I believe in neither an omnipotent
creator nor a hereafter but what would follow from these premises? First,
universalism. An omnipotent creator would be able to “save” all of his
creatures. I did not include benevolence among the premises but I argue that it
is implicit in omnipotence. Only finite power can be or needs to be oppressive.
An infinitely powerful being would not be able to profit by exploiting finite
beings. We would not be able to make anything for him that he could not
effortlessly have made for himself. Indeed, by definition, he already is
everything that he might want to be. Therefore, his only purpose in creating us
must have been for our benefit. It follows that infinite power differs not
quantitatively but qualitatively from finite power, however great.
Another difference is that resistance to
finite but very great power is difficult but possible whereas resistance to
infinite power, if it did exist, would be not only unnecessary but also
impossible. Infinite creative power would be the source of even the thought of
resistance. We do not resist air, Earth or the energy of which they are
composed, still less a hypothetical creative power beyond but sustaining them.
We resist only fellow beings in a common environment. The idea of Satan as a
rebel angel was a concession to Zoroastrian dualism. Earlier monotheism did not
recognise such an opponent of God. He alone both inspired Moses and hardened
Pharaoh’s heart against Moses’ message and we must now ask why he would do the
latter.
How does our hypothetical creator save
all his human creatures? Not through a single belief. If he had wanted to be
known only through Judaism, then he could have prevented Paul from founding
Christianity, Muhammad from launching Islam etc. He could also have ensured that
everyone who heard the prophetic message found it convincing. The power that
allegedly hardened Pharaoh’s heart could have softened it instead. If Vedism had
sufficed, then he could have prevented the rishis from composing the Upanishads,
Gotama from founding Buddhism and Mahavira from re-launching Jainism.
A world in which everyone inherited and
accepted a single belief would not be the world that we live in and would lack
valuable diversity but would have existed if an omnipotent creator had wanted it
to. It follows that we can best help others not by converting them to a
particular belief but by encouraging them to be honest about whatever beliefs they
have inherited. Although the diversity of beliefs about the creator must be in
accordance with his will, the beliefs themselves remain mutually incompatible.
It follows that some (finite) beliefs must approximate to the (infinite) truth
more closely than others. Is the number of divine persons many, three, one or
none? Surely we are obliged to enquire as well as to practice our current,
provisional, beliefs as faithfully as possible?
From the fact that I was educated as a
Catholic, it does not follow either that Constantine got it right or that Luther
got it wrong. Even while a Catholic, I had concluded that God must deal with
each soul individually. How can someone who has never heard of Christianity be
condemned for not being a Christian? How can a Hindu who has merely heard of
Christianity as a European religion be condemned for not converting to it? A
Hindu can recognise Christ as another spiritual teacher and/or divine
incarnation and can thus approach a broader perspective. How can a devout
Anglican have access to less grace than an indifferent Catholic merely because,
according to Catholicism, Anglican orders are invalid?
Everyone has a distinctive personality
from an early age. Social interaction is necessary to activate the personality
but, when it is activated, it is unique, despite the fact that children learn by
imitation, despite all the conditioning and indoctrination, despite even a
common family upbringing. Twins brought up together can be completely
dissimilar. Where does each personality come from? There are different
explanations but here we are assuming an omnipotent creator of all things other
than himself and of every human soul.
It follows that the creator creates each
unique personality, including those dispositions that are classed as “original
sin.” He wants our moral development to be from bad to good, not from good to
better. Sometimes, “good” appears as “bad” when compared with “better,” but,
also, some situations are simply good and not relatively bad. For example, it
would undeniably be a good thing if everyone were more empathetic than they are
from an earlier age.
Someone I knew seemed to have an unfair
share of bad qualities. She was conceited, lazy, arrogant, aggressive, selfish
and stupid and completely incapable of self-criticism. Reading this passage, she
would not recognize it as describing her. As an acquaintance, I found her
personality intolerable but if I were her creator, for example the author of a
novel in which she was a character, then it would make no sense for me to blame
her for her failings. Why had I made her like that in the first place? This
individual’s unalterable prejudices were secularist so there was no way that she
would ever convert to Evangelical Christianity but this alone guarantees her
damnation, according to Evangelicals.
A repressive, intolerant, conformist
upbringing is accepted without question by some personalities and can be
shrugged off by others but can also have a disastrous effect on any personality
that initially lacks some basic interpersonal and social skills. The creator not
only creates all these personalities but also is associated in many minds with
just such an upbringing. Is it his will that we simply accept this situation or
that we question and transcend it? It must be the creator’s will that each of us
does the best that he can insofar as he is able to judge what is for the best.
Religiously, we should each be able to
practice what we believe without impeding others. Politically, we cannot avoid
conflict. Some perceive that the best way to do anything good in the world is to
work through existing political structures. Others, including the present
writer, believe that existing social structures are long overdue for a
revolutionary transformation. People of good will cannot avoid conflict but,
presumably, the creator perceives and assesses good intentions as such. Either a
Conservative or a revolutionary might be involved in politics solely as a means
to personal power, prestige etc. It is a separate question which kind of
politics best serves the longer term interests of society as a whole.
An omnipotent creator would have to
judge each soul with a full knowledge of that soul’s circumstances. After all,
he creates that soul and those circumstances. If, at the time of death, a given
soul has further moral and spiritual progress to make, then clearly he needs
more time for development in a hereafter. What kind of hereafter is implied by
an omnipotent creator? Does it make sense that the only people saved are
Catholics who happened to be in a state of grace at the time of death?
Evangelicals get a better deal because they are guaranteed salvation whatever
sins they commit between conversion and death but the prospect of an eternity in
the company of fundamentalists and their equally bigoted deity is not a happy
one.
An endless hereafter would have to be a
series of opportunities for further growth and development. Memories cannot
accumulate indefinitely so it makes sense that they should end with the trauma
of death, the waters of Lethe. The next stage would have to begin with the
learning of a new language and of new rules of engagement. How does this differ
from one person dying and another being born, which happens already?
Despite the argument so far, is there
any evidence that one of the existing religions is a special revelation from the
creator? Not in the case of Christianity: damnation, blood sacrifice and
sacramentalized cannibalism are primitive ideas. The ideas of Jesus teaching,
healing and risen are more positive. Hindus recognize that one infinite reality
is inadequately revealed in many finite forms so Hinduism is the best candidate
for a theistic revelation, apart from its one sect which insists that the
ultimate divine form is blue, humanoid and male.
Despite this attempt to make sense of
theology, I have to conclude by affirming my belief that we must do what we can
without divine help and without any hope of a hereafter.
No comments:
Post a Comment