What We Talk About When We Talk About God

[Iosias]

Have you read Bell's latest?

What We Talk About When We Talk About God by Rob Bell - YouTube

 

[Iosias]

Rob Bell // What We Talk About When We Talk About God // Premier.tv - YouTube

 

[fishing]

Yes. I like it. I like what Rob Bell is trying to do.

Although I do sense a sort of tension, a slight dishonesty in his work. On the one hand, he is trying to bring the faith to our modern, pluralistic society intact. In doing so, he is rejecting the literalism of many aspects of the Bible to make them compatible with our modern paradigm. It's almost jarringly obvious how often he refers to the works of the Old Testament as 'stories,' 'creation poems,' etc. That's all well and good, but he doesn't go far enough. There is a tension because, for him, despite an underlying acceptance of the mythological nature of Scripture, there is also an acceptance of Scripture as fully authoritative, and he never explains why that is. He looks to prove most of his ideas about God within Scripture, or perhaps more accurately, within his reinterpretations of Scripture. It is still, for some reason, the final authority. He doesn't seem to acknowledge the potentially mythological aspects of the New Testament as mythological - those parts are generally not referred to as poetry, or allegories, or whatnot. Although that view is also not countered; it remains intentionally ambiguous. I suspect that this is because he knows he would lose a lot of his influence and reach if he were to explicitly cast doubt on literalist interpretations of the Gospels, since most Christians, even the most liberal, take the historical / literal accuracy of the Gospels on faith. Seemingly taking some aspects of Scripture on faith and not others does create a bit of a tension and discontinuity in his work. That's primarily why he is an easy target for conservative literalists who can very easily accuse him of cherry picking in their all-or-nothing approach to biblical scholarship. (Of course, the literalists cherry pick as well, but it's not quite as obvious.)

Whatever.

I do tend to like Rob Bell a lot, and I think that his work is certainly a step in the right direction for Christianity. He is a very eloquent writer, and the way that he attempts to re-conceptualize God to make room for advances in modern science is both fascinating and accessible.

 

[Iosias]

I try not to read motives into why he doesn't go further, after all he may not be there yet himself. I like his work, but like you I would go further and see myth in the NT also.

 

[Paradoxum]

I like this sort of Christianity, and I can easily see how you can easily fall in love with a reasonable and compassionate faith.

If I were to become a Christian again, it would probably be this sort of Christianity. Sadly there doesn't seem to be enough evidence for God or Jesus as Christ.

Personally, I think the spiritual feelings people have, can probably be satisfied through humanist or secular "churches".

 

[Iosias]

Sadly there doesn't seem to be enough evidence for God or Jesus as Christ.

What makes you say that?

 

[Paradoxum]

What makes you say that?

The lack of evidence.

I don't find the reasons to believe in God all that convincing. Also, God seems more hidden than I'd expect if he were real.

 

[Iosias]

The lack of evidence.

LOL

I don't find the reasons to believe in God all that convincing. Also, God seems more hidden than I'd expect if he were real.

If we try to unpack this; when you talk of reasons what are you thinking of in particular? When you say that God is hidden, what are you getting at?

Have you read Dave Tomlinson's Re-enchanting Christianity?

 

[fishing]

Paradoxum,

I believe the evidence is in how we live life. I think that atheists perhaps have internalized the core values of theists on issues of qualitative matters - purpose, beauty, value of life, meaning, morality etc. Atheists feel at liberty to remove 'God' from the equation when contemplating these issues because general agreement on many of them has entered the collective consciousness. That means, in my opinion at least, that the collective consciousness houses in itself a God-concept, constructed through various anthropological patterns of thought, constructed, to a large degree in the west, through the Christ event and its impact on our development. I believe it is important to honestly study the God concept that has arisen in our collective human consciousness and which acts as a foundation for many of our beliefs.

I also believe that it is as impossible to live an honestly nihilistic, materialistic life as it would be to honestly live as a literalistic Christian.

