Figure 2: How matter, and punishment abodes fit into a nonlocal, timeless, Being
Figure 1: The personal timeslit within a timeless referent frame for nonlocal BeingEvery now and then some article or book review I read triggers the old "theologian" in me- despite the fact I've been an atheist for over 25 years. One such example was a book review (of A Very Brief History of Eternity), entitled There is Always Something', appearing in The Wall Street Journal of Nov. 13, 2009.
The review delves into intriguing aspects of theology, namely how Christian thinkers of the first millennium struggled to wrap their brains around timebound creatures within a universe that must eventually be timeless, and who are destined for "eternity" (Either heaven eternity or hell eternity). The trouble is none of these terms are clear, and certainly not for a timebound species unable to "see" outside the purview of time.
In the review, the ball gets rolling by noting author Carlos Eire's wistful remembrance of a conception of God that was prevalent in the Middle ages. That is, God being one and indivisible, no parts at all- including temporal parts. For such a God to be possible He or She must exist outside of time.
The review expatiates on this further (ibid., p. W10)
"Just as a person standing outside his house can take in the entire structure at a glance, God, situated outside of time, can see all of time spread out before him: time's beginning, it's ending and everything in between".
To see how this can work let's examine a couple of diagrams. Fig. 1 shows the view of such an entity and what it means in relation to a finite creature that is time bound.
In the figure, the non-compartmentalized, nonlocal Being translates into a super consciousness, for which all times are immediately accessible, the past as easily as the future, because in hyper-dimensional consciousness all times are linked. This consciousness is not locked into a serial process of events that unfold one at a time. It “sees” everything at once. Ego-less, it’s without a sense of personal identity or self in the sense of asserting power/status, occupying territory or projecting hegemony over nature. In addition, language and logic, with their built-in divisiveness are not comprehensible to this entity. The separation of subject from object, as well as logical categories, would be perceived as purely illusory artifacts.
Physicist Henry Margenau has compared reality perception for a finite being (such as a human) and a boundary-free being on the basis of “time slits”.[1] In particular, he notes the latter would lack a time slit and this absence is precisely what makes all times instantly accessible. Humans, meanwhile, “are constrained by a narrow slit in the time dimension”. This narrowness of temporal dimension creates our sense of isolation, along with our limited three-dimensional body and sense apparatus. This can be understood better by reference to Fig. 1 which depicts the time slit of a finite creature (matters not which) in relation to the aggregate nonlocal.
The minds that we have, obviously, are encased in "meat"-flesh and evolved to only process within the limits of our time slits and the perceptions attendant on them. Thus, asked to envisage some eternal “punishments” compatible with our God-concepts we invariably arrive at those emphasizing isolation and separation first, and extreme punishment (“Hell”), second. Not surprisingly, when you ask the most serious orthodox Christians for their depictions of Hell, they respond: “a mental state of complete isolation from God’s presence, leading to complete eternal anguish and loss”. This, they indicate, is the real meaning and significance of Hell’s “fires,” since genuine fires can’t be sustained over eternity.
The problem is that this limited time slit version of Hell, which is a human brain byproduct, doesn’t square with the only genuine transpersonal or non-local entity that might pass as a God! Indeed, it contradicts it! What it does, essentially, is demand that the non-local, time-slit liberated version of deity revert to a narrow time-slit version of deity when applying punishment – presumably for those who eschew belief in it. The problem is that if it reverted to this time-slit version it would have to contradict its own nature!
One is led to conclude that the most reliable concept of a deity: a transpersonal entity with zero time constraints (consonant with an infinite, non-local nature) would be incapable of applying punishment to lesser beings in its firmament. The reason is that such punishment requires actions on the level of “isolation” or “separation” that are incompatible with non-locality. A Being that so acted, therefore, would be cognizant not only of its creatures’ isolation but its own! Hence, recognize its own temporal finitude and limits and could not therefore be omniscient or omnipresent!
