THE IDEA OF GOD AND OLODUMARE: AN EXERCISE IN CONCEPTUAL DECOLONISATIONBY AMUDA MOSIGBODI BAMIDELE Matric No.137548 BEING A LONG ESSAY SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS(B.A. HONS) IN THE FACULTY OF ARTS, THE UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN, IBADAN, NIGERIA. OCTOBER, 2011 CERTIFICATION 1 This is to certify that this work was carried out by AMUDA MOSIGBODI BAMIDELE in the Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, University of Ibadan, under my supervision. ----------------------------------------Signature Supervisor Dr Agunlana,C.O.(Ph.D) -----------------------Date 2 DEDICATION This work is dedicated to FOUR PERSONS in my life. To Olodumare, the compendium and source of philosophy; to my Late Grand-father, for inculcating the desire for My culture in me; to my father, Pastor Clement Adeloju Amuda for teaching me the path of books; and to Late Professor Olusegun Oladipo for igniting the fire for Philosophy in me. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3 I like to say a big thank you to all the exceptional people who in one way or another made this project a possibility. I must appreciate the efforts of my supervisor, Dr Agunlana for his pain-staking effort in ensuring that this work come out good. I must also help appreciate every member of staff of the department-both teaching and non-teaching- as well as the efforts of Drs Sola Olorunyomi and Omobowale(High Priest), Mr Charles, S.A. Obuh, and many others too numerous to mention. I cannot over-state the efforts of Professors Oyeleye, P.A. Ogundeji, and K.A. Olu-Owolabi. There is no way I would forget my colleagues. NAPSites were wonderful; AFASites were supportive; UIites were inspiring; and ZIKITES were mind-blowing. I will definitely miss the Kegites Club and the GREAT Baluba Kingdom for making me know that “We are all victims of interest”. I must not forget my siblings, Mosijokeyemu and Oreka, who loved their Elder brother as life itself as well as my adopted family members, Taiwo Bello, Yemisi Cole, and Taiwo Ibukun. To my Mama, thank you for straightening me, and to the best Dad in the world, May I never fail you. I would be rounding off by acknowledging the efforts of all comrades and not “come and raids” who believed that the world can be a better place because “If we fight, we may win; but if we don’t, we have lost already.” To you all I say, “Nkosi sikilel’ ‘iAfrica”. Amuda Mosigbodi Bamidele TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 Title Page Certification Dedication Acknowledgement CHAPTER ONE 1.1 Introduction 1.2. Samuel Ajayi-Crowther and The Error of Translation 1.3. The Etymology of God and Olodumare 1.4. On The Existence of God and Olodumare The Idea of God and Olodumare In Historical perspective 2 3 4 7 7 8 9 10 CHAPTER TWO CONCEPTUAL DECOLONISATION: A NECESSITY IN 15 POST-COLONIAL AFRICA CHAPTER THREE THE AREAS OF CONVERGENCE IN THE IDEA OF GOD AND OLODUMARE 3.1 Introduction 3.2 THE AREAS OF CONVERGENCE 3.2.1. As Creators Of All Things 3.2.2. As Immortal and Eternal 3.2.3. As Immanent and Transcendent 3.2.4. As Omnipotent and Omniscient 3.2.5. As Judge 3.2.6. Conceived In Anthropomorphic Terms 28 28 28 28 30 32 34 35 36 CHAPTER FOUR THE AREAS OF DIVERGENCE IN THE IDEA OF GOD AND OLODUMARE 5 4.1 4.2 Introduction THE AREA OF DIVERGENCE 39 39 30 40 41 42 46 47 4.2.1. The Trinitarian Doctrine 4.2.2. On The Issue Of Fatherhood 4.2.3. On Creation Ex Nihilio 4.2.4 On The Problem of Evil 4.2.5. On Monotheism and Intermediaries 4.3. Conclusion CHAPTER FIVE Bibliography IF “A” IS “B”, THEN, “B” IS “A” 50 CHAPTER ONE THE IDEA OF GOD AND OLODUMARE IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 6 It is an accepted thesis in history that when two different cultures interact with each other, be it on the platform of coercion or co-operation, three eventualities are possible and they are as follows: One culture subsumes the other; The two cultures exist side by side (while influencing each other as it is the case in colonialism), and The two cultures fuse into one new culture.1 Of the three eventualities that have been mentioned above, the one that pertains to Africa is the second. This is because with colonialism, the European culture interacted with the African culture and in a bid to show its dominance, and perpetuate it , there was a foisting of the European attitude on Africa. This has been tagged the colonial mentality2. With colonialism came the introduction of the European linguistic, religious and political schemes on Africans and expectedly, accepting this was not a matter of choice so far as there had been an interaction with the colonial system. For example, the desire to get Western education is the first step towards alienation and Western indoctrination. This is because Western education creates the ground for one to come in contact with the Western conceptual schemes which a person is expected to digest in a bid to get educated3. The same also applies to religion. The introduction of Christianity definitely affected the foundation of the pre-colonial African society. This is because the precolonial African society was a predominantly religious one and as such any attempt at removing the religious base will affect the culture and thought system. Explanations in pre-colonial Africa were given within the religio-mystical framework and this is because religion plays a pivotal role in the society.4 The focus of this long essay, as regards the issues highlighted above, is in the area of translation. We shall discuss this in more detail later. As a religio-mystical society, the belief in a supreme entity was inevitable. We shall look at the question of whether this supreme deity can be said to exist by examining, 7 succinctly, the arguments for and against the existence of a supreme being but this will be delayed till later in the essay. SAMUEL AJAYI-CROWTHER AND THE ERROR OF TRANSLATION The desire to evangelize to the ‘heathens of Africa’ made it imperative for the Missionaries to devise means through which the ‘gospel’ can be brought to all and sundry. The only means to achieve this is through bringing it in the language of the indigenous people. Since a large majority of the indigenous people were non-literate, evangelism had to be done in the indigenous language. This is done through the use of interpreters who have an idea (not necessarily versed) of the indigenous language and the translation of the literatures available into the indigenous language5. This is what brings us to the late Bishop Samuel Ajayi-Crowther. Ajayi-Crowther was one of the products of the agonizing slave trade and had been taught English and converted to Christianity. As a Christian Missionary, Ajayi-Crowther desired to make the gospel accessible to the indigenous people and as such decided to translate the Bible from English to Yoruba. There were however some limitations on him6. One of such limitation is the question of which of the variants of Yoruba language to adopt.7 This is because there were over fifteen variants of the Yoruba language with none accepting the other as being superior. The decision of Ajayi-Crowther to adopt the Oyo version caused some dust and led to some consequences. This adoption brought to Oyo political recognition as the custodian of the political soul of the Yoruba – a situation that the Ibadan, Egba, Ife, and other groups contested. The second limitation was that which pertains to the translation8. It should be noted that translation from one language to the other requires expertise of the two languages by the translator. This will go a long way in aiding the transfer of ideas from one language to the other. In the case of Ajayi – Crowther, he could not be said to have full grasp of the Yoruba language. Besides, his desire at ensuring translation made him engage in what has brought the errors noticed so far. For example, the Judeo – Christian idea of Satan, demon or devil was taken to mean ‘Esu’ in Yoruba Language. The small 8 ‘g’ was used to represent the Yoruba deities, thereby making them appear inferior to the foreign ones. This is where the idea of translating ‘God’ or ‘Jehovah’ to mean ‘Olodumare or ‘Olorun’ comes in. This limitation is better understood if one considers the translation of the names in English to Yoruba (for example ‘Jesus’ as ‘Jesu’, ‘Paul’ as ‘Paulu’, ‘Peter’ as ‘Peteru’, etc.). The fact that the Judeo-Christian world in which the Bible is situated is different from the Yoruba worldview makes this problem more intense. These errors have however been imposed on the people that the only way out of expunging this colonial superimposition is through decolonizing the concepts. Our focus here will be as regards the relationship between the Judeo-Christian idea of God and the Yoruba idea of Olodumare. To this end, it will be apt to quickly consider the etymology of the two ideas. THE ETYMOLOGY OF GOD AND OLODUMARE Although the exact history of the word God is not known, in its present English context, it stems from an Old English term which is thought to derive from the ProtoGermanic ‘gudan’.9 Although the meaning and the etymology of the Proto-Germanic ‘gu dan’ is uncertain, it is generally believed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European world ghu-to-m which on its part is derived from the root gheu meaning ‘to pour, or libate’10. The Germanic words for god were originally neuter in nature but the process of Christianization of the Germanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism made the word acquire a masculine syntactic form11. The name ‘Godan’ was shortened to God over time and was adopted by the Germanic peoples of the British Isles as the nomenclature of their deity.12 The capitalized form ‘God’, was first used in the Gothic Bible or Wufila Bible, which is the Christian Bible that was translated by Bishop Ulfilas and it is mostly used to separate the monotheistic “God” and ‘gods’ in polytheism.13 Olodumare on the other hand has been explained from two perspectives. In the first, the etymology of the term is said to derive from the words ‘Odu’ and ‘Osumare’ or ‘Mare’ as the case may be. In Awolalu’s interpretation, Olodumare divides into three parts: ‘Ol’ means ‘the owner of’, ‘Odu’ means ‘Chief Head’, ‘Scepter’ or ‘authority’; 9 ‘Mare’ in Awolalu’s view means ‘do not proceed’ or ‘that which does not more or wander’, or ‘that which remains or continues to be exist’14. Alternatively, ‘Odu’ means ‘intelligence’ and related to the ‘corpus’ which is believed to be a compendium of intelligence and wisdom and omniscience. The ‘mare’ means beauty and is said to be derived from ‘osumare’ which means ‘rainbow’.15 ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD OR OLODUMARE Before we delve into a fuller discussion of the idea of the Supreme Being in both the Judeo-Christian and in the Yoruba cultures, it will not be out of place to first consider the various forms of belief in existence, such as atheistic to pantheistic beliefs. Atheism is the belief that there is no God and this comes in two forms.16 The first maintains that never in the history of the world did any God exist and neither will one ever exist in the future. Some philosophers who hold this type of belief are Ludwig Feuerbach, Jean-Paul Sartre and Sigmund Freud. The second type maintains that God once existed but is now dead. Examples of philosophers who hold this position are Fredrich Nietzche and Thomas Altizer. Dynamism is another form of belief on the existence of God. It is a primitive form of religious belief where the Supreme Being is neither good nor bad but just feared and worshipped.17 It may be a plant or person that is worshipped because this power controls it. Monotheism is the belief and worship of only one God who is believed to be the ‘uncaused cause’ of everything in the universe.18 Polytheism is the belief and recognition, as well as worship of many gods. In polytheism, God is anything that is wonderful or beautiful and it gained expression in Ancient Greece and Rome.19 Dualism is a belief in the existence of only two gods. In this believe system, one of the beings is good and the other one bad and there is an eternal conflict between the good and the bad.20 Henoism is the recognition of many gods but the worship of just one. In other words, one of the gods is the chief of the other gods.21 10 Deism is the belief that God is separate from the universe. In other words, there is a God but he does not interfere with the governance of the universe. Consequently, by over-stressing the transcendence of God, it does not believe in miracles.22 On its part, Pantheism is the belief that the whole of the universe is part of God. In Pantheism, there is no difference between God and the Universe, or nature. Hence, it claims that while we know little of the universe, God is the totality of all that exists.23 There is also animism, which is the belief that the whole of nature is made up of numerous spirits. The spirits are revered, not because they are worth revering but for the fear of what they are capable of doing.24 Humanism is the last of the beliefs that we would be considering. In humanism, humanity itself is the Supreme Being. Humanism denies God and replaces it with man. 25 For one of the foremost humanist, Feuerbach, the question of God is nothing more than the question of man. Hence, one can say that God, in the opinion of the humanist, is simply man’s self-reflection. In Western philosophy, there have been various arguments that concern themselves with the existence of God or otherwise. In fact, the idea of the existence of God is one of the major problems in philosophy.26 Although this is not the focus of this long essay, mention must be made of arguments and counter-arguments in this regard. Philosophers who have contributed to this debate include, among others, Plato, Aristotle, St Augustine, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Aricenna, William of Ockham, Rene Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, William Paley, David Hume, J.S. Mill, Immanuel Kant, and Bertrand Russell. The grounds which have been advanced for the belief in God include the Ontological argument, the First Cause and Cosmological argument, the Design or Teleological argument, theism and probability, the moral argument, and the argument from special events and experiences.27 The grounds for the disbelief in the existence of God include the sociological theory of religion, the modern science, the problem of evil, and the Freudian theory of Religion.28 11 In the Yoruba theological parlance, the debate on whether Olodumare exists or not does not exist at all. This, definitely is not due to the poverty of ideas but due to the religio-mystical nature of the society and also its communalistic tendencies.29 ENDNOTES 1. Kwasi Wiredu, “Introduction: African Philosophy in our time.” In: A Companion to African Philosophy, Kwasi Wiredu (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004. p. 15. 12 2. Kwasi Wiredu, Post-Colonial African publications, 1995, P. 19 Philosophy, 4 Essays, Ibadan, Hope 3. Ngugi Wa Thiong’o, Decolonising The Mind, Harare:Zimbabwe publication House, 1981, pp 9-11 4. Wale Egberongbe, African traditional religion: we are No Pagan, Lagos: Nelson Publishers, 2003 , p.18. 5. Ibid. 6. Chief Yemi Elebuibon, “Personal communication”, August 17, 2009 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. 9. Watkins Calvert (ed), The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo European Roots, 2nded, Houghton Mifflin company, 2000, retrieved from < http://newadvert.org/cathen/06608.htm 10. Toner Patrick, Etymology of the word ‘God’. In the Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. Retrieved September 21, 2011. 11. Watkins Calvert, op cit. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. Bolaji Idowu, Olodumare: God in Yoruba Belief. London Long-mans, 1962. P. 35 15. Akinfolarin Otonba, Olorun mean ‘God’ in English Language?, unpublished article. 16. John H. Hick, The philosophy of Religion, 1973, p. 10. 13 17. G. Oshitelu, The Philosophy of Religion, An Introduction. Ibadan. Hope Publications, 2002, p. 28. 18. John Hick, op cit. 19. Ibid. 20. G. Oshitelu, p. 29 21. Ibid. 22. John Hick, op cit; G. Oshitelu, P. 29 23. G. Oshitelu op cit. 24. Ibid, p. 28. 25. Ibid, pp 30-31. 26. Joseph Omoregbe, A Philosophical look at Religion, Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishes Limited, 1993, P.65 27. 28. 29. 1999. John H. Hick, The philosophy of Religion, 1973, pp. 20-36 Ibid. pp. 37-51 Godwin Azenabor, An African and Western Conceptions of God and the Traditional Problems of Evil, In: Journal of African Philosophy and Ideas, Vol. 2, No. 3, CHAPTER TWO CONCEPTUAL DECOLONISATION: A NECESSITY IN POST-COLONIAL AFRICA 14 The advent of colonialism and the problem that it left behind constitute a larger part of the myriad of problems that post-colonial Africa is still battling with up till the 21st century. This is not to say that colonialism did not have its positive sides (and most of the time, only the ills have been emphasized) on Africa or that other extra-colonial factors such as corruption, bad leadership, among other things, are not as well guilty in the present state of the African continent. On the contrary, these extra-colonialism factors are as guilty as colonialism in this instance but more often than not, the burden of it all has mostly been heaved on colonialism as the cause of the African predicainment.1 There is no doubting the fact that colonialism destroyed the fabric of the precolonial African society. As a matter of necessity and in view of the need to sell its Eurocentric ideas, different methods were adopted by the colonialists-ranging from linguistic, religious to political. On the political scale, the colonialist indoctrinated their colonies through their different system of administering the colonies – Direct and indirect rule by Britain, Assimilation and Association by the French, Paternalism by the Germans, etc. In the British colonies (in which Nigeria where this study is based is located), the Crown colonies (Lagos and Calabar) were ruled directly by the British Government through the Colonial Government while the protectorates were ruled indirectly2. Whatever way it is-be it directly or indirectly-the colonies gradually lost their identity as a result of the colonial influence and the relegation of their language to the background. Since Western (or colonial) education was only acquired through the language of the colonizer, the imposition of the conceptual schemes of the colonizer became unavoidable. Attempts at translating literatures (circular and religious) from the language of the colonizer to the language of the colonized still did not escape this imposition of foreign conceptual schemes in the whole process.3 This is where the idea of conceptual decolonization comes in. However, we shall come back to that later as it is important for us to consider some other ideas that are necessary towards this discourse. This is because the issue of language is central to Wiredu’s project of conceptual decolonization as well as other shades of decolonization exercise. 15 In his essay, Language and the Destiny of Man, Chinua Achebe discussed the place of language in the societal structure. According to him, language was very crucial to the creation of the human society4. Society could not have come into being without the need for speech. Speech looks so natural that we hardly contemplate what man’s situation will be like before its invention. Language is not inherent in man but that which is inherent in him is the capacity for langauge5. Language is important as it helps in facilitating the affairs and transactions of the society by enabling its members to pass on their message exactly and quickly too. One would appreciate language when one looks at a baby crying whose mother can hardly tell what the infant wants except by guesses through experience just because the child is unable to make use of language and thus get his needs satisfied. In a bid to convey this idea more clearly, Achebe makes allusions to the Bible. The first allusion was the myth of the Tower of Babel6 where ‘God’ had to cause division in the tongues of mankind all in a bid to stop mankind from building castle that will reach to the sky while the second allusion was in reference to the first verse of the last of the synoptic gospels that ‘in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God; and God was the word’7. In pre-colonial African parlance, mastery of language and use is something that is considered desirable. In fact, respect is given to those who have acquired this art and act. By bringing this up, Achebe is trying to tell us that we stand to lose a lot if language is debased. He argues that it is language which separates man from animals and saved us from bestiality and as well is sacrosanct. It must be pointed out that language, just like any other of human invention, can be abused. This is what George Orwell put to us when he said “Language can be used not only for expressing thought but for concealing thought or even preventing