Acculturation Scales with Theological Parameters of Omniscience from
Bible Game Theory, Decision Algorithms and No-Go Theorems
Dallas F. Bell, Jr.
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
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.)
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
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
not obedient worship of God
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
obedient worship of
People (average belief)
not obedient worship of God
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 2
p2 chooses 1,3
p1 (Abel) options are 1,1 or
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 2
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.)
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.
RIGHTS RESERVED 2008 © DALLAS F. BELL, JR.----------