To make this more concrete, if such an entity (which is more or less analogous to the late physicist David Bohm’s “Holomovement”) existed, it would have to be literally blind to any transgressions against it, and certainly to puny human disbelief. This “blindness” arises not from overlooking human deficiency, but rather from its non-local nature that cannot at once be boundary –free and also localized in perceptions, to the extent of isolating a part of existence for “punishment”. Consider the sketch in Fig. 2 that shows the Holomovement depicted as “the ALL”.
In the end, if this entity existed (and I reiterate we’ve no evidence it does, only that the attributes are most consistent with the traditional “infinite, eternal” Being) then the atheist has nothing to fret over. At death, his limited temporal existence is simply subsumed into a greater, timeless existence. In effect, belief or no, he (like all the billions of other humans who’ve ever lived) must be integrated within the same boundary-free, non-local existence. The bottom line is that orthodox Christians simply can’t have their “cake and eat it.”. If they want unbelievers to suffer eternal torments (of course, they phrase it so it is the unbelievers' personal choice to do so- but this is merely word games) , then they will have to part ways with an omnipresent, eternal deity! They have to, in other words, reject God -Being as one, indivisible unit.
We are further left with clarifying terms such as "everlasting" and "eternal". The problem is that too many, especially Christians of the fundamentalist mold, use them interchangebly. They say this or that unbeliever will "suffer everlasting torment" or "suffer eternal torment".
Going back to my days at a Marist High School, for which I had won the four-year Religion Award, I recall winning it for an essay on the meaning of eternity. In that essay, I defined "eternal" to mean "time extrapolated by human consciousness to the end of that consciousness".
In other words, when every last human in the cosmos is deceased or gone, there is no more time, period. Brains - with consciousness- are required to register time, and they will no longer be. At that point or juncture of human existence, the "eternal" mode ceases, and everlasting commences. Thus, there is a distinction between the "eternal" and "everlasting" (or "forever").
I was interested some years later to see this point reiterated in the fine book, The Power of Myth, which featured Bill Moyers extensive interview with philosopher Joseph Campbell. As Campbell put it (p. 223):
"If you don't experience it ("eternal") right now, you're never going to get it in Heaven. Heaven is not eternal, it's just everlasting. "
Here Campbell is reiterating the Buddhist concept of the "eternal now ". So long as one lives in the present, in the NOW, one inhabits eternity. One cannot inhabit a 'NOW' in any future Heaven because the temporal parameters don't support it.
What about for Hell?
Theologan Hans Kung (Eternal Life?) observes (page 173):
"In the 'eternal punishment' of the Last Judgment, the stress lies on the fact that the punishment is definitive, final, decisive for all eternity...but not on the eternal duration of the torment".
and (page 174):
"However the scriptural texts are interpreted in detail, the 'eternity' of the punishment of Hell may never be regarded as absolute".
Which pretty well melds with the notion of a onlocal God already described.
What does Kung mean when he says "a punishment is decisive for all eternity...but not on the eternal duration of the torment"
I believe he means that the punishment (which Kung actually interprets more as a "purification" of consciousness of a lesser mortal being by a superior being) terminates when all human consciousness of time does. The punishment cannot be absolute, for the reasons given earlier to do with the nonlocal Being described in Fig. 2: to be absolute or final, "God" would have to absolutely destroy part of himself. But, God supposedly exists as an indivisible whole, so has no parts - hence cannot apply absolute torments.
On that note, I exit my theological self and return to my Atheistic self. I do this as a Being I envisage now looking over my shoulder smiles and whispers: "You got it! And much better than my more literal followers do! How 'bout teaching 'em?"
To which I reply, "I already have! And, by the way, you don't really exist. You are but an epiphenomenon of the jalapeno and sauerkraut, salami sandwich I just ate!"
[1] Henry Margenau.: 1987, The Miracle of Existence, New Science Library, p. 121. Margenau’s use of the term “time slit” is intended to represent the temporal analog of a spatial slit, e.g. what extent of a room is visible to you see if you observe it through a narrow “slit”, say a keyhole?
