God-Humanity-World Relations

Paper presented at the Vichara Academy of Theology, Sophia center, Kottayam, kerala on July 23, 2013

An Examination of the God-Humanity-World Relations in the Contexts of Three Different Worldviews
How we view the relations among God, Humanity, and the World is basic to any considerations of human existence. The three relations--  Humanity-World, God-World, and God-Humanity -- are viewed differently based on which of the three worldviews we hold: Other-Worldliness, This-Worldliness, and One-Worldliness. Other-Worldliness is the view that there is a supernatural world in addition to the natural world.  This-worldliness is the view that the natural world, which is perceptible to us, is all that exists, and  nothing exits beyond our perception. One-Worldliness asserts that there is only one world, which includes not only the part of the world that is perceptible to us, but also a part that is imperceptible to us. What follows is a brief introduction to the God-Humanity-World relations based on these three worldviews.

I am indebted to Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios for his groundbreaking doctoral study of this topic, which was later published under the title, Cosmic Man. I was privileged to obtain a copy of this book as early as 1982 at his 60th birthday celebration in Kottayam, which I have kept as a treasure since then. Although the content of this paper belongs to the bishop as explained in Cosmic Man, credit belongs to the present author for its simplified presentation in a comprehensible way.

Other-Worldliness
According to this view, there are two worlds: the physical world and the spiritual world.  They are also called natural and supernatural. The physical world is temporary, and the spiritual world is permanent. The Physical world is meant to be ultimately destroyed. The spiritual world exists in two parts: heaven and hell. A human being is actually a soul that resides within a body.  The body is merely a cover of the soul. The body, which is physical, is temporary, and its existence is limited to the physical world. But the soul, which is spiritual, exists for ever either in heaven or in hell after its temporary existence within a physical body.

This view is often referred to as Other-Worldliness, for it gives undue focus on the other world, and ignores this world. People with this view do not care for the wellbeing of this world; in fact they rejoice at the destruction of this world. Moreover, this view always gets into conflict with science, for its claims about spirit and spiritual world, which are beliefs and opinions, are treated as facts. It was believed that the world is made of five elements: earth, water, air, fire and spirit. No one knew what exactly spirit was, but its existence was blindly believed in, and a spiritual world was also imagined. 
Other-Worldliness is the most widespread view, and it is expressed very powerfully in the extremist and fundamentalist groups in most of the religions.

The God-Humanity-World relations are viewed as follows in this worldview:

Humanity-World Relation: The world is like a container for human beings to exist. The human body can exist only in the physical world, but the soul can exist either in the physical world or in the spiritual world. The physical world and the physical body are often seen as prisons for the soul, which makes people look forward to an escape from physicality. The life in the physical world is seen as temporary imprisonment, but life in heaven, the spiritual world, is seen as everlasting freedom in one's own home. Life in hell is seen as everlasting imprisonment.

God-World Relation: God is like a king, and God's will is fully done only in the spiritual world. The physical world is ruled by a force that is in enmity to God.

God-Humanity Relation: God is the creator of human beings. God creates human  spiritual soul, covers it with a physical body, and places it in the physical world. Human beings are expected to follow the will of God. At death the soul leaves the body and either enters heaven or hell. Entering heaven or hell depends on their following the will of God while in the physical world. Those who do not follow the will of God have the opportunity to repent and start doing God's will while in the physical world.

This-Worldliness
According to This-Worldliness, only the world that is perceptible to our senses exists. Nothing exists beyond what we can perceive. A human being does not have any soul that survives death. Even the existence of a mind is doubtful. Empiricism, materialism, and atheism are expressions of this view. This is the worldview that controls most of the governments today, and it is spread mainly through the educational institutions.

This-Worldliness is a view that arises in revolt against Other-Worldliness. This is a naive solution to the problem of Other-Worldliness. It tries to resolve the problem of focusing on the other world by denying the existence of the other world. If there is not another world, how can there be Other-Worldliness?

The assertion that nothing exists beyond what we perceive is a belief or opinion without any verifiable evidence. Moreover, if the perceptible world is all that exists, the meaning of existence cannot be explained. Also, rules that govern human behavior cannot have any basis.

The God-Humanity-World relations are viewed as follows in this worldview:

Humanity-World Relation: The world is a container as well as a set of objects humans  manipulate and exploit for their existence. Think of the lice that live on the body of a cow. They live by sucking its blood. A cow's body provides the lice not only a place to stay but also its food. Human beings are to the world like the lice are to a cow.

God-World Relation: God's existence is denied. God, along with the other world, is imperceptible, and so God doesn't exist.  The perceptible world is all that exists.

