"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."
Yes. Well said.
atheism vs anti-theism + God as height vs God as depth
by DeusMauzzim 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
poppers
-
pseudoxristos
JCanon,
...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.
...The people frozen suddenly at Pompeii, have nothing to do with the manner in which Lot's wife was supposedly turned into a pillar of salt.
pseudo
In 1748, Pompeii was rediscovered--not only its houses, but (eventually) some of its citizens. Although only fragmentary skeletal remains were found there, hollow spaces within the hardened volcanic debris revealed the forms of many deceased Romans. Suffocated by volcanic gasses and covered in ash and debris, their bodies eventually decayed inside the hardening matter. This air space essentially formed a mold, since the ash that had surrounded the person retained an imprint of the body. Excavators realized this and filled the air pockets with plaster. The resulting "plaster mummies" poignantly capture the human tragedy of Pompeii.
-
JCanon
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."
Very true on some of these points. But the fact is SCIENCE does not cover all aspects of fact or investigation. For instance, science can neither prove nor disprove whether or not there was ever a conversation between Abraham and Sarah, or that these people actually existed. ALL science can do is confirm that there were humans in that general area at the time the Bible claims they were, or that the ancient cities mentioned were there, etc. Likewise, if you're looking to photograph the air you're going to be waiting for a long time. Science can answer some things, but other things it is not expected to answer because nobody is asking. BUT... for some of those things that we can have reasonable tangibility as provided by science, that is, in matching what we know historically from both the Bible and extra-Biblical sources and what can be reasonably presumed or dated archaeologically, there is some very fascinating compatibilities. So for those folks who would seriously have a conversation about "Oh, we looked and looked and looked with our electronic telescope all over the universe and never saw any God (hello! God is INVISIBLE!)" you just have to check your calendar and see when you're giving another block party to make sure they get invited. These folks can really liven up a party, but that's about it. I'd never make it through a serious course on atheism, I'd be laughing too hard and too much. JC
-
changeling
I know nvr. Agnostic sounds prettier!
changeling
-
5go
I consider my self agnostic because I'm open to being shown proof that there is a god.
Then you are a weak athiest then, agnostics do not believe god can proven or disproven.
-
Narkissos
The problem I have found with such attempts at radically redefining "God" (e.g. Tillich's "ground of being," which is very close to DM's suggestion) is that they treat the word "God" as an empty signifier, an unknown "x". This of course can work within the microcosmos of fundamental theology, but is desperately lost in ambiguity outside. Because in the dictionary, that is, in actual usage, "God" is not "x" but a specific "character," creator, first cause, provider, almighty, etc. As a result any redefinition of "God" is sooner or later misconstrued by the wider public, believers and unbelievers alike, as a complicated effort to justify the very concept it is meant to question.
Usage changes, of course, as beliefs do; but it changes slowly, and not everywhere at the same pace. In secular circles in Western Europe it is already possible to speak metaphorically of "God" as we can speak metaphorically of Jupiter and Venus, without being mistaken as a "believer" in the mythological or metaphysical sense. It will take some time before this becomes possible with most speakers in, for instance, American or Islamic cultures, if it ever does (and I don't see why it should). Meanwhile I find it necessary to use the "atheist" label, if only for the sake of honesty or clarity, even though it does oversimplify my (provisional) stance.
-
Terry
Because in the dictionary, that is, in actual usage, "God" is not "x" but a specific "character," creator, first cause, provider, almighty, etc. As a result any redefinition of "God" is sooner or later misconstrued by the wider public, believers and unbelievers alike, as a complicated effort to justify the very concept it is meant to question.
Narkissos! I've missed you and your wonderful posts! Where have you been?
Concerning the above comment...
Since just about everybody has a different opinion/description/definition of God; how can we simply assert God is a specific character? Is it just by fiat?
Thanks!
-
Narkissos
Thank you Terry,
I was on vacation in Southern France and kept clear from the Internet for a few days...
Since just about everybody has a different opinion/description/definition of God; how can we simply assert God is a specific character? Is it just by fiat?
Semantics depend on usage, i.e. the tacit, changing, yet at every moment very real and compelling, agreement of speakers on the meaning of words and phrases. Everyone has a part in it, but nobody simply "decides". Neologisms are started everyday, but only a few of them "make it" to usage (and from there to the dictionary, which simply records usage).
