Is There A God?

Several weeks ago the question (is there a God?) was discussed on the CBS news program “Sunday Morning”.  Both the religious and the atheistic viewpoints were presented by various individuals on both sides of the issue.  The obvious conclusion was reached that neither side could prove their case.  More interesting than what was discussed was what was not discussed.  From my perspective, the first and most basic point that was not mentioned by anyone, and should have been established, is a definition - what is meant by the term “God”.

The term “God” has been defined in a variety of ways throughout history.  Ancient civilizations worshiped multiple Gods, each seen as having controlling power over various aspects of the environment or the human being.  There were fire Gods, Gods of the seas, rain Gods, Gods or Goddesses of love, etc, etc.  In more modern times, a monotheistic God is seen as the creator and ruler of the universe, the source of all moral authority,  a superhuman being or spirit having power over nature and fortunes, even a thing or object of supreme importance.  Although the participants on the CBS program did not specifically define what they meant by “God”, chances are they meant the traditional monotheistic God, i.e., a supremely powerful deity or superhuman.  There was also no mention of “God’s” origin or location either within or outside of the universe.

None of the above questions or numerous other similar questions, which would seem to be relevant to a more in-depth examination of the issue posed, were mentioned.  This suggests that whether or not one believes in God is purely a matter of faith rather than an attempt to arrive at a rational conclusion.  Observing cultures would appear to support this conclusion.  Large segments of any particular culture hold specific religious beliefs that are characteristic of that culture.  Religious beliefs are most likely accepted early in life and are seldom questioned later in life.  In many cases, fear is used to capture and hold the audience.  The mere act of questioning the teachings of the religion, much less questioning the existence of God, might be considered a sin.

On the other hand if we truly want to explore the rationality of God’s existence,  the term God must be clearly defined and our conclusion might well depend on the nature of this definition.  To explore this matter, I will compare analyses using two quite different definitions of God.  In the first instance we will use the classic monotheistic definition of God as a supreme being or superhuman who is the creator and ruler of the universe.  I believe superhuman is a good concept to use in this case because Christianity teaches that man was created in God’s image.  The second definition to be explored is my own personal concept of God which was suggested in “Rationalism - A process For Making Life’s Decisions” (see Stuart’s Thoughts - Welcome - September  2006.

Case 1 - God as a supreme being or superhuman:

This is another case where it’s appropriate to use probabilistic rationalism to explore several key questions associated with this concept of God.

    1. What is the origin of monotheism and on what is it based?

    2. If we consider the universe to be the creation of God which contains every        thing in nature, where did God come from and where did he reside before the         time of creation?

    3.If God is supremely powerful and created man, why is man so flawed in so         many ways.  What possible rationale would there be for an all-powerful supreme         being to make man in his image but endow him with so many defects?

    4.If God truly loves us all as his creations, why is there so much pain and suf        fering in the world?  Why are so many perfectly innocent babies and children, as         well as adults subjected to extreme suffering?

1.The origin of monotheism appears to have been a gradual occurrence arising from social, cultural and political conditions existing in ancient times with no generally accepted date ascribed to its appearance, although some clues can be gained in studying the early history of Israel and the Middle East.  The following excerpts provide a glimpse into the conditions of the time which gave rise to modern monotheism.  

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic

Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)

By Mark S. Smith

Skirball Professor of Bible and Near Eastern Studies

New York University       

“Two major sets of conditions can be suggested. The first involves the changes in Israel's social structure of the family. A culture with a diminished lineage system (deteriorating over a long period from the ninth or eighth century onward), one less embedded in traditional family patrimonies, might be more predisposed both to hold to individual human accountability for behavior (as suggested by the passages just cited) and to see an individual deity accountable for the cosmos (as suggested by monotheistic statements in this period). In short, the rise of the individual as a social unit next to the traditional family unit provided intelligibility to the rise of a single god rather than a divine family.

The second major set of conditions apparent in forming this change involved the rise of the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian empires. As long as Israel was, from its own perspective, on par with the other nations, it made sense to have a religious outlook that saw Israel on par with the other nations, each one with its own patron god. (This is the basic picture described above with Deuteronomy 32:8-9.) The assumption behind this worldview was that each nation was as powerful as its patron god. However, the neo-Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom in ca. 722 altered this religious way of looking at the world, for, if the neo-Assyrian empire were so powerful, so must be its god; and conversely, if Israel could be conquered (and later Judah ca. 586), it would imply that its god in turn is hardly as powerful as Israel had traditionally taught. As a result, new thinking separated the correlation of heavenly power and earthly kingdoms. Even though Assyria and later Babylon were so powerful, the new monotheistic thinking in Israel reasoned that despite its own weakness, its god was not weak. Moreover, just as Israel's fortunes fell, those of Assyria and then Babylon rose; inversely, Israel's monotheists now reasoned that Yahweh stood at the top of divine power, and correspondingly, the gods of Mesopotamia were reckoned to be nothing. As a result, Assyria had not succeeded because of the power of its god; instead, it was Yahweh now directing all the nations. In short, the conditions of human empires provided the model for divine empire; the Assyrian and Babylonian empires pointed now not to their own power and the power of their divine patrons but to Yahweh’s guiding all the events of Israel's life. Their exile was not their shame from the power of other nations and their deities, but rather was seen now as Yahweh's plan to punish and purify the one nation which Yahweh had chosen. Accordingly, the notion arose that the new king who might help redeem Israel might not be a Judean as traditionally thought in older biblical literature (see Psalm 2). Now, even a foreigner such as Cyrus the Persian could serve as the Lord's anointed (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1). One god stood behind all these world-shaking

events.”

