Most religions eventually develop a set of propositions a follower must believe as a member of the faith community. This is a natural development. However, when such orthodoxy becomes too strict, it becomes harder to respond to new challenges. Instead, what may happen is the religion will develop into a fundamentalism, becoming increasingly marginalized and irrelevant. Often, it becomes necessary to break free from orthodox thinking to respond to new challenges. The answers of such so-called heretics often have resounding implications for the wider world and provide compelling visions for their followers.
Joseph Smith provides us such a case. Freed early in his ministry from orthodox considerations, he offered the world a theology that was, and is, often viewed with outrage by mainstream Christianity.i Embedded in his theology is an ingenious response to Scottish skeptic David Hume’s attack on the teleological argument for the existence of God. If one were to attempt to find proof of God’s existence in the Bible, they would search in vain. Some passages seem to try to prove God’s existence (e.g., Isa. 40:12-20), but closer examination shows the author’s intent is to display the Lord’s superiority over idols. The biblical writers simply took His existence for granted. Trying to prove it would have been a foreign idea to them. Some psalmists wrote, “Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no god” (Ps. 10:4; 14:1; 53:1).ii However, these passages do not refer to philosophical atheism, but to those who deny God’s activity in the world.iii
Eventually, philosophers developed arguments that supposedly proved God’s existence from reason. Christian theologians often borrowed these arguments to show the compatibility between faith and reason. They may have also believed certain biblical passages suggested these arguments. Two of these arguments are in part based on creation, and consequently they may be confused. Since Joseph Smith’s theology affects both arguments, briefly reviewing both will be necessary.
The main idea of the cosmological argument is that God must exist because the universe must have had a beginning. God is the only adequate explanation for the existence of the universe. Naturally, the cause of the universe must itself be distinct from the universe. The common form of the argument attempts to show that rational persons must inevitably trace a sequence of events to an ultimate source, or “first cause.” This first cause is what we call God.iv Philosophers have perpetuated different ways of expressing this argument. St. Thomas Aquinas gave three forms of the argument in his Summa Theologica.v
For mainstream Christians, the cosmological argument is especially compelling, as they view God in absolutist terms. God must be the reason everything exists. Likewise, God is utterly independent of the created universe. To say that there exist things to explain God detracts from His station as deity.vi
The cosmological argument seems to have some support in the Bible, especially if we interpret Genesis 1:1 to mean the absolute beginning of space, time, and matter. However, biblical scholars generally agree that the Hebrew original does not support this idea.vii In English, many of them would combine the first two verses of Genesis and render them similarly to the New Revised Standard Version:
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
The teleological argument attempts to show that the universe exhibits signs of being designed by an intelligent creator. Therefore, people also call the teleological argument the argument from design.viii Christian philosophers likely took some of their inspiration from the Bible in using this argument.
Assertions that “everything has been created for its own purpose” (Sir. 39:21)ix abound in the Bible. Sirach goes on to list the purpose of certain objects as rewarding the righteous or punishing the wicked (Sir. 39:25-31). Other biblical writers list more practical purposes for created objects. God created the sun and the moon “to separate the day from the night, … [to] be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and … to give light upon the earth” (Gen. 1:14-15). Similarly, a psalmist displays God’s wisdom by showing how he created several things to give food and shelter for various animals and people (Ps. 104:14-20). Nature declares “the glory of God” in a silent language (Ps. 19:1-3), which leaves humanity no excuse for their behavior before God (Rom. 1:19-20).
David Hume made a devastating attack on this argument in his last work Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume was born on 26 April 1711 in Edinburgh, Scotland. He graduated from Edinburgh University in 1723. By 1751, he had already established worldwide recognition based on several books he published. It was during this year that he originally wrote Dialogues. He worked on revising the manuscript during his retirement in Edinburgh. Hume died in 1776. Dialogues was published posthumously in 1779.x
Hume believed we cannot deduce the effect of an event without having previously experienced a similar event. He thought no one could ever establish causal links through abstract reasoning alone. Though a skeptic, he did not consider himself an atheist. Hume disagreed with both Christians and deists, who held that religion is man’s natural response to the proof of God’s existence, as seen in nature. He also believed “everything is surely governed by steady, inviolable laws.”xi
Dialogues presents Hume’s arguments in a fictional exchange between characters named Cleanthes, Philo, and Demla. Cleanthes argued in favor of the teleological argument:
Look around the world: Contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines…. All these various machines … are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance….xii
The similarities of the universe to a machine lead us to infer that the cause of the machine is an intelligence similar to human minds. This proves the existence of God and says something of his similarity to human nature. Theists do not need to prove the similarities between the universe and a work of art because it is self-evident. “The same matter, a like form.” “Whatever cavils may be urged, an orderly world … will still be received as an incontestable proof of design and intention.”xiii
Demla and Philo both had objections, but Philo most closely represents Hume’s position.xiv Though Hume had other objections to the teleological argument, this essay will concentrate on objections that go to the heart of orthodox thought.
