Jeff

I doubt seriously that anywhere near a majority of literary analysts would agree that the gospel writers weren't actually trying to convey something about actual demon possession.

Iconoclast

I agree. The writers really believed it was demon possession. They also believed the earth was flat. Just because they believed it was demon possession does not mean it was demon possession.

By the way are you aware that the word “demon” comes from the Greek word “diamon” – which means “unseen agent” – interestingly enough the Greek word does NOT entail good or bad in its meaning – it is neutral in this respect – the Unix operating system uses the word “daemon” for system services that operate in the background.

And “Angel” comes from the Greek word “angelos” which simply means messenger.

thanks,

Iconoclast

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/5/2007 11:49:12 AM (GMT-5)

Tom

I mean, how are you not, as is Greg, judging/evaluating/measuring based on your own intelligence/perceptions/intuitions what is most appropriate with respect to entropy and possible worlds? You judge entropic worlds to be the only possible contexts in which God can have creaturely becoming. How do you KNOW this to be the case? You look at our universe as it is (with respect to entropy) and make the judgment that this is just how it's always been and HAD to be. I don't see how that's any different (or superior methodologically I guess) from Greg's looking at Christ and reasoning abductively from the overarching purposes of God that this or that aspect of our present universe is, theologically speaking, foreign and contrary to God's purposes. 

Iconoclast

I started this whole thread saying that we can either accept scientific evidence or not. If not then there is really nothing much for me to say. If we do accept scientific evidence then we need to allow it to modify our understanding of what the Bible is saying.

The scientific evidence is that entropy is the most fundamental law of our entire universe and always has been. This law has simply been unassailable. We can peer back into the universe (star light from far away literally allows us peer into the past by billions of years) and see that physics was not fundamentally different back then. We can actually see (detect) the background radiation from the Big Bang. These are observable, testable phenomenon that coheres with our current best scientific theories.

So entropy existed from the beginning. It existed from the very notion of light being limited to a finite speed which is an absolutely unassailable fact that was true from the Big Bang. It is as accepted in the scientific community as the earth being round.

Now, how do we square this fact with the Biblical account?

In the Biblical account what is absolutely unassailable fact is “Christ (as the incarnation of divine love and BEST representation of the heart, aims, and purposes of God for creation)” as you say. So, I also, begin with this.

This leaves us with how do we square the fact that entropy was with us from God’s very first creative act and the fact that God loves us unconditionally?

Again, I believe that this is very straightforward and direct. There is no deep mystery here once one really understands the following:

1. The nature of love – it must be chosen.
2. The nature of epistemic distance or information loss.
3. The nature of entropy and how it is related to information loss.
4. The nature of complex adaptive systems and how they manage information storage and rule block formations that lead to effective action.

Science perfectly squares with the Biblical account once we realize that the Biblical account is totally meant to help us understand our relationship with God and with each other and what the fundamental problem is (judgment) and what the fundamental solution is (love). As long we continue to seek to interpret the Bible literally where science contradicts it - ala demon possession or 7 days of creation – then, of course, we get into trouble. However, this does not mean that the Bible is wrong in these areas – quite the contrary. When we modify our understanding of what the Bible is saying so that it squares with scientific data what I have found is that it forces us to a deeper understanding of what the Bible is really trying to say. Satan is a metaphor. The metaphor carries deep information that is very, very useful – it is actionable in very specific ways that directly lead to measurable results. To interpret Satan as literal leaves us with nothing but incantation that doesn’t do anything that is actually measurable.

Tom

I don't know how either of you is going to come up with a sufficiently objective methodology for determining how to adjudicate what the best beginning assumptions are. Personally I'm MUCH MORE comfortable beginning with Christ (as the incarnation of divine love and BEST representation of the heart, aims, and purposes of God for creation) and then moving on from there (as opposed to just assuming that the way our material universe behaves is how God created it to behave and THEN incorporating this commitment into theological questions).

Iconoclast

I do not believe the problem is methodology. We both have the same basic methodology. I would guess that the difference is more one of energy. I do not see Greg having any real energy to engage deeply in this discussion – quite the contrary. Nor do I see why it would make any sense for him, from his perspective, to do so.

To me Greg is like living in the world of Newtonian physics before Quantum physics. There was this nagging little problem called “Brownian motion” that did not fit with Newtonian physics. Not many people seemed to care very much because Newtonian physics seemed to work so well for what most people wanted to do with it. It was actually a huge breakthrough with enormously positive results over scholasticism. This is like Greg with open theism – it was a huge breakthrough over Calvinist determinism with enormously positive results. Yeah – Greg has this nagging problem of “natural evil” but it is really just sort of fun to think about and come up with interesting machinations to try and describe what it could come from. The same thing happened with Brownian motion.

However, some scientists really dug into Brownian motion and ended up totally upsetting the entire framework of Newtonian physics. They came up with Quantum physics and from there a whole new breakthrough – on top of the breakthrough of Newtonian physics - came into being and we got even more enormously positive results.

By the way – notice that while Quantum physics did upset the entire framework of Newtonian physics it did NOT invalidate it EXCEPT in very particular situations (very small scales). For some very large percentage of what we want to do Newtonian physics is a perfectly good approximation and we continue to work with that metaphor. But we know it is a metaphor and not literal reality.