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“Most mainstream Old Testament scholars believe that the religion of the early Israelites was neither monotheistic nor polytheistic but “monolatrous.” While the existence of other gods was not denied, Israel was to worship no god but Yahweh. In virtue of the Mosaic covenant, Yahweh became the “confederate god” of Israel, and they became his people (Meek: 215). In part, this is characteristic of any “national religion: in practice only the gods of one's own nation are significant.” Yet it was also unique, for “one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Israelite religion is the belief that there are not several gods of Israel but only one, Yahweh, who claims exclusive devotion.” (Ringgren: 67) There are no unambiguous assertions of monotheism from the pre-exilic period, however. Even so, biblical scholars agree that the religion of Israel was at least “incipiently” monotheistic from its Mosaic beginnings. Why? Three things were arguably decisive.

In the first place, “we encounter very early the idea that Yahweh is the creator of heaven and earth.” (Ringgren: 67). Although it is true that polytheistic religions frequently include a creator in their pantheons, and these creators are often comparatively unimportant, there is a natural transition from the claim that a god has created heaven and earth to the belief that he or she is lord of heaven and earth, and from there to monotheism. In the second place, there are “repeated affirmations … that Yahweh is the greatest and mightiest of the gods.” (Ringgren: 99) Finally, the religion of Israel is unique in demanding exclusive worship; only Yahweh is to be worshiped by Israel. The extension of this notion to the idea that Yahweh alone is to be worshiped by everyone is natural (although perhaps not inevitable). If these considerations are correct, then the characteristics of Yahweh that eventually led Israel to assert that Yahweh is the only God were his creation of heaven and earth, his power and greatness, and his right to exclusive worship.”

Austin Cline,

Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.

“The form of monotheism which is traditionally most common in the West (and which is too often confused with theism in general) is the belief in a personal god which emphasizes that this god is a conscious mind that is immanent in nature, humanity, and the values which it has created. This is unfortunate, because it fails to acknowledge the existence of great variety not only within monotheism generally, but also within monotheism in the West.

On the one extreme we have the uncompromising monotheism of Islam where God is depicted as undifferentiated, eternal, unequaled, unbegotten, and in no way anthropomorphic (indeed, anthropomorphism - attributing human qualities to Allah - is considered blasphemous in Islam). At the other end we have Christianity which posits a very anthropomorphic God which is three persons in one. As practiced, monotheistic religions worship very different types of gods: just about the only thing they have in common is the focus on a single god.

The origin of monotheism is unclear. The first recorded monotheistic system arose in Egypt during the rule of Akhenaten, but it did not long survive his death. Some suggest that Moses, if he existed, brought monotheism to the ancient Hebrews, but it is possible that he was still henotheistic or monolatrous. Some evangelical Christians regard Mormonism as a modern example of monolatry because Mormonism teaches the existence of many gods of many worlds, yet worships only the one of this planet.

Various theologians and philosophers through time have believed that monotheism "evolved" from polytheism, arguing that polytheistic faiths were more primitive and monotheistic faiths more advanced - culturally, ethically, and philosophically. Although it may be true that polytheistic beliefs are older than monotheistic beliefs, this view is heavily value-laden and cannot be readily disentangled from attitudes of cultural and religious bigotry.”

Analysis:

The gradual evolution of theology to arrive at the present concept of a single supreme being appears to be closely aligned with the evolution of human social structure.  One would  expect that a supreme being type of God would have made his existence known to his creations unambiguously from the outset. 

The question of God’s immortality and residence if we believe that God created the universe and everything in it presents a question devoid of any rational answer.  Do we need to consider the possible existence of other parallel universes and speculate on the nature of their creations?  What was the ultimate starting point of all time and of God himself?  There is no response to these questions other than invoking a statement of faith.

With respect to human history, it’s difficult to conclude that the “human experiment”  has been a gloriously successful creation of an infallible, supremely powerful God.  Once again, only a convoluted attempt to apply rationality to the situation or the statement of faith can be used to justify reality.

Perhaps the extensive amount of pain and suffering experienced by humans, especially the young and innocent presents the greatest challenge to justify the support of a loving and all powerful supreme being.  Only a very strong faith can dismiss such an argument against the existence of a loving personal God.

Case 2 - God as the total sum of all laws of nature:

My own belief in God stems from a profound sense of awe in observing nature in all forms from the wonder of life to the profound grandeur of the universe.  While I have no understanding of the manner in which the laws of nature arose or are intertwined to produce the magnificent web of time and space comprising the universe, a magnificent order is present at all levels.  It is simply incomprehensible to me that this beautiful order could have arisen from strictly random events.  In my view, God is this order and exists in every particle and corner of the universe.  God is in every cell in our bodies and in every aspect of the cosmos.  For as long as nature and the universe have existed God has existed and will exist until the end of time.

Probabilistic Rationalism:

The probability that God exists as a supreme being or superhuman who has not, unambiguously, made his existence known to mankind, that has created such a flawed species as man and that allows so much suffering to occur among his creations is, in my opinion, less than 10%.  If I were God and I indeed had supreme power sufficient to create the universe and everything in it, I would want the life forms that I create to be highly successful flawless experiments and I would certainly not want them to be exposed to suffering, often times involving totally innocent babies and young children.  Now, having said that, the true believers in a superhuman type God can always offer the well known “cop out”, discussion-ending, argument that we humans cannot know or understand God’s master plan.

The probability that the structure and order found throughout the universe, including the wonder of life, has arisen from strictly random events is, in my opinion also low.  However, once again, there is no proof for an opinion one way or the other just a sense that some level of intelligence is involved.  Thus, if we wish to ascribe this intelligence to a concept of God, a 50% probability may be appropriate.

