G?d-talk is doubletalk, in Java

[bnewman]

Since everyone else^* I know seems to be writing about this, I guess it's my turn:

If you believe, as I do, that the world is made of stuff, which is arranged in patterns in space and time, that the patterns obey laws, and that there is no other stuff which can affect these patterns other than the aforementioned stuff, and you also talk G!d-talk, then your G?d-talk is doubletalk.

Doubletalk not because it is false — it's very true, in its way — but because most of the G!d-talk we hear around these parts has a certain general form, which has a certain most obvious interpretation in terms of what those sorts of words generally mean when they are used elsewhere, and that is not what you mean by your G!d-talk.

Mostly, when people use G!d-talk, they are using it for certain implications which the vernacular interpretation (where G!d is a big Person) shares with the more metaphorical view which I (and many of you, apparently) hold. However, a lot of people seem to get bothered when told that this means it mostly doesn't matter how you interpret their G!d-talk — they really want you to interpret it the way they do. I will now explain why I think that's silly, using the following Kabbalistic Java program:

echad class Hashem implements Elohim {

        sod class Olam {
                // secret!
        }

        sod Olam bereishit() {
                return yhi Olam(zot, tohu, vohu)
        }

        sod Olam chadesh(Olam haOlam) {
                return yhi Olam(zot, haOlam)
        }

        // various other methods, public and private
}

(For the Jewishly uninitiated:

• Elohim = "god"
• Hashem = the Name of G!d
• echad = "unique" (singleton)
• olam = "universe" (and ha- = "the")
• sod = "secret" (private)
bereishit = "creation"
• yhi = "let there be" (new)
• tohu = "formless" (null) and vohu = "void" (0)
• chadesh = "renew"
• zot = "this" (this)

For the Java uninitiated, you can look up the Java keywords in Sun's tutorials if you want to, but you should be able to follow along regardless.)

There's a lot of theology packed into this snippet of code (not pesudocode — if you translate all the Hebrew keywords back to Java (and implement the proprietary Olam class, good luck with that!), it should compile), so I'll start by considering the question raised above: why is it silly to care about the metaphysics underlying someone else's interpretation of G?d-talk? It's silly because all we need to know about our G!d-concept (i.e. object reference) is that it implements Elohim — we don't need to know how (which is convenient, because we are unlikely to ever find out). In object-oriented programming, this notion that you shouldn't need to know how something works in order to relate to it is called "encapsulation". It is devoutly to be hoped that we don't need to know how G?d works in order to relate to G!d.

Here are a few other theological tidbits (although these are not conclusions, because they represent implementation decisions that could go either way, whereas encapsulation is really quite important):

Why call Olam's constructor at every time step, rather than calling a method to update haOlam in place? Because G!d "renews the work of creation continually every day" (that's from the Hebrew morning liturgy).

Why pass zot (this, G!d's self) as an argument to Olam()? So G!d can be present in the world — in particular, since nothing (that we can know about) happens outside of calls to Olam(), this is necessary for us to be in relationship with the divine. Kabbalists sometimes refer to G!d's Shechinah (presence) as zot in order to call attention to the fact that all we can know about ultimate reality is that it is right there, wherever you point. You may be familiar with the alternative belief that zot is not passed to Olam(), under the name "Deism".

As an also-pagan Jew, I feel that it's appropriate to refer to the one G1d by a multiplicity of names (including, if due care is taken, deity-names from other cultures). In Java, I might write something like saraswati = (religions.hinduism.Saraswati)elohai (elohai = "my god", which is a reference to the singleton instance of Hashem). This code would be in one of my personal methods, such as Ben.dabbleInHinduism(). The point being that saraswati and elohai are references to the same "object", but may have different interfaces, which pretty well captures my feelings, as a pagan Jew, about "other" deities.

Of course, there are others who have used programming language theory to talk about theology before, but I'm generally of the opinion that they didn't go nearly far enough. ;-)

---

* link to another user's friends-locked post

Comments

[madfilkentist]

There's no "singleton" class qualifier in Java. You have to implement singleton enforcement in a roundabout way.

[orawnzva.livejournal.com]

True. I thought I saw a reference that implied that there was a singleton qualifier, but I guess not.

