In His Image

Nature abhors a vacuum.

Humanity abhors ignorance and uncertainty. But different cultures deal with the problem in different ways. In ancient times – and some believe the same situation pertains today – the difficult questions were answered through confabulation; by the creation of intricate mythology. They consider the deities of the world's active religions to be on the same level with those of the past. From their perspective, Jesus has no more reality in today's world than Jove; that Allah is no more relevant than Aether. And the same principle applies whether the discussion centers on Australian aboriginal religion, Hinduism, Bahá'í, Gnosticism, Jainism, or whatever. I'll approach the problem by focusing on what I know best – the Jewish religion, and the implications of its teachings.ⁱ

According to the Torah – specifically to Exodus, chapters 33 and 34, Moses requested, and received, a personal viewing of G-d. He did it from a crevice in a rock and he only saw G-d from the back, but he saw Him. I'm less clear on why Moses sought the viewing. Certainly he knew what G-d looked like. He simply had to look at himself. After all, in Genesis, chapter 1, we're told that “G-d created man with His image. In the image of G-d He created him.”ⁱⁱ Man and G-d look the same.

Perhaps.

But what is the origin of the image? Did G-d create us in His image, or do we envision Him in ours? As far as doctrine, all we have are the words of men. We attribute the words to G-d and believe that their transcription by men is accurate. And we assume that the words of commentators are similarly correct. Millennia of such commentaries are designed to demonstrate that they are correct – even when the commentators disagree, when they are forced to alter what was written, or when they must interpret those words so we will understand them.

And we understand them best when they are expressed in human terms. That, however, leads to a system filled with anthropomorphisms. Physical appearance and actions are what we recognize, so descriptions tend to employ human organs and structures.ⁱⁱⁱ We're told that G-d used this terminology so that we'd understand Him, but if the language is only metaphorical, then we're forced to question the idea that we're created in His image. If, however, we, ourselves, are using language that we understand, if G-d is depicted in our image, the terminology is clearer to us. I don't mean to suggest that we invented G-d, but only to recognize that it was we who wrote about Him and described Him. And there is no guarantee of the correctness of our words.

All we have are words of men. Are they accurate records of G-d's words? Do we follow the words of men as if they were His? According to Jewish tradition, the words of our ancestors are all but sacrosanct. At least the words of recognized authorities. And the closer (in time) to Sinai, the more accurate the words. The wise man of one generation cannot deny the words of a prior commentator; he can only explain them. By seeing infallibility in the words of a sage, however, as Catholics do in the words of a Pope, we come extremely close to ascribing divine wisdom and power to him.

But there's a loophole. The more recent expert can “interpret” the words of his predecessor. (And he can disagree with other experts of his time.^iv) He can “understand” it to mean the opposite of what it might appear to mean. He can attribute it to an unlikely author if it seems reasonable to him, or add “missing” text when that seems appropriate. It's the only way to deal with material with which you disagree but you know you can't contradict the author. For the author's words are the Law. They are the words of G-d.

Yet it's hard not to see them as the words of men. That's not the case however. For what choice did those sages have? The words of their ancient predecessors are correct, and the closer temporally they are to Sinai and to G-d's pronouncements to the Jewish People,^v the more likely they are to reflect His wishes of us than what came later.^vi So more recent Rabbis have to understand them in the context of what they see around them now, recognizing that many things have changed, and Original Intent^vii may require some modification – some clarification – from what appears to be the teaching. We don't think that they are literally G-d, but they are certainly inspired by Him. Our concepts are His. By following the traditions of our people, we are following G-d's wishes.

But applying our ideas – “fairness,” for example – doesn't make sense since we cannot know His thoughts or what the term itself means in His “mind.” We neither know what He considers fair, or if the idea of fairness is at all relevant. And the same is true when we consider any other facet of His creation. Our concept of rationality must not be assumed to be His. We may view Him in our image but man is not the measure of all things. As the well-known biologist and agnostic Stephen Jay Gould^viii wrote: “The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos.”

That, too, though, doesn't make sense. It's not rational. However what's the alternative? “Non-believers”^ix put their money on science, and on proof of whatever facts they can muster. G-d is not needed in their formulation.^x If it can't be proved, it's not true. That, of course, is an oversimplification. There is much we know now that we didn't understand in the past, but it was just as true then. And there is acknowledgment of the idea that there is still a lot we don't understand now. Not all the facts are known but that doesn't take away from the idea that they're true. It's the view of the “rationalists” that if the speck which the Big Bang turned into the universe appeared from nothing, there's an explanation for it.^xi If that speck was acted upon by universal laws of physics, their origin will also be explained some day. In the meantime, though, how do you get a good grasp on the incomprehensible? There's still a lot we don't know.

But that's the point.

Next episode: “Words To The Wise” -- Language, knowledge, and culture.

I        I suspect that the same issues exist in other religions as well.

ii       The Living Torah, Maznaim Publishing Corporation, New York, 1981.

iii      The human form of Jesus is about as anthropomorphic as you can get.

iv     Contradictions are well tolerated. In discussing a dispute between Hillel and Shamai, a heavenly voice announced eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chayim (“both of these are the words of the living G-d”  Eruvin 13b). While a legal opinion was required and given, it was clear that contradictory views both had merit and should be accepted as the words of G-d.

v        And those who accompanied them when they escaped from Egypt.

vi       This is not to suggest that G-d no longer speaks to us, only that in the absence of a unified Jewish People who can all listen at the same time, we learn Torah from more recent sources.

vii      In addition to it being a Constitutional concept it also applies to religious thought.

viii     The following excerpt from Gould's article in Skeptic Magazine is interesting:

If you absolutely forced me to bet on the existence of a conventional anthropomorphic deity, of course I'd bet no. But, basically, Huxley was right when he said that agnosticism is the only honorable position because we really cannot know. And that's right. I'd be real surprised if there turned out to be a conventional God.

I remember a story about Clarence Darrow, who was quite atheistic. Somebody asked him: "Suppose you die and your soul goes up there and it turns out the conventional story is true after all?" Darrow's answer was beautiful, and I love the way he pictured it with the 12 apostles in the jury box and with his reputation for giving long speeches (he spoke two straight days to save Leopold and Loeb). He said that for once in his life he wasn't going to make a long speech. He was just going to walk up to them, bow low to the judge's bench, and say, "Gentlemen, I was wrong."

ix       They're not really “non-believers.” They're simply believers in “science.”

x        On the other hand, as G. K. Chesterton put it, “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” But he, like they, possessed a belief system. It just happened to be different from theirs. Chesterton's aphorism is a paraphrase of Voltaire's, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” Clearly he and Chesterton are in agreement.

xi       Although it's difficult to see the difference between “the Big Bang” and creatio ex nihilo or even creatio ex deo. Where did the initial “speck” come from?