Ship of Fools: Not believing in a god

Thread: Not believing in a god Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028105

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Here is a belated new topic while this board chugs towards the buffers or a branch line or whatever. I haven't started this before because although I felt entitled to join in threads I thought this board belonged to others. Having read the thread about what happens next I decided no one would mind if I posted this any way.

Perhaps because I started out in sciences, I framed the question of belief in God in such a way that I could never believe. I thought God was something that might or might not exist, and that the extraordinary claim that God does exist was a bit like the claim that there is a monster in Loch Ness.

Curiously, not believing in the existence of God turned out not to be a handicap for a young Baptist minister. I could preach, pray, pastor and get excited about the gospel none the less. I gradually found other ways of expressing faith in God. For a start I distinguished between faith (belief in) and what we often mean by 'belief' (belief that). I tried to understand what necessary existence might mean (as opposed to contingent existence), and what Kant meant when he said existence is not a predicate. I mused on the statement that if you listed everything in the world, God would not be on the list.

I now think that God does not exist as other things exist, but that language about God does make claims about the world, albeit ones that are hard to verify or falsify; they certainly make a difference to how we live, though. I also think that many people believe in a god rather than God. That is, they believe in a super being who is really a member of creation, who they hope exists, but probably fear might not.

My question is whether these largely philosophical matters are of importance to others besides me. Is it helpful to tell people, who may be struggling with belief, that actually you don't have to believe in the existence of a supernatural being, or is it better just to get on with the outcomes of faith; things like hope, the possibility of forgiveness and justice, and the importance of beauty.

I think that it would be better for Christians to jettison all supernatural beliefs in miracles, angels, guidance, etc. and to say clearly that God is no thing, and that faith in God is not a claim about God but about the whole world and the possibilities of life. "Only a Christian can be a good atheist, and only an atheist can be a good Crhistian," Ernst Bloch.

But perhaps others find belief in God less problematic than I do, and perhaps all that really matters is the out working of our beliefs, in which case the metaphysics are a sideshow.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
My question is whether these largely philosophical matters are of importance to others besides me.

I think this is an interesting subject - thanks for raising the issues.

quote:
Is it helpful to tell people, who may be struggling with belief, that actually you don't have to believe in the existence of a supernatural being, or is it better just to get on with the outcomes of faith; things like hope, the possibility of forgiveness and justice, and the importance of beauty.

Wouldn't it be good if the questions could be raised - but I fear they cannot be faced by many. It would be very helpful, I think, to those who are finding it difficult to make sense of it all. But I have long felt (from my own limited experience, admitedly) that if you scratch the surface of the average person in the pew you will find a fundamentalist. Given that The Bible's teachings play such a large part in the psyche of many Christians, I doubt that any suggestion that there might not be a GOD as they have thought of 'him' might not be acceptable.

quote:
I think that it would be better for Christians to jettison all supernatural beliefs in miracles, angels, guidance, etc. and to say clearly that God is no thing, and that faith in God is not a claim about God but about the whole world and the possibilities of life.

Indeed, it would, IMO.

quote:
perhaps others find belief in God less problematic than I do, and perhaps all that really matters is the out working of our beliefs, in which case the metaphysics are a sideshow.

I have never advocated leaving our brains at the door to the church! Perhaps that's why I can no longer make sense of GOD? The 'trick' is to continue the 'outworking' in the world after rejecting the fundamental raison d'etre.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Perhaps what you really need to do is found a new religion, or religious movement, based on certain Christian principles but not beholden to the Bible.

Trying to divest established churches of God strikes me as too confusing for people who are there because they actually DO believe in God. You need something with new ground rules so that everyone knows where they stand.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

In not believing in God existing as things in the universe exist, or in God as a personal being, you're not necessarily stepping out of the Christian faith. Although many Christians do believe in God as a personal being (theist personalism) including some philosophers like Richard Swinburne, others like Edward Feser and David Bentley Hart would argue that God isn't a being, but being itself i.e. the only reality where what a thing is - its essence is identical with that a thing is - its existence. They wouldn't deny God is personal. Just the opposite. It's the 'a' they would take issue with. Not the 'personal being'.

