Anthropomorphism

One might quip in response to the creation story in Genesis by saying that “G!d created humans in G!d’s likeness, and then humans turned around and returned the favor.” There could be far more truth to this wise aphorism than we might like to acknowledge. More than just a theological conundrum, anthropo-morphizing G!d extends beyond the attempt to understand, describe, and relate one’s experiences of G!d.
 
Professor Robert F. Shedinger, in his preface to the book, Anthropomorphic Depictions of G!d: The Concept of G!d in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic Traditions by Zulfikar Ali Shah, remarks that this “step beyond” has resulted in the tendency to believe G!d supports human agendas and prejudices, all too often leading to ethically disastrous results. He further concludes that, “while it may not be possible to engage in meaningful G!d-talk without resorting to anthropomorphic categories, we must try to resist the tendency to fully reduce G!d to human form and thereby invert the divine/human relationship by ‘recreating G!d in our image.’” Rather, he continues, we must “attempt to restore the divine/human relationship to its proper structure: humans living according to the divine plan, not G!d supporting human agendas.” He further notes that Christian incarnational theology is perhaps the “supreme example of anthropomorphism.”

Anthropomorphism is, essentially, ascribing human characteristics, thoughts, feelings, ideas, body parts, and physical abilities to non-humans. As a literary device, it has four categories:
(1) Literal anthropomorphism; (2) Personification, aka metaphorical anthropomorphism; (3) Anthropomorphic analogy; and (4) Symbolic anthropomorphism. Many theologians and religious scholars argue that the G!d of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is an anthropomorphic symbol for benevolence, compassion, or transcendence.


Why is anthropomorphism important? (1) Humans best understand human behavior and react to it in certain ways when it is described on the human level and related to in the human experience. Writers can tap into this by using anthropomorphism in their descriptions and comparisons. It is a much more powerful mental image to describe “an angry, bitter storm” rather than simply “a strong storm.” We understand angry and bitter from the experience of anger and bitterness as a human. (2) Anthropomorphism can make a story more accessible or something highly abstract easier to understand. In general, children love to see animals and inanimate objects behave like people. Adults have a hard time imagining and relating to a complex, abstract concept such as love. When we humanize it, it makes it more relatable from our own experiences, more concrete and less abstract. It simplifies it. (3) Giving human voices and personalities to animals or objects can win sympathy and convey a moral or philosophical message in a way that ordinary human characters can not. Folk tales and fables help to teach lessons about ethics and human relationships, simple enough for children to understand.

Anthropomorphism is endemic in religion, since most religious beliefs are human-centric, concerned with questions such as the purpose of one’s existence, the origin of humans and one’s place in the universe.  Genesis depicts G!d with qualities and attributes similar to those of humans. Frequently portrayed as a master, lord, or father, at times jealous and angry, at other times responding with mercy and compassion, the G!d of the Hebrew Bible is highly anthropomorphic in various forms. And yet, it also makes clear that this anthropomorphic G!d can neither be described, named, nor given any sort of form­–human or nonhuman.

Of particular interest is that Onkelos, a convert who translated the Torah into Aramaic and whose explanations are very highly regarded, completely avoids anthropomorphisms. For example, in the phrase, “And G!d heard,”  Onkelos translates as “It was heard before G!d.” Rabbi Maimonides praises Onkelos for his avoidance of anthropomorphisms. On rare occasions, Onkelos leaves the Torah’s anthropomorphisms intact.

Philo Judaeus (20 BCE–50 CE) followed the early Greek philosophers and taught that G!d could not be named. Arabian philosophers denied that the essence of G!d had any attributes, and attempted to define G!d by “what G!d was not.” Jewish thinkers such as Maimonides (1135-1204) adopted this concept from Islamic Aristotelanism. Spinoza (1632-1677) denied any commonality between G!d and humans. Francis Bacon (1561–1626) posited that the tendency to anthropomorphize hinders the understanding of the world, but it is deep-seated and persistent.

The earliest known commentator on anthropomorphism, the Greek religious thinker Xenophanes (560–478 BCE), criticized the tendency to conceive of the gods in human terms, and later theologians have sought to reduce anthropomorphism in religion. Most contemporary theologians, however, concede that anthropomorphism cannot be eliminated without eliminating religion itself, because objects of religious devotion must have features to which humans can relate.

In 1980, Dr. Stewart Guthrie published his seminal paper,  “A Cognitive Theory of Religion.” In 1993 he greatly expanded upon his earlier work and published the book Faces In The Clouds: A New Theory Of Religion, further supporting his thesis of “religion as anthropomorphism.” Guthrie  argues for anthropomorphism as “the core of religious experience.” In other words, religion by its very nature is somewhat anthropomorphic and even in its highest and most transcendental effort can never fully escape anthropomorphism.

Even contemporary science is finding anthropomorphism in its study of animal behavior far more useful than previously imagined. Once relegated to the realms of being bad or wrong, laughably unscientific, and a literary device for the naive and less intelligent, anthropomorphism may be far more critical than previously believed. Maybe, we aren’t so far off applying this literary device to our G!d concepts afterall. If we were wrong about animals not having human emotions (and we were), we could also be wrong in our conceptions of G!d not having human emotions, depending on who or what we believe G!d to be.

I agree with Professor Shedinger’s conclusion, that, “In a world of violence and justice, much of it perpetrated in the name of G!d, perhaps the way forward is by coming to recognize the level to which we humans have for millennia been recreating G!d in our image, and allow this to motivate us to work to restore the divine/human relationship to its proper place.”