What God is not

In the Western world, we are used to visualising God as someone old with white flowing beard, moustached and hair, looking wise or stern.  Most of us know that this is not how God really looks like but as creatures who relate to the universe around us only through our senses, we are incapable of relating to a non-physical God who is not detectable by our five sense, nay, not even limited by time and space, the defining attribute of all that exist in the universe.

Yes, it is anthropomorphic to imagine a non-human being in a human form but then again, it is said that humans have been creating God in our own image.  Ever since our ancestors have looked up to the skies and attributed the movements of heavenly bodies to beings they can't see but their logic dictates must be the reason behind the movement of the sun and moon and stars.  

Call it intentionality bias, but the human mind cannot help but see another intelligent mind behind every working of nature.  And as the human mind is the only intelligent mind they know, it is only natural for them to model the mind of this higher intelligence on their own, but with capabilities that far outstripping theirs, considering that that mind controls much more than their puny ones could.

When it comes to imagining how these superior beings, again it is only natural for the early religions to model them on the only superior beings they know at that time: themselves.  So, the gods looked like humans but with human virtues and vices amplified, sometimes to illustrate a morality tale, sometimes to explain the workings of nature, sometimes to just tell a good story.  Occasionally, gods look only part-human as people realises that gods with such human-like qualities of an order beyond humans, cannot look identical to humans: they can only look like humans.  So, such gods may incorporate non-human features, almost always of animals, that their human conceivers respect or fear.

Eventually, the more primitive religions evolve into the great religions of today: religions of the Abrahamic tradition and Hinduism and the religions that emanate from them (Mormonism, Sikhism, Bahaism).  This is not to denigrate the more minor religions outside of these traditions like Zoroastrianism, druidism, folk religions etc.  Some religions like Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism, do not focus much on the divinity even if they may have elements of the metaphysical, so they are not part of this discussion too.

Hinduism can be viewed from different angles: for many adherents, it is a folk religion with numerous gods (some say an infinite number) much like in the Western Classical era.  Higher Hinduism, however, understand God (I use the upper case here) as singular, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnitemporal (note: OK, the word doesn't exist but it is nice to coin a word to complete the three omni, much like God in the Abrahamic tradition.  It is this common imagery of God shared by both these traditions that I address here.

Images of God

Here are some common descriptions of God, which while I do recognise they are rather imprecise description of an unknowable imagery, they are rather influential in the way we relate to the divine and moral injunctions that we feel compelled to comply with due to its divine origins.   I feel that of all attributes, the following three are the ones that define God:

We say that God is omnipresent in the sense of being every where, and the omniscience came about from being everywhere to witness everything.  And be it, 100 billions galaxies with 100 billions stars each, God is there: like having an infinite number of CCTV to record everything.

We say that God is omnitemporal as in being in all times - similar to being in all places.  This would be unlike time travel because God experience all events past and present at the same time.  A bit more like all of eternity flashing before unblinking eyes, with every event of past & future accessible and relived instantaneously.  Often, God is depicted as dressed in costumes of antiquity because we understand timelessness as being not being affected by time: frozen in time.  (A Catholic priest friend once told me of how he was bothered by the view of the priest's very modern watch during a video of the mass: maybe we just don't like God to have any modernity?)

We say that God is omnipotent in the sense of not being subject to the laws of physics (or chemistry or biology or any natural laws).  A bit like Marvel's X-men with their science-defying powers, but with even more powers in a single person - because only one person can be omnipotent at any one time.  Is that a little facetious; unintended but I think our views are a bit like that.

But is God like that?  I would like to evaluate each of these one at a time.  While I really have no idea of what not being limited by time and space is, I know what being so constrained is and if God is not so constrained, then I could imagine what God is not.

Omnipresence

One consequence of not being within time and space is that you do not move.  God doesn't walk to the door and open it because that involves space.  But then, neither is God a large immovable object extending everywhere, as that too involves existing in a particular point in space.  God also doesn't just appear because you appear in a certain time & space and God has no time & space.

God is not like something gigantic to fill all of the universe because that would still be existing within space.  God exists outside of time and space.  I guess it is a bit like what astronomers tell us existed before the Big Bang - before time and space existed.  But we can't imagine that as well.

