An interesting point of view this. So, a being rose through the ranks, excelling at all levels of the hierarchy, but once this being was promoted to the rank of God, fae's performance dwindled precipitously and that manifests in our world as evil. Basically, the accusation is God's an inept bloke and that furnishes, inter alia, a very good reason for why the world and the universe at large are so flawed, so imperfect. We can, now, finally point the finger of blame at God for all our problems. Moreover, God's stuck at God level in the pecking order, fae will be passed over for promotion because, as the OP puts it, God sucks at his job. :lol:

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

Except, God's reportedly omniscient - impossible for a know-it-all to be bad at anything, right? An incompetent, all-knowing being is an oxymoron, like a "bitter-sweet", self-contradictory - something doesn't add up.

Notice that the "being" concerned is not The Being Formerly Known As God?

In polytheistic religions, gods are often flawed and no big deal is made out of it. There, it is hardly a matter of incompetence rather than character. In the ancient Sumerian flood myth for instance, Elil deemed humans as too numerous and simply got annoyed by them, resulting in a repeated culling through drought and plague. Humanity endured, resulting in the decision to wipe them out by means of the deluge, a plan which was thwarted by Ea informing his most trusted servant in advance.

The Abrahamic religions are basically the only ones that struggle with the idea of an incompetent god - and I believe this is based on wrong expectation and misconception. The root of all of this is that in the scriptures, god on numerous occasion decides to intervene with humanity, most often in the form of punishment.

This gives us the idea that god has a plan for us, that there must be a certain way humans are supposed to act unless they are to face the wrath of god. In the original sin of Adam and Eve, the snake claims that the forbidden fruit will give them wisdom, that they will be able to discern between good and evil. After they ate the fruit, the first thing they do is cover up their nakedness. Why did they do that? Because of shame? Because them being naked was evil? Hardly. They were made that way afterall.

What the forbidden fruit really represented, the way I interpret it, was the ability to judge gods creation. In a way it was wisdom indeed. The ability to discern things. An ability that allows us to apply logic and philosophize about such matters today. But the essential thing here is that human understanding of "good and evil" likely was different from god's understanding - showcased in the act of covering up their bare bodies.

Now if we move away from Abrahamic religion, which in the end is a grand compilation of numerous texts by numerous authors - not free from contradiction - what is good and evil?

Good and evil are very much human concepts. The judgement of what is good and what is evil is as personal as religious belief in itself. Where did humanity get the idea that they are favoured by god? Where did humanity get the idea that god's job is to look after them, to prevent evil and promote good? Even in the bible that original sin right from the start tells us: That is not god's job. We are endowed with free will. It wasn't earned either - it was there from the start. The lesson here is merely that our actions have consequences.

Notice that the "being" concerned is not The Being Formerly Known As God? — Banno

Demoted? :chin:

Apparently. If he evolves, he's not omnipotent, necessary, and all those other divine thingies.

Bit of a failure, it seems.

Apparently. If he evolves, he's not omnipotent, necessary, and all those other divine thingies.

Bit of a failure, it seems. — Banno

But, you couldn't devolve into something lower in rank than yourself, right? unless, of course, God shares the same human frailties but then we're looking at a being that's all too human, not God God.



time stamp 1:38

You see, he's just a man. — The Merovingian (to his thugs when he sees Neo bleeding)

But, you couldn't devolve into something lower in rank than yourself, right? — TheMadFool

Evolution is not teleological. No higher or lower. The premise is muddled. Like in that silly film.

But, you couldn't devolve into something lower in rank than yourself, right?
— TheMadFool

Evolution is not teleological. No higher or lower. The premise is muddled. Like in that silly film. — Banno

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about evolution. Let's keep this simple. Yes, a person who's acquired a PhD in some field can lose everything that the PhD stands for e.g. if he suffers a stroke, brain trauma in an accident, and so on but we're here talking about a being that has achieved omniscience - there's nothing this being (God) doesn't know - and I find it hard to believe that an omniscient being can be bad at anything let alone his job.

