The Vices and Triumphs of Atheism

One imagines that it is always difficult to both adhere to the truth as one cannot help but see (whenever it is clear) and remain polite about the religious and philosophical stances of others. For some time I was of the opinion that some considerations are best kept under wraps simply for the sake of civility and convenience in spite of whatever truths they may hold. The folly of adhering to such an oppressive directive is that an honest man finds more complications therein than whatever may have been originally sought escape from.

It is hard to see atheism as anything near 'revolutionary' (for the better or worse) given that it is not some grandiose ideological proposition but rather a rejection of a class of just such propositions. And yet, that it is seen that way is perhaps the best evidence that man derives some pleasure in prostrating himself before idols (regardless whether they be false or not). It cannot simply be a matter of desiring security in some spiritual sense, for man does not appear to be so modest a creature. Freeing oneself from the lure of something that one desires may well be admirable, but the real question is: what then? Atheism runs the risk of simply being rejection of a certain belief and nothing more. The freedom is as strong as yet another lure and it does not provide the guidance one would naturally assume is required for creatures who have only now shed such an easy categorical belief! There may well be strong individuals who can thereafter forge their own paths, but the bandwagon effect of something considered so revolutionary will have ensured that there are also weaker ones in the masses. They now find themselves with nothing to fall back upon- do they simply decide to rely on only what is perceived and established? Then what better fall-back than science! But this does not satiate their desire for guidance for it can do no more than refine its models. This is where such desires bring about corruption, where the entire process of human thinking runs the risk of becoming hindered by a different kind of extremism than what religion usually gives rise to.

That being the primary motivation for keeping something truly worthy of consideration at bay, I cannot agree even then, for if the choice was between the 'greater good' and the truth I would pick the latter. And so we consider the fundamental question- does God exist?

I cannot say that any of the 'God's existence would make him immoral' arguments have any weight at all. Morality is so ambiguous that it's not worth considering at all.
So let us assume that the classical definition of God that describe Him as a being with omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence gives us three disjoint properties (or at least that benevolence is disjoint from the other two, though of course, if this wasn't the case a contradiction might appear). Given how benevolence is a dead-end, if we can disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being analytically, the almighty God will be disproved and any other 'approximate God' will become redundant and not worthy of worship given that we cannot foresee bounds on our own potential.

To this end consider a case of omniscience vs omnipotence. Surely an omniscient God would know the atomic composition of any element in question, and surely an omnipotent one will be able to create any that he pleases. In the case of the same being, consider the question, 'Can God create an element whose composition he does not know?'. The question is a valid one if God had only one or the other of omnipotence and omniscience (unlike classical contradictory questions like that of the heavy stone), but when the two are taken together any answer will indicate the lack of one. So this absolute almighty God does not exist. And the proof can disengage itself from moral considerations entirely.

Of course, benevolence might be imposing conditions upon the other two properties (though with regard to examples like mine above one is hard pressed to see exactly how!), in which case the earlier objection still holds- why bother with a being whose state is not beyond our own reach? Such half-Gods may be worthy of a certain amount of respect, but it is there that the ethical considerations come into play- were the Greek Gods truly moral? Were the Hindu ones? By their purported actions at least they seemed to be driven by the same desires and irrationalities that drive man and beast. Thus the closest we can come to are creatures that suffer the same 'sentient condition' as man and beast and the true God simply does not exist.

Lament of the Übermensch

*I apologise in advance for any seeming disconnectedness in this post, having been adapted from a response of mine elsewhere*

If the postulate that all concerned beings are slaves to desire is entertained, it may be easily imagined how a superior being would be caught up in what they may already afford themselves rather than perpetually seeking more. Of course there may be some instances which force them to act, but it is unlikely that such things ever become more than the occassional budge on the stationary pendulum (even without making any hypotheses as to 'how' their functions may be like).
Thus in renouncing the escape to other-wordly concerns there lies a new danger, that of complacency and loss of further motivation once a certain tier is reached.

Human Nature and the Deliverance of Justice

Based on the author's posts at http://forums.mangafox.com/group.php?do=discuss&discussionid=1124&pp=10&page=2

The devil, demons, or whatever hellspawn one comes up with, they are simply personifications of evil that serve only to help humanity (and foreseeably any other type of intelligent enough creature unwilling to accept the extremities of its nature) look at it with a safe detachment. The truth of the matter however, is often that we are at the crux of evil to begin with, just as we are at the heart of good. All too often we commit to either good or evil too readily, knowing that it binds us, and most horrifically, makes us all the more susceptible to the other. It is in our capacities that the distinctions are dissolved- we are capable of the greatest good and the vilest evil, what sets us apart though is that we have a say. We have choice of intent, choice of action and even choice of thought- so progress lies in the study of our nature, beyond good and evil.

We are of course free to set arbitrary bounds on what is good and evil, and such become necessary to maintain social order (though arguably rather more as what is tolerable to the order and what decrees punishment as an agent of chaos than outright good an evil, but who can say that they can consistently define the latter two?). In which case we clearly see that our idea of 'good' is not as consistent as we may purport- certainly order seems inherently good, but what of circumstances that require minor, formal 'evils' to maintain that overall good order? We cannot naively hope to uphold this contradiction, and criminal law provides us with a reprieve that places burden on no one individual but on the group.

