Problem of Pain

Feeling spontaneous, I attended PH1102E: Introduction to Philosophy last Friday. Turned out to be a lecture on the problem of evil. It is one of the most used argument against theism and in particular, Christianity. In short, it argues that the evil that is present in the world is inconsistent with the notion that there is a God who is both omni-benevolent and omnipotent.

I was feeling rather frustrated throughout the lecture as I felt that the lecturer was giving too little credit to the four arguments against the problem of evil & was rather biased in the way he presented the theist's defense. (After the lecture I realized that it was because it is an introductory lecture and there wasn't enough time to go into the finer detail.. and I guess the lecturer has to say what he believes.) A example he raised was of Elizabeth Fritzl, a girl who was held captive and raped by her father for 18 years. Our best defense for God, according to the lecturer is that God has a higher purpose that is unknown to us, but one that is good, perhaps one that is found in the afterlife. To this I agree. But I must also say that just stopping there is doing great injustice to Christianity.

Anyway I have been mulling over it since then and one thing I realize is that while morality is not relative, I strongly believe that suffering is. The human spirit is much stronger than most people think. I know because I have once lived a life that could be deemed to be not worth living by many, albeit it was only for a few days. A victim of brain infection, I lost almost all ability to see and could not speak. But those few days I suffered the most was when no one believed me and was even punished for 'lying'. In one week, I lost almost everything. Yes I am perfectly fine now, but just looking at that time frame in my life and nothing else, it is an experience no one would want to go through - what more as a nine-year old. But to be honest, I did not feel like I was the most "poor thing" person on earth then. No - that thought was only present in the mind of others and in mine while I was recovering. But while I was at the peak of my suffering, only two things were on my mind: fear and survival. The mental preoccupation with these two notions meant that I had no time to compare myself with other kids, no time to think why this had to happen to me. I was not sad or dwelling in self-pity. I was wholly focused on my future and in that sense failed to see how much I was suffering. And I believe that it is when we are able to let go of asking why that we are able to reap the most benefit from our suffering.

Of course, my case does not apply to all who suffered. I could very well have lingered in self-pity and complained about how much I was suffering. But that does not exclude the fact that we all can choose not to.

What I want to say in other words, is that it is impossible to know how much another is suffering. The ones who use suffering as an argument against the existence of God are usually not the ones who have suffered.

And if suffering is relative, then so is joy. The lecturer drew a graph of Elizabeth Fritzl's level of joy with respect to the events that occurred in her life. It basically showed her joy level way below the barely worth living level for the majority of her life which then increased to a normal person level of joy when she was rescued. Don't you think that she would have been much much happier than a normal person when she was rescued? I know I was when I was finally able to swallow my food. the graph the lecturer drew is what he perceived her level of joy to be. It is from his perspective, not Elizabeth's. We can only imagine what it is. And imagination is out-of-bounds for philosophy.

(Haha seems like taking imagining animals last semester was a very good choice)

Young Earth, Old Earth

Was reading Genesis 1 and found it really interesting how God created the universe; especially how God created light on the first day, and there was evening and morning. But the sun was not created until the fourth day.

Of course, this is key to understanding there is no necessity for the universe to be created in six 24-hour days. A day as defined the dictionary is the time between two sunsets or sunrises. However, since the light created on the first day was not the sun, we have to use a more general definition: e.g. the time period between two mornings. This is the definition used in the bible in Genesis 1:5b: And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day. This is perfectly consistent with how we use the word "day." For example, a day on Mars is 24 hours, 37 minutes and 35 seconds. Not 24 hours.

So the length of time between the first morning and the next in Genesis 1 can really be any period of time. It naturally follows that the length of time for the subsequent six days are the same.

This is important because Christians need to know that they are not obligated to believe the earth is 7000 years old. The bible simply does not say how old the universe is, nor how long creation took.

Freewill and Determinism

The problem of freewill and determinism has been bothering me for the longest time and probably many other philosophers as well. After all, even if one is not a Christian/theist, it is unthinkable that one would resign to having a lack of free will. But up till today, this ancient question has not made much headway. Neither determinism that we observe in the natural macro world nor indeterminism that occurs in the quantum world is able to explain any possibility for freewill. The best that philosophers are able to offer us with their understanding of how this world functions is pseudo freewill - one where we only seem to have freewill but do not.

