The Fading Out of Objective Truth / Part III

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.                                                         — Winston Churchill

Hopefully even in the present United States education system, by middle school, students learn the old school lesson that the United States though called a democracy is not and was never intended to be a democracy — unless perhaps if by “democracy” one means its old school classical definition that includes a republic such as the Spartan and Roman Republics. What it was intended to be are open questions. The best description of the present reality of United States political culture and of its foreseeable future in Technological Society is to call it a “capitalist anarchy”. In United States Technological Society, the political culture consists of two systems: 1) the economic and technological system operated by CEOs, CFOs, other corporate officers, corporate boards, investment bankers, and their politicians, lawyers, propagandists, bankers, and academics using plantations of wage slaves through quantitative methods to generate monetary material power and then 2) there are a bunch of politicians and their technocrats, lawyers, propagandists, and academics that are jealous of the capitalist powers but too mathematically incompetent to join them so they achieve power by acting as overseers keeping peace between the capitalists and their wage slaves. This is analogous to Orwell’s distinction between the Inner and Outer Party and on a more practical level exemplifies Putt’s Law and Putt’s Corollary in action in Technological Society creating a distinction between technicians and the Powers and technocrats that rule them. The holistic whole of this capitalist anarchy is supposed to result in achieving the actual technical work of human physical survival while allowing for the qualitative human freedom to seek meaning in life. At present the politicians are in denial as to their purpose in Technological Society and are in anarchy with almost none of them having a clue as to what they are doing or supposed to be doing; they know only that they need to stay in power regardless of what they do with that power and thus are full-time running around trying to win elections from voters who have even less of a clue as to what they or the politicians are supposed to be doing or of the substantive results of their votes.  However, eventually, this anarchy among the politicians will smooth itself out and the two branches of the Party will learn to work together openly and explicitly — which is not good. An anarchic struggle that causes some difficulty for the Powers is better than no difficulty at all. How would my veils of ignorance work on trying to deal with this present political culture of capitalist anarchy in the United States “democracy”?

The nihilist has no reason to fear capitalism or anarchy. Their only fear or more accurately the only political hate of a nihilist toward capitalist anarchy would be a situation of no struggle between the capitalist and the political anarchy of present capitalist anarchy because the lack of struggle would negate the only check stopping absolute power for the Powers. Nihilism knows that struggle is life.  As I have written many times, there are plenty of concepts and techniques by which knowledgeable politicians can deal with capitalism so as to achieve a viable society that maximizes both material prosperity and individual freedom with capitalism or with any such technocratic system struggling to achieve quantitative power over reality. Examples of such concepts and techniques with some hidden in humor are: The Peter Principle, Parkinson’s Law; Negative Selection in Politics; The Dunning-Kruger Effect; and even the humorous concepts of systems engineering written in books such as The Systems Bible by John Gall. The problem of viability occurs when systems of social power are not in struggle with other equally powerful systems of power thus allowing for the Party’s ultimate secular religion of the law to become our god having a monopoly on violence to achieve power as an end in itself. Anarchy by its anarchic nature acts as a check upon the Powers of capitalism in a capitalist anarchy and thus acts as a means to maintain struggle among the Powers and this in turn allows us to struggle with them.  However, this anarchy will disappear as every normative system in Western Civilization either religious (including Christianity) or secular has surrendered itself to the secular religion that is the law and its Powers. We the workers need either anarchy on both sides of our capitalist anarchy — both capitalist and political — or both sides need to have a rational acknowledgment of their purpose to oppose and struggle with the other so as to allow our class struggle to continue with the Powers.

Because of the nature of capitalism, achieving anarchy on both aspects of our capitalist anarchy is not possible conceptually or practically. The Powers of capitalism do not seek normative evaluation or perspective goals as their primary means for power — these come later as a means to keep power. Their primary goals are quantitative: material wealth and power. They work together using orderly and quantitative techniques to achieve this wealth and power. Any flaws in their techniques do not lead to anarchy but the exact opposite: hierarchical rigidity. At this point, thanks supposedly to competition in a free market, competitors that are less rigid and hierarchical and more creative will take over the market and the cycle continues. Regardless of how practically true this conceptualization of capitalism may be, my point is that even if it is entirely wrong, the end result is not anarchy but a technocracy wasting capital on recycling stagnant projects for the benefit of a few corporations, trusts, or whatever legal entities come to legally dominant the worshiped “market”; if the so-called market does not give power to new competitors, the old remain permanent and we get not anarchy but tyranny.

