Comments on Elizaphanian
Good post. Great punch line. Do you have a reference for that Wittgenstein quote?
Matt
I have found it very difficult to get atheists to understand that point. That could be because they have much invested in the concept of God remaining ridiculous.
Indeed they do. But I think it's also because an atheist world view has an a priori commitment to rationalism, particularly as a defence against the numinous or existential. This rationality becomes the measure of reality. Therefore since God, or the experience of God, is outside that framework it follows that he cannot be real, and experience of him must be down to other physiological factors that we will eventually be able to define scientifically. Sad.
But I love the Wittgenstein quote, "Practice gives words their sense". Is this not part of the truth of the great commission, "make disciples" for it is in becoming disciples that we encounter God in Christ.
Matt - I've put the reference in. Tim your last point is what underlies many of my struggles with (some forms of) evangelicalism - and it's why Tim C and I agree on what discipleship is! You could say 'I by my works will show you my faith'....
Thank you. I have been thinking about this overnight.
My response may well seem inadequate. I accept that I am a rationalist and that there may be other ways of perceiving that I do not properly understand. I post this partly because you two (Tim and Sam) agree and debate is always a good idea...
Your post leaves me with two fundamental questions.
First, the ideas you refer to would by some be called moral sense, sense of purpose and reflection respectively. What is a humanist missing if they have the same feelings but ascribe a different source? If they are not missing something (like a God which exists separately from our attitudes to him) isn't religion just a choice rooted only in the subject's personal views?
Secondly, where does this conception of God leave the basic understanding of Christianity common in our society? Did God "create" the world? Can prayers be answered by God changing things? Has any miracle, including those in the Bible, ever happened? What does life after death mean? Is there some external entity which forgives our sins if we repent? In what way was Christ more than a prophet? If none of this follows the traditional path (God created and cares about the world and sent Christ to redeem us from sin) what plans does the Church have to tell people that they can safely put these ideas to one side?
Can I add a third? Isn't this conception of God reactive to the success of science since the Renaissance?
Most highly educated theologians, who can't just be dismissed, seem to have had very simple ideas of God until quite recently. You say that atheists (not me btw) want the concept of God to be ridiculous. Aren't they just challenging the concept of God common until science cast doubt on it?
To take two C16th examples - can it be that this conception of God was really the one for which Cranmer, Lattimer and Ridley were burnt to death when they could so easily have obtained a pardon? What sort of oddball, in the face of such a subtle and difficult concept of God, could not accept an alternative view or that there would be no detriment for bending with the breeze? What sort of psycho would pass the sentence when hanging was an option for non-religious crimes?
A few more (1) Those who debated Henry VIII's first divorce in the context of Leviticus said they thought his breach of the law explained why he had no sons. The Pope was petitioned for divorce. Did those petitioning him and the Pope know that the premise was false (2) Didn't those who denounced Galileo do so because they believed the cosmology in the Bible was accurate. (3) The last execution for heresy in Britain was 1697. Surely those accusing and trying him believed that his critcism of eg miracles was in fact wrong. Surely they themselves believed in miracles.
Two more recent examples - in the late C19 a debate was arranged in Oxford between a Darwinist and a ... Bishop. The Church was seen as the relevant other side of the debate. The Bishop propounded the Biblical view of creation and poured scorn on the idea that he was related to a monkey. This is very recent and the Bishop was not an idiot. (A woman cried out in protest and fainted when the Darwinist told the Bishop to his face that he was indeed related to a monkey - what a very C19th scene).
At a similar time another Bishop calculated that the world was c.7,000 years old based on Bible passages. This implies that he believed the Bible set out facts about creation which would withstand rational analysis.
Here is a challenge. Can you name a Bishop in the C of E or Catholic Church who said, even in private papers, before 1900, that no miracles happened or the Virgin Birth was a metaphor?
That one is me btw.
Sorry for the long post... again
I agree with what you say about God being bigger than our words, and concepts, "We cannot capture God in our language; all attempts ultimately fail", however if God is not a person how can we have a personal relationship with Him?
I am not disagring with your points, just that I cannot understand it.
It would appear that I am one of those people from a Christian circle that has believed God to be a being....
Davidov - I think I'll answer yours in a separate post. Rachel, it is indeed a difficult concept to get our heads around! Put simply, we can talk about God as personal because we are persons and we relate to God as if to a person. We can't call God a person because we've got a discrete idea of what a person is - and we can't put God into that box (because we can't put God into any boxes).
That makes more sence... thank you very much!
You seem to be taking a few very ordinary experiences and labeling them as "God". That's not very interesting.
Some interesting comments in this thread - unfortunately there is no link back to the original post so I can't tell which one it was. Anyway I don't have anything invested in the concept of God remaining ridiculous. Rather, theologians have a lot invested in the concept of God remaining nebulous.
Commenting by HaloScan
