GOD.
I HEAR ALL THE ARGUMENTS FOR
AND AGAINST GOD'S EXISTENCE.
I'D HOPE SUCH A
SUPREME BEING EXISTS.
I'D HOPE EVEN HARDER SUCH A
SUPREME BEING WERE A PERSON.
WHY WOULD I WANT
GOD TO BE A PERSON?
A PERSON HAS SENSE, KNOWLEDGE,
WILL, INTENT, FEELINGS -
AS WELL AS PRESENCE AND POWERS.
A PERSON CAN BE COMPASSIONATE,
SYMPATHETIC, EMPATHETIC.
IF GOD WERE A PERSON,
THERE'D BE HOPE, ULTIMATELY,
THAT ALL MIGHT END WELL.
THAT DEATH MIGHT NOT
BE THE DREADFUL FINALE.
BUT WHY SHOULD GOD BE A PERSON?
GIVING ME HOPE IS
NO GOOD REASON.
TRADITIONS OF WESTERN RELIGIONS?
TRADITIONS CAN BE SUPERSTITIONS.
SO, CAN GOD, IF THERE
IS A GOD, BE A PERSON?
I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY
TO FIND OUT.
I CAN THINK IT RATHER STRANGE
- ABSURD, REALLY - THAT THE
"GROUND OF ALL BEING" - THE
EXPLANATORY CAUSE OF EVERYTHING
- IS A 'PERSON'.
DOESN'T A 'PERSON'
SEEM TOO MUCH LIKE US?
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO BELIEVE
THAT GOD, IF THERE IS A GOD,
IS A PERSON?
THE "BURDEN OF PROOF," I'D
ARGUE, FALLS ON THOSE WHO CLAIM
THAT GOD IS A PERSON.
THAT'S WHY I BEGIN
IN PASADENA, CALIFORNIA,
AT FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,
WITH AN ANALYTIC THEOLOGIAN WHO
DEFENDS THE CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINE THAT GOD IS A PERSON
- OLIVER CRISP.
OLIVER, WHAT DOES THAT
MEAN FOR GOD TO BE A PERSON?
WHEN WE THINK OF PERSONS AS, IN
TERMS OF HUMAN PERSONS AND HUMAN
INTERACTION ON THE PERSONAL
LEVEL, WE TEND TO THINK OF A
SORT OF CONSCIOUS SUBJECT WITH A
FIRST PERSON PERSPECTIVE THAT'S
ABLE TO RELATE
TO ANOTHER PERSON.
NOW IN A SENSE, WE WANT TO SAY
THAT ABOUT GOD, OF COURSE, TOO,
BUT FOR THE CHRISTIAN, WE'VE
GOT TO SAY THAT ABOUT THREE
DIFFERENT PERSONS IN THE
GODHEAD, FATHER, SON AND HOLY
SPIRIT, BUT IN A WAY THAT
DOESN'T PULL THEM APART SO THAT
YOU HAVE THREE GODS,
AND THAT'S WHAT'S TRICKY.
SO THE QUESTION OF PERSON AND
GOD FOR THE CHRISTIAN IS NOT
QUITE AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS
IT MIGHT BE FOR SOMEONE WHO IS
SIMPLY A KIND OF MONOTHEIST.
OF COURSE CHRISTIANS ARE
MONOTHEISTS, THEY DO BELIEVE
THAT GOD IS ONE, AND THEY DO
BELIEVE THAT GOD IS PERSONAL,
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE
QUESTION OF WHAT DO WE MEAN BY
PERSON AND GOD, THE
CHRISTIAN ANSWER IS THERE
ARE THREE PERSONS.
LOOK, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND HOW
THAT'S TRICKY, BUT I'M STILL AT
A MORE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL.
I WANT TO KNOW, WHAT'S
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MY
UNDERSTANDING A HUMAN PERSON.
A HUMAN PERSON I KNOW HAS
INDEPENDENCE, HAS A WILL,
IT HAS, I ASSUME, A THEORY
OF MIND, SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS,
AND DESIRES AND
INTENTS, AND AGENCY -
[CRISP: RIGHT.]
RK: - A WHOLE SERIES OF
THINGS THAT I THINK THAT
CONSTITUTES A PERSON,
AS A HUMAN PERSON.
CRISP: RIGHT, USUALLY THERE'S
SOME SORT OF SENSE IN WHICH
HUMAN PERSONS ARE ANALOGOUS TO
DIVINE PERSONS, SO WHEN YOU
TALK ABOUT PERSONS IN THE WAY
THAT YOU JUST HAVE, I THINK
THOSE SORTS OF CHARACTERISTICS
ARE OBVIOUSLY TRUE OF GOD.
