Transcendence: Argument from
the Womb
(Is there a heaven, hell or
ancestral world?)
James Gawuga Nkrumah*
Much
has been said, and still much more is to be said, about the existence of a
transcendent world be it heaven, hell or ancestral world. Some people including
Feuerbach and Gustave Flourens may be taken to have doubts about the existence
of a transcendent world when they refuted the existence of the paranormal especially
the existence of God; but others such as Robert Flint and some other theist
philosophers believe that such a thing exists.[1]
Arguments, back and forth, as it is to be expected of any controversial
enterprise such as this, have been offered either in support or denial of a
world “unknown” to human beings. I seek to offer my thoughts on this matter
through an allegorical explanation. In the end, I arrive at a conclusion
affirming the existence of a transcendent world.
The curious nature of some human minds to
understand what some other people term the inexplicable: the soul, eternity,
spiritual forces and the mysterious nature of some happenings has led to the
conclusion that there are two kinds of worlds. For Plato, these two worlds are
the World of Being and World of Becoming.[2]
The latter world refers to this present world where you and I dwell, school,
work, sleep, procreate and will eventually die. Let us call this latter world W2.
The former world is a different kind of world. Plato says it is the hub of
reality. It is beyond W2. Let us tag this transcendent world W1.
Men and women who never see any reason to
believe in W1, a transcendent world, a world beyond this one that we
dwell in, let alone contemplate that human life in W2 is a
pilgrimage call for a proof, a rational proof for that matter, of our claims in
relation to the existence of W1. This proof must be beyond every reasonable
doubt. It must also satisfy every logical interpretation and analysis when the
proof is subjected to scrutiny. Other people in this category call for
empirical evidence with the sense organs ready, in all circumstances, to act as
witnesses in any argument over this matter. Any shortcoming in a proof offered,
making the proof potholed, is nothing more than a demonstration of mere verbosity
without the slightest comprehension. It will be a claim that must be refuted
for its lack of rational justification. It will be labelled as an intelligent
con, an attempt to throw dust into the eyes people. The end of this is that the
arguer in favour of W1 will have his or her case challenged anytime
and anywhere summoned unless rational and empirical evidences serve as the
basis for his or her claim.
But it will be premature to dismiss such
a worthwhile issue on the basis of lack of rational and empirical supports. Two
reasons account for this. One, about rational justification, it must be noted
that not all rational justifications are always sound though they may be valid;
they may be consistent but not the truth; convincing but not the reality. Two,
it must be stressed that our senses have serious limitations. I have eyes but I
cannot see beyond the (opaque) walls of this room in which I write this piece;
you have ears but you cannot hear sounds beyond some metres; the rest of the
senses too, certainly, have some form of limitations which we will discover
upon probing. These are the possible defects of rationalism and empiricism. I
prove this in the cause of the argument from the womb which I put forth in no
time to show the existence of W1.
Let me begin by saying that you, my dear
reader, and I once lived in a womb. For the purpose of argument, let us
identify an incubator with a womb for there are, at least, some identifiable
commonalities between the two. A fetus, F1, has the womb as its world. It does virtually everything in the womb. It
moves, eats, breathes, sleeps, thinks, grows and performs essentially similar
activities that humans in W2 do engage in. Being in the womb, its
world, is it possible for the fetus to contemplate a possible world outside its
world? Certainly no. What reason(s) could it give for the non-existence of any
extra world? The first answer will be that such a supposed world or anything in
that world is not perceivable. The second answer will be the inability to substantiate
the claim of a transcendent world. Won’t these be the two responses that a
fetus is likely to boast around with in denial of a transcendent world?
Obviously yes. It will ask a colleague fetus, F2, who thinks of a
world outside theirs, “what proof do you have?” or “can you prove it?” or
plainly throw the challenge “show it.” But why should this be? It is so because
F1 trusts its senses and reason as superior in the advancement of
any cause of action.
