Monday 31 December 2018

Hell and Damnation

This seems like a suitable topic for the end of a year!

Atheists, most agnostics, various other stripes of non-Christians, and even some Christians balk at, or deny outright the Biblical concept of hell and damnation.  This ancient idea rubs against our 21st century sentiments of equality, fairness, proportionality, morality, and so on. Visions of lakes of fire (Revelation 20:14), and demons torturing unbelievers forever, with no chance of improving conditions, strike many people as absurd at best, and wrong, immoral, or even evil at worst.  How could a good God condemn any finite, mortal, human soul to eternal damnation under such conditions?

These concerns are not unreasonable, although they run the dangerous risk (to the people raising them) of placing God, or at least his word in the Bible, in the dock (as C.S. Lewis wrote) with man as his prosecutor, judge and jury.  One has to be careful judging the judge, especially when he is all knowing and all powerful!  If there is but one God, a better strategy for dealing with him would be to listen, seek to understand, and then obey.  Following Jesus in this life can actually be quite pleasant! And frankly, disliking what you read in the Bible, or have heard about him, is not a good argument against God's existence.  Nevertheless, I can understand these concerns and will address them, at least in part.

First of all, many of the images of Hell and damnation that we may have in mind are not entirely biblical, but were generated by people's imaginations in the middle ages to essentially frighten people into believing, or at least obeying what was taught.  See for example some of the medieval artistic depictions of hell.  The Bible is much less explicit about hell, and much of what is written there can be better interpreted allegorically or metaphorically, if one is willing to give up the literal reading, as needed in so many other places in scripture.  For instance, the entire book of Revelation is an apocalyptic vision and surely not intended to be taken literally.  Certainly many people, especially during the middle ages, believed in such eternal punishments in the fires of hell.  But many more, including most, non-literal Bible readers today, do not take such graphic imagery as a true description of hell, even if they accept hell as a literal destination for human souls.

Jesus does talk about hell and fire (Matthew 5:22) and uses the images of eternal fire in some of his parables (Mark 9:47, Luke 16:23). He also applies the Hebrew concept of Sheol, or the Greek Hades as the resting place of dead spirits.  But he is more focused on people's salvation and the Kingdom of God than on the details of damnation.  Jesus' parable of the sheep and goats, in which the damned are cast into the "eternal fire", gets close to the medieval images of hell (Matthew 25:41), but this too is a parable, intended to get people's attention and warn them against sin and disbelief.  Notwithstanding certain doctrines and the limited information in the Bible, human death and what happens after remain a huge mystery to us, and so both heaven and hell are impossible to describe with very many clear details, although some people try.

In The Great Divorce, the Christian writer C.S. Lewis provides a more humane, yet still allegorical vision of hell and damnation.  Basically, he says that if you have denied God all your life and wanted no part of Christian faith, then he will grant you your wish and place your soul apart from him when you die.  In this understanding, hell essentially becomes a place separate from God, where unbelievers go to be far away from that which they wanted to be apart from.  Damnation is in this sense, one's own choice, reinforced throughout a life of disbelief.  The actual conditions there remain largely unspecified.  The "burning fire" is sometimes envisioned as one's own shame and lost opportunity at not "being with God for eternity" (one definition of heaven).  The "physical conditions" (if one can speak of such in a spiritual realm) may be quite pleasant, as far as we know, and the damned soul will, moreover, be in the presence of other like-minded souls and spirits who chose the same fate.  That is not so bad now perhaps?

One way of looking at who is saved and who is condemned is to consider that, due to original sin, none of us is guiltless, and we all deserve eternal punishment, apart from God.  We are all spiritually dead (the definition of being separated from God).  Everyone has a natural tendency to do bad things, even if we think of ourselves a "good people".  Any honest person will recognize this in himself, even as we downplay or try to hide our sins, they are real and many.  The Bible goes beyond this to say none of us of our own accord seeks God or wants him to be part of our lives (Romans 3:10-12).  Only the action of the Holy Spirit in our hearts can make us want to seek God, believe His truths, and accept the salvation of Jesus.  Accordingly, divine justice and the perfection of heaven demand that ALL of us belong in hell, that is, away from God and his perfect, holy goodness.  In his mercy, however, God chooses some to respond to his offer, accept Jesus' sacrifice, be cleansed and saved from our sins, and be allowed into his presence, both in this life and the next.  That perspective puts another and very different spin on the subject. (John 3:16-18)

But some will complain, why does God only call some to salvation via his spirit?  At bottom, this is a mystery beyond human understanding, best left to God in his wisdom.  Fortunately, each person need only consider his or her own status, not judging who else will be saved or condemned.  The mystery of who will be saved is tied up with the mystery of free will, which is a different, deep and mysterious subject.  Suffice it to say that God respects our free will at some level and allows us to resist his Spirit and his offer, something many people actually do.  Thus, to some extent, you are still choosing to go to hell if you turn your back on the Gospel message, God's invitation, and the Spirit's nudges in your heart.

