The Garden of Eden: Was it a real place?

In this essay, I discuss the Biblical Garden of Eden in the wider context of the ancient Middle East. The Bible is not the only text where this motif is found; it appears elsewhere in the ancient Semitic literature. I ask: Was it a historical place? This is the third part of the series on the Book of Genesis.

The Garden of Eden is introduced right at the beginning of the Bible, in Genesis 2-3. I have previously discussed the creation story (see part 1 of the series) as well as the main characters in the garden story, namely Adam and Eve (see part 2). Now, I focus on the garden itself. Although the basic theme of the garden is well-known, the long tradition behind this theme is for the most part unknown.

The views that readers have regarding the Garden of Eden closely reflects their views regarding Adam and Eve as historical personages or not. Those who believe in a historical Adam and Eve also take the geographical details in the story serious, namely the names of the rivers and the areas through which they flow. Various interpretations have been offered as to where the garden was located, some placing it in southern Mesopotamia, even in the Persian Gulf. Others think that the garden was located in the north, in Turkey or northern Iran. Nowadays some even argue that the garden was originally located in the Great Rift Valley in Africa where homo sapiens is said to have originated.

Even those who do not take the story serious as referring to real historical events may be interested in the history of the motif within the framework of the ancient Semitic world. As such, we should carefully consider the Biblical tradition about this garden. In this regard, any discussion of the Garden of Eden should commence with a careful analysis of the main features of the garden mentioned in the story. We must first ask certain basic questions, for example: Was the garden in a plain? Or was it situated on a mountain? Did the rivers originate or converge in the garden? What do we know about the tree(s) in the middle of the garden? Such an analysis will allow us to research the history of these motifs and see where they were first used. From this important insights could be gained. Only then should we engage with the questions about the geographical details and the historicity of this garden.

The Garden of Eden

The Garden of Eden [1] is introduced in Genesis 2:8. We read that "the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden". Various interesting things are said about this garden:

1. All sorts of trees grew in the garden, both those that were "pleasant to the sight" and those who were "good for food". Two of these trees are singled out, namely the "tree of life" and the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". Both these trees grew in the middle of the garden (Gen. 2:9, see also 2:17; 3:3, 6, 17, 22, 24). God forbid Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and when he and Eve did, they were chased from the garden to stop them from also eating from the tree of life.

2. There is the reference to a river which watered the garden. Another four rivers are mentioned: "and from hence [i.e. the garden] it was parted, and became four heads" (Gen. 2:10). These rivers were the Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel (Tigris) and the Euphrates. If we take the reference to "heads" as the upper headwaters of these rivers, then this garden must have been situated somewhere high in the mountains.

3.  God's abode could have been in or near the garden because we read that He walked in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8). What is also quite interesting, is that God speaks in the plural saying: "man has become as one of us to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:22). We find this use of the plural also in Gen. 1:26 and 11:7.

4. The inhabitants of the garden included not only Adam and Eve but all kinds of animals which Adam named. Among these animals was the serpent who tempted Eve. Furthermore, God placed cherubim on the eastern side of the garden. They are associated with "a flaming sword which turned in every way" (Gen. 3:24).

These features can be compared with those mentioned in Ezekiel 28 and 31 where we also find discussions of events that are said to have taken place in "Eden, the garden of God" (mentioned in both chapters: Ezek. 28:13; 31:9). Although Ezekiel tells a different garden story, there can be no doubt that the same garden theme is used. In both cases, it is clearly stated that the events happened in Eden, the garden of God. Although the four rivers are not mentioned, there is an agreement between the two depictions. The depiction in Ezekiel can help us gain a better understanding of some of the things which are implicit in the Genesis story of the garden. The following is said about the garden in Ezekiel 28 and 31:

1. All sorts of trees grew in the garden, among which were cedars and chestnut trees (Ezek. 31:8). One tree is singled out, namely a "cedar in Lebanon" (Ezek. 31:3). This cedar's height was exalted above all the trees of the field and its roots were by great (underground) waters. It seems that this cedar throned over the whole earth: "All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations" (Ezek.31:6). Eventually, it was cut down because of its pride.

2. A certain anointed cherub, "that covereth", was in Eden, the garden of God (Ezek. 28:14). This cherub was very beautiful and wise but became fallen because of its pride.

3. The garden and the mountain of God are closely connected in the story. The garden seems to have been on or near the "holy mountain of God" (maybe lower down on the mountain?). We can deduce this from the fact that the garden of God, in which the exceptionally beautiful cedar grows, is said to be located somewhere in the Lebanon mountains, where one of the peaks probably represented the mountain of God. The top of the "holy mountain of God" was covered with "the stones of fire" (Ezek. 28:14), which could metaphorically refer to the stars [2]. This reflects the extreme height of this mountain. The fallen cherub is said to have been in the garden as well as on the mountain of God.

The second reference in Ezekiel 28 to the "mountain of the God" (Ezek. 28:16) is translated in my Afrikaans Bible as "godeberg", which literally means "mountain of the gods". This refers to the mountain of God where all the "gods" (later called "angels") gathered for the council (or: congregation) of the gods (see Ps 82:1, 6-7 where the angels are called "gods"; Ps. 89:7 where the angels are called "Sons of the Mighty One" [or: God, in the Septuagint] or "saints", i.e. the "holy ones"; Is. 14:13, 14; 1 Ki. 22:19-22; Ezek. 28:16) (I discuss the ancient tradition about the council of the gods gathering on the mountain of God (El), which go back to pre-Biblical times, in [3]). The fallen cherub was clearly one of those gods who was later chased from the mountain of God.

When we compare the two descriptions of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2-3 and Ezekiel 28, 31 we find some obvious agreements in the basic motifs, but also disagreements regarding the details. Among these agreements is a reference to some special tree in the garden which is singled out. In the Genesis 2-3 story this is the tree of knowledge; in Ezekiel's story, this is a beautiful high cedar. Regarding this tree, there seem to be some differences, namely that we find two trees in the Genesis depiction and only one tree in Ezekiel's depiction. Furthermore, both trees in the Genesis story yield fruit; but a cedar cannot do that.

In the Genesis account, there is no explicit reference to a mountain. There is, however, some details that can be taken as an implicit reference to it, namely that the "heads" (headwaters) of the four rivers originated in the area of the garden. From the fact that the same garden theme is used in both stories, which originated from a very old tradition regarding such a garden, we can assume that the Garden of Eden was situated on or near a mountain - the mountain of God.

In the Genesis story, it is mentioned that God walked in the garden. This could imply that He had his abode there - which is also accentuated in Ezekiel's story where we find that the garden is on or near the mountain of God, i.e. where He had his abode.

We also find that both stories include reference to a cherub or cherubim. In the Genesis story, the cherubim guard the gates of paradise; Ezekiel's story is about a particular cherub, the one who "covereth". This could imply that his role was to cover God's face or feet. This cherub became a fallen creature. We can propose that various cherubim were present in the garden and that one of them, clearly a very prominent one, became a fallen creature due to his pride.

How do we explain the differences between the depictions in these two stories? The most important of these is that the garden of the Genesis account lies toward the east whereas Ezekiel's Garden is situated on the Lebanon mountains to the north (Ezek. 31:3). The other difference is that the main trees are different. In Ezekiel's account, the tree became a symbol of the pride which is also ascribed to the fallen cherub and is cut down. To answer this we have to discuss the ancient Semitic tradition regarding such a garden, and the variations to the theme that have crept in throughout the ages.

Ancient traditions

I previously argued that the forefathers of the ancient Israelites brought the traditions that we find in the ancient history (ch. 1-11) in the Book of Genesis with them from their homeland in ancient Sumer (Ur was in Sumer). This includes the garden story. These were the stories that were delivered within the Abrahamic family since the earliest times. In the ancient Middle East, the tradition about the garden of paradise was very old, going back to a very early period. As such, we find the tradition about the garden also in other, extra-Biblical texts, which are much older than the Bible. In this essay, I focus on the Epic of Gilgamesh, the best-known epic in ancient Mesopotamia which dates from Old Babylonian times during the first half of the second millennium BC.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the hero travels to the west to the mountain of the gods. This epic was written in Akkadian, a Semitic language spoken in Sumer. We read how the hero and his companion, who travelled from Sumer to the west, saw the Cedar Mountain, the "dwelling of the gods" in the distance [4]. In Old Babylonian times, early in the second millennium BC, the Cedar Mountain referred to the Amanus mountain range. Later it referred to the Lebanon mountains. According to the story, there was a creature who was the guardian of the forest, called Humbaba (Huwawa). The heroes killed him to gain access to the mountain of the gods and the garden of trees. There they found a very large and beautiful cedar, which they cut down.

There is clearly a great deal of agreement between this early Semitic depiction of the garden of the gods and Ezekiel's depiction of the "garden of God". This garden had its location high in the Cedar Mountains, on or near the mountain of the gods. In both accounts, one cedar is singled out as being very special (the reason being that it was taken as an image of the axis mundi [5]), which was then cut down. The guardian of the forest, Humbaba, also shows some correspondence with the cherubim in the Genesis story who guards the gates of paradise.

In early forerunners of the Epic of Gilgamesh, we find material which dates back to the Uruk period (ca. 3800-2800 BC). One of these texts, which was first written down during the Ur III period (ca. 2150-2050 BC) [6], is called Gilgamesh and Humbaba (Bilgamesh and Huwawa). Here we read how the heroes travelled across seven mountain ranges before they found the cedar. These "seven mountain ranges" were not on the way to the Amanus mountains in the west but on the journey to the distant land of Aratta to the north of Sumer (the Biblical Ararat). The northern land of Aratta is nowadays located in north-western Iran.

These seven mountain ranges are referred to in the legends told about an early king of Uruk, named Enmerkar, who ruled during the last part of the fourth millennium BC. His servant travelled through the seven mountain ranges to the land of Aratta beyond the Zagros mountains [7]. In the epic called Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta we find a beautiful description of the mountain of the gods in the area of Aratta [8]. This means that the mountain of the gods was not originally situated in the west (which reflects developments during the Akkadian period (ca. 2370-2190 BC) when those kings started making long journeys to the Amanus and the Mediterranean Sea in the west), but in the north. And in the early tales about the journeys to that northern land, we find that it was not cedars that grew there, but different trees.

This background helps us to understand the differences between the stories of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2-3 and Ezekiel 28, 31. The story in Ezekiel clearly reflects traditions found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was current at the time of the Babylonian exile. Ezekiel used these when he wrote his narrative. The story in the Book of Genesis, on the other hand, reflects traditions older than the Akkadian period (2350-2150 BC), before the mountain of the gods became associated with the Amanus and later the Lebanon mountains, and the tree of paradise became a cedar [9]. This was still the period when it could be said that the garden's location was in the east (from the land of Canaan). I discuss the early tradition of the tree and its fruit in the next part of the series, which focuses on the serpent).

The geographic location of the garden

We are now in a position to discuss the geographical details given in Genesis 2-3 for the location of the garden. Since the earliest traditions about the mountain of the gods and the garden place these in the northern Zagros mountains, we expect that the geographic details given in Genesis 2 would agree with this. And indeed, this is the area where the headwaters of both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers originate, namely far in the north, in the areas of the Van and Urmia Lakes. But what about the two other rivers mentioned in the Book of Genesis? The Gihon and Pison rivers.

