The Divine Antinomy: Exploring the existence of love, volition, and God.

This is the short form, revised from the essay  that I presented in August, 1999. The extended edition is at http://www.fieldcraft.eu/topics/philosophy/ and is spread over several web pages.

Laws exist inasmuch as some of them are believed by religious devotees to be from God, and humans both obey and disobey them; sometimes in ignorance and sometimes knowingly. If this is done without individual volition, mechanistically, then all possibility of God disappears because what is perfectly just by definition, has now been proven unjust and therefore non-existent. Thus, is it not reasonable to conclude that God and free will are part of the same package, and that you can’t have one in any true sense without the other? Of course, this may not necessarily mean that volition proves the existence of God unless God is at least partly defined as being an act of volition such as love (See the Biblical quotes below on outcome of action versus faith). Further to this point, the creation of volition is the ultimate expression of infinite power given that the ultimate expression of power is moderation. Thus, only in a cosmology where volition exists, can there exist a God of infinite power. The upshot of volition is that responsibility for events is subject to control of those events, such that God may well be responsible for endowing meagre homo sapiens with free will, but in doing so, the responsibility for events controlled by humans is relinquished to humans.

The Determinists can argue that we are motivated primarily by our perceived survival, and thus no act is by our own volition. They can assert, for example; the martyr goes to his/her death to better survive in the next world, parents “love” their children because they are progeny, and human beings “love” one another because they expect some return be it in karma, social response, direct rewards, or heavenly recompense: IE Symbiosis. The whole system of ethics is an abstraction that has done much to advance our species. This and the evolution of ethical systems lays bare the apparent antinomy of the existence of love, volition, and God.

I would go so far as to suggest that the act of fasting is good evidence for volition, because ethically it is neither here nor there, and its harmful effects on the metabolism rule out its use for health benefits. Fasting is an act for many such as myself, which has no benefits: Neither here, nor in the hereafter. It is but an act demonstrating the power of the human being to make his/her own choices. However, I could be accused of having an emotional need to prove to myself that I am really making my decisions for myself and this act of fasting is but my pandering to my own emotions. On the other hand, it makes the food eaten at the breaking of the fast so much more pleasurable and so becomes an indulgence. Thus the choice becomes a matter of eat now or savour the moment later. Survival-wise, such a choice is neither here nor there, and therefore such a choice is independent of perceived survival issues. This is why I seriously doubt determinism. I also doubt that this goes very far towards solving the divine antinomy, but rather it is part of my experience.

Another example in this vein is why I choose to believe in God in spite of this antinomy: God is infinite, and has no need of my belief. Believing in God won’t save me. I choose to believe in God because I can go to my grave in relative peace. If I am wrong, I will never know for I will have been extinguished, but my last moments will have been more peaceful because of my mistake. This choice has no effect on perceived survival, although it could be argued that it is the fulfilment of an emotional need for comfort: The putting on of a blindfold to ward off the monsters, or burying my head in the sand in the belief that what I don’t see won’t hurt me. From the survivalist’s point of view, this is bad practice for obvious reasons. However, as death is inevitable, and no amount of knowledge will abolish this certainty, this choice to believe in God is pushed beyond the grasp of determinism by its very frivolity and utter irrelevance to the final material outcome.

Self awareness is possibly the best evidence for volition. The realisation that the image in the mirror is not another but the self, is in itself a choice that is hardly a perceived survival issue. It is a matter of frivolous curiosity that leads one to experiment with the creature in the mirror further than the friend/foe identification, until one is satisfied that it is not another mirroring ones behaviour. This would suggest that self-awareness is only possible as a result of volition. Once proven, volition in the context of history, proves the existence of love, and one could argue that if God is love, then God exists. The problem we run into here is that God and quite possibly love as well are infinitely complex concepts, and any finite proof thereof, attempts to constrain the infinite to a finite understanding. If God is infinite, then God is unknowable, or more specifically, unprovable to the finite mind. The implication of the above definition is that love is equally complex in nature. If the vast diversity of human expressions of love is anything to go by, this conclusion is not so surprising.

Is it not plausible that the antinomy of the existence of God makes possible the existence of belief (as opposed to knowledge), and this antinomy of the existence of God, is probably the best evidence in favour of the existence of God? After all, if God was common knowledge, there would be no choice to believe, no choice but to obey the Laws of God or face certain if not delayed consequences, and thus no free will - the creation of which is the ultimate exercise of infinite power. So in as far as the proof of the existence of God disproves His existence, discourses such as this are doomed to be full of paradox and contradiction. Could this be why some Buddhists focus on the koan – Possibly seeking a glimpse of the unknowable nature of God in paradox?