Likewise, hopefully, most scientists now understand that Quantum physics is also a metaphor – it is not literal reality and thus is subject to further deeper understanding and more nuanced and complex metaphorical mappings that lead to further insights and thus further positive results. Actually, any scientist worth their salt KNOWS that Quantum physics is not reality because it cannot explain gravitational phenomenon. Moreover, it has this nagging “little” problem called “background dependence” - nothing but trouble for those Quantum theorists now pursuing String theory.

thanks,

Iconoclast

Jeff

But the writers give us every indication that Christ had no problem with their believing in demon possession. Indeed, they claim Christ spoke of demons and Satan--even saying that there was a fire especially prepared for them that humans would end up in, also. INDEED, they even have Christ disagreeing with the Saducees who didn't believe in spirits or angels. IOW, the NT writers are either lying to us, or Christ doesn't give a hill of beans whether we believe in spirits or not. I don't see how it can be otherwise. I know there are rocket scientists on this forum who can see DEEPLY into the text (or between the lines) to see what it REALLY means. But I'm not a rocket scientist. So I'm thinking Christ would probably have no more problem with me thinking he believed in demons than he did with his own disciples believing in them. And, of course, if he does, he can send me to hell for it.

Iconoclast

Yes Jesus used the metaphor of demons because it was an apt metaphor for his purposes. Imagine Jesus trying to explain epilepsy or multiple-personality disorder or OCD as a function of synaptic wiring problems. And notice that he did not try to correct anyone’s understanding about whether the world was flat or not either.

And yes He certainly did correct the Sadducees disbelief in an afterlife by saying that God spoke of Moses (and someone else??) as still being alive (He didn’t say that demons and angels were literal beings). Clearly, this was important to His purpose.

“Satan is a literal being” is an apt metaphor. Notice that economists also use “inflation is a literal being” metaphorically to describe the intent and effects of inflation. And yet I do not believe a one of them actually believes that inflation really is a literal being.

The fundamental issue I am after is that there are certain entailments of the “Satan is a literal being” metaphor that are not apt – that are not accurate or useful. Most of them are – some of them are not.

This is analogous to the metaphor “time is a river”. Yes, we speak of time “flowing” and that is an apt use of the metaphor. However, a river actually exists upstream and downstream whereas I do not believe that time actually exists in the past or in the future. This is an entailment of the metaphor that is not apt. Much of our fallacious reasoning comes from using incorrect entailments of some metaphor.

thanks,

Iconoclast

Jeff:

Semeia, I think the bible is pretty clear (taken in a straight-forward, as opposed to hyper-metaphorical, way) that Satan is not free to do as he pleases.

Semeia:

Not free to do as he pleases? But yet he is responsible for entropy and nature itself? Lions and tigers and eagles are in the Satan column and cows and bunnies are in the God column, but yet Satan doesn’t have the freedom to do as he pleases? If the life and death processes on earth and predatory animals and earthquakes and tsunamis are Satan’s doing with one hand tied behind his back, what could he do with a little freedom? Satan is looking more like God by the minute.

Jeff:

 So I don't know what Satan does or doesn't do as far as specifics are concerned. I don't pray warfare prayers concerning Satan. I make petitions about specific matters. I realize that in doing this I will not necessarily receive most or any of these requests. But I also don't rule out the possibility that prayer might affect God's providential activity. And I also don't spend all my time praying as opposed to doing. My guess is that I pray too little.

Semeia:

Fair enough. But if you look at the Lord’s Prayer as offered by Jesus as an example of how to pray, it is a very simple meditation that doesn’t look much like most petitionary prayer. And the petitions that are in the prayer have to do with ourselves: “Lead me not into temptation” and “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Which is at the same time us reminding ourselves to not be tempted and to forgive others just like we want to be forgiven.

Jeff:

My point is that most of the supposed millions that you fear might be distracted are probably not as distracted as you think they are. And the ones that are distracted are so because they don't want to do the nitty gritty of doing love. In other words, even if they didn't believe in Satan, they would have another rationale for taking the path of least resistance. So I wouldn't worry about Greg's influence so much.

Semeia:

I think the warfare worldview is very distracting, in that it posits so much of the problem as outside of ourselves, in an enemy who is shapeless and nebulous and convenient. Many people really believe that Satan is behind the world’s ills, and it absolutely colors how they view themselves and others and how they go about problem solving. For thousands of years people believed that epileptics and schizophrenics were demon-possessed, and it certainly affected how they were viewed and treated. Many Christians see today’s terrorists in the same light – as somewhat demonically driven. The irony is that it is the terrorists’ view of themselves as players in a cosmic struggle that fuels their martyrdom. If the struggle is a “cosmic” one, then it justifies all sorts of terror for the ultimate common good.

Now Greg himself doesn’t take it in that direction, but I have direct experience with evangelical pastors who ascribe to a warfare worldview teaching things such as “demons can be spread through sexual intercourse” and telling people that their bipolar symptoms are of demonic origin, as well as youth pastors giving the kids power point presentations on young earth creationism, showing how dinosaur eggs were carried over on the Ark! The fact that Greg himself has more common sense than this does nothing to prevent what I see as a natural consequence of this view. Once you abandon science as fully explanatory when it comes to nature, and posit a foreign, external “enemy” – then people are going to take up arms in different ways.

