Lunches with Lucas VII

 [This is a continuing conversation...to start at the beginning, click here]

            I sat at the table, waiting for Lucas to arrive.  After our last lunchtime conversation, I had been doing some thinking and I was ready to seriously consider something he had been bugging me about for years.  Or maybe I was about to call his bluff!  I really wasn't sure which.

 

             "OK - I'm willing," I pronounced, as Lucas took his seat across from me.

 

             Usually Lucas was the one to get the conversation going.  It drove me crazy sometimes.  So he was caught off guard by my statement.  "Willing what?" he asked, clearly confused.

 

             "I've decided that being a 'hardened skeptic' of miracles makes more sense than categorically denying any possibility of miracles," I said.  I had been considering this for some time.  There was a part of me that felt like Lucas had made some good logical points in the past and that it didn't make sense to reject miracles a priori, and then only allow God, if there was a God, to be forced to use miracles as the only means of communication.  That was a cosmic Catch 22 - as long as you put aside the question of whether some all-powerful God could ever be caught in a Catch 22!  But there was also a larger part of me that wanted to see where he was going with his whole train of thought.  Maybe, if I could call his bluff, he would stop badgering me about it.

 

             "Really?" Lucas was clearly pleased.  "What changed your mind?"

 

             "I considered what you said," though I hated admitting it.  "Besides, it seems a bit exciting...maybe even a bit freeing," I said, surprising myself with that last statement.

 

             "That great!" Lucas said enthusiastically.   "Now God can talk to you!"

 

             Lucas was already having too much fun with this.  Maybe I shouldn't have admitted it to him.  "Well, I still don't hear anything," I said.

 

             "I do," Lucas said, intently.

 

             "What - you hear voices?" I said skeptically.

 

             "Yes - I hear you saying 'I still don't hear anything'."  Lucas said, smiling

 

             I rolled my eyes.  "That's dumb.  But I gave your God an opening.  I said I would allow for some remote possibility of miracles.  But I don't see any fireworks and I don't hear any profound voices."

 

             "How can you hear if you don't stop talking?" Lucas asked.

 

             I paused for a moment.  I pursed my lips and cupped my hands by my ears and looked up.  I mockingly waited for a few seconds.  "No, not a peep," I challenged.

 

             "No - I mean really stop talking - like for a whole day."

 

             "A whole day?  Take a vow of silence?  Become a monk?  I finally agree to allow for miracles and now you're making me a monk?"  I didn't get what Lucas was driving at.

 

             "No - not a monk.  But I mean a real day of solitude and listening.  I mean a day where you're away from everything and everyone.  I know of a great place you could go and I think you would really enjoy it." Lucas said, turning practical for once.

 

             "Haha - like being 'in tune with nature'...become like Thoreau?" I asked.

 

             "Well, kind of actually.  But more like being in tune with super-nature!" he said, seeming pleased with his turn of phrase.  "I own that cabin out in the woods and it's a great place to go."

 

             "Oh right.  So is this going to help me see God or hear God or something?"

 

             "Well, actually, it might!" Lucas said, as if he really believed it.  "I just think our lives are too busy for us to contemplate the important things in life.  Clearing your brain is important."

 

             "Well, on that we can agree.  To be honest, it does sound kind of refreshing."

 

             "In my experience, God never resorts to yelling.  He speaks softly.  And so if we never find time for solitude and quiet, we'll never hear his voice," Lucas said.

 

             "Your God is Harry Truman?"

 

             Lucas laughed a bit.  "So...how about it?  Are you ready to do this?"

 

             "Sure," I said.  Though, of course, I wasn't really sure.  But a day away seemed really good to me right now.  I wouldn't have done it on my own.  I just would never make that time.  And I could blame it on Lucas now.

 

             "I just have one thing to ask you to do," Lucas added.

 

             "What?  Homework?  I thought this was supposed to be refreshing," I said.

 

             "During your time of solitude, I want you to ask God to tell you what he's going to do for you," Lucas stated, matter-of-factly.

 

             "What in the world?" I asked. 

 

             "Yes - just a simple request.  Tell God he has to make it obvious to you."

 

             "You think God is really going to talk to me?" I asked, a bit incredulous.  I was looking for a nice weekend alone - not some strange experience. 

 

             "Yes, actually, I really do think God is going to talk to you."

 

             "Well," I laughed, "that would be some kind of miracle right there!"

 

             "Of course it would" Lucas said, and added "enough of a miracle for you to believe in him?

 

             I ignored Lucas' last comment.  He was always pushing me in that direction.  "I mean, I don't hear voices.  Are you talking about hearing an audible voice?"

 

             "I'm talking about a mental state in which you are convinced of something.  Sometimes the most obvious things are voices, but sometimes they are not.  Those rare 'ahah' moments aren't always the result of some audible voice.  But they can be life-changing," Lucas explained.

 

             I wasn't sure I got what he was talking about.  "I'm not sure I get it."

 

             "You will," he said, smiling confidently.

 

             I was a bit intrigued by this discussion.  "You expect some magic is going to happen?"  Then I turned a bit skeptical as I thought about it and remembered I would be in his cabin.  "What - have you installed some kind of intercom equipment in your cabin in the woods so you can 'speak the words of God' to me?"

 

             "No - no intercom," Lucas said.  "Actually, there's nothing there - not even internet."

 

             "No internet?"

 

             "No cell phones either."

 

             "What do you mean?  Is this so remote that there is no cell phone service?"

 

             "It might be, actually," Lucas said, "but part of this agreement is that you have to leave your cell phone at home.  No distractions."

 

             Maybe this wasn't such a great idea.  "Come on.  I need my phone.  What if I have to call someone?  What if some crazy serial killer lives next door?"

 

             "Oh good grief," Lucas said, rolling his eyes.  "Pretend like it's 1980.  You can live for one day without your precious cell phone."

 

             I was becoming a bit apprehensive about the whole thing.            

