Justified Coercion: The Purpose of Law and Legal Systems / 4

February 28, 2026

This essay is the fourth in a series and follows on from the essay on Natural Law:

The Skeptical Case Against Natural Law / 1

The Fallacy of Universalism / 2

The Skeptical Case against the UN Declaration of Human Rights / 3

Justified Coercion: The Purpose of Law and Legal Systems / 4

Introduction

A human legal system, in a strict, historical and anthropological sense, is a structured set of rules (laws) backed by some recognized authority and enforcement mechanism for a society to manage and regulate behaviour among its members. Law emerges wherever human societies have needed (and need) predictable patterns of conduct, conflict resolution, resource allocation, and exercise of power. (The exercise of power is when one person orders and effects the behaviour of others in accordance with instructions.) Law is a tool for social control and and effects this by social behaviour management even if some may flinch at the word control. Even the interactions in small gatherings of people (say 3 or 4 in a family group) are sufficient to give rise to laws. A semblance of laws is discernible even among animals which live in groups and where the complexity of interactions leads to rules (lion prides, baboon troops or even hunting gangs of orcas). Neither laws nor legal systems have anything absolute or universal or even objective about them. If all societies had behaviourally identical members there would be no need for any social management or any laws. It is the inherent diversity of human behaviour which means that in every society the behaviour of some will not be desirable as viewed by others. Those who have assumed the task of managing societies (by whatever means) need – in performance of their task – to limit behavioural friction among members to a level which is compatible with the satisfactory functioning of that society.

In his classic 1935 paper Cohen introduced his critique of “transcendental nonsense” which necessarily appears in the philosophy of all legal systems. Transcendental nonsense and the functional approach, Felix S. Cohen, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 6 (Jun., 1935), pp. 809-849 (41 pages)

Cohen used the term to mock a style of traditional legal reasoning that treats abstract legal concepts (e.g. “property rights”, “corporate personality”, “contract”, “title”, “fairness”, or “due process”) as if they are real, independent, almost supernatural entities with their own inherent logical properties and existence separate from human behavior, social facts, or observable consequences. He saw that transcendental nonsense decided cases by manipulating these disembodied concepts and deducing results from their supposed “internal” logical relationships, rather than by openly examining the actual social effects, policy consequences, human behaviors, or empirical realities the decision would produce. These are concepts which cannot be assessed against any verifiable reality.  By using transcendental, Cohen was referencing philosophical transcendentalism where reasoning tries to deduce truths from abstract, a priori categories rather than from empirical consequences. By using the word nonsense, he meant that such reasoning produces arguments that sound logical but do not actually resolve real social problems or explain what courts are doing in practice. In addition to his specific example of a corporation, other examples of transcendental nonsense include legal personalities, property as an absolute natural thing, sovereignty, doctrines of jurisdiction, formal contract freedom and many other legal fictions.

The purpose and practice of human laws and legal systems is shrouded in a thick fog of various kinds of nonsense. But what Cohen described as transcendental nonsense, is just a part of what I would call metaphysical nonsense.  Here we find all the sanctimonious trappings which always appear as justifications of laws and legal systems (which are not verifiable against reality but may have other collateral benefits). These include viewing legal systems as a grand pursuit of Justice, or a reflection of Natural Law, or for the upholding of righteousness or as the sacrament of a sacred contract between the governor and the governed. These descriptions are intellectually comfortable and purport to be of high moral standing but they are functionally fraudulent and intentionally self-serving. If we strip away the pomp of high-ceilinged paneled courtrooms, the archaic robes, and the sanctimonious rhetoric of “fairness,” we find a far more visceral reality. At its core, a legal system is a tool for behavioural management and is designed to contain social disorder (a social entropy) through the threat or actual application of force. Its fundamental purpose is not the attainment of a moral ideal, but the maintenance of social stability through coercion, or the threat of coercion, as deemed to be necessary.

The functional purpose of law

To try and understand the purpose of any legal system, we must first define what a law is at its most basic, operational level. A man-made law is a tool to elicit desired behaviour. It is a formulation of prohibited (or occasionally compulsory) behavior, coupled with a specific enumeration of penalties for those found in breach. Any higher-level description that omits the threat of force is not a definition of law, but a definition of advice. For a law to be “useful” in a functionalist sense, it must exist in a state of tension. Behavior that humans are physiologically incapable of performing, such as flying, requires no legal prohibition. Conversely, behavior that all humans invariably comply with, such as breathing, requires no legal mandate. Therefore, the only “useful” laws are those that address behaviour that people are both capable of doing and inclined to do, yet which the societal power wishes to suppress for the sake of order. It is in the nature of human association that minority behaviour that gives offense to a majority is discouraged and even suppressed. It is very rare (and impractical) for majority behaviour to be suppressed by a minority.

This leads to a central paradox. A law that is never broken is redundant, as it reflects a pre-existing social or biological certainty, but a law that is never complied with is futile, as it represents a failure of societal power. The “success” of a law is found in the middle ground as that which permits a “judicious” amount of unwanted behaviour (crime or civil disruption or civil conflict for example). The societal power acknowledges that a certain section of society will always oppose its dictates.  The purpose of their law is to coerce a sufficient number of these dissenters so that the disruption they cause remains within manageable bounds. No legal system ever has the objective of achieving complete compliance with the law. “Just enough” compliance is the name of the game. As long as enough criminals are held accountable others may go unchecked. As long as the limited number of cases that the legal system system deals with is seen to be “fair and just” then the quest for “fair and just” for all cases can quietly be ignored.

If the purpose of law is primarily management of social behaviour (via coercion), why do we then invest so much energy in the “camouflage” of purpose by invoking majesty, sanctity, divinity, royalty, and honour? They are all, of course, metaphysical nonsense and invented, artificial, empirically unverifiable concepts. But in their sanctimony and appeal to metaphysics they do provide crucial psychological sustenance for human legal systems. They are principally cosmetic in nature though many people invest form with imaginary substance. The reality of societies is that raw force is expensive. A societal power that must place a many policemen on every street corner to ensure compliance will eventually go bankrupt or collapse under the weight of its own friction. The “sanctity” of the legal system serves as a social lubricant. By imbuing the law with a sense of metaphysical justice or fairness, the societal power achieves a psychological victory that force alone cannot buy. When a citizen obeys a law because they believe it is right, or because they respect and accept the authority of the court or the majesty of the law, the cost of enforcement drops to zero. The robes and the wigs and the collars and the gavels may be steeped in tradition but their main function is to imply that law and the legal system is supra-human. Metaphysical. Majestic. Even Divine. This theatre in a circus serves to camouflage the messy, coercive, necessary code running silently in the background. Legal systems and law are tools for threatening, and doing, harm to some as deemed necessary for the greater good.

