity has the ability to change the laws of logic and mathematics, perhaps in ways incongruous and impossible, then the laws of logic attempted in this article are as of nought.

And would the deity get a First in Social Sciences?  Even if it set the paper itself.  Such involves summing up free-will activities in a way that is primarily of use to humans.  A deity cannot know the GDP of a country at midnight of the accounting period, since even if it has knowledge of all the relevant activities, judgment of what constitutes what is a matter of free will.

Mathematicians will note that some problems can only be solved by simulation: using a machine that goes through an algorithm that simulates reality and perhaps uses trial-and-error.  Perhaps the deity uses humans as such machines.  If so, how can we say that the world could only be created by an intelligent being?  Rather if there is an intelligent being, all it can do is give the world a shove and see what happens, which is really the opposite of what the intelligent being advocates are arguing.

So coming back to the first two questions: maybe the best answer is that perhaps being almighty isn’t as mighty as all that.



Martin Prior

Freedom

Only “God” is free - By Samuel Mack-Poole


“None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free.” -- Johann Wolfgang Goethe.

What a topic! Freedom is something that I’ve thought about in quite a lot of detail. I’ve really considered it; the implications it has, its definition, whether humans can be truly free. However, I think it is my duty to define what freedom is:

1.    the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint
2.    exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.    the power to determine action without restraint.
4.    political or national independence.
5.    personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

Spinoza on emotions, self-preservation and our being


Emotions: pesky little things aren’t they? Some bring joy; others anguish, with a whole host of different feelings betwixt the two. Think of the first time you fell in love, or got a present you really wanted, or passed an exam or driving test. Now, think of a saddening event. Thence, think of how you felt before and after. A whole host of emotions plague us, day in day out: to be torn in all directions is the natural human condition.

For a certain Mr Baruch de Spinoza, who believed that we are all defined through a non-religious God who ultimately controls all things in the universe, emotions are beautiful, logical things. This is because God is defined by logic: he is self-causing and his essence is this self-causation – he must thus continue to produce things to continue to exist. Logical, no? If we are thus created by a logical God, and so is everything else – every imaginable thing: plants, cars, muscles, thoughts, pens and paper, musings and eyebrow raises – emotions, too, are logical. ‘Emotions can be treated and explained through logic, as if they were geometry’, to paraphrase the good man. 

Power of acting; definition of emotions

How though, do we get to this idea? What, first of all, is an emotion? Spinoza tells us in the following statement to define it as the modes of a body by which the body’s ability to act is increased or decreased, the perceptions of these and the resultant reaction. 

Let us take the following example to understand Spinoza’s idea better: I am punched in the face. I see it coming, I feel it – my face feels it and my mind registers it simultaneously. I now stumble back: I cannot act, or be, as well as I could before the punch. I feel anger – my power of acting, of moving, of doing anything, may be better than before, but still not as good as before I was punched. Emotions cannot be controlled by us, says Spinoza – they are logically defined.

Spinoza gives us two base emotions, upon which all others are constructed: joy and sadness. It is through emotions that we can see how the environment is working for us. Emotions are the link between our inner state and the outer world. We can only find our ‘power of acting’ indirectly through the emotions – it can never be grasped directly.

We constantly desire to maintain a joyous, happy state – as everyone, of course, likes to be happy. We thus attempt to repel things that will have the ability to make our power of acting decrease – be it a sad event in our lives, an argument with somebody or a punch in the face; we always strive for the happier ones, as these give us a bit more ‘oomph’ and confidence.

Conatus

The notion of the ‘power of acting’, Spinoza takes yet a step further. Spinoza notes that we all have a certain drive within us: a desire and striving to stay alive. As we are all ultimately created by God, and he, as noted above, must necessarily create to keep existing, he leaves a little imprint of his power in all things, including humans: the desire to survive, the power of self-preservation at whatever cost. This power, he coins as the term ‘Conatus’.

The Conatus is in all things: it can be as obvious as someone running at us with a knife and us fleeing, or as abstract as an electron figuratively turning away from a proton or neutron. Self-preservation is what makes us, us. We do not want to be destroyed, hence we run – this is at our very being.

As the mind and body are simultaneously aware of each other through perceptions of the outside world (as one hits the body, the mind registers it and vice versa) and as the body cannot come into contact with something that would destroy it, neither then, can the mind. This means that the mind cannot think of anything that would destroy it: it cannot comprehend or even have a vague notion of death. To have a vague notion of death, would equate to its feeling of death through the body and it cannot do this, for if it had felt that, it would, by definition, be dead and thus unthinking. As a result, for Spinoza – the mind can only feel incredible highs and the depths of sadness, but nothing beyond that: death is not an option.

A few questions...

This also means that suicide is not an option – how is this explained? Spinoza would say that we can be killed, but only through an external cause, from an outside object. The mind would have no idea that we would die if someone stabs us: it would only sense threat. Can suicide ever exist in a Spinozian world?

Spinoza goes on to elaborate on every conceivable emotion in over 40 pages, all based upon the base emotions of happiness and sadness. Is it right to say that these are the basic emotions that we all feel?

