Joining The Dots - Day 8

Let's carry on and go back to have a look at the Greek philosophical tradition. As I said, it's basically materialistic, and the idea is that matter is an element. So the question is, what is matter? In the olden days, it was very easy to define matter; I could bang my desk and that's matter—it's solid. But with quantum mechanics and everything, matter has basically dissolved in the hands of modern science, and what matter is has become very hard to define. Even more difficult is how to explain consciousness. Consciousness obviously is not material, so what is consciousness? How does consciousness arise? If matter is inanimate and lifeless, how does it develop? This idea came from Timaeus, where order has to be imposed by the craftsman. Within Christian theology, which is also based upon Greek philosophy, the idea of intelligent design emerges to get around this problem. Plato, although he was a dualist, believed that human beings have a soul, and when you die, your soul goes into the next world, Hades. He said that human beings have a soul and a body as two different substances. That's how you can deal with consciousness, but then how do you explain the interaction between the soul and the body if they are two separate substances?

Along with that came another dualist idea: the spirit or soul is good, and the body is bad. This idea also permeated the Christian tradition, with the understanding that the body is somehow evil and sexual love is somehow evil. This is something the Catholic Church has really only begun to address in the last hundred years. So, how do you deal with this? The European philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is often regarded as the greatest philosopher in Europe since Plato. He came up with an idea to create a coherent philosophy that could address these kinds of problems. He said that there are many monads, which are individually programmed entities. A monad is like a human being; atoms are like monads—spiritual and material entities. He said all these monads are individually programmed to act in a predetermined way, and they are all coordinated with each other, but they are being coordinated by God. God has planned the whole thing and programmed each of these monads to behave in a certain way, so it looks like they are interacting with each other, but they are just acting individually in a particular way.

This pre-established harmony solves the mind-body problem because it suggests that the soul and body interact and agree with each other. When your soul tells your arm to move, it moves not because your soul is moving your arm, but because the soul and the arm have already been pre-programmed to look like they are coordinated together. One is not causing the other; they are just programmed to be in harmony with each other. This resolves the mind-body problem at the cost of declaring any interaction between monads as mere appearance. It looks like you are having a conversation with someone, but they are just programmed to say what they are saying, and you are programmed to say what you are saying. God programmed both of these monads so the conversation would look completely harmonized. It appears to be a real conversation, but that is just an appearance. It’s really complicated, but he solved the problem.

Then, how do you deal with evil? If you believe God is good and all-powerful, how do you explain evil? If God has programmed everything to be the way it is, he wrote a book called 'Theodicy,' which deals with the problem of evil. He tried to justify the apparent imperfections of the world by claiming that it is optimal among all possible worlds. In other words, there are a zillion possible worlds, and the way this world is must be the best of all of them. He argued that it must be the best and most balanced world because it was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing God. He would not choose to create an imperfect world if a better world could be known to him or possible to exist. The apparent flaws that can be identified in this world must exist in every possible world; otherwise, God would have chosen to create a world that excluded those flaws. He is saying that the world we are living in is the best of all possible worlds. You might think there is a problem or evil, but if you could really see the whole picture from God's point of view, you would realize that everything is harmonized for some great glorious end.

If you remember the little story I told about Abraham and the pattern of the burning promise, that's like a response to the question of whether God exists and whether evil is an illusion. If you could just see it from God's point of view, you would realize that what you think is a flaw is just a little mark in this painting, which actually contributes to the beauty of the painting as a whole. From your point of view, looking with a microscope, it looks like a mistake or a flaw, but if you could stand back, you would see that it is contributing to the beauty of the painting. That was his way of dealing with the idea that the world we live in is the best of all possible worlds. Of course, that was a bit of a damper on the thinking that we need to go and change things; actually, it's okay as it is, so don't complain.