This raises the follow-up question; what of those who did not understand the call, did not feel those nudges, or simply were not exposed to the Gospel message, either by missing it around them, or living at a time or place where they could not be exposed to it?  There have been various views on this subject over the centuries.  Some say, too bad, God only saves those he has predetermined to choose, before time began.  That may be difficult to swallow, but we should not think we can understand the plans and purposes of an all powerful, all knowing, eternal, infinite being!  Others claim there is a third possible outcome between heaven and hell, a place where those who did not have the choice in life end up for further processing, or perhaps another chance at deciding. Some call that Limbo, an old theological concept, although scripture provides little support for it.  Perhaps God wants Bible readers to accept his offer, and so does not provide a clear "wait and see", or agnostic pathway for a second chance.

Although Jesus is "the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:8), the Bible does not say outright that if you do not explicitly accept Jesus Gospel offer then you are forever condemned to hell.  Rather, the Gospel offer is the normal way into God's presence; accept and believe, and you will be saved by Jesus' sacrifice in your place.  Another theoretical way is to be sinless yourself, like Jesus, but practically speaking, that is impossible.  Anyone who claims to be sinless, especially before God, is lying to himself and makes God out to be a liar since he states clearly that no one is without sin (1 John 1:10).

In principle, there might be a third way into God's kingdom.  One who has not rejected the Gospel offer because he has not been exposed to it, and so had no chance to accept, may be recruited by Jesus himself.  The Bible is clear that Jesus controls entrance into heaven, but it does not constrain him to accept only those who explicitly accept his offer.  Thus, sincere followers of other faiths who try to do what they know is right, even though they may not have heard his offer, may (conceivably) find Jesus merciful and willing to cleanse them from their sins without their explicit acceptance in life.  After they die, they may find Jesus inviting them to be with him despite their ignorance.  This is just speculation, but fits with some of Lewis' writings.

Finally, is hell eternal, or is it possible, at least in principle to get out of hell, once condemned to be there?  Most Christians believe that hell is forever, but some theologians hold that it may indeed be possible, albeit difficult, to seek God after death.  While many souls may be happy to remain apart from God, preferring the company in Hell, others may realize, too late that they did not listen to the offer, missed the boat, or merely would like another chance at being with God, even if they know little about him.  I note that in most scripture passages about hell, it is the fire that is eternal (e.g. Matthew 3:12, Mark 9:43, Jude 7), not necessarily the soul's punishment.  In this view, Jesus could seek lost souls after death as well as before.  He has, after all been to hell once already.  If he finds sincere souls looking for an alternative, he might, some hope, allow them into his presence or provide them with a pathway out of hell.  There are some cryptic Bible passages that suggest this possibility, but I wouldn't bet my soul on it by ignoring God's salvation offer today!

I hope the above discussion shifts your view of hell and damnation at least a bit.  God is not cruel and nasty, arbitrary, or capricious, but wants everyone to accept his offer (1 Timothy 2:4).  He is also merciful and slow to anger, so may, perhaps be flexible for his Son's sake, allowing some unbelievers into his kingdom - those he deems redeemable, as it were.  However, the step of faith to salvation in this life is not too high, nor a huge leap.  The Bible implies that someone with the smallest amount of faith may be granted God's grace (Isaiah 42:3, Luke 23:43).  Some theologians even hope that as eternity progresses, there will be fewer and fewer human occupants of hell, leaving only the devil and his demons to reside there forever.  Although that seems an extreme view, eternity is a long time, and who can limit what God will do?  Nevertheless, the best option today is clearly to accept God's offer and Jesus' salvation, adjusting your life accordingly, with his Spirit's guidance and help, and to begin looking forward to being with God for eternity.

If you haven't already done that, what are you waiting for?

Tuesday 11 December 2018

Philosophy 101 - I and (maybe) You Exist

From a personal perspective, studying philosophy has various benefits: it forces logical and precise thinking, clarifies one's beliefs and motivations, helps one understand reality and knowledge better, and it can also be fun, or at least entertaining. Technically, philosophy is the study of several aspects of life as a thinking person: the ultimate nature of reality (metaphysics), existence and being (ontology), truth and how we know it (epistemology), how to interact with other people and things (ethics), how to think and argue clearly (logic). My philosophical ramblings on this site will begin with the first two of these: my own existence and from there delve into what is real. I hope you enjoy the ride.

As my starting point, I choose Rene Descartes' famous "cogito ergo sum", "I think therefore I am". It is hard to disagree with that; if some thinking is occurring some existing thing must be doing it and if I am aware of it, then it is surely me doing the thinking, so therefore I exist. But what is this "I" and what does it mean to "exist"? The "I" is clearly the "entity" doing the "thinking", or forming "ideas" in its "mind". And "exist" means having some sort of true reality or being.

Here we come across one problem common to all philosophy; the terminology used and the meaning of words. All those terms in quotations in the previous paragraph have been discussed, defined and argued about, some for millennia. Without getting lost in semantics or semiotics I will merely assume at this point that the reader (if this post and you too actually exist) has more or less the same understanding of those words as I do. This cannot always be assumed, however, and much of what passes for philosophy is often hair splitting, or confusion about the precise meanings of terms. That is not the fun part!

In any case, "I exist" is my starting "truth" for exploring reality and developing my personal philosophy. Beyond this it is hard to go without first making one or more assumption. Unless I want to stop here, I will need to propose some additional truths or tenets about reality. Those may not be absolutely provable from my minimal starting point, but they can be checked and tested in my mind to see how reasonable they are and where they will take me. This is a common feature of philosophy - making tentative assumptions or positing basic tenets. In Descartes case, he assumed that God exists and that God would not fool him with a fake reality, but I will try a different route.

