Zeus, Jupiter, Jehovah—Are they all the same?

Recently I listened to a friendly exchange (definitely not a debate) between two atheists, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, and two theists, Francis Collins and Benjamin Carson[1]. The reader may go online and check the credentials and peer respect that all four of these men have earned.

During the informal discussion an objection was voiced that often comes up. If Zeus and Jupiter were gods and were mythological, then why isn’t Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, also mythological? If all gods have been gotten rid of one, then take the next logical step and get rid of the last one.

Though there is a natural flow to that argument, there are problems with it. In summary, there are such differences between the literature of Zeus and other gods versus Jehovah that any generalization of them into the same pot of meaning simply makes no sense whatsoever.

As mentioned in other essays, I had no real religious upbringing or environment. Christianity was not scoffed at; it simply was not mentioned. I knew it existed, but little else. The few times I had gone to church (well, Sunday school) I had heard about God, the usual children’s story; but I cannot recall a single one in particular. Yet, I am sure I heard the typical statements about God (Jehovah).

In comical contrast are the mythological gods of the Greek. I recall reading The Iliad and The Odyssey as a preteen, and the gods were an absolute joke. What I mean is that I laughed as a young kid. These gods seemed to be very big humans with super powers who were sexual perverts, bullies, adulterers, and unbelievably messed up.[2] I grew up in the days of The Lone Ranger (who never shot anyone), Ozzie and Harriet (a superb family), and Father Knows Best (just good decisions by Dad instead of the nincompoop of today’s shows). Compared to them, the Greek gods were monsters. This was not because I had the indoctrination of “the right God.” If I had been asked, “Is Christianity the only true religion,” I would not have had the slightest idea what that might have meant. The neighbor’s son was more real to me than God’s son.

Later after becoming a Christian (age 21 in the US Navy) I faintly recall the first time I heard the criticism that the gods of the ancient world were as real (or fake) as the God of the Bible. My initial reaction was, “Are you serious? Have you read anything about these drunken, in-bred, adulterous sots of Olympus?”

Besides the absurd social behavior of the gods of the ancient world, there are several other problems that markedly and unalterably distinguish the gods from God. The first and foremost is Ultimate Being, First Cause, Supreme Authority. Though Zeus and other “head” gods were the strongest, they answered to a higher power. Staying with Zeus, he was subject to the Fates[3]. In other words there was a higher power (or powers if the trio is considered). I have never understood why the God of the Bible is compared to the lesser gods of mythological pantheons. The ancient world understood the ultimate power of the Fates.

But then, the Fates, though having control over the gods, were born themselves. So the Fates had ultimate power, but they were not eternal. The breakdown in the nature of God when compared with the mythological gods reveal the same distinction over and over: God is clearly superior in intelligence, power, control, moral distinction.

Anselm also illustrated this difference quite well in his key comment in his Proslogion: God is a “being than which no greater can be conceived.” Very little imaginary effort is needed to consider how the gods of mythology could be greater that what they were … in a number of areas. Candidly it does seem impossible that anything could be greater than a self-existent, eternal being which created all physical matter and energy[4]. The gods of mythology are far, far less than self-existent and certainly not eternal.

Another difficulty was the lack of urgency for the gods. For instance, the philosophers did not hesitate to argue their position on truth, justice, good, beauty, etc. Philosophers would name peers and disagree with them, explain what was wrong in their arguments, dismiss their position for cause, etc. In other words, they were intensely apologetic about philosophy and would argue forcefully for what they believed was the truth … as we do today for what we believe. Yet, there is no urgency or interest in defending the gods, contrasting them with false gods (which was the originally meaning of the word “atheist”), defending them, promoting them, attacking false ones, etc.

For men who believed deeply in knowledge, logic, and truth, they were pathetically indifferent to the gods, either in praising them or criticizing them. Except for an occasional comment now and then, the philosophers ignored the gods. The question is why? Of course it is understandable why a writer would not criticize the gods in his own culture, but why the silence on others? Why not a vigorous, hearty philosophical attack or defense? No, essentially … silence.

