DIVINITY AND THE UNKNOWABLE
We are genetically programed to believe in a higher power. For the great bulk of humanity to go without a belief system is to go against Nature, and thus may lead to discontent, unhappiness, and fear of the unknown. Before we consider alternatives to religion, consider the fundamental essence of religion from the dawn of human consciousness to the present: the gods always represent what is beyond our knowing.
In the beginning, the gods lived on top of the mountain because the people had never been to the top of the mountain; the top of the mountain was unknown to them. Later, after people had scaled the mountain, they knew that the gods were not there. The gods were, in fact, in the sky and in the heavens; the sky and the heavens were unknown to them. Later, when people better understood the sky and the heavens—and had even flown in them—they knew that the gods were not there either. Perhaps, if we build larger telescopes and look far out into the Universe and far back in time toward the ultimate moment of creation, the Big Bang, we can know God's plan. Perhaps if we continue to subdivide matter into atoms, and from there into protons, electrons, and neutrons, and from there into quarks, we can discover God’s ultimate building blocks, God’s ultimate structure for Creation. But, my guess is that we cannot discover ultimate truth.
No matter how big a telescope we build, and no matter how far out in space or back in time we look, we will never find the face of God staring back at us. This is like building a modern, scientific Tower of Babel; it will not gain us ultimate knowledge. We will always find more unexplored real estate and more unanswered questions. And no matter how big a particle accelerator or atom smasher we build, we will always find finer and finer subdivisions of matter. Quarks will be made of smaller particles, and these will be made of yet smaller particles, and so on and on. We will never be able to discover the ultimate building blocks or the ultimate structure.
We are suspended in a seemingly infinite set of nested Chinese boxes. No matter how far out we look on the scale of the very large, or how far we look down on the scale of the very small, we cannot see the end. There is always another box. No matter how far back in time we look or how far out into the future we project, we can never find the alpha or the omega. These are the true mysteries, and consistent with our human instinct to deify the unknown, it is here that we should look to contemplate divinity. We must, however, bear in mind that if there is a keeper of the infinite Chinese boxes of space and time then such an entity is completely unfathomable to us. Dwelling on this may lead us back into the age-old trap of letting our imaginations create beliefs and personified images of God that are without basis.
Humans have always wanted know all the answers. From prehistory to relatively recently, people made up explanations for natural phenomena based on gods, and pseudo-sciences like alchemy and astrology. One of the most important advances brought about by the scientific revolution of the last few hundred years is the self-confidence and intellectual maturity on the part of scientific professionals to say “I don’t know,” rather than always feeling compelled to give an explanation, even if that explanation has to be fabricated out of guesses and stories. There are many unsolved problems in modern science and technology, and although we are constantly working to expand our knowledge, there will always be unknowns, and that is a good thing.
In the case of ultimate knowledge of the origin, fate, and structure of our universe, we should meditate upon the beauty of the undiscoverable nature of ultimate truth, not simply unknown, but most likely unknowable to us. Unknowablity is “most likely” because to know for sure that something is unknowable is to unjustifiably claim ultimate knowledge.
In the beginning, the gods lived on top of the mountain because the people had never been to the top of the mountain; the top of the mountain was unknown to them. Later, after people had scaled the mountain, they knew that the gods were not there. The gods were, in fact, in the sky and in the heavens; the sky and the heavens were unknown to them. Later, when people better understood the sky and the heavens—and had even flown in them—they knew that the gods were not there either. Perhaps, if we build larger telescopes and look far out into the Universe and far back in time toward the ultimate moment of creation, the Big Bang, we can know God's plan. Perhaps if we continue to subdivide matter into atoms, and from there into protons, electrons, and neutrons, and from there into quarks, we can discover God’s ultimate building blocks, God’s ultimate structure for Creation. But, my guess is that we cannot discover ultimate truth.
No matter how big a telescope we build, and no matter how far out in space or back in time we look, we will never find the face of God staring back at us. This is like building a modern, scientific Tower of Babel; it will not gain us ultimate knowledge. We will always find more unexplored real estate and more unanswered questions. And no matter how big a particle accelerator or atom smasher we build, we will always find finer and finer subdivisions of matter. Quarks will be made of smaller particles, and these will be made of yet smaller particles, and so on and on. We will never be able to discover the ultimate building blocks or the ultimate structure.
We are suspended in a seemingly infinite set of nested Chinese boxes. No matter how far out we look on the scale of the very large, or how far we look down on the scale of the very small, we cannot see the end. There is always another box. No matter how far back in time we look or how far out into the future we project, we can never find the alpha or the omega. These are the true mysteries, and consistent with our human instinct to deify the unknown, it is here that we should look to contemplate divinity. We must, however, bear in mind that if there is a keeper of the infinite Chinese boxes of space and time then such an entity is completely unfathomable to us. Dwelling on this may lead us back into the age-old trap of letting our imaginations create beliefs and personified images of God that are without basis.