Is there anything real apart from me? Is the "I" the only thing that exists? In principle, I could be a unitary thinking entity, a universe in and of itself, that is just mentally playing with myself, pretending, without knowing it, that there is a world of some sort beyond my thoughts. Yes, of course, it seems that there is such a world: I can see, hear, touch, feel, hurt, etc. But in truth, all those sensations or experiences are just sensory signals coming into my mind via nervous pathways. This is the basis of the "brain in a vat" concept of unreality. Similar to the Matrix movies, where a fictional "reality" is fed into a brain from some simulation machine, or virtual reality device. Even the concept of nerves and a brain might, in principle, be only figments of my data feed or subconscious imagination.

In addition to an apparent world around me, there also seems to be, in my mind, the passage of "time". Even alone in my mind, I sense that this thought comes after that one, and that there seems to be a progression of mental activity, even if there are no sensations coming from "outside". I also seem to have "memories" of events in previous times, as well as anticipations about future events. That is, I feel like I can recall as well as plan, so some temporal dimension must be needed in my existence, even if the memories are fake and the plans are meaningless. The concept and nature of "time" has perplexed and confounded philosophers for millennia, and physicists for at least a century. I am not about to solve the conundrum here, so will merely accept that the dimension of time is somehow part of my reality.

In my mental dialogue with myself, the world I think I see, hear and touch, and the "people" (real or otherwise) I seem to interact with are much more complicated than I am capable of imagining, and they bring concepts and ideas to mind that I am not capable of generating. I am not a perfect genius to be able to create all that I experience in my mind. I am not aware of continually and consciously creating reality around me, and to think that all of the external world I seem to experience is the product of some unconscious part of my mind seems highly unlikely. What purpose would that have? (Then again, is purpose necessary?) Yes, my mind can generate imaginary fantasies and I can have dreams, but they are either fuzzy, illogical (even to my own mind), limited, or difficult to construct in any detail, whereas the "reality" I seem to experience pours into my awareness willy-nilly and seemingly, at a huge data rate, without my own mental effort, even when I am not paying attention.

Therefore, it seems unlikely or highly improbable that I and only I exist, and only as a mind, with no physical reality around me. One possibility that Descartes proposed was that there is another being of some sort (he called it a malicious demon) that is feeding me all these sensations in order to fool me into thinking that there is some reality beyond me. Why it would want to do that if it were only the two of us I could not say. However, to do so, this other entity would have to be separate from me since I have no experience of it. Moreover, there would have to exist some mechanism for it to feed me this stream of conscious experiences that seem to be separate from my own thoughts, being and mental activity. Thus, although I cannot prove it with certainty, there must surely be at least two entities and some connection between them in whatever "reality" is. Even if the second entity is my own subconscious mind, there must be some sort of separation between it and my conscious mind, so again, there are at least two separate parts one way or other.

If two beings or parts, why not more? Why not admit the existence of other minds, or at least some other entities, if only ones that generate the data for the second being to stream into my mind? Much of the data I experience seems to point toward a bigger reality, or "world" out there, so perhaps what appears to be a reality outside my mind actually does exist! Is that a leap too far? On what basis can I make this leap? For it not to be true, I would have to posit the following: my thinking generates what seem to me to be actions, including speech composed of words and sentences that seem to (imperfectly) capture and represent some of those thoughts. Said "actions" appear to elicit corresponding changes in the data stream: I "see" my "body" move, I "hear" my words, I "feel" changes within my "body". Moreover, these supposed "actions" sometimes appear to lead to responses from the supposed reality around me: my view of the "world" shifts, my "hand" touches something in my field of view, and sometimes, other "entities" seem to respond to me using similar words and sentences, which I "hear" and then decode to (usually) make some sense in my mind. Could all that be that second entity's activity, cleverly and carefully arranged to fool me? For what possible purpose? Solely its own entertainment?

Clearly any such entity capable of doing all that must be superior to my limited, slow self. The data stream coming into my mind seems far more detailed, quick and sophisticated than anything going out from my thoughts. If the other entity and its connection to me were the only things in existence, then I am clearly the lesser of the two and have no control over the other or the link between us. Perhaps the other entity is just insane after realizing he is alone with an idiot? But consistent and steady data streams are not what one thinks of as insanity. That does not seem a very promising way to build up a sense of existence or a philosophy of reality.

So, am I ready to take the leap and suppose that there is indeed some sort of physical reality apart from my mind, in which I exist? Again, that cannot be proven, but does not seem unreasonable, and the few conceivable alternatives are not very attractive. Perhaps it is I who am insane and just imaging everything? But then, what does "insane" mean? And how did I come into being, since I seem to be able to recall thoughts and sensations from only a finite past? I suppose that whatever I am could be somehow programmed to "forget" events further back than a certain time. On the other "hand" (so to speak), my "memories" could just have been implanted a few seconds ago and the thoughts I am having are just a test for some Artificial Intelligence developer, seeing where his simulation software will take him... Again, unprovable but not particularly happy to think about. In any case, some other entity would have to have programmed me or produced my detailed memories to feed into me, thereby "proving" that something other than me exists.