The movie's not silly. :smile: It deals with many philosophical issues.

It deals with many philosophical issues. — TheMadFool

Badly.

It deals with many philosophical issues.
— TheMadFool

Badly — Banno

As best as a layman could, no?

What about :point:

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about evolution. Let's keep this simple. Yes, a person who's acquired a PhD in some field can lose everything that the PhD stands for e.g. if he suffers a stroke, brain trauma in an accident, and so on but we're here talking about a being that has achieved omniscience - there's nothing this being (God) doesn't know - and I find it hard to believe that an omniscient being can be bad at anything let alone his job. — TheMadFool

The OP's viewpoint that God worked his way up the hackordnung or hackliste in a manner described in the Peter Principle ignores the fact that God's omniscient which, among other things, includes complete knowledge on how to discharge his duties as God to perfection. The flaws in creation we perceive is either our failure to comprehend its transcendental logic or our own doing. Let's not blame God for our own mistakes, shall we?

Those that can do, those that can’t teach.

While not a universal principle in the same way as the Peter Principle, it is well known that that one can know the particulars and yet be unable to execute. This is intimated in the tension between “knowledge that” and “knowledge how”. In an uncritical view of god’s omniscience, one might simply accept that god’s omniscience includes all forms knowledge and of necessity, knowledge how includes the ability to execute that knowledge. Consider the person that knows how to add and when presented with all of the relevant figures still comes to the wrong sum. This person, engaged purely in intellectual endeavor, didn’t know something and is clearly not god. But now imagine that an invisible being, who knows both everything about strutting down a runway (knowledge that and knowledge how) and has the desire to do so, struts down the runway. In some abstract way, it is probably the best runway strutting anyone would be able to do, but no one saw it - indeed no one was capable of seeing. In this way, necessary features of god can preclude the meaningful manifestation of god’s knowledge. Though far afield, perhaps this accounts for “god the teacher” who provides instruction on how to make the world a better place. Remember, though, if knowledge how is actually not knowledge, and god is imbued with only knowledge that (acquaintance knowledge is taken for granted because god knows everyone), it may be that god’s incompetence has additional explanations.


In any event, given enough time (which an infinite god has surely had) god will reach god’s maximum level of competence and thereafter function at least at god’s lowest level of incompetence (which may or may not be the most god can get away with and keep the job). At this level of incompetence, god can be unable to do despite complete knowledge of what to do, how to do it, and the consequences of the incompetence god will manifest in attempting to do so. The Peter Principle does not preclude god functioning at the highest possible level of potency, it merely highlights that superlatives are of necessity ordinal and being number one (in spirit, character, or count) for god says nothing about god’s invariant competence.


P.S. Auto-correct on a phone is, I believe, anti-intellectual.

Great piece, please do thank your rabbi for it. :-)

Those that can do, those that can’t teach. — Ennui Elucidator

Relevance?

While not a universal principle in the same way as the Peter Principle, it is well known that that one can know the particulars and yet be unable to execute. This is intimated in the tension between “knowledge that” and “knowledge how”. In an uncritical view of god’s omniscience, one might simply accept that god’s omniscience includes all forms knowledge and of necessity, knowledge how includes the ability to execute that knowledge. Consider the person that knows how to add and when presented with all of the relevant figures still comes to the wrong sum. This person, engaged purely in intellectual endeavor, didn’t know something and is clearly not god. But now imagine that an invisible being, who knows both everything about strutting down a runway (knowledge that and knowledge how) and has the desire to do so, struts down the runway. In some abstract way, it is probably the best runway strutting anyone would be able to do, but no one saw it - indeed no one was capable of seeing. In this way, necessary features of god can preclude the meaningful manifestation of god’s knowledge. Though far afield, perhaps this accounts for “god the teacher” who provides instruction on how to make the world a better place. Remember, though, if knowledge how is actually not knowledge, and god is imbued with only knowledge that (acquaintance knowledge is taken for granted because god knows everyone), it may be that god’s incompetence is has additional explanations. — Ennui Elucidator

I do respect your call for a critical examination of omniscience; it, for sure, counts as one of the best advice I've received. However, omniscience in re God is an attribute specifically crafted by theists to leave not even a tiny sliver of doubt as to what it means and what it implies - absolute knowledge that is perfect in every sense of perfect. To give you an idea of what it means, even if it were that there's nothing to know, god would know something - that, in my opinion, is the scope, if that's even the right word for it, of God's knowledge.