Humans have always wanted know all the answers. From prehistory to relatively recently, people made up explanations for natural phenomena based on gods, and pseudo-sciences like alchemy and astrology. One of the most important advances brought about by the scientific revolution of the last few hundred years is the self-confidence and intellectual maturity on the part of scientific professionals to say “I don’t know,” rather than always feeling compelled to give an explanation, even if that explanation has to be fabricated out of guesses and stories. There are many unsolved problems in modern science and technology, and although we are constantly working to expand our knowledge, there will always be unknowns, and that is a good thing.
In the case of ultimate knowledge of the origin, fate, and structure of our universe, we should meditate upon the beauty of the undiscoverable nature of ultimate truth, not simply unknown, but most likely unknowable to us. Unknowablity is “most likely” because to know for sure that something is unknowable is to unjustifiably claim ultimate knowledge.
WHAT IF WE WERE COMPUTER SIMULATIONS ?
Cellular automata are artificial life forms created inside a computer. Scientists observe how they interact with one another and how they respond to synthetic environments to gain insights into real world processes like the spread of a disease or the survival potential of endangered species. A programmer sets up an artificial world inside a computer, and the cellular automata are the artificial beings that populate this world. The automata and their world are comprised of bits and bytes of stored programming and data as well as organized sequences of electrical impulses flowing through computer circuitry. This data and these impulses can generate something akin to a computer role playing game, where avatars interact in the artificial world. But, unlike a computer role playing game, the avatars operate independently, based on a predetermined set of rules, without input from outside. Rules, by which the artificial beings can move around, interact with each other, etc., are defined at the beginning, and then the artificial world and its inhabitants develop by themselves.
By interacting with each other and their artificial world, cellular automatons can learn from their experiences. They can reproduce and evolve in form and behavior in response to conditions—artificial, Natural Selection. In order to better comprehend the unknowablity of ultimate truth, as discussed in the previous essay, imagine a simulation that is so large and so complex that the artificial beings become self-aware and develop both intelligence and a desire to understand their universe. They can detect patterns in how the electrical currents and bits and bytes that make up their universe behave; they develop a science around these observations. They conclude that their universe began with “The Big Power Surge” and that it is an expanding universe. But they can never understand that their universe is expanding because beings completely beyond their comprehension are adding memory and data storage devices to the computer.
The automata can never see outside the computer; never know what the computer actually is, who built it, or why. But as intelligent beings, they want answers to these existential questions. So, they develop belief systems. These belief systems, however, can only be based on elements confined to their mode of existence. Some automata come to believe that random electronic noise is speaking to them, telling them the answers. There are bitter arguments between the Church of Electronic Noise and the automata-scientists with their ideas about the Big Power Surge and the expanding universe. But ultimately, neither side is equipped physically or intellectually to ever understand the truth about their universe. How can bits and electronic pulses confined within the circuits of a computer, understand external, hard physical objects like the table upon which the computer is sitting?
There will be those who read this essay and conclude that it points to the need for a creator and to intelligent design. After all, the computer had to be built and someone had to program the software. To do so is to miss the point. The point is to look at the situation from the perspective of the beings inside the computer, not from our normal perspective on the outside. From inside the computer, there is no way of knowing anything about the outside. Attempts to comprehend the outside based on the understanding available inside the computer are inherently doomed. Whether it is based on their religion or based on their science, nothing they do can give them knowledge of whether or not there is a creator or whether a creator is even necessary.
This thought experiment about computer simulations invariably leads to the idea of nested simulations. Just like we can run a simulated world inside a computer, we might ourselves be a simulation in some larger machine. And the entities that built the machine that is simulating our universe might themselves be a simulation run at yet a higher level. While this could conceivably go on forever, from our perspective it will always be science fiction. None of this is knowable to us, and we should leave it at that.
By interacting with each other and their artificial world, cellular automatons can learn from their experiences. They can reproduce and evolve in form and behavior in response to conditions—artificial, Natural Selection. In order to better comprehend the unknowablity of ultimate truth, as discussed in the previous essay, imagine a simulation that is so large and so complex that the artificial beings become self-aware and develop both intelligence and a desire to understand their universe. They can detect patterns in how the electrical currents and bits and bytes that make up their universe behave; they develop a science around these observations. They conclude that their universe began with “The Big Power Surge” and that it is an expanding universe. But they can never understand that their universe is expanding because beings completely beyond their comprehension are adding memory and data storage devices to the computer.
