God and the gods

[Contarini]

This is a continuation of a discussion with Leela which got off topic.

It not an issue of whether or not you should insult people, but it would be appropriate to ask why they believe in such things.

And cultures who do believe in various kinds of spirits and non-human sentient beings do so because they believe they have experienced such beings, or because they have traditions of encounters with such beings. I take those reports seriously, although not uncritically.

Agnosticism is a separate question. Whether or not you think knowledge is possible is a separate issue from whether or not you think such things exist. I am not an agnostic since I think that if God exists, then it is possile to know it, but I don’t think God exists. It’s possible in the sense that anything is possible, and the existence of God can never be disproven, but I am very doubtful that any religion has it right about ultimate reality.

Fair enough. However, you have yet to show much understanding of any religion. I understand that you can’t investigate everything and have yet to see any reason to investigate religion, so that isn’t necessarily a criticism. (One other note: Buddhism is an example of a religion that doesn’t actually posit the existence of God, except perhaps in a highly qualified form in the case of Mahayana Buddhism–rossum should speak to this one. In my opinion, Buddhism is by far the best alternative to Christianity out there, though I take Hinduism and Judaism very seriously as well and consider them less plausible largely because of their cultural specificity.)

If you equate God with ultimate reality, then of course ultimate reality exists so God exists,

Not so fast. That’s not quite what I said. What I am saying is that “God” is a name for an ultimate reality that transcends (i.e., ontologically pre-exists and could exist apart from) STEM, and from which STEM derives.

but Christians want to attach a personality as Yahweh to ultimate reality which I doubt exists.

What do you mean by “personality”? Are you under the impression that Christian theologians have historically taken the anthropomorphic language of the Old Testament literally? If you are, then this shows again how little you understand Christianity. I’m not denying that the Christian God is personal. But of course Christians think that God is not one person but three, and furthermore theologians such as Aquinas have distinguished between those things which can be known about God based on reason and those (such as the Trinity) which require divine revelation. I think that you lump these things together.

The idea that the universe only consists of STEM is itself neither space, time, energy, or mass. Relationships between these terms are neither space, time, energy, or mass. Love exists, but is none of these things. Consciousness is not these things, either.

Fair enough. But wouldn’t you say that these things emerge from STEM? The classical concept of God posits the reverse–that STEM itself derives from an immaterial reality which can be best described as pure love and pure consciousness, which is why things like love and consciousness arise from STEM.

 

[Contarini]

Certainly the universe has a creative aspect since it exists at all and has an evolutionary drive away from mechanistic patterns as life defies the determism of physical laws and ideas defy the constraints of biological life. But none of this is classical theism.

Not in itself. But it points toward theism. Theism purports to explain why life has this dynamic.

We don’t have theism until we imagine a spiritual realm that it is separate from the universe of everyday experience

I do not recognize this as an adequate explanation of what I believe. I don’t think that the spiritual realm is “separate” from the universe of everyday experience. I believe that the universe of everyday experience derives, not from a “spiritual realm” whatever that might be, but from God (see my definition of God above).

and separate the creative aspect for the universe from the rest of the universe and attach a personality to it as an intelligent being that intervenes with the universe.

Again, this is caricature. It jars on an educated theist in the same way that many conservative Christian caricatures of evolution jar on scientists. Yes, we believe God is intelligent (or rather intelligence). And we believe that God is more closely analogous to a person than to something like a rock or a gas or even a tree or an abstract concept. But analogous is the key word.

We then still need to write myths about this god and later misread these myths as history and science (even though history had only just barely been invented and science would not be invented for a long time), and then we can say we have a theism.

The caricature gets a lot worse here. Most educated theists are quite aware that much of the Bible (certainly those parts where direct encounters with God are described, such as Exodus 20 or 24) is not history in our modern sense. And even those passages, which are among the most anthropomorphic in the OT, make a point of emphasizing God’s mystery and unapproachability. They are not simple descriptions of an anthropomorphic being.

This intelligent being sounds a lot like Zues, or Appollo, or Mithras, or Isis, or Vishnu to me. It is one of many historical gods.

