G-d and Reasoning
Posted by Daniel Lyons Tue, 11 Sep 2007 05:38:00 GMT
One thing Michael and I often discuss theologically is G-d’s perspective of the world. I have a particular thought about His reasoning which seems unusually lucid right now, so I thought I’d put it down here.
Reason is accepted as a gift of G-d to man in the Catholic and I believe also my own Rabbinic traditions. That we live in a rational universe whose laws can be determined scientifically and which can, to some extent, be understood is also an important given. But does G-d reason as we do?
If we accept that G-d exists outside time then perhaps causality still exists, but without time to give it duration, the effect of reasoning would be instantaneous. Understanding reason as a gift to man, I do not see any reason to assume that G-d also employs reasoning the same way. Indeed, isn’t reasoning mainly the creation of useful abstractions that enable our feeble minds to make observations in general? Without time, but with causality, wouldn’t these derived relationships appear instantaneously to G-d? If G-d can perceive these relationships instantaneously and G-d’s omniscient mind can contain all of everything, then He hardly is in need of abstractions: He understands, instantly, everything. Logic would therefore seem to be a needless crutch to G-d, about as useful as a blind person’s cane to a man who can see.
And in that light, it seems that G-d would have no need to deal with us categorically. In fact He would by necessity deal with us individually, since there would be nothing to be gained by dealing with us categorically. He has no shortage of time or mental effort, and wastes none in performing the steps of a logical derivation.
All of which brings us back to the notion of a personal G-d, elemental to both Judaism and Christianity. It’s the only kind of G-d there could be. Why would a creator of the universe, outside of time and with no limit on “processing power” opt to be distant or deal with humanity in general instead?
This line of reasoning also helps explain why firm ethical rules are handed down to us to be implemented in practice, but which G-d bends in the biblical narrative. Reason is our tool to approach G-d, not G-d’s limitation to us.
It’s pretty common to hear the argument that if God exists, we would be insignificant to him; I’ve never believed that, but I’ve also never countered it with much other than, Well, not necessarily…
Making the comparison of omniscience to limitless “processing power” is a particularly good example.
I just remembered that C. S. Lewis has referred to the deistic or “bureaucratic” vision of God as being more, not less, anthropomorphic than the personal vision. I think you’re on the right track here and would love to see you flesh this out even more.