 

[Paradoxum]

LOL

If we try to unpack this; when you talk of reasons what are you thinking of in particular? When you say that God is hidden, what are you getting at?

All the reasons: Philosophical arguments, arguments for the resurrection, Biblical prophecies, religious experiences, miracles, NDE, etc. I no longer find them convincing, though some are better than others.

When I say God is hidden, I mean he never shows himself obviously and undeniably. Experiences can always be just psychology; miracles could turn out to be coincidence, ignorance, or misunderstanding; suffering may have no meaning or compensation. God never shows Himself. He doesn't literally walk with those he calls children. He is always some speculative concept that you only see if you interpret the world that way.

I don't mean any offence to your belief, I'm just saying how I see it.

Have you read Dave Tomlinson's Re-enchanting Christianity?

Nope

Paradoxum,

I believe the evidence is in how we live life.

I don't know what that means. What evidence?

I think that atheists perhaps have internalized the core values of theists on issues of qualitative matters - purpose, beauty, value of life, meaning, morality etc. Atheists feel at liberty to remove 'God' from the equation when contemplating these issues because general agreement on many of them has entered the collective consciousness. That means, in my opinion at least, that the collective consciousness houses in itself a God-concept, constructed through various anthropological patterns of thought, constructed, to a large degree in the west, through the Christ event and its impact on our development. I believe it is important to honestly study the God concept that has arisen in our collective human consciousness and which acts as a foundation for many of our beliefs.

I also believe that it is as impossible to live an honestly nihilistic, materialistic life as it would be to honestly live as a literalistic Christian.

I see no reason to necessarily think of those values as being theistic. I could just as easily argue that, as far as theists are moral, they have humanists values. There's no reason to label the values as theist rather than humanist. Humanists represent moral values better than many theists in some cases, such as homosexuality.

If the people don't believe in a God, then there is no active God concept. I know that I don't base any of my beliefs on God. It is possible that some are based on nothing without God, but that nothingness would be nothingness, not a God concept.

I'm not even sure if all atheists have the same values as theists. For example, I'd say that meaning and purpose are both personally created, not imposed from outside by a God or force. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Life has no value in itself... it should only be respected because people (beings) should be respected, and they tend to want to live. My morality might be similar to liberal Christians, but I also think I have an atheist basis for it.

 

[discipulus]

All the reasons: Philosophical arguments, arguments for the resurrection, Biblical prophecies, religious experiences, miracles, NDE, etc. I no longer find them convincing, though some are better than others.

When I say God is hidden, I mean he never shows himself obviously and undeniably. Experiences can always be just psychology; miracles could turn out to be coincidence, ignorance, or misunderstanding; suffering may have no meaning or compensation. God never shows Himself. He doesn't literally walk with those he calls children. He is always some speculative concept that you only see if you interpret the world that way.

I don't mean any offence to your belief, I'm just saying how I see it.



Nope



I don't know what that means. What evidence?



I see no reason to necessarily think of those values as being theistic. I could just as easily argue that, as far as theists are moral, they have humanists values. There's no reason to label the values as theist rather than humanist. Humanists represent moral values better than many theists in some cases, such as homosexuality.

If the people don't believe in a God, then there is no active God concept. I know that I don't base any of my beliefs on God. It is possible that some are based on nothing without God, but that nothingness would be nothingness, not a God concept.

I'm not even sure if all atheists have the same values as theists. For example, I'd say that meaning and purpose are both personally created, not imposed from outside by a God or force. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Life has no value in itself... it should only be respected because people (beings) should be respected, and they tend to want to live. My morality might be similar to liberal Christians, but I also think I have an atheist basis for it.

What you are saying sounds nice and dreamy but do you really allow others the freedom you maintain they possess by default?


For example. You state that meaning and purpose are personally created and not imposed from outside of ourselves. You also say life has no value in itself.

But you say humans should be respected.

But why? Why should humans be respected? And if living this way is meaningful for you, what about the people that find meaning in life by disrespecting and taking advantage of others?