The reader may decide for himself, but the only credible answer for me to the silence is that the mythological gods were simply not important to the philosophers. There was no meaning worth discussing. If these god were believed to truly exist, this belief did not create any urgency in thought.

Along with this philosophical silence is the lack of military silence. That is, there was little if any “spreading the faith” by conquest. Judaism established Jehovah in the Promised Land by conquest. Christianity was spread by military conquest (certainly the defense of Christianity during the Crusades), and Islam was definitely a religion of the sword after the death of Mohammad. The use of the military to spread the faith has been leaped upon by atheists. Though I do disagree with evangelism by conquest, what it illustrates is belief in an ultimate God and the urgency to spread the truth.

Alexander the Great was not concerned about which gods were worshipped. Rome allowed any gods to be worshipped as long as allegiance was given to Rome and eventually the emperor. The only exception were the Jews, “the second race,” who were allowed to only worship Jehovah. Again, no urgency. If the gods were true, why weren’t there philosophical evangelism, military evangelism, and personal evangelism? There was no truth element to the gods.

A hallmark of monotheism is the urgency that the one God is true; it is not so with polytheism. Why? I fail to see any compelling reason aside from the simple observation that the ancients saw the gods for exactly how we see them … mythological.

---

[1] http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dennett+dawkins+collins&aq=f

[2] No, I didn’t use those words back then. But as a young boy I could tell they were petty, sex maniacs, and comically dysfunctional.

[3] In Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology the Fates were comprised of three female immortals who had ultimate control over gods and humans. No god could break the decrees from the Fates.

[4] I am not suggesting the reader has to believe that God exists because of Anselm’s a priori argument. I’m merely suggesting that it is not possible to conceive of anything greater that a self-existent, eternal entity that created all physical matter and energy. Certainly, confirmed evolutionist will simply reply that matter/energy itself is eternal and self-existent. And that merely confirms the statement that nothing greater can be conceived. Whatever is eternal and self-existent from which all else is derived is the greatest entity that can be conceived. Whether the entity has to have mind (God) or not have mind (matter/energy) is a different argument altogether and is not addressed in this essay.

How Does Nothing Become Something

The current best-selling atheist writers have something in common. They seem angry or frustrated that Christians DARE PRESUME that mankind is the center of the universe. They retort vigorously how unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things, how indifference reigns in the universe, how unimaginable are the distances of space with billions and billions and billions of galaxies.

“My goodness,” the atheists will exclaim, “don’t these dimwits of pompous believers know there is no center within an infinite number of stars? How stupid can they be? We are less than dust of dust of dust in the cosmic unendingness. We are nothing but temporary passengers in time. On the scale of 3000 miles that reaches from California to New York, the total existence of mankind is less than 20 yards. What is the significance of driving from coast-to-coast, and when all that mankind has ever done is back out of the driveway?

“Consider the insignificance of our lives. We do not control where or when we are born. Our existence is on a fragile balance with bacteria and viruses that could wipe us out with the most minor change in the environment. When we die, our atoms will scatter throughout the universe. And someday the universe will continue to expand until everything freezes, or the universe collapse into an apocalyptic conflagration. We are NOTHING. To pretend we are is unqualified arrogance.”

There are two implied features of the above evangelium of the Prophets of Insignificance that are ironical. One is size, and the other is meaning. Let’s briefly consider these.

How big does something have to be to be truly important; or, conversely, how small does something have to be to be truly insignificant? Is an elephant more important (significant) than a fly; they must be because they live longer, have much greater mass, and eat more. An adult must certainly be more significant than a baby.

“No, no, no,” responds the atheist. “You are missing the point. Your arguments are absurd because the examples given are biological units which we can readily perceive. What is being discussed is beyond our imagination … spaces so vast that we have to make up illustrations to get a feel for them … galaxies and black holes so large that our entire solar system could be swallowed thousands of times over. Even our Milky Way could be swallowed up and not particularly be noticed. We are talking BIG.”

