Post-theistic God

[Spengler47]

The Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gassett once wrote about the importance of generations in history. He pointed out that any number of conflicting belief systems can
advance plausible arguments for their truth: liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, Marxism, atheism as well as all of the great religions, etc. At any given time, all of those belief systems will have at least a few followers, yet one system will be dominant. Oretega concluded that the dominant ideas or systems of ideas will be the ones that appeal to the felt needs of the current generation.

Spong seems to typify the thinking of people who are in their fourties to seventies, for whom postmodernism is a believable system of thought. His denunciations of traditional theology and his pronounced tendency to brand traditionalists as “fundamentalists,” fits in with the tendency of a lot of people in the age bracket (the baby boomers, plus a few years on either side) to have an almost reflexive distrust of authority and traditional institutions. Hence his popularity (and the Jesus Seminar’s and Dan Brown’s) today.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a oft repeated historical move toward fundamentalism that happens when there is a challenge to a religious group. A modern example is the birth of Christian Fundamentalism during the Monkey Trial. But even in such examples, specifying exactly what a group is to believe and makimng small differences in doctrine out to be important is likely to result in speciation–more distinct groups with subtle nuanced differences that start to consider themselves as distinct from one another in important ways where such differences were previously not thought to be important. So there is less unity rather than more. There is more unity withing such specialized groups, but also more different groups.

History demonstrates that a persecuted minority like the early Christians become more united and dedicated…
This is true. There is a oft repeated historical move toward fundamentalism that happens when there is a challenge to a religious group. A modern example is the birth of Christian Fundamentalism during the Monkey Trial. But even in such examples, specifying exactly what a group is to believe and making small differences in doctrine out to be important is likely to result in speciation–more distinct groups with subtle nuanced differences that start to consider themselves as distinct from one another in important ways where such differences were previously not thought to be important. So there is less unity rather than more. There is more unity within such specialized groups, but also more different groups.

It is ironic that less than 50% of people in the UK believe in God, yet in the 2001 census 72% claimed to be Christian! In the last thirty years 50% of Christians have stopped going to church. As a result of secularisation there has been legislation against freedom of religious expression. Recently a nurse was prevented from wearing a small crucifix at work. As a result believers are now more aware of what they share than how they differ. The proliferation of Christian sects has changed to a decline and many churches are being used for other purposes. The decline of religious belief in the UK has led to more solidarity between Christian sects - and even with Moslems, Jews and Hindus - because practising believers have become a small minority and are less concerned about details than essentials. When it is a question of survival one has a better sense of perspective…

 

[Spengler47]

That’s an interesting perspective on how religions in Europe and the US are coping with secularization.You reminded me of Samuel Johnson’s statement that knowing one is about to be hanged concentrates a person’s mind wonderfully! So people who are of different Christian denominations, or of different religions, feel a kind of kinship with each other in the face of the hostility the encounter from secular society. I believe that. The US tradition of separation of church and state seems more and more to be displaced by Secularism as a kind of ersatz religion, with a strong bias against traditional religions. You mentioned the nurse in the UK who was not allowed to wear a crucfix. I could see that happening here, too.

I used to work in a large biomedical research institute and now work in a major university. Most of my work was with laboratory scientists and physicians. I enjoyed working with all kinds of people, including those who were decidedly non-religious. One of my best friends at the research institute was a very decided atheist. However, I especially enjoyed meeting with people whose outlook on life had a religious dimension, and they were by no means all Christians. Many of them were Jews (one of them was a geneticist who was also a cantor in his synagogue), Hindus, Parsees, Sikhs (a pharmacologist who also served as secretary of the local Sikh associaton) and Muslims. I attended services a few times at the Sikh gurdwara (church or temple) and had some fascinating discussions afterwards with members of the gurdwara on Sikh and Christian beliefs. Although we held very different views on a number of things, we also found many areas of agreement. I do not doubt that God’s presence could be felt in the gurdwara and that God works in all kinds of ways through people who hold different beliefs.

