Joining The Dots - Day 3

So what we'll be looking at then is understanding the nature of reality. We were looking at a bit of Greek philosophy, particularly Pythagoras, and I showed you this diagram, this chart, this table of opposites which was recorded by a Harris Tottle and attributed to Pythagoras. The whole reductionist enterprise in Western philosophy, indeed in Western culture, can be seen as a conquest of B by a transcendent A. I went through these pairs yesterday and showed how one is trying to dominate the other. I want to go back and unpack this a little bit more because it's going to come up from time to time as we go through the next week or so.

As I said, Ludwig Wittgenstein noted that an entire mythology is stored within our language. This mythology of the table of opposites is actually embedded within our whole language. For example, in that table, we saw that good and evil are woven into the fabric of the universe, which means that good and evil exist. So how does that affect our language? Sometimes people ask, 'Did God create evil?' When people ask that question, they are assuming that evil is a thing, that it actually exists. But good and evil are not things; they are judgments. When God created the world, after every day, He said, 'It is good.' He didn't say, 'I've created good.' He made a judgment that what He had created is good. Good and evil, and their judgments, are evaluations, not things that exist.

When people ask the question, 'Did God create evil?' that is based upon the assumption that good and evil exist as things. Where does that assumption come from? It comes from this Greek philosophy, which is a form of dualism. One form of dualism is the idea that there are good gods and evil gods, and that is one form of Judaism that is rejected in the Divine Principle. This is another kind of dualism: the idea that good and evil actually exist, woven into the fabric of the universe, which means, of course, you cannot get rid of evil. It's always going to be there; it always has been there and always will be there. This is an example of how our language has bewitched us and how our language contains this mythology.

Another point we saw is that the A column imposes order upon chaos. We saw that the A column is trying to eliminate or dominate the B column, where the B column represents chaos. I sent out some readings from Jordan Peterson, who explores and unpacks his whole concept of order and chaos, masculinity and femininity in much more detail than I was able to discuss yesterday. This idea that order is imposed upon chaos, masculinity is imposed upon femininity, leads to a patriarchal society and the devaluing of the feminine. It also leads to authoritarianism. If order has to be imposed upon chaos, that means you have to have a planned society; someone needs to come up with a plan. Without a plan, in an unregulated economy, there will just be chaos.

This basic assumption about the nature of reality is that without order being imposed, there is just chaos. I will look at that in more detail as we go along and unpack it because I disagree with it. This emphasis on oneness can easily lead to the idea that we have to be united, which can quickly become uniformity. Everything needs to be the same, getting rid of difference and plurality. We end up with one currency, one law, one way of life. Anyone who tries to be different gets oppressed or persecuted. I mentioned yesterday the moral layer in our language. Positive and negative are not just neutral descriptions; they also have a moral charge. Positive is good, negative is bad. Left is bad, right is good.

Another example is the distinction between curved or crooked and straight. We often say someone is a crooked person, meaning they are bad. When we talk about someone being straight, it means they have been honest and straightforward. Our whole language, as Wittgenstein said, contains and expresses a particular kind of mythology. Often, we are unaware of this; we do not recognise it. Because people do not recognise it, they become stuck in this paradigm. At the end of yesterday, we looked at feminism. Feminists have begun to engage with this for a long time, attacking the patriarchy and blaming the Bible. However, in the last few years, some feminist philosophers have been unpacking the implications of Pythagoras's table of opposites.

One feminist suggested that we accept this table of opposites but switch good and evil, so that good becomes associated with the feminine side and evil with the masculine side. Even when people try to critique it, they remain stuck within this basic paradigm and cannot escape it because our whole language and conceptual framework are based upon this kind of paradigm. This theme runs throughout European philosophy, and Marxism itself is one of the heirs to this way of thinking. Marx talked about dialectical materialism, and he was a much more subtle thinker than Engels, who claimed that everything is in opposition to everything else, with a relationship between two things that exclude each other. They are not connected.

