God Comes to Dinner

AUTHOR:Grey Lindley | DATE: 13 Sep, 2009 | CATEGORY:New ThoughtThe Beautiful Cosmos

Part I: Dinner

No one can remember how it happened, but somehow someone got hold of God's phone number. Then someone had the bright idea of inviting him round...

So God came to dinner.

Guest list:

Albert Einstein
Watson and Crick
Galileo
Ricky Gervais
Barack Obama
St Augustine
Socrates
Shankara
Bill Gates
Ken Wilber
Eddie Izzard
That french woman who got burned
The Beatles
Pamela Anderson
Winston Churchill
Confucius
Terrance McKenna
The Pope

He really was an impressive sight, all biblical in proportions - 11ft tall with an absolutely huge toga and giant white flowing beard. He intitally spoke in a huge booming voice saying things like "How art thou", stepping on things and quickly knocked over a very important Ming vase. After he'd found his bearings, settled down and started talking up to date English.

It was a lovely meal and after desert and wine, with many of the guest relaxing on sofas, God lit up a cigar and kicked back.

Seeing this, Ringo Starr popped a question he'd been wondering about - [Liverpool accent, please] "So...Mr God, what's going on here, like? I mean, why did you make the Universe and everything, you know?"

"Well" said God leaning forward, clearly taking a shine to Ringo, "It was an accident really. Never actually meant it to happen. We were making something, you see, and there was a huge explosion - knocked me for six I can tell you - and there it was. Kind of ran away on us so we just left it to do it's thing, you know. Definitely not one of the deliberate ones we made. I mean, doesn't mean anything or anything."

"We're working on a whole new model right at the moment, actually. Got big plans this time. We're going to make a completely different Universe with a solid purpose, you know, a bit of chutzpah!" said God slapping his leg with a chuckle.

"Personally I find this one a bit annoying." God sat back, took a puff on his cigar and frowned. "It's the cosmic radiation you see - plays havoc with my sinuses."

< long stunned silence >

"Er.." said Winston Churchill interjecting,"...sir, would I be incorrect in my understanding - you are indeed saying the origin of everything - of all creation - was in all truth an accident?"

"Yes, yes, yes indeed an accident" God boomed and wheezed. Then turning to Alicia Silverstone and St Augustine squeezed in to his right, he chuckled warmly "Why do you think it's so full of holes!"

"Mamma mia" said Galileo and Pope simultaneously.

Pamela Anderson started thinking out loud - clearly quite distressed and on the verge of tears"...but surely it does mean something - I mean - you...your... your God"

" Well..." said God sitting up a bit, obviously trying to summon some diplomatic tact "I mean, it doesn't seemed to have worked out too badly. That Tiramisu, as a case in point, was excellent."



MEANWHILE:
Unbeknownst to our dinner guests that very same night, a huge experiment that had been running for a decade by a global consortium of scientists finally came to a close - and the results? They conclusively and irrevocably proved that there was never and could never have been a God and the entirety of creation doesn't mean anything.

So the next day the news headlines and TV networks went mad, the world stopped as scientist, theologians and pretty much everybody else went at it arguing about the man who came to dinner - was he or wasn't he God, and anyway if he doesn't exist, or if he did exist and was telling the truth, the science proves it - The entire universe and the history of creation as we know it is just a random fluke.

Once the hype dies down and it all sinks in, it's a stunning development. Everything - the entire history of creation itself and all it contains and has ever contained - is one giant fluke and doesn't mean anything.

So now what?


Part II: Everything is Beautiful (Me Going on a Rant and Being All Serious About Part I)

Part II: Everything is Beautiful
(Me Going on a Rant and Being All Serious About Part I)

"The more the universe seems comprehensible the more it also seems pointless."
-Steven Weinberg

This famous quote by American physicist Steven Weinberg seems to exemplify the current viewpoint of science in general. Part of the reason for Part I of this article (besides a bit of fun) is to try and get into the mindset of many people of those who base their philosophical outlook on the reductionism of scientific practice as it currently stands. To get into the mindset that the origin of the Universe is a meaningless and purposeless accidental fluke and the entire process of it's evolution is also meaningless and empty of purpose.