BUT UNLIKE FINITE, LIMITED HUMAN
PERSONS, GOD'S CONSCIOUSNESS IS
INFINITE AND IS PERFECT, SO YOU
MIGHT THINK OF GOD AS A PERFECT
BEING AND A PERFECT PERSON IN,
OR A PERFECT TRIPERSONAL BEING
RATHER THAN A SORT OF
LIMITED, FINITE HUMAN PERSON.
BUT THERE'S A SENSE IN WHICH
LIKE YOU AND I HAVE A FIRST
PERSON PERSPECTIVE AND WE CAN
WILL, WE CAN ACT IN THE WORLD,
WE CAN RELATE TO ONE ANOTHER,
SO SIMILARLY, BY ANALOGY, GOD IS
ABLE TO DO SOME OF THOSE,
SOME OF THOSE THINGS AS WELL.
ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE PERSONHOOD OF HUMAN BEINGS
AND THE PERSONHOOD OF GOD?
YES, OF COURSE, I MEAN, PERSONS
THAT ARE HUMAN PERSONS HAVE
THE ABILITY TO DO CERTAIN
THINGS THAT GOD CAN'T DO, LIKE,
FOR EXAMPLE, SIN.
BUT USUALLY THAT'S NOT
UNDERSTOOD TO BE SOME KIND OF
LACK IN GOD OR SOME KIND OF
FAILURE OF HIS PERFECTION BUT
RATHER PRECISELY BECAUSE HE'S A
PERFECT BEING AND IS A PERFECT
KIND OF PERSON, HE IS UNABLE TO
DO CERTAIN SORTS OF THINGS THAT
FINITE AND FALLEN
HUMAN BEINGS CAN DO.
OF COURSE, THE FACT THAT MY
CONSCIOUSNESS AND MY KIND OF
FIRST PERSON PERSPECTIVE IS
LIMITED TO WHAT YOU SEE IN
FRONT OF YOU, THIS BODY AND
THE PURVIEW OF THIS BODY AND
IT'S EXPERIENCE OF THE
WORLD IS ALSO DIFFERENT
IN IMPORTANT RESPECTS.
GOD'S EXPERIENCE OF THE WORLD,
HIS ABILITY TO WORK WITHIN THE
WORLD IS GOING TO BE
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM
MINE IN VIRTUE OF THE FACT
THAT LET'S SAY HE'S OMNIPOTENT,
HE'S OMNIPRESENT
AND HE'S OMNISCIENT.
SO GOD KNOWS, IN A SENSE, LIKE
I KNOW, BUT HIS KNOWLEDGE IS
PERFECT AND IMMEDIATE.
GOD HAS POWER LIKE I HAVE THE
POWER TO DO CERTAIN SORTS OF
THINGS, BUT GOD'S POWER IS,
IN A SENSE, WITHOUT LIMIT.
AND GOD IS ABLE TO BE PRESENT
EVERYWHERE, IN SOME SENSE,
IN A WAY THAT I AM NOT.
I'M LIMITED TO THIS
PARTICULAR PHYSICAL BODY.
RK: AND THE CHALLENGE IS CAN YOU
STILL BE A PERSON IF YOU ARE
INFINITE IN YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS?
WHATEVER THAT MAY MEAN.
INFINITE IN YOUR POWER,
INFINITE IN YOUR KNOWLEDGE,
IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S STRETCHING
THE CONCEPT OF WHAT A
PERSON WOULD BE.
THAT'S WHY I'M WONDERING IS
THERE A COHERENCE BETWEEN GOD
BEING A PERSON AND GOD HAVING
THESE INFINITE CHARACTERISTICS?
I'M NOT CLEAR WHAT WOULD MAKE
IT INCOHERENT, BUT CERTAINLY
I THINK IT MAKES GOD
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM
ANY KIND OF CREATURE.
IT'S NOT SIMPLY THAT GOD IS A
SORT OF GREATER SORT OF INSTANCE
OF A PERSON LIKE YOU AND ME,
HE'S JUST A MORE PERFECT,
A GREATER, MORE OMNIPOTENT
PERSON, BUT THAT THERE'S
SOMETHING THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY
DIFFERENT ABOUT THE KIND OF
BEING THAT GOD IS, AND THAT HAS
TO BE CAPTURED IN SOME WAY BY
WHAT WE SAY ABOUT THE PERSONHOOD
OF GOD, SO THERE'S A KIND OF
BOUNDARY AS IT WERE BETWEEN
CREATURES, INCLUDING CREATURES
LIKE YOU AND I AND THE
PERSONHOOD THAT WE POSSESS,
AND ANYTHING THAT WE WANT TO
SAY WITH RESPECT TO THE DIVINE
PERSONHOOD OF GOD AND THAT'S THE
IMPORTANT THING THAT WE HAVE
TO HOLD ONTO.
A 'PERSONAL GOD' IS NOT THE
SAME AS A GOD WHO IS A PERSON.