Just like Pythagoras said, there is a table of opposites; they are not complementary but in a state of opposition to each other. This is all from Marxist philosophy, where opposition is exemplified in the relationship between parents and children. This is an opposite relationship, whether they are in conflict or not. They are defined as opposites. The same goes for the working class and the capitalist class, and the relationship is often much more conflictual. Economic production and consumption also reflect this. Everything is in contradiction to opposite sides that struggle and interfere with each other. Unity and the struggle of opposites is all part of the language and conceptual framework that Pythagoras drew broadly, which has permeated European history, culture, and philosophy, and was given a new expression in the nineteenth century.

Within these opposites, there is usually one that is dominant and has greater influence or power. For example, in the parent-child relationship, when children are young, parents dominate. This is a particular conceptualization of the relationship within the family in terms of one dominating the other. The capitalist class dominates the working class, attraction dominates repulsion, and the nucleus of an atom reflects this kind of thinking. This framework for analysing society has very deep roots in Greek philosophy. When we drag these ideas into the modern world, we hear people talking about two classes: the oppressed and the oppressor, the poor and the rich, black and white, female and male, LGBTQ+ and straight, socialist and capitalist, internationalism and patriotism, public and private. One side is good, and the other side is bad. It's oversimplified, but that's basically the categories in which people analyse what's going on in the world today. Pythagoras's ideas have been brought into the 21st century as a sort of updated version of Marxism, where one is an opposite to the other, one is oppressed by the other, and one side is seen as better and needs to eliminate the other. This is the language of our current discourse on identity politics and gender politics today.

As I said the day before yesterday, what we're trying to do here is a bit of philosophy. Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. What we're trying to do is deconstruct or unpack the basis of European culture and society and clarify what is going on. I'm not trying to teach a doctrine; philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. That's what we're trying to do in these few days, maybe weeks, and see how we get on. We're trying to do some philosophy, clarify what's going on, and clarify the ideas within our society. As Wittgenstein said, philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. In many ways, our language embodies and expresses a particular myth, which leads to a lot of confusion. As Wittgenstein noted, most philosophical problems are problems of language that do not really exist. When people ask for forgiveness, like, 'What are you trying to do?' he said, 'I'm trying to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle.' That's how I think about what I'm trying to do myself: finding a way out of this situation that people in Europe and America are stuck in, which I would say is a false paradigm of the way that reality is. I'm trying to escape from this false paradigm into a different kind of way of thinking.

As I mentioned, many of these problems are artifacts of language. If you look at English, for example, you can say, 'This is a house,' and 'That is the house.' It's very useful to distinguish between 'a house' and 'the house.' That's an artifact of the English language. Many languages do not have this distinction; they cannot differentiate between 'a house' and 'the house.' It's just 'that is house.' We can say, 'That is Messiah,' but in English, you can say, 'That is a Messiah,' or 'That is the Messiah.' When you put the word 'the' there, it gives a special kind of emphasis to it, but again, that's just an artifact of the English language. In that sense, if you speak English or any language, we encounter all kinds of philosophical problems that are entirely artifacts of the particular language in which we speak and think.

Now, let's look at another philosopher: Plato. He was an Athenian philosopher who lived in Athens during the Classical period in ancient Greece, about four hundred years before the birth of Christ. He is a pivotal figure in the history of ancient Greek and Western philosophy. He is an incredibly important figure and one of the founders of Western religion and spirituality. His philosophical ideas and conception of the nature of reality fed into Christian theology and greatly influenced figures like St. Augustine. St. Augustine was the most significant of the early church fathers in the Western Church and had a huge impact on Western Christianity, although he had a different kind of impact in Eastern Orthodoxy. Alfred North Whitehead, an English philosopher and mathematician at the beginning of the 20th century, said that the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. This has generally been accepted. If you study philosophy at university, it is almost inevitable that you study Plato. Basically, everybody is reacting and responding to Plato and his ideas.