No, God is not like a ghost because even ghosts exist in time and space, at least they do if they want to talk to us.  But if God were to communicate with humans, it may be in the form of a ghost/spirit, vision, etc that is detectable by any of our five senses.  But that communication is not God any more the vibrations in the air when we speak or the image on the screen during a video call is us.

Omnitemporal

One consequence of not being limited by time is that God does not plan.  Because planning involves time: one day you have a plan, the next day you have updated it.  By the same token, God doesn't think: one minute you think one thought the next minute, your thoughts have progressed on.  This does not in any way preclude God from having a plan: Plans can probably exist outside of time as God does, but the act of planning can only exist within time.  (I have used the present continuous tense throughout for God because it feels the least inappropriate words used to describe something outside of time)

It also mean that God doesn't change minds because changing one's mind involves time: one minute you have decided one thing and the next minute, you decided on something else.  It's not that God is decisive on everything (although God could have been), but it is because changing minds can only happen within time.

We sometimes imagine God popping in and out of time like a time traveller to intervene in human affairs.  That couldn't happen, too because that involves time.  And God doesn't experience and see every event in history in an instant because an instant is again time, albeit a. very short time.  Also, events and experiencing/seeing involves time, so God doesn't experience/see events.

Omnipotent

One consequence of being outside of time and space is that the laws of physics doesn't apply.  Note that in the statements above, I did not say "God couldn't" but rather than "God doesn't" because it is not about abilities (as in a lion couldn't climb trees) but more that it isn't something God does (as in your handphone doesn't climb trees).

Still, if God intervenes in human history, as in a miracle, it can only be effected in the physical world to be observed by humans through our five senses.  In that sense, miracles can only work through the laws of physics.  Even if the laws of physics were changed for divine purposes by God, there must still be a mechanism by which it will be observable by our senses.  What was the mechanism by which the molecules that we taste as wine got mixed into the water - if those molecules were created at that moment, how did it displace the existing molecules already existing in that space-time?.

The fact that scientist observers to a miracle are unable to understand that mechanism does not mean God bypasses the mechanics of the physical world - God cannot but use the mechanics of the physical world for us to observe a miracle.  Of course, one way of bypassing the physical world is that the observation of the miracle is implanted directly into our mental perceptions, but that would just make the miracle an illusion, and I do not think anyone would like to accuse God himself to be a fraud.

In a way, one can say that while God may not be subject to the laws of physics, we and our five senses are and God still need to work within or to work some laws of physics for us to observe divine works.  I am not saying miracles do not happen - just that it would be intriguing and helpful for us to understand the mechanics by which they happen, even if probably not mandatory.

So, where does that leave us

It seems like all our attempts to describe the workings of God are nothing more than seemingly pathetic attempts to describe something not possible for any human to imagine.  God is probably looking at our attempts to perceive an existence outside of time and space much like the same way we view an ant walking over a piece of paper we turn over and over with little or no understanding of movement in the third dimension.

Having said that, it is understandable for humans to impute anthropomorphic qualities to God, to whom we need to relate but we can only relate as a being limited by time and space like us.  In that sense, there really is nothing wrong in being unable to understand being outside of time and space any more than a creature outside of time and space is not able to appreciate time and space.  It is just a nature we all have.  Probably, only the possession of omniscience enables God to transcend that understanding.

While almost anything any scripture has written about God probably no where hit the mark, that is likely no harm as most of these are more akin to analogous description than factual.  I guess as with all analogies, it is fine as long as we do not stretch the analogy beyond the message it was intended to convey.

Such inaccurate images of God is nothing more like statues which represents the person rather than the person themselves.  As long as we are always conscious of that differentiation.  Conscious that the sound waves and the video image are not the person themselves.

The ultimate objective of religion is to inform our relationship with the universe & ourselves and guide our actions within society.  We all hope that that agenda for action is at least not detrimental if not be beneficial to society as a whole.  I would expect the overwhelming majority of any anthropomorphic views of God not to be damaging to society and so we should be free to have our anthropomorphic views, inaccurate as they are.

And oh yes, I am expecting some sweet old nun telling me, as they always do, "Jim, just have humility and accept whatever the Church teachings are".  I have no problem with Church having teachings as they are and thank you, Sister.

Some questions about consciousness and thus, about life

Moral theology is often separate from science but ignoring science in this modern age would leave it looking reactionary and irrelevant.  In light of some more recent understanding from the world of science, I set out some questions that I feel should be incorporated into moral theology not as a challenge but to complete it.