It has been argued that the Gihon is the Gaihun, of which the name was changed to Araxes after the Islamic invasion of the Caucasus, and that the Pison is the Uizhum [10]. The name Gaihun clearly corresponds with Gihon and we can explain the correspondence between the names Uizhum and Pishon by a typical U to P shift. The tributaries of the Gaihun rise in the mountains to the north of the Van and Urmia Lakes and flow eastward into the Caspian Sea. The Uizhum rises from several springs near Mt. Sahand, east of Lake Urmia, as well as in parts of the Zagros near the city of Sanandaj in north-western Iran. It also flows into the Caspian Sea.

There is also a good correspondence between the other details given in the Book of Genesis and the geographic areas through which the rivers flow. The Gaihum, for example, flows through the Kusheh Dagh (Mountain of Kush), in agreement with the Biblical reference to the "land of Kush" (the reference to "Ethiopia" in the King James Bible is not in the original text; it is merely an interpretation). The Uizhum is also called Kezel Uzun ("dark red" or "gold"), in agreement with the Biblical land of Havilah, "where there is gold".

This northern geographic region could have been the area from where the forefathers of the Sumerians and Semites living in Sumer originated (this discussion is beyond the focus of this essay). This would take us back to a time before the first settlers arrived in the southern plains of Sumer (the Biblical "Shinar"). This is the time in which the Bible places Adam and Eve (see part 2 of this series) [11]. It is quite remarkable that the early traditions of the mountain of the gods in the north and the geographical details in the Book of Genesis agree so closely.

This analysis is based on the ancient Semitic tradition about the Garden of Eden found in the Bible. As such, this tradition is grounded in a long tradition that originated in the ancient Middle East - the world from which Abraham and his descendants came. In some recent studies, it has been proposed that the garden might have been in the Great Rift Valley in Africa where homo sapiens is said to have originated. In this regard, the reference to one of the rivers originating in "Ethiopia" is wrongly taken as the place referred to in the Bible.

In this view, the Biblical Adam and Eve are taken as the earliest "mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam" (I discuss this view in some detail in part 2 of the series). As such, they are taken as historical persons who lived about 200 000 years ago; not people who lived 6000 years ago. The problem with this view is that it totally discards the tradition from which the Biblical story originated. It imposes a scientific view on the Bible without considering the Biblical tradition as such. We can therefore not take this view as a good interpretation of the Biblical text.

Conclusion

In this essay, I discuss the garden of Eden. I focus on the two most important depictions of this garden in the Bible, namely in Genesis 2-3 and Ezekiel 28, 31. I show that the most important features of this garden are that the garden was situated on or near the mountain of God, that there was an exceptional tree in the garden, and that cherubim were found there. These features are also found in other Semitic depictions of this garden which is much older than the Bible. This means that the Biblical depiction reflects a very old tradition going back to an early period in the ancient Middle East. We can think that this tradition was handed over from generation to generation in Abraham's family from those early times.

I also explain the differences between the two Biblical depictions of the garden of Eden, namely that Ezekiel locates the garden in Lebanon, not in the east, and presents the exceptionally beautiful tree in the garden as a cedar, not a tree that yields fruit. These differences are easily explained if we understand the changes that happened throughout the ages in Mesopotamia, according to which the earlier tradition which placed the mountain of the gods in the northern Zagros was replaced by one which placed it in the west (in the Amanus and later the Lebanon mountains). This also shows that the Book of Genesis incorporates very old traditions delivered through Abraham's family - before the tree in the garden became associated with a cedar.

Was there really such a historical garden? Obviously, we cannot prove that. But it is clear that the tradition of the garden located on or near the mountain of the gods is very old. An early mountain which was identified as such could have existed in the northern Zagros. The geographical details in the Book of Genesis agree remarkably well with such a location for the mountain [12].

[1] The Hebrew word "eden" is said to have been derived from the root "adhan", which means "to be delighted". It has also been proposed that it could go back to the Sumerian "edin" or the Akkadian "edinu", which means "open plain".
[2] The "stones of fire" could be a reference to the stars. We find a similar depiction of the mountain of God, called the "mountain of the congregation", in Is. 14:13, which is situated "above the stars of God". The "congregation" refers to the congregation of the council of the gods. Here is also a reference to Lucifer, the morning star, who wanted to sit on the mountain of God, and be "like the Most High". Like the cherub in Ezekiel 28, he was driven from the mountain of God.
[3] Die goderaad in Hebreeuse tradisie ("The council of the gods in Hebrew tradition").
[4] I previously argued that the council of the gods, who gathered on the mountain of the gods (or: God), which is found in the Hebrew and Canaanite traditions, is part of a continuous tradition which goes back to the earliest known traditions in Sumer. I have also argued that the father of the gods, who was called El in Semitic tradition and An in Sumerian tradition, is called the "Most High God" in the Hebrew tradition (see Ps. 82:6). We can compare the names El and An with our names God and Dieu (in French). This shows that the Hebrew God El, the father of the gods, was worshipped from the earliest of times. See chapters 5 and 6 in my book, Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel). In Hebrew tradition, those gods in the council who participated in the rebellion were regarded as fallen creatures.
[5] The world axis. This refers to the rotational axis of the earth which is reflected from the poles into the northern and southern starry heavens. For earthly observers this axis is observable in the rotation of the stars; it gives the impression that the cosmos turns on this axis around the earth.
[6] According to the so-called high chronology of Mesopotamia.
[7] The only known geographical reference to Aratta that is found outside the early Sumerian literature, occurs in the accounts of Sargon II of Assyria's eight campaign. He travelled over the seven mountain ranges across the northern Zagros, where he finally arrived at the river called Aratta. This places the land of Aratta (the Biblical Ararat) near Mt. Sahand in northern Iran. The people who lived there was later displaced to the north and they took their traditions with them. It is possible that the holy mountain of Aratta with its garden became well-known all over the ancient world.
[8]  ETCSL translation 2006, 227-235.
[9] I previously mentioned that there is no post-Old-Babylonian material included in the Book of Genesis (see part 2 of this series). This proves that the Mesopotamian material in the book must date back to at least that period (i.e. the time of Abraham). I argued elsewhere that it was brought by the family of Abraham from Sumer to Canaan (see Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel)). The fact that the tree in the garden of Eden is not a cedar is clearly in line with an early origin for the material in this book.
[10] In my opinion David Rohl, following Reginald Walker, makes a very good case in this regard in his book Legend, the Genesis of Civilization (1998, Random House). He associates the plain of Tabriz in northern Iran with the area of the Garden of Eden. The river which runs through this plain is now called Adji Chay, but was previously known as Meidan, which means "Walled-in garden" - which agrees with the meaning of the Greek word "paradeisos" used in the Septuagint for the garden in Genesis 2. This would then be the river which "water(ed) the garden" (Gen. 2:10). All the rivers mentioned in the Book of Genesis originate in the mountains surrounding this area.
[11] I previously showed that the Biblical Adam corresponds with the Sumerian Adapa (see part 2 of the series as well as a more detailed discussion in Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel). We read about Adapa that he went to the abode of An (God, see [5]), which refers to An's holy mountain. There he had to make certain choices involving the "food of death" (which would bring death) and the "food of life". This could be an implicit reference to a garden situated on or near the mountain of An, in accordance with the very ancient connection between the garden and the mountain of the gods (or: An).
[12] There is a Hebrew tradition according to which another paradise was located in the realm of the dead (see Luk. 23:43). This was also a very old tradition and refers to the abode of the blessed dead. Whereas the original Garden of Eden was situated in the north, near or on the mountain of the gods, this garden was situated at the opposite end of the Mesopotamian world in the Persian Gulf, where the area of Dilmun (since the Akkadian period associated with the island Bahrain) could have represented the abode of the dead. In the Epic of Gilgamesh the hero finds such a beautiful garden, with trees of precious stones and jewels for fruit, on the edge of the Persian Gulf at the barmaid Siduri's abode. 

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. (Posted on www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)

The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)) and is a philosopher and scientist (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science, and eschatology.

The Book of Genesis, Intro: The Book of Genesis: The Sumerian Hypothesis
The Book of Genesis, part 1: Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?  
The Book of Genesis, part 2: Adam and Eve: were they the first humans?
The Book of Genesis, part 4: The Serpent of Paradise
The Book of Genesis, part 5: Reconsidering the Fall
The Book of Genesis, part 6: The origins of Satan: the ancient worldview
The Book of Genesis, part 7: Who is Elohim?

The Book of Genesis, Part 8: The "ancient history" of Genesis 4-11: Myth or history?
The Book of Genesis, Part 9: The Great Flood: Did it really happen?
The Book of Genesis, Part 10: Abraham holds the key

Readers are welcome to share the essay with friends and others.

The pursuit of geopolitical power in an emerging multi-polar world

In this essay, I discuss the role of geopolitics in the emerging world order. For the first time in decades, we see a multi-polar world emerging and various world powers (especially China, Russia and the EU) are challenging the old order. But what are their strategies? And how do they try to realize them? Although technology plays an important role, the old game of geopolitics is back in town. I discuss the most important geopolitical strategies and how these world powers are incorporating them in their thinking. I also show how this helps us to understand the current situation in Ukraine.

There are longs periods during which the international political landscape in the world is quite stable. And then there are periods in which it is extremely unstable (typically ending in great wars). At this stage in the history of the world, we are moving from a stable to an unstable situation. Although the world is not yet in the precarious situation of being unstable, it is changing fast and the signs are clear that a new phase in the political history of the world has begun. There is a sense that the playing field has opened up and that opportunities are presenting themselves. The other important players (other than the US) sense that the Great Recession has damaged the financial power of the West and with it its ability to project power. And they are preparing strategies to assert themselves in ways unthinkable a few years ago.

Stability in the international political landscape always has its origin in a stable balance of power between world powers. This can include a situation where one superpower rules (a mono-polar world) or where two great powers are more or less evenly balanced in various parts of the world (bi-polar-world). Generally, these are periods of peace when commerce flourishes. During the last few centuries this happened during the period of the British empire in the eighteenth century, during the long period when the West and the USSR were evenly balanced in power (before the Cold War came to a climax during the last part of the 1980's) and again during the period of US dominance over the last few decades.

But there are also periods during which the world was very unstable. This typically involves a multi-polar world in which various players actively participate in the pursuit of power - when the great powers try to manoeuvre themselves into positions of power. This happened when Imperial Germany challenged British power just before the First World War and again when Nazi Germany challenged the Anglo-American power just before the Second World War. It also happened when Communism spread all over the east and the West tried to block that in the period before and during the Vietnam War. And it is happening again - in the period since the Great Recession.

The great powers follow various strategies in their pursuit of power. These could include an effort to try and out-sprint each other in military capability, both regarding new technologies and brute power. This can typically be measured in military spending. At the end of the Cold War the West out-sprinted the USSR for the simple reason that it became overstretched and did not have the economic and innovative ability to keep competing (that is why China combined its communism with a form of open economy). But there is another important factor in the power game. Although it is not often mentioned, it played a very important role in the thinking of the great military powers of the past and the present. This is geopolitical concerns. Various geopolitical strategies for world domination have been developed which involve control of certain strategic geographic areas of the world. The use of such strategies depends on a country's own geographic position.

