on fairytales

fairytale
noun
1. an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse.

In class this week, we have been discussing religion, god and free-will. Despite the fact that mother culture has pounded the story of "humanity being created by an all-loving and all-powerful god" into my head from the time of my birth, I have no factual evidence to support or to make any arguments based upon the existence of god. However, in this blog I will proceed by granting that god does exist for the sake of argument.

Myth #1: Free-will

According to the Christian's story of creation, logically we cannot have free-will, even though god says that we can. The story claims that god created everything. If god created everything, then god created all of the choices that we have. Therefore, any action that we could possibly make would be an action that god gave us the option to make. There is no path we could take by our own free-will, without god's control, because god MADE every path that we could possibly take. Our sphere of choices is purely dictated by what god decided to create. There is no rebellion against god or action that would be completely devoid of his influence because he made everything. Thus, we have no free-will. We have the choice to decide between a few options that god decided to give us. Luckily, god is not too controlling and gave us a nice variety of options, at least. You could compare this to a prisoner, in jail for life, who can choose between fish sticks and a hamburger for dinner, as mandated by the prison kitchen staff. Yes, he has the choice between eating fish sticks and a hamburger, but he can't leave the prison and get something that is not made for him by the prison, like carl's junior. All of his choices are controlled by the prison, therefore he has no free will.

Myth #2: God is all-powerful

Apparently, God is all powerful. This means that he has complete power...ruler of the universe, king of everything. However, Christianity teaches that there is a fight between good and evil in the world, namely between god and the devil. The devil is said to influence people if they open the door to him. The devil even has his own corner of heaven all to himself, called hell. This would make the devil "somewhat" powerful. The logical error here is that god cannot be all powerful and the devil be "somewhat" powerful. If god is all powerful, then the devil must have no power, and the fight between good and evil must be nonexistent. This would mean that sin would be nonexistent because the devil would have no power to create evil. You could also argue that if god is all powerful and all good, then all of his creations are without sin because sin is evil, and god is all good and all powerful. Thus, if god is all powerful, then there is no such thing as sin. If there truly is a fight between good and evil, then the devil is "somewhat powerful" and god is "somewhat powerful".

Myth #3: God is all-good, and free of human imperfections.

The bible states that Jesus, God's son, came down from heavan and gave his life for all of our sins. This selfless act was supposed to cover all of mankinds sins for the rest of eternity, or at least the men that decided to give their lives to Jesus. In class, one of the students referred to this as "Jesus paying a debt"...Our sins being the debt, and Jesus' crusifixion being the payment. Jesus was a blood sacrifice to "satisfy" god by covering all of the sins of humanity. The problem here is that god is supposed to be all-good and free of human imperfection. Why would god feel the need for a blood sacrifice to "satisfy" his problem with the sins of humanity? This implies that God is personally offended by human sin. It also implies that God is insecure and feels like he needs to be re-paid for our sins. It implies that by sinning, we are taking something away from god, and causing in him the human emotion of offense, requiring retribution. Offense and satisfaction are human emotions, and not characteristic of an all-good and perfect being. By saying that god needed to be satisfied, you are implying that god was previously dissatisfied and threatened by something. Any being that was all-good, free of human imperfection, and master creator of the universe would never feel personally offended, threatened, or feel the need to be satisfied by spilling blood. (the crucifixion) In fact, blood shed seems to be a rather primitive and unevolved solution to sin. You would think that god could've been more creative and come up with a solution other than killing his son. We are giving ourselves a lot of credit by thinking that our "sins" cause the master creator of the universe to feel so offended that he has to give his only son to "repay the debt" that was afflicted upon him by us. Is god really this petty, and is man so arrogant to think that the emotional state of the master of all creation relies upon man's individual sins?? If god feels hurt, or is distraught, then this implies that he is a finite being and capable of being damaged. Isn't god supposed to be infinite? Isn't God supposed to be above all of these human emotions anyway?