A 'PERSONAL GOD' IS WHAT GOD
MAY DO, GOD-AS-A-PERSON IS WHAT
GOD MAY BE.
AS FOR A TRINITY, I GET
WHY IT'S "TRICKY" - ONE GOD?
THREE PERSONS?
BUT MY CONCERN IS NOT THE NUMBER
OF GOD-PERSONS, BUT THE KIND OF
GOD - THE NATURE
OF THE GOD "SPECIES."
SIMILAR TO HUMAN
PERSONS, BUT DIFFERENT?
THE DIFFERENCES
ARE OBVIOUS AND VAST -
INFINITE GOD VS. FINITE HUMANS.
THE SIMILARITIES
I STRUGGLE TO FIND.
WOULD DISTINGUISHING
GOD'S PERSONHOOD FROM
GOD'S NATURE HELP?
I GO TO THE ORTHODOX CHURCH,
WITH ITS RICH TRADITION OF
SEARCHING GOD'S NATURE, TO
SPEAK WITH A LEADING THEOLOGIAN
- FATHER JOHN BEHR.
THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION
IS VERY EMPHATIC.
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES, ALMOST
FROM PAUL, ALMOST FROM THE
SCRIPTURES ONE GOD, ONE GOD THE
FATHER, ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST
ONE MADE KNOWN
THROUGH ONE HOLY SPIRIT.
ONE LORD JESUS
CHRIST SON OF GOD.
BY THE TIME YOU GET TO THE
FOURTH CENTURY THIS WILL BE
AFFIRMED IN LANGUAGE
OF NATURE AND PERSONS.
THERE IS ONE NATURE, 3 PERSONS.
OKAY?
SO THE SON IS WHAT THE FATHER
IS BUT A DIFFERENT PERSON.
OKAY?
WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL
WITH THE TERM PERSON HOWEVER,
BECAUSE FOR US IT HAS GOT
ALL SORTS OF OTHER CONTENT.
WE THINK WE KNOW WHAT IT IS TO
BE A PERSON BECAUSE OF COURSE
WE ARE PERSONS.
WE KNOW WHAT IT'S
LIKE TO BE A PERSON!
BUT EVEN THE SHAPE OF HUMAN
PERSONHOOD HAS DRAMATICALLY
CHANGED OVER THE
CENTURIES AND THE STUDY OF
HISTORY WILL TEACH THAT.
THE INVENTION OF THE INNER
SELF WITH THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE.
THAT KIND OF THING.
THE DISCOVERY OF
THE UNCONSCIOUS.
WITH FREUD IN THE LATE
19TH, EARLY 20TH CENTURY.
ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS GIVE
RISE TO WHAT WE THINK OF WHAT WE
KNOW BY PERSON.
WE SHOULD BE REALLY HESITANT
TO PROJECT THAT ONTO GOD.
NOW EMPHATICALLY THE CHRISTIAN
REVELATION IS THAT JESUS CHRIST
IS THE SON OF GOD.
WHICH MEANS HE IS WHAT IT IS TO
BE GOD BUT HE IS OTHER THAN THE
ONE HE CALLS FATHER AND THAT
WE KNOW THIS IN AND THROUGH
THE HOLY SPIRIT.
SO WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT
THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE
SPIRIT BEING PERSONS.
WERE THOSE FROM
EVERLASTING, THEY WERE
ALL CONTEMPORANEOUS FOREVER?
THERE IS NO TEMPORALITY
WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
THERE IS NOT, NO TEMPORALITY
AS IN A VERY LONG TIME
BUT IT'S ATEMPORAL.
IF THEY HAVE ATEMPORAL
EXISTENCE, HOW IS IT DETERMINED
THAT ONE IS THE
FATHER AND ONE IS THE SON?
IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S
HIERARCHICAL RELATIONSHIP RIGHT.
YEAH BUT IT'S HIERARCHY OF CAUSE
RATHER THAN TEMPORAL PROCEDURE.
HIERARCHY OF CAUSE,
SO HOW DO YOU HAVE
CAUSE WITH ATEMPORALITY?
FOR INSTANCE, DOES THE
SUN PRECEDE THE LIGHT THAT
EMANATES FROM IT?
I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES.
NO THERE IS NO SUN WITHOUT
LIGHT, AT LEAST WITHIN THE
4TH CENTURY WAY OF THINKING
THERE'D BE NO TEMPORAL
LINKS BETWEEN THEM.
RK: WELL THEY WERE WRONG.
A FOUNTAIN IN THE RIVER, A
FOUNTAIN IN THE WATER COMING
OUT FROM IT.
LOGICALLY THEY ARE
CAUSE AND EFFECT.
TEMPORALLY THEY'RE SIMULTANEOUS.
YOU DON'T HAVE ONE
WITHOUT THE OTHER.
YOU DON'T HAVE A FATHER WITHOUT
A SON, YOU DON'T HAVE A SON
WITHOUT A FATHER.