I should take a moment to talk about "proof" and how I can prove any conclusions I try to make. Strictly speaking, very few postulates or conclusions can be proven as absolutely true. There are mathematical theorems and geometry proofs, which once understood are seen as necessarily true, and there are deductive proofs such as syllogisms, which can be seen as certainly true, given their premises. But it is rare that other aspects of life -- cause and effect, the meaning of texts, scientific theories, and yes, reality itself -- can be proven to be true at that same level of undoubtable certainty. Even longstanding scientific "truths" can be and are questioned, or are subject to testing.

David Hume famously showed that inductive thinking cannot be proven by logic, but even he admitted that usually, inductive thinking is all we have to move forward. Thus, for instance, we get "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as used in courtrooms. That is the best you can hope for in a murder trial, where someone can always put together a fanciful explanation that "it wasn't me", all evidence to the contrary. In such a case, and in most cases of reasoning, one has to look at the evidence on hand and draw the best conclusion one can, bearing in mind that there may be other evidence that one has not seen or that may arise in future, or that there may be a better explanation or hypothesis in the offing. In many cases, even "beyond reasonable doubt" is impossible, and we have to settle for "most likely", or "on the balance of probabilities" however understood and interpreted.

This question of "knowing" is what epistemology is all about: how do we know what we think we know? This involves examining "evidence", facts or inputs that bear on the question at hand. In this initial study, it means accepting and interpreting the sensations and data stream coming into my mind, trying to make sense of it all, and I hope, learning to trust my senses and deciding whether what they seem to be telling me is true and reasonable.

As another aside, babies are natural philosophers; that is, true scientists. Being born into a world means being confronted with all sorts of novel sensations, and slowly learning to make sense of them. Babies see shapes, colours, patterns and changes, and need to interpret them as things, separate objects and movements. They also see things waving around in front of them and eventually realize these are their mother or their own hands and find they have some means of influencing what happens. Their minds are constantly building, adding to, and revising their mental "model" of reality as new data is collected and their thinking abilities improve. In that sense, each mind is constantly using its mental model of reality to interpret what is happening around it. For instance, when driving a car, I have a mental map of where I am and where I'm going, and a constantly updating model of what is around me: that car in the other lane behind me gaining on me, that sign coming up that I cannot yet read, my position in my lane, how fast I am going, and so on.

Going back to my reverie, how sure can I be that I am not alone, but that some reality exists beyond my thinking mind? The answer is that I cannot be certain. I cannot prove absolutely that anything else really exists. Given the nature of the question, what possible evidence could I accept that could not just be part of my dream or subconscious imagination, or the data stream from that "other" entity? Nevertheless, as outlined above, I have some reasons to think that there must be something other than my own overactive mind. At least such an assumption is not unreasonable, given the data stream I experience, and it is surely preferred to the alternative. Therefore, I will go with it. A world outside my mind does exist! My model of said world may be inaccurate and is surely incomplete, but I cannot accept that it is entirely wrong or just fictional.

Note that I cannot yet refer to "you", "we" or another person since I do not yet know whether you or others truly exist. Therefore the next step is to decide whether or not there are other minds in the reality I experience. Here too, I could be in some sort of simulation or virtual reality, where a clever AI generates the appearance and feedback from what appear to be creatures similar to myself "out there". Perhaps all the "people" I see and interact with are just robots or holodeck projections programmed to interact with me? Or perhaps mindless zombie-like beings, pre-programmed to interact in certain limited ways with me. The belief that I am the only mind in the world and that all the other apparent people are either figments of my imagination or constructions of some other entity intended to fool me is known as solipsism, although how I ever came up with that word if I am the only mind that exists, I don't know.  That reminds me of the joke about the solipsist professor; his best students feared that if he died, they would cease to exist.

Once again, we (oh sorry, I) cannot "prove" that you or anyone else actually exists as a mind apart from mine. Nevertheless, I can try to reason about this. When I am seemingly interacting with other apparent persons, I note that they appear to think, reason and act in ways similar but not identical to myself. Although each one is different, they appear to look similar to the way I look (shape, arms, heads, size, etc.), at least with consistent differences (beard, height, dress, voice, gender, etc.). Moreover, when they "speak", I can understand what they appear to be saying, and that seems to connect with my own "speech" and actions. That is, conversations seem to be meaningful most of the time. Moreover, those others' behaviours seems to be similar enough to my own that I can claim to understand them and what they are doing, at least much of the time. The interactions and relationships I seem to have feel like they are real. Also, there seems to be a lot more of "them" than would be necessary to simulate a fake reality for me, and my imagination would get rather tired dreaming up new and slightly different versions of "them" wherever I go. Moreover, I often hear or read ideas novel or even surprising to me - something that would be tricky if they were all in my own mind.

If these supposed other people seem to operate and exist in the same way that I do, perhaps the simplest explanation is that they actually do exist in the same way that I do. If I was looking at myself externally, and all I could see was the data stream associated with my external (non-mental) self, I postulate that it would appear more or less like what I perceive of these others, aside from differentiating details; that is, I suppose that I am pretty similar to those others; i.e. there is nothing special about my physical self, other than that is where "I" appear to reside.

