Pondering The Unknowable

Get a piece of paper and draw a 1 on one side and 0 on the other.

If God = 1 and no God = 0, explain how two people can arrive at diametric conclusions based on where each is standing in relation to this piece of paper. If one is standing directly in front of the side with the 1 on it, clearly God seems to exist. But if another is standing directly in front of the side with the 0 on it, clearly God seems not to exist. Project what happens at different viewing angles.

Many will support either view until the piece of paper is sufficiently outside the direct line of sight of either, much like how a projection screen's image becomes lost beyond recognition when a critical viewing angle is achieved. What happens when this piece of paper is viewed edge on? Neither view is supported nor rejected though believers of either will likely claim it supports only their view.

But the real question is, which, if any, should be the “correct” viewing angle? If one is above all interested in finding truth, it seems any view is just as “correct” as any other. On the other hand, I can not help but think many, perhaps without realizing it, are above all interested in finding what will afford them the warmest and fuzziest feelings about life. I would beg for caution though. It would be a mistake to assume truth equates to only that which feels good. For if I could wholeheartedly convince myself that children were never abused, all things being equal, I would feel better about life. However, I know this to be patently false and further I know that my believing this warm and fuzzy fallacy would do nothing to make child abuse disappear.

My point is this: if truth is sought, one must let truth be what it is, not what one wants it to be! Of course one can point out the obvious flaw with this argument: we know children are abused but we do not know whether God exists. So in response to this, it will likely be reasoned that we should err on the notion that God does in fact exist. But why would one choose to believe He does exist as opposed to believing He does not? Most likely, because it sounds warm and fuzzy.

One might claim I do not want to believe in God. I would concur with this statement, more or less. However, I feel it important to add that neither do I not want to believe in God! My personal account of all available evidence does not convince me of either. If God exists, would He/She/It approve of my conclusion? Many will say no for obvious reasons I shan't get into, but I have a different viewpoint.

What is one thing God might or perhaps should value and honor above all else? Critical thinking, perhaps? He gave us a brain so why would or should we not use it? Who might God honor more? Somebody who is impartially devoted to finding truth wherever it may lurk or only those lucky enough to have been blessed by The Divine One with a mind-set hardwired to conclude only the absolutely “correct” view(s) on reality. 

Perhaps God preset our viewing angles? If this is the case, I pity the poor bloke whose viewing angle God preset directly on the 0. Of course it needs to be pointed out that this thinking assumes He might care what somebody believes!

On a final but very important note, in my opinion one of the most integral parts of finding truth is introspection.....really getting to know oneself by asking hard, honest questions. Truth is not found by looking for it, rather truth is simply the remnants found in the aftermath of incinerating all falsehoods.

How do we know when all falsehoods have been eliminated? We don't! That is the principle reason truth is so elusive.

Might Truth Be Like Quantum States?

I have found more truth asking questions and introspecting than I ever did trying to find “absolute” truth. Trying to find “absolute” truth is an endeavor destined to fail because it inevitably winds up skewing one's objectivity in one way or perhaps many.

Might the search for truth be a bit like Heisenberg's uncertainty principal? Truth, like quantum states, is very elusive. It is not possible to know with certainty both the velocity and location of a given particle because the mere act of measuring one skews the “truth” of the other. One can know completely either of the two or know a little something of both but he can not know both with certainty.

If velocity is like relativity and location is like absolutism, let's attempt to find “absolute” truth. How would one do this? That's easy! The precise measurement of a particle's location/absolutism will produce an “absolute” truth. But only at enormous cost. For he will now forgo any knowledge as to the velocity/relativity of the particle, thereby making it erroneously appear as though its velocity is zero and hence not relative in the least. In this case, it seems clear that whatever truth is found is absolute and unquestionable.

Trouble is, somebody else can just as easily measure the particle's location/absolutism in exactly the same manner but come up with a contradictory assessment regarding the particle's “absolute” location. The explanation for this disagreement is that the particle actually has a velocity and hence its location is seemingly relative to any given measurer and time. In other words, because the person and the time of the measurement is different and the measured item actually has a velocity, it will not be in the same position as it is for any other measurer.

This will cause disagreement between the two as both are presumably unaware that the particle has a velocity and hence is not in an identical location at any given time. Each measurer then erroneously believes he is in possession of the “absolute” truth as to the particle's whereabouts at all times.

It is my contention that ego tends to creep into any “honest” assessment of truth. Reason being, the ego's ultimate aim is not, perhaps surprisingly, to find truth. Rather, its ultimate aim is to find an “absolutely right” answer, however arbitrary, to inflate its sense of superiority by being absolutely right.

The issue with finding truth always revolves around fundamental assumptions. Why choose one over another? It can only be arbitrary to individual preferences. If one wants to believe the world is ultimately good, he might assume a good God exists Who out of necessity must be uncaused, this itself another blind assumption. On the other hand, one could just as easily believe the world is ultimately not good and assume there is no God or at least no good God. Of course neither view is provable nor disprovable! They are nothing but assumptions!

Another might just as easily see the world as being equally good and bad (of course this being merely relative to somebody's chosen perspective) and conclude the world is neither good nor bad.....it just is. Would this world be atheistic or would it be “ruled” by an indifferent God? Either could be assumed.

Alternatively, one could just as easily measure completely velocity/relativism and conclude that there is/are no truth(s). Might the true search for truth be inspecting ourselves? What outcome might this have on the world? What if everybody were to partake of this endeavor? Could this be the beginning of the end for the ego? What might happen concerning violence and war or perhaps between their far less dramatic yet insidious siblings, argument and conflict over seemingly petty things?