BUT THERE IS A PRIORITY.
HOW DID THEY DETERMINE
WHO WOULD BE WHO?
I DON'T THINK THE DISCUSSION
EVEN DEVELOPED LIKE THAT.
A DISCUSSION IS REALLY ABOUT
THIS PERSON CHRIST AND WHAT HE
TELLS US ABOUT GOD,
WHAT HE SHOWS US ABOUT GOD.
IT'S NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT
HOW SHALL WE CREATE A TRINITY.
I APPRECIATE THE
TENETS OF THE CHURCH.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS FOR
SOMEONE WHO IS NOT PART OF THAT
TRY TO APPROACH IT IN A WAY THAT
SEEMS LOGICAL RATHER THAN HAVING
KIND OF AN INTERNAL
CIRCULAR REASONING.
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO CHRIST.
THE LOGIC STARTS WITH
HIM NOT WITH A DISCUSSION
ABOUT THE TRINITY.
LOGIC STARTS WITH HIM AND THE
AFFIRMATION THAT THIS IS WHAT IT
IS TO BE GOD.
WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE DIVINE CENTERS OF ACTIVITY,
THE FATHER, THE SON
AND THE HOLY SPIRIT?
WHAT IS IT ABOUT THEIR INNER
BEING THAT WE CAN DISCERN IN
TERMS OF THEIR MENTAL LIFE
IF COULD I USE THAT TERM?
WELL IN A SENSE ALL OF THOSE
WOULD BE HUMAN PROJECTIONS.
IF YOU TALK ABOUT US AS A PERSON
AND PROJECTING AND WANTING TO
SEE THAT IN GOD.
I DON'T THINK ONE
CAN DO THAT AT ALL.
THE FIGURES WHO ARE
DEVELOPING TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY
IN THAT WAY WOULD SAY THAT IT'S
NOT COMPARABLE TO THREE HUMAN
BEINGS GETTING TOGETHER.
IT'S NOT THAT THE FATHER
DOES SOMETHING, THE SON DOES
SOMETHING ELSE, THE
SPIRIT DOES SOMETHING ELSE.
THERE IS ONLY ONE
WORK WHICH THEY DO.
IF THEY WERE EACH DOING SEPARATE
THINGS THEN YOU'D BE ABLE TO
LOOK AT THEM DISTINCTLY.
I CAN SEE THE FATHER OVER HERE,
I CAN SEE CHRIST HERE, I CAN SEE
THE SPIRIT HERE.
WELL THEORETICALLY WE HAD THAT
WHEN JESUS WAS A HUMAN BEING.
NO, BUT THE ONLY THING WE COULD
SAY ABOUT THAT BUT THIS IS THE
IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD.
WE DON'T LOOK FOR
GOD SOMEWHERE ELSE.
HE SHOWS US WHAT IT IS TO BE
GOD, BUT THERE IS NO KIND OF
SURPLUS OF DIVINITY
THAT I CAN SEE.
CHRIST IS DOING SOMETHING ON
EARTH BUT THE FATHER IS DOING
SOMETHING ON MARS.
NO, IT'S NOT LIKE THAT.
CHRIST IS THE FULLNESS OF
DIVINITY INCARNATE, THERE IS NO
SURPLUS LEFT ANYWHERE ELSE.
THIS IS IT, THIS IS
WHAT IT IS TO BE GOD.
REALLY CAREFUL WITH
THE WORD PERSON, I'D SAY.
THREE PERSONS.
EACH THE FULLNESS OF DIVINITY,
BUT NO "SURPLUS OF DIVINITY."
EXPRESSIVE, BUT MORE DEFINING
DIVINITY THAN PROBING PERSONS.
AND JESUS AS DIVINITY INCARNATE
- JOHN SAYS, 'THIS IS WHAT IT IS
TO BE GOD.'
WELL, NOTWITHSTANDING
DISPUTES REGARDING JESUS,
JESUS WAS A PERSON.
SO HOW TO TEASE APART THE NATURE
OF PERSONHOOD IN THE DIVINITY -
WHICH IS MY PROBLEM -
WITH THE NUMBER OF PERSONS
IN THE DIVINITY?
WHICH IS A FUTHER PROBLEM.
FOR GOD TO BE A PERSON,
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?
WHAT WOULD IT MEAN?
I NEED AN OPPOSING PERSPECTIVE
- I SPEAK WITH THE AUTHOR OF
"THE WISDOM TO DOUBT" ATHEISTIC
PHILOSOPHER, JOHN SCHELLENBERG.
JOHN, THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION
IN WESTERN RELIGIONS - JUDAISM,
CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM -
THAT THE DIVINE IS A PERSON.
IT SOUNDS LIKE SUCH AN
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM, THAT THE
ULTIMATE DIVINE IS A PERSON.
