Angels

I raised the issue of angels in Talk to Me about Life, the title of which is an obscure reference to Douglas Adams (via Marvin, the paranoid android).  Douglas Adams is also known as the originator of puddle theory.  You are all very welcome.

I did a bit of research while putting that article together because, as a non-theist, I am not that familiar with christian thinking vis-à-vis angels.  What I discovered could be described as a "confusing", which is a euphemism, papering over of what appear to be inconsistencies in the bible.  Who would have guessed?

Much like Eve's apple, the possible first appearance of an angel, namely Satan, in the garden of Eden isn't quite what it appears.  Genesis only talks of a serpent, a serpent which, up until that point, didn't crawl about on its belly, and could talk.  The talking bit indicates that perhaps we aren't talking about a simple snake, but the punishment dished out by god doesn't make sense if it's something more.  While it's certainly possible for christian theists to regard the Genesis story as allegorical and thus not literally true, those who do think that Genesis is literally true seem to be united in thinking that either the serpent was Satan in disguise or it was being controlled by Satan.

When the angels were created is a little unclear, but some say it was on Day 4, meaning that they preceded humanity by a couple of days.  However, there are some that argue that angels would have been created "in the beginning", but "in the beginning" the Earth was created, along with the heavens - and the "Sons of God" were apparently already worshipping god when the foundations of the Earth were being laid down.  This would imply that the angels were created before the beginning.  But again, this is all based on taking the bible quite literally.

Personally, I think that christian theists have an issue as soon as they move away from their Genesis story because they move away from the Fall, which is the crucial to their beliefs.  With no fall, there is no original sin, no deliberate turning away from god, from which we need to be saved by the crucifixion of their christ.

But let's assume, for the purposes of the non-literalists, that there was some sort of flaw that we, as a species, introduced into god's carefully created universe, which is merely allegorically referred to in Genesis and which could be redeemed by the orchestrated and temporary death of Jesus.

Angels are still key to the story.  Mary was advised of her pregnancy by an archangel.  Matthew and Luke both refer explicitly to angels (as does Mark, but in what appears to be a later amendment to his gospel, written from the perspective of an omniscient narrator more suited to fiction than fact).  John doesn't, but his gospel is in a different category anyway, due to its inconsistency with the synoptic gospels.

Perhaps we could ditch the angels by ditching the synoptic gospels, leaving us with only John's testimony for the resurrection of Jesus.  This does seem a little like cherry-picking though, and if we buy into this, then we should also buy into a number of major miracles that aren’t described in the other gospels (raising of Lazarus, turning water into wine, appearing in a locked room with the stigmata to show to Thomas, etc).  And if we buy into John gospels, then we might need to buy into the Book of Revelation as well (just in case John the Apostle and John the Revelator were the same person).

I've always been mildly curious about where angels fit into the scheme of things in christian thinking.  When was this "war in heaven" which led to Satan being expelled along with a band of lesser angels?  Where is it described?  If it was prior to the creation of humans, why was Satan left lurking about in Eden (or wherever)?  Perhaps they rebelled in the 130 years or so prior to Adam and Eve being expelled from Eden, but there's no mention of the events - events that you would think were quite newsworthy - in Genesis.  Although, there were naughty angels around prior to the Great Flood, procreating with humans and causing trouble and this is recorded in Genesis - so it's almost like the upheaval took place before Adam and Eve.  Would that put it on Day 5, the day after some think angels were created?  Or perhaps early on Day 6, in the morning?

However, if you want to read about the war in heaven, you have to wait until the last book of the bible, the Book of Revelation.  The problem is that this war happens after the four horsemen of the apocalypse are loosed on the world.  Which hasn't happened.  Which indicates that Satan hasn't rebelled yet and hasn't been thrown down yet.

As I mentioned before … it's confusing.

My understanding after discussing this topic with someone who has experience inside the christian church is that various christians focus on different things and not many think deeply about the ramification of angel mythology on their faith.  Some pretty much ignore the whole thing, not focusing on the supernatural at all (up to and including an expectation that prayer isn't likely to work, but should be indulged in anyway because it has been requested of the faithful).

So, while it's entirely possible that I have been overthinking angels, especially as a non-theist, I live in hope that by doing so I am raising the average amount of thinking being done on the topic to make up for the apparent total lack of thinking being done by those who actually do believe in angels.

Talk to Me about Life

Let's imagine that there is a god.  Let's imagine it’s a specific sort of god -  a male god who has western values and a number of superpowers.  And let's imagine that this god wanted to make intelligent life.  We're not alone in this, by the way, plenty of people imagine this on a pretty much continuous basis.

Now, when these people do all this imagining, they tend to not focus on this particular aspect - the claim that god wanted to create intelligent life.  I am of course talking about the fine-tuning argument in which it is suggested that the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life.  (Apologists go on and on about this argument, but the rank and file … not so much.)

So, what exactly is going on here?  The implication is that this god didn't have in mind the idea of making a universe so much as it had a specific goal of generating intelligent life and the method chosen just happens to have involved the creation and fine-tuning of a universe to host this intelligent life.

This leads me to ask: did this god need to create and fine-tune a universe to host intelligent life?

