We understand and interpret the world through language. This of itself has the potential to bias the way we understand reality. Language right from our first words, ‘Mama, Dada, No!’ has inherent meaning, and frequently purpose.
It should be no surprise to find that this is how many of us interpret the world – a place with meaning and purpose.
We take life personally. And of course sometimes it is. Some of that which happens is a deliberate act by a conscious being. Someone who if they had wanted too, could have behaved otherwise.
It is this feeling that life is, or ought to be, purposeful and meaningful, that creates within us the ecological niche, that is the habitat for religious memes.
I’m coming to think the really interesting thing about theology is not what any of it says about God, but how people try to verbalize their belief, and what the attempt tells us about the person and the culture in which said person operates.
Wendy Dackson Two Entirely Random unrelated reflections 2016
Theology understood not as the study of God, but as the study of how people incorporate this feeling that reality has purpose and meaning into their belief systems, has the potential to be a very fruitful discipline.
The study of God is a little more problematic.
The existence of an Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent God, is as the Scottish Philosopher, David Hume pointed out inconsistent with the existence of suffering in the world.
This is something that Bertrand Russell also referred to in his, ‘Is There a God?’ essay of 1952, the one that introduced the world to the Celestial Teapot.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
Bertrand Russell Is there a God ? (commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine, in 1952)
Bertrand Russell is frequently understood to be implying that belief in God is the logical equivalent to belief in an orbiting teapot; there is no reason to believe in the existence of either, and this is a good reason not to believe.
This is how Richard Dawkins understood him, and argued in, ‘The God Delusion,’ published 2006, that he could do better than this, by making a probability argument. The existence of God, is like the existence of a Celestial Teapot, so improbable that believing in either is unreasonable.
Of course they aren’t actually comparable. We know what teapots are; human artefacts, intended for the brewing of tea. We also know, or at least think we know, that there was no way in 1952, that one of these artefacts could have gotten into space.
There is no reason to believe that the Celestial Teapot existed, and good reason to believe that it did not. But all that would be required for it to have existed, was for there to have been something going on, that we don’t know about. (I am assuming that even if it had existed in 1952, the fact that it was made of china, makes it highly probable that it would no longer be in existence.)
The same is not true of the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent God, of traditional Western theology. A mere something going on that we do not know about cannot turn this God into a possible reality.
A God who is Omnipotent and Omniscient, is one who could do anything that is logically possible, including achieving His ends, without the need for suffering. Suffering exists and therefore, given a normal understanding of goodness, observed reality is incompatible with the existence of an Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent God.
There is zero probability that the Triple O exists.
Knowing that the Triple O does not exist, does not rule out the possibility that this universe is the result of conscious creation.
We know what a china teapot is, and its existence or otherwise in any given place, is open to direct verification. The same is not true of consciousness. We experience consciousness in ourselves, and extrapolate this outwards. The existence of other minds is a theory that is not open to direct verification.
All the provable facts on earth, including things such as The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, the Taj Mahal, and the Mona Lisa, can potentially be explained, as the outworking of materialistic processes. There is no need to introduce the notion of conscious agency.
Science is sometimes understood to be pushing the notion of a conscious, purposeful Creator into smaller and smaller gaps, as more and more phenomena fall to materialistic explanations.
It is argued that everything that has been recognised in past times as an act of conscious creation can already be, or will at some time in the future be explainable in materialistic terms. The trouble with this is that it doesn’t just apply to so-called acts of God, it also applies to among other things, Michelangelo’s David, and Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa. I am reasonably certain that the immediate creation of these items is explainable in entirely materialistic term, the firing of synapses, and contraction of muscles, and the effect that this had on materials external to the body of the artists.
I don’t regard this as evidence that these acknowledged masterpieces are not the work of conscious creators. Likewise materialistic explanations for the structures of the universe, do not provide evidence that they are not works of conscious creation.
There is good solid evidence that the Triple O does not exist. There is good reason to believe that the Celestial Teapot does not exist. There is no reason not to believe in a Conscious Creator.
Our human tendency to see meaning and purpose, where we see structure and function combined, makes belief in a Conscious Other easy for many of us. However as David Hume pointed out way back in the 18th Century, this does not give us sufficient reason to believe. Since that time, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has been propounded, with its demonstration, that it is possible to explain the existence of structure and function without need to invoke a deity. This proves just how right Hume was. It is unsound to argue from the existence of structure and function to a purposeful Creator, but it does not demonstrate that such a Creator does not exist.
The Protestant claim is that proof of God lies in his inspired word, the Bible. We can know that God exists because he has revealed his existence to us.
It is sometimes claimed that the remarkable degree of consistency shown in doctrine, teaching and prophecy throughout the Bible demonstrates its divine authorship. This is a belief that although held fervently by some, is like belief in the Triple O, held despite the evidence not because it.
The author of Gulliver’s Travels, Jonathan Swift, frequently wrote in a voice not his own. The opinions expressed by his narrator, which in the case of Gulliver’s Travels, was of course Gulliver, were frequently although not necessarily at odds with the opinion held by Swift. It is possible that the entire Bible is inspired by a consistent Creator, but if so then the Bible needs to be read like the works of Jonathan Swift. The opinion of the narrator is not necessarily, the opinion of the Ultimate Author. And as with Jonathan Swift there is room to interpret the Author in different ways.
