The Unbearable Unquantifiableness of Being

In April 1221, Merv, the largest city in the world, was besieged by the Tolui, the son of Genghis Khan. Its population of 500,000 had been swollen by refugees to 700,000. After a week, the city surrendered on the promise of clemency. Tolui then gave each Mongol soldier the task of killing four hundred of the city's inhabitants—men, women, children. "Men, women, children" is a woefully inadequate description. They were people who loved and quarreled, laughed at each other, told jokes, engaged in spiteful enmities, worshipped at mosques and churches, cared for the very young and very old, wrote poetry, composed songs, gave to each other, stole, kissed, cried in each other's arms, cursed their bad luck, gave thanks to God. The son of Genghis destroyed libraries, universities, mosques, and churches. As a comparison, the death toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 226,000.

A fair question is, where was God during this immense slaughter of innocents? Believers struggle and often say God works in mysterious ways, yet we know in our heart of hearts there is nothing mysterious about the suffering and death of children.

What does the materialist or the determinist offer? Was the slaughter at Merv foreordained since the Big Bang? If we could only compute all the elements that preceded the event, we would understand that it was inevitable. Sometimes, they coyly call free will an illusion to keep us sane and human. That contention is more theistic than they suspect. Why would we need such an illusion, and where did it come from?

CLOCKWORK UNIVERSE

By OpheliaO - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11005453

I believe that the major flaw in the determinists and those of that ilk's thinking is based on the confusion of metaphor with reality. Perhaps the most successful metaphor in history is that the universe is mechanical. Everything can be explained by how the several parts work. But that is only a metaphor, and although useful, it is inadequate when applied to the whole thing. We can see this inadequacy when we consider consciousness, individuation, the beginning of the universe, free will, and qualia. Like basic natural laws, these things cannot be measured fully except in their presence or absence. We know that they exist because we would not exist without them. They are unquantifiable, because we can’t break them down into parts, yet they are what gives life value.

I must pause to make an important distinction. When I say qualia or consciousness is not calculable, I imagine some readers hitting their heads against whatever they have handy to hit it against. Of course, there are levels of consciousness as anyone who has ever woken from a nap can verify. I imagine that the sight of an apple tree stimulates similar neurons or creates a similar pattern of neurons in most people. This likely can be calculated. The incalculable gap I’m talking about is between the activity of the neurons and the mental picture. How does the apple tree get into our heads? What is the thing in our heads made of? Our descriptions of neural activity do not bridge this gap. Nothing is possible without this, yet this picturing (smelling, hearing, et cetera) is so much a part of us we take it for granted. Proof is that when it malfunctions, the person is rendered useless—often trapped in a nightmare or consigned to an asylum. That can be a greater tragedy than death.

At the same time, contradictorily, determinists will posit randomness to take care of what isn't covered by the mechanical metaphor—the idea being that something with a multitude of causes is beyond our ability to parse, although we may see fractal patterns that give us an intellectual hold. It seems randomness is in the limited ability of our brains rather than a true phenomenon of our universe. Again, this is only applied to mechanical workings, although they suggest that here is where we will find the answers to what I contend is unquantifiable.

The question isn't why science hasn't explained such phenomena, but why would it be unable to do so. I see no reason why science will not come up with a viable explanation of the origin of life or discover the neurons responsible for consciousness.

Science shows us how things fit together—nothing is a thing in itself. We only know a thing's "fitting" properties—how it is made up of other things and how it is part of bigger things, including us. Does the description of the mechanical fitting properties completely define the thing? This is the rub: when we describe a thing mechanically, we, by definition, limit it to its functionality. But the thing is more than the functionality described. The thing is the reason for the functionality. The practice of science deals only with functionality. A barrier is created that can't be breached. If there is a god of the gaps, the gaps don't lie in the yet-to-be-explained areas of science but between the formula, the analytical tools, and the existence of the thing. Science is the narrator of the story, not the story. Maybe we can understand no further than we can calculate, but does this make calculation the last word? I contend we experience beyond what we can calculate.

When we say the word "dog"—wagging tail, tongue hanging out of its mouth, man's best friend, et cetera—are we merely summing up similar functionalities and putting it under a category? No, we are assuming its existence, which is more than the sum. Perhaps we can't get beyond them, but we intuitively sense something more. On seeing the dead body of a loved one, we feel the profound absence of something that is beyond functionality: the mind directing the person. This sense is an act of valuing. Valuing even precedes scientific inquiry. We investigate what first has meaning for us. With the unknown universe of other people's minds, this is an empathetic exercise. We can be mistaken as to the nature of a fellow human being, but we are not mistaken about his or her existence.

While brilliant in its many applications, the mechanical metaphor leaves how we value things to the side, or to be more precise, it values a thing within the parameter of functionality. Beyond that is the role of religion. To a great degree, what we worship or not worship forms our values. As much as our appetites, it makes us who we are. To oversimplify, there is a tension between worship, whose prime goal is the elevation of the ego, and tribal, versus worship, whose prime goal is the ethical treatment of others.

Jacob wrestling with the angel. (2024, February 13). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_wrestling_with_the_angel

We are part of a Nature that is perversely selective and unfair. This village is obliterated by a volcano. That village discovers a goldmine. We slaughter neighbors for being different or to have access to their women. The Bible, in places, narrates unblushingly the naked brutality. Chosen people? Bosh! Why didn't God choose the Tibetans, the Japanese, or the Hittites? Weren't they just as good or bad? Yet, there is a slim redemptive point. Jacob wrestled with an angel who renamed him Israel or "Struggle with God." I am not a literalist, nor do I confine this to the Judeo-Christian world, but something happened in the human soul then. The moral valuing began with the wrestling with God. Painfully, slowly, despite centuries of backsliding, we begin to reverse the course of Nature's cruel indifference. We come to the example of a God who sacrificed himself. We heal the sick and predict tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. It becomes a value to be merciful. The peacemakers are admired over the warmakers. Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness sometimes eat well. Those who mourn are comforted. Still, our survival is an open question.

We could have been born morally neutered into a good world. For better and worse, we weren't.

I yearn to worship a God that makes the people of Merv whole again. The promise of that is a worthwhile eternity.

Does the God of Christianity restore Merv? I'm certain theologians find much that much is wrong with even posing the question. Not to mention those who consider the universe one giant, infinitely complex machine. However, the God who advised us to pray, "Deliver us from evil" and who many claimed sacrificed himself, descended into hell, and then came back, seems to be the only one in the running.

I can't conceive of a better use of eternity.