Getting back to John Shelby Spong, I think part of my aversion to Spong is that, while he thinks he is opening up new lines of discussion, in many respects his thinking is very narrow. I’ve read several of his books and they are just filled with hostility towards people he regards as fundamentalists, condescension toward traditional believers, etc. He insists that God is non-theistic rather than theistic, does not work miracles, does not respond to prayer, etc. How does he know that? A Hindu or Sikih would argue that God is both impersonal (non-theistic, nirguna Brahman) and personal (theistic, sirguna Brahman). Prayers and miracles are another subject, but I believe in miracles and in the efficacy of prayer. Spong seems trapped in a narrow, positivistic mindset.

 

[DysonSphere]

I think that I like your first quote, about “listening to old words with new ears”. It makes a good point about returning to church, even if belief is lacking (if listening to such things appeals to you, that is; it does to me).

As for reducing “god-talk”, my only insight on this is that I call myself an agnostic, not to reduce all god-talk, but to reduce my god-talk. I am not a theologian, and as it bothers me when theologians say crazy things about science, I will avoid saying much about theology. It is up to them, and the poets and mystics, to come up with a better way to talk about God, maybe (I speculate probably) by removing the word “God” from the discourse, and calling this Ground of Being something else.

I would also add that, if the goal is to reduce all god-talk, being here would seem counter-productive. After all, God is what the people here seem to talk about the most.

I agree. Spong or Eckhart Tolle or Depak Chopra might say, until we have new poets to create this new language, we can still listen to the old words with new ears. It sounds to me like this is what you are trying to do. I am ambivalent myself. While we CAN listen with new ears, when we start to use old words in new ways, we will be more often than not misunderstood. This is why the Catholics here will not even recognize Spong as talking about God at all.

I also have the concern that by keeping the God-talk going he is perpetuating within the broader culture what the two of us my see as conceptions of the unknown that have outlived whatever benefit for us they might have had. In other words, perhaps we would like to see less God-talk since God-talk tends to be so divisive. On the other hand, it may be possible to just have better God-talk while keeping such talk going. I’m not sure what the answer is. Maybe some of each? Does this better God-talk of a Spong or a Chopra lend cover against critcism to those worse forms of God-talk such as that of a Pat Robertson? If so, the answer is to try to reduce the amount of God-talk altogether. But if new and better God-talk reduces bad God-talk, then we may have common cause with Spong and Chopra. What do you think?

Best,
Leela

 

[DysonSphere]

I share Dysonsphere’s admiration for Freeman Dyson as a scientist, but I’m not sure I can agree with Dyson aon theology. Certainly the ultimate reality of God does exceed our ability to express that reality fully in writing. As Dante wrote in the final Canto of the Divine Commedy, “here my imagination failed me.” Philosophy can only take us so far. I think the same is true of science. On the other hand, I can’t agree with Dyson if he believes that the doctrines of the trinity or the incarnation are unimportant, or simply a matter of subscribing to what seems believable at the moment. A Presbyterian today, a Roman Catholic tomorrow, something else the next day? Is Dyson pulling our legs?

Dyson describes himself as a true non-denominational. He attends where he likes when he likes, and finds his religious views flexible enough to fit in almost anywhere Christian.

The quote I gave is whimsical, but I think there is a part of it that is serious.

Also, I’m not sure I agree with Dyson on theology, either.

 

[Spengler47]

A number of scientists have written some interesting books recently on God and religious belief, including John Polkinghorne, Ian Barbour and Arthur Peacock. Peacock takes a pantheistic or panenthiastic view of God. Polkinghorne is more traditionally theistic. He’s also interesting because he was a working scientist, a Cambridge physicist, for many years before he closed up his lab and entered the Anglican priesthood. But they’re all interesting writers.

 

[DysonSphere]

A number of scientists have written some interesting books recently on God and religious belief, including John Polkinghorne, Ian Barbour and Arthur Peacock. Peacock takes a pantheistic or panenthiastic view of God. Polkinghorne is more traditionally theistic. He’s also interesting because he was a working scientist, a Cambridge physicist, for many years before he closed up his lab and entered the Anglican priesthood. But they’re all interesting writers.

I do enjoy Polkinghorne. I’ve not read the other writers. I’ll look up their books.

