Forty-Two

A speech I wrote in high school

In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the ultimate answer is sought to the ultimate question: the great Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. The answer was discovered to be forty-two, which understandably surprised those who sought it out. Whether or not it was correct, the answer was in effect worthless because it could not be understood – there was no apparent reason for The Answer to be forty-two.

Connecting this to reality – there are scores of religions and beliefsets that claim to have The Answer. However, if I were to meet someone who claimed to be of a certain religion, and they presented their beliefs but could not give a reason to back them up, their belief would be more or less worthless, whether it was correct or no. If I met someone else who believed differently but could defend their beliefs, theirs would be automatically worth more because they could be defended.

What if I told you that we do not have free will, and that God destroyed himself? How would you react? If I could not defend these statements, they’d be utterly ridiculous and most would reject them out of hand. But what if I could?

Let me first examine the dimensional universe. The first dimension is a line, the second is a plane and the addition of the third results in the 3D space that we humans move through. Because we exist and are defined, all other points in the first three dimensions must also exist and likewise be defined. To illustrate this, because you exist, it can be known precisely what there is forty-five meters to your left. Now, let me bring in the fourth dimension, largely considered to be time. Because we exist at a point in time, it follows that all other points must also exist and be defined. If all points in time are defined and set, there is no room for deviation. If deviation is impossible, then we do not have free will.

Perhaps God is a more interesting subject, with many more viewpoints and also several wars. I’m going to begin with several commonly held assumptions: that God exists, God is infinite in both power and knowledge, and for the sake of convenience, that God is male. What would motivate such a god to act? What could possibly motivate a being that could do anything, already would know the results of doing everything, and because he has power over time it’s as if everything is already done? Only an action with an unknown result could possibly hold any interest. If the only unknown for an omniscient god is his own non-existence, then the only action with motivation would be his own self-destruction.

Now let me bring humanity into the picture. Humanity exists. This is widely accepted, with the exception of some post-structuralists and perhaps Michael Dummett. With our assumptions concerning God, humanity’s existence is proof that God acted at one point in such a way that humanity came about as a result. Given this and our conclusion concerning God, the connection is plain: God destroyed himself, and we are what remains. God destroyed himself, and we are his debris.

My purpose in all of this is not to invalidate religion, nor to question justice on the basis of free will. My purpose is simply to drive home my original point: for a belief to have merit, there must be reasons behind it. Had I presented my arguments without defense, they, like forty-two, would be entirely worthless.

To close: no matter what I believe, or what you believe, no matter who, if anyone, is correct, belief must be founded with a reason.

If you believe, know why.

fairly late afterthought (2008-10-02) The following disclaimer will go on and attempt to ensure that you don’t draw any conclusions regarding yours truly. Ignore most/all of that. Thoughts on the subject have evolved somewhat in the last nine months, and not all of the below applies.

rather large disclaimer (2008-01-16) This speech was fairly interesting in its evolution. The seeds, perhaps, were planted in my reading of God’s Debris (have I mentioned it yet?) which I actually have yet to finish. My first thought was to write a speech on the future, quickly dismissed as far too broad for 3.5 minutes. I next considered writing a speech disproving the existence of God.

If you know me, and it’s likely you do if you’re reading this, you know that I am a Christian. I dislike the word ‘religion’ as it refers to humanity’s interpretation of God, whereas I try to focus on God’s interaction with humanity. This is an entirely separate subject, so I’ll leave it there for now.

Anyway, the speech disproving God’s existence would have been an experiment, mostly to see if I could competently write such a thing and keep all personal bias out of the picture. I started writing this one, actually, working in a smaller thought experiment concerning the dimensional universe and how it relates to free will. I made a loose connection between the logical impossibility of free will and God’s existence, and somewhere in the process the speech topic changed to what it is now: the necessity of purpose and reason in and behind belief.

I wholeheartedly agree with the speech’s thesis, but completely disagree with both of the examples presented: the non-existence of free will and God’s self-destruction. Therein lies the experiment that I started with – the removal of bias. I think I pulled if off. The free will reasoning is my own (though others have probably come up with it as well; I haven’t looked), but the self-destruction of God came straight out of God’s Debris. (Marvelous book, by the way.)

I wore a shirt under my suit during the speech, emblazoned with “The Answer is 42”.

And there you are.