Our only nihilist option for protecting individual freedom and class struggle in our present capitalist anarchy form of democracy is to try to get the political aspect of our capitalist anarchy out of anarchy and into becoming a formidable equal force and check upon the capitalist aspect in order to avoid their coming together eventually to create a world in their image eliminating class struggle. How would my two veils of ignorance original position technique work on this problem?
My proposed veils of ignorance as an original position for making normative decisions in a capitalist anarchy become an issue on various levels but none of them lead to anarchy in the capitalist aspect of capitalist anarchy. One can argue that present United States capitalism is a dishonest form of capitalism because it is controlled by too many large corporations distorting and controlling market forces. That may be true but, again, regardless, capitalist theory at least acknowledges the soundness and validity of my proposed veils of ignorance as a technique; that is, capitalist theory wants struggle in the form of competition and opposes restricting and distorting struggle for the benefit of a few to create a world in their image as an end in itself. The goal of capitalist theory is descriptive and quantitative: to make money by controlling reality. Thus, from my original position of ignorance, I can choose the options that make the most money and act upon them as a means to control reality for my individual life. It does not matter to the capitalist portion of my our capitalist anarchy nor to the capitalist me whether it or I are making money off of democracy, tyranny, anarchy, or whatever — unless there is evidence one has more economic opportunity for making money from one than the other, they are all equal options.

Such is not true of the political anarchy side of our capitalist anarchy. The goals and political choices marketed in our capitalist anarchy are normative not descriptive nor even quantitative: to foster and spread democracy and equality of opportunity for all — whatever that means. However, the reality of these human constructs and of the Heart of Darkness within all of us that controls these choices is that the real goal is to seek power for ourselves and for the Powers to seek power for themselves. Increasing power for those who seek power to foster and spread democracy in a capitalist anarchy will eventually always reduce and negate the fostering and spreading of democracy. Here, my proposed veil of ignorance would require we act counter to democratic beliefs. It is only by believing in what will achieve democratic power and then by taking the opposite action can we control the Powers that seek and have power even in a democracy solely as an end-in-itself endangering my individual meaning and power for life.

Thus, because at present the Powers advocate and we believe in our capitalist anarchy that in a democracy all voters ought to be equal; all ought to have universal suffrage; and all politicians ought to be elected by majority vote; then we ought to act to achieve the opposite. The opposite acts would be to have required qualifications for both voters and politicians (i.e., education or military service requirements); limit voting to certain classes of voters voting for certain classes of politicians ( i.e., Congress should have a certain number of physicists but only physicists can vote for them); and to have politicians elected based upon diverse voting methods varying from random picks to specifically required qualified politicians ( i.e., science degrees or other specific degrees as needed for the problems of the times at issue.)

The details need to be worked out. The bottomline is that the capitalist anarchy form of democracy we now have in which the only struggle in political culture is between an anarchy of clueless politicians whose only skill is getting elected and a disciplined culture of capitalists is destined to failure and will lead to no struggle and thus tyranny that will then eliminate class struggle. Based on an original position of two veils of ignorance, in order to save democracy, we must be non-democratic at some times. Eventually, the situation will reverse requiring us to go the opposite way. (A possible option is to consider adopting the old school concept of a jubilee year; every 50 years, all laws are abrogated and must be renewed or adopted again.) Nihilists must and can never be static if nihilism is to give meaning to life, it will always be a dynamic struggle.

Race and Class: A View from the Bottom Up

I have not posted any essays for a few months while writing a book. The book is now available at: They Hate if You’re Clever and Despise A Fool and at the bottom page of Selected Essays/Podcasts.

This book is a conceptual analysis of race and class. It begins as a contemplation of my personal life experience with both varying from my white trash emigrant beginnings to my Ivy League education. It then goes on to an analytic contemplation of the past meanings of race and class, their present use and usefulness, and the future use and usefulness of these concepts. I argue that social class distinctions are a necessary attribute of any modern Technological Society just as they have always been a necessary aspect of all past civilizations. The only new attribute of class struggle that Technological Society creates is its ability to isolate individuals in the lower classes from any social bonding with others in their class and thus potentially ending class struggle and making present ruling class ideology permanent resulting in the death of history. However, the death of history is not the end of history. I argue that such death may not be a bad thing given the material benefits and power Technological Society creates for humanity’s need to explore, discover, and conquer the universe. I argue that race distinctions will continue to be used and be usefulness as a means to maintain class distinctions and as a business model for profit. In modern Technological Society, the humanities act solely as a means for normative power. Distinctions such as race serve both as a means to keep individuals in the lower classes isolated and unable to struggle together and as a means for monetary profit by those humanities holding normative power.