Again, the alternative is that these others are somehow simulacrums, robots, or simulations designed to behave in ways similar to myself. In that case, what would be the difference whether or not they were "real" persons? It would be like a Turing test: if I cannot tell whether the "others" I perceive are persons like me or simulations of the same, then there is no meaningful difference. Then, rather than assume that I am the only "real" person and everyone else is fake or unreal somehow, I would rather go with the hypothesis that these others are indeed real people, like me in various ways, and most importantly, having minds of their own. I can see evidence of this in their behaviour, especially when compared with my own, over time as the interactions and evidence collects.

So where are we now? To recap, I exist, I am not alone, there is some sort of reality outside my mind, there are other minds similar to my own in this reality. Well then, hello reader, you real person, welcome to my thoughts! Stay tuned, more on reality next time...

Thursday 6 December 2018

Some Models of Miracles

Miracles have a long history in theology, of course, but also in philosophy. Over the centuries there have been various reasons offered for discounting reports of miracles. Some say miracles cannot occur because they "violate physical laws". Many people claim that most supposed "miracles" are merely reports second or third hand, based on incomplete knowledge, ignorance, gullibility, deception, or just hearsay and fanciful imagining. Yet others claim that future scientific discoveries will somehow explain miracles naturalistically. Each of these may be partially true, but they are not the whole story.

David Hume's philosophical argument against miracles boils down to, "If they exist at all, miracles are rare. Therefore, if you hear about a miracle, your reaction should be to discount it because it is unlikely". This looks like a circular argument to me, or just begging the question. Today the argument is often presented as, "extraordinary propositions require extraordinary evidence", which is fair enough, but then, no amount of evidence would convince most people who adopt this position. Perhaps the only way they would accept a miracle would be if it happened to them personally. As an aside, the Roman Catholic church takes the above advice when it investigates supposed miracles, before judging them real or true. They demand solid evidence from multiple witnesses and then thoroughly investigate. Meanwhile, Hume's argument is just a lengthy restating of the following definition of a miracle: "an unusual occurrence that seems inexplainable by natural means, and which usually has some faith-based association".

There are various ways for addressing doubters' arguments. The most obvious one is the logical impossibility of proving a universal negative; that every supposed miracle can be disproven. If even one or two out of thousands of reports were true - had no credible naturalistic explanation after full examination - then at least some miracles must be real! Clearly it is not possible to thoroughly disprove every reported "miracle". However, this argument isn't very satisfying or fair as it puts the onus on the disprover, rather than the person reporting the miracle or extraordinary event. Clearly something unexplainable needs to be presented very clearly and thoroughly if people are going to accept it as miraculous. However, these arguments at least show that miracles are not logically impossible, even if they seem physically impossible, or just highly unlikely and inexplicable.

There are many miracles recorded in the Bible: parting of the Red Sea, turning water to wine, healing the blind and lame, and of course, the resurrection of Jesus. To merely dismiss these as fictional stories, without delving into the text, their sources, and the historical context, is simply intellectual laziness, or evidence of a closed mind. The people writing the reports clearly understood that such things are naturally impossible. Many of them were eye witnesses to the events and attested with their lives that some of these miracles were actual, true events. We cannot dismiss first century fishermen as being ignorant rubes, falling for any weird fantasy story. They deserve better than that. Various attempts to "explain" away the Biblical reports of miracles have come up against logical inconsistencies or robust counter arguments. Any book or web site on Christian apologetics will address the reality of miracles and the veracity of those recorded in the Bible.

My purpose here, however, is not to "prove" that miracles are real, notwithstanding their rarity. Rather, I would like to offer a couple of models or analogies that, I think, help explain how miracles can be real, and possibly defuse some of the naturalistic rhetoric against them. (I have recently discovered that my first scenario is very similar to one in C.S. Lewis' writings, although I was unfamiliar with it when I first penned this version.)

Consider the following situation. You and I are playing billiards. It is your shot and you have a red ball lying right in front of a corner pocket, ready to be easily sunk by the cue ball, which is just two feet away. I am standing beside that corner of the table. You take your aim and strike the cue ball toward the red ball. I quickly reach down, lift the red ball three inches off the table, allowing the cue ball to roll into the pocket, and then quickly put the red ball back in place. From the perspective or context of the game of billiards, a "miracle" has occurred; the cue ball seemed to go through the red ball's location without hitting it. Alternatively, the cue ball somehow "missed" the red ball and scratched, even though there was not enough room for it to go past and enter the pocket. How could this be?

"That's not a miracle", you say, "you cheated!" Yes, I cheated, but note that I said it was a miracle "from the perspective or context of the game". The rules of the game of billiards do not allow one to manually move a ball in that situation. But the rules of the game are man made, of course, so humans can change, waive, suspend, interrupt, or even violate them at will. It is not a fair game, of course, but no one claims that miracles are fair.

We can now see how this is a model for actual miracles. The laws of physics are apparently rules for how things behave in our universe. If God exists as the Creator of the Universe, then he made those laws. (There is good evidence of this; for instance, see the fine-tuning arguments for creation.) Then, as the creator of those same laws - the law-giver - he transcends them and can surely step in to violate them at will. Just as I am able to violate (or transcend) the "laws" of billiards, then God, who, unlike us, is not part of the Universe and therefore not subject to its laws, can waive, suspend, or violate those laws for his own purposes. His reasons usually include some sort of faith-based lesson for the people involved: to get their attention, strengthen their belief, or remind them of his presence in their lives, for example.

