How to Make a Universe

It occurs to me that during the course of the various religious and philosophical musings I’ve posted here, there are some concepts which I have used very frequently, but which I haven’t really elaborated.  In short, I’ve just tossed them out with a link, if that, and plowed on.  One such example in particular is the concept of emanation.  Emanation is a highly important concept in both Gnosticism and Neoplatonism, in which they both differ from orthodox Christianity.  The mode in which the universe came into existence has implications for one’s theology, cosmology, and philosophy, so I think it’s worth revisiting these different views on the origin of the cosmos and looking at them in greater depth.

First, it’s important to look more generally at how the universe came into being.  First, one might maintain that the universe did not come into being at all, since it has existed and will exist eternally.  Both some atheists and some theistic systems assume this model.  The universe may change or go through cycles (which may or may not repeat), but it has no discrete origin.  It’s worth pointing out that even this perspective doesn’t necessarily eliminate the possibility of creation.  As Mortimer Adler pointed out in his book How to Think About God, one can still think of God “exnihilating”–holding in existence–a cosmos without linear beginning or end.  As I’ve explained in more detail here, God, properly understood, is completely outside of time and space in the sense in which we use those terms.  A linear infinity of time–going infinitely into the past and likewise into the future–is still far “smaller” or “less” than the true atemporal eternity of God.  To re-use the image I used in the earlier post consider:

Eternity, in this depiction, really shouldn’t be a separate sphere, but the entire plane–or better, the entire space–within which the comparatively tiny line of time lies and by which it is supported.  Thus, God can easily be thought of as creating spacetime in all its linear infinity as a mere drop in the higher-order infinity proper to Him.

Totally Reasonable

Reblogged from This Way:

The idea that some kind of good God exists? Totally reasonable. At least, it seems more reasonable than the idea that existence is this weird, meaningless series of quantum events, that all of our experiences are purposeless chemical reactions, and that the life we live has no more import in space/time than that of a tardigrade. (I mean, if you're the kind of person who finds comfort in a cosmos devoid of meaning that churns along and spits out chemical eddies called "humans" who happen to interact with one another in a purely physical form and then vanish into background noise, that's your bag, but it seems pretty depressing to me.)

Read more… 2,048 more words

I'm not putting this officially in the "Legends of the Fall" series, because it's a bit tangential. Nevertheless, I've been writing about Hell of late, and I've written about reincarnation quite a bit around here, so I thought this might be of interest. I don't necessarily endorse every specific aspect of this; but there are large parts I'd tend to agree with, too.  Note particularly the concept that reincarnation can work backwards in time as well as forwards (remember, our time is meaningless from a Pleromic viewpoint); and that we all ultimately live as everyone else, and so just desserts are automatically taken care of.

Dualism: Living in a Material World

Because I can’t reference Lady Gaga all the time; and Madonna was the Lady Gaga of the 80′s (or have I got that backward?).

I’ve talked about dualism a lot here; but it’s been in a more general vein.  That is, I’ve talked about dualistic tendencies in historical Christianity and the backlash against these in modern times.  I haven’t looked in detail at the different flavors of dualism:  ethical, metaphysical, and so on.  Since what I’m looking at in this series is the relationship of orthodox Christianity to Gnosticism, especially any common grounds they may share; since my contention is that there’s more such common ground that is generally assumed; and since Gnosticism posits a spirit/matter duality; for all these reasons, as I continue my quest for a Gnostic orthodoxy, I want to examine the issue of matter and the spirit in this post.

I take the dichotomy as real, of course.  Philosophical materialism–the view that nothing but matter and energy exists–would deny the existence of “spirit”; but I do not subscribe to a materialist worldview.  Almost all forms of Christianity accept the existence of spirit as well as matter, though attitudes towards the two may differ.  For the purposes of discussion here, the material universe is understood to mean the physical universe, made of matter and energy (which are, after all, different forms of the same thing)  which interact according to the four fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity), and which is observable by scientific methods.

Spirit, on the other hand, is neither matter nor energy (though it’s often thought of in terms much like the latter); it is not “present” in the material universe, since location is a property of material objects; it can interact with matter and energy, though; and finally, in accordance with traditional theology, it is immortal and indestructible, and it is simple (that is, non-composite; not made up of constituent parts, like material objects are).  God and the angels are pure spirits, and our souls are spirits which are “attached” to–or, better, “associated with”–our bodies.