Why does God hate the Poor: The Answer

I have finally reached the point of being able to answer the question that I am asking: why does God hate the poor? I have defined the nature of the God of the ontological proof and contemplated the issues that come up when trying to understand why He hates the poor. I have either resolved those issues or defined them as necessary so that I can answer the question.

 
The answer as to why God hates the poor turns out to be very simple, and it goes right back to the ontological nature of the God of our contemplation as the reason there is something instead of nothing. He hates the poor because He can. He is the ultimate power and can do whatever He wants. In fact, since She acts by necessity, She must do whatever She wants. If you could choose your acts and had the power to do whatever you want, you would choose to exercise the power to do whatever you want. God acts by necessity, not from incompleteness requiring choice. He is what He is and can be.

 
It sounds as if we are getting into matters of which one cannot speak logically and wherefore one should be silent. Given the importance of this issue and the time spent on contemplating it, I want to keep in mind that logic is not the end-all tool for truth and illusion. The logical mind is creative and imaginative and can use fictional analogy as a means to reach truth and illusion when logic reaches its endpoint for either. Through logic’s creativity and imagination, I want to clarify my answer to the question I am asking by going back to the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard and my card-game analogy. The Parable is a good description of my answer to the question except for two facts: 1) it describes an agreement between God and the workers; 2) the Parable assumes free will.

 

The Parable justifies God’s hate of the workers who worked all day for him by saying they were offered a deal to work all day for a denarius, accepted the deal, got the deal, and therefore have nothing to complain about. That is not a true analogy of life, especially not for the workers of the world. God, the vineyard owner, not only creates the vineyard and similarly the cards of the game of life but also created the workers, players, pay, ante, vineyard, game, and the work needed to be done and knows better than anyone the hands or the work at the end of the day. He designed the pay scale and odds so that only a small percentage of people will win at the expense of many others, and He knows who the winners will be and who the losers will be. To say that the workers freely made an agreement, contract, deal, or whatever, or that they knew they were making a contract, deal, agreement, or whatever is an absurdity. It is outright deceit and dishonesty that shows theology and Christianity at its worst. If the workers had known that God would be paying the same amount to the workers who did nothing all day, they would have waited until then to accept an offer to work. The fact is that they did not know what He would do until He actually did what He did. They could not know it because He can randomly do whatever He wants, whenever He wants.

 

Free will to deal with God, if it exists, is reserved for those few with the power to enter into contracts with God, not for the poor who can not or have only an “I live or I die” choice to accept the power of God and His work in His vineyard.

 
That is why I am asking this question in the first place. The choice to work in a vineyard or not to work is an “I live or I die” choice for workers. If this is how Christian theology, or any theology, defines free will then maybe there is free will for workers but otherwise there is none. More likely, free will does not exist in making a choice to live or die but only in accepting or rebelling against your destiny and fate in life. There is no reason, justification, or any rational basis for God’s hatred of the poor — it is simply an exercise of pure power — and thus we can accept it on the same nihilistic basis or rebel against it through our own nihilism. God is the ultimate nihilist, but workers can at least be nihilists in our rejection of God’s nihilism when we finally know of it. As Spinoza argued, knowledge that we are not free is the ultimate freedom.

 
George Orwell ends 1984 with the character Winston ending his “self-willed exile from the loving breast” and accepts death not with rebellion but with tears realizing, “[i]t is all right. Everything was all right. The struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.” The Powers-that-be try to make power seem to be some kind of inhuman evil to be avoided. It is similar to those people with a lot of money saying money is not everything or does not buy you happiness. It is the essence of humanity to seek power but such search is seeking for God. This is true of all reality — organic or inorganic, matter or energy, or whatever fiction is used to describe and try to control reality. The search for power is the search for God, either to be with God or to become a god. And it cannot be avoided if we are living humans. If the New Testament ended at the crucifixion, there would be no Christianity and no Christian saints who reject all worldly power. It ends with the power of the Resurrection: The promise of unity with the ultimate Power of this and all worlds.