 

             Lucas picked up my phone off the table and started stroke it with his fingers. "My precious...my precious," he mocked.

 

             "Oh - stop that!  I'm not controlled by my phone!" I protested.

 

             "Good," Lucas said with finality.  "Here's the key."

 

 

 ...on to Lucas VIII

 

Lunches with Lucas VI

 [This is a continuing conversation...to start at the beginning, click here]

 

“Hey - it's been a while - great to see you again!” Lucas exclaimed as I walked toward our familiar table.

“Yes - too long, my friend," I said as I shook his hand, and sat down at the table.  "I guess you were too busy for me” I kidded him, knowing that we were both at fault for the lapse in time.

“Too busy?  I've been waiting here for months!” Lucas said with a smile.  

“Hey look, they have new menus,” I said, glancing down at the table.  "Maybe I'll see if there's something different that I want to order."  I opened up the new menu and started reading, although, to be honest, I didn't really remember if I had ever looked at the old one.  I glanced up and saw that Lucas was just staring at me with a smirk.

"What?" I asked.

"We both know that you are going to order corned beef on rye.  Stop pretending you won't," Lucas exclaimed, laughing at me.

"Maybe I will order soup, just to spite you."

"Hah!  You can't.  You're a creature of habit.  Just admit it," Lucas jabbed as the waitress came over.

Now I was conflicted.  I wanted to prove Lucas wrong.  But what was better than the corned beef on rye?  Why waste money on something I didn't like as much?  But getting back at Lucas and showing I was not just a creature of habit seemed more than worth it.

"The usual?" the waitress asked.

"No, I'll have...." I looked down at the menu again.  Tomato soup?  A BLT?  I felt the pressure of needing to make a decision over something so simple.  So, with an air of smugness at proving Lucas wrong, I finally said "I'll have your corned beef on rye...with extra horseradish please," and sat back.

"So...the usual." the waitress said, and turned away.

Lucas let it pass without comment.  Of course, the fact was, he had ordered his usual too.  What a boring pair of friends we were!  "I think we need a spark of creativity in our lunches!" I said with a smile, "Let's talk about something we've never talked about before."

Lucas seemed ready for that and immediately asked "How about the news about the man who died and then came back to life?"

"Well, that's certainly random, though hardly creative.  I mean, people have been reporting near-death experiences for years.  I remember reading a book a few years ago about a neurosurgeon who had one of those experiences - it was pretty interesting."

"No, I'm talking about the guy who was dead for four days!" Lucas exclaimed.

"What in the world are you talking about?  Did someone post that on Facebook or something?  Because everyone knows that Facebook is the source or real truth," I derided.

"No, as you know, I don't do Facebook.  Actually I read it in a book."

"A book?  What book? " I retorted.

"The book is called 'John'" Lucas said, with a look of finality.

"John?  Never heard of it - who wrote it?  Is this some book that just came out?"  This seemed like a strange conversation to me.  Had he gone off the deep end in the weeks since the last time we had lunch together?  I should not have suggested a 'creative' lunch topic.  This once more reinforced in me that being a creature of habit was generally a good strategy in life!

"Actually, the book was written about 2000 years ago.  Some people refer to it as the Gospel of John..."

"Are you kidding?" I interrupted.  "We meet for lunch after a few months of not getting together and the best you can come up with is to pretend that the resurrection of Jesus happened yesterday?"  Maybe I was a creature of habit with respect to my lunch menu, but Lucas was certainly a creature of habit when it came to bringing up some random topic from the Bible.

"Actually, I was referring to the raising of Lazarus.  And just because something happened long ago doesn't mean it isn't important," Lucas said.

I wasn't going to keep this conversation going, but the mention of Lazarus sparked a memory of a time years ago when I had looked into that event and recalled there was some good retort about it.  What was it?  Suddenly, from the cobwebs of my brain I remembered what it was.  Now I could turn the tables and get something over on Lucas.  "Doesn't the Bible say that you need two or three witnesses to confirm something?" I challenged.

Lucas looked shocked that I would be challenging him about something from the Bible.  "Well...yes it does...why?"

"Well, as I recall, your 'amazing' story about Lazarus is only recorded in your 'book' of John and not anywhere else in the Bible -  or any other book in the entire world, for that matter - so you only have one witness, and he was obviously pretty biased," I proclaimed, quite proud of myself for remembering that detail.

Lucas actually seemed pleased at my response.  "You're right!  I'm impressed you knew that."

"Thank you"

"So, what you're telling me is you need more witnesses before you would believe a miracle?" Lucas asked.

"A lot more!"

"Okay - what about the time Jesus fed 5000 people with just a few bits of bread and fish?  I mean, at least 5000 people saw that, plus the disciples and Jesus...plus it's recorded in all four gospels, so that means at least 5000+10+1+2 = 5013 people saw it." 

I ignored his goofy math.  "I'd like to talk to those 5000 people and confirm that story...but I can't...because they're all dead and they've been dead for 2000 years, assuming they existed at all!  That's not real evidence.  Lots of people have claimed lots of impossible things in history.  I don't believe any of them and neither would you if you really thought about it.  Let's talk about something else."

"So, it's not just a lot of witnesses - you need a miracle to happen today, not yesterday," Lucas persisted.

"No - I just need something current.  You're bringing up ancient history.  There's no way to substantiate things that happened so long ago."

"Have you ever heard of Brother Yun?"  Lucas asked.

"Are you changing the subject?  Because, if you are, I'm all for it.  But, no, I've never heard of him."

"He wrote a book about his experiences called 'Heavenly Man'.  It's pretty interesting.  He fasted without food and water for 74 days while in prison and survived.  How about that for a miracle?" Lucas challenged.

"No water for 74 days?  That's impossible, as you know," I stated.

"Impossible...or a miracle.  He's still alive.  Does that count as current enough for you?"

"Have you met this guy?"

"No, but I think he lives in the US now," Lucas said, as if it was helpful.

