What's your philosophy for Hell? Hell only?

[Gadarene]

You do understand the idea of an "Atheist God" is self-contradictory, right?

We don't believe any Gods exist... likewise, we also don't believe any "evil" gods exist either (i.e. Satan). Atheists do not worship Satan, we think he is just a character in a book. We don't think he's any more real than Santa Claus, Zeus or Yahweh.

So it's impossible to defend an "Atheist God". If someone thinks there is some sort of God that exists, they by definition are not an Atheist.

Right, it's like a celibate rapist.

 

[steve_bakr]

Every person is experiencing God in the conscious awareness of his daily life. This is Karl Rahner's thought, so let me quote an expert on his thought, Karen Kilby.

"Rahner believes all human beings to have some sort of awareness of God." Kilby reports that this awareness is "so all-pervasive that it is elusive and easily missed. So on Rahner's understanding it is possible to have such an awareness and yet on the level of explicit, professed belief to be an agnostic or even an atheist."

Now this is not quite the "Anonymous Christian" that Rahner proposes, because then we would have to bring grace into the discussion, which I am perfectly willing to do. But for now, I would use Kilby's phrase and say that it describes the "Anonymous Theist."

 

[Dave Ellis]

Every person is experiencing God in the conscious awareness of his daily life. This is Karl Rahner's thought, so let me quote an expert on his thought, Karen Kilby.

"Rahner believes all human beings to have some sort of awareness of God." Kilby reports that this awareness is "so all-pervasive that it is elusive and easily missed. So on Rahner's understanding it is possible to have such an awareness and yet on the level of explicit, professed belief to be an agnostic or even an atheist."

Now this is not quite the "Anonymous Christian" that Rahner proposes, because then we would have to bring grace into the discussion, which I am perfectly willing to do. But for now, I would use Kilby's phrase and say that it describes the "Anonymous Theist."

Thank you for sharing Carl Rahner's thoughts again.

However, you still have not shown why his thoughts have any validity to them.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Rahner believes all human beings to have some sort of awareness of God." Kilby reports that this awareness is "so all-pervasive that it is elusive and easily missed.

And what is this awareness supposed to be like?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[steve_bakr]

And what is this awareness supposed to be like?

eudaimonia,

Mark

It is our every day consciousness, only intensified. It is a transcendent awareness, except that most people miss it. Mostly it requires a tacit awareness that one is related to God in the consciousness of one's daily experience.

 

[steve_bakr]

Thank you for sharing Carl Rahner's thoughts again.

However, you still have not shown why his thoughts have any validity to them.

That is because you have not tried the experiment of applying a tacit acceptance that God is present and related to your everyday conscious awareness.

 

[Skavau]

That is because you have not tried the experiment of applying a tacit acceptance that God is present and related to your everyday conscious awareness.

Belief does not work that way. No-one can just accept anything for no reason.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That is because you have not tried the experiment of applying a tacit acceptance that God is present and related to your everyday conscious awareness.

And your assertion is completely wrong. I was raised as a Christian and at one time believed there was a God.

Through much research, study and rational thought, I came to the conclusion that there is no justifiable reason to believe in, or assume a God exists.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is our every day consciousness, only intensified.

What is that supposed to mean? Intensified how? Are colors brighter, or what?

It is a transcendent awareness, except that most people miss it.

A transcendent awareness of what? How would an atheist unwittingly describe the experience?

Mostly it requires a tacit awareness that one is related to God in the consciousness of one's daily experience.

I'm going to take wild stab in the dark here. Are you talking about Martin Buber's I-Thou experience? Because otherwise I'm at a loss to figure out what you are talking about.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[steve_bakr]

Belief does not work that way. No-one can just accept anything for no reason.

I understand, but Rahner would say that, nevertheless, there is a transcendent level where you are experiencing God, even if you don't explicitly recognize or affirm it.

He says the key to that experience is the daily conscious awareness of objects, events, etc., in our lives. I understand that, as an atheist, you are not inclined to accept this.

But perhaps you may consider this at some point. I think Rahner would say that it is not always necessary for the atheist to explicitly acknowledge God.

 

[quatona]

I understand, but Rahner would say that, nevertheless, there is a transcendent level where you are experiencing God, even if you don't explicitly recognize or affirm it.

He says the key to that experience is the daily conscious awareness of objects, events, etc., in our lives. I understand that, as an atheist, you are not inclined to accept this.

As far as I am concerned, even if I would believe in a god I would take issue with that approach when used as an argument.
Simply generalizing your own interpretation as the only possible one (and declaring everyone who doesn´t share it as being unaware) is incredibly lame.
(To be fair, though, I don´t think that Rahner actually used this as a line of reasoning or a theological argument.)

But perhaps you may consider this at some point. I think Rahner would say that it is not always necessary for the atheist to explicitly acknowledge God.

I am more inclined to turn the tables, say "It´s not always necessarly for the theist to acknowledge the absence of any gods", and hope that this will give you an idea how empty such affirmations actually are.

 

[Eudaimonist]

He says the key to that experience is the daily conscious awareness of objects, events, etc., in our lives.

Doesn't everyone do this already, every waking moment? Or are you referring to living mindfully, or perhaps to experiencing the suchness of things?

I understand that, as an atheist, you are not inclined to accept this.

Living mindfully is a great practice, but it is all about your mind and this world, not something transcendent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[steve_bakr]

What is that supposed to mean? Intensified how? Are colors brighter, or what?