Another intriguing thing is this: If F2
were to think of someone, superior to them, probably more intelligent than
them, who carries them, isn’t F2 to expect the same challenge once
more, which is, responding to the same questions posed by F1 early
on? Yes, it must. Now, should F2 for some reason realize and so
informs F1 that their source of food, or, to make the case stronger,
their entire life is dependent on this carrier who is their sustainer and in
whom they dwell but this carrier is in a world different from theirs, can we be
convinced that F1 would agree to this claim? The answer is simple
and short: A big no. For the trustworthiness of the senses and the superiority
of reason will be defiled should F1 accept such a thing. This is the make-up of W2:
doubters and believers representing F1s and F2s
respectively.
In all this, will there be a time that F1
and F2 can learn of a world outside theirs and appreciate that their
existence, actually, is dependent on a superior, intelligent carrier who is
outside their world? Indeed, there is. That is, when F1 and F2
exit or vacate the womb. I, preferably, refer to this exiting or vacation as
death upon birth. I say so because F1 and F2 die from the
womb and they are born into the transcendent world of their carrier. Just in
passing, if their fellow fetus (F3…Fn, n represents fetus
to infinity), yet to experience death upon birth, were existentialists, they
would regard the exiting of F1 and F2 as a means to
actuality, a means to authenticate their being as happened to Samsa Gregor in
Kafka’s Metamorphosis.[3] So
it is death upon birth from the womb that all fetus will come to a realization
of a world different and beyond theirs. All of us humans have gone through this
experience namely death upon birth. It is a necessity to become human.
Now here is the inference. The womb
represents W2 and the transcendent world of the carrier where we are
born into is W1 and the fetus, F1, F2 … Fn,
are human beings in W2. F1 belongs to the category of
doubters and F2, the believers in W1. Just as it happened
in the womb, such is our experience in W2 where the F1s
and F2s offer countless arguments to either support or refute the
supposed W1.
We live in W2. Here, as
Descartes made us aware earlier, we are accustomed to our sensory experiences
and for this reason, we tend to trust them for whatever knowledge they provide
us in the same way as F1 esteems its sensory experience.[4]
This is the first and foremost means we use in making judgment or arriving at a
conclusion about the truth of any enterprise. Questions such as “did you see
it?” or “were you there?” all seeking some sensory experiences as responses are
common in our day to day activities. Aside from this, we do not forgo
rationality. It is too expensive not to make sense, your ideas will be thrown
out through the window and trampled upon by passersby. There is always a
thumbs-up for reason, anything else must be thrown into the trash can.
Come to think of it, F1 made
judicious use of and prioritize its senses, and celebrated its reason as well.
In case F2 could not offer a justification, or did offer an
illogical justification, won’t F1 regard F2 as probably
stupid for its inability to use its senses prudently and make rational
grounding for its claims? Of course, it will. But here is a little caution: neither
F2’s inability to provide proof, a rational and empirical basis for
its belief in W1 nor F1’s ability to counter and debunk F2’s
claims by mounting rational and empirical evidence did change the truth and reality
of the existence of the transcendent world of their carrier (i.e. W1
for us, humans). The truth was learnt
when they both encountered death upon birth.
What does this mean to us, humans? It
means that if we live in W2 thinking that there is no W1,
we could be wrong as F1 was. For, the truth of W1 is
independent of our senses and rationality. Yes, we may not perceive W1
or anything in it or even offer very convincing arguments to prove its
existence, but that does not, in any case, mean that it does not exist.
The transcendent nature of W1
implies that our senses are limited and our rationality too bounded. We are,
more often than not, cornered by these two – our senses and reason. Were we in
a womb, we would at a point in time come to realize that there is a world
beyond the womb as we can now ascertain. However, just as no human being enters
the womb to tell their former colleague fetuses of an “unknown” world to them
so it is in our world: no human comes from W1 to inhabitants of W2
to inform them of the existence of W1. If this wasn’t the case, the
provision of at least empirical evidence will abound. There will not be any
difficulty in making emphatic statements regarding W1. Even if any
difficulty is experienced, it will not be as cumbersome as it is as of now.
Nonetheless, nature’s design prevents this. This is the genesis of the
continuous doubts and wrangling about W1. If we were to consider
that W2 is the womb, our world presently, then we can conclusively
say that upon exiting or vacating by experiencing death upon birth in W2,
we are bound to enter W1, the transcendent world; the world of our
carrier. This said, W1 must exist exist.