"You can't believe every goofy story you read in a book and I'm not about to waste my life chasing down everyone's crazy story I hear, just to confirm it was false.  How can you possibly believe that such a story is true?  Did you check it on Snopes?" I asked.

"Actually, I'm not sure if it's true either," Lucas admitted, "but my point is that for you to believe some event like that, it would need to have witnesses, be current, and...you would need the person to be sitting right in front of you.  You need to be able to grill the person yourself, right?"

"Yes, for something that never happened - they better be sitting right in front of me - and even then I'm skeptical.  They'd have to be able to show me proof," I said.

"OK, well, I'm sitting right here and I know you're well aware of how God miraculously intervened in my cancer diagnosis.  Is that sufficient proof?"  Lucas asked.

Now the conversation was becoming uncomfortable.  I certainly remembered the time Lucas had been diagnosed with cancer and then, at an appointment to prepare for chemotherapy, they found no trace of cancer.  Personally, I considered it a "medical mistake", but of course Lucas considered it a miracle.  At the time I was just happy for him and I didn't mind him claiming God cured him.  I was just happy he didn't have cancer.  But I didn't think it was very considerate of him to bring that up now and try to use it to paint me into a corner.  "Well..." I started.

But Lucas sensed he had gone a bit too far and intervened.  "I get it - you view it differently than I do.  And I know we're friends and all, and it happened to me and not to you.  What you really need is to experience something like this yourself."

I wasn't sure that was completely true.  Lucas continued "I mean, at least if it happens to you, then you don't have to worry about trying to determine if someone is telling the truth."

"I don't know if it has to happen to me, specifically - but I would have to be totally convinced of the truth of it," I said.

"But if you're not convinced that I was telling the truth about my cancer diagnosis, then it seems like the only one you would really believe is yourself," Lucas said, but not in an accusatory tone.

"I believe you're telling the truth," I said, backtracking a bit.  I didn't really want to get into an argument about that event - it was too personal for both of us.  "I mean..." I paused as I searched for an example.  "I'm just not going to stop drinking for 74 days and see if your God keeps me alive!" I said, trying to change the focus of the conversation.

Lucas seemed happy enough to take the conversation in a different direction.  He laughed "no, I wouldn't recommend trying to go without eating or drinking for a couple of months!  And I can't blame you for really needing to be fully convinced.  All the things I talked about happened to someone else, not to you.  So..." Lucas paused, "what about the miracle that you can personally experience every day whenever you want?"

"Right" I said sarcastically.  "I just conjure it up and 'poof', there it is."

"Well, your human ability to exhibit free will is exactly that kind of miracle," Lucas said, as if he really believed it.  "Think about it - it's the perfect miracle that you can test at any time."

"Oh good grief - that's ridiculous.  Just because things like free will aren't fully explained scientifically, it doesn't mean you can put them in the category of 'miracles'.  Even you don't really believe that," I said, challenging him.

"Ah yes - an AYUNE" Lucas said with a smile.

"What?"

"An AYUNE - as yet unexplained natural event," Lucas said.

I rolled my eyes.  "Oh, right, you've used that ridiculous expression before."

"It's fine - I understand why you don't want to view something like free will as being a miracle.  It seems too obvious to us - too natural," Lucas conceded.  "But do you see what you've done here?"

"Yes I see what I've done - I've totally forgotten how painful lunches with you can be," I said with a smile.

Lucas ignored the dig.  "You keep moving the bar."

"What 'bar'?"

"I mean first you needed more witnesses - then you needed something current not old - then you needed to be able to talk to the individual directly - and then even that is not good enough.  And when something happens that you actually experience yourself, you write it off as a natural event anyway.  You will keep moving the bar and nothing will ever be good enough to break through your disbelief," Lucas stated.

"And you say that as if my position is illogical.  But I'm the logical one here.  Most people see things the way I do.  I don't see miracles around every corner or every time I exercise my 'free will' like you do," I said, using air quotes around free will because I knew that really bugged Lucas.  "And I'm comfortable with that."

"My point is that the reason you don't believe in anything supernatural is because you don't want to believe, not because of any lack of evidence.  You've set up your whole concept of the world so that it is impossible for there to be any evidence of the supernatural.  And then you say everything is natural - nothing is supernatural," Lucas pressed.

"There is no evidence for the supernatural," I responded, as our food arrived.

"No - the fact is that you won't allow there to be evidence."

"OK, fine," I said, "I don't believe because I don't want to believe - is that what you want me to say?"

"Well - isn't that true?" Lucas asked.

"So...I said it.  Let's move on to some 'boring' topic of conversation," I said, taking a bite of my corned beef and letting the horseradish clear my mind.  "How's work going for you?"

 

[On to Lucas VII]

 

 

 

 

The one thing I can't stand

             I looked at him.   He looked at me.  I could see he was smoldering but I didn't care.  He wanted to let me have it, but this time I was going to get my words in first and I wasn't going to stop until I was done!  I was sick and tired of his bigotry and intolerance.

             "I am really tired of your judgmental attitude.  If someone doesn't agree 100% with you, then you label them as wrong.  You think you're better than everyone else.  You think you're smarter than everyone else.  I'm not going to put up with that anymore.  You need to learn that other people have a right to their own opinions."

             He kept trying to talk, but I was shouting him down.  What made him think what he had to say was more important than what I had to say?  It was always like that.  But not this time.  This time he was going to hear me if I had to get a bullhorn and put it next to his ear.

             "How can someone with so many wrong views think they are so right?  Can't you see how ridiculous you are being?  You are so narrow-minded.  Has it ever occurred to you that other people might be right and you might be wrong?  Probably not!  Well, I know one thing:  you are totally in the wrong here.  You need to open your eyes and see what everyone else sees.  You know I'm right - you just won't admit it."

             "And another thing:  you are totally incapable of compromise.  If you don't get 100% agreement, you're not satisfied.  Well, I won't be satisfied until you learn the meaning of real compromise.  You need to learn to care about the other person and really listen to what they are saying.  But you're not capable of that, are you?  No - you just go on and on with your one-sided opinion and never let the person get a word in edgewise."