And to go further and say that “natural” evil is basically Satan’s design for the universe, and not God’s, well suddenly you have a very bizarre thought process that rejects the very foundations of the natural world as evil, giving Satan credit for the material world as we know it, relegating science to what – a study of what Satan created? And I guess we have God to thank for the utopian world that was lost before we were born – that must be much better than this sucky world of Satan.

But in the meantime people should go ahead and study science in order to make this world more bearable until we reach utopia.

To me it is goofy, illogical, a waste of time, disconnected from reality, unscientific, untestable, and most of all, spiritually empty. And by that I mean that nothing is gained from spiritual warfare – no one is made closer to God, no one is fed or clothed or given a drink of water. Of course people can believe in spiritual warfare and in addition do those things, but the warfare worldview adds nothing that a simple belief in God does not already contain. Take Satan out of the picture and what do you have? The exact same hurting world you had before. Only the forces at work are ones that can be investigated and uncovered, instead of being a magical mythical beast that one wrings one’s hands over and blames for the very life and death structure of the earth and the universe itself.

 I think it makes a huge difference whether or not one sees the creation as good or evil. If it is good, then it is ours to discover why life is the way it is, and how we can make it better. If it is evil, then what have we to thank God for, other than a utopia of our own imagination? If Satan has subjected the world, and lions and death are his doing, then the earth is something we need to escape from.

Thanks,

Semeia

Semeia: Not free to do as he pleases? But yet he is responsible for entropy and nature itself?

Jeff: I don't believe that. Greg does. I'm only defending Greg's view as being as plausible as any other that begins with the assumption that the bible is not to be taken in a relatively straight-forward way. As far as I'm concerned, one needs evidence for exegetical conclusions as much as one does for any other inductive inference.

Semeia: Fair enough. But if you look at the Lord’s Prayer as offered by Jesus as an example of how to pray, it is a very simple meditation that doesn’t look much like most petitionary prayer. And the petitions that are in the prayer have to do with ourselves: “Lead me not into temptation” and “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Which is at the same time us reminding ourselves to not be tempted and to forgive others just like we want to be forgiven.

Jeff: Right. Like I said, I don't pray warfare prayers. I doubt seriously Greg does either. I suspect that warfare stuff is more about theodicy for him than anything else. He is philosophically obsessed, after all.

Semeia: I think the warfare worldview is very distracting, in that it posits so much of the problem as outside of ourselves, in an enemy who is shapeless and nebulous and convenient. Many people really believe that Satan is behind the world’s ills, and it absolutely colors how they view themselves and others and how they go about problem solving.

Jeff: All I can tell you is, I live in the bible-belt south, and very few people think like that. And the ones that do seem to NEED to believe it. There is a pattern I've observed in their personality. They are controllers. I'm sure I'm over-generalizing some. But I really think you're blowing the influence out of proportion. As I said, it is clear from a straight-forward reading of scripture, even, that if Satan exists, he is quite constrained. 

Semeia: For thousands of years people believed that epileptics and schizophrenics were demon-possessed, and it certainly affected how they were viewed and treated. Many Christians see today’s terrorists in the same light – as somewhat demonically driven. The irony is that it is the terrorists’ view of themselves as players in a cosmic struggle that fuels their martyrdom. If the struggle is a “cosmic” one, then it justifies all sorts of terror for the ultimate common good.

Jeff: Yeah, well, even Osama had a doctor to deal with his health problem. There is a reason why people are close-minded to evidence, and it's not because the bible teaches us to be. It's been told that there is what seems to be bona-fide demon possession in certain cultures in certain parts of the world. Who am I, having not witnessed it, to rule out the possibility? I also had a friend once who got involved in the Vineyard movement who said he witnessed exorcisms where people writhed like snakes. Does that mean they had a demon? Maybe not. But I'm not sure it is standard mental problems, either.

One thing's for sure, if there are demons, it doesn't rule out physical problems with the brain. Neither rule out each other. I don't spend a lot of time even thinking about the stuff because I've never witnessed it. I just don't know how I could rule it out just because some conditions turn out to be physiological in origin.

Semeia: Now Greg himself doesn’t take it in that direction, but I have direct experience with evangelical pastors who ascribe to a warfare worldview teaching things such as “demons can be spread through sexual intercourse” and telling people that their bipolar symptoms are of demonic origin, as well as youth pastors giving the kids power point presentations on young earth creationism, showing how dinosaur eggs were carried over on the Ark! The fact that Greg himself has more common sense than this does nothing to prevent what I see as a natural consequence of this view. Once you abandon science as fully explanatory when it comes to nature, and posit a foreign, external “enemy” – then people are going to take up arms in different ways.

Jeff: Like I said, I think if it wasn't demons, they'd be obsessed with something else. I believe things that you will think to be silly. I think believing entropy has to do directly with suffering is silly. Entropy is about energy, not sentience. I'd bet lots of money virtually all scientists who study entropy would think both you and I are nuts--assuming you think saying God chooses love before eternity is intelligible and a way to explain why He can love without epistemic distance.

In the meantime, we can use our inductive minds to acknowledge what we ought to expect of our fellow-men. I don't expect my fellow man to believe what I do, nor do I expect him to believe what you do. Both are beliefs that are arrived at from philosophical reflection. The average person (and many a scientist) couldn't care less about explaining why suffering exists in terms of a benevolent creator. Most people don't give it any serious thought. And then when a loved one dies, they're either confused, angry, or hopeless.