You can see there I came to a bit of a dead end, really. So what does the Divine Principle say? Well, it says different things. As I think is from the introduction, as far as I remember, for humanity to completely overcome the two aspects of ignorance—internal and external spiritual ignorance—there must emerge a new truth that can reconcile religion and science and resolve their problems in an integrated understanding. That's always a challenge; you have to integrate religion and science. You can't say, 'Oh, that's not really happening because it doesn't fit with my religious view,' any more than you can say to a scientist, 'That's not really happening; those liquids on your laboratory table are not changing shape because it's impossible for them to happen.' We have to accept the empirical reality of the world in which we live, and we have to make sure that our philosophy and our religion can be integrated together without a problem.

This is what Freeman Dyson, a very famous physicist who died this year, said: 'Neither science nor religion claims universal jurisdiction. When either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible, religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive.' That's always been the problem—people being dogmatic. If something doesn't fit into my theory of how things are supposed to be, it obviously is not happening. You can see examples of this in religious imperialism. During the time of Galileo Galilei, he got a telescope and looked at Jupiter, where he saw moons going around it. He said there are moons going around Jupiter, whereas the traditional Aristotelian view was that everything revolves around the Earth. There was a bit of controversy, and a cardinal came along to visit him. He said to the cardinal, 'Why don't you look through my telescope?' The cardinal looked through the telescope and saw the moons going around Jupiter, but then he said to Galileo, 'I can't see anything,' because if he accepted that the moons go around Jupiter, it would shatter his whole theological and philosophical understanding of the nature of reality. So Galileo was shut down and suppressed.

There were also fundamentalist Christians rejecting the theory of evolution because it contradicts Genesis. On the scientific side, there are some neo-Darwinists who claim that evolution disproves the existence of God. Richard Dawkins, for example, wrote a book called 'The Blind Watchmaker.' He is a brilliant biologist, especially at popularizing science, but when you read his book, you realize he is not very good at philosophy. He makes a lot of philosophical assumptions that cannot be justified. There are also scientists who dismiss mystical or spiritual experiences, trying to find some psychological explanation for them because, as materialists, they believe it doesn't fit into their view of the world, so it cannot be happening. So, what does the Divine Principle say about the nature of reality?

The Principle states that every entity possesses both an outer form and an inner quality. The visible outer form resembles its invisible inner quality. The inner quality, though invisible, possesses a certain structure that is manifested visibly in a particular outer form. In the film we looked at yesterday, that's what the scientists were talking about—an algorithm or a pattern. There is a certain latent invisible structure that is manifested visibly in a particular outer form. Everything, then, has its algorithms, these patterns. The inner quality is called the internal nature, and the outer form or shape is called the external form. Since the internal nature and external form refer to corresponding inner and outer aspects of the same entity, the external form may also be understood as a second internal nature. The language here is not saying there is a soul and a body; it's just that every entity has two dimensions: an inner quality and an outer form. We are not talking about two different substances; this is just one entity with inner and outer aspects to it. A human being, for example, is composed of an outer form, the body, and an inner quality, the mind. The body is a visible reflection of the invisible mind, and because the mind possesses a certain structure, the body reflects it. This is the idea of a person's character and destiny being perceived through examining their outward appearance, such as through physiognomy or palm reading. I'm not into palm reading myself, but anyway, the mind is the internal aspect, and the body is the external form. Mind and body are two correlative aspects, so a human being's mind may be understood as the body, which may also be understood as a second mind.

Let's have a look at some examples of this. Other than palm reading, you can look at a person's face and see the outer aspect as an expression of what is going on inside their heart, their emotions, etc. This is reflected in their facial expressions and the way they are behaving. For example, you can see that this lady here is having a bad day because there is no expression of joy, happiness, or love. Again, the outer is an expression of the inner, just as with body language. People may say one thing, but their body language can say something else. It is very hard to control not only what you are saying but also your facial expressions and body language, making it difficult to lie in that way. This is a way in which people can reveal a lot about themselves. Now, look at Wittgenstein's quote: 'The human body is the best picture of the human soul.'

