Humility

Growing up, I could never understand why people thought creationism and evolution were separate, mutually exclusive concepts. I didn't understand where religious people got their basis for this stance, as the Bible is far from clear on how creation occurred, uses allegory quite often, and could just be a misinterpretation of what Moses saw. More importantly, I couldn't figure out why scientific people were so unwilling to consider the concept of some higher power, since science itself does not discredit this. Then, as I grew older, I started to realize that there was no such thing as an atheist. At least, not in the way many atheists like to think.

To explain this point further, I'm going to give a little example. I once encountered a person who was wearing a button that said, "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color." I thought this was a little odd, since, in fact, the definition of atheism is skepticism or lack of belief in a god and not in religion. I realize to most people, it's the same thing, but it isn't. Even dictionary.com defines religion as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe..."* and "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." Belief in a god is not a requirement to have a religion. So, yes, in fact, atheism is a religion, because its based on the principles of 'free thought' and skepticism and, in most cases, science.

Now, let me explain my earlier point of there being no true atheists (again, using the 'bald is a hair color' definition of the word). I've met a lot of atheists. I spend a lot of time with them. I think its tough to find an area of study with more atheists than mine. That being said, I think that, among theists, I have some of the more unique views. I have never met an atheist who, given an argument they haven't heard before, actually pauses and thinks about it (or, better yet, comes back later after much thought), tests it with everything they know, and then responds. Every single one has always replied with something dogmatic. I realize, to them, their answer is probably completely rational and logical. But to me, my answer is completely rational, and their answer is one sided. I don't believe in anything blindly. My religious belief is not illogical. I do not believe in something that goes against logic because God is 'mysterious' or some such thing. Who are they to assume that my logic is wrong, and their logic right? Who am I to assume the inverse? This very construction of logic is a person's religion; it is the basis and foundation of what they believe, and very few things can change that.

So why do so many 'open minded' atheists outright deny the opinions of other people? Why do so many outright religious 'nuts' deny the opinion of science? Well, for one, there's biology against us. The last time I went to the Science Museum of MN, there was an exhibit on child development. Among the items in the exhibit was a rather fascinating description of the way a brain grows. (Keep in mind at this point that I'm no neuroscientist, and am going to paraphrase heavily due to imperfect memory.) It turns out, that when we are born, there are a ton of little 'paths' between our neurons. When we make an observation, or need to solve a problem, a rather roundabout path is taken from point A to B. As we grow and continue to make observations, unused paths actually go away. This allows the signal from A to B to travel a much straighter path, making the thought faster. This change allows for the development of experience, a way to react to known situations faster and more effectively. However, it also decreases the ability to effectively encounter new situations. New, unfamiliar thoughts are actually more difficult to have. Thus, our thoughts deteriorate into the most probable state. It takes genuine effort to have a new thought. It becomes increasingly difficult to see things from another perspective. Open-mindedness is not biologically easy.

So, some people reading this may assume that I'm telling people to constantly put forth the effort to see everyone's point of view, to always challenge their own with every new thought or idea they encounter. While, ideally, that would be a good thing, there is simply not enough time to do this. The more we learn, the more we have to test new ideas against, which means reconciliation takes longer. If we truly tried to be open-minded, we would soon run out of time to do anything else.

My real point is this: you are not open-minded. Do not assume someone is crazy, or irrational just because they don't make sense to you. They are not crazy; they simply have a different religion than you. If a person's beliefs or behaviors concern you greatly (either in a good way or a bad way), then perhaps you should talk to that person, try to see things from their point of view. It will require genuine effort and will, however. Even if you fail, that doesn't mean they are wrong. We, as a political, religious and economic world need to stop disrespecting those who think differently from us. Christians are not crazy. Mormons are not crazy. Muslims are not crazy. Atheists are not crazy. Democrats are not crazy. Republicans are not crazy. Socialists are not crazy. Libertarians are not crazy. Respect people, no matter what they believe, because they could always end up being right. If you can find the balance of respecting others while standing up for what you believe, I think you'll end up much happier and more successful. This is, after all, true humility, and the meek shall inherit the earth.

*[ The first definition mentioned does actually go on to mention gods; however, it specifically says "especially..." meaning that it can exist without the aftmentioned content.]

Effective Omnipotence, and Einstein's Argument

So, first I want to apologize for taking so long to post again. To be frank, I don't really have a good reason for it. I have some bad ones, though, and sure enough, I'm going to attempt to use them to justify my actions. The break started with a good reason: I was having difficulty writing anything (or, in my case mentally writing anything, since I usually write things in my head before actually giving them physical form) that wasn't absurdly verbose. I had that list of topics I wanted to write about, but it seemed like every time I started to brain-write one, I'd find that I was actually writing about all of them at once... and it was getting too much for my poor consciousness to handle. So I started making notes here and there, hoping I would eventually find a way to break them up. After a while of that absolutely NOT working, I let my attention slide a bit.

So, several weeks and excuses later, I decided I'm going to do something completely unusual for me. I'm going to just sit here, typing away on my lovely keyboard, and see what happens. I'm not even going to go back and check what I've written (well, okay, that's a lie... but I'll try to minimize second-thinking). Stream of consciousness for the win, right?