Another, different model or analogy for miracles is the following. A scientist running a lengthy computer simulation interrupts it to change one or more parameters, and then restarts it from the point it was stopped. From within the simulation, that event could seem to be a miracle; a sudden change that is inexplicable within the context of the simulation's reality. Analogously, within the context of our own natural reality, miracles are inexplicable naturally, whereas knowing that God is outside of nature (hence supernatural), we can surmise that a miracle may have occurred when there is no natural explanation for a strange event, especially one coming with a faith lesson.

Note that what we call the physical laws of our world merely reflect the normal lack of miracles; i.e. miracles, being rare, allow the laws of physics, chemistry and biology to exist, and to govern our natural reality. Indeed, it was the Judeo-Christian belief in a benevolent God in charge of an orderly creation that allowed scientific inquiry to proceed and find such physical laws, based on the assumption that the Universe is organized and understandable, rather than capricious and arbitrary.

I hope these two models will help readers understand that miracles, coming as supernatural events, are not logically impossible, even though they often appear that way to us. The next time you hear about a supposed miracle, by all means look for natural or human explanations, but keep an open mind; maybe that event really was miraculous, and maybe God has a message for you!

Thursday 22 November 2018

Cell Phone Health Risks?

Every now and then there is an Internet meme pointing to health risks from cell phone usage. According to these, carrying an active phone close to your body, or holding the phone to your head while conversing, have some association with cancer, or possibly other physical health risks. Of course the psychological health risks of excessive smart phone usage are well known and discussed, but here I am just concerned with physiological risks to human health. These internet stories were bolstered in 2011 by official reports that additional studies had found possible links between prolonged cell phone usage and certain cancers in humans.

Various professional bodies have done numerous investigations over the decades about this. In particular, the IEEE has looked into it often, since they are closely associated with wireless phone systems, standards, hardware, networks, software, and so on. Most of their studies found no statistically meaningful health effects, although some studies were statistically "inconclusive", and the above mentioned study found "there could be some risk" to humans. The rationale usually offered for minimal risk is that the microwaves used in cell phone networks are "non-ionizing radiation" so cannot break chemical bonds in your body. Without breaking bonds, DNA mutations are impossible, your genes are safe, and so cancers cannot be triggered.

The other potential cell-damage mechanism usually mentioned is that microwaves can heat biological material (like your body), as in a microwave oven. But the microwave power levels used in cell phones (milliwatts) are far too low to cause detectable heating in nearby tissues. With those two potential mechanisms out of the way, it is happily concluded that, aside from that troubling study, there is little risk that cell phone signals can cause cancer or other diseases.

While it is true that microwaves are non-ionizing, the accompanying argument that only thermal effects are important may be too simplistic. Biological molecules may, conceivably, also react to microwaves in additional ways in some cases. Depending on the size, shape and electron charge distribution in the molecules, they may react to microwaves by twisting, vibrating, or rotating (spinning). That is what happens to water molecules in a microwave oven, after all, leading to the desired heating effect. If certain biological molecules happen to resonate with wireless frequencies (which vary over a wide range, from 500 to 5000 MHz or so), then perhaps their response could, in principle, prevent (or speed up) their biological function or behaviour.

Biological molecules have complex behaviours: connecting to or releasing another molecule, being bent, shaped or reshaped inside a cell, passing through cell wall portals, holding two other molecules close together, and so on. If any of these actions is disrupted, sped up, or slowed down in some way, that in turn could interfere with its normal operation inside or between cells. Given the complexity of biochemical reactions, it is probably impossible to say there cannot be any such effect at all. In the worst case, if DNA replication were tweaked even a little, say by increasing the vibrational noise level around the process at some frequency, then copying errors (mutations) might be slightly more frequent. It may therefore, be impossible to rule out an occasional cancer getting a foothold, just at a very low statistical level. Alternatively, if the microwaves disrupt a pore in the cell membrane, it could affect the cell's uptake or discharge of chemicals, such as carcinogens from the cellular environment, or internal wastes. In that case, the microwaves themselves would not "cause" the cancer, but could make the cell more susceptible to cancers caused by those substances.

I do not want to raise fears of cell phones or microwaves in general, and I certainly do not want to start another Internet meme to that effect! However, I have never seen this potential mechanism addressed, much less refuted in what I have read on this subject -- admittedly a small sampling of the available literature. It would be interesting to see what the experts have to say about this. Perhaps they have already examined this possibility and dismissed it? Maybe the microwave frequencies are all wrong for affecting biochemicals? Maybe the resulting vibration or rotational effects are orders of magnitude below the noise level in the cell? I don't know, but it seems that no potential mechanism should be ignored just because it is complicated or difficult to assess.

I note in closing that the same articles reporting negligible health risks of cell phone usage usually also advise that users practice "pragmatic measures" or "prudent precautions" to reduce the (supposedly negligible) risks of microwave exposure. Perhaps after the 2011 reports they are hedging their bets and may now be open to considering the above potential mechanism? Nevertheless, please don't worry about your phone based on my speculations, and do not spread rumours. I am certainly not going to stop using my phone, although I don't often carry it on my person. In any case, there are enough  real health hazards in our world to worry excessively about potential ones.