How do you explain the fact that so many scientists see natural evil as inconsistent with a benevolent creator?

Semeia: And to go further and say that “natural” evil is basically Satan’s design for the universe, and not God’s, well suddenly you have a very bizarre thought process that rejects the very foundations of the natural world as evil, giving Satan credit for the material world as we know it, relegating science to what – a study of what Satan created? And I guess we have God to thank for the utopian world that was lost before we were born – that must be much better than this sucky world of Satan.

Jeff: Well, Semeia. Don't you believe you will spend an eternity with God in conditions that wil be "much better than this sucky world?" If not, I have no idea how you make sense of the bible. If so, then you still need an explanation as to why the need for suffering in the short-term. I've asked iconoclast how to explain it, and he just ignores me. He thinks it is coherent to say God chooses before eternity. I suspect I'm with the majority of philosophers in saying that's just speaking non-sense.

Why can't ya'll admit that there is no simple explanation that all reasonable people ought to bow down to after five minutes conversation? Why keep saying that ya'll have the simple answer that virtually all philosophers and scientists are too stupid or evil to understand? Obviously it's not as simple as all that. That's why, even though I disagree with Greg, I don't see him as being "out there." My son just took a philosophy class this summer. His teacher said that the problem of evil is the only real argument against a benevolent God. I totally agree. So the argument is not going away. And it does no good to spout off that God chooses before eternity (whatever the heck that even means!) to explain away why He can love without epistemic distance. People are gonna think you're just as nuts as they think I am if you pass that off for a rational explanation.

Semeia: But in the meantime people should go ahead and study science in order to make this world more bearable until we reach utopia.

Jeff: Semeia, if you studied science, how would it help you unless you're going into a field where you can apply it. I've learned a lot about herbs and detoxification because of my own health problems, and no one I talk to gives a squat about it. But surely you don't expect everyone to be engineers and doctors. Not all people are capable of it in the first place. In the second place, we need people to do other kinds of work. It's called division of labor. And it's a really good thing. It allows the brainiacs to concentrate on the hard stuff. We HAVE that system already. And virtually no one is trying to stop science education. And those who might be are literally powerless in our system. So don't sweat it another second. If anything is holding us back, it is the utter waste and over-regulation by government.

Semeia: And by that I mean that nothing is gained from spiritual warfare – no one is made closer to God, no one is fed or clothed or given a drink of water.

Jeff: I agree. I've always disagreed with the warfare view. It is a misnomer, even, of Gregs view. Greg doesn't believe God is in war He can't yet win. Rather, he believes God is holding spirits at bay until He accomplishes His purpose. After all, Greg is one who makes much of the fact that God has imprisoned angels. Does that sound like war? Naw. That sounds like a police action.

Semeia: I think it makes a huge difference whether or not one sees the creation as good or evil. If it is good, then it is ours to discover why life is the way it is, and how we can make it better. If it is evil, then what have we to thank God for, other than a utopia of our own imagination? If Satan has subjected the world, and lions and death are his doing, then the earth is something we need to escape from.

Jeff: Semeia, if the world is already good, why do you think we can make it better? Because you know it's not VERY GOOD. It PALES in comparison to what it could be. Whether Satan is responsible for it or God, it is totally natural for us to want BETTER. It's just that some people, like me and Greg, can't get our mind around the idea that God chooses love before eternity. So that can't be the explanation for why it's not already better for us. It's really that simple, Semeia. Greg and I, though we disagree, are trying to find a way to articulate why things OUGHT to be better EVEN THOUGH God hasn't made them better, Himself.

Semeia: Of course people can believe in spiritual warfare and in addition do those things, but the warfare worldview adds nothing that a simple belief in God does not already contain. Take Satan out of the picture and what do you have? The exact same hurting world you had before.

Jeff: Well that would be hard to prove. But I agree with the gist of your point. Humans are pretty greedy without any outside help.

Semeia: Only the forces at work are ones that can be investigated and uncovered, instead of being a magical mythical beast that one wrings one’s hands over and blames for the very life and death structure of the earth and the universe itself.

Jeff: You're not suggesting that we can find a drug to make us all good, are you? That would eliminate free-will. As long as there is free-will, we're stuck with the real possibility (and seeming probability) of human evil.

Semeia: If Satan has subjected the world, and lions and death are his doing, then the earth is something we need to escape from.

Jeff: But we ARE trying to escape it. Either by changing it by science, or ressurection, or BOTH. Nothing wrong with that. And I'm not about to tell someone they ought to see what is as THE GOOD.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/5/2007 7:57:44 PM (GMT-5)

Iconoclast: Yes Jesus used the metaphor of demons because it was an apt metaphor for his purposes. Imagine Jesus trying to explain epilepsy or multiple-personality disorder or OCD as a function of synaptic wiring problems. And notice that he did not try to correct anyone’s understanding about whether the world was flat or not either.

Jeff: Two things. If he didn't try to change people's view about whether the earth was flat, that might be because there were no practical implications about the matter either way for them and/or the evidence they had was not sufficient to compel another belief. Same with me on angels. The only practical implication for me, having had no conscious experience of spirits, is that I'm being as intellectually honest as I can be about the matter. Which brings me to the second point.