thought”8. For Achebe, language can be used to convey certain messages (myths) about a people from one generation to another through the element of repetition without the interference of the messengers who communicate the message. The interference of the messengers with language brings about ‘disjointment’ from truth. What Achebe is implying here is what Ngugi was saying by putting it up that language plays a dual role in 16 any society. This is that aside being used as a medium of communication, language is a veritable carrier of culture. It is however important to point out that Achebe did not explain how language performs the dual role of being means of communication and language as a carrier of culture.9 Unlike Achebe who was more concerned with the project of revealing how important language is to the society, Ngugi Wa e Thjong’O is more concerned with how the African can come to the realization of his ‘self’. As an individual who, in his own way of combating the colonial mentality, had decided to be writing in his native ‘Gikuyu, Ngugi shows us how the foreign languages have succeeded in imposing foreign conceptual schemes on us. Ngugi’s pre-occupation in this enterprise of decolonization is as regards the mind Ngugi argued that the misleading state of the interpretation of African realities by Western ideas or conceptual schemes is the cause of many problems in Africa.10 He believed that African realities are being affected by the struggle between two opposed forces in Africa today. Imperialism, in its colonial and neo-colonial phases, and as a social force, continues to control the economy, politics, and cultures of Africa while the African people, on the other hand, have continued in their struggle to liberate their economy, politics and culture from the stranglehold of the imperialists so that they can enjoy communal self-regulation and self-determination in order for them to attain the expected state of actual self-definition. In attaining this state of self-definition, Ngugi posited that the choice of language is important. In the quest to define himself in relation to the entire universe by the African man, language plays a pivotal role.11 Ngugi gave an account of how foreign language was considered as capable of carrying the burden of the African experience. This is because most of the African scholars were actually taught in foreign languages and were thus indoctrinated with the conceptual schemes of the foreign language.12 How is this possible if one may ask? Ngugi answers this question by explaining that language is not a mere string of words but had suggestive powers which are well beyond the ‘immediate and lexical meaning’ that one 17 can decode.13 In the quest to get the colonial system of education, the African was gradually made to lose his indigenous conceptual schemes. Ngugi explains this better by looking at the link between language, human experience, human culture and the perception of reality14. According to him, every language has a dual character which is to function as a means of communication or/and as a carrier of culture.15 This is because not all languages perform these dual roles but the fact is that they must perform either of the two roles depending on the language and the situation. When we talk of language as communication, Ngugi points out that it has three elements which are the language of real life. (This relates to the whole notion of language – its origin and development – which is associated with the necessary pact people enter in order to bring about labour processes as a community of human beings, to produce wealth or means of life like food, clothing and housing), the language of speech, (it reflects and aid communication or the relations between human begins), and the language of written signs (the written word is the representation of sounds with visual symbols).16 Language as communication becomes the basis and process of evolving culture. Culture itself embodies those moral, ethical and aesthetic values through which a people come to view themselves and their place in the universe. Values themselves are the basis for determining a people’s identity as a member of the human race and language is a carrier of all these values. Thus, language as culture (the second role of language) is the collective memory bank of a people’s experience in society17. It is language that makes possible the genesis, growth, development, articulation, and indeed the transmission of culture from one generation to the other. Ngugi identifies the three aspects of language as culture. The first aspect is that culture is a product of history which language in turn reflects; the second aspect is seeing it as an image-forming agent in the mind of a child; and the third aspect is that culture transmits or imparts those images of reality through language and ‘specific culture is not transmitted through language in its universality but in its particularity as the language of a specific community with a specific history18. 18 Ngugi submits that language as communication and as culture are products of each other. Communication creates culture, and culture is a means communication. Language carries culture, and culture carries, particularly through orature and literature, the entire body of values by which we come to perceive ourselves and our place in the world. How people perceive themselves affects their take on their culture, and politics among other things19. As brilliant as Ngugi’s submissions are, he fails to tell us how the African man can go back to his language. This is because globalization has made the world a small village and colonialism is one part of us that we cannot deny. Thus, what Ngugi should have advocated is what is represented in Kwasi Wiredu’s conceptual decolonization. Ngugi’s decolonization of the mind is only a drive towards cultural nationalism which may be insurmountable and impossible given the level of interaction that has gripped the world. The failure of Ngugi’s submission is made more pronounced if one considers the multiplicity of language in Africa and even in countries such as Nigeria. Before going to consider Kwasi Wiredu’s conceptual Decolonization, it is important to point out the various shades of decolonization that Sanya Osha pointed out in his essay20. One of such shades of decolonization is the idea of political decolonization which is advanced by liberationist African leaders such as Nyerere, Kenyatta, Nkrumah and Azikiwe21. The idea of decolonization is also present in the postulations of Frantz Fanon 22 while Kebede advocates mental decolonisation23. By mental decolonization, Kebede posits that mental decolonization refers to the decolonization of the mind. This was come about as result of the conviction of African philosophers that no development policy will bear any fruit in as much as the African identity is ‘weighed down by the spectre of backwardness’24. Thus, mental decolonization is targeted at internal refurbishing since colonialism is also already internalized.25 Having done this, let us now return to the idea of conceptual decolonization and what informed it in the first place. 19 Wiredu considered the debate of whether there is anything like African philosophy. For him, this whole thing about African philosophy is in the making. The imperative here, thus, is the necessity to work out a synthesis of insights from our traditional philosophies with any that we can get from modern resources of knowledge and reflection. What we need to do is to engage in a reconstruction of our ideas and this requires a methodological reflection.26 This method will help us in unravelling the involuntary intermixing of Western and African intellectual categories or the conceptual entanglements in the thinking of contemporary African philosophy. This idea of reconstruction, Wiredu opines, will show that what comes from Africa is necessarily true, profound, and sound and that there is no need for an over-valuation of what comes the West. It is this over-valuation of that which comes from the West that consists that felicity of the mind called ‘the colonial mentality’ and still afflicts African philosophy and other areas of African intellectual life27. The cure for this colonial mentality is not a rejection of all foreign ideas. Rather, he advocates that any African synthesis for modern living should include indigenous and Western elements or even some of the East. This is expressed by Wiredu when he said that: It is probably clear without further argument that the exorcising of the colonial mentality in African philosophy is going to involve conceptually critical studies of African traditional philosophies. I might mention that African philosophy consists of both a traditional and a modern component. It would have been unnecessary to make a point that, in the abstract, sounds so trite, were it not for the fact that some people seem to equate African philosophy with traditional African philosophy.28 However, the question that readily comes to one’s mind is the question of how the Africans in the contemporary world are exploiting the resources of philosophy available to them from their own and other cultures? Given the fact that we are brought up in Western-style educational institution, can we really have anything called African philosophy. Although there have been serious debate on the existence of African philosophy, for over two decades, Wiredu opines that it will wither away after a period of 20 time. He opines that the dispute over the existence of African philosophy arose from misconception and may in the end be one of method rather than of existence. Regardless of the criteria that we may adopt, the best thing still remains having a good African philosophy whose precondition is conceptual decolonization. What then does Kwasi Wiredu mean when he made mention of the idea of conceptual decolonization? In answering this question, Wiredu explains that: By conceptual decolonization, I (Wiredu) mean two complementary things. On the negative side, I mean avoiding or reversing through a critical conceptual self-awareness the unexamined assimilation in our thought (that is, in the thought of contemporary African philosophers) of the conceptual framework embedded in the foreign philosophical traditions that have had impact on African life and thought. And, on the positive side, I mean exploiting as much as is judicious the resources of our own indigenous conceptual schemes in our philosophical meditations on even the most technical problems of contemporary philosophy.29 Conceptual decolonization involves the elimination from our thought of modes of conceptualization that came to us through colonization and remain in our thinking owing to inertia rather than to our own reflective choices. Nonetheless, Wiredu points out that one of the impediments that might arise in the course of conceptual decolonization in African philosophy is with how African philosophy is done mostly in foreign language. Anyone who by virtue of colonial history is trained in foreign language and initiated into the profession of philosophy will find certain basic ways of thought natural as a native speaker30. In this case, one might not be aware of the likely colonial aspect(s) of conceptual framework ‘… because if you are trained in philosophy exclusively in a second language, it tends to become your first language of abstract meditation31. One might not be aware of the likely neo-colonial aspect of conceptual framework. To solve this problem, Wiredu advocates that African philosophers must try to think philosophically in their own vernacular, even if they will still have to expound their results in some Western languages. 