In summary, there is simply too much uncertainty concerning the existence of God to arrive at anything except a personal impression/opinion of his existence and nature.  Thus, whatever it might be for any particular individual has got to be respected and considered to be correct for that person.  In this sense each person’s definition of God is correct for him.  After all, God is not of the material world.  He has no actual place of residence.  He doesn’t communicate with us in any concrete way, i.e. phone, radio, e-mail, etc. and no human has had a documented face-to-face conversation with him.  God is of the spiritual world.  He exists in our minds and, as such, is a creation of our minds as much as we are creations of God.  Whatever that impression of God is, is correct for the mind creating it.

Thus, in answer to the original question - Is there a God?  Certainly there is a God.  The concept of God is a product of the human imagination.  While God does not exist as an absolute entity in the material world.  God exists in the minds of men as the central key component of the spiritual world and as long as there are those who believe in God, God will exist.  In this sense, there is no right or wrong.  Whatever concept a person has   of God is just as valid as that of anyone else.  On the other hand, religions and religious institutions are of the material world and are created by man.  No one of these is any better in an absolute sense than any other, nor are the beliefs arising from any one religion any more valid than the beliefs arising from any other.  They all attempt to connect the material world with the spiritual world.  In the material world, reality is revealed through scientific study where knowledge is revealed by transforming the unknown to the known.  However, true knowledge in the spiritual world is unknowable.  Scientific methods are unable to bring the unknowable into the realm of the known.  Thus, all concepts of the spiritual world are equally valid, including the concept and nature of God.  Whatever you believe is just as valid as what the next person believes and as long as there is at least on person who believes in the concept of God, God will exist.

Probabilistic Rationalism

There are both wonderful opportunities and tremendous challenges facing the human species in the 21st century.  As we consider the spectacular advances made by humans since the Stone Age, we can certainly imagine that there will be even greater and more rapid progress in the future.  During the relatively brief period of a life time we are able to witness dramatic changes in technology which effect the quality of life in numerous areas  such as communication, transportation and health care.  Because of the ever increasing pace of technological progress, the advances we will see in the next 50 years are likely be far greater than those experienced in the past 100 years.

On the other hand, there are significant challenges to be met if the human species is even to survive the next fifty years and hopefully much longer.  While there are potential natural disasters which we have little control over lurking both within the earth (e.g., earthquakes and super volcanos) and in outer space (e.g., comets and asteroids), perhaps the more immediate and dangerous challenges are of human origin.  On the one hand, our capacity for technological progress has produced many benefits, but modern weapons of war present a potentially disastrous consequence.  Survival is, arguably, the strongest biologic drive in the animal kingdom and, throughout the course of evolution, it remains strong in modern man.  Civilization has taught us that individual survival is best enhanced  by fostering group survival.  This has led to the emergence of “higher level” behavior where strictly selfish motives are replaced by such traits as cooperation, compassion and often self denial for the benefit of others.  However, the tendency for enhancing self survival through acquisition of wealth and power remains a strong temptation and has corrupted many.  This becomes especially problematic in those who have attained high levels of responsibility.  Personal power and wealth often trump achieving goals that are best for the population being represented.   While this is evident, to some extent, in the U.S., it has reached obscene levels in some of the less developed countries such as North Korea and certain, oil rich, Arab nations. Average citizens live in poverty while government rulers lavish in unimaginable wealth.  Large populations living in such desperate poverty are ideal breeding grounds for terrorism.  World-wide terrorism is a prime example of the challenges of human origin that we presently face.  As an enemy of the civilized world, terrorism is not a defined group or nation that can be dealt with in any conventional way but rather a desperate and often suicidal strategy used by diverse groups and even individuals scattered throughout the world.  The current popularity of this strategy combined with access to very powerful weapons, including nuclear weapons, has us living in a world on the edge of disaster.  While a discussion of possible solutions to this important problem is beyond the scope of this article, some of the concepts to be discussed below may help in more fully understanding this multifaceted problem and bringing about an ultimate solution.

Pack Behavior:
The tendency for many animal species to come together in packs is well documented and serves the purpose of enhancing survival in various ways.  Protection from predators, obtaining food and controlling territory are several major advantages of pack behavior.  Humans are no exception to this phenomenon.  There is a strong desire to form groups based on numerous factors.  Nationality, ethnicity, religious faith, political philosophy, township of residence, sports teams, etc.  The list goes on and on.  The affinity we feel toward a particular pack translates to a competitive attitude toward outside packs.  In many ways this gives rise to a beneficial competition that enhances human achievement.  In certain ways such as sports, it results in recreational competition for both athletes and fans.  However, it is also unfortunately associated with some of the most violent aspects of human behavior.  Political, ethnic and religious differences have led to many of the most extreme examples of human violence.  Because individual responsibility and rationality are often lost in pack behavior settings, the consequences may well be chaotic and counter-productive.  We are certainly seeing this currently being played out in the Middle East.  Is there any rationality to the course of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Labels:
Each of us is labeled in numerous ways.  Aside from the permanent labels that we wear, e.g., we are male or female, we belong to a particular race, we have a certain ancestry, etc., there are optional labels that others assign us or that we adopt ourselves that place us in specific political, religious or philosophical categories.  While the use of labels may be helpful in describing who we are and understanding others, we need to be conscious of the potential down side.  Each label tends to restrict us in some way and separate us from others bearing different labels.  This can limit our influence and our ability to work with others.  It can lead to discriminatory attitudes and behavior and in some cases influence us to support positions that we may not fully believe in.  Labels are limited by our language. They assign certain traits to us based on the definitions of words.  Whatever the list of labels implies about a person’s traits, those implications are but an abstract of the total makeup of that person.  For these reasons, one can argue that we may be better off if we limit labels and, thus, the accompanying restrictions. If we could avoid labels, we could possibly have greater freedom to structure a unique individual belief set.  This may help limit predetermined bias and, most importantly, it would tend to allow greater freedom in making the most rational decision for each issue.  This is in stark contrast to the kind of political decision making we presently observe where one party often lines up, shoulder to shoulder, on one side of an issue to do battle with the opposing party  lined up in similar fashion on the other side of the issue.  Consequently, decisions are, more often than not, made by the label with the greatest numbers.  While it can be argued that this is an appropriate procedure for making political decisions,  systematic analysis by individuals, free to explore the full range of potential decisions, may be more likely to lead to creative, and possibly the most rational  decisions, irrespective of how they might be labeled.  Probabilistic Rationalism is a systematic  semi-quantitative and non-biased process that can be used in assessing alternative ideas and approaches to solving issues.