Friday 16 November 2018

The Metaphysics of Mathematics

Mathematics is probably considered the science least associated with or affected by faith or religion.  It is all neutral axioms and firm logic, theorems and proofs, so how could beliefs come into it?  Nevertheless, there are many metaphysical connections and underlying belief aspects in the field of mathematics.  I will provide an example, some further observations, a few questions to ponder, and some references to delve deeper into the subject.

Example Exercise:  (using only high-school math)
Let f(x) = 1 for x = rational, and f(x) = 0 for x = irrational
Question: what is the integral between 0 and 1 of f(x)?

If you don't know, an integral is simply the area under the plot of f(x) on an x-y graph between the two limits of x, so there is no need for actual calculus (integration) here.

Depending on your metaphysical assumptions, any of the following answers may be correct:

a) If you were a Pythagorean back in the day, you would not believe that irrational numbers actually exist, so f(x) = 1 for all real numbers and the integral (area) between 0 and 1 would simply be 1.
Even today, there are people who question how real most irrational numbers are since the vast majority of them can never be described exactly, because they are an infinite series of digits in any numerical expansion; e.g. x = 0.876513234923746023700147829432764591034 is not irrational. It can be expressed as a ratio of two integers, and so is rational. Only by continuing such a string of pseudo-random digits to infinity can it be said to be irrational. Thus, a vanishingly small percentage of irrational numbers can be described in any finite form: numbers such as pi, e (the base of natural logarithms), square-root of two, 0.909009000900009000009..., and so on. So if most irrational numbers do not truly exist in any meaningful, presentable sense, one could perhaps say that the rational numbers between 0 and 1 far out weigh the irrational ones, and the integral approaches unity in the limit.

b) However, assuming that all irrational numbers do truly exist (in some sense), it is clear that there are any number of both irrational and rational numbers between 0 and 1. Indeed, we can say that there are an infinity of both type between 0 and 1. We cannot count how many, so we might assume (for now) that for every rational number there is an irrational one. Then half the numbers in that range are rational and half irrational, so that the area is one half (0.5). This might be thought of as a pseudo-average of f(x) over the 0 to 1 range.

c) Not so fast! That is not the full story. According to Georg Cantor (19th century) and most mathematicians since then, the rational numbers are "countable", which means they can be paired one-to-one with the infinite set of integers. He provided a simple demonstration of that. On the other hand, the irrationals cannot be counted in the same way, or at least no one has come up with a scheme for doing so. Thus, officially, the rational numbers are a different degree of infinity than the irrationals.

All infinite "countable" sets of things (numbers or otherwise) are considered to be at the "aleph-zero" level of infinity. The real numbers (rationals plus irrationals) cannot be counted, and are therefore considered as "aleph-one" level of infinity. In an aleph-one set, there are infinitely more items than in an aleph-zero set; not just double infinity, but "infinity squared" so to speak (although infinity is not a number so cannot be squared). If the real numbers are aleph-one, while the rational numbers are aleph-zero, then the irrationals must be aleph-one.

Therefore, rather than being the same number of rationals and irrationals between zero and one, there are infinitely more irrationals. That is, for every rational number between 0 and 1, there are an infinite number of irrationals. In this approach, the integral of f(x) is arbitrarily close to zero; i.e. the vast majority of the point in x have f(x) = 0 and the "average" over x = 0 to 1 is zero. I expect this would be the "official" answer to the question, referred to as the "non-constructivist" view, but it too is not without metaphysical issues.

d) Finally (I hope), the integral operation is often explained as summing up a huge number of narrow dx slices under a plot of the function, between the two limits of x. Thus, for example, when integrating the function g(x) = x, one would take narrow dx slices between x=0 and x=1, and add up their areas, as dx was made smaller and smaller, the integral would converge on a value of one half (0.5) for g(x). The integral calculus allows one to find the limit, i.e. the true area, without adding up the tiny slices. Thus, dx is referred to as an infinitesimal and, in the limit, there are an infinite number of dx slices between zero and one.

This works well for any continuous function like g(x), but f(x) is an "everywhere discontinuous" function. No matter how small you make dx, there will be an infinite number of rational numbers in the slice and infinitely more irrational ones. Thus, there is no way to look at a finite dx, much less an infinitesimal one to determine the "true value" of f(x) in that slice.

The concept of "real infinities" and infinitesimals caused mathematical philosophers a lot of trouble when calculus was being developed back in the 17th century. Still today, infinitesimals are suspect to many philosophers, who basically say we can use calculus because it "works" for functions like g(x), but not because it represents reality or truth. Given such metaphysical doubt, some would conclude that for the function f(x), dx is meaningless, therefore the integral is undefined; i.e. it cannot be computed.

Some Other Observations:
a) Zeno's paradox updated: movement is impossible as it requires something to be in an infinite number of locations in a finite time, and "real infinities" are impossible. Despite seeming to be silly, this paradox still causes metaphysical concerns for some philosophers.

b) Infinity is not a number, but Georg Cantor's transfinite numbers (aleph 0, 1, 2...) tries to make sense of infinite sets of different "sizes", as noted above. Cantor said there is an infinite series of ever increasing infinities (aleph-n), but I have not seen any descriptions above aleph-2, and some mathematicians question how real the higher alephs are. Hence answer (b) above.

c) Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems (in the 1930's?): in any mathematical system there are true statements that cannot be proven within that system; i.e. no mathematical system is "closed". Some people (e.g. John Lucas and Roger Penrose) claim this means that humans are not computers.

d) Euler's identity: 1+ e^i*pi = 0  
This combines five, seemingly unrelated fundamental mathematical objects in a relation: zero, unity, two transcendental numbers, even an "imaginary number". How weirdly beautiful is that?

e) Fractals are "fractional dimension" mathematical objects, infinite complexity arising from simplicity, deep beauty from simple equations. They have real-life applications: e.g. the shape of fern fronds, and how long is the coastline of England? (depends on what scale you use).

f) Humorous theorem: there is no such thing as a boring number!
Proof: if there were boring numbers, then the set of boring numbers would have a first member, "the first boring number", and that would be very interesting indeed, so it could not be boring.