WELL, YOU CAN MAKE IT SOMEWHAT
LESS EXTRAORDINARY IF YOU SAY
THAT WE'RE HUMAN PERSONS
AND THUS DISTINGUISH BETWEEN,
YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT WAYS IN
WHICH THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF
PERSONHOOD COULD
BE INSTANTIATED.
BECAUSE THE IDEA OF PERSONHOOD,
AS PHILOSOPHERS UNDERSTOOD IT,
REALLY DOESN'T ENTAIL A GREAT
DEAL, DOESN'T ENTAIL HAVING A
PHYSICAL BODY, THE KIND THAT WE
HAVE; IT ENTAILS CONSCIOUSNESS,
IT ENTAILS INTENTIONALITY,
ACTIONS THAT ONE DOES ON THE
BASIS OF ONE'S INTENTIONS,
PERHAPS BELIEFS, KNOWLEDGE OF
SOME KIND, PERHAPS EVEN
MORAL QUALITIES OF ONE
SORT OR ANOTHER.
BUT THOSE COULD BE EXHIBITED
BY A WIDE, WIDE ARRAY
OF DIFFERENT CREATURES.
AND SO, THAT PROBLEM FOR GOD AS
A PERSON MAY NOT BE AS SERIOUS
AS IT FIRST APPEARS.
HOWEVER, WE MIGHT STILL ASK
OURSELVES WHETHER IN OUR FOCUS
ON THE DIVINE AS A PERSON
WE'VE BECOME OBSESSED WITH ONE
POSSIBILITY TO THE
EXCLUSION OF OTHERS.
I MEAN, WHAT YOU LEARN FROM
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY THESE
DAYS, IS THAT IT IS VERY NATURAL
FOR US TO THINK IN TERMS OF
AGENTS WHEN WE DEVELOP
OUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
WE SEE AGENCY EVERYWHERE
AND THAT'S GOT AN EVOLUTIONARY
FUNCTION AND MAYBE IT HAS ALSO
HAD THIS BYPRODUCT OF CAUSING
OUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
TO BE ONES THAT INVOLVE
REFERENCE TO AGENCY.
BUT THERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT
ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE
DISCUSSED IN CONNECTION
WITH PERSONHOOD.
FIRST OF ALL, ARE WE TALKING
ABOUT PERSONS AS WE UNDERSTAND
THEM TO THIS POINT?
I MEAN, EVEN IF THERE CAN BE
MORE PERSONS THAN HUMAN PERSONS,
NONETHELESS, EVEN OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE GENERAL
CONCEPT OF WHAT IT IS TO BE A
PERSON, IS TO SOME EXTENT, BASED
ON OUR LIMITED HUMAN
EXPERIENCE OF PERSONHOOD.
SO, YOU MIGHT WONDER WHETHER
WE'RE THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG
WHEN IT COMES TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONHOOD.
SO, SOMEBODY MIGHT SAY, WELL,
GOD INSTANTIATED PERSONHOOD AS
IT REALLY IS.
WE'RE STILL SORT OF FUMBLING OUR
WAY TOWARDS REAL PERSONHOOD,
AND SO THAT WOULD ALLOW GOD
TO BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM ANY
PERSONS WE KNOW, AND PERHAPS
EVEN TO, IN SOME WAY, BE BEYOND
OUR BEST CONCEPT OF PERSONHOOD.
AND WHEN I LOOK AT THIS SPECIFIC
PICTURE OF THE DIVINE AS
PERSONAL, I FIND ARGUMENTS
AGAINST SUPPOSING IT TO BE TRUE.
WHAT ARE YOUR
REASONS FOR REJECTING IT?
WELL, I HAVE VARIOUS REASONS.
I MEAN, THESE ARE
ARGUMENTS FOR ATHEISM, RIGHT?
IN OUR CULTURE, ATHEISM IS BEST
UNDERSTOOD AS MEANING THE DENIAL
OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PERSONAL
ULTIMATE, OF A PERSONAL GOD,
AND YOU CAN ARGUE AGAINST
SUCH A GOD ON THE BASIS OF ITS
HIDDENNESS FROM US, THE PROBLEM
OF EVIL, OF COURSE, WHICH IS
WELL KNOWN, SO, THAT'S WHY I
THINK THE DIVINE, IF IT EXISTS
AT ALL, IS NOT A PERSON.
TO JOHN, THE DIVINE, IF IT
EXISTS AT ALL, CANNOT BE A
PERSON AS HUMANS ARE PERSONS.
PERSONHOOD FOR GOD, IF
THERE IS A GOD, WOULD GO FAR
BEYOND HUMAN PERSONHOOD.
JOHN IS AN ATHEIST IN
THAT HE REJECTS THEISM -
HE DISMISSES A PERSONAL GOD.
BUT HE IS NOT A PHYSICALIST -
IN THAT THERE MAY BE REALITIES
BEYOND THE PHYSICAL.
