Ramble on the theist argument, with contributions of Kant and Wesley and theoretical physicists
February 9, 2012
I am beginning to see the essential argument of the theist in his confrontation with the atheist for the soul of the youth. This is sort of what must be presented to the youth after they have discovered the allure of the flesh. Late teens, I guess. Each must make a decision.
There are two factors at play here, I think, the rational and then the experiential (gleaned from empirical exposures).
The Rational
The rational is both negative and positive, while the experiential will be both objective and subjective (or personal).
The negative rational goes like this. It is impossible to disprove (or prove) the existence of the soul and free will and God. So in the negative rational we start off as agnostics.
The positive rational goes like this: pure reason is practical of itself* and practical reason is a single rationality and thus the moral drive and the drive for happiness are aiming to a single goal, namely the state of perfection for both, morally and regarding personal happiness, and where the understanding is and has to be that the happiness part is a function of the moral perfection and not the other way around, or as though they were independent of each other. This is the positive contribution of practical reason, that the moral act is also the most prudent act. This ultimately then leads to God and the soul and free will.**
[* We conceive of a free realm where everyone would be necessitated to cast his maxims (personal principles of action) in a universal form, somewhat as children are chided with “how would you like it if someone did that to you?” The actual moral law is the requirement that we ourselves universalize our maxims. In this way we come to know good and evil.]
[** Since it is only by means of practical reason that we come to have a compelling reason to posit the existence of God, it follows that all communications from this God will be such that they will not appear immoral in the eyes of the common understanding, i.e., this moral law that we ourselves provide via our autonomy as law makers for all people, including then also ourselves. This is a handy tool for the rational soul for the evaluation of alleged communications for any God.]
So the negative contribution of our rationality tells us of the possibility of a soul, and the positive contribution is the assertion of the reality of that soul, but also always in a practical way, and not which binds the inquiry of science.* And likewise for God and free will.**
[* Professionally speaking the scientist is not permitted to utilize the divine in order to explain the phenomena in the world, for that would cut off further investigation and consideration. And that science is not equipped to do.]
[** This may be a good place to consider Plato’s question concerning the morally good, namely does God saying something is moral make it moral, or is something moral already and God commands it for that reason? The answer is the latter. But this is not a justification for thinking that atheism is on an equal with theism with regard to moral living, but only with regard to the knowledge of moral living. This is treated more below.]
Now, I suddenly wonder, can the youth remain agnostics also in a practical sense? swaying back and forth between atheist and theist?
A person fears punishment and so has to wonder if there is a connection between moral striving and happiness so that he would take an interest in the very topic. A prudent man, it seems to me, since God is at least possible by the account of pure rationality itself, a prudent man would at least consider the possibility of God and especially since it is called for my practical reason itself. For it just so happens that the only way to unify practical reason and render it self consistent with itself (regarding the moral and the prudent), is to provide an object (Highest Good) which calls for God. If we do not unify our rationality, then we are split in our intentions and do this and that independently of a principle. So we can choose God and if we do choose God we also choose a unified rationality. And in fact it works the result, namely we choose a unified rationally and that requires the existence of God.
If the choice of the youth is for the split rationality, then for the first time we must consider violations of the moral law, for now there is a zero-sum game between morality and happiness. And while we might continue to be moral acting in cases that accorded with our happiness (our feelings about things) a problem would arise when this moral rule conflicted with our perception of our happiness (and where it may sometimes be amusing to use other people as pawns).
And so it seems that we would then have to come to a choice between theist and atheist thinking. Since there is no object to the moral law in atheist thinking* morality becomes a vanity, and simply undertaken when it is also desired.
[* Maybe there is natural thinking and then theist and atheist thinking.]