The review delves into intriguing aspects of theology, namely how Christian thinkers of the first millennium struggled to wrap their brains around timebound creatures within a universe that must eventually be timeless, and who are destined for "eternity" (Either heaven eternity or hell eternity). The trouble is none of these terms are clear, and certainly not for a timebound species unable to "see" outside the purview of time.
In the review, the ball gets rolling by noting author Carlos Eire's wistful remembrance of a conception of God that was prevalent in the Middle ages. That is, God being one and indivisible, no parts at all- including temporal parts. For such a God to be possible He or She must exist outside of time.
The review expatiates on this further (ibid., p. W10)
"Just as a person standing outside his house can take in the entire structure at a glance, God, situated outside of time, can see all of time spread out before him: time's beginning, it's ending and everything in between".
To see how this can work let's examine a couple of diagrams. Fig. 1 shows the view of such an entity and what it means in relation to a finite creature that is time bound.
In the figure, the non-compartmentalized, nonlocal Being translates into a super consciousness, for which all times are immediately accessible, the past as easily as the future, because in hyper-dimensional consciousness all times are linked. This consciousness is not locked into a serial process of events that unfold one at a time. It “sees” everything at once. Ego-less, it’s without a sense of personal identity or self in the sense of asserting power/status, occupying territory or projecting hegemony over nature. In addition, language and logic, with their built-in divisiveness are not comprehensible to this entity. The separation of subject from object, as well as logical categories, would be perceived as purely illusory artifacts.
Physicist Henry Margenau has compared reality perception for a finite being (such as a human) and a boundary-free being on the basis of “time slits”.[1] In particular, he notes the latter would lack a time slit and this absence is precisely what makes all times instantly accessible. Humans, meanwhile, “are constrained by a narrow slit in the time dimension”. This narrowness of temporal dimension creates our sense of isolation, along with our limited three-dimensional body and sense apparatus. This can be understood better by reference to Fig. 1 which depicts the time slit of a finite creature (matters not which) in relation to the aggregate nonlocal.
The minds that we have, obviously, are encased in "meat"-flesh and evolved to only process within the limits of our time slits and the perceptions attendant on them. Thus, asked to envisage some eternal “punishments” compatible with our God-concepts we invariably arrive at those emphasizing isolation and separation first, and extreme punishment (“Hell”), second. Not surprisingly, when you ask the most serious orthodox Christians for their depictions of Hell, they respond: “a mental state of complete isolation from God’s presence, leading to complete eternal anguish and loss”. This, they indicate, is the real meaning and significance of Hell’s “fires,” since genuine fires can’t be sustained over eternity.
The problem is that this limited time slit version of Hell, which is a human brain byproduct, doesn’t square with the only genuine transpersonal or non-local entity that might pass as a God! Indeed, it contradicts it! What it does, essentially, is demand that the non-local, time-slit liberated version of deity revert to a narrow time-slit version of deity when applying punishment – presumably for those who eschew belief in it. The problem is that if it reverted to this time-slit version it would have to contradict its own nature!
One is led to conclude that the most reliable concept of a deity: a transpersonal entity with zero time constraints (consonant with an infinite, non-local nature) would be incapable of applying punishment to lesser beings in its firmament. The reason is that such punishment requires actions on the level of “isolation” or “separation” that are incompatible with non-locality. A Being that so acted, therefore, would be cognizant not only of its creatures’ isolation but its own! Hence, recognize its own temporal finitude and limits and could not therefore be omniscient or omnipresent!
To make this more concrete, if such an entity (which is more or less analogous to the late physicist David Bohm’s “Holomovement”) existed, it would have to be literally blind to any transgressions against it, and certainly to puny human disbelief. This “blindness” arises not from overlooking human deficiency, but rather from its non-local nature that cannot at once be boundary –free and also localized in perceptions, to the extent of isolating a part of existence for “punishment”. Consider the sketch in Fig. 2 that shows the Holomovement depicted as “the ALL”.