The short answer appears to be no.  Firstly, let's look at angels.  Angels are a bit confusing, especially to an outsider who hasn't been told what to think on a weekly basis.  There are indications in Genesis that, before the flood, angels and humans not only interacted, but they interbred … these were, however, fallen (or at least very naughty) angels.  There are mentions of the court of heaven which has a host of angels.  And there are Gabriel and Michael, who appear a few times.

Are angels the natural consequence of a universe which was sparked by god 13.7 billion years ago and left to slowly incubate the human species?  It would appear not, since the "proper abode" for angels is supposed to be heaven, which is where god apparently abides and is therefore another realm (thus being a time-LESS, space-LESS abode).

Given the very early and apparently knowledgeable appearance of Satan (or his representative) in the bible's creation story, a pivotal story that sets the scene for the key act of christianity, one could say the crux, we would have to presume that angels existed prior to or at least separately to humans.  (I'm aware that this doesn't gel with the fine-tuning argument which relies on things being "just right" at the big bang and everything evolving naturally from there with humans as the ultimate product - just overlook that for the moment and stick with me.  I'm also aware that there's some uncertainty as to what the serpent actually was.  The story specifically has a crafty serpent doing the dirty work, but there is an on-going theme of Satan being a snake and/or dragon.  But perhaps it's like the apple - people think that Eve ate an apple, but there's no mention of apples, it's a "fruit of the Tree of Knowledge".  Maybe it was an actual talking snake and it's merely a common misconception that the talking snake was Satan in another guise.  If so, it's unclear why we are being made to suffer because god messed up when creating talking snakes.)

If Satan was the being that tempted Eve, then it would appear that god does have a method for creating intelligence without the need to host that intelligence in a universe … unless god didn't create the angels and the angels appeared from nowhere along with god (or are co-eternal).  I don't think that this works since it seriously detracts from the specialness of god.  It would make all the angels "mini-gods", if not actual gods.  (If the serpent in the creation story was just another animal, then we've got the problem of hosting intelligence [more intelligence than Eve had, it would seem] in the skull of a snake.  It implies that intelligence can be hosted on a much less sophisticated substrate than the human brain, which raises the question … why go to the bother of creating the human when you can host intelligence on a reptile brain?)

Perhaps we can get around this mini-god issue by denying that angels exist.  Well, of course I have no issue with that, but I think it causes some issues for at least the christian theist.  Without the Fall, there is no origin of sin (unless it originates directly in god) and there is no need for the redemption that was provided by the crucifixion of the christ.  And without the serpent form of Satan and its corruption of Eve, there would have been no Fall.  (This is a problem with the fine-tuning argument as it pertains to christianity, because the Genesis story becomes entirely allegorical, there is no Adam and Eve, there is no talking snake and there is no Fall.  Therefore, there is no need for Jesus on a Stick.  And that is why people like William Lane Craig like to compartmentalise their arguments.  You basically have to forget the fine-tuning argument while you are contemplating the resurrection argument.)

And then, let's consider our post-death reward.  Well, I've already pointed out the issue really.  It's post-death.  The natural consequences of being in a universe which is fine-tuned for intelligent life, which includes the eventual deterioration and death of each living thing, will inevitably result in the death of each of us - and by that I mean you.  Yes, you!  You will die.  (I will die too, so please don't misconstrue this as a threat.)

So we die and, despite this - and because he, in the form of his own son, died in a moderately painful way in restitution for the failure of a mythical woman to avoid being corrupted by words of a mythical snake (which may or may not have been a mythical fallen angel) - god will apparently recreate us in some new or reconstituted form so that we can live forever.  Which means that he could have just made us in that form from the start without having to faff around with 13.7 billion years of universal evolution.  He chose not to, apparently, but he could have.

This seems to indicate that the universe itself is somehow important.  It's not just the necessary means to an end, since the end could be achieved by completely different means.

And this brings me to the germ from which this article sprang.  It's to be found in another couple of sentences from Max Andrews:

Without stars we don’t get the full range of heavy and light elements needed for complex molecular life. Without the complex molecular life formed by stars then there’s no life. That’s just a simple fact.

These statements are based on the argument that the weak force coupling constant must be just so or stars won't form and/or burn "properly".  So therefore, god set the weak force coupling constant just perfectly so that everything needed for (intelligent) life would eventually exist in this universe.

But this is pure bullshit.  The theist's argument doesn't stop there.  They go on to claim that this creator god is so fascinated with humans that there is this resurrection thing on offer and this claim works in direct opposition to the claim that the universe needs to be just so for life to exist.  No.  The universe needs to be just so for life (of the sort that we are aware) to exist, if and only if there is no god.

If a god exists, then it can magic up whatever it wants ex nihilo without the need to bugger around with the making of a vastly complicated, apparently totally natural universe like our own.

Just maybe, a creator god would make a vastly complicated, apparently totally natural universe in order to hide from us the fact that there is a creator god.  But if this were the case, then we should do our best to respect its wishes and pretend (or acknowledge) that it doesn't exist.

If there is some other reason for a god to be hiding behind this complexity (while also protesting it does actually exist via a deeply flawed book and a set of deeply flawed institutions devoted to celebrating that book), then I think it is the responsibility of the theist to explain what that reason might be.

Perhaps Max Andrews could devote some time to that rather than misrepresenting modern theoretical physics?