This is not a trick question
(A photograph of a small minuscule part of God.)
What follows is going to be a theologically themed post. If you are looking for photographs of scantily clad women, scantily clad pirates, grown men wearing aprons, or hot moms you will have to wait for another day.
My rhetorical question for this evening is, "How many Gods (plural) created the Universe?"
As I said in the title, this is not a trick question. The answer, generally speaking, is either one or zero. To the atheist it is zero, and to the theist/deist it is one. To the pantheist, which I happen to be myself, the answer is also 'one'.
It's not really all that difficult when you think about it.
Almost everyone, literally just about everyone except insane people and a few guys on acid, believe we live in a Universe. Moreover the vast majority of the worlds population claims to believe in a single God that created the Universe. (Sorry atheists, you are still largely in the minority, keep trying...)
So, if this is the case, why are there so many religions? And, if there are hundreds, nay thousands of religions, how many Gods created the Universe? Hundreds, thousands, or just one?
As I said, I'm a pantheist; or at least classical pantheist with an affinity to neoplatonic thought. Not everyone knows what that means. To most people a pantheist is an atheist. Sometimes I jokingly say that a pantheist is just an atheist with a little bit of respect.
An atheist believes that the Universe is responsible for all of creation. A pantheist also believes that the Universe is responsible for all of creation. So, what's the difference? Like I said, just a little bit of respect. The atheist, often times, is a material reductionist who tends to view life, the Universe, and everything as a bunch of random noise lacking any real meaning, purpose, or goal. A pantheist, often times, is not a material reductionist and views the Universe as a tremendous creative force that is responsible for life, the Universe, and everything, and that this act of creation is fraught with deep meaning, purpose, and intent. (As an aside, material reductionism seems to be fighting a losing battle since, quite stubbornly it seems, the Universe continues to not be entirely composed of 'things'. Those damned vibratory super strings in hyperspace enfolded within the implicate order of the Universe are pesky dragons to contend with.)
As I said, the distinction is subtle but, I believe, quite important. I do not believe the Universe is a bunch of random crap without meaning. I view the Universe as a great creative force that is striving for self-understanding, in the same way that each of us individually is driven by creative forces striving for self-understanding. You see, I believe there is just a little bit of Universe in each and every one of us and, like the Zen Buddhists, I think that is a pretty cool thing.
So, who stuck a burning ember up my ass tonight and inspired me to write a rant about theological logic? Why, it was an odd comment posted on one of my other web logs by an eighteen year old religious fundamentalist who, at this tender age, is already filled with hate, and fear, and anger.
I find it rather sad.
The comment I received is as follows:
"Not a good move you are making. The Freemasons are an antireligious, relativistic, vile entity." by Crusader88 AKA 'Leslie H. Higgins'
I can only feel relieved, I suppose, that I wasn't hassled by Crusaders number 1 through 87. This silly comment was posted by an 18 year old young man who lives in Northampton, Massachusetts. His occupation is as a cashier which is to assist him as a student pursuing his education. He is clearly male and sports the astrological sign of Capricorn and was born under the Zodiac year of the Dragon. But, why should I babble on here, let the Crusader speak for himself.
(Crusader88 strikes a pose for Universe)
About Me
So, I would like to address the specific points that our young Crusader made. Unlike this post, his comment was short and to the point.Basically, I'm pretty cool, popular, and politically incorrect, very conservative, most Quixotic, in-thy-face, loving, and poetic. I am a hopeless romantic who both loves and hates his native, Godless Northampton Massachusetts.
I am a Republican, and I support President Bush on most issues, but where the Church teaches differently, I cannot support him. I am a traditional Catholic and a supporter of the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center, but a patriot who believes in capitalism, the Republic, and nonreligious liberties. A convert to the faith from atheism, I'm optimistic, but an often bitter warrior for truth and justice, who fights on alone with his large heart filled up with God's mission. I've got college ahead, and may become a lawyer, though no careers really interest me. But I must get one, because my #1 goal is to be married, and convince the wife to beget a big Catholic family!
Recall that he stated: ""Not a good move you are making. The Freemasons are an antireligious, relativistic, vile entity."
So, let's analyze this for a moment. First of all, the Freemasons are not anti-religious. As you all should know by now, no atheist may join the Freemasons. You must profess a belief in God to join. It is open to men of all religious faiths. This hardly makes it 'anti-religious', in fact, it is just the opposite. Our entire work involves honoring deity in the best way possible, by doing good towards our fellow man. There can be no greater honor to the creator of the Universe than this.