Actually, an all- powerful, all-good creator lacking in all human imperfection would never create such an imperfect world. He would be perfect and incapable of creating anything but perfection, because creating something that is less than perfect would make him less than perfect. Maybe God is imperfect and corrupt and revels in the emotional drama that is life on earth. This would make him just like us...wait, Jesus said that we are just like him... "...you will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will you do. (John 14:12)

on inconsistency

Last week in class we discussed Moore and his logical arguments regarding reality.  Moore claims that he can prove the existence of his reality because he senses his reality.  He can prove the existence of the furnishings in his room because he can see them and feel them.  Moreover, Moore also claims that some realities are over determined, such as the reality of death after drinking a poison.  In class, we argued that the exceptions to these statements merely go against reality and are not the true reality.  We also argued that though the skeptic may believe that his hand might not exist, he would never venture to cut it off.  

The problem with the logical point of view is that it is inconsistent.  In order for a reality to make sense, it has to be consistent and universal.  Though the reality that we perceive tends to, most of the time, agree with Moore's logical claims, there are still occurrences that defy his claims.  The few occurrences that go against Moore's logic are enough to invalidate his theories, as it makes them inconsistent.  Claiming that there is a logical organization to the universe and random and rare chaos at the same time does not make sense.  There is either a logical organization that all of life follows at all times, or there is random chaos.  There cannot be both.

In class on Friday we discussed a woman  with multiple personality disorder.  Multiple personality disorder would be considered by Moore to be all in the mind.  Moore would consider the individual with multiple personality disorder to have one self identity, that is afflicted with mental illness.  He would say that the mentally ill individual has the same body and mind despite which personality was manifested.  This seems to be true, however, there are inconsistencies.  There are reported cases of multiple personality disorder where people's bodies chemically changed depending upon which personality is present at the time.  In one case, a man had an allergic reaction to a particular substance that caused hives and swelling while one personality was present, and when his other personality was present he had no allergic reaction at all.  In another case, an adult with two personalities, an adult personality and a child personality, responded differently to drugs depending on which personality he identified with.  When this adult believed he was the child personality, his body responded to lower levels of drugs than when the adult believed he was the adult personality.  These medical cases completely defy Moore's logic, and do not make sense according to his theories.  This is merely one example of the many inconsistencies in life that go against logical theories.

Before studying logic, most of the class agreed that your reality is what you believe it be and that reality is completely subjective.  I have theorized that you create your own reality and that everything that occurs in life happens because you believe it will happen.  I feel this theory is strong because it is the only theory that universally makes sense.  This theory seems to make sense with any possible scenerio.  For example, in class we discussed how language must be real because we all use it an understand it.  Since Moore's logic is inconsistent and not universal, it is invalid and cannot apply to language or anything else.  However, all of us believe that language works and that we all understand it, so perhaps this is what makes it so.  We would not even try to use language if we did not believe, without a doubt, that it is real.  Using another example that we argued in class, the skeptic can question the reality of his hand all he wants but he probably would never attempt to cut it off.  Moore claims that this is because his hand is real and exists despite what the individual might believe.  However, consider that by the mere fact that the skeptic is doubting the existence of his hand is evidence that he does in fact truly believe he has a hand, therefore he does, which would cause him to bleed if he attempted to cut it off. 

Anything that we doubt is something that we firmly believe in, otherwise we would not waste time doubting it.  No one sits around doubting the existence of dragons because none of us firmly believe that dragons exist.  An individual might take a moment to state that he does not believe in dragons, but he would never spend his life coming up with theories as to why dragons might not exist, and even if he did spend his life doing this, no one would care about his work because no one believes in dragons enough to care to examine any possible doubt.  Thus, all of the things that we doubt are things that we firmly believe in.  Therefore, if belief were to presuppose existence, everything in our reality would make sense.  We believe in everything around us, even the things we doubt.  

