The Absurdity of The Book of Genesis (Part One)

The Bible has always bothered me on a fundamental level. Its basic problem is that if you were to read it without any prior knowledge of God or gods, basically not knowing anything at all about the Bible, it would all be very difficult to take any of it seriously. This problem is compacted by the assertion by its adherents that the Bible is the Word of God. This is to say that if the Bible is the Word of God, it should be understandable in its own right with no need for anyone to interpret its meaning(s). I believe anyone going in for a cold reading of the Bible would be blown away by its tall tales, lack of necessary detail and unscrupulous arrangement.

This is as evident in the Book of Genesis as anywhere else in the Bible. So, since Genesis is the beginning of the scriptures sacred to so many, it seems like a good place to prove my point. In doing this ‘cold reading’ I am going to use the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) because, uh, why are there different versions of the Bible? Obviously there would be a version for any given language, but for any single language? This bespeaks of fiction before I’ve even begun.

At any rate, I am going to open up the Bible to Chapter 1, verse 1 of Genesis. It reads: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

The next 23 chapters drone on about God creating the Earth over the next five and a half days. Well, this would seem quite incredible even if we didn’t know anything about science either. You mean someone made the Earth in six days, all of it? Even if we were to accept this, Genesis is not at all clear about who or what God is which would be a likely place to start given the entire scope of the Bible. Worse, we’re given no reason why God created the Earth. (One of the most important things when writing literature is to give your character motivations.) Yet we’ll forge ahead since there may be as yet unrevealed motivations, though we might want to call into question the length of a day. [We might note here that use of the 24-hour day did not come into use until 4000 years ago, courtesy of the Egyptians and Babylonians.]

Chapter 1, verse 26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

The first thing we might notice in this cold reading is that the word ‘our’ is used here, so it is therefore reasonable to assume that someone besides God is at work here. Who? We do not know because God leaves out these kinds of important details. God also makes man is His image, thereby giving God a definite gender. As for why God gives man dominion over the Earth and its creatures, again we don’t know. It appears God loves omitting details.

Chapter 2 gives us another account of the creation of man for no apparent reason except to clarify that woman was created from the rib of man, a feat surely no one has ever done before and should therefore seem extraordinary to everyone reading the Bible. Interestingly, though we know that woman are treated unequally to men in most societies, there is no indication here that women are inferior to men despite being created out of a man. Chapter 2 also begins to tell us about a place east of Eden where there is a garden in which the first man and woman will live. And, in this garden God plants two unique trees: the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. At this point we’re not sure why God plants these trees, but as we’ll see in the next chapter, this comes off as something of a set-up.

Chapter 3 begins with another of God’s creatures, a serpent, talking to the woman Eve. Eve tells the serpent about how the fruit from the unique trees is forbidden to eat as God has told Adam and Eve they will die if they do so. The serpent (which keep in mind is just a serpent because nothing here tells us otherwise) lies to the woman telling her she will not die if she eats from the Tree of Knowledge. The serpent also tells Eve the truth that if she eats the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge she will know the difference between good and evil. Chapter 3, verse 6-7 describes what happens next: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”

Funny, Adam and Eve now know that being naked is bad and cover themselves up. So…okay…why didn’t God cover them up to begin with? Is God a pervert? And, knowing they have done wrong by eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve hide from God the next time God comes around. Further in the reading, God has to call out to Adam to find out where Adam is and doesn’t appear to know that some serpent told them it was okay to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. So, nothing here tells us or even implies that God is omniscient, a trait modern believers always attribute to God.

But here’s the real problem with this entire scenario – Before eating the fruit Eve has no reason to suspect the serpent is lying. Even if she did know the serpent was lying, before eating the fruit she doesn’t know that lying is evil. Eve cannot even begin to contemplate the consequences of eating the fruit until after she does so no matter what warning God gives. At the same time, Eve did seem to know that the acquisition of knowledge is good. Though this is an inconsistency in the narrative, what we’re almost forced to take away is that God didn’t want Adam and Eve to know the difference between good and evil. Wtf? Angry with Adam and Eve, God banishes them from the garden before they eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. God also punishes the serpent by making it crawl on its belly forevermore, punishes Eve by subjugating her to her husband and intensifying labor pains, while Adam gets off relatively easy being punished to work the land for food despite the fact that Adam is just as guilty as the woman for this whole farce. (That is, Adam likewise didn’t know that eating the forbidden fruit would be bad for the couple but does it anyway and gets himself punished as well. With both people being guilty here, why does Adam get off easier?)

Closing the door on the first three chapter of Genesis, what have we gathered and what questions might we ask? We see that God made the heavens and the Earth but not why. We see that God made the Earth in six days and needed a rest afterward – an indication that whomever we are dealing with is powerful but not all-powerful. We see that there are other gods besides God, though according to this text, this god created us. (But, from what we know about created things, God probably had help.) We are unable to conclude God is good or even perfect given the circumstances surrounding God’s creation’s disobeying their creator. Do perfect creations disobey their creator? is a fair question here. We also see that God frowns upon the acquisition of knowledge and the idea of immortality, a disturbing inference since God’s motivations are nowhere in sight.

Possibly most damaging to the Bible’s narrative is that if we research and compare this cold reading of the Bible to cold readings of other myths of the region of the same general time period, the creation stories are noticeable similar. (e.g. Babylonian, Sumerian, and some African creation myths.) Do we dare read any further?

The Non-Dualism of Samkara

[Samkara (c.700 CE) was an Indian Brahmin who is regarded by many as the most authoritative Hindu thinker of all time. He was primarily a commentator on the sacred texts of the Vedas and a teacher of the Advaitin branch of Vedanta philosophy. Unlike monotheism, which has its roots in a mind-body dualism, Samkara maintained there is no such dualism.]

Throughout Samkara’s various treatises, Samkara argues in favor of a metaphysics that is non-dualistic. Herein, we shall examine why; are his appeals based upon reason, are they an appeal to scriptural authority, or an appeal to experience? Does he argue based upon multiple appeals? In order to find out, we must begin (and end) with the equation of Atman with Brahman, seeing how it is clear from Sengaku Mayeda’s transcripts of the Upadesasahasra that there is no difference between Atman and Brahman. However, because no philosophy can be straightforward, this is not the same as saying they are the same thing.

First, we must understand what Brahman is. Samkara held Brahman as the unifying, highest reality, a reality free of qualities that is manifest in both the physical world and one’s absolute identity (ultimately Atman, which will be discussed shortly). Brahman is formless and is neither existent nor non-existent. Thus, Brahman is the totality of all there is. This view is taken from various scripture that cite Brahman as “without and within, unborn,” “That which transcends hunger and thirst,” and “Verily, this is all Brahman.” But how does this view relate to Atman and why is there no dualism in Samkara’s metaphysics?

Aside from Brahman, we must now understand Atman. Atman can be understood in terms of being an eternal universal spirit that when resident in a (supposed) individual person becomes the eternal soul of that individual. Or, in relation to Atman as a whole, a person’s soul equals atman, a piece of Atman, in a manner of speaking. This is not to say atman is a constituent of Atman; one’s atman is equivalent to Atman since there must be a principle soul from which living things can be infused with (what appears to be) their own souls. Any apparent division between the two is due to the power of maya, an illusion-inducing force which makes it possible for one’s atman to know the world subjectively. In actuality, each atman – which is any individual’s sought after true nature – is Atman as well.

But how can the individual’s ultimate nature be Atman if, as the pupil indicates it is written, that the highest Atman is “free from evil, ageless, deathless”? A student might ask how he can be Atman if he feels pain or other physical sensations. Samkara argues that something like pain is an illusion (again, due to maya); pain is perceived in our bodies at a particular location, not in perceivers themselves. If the perceiver (Atman) was the location of pain, we would point to our whole body as the location of pain. Moreover, Samkara shores up this view by informing the student of the locus of forms and desires as being “Right in the intellect.” Obviously, impressions and emotions have no physical location that one can point to as in the case of pain, so where could they be? In none other than that which is not physical, the soul.

Now Samkara can connect atman to Atman. Samkara has built a certain relationship between one’s body and their atman; pain is felt in the body, not in the perceiver, not in one’s soul. Samkara makes a similar relation between atman and Atman; desires and emotions are in one’s soul, but not in the eternal universal spirit.

