One Suffices

One Suffices; 'Abdu'l-Baha and the Principle of Sufficient Reason
Oneness of God series, Part VII

By John Taylor;

We have been discussing the principle of the Oneness of God as
expounded by the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Today I will concentrate upon
the Master's views of the principle, which tend to take in natural as
well as divine philosophy. The following comes from an interview with
`Abdu'l-Baha that we regard today as a mere pilgrim's note but in its
time it was among one of the first eyewitness glimpses into the
Master's pure philosophy in a time when Baha'is had virtually no
access to the Writings, even in translation.

from: Daily Lessons Received at Akka, January 1908, by Helen S.
Goodall and Ella Goodall Cooper Wilmette, IL: Baha'i Publishing Trust,
1979, pp. 21-22, text available at:
<http://bahai-library.com/?file=goodall_cooper_daily_lessons>

Question: Are there accidental happenings, or do all events occur
according to Divine plan?

Answer: "God's creation is perfect. Every part of the universe has its
connection with every other part, according to a Divine system. We
compare the body of the universe with the body of man. The members of
the body of man are closely connected; so, also, are the parts of the
great universe. The great events which happen are due to this
connection. There is day, there is night; sometimes there are
eclipses, etc.--all according to the requirements of this Divine
system. All the created beings are connected with each other, and all
occurrences and events are indicative of the requirements of this
connection and interrelation.

"In the body of man, all the members and parts are interdependent; for
example, the heart feels the things seen by the eye; the ear hears,
and the soul is thereby moved; the nostrils inhale a sweet odor, and
the whole body is delighted. This is a proof that all the parts of the
body of man are interrelated. This is according to a Divine plan, and
it is also evident that there is a great wisdom therein. Even
unpleasant things, such as chill in the feet which is felt in the
head, a disagreeable odor which affects the whole system, or trifles
(which are endless, and seem to be accidental) such as a small hair
appearing in an unusual place on a man's face, should also be
considered as having a place or part in this general system.
Therefore, what we call an accident is the effect of the connection of
all the parts, and no events transpire in vain."

`Abdu'l-Baha asked that we observe the unity of the universe in the
microcosm of the body -- the concept of a body politic is among the
most ancient and is still the most useful paradigm. We feel the
integrity of our body and conclude that there is oneness in
everything. That is not to say that we can understand everything in
the universe, any more than we understand all the mysterious
operations of our body, however intimately we may feel its presence.
But still the fact that it all works together proves that there is a
single spirit behind it. One philosopher who explored this in science
and mathematics was Gottfried W. Leibniz. I believe that the Master
was talking about Leibniz in the following, from the amazing proof of
deity that he presented in his Chicago hotel on 2 May, 1912.

"When we carefully investigate the kingdoms of existence and observe
the phenomena of the universe about us, we discover the absolute order
and perfection of creation. The dull minerals in their affinities,
plants and vegetables with power of growth, animals in their instinct,
man with conscious intellect and the heavenly orbs moving obediently
through limitless space are all found subject to universal law, most
complete, most perfect. That is why a wise philosopher has said,
"There is no greater or more perfect system of creation than that
which already exists." (Promulgation, 79-80, talk given at Hotel
Plaza, Chicago)

Leibniz worked out the principle of sufficient reason, a major pillor
of science as well as religion, from his idea that this is the best
universe possible. For a believer this may seem obvious, that God
would not bother to create a second rate, or third rate creation, but
it is still surprising how much science depends upon the idea that
there is a good reason, if not the best reason, behind everything.
Here is what my encyclopedia has to say about the "best of all
possible worlds" proposition.

"Among all possible worlds that God could have created, his actual
choice of one over the others required a sufficient reason, which, for
Leibniz, was the fact that this world was the best -- despite the
existence of evident evils; for any other possible world would have
had evils of its own sort of even greater magnitude. Had it lacked a
sufficient reason to explain its existence (and implicitly its
contingency), the world for Leibniz would have existed of necessity.
Voltaire's Candide (1759) was a satirical rejection of Leibniz'
optimistic view of the world." (Encyclopedia Britannica. 2006.
Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD 18 Feb.
2006)

Leibnitz built an early calculator and invented the binary system, the
basis of the modern computer. His motto was: "Omnibus ex nihil
ducendis sufficit unum," (one suffices to derive all out of nothing),
and indeed without a one and a zero, one and nothing, computers could
not take a mental step. Leibniz hoped to derive a universal language
out of symbolic logic, which he single-handedly invented. He also laid
the groundwork for quantum physics with his idea of monads, basic
"atoms" of the logical universe, some truths of which he considered to
be necessary -- that is, their non-existence involves a contradiction
-- and some were truths of fact, which are contingent, dependent upon
more basic grounds. His principle of sufficient reason accounts for
the existence of the latter by asserting that,

"there is an adequate reason to account for the existence and nature
of everything that could conceivably not exist. In each such case, the
ultimate sufficient reason is the free choice of God." ("sufficient
reason" Britannica, id.)