Questions to Ponder (based on your own metaphysics):
1. Are mathematical objects (e.g. polygons, relations, theorems) invented or discovered?
2. Do mathematical objects (e.g. numbers, geometric results) really exist?
   They are not matter, energy, or information!  (this evokes Plato's metaphysical “forms”).
3. If mathematical objects exist, are they part of the universe?  If so, could math be different in
    another universe or creation?  i.e. could God have created mathematics differently?
4. Why is mathematics so effective for science? Do math-based physical “laws” actually operate
    the Universe or are they just human models?

References for Further Study:
How religion and faith (metaphysics) underpin mathematics:
 https://frame-poythress.org/a-biblical-view-of-mathematics/
A brief Reformed Christian view of mathematics:
 https://www.redeemer.ca/resound/stewarding-talent-in-mathematics/
A quite different (contrary) view:
 http://steve-patterson.com/the-metaphysics-of-mathematics-against-platonism/
A brief but thoughtful book review on the subject:
 https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2014/09/the-metaphysics-of-math/
If you want to get lost in the subject! (quickly gets deep):
 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

This last reference shows that the subject remains an active and serious area of professional inquiry and debate.

Saturday 10 November 2018

Published a Book Have I

Yes, it's true, I am now a published author! After many years of soul searching and prayer, and not a little procrastination, I finally succumbed to the subconscious nagging and wrote up my book on the bioethics of abortion: Finding the Balance: quantitative ethics resolves the abortion issue.  After some positive feedback from reviewers and subsequent revisions, along with the usual battles with my word processor for control of the formatting, I actually got it published!  It is a simple e-book, available on Amazon at: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B07JM8L4RT/ 

The Kindle app is free of charge for computers, tablets and smart phones, so you can read it on almost any device.  I also wanted to make the book free to download, but Amazon would not let me offer it for less than $0.99.  I won't copy the book description here as you will see that when you open the link.  It is a short book and (I think) an easy read, even with its graphs and yes, equations.  The first three pages are viewable free on-line.  They give my purpose for writing the book and begin to introduce the topic.

Those of you who know me well may think you already know the gist of what I've written, but you would be mistaken.  My "quantitative ethics" approach was developed to be as completely neutral as possible; that is, to avoid or counter all the usual emotional arguments on both sides of the abortion debate, as impossible as that may seem.  The analysis and results I arrive at depart from a purely pro-life position -- hence the soul searching on my part alluded to above.  I will not reveal the conclusions of my efforts here, but I hope my book will help reframe the abortion debate along objective, defendable lines.  The quantitative ethics approach is also offered and applied as a new tool for use in other bioethical subjects, such as end-of-life issues.

I expect that most reviews (if I get any at all) will be negative.  After all, most people who read books about abortion will likely already be either solidly pro-life or pro-choice, and they will not like what I have written!  This could be a good thing as long as it doesn't dissuade everyone else from reading it. The book is mostly aimed at the majority of people, neither pro-choice nor pro-life (or perhaps both), who may be looking for a reasonable resolution to the issue, one that eschews both extremes.

I hope your curiosity will be piqued enough to risk the minimal cost and find out what I have come up with in this book.  And if you indeed read it, please consider posting a review on Amazon. Good or bad, any publicity is better than none!

Thursday 8 November 2018

Now Where Was I?


After a four (4) year hiatus (Four Years - really? That's forever in the blogosphere!), I am returning to capture additional THoughts, OPinions and IDeas here at my blog. Why did I stop posting? Not sure; I guess I was preoccupied with other crucial aspects of retired living: cycling, moving house, grandchildren, reading, writing, volunteering, watching Netflix, procrastinating, etc. Or maybe, having temporarily run out of ideas, I stopped and just didn't get back to it.

Why am I returning now? Well the THOPIDs have been bubbling up in recent months, demanding to escape from my head and be captured in articulate English, so I have been making notes and have now gathered enough to push me over the threshold of starting again. And who knows, maybe this time I'll actually tell people about my blog, and someone may even read it. 😉

In any case, please continue to ignore the dates on my entries, especially the older ones. None of them are particularly time limited, or tied to past news and events. And having read them over again recently, I still hold pretty much all the same positions. I'll let readers decide whether that makes me dependable and consistent, or just stuck in my ways. Perhaps once captured, the thoughts are forever carved in the cloud and don't want to be changed? Or maybe, having written them out, they vacate my mind. After all, why expend wetware resources when we have the cloud?

All this to say, welcome to my blog, or welcome back if you happened to stumble across it earlier. I also welcome any comments you may have, but reserve the right to delete any that are nasty or abusive.

Now what was that I wanted to write about?...