 

[aburger]

I have read about Bishop Spong. The Apostle Paul told us there is only one gospel. He very clearly talked about condemnation for those who preach another gospel Spong certainly don’t preach the gospel Paul brought to us. Who appointed Spong to bring us another gospel? We read in the Bible that in the last days people will cling to whatever comforts their itchy ears. The gospel was perfect and it is still perfect since Jesus was perfect being God the Son. I had an article published concerning Bishop Spong in our local daily paper. I will e-mail the article to anyone. My e-mail address is kuttersedge@comcast.net.

Christ is Risen!

 

[greylorn]

Recently I finished the book A New Christianity by Episcopal Bishop John Spong. In it he outlines what he calls a new definition of God, which reaches beyond theism. For him the theistic god represents an idol. God is not a being so much as being itself. He claims that the theistic god is an anthromorphic creation. God doesn’t know what is going on in Sodom for instance, so he has to send down a couple of angels. Spong claims that God is not a person who intervenes in human affairs, but that (s)he is life itself.

I found it odd that Bishop Spong’s position was very similar to the “Thomistic metaphysics,” which seeks to prove God as ipsum esse subsistens (subsistent being-itself). My question is: could one be an authentic Catholic and not believe that God was a person? If we do believe that God is a person (which we obviously do) how do we reconcile how small our god seems to be portrayed in scripture and tradition?

Spong’s notions are intended to fill the gap left by the failure of religions to reconcile their God-concept with principles of science, or get one that makes better sense. Spong is an obvious atheist masquerading as a bishop (Episcopal, as I recall). He’s just a skunk, sneaking in through your doggie door.

There is nothing small about the Christian God. The biggest problem with the idea is that by declaring God to be omniscient/omnipotent, the Church made Him too big. Instead of discarding the concept of an identifiable Creator in favor of Spongism, which is simply muddled atheism, why not redefine your God-concept in the context of physics?

The all-powerful God is just an idea invented by Augustine and Aquinas. They were human, and can make mistakes. There are better alternatives than to let a wool-covered wolf like Spong affect your beliefs. Spong is just a mindless reaction to some ill-conceived ideas that seemed a good idea at the time of their invention.

I propose that if you are of a mind to reject ideas about God, start by rejecting all of them, beginning with the idea that the Creator of the Universe ever took the trouble to apprise mankind of his nature and purposes. Reject the Gods of Abraham, Augustine, and Aquinas along with the non-gods of pseudo-intellectuals. This will leave your mind free to consider interesting alternatives.

Then spend some time checking out the only real evidence of the existence, or not, of a Creator. Watch some sunsets and moonrises. Study butterflies and flowers. Find the biggest telescope you can and peer out into God’s universe. Get on the internet and look at Hubble telescope photos. Dissect a mouse and figure out how you might possibly make one, from scratch. Read Michael Behe.

Only then will you be sufficiently well informed to think about the reality of a Creator.

 

[antunesaa]

Very good post, especially this part:

But, the Church has for centuries defended those complex middle positions on a whole host of issues. For example, is Christ God or man? He’s both, actually. Are there three gods detailed in the NT or one? God’s a triune being, the Church has taught. Are we chosen or free?Again, we fall on the tense position of affirming determinism and free will-that’s basically what predestination amounts to. Trying to be reductive on any of these issues gets you into an easier position to uphold, but it also gets you into heresy. The same holds true for the Scriptures. They are the product simultaneously of the divine mind and human mind(s).

I almost totally agree with you. That bishop’s theology looks like the old-fashioned idea of patheism revisited. The point is - people get tired of adoring stones and trees. Again, the Church’s position is a complex, delicate one: God is not a living being in Nature; God transcends Nature. At the same time, God is not monolithic, too removed from human perception, like for instance in Islam. It is living, but not in Nature; It is far, but not beyond reach; It is the creator, but also triune and therefore diverse. This sensible equilibrium in the notion of God is to me the most seductive and appealing aspect of the Christian God, and also the reason why Christianity is still so powerful in people’s hearts today.