Classical geopolitical strategies

There are essentially three major geopolitical strategies. The first was developed by Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914), a US naval officer. He studied the British Empire and concluded that its navy was the basis for its success. He developed the concept of "sea power" according to which countries with greater naval power will have the greater worldwide impact. He presented his ideas in his famous book The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1600-1793 (1890). His ideas had a great impact on the thinking of many strategists since that time and even today it is important in US Naval Doctrine. This strategy seems to be especially well suited for trading countries like Britain or the US, which need large navies to protect their financial interests. Although such countries were historically island countries which were in some sense protected from enemies by the sea which surrounds it (even the US can be viewed as a large island away from the large world mass of Euro-Asia), this advantage has diminished due to technological developments over the last century. Nowadays trade moves along sea, air, land and advanced communication routes.

The second strategy was developed by Sir Halford Mackinder (1861-1947), a British geographer. He viewed history as a constant battle between sea power and land power. Whereas sea powers have the ability to control the sea, land powers have the ability to control the major crossing points on land (railroads, oil pipelines etc.). He studied the world's land mass to establish which part of it is of central importance for any land power to effectively control the world. In his view, this involves controlling the "World Island", which includes Europe, Asia and Africa (i.e. two-thirds of the available land). The other smaller "islands" like North and South America or Australia are less important. Furthermore, to control this large land mass (especially the "Heartland" which includes Europe and Asia) one have to control eastern Europe. Traditionally the European powers and Russia came into conflict over this area. If the area between the Black and Caspian Seas is included in "eastern Europe", this means effective control of all the routes going from Russia to Europe and the Middle East.

The third important strategy was developed by Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943), a US scholar of international politics. He brought Mahan and Mackinder's strategies together. In his view, the most important geographical area to be controlled is not so much eastern Europe, but the "rimland". This includes the area surrounding the "Heartland" of Euro-Asia and consists of various sections, namely the European Coastal areas, the Arabian-Middle Eastern desert land and the Asiatic monsoon, by which he means the civilizations surrounding the Chinese cultural sphere. Anyone who controls the "rimland", be it land powers in Euro-Asia or Sea powers, controls the world. His view greatly influenced the US containment strategy, of both the USSR and China.

Current power games

Countries have no control over the geographical area where they are situated. The US is an "Island" country, and China, Russia and the EU (the only ones to be discussed in this essay) are land powers in Euro-Asia. Since large deserts divide Russia and China, and the possibilities for power expansion in these areas are restricted, it is easy to see why Russia has traditionally projected its power to the west and south (i.e. towards Europe and the Middle East) and China has projected its power towards the seas to the south and east. For China, any effective projection of power would, first of all, involve control of those areas. During the Cold War, when the power of the US and the USSR were quite evenly balanced, the US controlled the seas as well as a large part of the rimland (but lost control in Vietnam), whereas the USSR controlled eastern Europe as well as parts of the rimland. At the end of the Cold War, the USSR lost control over those areas, but the US held and strengthened theirs.

There are mainly two reasons why the international political situation in the world is changing. The one is the rise of China. Over the last few decades, the Chinese rulers have come to the conclusion that the only way to effectively grow their power is through rapid technological and economic development and that involves trade. Furthermore, they have concluded that the best strategic geopolitical model suited for their circumstances, is the one associated with trade, namely of sea power as envisioned by Mahan [1]. The Chinese have built a powerful navy and are challenging US containment. They have tense relations with nearly all their neighbours to the east and south, including Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan (things have calmed somewhat due to Taiwan's current policy of appeasing China). In November 2013 China even proclaimed a new air defence zone in the East China Sea of which about half overlaps with Japan's own air defence zone. The Senkaku islands (called Diaoyu by the Chinese) are in this area. In reaction, the Japanese have increased their military budget for the first time in more than a decade.

The other reason for the changing world situation is the geographical rise of the EU, which now includes 28 countries. Although the rise of the EU has not really drawn much attention because the EU is not viewed as a strong military power and some have taken the economic crisis in the EU to signify its decline, in geographical terms, the EU has dramatically expanded its reach. It is exactly this eastern expansion of its influence which has brought it into conflict with Russia over Ukraine. Before its independence, Ukraine had been part of the Soviet-Union. What we have seen, is that the EU has effectively expanded its control over a very large part of eastern Europe which, according to Mackinder, is needed for any ambitions to have eventual control of the world. Would the ex-Soviet states of Ukraine and Armenia have signed association agreements with the EU as part of the eastern partnership program at the end of 2013 (together with Moldavia, Georgia and Azerbaijan), it would have been the first step to contain Russia beyond the Ural mountains. Such a Russia is effectively stripped of all geopolitical possibilities to expand its power - no wonder that the Russian president, Putin, has used strong-arm tactics to prevent them from signing.

The Arab Spring could play an important role in shaping this emerging world. If all the Arab countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea would eventually, maybe after some decades, turn into democracies (some expected that to happen overnight!), their natural home would be the EU. From a geopolitical point of view, this would give the EU control of a large part of the rimland. If it ever happens that other Arab countries in the Middle East, like Syria and Iraq, would also move in this direction, the EU could in principle become the most powerful country in the world (This is because of such possibilities that Spykman was very much against the unification of Europe). Since its rise is so peaceful, nobody expects it to become such a superpower. But that can change if some EU countries proceed to form a political union (become politically integrated) and have strong military capabilities at their disposal.

The outcome of the war in Syria could also have a major impact on the emerging world order. The reason why Russia is supporting the Syrian regime is simply that it is one of their last allies in the Middle East. If Syria becomes democratic, Russia would be excluded from the Middle East (except for its alliance with Iran). Together with the EU's eastern partnership (if that ever comes to full fruition), this would reduce Russia to a large but impotent country. So, Putin's cunning power games is not a sign of Russia's rise, but rather of its struggle to keep some of its prospects for power open.

On the other hand, the US's reluctance to bomb the Syrian regime in 2013 after it used chemical weapons against the rebels, had been taken by many Middle Eastern countries as a sign that the US does not have the same motivation as in the past to become involved in conflicts in the region. Although it is clearly a good strategy to first get rid of Syria's chemical weapons before any direct Western participation in the conflict, it none the less seemed to countries like Saudi-Arabia and Israel (and probably Iran and Russia) that the war-weary US is becoming an unreliable partner. Since the US will become self-sufficient in fuel-production in the near future, it clearly does not have the same motivation than in the past to secure Western fuel supplies in the Middle East. The US has also stated that they have the intention to focus more on securing their strategic interests in the east, with the rise of China in mind. It is possible that the US will eventually need all their resources to contain a rising China in the east. This will open a strategic space in the Middle East which will most probably be filled by the EU (although Iran, together with Russia, will do all in their power to resist this).

The US has spent a lot of effort in promoting peace in the Middle East. They got the Israeli-Palestinian peace process going again, are trying to bring the Syrian regime and the rebels to the negotiation table and are also trying to force Iran to let go of its nuclear ambitions. Although such an effort to promote peace seems noble, there are some problems associated with this approach, namely 1) it seems that the Obama administration is trying to promote peace at all costs (or avoid war at all costs?), and 2) lasting peace has historically only been achieved when the world moved from an unstable political landscape towards a more stable one (typically after great wars), never when the world is moving from a stable to an unstable situation, from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. The result is that the major players see this as an opportunity to enhance their positions in the intermediate period before everything becomes extremely unstable. They try to manoeuvre themselves to outplay the others.

Conclusion

The world is changing fast and a new multi-polar world is emerging in which China, Russia, the US and the EU are the major players. In (classical) geopolitical terms, the US has been using the ideas of Mahan and Spykman for about a century to enhance its own power. They have controlled the seaways and the rimland. But this situation will not stay static. Their control of both the sea as well as the rimland (especially in the east) is challenged by China, who is also seriously considering implementing Mahan's strategy. Although China has not yet made any major move in this regard, it seems quite possible that they will eventually do so - especially when they think they are in a position to succeed (maybe with fast, land-grabbing military exercises). It is possible that the containment of China will eventually force the US to apply all its resources in this regard.

The alliance between the US and the EU within the framework of NATO, and the free-trade zone that is being negotiated between them, implies that the US could (and probably would eventually have to) leave the European borderlands to the EU as primary (but maybe not sole) defender thereof. This will only happen once the EU has developed into a major military player as well. In the meantime, it has used its soft power to enhance its own interests to such an extent that it has effectively secured eastern Europe and could very well eventually include the countries around both the Black and Mediterranean Seas in its sphere of influence. This will give them control over large parts of the rimlands bordering Europe and the Middle East. If Russia is effectively excluded from this zone, the EU could become the new and final (?) unipolar superpower in the world. Although this seems improbable at this point in history, this is exactly what geopolitical analysis predicts.

[1]  Part1-3: Inside China's military buildup (Reuters investigates).


Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

See also: The rise of the final world empire: the different views
 The euro countries move towards a fiscal union: an eschatological perspective

Wat moet Christene in 'n tyd soos hierdie doen?

In hierdie skrywe bespreek ek die Groot Skeiding in die samelewing. Wat is dit en hoe kan ons dit sinvol aanspreek? Ek maak voorstelle oor hoe Christene die speelveld kan verander.

Ons staan weereens by die begin van 'n nuwe jaar. Met die draai van elke die jaar is dit 'n goeie tyd om na te dink. Om 'n bietjie te herkou. Ons kan onsself afvra: Wat staan uit ten opsigte van die afgelope jaar? Wat is belangrike tendense? En sulke nadenke kan lei tot nuwe idees. Tot nuwe voorstelle. Ons kan vra: Wat kan of moet ons in die lig van ons waarneming doen? Mense het allerhande nuwejaarsvoornemens. Maar ons kan gewoon ten opsigte van die nuwe jaar vra: Wat kan ons in hierdie jaar doen om 'n verskil te maak? Christene kan vra: wat moet ons in 'n tyd soos hierdie doen?

Terwyl ek so nagedink het, was daar veral een waarneming wat vir my uitgestaan het. Ek wil dit die Groot Skeiding noem. Dit lyk vir my of daar 'n groot kloof deur die samelewing loop. Alhoewel ons baie skeidings en verskille in die groter samelewing kan waarneem, is hierdie een belangrik omdat dit nog 'n baie groot impak op die toekoms van die evangeliese Christendom gaan hê. Dit het hoofsaaklik met mense se ingesteldheid ten opsigte van die wetenskap te doen. Ons kan dit in meer diepte beskou en kyk wat ons as Christene moet doen om oor die lang termyn 'n verskil te maak.

Aan die een kant merk ek 'n groot groep mense op wat ons as "tradisioneel" kan beskryf. Wat hierdie groep in gemeen het is dat hulle oor die algemeen deel van die tradisionele stroom van denke uitmaak. Hulle staan by dit waarmee hulle grootgeword het. Onder hierdie mense is baie Christene. Baie onder hulle is of negatief of agnosties oor die wetenskap. Daar bestaan by hulle 'n persepsie dat wetenskaplikes die Bybel probeer ondermyn [nota 1]. Dat die Bybel en die wetenskap in konflik is. Baie van hierdie Christene maak 'n bewuste keuse vir die Bybel teenoor die wetenskap. 

Aan die ander kant is daar die groep wat miskien in die verre verlede "verlig" genoem sou word omdat hulle 'n meer kritiese benadering het. Hulle dink krities oor dinge na. Hierdie groep onderskryf die wetenskap en baie staan agnosties teenoor die geloof. Op die markplein van denke behoort  feitlik al die stemme wat in die wyer media as gesaghebbend aangehaal word, naamlik in die daaglikse en weeklikse koerante of op nasionale TV, tot hierdie groep. Hulle is die meningsvormers van die tyd. Waar hierdie groep jare gelede betreklik klein was, beperk tot sommige vrydenkendes by universiteite, is daar vandag 'n groot segment van die samelewing wat hier tuis is. Baie van die professionele beroepsmense bevind hulle hier. Ons kan dit die wetenskaplik-ingeligte groep noem.

Waarom is die Groot Skeiding vir ons as Christene belangrik? Die antwoord is eenvoudig: die jonger geslag is oor die algemeen baie meer gesofistikeerd in hul denke en voel hulleself tuis in die tweede groep. Op skool leer hulle nie meer soos in vergange dae dat die Bybel die belangrikste rigsnoer van ons lewe is nie; hulle leer dat die wetenskap die antwoorde het. Al meer van hulle huldig 'n sekulêre lewensbeskouing. Al meer staan agnosties ten opsigte van die geloof of is selfs ateïste. Soos die wyer samelewing met gesaghebbende stemme van regoor die wêreld bekend raak en wetenskaplik-ingelig is, so raak die eerste groep kleiner terwyl die tweede groep deurentyd groei. Christene bevind hulle al meer op die rand van die samelewing en hul impak gaan in die toekoms al kleiner word. As ons ons kinders verloor, het ons die toekoms verloor.

Die persepsie wat die tweede groep van die Christene het is dat hulle primitief dink, dat hulle ongeloofwaardige posisies probeer verdedig en dat dit wat hulle sê glad nie in die hedendaagse konteks sin maak nie. Alhoewel Christene voel dat so 'n beoordeling onredelik is, is dit ongelukkig waar dat dit al meer 'n algemene persepsie in die wyer samelewing raak. Sommige Christene dink dat die evangelie noodwendig vir die wêreld sal aanstoot gee en dat dit maar die lot van Christene is. Alhoewel dit waar is dat die evangelie vir baie aanstoot gee, is dit ook so dat baie Christene posisies verdedig wat lankal nie meer vir die gemiddelde wetenskaplik-ingeligte persoon sin maak nie. Die probleem lê nie by die evangelie nie; dit lê by die verpakking van die evangelie. 

Wat is die oplossing? Aan die een kant is daar 'n geestelike oplossing, naamlik dat ons die krag van God in aksie moet sien [nota 2]. In soveel gevalle weerspreek Christene se lewens en optrede dit wat hulle predik. Ons het 'n geestelike opwekking nodig. Maar aan die ander kant is daar ook 'n intellektuele oplossing. Christene sal die Groot Skeiding moet oorsteek. Hulle sal 'n taal moet praat wat vir die wetenskaplik-ingeligte mense van ons tyd sin maak. Die tradisionele Christen paradigma en die wetenskaplike paradigma (i.e. waarin wetenskaplikes en baie professionele beroepsmense opereer), praat verskillende tale wat in die algemeen glad nie wedersyds verstaan word of sin maak nie. Vir my lê die wonder daarin dat die Bybelse teks so dinamies is dat dit juis gesofistikeerde interpretasies ondersteun. Ons kan die Bybel op 'n eenvoudige wyse verstaan, maar ons kan ook op 'n gesofistikeerde wyse daarmee omgaan. En sonder sulke gesofistikeerde interpretasies wat die inspirasie van die teks onderskryf (let wel), sal die Bybel dood gewoon nie vir die wetenskaplik-ingeligte groep sinmaak nie.

In 'n poging om sinvolle interpretasies op die tafel te plaas, het ek het oor die afgelope jaar artikels op hierdie blog gepos waarin ek op twee aspekte gefokus het. Ten eerste het ek getoon dat die Christelike wêreldbeskouing - soos die bestaan van die hemel - kredietwaardig is [nota 3]. Alhoewel die wetenskap nie hieroor kan uitsluitsel gee nie, is dit wel so dat die Christenstandpunt gemaklik met die wetenskap versoenbaar is. Agnostici of ateïste wat glo dat ons wêreld tot die materiële aspek beperk is (dat daar geen gees of hemel is nie), moet nou toon dat die wetenskap nie 'n geesteswêreld kan akkomodeer nie. En dit kan hulle nie doen nie. Ek argumenteer dat die geesteswêreld waarbinne die hemel lê maklik met die kwantum realm, wat 'n hoër dimensionele tekstuur kan hê, wat binne die raamwerk van ons materiële wêreld ingebed is, kan ooreenkom.

Ten tweede het ek geargumenteer dat die Bybelse narratief geloofwaardig is. Ek het begin by die boek Genesis, wat vir baie mense problematies is en artikels oor die Skepping asook Adam en Eva gepos. In die komende jaar beplan ek verder ook artikels oor die tuin van Eden, die slang asook die Godskonsep in Genesis 1-3 (en die vraag oor die geldigheid van die bronneteorie van die Pentateug!). So het ek getoon dat die Bybelse teks in Genesis 1-2 glad nie in stryd is met wetenskaplike bevindinge oor die ouderdom van die kosmos en die aarde nie [nota 4].

Christene wat 'n sesduisend jaar oue skepping in Genesis 1 probeer inlees, het enorme probleme om hul siening te regverdig (sien [nota 4]). Wat meer is, daardie siening het tot gevolg dat diegene wat wetenskaplik-ingelig is dink dat dit die Bybel is wat sulke lagwekkende uitsprake maak en daarom totaal irrelevant vir vandag is - terwyl dit eerder waar is van daardie interpretasies wat voortbou op 'n ongesofistikeerde lees van die teks. Alhoewel sommige wetenskaplik-ingeligte mense vanweë die scientistiese invloede in die samelewing ook nie ruimte maak vir dinge soos die opstanding nie (dink maar aan diegene in die Nuwe Hervorming), laat die Bybelse teks ons toe om dit sinvol te verdedig [nota 5]. Gesofistikeerde interpretasies is nie in stryd met die Goddelike inspirasie of wondergebeure in die geskiedenis nie. Vir baie Christene is dit kompromie om die wetenskaplike bevindinge vir byvoorbeeld 'n ou aarde te aanvaar - hulle besef nie dat die Bybelse teks daarmee gemaklik is en glad nie 'n sesduisend jaar oue aarde onderskryf soos hulle geleer is om te dink nie.

Die gesag van die Bybelse teks as die geïnspireerde Woord van God is oor die afgelope paar eeue veral deur Bybelse Kritiek (Biblical Criticism/Bybelwetenskap) ondermyn, eers met hul positivisties-modernistiese en deesdae met hul post-modernistiese aanslag. Alhoewel evangeliese Christene, veral aan sommige universiteite in die VSA, goeie teen-antwoorde gee, weet baie Christene nie altyd hoe om hierdie denke effektief te weerlê nie. In hierdie verband is filosofie een van die mees effektiewe stukke gereedskap tot ons beskikking, in teenstelling met wat baie Christene dink - veral kontemporêre hermeneutiek. Ek het dus ook 'n artikel in hieroor gepos waarin ek Bybelse Kritiek vanuit 'n filosofiese hoek gekritiseer het [nota 6].

Ongelukkig is baie tradisionele Christene negatief oor filosofie. Hulle verbind dit met Paulus se "wysheid van die wêreld" (1 Kor 3:19). Alhoewel dit sekerlik waar is dat filosofie in sigself ons nie op die regte pad kan lei nie, kan dit tog 'n handige middel wees in die verdediging van die evangelie. Paulus self het in Griekeland op die Areopagus met die filosowe gedebatteer en dit is duidelik dat hy in hierdie verband goed in die antieke denke onderlê was. Waar evangeliese Christene (meestal in die VSA) wel filosofie studeer en in debatte benut, fokus hulle ongelukkig meestal op die Middeleeuse Christenfilosowe. Ons kan sekerlik baie by hulle leer, maar ek dink die debat vra dat ons baie meer van die kontinentale filosofie (veral van hermeneutici soos Gadamer asook van Immanuel Kant, wie se filosofie tans 'n groot oplewing beleef) moet maak. Voorts is dit belangrik om kontinentale filosofie te bestudeer omdat dit so 'n groot impak op die kontemporêre wêreldbeskouing het.

Dit bring my by die belangrike vraag: Hoe kan ons as Christene die speelveld verander? Dit is duidelik nie iets wat vinnig sal gebeur nie, maar ek het twee voorstelle:

1. Christene in die akademie moet hulle daarvoor beywer dat sinvolle en gesofistikeerde narratiewe ten opsigte van die Christen wêreldbeskouing en Bybelse teks in die akademiese gemeenskap aanvaar word. Alhoewel sulke narratiewe nooit as die enigste korrekte aanvaar sal of hoef te word nie, is dit heeltemal voldoende dat sulke alternatiewe in die akademiese literatuur erken word. Gesprekke in wetenskaplike en filosofiese kringe syfer uiteindelik tot op voetsool vlak deur. Alhoewel sulke gesprekke en artikels soms baie tegnies kan wees, gebruik baie ander skrywers die essensie daarvan in hul gesprekke en argumente. Dit sal aan Christene die nodige gereedskap gee om effektief op die markplein van denke me te ding.

Dit beteken dat Christene hulleself in die toepaslike dissiplines sal moet bekwaam en bereid wees om vir hul standpunte op te staan. In hierdie verband is dit interessant hoeveel Christene wat deur die eeue 'n groot impak op die geskiedenis gehad het, sedert Paulus, geleerde mense was. Paulus se skrywe was ook vir baie van sy tydgenote moeilik om te verstaan (vgl. 2 Pet 3:15, 16), maar het die intellektuele basis vir toekomstige eeue se gesprek gelê. Sonder Paulus se skrywes sou ons maar 'n baie beperkte insig in die soendood van Jesus Christus gehad het. So het geleerde Christene, en nie altyd teoloë nie, deur die eeue telkens nuwe stukrag aan die kerk verleen (dink aan C. S. Lewis in die vorige eeu) deur die nodige gereedskap daar te stel wat die kerk op daardie stadium vir hul gesprek in die samelewing nodig gehad het. 

Alhoewel dit so is dat baie Christene bang is dat diegene wat gaan verder studeer (veral in rigtings soos teologie en filosofie) deur liberalisme ingesluk sal word - dink maar aan almal wat met 'n brandende hart gaan teologie studeer het net om later die pad byster te raak vanweë liberale invloede aldaar - glo ek dat daar wel 'n oplossing in hierdie verband is. Dit is die daarstel van 'n goeie akademiese inrigting met evangeliese waardes waar alle vakrigtings aangebied word. Ons moet werk vir die oprigting van 'n goeie geakkrediteerde Christen universiteit in Suid-Afrika wat die belange van die wyer Christengemeenskap kan dien - en nie net hierdie of daardie kerk nie. Kritici kan maar sê wat hul wil, maar daar is in die meeste beroepe nie iets soos 'n neutrale posisie nie - en die posisie by die meeste universiteite is sekulêr. So 'n universiteit sal mense in alle beroepe toerus om uiteindelik hul stem op die markplein van denke te laat hoor.

2. Christene moet effektief op die markplein van denke deelneem. Dit sal net gebeur as daar mettertyd 'n wye netwerk van evangeliese Christene tot stand kom wat nie net geestelik is nie, maar ook akademies ingestel is. Hulle kan op 'n wye verskeidenheid vlakke saamwerk om die Groot Skeiding oor te steek en die wetenskaplik-ingeligte groep ook (soos baie ander groepe in die tradisionele groepering in die samelewing en elders) effektief met die evangelie te bereik. As evangeliese Christene mettertyd in posisies regoor die spektrum verteenwoordig is, kan almal in so 'n netwerk saamwerk om sinvolle en gesofistikeerde Christen stemme in die wyer samelewing en media te bevorder.