I’m really not sure what you are talking about at this point. You are making a sweeping generalization about what “theists” believe, and then comparing it to specific mythological deities. If you are talking about Yahweh, you have to clarify: which account of Yahweh? What scholars call the “J” text of the Pentateuch is very anthropomorphic. It’s hard to tell at this distance (knowing as little as we do about the author of the J text) how literally these accounts were meant to be taken. But even within the Pentateuch we have the much less anthropomorphic “P.” And when you look at the later prophets like “Second Isaiah,” I don’t see how you can compare this to something like the Zeus of Homer. I have to wonder if you have actually read the relevant texts or if you are just throwing stereotypes around.

Of course, the Greeks philosophized their concept of God as well. So if you are talking about the “Zeus” the Stoics wrote about, then we are on somewhat different ground. But precisely because they were polytheists, the Greeks tended to talk about “God” as a being different in some way from the specific gods of their mythology. I think that is one of the differences that you are trying to account for as follows:

The difference is with the myths of other religions, we read them correctly as stories that tell us about human psychology and our attempts to relate to the eternal rather than as history, biography, and scientific cosmology.

I’m not sure which parts of the OT you think which Christians are reading as history, biography, or scientific cosmology. As you surely know, we Christians are a fractious bunch and frequently disagree among ourselves on these issues.

However, you are right on one point: Christians (except for the most liberal ones) don’t think that our myths are simply accounts of the human attempts to relate to the eternal, but about the Eternal’s attempts to relate to us. We think that what the J text of the Pentateuch describes so vividly really was some kind of divine action within history. However, the fact is that Christian philosophers like Aquinas could engage in a philosophical and interfaith discussion about the nature of God without directly appealing to our particular beliefs about God’s revelation.

And that brings us to Vishnu (I don’t think I know enough about Mithras to comment, and I’m not sure anyone does). I have no problem saying that when the Vaishnavas speak of Vishnu as identical with Brahman, or ultimate reality, they really are describing (with important differences) the same ultimate reality who I believe acted in history by revealing Himself to the ancient Hebrews and then by becoming incarnate in Jesus. The fact that you can’t see the difference between at least the Vaishnava account of Vishnu and what Greeks believed about Apollo simply underlines my point: you haven’t begun to grasp what theists are talking about. And by “theists” I’m including here the variations of bhakti Hinduism at least (the Vaishnavas have most in common with us Christians, but Shaivas and Shaktas are clearly theistic as well).

Edwin

 

[Abbadon]

Not so fast. That’s not quite what I said. What I am saying is that “God” is a name for an ultimate reality that transcends (i.e., ontologically pre-exists and could exist apart from) STEM, and from which STEM derives.

But why call it god? By calling it god you attach all the contextual baggage with that word to what you may mean…

 

[RobbyS]

But why call it god? By calling it god you attach all the contextual baggage with that word to what you may mean…

Because if one looks at the Bible as a history, and we begin that history with Abraham, or-- better Moses-- then we starting with a man’s encounter with a “god.” It was a world filled with gods, and Moses at first thinks he is talking to one of these, the “god” of his ancestors. So we begin with the concrete and procede not to the abstract–as Plato did-- but to a transcendent being, the Creator.

 

[PRmerger]

And to continue with Leela: (hope you don’t mind, Edwin!)

Why are Catholics around here always trying to convince me that my life is meaningless? Sure, I have my ups and downs like everyone else, but meaningless???

Well, naturally I can’t speak for all of the Catholics you’ve dialogued with, but I’ll try to give an explanation (which segues quite nicely from your original thread):

We think you must view your life as meaningless because atheists are essentially orphans. (Or maybe a better analogy is homeless runaway if you were baptized–since, as we discussed in the previous thread, you were part of the Family when you were baptized and then “ran away”).

We Christians understand we are loved lavishly, and you don’t recognize that love. So, it would seem logical that we assume you view your life as meaningless.

(BTW, I’m not proposing that an orphan’s life is essentially meaningless, but certainly one could see how an orphan might be viewed as having a anomalous view of love and family.)

 

[Leela]

Fair enough. However, you have yet to show much understanding of any religion.

No, I don’t understand religion.

I understand that you can’t investigate everything and have yet to see any reason to investigate religion, so that isn’t necessarily a criticism.

Oh, I’ve investigated religion plenty. I find it fascinating what people can get themselves to believe.

Not so fast. That’s not quite what I said. What I am saying is that “God” is a name for an ultimate reality that transcends (i.e., ontologically pre-exists and could exist apart from) STEM, and from which STEM derives.

What do you mean by “personality”? Are you under the impression that Christian theologians have historically taken the anthropomorphic language of the Old Testament literally? If you are, then this shows again how little you understand Christianity.