11 October 2008: on substance

It seems that the only reality we cannot doubt is the reality that we exist as some type of thinking substance. Whether that substance be thought, creative energy, or spirit, "we know not what". It is impossible to escape our own minds and check the existence of other entities as existing separately from our own consciousness, therefore, nothing else is provably real. Hence, it seems we can argue that perhaps only one substance exists because we can argue that all other substances might not exist. All other substances could be creations of our own consciousness and there is no way of proving otherwise. To do this, we would have to escape our own consciousness and this is not possible.

How can only one substance exist, and what is this one substance made of? And if there is only one substance that makes up "reality", how is it that we perceive the world to be made up of many different things, functioning independently of each other? In class, we discussed the flaw in the argument that reality is made of one substance, because then one could inquire as to what that one substance is made of, which could lead one to inquire as to what the one substance composing the one substance that reality is made of is REALLY composed of. It would be impossible to argue that a unit is the ultimate unit of measurement, and that there is no measurement beyond that unit. Also, attempting to measure reality in units describing its size is completely flawed because size is a product of the senses and human perception. Size might not arguably exist.

Thus it is futile to attempt to measure reality by some type of ultimate unit that everything is composed of. However, we are still faced with the dilemma that we can only argue the existence of one substance, being our own consciousness.

In my last blog, I discussed how everything must exist in a context because nothing can exist without context. The context of an entity gives an entity its meaning. For example, the term "everything" would have no meaning without comparing it to its opposite term "nothing", or a lesser amount like "some things". Another example: the color black could not exist if it were the only color in the world, as there would be nothing to compare it to. The only way we measure the color black is by other colors which are not black.

In this case, singularity cannot exist without multiplicity because there would be no measure of singularity without multiplicity. Thus, the single consciousness that we can argue exists would not exist in the absence of multiplicity. Perhaps reality is composed of one consciousness, which is made of a multitude of individual consciousness, and the multitude of individual consciousness is made of one consciousness and so on. The presence of a multitude of individual consciousness is necessary for the existence of one consciousness. The only reality we can prove is the existence of one consciousness, being our own. Therefore, a multitude of individual consciousness must exist at the same time in order for our own singular consciousness to exist.

(by "a multitude of consciousness" I am referring to all of existence, not just human consciousness. Anything that we perceive to exist separately and independently of our own consciousness represents a multitude of consciousness. Berkeley claims that nothing can exist without being "thought of". He claims that, for this reason, everything must have consciousness. Berkeley used this argument to prove the existence of god, however, I think there is no logical reason to assume that god must exist as a result of every "existing" thing having consciousness. However, this could lead one to inquire as to the nature of god, and what "god" really is, but this is a litte off topic for this blog.)

How could it be possible for one consciousness and a multitude of individual consciousness to exist at the same time, moreover, defining each other and in a way becoming the "substance" that makes up the other? Once again, in order for there to be one consciousness (our own consciousness, which is the only entity that we can actually prove at this point to exist), a multitude of individual consciousness must exist to give the one consciousness meaning. It is difficult to argue whether or not your own consciousness is truly separate from that of other people's. This is a huge topic to tackle and would require way more than one blog. In short we have no way of proving whether or not our consciousness exists separately and completely independent of "everyone else", or whether or not there is a collective consciousness that we are a part of and perhaps our thoughts are merely a reflection of the thoughts of the collective consciousness. There is no way to know anything, except for the existence of our own consciousness, which necessitates the existence of a multitude of individual consciousness at the same time. It seems that this "context" is the only unit of measurement that could really apply to reality, as the general measurements for reality cannot be proven to concretely exist. Time and distance are merely a measurement of change, and change is merely a perception of the human mind. We have no way to prove the existence of these entities as they are merely products of our senses, and senses deceive. Time exists in relation to infinity, distance exists in relation to unity, multiplicity exists in relation to singularity. Perhaps context is the only true measurement of reality. Perhaps substance is context.