Subject: Re: Belief in God. (was People of Value & Forgiveness)
Date: 15 Jun 1999 23:00:31 GMT
From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,nz.soc.religion

Nigel Mitchell <> wrote:
>
> Hi, Chris,
>
> Thanks for this. As happens so often, you show yourself to be more
> articulate and better informed than most of the Christians here
> (including me) in matters of faith.
>
> I don't read this as an argumentative piece, and I will not try
> and pick it to pieces or dispute any part. I accept it as your
> opinion and understanding.
>
> You have invited me to respond on one place, and I have done so. 

Great. Thanks. This is exactly my intent... I want to understand
you better, and perhaps explain myself better, without picking each
other apart too much.  (In this thread, at least... :-)

> On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:40:53 +0800, Chris Ho-Stuart wrote
> (in message <>):
> > From my own experience and limited chances to interact with
> > others, the difference between theism and atheism has nothing
> > to do with a lack of imagination or a poverty of experience,
> > or bad luck.
> >
> > The distinction between theism and atheism is something about
> > belief, or lack thereof, in "god".
> >
> > Just what we mean by "god" is a totally non-trivial matter. I
> > distinguish two broad classes of god-concepts.
> >
> > The first is basically anthropomorphic. This is I think the most
> > common; and it is explicit in the orthodox Christian doctrine
> > that we are in the image of God. By this concept, God is an
> > entity, so that it makes sense to speak of God existing. Just
> > how our human nature reflect any aspects of the divine nature is
> > open to a range of interpretations, but God at least can have
> > a relationship with us in some way. God is not wisdom in the
> > abstract; God is a supreme being who is wise. God is in some
> > sense conscious or aware, as we are conscious or aware. It may
> > even make sense to speak of God deciding between alternatives,
> > as we do.
> >
> > Note that I use anthropomorphic is a very general sense, with
> > no implication that God has to share in all our various human
> > imperfections. It is not meant as a term of criticism.
> >
> > The second form of god-concept is nebulous. By this concept,
> > the proposition "God exists" may not even be the same form as
> > propositions like "Nigel exists" or "Santa Claus exists"; there
> > may be no distinguishable entity out there which is "god" in
> > distinction to other things which are not-god.
> >
> > Some people try to express concepts of God which do not fit the
> > simple "supreme superhuman conscious and living entity" which is
> > like us only much much greater. For example, Paul Tillich speaks
> > of God as "the ground of being". Abstract forms of Buddhism or
> > Hinduism think of God as "all being"; and enlightenment is in
> > part recognition that the distinction between god and not-god is
> > vacuous. Albert Einstein spoke of God as "the order we perceive
> > in the universe" -- something wonderful, but not in the least
> > human, and not something with whom you have a relationship,
> > and something totally unconnected with issues of morality.
> >
> > I think there may be Christians with this kind of concept of
> > God: not actually a distinct conscious living entity that exists
> > or does not exist; though they may find it helpful to think of
> > God in that way as an aid to prayer or meditation (which are
> > essentially the same thing). It is hard for Christians to express
> > such a view, since it is generally recognized as heretical.
> >
> > Some Christians do brave disapproval; and attempt to express
> > their concept of God openly, even though it flies in the face
> > of orthodoxy. I have even heard the term "Christian atheist"
> > -- one who somehow has reconciled in their world view on the
> > one hand a pivotal role for the person of Jesus Christ, while
> > on the other hand avoiding adopting Jesus' own views on the
> > divinity and recognizing that there is no superhuman entity
> > distinct and supreme over the rest of the universe.
> >
> > Jesus' view of God is very anthropomorphic as I use the
> > term. Jesus saw God as a great heavenly Father, who could love,
> > and forgive, and punish.
> >
> > What Nigel understands by the term "God" I honestly do not
> > know. I would be curious to know -- but I have a sneaking
> > suspicion that a careful answer on his part would lower his
> > credibility with many Christians who hold more orthodox views.
>
> You might be right, but that has never stopped me before.

<grin> Indeed. It is appreciated.

> My understanding of the word "God" is expressed in both of the
> ways you have described above. I draw a distinction betwen how
> I know God, and what I know about God.
>
> If you ask me for a definition of "God", I would answer in similar
> terms to Tillich and Einstein above. "God" is the origin, the
> first cause, and the reason for existence of all that is. We live
> in a tension between the chaos of un-being, and the perfection of
> Being. It follows that all movement towards order, improvement, and
> whatever is good, is movement towards God, and movemenet towards
> disorder, destruction and whatever is bad is movement away from
> God. When I said that atheists do not have the imagination to see
> God, I meant that, for me, God is visible in every tree, in every
> wave, in cute cuddly animals and grand ferocious ones, as well
> as ugly ones that clean up the scraps on the forest floor. God
> is also there in my daughter's eyes when she smiles, and when
> she cries. What I do not understand is how other people can see
> these things, and not see God. What do they see?