But who will be the carrier if humans
were F1 and F2? Following the argument from the womb, the
carrier must be superior, mightier and more intelligent than humans. It must be
the supplier and sustainer of human life. The reason for this is that our lives
is entirely dependent on this carrier. Our dependency on this carrier confirms
its supremacy over us. Its absence means humans are doomed, we cease to live.
Apparently, a human being is ruled out for the carrier must be mightier,
superior and more intelligent than human. Can God or Satan be the carrier? Let
us restrict ourselves to these two, God and Satan.
The carrier must be omniscient,
omnipresent and omnipotent. The reason being that a pregnant woman knows
anytime the fetus is moving or kicking making her all-knowing. She has power
over the fetus and could keep it alive or kill it by, for example, starving it.
This is a demonstration of her powers. She is present everywhere the fetus
“goes.” This is to say, its movements occur in the confines of the mother-to-be
who oversees such confines. This makes her omnipresent.
Now between God and Satan, whoever does
not demonstrate these attributes of the carrier must certainly be ruled out.
Let us consider the encounter between God and Satan concerning Job in Job
1:7-12 –NIV.
Lord: Where have you come from?
Satan: From roaming from the earth and
going back and forth in it.
Lord: Have you considered my servant Job?
There is no man on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears
God and shuns evil.
Satan: Does Job fear God for nothing?
Have you not put a hedge around him…? You have blessed his work…. But stretch
out your hand and strike everything he has and he will surely curse you in your
face.
Lord: Very well, then, everything he has
is in your hands.
From the encounter, Satan’s first
response, “from roaming from the earth and going back and forth in it”
disqualifies him from being omnipresent. He cannot be at all places (both back
and forth) at the same time. The answer shows some movement started at some
point, earth, to another, heaven. This is emphasized by the usage of the word
“from.” The argument is that to move from A to B implies one is no longer at A
but rather B and only B. Without any movement, God could see the earth from
heaven.
The second attribution is omnipotent.
Were Satan all-powerful, he wouldn’t need permission before striking someone.
To seek permission from another before carrying out any enterprise implies that
the one from whom permission is sought is superior to the one seeking the
permission. Thus, power belongs to the one to grant the permission.
Finally, in the account of Job, despite
all the troubling encounters he experienced: death of his children, abandonment
by friends, loss of his herd and properties, he never cursed God as Satan had
thought. Were Satan omniscient, he would have known this: that Job would not
curse God.
Unable to demonstrate these attributes:
omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience, Satan is ruled out. God must
therefore be the carrier of F1, F2 … Fn. Thus,
God exists (i) in a transcendent world and (ii) as a carrier of humans. If God
exists in a transcendent world, then by default, there is a transcendent world.
A fine and firm conclusion can be drawn
by inferring from the arguments presented so far that if God exists in a
transcendent world as the carrier of humans then, when the mark of death upon
birth is successfully passed, all humans must find themselves in the
transcendent world of their carrier. Naming the transcendent world of the
carrier of human beings heaven, for instance, it follows that all humans must
find themselves in heaven when they encounter death upon birth. This is modus
ponens, a rule of deduction, at work. This is logically correct but there is
the need for a second thought. Let us go back into the womb.
In the womb, some fetus, we would agree,
would be more active, more kicking and healthier than others. Let us identify
those fetus that are less active, less kicking and unhealthy with odd numbers
so we have F1, F3, F5 … or F(odds)
and the more active, more kicking and healthier ones with even numbers so we
shall have F2, F4, F6 … or F(evens).
These are the only two categories of fetus we shall have in the womb.
In the womb, F2, F4,
F6… or F(evens) are likely to be happier because they are
healthier. Perhaps, they eat well, exercise a lot and have good sleep. The F(odds)
engage in the opposite activities that the F(evens) participate in.
Obviously, the F(odds) and F(evens) cannot end up the
same because parallel lines of actions have no converging point. If A does B
and C does D, where B and D are diametrically opposed, A and C can never, all
things being equal, have E as a result. A will have E as its result and C must
have F.
Now when both F(odds) and F(evens)
exit the womb into the world of their carrier, won’t we expect that, all
things again being equal, the F(evens) will be healthier and so happier than the F(odds)?