The second most important philosopher is probably Aristotle, who was Plato's pupil and responded to Plato, his teacher. I would say Aristotle is a better philosopher but is much less studied than Plato. Another important thing to note is that Plato is considered the father of totalitarianism. This is not just my opinion; it is generally accepted. His political philosophy laid the basis for totalitarianism, which we experienced in the 20th century and still experience today. This includes not only totalitarianism in terms of fascism and communism but also Christian totalitarianism. St. Augustine, who was very much influenced by Plato, formulated his theology in Platonic terms. He justified the use of the Roman state to persecute heretics and to force heretics to conform to the Orthodox Christian view that he believed they should adhere to. Thus, St. Augustine can be seen as a father of Christian totalitarianism, which permeated Western Europe and many Christian countries, particularly regarding the idea of heresy. We will come back to this later.

Let's have a look at Plato's philosophy, specifically his theory called Platonic realism. He sought to make sense of the physical world in which we live and the nature of reality. Plato posited that there are things called universals or abstract objects that exist objectively and outside the human mind. What is an abstract object? Something like tennis is an abstract object; there is a game of tennis.

Tennis is a concrete object that represents a particular game, but it is also abstract. Justice, for example, is an abstract concept; you can have a just action or deed, but justice itself exists as an abstract idea. These are universals, like justice and beauty, which raises the question of where these universals live or exist. Do they only exist inside our heads, or do they have some kind of independent existence outside human minds? Plato argued that these universals or abstract objects exist objectively outside human minds in what could be described as a Platonic world, a realm of Platonic forms. Justice and beauty are examples of these Platonic forms.

To illustrate Platonic forms, we can contrast a material triangle with an ideal triangle. The Platonic form is an ideal triangle, a figure with perfectly drawn lines whose angles add up to exactly 180 degrees. However, any triangle we experience in the real world will be an imperfect representation of this ideal triangle. This means that everything in our physical world is inherently imperfect. Only perfect things exist in the Platonic world, where the ideal form of a triangle resides. Regardless of how precise our measuring and drawing tools are, we will never be able to recreate this perfect shape. Even if drawn to the point where our senses cannot perceive a defect, the shape will still be imperfect compared to the ideal triangle. In English, it is generally understood that there is no such thing as a perfect painting or a perfect person; it is impossible for anything to be perfect in this world because it is inherently imperfect.

Plato's forms included geometrical figures such as triangles and numbers, as well as the forms of the good, beauty, and truth. The form of the good is the highest form, and it produces both light and its source in the visible realm. In the intelligible realm, it controls and provides truth and understanding. Anyone who is able to perceive this form, whether in private or public, must see it. This idea suggests that there is one perfect form of the good, indicating that there is only one right way of life. This leads to a sort of absolutism, where there is only one correct way of living. In the allegory of the cave, one person is able to discover these forms and bring them back to others who are less aware.

Plato's theory of forms can be applied to the state as to any other product of human activity. Just as all tables have a certain form that makes them tables and not chairs or desks, there must be a form of political life. Existing cities, like existing tables, are copies, more or less imperfect, of the ideal city. The ideal city has a real existence, not merely a nominal one; it exists in a non-corporeal realm, perhaps in a heavenly form. In this ideal city, there are no political problems; everything is unchanging and eternal. This idea connects back to Pythagoras, suggesting that there is one ideal to which everything should conform.

In his book, The Republic, Plato described this ideal state. He likened himself to a person who was chained up, only seeing shadows, but who was able to escape and see what reality truly is. He understood how things really were and how they ought to be. Plato described the ideal state as one ruled by philosopher-kings, who are intellectuals capable of perceiving these ideal forms. They return to share their knowledge and govern society according to rational principles. Under the philosopher-kings are soldiers, whose job is to defend the state and maintain the status quo, ensuring that the ideal remains unchanged. At the bottom of this hierarchy are the workers, who produce the necessities for the state. This pyramid structure resembles the caste system in India, where individuals are assigned roles based on their status.

Plato's idealism asserts the reality of non-physical ideas to explain the status of norms, reducing all other reality to mere imitation of these forms. This leads to a form of realism, where these abstract ideas exist outside a person's mind. Enlightenment philosophers were influenced by this and sought to create ideal forms of government based on abstract rational principles. Many of these philosophers saw themselves as philosopher-kings, attempting to design an ideal society. For example, Hobbes wanted to base his ideas on geometrical axioms, believing that just as in mathematics, there is only one correct way of doing things. This notion permeates modern culture, where it is often believed that every society should conform to a Western model of human rights and democracy.