Assuming that this is a coherent concept, I think the challenge (which has been recognised on another thread in Purgatory) is whether it's possible to marry this definition of God with the type of God presented in the Bible and be in a relationship with Him.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Yes, I consider myself a Christian, and have no problem with the Bible. In fact I would argue that belief in a god who exists is a relatively recent phenomenon that mirrors the development of science.

But these distinctions can cause confusion, hence my question. Does it really matter? Are there people who are looking for a different sort of theism?

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

I am interested in this as well. For much of my life I have had periods when I didn't really believe in God but then there would be times when I did. Now it seemed to me if it was possible that there may or may not be a God, I should develop a philosophy that copes with both views.

For example, if my moral compass was totally dependent on there being a God (and many people do seem to claim this), did that mean I had lost all moral anchoring on those days I when I was far from convinced? I think that there are some really interesting areas where theists and atheists could find constructive common ground.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
In not believing in God existing as things in the universe exist, or in God as a personal being, you're not necessarily stepping out of the Christian faith.

This may well be true, but it doesn't follow that all denominations are equally suited to this sort of thinking.

For example, there may be denominations that don't emphasise 'God as a personal being'. If so, those are the denominations that that non-theistic Christians will find the most amenable to their theology. It's highly likely that the Sea of Faith folk are more numerous in particular faith traditions and very scarce in others.

However, churches that emphasise God as an active agent in individual lives and in the universe (even when he appears to be silent) should be allowed to continue in that vein. I don't see the point of sewing confusion and anxiety in church groups where the majority of people have found an identity and a sense of peace through faith in 'a god', as the OP puts it.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
In not believing in God existing as things in the universe exist, or in God as a personal being, you're not necessarily stepping out of the Christian faith.
This may well be true, but it doesn't follow that all denominations are equally suited to this sort of thinking.

I suspect that few denominations have such clear-cut beliefs/thinking/theology in practice. More accurately, few denominations have a majority of adherents who subscribe to any particular set of theologies.

quote:
However, churches that emphasise God as an active agent in individual lives and in the universe (even when he appears to be silent) should be allowed to continue in that vein.

We shouldn't argue against their right to exist, of course. It may be a rather different matter about whether to engage them in conversation about those beliefs (if they will dare to do so!).

quote:
I don't see the point of sewing confusion and anxiety in church groups where the majority of people have found an identity and a sense of peace through faith in 'a god', as the OP puts it.

I don't think anyone is advocating that. What is being suggested, AIUI, is that where individuals express doubts about the existence of GOD, or as Hatless puts it, 'people struggling with belief', a possibly helpful response is that put forward in the OP.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I now think that God does not exist as other things exist, but that language about God does make claims about the world, albeit ones that are hard to verify or falsify; they certainly make a difference to how we live, though.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The words themselves seem to me to be entirely consistent with 'orthodox' Christianity. Surely no serious theology claims that God exists in the same way that other things exist? Wouldn't most Christians claim that he is much more real, to an infinite degree more exist-y, than anything else?

But is that what you are trying to say? Are you saying "God is more than a god, more real, more immediate, more personal, more powerful, not by possessing all those qualities merely to a higher degree, but because he is the uncreated source of all things" or are you saying "There isn't a god, not the sort of thing that you can pray to and might listen - but there's something, I'm not sure what, of value somewhere in all this god-language"? It looks like the first one at times, but when you go on to talk about losing supernatural beliefs that suggests the second. They seem to be almost opposite ways of rejecting belief in "a god", with nothing else in common, and need to be distinguished.

quote:
I also think that many people believe in a god rather than God. That is, they believe in a super being who is really a member of creation, who they hope exists, but probably fear might not.

Really? Why?

I accept that most of us act as if God were a god at times (may be most of the time). That's because, as IngoB says on the Defending God thread, remembering how unlike us God must be is hard. We have no other non-created point of reference to help us form a true picture of what God is like.