Atheists and many scientists are talking as if “Big” has just been discovered! C’mon, guys, you know the history of science better than I do. “Big” has been around for centuries. Ptolemy stated in his Almagest that the size of the earth was a mathematical point in comparison to the distance of the stars. (A mathematical point is a concept and is infinitely small.) Boethius wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy in Book VII, “The whole of this earth's globe, as thou hast learnt from the demonstration of astronomy, compared with the expanse of heaven, is found no bigger than a point; that is to say, if measured by the vastness of heaven's sphere, it is held to occupy absolutely no space at all.” That sure sounds like they understood what big and little were. The concept of infinity was around for centuries before either one of these two men. Surely we are not pretending that our understanding of infinity is better or more expansive than those in centuries before, are we?

Big is a relative term that simply means larger than something else. Without question there was an enormous amount that the scientists in previous centuries were ignorant of. Current atheist writers enjoy pointing out that the theologians of the Middle Ages would be simple ignoramuses today. Let’s be fair. If Galileo were suddenly transported to our current age, he too would be an ignoramus. Newton would be lost (for a bit) with relativity, particles, and black holes.

It seems that when “Big” escapes quantification and becomes a concept, then that is when it is really, really big. Again, the concept of really, really big (infinity) has been around for centuries. Our telescopes and Hubble’s only give us better pictures of big; that’s all. Infinity is no more beyond imagination and wonder than it was in 400 B.C. I too marvel at the pictures of Hubble, but I also marvel at an orchid. There are wonders that I’ve seen in my travels that take my breath away as much as “the Pillars of Creation” (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070218.html).

In conclusion on my first reply to the Prophets of Insignificance is that “Big” does not cause people to be unbelievers. There is nothing inherent in “Big” that causes belief or disbelief in God. Infinity has not been rediscovered. It is as unfathomable now as it was 2,500 years ago.

My second argument begins with a question. If it is true that the universe is as Richard Dawkins wrote, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference,” then why do we care (or seem to care) that meaning or good is important?

Why do we try to find out what things mean? Why do we seek to do good? Here is the difficulty. We are products of the universe if there is no God. If the universe has no meaning, purpose, or notion of good or evil … then why do we? The brief interlude that we experience called either the human race or our individual lives are a part-and-parcel of this meaninglessness, purposelessness, and amorality.

This is a colossal problem. If we, as humans, truly have meaning, then the universe has meaning … because we are part of the universe. I’m puzzled why telescopes and microscopes are used, and the conclusion from observation is, “There is no meaning”; yet, we look at each other and conclude, “We need to seek new meaning from science, and we need to do good.”

If, on the other hand, there is no real meaning, purpose, or good, then what we are experiencing is an illusion. There is no more right or wrong for a group of atoms that form a meteor to smash into the group of atoms called Jupiter than it is for the group of atoms called my hands to strangle and “kill” the group of atoms called a baby. There is no “killing” or “death.” There is only a rearrangement of atoms and transference of energy.

I’ve always puzzled why all atheists demand good ethics; yet, why should we care in a meaningless universe. Why should I care if that set of energy called Katrina rearranged billions of atoms in that insignificant piece of cosmic dust entitled New Orleans? Nothing “good” or “bad” happened, for there is, ultimately, not good or evil, only “pitiless indifference.”

One of the main criticisms of the Bible is the “cruelty” of God. But cruelty only exists if good and bad are real; otherwise, it is no more than an inconvenience for one set of atoms compared to another set of atoms. If there is no good or bad in the universe, then all that ever occurs is an action and reaction of matter and energy … nothing else. Why pretend there is more?

Any “meaning” that we ascribe to events is illusion if there is no meaning in the universe, that is, real, true, genuine meaning. If humans experience true meaning, then the conclusion is that meaning exists in the universe, not merely among humans. Christians are constantly criticized for being inconsistent. What is fair for one is fair for all.

So, does meaning exist in the universe? Either it does or it does not. Humans are part of the universe, regardless how small they may be. We believe and act as if there is meaning and good. Either it is illusion, or it is real. Which is it? If the statement by Dawkins is true, then meaning and good are illusions. A mother is no more “good” for raising a child than another parent is “evil” for eating her child. (Aren’t there a lot of animals that eat their young? Are we not a product or result of those animals? What’s the problem if we eat our young? Swift thought it could solve Ireland’s hunger problem. Surely there isn’t a meaningful difference between the group of atoms called humans and the group of animals called non-humans … is there?)

