Idols Made of Words

Salve!

Once upon a time, there was a speck of dust in the universe. God called it Earth. With his words, He called entities into existence. As He called them, they appeared on Earth. They were assigned immediate tasks, and commissoned to faithfully serve their God-given purposes. They obeyed. One day, God's heart compelled Him to create something different. He thought of the perfect words to say, but could not speak. Speechless, He drew closer to the Earth, so that His fainting voice could be heard, but the words never came.

Now frustrated, God placed his fingers on the Earth and began to sketch his thoughts. He reviewed what he drew, and said "It makes sense." He smiled and placed his face upon the dirt and sighed. As His breath penetrated into the Earth, the sketch came to life. Amazed, God lifted his face to get a better look at what He had done. He called it "man." It was surely different, but nevertheless retained His image. He smiled again, and said that it was good.

It is often supposed that human beings were created in God's image. This way of speaking often refers to our distinctive virtues: self-awareness, the capacity to foresee possible futures and the rational powers to create concepts as well as tools for manual use. We can also speak. We are apt to create many things with words. The Ancient Greeks loved them. In the Market Place, most of the men were generous with their words. Others were slick, and actually traded words for cash. They were known as "the Sophists." They were word-pros! When they had nothing good to say, they still managed to make non-sense sound good. However, they could not fool everyone.

2000 years later, a Renaissance thinker likened our butchering of words with those of the ancient Sophists. He argued specifically against Aristotelian philosophy (characteristic of Medieval thinkers), but I believe that his words ring true for many of us today. He expressed:

"... the Idols [or illusions] of the Market Place are the most troublesome of all — idols which have crept into the understanding through the alliances of words and names. For men believe that their reason governs words; but it is also true that words react on the understanding; and this it is that has rendered philosophy and the sciences sophistical and inactive... The idols imposed by words on the understanding are of two kinds. They are either names of things which do not exist (for as there are things left unnamed through lack of observation, so likewise are there names which result from fantastic suppositions and to which nothing in reality corresponds), or they are names of things which exist, but yet confused and ill-defined, and hastily and irregularly derived from realities." (Francis Bacon, New Organon: 59-60 -- my emphasis)

Bacon brilliantly identified these problems in natural science and philosophy. I believe that this critique also applies to Christian theology, since many are inclined to think that we can paint a coherent picture of God by using words. Thus, human images, creeds and doctrines, with their sophisticated terminologies, are somehow supposed to come close to explaining that which is God. While they are helpful ways to talk about God, they often serve as obstructions. While they may also stir the imagination to probe deeper into mystery, words also tend to serve as the means by which we construct the idols we call God. Thus, the image of God as Judge can easily be mistaken for an old man with a hammer, waiting to obliterate those who step out of line. Used to strike fear to the masses, the idol of the Judge misrepresents God. Is God really as intolerant as many humans tend to be?

The image of God as Warrior is another interesting example. In the name of "God the Warrior", many nations have justified their acts of cruelty against others. The idol of the Warrior, with its swords and chariots, makes God the commander-in-chief of political and social oppression. There are many other images we can toy around with here. In the end, however, we run the risk of making idols with our words, and unknowingly mistake them for the Christian God.

Camardicus

Summa Wrestling: Divine Revelation vs the Limits of Human Reason

Hi, Folks.

In the past week, I've spent more time writing on Dom's blog than on my own. The latest discussions have gone from issues concerning communicating God's truth to the question "How do we come to know God's truth in the first place?" Many have posted their comments, and shared some interesting insights. Devoting this particular weblog to fundamental questions, I also hoped to probe deeper into the question of religious truth. Recent talk has got me thinking about Divine Revelation. One of the most popular theologians of the Catholic Church expressed:

"... the intellectual light that is in us is nothing other than a certain likeness of the uncreated light, obtained through participation, in which the eternal reasons are contained." (St-Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. 1a 84.5c)

Here, Aquinas maintains that Truth is accessible to us as it originates with God Himself. Many Christians still hold to this ontological presupposition. On the other hand, even while granting the possibility that truth begins with God, we still cannot establish that we are capable of knowing every truth imaginable. Yet, many of us speculate over things that are quite beyond us. Sometimes, entities (i.e the soul, Heaven, angels...etc) are postulated, but cannot be distinguished from the gods of Homer. What are the limits to human reason?

Many in the world do not buy into the thought of a Christian God. There are also others who do not even believe a god exists. How can we account for their unbelief? Many have proposed that God reveals Himself to some people through Special Revelation (viz. the Bible, Tradition and mystical encounters) and to all through Nature (viz. plain reason and the five senses). From this, it is supposed that some are called to see God's light, while others remain in darkness. The latter, however, are nevertheless given enough light for moral discernment, which makes them responsible for their actions -- now that's a brilliant way to keep just about everyone in check!

However, the experience of being mistaken in the past cannot be easily dismissed by an appeal to consensus or common sense. The history books attest to our virtuous deeds, but also our sins. We are not infallible (viz. intellectually and morally). Furthermore, there are many views concerning God, let alone His very existence. This plurality of opinions also warrants caution in regards to tracing human reason down to God Himself. Thus, if truths stem from one Source and are accessible to many of us, how do we account for so many worldviews?

Something to think about...

Camardicus

So, I'm a Bit of a Skeptic...

Hi and welcome to all!

A wise man once said, "reading and writing is the business of philosophy." In its humble beginnings, the Western philosophical tradition began in the market place, where all could share their thoughts verbally. It was not long, however, before thinkers began writing treatises that often went against widely accepted worldviews. "Common sense" simply would not do. While many things seemed self-evident to most people, philosophers persisted further.

While we have come a long way since the time of Thales (600 BCE), philosophy lives on as a discipline whose stock-and-trade consists of critically examining life's most basic questions: What exists? What constitutes true knowledge? What is good? What is beautiful? These matters have given rise to a variety of responses over the course of history. Many theories were forgotten, and others were simply accepted as self-evident. While it is perhaps undesirable to spend our lives juggling between "-isms", we nevertheless wrestle with tough questions when our experiences do not fit our basic worldview. The philosopher, one might add, will go as far as questioning his own experience.

While knowledge grows with experience, the lens by which we view the world give shape to these experiences, and how we understand them. Thus, Kant rightly points out that while experience is a necessary condition for knowledge (for to postulate in a world beyond human experience is nonsense), it does not follow that the latter results from experience. This, in turn, leaves the critical thinker with the painful task of organizing his thoughts from empirical data in order to create that which is most desired: a unified picture of the world drawn from an otherwise meaningless universe.

I hope this blog provides us with the kind of intellectual fuel that pushes us forward in our inquiry for truth, reality, beauty and meaning. While we are all very well acquainted with such ideas, talking about them is what makes them interesting. As such, philosophical discourse reveals the intellectual difficulties that arise from what would otherwise appear as "common sense." With that thought, I leave you with a quote:

"It is indeed a great gift of God, to possess right, or (as they now call it) plain common sense. But this common sense must be shown practically, by well-considered and reasonable thoughts and words, not by appealing to it as an oracle, when no rational justification can be advanced. To appeal to common sense, when insight and science fail, and no sooner-this is one of the subtle discoveries of modern times, by means of which the most superficial ranter can safely enter the lists with the most thorough thinker, and hold his own. But as long as a particle of insight remains, no one would think of having recourse to this subterfuge." (Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics)

May the peace of that which is called God be with you.

Camardicus