Probabilistic Rationalism:
Probabilistic Rationalism is a process that can be applied for systematic decision making in everyday living.  As we humans travel the road of life, we accumulate a set of beliefs that we could call  our personal philosophy.  This philosophy provides the basis for most of the significant thoughts and actions that direct our lives.  It is the foundation of our moral, ethical and religious makeup as well as the basis of an intellectual capacity unique in the animal kingdom.
Humans are the only species capable of this abstract process.  All lower forms of animals respond by instinct or in response to basic biologic drives with the sole goal of enhancing survival.
In observing the extreme diversity of beliefs held regarding a particular issue, one must ask why such diversity exists and what are the thought processes that give rise to this  diversity.  We form beliefs on the basis of our observations and experiences.  Certain beliefs are essentially unanimously held.  For example, an overwhelming majority of people believe the earth is round rather than flat and that the earth is a relatively small planet that revolves around the sun rather than being the center of the universe.  On the other hand, the earth’s population is extensively divided on concepts of religion.  Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God while this view is not held by millions of people adhering to other religions.  Likewise, great divisions exist in political matters and with regard to human psychology, we constantly debate the motivations and intentions of others.
The major difference between issues where beliefs are essentially universally held and issues that give rise to a spectrum of beliefs, is the quality of knowledge that we have regarding a particular subject.  The quality of the knowledge we have regarding the shape of the earth is very high.  In fact, we now have photographs of the earth taken from outer space and, indeed, it is round.  There is virtually no possibility of making a rational argument that the earth is flat.  No valid evidence exists for such a position.  Based on all the evidence we have, the probability that the earth is round rather than flat approaches 100%.  It is therefor rational to believe that the earth is round and not flat.  This is what I term use of probabilistic rationalism to incorporate a belief into the spectrum of beliefs that constitute a personal philosophy.  While this is an extremely simple and straightforward example,  beliefs regarding more complex issues such as religion, politics, psychological interpretations, etc.,  are far more difficult to formulate.  However, the process of using probabilistic rationalism can be a powerful tool in approaching such questions.

Probabilistic Rationalism implies a process for formulating concepts and beliefs in situations where a significant degree of uncertainty exists.  When applied to every-day life settings, it provides systematic procedures similar to those used by the corporate world in making critical business and financial decisions, although, in a much less formal manner.  As an example in making key business decisions, management is routinely faced with selecting the best course of action, best product to develop or best investment to make, in order to maximize shareholder wealth.  In most cases, a great deal of uncertainty exists because one is attempting to predict the future involving a number of factors that will have an impact on the value of the selected choice.  Decision theory  allows for the calculation of a spectrum of future values for the various choices being considered.  Probabilities of outcomes for each factor are estimated by management, weighted and used to calculate overall probabilities for the various outcomes and finally, a best estimate of a future value for each choice.  Thus, when there is no obvious choice due to significant uncertainty, this provides a semi-quantitative way to make a rational decision.
As an example of how this might be used in formulating ideas and beliefs in everyday life situations, someone might ask us if we believe that earth has been visited by aliens in flying saucers.  We could give an immediate answer or we may consider some of the key factors involved.  What is the probability that intelligent alien life exists anywhere in the universe?  If such life exists, what is the probability that it possesses the necessary technology to travel in space?  If so, is it close enough to earth to make such a journey possible in a realistic time frame?  If close enough, would the aliens be aware of earth and our presence on it and would it be of sufficient interest to them to undertake such a journey?  If we are considering all of these questions, we may wish to assign probabilities to the possible choices.  We may feel that there is a very strong likelihood that intelligent alien life does exist somewhere in the universe and we may assign a 90% probability to this.  Based on our own success with our space program, we may feel that there is about a 70% probability that they would possess the technology required to make such a journey.  However, we might be somewhat less sure that they would be close enough to earth for this to be a practical mission, 50% probability.  Finally, we feel there would be an 80% probability that the aliens would find life on earth very interesting and would want to come.  In calculating an overall probability regarding our friend’s question, we must realize that we are dealing with conditional probabilities.  That is to say that each succeeding question depends on positive responses to the preceding questions.  The overall probability is thus the product of the four conditional probabilities, i.e., .90 x .70 x .50 x .80 = .25.  Even though we believe there is a 50% or greater chance of the various component factors being positive, our probability estimates suggest the overall probability that we have been visited by aliens is only 25%.

While this example has been traced in step-wise detail, beliefs can often be formed quickly and without actually going through the mathematics of such a calculation.  Our brains are able to rapidly scan the implications involved and arrive at a rational conclusion.  Whether or not we perform decision analysis in detail or take a mental short cut,  the ultimate decision or belief is rational assuming it would be consistent with the result of more precise decision analysis.  In contrast a decision or belief that is inconsistent with the result of decision analysis is irrational.

