Volume 8, Issue 6, page 5

All This "God" and I


"Be G-o-o-d" Business

c*Devil's Advocate, of course*

HY DO SO many of us shift into "logical analysis" when trying to
understand God? We can be sublimely irrational
about ourselves at any time we please and even attempt to justify
it. But when God enters the picture, we
immediately take our mental forceps I surgical k n ives, sutures,
and catgut, and proceed to do a thoroly logical
dissecting job.

Gravely, we ask: What is God?.... Where is He?.... Can you prove
He exists?... if He is all Good, how do you
account ior evil?... etc., etc. To top it off, we may flatly
state, "Well, either He is or He isn't--either He is ALL or
He is notALL."

Consider this final statement. Not only is it a sadly mundane
view, it is also frightfully illogical. Why? Because
the reasoning is on a very superficial level. It should be
obvious that if God IS-and is ALL-He can certainly be
whatever He pleases.

If He chooses to be ALL, then He will be ALL. If, on the other
hand, He chooses to be Not-ALL, He then will
be Not-ALL. It is of co~rse entirely up to Him. He could, in
fact, shift back and forth from ALL to Not-ALL as
often as He likes. Just because He is Not-ALL doesn't mean that
He is Not-ANYTHING. Neither does it mean that
He IS~NOT-AT-ALL, He may very well BE. but not be either ALL or

You see the appalling blunders that can result from superficial
logic? It all boils down to an erroneous
assumption-an implicit feeling -that the one condition (ALL)
automatically excludes the other (Not-ALL). But does
feeling enter the logical process? Of course not. Well then, why
mix them?

Another thing. just because we believe all of this is irrational
nonsense doesn't mean that He does. There are, in
fact, many examples that prove this true. Let's consider a few.

In the first place, is it logical that He took such a roundabout
way in creating man? Why take such a circuitous
route when He could have accomplished the deed instantaneously?

Starting from a single cell, He passed ds thru a scandalous
number of complicated and undignified phases: First,
the invertebrates (a nauseating experience).... then the fish....
the amphibia .... the reptile (ught) .... the bird....
finally, the mammal... and thru it, man.

Strangely enough, some people refuse to accept the theory of
evolution. This is not ,very logical in view of all
the evidence we have to support it. Their main point of
contention - which may,be well taken for certain


groups of thinkers - is that they do not want to be made a monkey
of. Such an attitude is often difficult to
understand, since these same VeoPle frequently engage in behavior
which illustrates all too well the probable nature
of their ancestry. other groups. on the contrary, are not at all
squeamish in this matter. Occasionally you may even
hear them state quite firmly, " Wel 1 -1 'l I be a monkey Is uncl
e. " Or they may pound themselves on the head with
subdued violence, all the while muttering, "la big ape. vs.... Ya
big ape."

In any event, almost everyone seems to believe that the
indignities of evolution belong

y to the dark eons of prehuman life. They el that, even if it did
happen once, it is all over and done now. I am sorry
to tell you that this is not true. The entire procedure continues
even today. Starting at conception, each one of us
must go thru the whole rigmarole before he can qualify for birth.
Each one of us, during embryonic development,
passes into and out of the various evolutionary stages. The
biologists of yesterday created a ringing slogan to attest
these facts: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogenyl

Here is what happens: First, we have to start as a single cell
... then we grow-into a gelatinous lump of stuff ...
then we get a backbone... then we get a tail ... then we get
gills ... then the gi 11 s go away . . , then the tai I goes
away... finally, we get born and are immediately smacked on the
rump-as if we hadn't been thru quite enough
already. once in awhile-not often-a terrible mistake is made and
the tail forgets to go away so that in all of his
lifetime, this individual can never get into a comfortable
sitting position. Such an occurrence ceftainly points to
quite a: blunder on Someone's part, I'd say.

Do you think this entire sequence is reasonable? Is it logical,
when He could have done the complete job
instantaneously ina simple dignified fashion?

Things get even worse when you consider the details of this
entire panorama of evolution with its myriad Orders,
Families, Genera, Species, and Varieties. It alorost seems that
during the process, Someone got carried away by
enthusiasm and went slightly overboard. Let's go into this a bit.

Since Man was His ultimate aim (by the way,
this has been verified, has it not?), was it
logical to produce so many kinds of each in-
termediate phase? This very thing has been
playing havoc with the taxonomists. As soon as
they manage to classify all of the species of
some group, up pops a new one with character-
istics of both"Specie BC 784927" and "Specie
BC 784928". The problem is complicated further
when the taxonomist finds that the new arrival