I have always believed that while religion & philosophy and science do not necessarily conflict, neither is superior to the other.  If anything they feed off each other, with the language & conclusions of religion & philosophy being updated to incorporate science to remain relevant and science owing its body of science ethics to religion & philosophy. It is not the intention of this article to be an article on ensoulment or to challenge existing theology or even to be part of that war between religion and science but I have always wondered how the great philosophical and theological works of the past would have been written in the light of the latest scientific understanding.

Thomas  Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologica in a time when science and philosophy were unified subjects in a way it is not today.  It was written in a scientifically-rational manner but based on the scientific understanding in his days. Would it have been written differently in the light of scientific knowledge of today, other than the obvious ones of language and style?  More specifically, would his replies in Part 1 Question 118 Article 2 be expressed differently to address and incorporate the lessons of cellular science, evolution and other life sciences?

I would not deign to challenge Aquinas but here are some insights that I would ask Aquinas, wherever he is now, whether the following questions would require his Summa to be revised or at least reworded to better enlighten us?  The questions are largely to do with the mechanics of the metaphysical, an approach which Aquinas seems to have addressed constantly in his great work.  

What have souls?

As we understand more about the biology of life, we find the division of all life into the animal and plant kingdoms no longer works as we know that life on Earth is more complex than that.  We now have the fungi kingdom, the protozoan kingdom and the bacterial kingdom - I am just simplifying the terminology here.  So, is the classical Western philosophy classification into vegetation souls, animal souls and human souls (or nutritive, sensitive and intellect souls respectively in the terminology of Aristotle) still good for purpose?  Are the three new life kingdoms intended to fit into the original vegetation and animal souls classification or do they get their own classifications?

In terms of scale, how far do animal and vegetation souls go?  Would single cells protozoa, bacteria and fungi have souls as well?  If they don't, at which point do we cut off which species have souls and which do not, and what is the criteria?  As complexities of species exist within a spectrum of increasing complexity, does the content of animal/vegetation souls also decreases or is it a binary classification - one species has a complete animal/vegetation soul while the next one down the spectrum has none at all.  Would souls extend to below the cellular level - what about viruses, which is even debated whether they are life or not?

Do souls need a minimum threshold to exist, and if so, what is the threshold based on - cellular/electrical/chemical activity, level of consciousness?  Effectively, what is the basis of the soul, where does it resides?  Does it reside in the whole of the cell or in only part of the cell, say, the nucleus?  Or is it not limited to the physical location of the cell as it is metaphysical in nature, meaning that it could co-locate with other souls within the same physical space? 

What has spirits?

In Western philosophy, souls and spirits differ in that only humans have spirits, otherwise known as the human or intellect souls.

Modern scientific research challenges the notion that some traits are exclusively human.  Great apes can use language, including abstract terms - communicating in American Sign Language - with one primatologist with two deaf parents who met Koko, the first ape who signed, reflecting that she has just spoken to another species in her mother tongue.  Tool-making is widespread in many species, some of these are carefully planned and kept for future use, indicating planing and intention.  Abstract thinking, including artistic expressions in works of art (ok, not to the level of the Old Masters but sufficient to display that the 'artist' was trying to express something), creating new words, etc. have been observed and documented in non-human animals. Now, I am looking at rigorous research which excluded as much anthropomorphism assumptions as possible from these seemingly human traits so actions undertaken due to instincts required by their genes are excluded as far as is known.

Are animal souls and human spirits binary (ie., either or choices) classifications?  Or is it a spectrum, with possibility that an animal/individual be at an intermediate stage with part animal souls and part human spirit, or a full animal soul with a bit of human spirit overlaid on it, growing with its increasing humanness?  We know that we share 98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos.  Is the amount of DNA similarity to human DNA the defining criteria for whether an individual has a human spirit (or the proportion of human spirit if non-binary)?