             I was on a roll now.  He was getting red in the face.  Maybe he was hearing what I had to say for the first time.  Maybe not.  I didn't care - I was going to say what I needed to say!  "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance!  And you are the most intolerant, inflexible, dogmatic person I know.  I'm done putting up with your one-sidedness. 

             I looked him straight in the eyes.  He looked straight back.  How could he think he was so right and I was wrong?  I knew I was in the right here.  It was obvious.  Only an idiot couldn't see how wrong he was and it was time I talked some sense into him. 

             "You know what?  If you won't compromise, then neither will I.  I will not tolerate your narrow-minded 'my-way-or-the-highway' thinking.  If you can't see how wrong you are, then I'm gone - our friendship is over.  You're such a hypocrite."

             I still wasn't going to let him get a word in edgewise.  "And you know what?  If everyone was like you, we'd spend all our time arguing and yelling and never listening.  Can you imagine what that would be like?  Of course not - you can't think about anything but yourself.  All you do is put labels on people.  Can't you see how wrong you are?  You never put yourself in the other person's shoes.  You never even give other people's views a second thought.  You boil everything down to your stupid little catch phrases, as if that settled it.  Well, I've got news for you:  it isn't that simple!"

             Now I pointed my finger right up to his face.  I was really heated.  He pointed right back.  Nothing gets my blood pressure up like people pointing in my face.  "You are the most obstinate person I've ever met," I literally shouted.  We were face to face now, ready to come to blows.  "Well - are you going to admit it?  Are you going to admit that you are wrong and I am right?  Say it!"  It was time to drop the mic.  "Or are you going to persist in your rigid, inflexible, narrow-minded, bigoted, hypocritical, totally biased, uncompromising, opinionated, ridiculous intolerance?  Say it or I'm done!"

             I glared at him.  He glared back.  I said nothing.  He said nothing.  I waited for some glimmer - some recognition on his face that he was in the wrong - but there was nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  I wasn't going to budge this time.  Silence.  He just glared back.  His lips were sealed.  Silence.  More silence.  It was starting to get a bit awkward.

             And that's when I realized that what they say is true:  it's no use arguing with a mirror!

 

Free Will #13 - Real Creativity

             In this entry, I want to bring up a very interesting aspect of the "free will debate" that I don't hear talked about much, if at all, and that is:  "creativity."  I believe that human beings are capable of creative acts that are in the category of "willed events" and are "uncaused" [see discussion here].  Thus, creativity is truly a "new creation" in the universe.  It is "something from nothing."  I know if may seem crazy to think of human creativity that way, but I hope to show why I say that and how such a thing can be reasonable, even if you don't accept the idea yourself.

             First, by creativity I mean things like new ideas, inventions, works of art, music, new written works, even philosophy sometimes.  Maybe even this blog entry!  I am not thinking of any special definitions when I talk about creativity.  I think most people would define creativity this way.  I personally would limit creative acts to humans and to God, in the same way I think willed events are only something humans and God have access to [see here].  Also, as with the concept of free will, I think true creativity is a rare thing for each person.  I think we can train ourselves to become more creative, but I think that true, "never before seen", ideas are generally rare events in our lives.  Given that, I think a lot of things we consider "creative" ideas are actually ideas that just follow from previous ideas - they are "caused events."  I think uncaused events are rare, and so I think creative uncaused events are rare.  Exactly where the line is between a new uncaused creative act and a caused creative act is not obvious to me.  Even uncaused events can have a significant component of "influence" from previous events.  But a true creative act has some component in it that is uncaused and totally new and comes "out of the blue."  We use terms like that:  "out of the blue", "it just came to me", "an 'aha' moment", "a light bulb went off", "I just had an inspiration", etc.  I think these refer to the creative uncaused cause.  Again:  not always.  But at least some of time.

             Human beings are creative.  They come up with new ideas, new concepts, new ways of thinking, etc.  In my job as a researcher, I feel that creativity is crucial.  We move forward as a society by coming up with creative solutions to the problems that we face.  But creativity is everywhere – in art, in music, in literature, in medicine, in technology – and its everywhere because it is a fundamental characteristic of human beings.  I believe it is one of the things that makes us uniquely human.  I will not argue here as to whether other animals ever think creatively – that may be a topic for some future entry – although I can tell you with great certainty:  I have looked deep into the eyes of many, many cows and there is no creativity in there whatsoever!  Look for grass.  Eat grass.  Chew grass.  Chew grass.  Chew grass…Nope:  cows live in a totally causal world!

             Thus, I say that human beings are "creators".  Whether we evolved from rocks or not, our ideas are not simply evolutions of previous concepts.  They are not the inevitable reactions of neurons to more and more inputs…they are new thoughts.  At least, that is how it feels to us.  When we have an “aha” moment, it does not feel to us that it was inevitable.  In my opinion, that feeling is not an illusion.  I think it is true creativity.  I know I am in the minority with this view, but I don't think you should reject the concept out of hand.  Think about the possibility.  At the very least, recognize how exciting it would be if it were true.  To think that you, as a mere human being, might have the capability of a true creative act - that is very exciting!

             I will introduce two major criticisms or concerns that come along with the idea of creativity as an uncaused cause in the paragraphs that follow.  But first I want to put forward this point:  if creativity is not uncaused, then creativity as we commonly think of it does not exist.  If creativity is a caused event, then it is just the inevitable conclusion of a line of previous actions and basically it is like completing a math problem.  It would be like saying that "I just had an inspiration:  when you add two to two you get four."  That's not creativity as we know it (although the fundamental concept of addition probably was a creative act, in my opinion).  If Picasso's Starry Night or Beethoven's Fifth Symphony are just the result of a series of previous caused events, then you can't really call them creative acts. 