This belief has led to actions such as the invasion of Iraq, motivated by the idea that there is only one ideal way to govern. Intellectuals, like Plato, often believe they should govern society because they think they know better than others. This can lead to an anti-democratic sentiment, as intellectuals may view the uneducated masses as unfit to vote. The discussion around who should make decisions—scientists or politicians—reflects this tension. In hierarchical societies, individuals are rewarded according to their status, which reinforces the existing power structures. Plato's vision places intellectuals at the top and the less educated at the bottom, creating a society where knowledge and conformity to the highest values are paramount.

Plato, as quoted by Karl Popper, an Austrian philosopher of science and political science, articulated profound insights in his works during the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. Popper analysed Plato's ideas to understand the emergence of fascism and communism. He noted that Plato's greatest principle is that no one, whether male or female, should be without a leader. According to Plato, individuals should not act on their own initiative, whether out of zeal or playfulness, but should always direct their gaze towards their leader and follow them faithfully. This principle extends to even the smallest matters, where individuals should only act if instructed. The implication is that people should be conditioned to never act independently, rendering them incapable of doing so. Thus, the only individuals deemed capable of knowing the right course of action are the philosopher-kings, who possess the wisdom to guide the less knowledgeable.

This notion leads to the suppression of free thought, criticism of political institutions, and the introduction of new ideas, all of which were considered capital crimes. Those who challenged the status quo faced severe consequences, including death. Throughout history, many societies have exhibited this mindset, particularly in 20th-century Europe. Popper's analysis also extends to Hegel and Marx, highlighting how Plato's ideas justified social hierarchies, akin to the caste system in India. Plato created a myth to persuade people to accept a structured social order, where individuals were conditioned to believe that their societal roles were predetermined.

In his dialogues, Plato presents Socrates as advocating for a 'noble lie' to promote allegiance to the state and enforce its hierarchical structure. According to this myth, those destined to be rulers possess gold in their souls, while auxiliaries, or soldiers, have silver, and producers or workers have iron. This classification reinforces a rigid social order, where individuals marry within their social class and are born into predetermined roles, reminiscent of the Indian caste system. Furthermore, this ideology has roots in racial theories that suggest some races are superior to others, influencing European thought and culture, especially through eugenics in the 20th century.

During the feudal period in medieval Europe, Plato's ideas were employed to justify the social hierarchy. At the bottom were peasants and serfs, who, although not slaves, were tied to the land and worked to produce food. Above them were knights and vassals, who had the obligation to protect the peasants while paying homage to the lords. The king, often ruling by divine right, was seen as appointed by God, possessing absolute authority. This structure demanded obedience from all levels of society, creating a pyramid-like hierarchy similar to that of ancient Egypt, where the pharaoh was viewed as both king and god.

Socrates, a pivotal figure in Greek philosophy, shifted the focus from the nature of reality to ethics and the pursuit of a good life. He famously questioned the Oracle of Delphi, which proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. Socrates, however, humbly acknowledged his ignorance and embarked on a quest to ask others about justice, beauty, and goodness. His method involved persistent questioning, akin to a child asking 'why' repeatedly, seeking to uncover deeper truths. This relentless inquiry led him to challenge the established norms and beliefs of his time, garnering both admiration and animosity.

Ultimately, Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth through his questioning and was sentenced to death. He was not executed in a traditional sense but was required to drink poison. Before his death, he gathered his friends, who urged him to escape, but he refused. Socrates believed that the laws of the state should be honoured above all else, even more than one's parents. He argued that the state must be revered and obeyed, equating disobedience to immorality. This perspective on the state as a sacred entity continued to influence philosophical thought, notably in the works of Hegel, who viewed the state as the manifestation of God in the world.