The same sort of thing is going on with plants. All created beings, regardless of their level of complexity, possess an intangible internal nature that corresponds to the human mind and an intangible external form that corresponds to the human body. In each being, the internal nature is causal and commands the external form. Plants maintain their organic functions by virtue of their internal nature, which operates like the human mind in some respects. You might wonder what the evidence for this is. Whenever I read something in the Divine Principle, I don't think it's true just because it's written in the book. I'm always interested in whether it corresponds to reality. Does this really correspond to the way things are? You have to test the Principle against reality to see if it is true. A professor from a university published something not very long ago, and he does a lot of research into plants. He wrote that they are convinced that plants are cognitive and intelligent. They use techniques and methods normally used for studying cognitive animals. The main problem with plants is that they move much more slowly than animals, so they need to record plant movement for many days. They did an experiment with two climbing bean plants; if you put a single support between them, they compete for it. What is interesting is the behaviour of the loser; it immediately senses that the other plant has reached the pole and starts to find an alternative. This is astonishing and demonstrates that plants are aware of their physical environment and the behaviour of the other plant. They actually sensed the other plant had reached the pole before they touched it. In animals, we call this consciousness. We don't have a clear idea of how plants are able to sense the behaviour of other plants, but obviously, they can.

Of course, we go, okay, how can we explain that? We can't just say it doesn't happen because we can't explain it. This is the way it is. How do you develop a theory and understanding? He said plants are much more sensitive than animals. Every root apex can detect 20 different physical and chemical parameters, such as light, gravity, magnetic fields, pathogens, and so on. Additionally, functions in plants are distributed all along the body, whereas in animals, almost all the electrical signals are concentrated in the brain. The plant acts as a kind of distributed brain in which almost every cell is able to produce them. This is interesting because what was written in the Divine Principle 70 years ago, before any of this research was done, is now being confirmed by scientists. This is what I find fascinating; a scientist makes a prediction, and then years later, someone conducts an experiment that confirms that prediction.

This brings us to epigenetics, which I mentioned the other day. Bruce Lipton is one of the leading scientists in this field. These are new discoveries about the interaction between the mind and body and the processes by which cells receive information. It shows that genes and DNA do not control our biology, which is what I was told when I was studying. Instead, DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell, including the energetic messages emanating from our thoughts. Doctor Lipton demonstrates how the new science of epigenetics is revolutionising our understanding of the link between mind and matter and the profound effects it has on our personal and collective lives. This is quite an interesting book, a few years old now.

Now, let's look at the diagram of dual characteristics, which we are all familiar with. Particles have a directional nature and inherent vector, and they are made of energy and matter. Plants also have these characteristics. It is always good to refer back to the text to see what it says about how things develop self-generating order. The first sentence states that the human mind imparts to every person a natural inclination to join with others in harmony. What does that mean? It means we have a natural impulse to connect with others. For example, my wife, when sitting at a bar, naturally engages in conversation with the person next to her. Similarly, when children gather in a primary school classroom, they do not wait for someone to introduce them; they naturally start to interact with each other.

If there happens to be a football in the playground, the boys will start kicking the ball around and forming a football team without knowing each other's names. The girls, on the other hand, will exchange names and bits of information to bond in a different way. The point is, this interaction is natural. Teachers do not need to establish friendship groups; people are naturally drawn to each other for various reasons, such as common interests. This inclination to form relationships is not the result of a plan or design; it just happens. As people grow older, young men and women are often attracted to each other, leading to marriage and family life. They do not want to live in isolation; they seek to connect with other families, forming communities and social networks.

This process continues as families interact with each other, creating a society made up of individuals, families, and groups. Nations form from these interactions, often sharing a common language and history. This is not the result of a design; it is a natural inclination of the human mind to create initiatives that lead to greater complexity. Society is a product of many relationships developed over decades and centuries. For example, the British constitution evolved over time through various decisions made, not through a single design. It just works, and if it doesn't, adjustments are made. This has significant political implications; it is all bottom-up.

