The Nature of God

The first thing to say about the nature of God is that our perception of God will not be what God is. The Internet to some extent shares this characteristic of not being what we take it for. It is not what we see on our screens. So the question, 'What is the Internet?' raises some of the same issues as the question, 'What is God?' Like God, it is exceedingly difficult to describe and encompass.

So the God that religions describe may be no nearer to God than the God that, for the sake of argument, I am calling The Internet God. In Spinoza's view, ideas like wrath, punishment, reward and compassion are peculiarly human qualities; not necessarily God-like ones. These are qualities that we may wish to see our God display; they are not necessarily those that are natural to God. If we are prepared to accept a position that the qualities that we wish to see God display may not be those that are inherent to God, then we may have less difficulty with the idea of an Internet God as a supplement to the God of the church, mosque or temple! It may be hard for some Christians to accept that even their most beautiful and inspiring representations of God, such as Michelangelo's God on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel from which generations have drawn inspiration, might be no more truthful to God than any other ways of interpreting the divine being.

As well as God having the quality of being inconceivable to us, there is the idea of God being both one and many. This theme pervades most religious conceptions of God. The Sanskrit term, Brahman, is therefore understood as implying both single and multiple qualities, among other characteristics such as kindly and terrible. The Internet fits comfortably with this idea of being both an all encompassing whole and numerous individual experiences. A Hindu understanding of the supreme tends to emphasise a multiplicity of attributes and forms but a oneness at its core. In Hindu scholarship, plurality does not diminish oneness but rather enhances it; 'this gold does not cease to be gold because it shapes itself into all kinds of ornaments.' In Muslim thinking, any picturing or representation of God is anathema because associating anything with God denies that God is who he is. Nevertheless, in Islamic thought, the discussion of the one and many qualities of the divine is central; he who possesses the ocean, possesses the drop also.

In addition to the inconceivable nature of God and God's one and many qualities, there are the placeless, formless, timeless and uncontainable characteristics attributed to God and frequently seen as co-existing with a physical presence in time too. So, in Hindu scriptures, the ultimate reality is seen as formless but it assumes forms too. And in Sikhism, God is both nirguna (without qualities) and saguna (with qualities). We can apply this kind of dual nature to The Internet too. It is physical – a box on our desks – and also an idea that stretches everywhere. The Internet also exists in time – Skanda, the snake, of Hindu symbolism – blogs or news sources respond fast to new information, for instance. The Internet also has timeless qualities, the peacock of Hindu symbolism. The timeless nature of God is a common tenet of religious discussion. As Norman Solomon points out, even the description of God as “the first” is a metaphor, for “first” can only properly be applied to objects which exist in time, and God is beyond time. [1] 

He argues that if God is perfect and unchanging, one cannot ascribe to him intention, thought, word or action as these are processes in time.[2] Each web site could be said to exist in time and out of time; still traceable back to how it was at inception. Through such things as the recording of film and video we can experience a dialogue beyond time. The Internet's timeless qualities have profound implications still to be explored.

 

The unfathomable nature of God is paralleled on The Internet too. There is this same sense that whatever we say about God or The Internet is both right and wrong, for all things are covered. Each contribution to The Internet is like a wave in the sea too, a part of the greater whole.

The Internet's myriad of locations give it a Godly sense of scope. God has always been seen to exist irrespective of location so that God is conceived as everywhere; in the prison cell, on the moon, in the desert. There has been discussion about whether or not the nation-state can continue to exist in an Internet age and many would welcome this God-like quality in it to pay no heed to national or regional borders. We might say, indeed, that the the more The Internet enables us to reach beyond our provincialism, the more likely we are to experience the divine in ourselves.

Another characteristic often discussed in relation to the divine is God's impersonal as opposed to personal nature. This is often expressed as a numerical quality. So, in Sikhism, God is seen as the numeral one, Ik. Interestingly, this impersonal quality often attributed to God seems to contrast with the human need for a personal and emotional relationship with God. This is one of the paradoxes in the relationship between Man and God.

The Internet's underlying nature is numerical too; founded on binary code. However, as is the case with God, as consumers, it is largely the personal and emotional aspects of The Internet that draw us to it and engage our interest. Similarly, when Krishna describes himself as the beginning and end of the universe and says that we are strung on him like pearls on a string, we are back with this mathematical and emotional combination. At a computing level, data types in data structures get lined up like pearls on a string but we use The Internet not so much for its structures as to satisfy our need for love, communication and recognition. The Internet may have numerical impersonality as its underlying structure but, as in the case of God, our experience of it is personal and emotional. The impersonal and personal nature of The Internet echoes nicely the idea of God's detachment and yet God's illuminating presence expressed here in Sri Guru Granth Sahib:

God has no mother, no father, no son and no relatives. He has no wife, no sexual desire. He has no family. He is completely detached, and he is infinite; but it is his light that shines in his creation; and his light that is everyone and everything.[3]

Finally, in thinking about the nature of God, there is the concept of Nirvana. This is arguably seen more as a human God-like state but it nevertheless reflects on the nature of God too. So, in the type of Buddhism found in Japan, Mahayana, there is the belief that Nirvana is a real possibility in this life. For those involved in The Internet project, there may also be this feeling that Nirvana, if not here now, can be aimed for in the present! The idea that reality is here for the taking can be found in these thoughts of a Zen master:

Before a man studies Zen, to him mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after he gets an insight into Zen ... mountains to him are not mountains and waters are not waters; but after this when he really attains the abode of rest, mountains are once more mountains and waters waters.[4]

Buddhists do not necessarily need to refer to a God but this idea that fulfilment can be found in the present links with the concept discussed in Section Seven that God is Man. It also fits with Spinoza's analysis that God is not distinct from the world, but immanent within it. This would be part of my response to the view raised in the Introduction that The Internet's worldliness disqualifies it from having divine qualities too. By this way of thinking, the more rooted that the Internet is found to be in the everyday world, the greater its potential for acting as a meeting point between heaven and earth.

This position that sacredness is more a quality of truth than something exterior gives weight to the idea that The Internet too is potentially sacred as is all life; and that holiness resides in the attitude that we bring to mundane existence rather than residing elsewhere. This transfers responsibility for enlightenment back to us and the integrity of our perceptions. The Internet, according to this view, can be seen as a territory of faith like any other human endeavour; testing out the level of honesty and integrity that we bring to all our experiences. Whilst ritual and ceremony play a part in many forms of worship, I would wish to make the observation that from an alternative viewpoint, the simplicity, lack of ornateness and ordinariness of on-line procedures can be regarded as bringing us nearer to the holiness of the everyday.

In this section, I have looked at some of the characteristics that can be attributed to God. These have included the idea that how we see God may not be how God is. It also includes the paradox of God having one and many natures and placeless, timeless, formless and uncontainable attributes. There is also the impersonal or numerical in God that may not always square with our human need for a more personal deity. There is also the idea that God is an aspect of our own degree of enlightenment or truthfulness; something that might be found here and now. All of these characteristics of the divine can be usefully discussed in relation to our metaphor that The Internet is God. In the next section, I examine how God is worshipped and explore whether or not the Internet can throw light on this.

fn1. 'Judaism' in Picturing God (London, 1994), pp. 142 - p.154 fn2. ibid., p. 156 fn3. Dhanjal, Beryl, 'Sikhism' in Picturing God (London, 1994), pp. 173-184, p.180. fn4. Dossett, Wendy, 'Japanese Religions' in Picturing God (London, 1994), pp. 208-219, p.212.