The automata can never see outside the computer; never know what the computer actually is, who built it, or why. But as intelligent beings, they want answers to these existential questions. So, they develop belief systems. These belief systems, however, can only be based on elements confined to their mode of existence. Some automata come to believe that random electronic noise is speaking to them, telling them the answers. There are bitter arguments between the Church of Electronic Noise and the automata-scientists with their ideas about the Big Power Surge and the expanding universe. But ultimately, neither side is equipped physically or intellectually to ever understand the truth about their universe. How can bits and electronic pulses confined within the circuits of a computer, understand external, hard physical objects like the table upon which the computer is sitting?
There will be those who read this essay and conclude that it points to the need for a creator and to intelligent design. After all, the computer had to be built and someone had to program the software. To do so is to miss the point. The point is to look at the situation from the perspective of the beings inside the computer, not from our normal perspective on the outside. From inside the computer, there is no way of knowing anything about the outside. Attempts to comprehend the outside based on the understanding available inside the computer are inherently doomed. Whether it is based on their religion or based on their science, nothing they do can give them knowledge of whether or not there is a creator or whether a creator is even necessary.
This thought experiment about computer simulations invariably leads to the idea of nested simulations. Just like we can run a simulated world inside a computer, we might ourselves be a simulation in some larger machine. And the entities that built the machine that is simulating our universe might themselves be a simulation run at yet a higher level. While this could conceivably go on forever, from our perspective it will always be science fiction. None of this is knowable to us, and we should leave it at that.
GOD'S WILL OR MAN'S WILL ?
The Unknowablity of ultimate truth about our existence and our universe does not stop people from devising answers; often these answers involve a God. Because God is a human idea, mental energy flows from the people to the God and defines the God. What the people interpret as the will of God is, in fact, the collective will of the people projected onto their God. The directionality of the relationship is deceptive. Both the believers and their God believe that the will of God originates with God and He imposes his will upon the people. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. The will of the people originates with the people, and the people devise their God accordingly.
In the modern, increasingly secular world, where we understand much more about how nature works than the Bronze Age people who first conceived the God of Abraham, the definition of God and God’s will is unfortunately being left more and more to the most extreme and ignorant religious elements—people who still do not understand that modern science has explained the forces of nature and the origins of living things. This is because they are the ones focusing their thoughts on God while everyone else is thinking about worldly concerns. Thus, religious fanatics, religious extremists and religiously motivated terrorists have a disproportionately large influence on the will of God. Self-righteous people who lobby to change civil law to represent their narrow minded, religiously derived views on social issues or to give religious mythology equal standing with science in classrooms have disproportionate influence on the nature of God. God is not a God of love, compassion, or even justice. He is simply a God of whatever we collectively think about him as being. God loves fanatics and terrorists because they were focused on Him while most of us were not. He loves them because their actions are driving people toward more intense religious devotion, no matter that this devotion is becoming more and more divisive and laced with prejudice, ignorance, and fear. From God’s perspective, all that matters is that more thoughts are directed towards Him; the thoughts of the faithful are His only existence.
One only has to listen to the news of religious strife from around the world to see that God is stronger than ever. Religion is a human endeavor, which is likely imprinted on our brains and in our genes; most people will not be able to live happy and fulfilled lives without reliance on a belief in something larger than themselves. The Double Triangle, which is discussed in the final section of this book, is an attempt to formulate inspirational secular beliefs based on real truth about the life and civilization we humans have created for ourselves. The unknowable may be a source of awe and wonder, but it will always remain unknowable.
In the modern, increasingly secular world, where we understand much more about how nature works than the Bronze Age people who first conceived the God of Abraham, the definition of God and God’s will is unfortunately being left more and more to the most extreme and ignorant religious elements—people who still do not understand that modern science has explained the forces of nature and the origins of living things. This is because they are the ones focusing their thoughts on God while everyone else is thinking about worldly concerns. Thus, religious fanatics, religious extremists and religiously motivated terrorists have a disproportionately large influence on the will of God. Self-righteous people who lobby to change civil law to represent their narrow minded, religiously derived views on social issues or to give religious mythology equal standing with science in classrooms have disproportionate influence on the nature of God. God is not a God of love, compassion, or even justice. He is simply a God of whatever we collectively think about him as being. God loves fanatics and terrorists because they were focused on Him while most of us were not. He loves them because their actions are driving people toward more intense religious devotion, no matter that this devotion is becoming more and more divisive and laced with prejudice, ignorance, and fear. From God’s perspective, all that matters is that more thoughts are directed towards Him; the thoughts of the faithful are His only existence.
One only has to listen to the news of religious strife from around the world to see that God is stronger than ever. Religion is a human endeavor, which is likely imprinted on our brains and in our genes; most people will not be able to live happy and fulfilled lives without reliance on a belief in something larger than themselves. The Double Triangle, which is discussed in the final section of this book, is an attempt to formulate inspirational secular beliefs based on real truth about the life and civilization we humans have created for ourselves. The unknowable may be a source of awe and wonder, but it will always remain unknowable.