Hume believed the strength of an argument by analogy lay in the similarity between the objects compared. If similar effects imply similar causes, then we should be prepared to accept the consequences. An object such as a watch or a house would tell us that there is an intelligent designer behind it, but what else would it tell us?xv
Could we say that the designer has infinite power and knowledge? Of course not. We need only suppose that cause is proportional to effect. The universe, being finite, does not need an infinite designer.xvi
Could we assume that the designer was perfect? If we examined most devices more closely, we would likely find many imperfections. The imperfections may be due to the quality of the material, the ability of the designer, or other limitations. This holds true with nature, as well. Therefore, God must also have limits.xvii
Could we say that the person who designed a given device also built it? That is possible. However, people most often use blueprints or patterns provided by others when constructing any device. Any machine is likely the result of trial and error. Just as likely, it is based on a design that improved through the ages. All that is necessary to make any machine are blueprints and the parts. Perhaps God worked off a model himself. Regardless, this also suggests God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.xviii
Perhaps God simply used his staff to create the universe. Many people have built houses and ships working together, each of whom had a hand in the process. We have no reason to believe God worked alone, either. Human objects are often the result of different people working together on a given project.xix
Could we say the designer was a self-existent being – someone who has no antecedents? The natural assumption would be that he had parents, grandparents, and other ancestors, perhaps as far back as eternity. The same conclusion would therefore apply to God, as well. Also, it would be conceivable that God (or the gods) also reproduces.xx
Could we say that the designer was a being of pure spirit completely independent of the physical world? That would hardly be conceivable. By way of analogy, God would have to have some sort of body. As Philo asked, “Why not become a perfect anthropomorphite?”xxi
Finally, do we have any assurance that this universe is not “only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance?” For that matter, God could be some decrepit old deity whose mind is degenerating.xxii
Cleanthes rejects the notion that the universe is eternal.xxiii However, he is unable to answer Philo’s questions about the absolute beginnings of the world:
How therefore shall we satisfy ourselves concerning the cause of that being … into which you trace the material? Have we not the same reason to trace that ideal world, or new intelligent principle? But if we stop and go no further; why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? How can we satisfy ourselves without going on ad infinitum? And after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression?xxiv
In summary, Hume chastised those who would use an analogy to prove God’s existence without taking the analogy to its natural conclusions. The reason they are unwilling to follow through with the implications is because they would be forced to make conclusions that no theist is willing to make. Cleanthes would disavow all of Philo’s inferences, accepting them only as far as he was “obliged, at every turn, to have recourse to [the hypotheses of design].”xxv
However, the problem is not that these theologians are unwilling to tease out the implications. The real problem is that more than a thousand years of orthodox thought has constrained them. Simply put, they cannot make those conclusions. Only a theologian free from the bonds of orthodox thought could answer Hume adequately.
Joseph Smith was such a person. Smith’s prophetic career began with what Latter-day Saints commonly call the First Vision. According to the canonical account, religious revivals in his area prompted Smith to think more deeply about religious matters. Subsequent fighting between competing churches vying for members agitated him (JS-H 5-10). Confused by these competing claims, Smith eventually decided to settle the matter by prayer, directly asking God which church he should join (JS-H 13-14).
God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Smith and answered his prayer (JS-H 17). They told him “must join none of them, for they were all wrong … and … all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” (JS-H 18-19). Though Smith’s more radical theological innovations would come later, God’s reply established the foundation for ignoring orthodox thought. The publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830 marks the beginning of Smith’s thoughts on the nature of God.xxvi
The Book of Mormon, like the Bible, assumes the existence of God. Unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon does give us a bona fide atheist in the character of Korihor (Alma 30:36-38). In a debate with the current leader of the Church, named Alma, Korihor challenges him to provide a sign proving God’s existence (Alma 30:43). In response, Alma replies, “All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a creator” (Alma 30:44). In this respect, Hullinger was not far off the mark when he said Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in part to prove the existence of God.xxvii Since the Book of Mormon uses the teleological argument, it has been the primary appeal of Latter-day Saints in establishing God’s existence. As another Book of Mormon prophet stated, “if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation” (2 Ne. 11:7). Smith later appealed to astronomy and botany as signs of God’s decrees.xxviii An official Church publication notes that “the system of nature is the manifestation of an order that argues a directing intelligence.”xxix
Whether Smith had direct contact with Hume’s work or not, he was more willing to work out the implications of the teleological argument. Learning about the nature of God was one of his preoccupations. In one of his final sermons, he said, “The first principle of truth … is to know for a certainty the character of God, and that we may converse with Him the same as one man with another.”xxx
The key point of Smith’s theology was expressed in the same sermon. According to Smith, God was “once a man like one of us and … dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh and like us.”xxxi According to a revelation given to Smith, God still resides in time and space, on another planet (D&C 130:7). He identified the name of the star as Kolob (Abr. 3:2-3). Smith, in effect, flatly denies we need to have an ultimate first cause. We can go on endlessly if we please, but we need only be concerned with what we are doing right now.