[uncleamos]

The problem is that I can't read the theology. It takes way too much effort to either comprehend or read around the jargon.

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't understand the programming aspect of this at all, but well- a theological question. Does using another culture's name for Hashem (and I'm being a little frum in phrasing this so that I'm clear), still indicating the single G-d who created the universe, etc really make you pagan? Or if so, how? I mean, Maimonides is well known to have written Allah to say G-d when writing in Arabic. So is it that these other names are taken from pantheon-type settings and do not in their usual context imply one-and-only G-d? And if you want to use them to indicate the one-and-only G-d, how does the use of that other name function in your spiritual/prayer process? Are you worshipping G-d through these other beings, or do you see them as emanations of Hashem, or are they seen as intercessors, or what? Sorry to ask so many questions- but this raised some real curiosity for me about your theological system and how you can work with paganism and still say Shema and mean it.

[orawnzva.livejournal.com]

Well, it all depends on what you mean by... — goodness, that's a lot of good questions. This is going to be a really long answer.

I guess the most interesting question is, what do I mean when I identify myself as pagan? I'm not sure if the answer to that is a theological answer. I feel like I've been spending more time defining my pagan identity (in relation to my Jewish identity) than using it. In reality, the identity that I'm trying to define (and defend) is my identity as an eclectic — my religion is a patchwork. It's a patchwork I've been piecing together, carefully and thoughtfully, for a long time. I guess I've been preparing to defend it against the idea, broader than simply a prohibition on polytheism or idolatry, that Other religions are Not For Us. My patchwork quilt isn't "other" — how could it be other when it's my quilt?

Once I have eclecticism, having a whole list of names for the divine doesn't really present an interesting problem. Judaism already has a lot of G*d-names — Adonay, El Shaddai, ribono shel olam, Hashem, and of course the Four-Letter Word itself (which is itself still another convenient label made up by humans in order to point in the general direction of the Truly Unnameable — and yet, the awe of generations gives such labels real power). Anyway, we have a lot of names for G?d, what's a few more? In terms of grounding this kind of thinking in Judaism, I wish I knew more about the concept of partzufim.

But then there is the problem of pantheons — how can a character who is one of a multitude be a face of the One? Here, Jewish tradition would suggest avoiding the question by staying as far away from pantheons as possible — no polytheism, and certainly no idolatry! But what are "polytheism" and "idolatry"? Here's my view:

Idolatry means slipping from the truth that everything is G!d to the fallacy that each thing, or some particular thing, is god. G~d is the web of connections among the various things in the universe, Who "surrounds us and penetrates us and binds the galaxy together". Everything participates in G*d, but no finite thing is god by itself. As far as I can tell, the major examples of idolatry (in this sense) in the world today are, as they have probably always been, money and power, and worrying about drawing pictures of the divine seems much less urgent by comparison.

Polytheism means slipping from the truth that there are multiple forces in the universe to the fallacy that their multiplicity is essential, rather than incidental. Some pantheons are unifying — the Hindu story of Radha and Krishna, for example, is really all about yichud (only, in Sanskrit). There are, and must be, two characters in the story, but there is at bottom only one locus of divinity. The ancient Greeks, on the other hand, seem to have earnestly believed that a conflict of interest could obtain between gods — when the Olympians quarrel, they're actually quarreling, and there is no higher level where it's all One. Thus, ancient Greek religion, as practiced and understood by the ancient Greeks, is right out.

Does that make any sense?

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

I think I get it- it's panentheism to some extent, and a focus on seeing G-d in all these different aspects rather than a real belief in multiple gods, for you?

So what about it makes you call yourself a pagan? I mean, you're saying that both idolatry and polytheism are fallacies. It certainly feels heterodox, but it doesn't Sound like paganism to me, to be honest. I mean, are you really saying that there are multiple deities, or that there's one deity with many ways of thinking of said deity? If the latter is paganism, then Christianity is in trouble, and even Judaism in traditional forms gets into some trouble- as you've pointed out, we have plenty of G-d names and imaginations of G-d within the tradition proper.

I'm still trying to understand this trouble with Other Religions are Not For Us. If you don't limit yourself to the (pretty darn wide and ecclectic) limits of Judaism (or Judaisms, as some would put it), then how do you decide what Is outside the pale? And what makes it all Jewish for you?

