atheism vs anti-theism + God as height vs God as depth

by DeusMauzzim 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  DeusMauzzim

  Sharing some thoughts and questions while reading Gott ist anders (Honest to God) by John A.T Robinson:

  Disclaimer: If you are a biblical litteralist you might think: what is all the fuss about?

  Thesis: The mythological speech of the Bible, taken litterally, is simply meaningless to modern scientific man.
  Examples: God walking in the garden, punishing Adam and his children (justice?!), airbombing sodom and gomorra, sacrificing his Son (or Himself, whatever :) to appease Himself, the resurrection etc.

  These are all examples of God acting 'from another place' into 'our history': The world of the Old testament is viewed as a three-story-building (Sheol, Earth, Heaven) with God in heaven. God is litterally above (über) us.

  Already in the New Testament, we see the beginnings of another interpretation: God is not litterally above us or living on some star as the wt would have it, but he is totally outside space and time. He is still 'out there' somewhere. Mythological distance has now become metaphyisical distance. God is beyond (jenseits) us.

  In both versions, God is a personal being who is somewhere where we are not. He is the anthropomorphic super-man 'out there' answering prayers, watching the Holocaust happen etc. This is the God most people today believe in.

  It is this God with whom ex-jw / ex-religious secularists, like myself, have a serious problem. In the secular world, there is simply no superman tinkering with nature, causing virgin births etc. Why must we believe there was in the past?

  Question: Are we atheists then?
  An atheist is someone who does not see enough evidence for the existence of gods (weak), or asserts there are no such things as gods (strong). But it is a very specific sort of god we are talking about when we use the word: It is the Jehovah-type superman God who acts in our history from his 'out there somewhere', the God who is beyond (jenseits) us. Atheism sees problems with this kind of God.

  It might be more specific to say we are anti-theists or anti-Jehovists: we are (intellectually, morally etc) against the Jehovah-type 'somewhere out there' God - all assertions about him like "He makes it rain" are simply meaningless to us who live with a secular, scientific world-view.

  I would not call myself an atheist without qualifying it. I have a sense for the 'godly', 'numinous', 'the mystery of life', call it whatever you will. It's just that I can not, in any way, believe in the superman concept of God anymore. I am only an atheist in this sense. That is, I'm an anti-theist.

  If only we could modify the concept of God from the superman to something else, not 'out there', not personal, not a personal tribal deity demanding sacrifices or field service, not so.. human! Then we would be anti-theists and atheists with regard to the Jehovah-type God, but not atheistic regarding this 'new' concept of god/godliness.

  So, after these thoughts, two questions:

  - Would you agree on the anti-theist / atheist distinction?
  - What do you think of this new concept of God: 'God is the deepest ground of our being' ? (replacing the height metaphor with the depth metaphor, not a personal God 'out there' but the Godly 'in us')

  Kind Regards,

  Deus Mauzzim
• 

  proplog2

  I think I am anti-monotheism. It's the one ALL-powerful / ALL-knowing entity that is impossible to accept because where and how are we going to get supportive evidence for such a conclusion?
  
  Any "evolved" entity (including an organization) could set off our Godar (God-radar).
  
  Perhaps there are such entities that have evolved way past us that have an interest in the success of man on earth. If someone wants to call them God - fine. Especially if you think in terms of some cosmic federation of intelligent entities it is possible to think that there may be one such organization that has more clout than all of the others.
• 

  Awakened07

  An atheist is someone who does not see enough evidence for the existence of gods (weak), or asserts there are no such things as gods (strong). But it is a very specific sort of god we are talking about when we use the word: It is the Jehovah-type superman God who acts in our history from his 'out there somewhere', the God who is beyond (jenseits) us. Atheism sees problems with this kind of God.

  I would be a 'weak' atheist, in that I don't oppose the idea that there might be a God or Gods (beings capable of supernatural deeds) out there, but can't say I see evidence for it. But is it "a very specific God I'm talking about"? No, not in my case.

  I guess we could postulate some mysterious 'presence' out there - or within us for that matter - but to what end? What would we gain? Could we learn anything about this 'presence' God? Would this God have something to tell us or some plan? If so, how would we know? The God of the Bible at least has a plan for us. We humans just have to suffer in every way imaginable for several thousands of years for the plan to work.

  I don't see the need. If a God exists, he/she/it/they knows where to find me.

  If we define a new God, that God has still neglected to do anything worth while for humanity when we needed it the most. No matter what kind of God we believe in, He/She/It/They have failed as Gods.

  If for some reason the God who created everything is somewhere out there but has been absent the last couple of thousand years working on other projects, then that God would be like a father coming home for the first time on his son's fiftieth birthday because he was simply busy working. Not much of a father, so why bother coming back now?

  I should add that I liked your post, so if I seem crass, it's not an attack of you or the topic.
• 

  Madame Quixote

  Deus - "airbombing sodom and gomorra"
  I thought he napalmed 'em!
  