The transcendental illusions

Much of the metaphysical nonsense is sanctimonious packaging. It exists to create justifications in the form of moral illusions for imbuing a false notion of high purpose and of easing the conscience of individual practitioners in being party to doing harm. It is difficult for a person to spend their life suppressing the impulses of their fellow humans if they see themselves as a mere bully. By framing their work as serving justice, they are granted a moral alibi and a place in heaven. They are no longer crass individuals exercising or threatening harm. Instead they are elevated to be instruments of an abstract, higher Good. This depersonalization is essential for the sustenance of the system. In a legal system cloaked in theism and honor, the enforcers use sanctimony to create a moral subsidy. Practitioners adopt the illusion of great moral significance into their own actions as a way of increasing worth and job satisfaction. Young lawyers and police are often recruited on the premise that they are protecting the innocent or upholding the Right. This belief allows them to perform tasks that would otherwise be psychologically damaging (levying penalties, seizing property, depriving people of liberty, enforcing evictions and even inflicting pain). If the system were stripped of its false camouflage, the cost would also include a psychological tax. To recruit a person to be an admitted instrument of raw coercion, would need to compensate for the perceived social stigma and the internal mental stress. Public servants would seem more like mercenaries. When the system is wrapped in apparent sanctimony, it attracts, and above all retains, people who value stability and order. These individuals are often more reliable and less prone to individual corruption because they believe they serve a Higher Power (be it God, The Law, or The Constitution). The trappings (the robes, the ritual, the language, the architecture, the pondus) also serve to clothe the practitioners with the paraphernalia. the trappings of a high calling with metaphysical goals. Not unlike the priests of suspect religions. When a judge says, “It is the law that sentences you,” they are distancing their own humanity from the act of coercion. This depersonalization is a vital retention strategy. The “sanctimony” allows the practitioner to remain “cold” and functional over a forty-year career.

The “divinity” and “pomp” of the law is a cost-saving measure in the labor market. It allows the state to recruit high-quality, stable, and disciplined “mechanics” at a fraction of the price of mercenaries, while shielding them from the psychological consequences of their own coercive actions.

The primary purpose is social stability

In this functionalist framework, the “goodness” of a legal system is decoupled from morality. A “good” system is not one that eliminates crime. To do that would require a level of surveillance so total and a cost so high that the society would cease to function. Rather, a “good” system is one that allows some necessary social friction and yet maintains a level of equilibrium judged necessary by the societal powers. The system monitors social friction and adjusts its coercive output accordingly. It allows for a certain amount of undetected crime and a certain number of unjust decisions, provided these outliers do not threaten the overall perception of order. If a law becomes too difficult to enforce (such as by the prohibition of a widely practised behaviour), a “good” (rational) system will eventually abandon it, not because the behavior has become “moral,” but because the cost of coercion exceeds the benefit of stability. In a system or thermodynamic sense social entropy is a measure of disorder in the system. In this perspective the legal system is essentially a tool for managing social entropy. In any collection of eight billion unique individuals, the natural state is chaos. The legal system is the energy expended to keep that chaos at bay. It is in the nature of every adversarial court judgement that one party is favoured and the other penalized. The penalty always involves the doing of some form of explicit harm to the disfavoured party and may, in civil cases, involve some real benefit to the other party. Some of the transcendental and metaphysical nonsense helps the losing party to accept, even if reluctantly, the institutional harm imposed upon him. The law threatens the doing of harm (and thus coerces) and every application of a legal judgement does always involve the doing of harm to the losing party. A modern state is characterized by its effective monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a territory. The access to superior force is the necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for any legal system to function. Without this the system is advisory rather than legal. Advisory or normative systems rely on persuasion, reputation, or voluntary adherence. Legal systems rely on the availability of institutional enforcement backed, at the final resort, by coercive power. But force alone does not generate a legal system. That requires an institutionalized, routine, rule-bound deployment of structured coercive capacity rather than the discretionary use of raw force.

The “rights” we cherish are not inalienable truths. There is a pretense, but no real attempt, of legal systems pursuing absolute justice or absolute fairness (even if they could exist which they don’t).  Over 60% of a thousand murderers every day go free. The global society finds that not unacceptable. Over 85% of car theft does not lead to any prosecution. Society (with its insurance industry and the high cost of apprehending petty criminals) finds this not unacceptable. Most car thieves get away with it. A quest for absolute fairness never comes into play. The 40% of murderers who get caught and are held accountable might even think it unfair that 60% go free. The law and the legal system need not do more than enough (and only just enough), to convince the general citizenry to remain productive, cooperative, and, most importantly, compliant. It does not need to do any more for societal needs. More is often pretended to as part of the metaphysical camouflage.

Conclusion

I am left with a somewhat cynical but logical conclusion that for a legal system to be truly “good” (meaning effective and sustainable), it must camouflage its own nature to protect its own functionality. If a system were to be perfectly transparent, if the judge were to say, “I am taking your property because it serves the current stability of the state to do so”, the illusion of legitimacy would shatter. The coerced minority would no longer feel they had “lost a fair trial”; they would feel they were victims of a hostile power, and they would act accordingly. The “Justified Coercion” of the title is therefore not a moral justification, but a functional one. The coercion is “justified” only in the sense that it is required for the machine of society to continue turning. The purpose of the legal system is to manage the inevitable conflict between individual desire and social necessity, using just enough force to keep the peace and just enough “sanctimony” to make that force palatable.

To view the law through this functional lens is to see it as a tool. It is an artefact, a social construct rather than a sacred text. In many ways it is not dissimilar to a religion. But that is because every religion, is about controlling the social behaviour of its members. We must judge law not by how “just” it is in some abstract, transcendental sense, but by how well it performs its cold, rational task of behaviour coordination and suppression. The legal system is a necessary evil of the human condition; a complex, expensive, and often deceptive engine built to ensure that our collective life remains “manageable.” By stripping away the false camouflage of Natural Law and universal morality, we gain the clarity to evaluate our laws for what they truly are; the tools of a species that has learned that it is better for their societies to be managed than to be “free” in a state of anarchy and chaos.

There is no righteousness or divinity or sanctity in laws and there are no such things as Natural Law or Divine Law.

Not unrelated:

On the nature and purpose of law

Laws are made to be broken

Why cannot a concept of tort or “product liability”apply to scientists?

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Ethics, Law, Philosophy, Social Science, society | Leave a Comment »

The New York Times is a terrible rag but worth 2€/month

February 25, 2026

There is no crisis.