Father said that individual peace must first be realised before family peace can follow. Only on that foundation can peace in societies and nations be achieved. This is because individuals are the basic units of families, and families are the basic units of nations. Leaders often believe they can restore order and world peace through superior thought and outstanding organisation. However, the peace of mankind cannot be realised through these means alone. Government is necessary, but it must be bottom-up. The authority lies at the bottom, with individual peace leading to family peace, community peace, societal peace, national peace, and ultimately world peace. This cannot be achieved through force, which is a top-down approach.

The human mind imparts to every person a natural inclination to join with others in harmony. Likewise, in the same way that positive and negative ions come together to form particular molecules, there exists a rudimentary internal nature that guides them. This means matter is not inanimate; every atom has an inherent directive nature. Electrons assemble around nuclei to form atoms because they possess an internal nature that directs them towards a purpose. According to modern science, all particles that constitute atoms are made up of energy, which must also possess an internal nature guiding it to assume specific forms. This illustrates a progression from simplicity to greater complexity, as God created it.

Subatomic particles, the building blocks of all matter, possess either a positive or negative charge. When particles join together through reciprocal relationships, they form atoms, which can display either positive or negative valence. When the dual characteristics within one atom enter into reciprocal relationships with those in another atom, they form molecules. These molecules engage in further reciprocal relationships to eventually become nourishment for plants and animals. You cannot see God designing a water molecule; it just happens and develops naturally. This process of spontaneous development is what we refer to as nature. Particles interact to form atoms, atoms interact to form molecules, and this continues to create increasingly complex organic material, culminating in DNA, which remains a challenging puzzle for scientists.

The role of the universe's prime force is that creation is harmonious in its myriad forms, regardless of the countless types of give-and-take actions initiated by this force. These actions occur not only between particles, atoms, and molecules but also between minds and bodies, individuals and groups. The ultimate purpose of these actions is to unite subject and object, developing greater dimensions. This illustrates how, through give-and-take action, we see increasing levels of complexity. The universal prime force, in the real world, manifests as gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism. God is the origin of all existence and activity, as stated in Acts, 'In Him, we live and move and have our being.' Charles Colson, a professor of mathematics and science at Oxford, said that either God is in the whole of nature with no gaps, or He is not there at all. The principle view is that God is present in all these relationships, having created the world to be self-organising. This understanding fits well with what we explored in the video yesterday, 'The Secret Life of Chaos.'

Much on time, so I'll stop sharing. I hope that was interesting, trying to see how the principle relates to modern science and also trying to make sense of nature and reality. We have to build on this because it's all connected to politics and philosophy as well. What I'm going to move on to now is a different thing altogether, but not completely separate. This is looking at biblical political philosophy, and as I do that, I'll also link it to the Divine Principle. It's interesting to see how one idea interacts with another and what the implications of different ideas are. Ideas have consequences, and that's really important to understand. So, this is a narrative account of velocity and ethics.

If you read philosophy books from the European tradition, you'll see that they generally lay out their work using logic and axioms, which goes all the way back to Pythagoras, who was influenced very much by geometry. You have to establish some axioms and work it all out logically from that. The Bible, however, does not take that kind of approach; it is much more a narrative account of philosophy, political philosophy, and ethics. As you go along, you'll see the significance of stories and the significance of narrative. Developing that, I'm not going to go into Adam and Eve and the fall, as I'm sure you've all heard that story over and over again. Instead, I'm going to move on to the story that happens just afterwards, when the human race began to increase with more daughters being born. The sons of God noticed that the daughters of men were beautiful; they looked them over and picked out wives for themselves. This was back in the days when there were giants in the land. The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. God saw that human evil was out of control; people thought evil, imagined evil, and it broke His heart. As far as God was concerned, the earth had become a sewer, with violence everywhere.