 
I have answered the question at issue, in large part but not completely. When I started this contemplation, part of my questioning was what do we do with the answer? Given God’s hatred of the poor, what do we the workers do about it, if anything? What should God be doing about it, if anything? In the presence of the indifference of the universe, what difference does the answer make? Paraphrasing Dostoevsky and Camus, should we accept the hope of a reward from God of happiness as compensation for a single moment of human suffering? Or, as the ultimate act of human power against the random power of God, should we spit in His face and reject God and thus become a god ourselves — not by being the reason for there being something instead of nothing as God is, but by being the reason for there being nothing instead of something. Nietzsche ridiculed that humans rather wish for nothing than not wish at all. What is the ultimate victory over the hate of the universe to our existence: to accept our fate and be free through the knowledge we are not free; to wish for nothing though we do not control satisfaction of the wish; or to stop the wishing?

 
This is not an ethical question that can be answered by society. Society, controlled by the Powers-that-be, will always choose the power of wishing. Essentially, the Powers will always choose to continue their Power over others in a search for power as an end in itself — this is how they find the God that loves them. Ethics is a set of rules created by those in power to stay in power. This remaining issue of what to do about the reason for God’s hatred of the poor is a moral question, to be answered by any individual who can ask it. This moral question has its own unique set of problems that I need to contemplate.

Why does God hate the Poor: Who Are the Hated Poor? Part II

According to Christians, by reference to such concepts as the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes, they argue that their God of the Trinity through its Second Person Jesus Christ as human may have the option to hate but has always chosen and will always choose to love humanity because He is one of us. He needs the Third Person of the Trinity the Holy Spirit to act with the God of the ontological proof that I am contemplating. It may be that the entire concept of the Trinity was created by Christian Theologians to deal with the question of hate by the God of the ontological proof. This serves as a final exemplification of my concept of the poor in my question at issue.

 

As usual, Christian arguments — as with any religious, ethical, or moral argument — depend on a careful picking of dogma and, for Christianity, of biblical passages while ignoring others. Because it exemplifies God’s hate of the poor, one of my favorite biblical passages is Matthew 20:1-16 known as “The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard”. This Parable goes as follows:

For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

About nine in the morning, He went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, “You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.” So they went.

 
He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. About five in the afternoon, He went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, “Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?” “Because no one has hired us,” they answered. He said to them, “You also go and work in my vineyard.”

 
When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, “Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.” The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those who came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landlord. “Those who were hired last worked only for one hour,” they said, “and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work in the heat of the day.”

 
But he answered one of them, “I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?”

 

In this Parable, the Jesus Christ Person of the Trinity admits to the hateful nature of God and sees no problem with it. God as the vineyard owner is being an unjust, unfair, and hateful boss to the workers who spent all day working hard for Him in the hot sun, but according to God, so what? It is His vineyard and His money. He can do whatever He wants with it — which is true. What is funny or sad about this Parable is that this portion of it admitting that even the New Testament God is unjust, unfair, and hateful is ignored by accusations of “envy” against the workers who simply wanted a fair distribution basis of equal pay for equal work for their wage slavery to the vineyard owner. Usually this Parable is taken as a lesson against envy: the workers who worked all day and expected to be paid based on the work done for their work were envious of those who got paid the same for doing less work.  This is envy?

 

Maybe they are envious, so what? They should be envious. Is it envy for the vineyard owner to want as much money or more money for his grapes than those of the other vineyard owners? No. Is it envy for the vineyard owner to try to maximize the profit of his vineyard so that it makes as much or more than the other vineyards? No. Is not envy, greed, and a will-to-power some of the necessary foundation motivations of capitalism, the best economic system that we have available at the present time? Is not envy such as is exhibited by the vineyard workers what gave workers in history the aggression to form unions and fight for a fair distribution of wages giving us such benefits as the 40 hour week and weekends (that we are gradually losing as we lose unions)? If it is envy to want equal pay for equal work, then I do not see how envy is much of a sin. Why does the Parable only lecture the poor about envy as a vice? It would be a waste to lecture the vineyard owner for owning more land than he and his family can work; civilized society would break down if such excessive ownership were to be a vice.