When I look at the events and sayings of Christ, there is no way I can get from them that Christ was trying to change anyone's mind about belief in angels. To me, he either believed in them himself, or considered belief in them neutral. For there is no way I can see that someone who believed in them would have taken his words to mean anything other than one of those two possibilities. To say otherwise, for me, is to be completely intellectually dishonest. Because I literally can't see any other way to explain it. If you can, more power to you.

Iconoclast: “Satan is a literal being” is an apt metaphor. Notice that economists also use “inflation is a literal being” metaphorically to describe the intent and effects of inflation. And yet I do not believe a one of them actually believes that inflation really is a literal being.

Jeff: I've never heard anyone say "inflation is a literal being." I don't think inflation is a being. The word does refer to something about reality. But a being? Naw.

Jeff: Semeia, if the world is already good, why do you think we can make it better? Because you know it's not VERY GOOD. It SUCKS in comparison to what it could be. Whether Satan is responsible for it or God, it is totally natural for us to want BETTER. It's just that some people, like me and Greg, can't get our mind around the idea that God chooses love before eternity. So that can't be the explanation for why it's not already better for us. It's really that simple, Semeia. Greg and I, though we disagree, are trying to find a way to articulate why things OUGHT to be better EVEN THOUGH God hasn't made them better, Himself.

Tom: Exactly. Well said.

--------------------

Jeff: I don't pray warfare prayers. I doubt seriously Greg does either. I suspect that warfare stuff is more about theodicy for him than anything else. He is philosophically obsessed, after all.

Tom: Greg does pray warfare prayers. It’s not just a cerebral obsession of his. And more to the point, prayer IS warfare. There aren’t some prayers that are “warfare prayers” and other prayers that aren’t “warfare prayers.” To pray—period—is to engage in warfare, that is, it is to struggle to become, to sensitize one’s self to God’s agenda, and to commit to become the answer one seeks so far as one is able, etc.

What are you guys thinking spiritual warfare is?

-------------------

Semeia: Once you abandon science as fully explanatory when it comes to nature, and posit a foreign, external “enemy” – then people are going to take up arms in different ways.

Tom: Why drive this wedge between the material universe and immaterial realities? Defend this naturalistic worldview philosophically for me, Semeia. Why should I believe that non-material reality and material reality (whatever those are) cannot or do not share a causal nexus? That is, why think there’s NO causal traffic between them? What if there aren’t two distinct realities each impenetrable with respect to the other, but rather just one fundamental, indivisible, universal reality that is perceived on different levels?

--------------------

Semeia: And by that I mean that nothing is gained from spiritual warfare – no one is made closer to God, no one is fed or clothed or given a drink of water.

Tom: We’re operating with completely different notions of “spiritual warfare” then, for feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are most assuredly engaging in spiritual warfare in my book, and Greg’s as well, without a doubt. But so is praying. Prayer is not “doing nothing” in the material sense of the world, just spinning one’s wheels “fighting spiritual battles” while the “real” work of changing the world for the better begins when we STOP praying and go feed the hungry. Why this either/or? Why think reality is so bifurcated? Why not take a more holistic approach? It sounds to me like you have this image of spiritual warfare being something wacko-charismatics do when they attempt to cast demons out of coke machines that don’t work when they put their quarter in. Is that what you’re worried about?

I’ve been around the world and seen some pretty amazing miracles done through prayer. I’m sorry you and Jeff haven’t. And I’m not talking about lengthening legs and blowing people over in auditoriums. Now, can I “prove” my conclusions about these experiences through empirical testing in some laboratory to the satisfaction of those employing a naturalistic methodology and assuming a closed universe? No. So what? But why believe I should have to? Why believe my inability to satisfy such philosophically presumptuous views about a closed materialistic worldview is evidence against the reality of immaterial entities or their powers and causal relations to the material universe for those who already believe there’s more to reality than meets the eye, indeed, why should I have to defend it against theists at all?

If it’s regretful that much bad has been done by wacko-charismatics, it’s equally regretful that much good has not been done by those who exclude prayer from their repertoire of actions engaged in relative to improving the material world.

Interesting.

Tom

Post Edited (PLANIS) : 8/5/2007 8:22:50 PM (GMT-5)

Tom: Greg does pray warfare prayers. It’s not just a cerebral obsession of his. And more to the point, prayer IS warfare. There aren’t some prayers that are “warfare prayers” and other prayers that aren’t “warfare prayers.” To pray—period—is to engage in warfare, that is, it is to struggle to become, to sensitize one’s self to God’s agenda, and to commit to become the answer one seeks so far as one is able, etc.

What are you guys thinking spiritual warfare is?

Jeff: Greg, on a recent post, said that God is waiting for humans to fulfill their purpose. That's different than God has yet to win a war. Granted, we struggle with powers. And that is a kind of war FOR US. But a war for God? I don't think so. Why not just say that He is constraining and unconstraining Satan all the while for His own purposes, just like the accounts seem to say?

Tom: Why believe my inability to satisfy such philosophically presumptuous views about a closed materialistic worldview is evidence against the reality of immaterial entities or their powers and causal relations to the material universe for those who already believe there’s more to reality than meets the eye, indeed, why should I have to defend it against theists at all?