One primatologist noted that a chimpanzee can attain intelligence of a human six-year-old. Today we know that chimpanzees brain structure and hence our mental abilities, differ to the point that the age at which abilities of human babies surpassing that of chimpanzee babies differ with the task involved, and in some tasks human brains will never exceed chimpanzees.  But let's just take age six for this inquiry: if we take a six-year old child to Sunday school, shouldn't we do the same for chimpanzees of equivalent intelligence?  Fundamentally, would a non-human animal qualify for salvation if it could demonstrate a certain level of abstract thinking for certain virtues on which salvation is based - those common virtues of different religions on which mainstream religionists agree enable adherents of other religions to attain heaven.  (I concede that the scientific conclusions in this inquiry does not lend itself to a single age human-chimpanzee intelligence comparison, but whichever the age, there are many similar questions arising, just with different references)

From the classical classification of souls held, it is obvious there pre-humans would once have animal souls.  At which point in human evolution did pre-humans acquire a human spirit?  Was it that the animal spirit reduced in succeeding generations to be gradually replaced by human souls?  If alternatively, the classification was binary, wouldn't that mean that one generation had a wholly animal spirit and their offspring would have a wholly human spirit.

We know today that early humans interbred with Neanderthals and DNA of humans of non-African origins have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA.  Did Neanderthals have animal souls?  Let's assume they did for the purpose of this inquiry (if they had human spirits, then we just go back to a pair of pre-human species which interbred but with one having animal spirit and the other having human souls).  Does that mean that that particular breeding Neanderthal individual had a wholly human soul because of their capacity to produce human soul offspring?  And would the other Neanderthals that did not have the same capacity had animal spirits, meaning that some individuals in the species had human souls and some had animal spirits?  Or did that individual had a part human soul of sufficient threshold to begat a human soul offspring, raising the question as to what that threshold was?

Effectively, there is a broader question that about whether only humans qualify for heavenly salvation, however we define humanness (DNA content, traits, etc) and once we we have that capacity, we never lose that capacity (with the proviso of whether we actually enter heaven or not dependent on one's own actual life actions).  Much like teams in the recently proposed European Super League, never being relegated. 

Multi-level souls?

If single cells have animal/vegetation souls, what then about multi-cellular organisms like humans?  Are there two levels of souls - one at the cellular level and one at the organism level? If there are, what is the relationship between the two, and do the after-life also exists for the subsidiary soul?  If so, does the after-life of one affect the other?

If single cells have souls but cells within an organism do not, do the latter acquire souls when they separate from the organism - fell off, removed, etc? Or they never have souls no matter how long they survive?

Since individual cells could survive the death of the organism, for a certain length of time anyway, do each soul at both levels commence its post-death transition at different times? 

Fetus-in-situ

Fetus-in-situ have always intrigued me.  Basically, these are fraternal twins in the womb, one of which did not develop as a fully viable baby.  The non-viable twin often dies and would normally be reabsorbed back into the mother's body.  In rare cases (about 2 in a million live births) however it is not reabsorbed and the surviving twin grows to envelop it, resulting in the regular stories of patients having a tumour removed, which distressingly turned out to be a sibling.  The non-viable twin may end up dead and is removed as a calcified mass like bone or it was still alive and was removed as a mass of cells like a cyst or tumour, often with recognisable organs & limbs.

If the non-viable twin was eventually removed as a tumour, it is alive insofar as the cells comprising it are alive as it feeds and the cells reproduces, but it has no consciousness of a human and is not alive as a human.  So, does it have a soul or is it a collection of souls at a cellular level?

If it was a fraternal twin, it would have been conceived from a separate sperm and ovum, which often was non-viable from the beginning because of a congenital flaw which only became apparent later on.  If we accept that the soul existed at conception (Note: there are different ideas on ensoulment), did the non-viable twin had a soul at conception and made its post-death transition on becoming unviable or did it never have a soul because it was doomed even at conception due to congenital traits?  Did it have a soul as long as a possibility of viability remains, only to lose it the moment the last possibility of viability was extinguished?

As a separate point on ensoulment of identical twins, how many souls were there before the foetus split up?  Were there two souls at conception because there would be two foetuses eventually, sort of pre-ordained even though it hasn't happened yet? Or was there only one soul, which split up into two souls when the foetuses split up?  Or was there only one soul which continued on after the split, with another soul started its existence from the split - meaning, there is an elder and a younger sibling souls when physically both foetuses have identical age?

Anything that happens in the physical world happened in a mechanistic or mechanical manner, even miracles require a mechanics for it to happen in the physical world.  Understanding the mechanics only increases our common body of knowledge and may even uncover new understanding or insights to our existing knowledge and understanding.  One should never be afraid of understanding how the world works.