 
If Christians are going to argue the Trinity as a way to get God’s love back into the card game of reality, one must also have to admit that it may be the Trinity is the reason why the love of God was out of the card game in the first place. If God was really just one Being and reality is pantheistic with this Being, we would all by necessity know equally all of His love. Since He is not but includes supposedly a human Person, this human Person may be the means by which God stays out of the card game of life. Regardless, this is a side issue, and we’re definitely getting into areas whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent and getting away from my question of why God hates the poor. Again, He is God. He can do whatever He wants — as the Parable of the Workers admits. If He wanted, He could have started all the workers at the same time. He could have created shift work so all the workers worked the same amount of hours. He could have created some kind of pay system where everyone gets equal pay for equal work. As an all-powerful God, there are an infinite number of things He could have done. He did what He did, and does what God does. At least in our reality, He clearly hates the poor and treats some who live in this reality different, better or worse, than others. Whether there are possible worlds with different realities is a question beyond this blog.

 
I seem to have reached a point at which I should be finally able to answer the question. I have contemplated the ontological nature of God — Her relationship to justice, fairness, morality, ethics, good, evil, love and hate. Time for an answer.

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Does He Will This Hate?

Why does God hate the poor? Does he will His hate of the poor?

 
Almost universally among continental philosophers, they see the human will as the driving force of human nature. Among many it is also the driving force and even the substance and essence of reality. For example, the idealism of Hegel with its dialectical logic of the spirit of history eventually became both the world concept of the fascists and the material class struggle of the communists. For Schopenhaurer, man’s will was the substance and driving force of reality. For Friedrich Nietzsche, it was the will to power that was a driving force of nature and humanity. Even the leap of faith that is the basis for Kierkegaard’s Christian theology was a leap of the will. Existentialism depends on the will to give meaning to the meaninglessness of the universe in which existence comes before essence. However, other than the concept of ethics, there is probably no word that is more distorted and practically meaningless in the working class perspective of life — which is the perspective of these essays and this blog.

 
The word “will” as it is usually used and for which it is useful and therefore as is its meaning cannot be applied to God. Theological talk treating the will of God and free will as if they were the same type of word is one of the biggest cons by theology on the poor and the working class. To will something requires one lacks it and wants it. God is omnipresent, all powerful, and the source of what there is instead of nothing. He needs nothing. He is complete and whole, always was, is, and will be. Therefore, this meaning of will cannot be applied to God as an omnipresent all-powerful being because She does not need anything.

 
“Will” however also describes wanting to continue. At least for the moment, I am alive and want to continue living instead of committing suicide. This existential reality is different from wanting something such as meaning for my existence: the will that leads to hope. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, hope is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.

 
However, at least this concept of will involving only existence does not entail lacking something and therefore, at least in theory, can be applied to God. Or can it? If God exists and continues to will his existence, such implies that He could commit suicide by not willing to exist. Ontologically, this seems to be a possibility. God got the poker game of the universe going but do we need Her around any longer to continue its existence? He is the reason there is something instead of nothing, but now that there is something, does the something need Him to continue? The Dealer calls the game but can we now change the dealer?

 
We are forgetting in this paradox our philosophy of language reality and getting caught up in our own words. These questions ignore the ontology that we are talking about because they assume or imply God acting in time. We exist. We continue to will our existence. One day we may not exist. We exist in time. Time is our relative perception of the possibilities around us and their coming to life around us. God does not exist in time. He is omnipresent by the definition of the concept of God, that is why we have the ontological proof for Her existence. The something that is now includes time because we our conscious of it and perceive it and thus create changing relationships based on our needs, but God has no needs and is the source of time and therefore is outside of time. By the definition of God, if She existed in time then we would have to ask why is there this something god in time instead of nothing. That would lead us again by necessity to the reason there is something instead of nothing: God — outside of time. Time is a meaningless word when applied to God.

 
Everything is a “now” to the God of the ontological proof — there is no past or future. The concept of will only applies nominally to God in the sense that He is the reason there is something instead of nothing. He wills the something and continues it by definition. But this use of “will” is not will in the sense of a choice. A choice would mean that God has options between one thing or another, that He is incomplete in some way, that He exists in time in some way. Only incomplete beings have options or choices because they are incomplete. That is not ontologically possible for the concept of God. As the ontological proof goes, God is the perfect omnipotent omniscient originator of the universe, the reason why there is something instead of nothing. There is nothing God lacks requiring a will for it. God does not exist in time, so He cannot will existing now and not later or vice versa. Thus, whether He wills the poor and His hatred for them are meaningless questions that only apply nominally to the question we are asking. Nominally, God does will the poor and His hatred of them in the same way that He wills all creation: by necessity.