 

[fishing]

Paradoxum,

When I say God is hidden, I mean he never shows himself obviously and undeniably. Experiences can always be just psychology; miracles could turn out to be coincidence, ignorance, or misunderstanding; suffering may have no meaning or compensation. God never shows Himself. He doesn't literally walk with those he calls children. He is always some speculative concept that you only see if you interpret the world that way.

Your conception of God seems to be a caricature constructed through too much exposure to televangelism and religious fundamentalism. You're right: the as-depicted-in-an-inerrant-book tribal God is a not a conception of God that can survive in our modern world, given the new knowledge that we possess. That is not to say that all concepts of God are irreconcilable with our modern world. Some concepts hold up quite well and are, I would argue, actually planted within most humans, whether they claim atheism or not.

I don't know what that means. What evidence?

Perhaps it didn't follow, but what I meant by that is that insofar as we are not all Nietzschean nihilists - we do not stare any abyss in the face - we have internalized a sense of meaning and have established intuitive ideas about the value of life and life-related things. These intuitive internalized ideas, I would argue, were some of the first collective human ideas to develop, and they probably developed in relation to some sort of conception of 'God.' Primitive conceptions of morality revolved around doing what was 'good' to please the sun god so that he may rise again tomorrow; primitive conceptions of beauty revolved around what was revealing of some sort of god. God is in the mystery; God is in the wonder. Anyway, throughout our history, qualitative aspects of human experience that we cannot explain through science and empiricism have been attributed to God. Now, after our collective human consciousness has swallowed all of these God-based concepts - the value of life, morality, beauty, etc - atheists claim it is easy to remove God and retain the essence of these concepts which were essentially built on top of God. I don't believe that's true. The only reason that we all agree, atheist or otherwise, that it is wrong to kill is because we, as a collective consciousness, have constructed this concept of 'wrong' through our concept of 'God' and attached it to the action of 'killing.' When we remove God, we are actually left without a foundation, and a space between our concept of 'wrong' and our concept of 'killing.' We have removed the universal mediator between our solipsistic bubbles.

I believe that God should be understood differently than He is generally understood - not as a father figure in the sky, but as something that suspends us in being (as Tillich says, a ground of being), a process of becoming, a connective force. If you're interested at all in reading about that sort of God, I'd suggest looking into a little Hegel or Whitehead, or perhaps John Shelby Spong who I can never recommend highly enough.

 

[KCfromNC]

But why? Why should humans be respected?

Are you saying that you don't have an inherent desire to treat other people with respect? Yikes, that's scary.

And if living this way is meaningful for you, what about the people that find meaning in life by disrespecting and taking advantage of others?

Leave them to god - oh wait, she seems not to care very much about stopping them. That means it's a good thing we have laws to dissuade and punish people from acting this way.

 

[fishing]

Are you saying that you don't have an inherent desire to treat other people with respect? Yikes, that's scary.

But why is that inherent desire there? Humans also have an inherent desire to overpower and gain control. If morality ought to be defined by what is 'inherently desirable' in humans then which inherently desirable inclination is moral?: the will to power or the will to 'respect'? I would argue, though, that at the end of the day, the concept of 'respect' is entirely culture based and constructed through the collective consciousness (this is also why different cultures show respect in entirely different ways and have entirely different rules about when and where to show it); it has nothing to do with inherent human desires. 'Compassion' might be a better word.

 

[Iosias]

Thanks Paradoxum. Dave Tomlinson's work is always worth a read, his How to be a Bad Christian...And a Better Human Being is a corker. Oh, and you're not offending my beliefs!

All the reasons: Philosophical arguments, arguments for the resurrection, Biblical prophecies, religious experiences, miracles, NDE, etc. I no longer find them convincing, though some are better than others.

This is why I asked; I agree that the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments for the existence of God fall somewhat flat, though do check out Macquarrie's assessment in his Principles.

When I say God is hidden, I mean he never shows himself obviously and undeniably. Experiences can always be just psychology; miracles could turn out to be coincidence, ignorance, or misunderstanding; suffering may have no meaning or compensation. God never shows Himself. He doesn't literally walk with those he calls children. He is always some speculative concept that you only see if you interpret the world that way.

