Why “God” (The gods and goddesses) Has Not Spoken — Yet

Some day I do in fact expect what has been called in a similar context, “First Contact.”  What we have been given so far (What the light of nature teaches) amounts to some interesting facts, especially when we fill out their implicates with a few interesting facts and propositions of our own to provide a better way of understanding nature’s light, as it comes to bear on the topic of God speaking.

First of all, we deny that God did any speaking in the creative acts necessary to get us here in the first place, since 1. There was no audience  2. He did not need to speak to create (an act of divine volition suffices), so that Ockham’s razor bids us to shave off this part of the explanation of the creation event.

Second, our blessed and most wise Creator gave us as “general revelation” what was nonverbal, proving He is able quite well to convey to us what we need WITHOUT WORDS.  Since we still have that light and wisdom from nature, and God’s plan cannot be thwarted, we still do not need divine speech.

The third fact, is, however, likely to shove something of a stick into the wheels of the progress of this argument.  God has given language and writing systems to us to make us wiser.  Our “speaking platforms” (language and writing systems) make us far, FAR wiser than we were without them.  This means that we will continue to progress in our ability to grow more diligently and flourish more brilliantly in the wisdom of nature’s light in the future.

This suggests, that, combined with the law of progress in the light of nature, that God intends to speak to us in the future, but that we must first progress much more “fluently” in the wisdom of nature.  We are not yet wise enough.

Recall the principle from the wisdom traditions we already know: “Do not speak to a foolish man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips.”  Would this prevent God from choosing to speak to us?  “The secret of the Lord is with the just.” And again, “Do not give to the dogs what is holy, neither cast your pearls to the pigs.”

Here are a few other points to consider in pondering this question.  God only gives his very best.  This means that if He were to speak to us, He would need to await our construction a language thoroughly and accurately constructed upon the principles of the wisdom of the light of nature — else He could not give us His very best in a badly faulty tongue.

Inference: God is waiting.   He intends to speak to a council of our very wisest when, and only when, we have created the nearly perfect language, having founded it carefully and accurately upon the principles of nature he has given us as wisdom.  The Wise language – the tongue of “pure monotheism,” is the only one He speaks (the very best), and we do not yet have it.

Inference: We should get busy about our Father’s business.  It would appear that this business includes diligent and faithful (did I mention critical) studies in the philosophy of language in light of what we know about ideal language and pure (limited) monotheism.

First contact may not be too far off.  Just remember — WE are the aliens.

And now for a brief postscript.  If God speaks (verbally, as opposed to the nonverbal LON), He will speak only in the ideal language, that language constructed accurately and solely upon the principles of the light of nature.   By learning that the myth of the infinite God teaches that we have been praying all these years to a wantonly falsely-portrayed God, we should rightly think that only in this generation are we beginning to love God aright.

It should astonish us that it has taken this long just to learn to BEGIN to love our Creator rightly.  We have been reckless and foolish in our approach to Him, but no longer.   Now we can begin to work together to construct just that most ideal language, that when we have it promises to reshape our minds and our whole person(s), making us suitable (over time) to God’s true friendship/ fellowship for the first time.

The quest for wisdom necessarily, eventually, leads one into God’s presence.  But we must first learn to speak his language.  And then we must rehearse our speech in that tongue carefully in advance, practicing it in our discourse for some time before one with another that we may prove proficient in it when talking to God, first in prayer. Eventually, when He wants — He will answer.

I would expect that when we first ask Him for wisdom in His native tongue, that we shall have all we desire and more.  Wisdom, and the fellowship and favor of the Most Wise, is the prize.


New Adventures in Research: Are the Divine Ones Infinite, or Else Finite?

In 1897, philosopher and theologian Charles Hartshorne was born in Kittaning, PA, just a mile or so short of Wyomissing at one point.  After a professorship at the University of Chicago, he pioneered — somewhat following A.N. Whitehead — a new understanding of God as a kind of divide between his actual and potential attributes, where according to the one, His potential, He remains infinite, but according to the other pole (actual) — he remains finite in all is attributes.  The key word for him was “Process.” His answer — finite — was correct, as he assisted in pioneering “Process theology.”

