Systematic Political Science


Constructing Acculturation Scales with Theological Parameters of Omniscience from Bible Game Theory, Decision Algorithms and No-Go Theorems

Dallas F. Bell, Jr.

1. Acculturation Scales

In 1936 Robert Redfield, Ralph Linton and Melville Herskovits wrote Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation in the American Anthropologist.  The writing defined acculturation as the transference of cultural behavior between groups that are in close proximity as they each maintain their individual group's distinctness.  Thus, groups develop strategies to become more efficient in pursuing their common individual needs by adapting to their environment.  A historical example would be the Israeli acculturation recorded in the first and second chapters of the biblical book of Judges.  The Ten Commandments or Natural Law of Freewill (NLF) were used for societal behavioral references for each group.  Claude Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) has explained how God is the source of societal law. 

Redfield, Linton and Herskovits noted that stress is caused by the acculturation processes.  The 2006 study, Immigrant Youth in Cultural Transition: Acculturation, Identity and Adaptation Across National Contexts, by David Sam, Paul Vedder, Colleen Ward and Gabriel Horenczyk cited 55 samples in 13 nations.  Those samples implied that immigrant adolescents had better mental health than their non-immigrant peers.   

The 2006 article titled The Case of Acculturation did not find evidence that acculturation is distressful.  The co-author of that finding, Floyd Rudmin, later argued that Sam, Vedder, Ward and Horenczyks' book had no tabulations of measures of acculturation stress.  Rudmin did acknowledge that the term "adaptation" should replace the term of "acculturative stress" because it is a construct that seems to have no direct operationalization.  (That view was expressed by Floyd Rudmin in an email exchange with Dallas F. Bell Jr. in May, 2008.

Acculturation scales could be used to measure stress (e.g. the 2007 Barcelona Immigration Stress Scale by Joaquin Tomas-Sabado et al.)  Acculturation scales could also be generally used to measure the level of transference among groups (e.g. the CBBAP by Julia Shiang et al.[Julia Shiang indicated in an email exchange with Dallas F. Bell Jr. in May, 2008, that specific tool has been discontinued.])  Models for such tests should include language abilities, heritage/tradition allegiances and values within the context of problem solving (IQ) abilities. 

All cultures have the same reference for values, NLF, but with relative understanding due to ignorance or denial.  An example of ignorance could be that if a Buddhist's life is saved by someone the Buddhist may murder that person(s) if the Buddhist believes he or she has paid the rescuer(s) debt--relative moral abacus.  An example of denial would be the Darwinian evolutionist U.S. Supreme Court that has chosen to describe unborn human babies as non-humans so that the babies can be murdered.  Both of those examples of behavioral ignorance and denial are dependent on NLF from theological parameters. 

De Tocqueville's observations of U.S. values in the 1800s as having emanated from the preaching of compliance with all NLF by Christian ministers can be contrasted with the present day Darwinian evolution beliefs valorized by the U.S. government away from compliance with any NLF.  Therefore, acculturation shifts occur to or from compliance with NLF.  Those shifts are based on theological beliefs, including eschatological beliefs, that calibrate the standard for what is considered "good" or what is considered evil or "bad."  Those epistemological choices encompass the decision making from both consequentialism (based on immediate perceived consequences of a choice) and a deontological view (inherently relative to unchanging moral standards regardless of the immediate consequences of a choice.)                

2. Omniscience

Infiniteness is widely recognized by most people to exist (i.e. numbers, time etc.)  The God of the first cause of all effects, Yahweh or YHWH (יהוה), would be reasonably characterized by the description of infiniteness.  Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) has attempted to address how finite humans cannot fully grasp the infinite (Latin: finitum non capax infinitum.)  Bavinck explains that man can apprehend God (Ps. 86:11) when He reveals Himself in scriptures and creation, but man will never be able to comprehend Him. 

The Almighty would act with holiness having the feature of omnipotence (God: Gen.1:3, 17:1; Ps. 115:3; Is. 40:28; Amos 1-2:3, 4:13;  Christ: Matt. 4:1-11, 8:3, 25:31-33; Mark 1:23-27; John 10:17-18; Holy Spirit: Is. 11:2; Rom. 15:19.)  This would indicate His omnipresence (God: Jer. 23:23-24;  Christ: Matt. 18:20;  Holy Spirit: Ps. 139:7-12.)  Additionally, He would have omniscience (God: Is 40:14;  Christ: Col. 2:2-3;  Holy Spirit: 1 Cor. 2:10-13.)  God would be knowable and trustworthy by His immutability (God: Ex. 3:14; Ps. 102:25-27, 138:8; Is. 43:10; Mal. 3:6; Rom. 11:29; Phil. 1:6; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:17-18; James. 1:17;  Christ: John 8:58; Heb. 1:12, 7:22-24, 13:8; Rev. 1:8-18.)  Without those characteristics, mankind could not address a finite superior being with any certitude except for that being's potential fallibility.   