So then we come to the choice for the atheist. He or she must either opt for the natural atheist, namely where the moral law is rubbish and so much for that! And where it is simply not a consideration for one’s actions, but where happiness alone reigns and where rationality, as Hume stated, is the slave of the passions, namely how best to get it (the desired object). Or he must opt for moral vanity, namely of just obeying this invention of pure reason (the moral law) for the sake of obeying it, e.g., like a noble knight of old who could not be corrupted, but was total dedication and thus noble. Or like Spinoza who was totally determined to always do the moral (perhaps he was proving a point). Such a person just trudges through life in pain and self denial just to prove (to himself?) that it (moral living) can be done. This man, until a better and more respectful term is devised, is to be call the lunatic atheist, the guy whose going to obey the moral law anyway, even though it is inane and without purpose. This would be like Quixote charging windmills, not because they are evil giants, but just because they are windmills.
Summary thus far: the independent youth are to decide between theism and atheism, and they need to realize that if they choose atheism then they must make a further choice and choose to be rational but untrustworthy, i.e., natural, or they are to choose to be lunatics, but trustworthy.* Now following the pursuit of practical rationality, it seems good advice to the youth who choose the natural (animal) atheism that they will probably find some day that they would have been much wiser if they had kept this to themselves and opted for the lunatic appearance. You never can tell when looking trustworthy (like Smerdyakov) will come in handy someday. If you don’t really need the found money (he reasoned to himself), then give it back to the master, for he will then realize how trustworthy you are and know then how he can confide in you and this will give you an edge in your game for the happiness (money) at his disposal.
[* In this way we come to some practical advice for the world, namely: it’s not always easy to see a wolf in sheep’s clothing and so we (atheist and theist) are to take care in whom we place your trust. And especially keep this in mind when we could be the victim of a cheat. It just may happen that this is where the true lunatic suddenly comes to his senses and realizes that he would truly be nuts to pass up such a golden (and immoral) opportunity for a safe and delectable cheat.]
I think this is a fact of atheism. And I think many atheist don’t recognize it because Christian love has been permeated in the people. Pol Pot would have had no problem grasping this. It goes back to the parents and cultivation.
The Empirical
Now we are ready to turn to the empirical evidence. We know that we are better off in terms of moral self appraisal if we are theist* than if we are atheist, and now we are going to see if there is any further information which would also argue for a choice.
[* A theist cannot be convicted of lunacy of his thinking for he believes in the objective meaning of the moral law (a product of rationality) and acts accordingly. For him God is not the basis of the moral law, but its consequence permitted by pure reason and certified by practical reason. It is only the lunatic atheist who can not find such meaning to the moral law and complies anyway.]
The teaching of theoretical science seems pretty much to be like this (and using an analogy): there has been a shuffle of the cards and a deal of five cards to each of four players and all come up with a royal flush. There is a ranking among the suits because this can happen, and indeed it seems it must happen if there is an unlimited number of deals. Now for reasons that are technical (Science crisis of faith) we know that the only way there could be an unlimited numbers of deals is for them to take place simultaneously in space, e.g., in an unlimited number of gaming rooms of one and only one shuffle each. All game rooms would shuffle and deal and it is necessary, in a way in probabilities, for there to be at least one of these perfect deals. And the reason it happens with us is simply because we, as knowing beings, are a product of the game room where that perfect deal took place. It’s not actually odd because wherever the perfect deal is dealt there will arise a human to notice this, and so it just so happens that it is in this game room that the perfect deal arose and so naturally we (humans) arose also to finally wonder how it happened here.
Now there are really only two ways to explain this perfect deal. Either there are literally trillions and trillions and unlimited counts of game rooms, maybe in different dimensions of some super dimensions of space (and this theory is very appealing to certain scientific facts) or it is a stacked deck.* It is one of the two. In terms of science the youth will want to follow the extra dimensional theory for the purpose of research and understanding, for the admission of God eliminates further inquiry, and that defeats the point of science (as was mentioned above). But from a practical, personal level, the youth ought to go for the stacked deck. It is a toss-up for it cannot be tested in any way yet known, and so it can be chosen, perhaps a la Pascal, as the best bet for directing one’s living if not one’s theoretical thinking as a scientist.
[* To tie this in more closely to physics, the reason we cannot utilize the hypothesis of a single deck being shuffled again and again is this. This would suggest that the Big Bang of our present existence were like a yo-yo in blowing up, expanding, slowing down and then returning for another big bang. But since in fact the matter of the world is not only expanding but is accelerating in that expansion, it is impossible for there to be a return and so this is a single shuffle and deal. Hence to get more shuffles you need more decks and more game rooms.]