There's a rather ironic problem with certain theological perspectives out there. I think most people will understand why its ironic fairly quickly. You see, the problem with many theological arguments (both for and against it) is that they assume that God is omnipotent. Now, before anyone accuses me of blasphemy for saying He isn't, read on. If, after you've read everything, you still want to, feel free.

In what I'm going to coin 'general culture' (a decidedly nonsense word), omnipotent means all powerful, capable of doing anything. That seems like a good definition of God's power, at very first glance, but it really isn't. In fact, God is absolutely not omnipotent. He can't be, if mortal logic has any merit at all (and, for sanity's sake, I'm going to assume it does).

Alright, so why can't he be? Well, for starters, there's the famous argument of, if God is all-powerful, why is there pain? Why is there suffering? Why is there sin? At this point, I immediately think something like, "well, of COURSE there's pain! People still have agency! They can still make bad choices!" Okay, but... why? Not much harder to answer that one, either: "because we learn through our mistakes; the ability to make decisions -- and be aware of their consequences -- is literally what makes us sentient!"

Here's where Socrates starts to get annoying. If God can do absolutely anything (and, at this point, you may actually have to change your definition of omnipotent), why can't he just make us perfect, make us as happy as is possible (wait, possibility and omnipotence? Oh man... headache), make us already know all those consequences, give us the respect we need, and have the whole thing be done?

Well, see, as far as I can determine, there isn't an answer to that. The Socratic method just won out over omnipotence. Or did it? At this point, I'm going to coin another nonsense term, "effective omnipotence." It is being defined, for the purpose of distinguishing between it and true omnipotence, as the ability to do everything possible. Accepting such a clause requires the acceptance of several prerequisites. One, that there are actually laws that govern the universe (or, if not that, then whatever indefinable hypersphere it resides in). Two, that absolutely nothing has EVER existed or ever WILL exist that could break these laws. I may expound upon that last one in a later post, but for now, I'm going to assume most people can understand why that is.

A second reason is (and I doubt this will be news to many people at all) He's said he isn't. I mean, okay, He never actually came out and said the words "I am not omnipotent," but I suspect that's because he expects us to be able to figure out that he means effectively omnipotent. And that, he is. However, there are several obvious things He cannot do, by his own admission:

• He cannot, to any extent, rescind or reduce the agency of man. I actually addressed this in an earlier post. The power of the priesthood (God's power, and thus the effectively omnipotent power) cannot be used to make people do things. Even the intent to do so is evil, but the task itself is impossible. (DC 121)
• He cannot actually, really, create anything. He doesn't state, and may not be able to explain, what 'creation' actually means. What we define as the basic building blocks of matter/energy may not be truly elemental, but at some point, things can no longer be reduced anymore. This applies to intelligence (DC 93:29) and all matter (in its most elemental state). (I know this is explicitly stated somewhere, but I cannot remember or find where. It can be easily inferred from Abraham chapter 4, however.)
• He cannot violate a covenant. It is unclear whether this is actually an impossibility, or an effective impossibility (yes, now I'm just being mean), but I'm going to assume its actually impossible.

Alright, so I'm hoping at this point people agree with me; at least, in the LDS faith, God is not omnipotent. If I've failed to make that point, express your concern in the comments, and I will try to address it later. More importantly, however, giving these very slight limitations to God's power actually validates the entirety of the doctrine. There is suffering because God can't force us to do things, even if he wanted to, and he can't give us the knowledge of good and evil, unless we make mistakes. Adam had to fall, he had to make a mistake, because without making a choice, he would have never learned of consequences. This is the counter argument to the argument against sin.

Now I'm going to make a slightly non-sequitur transition to Einstein. It'll make sense shortly, I promise.

 A relatively common Deist argument (for those unfamiliar with the term, a Deist is someone who believes in a God, but in general has no specific beliefs beyond that), is the very argument that led Einstein, once an atheist, to become a Deist. The argument lies in the problem of a beginning. Before Einsteins theories of relativity, it was assumed the universe always existed (this idea always had some problems, primarily the issue of starlight). While slightly difficult for some people to comprehend, something never beginning is actually very science-friendly. With relativity, however, it was shown that the Universe's history could be tracked back to a singular convergence -- the Big Bang.

The issue with the Big Bang, of course, is what started it? It's a common, easy to make argument to assume that God did. Critics place this argument into the "God's in the Gaps" theological school, and thus disregard it. And its easy enough to disregard in standard Christian theology. However, LDS theology is peculiar, and rather distinct. While it is not stressed or even, really, taught, it is well known that Joseph Smith said that God was once a Man, that the whole creation cycle has happened before, and that via apotheosis,  a select few will continue the cycle, presumably in other Universes on their own.

Now, while the specifics of the whole process are decidedly unclear, and it seems the leadership of the church intends to keep it that way, and focus on more 'standard' doctrine (line upon line, after all), the basis already known is enough. "One Eternal Round," lyrics from "If You Could Hie To Kolob," could not better describe the notion that science is most comfortable with.

See, the critics who dismiss the Deist argument, say that, if an eternal God created the universe, but the universe had a beginning, what happened before then? And who created God? There are counter arguments, of course, but it boils down to them saying (and rightly so, I believe) that such an argument answers one paradox with another. However, if Gods have been creating universes and other Gods forever back through time, and will for ever forward in time, there is no paradox; this is already accepted scientific canon.