WHAT REALITY COULD
CHARACTERIZE DIVINE PERSONHOOD?
WHAT ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS?
CONSCIOUSNESS AS ULTIMATE
IN SOME COSMIC SENSE?
I VISIT A MEDICAL DOCTOR WHO
FOUND WISDOM IN HIS HINDU
TRADITIONS, AND WHO PRIVILEGES
CONSCIOUSNESS, DEEPAK CHOPRA.
BEFORE I ANSWER THE QUESTION,
DOES GOD HAVE TO BE A PERSON,
I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT THERE'S
NO SUCH THING AS A PERSON.
YOU SEE WE PROJECT WHO WE
THINK WE ARE ONTO THIS INEFFABLE
EXPERIENCE THAT WE WANT
TO UNDERSTAND THAT IS GOD.
BUT IF GOD IS INFINITE,
HOW DO YOU IMAGINE INFINITY?
IF GOD IS AN INFINITE BEING,
THEN I CANNOT HAVE AN
IMAGE OF GOD.
BUT A DEEPER THING
IS WHAT IS A PERSON?
A PERSON IS AN EVOLVING
SYSTEM IN CONSCIOUSNESS.
I MEAN, IF I SAY OKAY, ROBERT
IS A PERSON, WHICH ROBERT?
THERE'S SO MANY VERSIONS OF
ROBERT, EVEN IN ONE LIFETIME.
SO DO WE SURVIVE
PHYSICAL DEATH?
YOU DON'T SURVIVE PHYSICAL LIFE!
OKAY.
SO ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT
IF YOU THINK OF YOURSELF AS A
PERSON, THEN YOU'LL THINK OF
EVERYTHING ELSE AS A PERSON.
BUT IN THE DEEPER TRUTH, IF
THERE IS NO PERSON, THEN GOD IS
NOT A PERSON.
AND BY THE WAY THE
QUALITIES ARE BOTH DIVINE
AND DIABOLICAL, AREN'T THEY?
YOU SAY GOD IS THIS PERSON
WHO'S JUST AND FORGIVING,
WHY DO GOOD PEOPLE SUFFER?
IS GOD A SADOMASOCHIST?
SO THESE ARE ALL PROJECTIONS,
INCLUDING THE IDEA THAT GOD
IS A PERSON.
GOD HAS INFINITE FACES,
INFINITE PERSONALITIES,
DIVINE AND DIABOLICAL.
CREATOR AND DESTROYER.
CERTAINLY DIFFERENT
EXPRESSIONS OF GOD ARE
COMMON TO DIFFERENT RELIGIONS.
ISLAM HAS 99 NAMES OF GOD.
THE HINDU RELIGION HAS THOUSANDS
OF GODS, BUT EACH ONE IS SORT OF
A DIFFERENT EXPRESSION
OF THE WAY GOD IS.
BUT PERSONHOOD IS REALLY
FUNDAMENTAL TO MANY RELIGIONS.
IF PERSONHOOD IS NOT THE
FOUNDATION OF REALITY, THEN THE
HOPE OF A HUMAN BEING'S
EXISTENCE BEYOND THIS VERY FEW
DECADES OF LIFE IS NON-EXISTENT
AND VERY DEPRESSING.
PERSONHOOD IS AN ILLUSION.
IT DOESN'T EXIST AND
THEREFORE GOD AS A PERSON,
IN MY VIEW, DOESN'T EXIST.
WHAT WE CALL THE 99 NAMES OF
ALLAH, WHAT WE CALL THE THOUSAND
NAMES OF VISHNU, THEY ARE
ACTUALLY QUALITIES OF THE
EVOLUTIONARY IMPULSE IN
CONSCIOUSNESS REFLECTING
DIFFERENT STAGES
OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.
OKAY, BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION TO SAY WHETHER THOSE
ARE THE EVOLUTIONARY
PRODUCT THEMSELVES, OR ARE THEY
REFLECTIONS OF THE DIFFERENT
SIDES OF THE ULTIMATE REALITY,
BECAUSE THE RELIGIONS WOULD
CLAIM THAT THEY'RE DESCRIPTIONS
OF THE ULTIMATE REALITY.
I THINK WHAT YOU JUST SAID,
I THINK, IS THAT THEY ARE
REFLECTIONS OF THE EVOLUTION
EMERGING FROM THE CONSCIOUSNESS,
BUT DO NOT REFLECT THE
CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF.
WHEREAS RELIGIONS WOULD SAY THEY
ARE REPRESENTED OF THE ULTIMATE
REALITY, WHICH THEY SAY IS GOD,
WHICH YOU SAY IS CONSCIOUSNESS.
YEAH, I AGREE TOTALLY
WITH WHAT YOU SAID.
RK: I'M NOT SURE I AGREE.
