The salient question for me seems to be a different one - what kind of world would we expect to see if there were gods? — Tom Storm

I was saying that an all good god would create some kind of utopia like these:

1) Schopenharian utopia. God could have created a world whereby there was no "need" for anything. All of creation was perfectly fulfilled in everyway so that it was like a nothingness Nirvana state of non-being. No lack of anything. No need for anything. This can only be imagined from afar, as we don't know what that really is as people living in a universe that is certainly not this state.

2) Common utopia. God could have created a world whereby we still had needs, but they could be met whenever we wanted. We could turn the dials to make it harder if we get bored, turn it back if we want to go back to easy mode. There is no suffering in the "want" sense of the word. We still "lack" but those desires can be fulfilled easily, without tension. Everyone is harmonious in their actions. There is no struggle.

But then here we come again to the "all too human" aspect that struggle is somehow "what makes us human and what makes life worth it". I contest this fully and wholeheartedly as being a gaslight-y kind of answer. That is to say, if you can't beat them, join them. That is to say, obviously, if we don't kill ourselves, we have to accept that this world with it's struggles has to be good enough. The struggles instead of being "an evil" are incorporated as "necessary" to make us "grow" or to make us "appreciate the good", etc. But what if these are just post-facto excuses for a less-optimal world that we cannot control? What if these are simply psychological justifications that we broadcast over and over the generations to make sure people don't get resentful? — schopenhauer1

[delete]

just the invitation to a self-pity party ? It's because I know -- especially from firstperson experience --- how bad life can be, that I can see that my torturers assigned by Dog must be on vacation. — plaque flag

I actually think catharsis is had with right perspective so bring on the party.

That's true. But there's lots of time and plenty of food to allow for the anticipation and remembering of suffering...not quite the same thing as the real stuff. — plaque flag

Classic case of suffering Olympics. I’m not falling for that trope.

Adaptation: we adapt to our circumstances, and if they worsen, our sense of well-being is lowered in anticipation of those harmful circumstances, according to our expectations, which are usually divorced from the reality of our circumstances.
Comparison: we judge our lives by comparing them to those of others, ignoring the negatives which affect everyone to focus on specific differences. And due to our optimism bias, we mostly compare ourselves to those worse off, to overestimate the value of our own well-being. — Benatar

I'm not sure "complexity" has to equal "amazing". We love to pat ourselves on the back, don't we? — schopenhauer1

Actually, I was patting Nature (or nature's god) on the back. Ourselves may not yet be ready for prime time*1. "Amazing" is an expression of value judgement, based on personal values. And personally, I am impressed by the glacially slow natural methods of world creation, as compared to the instantaneous creation by fiat of the Bible. What's amazing is not just complexity, but the quality of the intricate & balanced organization of the cosmic organism that emerged from the chaos of an omnidirectional Big Bang beginning.

Nature's enigmatic "values" --- or criteria for computation (replication) --- seem to be the fuzzy logic of Fitness Functions, rather than the mythical magical logic of instant perfection (paradise), followed by degradation by its own internal intelligent agents. On the other hand, computer scientists have recognized that natural evolution functions like a computer program which works toward some ultimate output. Some even describe its creative process as "amazing"*2, and have begun to emulate its counter-intuitive ingenious methods.

Cosmologist Max Tegmark has based his Mathematical World theory on the notion of natural evolution as a goal-directed program*3. Likewise, in place of traditional god-as-magician myths of 7-day creation, I think of the First Cause as an intentional Programmer, who selects criteria and sets algorithms, and then leaves the computer world alone to do its work of creation via evolution. Let's hope "ourselves" don't screw it all up with our artificial un-natural meddling.

This novel way of thinking about the ups & downs (goods vs evils ; fit vs unfit) of the gradually emerging world-system is just the reverse of Genesis. In the Hebrew myth, the world started in a perfect state, but then was corrupted by wrong choices made by the upright creatures chosen as robotic caretakers of Paradise. Evil entered the world when those zombie-like proto-humans surprisingly gained the independent power of FreeWill, due to the intervention of an evil god. And the rest, as they say, is history, red in tooth & claw : the savage conflict of competition for goods.

Now that upstart homo sapiens are beginning to meddle with the well-honed program of Nature, we learn the hard way that it ain't as easy as it seems to reach perfection --- a man-made Utopia remains an elusive dream. For example, medical science can artificially increase health & lifespan for a few, but at the expense of allowing "unfit" humans to replicate. What effect that will have on future generations remains to be seen. On a much faster time-scale, antibiotics have saved some lives, but the rules of natural evolution have quickly produced antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Meanwhile, the successes of technological evolution have inspired some to aspire to a Utopia of fleshless Artificial Intelligences, with natural humans left behind in the dust.

So no, I was not patting wise apes on the back, for their attempts to create heaven on Earth. The "amazing complexity" created by heuristic natural processes requires a delicate balance of good vs evil in order to maintain its progression toward a "better" world. But who is qualified to judge its betterness, us still-evolving apes or the original Programmer? When humanity learns how to define "Good", then ourselves may become the little gods of a real paradise. :smile:



*1. Humanity's Awesome, Terrifying Takeover of Evolution :
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-walter-isaacson.html
Note --- This article expresses some trepidation regarding the outcome of human-engineered linear evolution as compared to Nature's meandering methods. However, computer scientists have adopted the heuristic (trial & error) procedures of natural evolution in order to "design" solutions to problems that cannot be easily formulated into numerical values. In place of human selection of criteria it emulates the wisdom of natural selection.

*2. Amazing Evolution :
Amazing Evolution shines a light on this incredible process, from the beginnings of life around 3.8 billion years ago, to the millions of different species alive today, including the moon-walking, talking apes with super-powerful brains–human beings!
https://www.lindentreebooks.com/amazing-evolution.html

*3. Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), that uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Well said

I agree.

And on and on and hosanna — schopenhauer1

Unto the end… (I've been making musicals lately)