It is clear that they have and still do. You can say that that is not TRUE Christianity, but why is your view of Christianity the true one? The Bible doesn’t tell us which passages are to be taken literally and which ones should be taken metaphorically, what is symbolism and what is historical fact.

I’m not denying that the Christian God is personal. But of course Christians think that God is not one person but three, and furthermore theologians such as Aquinas have distinguished between those things which can be known about God based on reason and those (such as the Trinity) which require divine revelation. I think that you lump these things together.

I can’t make any sense of the Trinity.

Fair enough. But wouldn’t you say that these things emerge from STEM?

No, I would say that STEM is a concept, a creation of human intellect that emerges from undifferentiated experience.

The classical concept of God posits the reverse–that STEM itself derives from an immaterial reality which can be best described as pure love and pure consciousness, which is why things like love and consciousness arise from STEM.

OK, but the term “God” sounds misleading here unless you are talking about a diety.

 

[Leela]

The caricature gets a lot worse here. Most educated theists are quite aware that much of the Bible (certainly those parts where direct encounters with God are described, such as Exodus 20 or 24) is not history in our modern sense. And even those passages, which are among the most anthropomorphic in the OT, make a point of emphasizing God’s mystery and unapproachability. They are not simple descriptions of an anthropomorphic being.

I’m really not sure what you are talking about at this point. You are making a sweeping generalization about what “theists” believe, and then comparing it to specific mythological deities. If you are talking about Yahweh, you have to clarify: which account of Yahweh? What scholars call the “J” text of the Pentateuch is very anthropomorphic. It’s hard to tell at this distance (knowing as little as we do about the author of the J text) how literally these accounts were meant to be taken. But even within the Pentateuch we have the much less anthropomorphic “P.” And when you look at the later prophets like “Second Isaiah,” I don’t see how you can compare this to something like the Zeus of Homer. I have to wonder if you have actually read the relevant texts or if you are just throwing stereotypes around.

I’ve become use to conversing with Catholics who have a particular view of Christianity that may be different from yours. The Catholics on this forum believe that Noah filled his boat with a whole lot of animals and Abraham use to go for walks with God and Lot’s wife was turned into salt. Your view of God may be less anthropomorphic and less like mythical gods.

 

[PRmerger]

I find it fascinating what people can get themselves to believe.

Would you put yourself in that category, Leela?

Or do you mean “all people who don’t believe the same things that I do.”

 

[Leela]

Would you put yourself in that category, Leela?

Or do you mean “all people who don’t believe the same things that I do.”

I mean people who have conviced one another that it is a virture to believe things for which there is no evidence and to hold these beliefs as immune to revision as new evidence and arguments become available.

 

[PRmerger]

I mean people who have conviced one another that it is a virture to believe things for which there is no evidence and to hold these beliefs as immune to revision as new evidence and arguments become available.

Well then, I agree with you. Some people–religious and irreligious–are quite obdurate about their beliefs and refuse to be convinced despite compelling arguments proffered.

 

[Leela]

Well then, I agree with you. Some people–religious and irreligious–are quite obdurate about their beliefs and refuse to be convinced despite compelling arguments proffered.

While this issue is one that affects both the religious and irreligious, I’m not talking about being too skeptical. I haven’t ever heard of any society sufferring because its members were too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs. I’m talking about the opposite situation which has been historically problematic whether we consider the dogmatic belief in genetic superiority of the Nazi’s, the cults of personality surrounding such political leaders as Stalin and Kim Jong Il, or the various contradictory revealed “truths” of the world’s religions. We also see more benign but still problematic versions of this issue in the desire that people have to find meaning in parapsychology, astrology, tarrot card reading, crystal or pyramid power, feng shui, communicating with dead loved ones through psychics, the lochness monster, UFOs, Big Foot sightings, and lots of other bunk.

 

[PRmerger]

While this issue is one that affects both the religious and irreligious, I’m not talking about being too skeptical. I haven’t ever heard of any society sufferring because its members were too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs. I’m talking about the opposite situation which has been historically problematic whether we consider the dogmatic belief in genetic superiority of the Nazi’s, the cults of personality surrounding such political leaders as Stalin and Kim Jong Il, or the various contradictory revealed “truths” of the world’s religions. We also see more benign but still problematic versions of this issue in the desire that people have to find meaning in parapsychology, astrology, tarrot card reading, crystal or pyramid power, feng shui, communicating with dead loved ones through psychics, the lochness monster, UFOs, Big Foot sightings, and lots of other bunk.