As far as Freemasonry being 'relativistic' that is a somewhat accurate statement. Freemasons are supposed to be tolerant of the religious beliefs of others. That is not to say that it *endorses* any one religion over another. Neither does it assume to judge individual religious beliefs of its members.
In fact, any discussion of either religion or politics is strictly forbidden within a Freemason lodge! The purpose of which is that since these two topics tend to create the most conflict in our culture we avoid this discourse in a strict effort to produce peace and harmony within the lodge.
This finally gets around to the original question posed by this message. Just how many Gods created the Universe? If you profess to believe in God, creator of the Universe, then how many of them can there be?
Did a different God who created the Universe exist for the Jews, and another one for the Baptists and the Catholics? Isn't it more likely that only *one* God created the Universe while men created various religions, dogmas, rituals, and institutions to honor his great work?
Is it 'relativism' to acknowledge that only a single God created the Universe, as opposed to a different one for every religious sect on the planet?
Color me confused.
As a final comment on young Crusader's post, he refers to Freemasonry as a 'vile entity'.
While this statement is merely adhominem attack, it does send off some warning signals. How is it that a young man, only 18 years old, has already come to believe that Freemasonry is a 'vile entity'?
Did he spend too much time reading bizarre anti-masonic websites? Does he opine for the days of the Inquisition and subscribe to the early Papal Bulls that showed fear for an Institution that espoused Freedom and liberty?
How ironic that Crusader88 champions himself as a patriot, making sure that his profile prominently displays the American flag.
How ironic is it going to be when Crusader88 finds out that the United States of America was established on Freemason principles largely by Freemasons during the American Revolution?
Will he be aghast to find out that Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and so many other patriots in the American Revolution were Freemasons spreading Enlightenment ideas in the creation of this great Nation and embedding the principles of freedom and liberty into our founding documents?
How upsetting indeed. But, a struggle did exist back in the day. A struggle where the Papacy continued to fight a losing battle to control the minds, bodies, and free will of the Western World through the most brutal tactics. At the end of the day, maybe you have to make a choice. Do you believe in Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Religion, or do you believe that the population should live under the yoke of papist police and mind control?
I don't know. I guess that is a personal opinion.
Finally, as I decided to make this post I did my usual thing and searched Google to find an appropriate image. I typed in the phrase 'God created the Universe'.
I was amazed when the number one search result on Google for that phrase takes us to the following website.
The page is titled 'If God created the Universe then who created God'
What follows on that page is one of the most mind-boggling exercises in anti-logic I have encountered in my life.
Apparently the authors forgot that, when making an argument, sometimes it helps to actually have evidence.
You know evidence? That stuff that we can often see, feel, hear, and touch? The part of consensus reality that almost everyone can come to a certain agreement as existing as a component of time, matter, and space.
I'm not certain I should go down this road, but let me try briefly.
There is, as far as I can tell, abundant evidence for the Universe. Wait...let me check. Yep, still there. Meanwhile, there is absolutely zero evidence in any way, shape, or form, for some imaginary invisible hypothetical and phantom entity that is somehow 'separate' from the Universe.
More to the point, were you to provide such evidence, according to basic set theory, you would have to add that evidence to the sum total which is Universe!
In other words, it is impossible to find evidence for anything which is 'separate' since the Universe comprises all that exists.
Now, let us get back to the basic mystery of the matter. No one, and I mean no one, can 'explain' why the Universe exists. If you try to hypothesise an imaginary entity that 'created' the Universe (say hyperdimensional membranes colliding) then these hyper dimensional membranes would themselves be part of the Universe and lack explanatory power in and of themselves to explain *their* existence.
Whatever entity you hypothesize as 'creating' the Universe must, itself, have an explanation for its existence.
Therefore, we must accept a 'first cause'; whether that first cause is the Universe itself or some imaginary first-cause for which no evidence exists. We have to accept that the Universe simply 'is'. There is no way around that. It does no good to create imaginary entities (without evidence) as a separate 'first cause' without, in turn, explaining what first cause caused the first cause that caused the first cause that caused the first cause that caused the whole mass of circular logic hell. Does this make any sense? Well..not really. Circular logic, apparently, is no mystery to our friends over at the 'Genesis answered' website....
Given that the Universe itself is first cause (remember we have abundant evidence that the Universe actually exists) then it follows quite reasonably to subscribe Universe as the sole author of all of creation.
What can I say, some people find the Universe half empty, I find it half full. I'm funny that way....
Comments
Nonetheless, your lengthy post on Masonry (and several other subjects) has not changed my views. I was already well aware that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and other Founding fathers were Freemasons, that our Nation was founded on Masonic principles, that religion and politics must not be discussed in the lodge, and that atheists are not allowed into the ranks of Freemasonry.