 
In summary, we have reached a point of having numerous answers. In our contemplation of the question of why God hates the poor, we know that God knows and thinks about the poor and His hatred for them in an analytical completely ontological sense and wills it in the sense that His will is also his existence and by necessity the existence of something instead of nothing. The poor and His hatred of them are a necessary part of the something for which He is the reason that exists. Also we have been able to conclude that neither justice, morality, ethics, or fairness bars such hatred of the poor. The poor and God’s hate of them exists necessarily but why? Why not love them necessarily?

 
Before we go further to answer the question of why, there is the question of hatred itself. What does hate mean? Does God hate in the same way we hate? Does God love in the same way we love? Could He love the poor instead of hating them and treating them in the way He does? These will be our final questions on this issue.

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Does He Know and Think About This Hate?

Why does God hate the poor? Does God know He hates the poor and does He think about it? As we contemplate the issue of God’s hate for the poor, you must continually remember and keep in mind what our concept is of God. It is the God of the ontological proof: God is the answer to the question of why there is something instead of nothing.

 
As shown by Descartes, other than the knowledge of our own existence while conscious of it and the ontological existence of God, we have no rational knowledge we can call truth as that word is classically and usually defined: knowledge about the world that is indisputable in all possible worlds. All rational truths are pragmatic and the word “true” is merely a “syncategorematic term” as called by the Scholastics as the philosopher Hilary Putnam sarcastically calls it. For example, saying “it is true the car is green” does nothing to the sentence “the car is green” other than allowing us to transition from talking about green cars to talking about sentences about green cars. Twentieth Century philosophy has successfully shown that the old distinction between synthetic and analytic truths in reason is no longer valid nor sound. All rational knowledge is ultimately synthetic. That is, its initial foundation is in our consciousness and perception plus our sense experience interaction with the world and our intentional synthesis of the struggle between these two forces.

 
This is even true of mathematics that used to be considered an example of undisputed analytical truth that is true in all possible worlds. Despite the protests of rationalists and idealists and of philosophers and most mathematicians who say they discover mathematical truth independently of the world, the reality is that no one discovers or has discovered mathematical truth a priori or simply by thinking about it without sense experience interaction with the world as a foundation for that discovery. Geometry came into being as a result of the need for ancient Egypt, Samaria, and other ancient cultures’ need to measure and describe land for tax and sale purposes. Algebra came into existence based on a need for traders on the spice routes to keep track of their accounts. Reason is a tool for solving perceived problems. Once this tool develops basic rules for solving problems, through induction and deduction or other logic, it can derive an infinite number of variations and inferences from those premise rules to become analytic knowledge or tautologies that are true in all possible worlds once the initial premises are accepted. But such does not change the initial synthetic nature of that knowledge that can change if the assumed premises are changed.

 
Reason is the mind’s tool for solving problems. Truth and knowledge only exist pragmatically. If a statement works to solve a problem, it is true until it stops working, at that point it becomes false. Scientific statements can only be proven false but never true. That is why they are scientific statements instead of statements in practically any other field that are never proven either true or false.

 
However, reason is not the only possible source for knowledge. We know it is not because reason contradicts itself when it makes a statement as I just have that it is absolutely true that all truth is relative. By stating such a conclusion, reason states there is absolute truth and contradicts itself. Reason, unless dealing with pragmatic truth, always winds up contradicting itself and therefore proves it cannot achieve knowledge of any truths other than pragmatic truths. We exist, therefore we think. Once we know we exist, then through the ontological nature of such existence we know God exists: a reason for there being something instead of nothing. What about God? Does He know things in the same way we do, purely by interaction with the world and the need to solve problems caused by that interaction? Does She exist, therefore She thinks? Does She reason to solve problems while thinking of Herself and while perceiving reality?

 
We cannot ontologically apply the meaning of the word consciousness to God in the same way that we apply it to ourselves or to the animal world or to any life. We are not a necessary being that is the reason for there being something instead of nothing. He is. God is. We exist, therefore we think, because we may not have existed before and we may not exist later. It is possible that we think while not conscious of existing. For example, we know there exists something we call subconscious thought that we cannot talk about. Is a misnomer to call it “subconscious thought”. Since we cannot talk about it, it is not really thought. Thought and language are the same thing. “When I think in words, I don’t have ‘meanings’ in my mind in addition to the verbal expressions, language itself is the vehicle of thought.” — Ludwig Wittgenstein. It is simply one of those things “whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent” of Wittgenstein. However, we never are silent and always try to talk about it anyway because it is so important in life. Without talk, we know it by action. It is often pragmatically better and faster than conscious thought, such as when athletes go into the zone and become the ball or whatever they are doing or when mathematicians come up with intuitive creative proofs out of apparent nothingness.