 

[antunesaa]

Leela asks if there is any definitive arbiter who decides whether or not someone is a true Christian.Beginning in the fourth centuries, the creeds adopted by the ecumenical councils (Nicea, Chalcedon, Ephesus, etc.) were intended to formulate the minimal beliefs required of all orthodox or catholic Christians. Contrary beliefs were declared heresies. The ancient, medieval and early modern church excommunicated and anathematized heretics, declaring them to be outside the Christian Church. A heretic had to do serious penance to be readmitted to the church, and a penitent who relapsed twice into heresy could be declared a contumacious heretic and burned at the stake. Declaring someone a heretic runs counter to the highly individualistic thinking characteristic of our time. However, aren’t certain beliefs simply inconsistent with Christianity? Could someone really be a Christian atheist for example, or a Christian Nazi? Or could someone be a Christian who believed that God’s ultimate self-disclosure came though Mohammed rather than through Jesus? John Shelby Spong is a retired Bishop of the Episcopal Church. I’m an Episcopalian and I’ve read a number of Spong’s books. While he makes some interesting points, I don’t find his scholarship impressive. He strikes me as essentially a very self-aggrandizing, attention seeking showman. Spong thinks pantheism solves problems he associates with the theistic understanding of God. However, it seems to me that Song don’t really think through the problems created by pantheism.

Good, good.

 

[antunesaa]

Sad to hear about the widespread syncretism among contemporary Roman Catholics. As an Episcopalian, I’m used to seeing it, regretably, in my church. I thought things were different in the Roman Catholic Church. The current pope is certainly making a staunch effort to uphold traditional Catholic teachings. is syncretism rife primarily among Catholic lay people or among clergy as well?

You asked someone this question but let me add something to the discussion. The other day a friend and co-worker told me he was surprised that the young priest at the church where he attended mass during the weekend told people in his sermon that the miracle of Cana had not literally taken place, it was just an embellished account of Jesus Christ’s actions. I was scandalized. To start with, even if the biblical account did not take place (and I believe it did as described in Scripture), the affirmation betrays a tendency to omit the supernatural when addressing the faithful. This is stupid, in my humble opinion. Second, that attitude is also a bit ridiculous. The whole point about God is the necessity to explain origins; most opinions about God are that God is supernatural, and the more so in the case of the Christian God. These people advocate that the triune God (with Jesus) is the Creator. To me, Creation is the ultimate miracle; and yet these people deny Jesus the possibility of performing miracles. It’s totally incoherent. It’s like believing that God wrote a sublime poem like the Odyssey and then saying He couldn’t write a humble sonnet.

 

[antunesaa]

Further, there is the additional desire to create a wall between science and religion. Boredom appears to be the only problem visited upon the agnostic or nontheist. Since they have nothing else to do, science will keep them occupied.

My point it is: There is a God. You will meet Him when you die, regardless of what you may be thinking now. I don’t write this to frighten anyone but to get the message to those who think that knowing more today as opposed to 2,000 years ago really doesn’t mean much. We can read literature written 2,000 years ago and it still moves us. Why? The basic human being has not changed.

Morality does not evolve. Stealing is exactly as wrong today as it was 2,000 years ago. It sickened me in the 1980s to hear that taking cocaine was “fashionable.” Just doing whatever the ‘beautiful people’ did was what you should do. Fashions change, hairstyles change, but the basic human being does not.

God bless,
Ed

Totally agree with you. I would also add my belief in the miracles, the intercession of the saints, and the assumption of the Virgin Mary. This is just to scandalize a bit our new age/proto Christian/agnostic/atheist friends here at the forum.

 

[Spengler47]

C.S. Lewis’s book Miracles may be helpful here. Lewis argued that the thinking of our time (he was writing in the 1940’s but his work remains relevant) is characterized by what he called Naturalism; the belief that reality is ultimately material, and that everything can be explained in terms of physical laws of nature. Anything that cannot be explained in those terms doesn’t exist. Hence, no God, no miracles. Lewis sets out to show why be believes Naturalism provides an insufficient account of reality and why we can believe in God and in miracles. Spong, on the other hand, seems to want to redefine religion in naturalistic terms. For him, there can be no God “out there,” because such a God cannot be proved by science. Hence his insistance that God can only be understood in impersonal terms, does not answer prayers, etc. But it seems to me that Spong begs the question as to whether scientific naturalism can provide a complete account of reality. I sometimes wonder, when I read writers like Spong or Tillich, what the word “God” really means to them. Do they really believe in a God , or are they simply trying to save the word “God,” in order to keep the church, as an institution, going. Are they engaging in what Sartre called “bad faith?”