God-Humanity Relation: God doesn't exist, and so man is on his own.


One-Worldliness
Other-Worldliness focuses on the other world, and This-Worldliness focuses on this world. These two views are always at friction with each other. The solution is to rise above these views, and assume a higher view, which I like to call One-Worldliness. Unlike Other-Worldliness, this view affirms that there are not two worlds, but only one. Unlike This-Worldliness, this view affirms that the world is more than what appears to our senses. Only a part of the world is perceptible to our five senses. If we had a sixth sense, we would perceive the world differently. The world may be existing in several dimensions or levels, but still the world is one. Unlike this view, Other-Worldliness views the imperceptible part of the world as another world. This-Worldliness denies the existence of the imperceptible part, but One-Worldliness affirms its existence.  Thus One-Worldliness effectively resolves the issues of Other-Worldliness and This-Worldliness. Unlike This-Worldliness, One-Worldliness agrees that a human being is more than what appears to our senses. Also, unlike Other-Worldliness, it affirms that a human being is a unity, not a combination of two different parts.

This view honestly acknowledges the limits of our senses. It divides the world into perceptible and imperceptible parts. It honestly admits that our knowledge about the imperceptible part of the world is very limited. Thus this view does not get into a conflict with science. Moreover, it encourages science to explore the imperceptible part further.

The God-Humanity-World relations are viewed as follows in this worldview:

Humanity-World Relation: Human beings are seen as integral parts of the world. The human beings to the world are like cells to a body. The whole world is seen as one organism. According to this view, the world is not just a container for people to exist. Nor is it like a cow the lice suck blood from. It is an extension of our body.  The world is seen as an integral whole in the original, Biblical view. This picture is clearly seen in Gen 1 where we read how God creates the world with human beings as its integral parts, and in Psalm 104 where we read how God manages the world with human beings as its parts. Such a view of the world can be seen in the Stoic Philosophy (Greek) where the world is referred to as a macrocosm, that breathes together.

God-World Relation: The world, which is within the limits of time and space, exists within God, who is infinite. From God's viewpoint, the world does not have a separate existence from God. From the world's point of view, it depends for its existence upon God, and apart from God, it has no existence. The world is like the flame of a lamp that is lit forever using an endless source of energy.  The existence of the flame depends every moment on the energy supply. God is the source of the endless energy that keeps the world alive and dynamic like a flame. 

God-Humanity Relation: Man has a mediatorial role, representing the world before God and God before the world. Man is God's image for the rest of the creation, which makes man the visible representation of God for the world. Humanity as the microcosm represents the world, the macrocosm, before God. This makes man responsible and his existence is made purposeful. This relation is clearly visible in Gen 1, where Adam (humanity) becomes God's image for the rest of the creation. As mediator, the creation sees Adam as God, and God sees Adam as the creation.

Conclusion
One-Worldliness is the view held by almost all the authentic religious traditions in the world. Although you may find Other-Worldliness at the surface of any religious tradition, if you dig deep enough, you will discover One-Worldliness. Thus you can discover both Other-Worldliness and One-Worldliness in the same religious tradition-- at the surface and at deep levels.

One-Worldliness is not easy to verbalize, but Other-Worldliness is easy to verbalize. Even if we hold One-Worldly view, we often find ourselves speaking in terms of Other-Worldly view. While One-Worldliness remains a philosophical view, Other-Worldliness is expressed as a poetic view. For example, even if we know that the Earth rotates around its axis, we still say Sun rises and sets. Hence, we may use the language of Other-Worldliness even if we hold One-Worldliness.  Thus we may recite the Lord's Prayer with its Other-Worldliness even though we hold One-Worldliness.

A clear understanding of God-Humanity-World relations in the background of the three worldviews helps us immensely in our way forward.

Reference
Gregorios, Paulos. (1982). Cosmic Man. The Divine Presence. NewDelhi/Kottayam: Sophia Publications.

The World is like a Moving Electric Train

What is our world like? If I address this question to ten different people, I will get ten different answers. Whenever I have asked this question to myself, my own answers have varied from time to time. When I searched for an answer to this question in the ancient scriptures and classics, I found that the answer to this question has varied from time to time and from place to place. When farming was the primary means of living for most of the people in the world, the world was seen as a huge farm. When there were kingdoms all over the world, the world was seen as a huge empire. In the industrial age, when people invented machines, the world was seen as a humongous machine. Later in the age of networked computers, the world has been seen as a huge network in which everything is connected to everything else. There is something in common with all these metaphors. They unanimously assert that the world is one system with all its parts working together.  