Spinoza says that our basic desire for self-preservation makes us who we are. Is there not more to us than this?

Joe Sturdy


A poem for skeptics - By Ellese Elliott


A poem for skeptics

No word can depict the manifold
In a single living being
No names can imagine Gold
Nor the phenomena of seeing
No sentence could ever grasp
One's inkling of eternity
No language could describe
The meaning of infinity
Our logic renders us static
When we speak of one we love
We may seek refuge within mathematics
But then threatened by philosophy
All our dreams explained away
By the force of the enlightenment
But our science remains a foetus
In the belly of epistemology



A note on the poem:

Epistemology is the section of philosophy dedicated to thinking about knowledge: What it is and how do we obtain it. Episteme was a type of knowledge which was said to be divine or of the Gods and which only the gods could possess, however Protagorus (a pre-socratic philosopher (before Socrates)) pointed out that we can't know what the Gods know because we cannot know anything about the gods. Since then there has been much debate about what we can know for certain. Many philosophers have concluded we can always play the skeptic. To doubt everything including scientific claims as they rest upon a fallacious logic; for example, just because I observe something 'X' amount of times does not therefore mean it is now a golden rule. This form of reason is called induction and was said to have been founded by Aristotle, Plato's student over 2000 years ago. Even now Philosophers debate what we can know for sure and little has changed. The debate continues and will probably continue for some years to come. 

By Ellese Elliott

Spinoza’s Ethics - By Joe Sturdy


 Spinoza’s Ethics
Imagine that there is a God. Not a religious God, but just a thing, a power, called God – it is in nature and is absolutely infinite, that is – it has no beginning or end and causes itself. This is a key concept. It is the only such thing in the universe and can only be so, as it causes itself and for anything else to do so, would mean that it wouldn’t be by itself in the cosmos. You get the idea.
This ‘God’ must exist. As a result, if it must exist and self-causes itself, it must have some life-force. It cannot negate itself: it must thus produce something to carry on living, says Spinoza: he calls these 'somethings' modes. This is a very versatile term: they can be thoughts, imaginings, memories or anything at all physical – not just human bodies, but animals, carrier bags, cars, trees, the molecules and atoms that we breathe and come into a contact with on a daily basis. Think of a mode like this: the cricket ball smashing the window, the person tripping over the ball that was just kicked. Each of these, the cricket ball, the window, the person are modes.  These are produced endlessly, constantly. These are an abundance of richness.
As each of these is produced by God, which has a certain power as its life-force: the power to exist and thus produce, each of these modes too, has a little bit of God’s power in them. While they cannot, as God does, create themselves, they do have a bit of life-force within them: the power to keep living at all costs. This makes sense to us with humans: we snatch a hand away from intense heat, but what about a table? Spinoza would say that its property of staying upright and not breaking would consist as its life-force.
God has this life-force and constantly has to pump these modes out into existence, for that is what its essence and self-cause is: the force of needing to do whatever is needed to carry on existing. God cannot negate itself – it must keep on existing: by production of modes. As a result, we should see God as a power.
What sort of power? ‘One that creates all events and all things’, says Spinoza rather simplistically. The things, we understand: modes. But events? Each little event – the bag floating up into the air (caused by the movement of air), or the cricket ball smashing the window? Really, this is caused by God? Ultimately, yes; except to us, we don’t picture it as that; rather we see it as the cricket ball that was thrown by the child, smashing the window. In one way, that is of course true: the cricket ball did smash the window; modes can still interact with one another – but God is, in Spinoza’s eyes, the cause of events, as he produced the modes.
At this point, then: What have we got? Let’s take stock. The following points should be able to be seen:
An infinite (never ending, never beginning), self-caused and producing being that must necessarily do this to exist: ‘God’. It is non-religious. It produces a huge abundance of modes.
Modes – thoughts, memories, imaginings; physical things – atoms, molecules, trees, animals, human beings, carrier bags, cars, sugar, wood – you name it. These are produced by God and have a little bit of desire to do what they can to survive within them.
At this point, a couple of points should be made: if this has been set out well, it should be clear by now that, while we traditionally think that life events revolve around one another: the child cries and the mother sees this and picks it up and makes it happy again; what actually occurs is that each of these events is determined by God.
As a result, choice does not exist. Everything is determined by God, through God: he is the mover and shaker of the universe – he is within everything. Even though modes (the child and mother, for example) can still interact, ultimately all this is decided by God. We are, contrary to our beliefs not the most intelligent things on Earth: we are just another mode, fighting for survival like everything else (or so says Spinoza in part 1 of his Ethics, but will he maintain this deterministic world view in later parts? - Ed).
The traditional hierarchies of the Church, and indeed life, are now abandoned. There is no more supreme being: he is in all of us, in all things. Equality, should, according to Spinoza, now exist.
By Joe Sturdy

Want to write for us?

If you would like to submit an article for consideration, please contact thephilosophytakeaway@gmail.com

Search This Blog