FAITH IS NOT A VIRTUE
Faith is popping up all over, in the media and in public discourse. Politicians all need to make some expression of religious faith; the public would never support a faithless leader. We have faith-based charities, faith-based education, and faith-based lobby groups. Everyone from disaster victims to the miscreants that caused the disasters are breaking into tears and blubbering about their faith; the media and the public lap it up. Faith appears to be not just universally accepted, but universally considered among the highest of human virtues.
Faith—unquestioning and often literal belief—however, is among the worst ideas that humans have ever invented, far worse than the idea of God. It asks us to believe for no reason other than perceived authority. As events have shown us again and again in all parts of the world, for all of history, perceived authority does not deserve unquestioning obedience!
As a schoolboy, I learned through the week that in every field of intellectual inquiry one needed to investigate questions, objectively gather evidence, and either prove or disprove hypotheses. To believe without evidence is to risk folly. Then on Sundays I would often find myself listening to sermons extoling the importance of faith. A popular topic was how the Apostle Thomas, Doubting Thomas, was wrong to not accept news of Jesus’ resurrection without seeing the risen Lord for himself. The other apostles were “blessed” because they believed in the resurrection sight-unseen. Faith is invariably held up, by religious leaders, as the highest virtue. Sitting in the pews, I identified with Doubting Thomas. How could there be two standards for truth: faith in religion and proof for everything else?
It is more important to oppose the cult of faith than it is to debunk the existence of God. While it highly unlikely that there is a God that takes humanlike form and spends His time worrying about us, the existence or nonexistence of a higher power, is probably unknowable. But it can be said with certainty that faith has held back human progress and repressed people for millennia. Faith is so dangerous because its retrograde effects are not confined to religion; they spill out and are used by opponents of reform and change to stifle dissent in politics, technology, and economic development. In Europe, technological and social progress was hindered during the Dark Age and Middle Ages—over a thousand years—because the Church used the power of faith to impose a moratorium on progressive ideas not just in religion but also in science and in society at large, forbidding experiments, such as those conducted by Galileo, which might uncover facts contradictory to revealed truth.
When my wife was a child in China, during the Cultural Revolution, she and the people of her village were near starvation as a result of foolish, ideology-driven, government policies. Yet the Communist government told them that they lived in the richest and most prosperous country on earth, and the people took this on faith. She said that they actually felt sorry for the miserable wretches who lived in poor countries like the United States. Unquestioning belief in the pronouncements of authority—religious, political or other—is path to folly that humanity must learn to resist.
The idea that some answers are Unknowable is a key tenant of this work; and this understanding is the direct antithesis of faith.
Faith—unquestioning and often literal belief—however, is among the worst ideas that humans have ever invented, far worse than the idea of God. It asks us to believe for no reason other than perceived authority. As events have shown us again and again in all parts of the world, for all of history, perceived authority does not deserve unquestioning obedience!
As a schoolboy, I learned through the week that in every field of intellectual inquiry one needed to investigate questions, objectively gather evidence, and either prove or disprove hypotheses. To believe without evidence is to risk folly. Then on Sundays I would often find myself listening to sermons extoling the importance of faith. A popular topic was how the Apostle Thomas, Doubting Thomas, was wrong to not accept news of Jesus’ resurrection without seeing the risen Lord for himself. The other apostles were “blessed” because they believed in the resurrection sight-unseen. Faith is invariably held up, by religious leaders, as the highest virtue. Sitting in the pews, I identified with Doubting Thomas. How could there be two standards for truth: faith in religion and proof for everything else?
It is more important to oppose the cult of faith than it is to debunk the existence of God. While it highly unlikely that there is a God that takes humanlike form and spends His time worrying about us, the existence or nonexistence of a higher power, is probably unknowable. But it can be said with certainty that faith has held back human progress and repressed people for millennia. Faith is so dangerous because its retrograde effects are not confined to religion; they spill out and are used by opponents of reform and change to stifle dissent in politics, technology, and economic development. In Europe, technological and social progress was hindered during the Dark Age and Middle Ages—over a thousand years—because the Church used the power of faith to impose a moratorium on progressive ideas not just in religion but also in science and in society at large, forbidding experiments, such as those conducted by Galileo, which might uncover facts contradictory to revealed truth.
When my wife was a child in China, during the Cultural Revolution, she and the people of her village were near starvation as a result of foolish, ideology-driven, government policies. Yet the Communist government told them that they lived in the richest and most prosperous country on earth, and the people took this on faith. She said that they actually felt sorry for the miserable wretches who lived in poor countries like the United States. Unquestioning belief in the pronouncements of authority—religious, political or other—is path to folly that humanity must learn to resist.
The idea that some answers are Unknowable is a key tenant of this work; and this understanding is the direct antithesis of faith.