             You might be tempted to claim that creativity is a random event.  But, if that is the case, then we would just call Picasso and Beethoven "lucky" for their creative acts.  That would still not be "creative" as we generally define it.  If true creativity really does exist, then it must be an uncaused cause in order to meet our generally accepted definition of the concept.

             OK.  Now on to two major criticisms of true creativity.  I will briefly introduce them in this entry, but I'll have to deal with them in more depth in the future.  These are:  1) violation of the laws of physics, and 2) violation of the omniscience of God.

             First, the problem of true creativity violating the laws of physics.  Actually, I think anything in the category of an uncaused event is in danger of violating the laws of physics.  I've heard people claim that if things like free will and true creativity existed, they would heat up the universe to oblivion.  To be honest, I'm not quite sure I understand the line of thinking there.  I can see, though, that creativity would seem to violate entropy laws if "order" can be created without the expenditure of energy.  I don't really know that the laws of physics can be applied to ideas.  Can information be transmitted faster than the speed of light?  In the future, I will explore this in more detail, but for now I will just say that the concept of randomness seems to hold the key to addressing this issue.  Specifically, you can't really tell the difference between a random event and an uncaused, or willed, event as an outside observer.  Maybe I should say that you probably can't tell the difference.  In both cases, you can't predict the event when given the current state and all the inputs.  I tried to start introducing this idea with what I called "Turing Numbers", but I'm not sure the point of that came across.  But this whole concept will have to be addressed in a future entry.

             Second is a problem that only some of you care about:  if humans can create something that never existed before, does that mean God didn't create it?  Are human beings adding to God's creation?  Is God surprised by our new creation?  Does he exclaim "wow - I didn't expect that!"?  I admit that, at first glance, the idea that we could create something that never existed before seems to violate certain characteristics attributed to God, such as omniscience.  To address this issue, I think we should look at the "multiple paths" idea that you find in quantum physics.  Further, the idea that God can create something that can create something else does not, in my opinion, violate any commonly-held views regarding the attributes of God.  I think that true creativity, like free will, is actually critical to Christian belief.  But, for the moment, I just want to acknowledge that it could be a concern and that many people may be uncomfortable with the concept of true creativity because of it.

             I believe these two issues are addressable.  Maybe there are other issues that people will bring up.  But, as I have stated regarding free will, it is hard for me to feel the logic in rejecting something that is obviously observable on a daily basis just because it is hard to explain.  When I think up a new idea, I experience it as new - as an act of creation.  An idea now exists that has never existed before.  Scientists create.  Artists create.  Musicians create.  Writers create.  Human beings create.  I see it everywhere and I personally experience it every day.  I can't reject the obvious because of the subtle. 

             True creation is almost defined by being a willed event.  For example, when is something art?  I think something is art when there is a creative intention behind it.  It has to have some component of being a willed event.  I have looked at an item others call art, and all I see are random scribbles or random splashes of paint.  Is that art?  In my opinion, if it really was random, then it is not art.  What makes it art is the intention of the artist and, sometimes, the ascribed intention by the viewer of the art.  Thus, the creative act of art is a willed event, not a random event and not a caused event.

             OK, there is obviously much more to this topic that we will have to explore in the future.  But I really encourage you to think about this concept of creativity.  Is creativity deeper than free will?  I think it might be.  Free will is certainly deeper than consciousness.  A lot of philosophers and scientists talk about the "hard problem of consciousness" because it seems beyond our current knowledge of physical laws to resolve how consciousness exists inside of a material brain.  But consciousness is simple compared to free will.  Free will is diamond to "the hard problem of consciousness's" talc!  So what does that make creativity?  True creativity is beyond reason.  In fact, in my view, it is better than reason.  Reason can only explain what exists, whereas creativity can create what is new.  As humans we can express both reason and creativity.  We shouldn't use one to destroy the other.

Free Will #12 - Willed Events

             It has been some time since I assembled an entry on the topic of free will even though I consider it a topic of highest importance.  As I have stated previously, I am convinced that human beings have free will due to my years of experience living as a human being.  People are responsible for the choices they make.  I say I am "convinced" of this because it seems to me to be the most obvious condition that I experience every moment of every day, and I just can't deny the obvious despite some well-reasoned arguments against it. 

             In this entry, I'd like to present some basic assertions that kind of summarize my thinking and then, in the next entry, delve into an issue that I believe is directly related to free will:  creativity.  It doesn't seem to me that philosophers talk much about creativity, but maybe I've just missed it.  My thoughts on this topic may be naive - I really hate finding out I'm just restating what others have been saying for centuries - but I'm going to dive in nonetheless.

             First, I have previously alluded to the concept that the existence of free will implies that there are three different categories of events.  To be specific, these three categories are:

 

1.  Caused events

2.  Random events

3.  Willed events

 

             The materialist + hard determinist probably only accepts the first category of events.  Actually, that may be true of most people, even if they haven't thought much about the topic.  Indeed, science itself can only really allow for caused events.  Specifically, we, as scientists, assume that every event has a cause and we try to understand what that cause is.  Science is an exciting exploration[1].  We also expect that such causes are repeatable, and therefore we can perform experiments that allow us to determine the cause of the event under study.  Through science we have discovered that many events that might have been considered "random" or "willed" are actually caused by some natural and material precursor.  In fact, I'm guessing that most scientists believe that eventually every event will be shown to be caused.  I believe that also implies that most scientists expect that every event is repeatable and thus can be the subject of an experiment.  In my view, at least some human decisions - those made via free will - are not repeatable and thus cannot be subject to scientific experimentation.

             Before I move on to the third category of events, just a brief word about random events.  I don't know if they really exist.  It could be that all events that appear to be random actually have either a cause or are willed.  I'm not really sure there is a way to disprove the existence of random events unless you could demonstrate that every event fit into the other two categories, and that seems pretty difficult!  But, to me, it seems likely that they do exist.