Intuitional or Emotional Derivation of Decisions or Beliefs:
While we have stated that decisions and beliefs that are not consistent with the results of decision analysis are irrational, it’s important to understand that all questions are not necessarily amenable to decision analysis.  In most such cases the degree of uncertainty is too great.  In these situations, we tend to make decisions or form beliefs based on feelings, hunches, intuition, etc. that are often very difficult to explain or define, much less quantitate.  The following is a prime example of such a question - Is there a supreme being who created the universe, i.e., Is there a God?  Because many key aspects concerning creation of the universe and the presumed nature of God are virtually unknown to us, our answer is  most likely based on cultural, psychological and emotional factors internal to our very essence.  God and religion will be explored in much greater detail in a later section.  However, an important point to be made here is that decisions and beliefs made in this manner are “soft”  decisions and beliefs.  As such, we need to be aware that they may be relevant only to us and that we need to be tolerant of different conclusions reached by others, i.e., there is no universal right and wrong known to mankind in general regarding such issues.

Perspective:
If we were able to step back for a moment and view life on earth from a distance, we may notice that we humans frequently have a rather myopic view of our existence.  Because we are so preoccupied with our own small sphere of life, our ideas and beliefs often fail to consider the vast realm of reality that lies outside of that small sphere.  An ameba living in a drop of water is only influenced by what is in that drop and unaware of the vast universe outside.  Similar analogies, on varying scales, can be made for virtually all living animals.  While this is also frequently true for humans, our unique ability for critical observation, deductive reasoning, and rational thought, provide us with the potential to escape this myopia.  Understanding perspective is essential to realizing this potential and, thus, can be extremely beneficial in making rational decisions and forming rational beliefs.  It is important whether or not these decisions and beliefs are the result of decision analysis based on probabilities or derived from intuition/emotion.  It’s valuable to understand, as best we can, who we are and where we are with respect to the universe.

Time:  Age of the universe  --  13.7 billion years
    Age of the Solar System & Earth --  4.5 billion years
    Age of life on earth --  3.8 billion years
    Age of land animals on earth -- 65 million years
    Age of humans on earth -- about 100,000 years or 0.1 million years

Time Perspective - On a compressed time scale, if the age of the earth is represented by one year, humans have only been around for the last 13.8 minutes.

Size: Size of the universe --  10 billion light years in radius
    Size of the Solar System -- 0.06 light years in radius
    Size of the earth -- 0.0000064 light years in radius

Size Perspective - If the size of the universe is represented by the distance of 1000 miles, the solar system would be represented by a distance of 0.06 inches and the size of the earth by about 0.000006 inches.  Ours is a small planet orbiting an ordinary star which is only one of 200 - 400 billion stars estimated to be in the Milky Way galaxy.  In turn, the Milky Way is but one of the billions of galaxies in the universe.  It has been suggested that there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on the entire earth.
In summary, if we consider the entire realm of reality that we are able to observe, taking into account the above perspectives, we are left with the conclusion that human life on earth is like a brief flicker on an insignificant spec associated with one of these grains of sand.  Given this perspective, it’s too bad that the human species wastes so much of its brief existence on conflict and violence over political, religious and other philosophical differences.

A brief discussion follows of how probabilistic rationalism might be used to help address some of mankind’s greatest issues.


Religion:
The world has known many religions.  These have been born out of the basic biologic drive for orientation found throughout the animal kingdom.  Ancient cultures needed to understand their existence in a seemingly hostile and mysterious environment.  Who were they relative to other life forms, the heavens and the terrifying forces of nature.  All powerful superior beings, spirits or gods were invented to provide an understandable basis for the presence of man on earth.  These early religions played a central role in the lives of the ancient cultures.  Impressive monuments were erected to the gods, both lower animals and humans were sacrificed to please the gods and legends were passed down from one generation to the next.  Variations in weather, flood, draught, etc. were believed to be caused by unhappy spirits or gods.  Thus, much of an individual’s or a society’s life was spent in worship or otherwise trying to please the gods.  More modern religions all have a similar basis but focus on the notion of a single creator or God who, in many cases, has sent his message to mankind via a prophet.  Most of the incentive for people to adopt a particular religion centers on the notion of a personal God being a guardian who will guide them during their lifetimes in a hostile world and offer them immortality in a glorious afterlife.  Proper worship habits and “Godly living” are the requirements to earn these benefits.
Unfortunately, history is filled with examples of how this rather lofty ideal has been corrupted, twisted and used to support evil and violence, often on a massive scale.  The current conflict between Islamic extremists and the western world is a classic example of how religion can be used to justify such inhumane activities as torture, beheadings and suicide attacks.  Religion has also been used by other groups to justify behavior that is now considered cruel and often violent.  Punishment of Galileo and other early scientists by the Catholic Church for their studies and ideas that conflicted with those of the church, the Crusades and conflicts between the Muslims and Hindus in India are a few examples.
In view of the perspective presented above, how can religious leaders be so myopic and focused on unjustified self importance?  If there is a supreme creator of the universe who desires peace and good will for his human creations, why would he allow religious institutions to become the source of evil and violence?  Of course, this question begs the classic response that man cannot fully understand God’s ways.

