“First time I read the bible
It struck me as unwitty
I think it may start a rumor
That the Lord aint got no humor”
-Gogol Bordello, Supertheory of Supereverything
The greatest, most imaginative and inspiring work of science fiction is our own universe, in its entirety.
It is with the utmost humility that I make the following statements. For I am no more inclined to understand the mind of God than anyone else, and I am certainly not a prophet. With that said, I am now going to make a rather bold claim, which I believe will shed some light on a misconception that has existed both within the Christian and the secular spheres of reality for, well, somewhere between 6,000 years and several billion years, depending on your particular cosmological persuasion. And speaking of which, I am going to settle that dispute while I’m here. So I will now climb from the trenches of insecurity, meekness, and deference, where I make my home, and don the mantle of authority, if only for a few minutes, before being booed off the stage, and I will at least be able to take solace in that everyone is in agreement, even if they only all agree that I am wrong.
In this age of reason, Christianity is taken about as seriously as astrology, and is seen as even less intriguing, to boot. It is seen as anti-intellectual, backwards, oppressive, and generally irrelevant; we don’t need those kinds of answers, one will argue, because science has answered them for us. Which is why I feel it is more socially acceptable to admit that I don’t like any of the songs off of Thriller than saying that I am a Christian. (Seriously, I must be missing something because I do not understand how seven of those songs were in the top 10.) I believe that I have a richer perspective on Christianity, and religion in general, because it’s not something in which I have always believed. Growing up I spent an unnatural amount of Sundays with my dad at the planetarium or at the local wetlands museum (which is way cooler than it sounds), or simply dissecting insects and animals I found in the woods, and a grand total of zero at a church of any kind. My mom had the churchgoing habits hammered out of her years before, but would occasionally go to random churches and sit through a service to get free coffee if, we couldn’t afford any, because, like addicts of any other drug, caffeine users need their fix. So I believe in science, all of it, and all of the post-hippie fallout, minus the vegetarianism, because physiologically, we pretty much evolved to be pack hunters, which is an entirely different subject to tackle in an entirely different essay. Growing up free of any religious instruction, I am now free to make intelligent, rational conclusions about my faith. Despite whatever problems I have with doctrine, authority, and organized religion as a whole, choosing to follow Jesus was the surest my otherwise cripplingly indecisive mind was of anything. Taking close second was the decision that I wanted to be a writer. (In third place: “Indian food is delicious.”)
I’m not exactly sure why it happened when it did, and I’m equally mystified about what I wanted to do with my life before, but I was literally in mid-sentence when I decided that I wanted to be a writer. I think before this revelation, I wanted to be some kind of scientist, probably having to do with biotech, kind of, because enzymes are pretty rad, and there are at least as many in the human body as there are words in the English language. But there I was, an ambitionless kid about to enter his senior year of high school, for whom dreaming big consisted of fitting upwards of thirty grapes in my mouth at a time and maybe talking to a girl without crapping myself (not at the same time), and all of a sudden I had this conviction that this was what I needed to do with my life. And yes, I may end up living in the box for an Ikea lamp fixture underneath the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, but right now I’m on a mission. (And for the record, of course it will be under the Brooklyn end of the BQE, because that's where all the artsy people live.)
The problem then arises, for us intellectually-inclined Christians (which should be all of us), is how to reconcile scriptural “truths” with scientific facts. Viewing the bible this way, as simply a list of facts, turns it into a storybook, and takes away from what it was intended to be: the most important instruction manual that exists. But the debate still rages as to the veracity of the opening passages. Predominantly, this focuses on the origin of the universe and the origin of life, whether or not it was created, or it evolved. After finally figuring out how to take my writing seriously, I have come to realize that both sides have misunderstood the issue, because of a pernicious misconception about what it is to create something.
Any kind of sentient creator or architect for the Universe would seem to be out of synch with standard science, in which the universe is roughly 12.4 billion years old and where everything came to be the way it is today, life especially, through gradual changes that were based mostly on trial and error and accidents, some beneficial and some not so beneficial. Everything from evolution to the big bang theory, and even Copernican cosmology, seemed to fly in the face of the notion of what it meant to be “created.” When these alternative theories of creation emerged, the church’s knee-jerk response was to condemn them, because the church felt that they were antithetical to the notion of a divine creation and undermined everything for which the church stood. And if man was nothing but an accident, then what is the impetus, if any, behind salvation, or is there even salvation at all? The notion of evolution causes one to question whether there is even a creator at all, with the conclusion usually being that there is none. The two theories seem irreconcilable. And they are, with our current, working definition of creation. But the Christian conception of creation, of the creation of life and the universe itself and everything in it, is nothing more than a gross misunderstanding of what it really is to create something. I do not know whether this is due to a lack of creative people or simply because so few rigorously partake in the creative process, but I did not understand, until I undertook to rigorously perfect my writing, that there is a long and complicated series of events that take place between impulse and the actual product of that creative impulse.
