Link to Downloadable PDF of this Article
Is a non-anthropomorphic theology possible?
The strongest dogmas are based in the delusions of human perception and the default assumptions of natural reasoning. This combination of how everyone sees and thinks about a thing is impervious to the proofs of any form of sound reasoning that seeks to overcome it.
The ordinary conception of anthropomorphic deity is a primary example of this.
Theologians and philosophers all agree, God is not a man. Anthropomorphism is seen as a minor issue, addressed piecemeal as anthropomorphisms. References to God having human body parts, such as hands, are dismissed as figurative language, and more substantial anthropomorphisms are expected to be just as easily dismissed.
But can they all be so easily dismissed? Isn’t a deity who thinks human thoughts and experiences human feelings just a man beheld in a divine aspect? Isn’t a deity whose limited intentions can be thwarted just a humanlike character?
These obvious problems aren’t addressed because we all tend to see personality in human terms. So far as perception is concerned alternatives do not seem to exist. The operations of human perception tend to see all personality as humanlike, and any rational correction, when it occurs, is temporary.
We all see things this way and like simple optical illusions, once the proof of the illusion is withdrawn, we revert to the delusion of our perception.
Natural thinking is likewise impervious to refutation.
We assume some form of social relation to deity, and expect to relate to God as we would to any other personal being. We relate to deity in the same general manner as we relate to one another. We guess their thoughts, feelings and intentions by using our own thoughts, feelings and intentions. This along with our social experience of human interactions forms a self-reference. We see others by the light of our own experience, and only a humanlike deity can play a role in our human experience.
To play a role in the human drama of our narrative self, God must think, intend and feel by the same processes that we do. A humanlike conception of deity plays this role with ease. Non-human actors with few exceptions are anthropomorphized, enabling them to play a personal role in the drama.
A non-anthropomorphic theology would need to thwart the natural inclinations of human thought, and could only be the result of highly disciplined reasoning. The conception of non-anthropomorphic deity would then be like the proof that dispels an optical illusion. Once the discipline relaxes, theological thinking reverts to the humanlike conception.
We possess one set of perceptual faculties, and not another. One way of thinking is natural to us and not another. Any factual reality, no matter how great or consequential, which contradicts perception and natural ways of thinking, even if it is discovered, will ever overcome the persistence of delusion. As soon as the proofs are withdrawn the delusion will return.
The ordinary theistic idea that God thinks humanlike thoughts, is angered by frustrated intentions, and can be related to by the same self-referential methods we employ in our relations with one another is natural to our perceptions and thought processes. An argument could be made that the ordinary theistic conception is a product of those very things, and religious instruction merely bolsters intuition by giving it a sectarian character.
Whatever the case, ordinary theistic thinking, based in intuition, enjoys a natural imperviousness to correction.
Correction, whenever it occurs, can be expected to be temporary.
Seeing ordinary theistic conception in this light, I ask, is a non-anthropomorphic theology even possible?
The great mysteries of religion, science and philosophy are not hidden from us, they are hidden by us.
Language Crystallizes Natural Delusions
If we see things one way and not another, and if we think about things one way and not another, we will talk about these things in one way and not another, and this is how the language of delusion amplifies and crystallizes natural error.
Natural error surpasses the limits of mass delusion, where a large group of people are animated by a mistaken set of beliefs.
Mass delusion affects a number of people when they begin seeing things in a delusional way, thinking about them in accord with that delusion, and talking amongst themselves in accord with the delusion. Natural error affects everyone in a manner similar to mass delusion.
Natural error is based in how we all see, think and talk about fundamental reality. Natural error is endemic, it’s part of being human. We are all equipped with the same set of faculties, and where these things go awry, we all go awry.
With great foresight the builders of the Parthenon understood that seen from a distance the straight line of a flat surface appear curved. To correct this they replaced what would have been flat surfaces with expertly calculated curves which would appear straight to the beholder at a distance. They couldn’t correct the perception of the beholders, so they corrected the Parthenon.
This inability to correct errors natural to human perception, reasoning and language is the great dilemma that besets religion, science and philosophy. Marble though hard, can be shaped. Reality is not in any way malleable. It cannot be reworked to correct for natural error.
Reality is one thing and not another. If we see it the wrong way something must correct perception, If we think about it the wrong way something must correct our thinking, and if we talk about it the wrong way then a correct way of talking about it must be devised. Language, the crystallizer and amplifier of error must be reworked to describe reality as it is and not as we naturally see it and think about it,
Only a careful use of language can overcome natural error. Of the three, perception, reasoning and language, only language is amendable to change. Only language can dispel the delusions of perception and thought, but it can only do it for a time. Once the truth revealing measure is withdrawn, the delusions of perception and reasoning soon return. In my experience they never go away. It’s impossible to frame a perfect non-anthropomorphic theology. Anthropomorphisms creep in from every direction. Statements that seem non-anthropomorphic rely on self-reference for meaning. They represent a move towards reality, not a perfect description of it. This will be discussed more fully when that enormous hurdle must somehow be surmounted.