             The most controversial - and most interesting - category of events are those in the third category, which I call "willed events."  Willed events, by my definition, have no cause, at least no cause in the normal way we use the term, and they are not random.  How can something be not caused and not random?  It's very hard to conceptualize such an event, although frankly it is no harder to conceptualize than quantum entanglement!  But, just because willed events are difficult to conceptualize does not mean that they must not exist.  In fact, plain logic dictates that there has to be some original cause that is uncaused.  That could be "God" or something else.  Christians say that God is the uncaused cause, but how did God start?  We might say that such a question is outside of our realm of understanding, but that is a highly annoying and uncomfortable answer for most human beings.  We naturally want to understand and explain everything.  I know that some physicists propose some kind of matter+anti-matter (="nothing") or quantum foam or something to claim that "something" can come from "nothing" and therefore you can eliminate the problem of a first cause.  In my view, that is just redefining "nothing" to equal "something" and then saying "see:  you really can get something from nothing - you don't need any God or any original cause."  I don't accept that line of thinking as being logical in any way.  Therefore, I conclude that there is at least one uncaused cause.  However, from this argument alone, all you can really say is that there must be at least two categories of events, because the one necessary original cause could have been either random or willed.

             I put free will and uncaused causes together into one category because I do understand the logic behind the determinist's argument that every decision, when you work your way back, seems like it must have a cause.  If the decisions we make are not caused by our genetics and our environment, then what are they caused by?  If we have a soul that determines our character (i.e. is the cause of our actions), then how did that soul come to have the character it has?  There must be something that caused our soul to be the way it was.  Or if, on the other hand, you claim that God created our souls, then God must have established the character of our souls when He created us, so therefore God is the cause of our character.  Since I claim free will is a real thing for each human being, I have to accept the implications.  The major implication, as I see it, is that the exercise of free will has to be, in some way, a "first cause" all on its own.  That would mean that every time a human being exercises free will, they are establishing a new uncaused cause.  I recognize that is difficult to accept.  Also, for those who believe that God created us (as I do), this concept has its own set of difficult implications, but I will have to deal with those in a future entry.  What I want to say here is that I accept this implication fully.  In fact, it excites me, as I will explain in the next entry.

             Thus, the claim of real free will implies that we make decisions that, by our own actions, assume the existence of something that is not fully caused, not fully determined and not random. We make a decision and we are responsible for it.  Of course sometimes people do things that are entirely determined by their environment or physical condition or even genetics (or a combination of all of these), and I don't consider those actions to carry moral responsibility.  Further, I don't think we actually exercise real free will very often.  As I have discussed elsewhere, true free will is rare.  But even rare free will is sufficient to make us responsible for our actions.

             I think willed events are non-material in origin and thus require the existence of some kind of supernatural realm.  I also think that the concept of eternality - that God exists outside of time (and space) - is also somehow a part of category #3.  I will have to think that through in the future, but caused events seem to require some concept of time and therefore it seems to me that uncaused events and timelessness somehow fit together.

             I think willed events can only be generated by a "person"[2].  Within my knowledge and experience, there are only two types of "persons":  human beings and God.  God, if He exists, surely has the property that He is an "uncaused cause." And  God certainly has free will.  Whether human beings can really exhibit a will - a free will - an uncaused cause - is obviously open for debate.  I don't think you can say the same thing about God.  You could debate his existence, but if he does exist, he must have this quality of being able to generate willed events.  So, I think all theists would also have to accept that willed events are real.

             I'd like to give an example that helps illustrate what a willed event is like, but any time I try to give such an example, I end up having to use a human agent acting with free will as part of the example. And so my example becomes circular.  I don't apologize for that problem:  that's just reality.

             But, to conclude this particular entry, for me the argument for free will always comes back to our daily, moment-by-moment experiences.  If my experiences are so unreliable that free will is an illusion, then I cannot rely on my thinking at all and I might as well give up reasoning about anything.  Besides, I really like having the freedom to choose to believe that free will exists.  For all of you who deny free will, you are stuck having to be told what to believe (i.e. your belief was determined by something other than you).  I would hate that!

---

[1] Science is a great tool for exploring and understanding the universe, but it makes a terrible religion.

[2] Or, maybe, it is just that a "person" is defined as an entity that exhibits free will.

A Platinum that Tarnishes

              As part of my day job, I have to complete annual training courses.  These are typically on-line sessions that require reading through a series of slides on some topic and then answering questions at the end to pass the course and move on to the next lesson.  I was trying to complete my training recently and get through as many of the courses as possible.  Some topics, such as those related to customer service, are generally common sense principles and the test is easy.  But I got tripped up on one true or false question that seemed to have an obvious answer.  The question was:

 

             "It is important to treat others the way you would like to be treated - T/F?"

 

             That's the "Golden Rule", isn't it?  Obviously that statement is "true".  In fact, from my experience, it might be the most universally agreed-upon principle of human behavior.

 

             Well, the correct answer, according to the training course test I was taking, was "false"!

 

             At first I thought I had discovered a mistake in the test scoring.  But, no, as it turns out, the course creators consider the "Golden Rule" to have passed out of favor to the point that it is now (to state it as a "true" statement):  "You should not treat others the way you would like to be treated."  Instead, it turns out, there is now a "Platinum Rule" which states:

 

             "Treat others the way they would like to be treated."

 

             Who decided this?  I don't remember hearing about this.  On the face of it, it sounds like another nice principle to live by, but I don't remember voting out the Golden Rule.  I feel I'm reasonably well-read (on at least some topics), but I had to do an internet search to learn about the Platinum Rule.  How did I miss this major change in one of the most foundational moral principles of all time?   Remember the popular book a few years back called "Everything I needed to know I learned in Kindergarten?"  Well, suddenly, one of the first things I learned in kindergarten has been declared false!  Frankly, that shatters the very foundations of how to live.