Several elements of your post have reinforced my view on the Craft (if I may call it that). Although all Masons must be theists, the Craft's promotion of Enlightenment rationalism, empiricism, and discovering truth independent of tradition are very different from the traditional Catholic means of discovering transendental truths.
We Catholics use (or are supposed to use) deductive reasoning for theological matters- first accept what is curretly believed, and check them against evidence discovered. As individual interpretation of truth inevitably leads to error (the thousands of Protestant sects with conflicting beliefs), we Catholics believe Jesus Christ established the Church to preserve and define the truths encompassed in Scripture and Tradition. Some truths, which the Church is absolutely certain of, are defined dogmatically. Others are open to debate among theologians.
The Catholic view on religious truth, which I believe I've explained well, is incompatible with standard Masonic philosophy, which you have shown to be relativistic. The Enlightenment ideals characterized as Masonic, which led to the destruction of the old, legitimate governments of Europe, undermined piety and the idealistic foundations of Christendom from the start. They encouraged the hatred of the papacy and the rest of the clergy. Although some conspiracy theories about Masonic involvement in the French Revolution are indeed paranoid, Voltaire and other key agitators were indeed Freemasons.
Even your own words about Holy Mother Church are filled with much more anger and hatred than I left in my comment:...a struggle did exist back in the day. A struggle where the Papacy continued to fight a losing battle to control the minds, bodies, and free will of the Western World through the most brutal tactics. At the end of the day, maybe you have to make a choice. Do you believe in Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Religion, or do you believe that the population should live under the yoke of papist police and mind control?. This is merely a repeat of the old Protestant lies, exaggerations, and grandstanding against the "yoke of papist police".
Finally, regarding my patriotism: I love my country, and believe that it has an excellent form of government, although I do not believe republicanism is inherently better than other types of government, such as monarchy, dictatorship, limited monarchy, etc. I hold that virtue of government does not come from its form, but how it actually rules, and that all forms of government have faults they can easily fall into. For our Republic, I feel that although our Constitution provides for a very good government, its lack of an established religion is a weakness. It would be infinitely better if the government did not pretend to be indifferent to all religions ('tolerance' generally leads to preference for atheism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, and other beliefs that are too relativistic to desire mass conversion and laws reflecting religious morality), and the Catholic Church was the established church. The government should at least encourage its citizens to accept the truth.
My interest is not in examining and arguing with your pantheistic beliefs as explained at the end of your post, so I'll leave them be. My, I'm sorry, but my comment must be half as long as your post! If you have any questions or I, in my infinite fallibility left some belief of mine unclear, feel free to contact me again (it was very nice when you did so the first time, as your post was so fixated on me. I wish you the best. God bless.
[oh yeah, and don't call me a 'fundamentalist'. The connotation is very Protestant. If you won't be so kind as to say 'devout Catholic' or 'Catholic Traditionalist', 'fanatical Catholic' will do]
I've heard of Holocaust deniers, but I've never heard of Inquisition deniers.
C88, we learn form our history books that until only a few hundred years ago, the Catholic church maintained a small army and police force in most of the European countries in which Catholicism was popular. Often, people who were at odds with the provincial government could also be subject to arrest and imprisonment by the local church authorities - over which the local government had little or no say.
While that quote above sound like hyperbole, it was a very real concern to scholars who traded books and papers with each other throughout the Enlightenment period. It wasn't until after the American Revolution that most New World countries began throwing off not only the yoke of their founding governments (Spain, Portugal), but also the yoke of the Church of Rome. Consequently, the Church lost the majority of it's income and revenue, and had to disband the armies; Garibaldi's revolution in Italy further weakened the political ties of the Church, compelling it to shrink into what is now the walled city-state of the Vatican.
It must be difficult to understand how some people can appreciate the fact that the US has no "established" religion, but trust me, many of us prefer to be left alone to appreciate the spiritual in our own way.
None of this happened during the days of the Inquisition. I do believe the burning of heretics at the stake was wrong (as a non-dogmatic matter, I'm free to do so and still be a Traditionalist), but these evils are certainly drawfed by the cost in blood of the overly bload interpretation of Liberty, which kills (globally) more infants each day than the infamous Inquisition did in its entire existance.
Also (listen up Masons), please stop assuming that I am incapable of understanding your views. I have, after all, grown up in a liberal family in liberal Massachusetts; I have been exposed to and understand every facet of the Enlightenment/liberal mindset.