The philosopher Karl Jaspers once wrote that religious believers cannot prove the existence of God, but neither can aetheists disprove it. Ultimately, Jaspers argued, we encounter God as the one who encompasses our lives, whom we meet in what he called “boundary situations (Grenzsituationen).” When Jaspers writes of God as the encompassing (das Umfassende) he seems to think of God in a non-theistic manner, like Spong or Tillich. But there’s a difference. Jaspers also thinks of God as a reality we encounter, towards whom we are responsible (Verantwortlich). So there’s more to Jaspers’s conception of God than we appear to find in Spong or Tillich. However, while Jaspers believed that, ultimately, God transcends the natural realm of cause and effect described by science, he didn’t believe in revelation, so he can be of only limited help here. (Perhaps like Virgil in Dante’s Divine Comedy, Jaspers can help guide us through hell and halfway up Mount Purgatory, but he can’t guide us the rest of the way to heaven. I refer to Jaspers the philosopher, not to the ultimate state of Jaspers’s soul.)

 

[antunesaa]

C.S. Lewis’s book Miracles may be helpful here. Lewis argued that the thinking of our time (he was writing in the 1940’s but his work remains relevant) is characterized by what he called Naturalism; the belief that reality is ultimately material, and that everything can be explained in terms of physical laws of nature. Anything that cannot be explained in those terms doesn’t exist. Hence, no God, no miracles. Lewis sets out to show why be believes Naturalism provides an insufficient account of reality and why we can believe in God and in miracles. Spong, on the other hand, seems to want to redefine religion in naturalistic terms. For him, there can be no God “out there,” because such a God cannot be proved by science. Hence his insistance that God can only be understood in impersonal terms, does not answer prayers, etc. But it seems to me that Spong begs the question as to whether scientific naturalism can provide a complete account of reality. I sometimes wonder, when I read writers like Spong or Tillich, what the word “God” really means to them. Do they really believe in a God , or are they simply trying to save the word “God,” in order to keep the church, as an institution, going. Are they engaging in what Sartre called “bad faith?”

The philosopher Karl Jaspers once wrote that religious believers cannot prove the existence of God, but neither can aetheists disprove it. Ultimately, Jaspers argued, we encounter God as the one who encompasses our lives, whom we meet in what he called “boundary situations (Grenzsituationen).” When Jaspers writes of God as the encompassing (das Umfassende) he seems to think of God in a non-theistic manner, like Spong or Tillich. But there’s a difference. Jaspers also thinks of God as a reality we encounter, towards whom we are responsible (Verantwortlich). So there’s more to Jaspers’s conception of God than we appear to find in Spong or Tillich. However, while Jaspers believed that, ultimately, God transcends the natural realm of cause and effect described by science, he didn’t believe in revelation, so he can be of only limited help here. (Perhaps like Virgil in Dante’s Divine Comedy, Jaspers can help guide us through hell and halfway up Mount Purgatory, but he can’t guide us the rest of the way to heaven. I refer to Jaspers the philosopher, not to the ultimate state of Jaspers’s soul.)

Good post. I believe Kant wondered whether it is possible to know a thing in its fullness (noumenon), as opposed to its sensorial traits (phenomenon). I never came across a convincing argument that we humans, equipped with our senses and tools (intellect, instruments, etc.), are ultimately able to grasp the world in its entirety. My main argument is very simple and the way I lay it down is without loss of generality. We all know that a dog’s brain is limited. We see that no dog can possibly understand quantum theory or the quadrature of the circle problem. And yet we ascribe to our slightly improved brain - heavier, with a larger density of neurons, perhaps with a different type of circumvolutions and architecture, etc. - the power to tap reality in all its entirety. In all likelihood very important dimensions of reality are left beyond our observation or comprehension, just like important dimensions of reality are left outside the dog’s grasp. This fundamental limitation has devastating implications to any person who thinks that what can’t possibly be proved scientifically does not matter. Her position is perfectly coherent and unassailable. But it is also deeply unconvincing: by accepting no arguments outside the scientific method, it is safe; but at the same time that position demands belief in the absolute power of human observation and reason, a belief which, in view of the obvious limitations of the human intellect, looks quite irrational.