Climate – as always – is to adapt to. Humans have been doing it very successfully for a very long time and even before we had fire (let alone energy sources). We have been through many glaciations, desertifications, floods and storms. We were coping with change 300,000 years ago and we are doing it now. But there is no crisis in sight. And alarmism does not actually contribute anything useful.

Not one single “climate action” taken by anybody in the last 60 years has actually led to any measurable change either to weather or to climate. The only thing measurable is how much money has been wasted in achieving nothing.

The New York Times is an unashamed, leftist alarm-monger and only The Guardian is more blatantly rubbishy.

7th February 2014 >>>> 24th February 2026

Image

Image

I still have my 2€/month subscription for the NYT and if they try to increase it I will end the subscription. (They have tried many times but so far have always reverted to offering me the 2€/month when I have cancelled in response).

It is worth about 2€/month.

But no more.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Media, Climate | Leave a Comment »

Rubio speech at Munich Security Conference Feb 2026

February 15, 2026

Posted in Behaviour, Europe, Politics, US | Leave a Comment »

The now withdrawn EPA endangerment finding was politics not science

February 13, 2026

The 2009 Endangerment Finding by the EPA Administrator on December 7, 2009, included two main determinations. The first found that the current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. The second, the “Cause or Contribute Finding,” determined that combined emissions of these gases from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to this threat EPA. “Air pollution” was defined as the collective mix of these six greenhouse gases. The term “public welfare” under the Clean Air Act was interpreted to include effects on various environmental factors. The finding was published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2009.

The finding was utterly dependent upon a political definition of welfare. It was unsound  and was essentially junk science for a political cause. For human health directly the effects were plain wrong or grossly exaggerated.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels from around 400 ppm to 1000 ppm, with oxygen content remaining unchanged, would likely have minimal direct acute health impacts on most healthy adults, as this concentration is commonly encountered in indoor environments without widespread reports of severe symptoms. Traditional occupational safety guidelines, such as those from OSHA, set permissible exposure limits at 5000 ppm for an 8-hour workday, indicating that 1000 ppm is well below thresholds for immediate toxicity or asphyxiation. At this level, some individuals might experience subtle effects like mild drowsiness or slight increases in heart rate and blood pressure, but these are not universal and often depend on factors such as duration of exposure, ventilation, and individual sensitivity.

On February 12, 2026, the EPA under the Trump administration finalized a rule to withdraw the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding.

What was withdrawn: The 2009 “Endangerment Finding” (and related Cause or Contribute Finding), which concluded that the current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Significance: This finding was the legal bedrock that allowed the EPA to regulate emissions from motor vehicles, power plants, and other industrial sources.
Reason for Withdrawal: The EPA stated that the 2009 analysis was “flawed,” “too pessimistic,” and did not properly analyze the scientific record. The administration argued that greenhouse gases do not pose a direct threat to public health in the way conventional air pollutants (like smog) do.

Good riddance.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Automobiles, Behaviour, Climate, Emissions, Energy, Environment, Science, Scientific Fraud, US | Leave a Comment »

Update: Epstein files and Scandinavia

February 13, 2026

@grok Summarise further developments regarding the Epstein files and the Scandinavian fallout.

There have been significant further developments in the Scandinavian fallout from the Epstein files since early February 2026, particularly in Norway, where the scandal has intensified with resignations, ongoing police investigations, parliamentary inquiries, and mounting pressure on the royal family. Sweden and Denmark have seen more limited additional fallout, with no major new resignations or probes reported beyond earlier ones.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s release of over 3 million pages of documents (starting late January 2026) continues to drive scrutiny across Europe, but Norway has been hit hardest among Scandinavian countries, with multiple high-profile figures implicated in financial ties, emails, visits, and potential corruption.

Norway (Most Intense Fallout)
Norway has experienced a “political storm,” with investigations expanding and public confidence in institutions (including the monarchy and foreign ministry) under strain.

Crown Princess Mette-Marit:
– New details revealed extensive post-2008 contact (nearly 1,000 mentions), including emails joking about inappropriate topics, planning visits to Epstein properties, and her borrowing his Palm Beach home in 2013.
– She issued multiple apologies in early February, expressing “deepest regret” for the friendship, calling it “embarrassing,” and specifically apologizing to King Harald and Queen Sonja for the situation she put the royal family in.
– Pressure has mounted, with charities reviewing or cutting ties, public questions about her suitability as future queen, and Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre calling for more transparency while agreeing she showed “poor judgment.”
– No resignation or abdication, but combined with her stepson Marius Borg Høiby’s ongoing rape/assault trial (unrelated but amplifying royal scrutiny), it’s described as a potential “split” in the family and the biggest modern crisis for the Norwegian royals.

Mona Juul (Diplomat):
– Initially suspended (early February), she resigned as Norway’s ambassador to Jordan and Iraq around February 9, 2026, after revelations of ties, including Epstein’s will bequeathing $10 million to her and husband Terje Rød-Larsen’s children (signed shortly before his death).
– Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide cited a “serious lapse in judgment.”
– Ongoing ministry investigation into her knowledge/contact with Epstein.

Terje Rød-Larsen (her husband, former diplomat/UN envoy):
– Under police investigation for complicity in gross corruption (alongside Juul) by Økokrim (Norway’s economic crime unit), announced February 9, 2026.
– Files show visits to Epstein’s island (2011 with family), dinners (including 2019 in Paris), and financial dealings.

Thorbjørn Jagland (former PM, Nobel Committee chair, Council of Europe secretary-general):
– Police opened an “aggravated corruption” investigation (early February), including home searches (reported February 12).
– Council of Europe waived his immunity at Norway’s request to allow legal processes.
– Ties include emails, gifts/loans/benefits from Epstein during his Nobel/COE roles.

Broader Norwegian Actions:
– Parliament appointed a rare external inquiry into the Foreign Ministry’s Epstein links (around February 10).
– Økokrim confirmed comprehensive, long-term probes into multiple figures.
– Other mentions (e.g., former FM Børge Brende attending post-conviction dinners) but no major new fallout.

Sweden
Joanna Rubinstein (former chair of Sweden for UNHCR): Resigned February 2, 2026, after files showed her 2012 family visit to Epstein’s island (post-conviction) and a thankful email. No further developments; she distanced herself, calling abuses “horrific.”
Princess Sofia: Broke silence around February 10–11, addressing “a couple” of encounters/meetings but denying deeper involvement. Royal court maintains denials; no resignation or probe.
No new major resignations, investigations, or business/political fallout reported.