Here, we begin to see what Samkara means by ‘reasonableness;’ he is pointing out what he believes to be obvious. However, in pointing out what he believes is obvious, he defers to the scriptural authority that identifies the perceiver with Atman. In the example of pain, Samkara appears to be well aware that there is some disconnection between a person’s perceptions and where they perceive something like pain to take place. Samkara may be correct that the perceiver is not their own body in which pain occurs, but there is nothing other than scriptural authority that equates that perceiver with either atman or Atman in particular, or that some other explanation can be ruled out altogether. Samkara appears to strongly defer to scripture in equating the ultimate perceiver with such quotes as, “He is declared to be unchanging” and “Because He is beginningless and attributeless.” Samkara treats atman similarly, writing, “Impurity [such as desire and aversion] is in the object and not in Atman [which is the subject] according to hundreds of sruti passages such as…” There doesn’t appear to be any true justification for Samkara’s view that atman and Atman are equal, simply that there is something strange going on between the body and whatever it is that perceives. Samkara can give that power a name, but this merely serves as a starting point from which we can begin to wonder what is really taking place.

But let us suppose for a moment that Samkara is right about atman and Atman, or simply Atman since they are not different. Most obviously, if we are to hold the view that Brahman encompasses everything that is seen and unseen, then Atman is within the sphere of Brahman. That is, if Brahman is everything, everything is also Brahman. Brahman is found in the physical world and the spiritual world (not that this division is real). Atman then falls under the umbrella of Brahman, so-to-speak, relating to Brahman in the same way atman relates to Atman – Atman is not separate from Brahman’s essence (if ‘essence’ were the appropriate word to use for that which has no essence). Just as each atman is Atman, Atman is Brahman. Not realizing this leads to what one might perceive as a duality between the two. 

However, as before, there really does not seem to be any particular line of reasoning that might lead us to this conclusion. Whereas we saw previously that the equation of atman with Atman required some leap of faith, so does it appear in the case of equating Atman with Brahman. Samkara literally fails to base his reasoning on logic alone, writing, “The scripture gradually removes his ignorance regarding this matter” which has the effect of indicating that any pupil of Samkara is going to have to read, re-read, and reinforce through a need to believe it that Atman is Brahman. Samkara ultimately sees reasonableness as what is revealed by scriptures, which apparently explains and solves the apparent duality between perceiver and objects and the interconnectedness of things. It may seem reasonable to observe and attempt to explain a world that operates in such a manner, and it may be correct, but deferring to scriptures on the matter does not lead us there. Where is the evidence? It is awfully convenient of the scriptures to hold that Atman or Brahman can be accounted for by evidence since the supposed evidence would be all around us and we simply have to realize it.

In conclusion, we should not think Samkara has any good justification (in the Western analytic philosophy sense) for his belief in non-dualism. In fact, his basic premise – that something strange is going on between the body and the perceiver – we can easily think actually argues in favor of dualism. It appears the only way for Samkara to make the leap from the apparent reality of objects and our bodies to their unity with the spiritual world is to defer to the scriptural beliefs in maya. Certainly, if maya is a real illusionary power, our extended world is not real and Samkara’s arguments are victorious. But too much rests upon scriptural reference in Samkara’s arguments. Where is his evidence that Brahman has no beginning or end or is “without and within, unborn”? Where is the evidence that our inner perceiver, our soul, is a manifestation of the Atman as super-soul? As indicated earlier, Samakara’s logic is found wanting. That being the case, he would need evidence to support his views, and this reader has found that evidence lacking. The conceptions of atman, Atman, and Brahman, all rest upon scripture, not from any independent arguments or experiences that indicate the reality of such things. ‘Reasonableness’ is not found by twisting scriptural references to fit one’s version of the truth. 

The Definition of God, Dammit (Part Two)

[Note: This entry is ancillary to last year’s blog, “The Definition of God, Dammit.”]

Does God exist? Before we can even attempt to answer such an awkward question, a universally acceptable definition of God is the most fundamental matter that must be settled. Whether or not any god can be said to exist will lie in our ability to define what qualifies as a god. If we are unable to define what a god is, then can God really be said to exist? How would we recognize God? Without a standard we can all agree upon for what qualifies as a god, we are faced with several prospects: That all definitions of a god are possibly valid, all definitions are invalid, or all definitions are at least worth considering because one may in fact be correct. Yet without that universal definition, we can’t be sure who is right and who is wrong. It may also be that God indeed exists despite our ability to define the extraordinary, but if we are unable to identify the qualities associated with a god as a means of recognition, then the whole concept of a deity existing in reality is rather useless if not downright irritating. Like elevator music. 