  Deus, I think, basically, you're just re-arguing deism versus atheism, which is, yes, a weak, watered-down atheism - more palatable to "true believers," and easier on an insecure intellect. It is something I opted for, for quite some time, but not any longer. I consider myself a strong atheist, although I don't discount the perhaps negative probability that a creator might exist, and that it would be an interesting thing for science to unravel. Until then, it's just not a reality I can strongly consider, as there is absolutely no evidence for a creator - either one that "exists out there" or one that exists "within." In a sense, they are still the same concepts - spiritual, religious, philosophical concepts without any scientific evidence behind them.
• 

  changeling

  I believe the concept of god was created by man.

  If something/someone created life, I don't think it's a "god" demanding worship.

  I consider my self agnostic because I'm open to being shown proof that there is a god. But I think if he exists he's very different from what most people imagine.

  changeling
• 

  JCanon

  Thesis: The mythological speech of the Bible, taken litterally, is simply meaningless to modern scientific man.
  Examples: God walking in the garden, punishing Adam and his children (justice?!), airbombing sodom and gomorra, sacrificing his Son (or Himself, whatever :) to appease Himself, the resurrection etc.

  OOPS! A bit of Freemasonry-level disinformation here. That is, the use of "modern scientific" man here instead of what is more clearly more philosophical or "modern logic" or even "common sense" analyses.

  You see, the term "modern" suggests advanced, educated, up to date, improved, accurate. Positive concepts.

  The term "scientic" carries with the positive concept of pragmatic, proven, factual, etc.

  Thus the very positive concept of "MODERN SCIENTIFIC" is inappropriately applied to the moral or philosophical issues presented such as God testing and then punishing Adam and Eve. That's not a scientific issue, it's a moral, religious or philosophical one. We don't go to science to answer this type of question but to religious philosophy. Same thing with "airbombing sodom and gomorra", another high-level prejudicial concept of the destruction of Sodom and gomorrow. It is prejudicial since the Bible doesn't say god "airbomed" Sodom and Gomorrah, but that it rained down fire and ash. Now there is a scientific aspect of this, but what happened say to Lot's wife, is confirmed scientifically....

  For instance, here is the result of volanic ash that reigned down on Pompei and Heruclaneum when Vesuvius erupted. These bodies clearly were frozen by the ash suddenly, much like Lot's wife was said to turn into a "pillar of salt" instantaneously when she looked back. So scientifically speaking, there is a potential consistency with a volcanic destruction of Sodom and Gomorroah and what was described in regards to Lot's wife.

  

  People frozen suddenly while still alive by volanic ash from Vesuvius at Pompei.

  Therefore, the very premise of this challenge is prejudicial, approaching a "straw man's" argument where a false premise is set up at the very beginning to be knocked down later, with little substance to the real question.

  However, the nature of this question does give us insight into the person asking the question, in that, its a weak argument from the beginning if one had to resort to a prejudicial setup to deal with this topic in the frist place. If the idea of God is so ridiculous, there would be no need to exaggerate and misrepresent the Biblical record to enhance why it's so illogical.

  JC
• 

  Madame Quixote

  However, the story of Adam and Eve is something that might be proven or disproved by science, while theories of good and evil would remain the domain of philosophy, would they not? Also, biblical stories, like that of Lot's wife, what's her name, might also be suggested by scientific research, as you suggest. What other biblical stories does science "prove"? A seeming "worldwide" flood? The sun standing still? The Red Sea parting? Yes, there are geological and astrological and oceanic phenomena that demonstrate some of these things may have occurred, but there is no evidence of any god or creator actuating them, only literary references to punishments for the "losers."
• 

  poppers

  I like your thinking on this matter, which I find resonance with. The "deepest ground of our being" is not personal yet it is immediately discernable. What that actually is I don't pretend to know, but I do know this: the sense of that being is unifying, is wholeness, dissolves any sense of separation, is peaceful, is silent yet vibrantly alive, it has no boundaries, is felt when all sense of identity fades away, is knowing, is accepting, supports thought but is not bound to it, is freely accessible to everyone, is incorruptable and is here now - it simply IS. What more could one want than that?
• 

  nvrgnbk

  I consider my self agnostic because I'm open to being shown proof that there is a god.

  Atheists are also open to the same, changeling.

  Gopher has made some interesting comments about the distinctions between agnostics and atheists.
• 

  educ8self

  It's just a matter of concepts, and perspective.

  If you want to use God for the ground of being, fine - it's just a word. FROM the ground of being, if you will this has little meaning to me, frankly because I see this kind of stuff intellectualized a lot by people (northern California) who have have seen very little of that depth, and their education and effort seem to get in the way more than anything - although of course it doesn't have to. Someone interested in this probably has some sense or functioning stemming from that depth, but what I've found is more often than not they get caught up in the conceptual description and it is very apparent that they lose sight of it, even if conceptually they agree with someone else who is more in touch with that depth. This is why in those old Zen koans they have commentary like if you say yes or no, or say anything you have left it.

  So I guess I would say, if you want to come up with a potentially useful intellectual framework, it's probably as good as anything. If you want to plumb the depths, something entirely different is involved.