This morning I addressed this question to myself again, and the novelty of the answer that surfaced in my mind surprised me. It also challenged me to radically transform my own life. What is our world like? My answer this morning was this: It is like a moving electric train. I can see raised eyebrows. Let me briefly explain what I mean by this.

A train has several bogies, but they are connected together, and so it can move forward as one vehicle. The world consists of so many different component parts, but they all work together as one system. This idea is very well expressed in the above-mentioned metaphors. But this metaphor of the moving train goes beyond all those metaphors.

The word “moving” is significant here. I have related the world to a moving train, not to a stationary one. Our world is never stationary; it keeps moving. Its existence in space-time is what makes it move. Movement in space-time is expressed as changes in form. Nothing in the world is free from change, and this process seems endless. Did this process begin anytime? We just don’t know.  Human mind cannot conceptualize endlessness. We ourselves are within this moving train, and we cannot go out of this train and look at it objectively. Our mind is conditioned with this movement, and all our thoughts are relative to this movement.

But the movement of this train depends on two stationary things. One is the rails underneath and the other is the electric power line that goes above it. The world also depends on two stationary things. The world, which constantly changes according to space-time, depends upon a set of laws that do not change according to space-time. This set of laws is like the rails on which the train runs. The world cannot function without laws.  The power line above gives a constant supply of energy for the train to keep moving.  Without a constant supply of power, the train cannot move. The world keeps moving in time with all its changes because of a constant power supply. All the energies such as light, heat, electricity, magnetism, gravity, and life are the diverse forms of this power supply. The world cannot keep moving without these energies. Our sciences are our attempts to discover the various laws that govern the world and the various forms of energy that activate the world.

Now we come to the special role of humankind. Being a part of the world we share the same characteristics of the world. We are within space-time limit, and not free from change. So we have birth, growth, decay, and death. Our existence is also governed by laws. The laws applicable to the rest of the world are applicable to us too. We are also sustained by energies like the rest of the world, especially by life energy.

One may wonder if life can be called an energy like the rest of the energies. The truth is that we haven’t found the true nature of life yet. I read somewhere that life may be better called an energy-processing mechanism.  Here I am placing it along with energies because it shares certain characteristics of other energies.  It is the presence of life that makes one alive like the presence of electricity makes a bulb lit. Life appears in various forms of plants and animals like electricity appears in various forms through different kinds of machines.

We know that the continued existence of the world depends upon the laws that govern it and the energies that sustain it. The world that appears to our eyes seems to be the expression of the invisible energies limited and governed by laws. But what lies behind the laws and the energies? Where do the laws and the energies come from? We don’t know. It seems we can never know the answer to this question. Our ignorance does not mean that a Source doesn’t exist. A Source of laws and energies exists, but human mind doesn’t have the ability to conceptualize it. Whatever we think and verbalize can’t be true about this Super Source.  

However, without this piece, the puzzle won’t be complete. Although the Super Source behind the laws and energies remains unknown, we may create a symbol to represent it so that we can complete the puzzle, and have a view of all that exists.  It is like using an x for an unknown variable in an algebraic equation.

Humankind exists in a very special relationship with the Super Source and with the rest of the world. Humankind is similar to the rest of the world in most of the aspects, and it is also similar to the Super Source in certain aspects. This similarity to both the Super Source and to the world places humankind in between them in the role of a link or a mediator. Coming back to the metaphor of an electric train, humankind is like the driver of the train. The driver is a part of the moving train. However, unlike the remaining parts of the train, the driver has the freedom and the responsibility to run the train and make decisions about the train. Humankind is similar to the rest of the world in that it is subject to all the laws that govern the world, and it needs the energies that sustain the rest of the world. However, unlike the rest of the world, it can consciously choose its path. While the rest of the world automatically follows the laws, humankind can choose to obey them or disobey them. Whatever humankind chooses to do, its consequences will be shared by the rest of the world as well. Wise choices will lead to beneficial consequences, and unwise choices will lead to unfortunate consequences. 

Humankind has the responsibility to drive this world in such a way that the world will continue to move on smoothly. This responsibility is entrusted to humankind by the Super Source. In order to do this, humankind needs to know the laws that govern the world, and needs to be aware of the energies that make the world run. Humankind also needs to be very well aware of its own place in the world and the special role it has to play.

What does this picture of the world mean to us as individual human beings?  Each individual is a driver of his own world, and the way he drives it affects his world. The choices he makes can be beneficial or harmful to his world. He needs to drive according to the laws and he is given energies to move on. He is entrusted with the responsibility to drive his world at the best of his knowledge and ability.