21 What it calls for is the reviewing of any such thought materials in the light of indigenous categories, as a first step, and, as a second, evaluating them on independent grounds. Of the indigenous categories of thought, one can take appropriate cognizance by simply trying to think matters through in a vernacular. To do this, however, requires a conscious and deliberate effort…32 Kwasi Wiredu admonishes the African philosopher further: They must assume both of the critical duties just noticed. But in addition, they must not forget that they have their own languages which have their own conceptual suggestiveness calling for critical study; which is why I said early on that African philosophers have to be doubly critical. In particular, African philosophers should not want until they are doing courses specifically designated African philosophy before they bring their African conceptual resources to bear on their treatment of issues.33 It must be noted that Wiredu’s recommendation is however not ‘made in fulfillment of any program of cultural nationalism’34 as we have it in the postulation of Nyerere, Nkrumah, among others, rather, ‘it is a product of a certain appreciation of the nature of our current situation’35. The resort to language in the program of conceptual decolonization in African philosophy is primarily a remedy for what, hopefully, is a temporary disorder, namely, a hangover from colonialism. However, African philosophy will have to habitually interrogate and respond to reality directly. As a program that is though primarily temporarily expedient, it has some permanent aspects with African as well as transAfrican significance. With the African aspect, it behoves us to remove the various colonial encrustation to bring ourselves to a vantage point for viewing the African thought materials in their true light. This calls for a critical self-examination through contemporary reconstruction or deconstruction of our conceptual schemes. Wiredu went ahead to provide the now famous and detailed catalogue of the concepts which the African philosopher needs to de-colonise as well as domesticate: 22 Reality Being Existence object, entity, substance, property, Quality, Truth, Fact, Opinion, Belief, Knowledge, Faith, Doubt, Thought, Sensation, Matter, Ego, Self, Person, Individuality, Community, Subjectivity, Objectivity, Cause, Chance, Reason, Explanation, Meaning, Freedom, Responsibility, Punishment, Democracy, Justice, GOD, World, Universe, Nature, Super nature, Space, Time Nothingness, Creation, Life, Death, Afterlife, Morality, Religion.36 It must be noted that Wiredu has been accused of engaging in a frustrating task. This is because ‘Decolonization in itself is a painful ordeal because it necessitates the destruction of certain conceptual attitudes that inform our worldviews. Secondly, it usually entails an arduous attempt at the retrieval of a more or less fragmented historical heritage. 37 To this, it has been argued by Sanya Osha that Wiredu does not seem to have adequately understudied the difference between textuality and orality. 38 In his own opinion, if Wiredu had been able to do this, he (Wiredu) would have understood the fact that it will not be as easy as he expects to dislodge certain Western philosophical structures that should be in the main, the concern of the West primarily. In an oral culture, one would notice that there are static conceptual modes and thus restrictive when compared to a culture of textuality.38 This is exemplified in Wiredu’s presentation of the Akan concept of mind. In this, Wiredu only has a few related concepts at his disposal whereas alternatives abound for such issue in the Western conceptual sphere.39 Osha also identified a problem in the analysis of the term ‘Due reflection’ which is central to the project of conceptual decolonization. This term is problematic given that it is an inherently philosophically problematic thing 40. Although Wiredu illustrates some instances on which this term can be applied, it must be noted that they are not all satisfactory. Any reflective process on a given concept will run into a big problem given the fact that Wiredu does not give us a standard or criteria. We can only resolve this issue empirically or pragmatically and not any set out approach. 41 Oladipo also points out another problem which is the fact that the African philosopher has to come to grasp with the ideal conceptual schemes of his society. 23 42 The problem here lies in the fact that it is somewhat difficult for the African philosopher to dissect, properly, the concept since his education was in the foreign language and his thinking will be done in this same language which is the foreign language. In fact, at that point, he may have to adopt the methodic doubt of Doubt it still remains unsure if that can be attained because he would have to commit a ‘self-suicide’-an idea which sounds more utopian than anything else. Similarly, the idea of conceptual decolonization is always an attempt at measuring itself up with the colonizing other. 43 Put differently, conceptual decolonization cannot create its own schemes by employ ‘autochthonous strategies’. This colonizing other, thus, is the standard for judgment and it cannot in anyway be avoided from the beginning of the exercise till the very end. The only way out of this, Osha argued, is to start the decolonization process from within oneself. However, this is easier said than done too. A cursory look at Wiredu’s conceptual decolonization will reveal that it takes a cue from Quine’s indeterminacy of Translation. Quine argues against the possibility of translating one cultural world view into another. This is because the difference in the perspectives of the two worldviews will prevent such translations as words and meanings from an alien society into another will lead to insurmountable obstacles. Given this, Quine enjoins the linguists to undertake a thorough empirical study of the behavioral and publicly observable responses of individuals under particular non-verbal and verbal stimulations in the course of learning an alien language. According to Quine, it is only through these stimulations that certain specific dispositions are gotten and it is through this alone that we can lay claim to the fact that we have gotten mastery of a particular language. Munitz reinforced this view when he said that “no technical resources in coming to grips could eliminate the indeterminacy altogether. This is because in translating from one language (or conceptual scheme) to the other there will not be a unique and complete match of translatability that could be brought about by a single manual of translation”. Put differently, the opinion that is being expressed here is that the conceptual schemes inherent in one language differs from the conceptual scheme of another. This inadvertently is re-echoing the position of Ngugi when he said that every language has “its own army and navy”. 24 A synthesis of Wiredu’s conceptual decolonization and Quine’s indeterminacy thesis is what leads us to the core of this long essay. While conceptually analyzing the ideas of God and Olodumare, one cannot help but wonder how Samuel Ajayi Crowder came about his translation of the bible from English to Yoruba and killed some basic terms and concepts therein. This has however been considered in the Chapter One of this long essay. END NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. K.C. Onwubiko, The History of West Africa, Volume 2. Ibid. Kwasi Wiredu, Post-Colonial African Philosophy: Some Comments. In Four Essays, Ibadan: Hope Publication, 1995, p. 13. Chinua Achebe, Language and the Destiny of Man. Ibid. Genesis 11 verse 1-9. John 1 verse 1-4. George Orwell, as cited in Chinua Achebe op cit. 25 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Chinua Achebe, … p. Ngugi Wa Thiong’O, Decolonizing the Mind. Harare; Zimbabwe Publishing Home, 1981, p.9. Ibid, p. 3. Kwasi Wiredu, The Need for Conceptual Decolonization in Africa Philosophy, 4 Essays, p. 22. Ngugi op cit, p. 11. Ibid, p. 13 Ibid. Ibid, p 13-14. Chinua Achebe, op cit. Ngugi Wa Thiong’O, p. 15. Ibid, pp 15-16. Sanya Osha, Discourses on Decolonization, April, 2009. Ibid. p. 7. Sanya Osha, Kwasi Wiredu and the Problem of Conceptual Decolonization. P. 2. Messay Kebede, African Development and the Primacy of mental Decolonization. CODESRIA, African Development, Vol. XXIX, No. 1, 2004. Pp. 107-129. Ibid. p. 108. Ibid. p. 121. Olusegun Oladipo, Introduction. In: 4 Essays, p. 7. Kwasi Wiredu, Post-Colonial African Philosophy, p. 22. ( The Online Journal for African Studies) p.4 28. Kwasi Wiredu, Decolonizing Religion and Philosophy. African Studies Quaterly 29. 30. 31. Kwasi Wiredu, Conceptual Decolonization…, p. 22. Ibid. Kwasi Wiredu; Introduction: African Philosophy in our time. In: A Companion to African Philosophy, Kwasi Wiredu (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004. P. 15. 