Not long afterward, Smith added that God the Father himself had a father, a grandfather, and so on eternally. Every person that ever existed always had some antecedent, except in their original form as intelligences.xxxii
Moreover, Smith did become “a perfect anthropomorphite.”xxxiii In a series of instructions later canonized by the Church, Smith told his listeners “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as a man’s; the Son also.” Only the Holy Ghost “is a personage of spirit” – this was necessary to carry out His functions (D&C 130:22).xxxiv
In contrast to Christian orthodoxy, God has restrictions in Mormon theology. For example, God organized the world using already existent material and following laws he must obey.xxxv Smith rejected the Christian doctrine of creation from nothing. “The elements are eternal,” God told Smith (D&C 93:33). Talmage stated the idea succinctly: “from nothing, nothing can be derived.”xxxvi
By elements, Smith meant not only matter. In a revelation God told him “intelligence … was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29). Smith is unclear whether spirit and intelligence are the same. What is clear is he thought “the mind of man – the intelligent part – is as immortal as, and is coequal with, God himself.”xxxvii
At some point, God organized “the intelligences,” selecting “many of the noble and great ones” to be his “rulers” (Abr. 3:22-23). The rulers, called “Gods,” accompanied the Lord to our corner of space and helped Him create the world (Abr. 4:1). Any imperfections can be explained by the eternal nature of space/time and matter/energy. However, “God did all that could be done as the immanent, eternally active, and creating, and causing power in the universe under the limitations of any other eternal existences, … including consideration of the intractableness of the material with which the Creator had to work.”xxxviii
It would also seem to follow that God had patterns available to him when creating our world. He already had experience with a world like ours, and could call upon the assistance of those who had gone before Him. These factors would help check any blatant mistakes. Additionally, “there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my [God’s] power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man” (Moses 1:35).
Having granted most of Hume’s points, one might ask whether such a view of God is viable. The thought of humans and deity being too closely alike “scandalizes” Hume. He preferred God to be utterly unfathomable.xxxix Would the finite God Smith presents be worthy of worship?
Hume himself admits to advantages inherent in an anthropomorphic deity. For example, he notes that in common experience, no one has ever observed a disembodied intelligence. Mormon theologian B. H. Roberts believed that Smith’s theology solved the problem of evil.xl Blake T. Ostler shows how a finite God is still worthy of worship. David Paulsen recently established that a material God resolved other vexing problems in Christian thought.xli
Smith would have felt that the answer was self-evident. He would not have taught such a god otherwise. However, we should remember that he was a prophet, not a philosopher. Like the biblical authors, his function was to reveal God, not to reason about him.
Likely, the defenses mentioned above would seem alien to him. Smith might justify his ideas with the Bible, but this was more of a concession to those who “would cry treason” otherwise.xlii Like all prophets, Smith was an authority unto himself – justified only by God’s revelation. If pressed into answering the question, Smith may have turned to the purpose of creation. According to Smith, God’s purpose is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).
For Smith, this meant much more than an idyllic existence in Heaven singing praises to God. As mere intelligences, human beings are incomplete. “All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement and improvement. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge…. Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest who were less in intelligence could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him….”xliii One purpose of creation was to have a place to test whether men and women would do everything required of them by God (Abr. 3:24-25).
Part of the necessary knowledge is experience with good and evil. According to the Book of Mormon, “there must be an opposition in all things.” The Book of Mormon connects this idea to the very existence of God. Opposition also serves God’s “eternal purposes in the end of man.” Without it, existence would have no purpose (2 Ne. 2:11-15).
Picking up on the thought of Paul (e.g., Rom. 8:17), Smith preached that to be “heirs of God” and “joint-heirs with Jesus Christ” means “to inherit and enjoy the same glory, powers and exaltation until you ascend a throne of eternal power and arrive at the station of a God the same as those who have gone before.”xliv When this happens, “then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them” (D&C 132:20).xlv
Joseph Smith’s answer to David Hume was bold and outrageous. It also has important consequences in the broader world of philosophy and theology. Yet Smith’s theology was also a stepping stone to a greater vision of man’s possibilities. This vision simply would not have been possible if Smith were forced to stay within the box of orthodox thinking.
This essay is meant as a test case in exploring how heretics solve problems with which orthodox thinkers are less able to deal. We have likely ignored other heretics though their ideas are well worth exploring. Not only do they deserve better, so does the world.