So in this post I present a proposal. To me, it resolves this issue enough. And to those more critical, it at least sets the direction I think a Christian philosopher should be heading towards.

In order for someone to have freewill, it is essential that his choices are self-determined. Self-determined in the sense that it is not determined by any external circumstances, but rather determined by the person making by his own will. In other words, a person's will must determine his own will. It is circular. This, instinctively, seems like some sort of false reasoning, or poor definition. Circular arguments after all, are of a fallacious argumentative form. Determinists, for centuries have asserted that the self is but a by-product of his/her nature and nurture. No part of the self is self-determined.

But then I thought: what about God? Does God have free will? God is uncaused. Surely He could not have been determined by any preceding events. And yet we are not able to understand something that is not does not have a beginning. Everything in our experience on earth has a beginning and an end. But the laws of physics and philosophy demand that time does not have a beginning; that there must be an entity that has existed for all eternity. Atheists believe that the universe, in place of God, has existed forever. And though a universe that is non-conscious cannot be self-determined, our God can. So God can have freewill. And indeed our Christian doctrine demands that God absolutely must have freewill. For how can God who is love love without freewill.

And what if God had given us a eternal soul that is a part of himself. That when he breathed life into Adam, he was in fact imparting the miracle that is freewill to his creation - self-consciousness. If God has freewill, then He can give his creation freewill.

Of course I am begging the question: How does the soul choose? But if you ask that, it is no different from asking how God can choose. Which is the same as asking what determined the first cause. (notice the circularity that is unavoidable) And I do not think these are questions we can answer anytime soon.

I do not have any evidence that what I claim here is true. But I do not need proof. All I need is a logical possibility. God has already proven Himself to me. :)

Monty Hall

http://www.marilynvossavant.com/articles/gameshow.html

Haha think this is so amazing in so many ways.

I knew this old problem was kinda confusing.. but I didn't know the solution was elusive enough to stumble thousands of people with Phds. And I think it shows us how we trust our instinct too much. I'm sure if these people who accused Marilyn Vos Savant of being wrong had worked out the solution from ground zero and not relied on what their intuition was telling them, the answer would have been very clear to them.

Growth

In reversi, players improve vastly when they start to question every move they make. the intent, the consequences. And in this process there is a continual uncovering and questioning of every assumption about the game that they have held on to. False assumptions are gotten rid of which results in the segregation of habit from principle.

And I think in some sense it is the same for the game of life. But life is a vastly more complicated game than reversi. It is hard enough to know the objective of the game, not to mention internalize it. And with such a long span of time allowed, it is easy to lose focus. And of course the rules will never be fully known. And even, when you are familiarized enough with the rules and objective (which differs for each individual), it will take many lifetimes to fully master it.

But then again, it is because of this complexity that is absolutely crucial to question.

Cogito ergo sum

"I think, therefore I am." is probably the most famous philosophical statement due to it's simple argument and compelling conclusion. So when I heard that it is a fallacy because it is a circular argument, I was highly curious to find out for myself how true that claim is.

A simple google search revealed the following at: http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/circular.html, a philosophy webpage of San Jose State University.

I quote: "Descartes has begged the question here, because when he said "I think," he'd already implied "I am" (or how else could he think?). Yet his fallacy continues to persuade people, over three hundred years later."

Wow.. what a big claim. But interestingly, instead of overturning the "fallacy", the author of the webpage (let's call him Sjsu) is actually supporting the argument. Here's why:

Sjsu says "when he said "I think," he'd already implied "I am" (or how else could he think?)"

This is a proposition. And we can we rephrase it into: If I can think, I am.

And of course if that premise is true, then the conclusion: "I think, therefore I am." is definitely true as well. It is a very simple deductive argument.

In summary:

(1) If I can think, I am.

(2) I think, therefore I am. (1)

If you want the answers

dare to ask the questions.