Certainly we will. For the F(odds), they will be sick, stunted and
unhappy. They may even look nasty, unattractive and hopeless. They will
perpetually be perplexed and unhappy because unhealthily living never
guarantees happiness. This present status of the F(odds) and F(evens),
we must note, is an extension or the result of their initial
lifestyles in the womb. It must be borne in mind that the F(odds)
cannot do B and expect to get F, the result of the opposite action of B, as the
outcome. Most definitely, the F(odds) will get results in line with
their actions: stunted growth, ill-health, unhappiness etc.
These are the two worlds in W1.
There is a “healthy” world and there also exists an “unhealthy” world. The two
worlds are inhabited by the two categories of people: healthy people and
unhealthy people respectively. Healthy people in W2 are people who
are whole in all aspect of their lives. For some reasons, let us restrict this
wholeness to religious and moral life. The unhappy people will, therefore, be
religiously and morally incomplete. Just as the attainment of healthiness is
dependent on the lifestyles of the fetus in the womb, so it is in W2.
We, as A or C, choose to do B or D, and the end will be either E or F.
Accordingly, our lifestyles in W2,
in the end, will earn us either a healthy status or unhealthy status in W1.
We can neither be in the middle nor both worlds of W1. The principle
is simple: we will be members of the healthy world or the unhealthy one of W1.
This is in consonance with the law of excluded middle (you are either here or
there and not the middle). And it is also in line with the principle of
non-contradiction (it is impossible for you to be here and there at the same
time). From this, we can conclusively say that all fetuses, F1 … Fn,
will find themselves in either of these worlds. The healthy ones will continue
to be happy and the unhealthy ones will remain unhappy.
The import from all this is that the W1
that humans will enter upon exiting W2 is of two kinds. They
are the healthy and unhealthy worlds, heaven and hell or whatever one chooses
to call them. The bottom line is that there must exist two opposite worlds in W1.
Whatever name we choose call these worlds is basically for identification
sake. If for some reason we choose to
call the place of abode for the healthy ones heaven, then we must also say that
heaven will be filled with pleasure, happiness while pain and sorrow will be
experienced in the opposite world, hell.
More so, because F1 … Fn
cannot know the life of their carrier so long as they remain in the womb, let
us assume that their carrier eats well, exercises and leads very good life. To
avoid any partiality, let us forgo this assumption. We can rather infer that
the carrier lives a very good life culminating in the two groups F(odds)
and F(evens). Were it not so, we must expect only F(odds).
Being healthy, only F(evens) will be expected but the chosen
lifestyles of the individual fetus accounts for the two categories. Impliedly,
if God is the carrier of humans, then God must be healthy, happy and dwell in
heaven. Satan, the opposite character of God, must, therefore, be unhealthy,
unhappy and live in hell. Thus, morally and religiously complete people will
join God in heaven whereas the morally and religiously incomplete ones together
with Satan will have hell as their dwelling place.
Summing it all up, an attempt has been
made pointing out the possible limitations of rationalism and empiricism, the
result of which is suggestive of the
existence of one thing which is a transcendent world (also referred to as W1
or the world of the carrier in this paper). The transcendent world occurs in,
as the argument points out, in two parallel worlds: a happier and healthier
world as against an unhappier and unhealthier world. Entry into either of these
worlds is dependent on the lives led in our present world tagged W2
figuratively represented as womb for the fetuses F1 … Fn.
It can therefore be inferred that there must be a W1 for human beings
in W2 as there is for the fetuses in the womb, the world of the
carrier.
THE
END
July 2015
THANK YOU FOR YOUR AUDIENCE
You may send your comments to: jgnkrumah14@gmail.com
[1] Robert Flint, “Anti-Theist Theories” 9ed. William
Blackwood and Sons, 1877
[2]Plato. “The
Allegory of the Cave” in Shipka Thomas A. and Milton Arthur. Philosophy, Paradox and Discovery. 5ed.
New York: Chris Freitag, 2004.
[4] Rene Descartes. “Meditations” in Shipka Thomas A. and
Milton Arthur. Philosophy, Paradox and
Discovery. 5ed. New York: Chris Freitag, 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment