I have written a short essay on the topic both as a means of poking holes in one simple argument for God’s existence and to present a much more beautiful (to me, at least) reason to believe:

It is often said, by people perhaps not well-versed in probability, that if you put billions of monkeys at billions of typewriters, one of them would eventually and randomly reproduce the works of Shakespeare. The fallacy of this idea can easily be shown. Instead of the complete works of the bard, let’s consider a 500 word quote from one of his plays. 500 words, at an average of 6 letters per word with one space in between, is 500*7=3500 characters long (ignoring punctuation, of course). If a typewriter has about 50 keys, then there are 50^3500 possible combinations, a number so astoundingly large that it is, in effect, infinite. Even billions of billions of billions of monkeys couldn’t type a Hamlet soliloquy. There are so many random configurations of letters and spaces that those that actually make any sense are simple overwhelmed by those that don’t.

In arguing human origins and the existence of God, the typing monkeys are often used in support of two very different positions. Those who seek to “prove” evolution and the non-necessity of a creator, point out that we humans, and in fact all that we see in the universe are the result of random processes guided by the laws of nature. That is, the universe as we know it is the manuscript typed by 14 billion years of random interactions. On the other hand, those who seek to “prove” the existence and need for God point out that the probability of things existing as we know them is infinitesimal. We represent a highly unlikely state of being, a hence, something must have made us this way.

Both of these arguments have flaws. Together, however, they point in an intriguing direction. Those arguing for a divine creator must acknowledge what is known as the weak anthropic principle: “The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the universe be old enough for it to have already done so.” In other words: “We exist, so it should come as no surprise that we exist and that the universe created us.” Your own existence depends on some amazingly unlikely interactions of your ancestors, but that is no reason to assume that the ancestors were guided in these interactions so as to produce you. The other side, however, must not fail to acknowledge the possibility that our current existence is, in some way, quite special in a universal sense. That random processes in the universe can produce a rock, a star, a planet, or even a tree or fish may come as no surprise. But humans, and human intellectual products, are different. Einstein’s theory of relativity should not be viewed as a random object distinct from the universe which created it, like an atom. Instead, the body of physics (and theology, for that matter) is reflexive, seeking to declare some truth about the universe in which it exists.

An animal which, upon looking in a mirror, shows no recognition of itself lacks a basic level of self-consciousness. An animal which produces a clay model of itself and calls it “me,” on the other hand, might be said to have a high-level of self-consciousness. Likewise, a universe which produces, by random processes, a variety of physical objects and beings that never stop to consider its mysteries may not have any deeper meaning. As the weak anthropic principle would point out, if it does exist that way, so the random processes that produced it should not come as a surprise. But, a universe like our own, in which we humans (and perhaps others?) ponder, think, look in wonder, and produce scientific and theological works about the nature of the universe points to a level of self-consciousness in the universe. It suggests that our existence marks a physical state which transcends randomness and imbues our us and the universe with a deeper meaning. It offers the possibility that we exist in the universe so that we may try to understand the universe. It also hints at the Divine.

(Feedback always appreciated)

But anyhow, a few quick notes.

Uppity Shiksa: So sorry! I didn’t realize CK would inflict his hatred for the police on you. But take this as a warning. If you don’t behave, I’ll sick RUSH on jewlicious and try to live through CK humming that!

CK: Yes, that was a fine conversation. Your point is well taken; but I still think the free will defense is a non-starter. Like I said then, the real thrust of the argument is to establish that bad things happen and that they need not happen. Some of those things are not caused by our free will. So even if we allow all the evil that is caused by free will to be off limits to divine intervention, that leaves all the non-free will related bad things to contend with. And, we all know, there is a lot of that.

Having said that, your point can also be turned against you. Many people live lives where there range of options is fairly limited. People in famine areas don’t tend to have a lot of options at their disposal. Does this mean that God is robbing them of the free will he could be giving them? And why don’t they get the sort of free will we get? (i.e. if lack of real choice is tantamount to lack of free will, it looks like free will is not a reality for many many people…)

Janice: I’m afraid that my dissertation is leading me, if all goes well, straight back into the ivory towers. I don’t really think I’ve been brainwashed; but then again, no brainwashed person ever tends to think that they have been brainwashed. Pardon the endless pontificating. I’ll shut up now.

As far as Hashem goes, well… I LOVE HASHEM! I even have a t-shirt that sez so!

There is something just too weird about this scenario. A G_d who professes to love his weak and faulty creations only to leave them to their own devices for life, to be judged by him only at the end for the human mistakes he wired us to make? The results being heavenly bliss or hell fire and brimstone forever? Naah!

I can’t deny the existence of G_d and don’t want too actually.
I want to believe G_d is the good spirit of love empathy and compassion in us that keeps us from making the mistakes of hate, selfishness and jealousy.

I think you will get your more heavenly or hellish life right here on earth to the degree your G_od behavior dominates over your ‘mistake’n behaviors. I don’t live my life in pursuit of a promised after life, nor the least bit intimidated by the threat of the alternative. ‘What you sow so shall you reap’ for sure in this life. Maybe in an after, but who knows or should care.

So, nuts to you and your uncultivated ear, CK!

Oh, um, to keep this on topic: Hashem rules, yo!

Nevertheless, I want to say that I think the Muffti has been brainwashed by academia into thinking that he can endlessly pontificate about the existence of a “timeless” and “endless” being. Truthfully Muffti, you have produced enough material in your Jewlicious posts and comments to create a dissertation and get out of the ivory tower and into the real world.

And btw — the Police and Sting have made very good music over the years, ck. You just haven’t been listening carefully enough.

We had this argument minutes after you posted. You are saying that the freedom to choose does not have to entail a choice between something good and something bad. Your original point had something to do with a comely brunette and blonde… but I digress. If you are systematically deprived of the ability to make a possibly wrong choice then you are not really choosing at all. If all your options are designed to be good then what need do you have for Judgement, preference whatever? In your scenario a decision based on a coin toss will result in the same end as a decision based on a well thought out choice and / or preference.

So lets apply this to G_d as say a benevolent parent. The parent allows their child to choose which school it will go to. In scenario 1, the parents present the child with say 3 options, all of which are fine private schools that will fast track junior to an ivy league college and a fine professional carreer. Scenario 2, the parents allow junior to choose from any school, private elite institutions, alternative education schools, public schools whatever. In Scenario 2 Junior has a real choice to make and he can make a good choice or a bad one (ie choose schools based on the availability of good drugs and loose hot women…). In scenario 1, junior really has only the illusion of choice as all imprudent alternatives have been eliminated by the parents.

Life is thus all about free will and the ability to make a good decision or a bad decision or something in between. Sadly we sometimes choose evil as well, but a G_d that takes those choices away from us is not really letting us live. Also, a G_d that prevents me from moving around as I like and living in places prone to crappy things like plagues and earthquakes is also not letting me live. This does not make G_d a bad dude, just an entity that has created life and has allowed said life to live however it sees fit, regardless of the consequences. There is no middle ground here – either their is free will and the concomittant hazards that that implies, or we are all just glorified puppets. G_d did not create puppets. G_d created life.

Damn I wish I had saved that IM conversation… remeber how we discussed how if you have 1000 spontaneous orgasms a day, then the joy of orgasms sort of diminishes. You need lack of good, or evil, to appreciate good – can’t fully appreciate the peaks till you’ve been to the valleys…. Yes, I am in fact saying that the existence of bad stuff and even evil is a necessary prerequisite for life.

What is a Jewish God? What is an Israelite God? What is a Christian or a Greek God?