26 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Ibid. Kwasi Wiredu, Decolonizing Religion and Philosophy… p. 2. Olusegun Oladipo, p. 8. Ibid. Kwasi Wiredu, The Need for Conceptual Decolonization, p. 23. Sanya Osha, Kwasi Wiredu and the Problems of Conceptual Decolonization, p. 2. Ibid, p. 11. Ibid. Ibid. p. 7. Ibid. Olusegun Oladipo, p. 9 Sanya Osha, Kwasi Wiredu and the Problem…, pp 10-11. CHAPTER THREE THE AREAS OF CONVERGENCE IN THE IDEA OF GOD AND OLODUMARE 3.1. INTRODUCTION As the title of this long essay has suggests, this study seeks to examine as well as establish the connection, that exists between the idea of “God” in the Judeo – Christian culture and “Olodumare” in the Yoruba world view. As it has been mentioned earlier, this consideration is done with a view to remove the foreign encrustations on our concepts so as to be able to present these concepts in their proper light. In this case, it is the idea of Olodumare in Yoruba world views and this is done by analyzing vis-a-vis the idea of God which Olodumare has been domesticated to mean. 27 In the light of the above, this chapter shall be looking at the possible connections that exist in the two ideas. The essence of looking at this area of convergence between the two ideas is to help in appreciating the ground for the hasty conclusions that scholars such as Idowu, Crowther, Mbiti,etc. have made on account of the similarities between the ideas of God and Olodumare. 3.2 THE AREA OF CONVERGENCE This will be done by looking at the meet-point in the nature and attributes of God and that of Olodumare. 3.2.1 AS CREATOR OF ALL THINGS One of the major meet-points in the idea of God and Olodumare, is the claim that they are the creators of the universe and everything that is in it. This claim will be discussed in more detail in what follows below. In Genesis 1, verse 1, it is explicitly stated that God is the creator of the Universe as it is stated that “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. A reading down the chapter of the bible up till the last verse explains the creation of all other things that exist in nature. This is also expressed in the first chapter of John, when it was stated from the first verse through to the third verse. In the beginning was the Word, and the world was with God, and the world was God. 2the same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. A synthesis of these two chapter of the bible points to the fact that the Judeo- Christian God is the creator of man and all that is in the world as well as heaven and angels and whatever it is that can be thought of as in existence as without him was not anything made that was made. 28 In Yoruba parlance, Olodumare is said to be the creator of the universe and all that there is in it. According to Bolaji Idowu: …we have learnt that the divinites were brought into being by Olodumare and that work of creating the earth was commissioned by him everything in heaven and on earth over its origin him. In his capacity as creator he is known as Eleda- the creator’, the master”. He is the origin and givers of life, and in that capacity he is called Elemi“the owner of spirit,” or “the owner of life.1 From the above – stated, we can see that everything in the universe can only be explained in Olodumare “who is the creator, cause and origin of all things”2. He created the Orisas and Irunmoles and uses them in creating the world by assigning duties to them. He also used them in the creation of man. When Olodumare is about to create man, Obatala does the moulding, Ajala does the moulding of the head (destiny in this parlance), while Olodumare gives the breath of life to man.3 This is clearly captured in an except in Obara-kan, an ifa verse: Agbanla loruko ta a paye Apejin loruko ta a pele Olonimoro la a pe Osala Osala Oseere magbo Nijo to da ebgewa eniyan Nijo naa lo da igba igi tin be ninu oko Ninu egbaawa eniyan ti o oda ni ko to mi si Agbanla is the name for the earthly world Apejin is the name for the earthly soil Olonimoro is the titular name for Osala Osala Oseeremagbo The day you created two thousand human beings It was that same day you created two hundred trees in the forest It is among what you have created that I implore you to align me.4 3.2.2 AS IMMORTAL AND ETERNAL Another attribute which is evidenced in the Judeo-Christian idea of God and the Yoruba Idea of Olodumare is the attribute of immortality and eternality. By this, we are saying that it is the belief that the Supreme Being does not die and has 29 always existed since time immemorial and will still continue to exist till time immemorial. In the Judeo – Christian worldview, it is believed that God is not only immortal but also eternal. By saying that God is immortal, this obviously contradicts the Nietzchean assertion that “God is dead’5. God does not die and He outlives his creations. In the same vein, God is eternal. In other words, He does not exist for a duration and “…totally out of world existence in time process. He is a tunelebs reality”.6 What this refers to is the fact that God is not subject to time but this does not mean that “…time has no meaning for God”.7 The cumulative of these ideas is expressed in the quote of the bible below: Now unto the king eternal, incorruptible and immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever (to the ages of ages) Amen.8 In the Yoruba worldview, the immortality of Olodumare is an essential that keeps the religious mind at rest with the celestials. In Idowu’s words, “…this is a comfort and encouragement to the worshipping soul’9. Olodumare is referred to, in his congnomen, as Oba Aiku (the king that never dies) and this is also reflected in various verses of the Ifa such as the one below: K’orofo, Awo Aja- ile L’o di ifa fun Olodumare T’ o so wipe n won ni gbo iku re lailai Korofo, the cult of underground, Is the one who counsulted the oracle about Olodumare And declared that His death would never be heard of. 10 There is also another recital, also in Oyeku Ogbe, in this light. Olodumare sa ye, e ku mo; Gbogbo ori n fun puru-puru-puru Olodumare has rubbed his head with bar-wood durt (iyeirosun), 30 he will never die (his) whole head is becoming exceeding by hoary.11 Idowu also cites another part of Ifa that talks about the immortality of Olodumare. This is found in Okanran-Osa. Odomode ki gbo ku aso: Yeyeye l’ aso gbo; Agbalagba ki gbo ku aso: Yeyeye l’ aso gbo; Odomode ki gboku Olodumare Yeyeye l’ aso gbo; Agbala ki gboku Olodumare Yeyeye l’aso gbo. The Young never hear that cloth is dead Cloth only wears old to shreds, The old never hear that cloth is dead; Cloth only wears old shred; The young never hear that Olodumare is dead; Cloth only wears old to shreds; The old never hear that Olodumare is dead Cloth only wears old to shreds.12 The immortality of Olodumare is expressed in the ‘Ofo’ (incantation) which is used in combating death or ensuring longevity. A ki I gbo ‘ku oko A ki I gbo ‘ku ada A ki I gbo ‘ku Olodumare- o di eewo orisa. No one hears the death of the hoe No one hears the death of the cutlass No one hears the death of Olodumare- it is a taboo. Aside being immortal, Olodumare is also taken to be eternal in the Yoruba worldviews. According to Idowu and given other scholarly discourse, “The exisence of Olodumare eternally has for all practical purposes been taken for granted as a fact beyond question .It is upon this faith that the superstructure of the Yoruba belief rests”13 31 3.2.3. AS IMMAMENT AND TRANSCENDENT Immanence refers to the idea of an “indwelling or operation within a process”14 while transcendence refers to the idea of being beyond what is given is known in experience to man.15 The idea of God as being immanent is that God is in the structure of the universe. In other words, God is an integrated part of the universe and plays a vital role in its processes and operations.16 In the Judeo-Christian view, God ‘works in and through the world and is the God of history”.17 As regards the ideas of transcendence, it is the belief that “… The existence of God can only be known but not his nature because he is over, out and above or beyond the world”. 18 In other words, God can be said to be beyond nature. This God combines the immanenttranscendent status in Himself. The attributes of immanence and transcendence are also found in Olodumare. Olodumare takes a prominent role in the scheme of things in the word. In the dealings with the Orisas and the Irummoles, Olodumare is evident. In fact, the prayer of Babalawo’s when they prepare herbs is always Eledua (olodumare) a je oje o, meaning, may the Supreme Being make it efficacious. Olodumare combines this quality with the idea of transcendence as Olodumare is outside of nature. Oladipo has however criticized this idea of the transcendence of Olodumare, positing that Olodumare cannot be said to be transcendent like the Christian God.19 His argument is premised on the fact that since Olodumare is said to have created the world out of pre-existing materials, Olodumare must then exist in the world-order and thus “… cannot be said to exist beyond the world”.20 He also cites the story of how at a time, the sky, where Olodumare is said to exists in, shares proximity with the earth such that people easily go to and from the place. As a way of concluding, Oladipo argued that Olodumare is neither ‘ wholly other”, nor is He a purely spiritual being”.21 32 Without mincing words, this position by Oladipo is latently lacunaic. It must be pointed out that the fact that the pre-existing materials which Oladipo refers to were not in the world and no argument or evidence in the Yoruba worldview points otherwise. All the materials which were given to Obatala to create the world cannot be said to have existed in the world. Similarly, the reference to the moonlight take about how the sky became far from the earth is a faulty one. This is because the tale is only a fiction to explain the cause of the distance between the earth and the sky. This is a common parlance in tales. Given Oladipo’s position, it would mean that we should begin to take as factual, all tales which are actually meant to be didactic, entertaining, or explanatory. Besides, posing a question in this regard to an Ifa adherent, the response would be that it is Olodumare that created all things, including these materials. 