QUESTION: ... How do you define God? I have read much of your writings and I can't seem to find your thoughts on this [for me] critical question. ... I believe God is the only word available to adequately define First Principles and Ultimate Aims. Love, Paradox and Truth also adequate, but I prefer God. By First Principles I mean the basis for all thought - that I exist and that what I percieve exists, and by Ultimate Aims I mean that which I want - Maslow's hierachy of needs is a reasonably good model ... So God, I think, is a word that describes what you are and what you want ... I am almost completely ignorant of your language work... I just wonder if (forgive me if I misunderstand your concepts) Universal Grammar is just one part of a bigger egg -- Universal Consciousness ... [D]o you think...reality is an accident? ..... [D]o you think it is possible that the nature of reality could be a livin urge towards freedom, already realised outside of time - and therefore, time and space being one, the true God - a paradox lying between mono and poly - theism? ...

CHOMSKY: How do I define God? I don't. Divinities have been understood in various ways in the cultural traditions that we know. Take, say, the core of the established religions today: the Bible. It is basically polytheistic, with the warrior God demanding of his chosen people that they not worship the other Gods and destroy those who do -- in an extremely brutal way, in fact. It would be hard to find a more genocidal text in the literary canon, or a more violent and destructive character than the God who was to be worshipped. So that's one definition.

In the Prophets, one finds (sometimes) a different conception, much more humane. That's why the Prophets (the "dissident intellectuals" of their day) were persecuted, imprisoned, driven into the desert, etc. -- other reasons included their geopolitical analysis, unwelcome to power. The intellectuals who were honored and privileged were those who centuries later were called "false prophets." More or less a cultural universal. There were different conceptions of divinity associated with these tendencies, and Greek and Zoroastrian influences are probable causes for later monotheistic tendencies (how one evaluates these are a different matter).

Looking beyond, we find other conceptions, of many kinds.

But I have nothing to propose. People who find such conceptions important for themselves have every right to frame them as they like. Personally, I don't. That's why you haven't found my "thoughts on this [for you] critical question." I have none, because I see no need for them (apart from the -- often extremely interesting and revealing -- inquiry into human culture and history).

As for "First Principles," basing them on divinities is, I think, a very bad idea. That leaves anyone free to pick the "first principles" they choose on other grounds, and to disguise the choices as "what God commands." If its the warrior God of the Bible, the First Principles are horrendous (in the basic texts) and often uplifting -- in Amos, for example; but recall that he made it clear that he was no intellectual (no "prophet," as the obscure Hebrew word is translated), but an ordinary farmer.

If you like Maslow's choices, fine, then say so. But nothing is gained by investing them with divinity, and a great deal is lost: specifically, the opportunity to question, elaborate, modify, or reject them. But these are basic elements of decent human life and thought, I believe.

If you want to use the word "God" to refer to "what you are and what you want" -- well, that's a terminological decision, not a substantive one. And a bad terminological decision, I think, for the reasons just mentioned.

Is "reality an accident"? Could the laws of nature have been other than what they are? Maybe one can make some sense of such questions, but bringing divinity into the story helps not at all. It only adds confusion and deflects serious thought and inquiry.

Is it "possible that the nature of reality could be a living urge towards freedom"? As Bakunin put it, is an "instinct for freedom" part of human nature, maybe part of organic nature? Could be. I hope so. But we don't know. But again, bringing divinity in just adds confusion and bars serious inquiry and action, in my opinion.

Others feel differently. They feel they need to ground their beliefs and hopes in something they call "God." OK. I don't legislate for others, but if they want my advice (no reason why they should), it's more or less as above.

On the linguistic work, it bears on these issues only tangentially, by seeking to explore some aspects of our essential and distinctive human nature. An exciting enterprise, I think, but these questions are barely touched.

QUESTION: I wondered if you could please elaborate on a statement you made... You said that the Bible was "probably the most genocidal book in the entire canon."

CHOMSKY: Have a look at the fate of the Amalekites or Midianites, for example, and the instructions from on high about how to handle them. Or simply consider the fact that the deity was prepared to destroy all life on earth because some people offended him -- and relented, allowing a minuscule fragment to survive. It goes on and on.

Two Chomsky sites:

http://www.worldmedia.com/archive

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3761

Go Back