The irony of all this baffles me. The Prophets of Insignificance have made their own arguments insignificant. Atheists will readily admit that the arguments for morality are “problematic.” That is a nice way of saying there is no good argument, no real reason for being good boys and girls. Regardless how these Prophets will give arguments for the good of all, working together, being pragmatic, whatever, they leave out something critical every time.

What they leave out is this: if there is no meaning or purpose or good in the universe, then that includes all of us boys and girls, no exceptions. All that is really happening is a rearrangement of atoms and transference of matter to energy and energy to matter. Ahh, the wonders of the conservation of matter. A person “savagely” murdering a family is no more significant than a black hole swallowing a galaxy. (Actually, the person’s act is insignificant because it is so small. If there is a “bad guy,” it’s that big, Big, BIG black hole.)

My guess is there may be a lot of repulsion for this second argument. There shouldn’t be any. Christians believe in ultimate consequences. There is good and bad. What we do now affects the souls of others. The second argument should have no affect on them. Atheists should not be repulsed either. A person who is indifferent to good and bad is only reflecting the universe of which he is a part. There is no “savagery” anywhere in the universe. There is only action and reaction.

Either there really are meaning and good, or we are deluding ourselves. If the door is cracked open … even an inch … then there is an immaterial reality. Furthermore, if humans are the only ones who have this reality, then how do we avoid the conclusion that humans are the center of the universe … not in space, but in meaning?

Without question atheists have excellent arguments that marshal our skills and abilities to respond, but one of those arguments is not the massive size of the universe. That argument is not the “pitiless indifference” of the universe. Actually, size and indifference can be excellent arguments if the atheists believe in the same consistency that they demand of Christians. The arguments for ethics are not “problematic,” but they are impossible if there is no true meaning. If there is meaning, then there is something that transcends matter and energy. Something does not come out of nothing; that includes meaning and good as well as matter and energy.

The Princess and the Pea

The Princess and the Pea is a delightful fairy tale collected by Hans Christian Andersen. A prince wanted to marry a true princess. When one would claim to be a true princess, she would spend the night in the guest room on top of 20 mattresses and then 20 feather beds. If she woke up and said she had a great night, the prince knew she was false. One morning after a visit, an alleged princess, when asked about her night, moaned and groaned how uncomfortable she was. The bed had a lump in it, and her back was now black-and-blue. Oh, joy, joy, joy, the princess had been found. For a pea had been placed under the 40 mattresses, and only a true princess would notice such discomfort!

Why do I use this fairy tale? The absurdity of little things that are supposed to be “oh-so-important.” Of course, I have something particular in mind. What is it? The manner in which unbelievably inconsequential, unimportant, and totally trivial criticisms are directed toward the Bible as proof that it is not the word of God.

There are skeptics who will go out of their way to attack the Bible, seemingly creating every conceivable problem possible simply to build the case. I’m not impressed when a skeptic moans about the horrible mental night he had with that terrible pea under his mattresses. My thought is always the same, “You’ve got to be kidding, right?”

Let me give an illustration. This is a serious argument against the Bible being the word of God. Ready for this? The details in 1 Kings 7:23 read, literally teach that π is equal to 3.0! This is stated to be a scientific error that proves that the Bible cannot be the word of God. I have read this online and heard it in debates.

Honestly, I cannot conceive of anyone but a novice using this argument. It is such a pea compared to the boulders that could be used. Well, a hammer isn’t needed against this argument. A puff of wind will take care of this.

Ask anyone what the value of π is? If the reply is, “3.14,” say, “Wrong!”

“3.1415?”

“Wrong!”

“3.14159265?”

“Wrong!”

What is the value of π? It can only be known by approximatization. First, the number is infinite and non-repeating. That is, the decimal never comes to a point that it then begins to repeat itself. The number has been calculated by computer to more than one trillion places. Regardless of the number given, it is never correct.