In the end, if this entity existed (and I reiterate we’ve no evidence it does, only that the attributes are most consistent with the traditional “infinite, eternal” Being) then the atheist has nothing to fret over. At death, his limited temporal existence is simply subsumed into a greater, timeless existence. In effect, belief or no, he (like all the billions of other humans who’ve ever lived) must be integrated within the same boundary-free, non-local existence. The bottom line is that orthodox Christians simply can’t have their “cake and eat it.”. If they want unbelievers to suffer eternal torments (of course, they phrase it so it is the unbelievers' personal choice to do so- but this is merely word games) , then they will have to part ways with an omnipresent, eternal deity! They have to, in other words, reject God -Being as one, indivisible unit.
We are further left with clarifying terms such as "everlasting" and "eternal". The problem is that too many, especially Christians of the fundamentalist mold, use them interchangebly. They say this or that unbeliever will "suffer everlasting torment" or "suffer eternal torment".
Going back to my days at a Marist High School, for which I had won the four-year Religion Award, I recall winning it for an essay on the meaning of eternity. In that essay, I defined "eternal" to mean "time extrapolated by human consciousness to the end of that consciousness".
In other words, when every last human in the cosmos is deceased or gone, there is no more time, period. Brains - with consciousness- are required to register time, and they will no longer be. At that point or juncture of human existence, the "eternal" mode ceases, and everlasting commences. Thus, there is a distinction between the "eternal" and "everlasting" (or "forever").
I was interested some years later to see this point reiterated in the fine book, The Power of Myth, which featured Bill Moyers extensive interview with philosopher Joseph Campbell. As Campbell put it (p. 223):
"If you don't experience it ("eternal") right now, you're never going to get it in Heaven. Heaven is not eternal, it's just everlasting. "
Here Campbell is reiterating the Buddhist concept of the "eternal now ". So long as one lives in the present, in the NOW, one inhabits eternity. One cannot inhabit a 'NOW' in any future Heaven because the temporal parameters don't support it.
What about for Hell?
Theologan Hans Kung (Eternal Life?) observes (page 173):
"In the 'eternal punishment' of the Last Judgment, the stress lies on the fact that the punishment is definitive, final, decisive for all eternity...but not on the eternal duration of the torment".
and (page 174):
"However the scriptural texts are interpreted in detail, the 'eternity' of the punishment of Hell may never be regarded as absolute".
Which pretty well melds with the notion of a onlocal God already described.
What does Kung mean when he says "a punishment is decisive for all eternity...but not on the eternal duration of the torment"
I believe he means that the punishment (which Kung actually interprets more as a "purification" of consciousness of a lesser mortal being by a superior being) terminates when all human consciousness of time does. The punishment cannot be absolute, for the reasons given earlier to do with the nonlocal Being described in Fig. 2: to be absolute or final, "God" would have to absolutely destroy part of himself. But, God supposedly exists as an indivisible whole, so has no parts - hence cannot apply absolute torments.
On that note, I exit my theological self and return to my Atheistic self. I do this as a Being I envisage now looking over my shoulder smiles and whispers: "You got it! And much better than my more literal followers do! How 'bout teaching 'em?"
To which I reply, "I already have! And, by the way, you don't really exist. You are but an epiphenomenon of the jalapeno and sauerkraut, salami sandwich I just ate!"
[1] Henry Margenau.: 1987, The Miracle of Existence, New Science Library, p. 121. Margenau’s use of the term “time slit” is intended to represent the temporal analog of a spatial slit, e.g. what extent of a room is visible to you see if you observe it through a narrow “slit”, say a keyhole?
2 comments:
Damn! That was a mind boggling essay but it is worth considering that these endless Pascal Wager games the believers play aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. I can rest easy that atheist or not I don't lose any bets, and definitely not for eternity!
Thanks again for a mind blower blog piece!
Just to add a bit here I see your brother Pastor Mike must be reading you as his latest blog is on 'Hell...Yes!''... This dodo really thinks there is such a place, but of course he has to in order to drum poor dupes into the fold.
What you have expressed makes perfect sense. There's no way an undivided, infinite being can inflict absolute or everlasting torment without destroying part of itself.
It's a pity some pathetic folks can't reason their way out of a paper bag but prefer to believe 2000 year old fables and folks tales scrawled by some dumb old half literate sheep herders.
Post a Comment