An act does not become an act subject to judgement without intent, and a justice system has but one- ensuring order. There is no one person that intends this, rather it is the culmination of society's wish to protect itself. So any punishment the justice system decrees is a matter of self-defence. Say you killed a man in self-defence- is that the sort of cold-blooded murder we seem to inherently cringe at? I wouldn't say so, and thus I would agree with the death penalty given the circumstances were grave enough (or equivalently, the threat to the survival of the social order pressing enough).

The matter of justice is not about vengeance or retribution, it is about security. For instance, a murderer receiving the death penalty does not mean that those whose lives he stole would come back, but it will ensure that the threat he poses to anyone in the concerned social order is eliminated. Of course, a lifetime of imprisonment may also be sufficient, but what's to say there will be no unforeseen circumstances where this penalty is loosened and the threat looms once more? And why should the social order bear the burden of sustaining a threat to itself? Hence the notion of security which provided the framework for this entire treatment is also upheld by the swift and unapologetic whiplash of justice.

The Great Enigma of the Missing Cat!

Originally from the author's posts at http://forums.mangafox.com/group.php?do=discuss&discussionid=1081&pp=10&page=4

Consider a course of events across some timescale (which is equipped with direction as per usual) such that these events can be numbered by order of their occurrence on the timescale.
We then take a set of events as 'axiomatic events' (in that these events do not depend on other events within the system we consider, but give rise to every other event within the system) and demand further that any k-tuple of these axiomatic events must give rise to another event within the system. Now our system is well-defined.

Assuming some consequence always follows an event (which seems reasonable), for causality (and hence fate) to hold starting with a k-tuple of axiomatic events, an ensuing event must yield a definite result and never its negation no later than the point or interval on the timescale when this ensuing event took place.

Now take a box that can completely isolate the contents within from outside observation, a radioactive source and a Geiger counter with a clock that's set to stop when decay is detected. Put everything in the box and close it before the radioactive source emits. These instructions suffice as our axiomatic events.

According to the principle of superposition from quantum mechanics, we don't know if the counter has recorded an emission or not till we actually observe (however it may be) whether the counter has recorded an emission.

Now we have that both the result and the negation have come about simultaneously, and so the set of axiomatic events cannot be complete. Similarly, we may claim ANY such set is incomplete and thus causality is violated.

While we rely on the same principle which facilitated Schroedinger's thought experiment involving a cat, we have omitted the cat so that we don't run into any implications of sentience and consciousness.

Of course, the above argument relies on quantum theory, and the only reason we have to believe that is again the inductive reasoning that it has yielded correct results thus far, which would be acknowledging a form of causality. However, if we have some intrinsic reason to believe in the principle of superposition this difficulty disappears. This endeavor is left to the reader.

Beliefs and the Alpha-belief

The whole of our lives can be expressed in terms of a series (perhaps one with many parallel branches) of actions, intended choices that mesh together to, hopefully make up something greater than some arbitrary list of events and responses. In psychology, we have had behaviourist theories rejected in favour of the cognitive approaches of today perhaps for this same reason. Of course, such an 'accusation' would be readily rejected on the grounds that behaviourist theories required an 'unnecessary complexity' to make everything fit together. However, this complexity is entirely superficial, even in instances such as Chomsky's criticism of Skinner regarding language, there were core, deterministic principles that governed the behaviourist approach. Likening this to a computer system, while the code may like an intricate maze one cannot hope to escape, the underlying principles can be simplified. And it is sometimes because this simplicity leads to the girth of the whole that a false impression of complexity is drawn up. This however, is not an attack on the attitudes of the psychology of today, rather, it is an illustration that there may be an arbitrary number of paths to the same conclusion, and hence, an arbitrary number of ways to expand on something.

In that case, what guarantee IS there that is isn't all randomly generated? That the sum of the events of our lives could well be the sum of events taken from any number of possible sets of events is a depressing prospect. We need it all to have meant something, something that guided it through, something that can't be bogged down by the seemingly inherent random nature of the world. It all boils down to our beliefs. These serve to guide our intentions and we let them, for they offer us that solace which we long for more than any other- the sense of belonging. Beliefs that get us through the menial chores of life however, are often seen as mere facticities, without any saving graces to mark them as truly remarkable. And so we arrive at something else we long for- the need for things to be permanent, which they seldom are. Such inductive reasoning does not prevent us from holding on to the hope that our innermost beliefs are indeed permanent and indeed, immortal. This allows us to formulate the simplest of notions that has existed perhaps ever since man has possessed coherent thought- the notion of an immortal soul. But the beliefs that are to shape this immortal soul need be just as transcendent, etched in stone, words of power- the word of God. This is the culmination, perhaps (for the many at least) of all those beliefs; the idea of a being, a being in their own image, but no- vice versa, for He is eternal, for He is almighty. There is both the need for recognition and incomprehension, and thus the God is born smack in the middle of this controversy. We shall call this belief in God the Alpha-belief. For to many, anything further begins here, and all paths diverge from this admission.