Certainly, from a practical perspective, what are the differences between 3 inches or 3.1 inches or 3.14 or 3.1415 inches? A laser would be needed to detect the difference. For years when calculating circumference as a quick number … guess what I used? That’s right—3! It simply depends on the accuracy needed.

What is ludicrous about this argument is that the person who says the Bible is scientifically wrong is scientifically wrong himself! WHATEVER value is used, it is wrong because it is only approximate. If the ancient writers were able to write decimals (I’ve never checked this out), whatever they would have written could still be criticized.

Any demand that π should be this value and not this one is no more than a practical preference. The π argument against the Bible being the world of God is merely a new version of “The πrincess and the πea.”

You Choose: Something or Nothing

An atheist/agnostic (AA) has a common argument which he enjoys slapping Christians with. It is said in a number of way, but here is a common one.

"You say there is a God; yet, look at all the suffering in the world. Right now children are starving to death, a teen with a full life ahead of her is dying of who know's what, and I could go on and on. How can an all-powerful and loving God allow such meaningless and innocent suffering? Either God is a monster or God is weak. Please, I don't want to hear the nonsense that 'God works in mysterious ways.' That only means that you don't have an answer." Often we are slapped in the face with glee with this argument as if nothing can be said, and we have to walk off the stage in shame as if we have completely forgotten our lines.

Of course, we don't know why a particular person is suffering, but the Bible does give reasons why suffering occurs. We simply don't know which reasons belong to which incidents. "Ahh," exclaims the AA. "What good does that do?" Well, often doctors aren't sure which medicine to use or how much. So the doctors will prescribe and monitor. Making judgment calls like this aren't limited to Christians. We don't know the exact reason that will give us an answer. As we try a different verse, asking the Lord in prayer could this possibly be the reason, we can still come to peace, much in the same way a medicine will ease a pain, but not remove it.

Furthermore, the Bible is clear when it states that "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be reveal in us" (Romans 8:18). We may not know at a space-time moment why such suffering is occurring or why an untimely death occurred; however, Christianity does promise an answer and a recompense eventually.

Sometimes we simply need to slap back. You slap me; I slap you. Here's what I mean. Ask the AA this: "What do you have to offer the child who has died after horrible suffering?" NOTHING.

I find it so ironic that AAs who are horrified over suffering and death demand that there must not be a God who would allow such things. Okay. Let's assume there is not. What is your alternative. NOTHING. I do mean absolutely nothing. The child is gone forever. His atoms will slowly spin off and be rearranged with other atoms (the good ole conservation of matter). His memory is gone forever. His personality is gone forever. His hopes and dreams are gone forever. His atoms will end up like the rest of the universe, either in fire or ice. Since all life will end, no one will be remembered. No relationships will be remembered. Everyone and everything will be forgotten as if they never existed.

If the AA is correct and there is no God, we will all cease to exist, eventually becoming nothing (assuming a re-collapse in which matter as we know it ceases to exist). If that is true, what is the worse we have done? Truly, if there is no God, what have we done? We have taken an awful situation and given hope for the future. If God isn't real, still, isn't a false comfort better than no comfort? Frankly, if God doesn't exist, what does it matter what we say for comfort--eventually everyone will be dead and forgotten anyway!

In contrast to that, the AA takes an awful situation and makes it worse! "See your child in the casket. The body will soon rot away, his atoms join other atoms (perhaps be in a McDonald's hamburger in a few years), and soon be totally forgotten as you will be ... because everybody will cease to exist as if they were never born."

If Christians are wrong and there is no God, it seems the AAs are upset because we give hope; even false hope is better than no hope. If the AAs are correct, there is NO hope.

We may not like the suggestions given in the Bible for suffering. We most probably will not have the slightest idea why this person or that person suffers. The Bible doesn't tell us. It does tell us we will be recompensed because of our suffering, to such a degree that the suffering will be forgotten. Not only will we be remembered, but we will still be aware, growing, learning, experiencing life as never before.

The key difference between the answers of the Christian and the AA is that the Christian answers, though inadequate to many, are SOMETHING, where the AA answers are ... NOTHING.

So, you choose: something or nothing.