So 'n netwerk sal net realiseer as evangeliese Christenleiers op een of ander wyse begin saamwerk. En dit sal net gebeur as daar een of ander struktuur of forum is wat so 'n netwerk tot stand bring en dit ook op verskeie wyses bevorder. So 'n forum moet die ruimte skep waarbinne so 'n netwerk kan funksioneer i.e. nie om dit te organiseer nie, maar bloot om die ruimte daarvoor te skep. Daar is soveel verskillende bedieninge en gemeentes wat binne die raamwerk van so 'n netwerk oor kerkgrense heen sal kan saamwerk en floreer.  Maar dit sal ons iets kos. Christenleiers sal van wantroue en trots moet afsien - ons sal ruimte vir mekaar moet maak al staan ons dalk ver van mekaar in ons opvattinge en sieninge.

Dit is eers wanneer so 'n netwerk tot stand kom dat die oprigting van 'n universiteit met evangeliese Christelike waardes 'n werkbare opsie sal word. Die rede hiervoor is dat so 'n netwerk ook die voedingsbron vir so 'n universiteit sal wees. Alhoewel teologiese skole van kleiner kerke vir akkreditering met so 'n universiteit kan saamwerk en teologiese studente hul nagraadse studies daar kan doen, is daar natuurlik soveel ander Christene in verskillende kerke wat nie noodwendig teologie wil studeer nie, maar wat by so 'n universiteit kan studeer. Voorts kan studente wat hul graad daar verwerf weer by ander erkende universiteite verder gaan studeer. Dit sal vir daardie studente die intellektuele basis lê selfs al sou die rigtings waarin hulle verder by ander universiteite gaan studeer as moeilike rigtings vir evangeliese Christene beskou word (dink aan die NG kerk kweekskool).

Daar is ongelukkig baie weerstand onder 'n groot deel van die tradisionele Christengemeenskap teen verandering - veral die soort waarvan ek hier praat. Baie van ons het groot geword in 'n paradigma waar net ons eie posisie as korrek beskou word - terwyl daar tipies verskeie ander soortgelyke en selfs beter posisies elders onder evangeliese Christene aanvaar word. Ons besef nie altyd hoe beperk ons eie insigte en sieninge is nie! Ek glo dat ons in die Christengemeenskap ons harte moet verruim om vir mekaar ruimte te maak. Een van die gevolge van die voorstelle wat ek hier maak sal juis wees dat so 'n gesonde oop gesindheid in die wyer Christengemeenskap bevorder word.

Sommige sal nooit insien dat dit vandag deel van die Goddelike opdrag is dat ons die Groot Skeiding moet oorsteek om mense met die evangelie te bereik nie. Ons moet hulle maar agterlaat. Ons moet nie dat hulle ons terughou nie. Maar daar sal andere wees wat, al gaan hulle nie self nie, ten minste ruimte sal maak vir diesulke wat wel geroepe voel om te gaan. Ons moet ons vir so 'n gesindheid beywer - om 'n netwerk daar te stel waarin ons nie net op verskillende vlakke en raamwerke volgens ons roeping en gawes saamwerk nie, maar waar ons ook ruimte maak dat sommige geroepe is om na die wetenskaplik-ingeligte mense in die tweede groep uit te reik. Ons mense is glad nie toegerus om met diegene rondom hulle wat wetenskaplik-ingelig is gesprek te voer nie - die voorstelle hierbo sal 'n veilige milieu skep waarin dit prakties kan gebeur.  As ons dit nie doen nie, sal die evangeliese Christendom al meer sy stem en impak in die samelewing verloor.

Die voorstelle wat ek hier noem sal net realiseer - en dalk eers oor baie jare - as ons as Christene hieroor nadink, bid en met 'n gesprek onder mekaar begin. As evangeliese Christene wie se harte deur die Heilige Gees opgewek is met geestelike leiers wat na hul mening oop is vir hierdie gedagtes oor hierdie saak gaan praat. As Christenleiers wat die probleem sien, met mekaar begin praat. As sulke leiers moeite doen om met ander wat ook so voel in aanraking te kom en die gesprek oor die forum te begin. Ons sal veral moet besef dat hierdie saak nie net op 'n intellektuele vlak benader kan word nie; dit is bowenal 'n geestelike saak. Dit gaan immers oor die uitbouing van God se koninkryk. Dit is slegs deur baie gebed dat hierdie dinge uiteindelik sal realiseer.

Die realisering van hierdie visie sal ware leierskap vra - geestelike leiers sal ten spyte van opposisie uit hul eie kring 'n besluit moet neem om hulle vir so 'n ideaal te beywer. Ware leierskap is om ten spyte van weerstand, jou op 'n wyse en gesofistikeerde wyse te beywer vir daardie dinge waarin jy glo. As Christenleiers nie in die lig van die veranderende situasie sulke leierskap toon nie, sal toekomstige geslagte van Christene ons verkwalik dat ons niks gedoen het nie. As iemand soos Nelson Mandela nie die groter ideaal van 'n demokratiese Suid-Afrika voor oë gehou het nie, en aan die beswaardes in sy geledere geluister het, sou ons dalk in SA dieselfde konflik gesien het wat lande soos Egipte en Irak kwel.

Ons moet eers besef daar is 'n wesentlike krisis - en dat dit nie voldoende is as ons slegs in die raamwerk van ons bekende veilige omgewing funksioneer en dink nie (ons kan gerus onthou hoe naby 'n groef en graf aan mekaar lê). As ons slegs binne die raamwerk van die kleiner wordende tradisionele groep opereer sal ons nooit die wyer samelewing bereik nie. Ons sal dalk die veraf volke deur sendingwerk bereik, maar in ons eie leefwêreld sal ons 'n groot en vinnig groeiende segment van die samelewing verloor. Christene sal die Groot Skeiding moet oorsteek. Ons moet die mense van ons tyd bereik.

Ek vertrou dat hierdie skrywe so 'n gesprek sal stimuleer.

[1] Sien my artikel: Wetenskap en geloof
[2] Ek het in die afgelope jaar verskeie geestelike artikels op hierdie blog gepos:
 Die profeet
 God hoor
My oordenkinge oor die lewe van Abraham wat op RSG uitgesaai is, is intussen in die boek Begin jou dag met God (Carpediem Media, 2013) opgeneem.
[3] Sien die artikel: Kan ons nog in die hemel glo?
[4] Sien o.a. : Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?
[5] Sien my artikel: Om te glo of nie te glo nie...
[6] A Critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline


Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. www. wmcloud.blogspot.com)
Kontak my by wmcloud@yahoo.com

Kan ons nog in die hemel glo?

In hierdie essay gee ek die redes waarom ek in die hemel glo. Daar is wetenskaplike, filosofiese, geskiedkundige en geestelike redes waarom ons in die hemel kan glo. In die lig hiervan kan blote skeptisisme maklik na 'n onredelike standpunt lyk.

Ek het vroeër vanjaar met Bertus Osbloed van Niekerk en 'n klompie van sy vriende (ek het darem ook 'n vriend saam gehad) van die Renaissance gemeentes, wat noue bande met die sg. “Nuwe Hervorming” beweging het, by 'n restaurant in Somerset-Wes gekuier. Ons het oor verskeie sake soos die betroubaarheid van die Bybelse teks, die duiwel asook oor die hemel gepraat. Wat die hemel betref, het ons eintlik nie baie ver gekom nie en ek hoop ons sal die gesprek nog iewers voortsit. In hierdie essay wil ek graag die kwessie van die hemel verder aanroer.

Alhoewel ons maar relatief kort gesels het, is dit is vir my duidelik dat Bertus en sy vriende agnosties is oor God se bestaan. Hulle dink nie dat die Bybelse vertelling omtrent God se openbaring in die geskiedenis gesag dra nie. En hulle glo nie in die hemel nie. Nou is dit sekerlik so dat dit baie onwaarskynlik is dat 'n mens in die hemel sal glo as jy nie in God glo nie. Ek glo in God en ek glo dat Jesus die Seun van God is – en ek glo in die hemel. Maar ek moet steeds aan myself die vraag vra: Waarom glo ek dat daar 'n hemel is? En waarom dink ek dat die Bybelse inligting oor die hemel gesag dra? Ek wil enkele dinge in hierdie verband aanspreek.

In hierdie essay benader ek die kwessie van die hemel vanuit verskeie hoeke. Ek gee 'n kort agtergrond oor die antieke voor-wetenskaplike beskouing van die hemel. Vir baie Bybelse geleerdes is dit moeilik om die antieke konsep van die hemel met die postmoderne denkwyses te versoen. Tog bou hul kritiek op die hemel grotendeels voort op die modernistiese beskouing oor die kosmos toe baie geleerdes daarvan oortuig was dat ons net dit wat wetenskaplik gegrond kan word, as geloofwaardig kan aanvaar. Dit is egter nie 'n siening wat vandag meer veel aansien geniet nie.

Regdeur die essay vra ek myself: Wat is die belangrikste rede waarom ek in die hemel glo? Is dit omdat ek genoegsame wetenskaplike getuienis het dat die hemel bestaan? Sekerlik nie. Die wetenskaplike getuienis is nie genoegsaam om enige uitspraak vir of teen die bestaan van die hemel te maak nie. As ons die vraag 'n bietjie aanpas, en vra: Hoe is die bestaan van die hemel moontlik? of : Hoe kan ons die bestaan van die hemel met die huidige wetenskaplike kennis van die kosmos versoen?, dan dink ek dat 'n sinvolle antwoord gegee kan word. In hierdie verband is dit opvallend dat slegs die wetenskaplike ontwikkelinge oor die afgelope eeu – en veral oor die laaste paar dekades – my toelaat om hierdie vrae sinvol te beantwoord. Die rede hiervoor is gewoon omdat die kosmos duidelik 'n baie meer komplekse plek is as wat die modernistiese mens ooit kon droom. 'n Groot deel van die skeptisisme oor die hemel is juis die gevolg van 'n baie simplistiese vertolking van ons beperkte wetenskaplike kennis.

Maar die feit dat die hemel gemaklik versoenbaar is met ons wetenskaplike kennis, is nie die belangrikste rede waarom ek in die hemel glo nie. Ek is van mening dat die uitsprake wat ons in die Nuwe Testament oor die hemel vind, geloofwaardig is en gesag dra. Ek kyk na Paulus se skrywe. Voorts glo ek dat Jesus se uitsprake hieromtrent geglo kan word. In hierdie verband noem ek enkele dinge omtrent die betroubaarheid van die Jesus-woorde in die Evangelie van Johannes. Uiteindelik kan ons natuurlik nie die bestaan van die hemel bewys nie; ons glo daaraan of nie. En ek dink dat ons goeie rede het om daarin te glo.

Die pre-wetenskaplike hemel

Die konsep van die hemel is baie oud. Ons vind verwysings na die hemel in die vroegste Sumeriese tekste. Ons vind dit ook regoor die antieke wêreld asook later in die Hebreeuse tradisie. Die antieke siening kan kortliks saamgevat word in 'n drie-verdieping beskouing van die kosmos, met die hemel bo, die aarde in die middel en die doderyk onder die aarde. Baie kontemporêre geleerdes is van mening dat daardie vroeë beskouing primitief is omdat dit uit 'n pre-wetenskaplike leefwêreld kom waarin mense 'n baie simplistiese beskouing oor die kosmos gehad het. Daardie mense sou dink dat die hemel “bo” die aarde is – en ons weet vandag dat daar nie van “bo” die aarde gepraat kan word nie.