There is one major flaw in this analogy. Gulliver is a work of fiction, he didn’t exist, therefore we know, that he was not the author of Gulliver’s Travels. It is reasonable to believe that there was an actual author, Jonathan Swift, who was trying to communicate something different, something frequently at odds with what his fictional narrator was saying. Swift was after all a satirist.
The case with the Bible is different. The narrators of the Bible did exist. There is no a priori reason to conclude that they were not working under the influence of an Ultimate Author. But no reason not to believe is not sufficient grounds to believe. This is the point being made by Albert Einstein in the following quote:
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition.
Albert Einstein Letter to Erik Gutkind 1954
Subtle interpretations provide evidence, not for the Mind of God, but the mind of the interpreter.
Among the allegedly primitive legends of the Old Testament, is a story which has been written in such a way that it can be interpreted fairly literally, without any need for subtlety, in at least two different ways. There is the surface level account, which reads like a fairy tale, and serves to disguise the much more historical account that is also there. Both accounts describe that historians and archaeologists tell us really did happen, the origin of agriculture.
The double interpretation relies on a very simple trick, giving one of the characters a proper name that has a meaning. Anyone who has ever at a personal level run across the legend of Adam and Eve and Pinch Me Tight, will know just how unsubtle this trick can be.
The name Adam, like Pinch Me Tight, is a name with a meaning. In Hebrew the word Adam means man. Man not in the sense of the male of the species, but of humankind. It doesn’t take too much subtlety of interpretation to figure out that any story where the main character is called humankind is likely to bear hidden meaning.
The Garden of Eden story starts off with no humankind to till the ground. It is quite literally humankind that is told not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. It is humankind that is told that the consequences of eating of the Tree of Knowledge will be death. The immediate consequence of eating of the Tree of Knowledge was not death, but the difficulties of primitive agriculture; the tilling of a soil that became increasingly infertile. It is an agricultural origin story.
We are presently in what some scientists have labelled the sixth extinction. Species are disappearing faster than at any time since the extinction of the dinosaurs. The cause of this extinction is not an asteroid hitting the earth, it is us. For most of the 500 thousand or so years that our species has been in existence, we were mostly harmless. It was the agricultural revolution, that changed that. It was the triggering factor that made our modern world possible. The event, that enabled us to become death the destroyer of this world; the likely bringer of our own extinction. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge has put us in the pathway to accelerated extinction.
The Adam and Eve story is a work of ancient human genius. At one level it is a simple children’s story, advising of the dangers of not doing what you are told. At another level it is an account that is compatible with our modern knowledge about the history of the earth.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
In our modern scientific version of origins, evolution, the process that resulted eventually in the formation of humankind, began after this initial watering of the earth, in the primitive ocean. The same time zone where the Bible describes God as initiating the formation of Adam.
In the Biblical account the river names identify the Garden East of Eden, where God places humankind, with the fertile crescent. In our modern accounts too humankind arose outside, the fertile crescent. Human Beings moved into that area during the last ice age.
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
And yes, our modern science tells us that as the climate became warmer the tundra type landscape changed to one where tree growth was no longer stunted. So trees did grow up, after human beings entered the fertile crescent.
Eating from the Tree of Knowledge strikes me as an excellent metaphor for eating of the fruits of agriculture.
Given the different roles of men and in hunter-gatherer society, it is likely that it was women who were the first farmers. Or metaphorically speaking it was they who first picked the fruit from the, ‘Tree of Knowledge.’
The King James version of the Bible provides a literal, not idiomatic, translation of the effects that eating of the Tree of Knowledge had on the woman.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
An increase in the number of conceptions, and an increase in male dominance are known to be consequences on women of the move from hunter-gatherer society, to subsistence farming.
And for men considerably more work was required of a subsistence farmer than of a hunter-gatherer. The diet of the first farmers was inferior to that of hunter-gatherers, and without understanding of the need for crop rotation and fertilizer the ground would have become increasingly infertile.
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
There is good reason to believe that the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent God of traditional Western theology does not exist. The same is not true of a Conscious Creator. There is no reason not to believe that such a Conscious Other Exists.
Once men argued that the structure of the universe proved that God the Triple O, must exist. History has shown that Hume was right, there can be other reasons for structure than a Conscious Creator. Massive improbabilities are possible in infinities.
The question I need to ask is, does the co-incidence between events related in this story and the findings of modern research, stretch the laws of probability to the degree, that requires introducing the concept of infinities into the equation; or could ancient human genius, and a bit of coincidence, provide sufficient explanation.
My opinion is that the latter explanation is sufficient. The co-incidences mentioned are consistent with the reality of a Conscious Other, but do not provide proof.
The co-incidences do not prove that even this bit of scripture is divinely inspired. But they do show that even as great a human genius as Einstein was, can sometimes be mistaken.
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
Albert Einstein Letter to Erik Gutkind 1954