Notes
i For the purposes of this essay, “mainstream Christianity” refers to the bodies of Christians normally divided into Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant branches. I avoid the term “orthodox Christianity” to prevent confusion with the Orthodox Churches. When I refer to “orthodox” or “mainstream” thought in this essay, I am referring to beliefs about God held in common between these strands of the Christian tradition.
ii All quotations of the Bible in this essay are from the New Revised Standard Version.
iii Arnold B. Rhodes, Psalms, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, vol. 9 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1960), 89.
iv Brian Davies, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 75-84.
vi Blake T. Ostler, “The Concept of a Finite God as an Adequate Object of Worship,” in Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, ed. Gary James Bergera (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 77-78.
vii E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, The Anchor Bible, vol. 1 (Garden City:, NJ: Doubleday & Company, 1984), 12.
viii Davies, 84, 93.
ix Sirach, also called Ecclesiasticus, is one of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books. It is considered canonical by Catholics and the Orthodox, but listed with the Apocrypha in Protestant bibles. For a brief discussion, see Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 3. A chart is available in Anderson, 4-5.
x Martin Bell, Introduction, in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, by David Hume (London: Penguin Press, 1990), 1-5.
xi David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Martin Bell (London: Penguin Books, 1990), 84 (30); Bell, 5-7, 13.
xii Hume, 53.
xiii Hume, 53, 63-66.
xiv Bell, 16.
xv Hume, 75.
xvi Hume, 76.
xvii Hume, 76-77.
xviii Hume, 77.
xix Hume, 77.
xx Hume, 78-79.
xxi Hume, 78.
xxii Hume, 79.
xxiii Hume, 82.
xxiv Hume, 72.
xxv Hume, 57, 79.
xxvi On the development of Smith’s doctrine during his lifetime, see Thomas G. Alexander “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine,” Sunstone, June 1999, 15-19. Different accounts of the First Vision are extent and differ in detail. However, all the accounts agree that God told Smith all the churches in existence were wrong. Most Mormons believe Smith translated the works of the individual Book of Mormon authors. Others attribute authorship directly to Smith. Neither view affects the thesis of this essay.
xxvii Robert N. Hullinger, Mormon Answer to Skepticism, Why Joseph Smith Wrote the Book of Mormon (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1980), 5. However, Hullinger’s study was mainly directed at deism, mentioned briefly above. Hullinger admits that deists believed in God. The real controversy was between those who argued for “revealed religion” and those who argued for “natural religion.” See Hullinger, 20. Hullinger also concentrates mainly on the Book of Mormon, whereas this study surveys Smith’s theology as it developed in his ministry. [Hullinger’s revised edition of this work is titled Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism.]
xxviii The Essential Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), 155.
xxix James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, 12th ed. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1957), 34.
xxx Smith, 235.
xxxi Smith, 235.
xxxii Smith, 253.
xxxiii Hume, 79.
xxxiv Many passages in the Bible likely influenced Smith, even discounting the obvious “God created humankind in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27). For example, the Lord appeared to Abraham, accepting and eating a meal prepared by him (Gen. 18). Jacob wrestled with a “man” whom he identified as God (Gen. 32:24-30). The elders of Israel dined with God not long after leaving Egypt (Ex. 24:9-11). Other references are possible.
xxxv Smith studied Hebrew under Joshua Seixas in Kirtland, Ohio. He undoubtedly understood the Hebrew word translated “created” in Genesis 1:1 means “to organize,” rather than to create from nothing. On Smith’s Hebrew studies, see Kevin L. Barney, “Joseph Smith’s Emendation of Hebrew Genesis 1:1,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 30, no. 4 (1997): 109-119. See also the discussion on this verse above.
xxxvi Kent E. Robson, “Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience in Mormon Theology,” in Bergera, 69-70; Talmage, 34.
xxxvii Smith, 239.
xxxviii B. H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life, An Elementary Treatise on Theology: The Masterwork of B. H. Roberts, ed. Stan Larson (San Francisco: Smith Research Associates, 1994), 381.
xxxix Hume, 57.
xl Briefly stated, the problem of evil is the dilemma posed by the existence of evil. The argument states if God can prevent evil, but did not, then He is not morally good. On the other hand, if He cannot prevent evil, though morally good, then God is powerless.
xli Hume, 81; B. H. Roberts, 374-383; Ostler 77-82; David Paulsen, “Must God Be Incorporeal?” Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989): 76-87.
xlii Smith, 236.
xliii Smith, 240.
xliv Smith, 236.
xlv In 3 Ne. 28:10, Jesus tells his audience “ye shall be even as I am, and I am as the Father….” This may be the initial seed of Smith’s thought on people becoming gods. The first explicit mention of this possibility does not come until later (D&C 76:58). Alexander believes that the Church did not fully realize the implications of these passages until an even later time. See Alexander, 18.
No comments:
Post a Comment