In my boek Abraham en sy God (2011) bespreek ek die antieke beskouing in detail. Ek fokus op die vroegste denke hieromtrent en toon dat dit inderwaarheid 'n baie gesofistikeerde siening van die kosmos is wat op die beweging van die sterrehemel gebaseer is. Ongelukkig werk baie Bybelse geleerdes met 'n karikatuur van daardie siening wat hulle dan gemaklik afskiet. Ek gaan nie daardie antieke siening hier volledig bespreek nie ('n blits uiteensetting sal nie daaraan reg doen nie); wat ek wel kan noem is dat die antieke mens, sedert die tyd van die Sumeriërs en sekerlik lank voor hulle, geglo het die “hemel” wat ons in die noordelike sterrehemel kan onderskei, slegs 'n sigbare eweknie van die werklike hemel is wat in die geesteswêreld verborge is. Hulle het geglo dat daar 'n onsigbare “direksionele” wêreld (i.e. wat ons wêreld impakteer) agter die sigbare wêreld verborge lê – 'n wêreld waarin die geeste, gode en God self bestaan. So, die hemel moet dus in die onsigbare geestesrealm gevind word – en soos ek hieronder sal aantoon is daar geen rede waarom ons nie hierdie siening ernstig kan opneem nie.

Die rede waarom sommige Bybelse geleerdes soveel klem op die pre-wetenskaplike aard van die Bybelse teks asook konsepte soos die hemel lê, is omdat hulle van mening is dat die moderne en postmoderne mens doodgewoon nie meer daardie narratief as geloofwaardig kan beskou nie. Waarom dink hulle so? Hulle is van mening dat die wetenskaplike era onherroeplik met die pre-wetenskaplike wêreldbeskouing weggedoen het. Ons kan dus nie meer veel waarde heg aan sieninge wat uit daardie primitiewe tyd kom nie. Hierdie siening word onderlê deur die standpunt dat die wetenskap ons enigste betroubare maatstaf omtrent die werklikheid is.

Alhoewel niemand dit sal betwyfel dat ons wetenskaplike wêreldbeskouing die antieke siening verplaas het nie, is daar geen rede om te dink dat die wetenskap ons enigste maatstaf omtrent die werklikheid is nie. Wetenskaplikes dink deesdae dat bekende materie slegs sowat 7% van die kosmos uitmaak. Daar is 'n erkenning dat ons steeds baie min omtrent die kosmos weet en wetenskaplikes wat dink dat ons binnekort als wat ons kan weet gaan deurgrond, word nie meer in filosofiese kringe ernstig opgeneem nie. Ons besef vandag dat die kosmos baie meer kompleks is as wat die modernistiese mens – wat so vol bravade gedink het dat daar geen beperkinge op die menslike vermoëns is nie – ooit sou kon dink.

Die filosoof Immanuel Kant het lang gelede reeds geargumenteer dat ons empiriese benadering tot die kosmos slegs tot die fenomenele wêreld beperk is. Dit is die wêreld wat ons rondom ons of deur wetenskaplike ondersoek kan waarneem. Volgens hom is daar 'n aspek van die kosmos waartoe ons geen direkte toegang het nie – dit is die noumenele wêreld (afgelei van “nous” wat “mind” beteken) wat buite ons konsepte van ruimte en tyd lê. Ons kan daardie aspek van die wêreld bedink, maar nooit direk empiries waarneem nie. As die kosmos inderdaad is soos hy sê (en hy voer goeie argumente vir sy siening aan), dan is daar sekere beperkinge op menslike rede.  Sy bekendste werk, Critique of Pure Reason, stel dit juis ten doel om te toon dat ons rede onherroeplik beperk is tot die fenomenele wêreld. Ons kan nooit enige finale gevolgtrekkings maak oor die werklikheid soos dit waarlik daar uitsien nie.

Kant onderskei drie benaderings ten opsigte van die gebruik van ons rede. Daar is die dogmatiese beskouing waarvolgens sekere sieninge (soos die bestaan van die hemel) dogmaties en sonder bewys onderskryf word. Verder is daar is die kritieke beskouing waarvolgens sulke sieninge op 'n radikale wyse gekritiseer kan word – hy verwys hier veral na David Hume en sy volgelinge (B789). Laastens is daar sy eie kritieke benadering wat beide die dogmatiese en skeptiese sieninge kritiseer. Sy sieninge kritiseer die gebruik van rede buite die grense wat rede self daarvoor stel.

Ons kan die dogmatikus kritiseer, maar ons kan ook die skeptikus kritiseer omdat hy nie in ag neem dat ons menslike beperkinge ons onherroeplik terughou van enige finale kennis oor die kosmos nie. Ons kan gewoon nie sekere antwoorde vanuit die raamwerk van suiwer spekulatiewe rede gee nie. Die wetenskap sal gewoon nooit enige finale antwoorde vir of teen die bestaan van die hemel kan gee nie. Ons kan wel die wetenskaplike uitsprake oor die kosmos met 'n ander, geestelike beskouing komplimenteer – dit is nou as ons dink dat ons rede het om dit te doen. Ek glo dat ons wel so 'n rede het.

Die hemel en die wetenskap

Ons sou kan sê dat ons beperkte wetenskaplike kennis ruimte maak vir geloof. Maar dit is nie genoegsaam om maar net te sê dat omdat die wetenskap nie als weet nie, daarom kan ons daardie kennis-gaping met enige vorm van geloof vul nie. Ons moet darem seker redes gee waarom ons dink dat ons die wetenskap met geloof kan komplimenteer. In hierdie verband is daar verskeie redes, waarvan die eerste is dat ons huidige wetenskaplike kennis gemaklik versoenbaar is met die antieke konsep van die hemel. In stede om te vra: Is daar genoegsame wetenskaplike getuienis vir die bestaan van die hemel?, kan ons vra: Hoe kan ons die bestaan van die hemel met die huidige wetenskaplike kennis van die kosmos versoen? Ek dink dat 'n mens 'n sinvolle antwoord hierop kan gee.

Een van die belangrikste ontwikkelings in die wetenskap die afgelope eeu was die ontdekking van kwantum fisika. Wetenskaplikes het ontdek dat daar 'n aspek van ons kosmos is wat baie anders lyk as die fenomenele wêreld waaraan ons gewoond is. Die kwantum wêreld het ander reëls – Newton se bekende wet van oorsaak-gevolg word opgehef, die elementêre kwantum deeltjies (wat nie “deeltjies” in die klassieke sin is nie) is op 'n manier onderling met mekaar verbind al is hulle hoe ver van mekaar verwyder, daar is spontane oorsaaklikheid wat ons fenomenele wêreld impakteer ens. Dit is 'n wêreld wat nie empiries vir ons toeganklik is nie – en kom presies met Kant se noumenele wêreld ooreen. Ek het in 'n essay wat ek by die jaarlikse PSSA (Philosophy Association of SA) gelees het, geargumenteer dat ons die kwantum realm as die demonstrasie van Kant se noumenele realm kan neem [1]. Dit sal beteken dat die siel, wat Kant in die noumenele realm plaas, in effek in die kwantum realm kan bestaan (sien veral nota 7 in [1]).

Ons weet nog relatief min van die kwantum wêreld. Dit blyk dat daardie wêreld uit 'n verweefdheid van kwantum velde bestaan wat buite ons ruimte-tyd dimensies lê. Slegs die gebeure wat vanuit daardie velde spontaan in ons fenomenele wêreld manifesteer, val binne ons ruimte-tyd dimensies. Dit is moontlik dat die kwantum wêreld in ander ruimte-tyd dimensies bestaan. Wetenskaplikes wat worstel om 'n verenigde teorie oor die kosmos daar te stel, wat poog om die vier fundamentale kragte (elektromagnetiese krag, sterk en swak kernkrag asook swaartekrag) in een teorie byeen te bring, het al voorgestel dat ons dit net kan doen as ons sekere klein ingevoude ruimtelike dimensies veronderstel wat binne die struktuur van ons kosmos ingebed is [2]. Ons ruimtelike dimensies is dan met sulke dimensies gevul waarin daar in beginsel ander deeltjies en selfs strukture (soos die menslike siel/gees) teenwoordig kan wees wat nie vir ons sintuie toeganklik is nie. Dit sal beteken dat daar 'n hele wêreld binne ons fenomenele wêreld bestaan wat glad nie direk empiries toeganklik is nie – 'n wêreld waarvan ons nog bitter min weet.

Die doel van hierdie bespreking is nie om te toon dat die kwantum wêreld met die geesteswêreld ooreenkom nie. Al wat ek hier doen is om te toon dat daar inderdaad so 'n “geesteswêreld” binne die raamwerk van die fenomenele wêreld kan bestaan – presies soos die antieke mens gedink het [3]. Alhoewel die wetenskap nie op hierdie stadium die antieke konsep van die geesteswêreld of die hemel kan onderskryf nie, kan so 'n konsep gemaklik met die wetenskaplike verstaan van ons wêreld versoen word. Daar is geen rede om te dink dat die wetenskap die konsep van die hemel ondermyn nie. Om die waarheid te sê, Kant vereenselwig uiteindelik ook die noumenele wêreld met die toekomstige wêreld waarop ons as Christene hoop (B835-839).

Die Bybelse hemel

Die feit dat die wetenskap gemaklik met die konsep van die hemel as 'n plek in 'n ander dimensie versoen kan word, is egter nie die belangrikste rede waarom ek in die hemel glo nie. Dit ondersteun wel my geloof in die bestaan van so 'n plek. My geloof in die hemel is op die Bybelse getuienis in hierdie verband gebaseer. Ek is van mening dat die Bybelse uitsprake oor die hemel geloofwaardig is. Ons kan dit maar glo.

Een van die belangrikste plekke in die Bybel waar die hemel as uiteindelike bestemming van gelowiges ter sprake kom, is in Paulus se skrywe aan die gemeente in Korinthe. Daar argumenteer hy dat ons in die hemel as onverganklike bestemming van die opgestane gelowiges kan glo omdat Christus uit die dood opgestaan het. Paulus begin sy rede met 'n geloofsbelydenis wat duidelik met die skrywe van die brief in 54 n.C. reeds lank in die vroeë kerk in gebruik was: “[I]n die eerste plek het ek aan julle oorgelewer wat ek ook ontvang het, dat Christus vir ons sondes gesterf het volgens die Skrifte; en dat Hy begrawe is, en dat Hy op die derde dag opgewek is volgens die Skrifte; en dat Hy aan Cefas verskyn het; daarna aan die twaalf. Daarna het Hy ook verskyn aan oor die vyfhonderd broeders tegelyk, waarvan die meeste nou nog lewe, maar sommige al ontslaap het. Daarna het Hy verskyn aan Jakobus; daarna aan al die apostels; en laaste van almal het Hy verskyn ook aan my as die ontydig geborene” (1 Kor 15:3-8).

Paulus argumenteer dat daar goeie getuienis vir die opstanding is. Die opstanding is sedert die vroegste tyd in die kerk se geloofsbelydenis opgeneem. Christus het na sy dood in 'n verheerlikte liggaam aan verskeie persone asook aan groepe persone verskyn – waarvan die meeste nog met Paulus se skrywe gelewe het. Hy noem dat Christus se opstanding die rede is waarom diegene wat in Hom glo, ook kan weet dat hulle eendag met die opstanding van die dode sal opstaan. As ons in Christus se opstanding glo – en Paulus dink dat ons goeie rede het om dit wel te glo – dan het ons alle rede om in die opstanding en die hemel as ewige salige bestemming te glo. Ek stem met Paulus saam dat daar goeie getuienis vir die opstanding is – en dat gelowiges dus rede het om in die hemel te glo.