This story is often regarded as enigmatic. When it says 'the sons of God', people often think of spiritual beings, but actually, the Bible is much more prosaic than that. It is about this world, not about the next. A rabbinic interpretation of this would be that the sons of God are not actually divine beings; they are the sons of rulers. In the ancient world, rulers saw themselves as gods. So, the sons of God means the sons of the rulers. A ruler with many sons would go out into the town or village and see all these pretty young girls, the daughters of men, who were very beautiful. They looked them over with a male gaze and picked the prettiest ones for themselves. It is important to note that this relationship is not depicted as formal; it was back in the days when there were giants. This does not mean there were real giants; it is a metaphor for alpha males—big, strong males with muscles who would stride around the villages and towns in gangs.

These alpha males came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. This means that these sons of the rulers would grab women, have sex with them, and then abandon them. As a result, many boys grew up in single-parent families, without fathers, because their mothers did not have husbands. This is where these alpha males, these giants, came from. They were children born from the union of people who were just taking advantage of their mothers. They did not grow up in a good environment, and as a result, they formed gangs and terrorised the local neighbourhood. We can see this happening in certain neighbourhoods where there is a very high proportion of children born to unmarried mothers without a responsible male influence in their lives.

God saw that evil was out of control; people thought evil, imagined evil all the time, and it broke God's heart. Why? Because there was violence everywhere. God's heart is broken when He sees violence, when He sees people being raped, robbed, and murdered. When He sees His children suffering, it hurts Him. That was what was going on—men behaving in that way, committing acts of violence. This is what Jonathan Sacks refers to as a failed state. The central message of Genesis is about sexual disorder and the uncontrolled play of the will to power. Alpha males want power to dominate others, and this leads to a society marked by widespread violence. We have these alpha males, gang leaders fighting with each other to expand their territory. Such behaviour privileges some people over others and turns women into instruments of male desire. This places power, not love, at the heart of human relationships. It treats women as objects rather than subjects with equal dignity and integrity, divorcing sex from compassion and concern, and dishonouring the most intimate human bond—the love that brings new life into the world.

Within Judaism, the biblical tradition emphasises the sacredness of marriage. Through marriage and sexual love, we become like God because we bring new life into the world. Above all, violence is the greatest threat to humanity. Murder is not merely a crime but a sin since a human person is an image of God. Therefore, murder is a form of sacrilege. We can see this on our television screens repeatedly. In almost all species, males spend most of their time fighting among themselves for access to females. You can see this in male deer; during the rutting season, they fight with each other to determine which one is the strongest, the most powerful. The alpha stag is the one entitled to mate with all the female deer. The female deer want to mate with the most powerful stag because they want his genes. This is how it works in the natural world. The unique social contract of monogamy—one male for every female, one female for every male—lowers the temperature of sexual competition and frees its members to work together in cooperation. It is only fair that one man should have one wife, which means all men should be able to find a wife, eliminating the aspect of fighting for sexual access. It is at this juncture that human societies, even human civilization, were born.

When I was talking about gay marriage, I introduced the anthropological explanation of marriage. This is the basis of human civilization because it civilises men. This is really important. That is why, in the Bible, God is referred to as a father. God the Father is compassionate, loving, forgiving, and merciful—qualities normally associated with women. In the Bible, these qualities of mercy, forgiveness, love, kindness, and looking after people are associated with God the Father as a role model. This feeds into the agricultural revolution. I read a book by Yuval Harari called 'Sapiens', which provides a very good explanation about this. The development of agriculture meant there could be more food. Before this, every family was basically hunter-gatherers, able to hunt for enough food to support their family. With agriculture came the possibility of feeding many more people, allowing some people not to have to farm. This led to the possibility of cities. In Britain, before the Industrial Revolution, there was an agricultural revolution that meant food could be produced and consumed by the people producing it, allowing people to work in cities and factories without having to work the land. There was enough food for them to be fed, and with cities came economic surplus, leading to some people becoming richer and more powerful than others. Systematic agriculture requires hierarchy, which we can see in Mesopotamia, China, and the Incas in South America, as well as within European society as feudalism. This resulted in a very hierarchical society.