Jeff: Exactly. Precisely because Satan and his angels are described as being limited as to what they can do, we are under no obligation to successfully predict what they will do, when, or under what conditions. I think that part of the revelatory and victor glory that God is accomplishing for Christ is partly related to angels--good and bad. We're not the whole show of God's self-revelation. And the interaction of the two classes of volitional beings is part of the mix that occasions God's specific revelatory acts. See Ephesians 3, e.g.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/5/2007 9:06:44 PM (GMT-5)

Laika -- I liked that post! Where'd it go?

Ohisashiburi desu.

Laika

I've seen entropy described as information loss before (and Shannon used entropy to denote information content as well).  So either the big bang introduced all the information ever needed into the system and it's been dispersing ever since or information has been introduced into the system as it progresses. 

If the latter, how does "epistemic distance entails entropy" work with the introduction of information into the system?

Iconoclast

It is not the latter but the former. The universe was created in an astonishing low entropy state – which in itself strongly points to a Creator.

Roger Penrose puts some numbers to this to come up with the following (I am really trying to simplify his stuff here and so am probably butchering it pretty badly but I think it will give the basic idea).

Assuming the universe has about 10^80 (10 to the exponent of 80) baryons in it one can calculate the full entropy of the universe at its end (using the formula for the entropy of black holes which the universe will ultimately pretty much all end up as – whether it collapses or not). This number (using Plank / “natural” units) is approximately 10^10^123. That is 10 to the exponent of 10 to the exponent of 123!

When thinking of entropy what we are really talking about is “phase space” or “configuration space”. So basically this is the volume of phase space of the entire universe. Now, for our universe to be as it is this means that the Big Bang had to start out in a single unit volume of this phase space. This is like saying that the Creator had to find that one particular box (unit volume / particular configuration) out of 10^10^123 in order for our universe to have such low entropy! Of course, to say that He had to “find” it is just a metaphorical way of saying that he had to actually create it in that very, very special / particular way.

There is no introduction of order (lower entropy / enthalpy) into the universe. That would violate the 2^nd Law. However, the order does continue to “spread out” into phase space. Perhaps configuration space is an easier way to talk about it. So, order spreads out into configuration space which means that the configuration space is essentially “explored”. Or, at least, this is how I think of it. Powerful bits of order can then be used to shape new order – the new order is always less than before in total but it can take on new configurations.

Specifically, the sun is a source of low entropy. Not because it is sending energy to us but rather because it is sending low entropy energy to us. This is because it is a hot spot in an otherwise dark background. If the earth just received energy from all directions then this energy would be useless. It would be high entropy and could not be used to create new configurations. Specifically, the amount of energy coming to us from the sun is on balance reflected back into space. However, the nature of the energy changes from high frequency photons coming in to low frequency photons going out. Those high frequency photons are what plants use (through photosynthesis) to create low entropy. We then eat those plants and gain low entropy from them.

Laika

But complex systems didn't exist at the big bang, the information, at the least, has been re-ordered and combined into more complex instructions and systems since then.  When a system is pushed past equilibrium, it often self-organizes into another state of equilibria. How does "epistemic distance" tie into this?   How is the organizational information getting into the system?

Iconoclast

I am really going to butcher this but let me give this a shot. I am basically combining Penrose here with John Holland (complex adaptive system theory) and a healthy dose of conjecture.

God created this enormous configuration space at the Big Bang with the energy needed to explore it. Even this is a misnomer but is perhaps one way to try and conceptualize it because really the energy and the configuration space are intricately bound together – like mass and energy.

Now, this configuration space is absolutely HUGE (10^10^123) and thus can lead to so many possible actual outcomes it is unthinkable. An incredibly small number of these possible outcomes contain life. An even smaller number contain sentient life.

Small aside: to say that a system re-organizes itself and that a new configuration is new “information” in the system is a bit of a misnomer. We are talking of configuration space and so one can conceptualize this at a very simplistic level as a point “wandering” in configuration space. When the system re-organizes itself that means that it goes from one “point” in configuration space to another “point” in configuration space. In one sense the configuration space itself contains the information about what configuration that is. The point can be thought of as “information” but only if one is outside the configuration space looking in – which we are not. We are simply in that particular configuration. Think of this for a moment like the Mandelbrot set - where in the world did that come from?? How can some simple formula that one traces out turn into something of such grand complexity? It is as though there is a phenomenal amount of structure in the very nature of the number system itself. Ok, not such a small aside.

What John Holland has shown with complex adaptive systems theory (CAS from now on) is that there is an order that exists that appears to be pervasive that actually seems to “explore” configuration space in an incredibly efficient manner that leads to more and more complex systems. This order is driven through a process of adaptation. And no, this is not just “evolutionary” theory but happens all the time right within our bodies and within our social structures and within our economies and within ant colonies and so on and so on.

He further shows how CAS can make giant leaps, once a basic set of infrastructural building blocks are in place, to a substantially higher order of complexity autonomously. This is an amazing thing to see in the very simplistic model he built to show it. It absolutely blows your mind when you see how this works. It is easy to see then given this phenomenon how the pre-cambrian explosion happened.

Now, I tend to think of the configuration space that CAS explores as being a sub-space of the entire configuration space of the universe. I tend to think of CAS itself as being part of a different subset of configuration space. How we ended up with CAS operating in that subset I can only really conjecture as being part of the original very special configuration that God created in the Big Bang – but who knows – maybe some day someone will figure out that there is a meta-process aspect to configuration space that is itself explored in some way – or – much more likely – this is a really naïve way to think of it and there is some even deeper order that unifies it all.