The more we've discovered about the Universe, the more we have also revealed more and more of its exquisite Beauty. At this point we have learned that we live in one stunningly beautiful galaxy, full of a myriad of amazing cosmic wonders, space energy life and evolution. It is one of what seems to be 100's of billions of galaxies all brimming with the life of 100's of billions of stars many of which probably (i.e. mathematically probably) harbor life. In our own solar system the awesome majesty our star and and the other planets nearby. Not to mention he 4.5 billion years history of Life on Earth with all it's remarkable diversity. I'm sure I don't even have to tell you.

I find it difficult to understand how a person who has seen the majesty, glory and stunning awe inspiring grandeur of say - the Hubble Deep field photo - or the Andromeda galaxy - can in all seriousness say that it doesn't mean anything or is pointless. How does someone with a beating heart do that? I know in my gut that when I hear someone - in all seriousness - state something like this, that they are incorrect, as do, I suspect, many other people. I don't think I would be able to hold my own, with anything that could officially be called science, against many of what are probably quite sensible and well researched arguments supporting these viewpoints. At the same time I don't believe this is a position we need to maintain, and I want to make an argument for the attribution of meaning and purpose in the nature of creation in a way that I hope we may all find useful.

Whilst I have gut feelings about the "wrongness" about above said dry statements - one thing that I personally have absolutely no doubt about whatsoever is that: Whatever is going on here, it is profoundly, indescribably, awe-inspiringly, unspeakably, breathtakingly, inconceivably, mind-bogglingly exquisitely and utterly Beautiful.

That's a fact.

Quite simply said - in a way that could be quite dangerously postmodern of me (though I like to think it's very much Post-post-modern of me) - I've decided that this Beauty is meaningful. It's very very meaningful - it's so meaningful that it's worth attributing purpose to the Universe itself, it's development, it's Beauty.

There's something profoundly simple and pure about the perception of Beauty - it's the love of Beauty because it's Beautiful and that's it. It cannot be accessed via any ulterior motive. Simultaneously it's accessible to the religious and non-religious alike. It's everywhere, clearly perceivable to the eye of the beholder - no discussion, dogma, international consortiums, institutions or education required. It's incorruptible, unsulliable and always...Beautiful. It seems on reflection, a culture oriented around love of Beauty seems could authentically and naturally lean towards ecological, ethical and moral world views that hold an intrinsic value for all living beings, cultures and entities of any type.

Obviously, as much as I consider it a fact, it's not a scientific fact. Science seemingly has no actual official capacity to acknowledge this - let alone attribute any signifigant value to it, so just ignores it. That's quite understandable in the process of science. However, problematically, it seems the reductionist materialistic nature of science tends to breed men and women who subsequently don't acknowledge or qualify their interior/emotional experience as valid or relevant responses worthy of interpretation and or deeper discussion.

I suspect there are twofold reasons for this: I think the main reason for that is that the context here is that all meaning and purpose in life the universe and everything has always been attributed to the existence of God in one form or another - not necessarily the silly Western versions of God (as per my Part I) but also eastern definitions which seem much more appealing in the more developed forms of these arguments (e.g. Fritjof Capra kind of stuff). All this is associated with the great spiritual traditionalism that science rejected in the Renaissance in the first place. So, as continuation of the values war between Stages 4 & 5 [LINKS] when many of us hear talk of meaning we just reject it as "unscientific" and "religious nonsense" etc and, it seems, automatically devaluate our own interiority as irrelevant, as per above.

Simultaneously, we have not ascribed ourselves the moral, intellectual and/or emotional/spritual authority to ascribe meaning and purpose to the nature of things. We are told by spiritual teachers and the religious teachings of the great traditions to find meaning and purpose by finding God, looking back, looking within.

I'm not intending to reject these approaches here, but simply suggest a different one (that works regardless). Whether you believe there is some absolute divine impulse in creation or not - it's clearly not hanging around and providing directives, memos or manuals. That means we are going to have to make our own decisions about what is going on here and what's important.

So to repeat - I've just gone ahead and decided that Beauty is meaningful. I've decided that whether it was ever intended to be or not, the Universe is full of it's own magical, mysterious, wonderful Beauty and truly awesome amazingness that makes it profoundly meaningful. Officially.

You're actually allowed to do that.