However, that being said, rational thought can be used in the abstract sense to suggest  whether or not various beliefs make sense in the grand scheme of the universe.
Perhaps there is no greater question than - was the universe created by a superior intelligence or is it’s existence a random occurrence based strictly on physiochemical principles?  Regardless of which viewpoint one attempts to justify, a basic question remains  that simply cannot be answered.  One cannot overemphasize this point enough.  There is a significant body of knowledge regarding reality that is simply unknowable.  While we can hold certain beliefs about such things as the existence and nature of God, fate of the soul after death and what lies beyond the time and space boundaries of the universe, it is unlikely that human beings will ever have absolute knowledge about such matters.  If we deny the existence of a creator, we are left with the impossible task of explaining the origin of all matter and energy comprising the universe.  It is quite unimaginable to suggest that it simply materialized from nothing. On the other hand, if we accept the existence of a creator, we are left with the impossible task of explaining the nature and origin of the creator.  Given this dilemma, our only option is to either accept a position strictly on faith or to use abstract rational thought to make a personal choice.
If we are to advocate rationalism, it seems reasonable that humans should use this unique and, perhaps highest mental capability, rather than blind faith, to formulate religious beliefs.  In assessing the above question, one could begin by either accepting or rejecting the notion that the universe is the result of random events.  Human observation seems to suggest that the universe functions according to repeatable principles that we call the laws of nature.  These laws might be considered the basis of a non-random or what might be considered an intelligent basis for nature, our existence and the universe.  While this is a rather “soft” argument, there is a subtle degree of rationality in selecting this option rather than the completely random event option.  It might be suggested that this is as far as one can rationally carry the concept of God.  Further detail is simply beyond our current ability to comprehend.  Thus, the existence of a systematic or creative force can be accepted without the necessity of adorning this belief with any of the elaborate detail variously described by the organized religions.  Consistent with this interpretation, the various religions of the world would be viewed as creations of the human mind rather than any particular one being the “true” word of God.  This is also a rational concept. If one believes in the existence of a loving “personal” God powerful enough to create the entire universe, it is not rational to believe that that God would have introduced conflicting religious philosophies that would lead to the kind of hatred and violence that we have seen throughout history and evidenced today in the Middle East.

At this point, perhaps it would be beneficial to briefly consider the concept of faith and how this often admirable trait can become a powerful factor in manipulating human behavior.  To have faith is to have complete trust and confidence in someone or something.  Once a person has faith in an individual, an institution or a philosophy, they tend to be controlled by that entity and may no longer question it’s directives.  To have faith in a religious or political leader means that one fully believes in that individual’s wisdom and  leadership.  To have faith in a religion or political philosophy suggests total buy in to it’s teachings and directives.  In cases where the leadership or philosophy is devoted to goals that essentially everyone would agree are good and ultimately beneficial to humanity, faith can be a powerful positive force for human behavior.  On the other hand, we have too often witnessed situations where faith has led to evil and has been a powerful negative influence on human behavior.  The Jonestown suicides of approximately 1000 followers of Jim Jones in 1978 as well as the muslim suicide bombers presently operating in the Middle East are both examples of the negative aspects of faith.  In summary, a degree of rationalism is needed to assure that this very powerful human trait is employed in a positive rather than a negative way.

Much human suffering has resulted from religious fervor and although one may choose to follow one particular religion, no particular religion can be established as a universal “best choice”. Perhaps all positively oriented religious beliefs should be respected with the point of view that each is correct for those wishing to follow it.  It would be very beneficial if all organized religions were to renounce the idea that theirs is the only correct religion and that members of other religions are somehow unenlightened inferior humans.  In other words, there is no place in a truly benevolent religion for disdain or hatred of other groups.  In the end, all universally significant teaching of religion might best be summed up in the  “Golden Rule”, i.e. treat all others as you wish to be treated.  It seems that all of the good coming from religion could be accomplished if this was followed by everyone and all of the harm inflicted in the name of religion could be prevented.  For those believing in a personal God, it might be rational to assume that this is the essence of God’s expectation for mankind.  Perhaps, religion need be no more complex than that.  It could be argued that the rest of it, ritual, ceremony, etc. are non-essential adornments added by humans.  In some cases these are self-serving add-ons  for the purpose of attracting and keeping followers with the ultimate goal of enhancing the power and influence of a particular religious leader or movement.

Politics:
Political systems have been devised by man in an effort to create an organized structure within which people can lead their lives, pursue happiness and achieve their goals.  The structure is necessary to provide the “rules of the game”.  Without going into great detail of the history and philosophy of politics, suffice it to say that no perfect set of “rules of the game” has yet been devised.  Given the diversity of human capability, intelligence, initiative and numerous other factors, it’s unlikely that there will ever be a set of rules that pleases everyone.  Add to this the basic human instinct of survival i.e.,  first looking out for ones self, it’s understandable why people who gain political power often use their position to enhance their own power and personal wealth.  History books are filled  with such characters and their stories.

It has been suggested that democracy, while far from perfect, has been the most successful political system yet devised.  In a pure democracy, everyone has one vote and decisions are made on a majority vote basis.  In it’s purist form there would be no political parties.  Everyone would weigh each issue individually and reach a decision independently prior to the vote.  However, a pure democracy is only possible for relatively small groups.  In a country the size of the United States, the representative republic concept has been adopted so that each elected representative speaks for several hundred thousand individuals, thus, giving rise to political parties and the unfortunate, but unavoidable introduction of packs and labels.
Under the circumstances and given the basic human instincts mentioned above, the decision making process in government is subject to corruption as politicians are tempted to first consider personal needs, such as being reelected,  before the overall best interests of the country.  In this situation we often observe that much time and effort is directed at discrediting the opposition rather than in more positive and constructive resolution of issues.