The Role of Science and Religion

Science seems to be primarily an extension of our rationality, our left brain, and religion seems to be primarily an extension of our right brain. They are complementary, not contradictory. We need both, not one or the other. They help humankind perform its duty as the driver of the world.

Science explores the laws that govern the world. The Greek word Logos originally stood for the sum total of all the laws and principles that govern the world.  Accordingly the word Biology, made of bios+ logos, would mean the laws that govern the living beings. Science also explores the nature of the various energies that make the world run. However, science limits itself to the observable phenomena, and remains silent about whatever that cannot be observed. Science remains silent about the Super Source behind the laws and energies of the world.  Science can’t say anything about the role and responsibility of humankind as well.

This is where religion comes to our aid. Where science stops, religion begins. Religion does not claim to know what science doesn’t. It merely helps us to live our life meaningfully in spite of our ignorance.  By the word ‘religion’ I mean the true religion, how religion ought to be, not the corrupted forms of religion we see around. Religion helps us create a meaningful worldview and a view of life on which we can build up our life. It helps us create hypotheses, metaphors, and symbols where information is lacking, and facts and evidences are unavailable. Whereas science keeps silent about the Super Source, religion creates a symbol to represent it, so that we can have a picture of all that exists. This picture helps us answer the basic questions of existence, and build up a meaningful life.

Religion deals with beliefs, opinions, hypotheses, metaphors, and symbols unlike science, which deals with facts, theories, and observable phenomena. Therefore it is almost impossible to keep religion from getting corrupted. Whereas science universally stays as a coordinated movement, religious movements keep splitting, which seems unavoidable. It takes sustained, conscious effort to keep the true religious spirit alive and active without getting corrupted. Corrupted religion endangers the existence of humankind. The solution is to strengthen the true religious spirit and fight against the corruption, not to get rid of religion itself. Getting rid of religion is even more dangerous to the existence of humankind because without it we wouldn’t know what we are and why we live.

But how do we identify a corrupted form of religion from an uncorrupted form? A lot of people make a quick and naïve judgment: my own religion is the true and uncorrupted religion, and all the others are corrupted. This view makes a follower of a certain religion look down upon the followers of every other religion. Once we manage to transcend such naivety, we will look for a standard to distinguish between corrupted and uncorrupted forms of religion.  The only standard I can think of is this: a form of religion that stands for the well being of humankind is an uncorrupted form of religion. If anything less than that is the goal of a certain form of religion, it is a corrupted form. We need to ask ourselves if our own form of religion is corrupted or not. This is a call for self-examination.  Let us look for the beams in our own eyes instead of seeking the specks in the eyes of others.

Insights from my own religious tradition

One might wonder how I developed this worldview. Let me explain. I have got the insights to develop this worldview from my own form of religion—the Eastern Orthodox Christianity. This is not to claim that this particular form of religion is an uncorrupted form of religion. Far from it. There have been a lot of corruptions in this form as well. However, if one digs deep enough through the piles of corruption, one can discover an uncorrupted form of religion in the life and work of the fourth century church fathers. This writer lacks the necessary competence to make such an excavation by crossing the linguistic and cultural barriers of this ancient civilization.

Gregory of Nyssa

I heavily depend upon the work of Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios, who excavated precious pearls of wisdom from the fourth century fathers.  His doctoral dissertation, later published as Cosmic Man, is an in-depth study of the thought of Gregory of Nyssa, a fourth century Christian philosopher. In the introduction he sates:

The theme of this book focuses on humanity’s two basic relationships—to the source and ground of its being on the one hand, and to the created world in which the humanity is placed on the other.  P. viii

Mar Gregorios asserts that it is fatal for humanity to ignore these two poles. Equally fatal are both an other-worldly mysticism, that ignores humanity’s existence in history, and a secular humanism, that ignores the ground and source of the cosmos.

Conclusion

Here I have made an attempt to present the worldview of Paulos Mar Gregorios and of Gregory of Nyssa as I understand it in a very simplified form. I have managed to avoid the technical/theological terms as much as possible to make it palatable for the ordinary readers. The purpose of writing this is to encourage others to join me in this study.

I have tried to present a picture of all that exists using the metaphor of a moving electric train. First I explained how the world is related to God. The world experiences this relationship in three different modes: the laws on which it exists (Logos), the energies that keep it alive and active (Spirit), and the Super Source of these two (the Father).   Then I explained how humankind is related to the world. Though it is a part of the world, it shares some characteristics of God. Humankind has the responsibility to stand as a link between God and world, and manage the smooth functioning of the world on behalf of God. 