In any event, given enough time (which an infinite god has surely had) god will reach god’s maximum level of competence and thereafter function at least at god’s lowest level of incompetence (which may or may not be the most god can get away with and keep the job). At this level of incompetence, god can be unable to do despite complete knowledge of what to do, how to do it, and the consequences of the incompetence god will manifest in attempting to do so. The Peter Principle does not preclude god functioning at the highest possible level of potency, it merely highlights that superlatives are of necessity ordinal and being number one (in spirit, character, or count) for god says nothing about god’s invariant competence. — Ennui Elucidator

You have failed to make your case even though your attempt is commendably novel in its approach to the issue of the problem of evil. Why? For your argument to work, God's omniscience must go out the window but if that, you would be arguing against not God but something else entirely, an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, non-omniscient being - that's not God.

For your argument to work, God's omniscience must go out the window but if that, you would be arguing against not God but something else entirely, an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, non-omniscient being - that's not God. — TheMadFool

Liberal theology has come along way since the formulation of God as omniscient( see process theology, open theism).

For your argument to work, God's omniscience must go out the window — TheMadFool

Again, knowing and doing are two separate things. A paralyzed Olympian knows how but can't do. A marginally competent god is the same way. Omniscience is not the problem with what I am saying, it is omnipotence. Can there be a constraint on god and it still be omnipotent? You'll find that people have historically argued that god can do anything logically possible. What I have done is suggest that the Peter Principle is a necessary logical constraint on god. Random Wiki on Omnipotence

he Peter Principle, though often thought of as a mere hypothesis, rests not on empirical observation (whether such is employed to support the hypothesis or not), but simple self evident truths combined with the rules of thought as articulated from Aristotle to the present. — Ennui Elucidator

A quibble - This is not true. The Peter Principle was developed by Dr. Laurence Peter based on his empirical research.

A quibble - This is not true. The Peter Principle was developed by Dr. Laurence Peter based on his empirical research. — T Clark

What is it about the world being an instantiation of the forms which must exist of necessity? For us to observe and discover the necessary is not to make the necessary empirical, it is just the way that we must experience the world. So yes, his research was empirical, but what he discovered was timeless. It would be like claiming that the first person that said, "On a plane, a circle consists of all points equidistant from a fixed point" invented a circle rather than discovered it! Or perhaps you'd like to say that 2+2 requires empirical proof because we came to number theory by counting our fingers? Wouldn't that be silly?

What is it about the world being an instantiation of the forms which must exist of necessity? — Ennui Elucidator

Although I think the Peter Principle may be a plausible explanation for the behaviors and performance of some people in hierarchical institutions, I don't think it is self-evident, or as you call it, "an instantiation of forms." It is a generalization from observations.

It is a generalization from observations. — T Clark

And I can generalize that 2+2=4. And also like I said, I can observe people categorically sucking and thereby glean something of their mold. So not only does god self-evidently suck at being god, but also demonstrably sucks at being god.

For your argument to work, God's omniscience must go out the window
— TheMadFool

Again, knowing and doing are two separate things. A paralyzed Olympian knows how but can't do. A marginally competent god is the same way. Omniscience is not the problem with what I am saying, it is omnipotence. Can there be a constraint on god and it still be omnipotent? You'll find that people have historically argued that god can do anything logically possible. What I have done is suggest that the Peter Principle is a necessary logical constraint on god. Random Wiki on Omnipotence — Ennui Elucidator

I most certainly agree that there's a difference between knowing and doing - the former is pure thought while the latter is action. There's a causal gap indeed between the two as many thoughts aren't acted upon and sometimes what happens is a far cry from what was intended. The latter situation (italicized) is where incompetence enters into the picture.