If political leaders could be persuaded to use the probabilistic rationalism approach in addressing issues, the first necessary step would be to agree on desired outcomes.  Too often political discussions launch into debating issues without having desired end points clearly defined.  Under such circumstances, it becomes easy to pursue hidden agendas or to slip back into stereotypically defending the “official” party viewpoint without there ever being a meeting of the minds as to the ultimate goal.  If a desired outcome were first discussed and agreed upon, a systematic semi-quantitative process could be initiated to compare possible approaches and to arrive at the most rational decision.
The importance of the open and honest setting of goals cannot be over emphasized.  Before any rational decision making process can be applied, the desired goals must be clearly defined and honestly agreed upon by all engaging in the decision making exercise.  This is where freedom and the democratic process are so vital.  Group goals seldom are perfectly aligned with the individual goals of all members of the group.  However, by following the will of the majority, the group goals stand a good chance of unanimous support by the group.  This is in stark contrast to a dictatorship where one individual informs the group as to the goals they are expected to support.  To a large extent the group goals of any society are based on the moral and ethical values of the society in association with it’s needs and desires.

While the above concepts describe general aspects of a probabilistic rationalism process, the following hypothetical example may provide a fuller understanding of its application.   Starting with the premiss that the legislative body is in agreement that some form of restructuring is needed to assure the solvency of Social Security in the years ahead, the desired objective would be discussed and agreed upon by the legislative body.  In this case, the objective might be to assure that social security remains solvent and achieves a situation where it is self-sustaining by the year 2020 and be accomplished at a total additional cost to the taxpayers of no more than $100 million.  Specifically income and outgo would be in balance by 2020.  A bipartisan working group might then be formed to assess all alternatives for reaching this specific goal using the probabilistic rationalism process.  The first working group task would be to brainstorm in order to develop a list of all possible approaches.  During the first round of discussions critical weaknesses may be identified and some of the possible approaches eliminated.  Those that survive would be compared using decision analysis.  All go/no go steps or components for each possible approach would be itemized in detail, including cost estimates.  Probabilities of success for each step would then be estimated independently by each member of the group and the means of individual estimates assigned for calculation of the overall probability of success.  Finally, the approach having the highest probability of success and falling within the cost guidelines would be presented to the legislature for approval.

It should be emphasized that the sample case outlined above is only one example of how probabilistic rationalism might be applied to political decision making.  While this model can certainly be varied to best address various issues, legislation resulting from such a process would be more likely to enjoy bipartisan support and to be relatively free of attached self-serving objectives or unrelated “pork”.      
In conclusion, even in the best of circumstances where lofty goals have been properly established, conflict can arise when the rational paths to achieving multiple goals are incompatible.  Conflict resolution is another fertile ground for use of a rational decision making process and will be addressed as a separate topic.

Summary:

In advocating Probabilistic Rationalism as a process for making life’s decisions,  two critical assumptions are made.  The first key assumption is that the goal is to arrive at decisions that are based on purely factual information as opposed to information that may be filtered to support preconceived personal bias.  Secondly, where decision making working groups are concerned, it is assumed that the process is carried out within the framework of democracy, i.e., all members of the group have equal voice and in the end support a decision that reflects the will of the majority.
Whether ideas are generated or decisions are made by an individual or a group, clear separation of factual information from opinion is crucial in order to arrive at a truly rational decision,  Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that there is, frequently, less desire to arrive at a rational decision than to arrive at one that supports preconceived personal viewpoints or objectives.  Being open minded, fair and honest are important virtues to the successful use of Probabilistic Rationalism in making life’s decisions.

The War on Terror

The “so called” war on terror is a topic that has dominated U.S. politics since the tragic events of 9/11/01.  Although world-wide terrorism had previously been occurring on an ever increasing frequency for a number of years prior to this time, it wasn’t at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy or political rhetoric.  With the events of 9/11/01, that immediately changed as President George Bush announced the U.S. “War on Terror”.  Not only did that proclamation usher in a foreign policy, including the war in Iraq, that has had a profound effect on many aspects of life around the globe but also a period of the most intense and often disingenuous political posturing ever experienced by our nation.

In attempting to evaluate the events of the past six years, I feel it is necessary to first consider the basic question of human behavior and its determinants. 

Theory:  The most basic factor determining responses of living things to the environment is an integral component of each molecule of DNA.  The sole purpose of that factor is to direct all environmental responses of the individual in a manner that will optimize survival of that individual and his or her particular DNA configuration.

This theory underlies all “normal” responses of plants to their environment and all “normal” behavior of animals to theirs.  Thus, It is the essential determinant of basic biologic drives, beginning with survival of the individual and production of progeny.  This concept is most readily observed by studying the adaptation of plants to their environment and plant reproduction.  Every response is aimed at perpetuating the original DNA and it is only through selection (natural or engineered) that the path to this ultimate goal is modified.  Tracing this concept through animal behavior becomes a bit more difficult and reaches a particularly high degree of complexity in analyzing human behavior. However, the transition from analysis of plant responses to animal behavior can be approached by studying the relative simple behavior of microorganisms starting with the virus.  A virus consists of DNA within a protein jacket and its sole mission in life is to inject that DNA into a host cell where it will be replicated.  Moving to simple animals and then on to more complex animal life, one can trace back nearly every component of behavior to survival of the individual and ultimately survival of the DNA.

Certainly human behavior is of greatest interest and with careful analysis, we can see how even complex aspects of this behavior lead back to the fundamental driver, DNA survival.  This story will be explored in sections to follow and will include such topics as normal and aberrant behavior, basic life needs, sex and reproductive drives, pursuit of power and wealth, war and violence and other less confrontational social interactions.  Particular attention will be paid to suicidal terrorism, perhaps the most extreme form of human aberrant behavior.  

Before further considering behavioral aspects of this topic, we need to take a closer look at the concept of a “war on terror”.  This terminology is, perhaps, not the best because terror is not a defined enemy, it is a tactic.  The semantics of this terminology can present problems in communicating exactly what it is that the “war on terror” is attempting to achieve.