Hegel posited that the state represents a higher moral authority, transcending individual interests. He suggested that the state is a divine presence working to improve the world, and thus, citizens should venerate it as a secular deity. This idea persisted into English philosophy, where thinkers like Burton expressed that the state is not merely a collection of individuals but a conceptual force that shapes life. In this view, the state becomes the source of identity, authority, and law, often leading to ethical dilemmas where political expediency overrides moral considerations. The state's authority to create and alter laws raises significant questions about the relationship between ethics and politics.

As we transition to a biblical perspective, we note a stark contrast to the Greek approach. In the biblical view, human beings are seen as creations of God, endowed with free will and individual value. Unlike the Greek myths, which depict humans as mere playthings of the gods, the biblical narrative affirms that humans belong to God, not to the state or other individuals. This understanding of identity is rooted in the belief that each person is a unique child of God, possessing inherent dignity and worth. The biblical conception emphasises that our identity is derived from our relationship with God, rather than our status as citizens of a state. This perspective also highlights the importance of free will, suggesting that individuals are not bound by fate but are responsible for their choices and actions.

Socrates believed it was unethical to leave the city-state, as his entire identity and sense of loyalty were tied to being a member of the Athenian State. Consequently, he obeyed the state and drank hemlock, as ordered by the court. In contrast, the biblical tradition does not emphasise obedience in the same way. In a slave society, obedience is the highest virtue, as rulers desire their subjects to comply without question. However, the story of Abraham illustrates a different perspective; God instructed him to leave his homeland, suggesting that it is sometimes better to become a refugee than to remain in a harmful environment.

Similarly, the story of Moses highlights the importance of disobedience for a higher moral purpose. Born in Egypt, a slave society, Moses witnessed the Pharaoh's order to kill Hebrew boys. The midwives, however, chose to disobey the Pharaoh, believing there was a higher moral obligation than obeying unjust laws. Pharaoh's daughter also defied her father's orders by saving Moses. When Moses later killed an Egyptian slave driver, he did not seek punishment but fled into the desert, showcasing a starkly different relationship with the state compared to Socrates. In biblical narratives, politics is derived from ethics, making it justifiable to disobey the state in the name of justice.

This biblical concept of justice influenced the Christian European tradition, particularly evident during the Nuremberg Trials. The Nazis were judged guilty for obeying German law while committing atrocities, claiming they were merely following orders. However, they were held accountable because they failed to follow their conscience and a higher moral law that demanded they reject unjust laws. This tradition underscores the idea that obedience to the state is not always virtuous, especially when the laws are immoral.

Examining the influence of Plato reveals how his ideas were appropriated by totalitarian regimes, including the Nazis. French historian Jean Sébastien noted that the intellectuals of Nazi Germany drew heavily from Plato's philosophy. National Socialist thinkers cited Plato, and Hitler was seen as a charismatic philosopher-king, issuing commands that demanded unquestioning obedience. This Platonic influence extended beyond fascism, as communists also claimed a connection to Plato's ideas. Plato is often regarded as the father of totalitarianism, illustrating the far-reaching impact of his thoughts on European political culture.

Plato's vision for society included radical ideas about family and procreation. In his work 'The Republic', he proposed that sexual intercourse among guardians should occur only during designated festivals, with pairings determined by lot. Children born from these unions would be raised communally, severing ties to their biological parents. This system aimed to create a unified society where loyalty to the state superseded familial bonds, resulting in a homogeneous citizenry. Such ideas were later echoed in communist policies, which sought to abolish the nuclear family in favour of state-controlled communal living.

After the Bolshevik Revolution, the new regime implemented laws that undermined traditional family structures. The 1918 code on marriage and family, drafted by revolutionary jurists, aimed to phase out the nuclear family, viewing it as an unnecessary social arrangement. This led to chaos and social collapse, as the state attempted to take over familial roles. Reports from that time indicated a breakdown of marriage norms, with individuals treating relationships as transient and disposable. The attempt to realise Plato's vision resulted in significant societal problems, demonstrating the impracticality of such radical ideas.

The decline of the family unit has allowed the state to assume greater control over various aspects of life, including education and values. As the state increasingly dictates societal norms, it has replaced the church in determining right and wrong. This shift has led to a situation where individuals must conform to state-imposed values, even when they conflict with personal beliefs. The state's encroachment into family life and individual rights reflects a broader trend towards centralised control, reminiscent of Plato's vision of a society governed by philosopher-kings.