3. Bible Game Theory

The Almighty or God of the first cause of all effects has been revealed in the Bible as having characteristics, such as omniscience, described in the previous section of this paper.  This God anthropologically expressed His acts as decision making in a succession of moments even though He must have always known all actions and reactions from a perspective of omniscience.  With God all is present and there is no past or future.  This reality is demonstrated in the Old Testament (OT) book of Genesis when Abraham had a son in his old age that led to the creation of the nation-state of Israel as God foretold.  In the New Testament (NT), Peter denies Jesus three times before the cock crowed as Jesus foretold (Matt. 26:33-35, 69-75; Mark 14:28-31, 66-72; Luke 22:31-34, 55-62; John 18:16-27.) 

Miguel de Cervantes (1547-1616) wrote in Don Quixote (translated from Part II, Book II, Chapter 25) that "...the devil, who knows nothing of the future except by conjecture, wherein he must be mistaken; for it is the prerogative of God alone truly to comprehend all things: to Him nothing is past or future, everything is present."  The reasonable decision making analysis in the Bible and elsewhere may only entail the possible player sets of superior beings (angels and demons) or humans.  Demons, fallen angels (angels that chose to disobey God), will always act as a T3 with noncompliance of NLF.  Whereas angels will always act as T1 with compliance of NLF.  Humans may act as either T1, T2 or T3. (In an email exchange between both Robert Axelrod and Steven Brams with Dallas F. Bell Jr. in May, 2008, Axelrod and Brams expressed the view that game theory can be applied to religious concepts.

A decision making matrix from the OT book of Genesis involving Cain (player 2) and Abel (player 1) can be constructed as follows. 

                                                                            Cain (player 2)

                                            obedient worship of God   not obedient worship of God

                   obedient worship of God              1,1                        1,3


(player 1)    not obedient worship of God        3,1                     3,3 

The number 1 represents a goal of compliance with all NLF.  Conversely, the number 3 represents a goal of noncompliance with NLF.  A number 2 would be meant to represent the rare occasion of an undetermined interpretation to NLF.  There are no degrees of whether a behavior is less or more compliant with NLF.  Either a behavior is or is not consistent with NLF.  Player 1 is the standardized position of having the most or equal compliance to NLF as compared to player 2. 

In the matrix above, Abel had a T1 belief and Cain had a T3 belief as demonstrated by his violation of the NLF La and 1, and later violating the NLF Lb, 6, 8, 9 and 10.  The outcome of 1,3 was to be expected as the combined dominate strategies or equilibrium for T1 and T3 games. 

A decision making matrix predicted to occur in the NT book of Revelation is as follows. 

                                                  The World Leader--the Anti-Christ (player 2)

                                        obedient worship of God      not obedient worship God

                    obedient worship of God             1,1                       1,3 

Global People (average belief)

   (player 1)  not obedient worship of God       3,1                       3,3 

The outcome is foretold to be 3,3 for violating all NLF.  That coming reality can be seen today as the global view is becoming T3 and those with T3 beliefs are looking for a like minded world leader to consolidate their evil efforts.  A 3,3 is the dominate strategy for a T3 and T3 interaction ending with certain destruction unless the game is supernaturally terminated beforehand. 

There are many matrixes that can be formulated from the same biblical decision making models given in this section. 

4. Decision Algorithms

Decision trees can be constructed to track decision probabilities between players until termination of the game.  The possibilities of players' beliefs/behaviors are T1,T1; T1,T2; T1,T3; T2,T2; T2,T3; T3,T3.  There are four rules for the algorithm.  

Rule I.  Player 2 (p2) chooses a strategy first and then player 1 (p1) chooses a strategy.  That sequence occurs until termination.

Rule II.  Either or both p1 and p2 can choose to switch strategies to more or to less compliance with NLF based either on repentance and reformation toward NLF or based on rebellion and away from NLF, such as when the environment changes to reinforce or not reinforce the beginning T belief.  The players least influenced by environmental pressure are the older in age, those with higher IQs and those with a long history of dominate behavior.

Rule III.  The other player can choose to respond by switching strategies.

Rule IV.  The alternating moves continue until the game is terminated into the final outcome, many times with Divine justice being evoked out of necessity. 

The OT algorithm example of Cain and Abel in the matrix of the previous section is as follows. 


p2 (Cain) has a choice to comply with the NLF of La and 1

                                                     ----the options are----

column 1, row 1--or--column 1, row 2--column 2, row 1--or--column 2, row 2

track 1      1,1                  3,1            ------- track 2      1,3                      3,3

p2 chooses 1,3

p1 (Abel) options are 1,1 or 1,3

p1 chooses the preferred option of 1,1 to comply with the NLF of La and 1

p2 must then choose whether to comply with the NLF of Lb, 6, 8, 9 and 10

p2 chooses 1,3 and not comply

p1 is murdered by p2 and p2 lies to God about the violation against p1

p1 cannot play any longer

The game is terminated by God's justice against p2.