People living in cities were able to become managers and controllers, accumulating endless amounts of wealth. Kings, rulers, and pharaohs could command enormous gratification of sexual desire because many women were attracted to them due to their status. Along with wealth came luxury and a nice way of life, making polygamy possible for a minority of males. This led to the appearance of harems, where one king would have twenty, thirty, or even a hundred women or concubines. There was also the idea of 'jus primae noctis', which is the supposed right of a feudal lord to deflower the bride of any of his tenants on the first night of marriage. This meant that a feudal lord could have sex with any girl the day before she got married, taking away her virginity. Anyone who has watched 'Braveheart' will remember this episode, although I must warn you that the history is not accurate, but it is a great film for stirring up national sentiment.

Cain was the first builder; he was a farmer and the first to cultivate the land. It was Cain who built the first city. The biblical tradition associates systematic agriculture and cities with this. Abel and the Hebrews were shepherds, not part of any hierarchy, but free people wandering around as shepherds. I will now share a short excerpt from 'Braveheart' to illustrate this point.

We are who we are, and they are not; they are the enemy. This reflects the world of what we now call a failed state. An English philosopher named Thomas Hobbes, who lived in the 17th century during the English Civil War, contemplated the breakdown of social order during that tumultuous time. Many people were being killed, and there were numerous problems. Hobbes sought to understand the root of these issues and proposed a political philosophy based on geometrical axioms. He described the state of nature as a condition where men lived without a common power or government, leading to a state of war—every man against every man. In such a condition, there are no arts, no culture, no society, and worst of all, a continual fear of violent death. Life, he argued, is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Hobbes concluded that the solution to this chaos was the establishment of a sovereign ruler. He argued that a king or a leader, someone in charge, must hold sovereign power to ensure the safety of the people. This monarch would have a monopoly on power, possessing the swords and armies necessary to impose order and punish those who step out of line. In a failed state, such as Somalia or parts of the world today, the absence of government leads to a lack of justice, resulting in misery. The situation in Syria exemplifies this, as millions have become refugees seeking to escape a place devoid of order and peace. Even a despotic ruler can provide a semblance of stability, which is crucial for the well-being of ordinary people.

The Bible introduces another significant story: the Tower of Babel. This narrative presents a concise piece of political philosophy. The entire world shared one language and a common purpose. As people moved eastward, they settled in a plain and decided to build a city with a tower reaching the heavens to make a name for themselves. They feared being scattered across the earth. However, the Lord observed their ambitions and decided to confuse their language, leading to their scattering. This story illustrates the tension between unity and diversity, as the desire for a common purpose can lead to totalitarianism.

The story of Babel highlights the dangers of a singular purpose that extends beyond a tribal level. While a common goal can unite a small group, it can also lead to total control by the state when mobilised for larger objectives, such as war. In such societies, dissent is often suppressed, and individuals are compelled to conform to state mandates. The political philosopher Friedrich Hayek noted that emergencies are frequently used as pretexts to erode individual liberties. This pattern is evident in contemporary societies where criticism of the state is met with severe consequences, as seen in China and Hong Kong.

The Tower of Babel story is rooted in historical context, with archaeological evidence suggesting the existence of ziggurats built in ancient Mesopotamia. Nimrod, a figure associated with the Tower, is described as a great hunter and the first empire builder. He is portrayed as someone who rejected the existence of God, persuading others to attribute their successes to their own strength rather than divine intervention. This narrative serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of tyranny and the manipulation of power.

Nimrod's character exemplifies the archetype of tyrants throughout history, such as Hitler and Stalin, who sought to reshape society according to their vision. He instilled a sense of dependence on his power, compelling people to work on grand projects against their will. The emphasis on the value of bricks over human life in his society illustrates the dehumanising effects of such tyranny. Ultimately, the story of Babel serves as a reminder of the potential for chaos when unity is pursued at the expense of individual freedom and diversity.