A close circle of theologians can re-define "God" as they please, but as soon as they try to expose their theology to a broader arena they will realise (at best) that they have no authority whatsoever over language. Every Sunday in "liberal" churches deep philosophical sermons are thus flushed into canticles and prayers which make sure the classical, orthodox basic definition of "God" prevails. All the believer / unbeliever debates, which are still fashionable in the US, contribute to maintain this basic definition.
-
Terry
Narkissos-- ooh, la la! France is so French this time of year. I envy your vacation. All we have around here is San Antonio.
Since just about everybody has a different opinion/description/definition of God; how can we simply assert God is a specific character? Is it just by fiat?
Semantics depend on usage, i.e. the tacit, changing, yet at every moment very real and compelling, agreement of speakers on the meaning of words and phrases. Everyone has a part in it, but nobody simply "decides". Neologisms are started everyday, but only a few of them "make it" to usage (and from there to the dictionary, which simply records usage).
A close circle of theologians can re-define "God" as they please, but as soon as they try to expose their theology to a broader arena they will realise (at best) that they have no authority whatsoever over language. Every Sunday in "liberal" churches deep philosophical sermons are thus flushed into canticles and prayers which make sure the classical, orthodox basic definition of "God" prevails. All the believer / unbeliever debates, which are still fashionable in the US, contribute to maintain this basic definition.
Then, the character and "personhood" of God IS or ISN'T a natural process of human formation/erosion?
For instance, the O.T. seems to present a personality for God that is fierce, vengeful, antagonistic and patronizing all at once. The N.T. has a remote behind-the-scenes control booth God who does voice-overs.
How do we separate an actual (if at all) Identity Being from myths, stories, competing theologies and cultural frictions?
Would you say the God behind the God stories is largely a Jung-esque collective unconscious, or; something else entirely?
-
Narkissos
I typed a rather long reply to Terry and lost it when JWD went down...
So here we go again:
Then, the character and "personhood" of God IS or ISN'T a natural process of human formation/erosion?
What I am referring to is the usual basic definition of the word "God" on which both "believers" and "unbelievers" need to agree (at least implicitly) in order to debate whether "God" exists or not (without this agreement no such debate would even be possible). It is broader than the dogmatical definitions of "God" which belong to particular religions (excluding issues like the Trinity or Incarnation) but always includes some concept of causality, transcendence and personality (the details of which are left to further confessional clarification).
In that sense, "God" is definitely the result of a particular segment of the history of human thought (pardon the pleonasm) embracing Judaism, Christianity and Islam (although the latter has often been overlooked so far).
For instance, the O.T. seems to present a personality for God that is fierce, vengeful, antagonistic and patronizing all at once. The N.T. has a remote behind-the-scenes control booth God who does voice-overs.
Not so simple I guess. Both the OT and the NT contain a wide variety of "God portraits" which overlap a lot. To take rather extreme examples, I wouldn't say the "God" of Revelation is anymore "advanced" than the "God" of Jonah. Remember, too, that many "fierce, vengeful, antagonistic and patronizing" traits of the Bible "God" on both sides of the OT/NT border can be traced back upstream of monotheism, i.e. upstream of the (only) "God," to earlier descriptions of the "god" (lower case intended) Yhwh in his original polytheistic setting.
How do we separate an actual (if at all) Identity Being from myths, stories, competing theologies and cultural frictions?
Imo we can't. De-mythologisation always results in the construction of yet another mythology, even under metaphysical or philosophical disguise. Tillich's "ground of being" is no exception I think.
Would you say the God behind the God stories is largely a Jung-esque collective unconscious, or; something else entirely?
Neither actually. If there is anything like a "collective unconscious" it is bound to be reflected in the Bible "God stories" just as in every piece of literature (myth, legend, and "history"). Otoh the Bible "God stories" are determined by many other, more horizontal factors (politics for instance).
Because we read the Bible as an essentially religious book, according to our narrow definition of "religion" as distinct from "other fields" such as politics, economics, sociology or ethics, we naturally tend to regard "God" as the central character and focus of the book, which can be misleading. Not all fairy tales are actually about fairies, even though fairies do play a significant part in the narrative. The point of many (if not all) of them is not to provide us "information about the fairy realm" -- as the shallowest readers could think.
At the present stage of my ramblings I am not so much interested to look for a "God behind the God stories". Whatever our "ultimate concern" (to borrow from another key phrase of Tillich), I'm not sure we do it a favour by calling it "God," no matter how many quotation marks we may put around this word. I doubt the equation "God is Love," for instance, has served "love" nearly as well as it has served "God".