 

             To be fair, the institution I work for is a public institution and it is in a difficult position when it comes to trying to train employees how to treat customers and other employees fairly.  The government isn't really equipped to make moral proclamations and so it struggles when it is put into that position.  Still, it would be interesting to know how the decision was made to dump the Golden Rule in favor of the Platinum Rule.  Was that a decision made by a single individual (the person making up the training)?  Was it a decision made corporately by the company that creates the training modules?  Did the leadership at my institution get together and decide this?  I don't know.

 

             Based on the general context of the training I was taking, I imagine that the thinking behind abandoning the Golden Rule in favor of the Platinum Rule was based on issues like gender identity and religious preferences.  I have no direct knowledge of the thinking behind this change, of course, but one of the points of the training was to respect the wishes of others in areas like gender identity and religious views.  These specific principles I can understand.  But, to be honest, I felt like these specific examples were hidden behind an authoritative-sounding principle (the Platinum Rule).  It seemed (to me) that the creators of the training module must have thought that it sounded better to couch these principles inside of a general rule and give it a nice name, thus giving it an air of authority.  But, in so doing, they overreached.  They should have stuck with the specific issues, such as gender identity and religious liberty, as being the principles that were important in the training. 

 

             The Platinum Rule has problems when it is applied too broadly.  So does the Golden Rule. But one obvious problem with the broad implementation of the Platinum Rule is that we generally don't know how others want to be treated until we talk to them.  It's certainly considerate to try to figure out how someone else wants to be treated.  But I think an appropriate application of the Golden Rule would arrive at the same conclusion.  Most of us recognize there is a certain degree of "individualizing" that is necessary in how we treat others. We recognize that even in our own lives, there are times we want to be treated one way and times we want to be treated a different way.  I'm not even sure I always know how I want to be treated.  So, if we are following the Golden Rule, I think most of us will include a component of the Platinum Rule.

 

             The Platinum Rule assumes there is no absolute right or wrong, and thus it doesn't work in every situation.  Again, the same is true with the Golden Rule (as it is generally applied).  Neither Rule "always works."  There are some weird people out there and I don't want them to treat me the way they want to be treated (i.e. the Golden Rule fails).  Conversely, there are some weird people out there, and I think it would be wrong to treat them the way they want to be treated (i.e. the Platinum Rule fails). 

 

             One struggle we face is that the whole concept of trying to come up with one simple, single, pithy sentence that describes how we should act within a society in every situation is difficult, if not impossible.  The Platinum rule can be useful and the Golden rule can be useful, but neither can just be applied blindly.  For example, people who are depressed often just want to be left alone.  If you try to apply the Platinum Rule and treat them how they want to be treated, that might not be the best thing for them.  Further, if you applied the Golden Rule, you might end up in the same dilemma, because it's entirely possible that when you are depressed, you also just want to be left alone.  So, with either rule, the principle would seem to be that you should respect their wishes.  But to be left alone might be the worst thing for someone who is acutely depressed, especially if they are suicidal.  Maybe, the best thing to do at that moment is continue to dialogue with them, against their wishes.  Or maybe you need to coerce them to get immediate counseling.  Who knows?  The point is, interacting with others in a way that is best for all is complicated and there just isn't one succinct one-liner that can be applied to cover all cases. 

 

             The fact is, neither Gold nor Platinum is sufficient to create a complete moral guidance system for your life.  There are deeper principles that really need to be established first.  If there are some moral absolutes, then those need to be expressed and established.  The individual or entity or institution or deity who decides those moral absolutes must be identified (i.e. the source), as well as the means by which the source will communicate their moral absolutes.  Such principles, by their very nature, will supersede a Golden Rule or a Platinum Rule.  But who has the authority to establish moral absolutes?  That entity needs to be identified and then explicitly cited as the source.  For example, with respect to the training module question I encountered, it would have been very instructive for the training to cite the following: 

 

·        Who decided that the Platinum Rule was right? 

·        Who decided that the Golden Rule was wrong? 

·        What was the principle used to make that decision? 

·        Can we appeal that decision?

 

             We're not going to all agree on these kinds of decisions, but we need to at least acknowledge our sources and our process.  This provides for the possibility of a fruitful discussion (though admittedly that may be unlikely!).  If we disagree on "who" gets to make the decision or on "what" the process is to be used in making moral decisions, then we have to discuss those foundational issues first and come to some agreement - some compromise - some way we can live together.  If we don't discuss the underlying principles, then the conversation will just go on in circles and we won't know why.

 

             So, for me, the issue is not so much about the Platinum Rule or the Golden Rule - those are fine principles that help guide human behavior when held a bit loosely.  For me, the critical issue is that we need to cite our sources when we make a statement regarding a moral imperative.  The reason this is critical is that it then allows for a constructive discussion:  the discussion often has to revolve around what is the basis for authority, specifically what authority can proclaim a moral imperative. Arguing about specific moral principles is futile if each person is basing their argument on a different source of authority.

 

             Ultimately, we have to decide who can proclaim moral authority.  Making such a decision is going to be difficult because we love our freedom and we enjoy our plurality.  There's not going to be an easy answer. We're going to have to figure out how we live together with this kind of incongruity.  It's going to be very uncomfortable.  Can there be a "Great Compromise" in debates of moral authority?  I have my doubts.

Grief Alone

             I recently turned 60, and for the first time felt old.  My past birthdays never bothered me - in fact I kind of appreciated another "year of maturity."  But the number 60 just seems substantially older than 59.  I don't really know why.  But there is no question that I'm closer to my death than my birth - probably a lot closer - so it made me think about funerals.  My own funeral. 

              I don't know if anyone really likes funerals, but, to be honest, I hate them.  I hate to go to funerals because I just don't know what to say to people.  There are people I know who seem to have a real skill at comforting others.  Of course my lack of "skill" does not excuse me from trying to support people who are going through grief.  I still owe it to my friends and family to try.  I just hope they have a few "skilled comforters" around them also!