DEEPAK: I DO AGREE.
THEY'RE QUALIA.
OKAY THEY'RE QUALIA.
ANGER.
WHERE'S ANGER?
IT'S A QUALIA EXPERIENCE.
RIGHT?
WELL IT'S THE QUALIA EXPERIENCE
OF A PERSON THE WAY WE
WOULD DEFINE IT.
DEEPAK: YEAH, BUT IF THE WHOLE
UNIVERSE IS NOTHING BUT YOUR
CONSCIOUSNESS AND ITS
CONTENTS, THEN YOU SAY WHAT
ARE THOSE CONTENTS?
THEY'RE QUALIA.
RK: DO THEY DESCRIBE THE
CONTENTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS?
DEEPAK: YES.
OR DO THEY DESCRIBE
THE FUNDAMENTAL
CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF?
THEY ARE CONTENTS
OF CONSCIOUSNESS.
AND BECAUSE CONSCIOUSNESS...
RK: WHAT NAMES WOULD YOU
USE FOR THAT FUNDAMENTAL
CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF?
HOW ARE YOU GONNA DEFINE
THAT CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF?
THE NOTHING THAT IS EVERYTHING.
THE NOTHING THAT IS
EVERYTHING BECAUSE IT IS THE
POTENTIAL OF EVERYTHING.
GOD IS NOT A
PERSON - THAT I GET.
BUT WHY?
THAT, I DON'T GET.
THERE ARE NO PERSONS?
THERE ARE NO GODS?
TO DEEPAK, ALL THAT EXISTS IS
"CONSCIOUSNESS AND ITS CONTENT."
SO NEITHER GODS NOR PERSONS,
NOR ANYTHING ELSE ARE REAL.
HERE, THEN, IS A DEEP
DIVIDE BETWEEN WEST AND EAST.
IN THE WEST, GOD IS A PERSON.
IN THE EAST, WHATEVER GOD
MAY BE, GOD IS NOT A PERSON.
TO DEFEND GOD'S
PERSONHOOD IS A CHALLENGE.
CAN GOD'S PERSONHOOD
EMERGE FROM GOD'S NATURE?
I MEET AN EXPERT
ON THE NATURE OF GOD,
PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION,
EDWARD WIERENGA.
ED, IF I LOOK AT EASTERN
RELIGIONS, AND I LOOK AT WESTERN
RELIGIONS, THE ONE CRITICAL,
DIFFERENTIATING CHARACTERISTIC
SEEMS TO BE THE CLAIM IN WESTERN
RELIGIONS, THAT GOD IS A PERSON.
NOW, IF I STEP BACK,
I THINK THAT THAT'S TERRIBLY
ANTHROPOMORPHIZING - THAT'S
READING INTO GOD WHAT WE ARE,
TO CALL GOD A PERSON.
YET THEOLOGIANS AND PHILOSOPHERS
AND YOU CALL GOD A PERSON.
HOW CAN YOU DO THAT?
WELL, I CALL GOD A PERSON
BECAUSE GOD HAS CERTAIN FEATURES
OR TRAITS THAT PERSONS HAVE.
HIS KNOWLEDGE AND HIS POWER.
TO BE A KNOWER, WOULD REQUIRE
HAVING SOME CONSCIOUS STATES,
WOULD REQUIRE HAVING SOMETHING
LIKE A MIND, AND NOT ONLY DOES
GOD HAVE THOSE PROPERTIES
OF BEING ABLE TO DO NEARLY
ANYTHING, AND KNOWING
EVERYTHING, GOD WAS A CREATOR.
SO, GOD IS AN ACTOR OR AN AGENT;
HE'S THE ONE WHO CREATED THE
WORLD AND THAT'S A KIND
OF PERSONAL THING TO DO.
IF I LOOK AT THE EASTERN
RELIGIONS LIKE BUDDHISM, CERTAIN
STRAINS OF HINDUISM, SOME OF
THOSE SAME CHARACTERISTICS ARE
SORT OF BUILT INTO THE STRUCTURE
OF REALITY WITHOUT THE ULTIMATE
BEING A PERSON.
AND EVEN IF THERE'S NO CREATION,
PER SE, THE ULTIMATE COSMIC
CONSCIOUSNESS IS SOMEHOW
RESPONSIBLE FOR REALITY.
WELL I THINK THERE'S AN ULTIMATE
IN CHARGE OF THAT PROCESS, THAT
THAT'S A GUIDED PROCESS OR A
PROCESS THAT'S THE RESULT OF
SOME INTELLIGENT BEING WHO'S...
RK: I DIDN'T SAY
INTELLIGENT BEING.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT
THERE'S A KNOWING IN THE
SYSTEM OF REALITY.
I'M NOT SAYING I BELIEVE
THAT, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE THIS
PERSON, AND WHY GOD NEEDS TO
BE A PERSON.