Indeed!

The only thing I might argue with you about is whether one can be too skeptical. And, of course one can! CS Lewis gives a trenchant and intelligent portrayal of this type of skepticism in his book The Last Battle.

 

[Contarini]

But why call it god? By calling it god you attach all the contextual baggage with that word to what you may mean…

Because this is what philosophers and theologians from theistic traditions have traditionally meant by God. The fact that you can’t be bothered to educate yourself in what “God” traditionally means is not my fault, any more than it’s the fault of scientists that scientifically uneducated people think “theory” means something like a “hunch.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’ve become use to conversing with Catholics who have a particular view of Christianity that may be different from yours. The Catholics on this forum believe that Noah filled his boat with a whole lot of animals and Abraham use to go for walks with God and Lot’s wife was turned into salt. Your view of God may be less anthropomorphic and less like mythical gods.

I suggest that you post a poll asking whether the Catholics on this forum think that God has a body (leaving the Incarnation out of it). I think you will find that none of them do.

There are Catholics on this forum who do hold a much more literalistic view of Scripture than I do, or than many other Catholics do for that matter (I’m an Episcopalian). Many of them converted from fundamentalist Protestantism–others are just very conservative.

But on the key points about the nature of God, what I’m saying is traditional Catholic theology (I’m relying largely on Aquinas). Many Protestants–not just fundamentalists, but a number of Protestants who think that Greek philosophy has been a bad influence on Christianity–would disagree with me and think that I’m downplaying the Biblical revelation. And I admit that on a philosophy forum, arguing with an atheist, I’m stressing the philosophical aspect of my concept of God.

I think one of the key things you’re missing is that in the classical Christian conception God is personal insofar as God contains all the perfections that persons have (traditional theism sees all being as derivative of God’s Being–we think that matter can evolve into more complex forms because all of STEM is derived from the ultimate simplicity of the divine essence, which contains in perfect unity all the perfections that creatures possess in a divided and limited way). Where God differs from created persons, including the pagan gods (whether those beings are real or imaginary), is that God’s being is not limited.

The Biblical accounts of YHWH describe real encounters with the living God. Whether the descriptions are literary or describe actual phenomena God used to encounter people is, in a sense, beside the point. Either way, the limitations of the being the Hebrews knew as “YHWH” were accommodations to their understanding. I once (many years ago) put it this way: “God became manifest as a god before He became manifest as a man.” Obviously there are differences: Jesus was a real, historical human being in whom God was incarnate, while the manifestations of the OT (where they are not just literary traditions) were phenomena God used to make Himself known, not an “incarnation” in the same way. But in the same way that God is really known in the limited person of Jesus, I believe that the true God was known under the limited phenomena which the ancient Hebrews called “YHWH.” YHWH truly names the true God, but that does not mean that God is circumscribed by a body of fire and smoke, and in my opinion it doesn’t even mean that everything the Hebrews thought YHWH was telling them or had told them was an accurate reflection of the will of the true God. God’s revelation is always mediated through the limitations of our understanding.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Oh, I’ve investigated religion plenty. I find it fascinating what people can get themselves to believe.

Yet you never appear to have read the classical texts of Christian theology, or the theology of any other theistic tradition. If you don’t want to read Aquinas, go read Maimonides or al-Ghazali or Shankara (if you consider Shankara theistic, which I would, but you could argue about it given how impersonal his concept of the ultimate Godhead is).

It is clear that they have and still do. You can say that that is not TRUE Christianity

I didn’t say that it wasn’t true Christianity. You are right that I have no business telling you, an outsider to the tradition, that you should pay attention to my interpretation as the real one and ignore other people’s. What I said is that it is not the classical view of Christianity found in the major thinkers of the tradition, which is demonstrably true. Read Aquinas. Read Augustine. Read the Cappadocian Fathers. These are people that are clearly recognized as major thinkers of Christianity, and they are the source for most of what I’m saying.

but why is your view of Christianity the true one? The Bible doesn’t tell us which passages are to be taken literally and which ones should be taken metaphorically, what is symbolism and what is historical fact.

I am not a fundamentalist. I do not think the Bible is self-interpreting, or that it is the only source for Christian theology. There is a rich tradition of Christian theology which interprets and builds on the Bible. You ignore this. Why?