In summary, Plato's ideas have had a profound and often detrimental impact on political thought and societal structures. His vision of a society ruled by intellectuals and devoid of individual rights has been adopted by various totalitarian regimes throughout history. The consequences of these philosophies have been far-reaching, leading to social chaos and the erosion of traditional family values. As we reflect on these historical lessons, it becomes clear that the balance between state authority and individual rights remains a critical issue in contemporary society.

The program of all such consistent socialists, from Plato to Hitler, planned for the production of future socialists through the breeding and education of future members of society. This is essentially what occurs in schools in Britain and many countries today, especially universities. Over the past two thousand three hundred years since Plato, very little opposition has been registered to his ideas. The psychological bias in favour of socialism must be taken into consideration when discussing Marxian ideas. This reality shows that Platonic ideas have hardly been examined critically, except by a few individuals like Karl Popper, who is a dominant philosopher with significant influence on European culture and the main ideas of the fourteen universities today. I studied philosophy at Manchester University, where my first year was primarily focused on an introduction to philosophy, particularly the Republic, which was regarded as the master text.

Now, let's look at an alternative myth. Pope John Paul II stated that the Bible speaks to us of the origin of the universe, not as a scientific treatise but to illustrate the correct relationship of man with God and the universe. Essentially, he suggests that the biblical stories in Genesis are myths, not intended to be taken as proto-science. They are meant to explain our relationship with God and the universe. For instance, the creation story describes how light was created, followed by the appearance of waters, plants, and eventually human beings, Adam and Eve. Interestingly, while this narrative is not scientific, the order of creation aligns with modern scientific understanding, as confirmed by Darwin. Life began in the seas, followed by the emergence of plants, fish, birds, mammals, and finally, humans.

From these first two chapters of Genesis, we learn several spiritual and moral truths. The narrative begins with the assertion that there is one God who creates everything, and everything He creates is good. The word 'good' appears multiple times in this passage, emphasising that God is good and that everything He creates has a purpose. This contrasts sharply with the Greek tradition of polytheism, where multiple gods exist. The biblical account asserts that human beings are created in the image of God, which signifies that every individual is a child of God. This notion is revolutionary compared to the ancient world, where only kings or pharaohs were considered to be in the image of God. The Bible teaches that every human being, as a son or daughter of God, possesses unique value and should be treated with respect.

This understanding leads to the conclusion that no human being can own another, as every person belongs to God. Consequently, slavery is rendered impossible within this biblical framework. The state cannot claim ownership over individuals, nor can it dictate moral truths. Additionally, the biblical narrative conveys that God cares about humanity, a sentiment absent in Greek myths. The creation of human beings in God's image also establishes the equality of masculinity and femininity, which is a stark contrast to the Greek view that often depicted women as inferior. The biblical perspective asserts that both genders have equal value and should be respected equally.

Furthermore, the Ten Commandments instruct us to honour our father and mother, which was a radical idea in a patriarchal society where men had absolute authority over their families. In the biblical view, both parents have equal authority, and a husband cannot mistreat his wife, as she is also a daughter of God. This principle extends to children, who are not owned by their parents but are entrusted to them by God. The narrative encourages us to care for the world and act as stewards of the environment, rather than exploiting it. The idea of linear time is also introduced, contrasting with the cyclical view prevalent in ancient cultures, where time was seen as an endless repetition of seasons and generations.

In the biblical account, God grants Adam and Eve free will, allowing them to make choices. They could choose to eat from any tree in the garden except for one. This notion of free will and responsibility is fundamentally different from the deterministic views found in Greek mythology. The consequences of their choice led to a fall, resulting in dysfunction and corruption in their relationships. This narrative teaches that evil is a mistake, not an inherent part of the universe. If evil is a mistake, then it is possible to restore goodness and change the world. These lessons are embedded in the creation story, which contains profound truths about human nature and our relationship with the Divine.