The Context of my Book: An Orientation to our Life

We live our life based on how we view our life. A view of life is a picture of life within our minds. This picture gives us a framework from where we can answer the basic questions of life. When we say life is a journey, we are using a view of life to interpret our life experience. Sometimes we say life is a battle. We also compare life to a dream, a game, a movie, and so on.

Our view of life has as its basis our worldview. A worldview is a picture of the world within our mind. We live our life in the world as a part of the world. That is why our worldview serves as the foundation of our view of life. Our view of life includes our worldview just like a building includes its foundation. When we say the world is a family or a kingdom, we are using a worldview. Recently the world has been seen as a huge machine.

We internalize our view of life primarily by direct experience of life. A quicker way is to learn from the accumulated experiences of others, especially from the accumulated wisdom from our ancestors. In childhood, we depend heavily on our cultural inheritance. As we grow older we begin to evaluate the inherited wisdom with our direct experience. When we get to a new city, a map will help us move around. The map was originally made by those who directly experienced the city. As we get more familiar with the city, we obtain more direct experience, with which we can evaluate an existing map, and we can even make a better map. As our direct experience gets wider and deeper,

•  We realize that our neighbors belonging to other cultures/communities have their own views of life different from ours. It is like they speak almost a different language with different terminology and categories of thought. This could be very perplexing; how can there be several different maps for the same city?
• We also realize that the worldview on which our view of life rests is outdated. Science and Philosophy keep on refining our worldview, but our community is very reluctant to give up the outdated worldview probably because it is not easy to give up the very foundation on which our view of life rests. We are afraid that once we give up our outdated worldview, it will cause our view of life to collapse, and thus our life will be in jeopardy.

Any sensible growing young person will find it hard to face the challenges from other religions and from science, and develop a view of life as the foundation of his/her own life. He/she will have strong temptation to give up his/her own mother life- view (original view of life), and embrace a totally different one, which would mean leaving one’s own community and joining a new one. This process could be as unproductive as moving a plant from one place to another. We also see a lot of young people leave their mother life-views, and live their life without having any stable view of life as the foundation to their lives.

In totalitarian regimes, people are forced to stay with a certain view of life. In such situation, people don’t have the freedom to get exposed to diverse views of life and grow. They remain with a view of life based on an outdated worldview inherited from their ancestors. Many more people live without any freedom of thought within the constraints of their culture or religion. In the rest of the world, people have the freedom to explore diverse views of life and follow whichever view they want as long as they do not hurt their fellow beings.

In the free world, adults universally enjoy the freedom to explore the diverse views of life, but not all children. In places like Britain and India, children have the opportunity to learn about the various views of life in schools as a part of their formal education. In the United States, however, children are not exposed to the diverse views of life in their formal education. They are expected to learn this on their own, informally. In schools, they are taught to read, write, and think, and with those skills, they are given the freedom to read, write, and think whatever they want. Although this may look like freedom, it is doubtful if it is the ideal thing to do. It seems that the children grow up very much handicapped in their knowledge of how to view their life. By denying the opportunity to children to get exposed to the traditional views of life, the US seems to be promoting certain superficial views of life that lack a firm foundation. Children grow up under the impression that anything that is not a part of formal education is either not worth learning or false information. I believe that leaving out from the formal education the most important thing that they need to know might be viewed as a form of child abuse.

This is the context of my recent book, An Orientation to our Life. In this book, a group of young people seek answers to some questions about life, and thus they try to formulate a view of life. An older, wise person helps them in this process. For each question, he shows them the answers given by the forefathers in their own community. He asks them to use the answers of the forefathers as a model and formulate their own answers. He shows them how they can learn from other communities and views of life. He also shows them how to be open to the contemporary science and philosophy, and evolve a view of life that fits the changing worldview. To put it differently, he helps them understand an existing map, and encourages them to modify it by their own observation, and by comparing it with other existing maps.

If this person gave his own answers, it would be brainwashing. He doesn’t want to impose his own views of life upon them. Neither does he ask them to accept the view of life of the forefathers unquestioningly. Thus he doesn’t want the young people get brainwashed at all. He acts as a facilitator. He does not give ready-made answers; he merely helps the young people find their own answers. Wherever he gives his own answers, they are presented as his opinions rather than as absolute facts.

I think this rabbi is a role model for all educators. All teachers, priests, pastors, Imams, and gurus need to follow this example. Let them refrain from imposing their views on others, especially young people. By presenting this Rabbi as a role model, An Orientation to our Life is an excellent tool of education that enhances freedom and a meaningful existence.