There seems to be something off about the Peter principle. Let's take an example from the military, it seems the most obvious choice for studying how promotions work.

The Peter principle claims that, say, a brigadier (2nd highest rank), Jack, is promoted to general (highest office in the military) because Jack is a competent brigadier and second, in the same breath, asserts that Jack is an incompetent general.

How then can Jack ever be given a promotion to the rank of general? Jack's an incompetent general. That competent brigadiers are promoted to general indicates that the logic of promotion in this case is, good brigadier = good general or competent brigadier = competent general. The same principle applies to all cases of promotions.

Similarly, imagine a being's been promoted to God. This can only be the case if this being's level of competence at the next lower level is at par with that of a God. In other words, God's competent.

Liberal theology has come along way since the formulation of God as omniscient( see process theology, open theism). — Joshs

:ok: :up:

I appreciate your seeming sincerity, but one can be a flirt only so long. This post is largely an example of Poe’s Law.

That said, there are some things to be gleaned from an absurd analysis of the Omni-god, but as this is a philosophy forum (which is concerned primarily with method), I will not elaborate in a way that would strike of being religious.

I will, however, tell you that this story is an absurd expansion of an actual sermon which is timely for Jews thinking about the themes of some upcoming holidays. Charity and humility (the acceptance that others will suck at their jobs while we suck at our own) are virtues that go a long way towards maintaining relationships and allowing ourselves and others to seek and give forgiveness for our failings. The Peter Principle (empirical as it is) is a relatively contemporary tool for framing the abundant incompetence we see and highlighting the systems and systemic forces that foster it.

I appreciate your seeming sincerity, but one can be a flirt only so long. This post is largely an example of Poe’s Law — Ennui Elucidator

You seem to be on top of things.

That said, there are some things to be gleaned from an absurd analysis of the Omni-god, but as this is a philosophy forum (which is concerned primarily with method), I will not elaborate in a way that would strike of being religious.

I will, however, tell you that this story is an absurd expansion of an actual sermon which is timely for Jews thinking about the themes of some upcoming holidays. Charity and humility (the acceptance that others will suck at their jobs while we suck at our own) are virtues that go a long way towards maintaining relationships and allowing ourselves and others to seek and give forgiveness for our failings. The Peter Principle (empirical as it is) is a relatively contemporary tool for framing the abundant incompetence we see and highlighting the systems and systemic forces that foster it. — Ennui Elucidator

So, God wasn't what you wanted to discuss. What you really wanted was an opinion on human failings, incompetence, and how it would be better if we cut each other some slack to avoid unnecessary headaches. We did discuss that too, although only superficially.

Who promoted God to beyond His competence?

The Peter principle applies to hierarchical structures; but not a statue, nor a painting ever gets promoted to the job of artist. It makes no sense to suggest it, and that is God's relation to His creation and to all other creatures.

Does the Peter Principle better describe God's position or this rabbi's?

Who promoted God to beyond His competence? — unenlightened

People. God might have been good at somethings once upon a time, but as widely conceived these days? A bit like using a screw driver to try turning the main shaft of an aircraft carrier.

Everyone’s, Hanover.

So, God wasn't what you wanted to discuss. What you really wanted was an opinion on human failings, incompetence, and how it would be better if we cut each other some slack to avoid unnecessary headaches. We did discuss that too, although only superficially — TheMadFool

What I really wanted to do was share a bit of humor in religious philosophy. What makes it funny is how it hints at something more profound and gives momentary context for the vicissitudes of life. Just imagine that the reason for life being the way it is is due to some dawdling good natured putz who knows everything, but just can’t seem to get out of his own way. It would be such a nice explanation, even if it isn’t.

It would be such a nice explanation, even if it isn’t. — Ennui Elucidator

I gain greater comfort in knowing that each blade of grass is exactly where it ought to be. Why do you gain greater comfort in divine halfassery?