              At my funeral, I'd tell people not to come if they were uncomfortable.  Do something fun instead, I'd say.  But there are two major problems with that idea.  First, I'll be dead, so I won't be telling anybody anything.  And, second, "my" funeral isn't really "my" funeral - it's for all of those surviving me who cared about me or had some connection to me or have some connection to people who had some connection to me.  So, it's not mine to decide, frankly. 

              I know that one of my problems is that I have a hard time stringing words together that I doubt are really true, even if they are the best words for the person at the time.  Here's an example of what I mean:  I recently finished reading Stephen Hawking's book "Brief Answers to the Big Questions", published (and partly assembled) posthumously.  Hawking was, of course, a very smart (and funny) physicist.  I also find his willingness to take on a variety of issues and questions in his books to be very impressive.  In this book, as in others, he leaves no room for doubt regarding his own beliefs about God and the supernatural.  He believed fully that physics left no room for God and, in fact, is convinced that physics proves that there could not be a God.  His beliefs did not leave room for even a tiny shred of the supernatural.  Or miracles.  Or life after death.  He believed that the universe will ultimately end in one of a few possible cataclysmic scenarios.  Actually, of course, he wouldn't have used the term "believe":  to Hawking these were facts based on the understood laws of physics.  So......what words of comfort can you really give at his funeral?  I would've had a hard time coming up with something.  Obviously people can look back at the great accomplishments in his life, all while battling ALS for decades and having to communicate slowly by computer and so on.  That is all good.  Great even.  But if he is right about the universe, it all ultimately means nothing.  Tolstoy summed this up in his excellent book "A Confession", which I have mentioned elsewhere and highly recommend.  If Hawking's view is all true, then life has no meaning.  Grief comes alone.  Yet, Barack Obama, at Hawking's funeral, offered the nice consoling statement: "I hope Stephen is having fun up there among the stars."  Unfortunately, I just can't bring myself to offer such platitudes when everything in me rebels against the blatant falsity of the statement.  If Hawking's beliefs are true, then he is dead and there is nothing beyond death and ultimately everything he said and did and wrote will be consumed in a black hole (ironically) and will all be lost.  If my beliefs are true, then he is definitely not in a better place and he will have an eternity to contemplate why his calculations didn't reveal God to him as it should have.  His beliefs and mine leave no room for comfort in this case.  There is no "having fun among the stars."  Grief comes alone, totally alone.

              I can't turn to spiritual comfort when that was absent prior to the person's death.  Although the person who has died ignored the spiritual all their life, now that they are gone, since there is nothing positive the secular view can offer, we turn to the spiritual world for comfort.  "They're looking down on us."  That seems like hollow comfort.  That's like pretending that Grief has an invisible friend called Hope.  A charade of hope.  I don't want anyone who survives me to have to go through that charade.  I want it to have been clear:  there is real Hope.  Grief is real, but so is Hope.

              In Hawking's case, grief is tempered by the fact that he lived a fairly long successful life and was battling a fatal disease, living well past the time that was expected of him.  But grief is still alone...it's just that the visit was expected.  How much worse it is to have that unexpected visit from grief alone.  When someone dies unexpectedly - when someone dies young - what real consolation is there?  I sincerely admire those who can offer consolation to people in those times - but I still struggle to express any of those things myself.  When Grief comes alone, I just can't wave to the side and say "Oh - look - there's Hope coming alongside Grief" when there is no hope there at all.

              I feel that the worst thing I could do to my family and friends is give them nothing to say at my funeral that is comforting without, frankly, lying.  Such a situation would be especially tragic if I never even explored, with serious intent, whether there might be a better view of the universe.  Whether, by some chance - some very very lucky chance - there really is true Hope.  If I missed that hope because, well, because I was just too busy, or because it didn't fit into my comfortable views of the universe at the time, or I couldn't derive hope from my physics calculations, or it didn't fit into my political views, well...to me that is the worst thing you can do to all your friends and family who survive you.  They will have Grief alone.

              Given this, I figure the best thing I can do is give people something real, true, and also comforting at my funeral.  I don't want grief to come alone to my family and friends.  I feel that the best gift I can give any of my family and friends is that, when they come to my funeral, they can legitimately say "he's in a better place" and "we'll see him again" and "he's looking down on us".  To be honest, I don't expect to be having "fun in the stars" - I anticipate much better!  I want to have lived in a way that gives my friends and family that real hope.  I want it to be a true statement that everyone who attends my funeral could see me again. 

              I want my wonderful wife to know that she will see me again.  It won't eliminate her grief or sense of loss.  But I want her to be absolutely certain that she and I will be in heaven together.  Grief will still be there at my funeral, but it will be standing together with Hope.

              Of course you would have to believe what I believe in order to have the same real Hope.  True enough; but one nice thing about my beliefs is that they are available to anyone who is still alive!  I have expressed, to the best of my ability, that pathway in the various entries of this blog, but it really comes down to your answer to this simple question:  if there really is a God, what would He have to do to get your attention?  If you can't answer that question with a serious, honest, well-considered response then it shows that you've rejected the notion a priori.  You will not see the light if you don't open your eyes!  You won't see the supernatural if you've already reasoned it out of any possibility of existing.  In that case there is no Hope and no hope of finding Hope. 

              Many reading this do not share my faith or anticipation that death is a transition to an eternal existence that is either "the best" or "the worst."  Many expect a void.  Nothingness.  For them, Grief comes alone.  I really wish you would allow Hope to come alongside.  I wish you would make own personal examination of the spiritual world.  Before you reject the idea of God out of hand, give Him a chance to prove Himself to you.  If, after that, you decide that death is the end and that the universe will eventually burn up and so nothing really matters, well, at least you made a serious consideration and exploration.  But don't we owe it to our loved ones to expend the energy to make a valid, rational, investment in considering life beyond death?

              At my funeral, my friends and family will not have to have Grief alone.  I have plenty of faults and warts and uglies, but the one thing I can say is that I made it a priority to ensure that Hope would come alongside Grief.  And for that hope - that future spiritual life - 60 years will still be infinitely closer to the beginning than to the end.