Gnosticism and Orthodox Christianity: Similarities

 

 

As we move along seeking a Gnostic Orthodoxy, it will be useful to see points of commonality between the two worldviews.  The following is a revised and expanded version of comparisons discussed back here.

1.  Both orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism agree that there is one God, and that He is infinitely powerful, completely good, perfect in all ways, and composed purely of spirit.

2.  Both systems agree that God’s original creation was of the bodiless intelligences (pure minds—the Pleroma) and that this original creation was perfectly good.

3.  At some point posterior to its creation, there was a rupturing of the unity of the Pleroma as a result of the actions of some of its members.

4.  The material world was created posterior to the spirit world, and posterior to the rupture of the Pleroma (orthodoxy isn’t completely consistent on this, since there are differences of opinion on the “time” scale; but the Fall of Lucifer is always set before the Fall of Man, and usually before the creation of man altogether, if not the whole cosmos).

5.  Beings consisting of a body and a soul–humans–are created and placed in the material cosmos.

6.  The material cosmos, at least as currently constituted, is deeply flawed and has many evils, imperfections, etc.

7.  The material cosmos as currently constituted will not endure forever, instead coming to an end at some point.

8.  At least some humans (universalists such as myself would say “all”, but that’s for a future post), either in their souls or their complete being will return to God and/or the Pleroma at the end of time.

In a more general way, I’d add two other commonalities:

9. Both Gnosticism and orthodoxy are religions of the Book. Many religions have sacred scriptures, but in most (e.g. Hinduism) the scriptures are the provenance of specialists (e.g. Brahmins or monks) and are almost irrelevant in day-to-day life for most believers. The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are different in that they give their holy books a centrality lacking in other religions. Gnosticism is even more enthusiastic about scriptures, having produced far more of them than the orthodox. Jeremy Puma has felicitously referred to many of Gnostic scriptures as “fanfic”; and I think that properly understood, this is a very good (and not at all derogatory) description. It applies, in fact, to much orthodox scripture as well, in my opinion.

10. As I’ve discussed at greater length before, both religions, to an extent that perhaps neither likes to admit, are very much dualistic. 

Open and Closed Systems, 2: Closed Systems

Having discussed open systems, let’s look at closed systems.

First of all, with all systems of thought, religious or otherwise, there is always a dialectic between the experiential and the theoretical.  We all have experiences from the moment we are born to the moment we die.  We also,  unlike any other creatures (as far as we know), interpret our experiences.  We label them as good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant, boring or exciting; we try to figure out what they mean; sometimes we even doubt that they occurred at all.  We can’t not analyze and interpret what happens to us.

Open systems tend to emphasize the experiential.  They don’t lack interpretive frameworks–it would be impossible for any human endeavor to do so.  Rather, they de-emphasize them, preferring to focus on experience.  One way to put it would be to say that open religions, such as Hinduism or Daoism, are less concerned with orthodoxy (correct belief) and more with orthopraxy (correct action).  Different pandits might disagree about the nature of Brahman (God) or the exact meaning of the Vedas; but all would agree on maintaining the proper rituals and dharma (standards of behavior and religious practice).  The Confucian concept of the Rites (禮, lĭ, in Chinese) is very much similar to this. 

Open and Closed Systems, 1: Open Systems

In this post I want to give a rationale for my “Towards a Gnostic Orthodoxy” series.  After all, one might say, “If you’re orthodox, then why isn’t that enough for you?  Or, if you have that many problems with orthodoxy, why not be honest and leave outright?”  There are less polite ways in which these questions could be posed, obviously; but they are legitimate.  Thus, I want to look at what I’m trying to do here and give at least some motivations for it.

All religions, philosophies, and world views acknowledge, at least in principle, the finitude of the human mind and the human condition.  Our minds and understanding are limited; enormously limited, in fact, with respect to all there is to know in the universe in all its complexity.  We know very little, and with respect to all that there is to be known, we may always know very little.  What seem like great strides to us may be minute baby steps, little children chipping pebbles from the side of Mount Everest, in the big scheme of things.  So much as this everyone, in principle at least, would agree.

