Dear Edward J Tehovnik The thing is that; Meshberger’s anatomical reading of Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam that the figure of God is framed by a sagittal section of the brain and thus suggests God is a human projection is an intriguing art-historical hypothesis, but it does not carry theological force. From an Islamic standpoint the starting point is Tawḥīd: God is absolutely transcendent and not contingent on human cognition or culture. The claim that Adam (or any human) “created” the concept of God runs counter to the Qur’anic and classical theological insistence that God’s reality is ontologically prior to human awareness.

Islamic theology provides a positive alternative: human beings are born with a primordial disposition (fitrah) orienting them toward recognition of the Creator, and prophetic revelation clarifies and confirms that knowledge. Adam in Islamic tradition is portrayed as the recipient of divinely granted knowledge, not as the originator of the idea of God. Equally important is the epistemic humility Islam requires: imagination and symbol can point toward God, but they cannot produce or contain the divine essence.

That said, art and historical context matter: Meshberger’s interpretation can be read as a compelling intersection of anatomy, humanism, and Renaissance artistry, and it opens useful conversations about how culture and science shape religious imagery. However, reducing a theologically intended image to a neurological metaphor is a form of reductionism valuable as one interpretive layer but insufficient as an ontological claim. From an Islamic perspective, such readings should be engaged critically: they enrich dialogue but cannot displace the foundational claim that God is not a product of human imagination.

From the Islamic perspective, it is not possible to say that Adam or Eve invented the concept of God. God, exalted and eternal, is the Creator who brought them into existence directly and taught them. Awareness of God was not the result of human imagination or self-invention, but rather a direct consequence of creation itself.

If we assume that Adam and Eve were the first human beings and the origin of all descendants, then it is only natural that their knowledge of God was not an invention—just as a child does not invent who his parents are, but knows them instinctively through the direct relationship that surrounds him from the moment of his existence.

There are also rational reasons and religious evidences that refute the idea that the “concept of God” was merely a human invention:

• Rational self-evidence: If the first humans found themselves in a complete and harmonious world (sky, earth, plants, life), the obvious question would be: who created this? Such an answer could not come from the imagination of someone who had no prior experience or reference.
• Innate human disposition (fitrah): In Islam, God has instilled in the human soul an innate awareness of His existence: “And I breathed into him of My Spirit” (Qur’an 15:29). This awareness is part of human nature, not a product of invention.
• Direct divine teaching: The Qur’an states that God taught Adam directly: “And He taught Adam the names—all of them” (Qur’an 2:31). This means Adam’s first awareness was shaped by divine instruction, not by personal imagination.
• Impossibility of invention out of nothing: Human imagination itself requires raw material—images, experiences, prior memories. Adam and Eve had no such history to draw from, so the claim that they “invented” God is illogical.
• Continuity of revelation: All later revelations (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad) affirm the same essential concept of monotheism. If the idea of God were a mere human invention, it would have varied radically across nations. Instead, we find a consistent unity that reflects a single divine source.

Thus, for Adam and Eve, the knowledge of God was self-evident, innate, and directly given—not imagined or invented, but the very foundation of their existence and their understanding of the world around them.