Some quotes from the Báhá’i Writings concerning issues raised by Free Will in Humans

Authoritarianism

If carried to excess, civilization will prove as prolific a source of evil as it had been of goodness when kept within the restraints of moderation.  Meditate on this, O people, and be not of them that wander distraught in the wilderness of error.  The day is approaching when its flame will devour the cities, when the Tongue of Grandeur will proclaim:  "The Kingdom is God's, the Almighty, the All-Praised!"

(Baha'u'llah:  Gleanings, Page: 343)

Rationalism & Epistemology

"Consider what it is that singles man out from among created beings, and makes of him a creature apart. Is it not his reasoning power, his intelligence? Shall he not make use of these in his study of religion? I say unto you: weigh carefully in the balance of reason and science everything that is presented to you as religion. If it passes this test, then accept it, for it is truth! If, however, it does not so conform, then reject it, for it is ignorance!"

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks, Page: 144)

"Furthermore, He [Baha'u'llah] proclaims that religion must be in harmony with science and reason. If it does not conform to science and reconcile with reason, it is superstition. Down to the present day it has been customary for man to accept a religious teaching, even though it was not in accord with human reason and judgment. The harmony of religious belief with reason is a new vista which Baha'u'llah has opened for the soul of man."

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Page: 455)

The problem is that by the time revelation reaches feeble human minds, it is but one of any number of possible interpretations. Once intolerance or schism has taken hold, there is no way to gauge the representative beliefs of a religion for a divided religion has no universally accepted authority.

FREE WILL

     Question. - Is man a free agent in all his actions, or is he compelled and constrained?

     Answer. - This question is one of the most important and abstruse of divine problems.  If God wills, another day, at the beginning of dinner, we will undertake the explanation of this subject in detail; now we will explain it briefly, in a few words, as follows.  Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man.  But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them.  But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

     For example, if he wishes, he can pass his time in praising God, or he can be occupied with other thoughts. He can be an enkindled light through the fire of the love of God, and a philanthropist loving the world, or he can be a hater of mankind, and engrossed with material things.  He can be just or cruel.  These actions and these deeds are subject to the control of the will of man himself; consequently, he is responsible for them.

     Now another question arises.  Man is absolutely helpless and dependent, since might and power belong especially to God.  Both exaltation and humiliation depend upon the good pleasure and the will of the Most High.

     It is said in the New Testament that God is like a potter who makes "one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour."(1) Now the dishonored vessel has no right to find fault with the potter saying, "Why did you not make me a precious cup, which is passed from hand to hand?"  The meaning of this verse is that the states of beings are different. That which is in the lowest state of existence, like the mineral, has no right to complain, saying, "O God, why have You not given me the vegetable perfections?"  In the same way, the plant has no right to complain that it has been deprived of the perfections of the animal world.  Also it is not befitting for the animal to complain of the want of the human perfections.  No, all these things are perfect in their own degree, and they must strive after the perfections of their own degree.  The inferior beings, as we have said, have neither the right to, nor the fitness for, the states of the superior perfections.  No, their progress must be in their own state.

     Also the inaction or the movement of man depend upon the assistance of God.  If he is not aided, he is not able to do either good or evil.  But when the help of existence comes from the Generous Lord, he is able to do both good and evil; but if the help is cut off, he remains absolutely helpless. This is why in the Holy Books they speak of the help and assistance of God.  So this condition is like that of a ship which is moved by the power of the wind or steam; if this power ceases, the ship cannot move at all.  Nevertheless, the rudder of the ship turns it to either side, and the power of the steam moves it in the desired direction.  If it is directed to the east, it goes to the east; or if it is directed to the west, it goes to the west.  This motion does not come from the ship; no, it comes from the wind or the steam.

     In the same way, in all the action or inaction of man, he receives power from the help of God; but the choice of good or evil belongs to the man himself.  So if a king should appoint someone to be the governor of a city, and should grant him the power of authority, and should show him the paths of justice and injustice according to the laws - if then this governor should commit injustice, although he should act by the authority and power of the king, the latter would be absolved from injustice.  But if he should act with justice, he would do it also through the authority of the king, who would be pleased and satisfied.

     That is to say, though the choice of good and evil belongs to man, under all circumstances he is dependent upon the sustaining help of life, which comes from the Omnipotent.  The Kingdom of God is very great, and all are captives in the grasp of His Power.  The servant cannot do anything by his own will; God is powerful, omnipotent, and the Helper of all beings.

     This question has become clearly explained.  Salutations!

(`Abdu'l-Baha:  Some Answered Questions, Pages: 248-250)

“Faith without works is dead”

[James 2:13] For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment.
[James 2:14] What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
[James 2:15] If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
[James 2:16] and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
[James 2:17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
[James 2:18] But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
[James 2:19] You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe -- and shudder.
[James 2:20] Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?
[James 2:21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
[James 2:22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
[James 2:23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God.
[James 2:24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
[James 2:25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
[James 2:26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.