Ons vind verder ook regdeur die evangelies dat Jesus na die hemel of "koninkryk van die hemele" verwys waar die regverdiges uiteindelik saam met God, Jesus self en die engele sal wees (vgl. Mark. 12:25-27; 13:26-27, 32; Mat. 13:43 ens.) [4]. Een van die mooiste uitsprake in hierdie verband kom in die Evangelie van Johannes voor. Daar lees ons hoedat Jesus se: “Laat julle hart nie ontsteld word nie; glo in God, glo ook in My. In die huis van my Vader is daar baie wonings; as dit nie so was nie, sou Ek dit vir julle gesê het. Ek gaan om vir julle plek te berei. En as Ek gegaan en vir julle plek berei het, kom Ek weer en sal julle na My toe neem, sodat julle ook kan wees waar Ek is” (Joh. 16:1-3). Alhoewel daar sommige uit Bybelse Kritisisme kringe is wat hierdie uitsprake as laat en onbetroubaar probeer afmaak, het ek al vroeër in 'n artikel op hierdie blog getoon dat daardie aanslag onherroeplik deur die modernistiese wortels daarvan gekompromitteer is [5]. Die kritiek teen die betroubaarheid van die Nuwe Testamentiese getuienis is uiters eensydig en uiteindelik onwetenskaplik.

Ek kan wel iets oor die Evangelie van Johannes sê waarin hierdie uitspraak van Jesus voorkom. Alhoewel daar 'n siening is dat die evangelie baie laat geskryf is en dus nie Jesus se woorde korrek kan weergee nie, is daar rede om te dink dat presies die teendeel waar is. Volgens die interne getuienis is hierdie evangelie deur die geliefde dissipel geskryf wat aanvanklik deel van Johannes die Doper se volgelinge was (Joh. 1:35-43). Johannes het naby Qumran gedoop en het moontlik tot die Qumran groep behoort. Hulle was toegewyde Jode wie se sieninge grotendeels tot die hoofstroom Joodse denke behoort het behalwe vir die besondere klem op die Messiaanse verwagting, afsondering asook die verwerping van die destydse tempeldiens.

Ons vind dan ook in hierdie evangelie 'n sterk verbintenis met Johannes die Doper en die Qumran groep. Daar is twee getuienisse van Johannes die Doper, 'n beklemtoning van motiewe wat tipies was van die Qumran groep (bv. die klem op die konflik tussen lig en duisternis, tussen die seuns van die lig en van die duisternis – Joh. 1:5-10; 3:19-21; 8:12), 'n assosiasie met persone wat Qumran gebruike volg, soos die man wat die kruik na die bo-vertrek gedra het (slegs in gemeenskappe waar min vroue was, soos die van Qumran, waar mans hulleself afgesonder het, is kruike deur mans gedra). Dit toon dat die evangelie waarskynlik deur iemand geskryf is wat sulke bande met die Qumran groep gehad het. En dit impliseer dat die mees waarskynlike skrywer van hierdie evangelie wel Johannes die apostel was soos tradisioneel veronderstel word – die een wat eers 'n volgeling van Johannes die Doper was en later as die geliefde apostel bekend was.

Ons vind dus dat beide die opstanding sowel as Jesus se eie woorde aan ons rede gee om in die hemel te glo. Alhoewel ek nie hier 'n lang argument in hierdie verband kan voer nie, glo ek dat ons goeie rede het om dit as betroubare getuienis vir die hemel te beskou. As Jesus self sê dat gelowiges met verwagting op die hemel kan uitsien, dan kan ons dit maar doen! Jesus se opstanding bevestig dat ons sy woorde in hierdie verband ernstig kan opneem. En alhoewel ons natuurlik nie hierdie dinge kan bewys nie, het ons goeie rede om dit te glo.

Ek moet eerlik erken dat al hierdie getuienis nie die hoofrede is waarom ek in die hemel glo nie – alhoewel dit natuurlik als bydra tot my geloof in die hemel. Die belangrikste rede waarom ek in die hemel glo het eerder met my eie geloof en diepe belewing van God te doen. Ek ervaar God in my lewe – noem dit 'n diep geestelike intuïsie [3] – en omdat ek God so beleef glo ek ook in die hemel. Ek het 'n innerlike sekerheid dat God in my leef – en dat ek ook eendag die hemel met Hom sal deel. Hierdie belewing is gegrond in die Bybelse teks waarna ek reeds hierbo verwys het.

Slot

Op die vraag: Is die hemel 'n werklike plek? kan ek met oortuiging Ja antwoord. Alhoewel die hemel natuurlik nie 'n plek in die fenomenele wêreld is nie, is dit 'n plek wat in 'n geestelike, maar tog werklike, dimensie bestaan. Alhoewel die hemel 'n baie ou konsep is wat sedert die vroegste tye in tekste genoem word, doen die voor-wetenskaplike beskouing van die hemel geen afbreek aan my geloof in die hemel nie. Soos die antieke mens geglo het, is die hemel in die onsigbare wêreld agter die sigbare verborge. Dit bestaan in 'n ander realm, in 'n geestelike realm.

Daar was 'n tyd toe die modernistiese mens op simplistiese wyse gedink het dat ons net dinge kan glo wat ons kan bewys. Die probleem is egter dat, soos Immanuel Kant getoon het, dit onmoontlik is om te bewys dat die hemel bestaan of nie bestaan nie. Die modernistiese skeptisisme is in sigself simplisties omdat dit slegs die fisies-waarneembare onderskryf. Ons weet vandag dat die kosmos baie wyer strek: die kwantum realm bestaan al het ons geen direkte empiriese toegang daartoe nie. Wat opvallend is, is dat als wat ons van die kwantum realm weet presies ooreenkom met dit wat Kant oor die noumenele realm geargumenteer het. As ons die kontemporêre teoretiese fisici ernstig opneem, dan is dit goed moontlik dat daardie realm uiteindelik in ander ruimte-tyd dimensies bestaan. Dit is baie moontlik dat daardie realm niks anders is nie as die geesteswêreld waarin die antieke mens geglo het en waarin hulle ook die hemel geplaas het.

Ek glo in die hemel omdat Jesus gesê het dat so 'n plek bestaan. Sy opstanding bevestig dat dit wat Hy gesê het die waarheid is. Alhoewel ek nie daardie dinge kan bewys nie, is ek oortuig dat ek goeie rede het om dit te glo. Voorts glo ek nie alleen in die hemel omdat die Bybel daarvan praat nie, maar veral ook omdat ek in God glo en Hom daagliks in my lewe ervaar. Ek aanvaar dat sommige nie my geloof deel nie, maar diesulkes het beslis nie meer bewyse aan hul kant nie. Blote skeptisisme wat op onmoontlike feite aandring wat nie vir ons as mense beskore is nie, is duidelik om daardie rede onredelik. Ek glo daarenteen dat Christene goeie rede het om in die hemel te glo.

[1] Ek skryf tans 'n artikel waarin ek toon dat ons die kwantum realm as die demonstrasie van die noumenele realm kan neem.

[2] Sien: Kant's noumenal realm reconsidered in the light of contemporary developments in physics
[3] Sien: Is the spirit world more than an idea?  Die essay fokus op die filosofiese tradisie en die geestesrealm.
[4] Hierdie essay leen dit nie tot 'n in-diepte bespreking van die begrip "koninkryk van God" in die evangelies nie.

[5] Sien my essay: A critique of Biblical Criticism

Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud (ref. www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Is the spirit world more than an idea?

The ancients believed in an invisible world in which spirits and gods are to be found. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this is referred to as the spirit world. The concept entered philosophical tradition with Plato, who reworked it into his intelligible world of forms. Later, the philosopher Immanuel Kant also incorporated a "noumenal realm" in his philosophy. With the strong accentuation of the rational in the Platonic-Kantian tradition, something that the ancients affirmed was lost, namely the possibility of having an intuition of that world. Once this happened, the noumenal realm became nothing more than an idea - a realm beyond experience that religious people believe in. Something that the sceptical scientific mind could not accommodate. But with new developments in theoretical physics the possibility arises that the ancients could have been right after all. 

Since early times peoples from all over the world believed that an invisible world exists next to our own visible world. They believed that that world is occupied by gods and spirits. It was typically referred to as the "other world" and cosmic domains like heaven (as the abode of the gods) and the underworld were believed to be situated in that world. We find reference to it in the earliest writings of people like the Sumerians and the Egyptians. In fact, it seems that all ancient peoples held the belief that such a world exists. The Greeks and Hebrews also believed in it - their views played a formative role in the Judeo-Christian conception of the spirit world. The ancients even believed that we have some type of intuition directed to that world.

The idea of such an invisible world had a great impact on the thinking of the Greek philosopher Plato (5th to 4th century BC). In fact, his idea of a "world of forms (or ideas)" originated from the age-old belief in an invisible world. In Plato, the invisible world of the ancients is reworked into an intelligible world - a world that is only accessible through thought. He distinguished between the visible world of our senses and the intelligible world. Although he believed that that world is only accessible through thought, he nevertheless still held that it is a (the only) real world.

Later generations of philosophers followed Plato's lead in discerning an intelligible or noumenal world (from the Greek word "nous", meaning mind).  The greatest of them was the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). The idea of a noumenal world differing from the phenomenal world featured prominently in his philosophy. Although he rejected the Platonic idea that we could access that world in thought (he rejected the possibility of humans having an "intelligible intuition" thereof), he still held that we can think it. But, according to Kant, we can have no "knowledge" of that world. This, however, did not stop him from thinking that such a world could really exist - he envisioned it as underlying and giving form to the phenomenal world.

The Platonic move to envision the invisible world as an intelligible world eventually had the opposite outcome that he intended - it led to the rejection of the possibility that such a world exists. How did it happen? Once the possibility of having any intuition (that is, a sensing without the use of rational processes, an immediate awareness) of that world was rejected (in Kant), it became nothing more than a mere idea - an idea of something beyond the senses that religious people "believe" in. Since nothing in science gave the slightest reason to believe in such a world, a general consensus developed that such a world does not exist.

But was Kant right? Do we not have any intuition of a noumenal world? Such an intuition would imply some type of experience of that world - which is in fact what the ancients affirmed. What is more, theoretical physics now also envisions a world very much in accordance with the Kantian idea of the noumenal world - but one that is real and which could in principle be accessible in some kind of experience.

Plato's intelligible world

Why did Plato redefine the invisible world as an intelligible world? The reason is simple. Socrates, Plato's teacher "discovered" reason. This led to one of the most important shifts to ever occur in Western thought - the accentuation of reason as the most important of all human faculties. It dawned on these men that reason is what makes us distinctly human (animals cannot reason). We can even through reason control our animal passions (therefore reason guides us to the virtuous life). In Plato's opinion, the human mind ("nous") should be viewed as a thinking ability - he equated it with intelligence. This ability is seated in the human soul, that part of humans through which they have access to the invisible world. Therefore that world - the one that is accessible only through thought - is to be understood as an intelligible world.