And so there is this argument from the theoretics: since it might go either way (regarding the number of deals or a stack deck) and it is impossible to tell, and since it (the stacked deck = God) accords with a critique of practical human reasoning, and thus gives objective meaning to human existence, the youth are advised by reason itself to opt for the stacked deck.
Finally then there is the subjective evidence which might be called Free Wesleyan Christianity (for it is best expressed by the Wesleyans).
A preliminary consideration here is the reminder of William James that often we cannot experience a fact until we have gone out in faith of that fact, i.e., before the fact.*
[* For example, it may be that people will be friendly, but it may not be so if there is no friendliness expressed by the individual first.]
The Wesleyan assert this of their understanding: The gospel stories in gist and in a practical way promise that if a person will join the band of Jesus that person will be given evidence of a “new birth” and will come to see that these stories of Jesus, at least in gist, are true and that there is indeed a loving Father called God. There will be a change in the spirit and living of a person and he will begin to approach to a perfection in love as was promised in the Christian gospels (starring God).
This is subjective evidence, i.e., it is personally valid as an experience of the work of the Christians’ Holy Spirit, but it is not objective because it cannot be grasped by science (except as a phenomenon of nature). It’s as though this God put thoughts into your head that appeared like all thoughts, as something that just pops up in your head, and so where you can’t tell that it is God and not a random firing of electrons or something.* And so where it is true but not objectively valid.
[* This AM I was calculating the time from Germany’s defeat in 1918 to the invasion of Poland and then that of Russia, and this thought suddenly popped up just like all my thoughts, “Thus does Anthony rule the town” and without any reference to any Anthony or town or ruling or anything. A random firing for “Hitler”?. I don’t know. It popped up as somehow foreign and out of the blue and yet it popped up as one of my actual thoughts).]
Summary
So then, taking a broad and summarizing look, we start off with the youth as agnostic and wondering what sort of life they will choose to take. They can go atheist and then go natural, and have as much fun as possible, or they can go atheist and go batty and be nice to people even in secret. But the batty have this sadness that the youth need to be aware of: it is a zero-sum game with happiness and when they give up happiness for the moral that happiness is given up now and forever (and they are left with merely the happiness of the noble knights of yore. a vanity). If they decide to go with the theist they will find that this is no longer happiness given up forever, but merely for now, for the theist has the expectation of an enduring and ultimate and total and complete happiness (commensurate with the objective meaningfulness of the moral law. And so the happiness given up for the sake of the moral law by the theist is only happiness delayed.
And if we take the recommendation of our own practical rationality and go with God and the Highest Good as the purpose of rationality itself, then we will have a certain reason for choosing the stacked deck, i.e., science will accommodate itself to this choice, for it is a reasonable choice and in any given actual hand of poker if we came out four royal flushes in a hand of four we and the whole world would declare that the dealer had cheated, even in only in order to amuse us. Betting with the stacked deck, in a practical sense, aligns one with the recommendation of practical rationality itself. So in this way God is quite conceivable, and reason argues for postulating the existence of God.
And finally there is a promise, but which must be taken on faith (to begin with à la James [above]), that if the youth will opt for the program of the Free Wesleyan (again merely as a more concise expression of what is believed by many others), they will find that they are becoming different and better persons.*
[* We say "becoming" because moral perfection or perfection in love is a process for most people, and not an achievement.]
And this change in spirit will be a validation of the promises of the Christian gospels and thus in that way will provide a subjectively valid authentication of the stories of Jesus and his Father God.*
[* This is not to say that a non-Christian could not become a better person, but only that it is the promise to any who step out in faith in the footsteps of Jesus and his band.]
Note: A “Free” Christian is one who is beholden to no externally imposed authority, be it ecclesiastical or scriptural, and for whom the law of universal brotherly love, applied in accordance with one’s best understanding of what is helpful and hurtful to human personality, is sufficient for all right actions before God.