In my view, we have to acknowledge that human science is bound to fail as the basis of a philosophical system (as is believed in many secular, scientific circles), and we have to humbly open the door to the supernatural, here defined precisely as what can’t be neither observed nor understood.

 

[Spengler47]

Interesting analogy between the canine and human brain. The Greek Orthodox believe that, even in heaven, we will never actually “see” God,because his being transcends our capacity to understand it. We will only “see” what they describe as God’s “energies.” In the same way, Moses never saw God face to face, only his glory (Shikenah) as God passed by. The Sikhs believe that, ultimately, God transcends human efforts to understand him/her (the Sikh word for God is not gendered).

However, focusing on the limitations of our capacity for understanding God also creates a problem. If, as Saint Paul wrote, “We know in part and we see in part,” then how closely can we define Christian orthodoxy in belief? I’m not arguing, as some people would today, that truth is nothing but subjective personal belief and that you can define Christianity any way you want to. On the other hand, has the Christian Church tried in the past to define dogma too precisely? I’m thinking, for example, of the monothelite controversy of the 7th century. The church decreed that Jesus had both divine and human wills and condemned as heretics the monothelites, who believed that Jesus had a compositie divine/human will. Isn’t that a good example of trying to provide a dogmatic answer to a problem we really can’t solve? The church’s condemnation of the monothelitism, which was the dominant Christian belief in Syria and Egypt (and still is among the Egyptian Copts) was a major factor in the loss of Syria, Egypt and the rest of the middle east to Islam. The Christians in those countries acquiesced in Muslim conquest because the Muslim’s treated them better than the orthodox Byzantine Christians had.

 

[antunesaa]

However, focusing on the limitations of our capacity for understanding God also creates a problem. If, as Saint Paul wrote, “We know in part and we see in part,” then how closely can we define Christian orthodoxy in belief?

Being a scientist but not a theologian, I can only answer your post from a personal viewpoint. I see faith (and in particular the Christian faith) as the most powerful tool that God gave humans to reach out to Him. Being a firm believer in the divinity of Jesus Christ, I am a firm believer in his Church. Now, many people think the “Church” is the set of all Christian Churches. It may be so, but then some seem definitely far off Jesus’ teachings, while others have remained more or less faithful to an ancient tradition that goes back to the early Christians. The Catholic Church stands out as a unique reference (good or bad, depending on your inclinations) among Christians in doctrinal and philosophical terms. I’m not going to embark here in the endless discussion about which is the most faithful Church. There was a point where I felt the urge to adhere to something that had a chance to be true. I decided long ago to surrender my spirit to the Catholic Church - and what a good place to rest my spirit the Church has been! I believe and hope the Holy Spirit is and always will be with Her. I adhere to the dogmas out of obedience, a certain reverence for an ancient tradition, and faith. I can imagine myself as a member of some other Churches had I been born elsewhere - the Orthodox Churches come to mind - but definitely not many others. So, my short answer is: I don’t know how close we can define belief, but I believe we should maintain a certain discipline in our beliefs.

 

[aburger]

Spong preaches another gospel than the one Paul taught. Paul says if you preach another gospel you will come under condemnation. Jesus gave Paul the gospel to preach-not Spong. If those who preached another gospel in the first century were condemned then those preaching another gospel in the 21st century are also condemned. Who gave Spong this new gospel to preach?

 

[Spengler47]

Ultimately, faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit and perhaps, agreeing with antenusaa, I would say that the key thing is to have faith in God and to trust in him. When Saint Paul writes about faith, he uses the Greek word pistos, which means personal faith and confidence. We have faith in God because we have confidence in him.

 

[Leela]

Ultimately, faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit and perhaps, agreeing with antenusaa, I would say that the key thing is to have faith in God and to trust in him. When Saint Paul writes about faith, he uses the Greek word pistos, which means personal faith and confidence. We have faith in God because we have confidence in him.

This is interesting. Faith is usually taken to mean certainty about a factual belief. I have always thought that someone could believe 100% that God exists and still despair. Such a person would them not have faith as you describe it–only belief. Likewise, someone could learn to trust that the universe is unfolding exactly as it ought to be and that she will always be ultimately loved and taken care of just as she has learned to love and take care of others. Such a person may not believe any facts about gods or miracles and still have faith.

Best,
Leela