A transcendent awareness of what? How would an atheist unwittingly describe the experience?

I'm going to take wild stab in the dark here. Are you talking about Martin Buber's I-Thou experience? Because otherwise I'm at a loss to figure out what you are talking about.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I am talking about Karl Rahner's view of the transcendent experience of God taking place within or through our consciousness of daily objects and events. But when I said, "intensified," it was my own word, so perhaps it was not appropriate to Rahner's thought.

Nevertheless, the transcendental experience of God, he might say, is always there in the background. He compares it to the horizon. You see a bird flying or a tree, but the horizon is there in the distance.

Occasionally, an experience of life--it could be an all-pervasive joy, grief, or even just a moment of acute awareness--makes one aware of this horizon. And that is the transcendental experience of the Infinite.

But such a momentary awareness is not necessarily as important as the tacit awareness that the Infinite--ie., horizon--is always present in the conscious awareness of one's daily experience. So that the experience of the Infinite is not necessarily an "altered state" of consciousness.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I understand, but Rahner would say that, nevertheless, there is a transcendent level where you are experiencing God, even if you don't explicitly recognize or affirm it.

He says the key to that experience is the daily conscious awareness of objects, events, etc., in our lives. I understand that, as an atheist, you are not inclined to accept this.

But perhaps you may consider this at some point. I think Rahner would say that it is not always necessary for the atheist to explicitly acknowledge God.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Until I see some evidence to back up Rahners claims, I am simply going to write them off as invalid.

 

[steve_bakr]

Doesn't everyone do this already, every waking moment? Or are you referring to living mindfully, or perhaps to experiencing the suchness of things?

Living mindfully is a great practice, but it is all about your mind and this world, not something transcendent.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, the suchness of Buddhism--particularly Zen--has a kind of synergistic relationship to Karl Rahner's thought. But in Zen Buddhism the "horizon" or background of our awareness would be something like "no-thing" or, according to some, Infinite "Mind." Being a Christian, Rahner describes that horizon in relation to God.

 

[steve_bakr]

As far as I am concerned, even if I would believe in a god I would take issue with that approach when used as an argument.
Simply generalizing your own interpretation as the only possible one (and declaring everyone who doesn´t share it as being unaware) is incredibly lame.
(To be fair, though, I don´t think that Rahner actually used this as a line of reasoning or a theological argument.)

I am more inclined to turn the tables, say "It´s not always necessarly for the theist to acknowledge the absence of any gods", and hope that this will give you an idea how empty such affirmations actually are.

Yes, Buddhists sometimes refer to emptiness. For Christians, the Buddhist experience of emptiness would be God.

But what is your understanding of Rahners's thought on the matter of our experience of God and the Anonymous Christian? Am I not characterizing his thought correctly?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, the suchness of Buddhism--particularly Zen--has a kind of synergistic relationship to Karl Rahner's thought. But in Zen Buddhism the "horizon" or background of our awareness would be something like "no-thing" or, according to some, Infinite "Mind." Being a Christian, Rahner describes that horizon in relation to God.

Thank you, I suppose that is a bit clearer. I appreciate your effort to describe something that is probably ineffable at root.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[steve_bakr]

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Until I see some evidence to back up Rahners claims, I am simply going to write them off as invalid.

OK, Dave, that is why I suggested the tacit awareness of the Infinite as an experiment.

Thank you for our conversations.

steve

 

[quatona]

Yes, Buddhists sometimes refer to emptiness. For Christians, the Buddhist experience of emptiness would be God.

I guess I´d prefer such considerations to start from the experiences (and not to start from the conclusions that oftentimes aren´t distinguishable from your (general you here) preassumptions.

But what is your understanding of Rahners's thought on the matter of our experience of God and the Anonymous Christian? Am I not characterizing his thought correctly?

No, I didn´t mean to accuse you of misrepresenting him.
I merely meant to point out and demonstrate how unhelpful such concepts as "Anonymous Christians" (or calling Christians "Anonymous Buddhists" or "Anonymous Atheists") are to anyone who isn´t already agreeing.
The good part is that we might have, find and embrace some common ground, the bad part is when one party a priori declares this common ground their own territory.

 

[steve_bakr]

I guess I´d prefer such considerations to start from the experiences (and not to start from the conclusions that oftentimes aren´t distinguishable from your (general you here) preassumptions.

No, I didn´t mean to accuse you of misrepresenting him.
I merely meant to point out and demonstrate how unhelpful such concepts as "Anonymous Christians" (or calling Christians "Anonymous Buddhists" or "Anonymous Atheists") are to anyone who isn´t already agreeing.
The good part is that we might have, find and embrace some common ground, the bad part is when one party a priori declares this common ground their own territory.

I understand your point. Rahner assumes the Catholic faith as the background for all of his theology.

I can easily imagine a Hindu writing the same kind of statements. In fact, I think the Hindu religion kind of absorbs other religions, so to speak. IIR, the Upanishads state that God--ie., Brahma--is the originator of all religions.

And I think that Atheism might have some things in common with Buddhism in general, since God, as we understand him in the West, is not a part of Buddhism.

Commonality is good, I'm for that. To tell you the truth, even though I wanted to bounce Rahner's concepts off the forum, the idea of the Anonymous Christian is more of an inside view, as a partial solution to the problem of hell in Christian theology.

It is not meant for the purpose of my telling you that you're an Anonymous Christian. So, I guess calling me an Anonymous Atheist would be fair play.