You're of course correct also that arguments for the resurrection, Biblical prophecies, religious experiences, miracles prove not much at all. But this does not, IMO, refute the existence of God and of Jesus. What it does do is cause us to pause and reflect about our claims. What do we mean when we talk of 'God', I would say, following Tillich, that even atheists worship God, they just call God something else.

I enjoy the work of Hans Kung, but what I really do commend is How (Not) to Speak of God by Peter Rollins who unites Christian mysticism with postmodern philosophy (he's heavily influenced by Caputo).

 

[fishing]

What do we mean when we talk of 'God', I would say, following Tillich, that even atheists worship God, they just call God something else.

Yes, exactly. We are all describing the same reality, worshiping the same God, but expressing this through a variety of different languages.

I also recommend Peter Rollins.

Iosias, I believe our thoughts on God are in alignment to a large degree.

 

[Iosias]

Iosias, I believe our thoughts on God are in alignment to a large degree.

Cool, have you read Rohr? Fr. Richard Rohr: Mysticism In Religion: Three Ways to View the Sunset

I'm also a fan of Thomas Merton

 

[Paradoxum]

What you are saying sounds nice and dreamy but do you really allow others the freedom you maintain they possess by default?

I'm not really sure what you're asking. People are naturally free to murder, but the law should still stop that.

For example. You state that meaning and purpose are personally created and not imposed from outside of ourselves. You also say life has no value in itself.

But you say humans should be respected.

But why? Why should humans be respected? And if living this way is meaningful for you, what about the people that find meaning in life by disrespecting and taking advantage of others?

That is the objective and truthful way to treat people, because it means treating people equally. People generally care about that because people have empathy, and because they want to care about values being than themselves.

If they similar don't care, I'm not sure what you can say, except appeal to their self-interest. But this is a problem with all ethics, theist or not.

Paradoxum,


Your conception of God seems to be a caricature constructed through too much exposure to televangelism and religious fundamentalism. You're right: the as-depicted-in-an-inerrant-book tribal God is a not a conception of God that can survive in our modern world, given the new knowledge that we possess. That is not to say that all concepts of God are irreconcilable with our modern world. Some concepts hold up quite well and are, I would argue, actually planted within most humans, whether they claim atheism or not.

I'm not sure where you get that from, since I can't see what I said had to do with fundamentalism. I was talking about God being hidden, and that he doesn't seem to do anything obvious.

I agree that more liberal religion makes more sense... I was a more moderate-liberal Christian for a while before I lost my faith.

If your God is compatible with atheism, then you aren't talking about God any more. You might as well stop using the word 'God'.

Perhaps it didn't follow, but what I meant by that is that insofar as we are not all Nietzschean nihilists -

Well being Nietzschean and a nihilist are somewhat different. Nietzsche was against nihilism, and instead said we should create our own values. Just a side point.

we do not stare any abyss in the face - we have internalized a sense of meaning and have established intuitive ideas about the value of life and life-related things. These intuitive internalized ideas, I would argue, were some of the first collective human ideas to develop, and they probably developed in relation to some sort of conception of 'God.' Primitive conceptions of morality revolved around doing what was 'good' to please the sun god so that he may rise again tomorrow; primitive conceptions of beauty revolved around what was revealing of some sort of god. God is in the mystery; God is in the wonder. Anyway, throughout our history, qualitative aspects of human experience that we cannot explain through science and empiricism have been attributed to God. Now, after our collective human consciousness has swallowed all of these God-based concepts - the value of life, morality, beauty, etc - atheists claim it is easy to remove God and retain the essence of these concepts which were essentially built on top of God. I don't believe that's true. The only reason that we all agree, atheist or otherwise, that it is wrong to kill is because we, as a collective consciousness, have constructed this concept of 'wrong' through our concept of 'God' and attached it to the action of 'killing.' When we remove God, we are actually left without a foundation, and a space between our concept of 'wrong' and our concept of 'killing.' We have removed the universal mediator between our solipsistic bubbles.