[orawnzva.livejournal.com]

If the latter is paganism, then Christianity is in trouble, and even Judaism in traditional forms gets into some trouble

I think I see the source of the confusion here — it's the contested definition of the word "pagan". There are more specific words for those "pagan" things that, according to jewish tradition, get one "in trouble", which I've tried to define above, but then what does "pagan" mean? I should perhaps switch to always calling myself "neopagan", to clearly indicate that I mean something very different from the ancient paganism with which the Jewish tradition contrasts itself.

I call myself a neopagan because some of my values are neopagan values. Many of them are also Jewish values, but many of those I didn't learn from Judaism (although I'm happy to bring them home and live them Jewishly), and I want to give due credit to the neopagan authors and communities from whom I did learn them. Here are the main ones I can think of off the top of my head — you'll probably see a few overlaps and a few sources of tension:

[orawnzva.livejournal.com]

1. Relating in a sacred way to the land and culture of one's tribal ancestors. This is, of course, also a primary Jewish value.

2. Relating in a sacred way to nature. When I've enjoyed sitting on a rock, or in the shade of a tree, or feeling the warmth of the sun or a refeshing breeze, I express my thanks. It's good to honor the spirit of a place, and if G*d is in everything, is there necessarily a clear distinction between thanking G!d and thanking the tree?

3. Relating in a sacred way to the land where one lives. Jewish law about how to live on the land officially only applies in Israel, but the whole earth is sacred, and we need to live in harmony with the land — and to feel spiritually connected to the land — wherever we live. When I say "al ha'aretz hatova asher natan lach", I mean, all at once, the land of my ancestors, the land where what I've been eating actually grew, the land where I live and am free to eat it in peace and unafraid, and this whole, miraculous, life-sustaining planet.

4. Being inclusive of soft polytheism. I thought of a better way of expressing the difference between hard and soft polytheism than in my previous comment — in soft polytheism, there are multiple gods, but there is only one divine will, while in hard polytheism, there is more than one divine will, which can be at odds (as in ancient Greek religion). Soft polytheism is compatible with — is really just a less enlightened form of — polynominalism (one G1d with many names), while hard polytheism is incompatible with monotheism. As I understand it, Jewish law forbids hard polytheism to everyone, and forbids soft polytheism (but not polynominalism) to us Jews.

Most neopagan communities use the language of soft polytheism (what the people in them actually believe is harder to generalize about). By calling myself a neopagan Jew, I'm mainly indicating that I don't feel that being Jewish means that I am forbidden to participate in such a community on that account. I'm allowed to dance with and even to honor the many — what I'm not allowed to do is serve the many (which doesn't even make any sense, since there is only one divine will) or lose sight of the One — that's what I feel I'm affirming in the Shema. If I'm in some particular neopagan community on an ongoing basis, I do make a point of mentioning that I believe, and am obliged to point out, that G1d is One. All this mostly hasn't come up lately because I haven't found (and am too busy being Jewish to seek out) a neopagan community in the Boston area.

5. Magic. I'm still not sure if I believe in magic (*locked entry), or how I would define it, but "magic" — defined somehow — is definitely a neopagan value. Dion Fortune called magic "the art of changing consciousness at will". J.R.R. Tolkien, in "On Fairy Stories", defines a distinction between "magic" and "enchantment", and, in those terms, my practice is much more about enchantment than magic.

I remember reading recently that one of the big Jewish truths is that G!d is not a god who can be invoked or compelled through ritual. I believe this. I also used to participate in pagan rituals where "deities" were "invoked". Actually, I like the word "invoke", but I don't believe any deities were compelled to appear — I believe that the Presence which, being everywhere, was already there, was politely invited to be manifest in a particular aspect — compare "boi challah", or "b'shem Hashem... v'al roshi, Shechinat El". We ask nicely. And, of course, what is really happening is that we are inviting ourselves to open up to the divine Presence on a particular channel, corresponding to the "aspect" that we "invoke".

I think this covers most of the major, distinctively neopagan ideas I have floating around. Of course there are the collected myths, songs, rituals... but the theological content is all here. Does this answer your questions?

[cleverthylacine]

I need to think about this a lot.