Denmark
Mentions of King Frederik (as former Crown Prince) in 2012 emails remain downplayed/denied by the royal family.
No confirmed resignations, investigations, or significant new revelations tied to Danish figures. Rumors about business leaders/politicians persist online but lack substantiation in reports.

The scandal has broader European ripples (e.g., UK, Slovakia), but Scandinavia – especially Norway – remains a focal point due to elite/diplomatic ties. Probes are ongoing, and more details could emerge as files are analyzed. No evidence of criminal charges yet in Scandinavia, but corruption angles are serious.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Ethics, Politics, Scandinavia | Leave a Comment »

The Epstein fallout in Scandinavia – so far

February 3, 2026

@grok

ktwop:

There seems to have been a significant Scandinavian fallout from the Epstein files. What is the actual Scandinavian fallout so far?

grok: 

The Epstein files, which include millions of pages of documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice in early 2026, have revealed various connections between Jeffrey Epstein and individuals in Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, and Denmark). These mentions primarily involve emails, messages, and references to meetings or communications, but they do not include direct accusations of criminal wrongdoing against the named Scandinavians. The fallout has been limited to public apologies, regrets, and one confirmed resignation, with no major legal actions or abdications reported as of February 3, 2026. Below is a breakdown by country, based on verified reports.

Norway

  • Crown Princess Mette-Marit: She is mentioned extensively in the files (over 1,000 times in some analyses), with emails and messages showing repeated contact between 2011 and at least 2014 – longer and more frequent than she previously admitted in a 2019 apology. Examples include her calling Epstein a “sweetheart,” joking about adultery, and discussing topics like “wife hunt” trips. She visited his Palm Beach property and used his staff for travel arrangements. In response to the 2026 releases, Mette-Marit issued a statement expressing regret, calling the association “simply embarrassing” and acknowledging poor judgment. Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre publicly agreed with her self-assessment, stating she showed “poor judgment.” The Norwegian royal palace has denied any financial ties or deeper involvement, and there have been no calls for her to step down.
  • Other connections: Former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland (also former Nobel Committee chair and Council of Europe secretary-general) is referenced in messages with Epstein about politics, but no wrongdoing is alleged, and he has not commented or faced consequences.
  • No resignation: No Norwegian official has resigned due to the files. However, Ambassador Mona Juul—a celebrated Norwegian diplomat known for her pivotal role in brokering the 1990s Oslo Accords—was temporarily suspended from her duties on that date pending an investigation into her alleged ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
  • Broader impact: The revelations have coincided with unrelated scandals involving Mette-Marit’s stepson, Marius Borg Høiby, who faces 38 criminal charges including rape and assault (trial began February 2, 2026). This has amplified media scrutiny on the Norwegian royals, described by some historians as the biggest scandal in Norway’s modern royal history, but it’s not directly linked to Epstein.

Sweden

  • Princess Sofia: She is referenced in the files, but details are limited to mentions without specifics of meetings or wrongdoing. The Swedish royal court has denied any involvement or attendance at Epstein-related events. No public statement from Sofia has been reported, and there has been no significant backlash or calls for her to step back from duties.
  • UN official resignation: Joanna Rubinstein (sometimes spelled Rubinstein in sources) resigned on February 2, 2026, from her position as chair of Sweden for UNHCR—the fundraising arm of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Sweden.
  • Other connections: The files allege a Swedish man (not named in summaries) helped recruit women for Epstein over years, but no confirmed identities or actions have led to fallout. Barbro C. Ehnbom, a Swedish leadership program organizer, is mentioned in emails with Epstein post-2008, but no consequences reported.
  • Broader impact: Public discussion has been muted, with the royal family focusing on family events amid the controversy.

Denmark

  • King Frederik (formerly Crown Prince): He is mentioned in 2012 emails between Epstein and businessman Ian Osborne, but without details of direct contact or wrongdoing. The Danish royal family has downplayed or denied any direct/recent ties.
  • Rumors about business leaders and politicians: No confirmed connections or fallout in the files or subsequent reports. Speculation exists online (e.g., about elite networks), but nothing substantiated has led to resignations or investigations.
  • Broader impact: Minimal public reaction; the mentions have not escalated into scandals.
Overall, the Scandinavian fallout remains contained to reputational damage and one resignation, with royals issuing statements of regret or denial.

No evidence of pregnancies, financial payouts, or deeper involvement (as rumored in some X posts) has been confirmed in official releases or reporting.

The files continue to be analyzed, so further developments are possible.

Tags: ,
Posted in Behaviour, Ethics, Politics, Scandinavia | 1 Comment »

Both Venezuela and Greenland are part of the Great US-China Game

January 20, 2026

I have been amazed at the stupidity of the European response to Trump’s rhetoric about Greenland. They seem to have no clue as to the game that is being played. While Trump is negotiating they are reacting to tactics and red herrings and have no idea what the end goal is and even which game is being played. It is not that Trump is conferring idiocy upon the clueless European leaders – they have been self-harming themselves!

For the US (Trump) the motive in both regions is not personal pique or detest for Maduro. It is not either about resources for just their own sake.  This is part of the Great Game between the US and China for the coming 100 years. It is about strategic leverage against China’s growing global footprint. That is the thread tying them together. In another century it was the Great Britain and Russia. The US and China are taking the Great Game to new regions. The serious geo-political analysts see it. I am afraid that the European leaders get bogged down and utterly distracted by Trump’s injection of red herrings which they just cannot discern.

Venezuela – Yes oil but not only oil

Venezuela’s primary strategic value is its natural resources, above all oil. It has the world’s largest proven oil reserves. The recent U.S. intervention and pressure campaign explicitly cites oil access and disruption of adversarial influence as motives.

  1. China has deep financial and commercial ties with Venezuela, long providing loans and buying Venezuelan energy and commodities.
  2. Venezuelan rare earths and critical minerals are potential future assets — but currently underdeveloped, lacking infrastructure and clear exploitation plans.

The U.S. objectives are no secret and have been discussed so openly that I wonder why reporters of the lower kind and one-note politicians so easily forget.

  1. Deny China Easy Access to Resources
    Even if Venezuela isn’t a top rare-earth producer today, Washington sees value in preventing Beijing from locking up any potential resources or influence that could reduce U.S. leverage. This jibes with official U.S. rhetoric about countering “non-hemispheric competitors.”
  2. Break China’s Growing Footprint in the Region
    Latin America isn’t neutral territory anymore. China is a major trading partner across many states, and U.S. strategy now frames this as a geostrategic threat – something that could give Beijing leverage deep in the Western Hemisphere.
  3. Strategic Oil Supply and Energy Security
    Oil still matters as base strategic power: controlling Venezuelan oil limits Beijing’s access to energy markets, which could constrain China’s industrial or military trajectory in a crisis.
  4. Supply Chain & Rare Earth Sentiment
    Some U.S. policy thinkers argue the future of tech and defence depends on diversifying supply chains away from China – and Venezuela’s minerals could play into that if infrastructure and political stability were achieved.