3.2.4. AS OMNIPOTENT AND OMINISCIENT The idea of omnipotence and omniscience is something that cuts across the ideas of the Judeo-Christian God and the Yoruba idea of Olodumare. Omnipotence concern the ability of the supreme Being to do all things without limitation. It concerns the absoluteness of his powers and the fact that there is no limitation to the exercise of this power. Omniscience , on its own, refers to the all seeing, all – knowing ability of the supreme Being. It means that the Supreme Being knows everything and nothing can happen without his knowledge. In the Christian worldview, God is viewed as having all the powers you can think of such that he can do the unthinkable. He can break natural laws such as walking on the sea, telling a fig tree to dry off and it doing so, believing that if you have faith you can tell a mountain to move from one place to another and it will oblige you, etc. This belief in the omniscience and omnipotent ability of God is fundamental to the Judeo-Christian belief. This is expressed in verses of the bible such as: 33 Exclaiming, To you we give thanks, Lord God omnipotent, (the one) who is and ( ever) was, for assuming the high sovereignty and the great power that are Yours and for beginning to reign.22 It is also expressed in a verse like, “Alleluia, for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth”23 Similarly, He is taken to be the All-knowing and nothing happens without or behind his knowledge. He sanctions all that it is that happens and He is the ultimate source of wisdom. Olodumare also possess these qualities of Omnipotence and Omniscience , just like the Judeo-Christian God. He is taken to be the most powerful, both on earth as well as in heaven. He can do anything that he likes, and enable anything He wishes. This is exemplified in the Yoruba expression, such as ‘A-dun-se bi ohun ti Olodumare se, Asoro-se bi ohun Olorun ko lowo si (easy to do as that which olodumare performs, difficult to do as that which Olorun enables not)”24. Olodumare is also considered as the All-wise, All-seeing and All- knowing. Expressing such as “Olorun nikan l’o gbon (only Olorun is wise)25, ewe kan o le jabo lara igi ki Olodumare ma mo si (a leaf cannot fall off the tree without Olodumare knowing about it), and ‘kile nse ni bekulu t’oju Olorun o to? (whether do you do in concealment that Olorun’s eye do not reach)26 confirm the fact that Olodumare can be said to be All-knowing, and All-seeing, all in one. At this junction, it is important to bring the position of Oladipo and Wiredu to the fore. These two African philosophers in their arguments, denied the omnipotence of Olodumare. For Oladipo, this is impossible since the Yorubas acknowledge the fact that there are other powers and principalities27 while Wiredu’s argument is also in this line although he also alluded to the transcendence of Olodumare as also a diminishing factor on his omnipotence.28 It must be pointed out that this argument by the duo is not plausible because Olodumare, despite creating the Orisas and Ajoguns, regulate their activities and Esu is used as inspector- General in this regard. Olodumare regulates their activities. An example is when Olodumare mandated the sixteen deities to give reverence to Osun after 34 she was being sidelined by the other fifteen male Orisas as well as the demotion of Ofun meji as the lead Ifa corpus on account of his pride to Him and the elevation fo Eji-Ogbe from the last of the corpus to the first.29 3.2.5 AS JUGDE God and Olodumare, given the Judeo-Christian and Yoruba worldview, are regarded as Judges. Their being judges obviously stems out of the fact that they are omnipotent and omniscient. The Judeo-Christian adherents hold that God is an impartial and just judge. His Judgement is always final and no appeal stems from His Judgment because he is the final bus-stop. No one can and must challenge His judgment because it amounts to an affront and a taboo. Olodumare is also viewed as “the final Disposer of all things’30. He sits in judgment over all men and mediates by righting wrongs particularly when issues are brought. This is where the roles of the Orisas and Irunmoles come in. This Orisas and Irunmoles are also judged by the Olodumare. He even judges in cases involving the different odus. Just like the Christian God, his judgment is impartial because he is Allseeing, All-knowing, and All-wise. He is often referred to as Olodumare Oba Adake-dajo (The king who dwells above and executes judgement in silence). 3.2.6. CONCEIVED IN ANTHROPOMORPHIC TERMS In both the Judeo-Christian worldview and the Yoruba world view, the Supreme Being is viewed in the likeness and characteristic of man. In other words, he exhibits the same attributes that man exhibits. He possesses emotions, and has a face, a hand, mouth, etc. For example, the Judeo-Christian God is said to be saddened by the fact that he created man, is happy at a soul that repents, turned his face away from sin, made Moses see this back, and so on. 31 This is the same with the Yoruba conception of Olodumare. He is also taken to be a corporeal Being with eyes, face, hands, etc. Idowu points out expressions such as Olorun ri o (Olorun sees you), Olorun nse ju (Olorun is wrinking), and other expressions such as ohun Olorun fiowosi. 32 The Supreme Being is taken to be a corporeal Being. 35 ENDNOTES 1. 2. Bolaji Idowu, Olodumare: God in Yoruba Belief. London Long-mans, 1962. P. 39 G.A Oshitelu, The Philosophy of Religion, An Introduction. Ibadan. Hope Publications, 2002, P.32 2. P.10 3. 4. C.L Adeoye, Asa ati ise Yoruba, Ibadan-university press PLC, 2005 P.12 Cited in Wale Egberongbe, African traditional religion: we are No Pagan, Lagos: Jai Bewaji, Olodumare: God in Yoruba Belief and the Theistic Problem of Evil, Nelson Publishers, 2003, Pp 32-33 5. Joseph Omoregbe, A Philosophical look at Religion, Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishes Limited, 1993, P. 123 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Ibid 1 Timothy 1 verse 17 Bolaji Idowu, P.42 Ibid P. 43 Ibid Pp 43 – 44 36 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Ibid P. 44 Ibid P.18 G. Oshitech, P.31 Ibid Ibid Francis Okponariobo, Understanding Philosophy of Religion, Ibadan: Fola-murphy Printers and company, 2002. P.43 18. 19. 359 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Ibid Ibid. Revelations II verse 17 Revelations Bolaji Idowu, Pp. 40-41 Ibid Ibid Olusegun Oladipo, P.359. Kwasi Wiredu, decolonizing African Philosophy and Religion, p. 10 Ibid Olusegun Oladipo, Religion in African Culture, in: A companion to African Philosophy, (ed) kwasi Wiredu, USA: Blackswell Publishing company, 2004. Pp 358 – 37 29. Taiwo Ohinlade, Ageyewo Eko Ifa, Lagos: Fola Printing and Publishing Company Limited, P. 16 30. 31. 32. Idowu, p. 42 Joseph Omoregbe, P. 35 Idowu, p. 41 CHAPTER FOUR THE AREAS OF DIVERGENCE IN THE IDEA OF GOD AND OLODUMARE 4.1 INTRODUCTION The focus of this long essay, to repeat again is to show the link or differences in the idea of God and Olodumare. This is not aimed at bringing about any form of cultural nationalism. On the contrary, this is aimed at clarifying the actual picture of concepts as they appear in the eyes of the African. The Chapter Three of this research has been able to show that there are some similarities which exist between the idea of God and Olodumare and it is from that standpoint that we move to this section which aims at showing the areas of divergence in the two ideas. That is the conceptual dissimilarities that can be said to exist between them. This becomes necessary as reaching a conclusion from the stand-point of the similarities will only go to toe the line which conceptual decolonization aims at resolving. In the light of this, the following sub-sections in this chapter will be out to show the dissimilarities that we have between these two ideas. 4.2. 4.2.1. THE AREA OF DIVERGENCE. THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE 38 One distinguishing factor or feature in any Christian orientation is the belief in the Trinitarian status of God. “The Christian God is first and foremost a triune God”1. He acted as God the father prior to the coming of Christ, God the Son when he claimed and came in the form of a man and was born by the virgin Mary, while God as the Holy Spirit came in to contol the affairs of this world after the departure and ascension of Jesus into heaven. This explains why in the Christian belief, the prayer “In the name of the Father , and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is usually made. This is not the situation with the Yoruba worldview. In the cosmological orientation of the Yorubas, it is alien for Olodumare to be said to be triune in nature. There had been an argument on the part of some adherents of “Ifa” that the idea of trinity may not also be alien to the Yoruba cultural landscape.2 Those who argue in this line allude to the existence of a trinity and which includes Olodumare, Ela, and Bitinrin but this has been denied and rejected as being a figment of the imagination of those who make such claim.3 Olodumare is transcendent and only interacts with the world through the Orisas and the Ajoguns (or the Irunmoles). 4.2.2. ON THE ISSUE OF FATHERHOOD Another main distinguishing feature between the ideas of God and Olodumare is on the idea of fatherhood which is synonymous to the Christian God.4 The Christian God is the father of Jesus Christ( who happens to be His only son) as it is clearly expressed in that verse of the Bible that “for God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son”.5 This idea of the sonship of Christ is so fundamental to the Christian doctrine such that expunging it means destroying the whole fabrics of the Christian faith. In the Yoruba worldview on the other hand, the idea of the Fatherhood of Olodumare is alien. Although there have been recent imposition of Fatherhood status on Olodumare. It has been argued that Olodumare actually has a son and that is Orisa Nla6(also known as Obatala) while some others claim it is Ela7. These positions are obviously erroneous because they have being reached based on some misconceptions. Obatala is the arch39 deity and it is Olodumare who made him the head of other Orisas. This is reflected in the Eji-Ogbe: Gbogbo ola omi ti n be l’aye Ko le t’o ti Olokun Gbogbo iyi odo ti o se ni isale Iyi won ko le t’o ti Osa. L’o d’ifa fun Obatala Oseere-igbo L’ojo ti yio je Alabalase8 The mass of water in the world Cannot compete with the ocean The mass of water of the stream Cannot compare to the lagoon. It divined for Obatala Oseere-igbo When he was to be the made the arch-deity. (Translation mine) Those who propose or propagate the sonship of Obatala must, thus, have been deceived by the fact he must, in a way, be special to Olodumare to be given that position. This is also what must have necessitated the proposition of Ela as the son of Olodumare. Suffice to mention that Ela is popularly refered to Ela, omoloju Olodumare9 (Ela, the precious one of Olodumare). Study reveals it that Olodumare takes Ela as his beloved of all the Orisas. It is against this backdrop that some have taken Ela as the Son of Olodumare and has even refered to him as Christ in Yoruba belief. It must be pointed out here that that man takes a child as he would a son does not make that child the man’s son. This is also what applies in the study of Ela. What this points us to is the fact Olodumare, unlike the Christian God does not have a son nor is a father. 