Yesterday I told of our kid's bedtime reaction to the article about
the omega number written by Gregory Chaitin, the inventor of
algorithmic information theory. This is yet another science that,
Chaitin says, was anticipated in most important ways by Liebniz.
Chaitin write that evidence is not enough for mathematicians, they
require proof, which is part of the principle of sufficient reason.
Yet there is complexity and randomness.

"If Leibniz had put all this together he might have questioned one of
the key pillars of philosophy, namely, the principle of sufficient
reason -- that everything happens for a reason. Furthermore, if
something is true, it must be true for a reason. That may be hard to
believe sometimes, in the confusion and chaos of daily life, in the
contingent ebb and flow of human history. But even if we cannot always
see a reason (perhaps because the chain of reasoning is long and
subtle), Leibniz asserted, God can see the reason. It is there! In
that, he agreed with the Ancient Greeks, who originated the idea."
(Scientific American, March 2006, p. 77)

The reason that Leibniz did not question it was because of the "G"
word. His central point was that God understands, not that we can
understand or ever hope to do so in the future. The incompleteness
proofs based upon the liar's paradox only apply to us, not to God, Who
alone unifies opposites without contradiction. Needless to say, the
Master gives this issue a great deal of attention in all His Writings.

I have picked out two examples based upon a whim that inspired me as I
was researching this essay in my sleep. I had been remembering how my
daughter told a story about an "obviously bird," a bird who obviously
got up one obvious morning and saw that it was obviously going to be
an obvious day, and so on. To my amusement I found out that she had no
idea what "obvious" means, she only found it an interesting game to
use it as a universal modifier. This reminded me of a brief visit I
once had to a logician's home. The logician happened to be watching
the news on television. Every time a speaker used the word "obviously"
he would repeat it, to the great annoyance of his wife, who
continually asked him to stop that, she wanted to hear what they were
saying. Myself, I was amazed at how often people in "man in the
street" interviews really do use that word. He was repeating that
word, "obviously," every few seconds. He turned to me and said, quite
logically I thought, "If something is obvious, you do not have to say
it. Why are people constantly saying things that they recognize
themselves do not need to be said? Why don't they just shut up?"
Amusingly, this infuriated his longsuffering spouse. I concluded that
logicians do not make good marital material.

Anyway, with that in mind I wondered how often `Abdu'l-Baha used a
word that the translator decided meant "obviously." It turned out that
he only said it three times in all his talks in Canada and the United
States. Here is one of the three, from a talk He gave to the
Theosophists:

"To be brief: Our purpose is to show that the divine sovereignty, the
Kingdom of God, is an ancient sovereignty, that it is not an
accidental sovereignty, just as a kingdom presupposes the existence of
subjects, of an army, of a country; for otherwise the state of
dominion, authority and kingdom cannot be conceived of. Therefore, if
we should imagine that the creation is accidental, we would be forced
to admit that the Creator is accidental, whereas the divine bounty is
ever flowing, and the rays of the Sun of Truth are continuously
shining. No cessation is possible to the divine bounty, just as no
cessation is possible to the rays of the sun. This is clear and
obvious." (Abdu'l-Baha, Promulgation, 463)

I will only afflict you with one more of the three obviously quotes,
from a talk given in New York at the Church of the Ascension,

"It is self-evident that humanity is at variance. Human tastes differ;
thoughts, native lands, races and tongues are many. The need of a
collective center by which these differences may be counterbalanced
and the people of the world be unified is obvious. Consider how
nothing but a spiritual power can bring about this unification, for
material conditions and mental aspects are so widely different that
agreement and unity are not possible through outer means. It is
possible, however, for all to become unified through one spirit, just
as all may receive light from one sun. Therefore, assisted by the
collective and divine center which is the law of God and the reality
of His Manifestation, we can overcome these conditions until they pass
away entirely and the races advance." (Abdu'l-Baha, Promulgation, 164)

--
John Taylor

badijet@gmail.com