Real historical events in the period of time are told and framed for teaching a lesson, just like political philosophy. So, in mind, what was that time? When you look at the top story, the Tower of Babel is located in terms of the biblical text in the genealogy of Noah. There are a couple of chapters where it says that Noah had three sons, and it lists all the sons of Shem, all the sons and grandsons of Ham, and all the grandsons of Japheth. It says that after the flood, there were seventy nations and languages. When you count up all these people, these are the sons of Shem by their clans, languages, territories, and nations. The point here is that after the flood, people were speaking many different languages and there were many different nations, each with its own identity, culture, way of life, and traditions.

If you are a small country and you want to get bigger, there are basically two ways you can expand. One is to have more children, persuading women to have more children, which would expand your population demographically. The other way is to conquer a neighbouring nation. However, in order to expand your nation by conquering a neighbouring nation, you have to force them to adopt your language, culture, way of life, dress codes, and everything else, and to swear loyalty to you. This is how you build an empire. Apparently, this is what was going on during the time of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. One of the great emperors, Ashurbanipal, claimed that he made the totality of all people speak one speech. He came from a particular place, invaded neighbouring countries, and enforced a common language upon them.

This is also seen in the writings of Sargon II, who stated that he took populations from the four quarters of the earth, with strange tongues and incompatible speech, and made them all speak a single voice. This is what we call imperialism: the many become one by imposing one language, one law, and one culture upon everybody. You might wonder why so many places in the world speak English. The history of England involves conquering other nations and making them adopt the English language and culture. This is a form of imperialism, trying to impose uniformity. It is also a form of universalism, where there is one correct ideology, whether it be communism, Marxism, or the current political correctness surrounding gender and other issues.

Our society today is becoming more universal in a sense, becoming much more conformist, with less diversity of opinion. There is very little political diversity of opinion at universities and within society as a whole. There is a push towards universalism, where everybody is expected to have the same opinion and ideology. If you do not conform, you can face serious consequences on social media, and your life can be destroyed. This leads to a problem of 'us' versus 'them', where the answer seems to be to force them to become us. This is evident in the Roman Empire, where everyone had to speak Latin, adopt Roman customs, and worship the Emperor to become Roman citizens. We can see similar patterns in China today with how the state deals with Tibet and Uighurs, as well as its approach to Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Christianity and Islam also exhibit this tendency. For instance, Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.' This has been interpreted by Christians to mean that there is only one way to be saved, which implies that if you are not a Christian, you are going to hell. This belief has led to controversies over creeds, with Protestants and Catholics historically believing each other would go to hell for not having the correct ideology about Jesus. The same imposition of universalism can be seen in Islam, where pre-Islamic cultures have often been suppressed. We also saw this with communism, where the idea was that the whole world would become communist, and democracy was imposed on countries deemed undemocratic, as was the case with the invasion of Iraq.

So, what is the Tower of Babel? Genesis 10 describes a division of humanity into seventy nations and seventy languages, while Genesis 11 tells us how one imperial power conquered smaller nations and imposed their language and culture on them. This directly contradicts God's wish for humanity to respect the integrity of each nation and individual. When God confuses the language of the builders at Babel, He is not creating a new state of affairs but restoring the old. The Babel story critiques the power of the clan when it crushes individuality and serves as a critique of imperialism. Until much of the 20th century, there was an institution called the Soviet Union that sought to create new Soviet citizens, erasing individual identities in favour of a singular identity. However, it disintegrated, and each nation wanted to regain independence and their own traditions, laws, and languages.

This is a significant challenge for the European Union, which may face similar issues. The Bible is not interested in unity but rather in how to have peace while respecting diversity. This goes back to Pythagoras and the question of the one versus the many. The imposition of the one disrespects the many and their diversity. The challenge lies in how to achieve unity without erasing diversity, as doing so can lead to anarchy and chaos, as seen in Noah's time. I will stop here, as there is a principle approach to this called unpacking the dual purposes, but it will take more than ten minutes to explain.