OK, but the term “God” sounds misleading here unless you are talking about a diety.

You are suggesting that the classical, traditional, mainstream definition common in historic Christian theology should be changed to accommodate your admittedly poorly informed (“I don’t understand religion”) outsider’s perspective? Why?

As I said in another post, this is no better than the common argument that evolution shouldn’t be taught in schools because it’s “just a theory.” Because people use the word “theory” in popular discourse to mean “a speculative idea without much basis,” people assume that scientists mean the same thing. But that’s not a reason for scientists to change their terminology–it’s a reason to educate people. Same here.

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Contarini

You are an Episcopalian who also attends a Methodist church and posts at a Catholic website. Are you just eclectic or are you still searching for a home?

 

[Leela]

I didn’t say that it wasn’t true Christianity. You are right that I have no business telling you, an outsider to the tradition, that you should pay attention to my interpretation as the real one and ignore other people’s. What I said is that it is not the classical view of Christianity found in the major thinkers of the tradition, which is demonstrably true. Read Aquinas. Read Augustine. Read the Cappadocian Fathers. These are people that are clearly recognized as major thinkers of Christianity, and they are the source for most of what I’m saying.

I’ll take your word for it that what you are talking about is the “classical” interpretation of the concept of God. I’ve also said before that what you describe is a difference in category rather than merely a difference in number between God and gods.

I am not a fundamentalist. I do not think the Bible is self-interpreting, or that it is the only source for Christian theology. There is a rich tradition of Christian theology which interprets and builds on the Bible. You ignore this. Why?

I am well-aware that there is a broad spectrum of belief about the Bible.

You are suggesting that the classical, traditional, mainstream definition common in historic Christian theology should be changed to accommodate your admittedly poorly informed (“I don’t understand religion”) outsider’s perspective? Why?

I accept that you are desrcibing classical theology but not mainstream theology. If there is such a thing, the mainstream in today’s US seems to be a more literal variety which I think makes a less clear line between god as the last man standing among history’s gods and God as the ground of being.

 

[Contarini]

I’ll take your word for it that what you are talking about is the “classical” interpretation of the concept of God.

I don’t want you to take my word fo rit. I want you to inform yourself.

I’ve also said before that what you describe is a difference in category rather than merely a difference in number between God and gods.

Exactly.

I accept that you are desrcibing classical theology but not mainstream theology. If there is such a thing, the mainstream in today’s US seems to be a more literal variety which I think makes a less clear line between god as the last man standing among history’s gods and God as the ground of being.

Not among theologians. It’s true that the kind of classical philosophical approach I’ve been outlining is often disparaged by modern Protestant theologians. However, they would still agree that God is not just “the last man standing among history’s gods.”

What “mainstream” theologians do you have in mind? Or by “mainstream theology” do you really mean “popular theology as preached in conservative evangelical and fundamentalist churches”?

If you are engaging with Christianity as an intellectual tradition (and if not, why are you on a “philosophy” forum?), you owe it to yourself to engage with the best and most profound examples of Christian thought you can find, not with the popularized versions that you may have encountered. I admit that there are many theologians who are far more hostile to Greek philosophy and thus classical theism than I am. I am happy to suggest some theologians whom you could read who express such hostility, from the process theologians (John Cobb, Schubert Ogden, Catherine Keller) through the “theologians of hope” (Jurgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Robert Jenson) to the evangelical “openness theologians” (John Sanders, Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock), and including many biblical scholars with theological interests (such as N. T. Wright).
These all offer powerful challenges of various sorts to the sort of theism you find in Aquinas and the Church Fathers. If that’s what you mean by “mainstream” theology, I will be happy to discuss it with you. If you don’t mean any or all of these, perhaps you could name the theologians you do have in mind.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

What “mainstream” theologians do you have in mind? Or by “mainstream theology” do you really mean “popular theology as preached in conservative evangelical and fundamentalist churches”?

And, to piggyback on Edwin’s question…or by “mainstream theology” do you mean, Leela, “what I read from Christians here on this forum”?

 

[Abbadon]

And, to piggyback on Edwin’s question…or by “mainstream theology” do you mean, Leela, “what I read from Christians here on this forum”?

Well she/he was referring to the majority of Americans in her/his statement. This could come from polls about literal belief in the bible of which if i remember correctly 60% of Americans from that poll believed there literally was a garden of eden with a snake, a mud man and a rib woman.