You say the values are built on God, but I'm not sure that is true. I think the values came first, and God became a projection of our values on to something outside us.

I don't believe it is magically wrong to murder. I think it is wrong (put very basically), because the person doesn't want to die. From an objective point of view we should treat harm to others the same as harm to ourselves.

I believe that God should be understood differently than He is generally understood - not as a father figure in the sky, but as something that suspends us in being (as Tillich says, a ground of being), a process of becoming, a connective force. If you're interested at all in reading about that sort of God, I'd suggest looking into a little Hegel or Whitehead, or perhaps John Shelby Spong who I can never recommend highly enough.

I've heard of Spong before, and I think I've seen a video or two of him on youtube.

I don't know what you mean by 'suspending us in being' or a 'process of becoming'. Why do you call it God? Why not call it 'The Force'? It sounds more like a vague force than God. Do you believe there is such a force that is real, or it's just something in your head, used to understand the world?

I do like your sort of faith more, but I just do see much of a reason to think such a force exists.

Thanks Paradoxum. Dave Tomlinson's work is always worth a read, his How to be a Bad Christian...And a Better Human Being is a corker. Oh, and you're not offending my beliefs!

It sounds interesting, and it is probably something I would agree with if I became Christian again. I just don't think there is a God though, and I can't help that.

This is why I asked; I agree that the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments for the existence of God fall somewhat flat, though do check out Macquarrie's assessment in his Principles.

I don't doubt that you can have a faith that makes sense in the modern world, but my problem is foundational. I see little reason to believe in God in the first place.

You're of course correct also that arguments for the resurrection, Biblical prophecies, religious experiences, miracles prove not much at all. But this does not, IMO, refute the existence of God and of Jesus. What it does do is cause us to pause and reflect about our claims. What do we mean when we talk of 'God', I would say, following Tillich, that even atheists worship God, they just call God something else.

If even atheists worship God, then are you talking about God any more? Why not just be a humanist?

What do you mean by that? If I value love, then are you just saying love is God?

I enjoy the work of Hans Kung, but what I really do commend is How (Not) to Speak of God by Peter Rollins who unites Christian mysticism with postmodern philosophy (he's heavily influenced by Caputo).

Thank you for the book suggestions, but I'm not sure I'm looking for more Christian books to read at the moment.

 

[discipulus]

Are you saying that you don't have an inherent desire to treat other people with respect? Yikes, that's scary.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Many agree.

Many disagree.

Speaking atheistically, since everyone determines for themselves what is meaningful, good, bad, ethical, and purposeful, the man who lives a life to disrespect and torture people is simply doing what he wants to do. He is dancing to his dna and you as an atheist can simply state your opinion about his actions and even try to stop him from living the way he does. But ultimately you and he are both worm food.

Leave them to god - oh wait, she seems not to care very much about stopping them. That means it's a good thing we have laws to dissuade and punish people from acting this way.

From your viewpoint it is indeed good to punish such people because you are of the opinion that they are bad.

Many agree.

Many disagree.

Speaking atheistically it all ultimately matters not one bit for you are no better or worse than Hitler. You both are compost.

 

[discipulus]

I'm not really sure what you're asking. People are naturally free to murder, but the law should still stop that.

That is your opinion. Many may agree. Many may disagree.

The sadistic serial rapist would disagree.

Speaking atheistically you are no better or worse than he is ultimately.

That is the objective and truthful way to treat people, because it means treating people equally.

Why is that opinion of yours the "objective truthful way to treat people"?

What makes your opinion more truthful objectively than the opinion of the serial rapist?

People generally care about that because people have empathy, and because they want to care about values being than themselves.

Maybe so.

Many do not.

Many like to be brutal and sadistic. Many do not care about themselves let alone anyone else.

If each person determines their own meaning in life, then the rapist is simply doing what he wants. When he dies, he will die and become dust just like you.