4.2.3 ON CREATIO EX NIHILO In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the earth. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.10 The quotation above, which is culled from the Bible, sums up the Judeo-Christian idea of creation. It points to the fact that in the Judeo-Christian thought system, God is said to brought all things out of nothing. In other words, the creation process, as opined in the 40 Judeo-Christian involves creating something out of nothing and there was no aid for the Supreme Being during the creation exercise. This is what has come to be refered as creation ex nihilo. The myth involves a void situation before creation eventually took place. It involves God summoning out the universe as He was the only one that existed before then.11 Similarly, the bulk of the creation exercise lasted six days and the last day was used as a day of rest for God. This is in contradistinction with the Yoruba idea of creation. According to the Yoruba story of creation, Olodumare did not do his creations out of nothing. On the contrary, the earth, according to the Yoruba creation story, “was once a watery, marshy waste.”12 It was a playground or a hunting ground for those who dwelled with Olodumare in the sky. It is from this that the world was created. In the same vein and unlike what is obtainable in the Judeo-Christian conception of creation, Olodumare was not the sole person involved in the creation exercise. Creation exercise involved Obatala, the chameleon, hen, and pigeon, palm tree, silk rubber tree, whitewood and dodo. In other words, the creation of thw world was done with the pre-existing materials. This creation exercise, unlike the Judeo-Christian conception, took Olodumare just four days.13 4.2.4 ON THE PROBLEM OF EVIL The issue of the problem of evil is one of the salient questions that keep bedeviling the theistic idea of God in Judeo-Christian thought is the idea of the problem of evil.14 The question of why is it that there is evil in this world which is said to have been created by a God that is good creates a dilemma which Bewaji treats thus: This is the dilemma that the theist has to squarely face! Christianity and other monotheistic religions, conceptualized in this fashion, do not seem to have any easy way of escaping either of the horns of the dilemma or of passing between. If they choose to say that God did not create evil, then it would follow that there either is no evil in the world, which is patently false, unless we redefine our concepts, or that someone else created evil, which means that God did not create everything. Even with this caveat, there would still remain the problem of accounting 41 for who created the creator of evil--or else, evil is selfcaused, which is equally unconvincing. If they choose to say that God did not wish to eradicate evil, then it could mean either He lacks the power to do so, or He is sadistic and malevolent, options which are totally unacceptable to the theist. There then seems no way of escaping the problem without either redefining and limiting the attributes of Deity or becoming an atheist, or at least, an agnostic. 15 The central point that is being brought to the fore in this regard is that God, inspite of the philosophical problem of evil, is all-good and no evil can be ascribed to him. Evil, it is believed, is a product of the actions of Satan or Devil or Lucifer who is said to be one of the angels of God but was thrown out of heaven as a result of his pride and plan to unseat God.16 Hence, it would be held that Good is a necessity that derives from God while evil is a necessity that derives from the nature of the Devil or Satan. This explains the parallel that exist between God and Satan as the two control two different empires which account for the conflict on the stage of the world. Thus, Satan is the Ruler of the world while God is the ruler of Heaven. It is this all-goodness status of the Judeo-Christian God that must have necessitated the bifurcation between the final rest place of all men to be either Heaven which is inhabited by God and accommodates only people who led a virtuous life when they were alive, or Hell which is inhabited by Satan and his cohorts and accommodates only people who led a viceful life while alive. This problem is absent in the Yoruba religion. This is because unlike God, Olodumare is the cause of evil and good and gives it out to man as he wishes.17 This explains why Olodumare is refered to as ‘Ase-yi-ohun’( the one who does as he wishes). Olodumare, against the idea of God, does not have a parallel who is said to be the source of evil. The idea of Olodumare in this regard is well captured in Bewaji’s comments in his essay: All the scholars we have considered have agreed that evil, as such, is not understandable. Nothing is intrinsically evil. We call something evil because it does not favor us or because it causes us distress. We may not know or 42 understand the reason for the event or action, but ultimately it forms part of the overall design of Olodumare. His attributes do not preclude the device and use of evil for the betterment of society. God is the creator. He created everything, both positive and negative. Why? We cannot know. His ways are incomprehensible. God is the most powerful Being, hence, He does and can do anything, including good and evil. It is only natural that the most powerful Being should not suffer any handicap or hindrance, especially in the execution of justice. God is allwise (omniscient) and knows all things…This is unlike the Christian God, who after having endowed Satan with powers second only to His own loses control over Satan. Finally, God is Judge; He judges all according to their deserts; He rewards uprightness and punishes evil. 18 There have been attempts by scholars to create this artificial problem into the Yoruba thought system by rearing up Esu as the Judeo-Christian Satan, Devil, or Lucifer.19 Bewaji identified six grounds which these scholars used in reaching their conclusion on equating Esu with Satan.20 These grounds include: (a) Esu is Satan, because the Christian and Muslim Scriptures say so; (b) the Yoruba people seem to have accepted the equivalence by Christians and Muslims; (c) the Yoruba hold that originally Esu was not intrinsically evil, but he was disobedient and proud and became the embodiment of evil, always opposing and destroying that which is good; (d) since the Yoruba put the responsibility for all evil and suffering elsewhere instead of with Olodumare, then Esu must be the cause, along with his agents; (e) that since Esu is overwhelmingly versatile and capricious, his evil nature overshadows his good; (f) there is an element of evil in Esu. 43 These grounds are faulty in the sense that it only amounts to further colonial encrustation if one would say that the Yorubas accept Esu as the equivalent of Satan, that Esu rebelled, and that there is an element of evil in Esu. Esu, in Yoruba tradition, is not inherently evil and that even explains why it is such that it has its own adherents even in contemporary times.21 It must be pointed out that, just like any of the other Orisas, Esu favours his adherents. As he has also been appointed by Olodumare, Esu serves as the Inspector-General of police as well as the intermediaries between heaven and earth.22 He ensures that each of the deity gets his food by taunting the followers of each of these deities to make sure they bring sacrifice.23 As against the position that Esu’s evil nature outweighs his good, one would say that it is just a matter of reverence and awe of the deeds of Esu. He is a trickster and knows how to punish those who do not ‘yan bo Esu’ ( to give Esu its due) One may want to ask if it is Olodumare that directly executes all the evil in the world. Of course, the answer to this is simple as it is not Olodumare that directly executes all the evil in the world. It is the belief of the Yorubas that much of the evil in the world is as a result of the conflict between the Orisas and the Ajoguns.24 Ifa texts reveal to us that the Orisas are also known as ‘irinwo ‘mole ojukotun’(four hundred supernatural powers of the right) and the Ajoguns are known as ‘igba ‘mole ojukosi’(two hundred supernatural powers of the left). The Orisas are benevolent in nature while the ajoguns are malevolent in nature. Examples of the Ajoguns are iku(death), arun(sickness), ofo(loss), Egba(paralysis). Epe(curse), and so on. 25 The Yoruba conception in this regard does not take away the responsibility of evil from Olodumare as it is the case in the Judeo-Christian parlance. Since Olodumare is the creator of both the Orisas as well as the Ajoguns, the belief in the Yoruba’s worldview is that any evil will take place because Olodumare has given its permission for it to occur.26 One readily remembers the common expression in Yorubaland, and which had earlier been cited in the discussion of the absoluteness of Olodumare, that ‘Asoro se bi ohun ti 44 Olorun o l’owo si, a dun se bi Ohun ti Olodumare fi owo si’(So easy to accomplish as something that Olodumare has accented to or allowed, but difficult to do as something that Olodumare has not permitted). 