 
However, for us to know we exist, we must first exist. This is not the state of affairs of God. His existence and knowledge of His existence cannot be separated. Otherwise, He would be in the same position or in the same state of affairs as us and will need a reason for existing instead of not existing — which would be God. So for humans, the knowledge or absolute truth we have is that if we exist then we think, that is, the logical statement if a then b. For God, knowledge is simply the principle of identity. Existence equals thought, a = a. Unlike for us, in which all knowledge is synthetic, God’s knowledge and thought are all analytic.

 
The best way to view this problem is to go back to our earlier poker game example. Reality is a poker game in which God created the cards, bets, ante, game rules, and thus all the probabilities and created the players and then let things play out. In substance, He is not the game and does not control the outcome, though in essence He is the game because He can do or He can think all the probabilities and knows how the players will play and thus the winners and losers and the eventual outcome. The players are desperately trying to figure out what hands will be played but never can figure it all out. That is why life is a gamble. The players are in the game therefore they think synthetically. They induce and deduce to try to win as they are destined to try to do. Meanwhile, from the first ante, God standing outside the game knows every hand and outcome because He can analytically figure them out. He knows it all while simultaneously the entire time the players are ignorant of the outcome.

 

This concept is beautifully expressed in the prologue to the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God.” Logos is the word from which we derive our word logic. In some translations, Logos is written down as “Word”, “Word” is used for Logos. Either way, whether you use Logos or Word, this prologue is consistent with our ontological proof for the existence of God and is a beautiful shorthand expression of it.

 
So does God know He hates the poor? Yes. Does God think about hating the poor? Yes, in the sense that He knows about everything. Knowledge and thought are the same with God, always analytic and tautological in the mind of God.

 
The next question is the Will of God, the Will of God is something that religion is always talking about. Does God will His hate for the poor?

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Is God Moral?

If I thought of God as another being like myself, outside myself, only infinitely more powerful, then I would regard it as my duty to defy him.
— Ludwig Wittgenstein

Is god moral? To contemplate this question, we must have some agreement on the meaning of the words “morality” and of “God”. For simplicity, I will usually use the classical “He” to reference God since I lose track of the present fad of grammatically cycling between “She” and “He” and  because “It” seems to lessen the seriousness of my contemplation. Personally, I do not care whether God is a He, She, or Whatever.

 
I submit the meaning of the word “God” is probably easier to agree upon existentially. We have to contemplate this question in the same way one would contemplate the ontological proof of God: from the perspective of the word “God”, that is of our definition and understanding of the existential meaning of the word “God”. Whatever meaning that word has for anyone regardless of whether they are a theist or an atheist or anything in between, its one necessary and universal attribute would be that the word “God” by definition means the reason for their being something instead of nothing — this is true even of a pantheistic version of God in which the universe and its existence occurs by necessity or simply by luck through the workings of universal scientific empirical laws and thus these laws are your God. Agnosticism is not rational; since this is a rational contemplation, I am not dealing with agnosticism. I am therefore I think — I think in particular and especially about my existence. If I think then I think of the reason for there being something instead of nothing including there being me. It is irrational, delusional, and cowardly to fail to take a position on the reason I or anything exists.

 
For morality, the only attribute for its meaning that is universally agreed upon is that it is an act of will. It is an act of will giving meaning to a meaningless universe. That we “will” may be an illusion and the choices we make pre-destined or pre-determined by empirical material reality but even if such is true, all moral, immoral, and amoral choices would still be called and are acts of will or choices — free or not. Morally, immorally, and even amorally, even if I am pre-determined or pre-destined to be something, I can still reject that something. If there is no free will other than the illusion of freedom, such rejection will only be nominal and a fight I cannot ever hope to win but it is still there as a choice and a powerful one at least existentially if not for anything else. It is a choice that will define me and give meaning to the meaninglessness of my life even if it is a predestined or predetermined life because morality as the absurd hero Meursault of Albert Camus’s The Stranger finally realized as he faced the gallows is “opening [one’s] heart to the benign indifference of the universe” and willing to give its meaninglessness meaning. There is a large existential difference between accepting one’s fate and fighting against it — even if the fight is destined to end in loss. Remember the last words of Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus; as Sisyphus looked down and contemplated his meaningless task and became conscious of his wretched condition, in this tragic moment he realized “[t]he struggle itself […] is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy”.  (For a more detailed analytic contemplation of the meaning of the words “free will”, please see Wittgenstein on the ‘Illusion’ of Free Will.)

 
As contemplated earlier, ethics, good, and evil are meaningless when discussing God. But what about morality? Despite His necessary nature, does it make sense to talk about God making moral, immoral, or amoral choices? Or, as Socrates asked, is something moral because God wants it or does She want it because it is moral? If the reason for there being something instead of nothing is simply the universe and you are an atheist or your God is pantheistic, it makes no sense to apply any concept of morality to God — the universe simply is, its meaning is to exist. Its existence precedes its essence and precedes language and thus any wordgame of morality. What if you have a personal God such as the Christian God Who is a Being? He is an infinite, omnipresent, and all-powerful Being but still a Being. As a Being, is He able to will the universe to have meaning and thus have a morality? At first impression, it appears that the concept of morality should apply to a personal God. However, in reaching this first impression, we forget what morality is: willing to give meaning to a meaningless universe. Even a personal God does not need to will anything nor does He need meaning; His existence is its own meaning. She is complete and whole, infinitely and completely in Himself or Herself or whatever your personal God may be and Existence is the meaning of God. Therefore, God is not moral or immoral but the best way to describe even a personal theistic God is to say He is completely amoral. I must say the “best way” or seems because as with the pantheistic God, this existence that is the essence of God also precedes language and thus logically and strictly speaking is something “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

 

God being amoral or the wordgame of morality not applying to God makes perfect sense as Wittgenstein’s famous quote above brings out. If God were really just another moral busybody or even the most powerful moral busybody of all telling me how I should be living my life in the short span I have in life, He is no better than any other moral busy body except in degree not in substance or essence.  He is no better in quality than any other existentially created morality that makes my life simply a mascot for its sense of morality; I might as well create my own morality and enjoy being a god myself.

 
That should answer the question as to whether God is moral for all concepts of God, except for Christianity and its Trinity or any equivalent form of theism or polytheism.  I suggest that the theologians of the early Church came up with the Trinity concept as a way around the amoral nature of God. As always, the ancients were a lot smarter than what we give them credit for being. Since the Trinity includes a person who is human, Jesus Christ, the question of His morality must continue. Given that Jesus Christ — the Jesus Christ Person in the Christian God — is human, is Jesus Christ moral? Regardless of what one might think of Him, there can be no dispute that He is moral. According to the Christian concept of what Jesus Christ is and then on to the Beatitudes and on to anything that can be ascribed to him, this Christ Person does want to give meaning to life and does not exist simply as having the power of His Existence be its own meaning and an end in itself. According to the Trinity dogma, there is a Third Person, the Holy Spirit, that is the relationship between God the Father and the Christ Person. So for a Christian with Faith, the answer is that God, through Jesus Christ, is moral. God loves us, wants us to be happy, will reward us in heaven for following his morality, so on, and so forth. At this point, we are leaving rationality and getting into Kierkegaard’s existential Leap to Faith and of Pascal’s Gamble that are beyond this essay.

 
However, the Trinity problem does not solve the initial question we are asking. So far, there is no problem with the use of words. Like the ontological proof, we are dealing with logically subtle and abstract but sound and valid reasoning derived from the very meaning of the words and concepts used. Morality is an act of the will, not of reason. Morality is an individual willing meaning into the world. And thus, evil is the opposite of whatever this good the individual defines to be. God, in the non-Christian sense is amoral because God just is. The Christian option seems to be that in exchange for accepting as a necessary part of God’s amoral nature all the suffering that has been, is, and will be part of humanity — in exchange for accepting that — we will be rewarded with happiness in heaven by the human person in God: Jesus Christ. By accepting the massacre of the innocents, I will be happy. Such beliefs do give meaning to life and thus are a morality.

 

But it is not one with which I want to be involved. Or, morally should be involved? Why not? Because it is unfair and unjust — it is not a fair and just way of getting results. So what? Again, it is God’s universe. He can do with it as He or She pleases. Why do I not want to be involved in it? Is it altruism on my part or arrogance and conceit? Is it because I want to have greater power than God? Since God is amoral, is He also unjust and unfair? I will consider these questions next.