COULD NOT SOME OF THE SAME
THINGS HAPPEN WITHOUT GOD
BEING SO PERSONALIZED?
EDWARD: I MEAN, SOME OF THE SAME
THINGS COULD HAPPEN, I SUPPOSE.
PERHAPS IT COULD HAPPEN THAT
THERE'S A REGULAR OPERATION OF
CAUSAL LAWS, WHICH NON-BELIEVERS
THINK IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT
OF ANY GOD.
BUT, I GUESS I DO THINK THAT
IT'S A CONSEQUENCE OF THE WAY
GOD HAS BEEN CONCEIVED IN
WESTERN THEISM, AS A BEING WHO'S
A KNOWER AND WHO'S AN AGENT,
WHO'S GOT MORAL ATTRIBUTES,
ALL OF THAT SEEMS TO ME TO
SUGGEST THAT GOD THEN IS ALSO
SOMEONE WHO'S GOT A MIND IN SOME
WAY, IS AN AGENT IN SOME WAY,
WHICH ARE THE
PRIMARY PERSONAL TRAITS.
IF I JUST SIT BACK AND THINK
ABOUT ALL THIS, I SUDDENLY FEEL,
WOW, IT'S REALLY ODD FOR THE
ULTIMATE GROUND OF BEING OF ALL
REALITY TO BE A PERSON.
IT JUST STRIKES
ME AS JUST FUNNY.
THE GROUND IS, SAY, SOMEONE
WHO CREATED ALL OF REALITY, MADE
ALL THIS STUFF, THAT SOUNDS
EMINENTLY LIKE A PERSON, TO ME.
IF YOU THINK OF IT AS, OH,
THE UNDERLYING FOUNDATION OF
EVERYTHING, DEEP DOWN AT
THE VERY BASE IS THIS GOD-LIKE
SUBSTANCE THAT ON
WHICH EVERYTHING RESTS.
WELL, I AGREE THAT DOESN'T
SOUND VERY MUCH LIKE A PERSON.
LOOK, I DON'T LIKE THAT.
BUT IT JUST SEEMS ODD THAT A
PERSON WOULD BE AT THE GROUND
OF ALL BEING.
I JUST CAN'T SHAKE THE
IDEA THAT, IF THERE REALLY IS
SOMETHING, SOMETHING THAT'S IN
CONTROL, REALLY DID SOMETHING TO
MAKE THE WORLD, THAT THAT
WAS AN AGENT AND AN ACTOR.
BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT IN YOUR
OWN CASE, WHAT YOU'RE MORE AWARE
OF IS YOUR OWN ABILITY
TO DO THINGS, TO MOVE,
TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN.
YOUR OWN ABILITY TO DO THAT FROM
INSIDE, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE A
MORE FUNDAMENTAL THING IS BEING
AN AGENT, AND SO NOT AT ALL
SURPRISING IF A MORE FUNDAMENTAL
THING IS AN AGENT WHO
MADE THE WORLD.
IN WESTERN RELIGIONS,
GOD MUST BE A PERSON.
THOUGH THE NATURE OF
GOD'S PERSONHOOD IS EXOTIC.
IN EASTERN TRADITIONS, GODS
AND PERSONS AND EVERYTHING
ELSE ARE ILLUSIONS.
ALL THAT TRULY
EXISTS IS CONSCIOUSNESS.
ATHEISTS, OF COURSE, REJECT
THE THEISM OF A PERSONAL GOD.
WHAT HANGS ON THE
QUESTION, 'IS GOD A PERSON'?
FOR ONE, 'GOD AS A PERSON'
WOULD SEEM MORE LIKELY TO BE A
"PERSONAL GOD" - A SUPREME
PERSON WHO MIGHT CARE
FOR HUMAN-PERSONS.
I'D HOPE THAT GOD WERE A PERSON.
MERCY AND COMFORT - MEANING
AND PURPOSE - AND, THE ULTIMATE
BENEFIT, PERHAPS
- LIFE AFTER DEATH.
IF NO PERSONAL GOD - I'D
THINK AN AFTERLIFE REMOTE.
ONLY IF GOD WERE A PERSON
MIGHT AN AFTERLIFE MAKE SENSE.
I'D LIKE REALITY
TO BE LIKE THAT.
BUT, I CANNOT BLOCK THAT
INTRUSIVE THOUGHT - "HOW ABSURD"
THAT THE "GROUND OF
ALL BEING" IS A "PERSON."
IF EVER I'D DECIDE THAT GOD
DOES EXIST, I NOW KNOW MY NEXT
QUESTION - "IS GOD A PERSON?"
THAT'D BE TWO STEPS
ON MY LONG JOURNEY.
STRIVING TO GET...
CLOSER TO TRUTH.
FOR COMPLETE INTERVIEWS AND FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE VISIT
WWW.CLOSERTOTRUTH.COM.
