How to talk about God: on why God is not an object
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:00 pm
The ever-eloquent Mark Vernon is always worth a listen for the numinously inclined IMHO ...
Rather, God is the ground of everything personal. Remember, Tillich is a philosophically oriented theologian and so uses language like "the Ground of Being" or "Being Itself".God is not a person, but he is not less than personal.
Steve Petermann wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:12 pm And so Tillich talks about "The God above the god of theism", highlighting the inherent idolatry of literalistic claims in theism. In regard to the personification of God Tillich states:Rather, God is the ground of everything personal. Remember, Tillich is a philosophically oriented theologian and so uses language like "the Ground of Being" or "Being Itself".God is not a person, but he is not less than personal.
This may leave many interested parties wondering what the heck all this means. And so we get theologians like Martin Buber with his more accessible "I, and Thou" approach and Marcus Borg with his "The Heart of Christianity". These two emphasize the idea of relationship in talking about God and creatures over-against the elevation of propositional belief. Borg says that this idea of belief as an acceptance of certain propositions is a recent development. Before this, belief and faith were about relationship, participation, and trust, not an intellectual assent to some set of propositions or dogmas.
So, I think, Vernon is right to reject the objectification of God. It is, again, a helpful therapeutic for that overemphasis on proposition belief as a litmus test.
Still, that leaves open the question of how to talk about God. Here again, I think the context is crucial. Obviously talking to a child about God is very different from talking to a science or philosophically oriented individual or group. The context is also different for individuals with their own personal background, whether it be nonreligious, theistic, nontheistic, agnostic, or atheistic. Since, in my view, there is no definitive, unassailable position, the best we can do is see if there are approaches that seem to have some verisimilitude and enhance lives, help people embrace their divine depth, and make a difference for them and the world. The propositional content of theology may help orient people in a meaningful direction but the bottom line is how we live.
Here's the ontology of my attempt: An Aspect Monism and Divine Idealism
Very well-stated, Ashvin. I thoroughly agree with the bolded. Thank you.AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:24 amSteve Petermann wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:12 pm And so Tillich talks about "The God above the god of theism", highlighting the inherent idolatry of literalistic claims in theism. In regard to the personification of God Tillich states:Rather, God is the ground of everything personal. Remember, Tillich is a philosophically oriented theologian and so uses language like "the Ground of Being" or "Being Itself".God is not a person, but he is not less than personal.
This may leave many interested parties wondering what the heck all this means. And so we get theologians like Martin Buber with his more accessible "I, and Thou" approach and Marcus Borg with his "The Heart of Christianity". These two emphasize the idea of relationship in talking about God and creatures over-against the elevation of propositional belief. Borg says that this idea of belief as an acceptance of certain propositions is a recent development. Before this, belief and faith were about relationship, participation, and trust, not an intellectual assent to some set of propositions or dogmas.
So, I think, Vernon is right to reject the objectification of God. It is, again, a helpful therapeutic for that overemphasis on proposition belief as a litmus test.
Still, that leaves open the question of how to talk about God. Here again, I think the context is crucial. Obviously talking to a child about God is very different from talking to a science or philosophically oriented individual or group. The context is also different for individuals with their own personal background, whether it be nonreligious, theistic, nontheistic, agnostic, or atheistic. Since, in my view, there is no definitive, unassailable position, the best we can do is see if there are approaches that seem to have some verisimilitude and enhance lives, help people embrace their divine depth, and make a difference for them and the world. The propositional content of theology may help orient people in a meaningful direction but the bottom line is how we live.
Here's the ontology of my attempt: An Aspect Monism and Divine Idealism
Steve,
This is very well said above. I think that, in additional to all you said above, we should also keep in mind that reasoning through our personal relationship with God, which in my view is as personal and as immanent as one can imagine, is not the same as objectifying him. Perhaps the greatest flash of inspiration I have had is the realization that all we call love, beauty, goodness, and truth, i.e. all of our most supreme ideals, has a deep and immanent inner logic. Hegel also realized this in his Phenomenology of Spirit and Science of Logic, but it was mostly reduced to an abstract concept (at least from a first pass of those writings). Nietzsche also realized this when contemplating his admiration of Wagner and his Christian ideals which were informed by a deep mythological and philosophical understanding, but, unlike Hegel, could not incorporate it into his thoroughly anti-Christian thought.
I cannot fault him, because it does feel like a very strange marriage. It is like rediscovering that all the spiritual narratives experienced concretely by our ancestors are literally true, but then also discovering that there is a deep and rather impersonal (or transpersonal) and logical element which makes them literally true. There is an inner lawfulness which is so deep and rich that every mythic, spiritual, aesthetic, philosophical, and scientific development in human evolution could be anticipated by a being who had discovered and understood it. It is a very fine line between discovering this logic exists and deluding oneself into thinking one understands the logic in its fullness, so we must be very careful walking it. Nevertheless, it was and still remains a very powerful experience for me every time I contemplate it.
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." It could be said that a large portion of religious adherents are "people of the Word". This is certainly true of the Abrahamic traditions as well as many stemming from the Vedic traditions and others. While "the Words" may contain propositional content, they are more than that. They contain power -- "and there was light". Words and language are not just sterile, dry propositional content. They are evocative. They draw forth something deep within the psyche. While words (language) offer concrete primitives strung together, they can also evoke gestalts or supra-rational intuitions that form a basis for how we perceive ourselves within the cosmos and beyond and inform how we should live.Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:57 pm Was John Wheeler quoting God, when he said: There is no 'out there' out there.
And then God said: 'Let there be an out there' ... Well sort of
Nicely put ... Incidentally, my rather frivolous comment above, riffing on the 'Genesis' narrative, came to me while listening to a percipient lecture, with Q&A, titled 'The Symbolic World' by Jonathan Pageau—with a brief intro from the other JP—offering his own interpretation of the symbolism contained in the Genesis cosmology, which, with the usual synchronicity, relates to your insightful comment, and which is well worth a listen, IMHO ...Steve Petermann wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:08 pm"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." It could be said that a large portion of religious adherents are "people of the Word". This is certainly true of the Abrahamic traditions as well as many stemming from the Vedic traditions and others. While "the Words" may contain propositional content, they are more than that. They contain power -- "and there was light". Words and language are not just sterile, dry propositional content. They are evocative. They draw forth something deep within the psyche. While words (language) offer concrete primitives strung together, they can also evoke gestalts or supra-rational intuitions that form a basis for how we perceive ourselves within the cosmos and beyond and inform how we should live.Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:57 pm Was John Wheeler quoting God, when he said: There is no 'out there' out there.
And then God said: 'Let there be an out there' ... Well sort of