It might be more precise to refer to a “war on terrorists”, however, this is also a general designation and does not specify a specific enemy.  Terrorists come and go like weeds in a garden.  Weeds don’t only exist in one flower bed, they come and go in various beds all over the property.  Sure you can kill off many but you never get them all and as soon as you let up they reappear almost over night.  In other words, it’s a war that can never achieve absolute victory.  As long as there are disenchanted individuals in the world, you have potential terrorists and as long as you have rouge organizations, you have groups that will recruit and utilize terrorists.  Thus, the key question is - how should we, as a society wishing to live in a peaceful and civilized world, deal with this problem?  Should our military, like an intrepid gardener pulling weeds on a daily basis, jump from hot spot to hot spot around the world seeking out terrorist groups or is there a more rational strategy to pursue?  

Let’s consider our post-war experience in Iraq.  As mighty as the U.S. military is, we have had great difficulty in suppressing terrorism in that, relatively small, part of the world.  What might our options have been post 9/11?

My immediate thought, as I learned that the attack on 9/11 was a terrorist event conducted by radical Islamists, was that the only rational approach would be to first focus on defensive actions.  First of all, secure all airline cockpits so that they were locked to prevent any entry from the passenger cabin.  Second, temporarily ban entry of anyone from  Islamic sections of the world, especially the middle east, until we had in place systems for differentiating radical Islamists from non-violent individuals wishing to come to this country for a variety of peaceful reasons. Thirdly, secure our borders so that no one enters the U.S. without being thoroughly screened. Next, thoroughly review the status of all non-citizens currently in the U.S. and immediately deport any whose intentions appear to be suspicious and finally, closely monitor the activities of Islamic groups in the U.S.to minimize the risk of “sleeper cells” development. 

While I am sure much of this defensive strategy would be viewed as non-politically correct and bring strong protests from left-wing civil rights activists, a strong defense such as this is the only way to guarantee a reasonable level of protection against another 9/11-like event.  The enemy does not wear identifying uniforms.  To the contrary, they hide among normal peace-loving people and take advantage of the freedoms our country enjoys to do us harm.  It would seem that rather drastic defensive measures would be needed to provide an effective shield from this threat. 

Our government chose an alternate course of action, opting for an offensive strategy with the goal of defeating key terrorist groups and their supporters on battlegrounds in the Middle East coupled with less intrusive homeland security measures.  To date, the strategy has succeeded in  preventing additional terrorist attacks in the U.S.  There have been a number of foiled attempts so one could say that our homeland defense has been either good or lucky.  Currently, Iraq is the central battleground for the “war on terror” and we appear to be approaching a critical juncture.  In conducting this campaign, the Bush administration has not only faced a difficult foe on the battleground but has also had to deal with increasing animosity on the home front led by political foes.  It would appear that while many war critics are sincere, there are a substantial number who have seized upon this as an opportunity to damage the president in order to gain a political advantage in future elections.  These are the disingenuous who wish, not only to damage the current administration, but who are also willing to secure the defeat of the U.S. in the “War on terror” as part of the price to pay for a political victory.  These reprehensible individuals must surely recognize the nature of the struggle in the Middle East and realize that it is truly a test of wills.  Which side will give in first and withdraw?  The constant hammering and lack of support at home in the U.S. is probably the best weapon the terrorists have working for them. It’s sad that political objectives and the lust for power in the U.S. could be the decisive element leading us into a period of increased violence and suffering on U.S. soil.

Who are the terrorists? What are their goals? Do they really want to kill as many Americans, christians and jews as possible in attempting to achieve world-wide Islamic rule?  While these and similar questions can lead to answers that sometimes appear to be paranoiac, there have been enough brutal acts and hateful rhetoric to justify almost any conclusion.

In considering current terrorism from the viewpoint of human behavior, several key aspects deserve further comment.

The principal factor that makes conducting a “war on terrorism” so difficult is the willingness of the terrorists to die themselves in order to achieve overall success for their cause.  Such behavior is clearly aberrant in that individual survival is willingly sacrificed.  Such a high degree of willingness to sacrifice one’s life usually has its origin in a deep religious conviction.  This is, perhaps, the most dramatic example of the power that religious belief can have on humans, a power that can lead to evil as readily as it can lead to good.  When individuals choose to come under the influence of such deep religious conviction, they relinquish their “god-given” ability to make rational decisions and to control their own lives.  No behavior more clearly points out the destructiveness and irrationality of this choice than the suicide attacks of terrorists.

Pack behavior, another example of a behavior that can be both beneficial and harmful, fosters disdain and often hatred for other groups.  The Islamists frequently refer to those not following their religion as infidels, in a manner that suggests they are regarded as being less worthy humans.  Even many Christians firmly believe that non-Christians will not enter heaven and, thus, also regard them as less worthy humans.  Aggressive pack behavior is easily incited and can lead to the kind of violence that is currently occurring between the Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Unfortunately, both of the above behavioral aberrations appear to characterize the Islamic terrorists that are our true enemy in this “war on terror”.  I am convinced that the Islamic extremists are committed to achieving world-wide Islamic rule and are perfectly willing to kill and to use as much violence as necessary to achieve their goal.  However, it is also important for us to recognize the incredible complexity of cultural, ethnic, social, political and historic factors that, in addition to very powerful religious elements, make resolution of the problems in the Middle-East so difficult.  While the more moderate Muslims and the rest of the civilized world learn how to purge this extremism from our midst,  the United States government should establish the strongest possible defense to avoid harm to our country and our citizens, including those measures previously described.