My assessment is that the U.S. wants to disrupt Chinese access. This fits with how Washington/Rubio/Trump are now framing their moves. This is a long-term geo-political play about material resources and influence. A not insignificant part is the rare earths  potential in Venezuela even if they are not yet a fully realized asset.

Greenland: Raw Materials and Strategic Geography

Greenland doesn’t fit exactly the same profile as Venezuela, but it does fit the same pattern. It is about access to strategic resources and a denial of geo-political access to China. Greenland hosts some of the richest deposits of rare earth elements outside China. U.S. strategic planners see this as a way — someday — to dilute China’s dominance in critical raw materials that power everything from electric vehicles to missiles. Besides minerals, Greenland is a gateway to the Arctic — territory increasingly contested by Russia and China. U.S. military interest there reflects broader strategic positioning. Rather than wait for China (or Russia) to embed itself economically or militarily, the U.S. has pushed aggressive diplomacy, investment deals, and even territorial rhetoric, explicitly meant to keep rival influence out.

Extracting rare earths in Greenland is currently expensive, technically difficult, and far from market scale. Greenland’s harsh climate and lack of infrastructure make mining a long-term project. But from a strategic viewpoint, that doesn’t matter much — the U.S. wants to lock in preferential access and preclude China from doing so first.

The Great Game: supply chain security 

Both cases tie into a bigger story about critical minerals, supply chains, and great-power competition:

  1. China still controls a vast share of refining and processing for rare earths and other minerals, not just mining.

  2. The U.S. has made securing alternative sources, both domestic and allied, a declared priority, often written and described in the language of national security.

  3. Latin America and the Arctic are the competitive regions for the next century where access to resources and influence matters as much as traditional military positioning.

  4. Within the next century new off-Earth regions of supply chain competition and security will be opening up with the moon (China present and US playing catch-up) and Mars (US first) already included within strategic planning

This not about gestures and virtue signalling and personal pique. It is plain and simple geopolitics.

Who is going to have control of critical raw materials and whose military or economic reach will have dominance in key regions?

That is the game being played not whether the Peace Prize can be legally shared or not!!

Afterword

U.S. actions in Venezuela and Greenland are partly about denying China access to strategic resources and partly about securing their own access:

  • Venezuela: important for oil access and preventing Chinese economic dominance in the hemisphere; rare earths are a secondary but growing part of that calculus.

  • Greenland: a long-range bet on critical materials, strategic geography, and preemptive advantage over China and Russia.

This is part of the Great Game between the US and China for the coming 100 years. It is about strategic leverage against China’s growing global footprint. That is the thread tying Venezuela and Greenland together.

Strategic Importance of Greenland | SOF News

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in China, Development, Economy, Global economy, Materials, Politics, US, War | Comments Off on Both Venezuela and Greenland are part of the Great US-China Game

Machado v. the Nobel Committee: When Branding Overreaches Ownership

January 17, 2026

(I dislike the Nobel Peace Prize as being all about politics and being inherently inimical to peace. The Norwegian Nobel Committee are also too woke, self-righteous and sanctimonious for my liking. Too many of the awards are just plain ridiculous and entirely statements of political correctness. But this flurry of stupidity caught my attention this week).

In the wake of María Corina Machado’s decision this week (January 15, 2026) to “present” her 2025 Nobel Peace Prize medal to Donald Trump in the Oval Office, we have witnessed the faintly ridiculous spectacle of a venerable (though somewhat senile) institution getting defensive and huffy about a gift it no longer owns.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee (NC) has responded with a flurry of “cease and desist” style public relations, reminding the world that the prize “cannot be transferred, shared, or revoked.” But in their rush to protect the “Nobel” brand, the Committee is entering the world of nonsense with a legal and logical absurdity.

The Myth of Permanent Authority

The NC’s central argument is that the award and the laureate are “inseparable.” They contend that while Machado can physically hand over the gold, the status of being the 2025 winner remains hers “for all time.”

But this is where the logic fails:

  1. The Right to Award vs. the Right to Own: The NC owns the right to select the winner. Once that choice is made and the physical assets (the medal, the diploma, the money) are handed over, the ownership of the prize, practically and legally, shifts to the recipient.
  2. The Power of Words: If Machado stands in the White House and says, “I share this with you,” she is not usurping the NC’s authority to grant awards. She is exercising her right as an owner to define the meaning of her property.
  3. The Record vs. Reality: The NC can keep their Register of Laureates in Oslo however they like, but they have no legal authority over how a laureate interprets their own achievement in the public square.

Defensive Branding or Political Insecurity?

The sheer vehemence of the NC’s recent press releases is counterproductive. By issuing multiple statements within a single week, the Committee suggests that their 2025 decision is so fragile that it requires constant shielding from the “wrong” people.

When an institution shouts this loudly about why someone isn’t a winner, it stops sounding like a defense of history and starts sounding like a defensive reaction to current politics. If the award is truly “final and stands for all time,” why does the Committee feel the need to argue with a photo-op?

The “Law is an Ass” Problem

To claim that a recipient cannot “share” the honour of their work is to treat the Nobel Prize like a lease rather than a gift. In any other legal context, once a gift is given, the giver loses the right to dictate its subsequent use or interpretation.

By insisting that Machado cannot “transfer” the sentiment of the prize, the NC is trying to police the thoughts and associations of its laureates. They are essentially saying: “We gave you this, but we still control what it means.”

Conclusion

The Nobel Committee would do well to remember that their prestige should come from the merit of their choices (not very impressive lately) and not from their ability to act as a “history monitor.” María Corina Machado can give her medal to whomever she chooses. Donald Trump can claim he “has” a Nobel. The NC can keep their books in Oslo. But when the Committee tries to assert “authority” over a laureate’s personal property and public statements, they aren’t protecting the brand. They are just confirming that, sometimes, the law (and the institution) can be an ass.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Law, Nobel Prize, Norway, Politics | 1 Comment »

How to fold a UN flag

January 8, 2026

I do like this one.

The UN is not fit for purpose and needs to be disbanded.

Credit to : https://x.com/degenJambo/status/2009059463475716245?s=20

Posted in Trivia, UN | Comments Off on How to fold a UN flag

Gods are a matter of epistemology rather than theology

December 28, 2025

Gods are a matter of epistemology rather than theology 

or Why the boundaries of cognition need the invention of Gods

An essay on a subject which I have addressed many times with my views evolving and getting more nuanced over the years but generally converging over time. I suspect this is now as close to any final convergence I can achieve.

Summary

Human cognition is finite, bounded by sensory and conceptual limitations. When we attempt to comprehend realities that exceed those limits—such as the origin of existence, the nature of infinity, or the essence of consciousness—we inevitably reach a point of cognitive failure. At this boundary, we substitute understanding with “labels” that preserve the appearance of explanation. “God” is one such label, a placeholder for what cannot be conceived or described.

The essay argues that the invention of gods is not primarily a cultural accident or a moral device but a “cognitive necessity”. Any consciousness that seeks to understand its total environment will eventually collide with incomprehensibility. To sustain coherence, the mind must assign meaning to the unknowable—whether through myth, metaphysics, or scientific abstraction. “God” thus emerges as a symbolic bridge over the gap between the knowable and the unknowable.

This tendency manifests in the “discretia/continua” tension which arises from our inability to reconcile the world as composed of both distinct things (particles, identities, numbers) and continuous processes (waves, emotions, time). Different cognitions, human, alien, or animal, would experience different boundaries of comprehension depending on their perceptual structures. Yet each would face some ultimate limit, beyond which only placeholders remain.

The essay further proposes that “God” represents not an active being but the “hypothetical cognition that could perceive the universe in its totality”. For finite minds, such total perception is impossible. Thus, the divine concept is born as a projection of impossible completeness. Even an unconscious entity, such as a rock, is immersed in the continuum but lacks perception, suggesting that only through perception do concepts like “continuity” and “divinity” arise.

In essence, “gods exist because minds are finite”. They are conceptual necessities marking the horizon of understanding. The invention of gods is not weakness but the natural consequence of finite awareness confronting the infinite. Where the finitude of our cognition meets the boundless universe, we raise placeholders—and call them gods. “God” emerges not from revelation, but from the structure and limits of cognition itself.

Human finitude

Human cognition is finite. Our brains are finite, and we do not even have many of the senses that have evolved among other living species on earth. We rely primarily on the five traditional senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch), plus some others like balance, pain, and body awareness. But living things on earth have evolved many “extra” senses that we do not possess. Unlike other creatures we cannot directly detect magnetic fields, electrical fields, or infrared or ultraviolet radiation. We cannot either detect and use echo location, or polarized light or seismic signals as some other animals can. (See  Senses we lack). And for all those other detectable signals that must exist in the universe, but are unknown on earth, we cannot know what we do not have.  

I take the cognition of any individual to emerge from the particular combination of brain, senses and body making up that individual where the three elements have been tuned to function together by evolution. It is through the cognition available that any observer perceives the surrounding universe. And so it is for humans who find their surroundings to be without bound. No matter where or when we look, we see no edges, no boundaries, no beginnings and no endings. In fact, we can perceive no boundaries of any kind in any part of the space and time (and the spacetime) we perceive ourselves to be embedded in. Our finitude is confronted by boundless surroundings and it follows that each and every observation we make is necessarily partial, imperfect and incomplete. It is inevitable that there are things we cannot know. It is unavoidable that what we do know can only be partial and incomplete. All our observations, our perceptions are subject to the blinkers of our cognition and our finitude can never encompass the totality of the boundless.

It is this finitude of our cognition and the boundless world around us which gives us our three-fold classification of knowledge. There is that which we know, there is that which is knowable but which we do not know, and then there is that which we cannot know. Every act of knowing presupposes both a knower and what is or can be known. Omniscience, knowing everything, is beyond the comprehension of human cognition. To know everything is to remove the very meaning of knowledge. There would be nothing to be known. It is a paradox that as knowledge grows so does the extent of the interface to the unknown and some of that is unknowable. Any mind contained within the universe is a finite mind. Any finite mind faced with a boundless universe is necessarily curtailed in the extent of its perception, processing, representation and understanding.

A key feature of human cognition is that we have the ability to distinguish “things” – things which are discrete, unique, identifiable and countable. We distinguish fundamentally between continua on the one hand, and discrete separate “things” on the other. We classify  air, water, emotions, colours as continua, while we recognize atoms and fruit and living entities and planets and galaxies and even thoughts as “things”. Once a thing exists it has an identity separate from every other thing. It may be part of another thing but yet retains its own identity as long as it remains a thing. To be a thing is to have a unique identity in the human perceived universe. We even dare to talk about all the things in the visible universe (as being the ca. 1080 atoms which exist independently and uniquely). But the same cognitive capability also enjoins us to keep “things” separated from continua. We distinguish, draw boundaries, try to set one thing against another as we seek to define them. Perception itself is an act of discretization within a world we perceive as continuous in space, energy, time, and motion. Where there are flows without clear division, the human mind seeks to impose structure upon that flow, carving reality into things it can identify, name, and manipulate. Without that discretization there could be no comprehension, but because of it, comprehension is always incomplete. As with any enabler (or tool), human cognition both enables inquiry but also limits the field of inquiry. Even when our instruments detect parameters we cannot directly sense (uv, ir, infrasound, etc.) the data must be translated into forms that we can detect (audible sound, visible light, …) so that our brains can deal with data in the allowable forms for interpretation. But humans can never reproduce what a dog experiences with its nose and processed by its brain. Even the same signals sensed by different species are interpreted differently by their separate brains and the experiences cannot be shared.

When finitude meets the boundless, ….

It is not surprising then that the finitude of our understanding is regularly confounded when confronted by one of the many incomprehensibilities of our boundless surroundings. All our metaphysical mysteries originate at these confrontations. At the deepest level, this is inevitable because cognition itself is finite and cannot encompass an unbounded totality. There will always exist unknowable aspects of existence that remain beyond our cognitive horizon. These are not gaps to be filled by further research or better instruments. They are structural boundaries. A finite observer cannot observe the totality it is part of, for to do so it would have to stand outside itself. The limitation is built into the architecture of our thought. Even an omniscient computer would fail if it tried to compute its own complete state. A system cannot wholly contain its own description. So it is with consciousness. The human mind, trying to know all things, ultimately encounters its own limits, of comprehension.

When that point is reached where finitude is confronted by boundlessness, thought divides. One path declares the unknown to be empty and that beyond the horizon there is simply nothing to know. Another declares that beyond the horizon lies the infinite, the absolute. Both stances are responses to the same impasse, and both are constrained by the same cognitive structure. Both are not so much wrong as of providing no additional insight, no extra value. For something we do not know we cannot even imagine if there is a fence surrounding it. Each acknowledges, by affirmation or negation, that there exists a boundary beyond which the mind cannot pass. It is this boundary which limits and shapes our observations (or to be more precise, our perception of our observations).

The human mind perceives “things.” Our logic, our language, and our mathematics depend upon the ability to isolate and identify “things”. An intelligence lacking this faculty could not recognize objects, numbers, or individuality. It would perceive not a world of things, but a perception of a continuum with variations of flux, or as patterns without division. For such a cognition, mathematics would be meaningless, for there would be nothing to count. Reality would appear as a continuum without edges. That difference reveals that mathematics, logic, and even identity are not universal properties of the cosmos but features of the cognitive apparatus that apprehends it. They exist only within cognition. The laws of number and form are not inscribed in the universe; they are inscribed in the way our minds carve the universe into parts. A spider surely senses heat and warmth and light as gradients and density, but it almost certainly has no conception of things like planets and stars.

We find that we are unable to resolve the conflicts which often emerge between the discrete and the continuous, between the countable and the uncountable. This tension underlies all human thought. It is visible in every field we pursue. It appears in particles versus waves, digital versus analogue, fundamental particles versus quantum wave functions, reason versus emotion, discrete things within the spacetime continuum they belong to. It appears in the discrete spark of life as opposed to amorphous, inert matter or as individual consciousnesses contributing to the unending stream of life. It appears even in mathematics as the tension between countable and uncountable, number and continuum. Continua versus “discretia” (to coin a word) is a hallmark of human cognition. This tension or opposition is not a flaw in our understanding; it is the foundation of it. The mind can grasp only what it can distinguish, but all of existence exceeds what can be distinguished.

Where discreteness crashes into continuity, human cognition is unable, and fails, to reconcile the two. The paradox is irreducible. To the senses, the ocean is a continuous expanse, while to the physicist, it resolves into discrete molecules, atoms and quantum states. Both views are correct within their frames, yet neither captures the whole. The experiences of love, pain, or awe are likewise continuous. They cannot be counted or divided or broken down to neural signals without destroying their essence. Consciousness oscillates perpetually between the two modes – either breaking the continuous into parts but then seeking a unifying continuity among the parts. The unresolved tension drives all inquiry, all art, all metaphysics. And wherever the tension reaches its limit, the mind needs a placeholder, a label to mark the place of cognitive discontinuity.  The universe appears unbounded to us, yet we cannot know whether it is infinite or finite. If infinite, the very concept of infinity is only a token for incomprehensibility. If finite, then what lies beyond its bounds is equally beyond our grasp. Either way, the mind meets different facets of the same wall. The horizon of incomprehensibility is shaped by the nature of the cognition that perceives it. A spider meets the limit of its sensory world at one point, a human at another, a hypothetical superintelligence elsewhere. But all must meet it somewhere. For any finite mind, there will always be a place where explanation runs out and symbol begins. These places, where the boundary of comprehension is reached, is where the placeholder-gods are born. “God” is the label – a signpost – we use for the point at which the mind’s discretizing faculty fails.

…… the interface to incomprehension needs a label

The word “God” has always carried great pondus but carries no great precision of meaning. For millennia, it has served as the answer of last resort, the terminus at the end of every chain of “why?” Whenever a question could no longer be pursued, when explanations ran out of anywhere to go, “God” was the placeholder for the incomprehensible. The impulse was not, in the first hand, religious. The need for a marker, for a placeholder to demarcate the incomprehensible, was cognitive. What lies at the root of the use of the word “God” is not faith or doctrine, but the structure of thought itself. The concept arises wherever a finite mind confronts what it cannot encompass. The invention of a placeholder-God, therefore, is not a superstition of primitive people but a structural necessity when a bounded cognition meets unbounded surroundings. It is what minds must do when they meet their own limits. When faced with incomprehensibility, we need to give it a label. “God” will do as well as any other.

Each time the boundary of knowledge moves, the placeholder moves with it. The domain of gods recedes in a landscape which has no bounds. It never vanishes, for new boundaries of incomprehension always arise. As the circle of knowledge expands the boundary separating the known from the unknowable expands as well. Just think of an expanding circle. As the circle of knowledge grows the perimeter to the unknowable also expands. Beyond the line of separation lies a domain that thought can point to but not penetrate.

The mind must first collide with what it cannot grasp. Only then does the placeholder-God emerge as the marker of our cognitive boundary. This is not a deliberate act of imagination but a reflex of cognition itself. The finite mind, unable to leave an unknown unmarked, seals it with a symbol. The placeholder-God is that seal  – not a being, but a boundary. It does not describe reality but it provides a place for thought to rest where explanation collapses. As a placeholder, “God” is just a 3-letter label. The interface with the incomprehensible, and the placeholder it produces, are therefore necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for any God-being to appear in human thought. Without the interface, divinity has no function; a God invented without an underlying mystery would be a mere fantasy, not a sacred concept.

The paradox deepens when one asks what kind of cognition would not require such a placeholder. Only a mind that could know everything without limit would need none –  but such a mind would no longer be finite, and thus no longer a mind in any meaningful sense. To know all is to dissolve the distinction between knower and known. The infinite mind would not think “of” God; it would be what the finite mind calls God, though without the need to name it. Hence, only finite minds invent gods, and they must necessarily do so. The invention is the shadow cast by limitation.

The concept of God, then, is not evidence of divine existence but arises as a consequence of cognitive limitation. It is the sign that the mind has reached the edge of its own design. To invent gods is not a failure of reason but its completion. The placeholder is the punctuation mark at the end of understanding. It acknowledges that thought, to exist at all, must have limits. And within those limits, the impulse to name what cannot be named is inescapable.

The earliest people looked at the sky and asked what moved the sun. The answer “a God” was no explanation but it marked a boundary. It was a placeholder for the inexplicable. The label has changed. It was once Zeus, later Nature, now perhaps the Laws of Physics or even Science, but the function remains the same. Existence, time, causality, matter and energy are still fundamental assumptions in modern science and are all still inexplicabilities needing their placeholder-Gods. Let us not forget that terms assumed ro be very well-known, such as gravity and electric charge, even today are merely placeholder-Gods. We may be able to calculate the effects of gravity to the umpteenth decimal, but we still do not know why gravity is. Electrical charge just is, but why it is, is still just a brute fact in science. Every so-called brute fact invoked by science or philosophy is nothing other than a placeholder-God. Where comprehension ends, a placeholder is needed to prevent thought from collapsing into chaotic incomprehensibility. The idea of a placeholder-God, therefore, is not a primitive explanation but an intellectual necessity. It is the symbol that marks the limits of the cognitive map.

From cognitive placeholder to God-beings

(Note on my use of language. I take supernatural to mean supra-natural – beyond known natural laws – but not unreal. While the unnatural can never be observed, the supernatural is always what has been observed, and is therefore real, but is inexplicable. The rise of the sun and the waning of the moon and the onset of storms and the seasonal growth of plants, all were once considered inexplicable and supernatural. As human knowledge grew, each was gradually absorbed within the gamut of human comprehension. The supernatural is therefore not a denial of reality but a recognition of the incompletely understood. The unnatural is what I take to be unreal and fantastical or invented. The unnatural may be the stuff of fairytales and fantasy but being unreal, can never be observed).

As the placeholder-God gains social form, it must somehow rise above the human condition to retain meaning. A God limited to human capabilities would fail to explain what lies beyond it. Thus, gods become supra-human, but not unnatural, for they remain within the world but “beyond what humans can.”

Under the pressures of imagination, fear, and the need for coherence, the placeholder-God then acquires agency. The divine is invoked. The unknown becomes someone rather than something. A God-being, however, cannot be invented except from first having a placeholder-God. It cannot be created or invented directly, ex nihilo, because invention presupposes a motive, and without the confrontation with incomprehensibility, there is none. The human mind can understand the exercise of power only through will and intent and so the boundary acquires intention. In time, societies institutionalize these projections, turning the abstract placeholder into a God-being  and endowing it with purpose, emotion, and supra-human capacity.

This perspective gives the divine a new and paradoxical definition: “God is that which would perceive the entire universe without limit”. Such perception would not act, judge, or intervene. It would simply encompass. Yet a cognition capable of perceiving all would have no distinction within itself. It would no longer know as we know, for knowledge depends upon differentiation. To perceive all would be to dissolve all boundaries, including the boundary between subject and object. Such a consciousness would be indistinguishable from non-consciousness. The rock that perceives nothing and the god that perceives everything would converge, each beyond cognition, each outside the tension that defines life. Consciousness, poised between them, exists precisely because it knows but does not (cannot) know all.

The necessity of the divine placeholder follows directly from human finitude. The mind cannot tolerate infinite regress or complete ambiguity. It demands closure, even when closure is impossible. To preserve coherence, it must mark the point where coherence breaks down. That mark is the god-concept. It halts the chain of “why” with the only possible answer that does not generate another question. “Because God made it so” and “because that is how the universe is” perform the same function. They end the regress. In this sense, the invention of gods is an act of intellectual hygiene. Without a terminal symbol, thought would never rest; it would dissolve into endless questioning.

Understanding the god-concept in this way does not demean it. It restores its dignity by grounding it in the architecture of cognition rather than in superstition. Theology, stripped of dogma, becomes the study of where understanding fails and symbol takes over  –  a form of cognitive cartography. Each theology is a map of incomprehensibility, tracing the outer borders of thought. Their differences lie in what each places at the edge of their maps and the projections and colours each uses. Yahveh or Indra, Heaven or Hell, Big Bangs and Black Holes, and Nirvana or Nothingness, but their commonality lies in the inevitability of the edge itself.

Modern science has not abolished this pattern; it has merely changed the symbols. The physicist’s equations reach their limit at the singularity, the cosmologist’s model ends before the Big Bang, the biologist’s postulates begin after the spark of life and the neuroscientist’s theory marvel at the mystery of consciousness. Each field encounters an ultimate opacity and introduces a term  –  “quantum fluctuation,” “initial condition,” “emergence”, “random event”  –  that serves the same function the placeholder-God once did. Quantum mechanics has shifted the position of many placeholders but has replaced them with new boundaries to the inexplicable. New concepts such as fields and quantum waves and collapse of these are all new “brute facts”. As labels they provide no explanations since they cannot. They are “brute facts”, declarations that comprehension goes no further, that explanation stops here. Matter, energy, spacetime, and causality remain today’s deepest placeholders and there is no explanation in any field of science which can be made without presupposing them. The structure of thought remains the same even when the vocabulary has changed.

In this sense, the divine arises not from invention but from collision. There must first be an encounter with incomprehensibility  – the interface  – before any god-being can appear. Without such a frontier, divinity has no function. A god invented without an underlying mystery would be a mere fiction, not a sacred idea, because it would answer no cognitive or existential demand.

Thus the sequence when finitude is confronted by boundlessness is inevitable and unidirectional:

incomprehensibility → cognitive discomfort → placeholder → personification → divinity.

The Atheist–Theist Misunderstanding

When gods are understood not as beings but as boundaries of cognition, the quarrel between theist and atheist becomes a shadow-boxing match. Both speak to the same human need  – to name the edges of what we cannot (or cannot yet) know.

The theist affirms that beyond the boundary lies sacred divinity while the atheist denies the personality that has been projected upon that region. Yet both acknowledge, implicitly or explicitly, that the boundary exists. The theist says, “Here is God.” The atheist says, “Here is mystery, but not God.” Each uses a different language to describe the same encounter with incomprehensibility. In that sense, the death of God is only the death of one language of ignorance, soon replaced by another. Every age renames its mysteries. Where one century says “God,” another says “Nature,” or “Chance,” or “Quantum Field.” The placeholders persist and only their symbols change. The Laws of Nature are descriptions of observed patterns but explain nothing and do not contain, within themselves, any explanation as to why they are. All our observations assume causality to give us patterns we call Laws. When patterns are not discernible we invoke random events (which need no cause) or we impose probabilistic events on an unknowing universe.

Theism and atheism, then, are not opposites but reactions to the same human predicament, the finite mind meeting the incomprehensible. One bows before it; the other pretends to measure it. Both, in their own ways, testify to the same condition  – that we live surrounded by the unknowable. If there is a lesson in this, it is not theological but epistemological. Gods are not proofs or explanations of existence. They are confessions of cognitive limitation. They mark the frontier between what can be known and what cannot, yet or ever, be known. To understand them as such is not to destroy them but to restore them to their original role  as signposts for, not explanations of, the boundaries of thought.

Our cognition may evolve but will remain finite for the length of our time in this universe. So long as it remains finite, there will always be gods. Their names will change, their forms will evolve, but their necessity will endure. They must endure for they arise wherever understanding ends and wonder begins.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Language, Philosophy, Religion, Science | Comments Off on Gods are a matter of epistemology rather than theology

« Older Entries