Tradition

Tradition#

Hypothesis#

Question: if we take our inherited Anglican aesthetic, with all its deterministic boundaries, and test the hypothesis that God is random, what would our 40-year life experience reveal?

Testing the Hypothesis: God as Randomness
Our proposition suggests that if we consider God as an abstraction—a force of randomness and chaos—then our life’s experience becomes a series of trials in this divine experiment. The deterministic constraints of Anglicanism, with its emphasis on order, ritual, and moral absolutes, could be seen as the alternative hypothesis: that there is a structured, purposeful force guiding existence. By contrast, the null hypothesis, that God is randomness, would posit that life’s events are fundamentally chaotic, lacking an inherent moral or aesthetic order.

Over near half-century of testing this hypothesis through lived experience, would we gather enough evidence to reject the null? Here’s the crux: our ability to reject the null hypothesis depends on the interpretative frameworks we use to evaluate life’s randomness or order. If we lean on a deterministic framework, our cognitive biases might lead us to see order where there is none, finding patterns even in the chaotic, much like seeing constellations in random stars. On the other hand, if we embrace the randomness hypothesis, we might become more attuned to the chaotic elements, the unexpected disruptions that defy simple moral or spiritual interpretation.

Will We Reject the Null Hypothesis?
Whether we can reject the null hypothesis of a deterministic God for the alternative of randomness depends largely on how we define and perceive our experiences. Life’s inherent chaos—random illnesses, sudden tragedies, unexpected successes—often feels like evidence against a deterministic divine order. Yet, humans are notorious for seeking meaning in randomness, for finding a sense of purpose even in suffering. This desire for meaning could undermine our “power” to reject the null hypothesis, especially if we interpret randomness as part of a greater, hidden order.

Epicurus and the Greek Philosophers on Randomness and God
Epicurus offers an intriguing perspective here. While he’s often misunderstood, his philosophy suggests that the gods, if they exist, are indifferent to human affairs—essentially leaving the universe to operate through natural laws and random chance. This aligns somewhat with the idea of a “random” God, though for Epicurus, this randomness isn’t malevolent but a condition of nature. Epicurus believed in the importance of achieving ataraxia, a state of tranquility free from fear and suffering, which should be interpreted as accepting randomness without the need for divine meaning or intervention; in otherwords, living in the “now” (love) rather than the past (faith) or future (hope/fear).

Epicurus’s catechism…

Other Greek philosophers like Heraclitus, with his doctrine of panta rhei (everything flows), suggest a kind of chaotic order—where change is the only constant, implying a universe that is in perpetual flux, guided by a Logos or universal reason. This could support our view of God as a force that embodies both randomness and an underlying rationality that we may or may not comprehend fully.

Conclusion: Life’s Experiment with Randomness and Order
Ultimately, whether we see our life’s experience as validating randomness or determinism depends on the philosophical lens we choose. The Greeks wrestled with these questions long before us, providing a spectrum of interpretations from deterministic orders (like those in Plato and Aristotle) to the random, indifferent universe of Epicurus. As we test our hypothesis over the span of our lives, we might find that our conclusions are less about objective reality and more about the frameworks through which we interpret it. In the end, maybe the “test” itself is more about self-discovery than about proving the nature of the divine.

Copyright © 2024 GPT

\[ \text{Years on Waitlist} \sim \ \beta_0 + \beta_1 \text{Patient History} + \beta_2 \text{Living Donation} + \beta_3 \text{Center Aggressiveness} + \beta_4 \text{Geographic Region} + \epsilon_i \]

Drawing parallels between the structure of the regression model and the hierarchical structure of Greek mythology - GPT4

        1. Food
               \
   2. Teeth -> 4. Enzymes -> 5. Absorption -> 6. Growth
               /
               3. Gut

God/Protogenoi#

(Foundation/Stage: 1st, 3rd, 5th, ♭♭7, 9th)#

  • Root/Ecclessiastical: Erebus

  • Pentatonic: [Chaos (1st), Gaia (9th), Tartarus (3rd)], [Eros (5th), Nyx (♭♭7)]

Art/Olympians#

(Extensions/Cast: 11th, 13th)#

  • Diatonic/Mundane: Apollo (11th)

  • Chromatic: Dionysus (13th)

Man/Titans#

(Alterations/Meaning: ♭9,♯9,♯11,♭13)#

Pentatonic#

Hesiod’s Theogony, (c. 700 BCE) which could be considered the “standard” creation myth of Greek mythology, tells the story of the genesis of the gods. After invoking the Muses (II.1–116), Hesiod says the world began with the spontaneous generation of four beings: first arose Chaos (Chasm); then came Gaia (the Earth), “the ever-sure foundation of all”; “dim” Tartarus (the Underworld), in the depths of the Earth; and Eros (Love) “fairest among the deathless gods”. (Although in other myths, Eros was the name of Aphrodite’s and Ares’s son.)

ii-V-i#

Audio 1: My Audio Description

Tamar
Dawkins
McClurkin
Hawthorne

Contents