I probably see much the same thing, actually, and refer to it by
different terms.

I particularly empathise with the fact that you see "god" in the
ugly and the ferocious. I'd go further and remove the qualifier
"grand" on ferocious, and the qualifier about "cleaning up" for
the the ugly.

Whatever it is that I see, I see it no less in ichneumon wasp,
which lays its eggs in the body of a living caterpillar, so that
its young have a ready source of food as they grow.  I see it in
the smallpox virus, and yet also in the scientists who have now
made it almost extinct.

I think this is in contrast to the view that creation is fallen, and
than in an ideal world nature itself would reflect more closely the
ideals attributed to "god". For example, Isaiah (ch 65) speaks of
the wolf lying down with the lamb, and the lion eating straw like
the ox, and the snake being no longer poisonous -- clear echos of
a vegetarian creation in Genesis where plants were given to the
animals for food (ch 1).

The problem with using the word "god" to refer to our wonder of the
natural world is that the word carries a connotation of goodness
and perfection that does not fit well with the natural world.

I am an atheist with respect to an ideal "god" which is somehow
better than the natural world. I do not believe in a fall from
grace which is reflected in the natural world.

I am also an atheist with respect to to the notion that the "god"
or "godliness" we perceive in the natural world is something which
is concerned with our moral conduct, or with any continued existence
after death, or with a personal individual meaning for each life
beyond what we construct for ourselves.

> If you ask me how I know God, and what difference God makes in my
> life, then my answer can only be anthropomorphic. The leap from
> "Ground of Being" to "God I worship in Church" is made through
> my personal experience of revelation, the study I have done and
> the teaching I have received from the Christian scriptures, and
> the fellowship I receive in the community of believers.
>
> The last of these is what comes first, for me and for most other
> Christians. I became a Christian, and particularly an Anglican
> Christian, because my parents made me a part of that community. I
> went through all the rituals - baptism, confirmation, singing in
> the choir, Sunday school, etc. Some of ht eontent was great. Some
> of it was dreadful. But the Church was an extension of my family,
> and it provided nurture and support to me, just like a family. One
> of the teachings of Jesus which I hold dear is in John 13:31-35
> where he taught that the distinctive thing that should make
> Christians stand out from the crowd should be the love we have for
> one another. It might not seem like it sometimes on this newsgroup,
> but throughout my life that love has been a fundamental part of my
> experience of Church. I was brought into a loving and supportive
> community, and I grew up in it, and see no reason to leave it.

I sympathise with this as well. The loss of this community is the
single biggest loss for me that came with loss of faith.

> In my case, personal experience of God is probably the next
> aspect. There have been two times when the whole direction of my
> life has changed because I felt a call from God. My ability to
> describe these events is no better than the attempts of biblical
> authors to describe such experiences. I could say I hear a voice,
> or saw an angel, but in fact what happened was I just knew. One day
> I was thinking and planning along route X, and the next day I knew
> God wanted me to go on route Y. Aside from those two life-changing
> experiences, there have been many times, dating back to my early
> teens, when I have known the presence and comfort of God. I
> know that when I pray, God hears my prayers. This is an entirely
> subjective thing. People who have had the same experience whill
> know exactly what I mean, and people who have not will probably
> think it sounds like nonsense, but I can live with that.
>
> The third aspect of my knowing God is through my studies of the
> Bible, and the history and teachings of the Church. I won't go
> into this in too much detail, except to say that the Bible, read
> in its proper context of the tradition of the Curch, provides
> the content for what I say and do about God.
>
> ... which is a rather long winded wy of saying that my
> understanding of God is that God is the ground of Being, the
> cause of all that is, and the One with whom I have a personal
> loving relationship, a relationship which is shared and nurtured
> by my fellow Christians in the Church, and a relationship which
> is formed and informed by my study of the scriptures.

The question for me is, does God exist as a thing, or a distinct
entity? Is there a sensible distinction between god and not-god?
Or is God more of an ideal? Or a metaphor for the universe?

For example, is it meaningful to say that God acts? Can we draw
a distinction between some events which just happen, or are not
particularly caused or willed by God, and other events which are
caused and willed by God. I can think of three approaches...

If God is the ground of being, one approach would be to deny the
utility of such a distinction; all real events are grounded in God,
and you cannot usefully distinguish some events as being due to God
and others not being due to God.

A second approach is to treat God as a kind of ideal; some acts
are "good" and others are "bad", and thereby more or less aligned
with the underlying moral foundation of the universe. It becomes
hard to apply this notion to events like earthquakes or storms
or a beautiful day, which are the outcome of the natural world.

A third approach is what I have previously called the anthropomorphic
approach. God, like us, is a player in the unfolding dynamic of the
universe, and sometimes chooses to do one thing and not another,
for some divine purpose, and with some definite consequences what
can be seen to happen in the world. This is, I think, the usual
Christian view.

Cheers -- Chris