4.2.5 ON MONOTHEISM AND INTERMEDIARIES If there is one striking similarities between the idea of God and Olodumare, it is the issue of Monotheism and the subsequent problem of intermediaries between the supreme being and the man in the Yoruba worldview which is absent in the Judeo-Christian world view of God. “Hear, O Israel: the lord our God is one Lord. And thou shall love the Lord with all thine heart and with all thine soul and with all thine might”27 “ Thou shalt have no other God before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow thyself to them, nor serve them...28 The above stated verses of the bible point clearly that the judeo-Christian God does not brook any form of rivalry nor delegate His work to some lesser being. He undertakes all the works and asks for all the glory that comes from it. Thus is what the monotheism in the Judeo-Christian God Concentrates itself on. But this is not the case in the case of Olodumare. There is no disputing the fact that aside Olodumare there are also other Orisas, Irunmoles, and/or Ajoguns who are worshipped and have their adherents. Although there have been argument by some scholars that Africans, Nay the Yorubas, do not have an idea of a supreme Being and this is hinged on the nonexistent of a shrine dedicated to the worship of Olodumare29. There has however been response to this hannitic hypothesis that although one cannot talk of the shrine of the Supreme Being, the reverence for him is innate in the African30. They have pointed out that the problem rather is that of which term to accrue to the African religious 45 system- Monotheism or Polytheism debate in Africa. That, however, is not the focus of this discourse although it only points us to the need for decolourisation in this area as well. What concerns us here and renders Olodumare dissimilar from God is the fact that Olodumare has other divinities who shares his glory with him. The Orisas were made by Olodumare and he made them the intermediary between him and the world. In fact, he uses them in carrying out certain task. Whether the Yoruba religious system will be referred to as diffused monotheism or implicit monotheism, the simple fact that raises its head up is that Olodumare has the Orisas who share in his worship. This is captured in Oladipos’s point when he said that: It should be noted, however, that although the belief in a Supreme Being is widespread in African culture, the people do not worship Him, as the Christians, for example, do their God. Rather, they relate more directly to the divinities or deities. These divinities are believed to be more accessible, and it is to them that the people take their immediate problems.31 4.3 CONCLUSION In this section of the long essay, we have tried to show the differences that exist between the ideas of God and Olodumare in the Judeo-Christian and the Yoruba worldviews respectively. These differences are evident but the fact of the colonial mentality and colonial encrustation has made them appear non-existent. Colonialism has obstructed the African thinking mode and made Africans think within the conceptual framework of the West. Hence, we have come to see this dissimilarities as not been there. 46 ENDNOTES 1. Joseph Omoregbe, A Philosophical look at Religion, Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishes Limited, 1993, P. 35 2. Chief Yemi Elebuibon, Personal communication, August 17, 2009 3. Ibid. 4. Joseph Omoregbe, p. 36. 5. John 3, verse 16. 6. Joseph Omoregbe, p. 37 7. Yemi Elebuibon. 8. C.L Adeoye, Asa ati ise Yoruba, Ibadan-university press PLC, 2005 P.18 9. Ibid, p. 32 10. Genesis 1 verse 1 to 2 11. John H. Hick, The philosophy of Religion, 1973, p. 13. 12. Bolaji Idowu, Olodumare: God in Yoruba Belief. London Long-mans, 1962. P. 19 13. Ibid, p.20 14. John Hick, Pp.40-41 15. Jai Bewaji, Olodumare: God in Yoruba Belief and the Theistic Problem of Evil, P.8 16. John Hick, Pp 40-42. 47 17. Jai Bewaji, p. 10 18. Ibid, p. 16. 19. Dopamu is most guilty of this as he laboriously tried to make Esu his victim in his book, Esu: The Invisible foe of man. 20. Jai Bewaji, P. 19. 21. C. Adeoye, pp. 30-31 22. Wande Abimbola, Ifa: A West African Cosmological System, In: Religion in Africa: Experience and Expression, Thomas Blakely et al(Eds),London: Heinemann, 1994, p. 106. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid, p.102. 25. Ibid, p. 104. 26. Jai Bewaji, p. 10. 27. Deuteronomy 6 verses 4 to 5. 28. Exodus 20 verses 3 to 5. 29. J. S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, London, Heinemann, 1969, pp. 58- 74. 30. Udo Etuk, Religion and Cultural Identity, Ibadan: Hope Publications, 2002, pp 150-162. 31. Olusegun Oladipo, Religion in African Culture, In: A companion to African Philosophy, (ed) kwasi Wiredu, USA: Blackswell Publishing company, 2004. P. 356 48 CHAPTER FIVE IF “A” IS “B”, THEN, “B” IS “A”. Having undertaken the whole exercise of bringing out the meet point as well as the areas of divergence in these two ideas, we can now come to drawing our conclusions. Suffice to mention that it is taken that Olodumare is the same thing as God and this is what necessitates this project of conceptual decolonisation in the first place. Maybe we should quickly do a bit of logic here: When a proposition such as ‘A is B’ is given, it simply means that “A” is an entity and “B” is also an Entity. The relationship between them is that “B” must have all the qualities that “A” has and Vice versa. It must not be that “A” has certain qualities that “B” does not have or “B” has certain Properties that “A” does not have. Moving from this standpoint and given the fact that Olodumare does not have all the attributes that God has, neither does God have all the attributes of Olodumare, the point here is that it is erroneous to equate God to Olodumare and vice versa as their beings 49 differs. While not denying the fact that they are both Supreme Beings in the two worldviews in focus, they are not the same. As earlier pointed out, our problem is traceable to Samuel Ajayi Crowther who made the translation of the bible to Yoruba. Many scholars who have also followed have drunk themselves to their fill in this ocean of misconception. Despite this glaring disimmilarities, scholars such as Idowu, Awolalu,Mbiti ,etc. Have held that God is the same as Olodumare. This effort of theirs is in no doubt a form of cultural nationalism but they have been able to create a misconception in the mind of the people. Thereby, making it difficult for there to be cultural identity and a wholesome African philosophy that can be said to be original, sound and true. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abimbola, W.(1994). Ifa: A West African Cosmological System, In: Religion in Africa: Experience and Expression, Thomas Blakely et al(Eds),London: Heinemann, p. 106. Achebe, C. Language and the Destiny of Man. Adeoye, C.L.(2005) Asa ati ise Yoruba, Ibadan: University Press PLC. pp. 9-27. Akinfolarin, O. Olorun mean ‘God’ in English Language?, unpublished article. Awolalu, J.O.(1979). Yoruba Beliefs and Sacrificial Rites. Essex: Longman Group Limited, pp. 3-19. Awolalu, J.O. and Dopamu, P.A. (1979) West African Traditional Religion, Ibadan, Onibonoje Press Ltd., pp. 82-83. Azenabor, G.(1999) An African and Western Conceptions of God and the Traditional Problems of Evil, In: Journal of African Philosophy and Ideas, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1999. P.23. 50 Barber, K.(1981). How man makes God in West Africa: Yoruba Attitudes Towards The Orisa. Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 51, No. 3. (1981), pp. 724-745. Bello, A.G.A. (2004) Some Methodological Controversies in African Philosophy. In: A companion to African Philosophy, (ed) Kwasi Wiredu, USA: Blackswell Publishing company. pp. 263-273 Bewaji, J.A.I. Olodumare: God in Yoruba Belief and the Theistic Problem of Evil. Chief Yemi Elebuibon, Personal communication, august 17, 2009 Dascal, Marcelo. Colonizing and Decolonizing Minds. Tel Aiv University. Dopamu, P.A. (1986) Esu: The Invisible Foe of Man. Ijebu-ode, Shebiotimo Press. Egberongbe, W.(2003) African traditional religion: we are No Pagan, Lagos: Nelson Publishers. Etuk, Udo,(2002). Religion and Cultural Identity. Ibadan: Hope Publications. pp 150162. Hick, J.H.(1973). The philosophy of Religion. Idowu, B.(1962) Olodumare: God in Yoruba Belief. London: Longman. Idowu, B.(1973) African Traditional Religion: A Definition. Ibadan: SCM Press Ltd. Irele, Abiola.(1982) In Praise of Alienation. An Inaugural lecture delivered on 22nd, November, 1982 at the University of Ibadan. Irele,D. (2007) Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Approach. In: Issues & Problems In Philosophy ed. Kolawole Olu-Owolabi .Ibadan: Grovacs Networks. pp. 176189. Kebede, M.(2004) African Development and the Primacy of mental Decolonization. CODESRIA, African Development, Vol. XXIX, No. 1, 2004. Pp. 107-129. 51 Kwesi, A.D. African Traditional Religion: Monotheism or Polytheism? Mbiti, J.S.(1969) African Religions and Philosophy, London, Heinemann. pp. 58-74. McKenzie, P.R.(1976) Yoruba Orisa Cults: Some marginal notes concerning their Cosmology and Concepts of Deity. Journal of Religion in Africa, Vol. 8, Fasc. 3. (1976), pp. 189-207. Ngugi Wa Thiong’O, (1981) Decolonizing the Mind. Harare; Zimbabwe Publishing Home, pp. 4-33. Ogunade, R. (2010), “The Scientific Universe in Yoruba Religion” in, Human Views on God:Variety Not Monotony, Adam K. arap Chepkwony and Peter M.J. Hess (eds.) 4351. Eldoret: Moi University Press. Ohinlade, T.(1999) Agbeyewo Eko Ifa, Lagos: Fola Printing and Publishing Company Limited. Oke, S.(1999) The Ontological Conceptions of God and Some Insights Into African Ethics. Journal of African Philosophy and Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1999. pp. 82-91. Okponariobo, F.(2002) Understanding Philosophy of Religion, Ibadan: Fola-murphy Printers and company. Oladipo, O.(1995) Introduction. In: Four Essays, Ibadan: Hope Publication, 1995. Oladipo, O.(2002). Kwasi Wiredu’s Idea of African Philosophy. In: The Third Way in African Philosophy: Essays in Honour of Kwasi Wiredu. Oladipo Olusegun(ed) Ibadan: Hope publications. Oladipo, O.(2004) Religion in African Culture, In: A companion to African Philosophy, (ed) Kwasi Wiredu, USA: Blackswell Publishing company, 2004. P. 356 Oladipo, O.(2006)(ed), Core Issues in African Philosophy.Ibadan: Hope Publications. 52 Omoregbe, J.(1993) A Philosophical look at Religion, Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishes Limited. Onwubiko, K.C. (1987) The History of West Africa, Volume 2. Osha, S.(2009a). Discourses on Decolonization, April, 2009. Osha, S.(2009b). Kwasi Wiredu and the Problems of Conceptual Decolonization. Oshitelu, G.A.(2002). The Philosophy of Religion, An Introduction. Ibadan: Hope Publications. Parrinder, E.G.(1970).Monotheism and Polytheism in Africa. Journal of Religion in Africa, Vol. 3, Fasc. 1. (1970), pp 81-88. Toner Patrick(1909) Etymology of the word ‘God’. In: The Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. Retrieved September 21, 2011. Wiredu, K.(1992) Post-Colonial African Philosophy: Some Comments. In: Four Essays, Ibadan: Hope Publication, 1995 Wiredu, K.(1993) The Need for Conceptual Decolonization in Africa Philosophy. In: Four Essays, Ibadan: Hope Publication, 1995 Wiredu, K.(1996) Decolonizing Religion and Philosophy. African Studies Quaterly ( The Online Journal for African Studies) Wiredu. K.(2004) Introduction: African Philosophy in our time. In: Companion to African Philosophy, Kwasi Wiredu (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004. P. 15. Watkins Calvert (ed), The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo European Roots, 2nded, Houghton Mifflin company, 2000, retrieved from < http://newadvert.org/cathen/06608.htm 53 54