The Divine Principle is encapsulated in the first two chapters of Genesis, conveying essential truths through a layered narrative. The concept of time is also significant; while ancient cultures viewed time as cyclical, the biblical perspective introduces a linear understanding of time. This shift implies that the future can be different from the past, allowing for change and progress. The way things are today does not have to be the way they will always be. This idea fosters a sense of social, political, and economic freedom, enabling individuals to make choices and pursue their desired paths in life. In a cyclical view of time, social mobility is limited, but the biblical perspective encourages a society where individuals can strive for change and improvement.

I go along, but I really did make this up anyway, except for this part here: Abraham's search for God. Sometimes we know Abraham believed in God, but the questions are, how did Abraham come to believe in God? You can read little books about this; it's in the Talmud, which is a Jewish commentary on the Torah. You'll also find a similar story in the Quran, but this is my little version of it. Abraham was a little boy, and like all boys, he was really annoying. He got up and really annoyed his parents and grandparents because he kept on saying, 'Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?' His parents were driven absolutely around the bend. One day, he noticed that he existed and wondered, 'Where do I come from?' He thought, 'I don't think I've always existed.' So he went to see his mum and dad and asked, 'Mum and Dad, where did I come from?' They told him, 'Well, actually, you came from us. Mum and Dad, we made love to each other, and then you grew inside Mummy's womb, and then Mummy gave birth to you.'

Abraham thought, 'Wow, you're my gods!' So he started worshipping his parents and would go around bowing down to them every morning. After a while, he asked himself the question, 'Where did my parents come from?' He said to Mum and Dad, 'I've always existed.' They replied, 'No, we haven't always existed; we have parents as well. That's Grandma and Grandpa.' So Abraham stopped worshipping his parents and thought, 'I'd better go next door and worship Grandma and Grandpa.' He began worshipping his grandparents and bowing down in front of them. Then, after a while, he said to his grandma, 'Grandma, you have so many wrinkles; it looks like you've been alive forever.' One thing Abraham didn't have was manners. He pointed out all his grandma's wrinkles and asked, 'Have you always existed?' His grandma said, 'No, we had parents as well.' So Abraham asked, 'Well, where are they? I want to go bow down and worship them because they created you, and you created Mum and Dad, and Mum and Dad created me.' His grandmother said, 'Well, they died; they're buried outside in the cemetery.'

So Abraham went off to the cemetery, tracked down his ancestors, found his great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents, and started bowing down and worshipping his ancestors. Eventually, he realised that everything changes, and there must be some first cause. He worked it out very logically that there must be a first cause, and if configured, this first cause must be the creator of everything. He was like a philosopher, the first cause that started off the universe. He realised there must be an unchanging reality behind this changing world of phenomena. That was Abraham's experience, and he came to this conclusion.

I think to myself, Abraham is the one who came up with these ideas of creation in the world in six days. Abraham himself grew up in what is called Mesopotamia, which is modern-day Iraq, Sumeria, where the very first cities were built. You can read the literature there, and there's various literature like the Gilgamesh epic, which has stories similar to those you find in Genesis. However, the values and meanings transmitted through these stories are different from those in the Bible. I think what happened is that Abraham took these stories from 4,000 years ago, reworked them, and retold them to convey a different understanding of the relationship between God and human beings, and a different understanding of the relationship between human beings and the natural world.

He had a personal encounter, a personal experience with God. The other thing was, as you know, his dad was an idol maker. One day, Terah said to Abraham, 'Look, Abraham, I want you to go to the market to sell some idols because I've got to go to the palace tomorrow.' So Abraham went off, loaded up his minibus with idols, set up the table, put all the idols on the table, and waited for customers. An old lady came along and said to Abraham, 'I want to buy one of your gods.' Abraham asked, 'What happened to the other ones you had?' She replied, 'Somebody broke in and stole them.' Abraham said, 'Well, they weren't very powerful then, were they?' She said, 'No, but you're such a handsome young man; I'm sure your gods are much more powerful.' Abraham, who didn't have many manners, asked, 'How old are you, old woman?' She replied, 'I'm 85 years old.' He said, 'Look, how could you, an 85-year-old woman, bow down to this statue my dad made last month in his workshop? It should bow down to you.' She agreed, 'You're right. So who do you worship?' Abraham said, 'I worship the invisible God who created the heavens and the earth.' She became his first disciple.

Anyway, he went home, rang the doorbell, and when his dad opened the door, he asked, 'How did you get on, Abraham? Did you sell anything?' Abraham said, 'No, I didn't sell anything, Dad.' Terah asked, 'What happened? Were people selling better ones for less?' Abraham replied, 'No, this old woman came up and wanted to buy one, and this is what I said.' Terah thought, 'My God, what a stupid son I've got! No way are you ever going to be a salesman. I'll never let you go to the market again.' A month later, market day came around, and Terah said to Abraham, 'Stay at home and look after the gods in the temple while I'm away.' Abraham went into the temple and approached the largest god, saying, 'Look, I'll be your messenger. Tell me what you want to say, and I'll go around the world with your message.' The big statue said nothing. Abraham thought, 'Well, maybe Mum and Dad didn't give you breakfast this morning.' He went into the kitchen, made a nice English fry-up of bacon, eggs, tomatoes, and mushrooms, and put it in front of the biggest god, saying, 'Eat up, and we'll talk.' The god did nothing.

So Abraham said, 'Okay, I'll leave you here and come back in an hour; we can talk about it then.' An hour later, Abraham returned, and the food was untouched. He went up to the statue and said, 'You're not a god; you have no power, you have no soul, you have no speech, no words; you're just a piece of stone, and all you other ones are just bits of wood.' Abraham went into his father's workshop, took a sledgehammer, and smashed all the small gods. He put the axe in the hands of the largest god and went out. When Terah came home, he had had a great day and went to the temple to offer all his fundraising earnings to the gods. He found they had been destroyed and broken. He said to Abraham, 'What happened? I told you to look after them.' Abraham replied, 'I did exactly what you said, Dad. I went in there this morning, and the biggest one said you hadn't given him breakfast, so I went to the kitchen, made him a nice English fry-up, and left him to eat in peace. When I heard the little gods, all these wooden ones, they said to him, 'Please give us a baked bean each, at least a baked bean; you're so greedy!' The big god, Dad, he's so selfish he wouldn't give them even a baked bean. The big god was so fed up with them that he went into your workshop, got a sledgehammer, and beat them all up. Look, there's the evidence; he's still holding the sledgehammer in his hands.' Terah said, 'What are you talking about? They're just made of stone and wood; they can't speak.' Abraham said, 'Exactly! So why do you worship them?' Terah felt a chill in his heart, got a shock, and decided to go see Nimrod and repent, telling Nimrod about this.

Terah went to see Nimrod, who was a dictator. I'll talk about him in more detail another time. Nimrod said to Terah, 'Bow down in front of me.' Abraham just looked at him. Nimrod said to Abraham, 'Why don't you bow down and worship me? I'm your god.' Abraham replied, 'I only bow down and worship the invisible God who created the heavens and the earth, and He will stand in judgment on you for your wicked deeds.' Nimrod was furious and said to Abraham, 'If you don't bow down and worship me, I'll have you put to death.' Abraham said, 'I do not fear you. God is more real to me than you are. God is more real to me than this palace in which you're living. I don't fear death; if you put me to death, I'll just be with God in the next world.' This made Nimrod even angrier. He ordered Abraham to be thrown into a fiery furnace. When he was thrown into the furnace, the fire went out, and he was released. At that point, Terah decided it was time to move his family from Nimrod.

You can see here that Abraham was like a dissident for him. He would not compromise with the truth, even at the risk of his life. He would not say that right is wrong or wrong is right, or that black is white and white is black. He was like a dissident in the Soviet Union, committed to the truth of his knowledge of God. Even at the risk of his life, he would not deny what he knew to be true: that God is a reality, and that God was his friend and parent. I think that is the source of his faith. We can look at some more stories tomorrow to try and understand this; he is our father of faith, and that's the quality of faith that he had. I think he is the origin source of these stories.