When one thinks of an idea, it is just that, an idea. It has nothing physical by which to be represented, and it is fuzzy, lacks form, has holes, lacks internal cohesion. It is only when one tries to act on that idea, and turn it into something physical, that it begins to take shape as something that can exist in a physical universe, and subsequently be understood or consumed. In other words, the limitations and complications of putting a creative idea into practice, although they may alter it, serve to perfect the original idea. As it is translated from thought into action or physical form, every detail must be painstakingly constructed, so that the entire creation fits together as a perfect whole. And at a certain point, details are generated spontaneously; nuances in language and connotation lead to entirely new ideas, the structure of one sentence can shift the direction of an entire passage, subconsciously the idea is constantly reevaluated and updated to accommodate how these accidental details affect the whole.
And an idea is never static when it is being creatively applied. Things aren’t necessarily changed because the old was inferior, but because one inspiration generates another inspiration.
Then there are revisions, numerous drafts, where ideas that don’t work are thrown out or are modified. And I can’t even imagine how many more I personally would have to make were it not for the magical word processor. The whole structure can be changed, every minute detail can be changed, and sometimes only the core idea or motif remains. And even that is not set in stone. But it is these changes and revisions that preserve, then distill and clarify the idea. Tolstoy re-wrote War and Peace seven times. Leo, bless his sanity, wrote the novel six more times than most people will read it, and he certainly couldn’t skim over any passages. It’s an arduous process that takes many many attempts, each attempt a wholly different macro-entity.
When I say revision, I do not mean a re-write where mistakes are corrected. I mean a recreation of the work, articulating ideas differently, experimenting with structure, form, cause, and effect. And in this case the revision is constant.
The difference between our creative subjects and God’s creative subjects, and what complicates the model more than a little, is that God’s subjects seem to be, at least to a certain extent, up to their own devices. Subatomic particles decay at a rate that is constant, but when the specific particle decays is completely up to chance. Atoms and molecules vibrate randomly. UV rays slice through DNA and other organic tissue. And then of course, there is the added dynamic of free will to complicate things. Imagine if some of Chaucer’s pilgrims had decided that, hey, they didn’t really want to go to Canterbury, and instead headed off to London or Venice or Baghdad or off to find the New World. It would certainly create a problem, wouldn’t it?
Whether or not we are the final draft is another sticky subject, and the answers may not be as universally apparent. But if man is created in God’s image, would it then mean that we are the end, the final draft? We may have reached God’s physical image but the world is still changing and we continue to have the power of changing it. And I like to think of God’s work as never being finished, so there isn’t going to be a final draft. The first one was good enough to publish. The revisions may go on forever, just for revision’s sake.
We cheapen God and we cheapen the majesty of His creation by thinking of it as a singular process. To think of creation as a single, temporally isolated event – rather than one which is in a constant state of revision and re-perfecting – is an underestimation of the wisdom of God.
And you may say that I am yanking God off His pedestal and placing him on a human level, bound by earthly constraints and all the other baggage that comes with existing inside the universe. That this take on creation, that God’s initial concept of the universe and everything it contains, from protons to platypuses, was not already supremely perfect from the beginning, would imply that God himself is not perfect. And, this potentially reeks of understanding God on human terms. But once again, you are selling both God and yourself short. A superentity of the utmost perfection would surely use the most perfect method for creating the most perfect work. Creation on a whim, that is what is imperfect, and that is the action of an imperfect being.
Instead of thinking of things as something that came to be with a “thou shalt be this,” it makes much more sense that it is one of a string of infinite possibilities, that many ideas of it have been tried before, and many more ideas will be tried in the future. We are part of God’s creative process, and I feel blessed to be part of it.
Becoming a Christian doesn’t mean that you automatically become a good person, and despite what people will tell you, it doesn’t make you into any worse of a person either. It’s applying that creative process to crafting a righteous person of yourself. And everyone will fail at some point, I know I have. That doesn’t necessarily mean a pious person or a clean person or a sober person or even a person with strong morals, but someone who will better the world, and have faith that the world can be bettered through conscious reevaluation of the self within and of the universe without. And that is why I write, both to better the world, and to understand the process through which the world is bettered, that process being the creative process. Creativity made the world what it is today, and creativity can save the world. But we can’t be scared of it. We can’t be scared to throw out what doesn’t work, accept what does, and constantly revise everything, and I, too must not be afraid to throw out sentences, paragraphs, whole tracts even , which are insufficient, and push my comfort zone to find what is sufficient.
I want you to question what you believe in, be it total atheism or literal biblical creation, and everything in between. Let’s say this is third in the hierarchy of things I am certain of, edging out “Indian food is delicious.” Everything we know and observe came to be exactly how scientists will tell you it happened, and the change was driven by the exact same mechanisms. But that is creation, that is God whipping things into being, as He sees fit, because the God in whom I believe is the most creative individual I know, and I would pray that I could have an infinitesimally small fraction of His creative genius, if genius is even a loaded enough word.
And this conclusion is only the beginning. May peace be upon you and may the world never stay the same.