So, how does all this relate to epistemic distance? Well, if there were no epistemic distance the entire universe would simply go directly into whatever configuration that was God’s will. Jesus prayed; “Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.” We know that “every knee shall bow” when we come before God. And we know that when the creation is infused with the knowledge of God it will be quite different – “lion lay down with the lamb” and such. Instead, we have an enormous configuration space that is explored through processes that God somehow set up. And we, as sentient beings, have some measure of direct control in terms of directing how that configuration space is explored. We do not know what configuration we are currently in in total (epistemic distance). Nor do we know what exact configuration God wants us to be in next (epistemic distance). We only really know that God does not want us to use our own knowledge of good and evil but rather He wants us to act out of love. Clearly we have some ability to detect local configuration space to some level of accuracy and we have some ability to change configuration space to some level. With computers and communications technology we have the ability have significantly more understanding of local configuration space as well as the ability to expand how much of local configuration space we can know. We can also use this information technology to automate known good processes just like we do with our sub-conscious processing. In other words we can leverage CAS processes greatly which is really what all information technology is doing. One of the keys to CAS processes operating positively is accurate feedback about results. In the animal kingdom the ultimate good result is survival and the ultimate bad result is death. In the “sentient kingdom” the knowledge of good and evil has greatly impaired accurate feedback and thus causes us no end of grief.

So, how does this relate to entropy causing “natural evil”?

I mentioned that this configuration space is HUGE and that the vast majority of configurations are not conducive to life. A simple, and probably stupid, example is the configuration where one is on a skate board going up a very high ramp at high speed and pushing off the wall at the last minute a bit too strong such that ones falls some 50 feet to the hard floor below. It turns out that there are a lot more configurations that lead to this skateboarder falling 50 feet or crashing in some such way than there are where he completes whatever trick he is trying to do without crashing. Thus, it is more probable that he crashes unless he uses up a lot of entropy. This is why those guys eat like a horse. You need a lot of low entropy to be doing that kind of stuff.

Entropy is the most normal thing that we all experience. There are lot more ways things can go “wrong” than can go “right”. There are an enormous number of configurations more that lead to death than lead to life. One has to walk a very, very narrow road indeed with the enormity of the configuration space we live in to maintain life. Now, fortunately, our unconscious processes keep us to this straight and narrow pretty good. Our brain is really good at not forgetting to breathe or pumping our heart at just the right rate depending on the activity we are doing. Our pain and pleasure detectors are very good at motivating us to learn which configurations to actively pursue and which to actively avoid. But notice it takes work – a lot of work – to prevent normal entropic processes from causing us suffering. We have to work to eat. This is because our bodies are using up enthalpy (opposite of entropy) in order to maintain a configuration that left to itself would simply “wander” off into a configuration where we are decaying and some other high enthalpy agent is using us to maintain their high enthalpy state.

Notice that all high enthalpy “things” must “eat” other high enthalpy things to maintain their high enthalpy. There is no other way to sustain your enthalpy - which for us means our life. Even the sun itself is “eating” up its enthalpy and will ultimately be a high entropy object. Plants eat the sun. Animals eat plants. Animals eat animals. We eat animals and plants. Higher enthalpy animals eat lower enthalpy animals. We consider higher enthalpy animals to be more “majestic” than lower enthalpy animals.

Ultimately it all comes down to stealing something else’s enthalpy in order to maintain our own. So, why do we consider “red in tooth and claw” to be indicative of some enemy sowing violence in the creation? How is that fundamentally different from eating a plant? We kill plants to steal their enthalpy. How is that fundamentally different from  animals killing other animals to steal their enthalpy?

It can only be different because we have decided somehow that animals eating other animals should be construed to be “violent” (which really just means – taking by force). But don’t we all take “by force” to maintain our enthalpy? What right do we have to steal the enthalpy of plants? Most would say, “but we have to live so it is ok.” But this is just a justification based on our need – it is no different for any high enthalpy thing. Moreover, in a CAS system (that is operating on valid feedback – not on our own knowledge of good and evil) predators provide an invaluable service to their prey. The prey could not survive long term without the predators. The configuration space would stop being explored in a positive life-affirming way and entropy would increase ultimately to the point of zero life. Imagine for a moment that there were only plants on the earth. Ultimately, the plants would use up all the carbon dioxide and they would all choke to death on oxygen. The world would then become a wasteland. This is no different for animal predators and prey.

If this is basically accurate, and the evidence is, I believe, compelling then “red in tooth and claw” is not something that just the animal kingdom does. It is the very nature of survival in an entropic system. It is foundational to the creation that God called “very good” or literally “of a unified order”.

Moreover, if “red in tooth and claw” came from the “enemy” how is it that God liked Abel’s sacrifice of an animal more than Cain’s sacrifice of a plant? How is it that the smell of the burning fat pleased Him? I suppose the counter argument is that this is metaphorically about Abel giving God his best from his heart. But how could the author use this metaphor if they also believed that killing animals was wrong?

thanks,

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

“Satan is a literal being” is an apt metaphor. Notice that economists also use “inflation is a literal being” metaphorically to describe the intent and effects of inflation. And yet I do not believe a one of them actually believes that inflation really is a literal being.

Jeff

I've never heard anyone say "inflation is a literal being." I don't think inflation is a being. The word does refer to something about reality. But a being? Naw.