Panentheism (the idea that God exists in all things but goes beyond them in some sense), or “process theology,” as his views (collectively) came to be called, represent an important first in human history — an attempt to maintain a MONOtheism with the notion of a finite deity.  In all the ancient pantheons (Sumerian, Egyptian, Roman), the gods were many, and had a very bad habit of doing the kinds of things that today would drive up insurance rates with a vengeance.  Zeus especially could be a troublemaker.

The efforts of Hartshorne (and then of John Cobb) were far more serious than the storytelling episodes of Jason and the Argonauts — my parody of the ancient (somewhat silly and all-too-human) deities of the ancients.  Only the Hebrews made a serious attempt at monotheism, but ended up quite implausibly maintaining that their nomadic and tribal deity was in fact THE INFINITE Creator of all — together with his unique plan of a kosher diet for everyone — eatest thou no crickets.  Or burn forever in a holy barbecue.

Why finite polytheism in pairs (like married couples)?  I shall begin my answer with the lesson of the circle.  In math, the circle is said to exhibit a unique geometric form — it can either be said to possess zero sides, or else and infinite number of sides.  Let us assume the latter for the sake of argument.  Here, the number of sides, being infinite, will yield the same number of sides for an arc that makes up exactly one half the circle; again, the same results obtain for a sample of the arc that makes up one half the semicircle (arc), meaning a one-quarter circle arc.

In each case, the number of sides remains infinite, even down to a single 1/100 of an inch of the circles circumference.  Thus, a certain equivalence (congruence) has to obtain between the disparate lengths of the circle.  This, I believe, suffices to show THE IMPOSSIBILITY of the infinite.  If your math leads to the conclusion that 1% of your circle spans a length about the same as the whole circle — its a con job.  This happens when both are infinite.

Second, Philosophers and students of “theology proper,” as it was dubbed in old time — a critical study where God and His nature form the primary subjects of scrutiny — often regard the divine as the supreme picture of virtue and wisdom — in much the way that Plato held to a “highest form.”

The problem for the “infinite” salesmen remains that such virtues as wisdom, discretion, justice, kindness, and the like all ride on strategic LIMITS.  No limits, no justice — just nihilism and anarchy.

Knowledge and education proceed in the same manner: the limits set by the rules, laws, theorems, ratios, principles, axioms, formulas, and the like, as with the sciences — do in fact set just those limits necessary (wisely) to bring order out of chaos, help us manage our environment, (and in economis) add value to real estate, create jobs, invest well, learn more accurately why things work as they do, or add limits to improve technology.

The whole project of wisdom, knowledge and learning rides on setting limits.  But the idea of an infinite God means He has no limits — making Him anarchic and not orderly, unwise and unjust.

Third, the argument from truth proves that the god (desses) are finite. For an idea to be “true,” we recognize that it must “correspond” to (fit) the real world. In the world of truth theory, different experts grasp what is meant by the idea of “truth corresponedence” variously. But almost everyone agrees some kind of “fitted -ness” has to obtain between a theory and the real world before we can call the theory “true.”  The problem is this: only what is finite can match the real world since scientists know with some certainty that the cosmos is finite and expanding in all directions.  That means for any idea to be true — including ideas about God (s) — they must be finite or they cannot match the real (finite) world, that is, cannot be true ideas — about God or anything else.

This means that the kind of situation that exists in the real cosmos, the “Cosmic Situation,” requires that everything that is real also be finite.  Truth theory mandates the same.  We are created with very clear limits, and the infinite simply implies contradictions like the circle lengths (above).  Nothing either is, or can be, infinite. The very notion is a botched concept. The word “infinite” has no real meaning, and it points to nothing in the real world.  Final score:  Finite Polytheists 8, Yahweh nothing.  Tribal and nomadic deities that turn out to be infinite and over-driven remain scary if you ask me.