Can God be universally defined? Despite our seemingly advanced ability to communicate, we have not been able to adequately do this. Hindu's have a certain idea about what a god is, while Muslims have something entirely different in mind. No two religions ever appear on the same page (duh, otherwise they’d be the same religion). It cannot be the case that all concepts of God are equally valid because many religions exclude the possibility of other gods besides their god(s). What it comes down to is this: for a god to exist there must be one definition of what characteristics constitute the deity, so that we are able to identify God in much the same way we are able to identify a coconut, being that there is a general consensus of what the term “coconut” means even regardless of the language being spoken. With that definition we are able to recognize coconuts as being what they are. Either we have a term that identifies an entity or entities as a god or gods, or we do not. If not, the rational man cannot conclude God exists because you cannot believe in what has no definition^*. Feel free to become an atheist by default.

[* You might be thinking that if you were to encounter something you did not know the name of or have a name for, you could believe in the existence of something for which there is no definition. This is false. You may not realize it, but whichever one or more of your senses has perceived the whatever-it-is has attached certain characteristics to the whatever-it-is as a means of recognition. Only if deprived of all your senses would you not “recognize” anything.]

Is it the case that the idea of God is so incredible that the human mind (designed by God some would say) simply cannot define the word? That is in fact the argument of many agnostics. However, agnostics cannot show that this is not possible, merely that it just hasn’t happened yet. Hypothetically speaking, if a clear cut, unilateral definition of God were handed down tomorrow, agnostics would have to wrestle with that definition and come to a conclusion one way or the other. If the agnostic is going to suspend judgment about the existence of God based on lack of a definition, again, there is no practicality whatsoever in supposing that God might exist, unless the agnostic is accepting a form of Pascal’s Wager^**. If God actually does exist (ahem, citing a proper definition) I wonder if the G-man forgives such ambivalence.

[** From Wikipedia: Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gambit) is Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. Pascal argues that it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal specifically aimed the argument at such persons who were not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of God. With his wager he sought to demonstrate that believing in God is more advantageous than not believing, and hoped that this would convert those who rejected previous theological arguments. The incompleteness of his argument is the origin of the term Pascal's Flaw.]

The problem is that even as great as our communication techniques are, they are often inadequate in explaining just about anything, object or concept, when you really want to be a prick about it. Asking for the definition of “X” is a time honored tradition among philosophers meant to demonstrate that an opponent has no idea what they are talking about. If a chair is defined as an object that you sit on that usually (but not necessarily) has four legs and back support, well then, lots of things might qualify as a chair. Lots of things might also qualify as a god, but if we’re talking about the “One True God,” then only one definition will do.

That brings us to “conceptual failure.” Have you ever had an idea that seemed reasonably clear in your own mind but that you found difficult to put into words clear enough for another person to understand? This doesn't make an idea automatically false or invalid, but without clarity what good is this idea of yours in the first place? A god may be well defined in someone's own mind, but that this definition probably has little universal acceptance implies a conceptual failure. For atheists this is not a problem; we don't go around trying to define that which does not exist. An ambiguous concept doesn’t exactly lead to credibility, folks.

Sometimes the problem lies with the words we use to explain ourselves. Words sometimes have different meanings depending upon the context in which they are used. For example, suppose I say to you, "I'd love to own a Jaguar." If we're talking about luxury cars the meaning of my statement is obvious. On the other hand, if we're talking about exotic pets perhaps you would try to talk me out of such an idea being that I can barely keep a house plant alive. On the other, other hand, if I’m talking about luxury cars and you think we’re talking about exotic pets, this might as well be an episode of “Three’s Company.”*** You see, context can be used to manipulate words to create all kinds of puns, double entendres, or plain ol’ confusion for the unsuspecting. Frankly, it's amazing that any one knows what anyone else is talking about. Arnold sure didn't know what Willis*** was talkin' 'bout.

[*** Showing my age here, folks.]

What we could really use is a language in which one word meant one thing regardless of context. Until then there will be no suitable definition of God, which is no doubt a great relief to the believer. After all, this will mean that God cannot be shown whether to exist or not and faith can rush in to prop up a theists’ righteousness. At the same time, though, the theist faces the dilemma that despite all the faith in the world, all concepts of God should be considered equally valid since prove their point linguistically. Though the theist appeals to faith in hopes that they've picked the correct religion with the proper definition of God, they cannot disprove anyone else’s definition of a god. That’s a mighty big hurdle to clear. What the theist is not admitting here is that really, they're playing Russian roulette with God. Well, go right ahead and blow your brains out guys. It'll be your defining moment.