Iconoclast

I said that they use the “inflation is a literal being” metaphor. That is, they speak as though inflation is a literal being even though they don’t believe that inflation really is a literal being. A metaphor is a language device where we map logic from a source domain to a target domain. The simplest example is where we say something like “our relationship is at a dead end”. This has no literal meaning. It comes from the metaphor “love is a journey”. In this case the source domain is a journey and the target domain is a loving relationship. A journey is something we all have direct experience with. We all understand the logic of having to literally back up when we hit a road that is a dead end. To say that “our relationship is at a dead end” is to map the logic of having to back up and start over in a journey with having to “back up” in the relationship and “start over”.

Likewise another standard metaphor we all use is “XXXX is an agent”. I substituted “literal being” for agent because this is a standard logical fallacy when someone is using this metaphor. A literal agent or literal being has standard logic that we all have experienced: an agent makes decisions and takes actions based on their experience and current circumstances. Inflation tends to have some or all of these characteristics and so using the “inflation is a literal being” metaphor is apt and that is why economists use it. Again, no one is confused about it being an actual literal being. This is largely because everyone knows that inflation is actually a force that is made up of the collective action of hundreds of millions of actual literal beings (us humans participating in the economy). By the way, this is also why “inflation is a literal being” is an apt metaphor, the collective action of millions of actual literal beings tends to operate with the same logic as a single literal being.

And this is why it makes sense to me why Jesus would talk as though Satan was a literal being even if Jesus knew that he wasn’t - because, in my view, Satan is the force that comes about from the collective action of all of us humans when we operate out of our own knowledge of good and evil.

And doesn’t this make sense given the “weapons” we were given to fight him? Isn’t our most powerful weapon to love someone else? How does this fight Satan? Because love begets love and love is the opposite of operating out of our own knowledge of good and evil. The more we all act out of love the less that Satan is a force acting in our world.

thanks,

Iconoclast

Laika! Gosh it’s like old times—Iconoclast, Semeia, Laika. Who’s next?

Laika: If I may interject; I think what Semeia is getting at is the fallacy of the association of ideas.

Tom: Fallacy of what?

Laika: Quoting Sir James George Frazer from "The Golden Bough"…

Tom: Oh yeah, Sir James George Frazer, eh, yeah, The Golden Bough, eh… (just joshing Laika!)…

Laika: "The two things [sorcery and taboo] are merely opposite sides or poles of one great disastrous fallacy, a mistaken conception of the association of ideas. Of that fallacy, sorcery is the positive, and taboo the negative pole."

Tom: I’m lost.

Laika: He divided folk beliefs, sorceries, magic, taboos, superstitions etc. into two categories under what he called Sympathetic Magic: Homoeopathic Magic (Law of Similarity) and Contagious Magic (Law of Contact).

Tom: Not following ya…

Laika: The main point being that science sees physical causal links, magic sees association of ideas. Which does prayer appear to resemble? The burden of proof would rest on the one trying to prove the association of ideas.

Tom: Well, I’m not following Frazer entirely. Can you boil it down for me? But of the idea that the burden of proof rests on the one trying to prove the association of ideas, I suppose you mean my claiming that God works in the material world in response to prayer? And you want me to PROVE this? To theists? To theists who believe in an immaterial God who created the material world? To theists who believe in an immaterial God who is the source and creator of the material universe? To theists who believe the immaterial God raised Jesus from the dead?

Iconoclast and Semeia, are you suggesting that God (God's the only immaterial being on your slate [and perhaps the spirits of deceased human beings, dunno]) cannot act causally upon matter? I hear you arguing basically the proposition that only material causes can be responsible for material effects--period. Is that right? If yes, then what do you make of the incarnation and resurrection? If no, then in principle you don't have any objections to the notion of immaterial sentient beings being causal agents in the material world? You can object to the belief in the existence of angels if you like, but you couldn't object to the idea that angels, IF they existed, would be causally engaged in the material world on the basis that they're immaterial and that only material agents can't be causally responsible for material effects, since God is the cheif example of an immaterial cause of material effects.

--------------------------

Iconoclast: Moreover, if “red in tooth and claw” came from the “enemy” how is it that God liked Abel’s sacrifice of an animal more than Cain’s sacrifice of a plant? How is it that the smell of the burning fat pleased Him? I suppose the counter argument is that this is metaphorically about Abel giving God his best from his heart. But how could the author use this metaphor if they also believed that killing animals was wrong?

Tom: God didn’t like Abel’s sacrifice more than Cain’s because Abel’s was an animal. Cain could have been as accepted as Abel’s had Cain approached God with a different heart. Gen. 4: The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.” Of course, “doing what is right” can’t itself be “offering an animal and not his harvest.” It refers to the motivating orientation of Cain’s whole life and work. Cain was rejected because he didn’t offer his heart along with his produce.

But still, it’s an interesting point—Why would a God as averse to pain and suffering as Greg’s view seems to assume accept Abel’s offering ‘at all’? Surely such a God would have used this opportunity to say to Abel, “What did you do! You killed those animals? Oh my. Look Abel, pain and bloodshed are demonic, so I can’t accept your offering. Don’t bring me anything that involves these, OK?”

Tom

Post Edited (PLANIS) : 8/7/2007 7:45:33 AM (GMT-5)