This Platonic move - to equate the invisible world with the intelligible - is clearly observable in his Phaedo.  In the dialogues between Socrates and his friends, it is mentioned that he takes the view of the mystics (the Orphics), in which the invisible world played an important part, as the point of departure (as a "metaphor") for his own view. Two different worlds are distinguished, namely the invisible and the visible realm. The invisible realm is called "the realm of the absolute, constant and invariable" whereas the visible world is always changing. In this last respect, Plato follows Parmenides of Elea (b. c515 BC) who argued for two worlds, one that is the real world and which is eternal, indivisible, motionless and changeless and the other that is the world of our senses, which is a world of "appearances".  Plato furthermore distinguished two types of things which belong to these two different worlds, namely the invisible (the forms) and the visible things.

According to the dialogues in the Phaedo the soul belongs to the invisible world: "Since the soul is invisible, it belongs to the eternal invisible world... When it [the soul] investigates by itself, it passes into the realm of the pure and everlasting and changeless; and being of a kindred nature, when it is once independent and free from interference, consorts with it". True contemplation is not with the eyes, but with the soul - or, more precisely, with the intellect. In this regard, we read: "We are in fact convinced that if we are ever to have pure knowledge of anything, we must get rid of the body and contemplate things by themselves [i.e. as they really are] with the soul by itself" and "the man who pursues the truth by applying his pure and unadulterated thought to the pure and unadulterated object... Is not this the person, Simmias, who will reach the goal of reality, if anybody can?".

In Plato's writings, the human mind (nous) has a direct intuitive understanding of the invisible realm. Again this view goes back to Parmenides who argued for a dualism wherein nous describes an intellectual perception, which should be distinguished from sense perception. But was this how the earlier Greeks, in general, viewed the mind? As mentioned in the Oxford dictionary, the Greek word nous meant "mind, intelligence, intuitive apprehension". Although the Greeks allocated both understanding and intuition in the mind, there is no reason to believe that they viewed the intuition directed to the invisible world solely as an "intellectual" intuition (this view originated with Parmenides).

It seems that the Greeks allowed for a direct intuitive awareness of the invisible world, which is only then (as a secondary move) brought to understanding. The Pythagoreans, for example, seem to have held the opinion that we have some intuition of that world in the deepest essence of our being and that our thinking (even in reference to that intuition) is only secondary. They distinguished between 1) the higher soul, seat of the intuitive mind, 2) the rational soul, the seat of discursive reason and 3) the non-rational soul, responsible for the senses, appetites and motion. Even Plato often refers to a perception of the invisible world (for example, through the "eye" of the soul) which seems to be more fundamental than the thought thereof (why use the metaphor of "eye" if it is in fact the act of thinking that should be accentuated). The overall move in Plato's philosophy - and the Western philosophical tradition derived from him - was, however, to collapse the noumenal into the intelligible.

Plato's opinion on the relation between the worlds changed through the course of his writing. At first (in the Phaedo) the "invisible world" is viewed as a separate domain where human souls go between lives (and where the gods live), but in the Republic the "intelligible" world (as it is now called) is more closely connected to our own world (we can see that in the metaphor of the cave). This (our) world is somehow dependent on the real world for its existence (where the forms for the phenomena in this world is situated). In the Timaeus, the real world (of unchanging being where the forms are situated) underlies this world (of becoming) in a very real sense in that it gives form to it.

Kant's noumenal world

Kant lived many centuries after Plato but his reworking of the Platonic position produced one of the most important philosophical traditions since Plato. He lived during the height of the modern epoch - also known as the age of reason. Not only was reason accentuated more than ever before (in accordance with the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition), the discovery of empirical science demonstrated the practical possibilities of reason in a powerful way. And in science the sole focus is on the world of the senses. This now became the "real world". But even in the face of this new focus on the sensible world, Kant stood his ground in affirming the possibility of the "noumenal world". Kant was a Christian and believed in the existence of a spiritual world. And following Plato, he distinguished between the sensible (phenomenal) world and the "intelligible world", also called a "noumenal" world (which for Kant is supra-sensible, i.e. transcending sensible experience).

Kant's most important work, The Critique of Pure Reason, focuses (in the spirit of the age) first of all on our interaction with the sensible world (in contrast with Plato's focus on our interaction with the intelligible world). He shows how human thinking and sensing are interacting to establish "knowledge" of the sensible world. For Kant, the only knowledge possible is of this (sensible) world. He rejects the Platonic position that we can have any knowledge of the noumenal world. But this does not stop us from thinking the noumenal realm. The Critique distinguishes between the human faculty of "understanding" which get its content from the senses and "reason" which is quite independent of the sensible world and can think intelligible things. But Kant's goal with this work is to establish the limits of what reason can achieve.

Although Kant mentions that direct "intelligible intuitions" of the noumenal world is in principle possible, he argues that this is not something that humans have (God can have them). We can ask: But why didn't he allow for possible intuitions of the noumenal world other than intelligible ones? The reason for this is possibly because Kant was influenced by the Platonic move to view all intuitions of the noumenal world as intelligible ones. Kant's distinction between the sensible and intelligible (supra-sensible, noumenal) worlds therefore also incorporates a dichotomy between experience and intelligence. Kant assumes that all experience is sensible. He did not allow (as many ancient peoples seem to have done) for the possibility of an inner non-sensible experience directed to the noumenal realm. Although he did not exclude such noumenal intuitions in principle, he thought that we are not acquainted with such intuitions. He writes in the Critique of Pure Reason in a section called "Phenomena and Noumena": "room thus remains for some other sort of intuition... [but] we are acquainted with no sort of intuition other than our own sensible one" (B343).

As far as our understanding is concerned (to the extent that it is directed to the sensible world), the noumenal world is "empty" - we cannot gain any knowledge thereof. As far as reason is concerned, however, we can use reason, especially "practical reason", to argue for certain things about the noumenal realm. Starting with the Critique of Pure Reason, and developing his ideas further in his other two Critiques (of practical reason and the power of judgement), Kant developed an extensive view of the noumenal world. In the second Critique, he argued that we need the noumenal realm to account for our moral nature, our ability to make moral laws and act according to them. In the last Critique, Kant takes the noumenal world as the ultimate ground for our world, being ultimately responsible for the design of the whole spatio-temporal world. In this, he follows Plato in the Timaeus. Kant's noumenal realm is the supra-sensible ground of all phenomena, wherein the form-giving dynamic spontaneity (freedom) which gives form to the phenomenal world, is situated. Humans as well as nature are grounded and partially situated in the noumenal realm.

Science and the noumenal world

Towards the end of the modern epoch the Kantian affirmation of the existence of a noumenal realm seemed to be superficial. How can we ever show the existence of a realm of which we cannot have any experience. It's like defining something in such a way that it is beyond experimental proof and then affirming its existence in accordance with your Christian view. For the modern mind, which was so smitten by the power of reason, and who believed that science can give all the answers, this seems to be an excuse to keep believing in the face of scientific discovery - which seemed to confirm that the world is nothing more than the sensible world. Therefore a consensus developed that such a world could not exist.

Those days are, however, long gone. Gone is the days when it was believed that the human capacity to solve all problems and ultimately understand everything was around the corner. The centuries during which scientists affirmed that they would be able to understand everything in the not-too-distant future has lead to a new consensus (even though many scientists still hold to the modernist view), namely that this view should be taken with a pinch of salt. The world is extremely complex. More complex than modern man could ever have imagined. Today, scientists except ideas that were frowned upon only a few years ago, for example, that dark matter and dark energy exist. In their efforts to develop an unified theory that could integrate all the basic forces of nature, theoretical physicists are even postulating the existence of a higher dimensional realm that are interwoven with our own three dimensional sensible world. Scientists are confronted with the fact that it might just be possible that we would never be able to fully fathom what reality is like.

This development is in accordance with the position of some existential philosophers who rejected the modern efforts to establish reason as the sole arbiter of existence. Some like Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), developed an anti-Platonic, anti-Kantian position. He argued that we should affirm our earthly existence and embrace our inner drives - we must not bow to reason and fight against our true nature. In his opinion, all talk of another or noumenal world is the result of mankind's (especially religious people's) inability to cope with the here and now. They cannot cope in this world - and therefore developed the idea of another world where they would be happy. The post-modern philosophers took Nietzsche's views as the point of departure to develop an anti-modernist perspective in matters concerning the nature of morality, truth and reality. Other philosophers like Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) followed a different route - he rejected the efforts to fathom all of existence through reason. He affirmed the reality of the Christian experience even in the face of reason's onslaught on the supernatural. In a sense, he rejected all efforts to reasonably establish the ground for the Christian faith (and our experience of the spiritual).

What I propose is that although we cannot reject reason's ability to fathom existence, we should at the same time affirm it's reductionist nature. In it's efforts to understand reality, reason has to construct models, establish approximations, formulate reductionist concepts. This is in fact what the Copenhagen interpretation confirmed for quantum physics - we can only have a partial concept of the reality that we study. This is where Plato and Kant have fallen short - in their efforts to rework the invisible (spiritual) realm as an intelligible realm, they have been reductionist. They have not been able to sufficiently account for those intuitions of that realm that the ancients, and many religious people throughout the ages, have affirmed to exist. Kant excluded the possibility of such intuitions in his philosophy - even though it is possible (in my opinion) to incorporate it therein. For him, all experience is sensible - but what about the possibility of non-sensible (or supra-sensible) experience of the noumenal?

In spite of this, Kant's conceptualization of the noumenal realm shows remarkable agreement with the higher dimensional structure of the universe that theoretical physicists postulate. These dimensions are very small and not accessible to our senses - they are supra-sensible. But they are interwoven in the structure of space. They underlay the phemonenal world as the form-giving part of the cosmos. All nature are in some way grounded therein - also are we as humans. Although most particle-structures could have parts in both realms, it is in principle possible that at least some particle-structures exist solely in that realm, implying the possibility of a whole world unknown to our senses existing next to our own without us knowing it. It is possible that humans have a part situated in higher dimensions (corresponding to what has traditionally been called the soul or spirit) that co-exists with our physical bodies. This description does not only closely agree with Kant's ideas about the noumenal realm, they affirm the possibility of a real spiritual world.

Conclusion

During the modern epoch, people thought that they have finally arrived and that the ancients were primitive and without true knowledge. In our day there is a new appreciation for the views of those people. They experienced something about the world that the rational mindset has conditioned us to reject as something unreal. They believed in some type of intuition directed towards that world that religious people from all around the world has continued to confirm in their everyday experience (not only Christians; there is no reason from a Christian point of view, why other religious experiences are not also directed to the spiritual world). One of the reasons why so many religious people have never bought into the modernist framework is because their own experience proved the opposite. Although many scientists are eager to (again in a reductionist way) ascribe all such experience to people's psychology, most Christians, for example, have a subtle, but distinct, awareness that their experience of God goes beyond themselves.

The one thing about the noumenal world that is especially interesting, is that Kant's formulation thereof corresponds so closely with scientific notions about a higher dimensional realm that co-exists with our own. It seems that through pure reason he was able to in a remarkable way foresee the eventual scientific formulation of models that describes the world as much more than a sensible world. Although this could (once proven) confirm the power of reason, his philosophy at the same time should always remind us how reductionist reason is. We should use reason, but we should also trust our deepest spiritual intuitions about our own experience in the world. Both reason and such intuition should be our guides in this world. Without such intuition, humankind will wander as a person in the dark, groping towards a destiny without hope.

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)

See also:
The God Impulse (life after death?)
Kant's noumenal realm reconsidered in the light of contemporary developments in physics