The NT algorithm of the Anti-Christ (p2) and the average beliefs of global people (p1) in the previous section would be as follows. 


p2 has a choice to comply with all NLF or not

                                           ----the options are----

col. 1, row 1 --or--  col.1, row 2  -----------  col. 2, row 1  --or--  col. 2, row 2

track 1   1,1          3,1         -----------  track 2    1,3                      3,3

p2 chooses 3,3 after feigning compliance with NLF, especially the peace subset of Lb

p1 options are 1,3 or 3,3

p1 chooses 3,3 by choosing not to comply with NLF

p2 chooses 3,3

The game is terminated by God's justice against both p1 and p2 or all would be destroyed.


An example of a biblical model where a player changed their strategy can be found in the game between Saul (p2) and David (p1).  Saul began as 1,3 in I Sam. 16:14 where he disobeyed God and David was anointed to become king.  In I Sam. 19:1, Saul sought to kill David.  David chose 1,1 and did not take advantage of killing Saul in I Sam. 24:1-15.  Saul repents in I Sam. 24:16-22 and chooses 1,1 in reformation for a time until termination and his rebelling to again choose 1,3.  As with decision matrixes there are many algorithms from biblical models that can be constructed. 

5. No-Go theorems

As many people know, a theorem is an idea, formula or logic deduced from other ideas and formulas that are accepted as true as part of a general theory.  A no-go theorem is an idea that is not possible even though it may seem possible.  False assumptions and hidden implicit assumptions that are also false contribute to the identification of no-go theorems. 

The biblical God could be reasoned, when Bible passages are taken out of context due to ignorance or denial, to not be the Almighty.  For example, Genesis records that God rested on the Sabbath thereby causing a false conclusion that God expended His essence and so must not be omnipotent.  That same passage in Genesis also states that God saw His creation and it was good, as if He was surprised by the outcome.  That could also be wrongly reasoned that God did not know what the result of creation would be until created, implying that He was not omniscient. 

We can see how false premises extend along a theological path to an untrue conclusion that the biblical God is finite.  Such a lesser god would not be immutable and so not either knowable for NLF to guide behavior or for eschatological hope.  He would appear to act arbitrary or random and not be worthy of knowing for epistemological authority and standards nor for an ability to forgive trespasses--sin.  Heaven and hell, or any afterlife for that matter, would not be knowable and all mankind could do what they want when they want--no sin.  There are no finer examples of such beliefs currently available than Steven Brams' books Superior Beings: If They Exist How Would We Know? (2006) and Biblical Games: Game Theory and the Hebrew Bible (latest edition (2003).  (According to Mary Ann Meyers in an email exchange with Dallas F. Bell Jr. in May, 2008, the book of the Templeton Foundation symposium at Princeton University held in October, 2007, concerning "Games, Groups, God(s) and the Global Good," is scheduled to be published by Springer in the spring of 2009.) 

6. Conclusion

The omnipotent God of the Bible always prevails (Rev. 19:6) and if He did not condescend to communicate with man we could not understand or have a relationship with Him (Job 37:23, Job 38-42; 2 Peter 3:16.)  God's ways are not our ways (Is 55:8-9; Rev. 15:3.)  That is demonstrated by examples such as the process God used to show Abraham his own faith of placing God's will over his ability to reason by being willing to sacrifice his promised son, Isaac (Gen. 22:1-19.)  God even allowed the foolish vow of Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter to be tragically carried out (Judges 11:30-40) even though the sacrifice of imperfect/sinful humans is not acceptable to God (Gen. 22:1-14; Lev. 18:21, 20:1-5; Deut. 12:29-32, 18:9-12, 21:18-21; II Kings 3:27, 16:3, 17:17; II Chr. 33:6; Jer. 7:31, 19:5, 32:35; Amos 5:25-27.)  The only perfect/sinless sacrifice acceptable was Jesus (Matt. 20:28, 27:4; Rom. 5:10; I Cor. 5:7; II Cor. 5:21; Gal 3:13; I Peter 1:19.)  In I and II Samuel, the judgment for Saul's pattern of sin of disobedience, to include witchcraft, required his death.  On the other hand, David's repenting for the sins of adultery and murder still led to the death of David's infant son, the rape of his daughter by a son, the murder of his sons in revenge for the rape by another son and the armed revolt against David's kingdom by one son until that son was killed.       

Acculturation scales examine the process of determining how groups interact chiefly based on theological parameters that originate from the authority and standards of the Almighty set forth in the Bible.   

----------ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2008 © DALLAS F. BELL, JR.----------