Saved from What?

 

People get ready, there’s a train a-comin’.–The Impressions

I did not know we’d ever quarreled.–Henry David Thoreau, when asked on his death bed if he’d made his peace with God.

Atonement means literally “at-one-ment”:  coming back to oneness with someone or something.  In the Christian context, the someone is God.  Of course the implicit assumption is that we are not “at one” with God, and so we need atonement.  To put it another way, we somehow need to be redeemed or saved in order that we may brought back to oneness with God–to expereince atonement.  We speak of “atonement”, “redemption”, “being saved”, and so on, hardly thinking about it at all.  Let’s try to look at this with fresh eyes–or what Shunryu Suzuki would call “beginner’s mind”–and ask:  saved from what?

In this regard, I quote from A. Sinner, referred to in an earlier post, myu emphasis:

I’m afraid tendencies to move away form the language of anger or wrath also mean moving away from the fact that Hell is right at the heart of the Christian mystery. Indeed, if we deny Hell and its centrality, how can God descending INTO it have any meaning at all? If we aren’t being saved FROM something, then what’s the point of salvation? 

This, indeed, is an excellent question.  Here I’m going to examine it from the Gnostic and Evagrian perspectives.  I’ll look at orthodox views in future posts. 

Towards a Gnostic Orthodoxy: Index

The second post here was actually written before I began this series, and was (and is) part of the series on the Bible, “The Pretty Good Book”.  However, I think it’s relevant here, as well, so I’m putting it right after the introductory post.

Towards a Gnostic Orthodoxy:  You Said What??!!

Dualism:  Orthodoxy, Heresy, Refrigerators, and Lawn Mowers

Open and Closed Systems, 1:  Open Systems

Open and Closed Systems, 2:  Closed Systems

Gnosticism and Orthodox Christianity:  Similarities

Dualism:  Living in a Material World

Towards a Gnostic Orthodoxy: Getting Rid of Anthropomorphism

Insights, Gnostic and Otherwise:  I Don’t Wanna Live in This Place (or do I?)

I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

Towards a Gnostic Orthodoxy: You Said What??!!

Indeed, the title might seem as contradictory as “Towards a Marxist Capitalism” or “Towards a Christian Atheism”!  So what, exactly, am I up to?

I first became aware of the “Lost (or even better, Banned) Books of the Bible” in my early teens.  Dad had recently got the New English Bible, still one of my favorite translations, and was quite taken with 2 Esdras (that’s a story for another day).  As a boy raised in a more or less generic Protestant background, with a slight tint of Baptist/Evangelical (at a time when Evangelicals hadn’t yet gone totally over the deep end), this concept gave a delightful frisson of forbidden fruit, scandal, adventure, esoteric knowledge, and the naughtiness of reading something that was Rejected From the Bible!  In a sense, it was sort of a theological peep show, ogling the naughty bits of heretofore hidden Scripture.

As I’ve chronicled before, I read the Bible twice in my late teens.  First was the King James Version (at that time I didn’t know there even was a KJV translation of the Deuterocanonicals, so I read the standard-issue version of it).  About a year later I read the New English Bible, which had all the Deuterocanonical books as well as 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh (which are all, I think, not technically Deuterocanonical, but are in the appendix to the Vulgate).  I enjoyed it–I still think  the style of the NEB is very effective and contemporary without being banal–but the Apocrypha were not as exciting and mysterious as advertised.  Many of them, in fact, were as boring as all get-out.  I guess it’s not the first time a peep show promised more than it could deliver.  

Reincarnation: The Disadvantages

Having looked somewhat extensively at the ideas of pre-existence and reincarnation, we must now look at the theological/philosophical downside of these notions–so important in varying degrees to the Evagrian and Gnostic views we’ve discussed–and consider some of the negative implications of these ideas.

I must point out that a belief in the pre-existence of souls does not necessarily imply a belief in reincarnation.  Origen and Evagrius, while accepting the former do not seem to have believed in the latter (though this is disputed).  In modern times, Mormons accept the pre-existence of souls while not teaching reincarnation.  Thus, we are dealing with two separate, though partially related, beliefs here.  The point, though, is that what I’m about to discuss applies to both.