And I accept that lots of people have perhaps never consciously thought about God's super-existence at all. But I would have thought that as soon as the question is fairly put and understood, most Christians would reject the idea of 'a god' immediately. We may not have a very clear picture of what God is like, or how he can be described, but we know that 'a god' is (at best) a puny and inadequate attempt to explain what he is.

quote:
My question is whether these largely philosophical matters are of importance to others besides me. Is it helpful to tell people, who may be struggling with belief, that actually you don't have to believe in the existence of a supernatural being, or is it better just to get on with the outcomes of faith; things like hope, the possibility of forgiveness and justice, and the importance of beauty.

As a believer in God (departing from belief in "a god" in the supernaturalist direction) I'd have thought it unhelpful. It will likely be heard as "God might not be real at all, but the idea can still encourage and comfort you". Which is perfectly true as far as it goes, but not in my view much of a help to faith.

If I said something like that it would be on the lines of "well, perhaps you don't believe right now, but you can still see what you ought to do, whether you believe or not". I wouldn't dismiss the question of belief as unimportant, though, because I think it matters immensely.

quote:
I think that it would be better for Christians to jettison all supernatural beliefs in miracles, angels, guidance, etc.

That's what I don't get. I don't see that rejecting belief in "a god" implies that the supernatural is untrue. It is conceivable that God, in the full sense of "God", could create a world with no miracles. It's conceivable that this is such a world. But there's no reason why God is bound to create a miracle-free world, and certainly no reason I can see why Christianity, which pretty much defines itself by the miracle of the incarnation, should jettison the testimony of every single generation that God still acts.

There are forms of Christianity that in my view over-emphasise and over-promise miracles, sure. But on what basis can we reject the possibility, if we believe in a God (or even a god) who is in some sense real?

Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on :

Is it possible to discuss this without so many words ?

i.e. Natural thinking
Supernatural thinking
Magical thinking

Which do we consider as reflections of reality ?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Interesting questions, Eliab. Not easy to answer.

I have two problems with the supernatural. One is that there is secular or folk supernatural as well as religious. So we have horoscopes, telepathy, ghosts, etc. I want to reject all of these as reflecting irrational human wishfulness; I think a lot of religious supernaturalism is the same.

The bigger problem is that belief in the supernatural creates a compartment, a sub-domain of the world within which God can be thought to operate. But I want to talk of God operating within the normal and natural world in non-spooky ways. I want to say that the natural is all there is, and it is indeed super!

So when you talk of either saying that 'there is a God, more than a god, more real, more immediate' or alternatively that there 'is no god ... though there might be some value in God language' I want to say yes to both!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Few denominations have a majority of adherents who subscribe to any particular set of theologies.

It's true that no two Christians believe in quite the same way, but I don't agree that all groups of Christians are quite as theologically random as you imply. Some denominations make more of an effort than others to teach their members their distinctive doctrines.

The mainstream denominations tend to be the most pluralistic, since their aim is to be palatable to the widest group of people, so they're the obvious place to start if you want to open up 'the Church' to non-theism.

Regarding the more evangelical denominations and independent churches, especially of the charismatic/Pentecostal type, I get the impression from the Ship that many of them are sprinkled with liberals who are champing at the bit, but who don't want to relocate elsewhere because evangelicalism is more attractive and dynamic than the alternatives.

These more liberal members of evangelical churches are faced with a paradox; they would like their churches to become more open, questioning, and inclusive of liberal perspectives, but this would put their churches at risk of becoming dry, staid and over-intellectual, or losing members and hence becoming less dynamic and effective.

Non-theistic churches might flourish in the right circumstances, but most congregations don't benefit from those circumstances.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I have two problems with the supernatural. One is that there is secular or folk supernatural as well as religious. So we have horoscopes, telepathy, ghosts, etc. I want to reject all of these as reflecting irrational human wishfulness...

...I want to talk of God operating within the normal and natural world in non-spooky ways. I want to say that the natural is all there is, and it is indeed super!

I might be misunderstanding you, but a lot of my friends - not silly or superstitious people - have unexpectedly seen a ghost. For example the ghost in the local theater wouldn't be "wishfulness": It's startling and scary to have a man in clothing from 100 years ago walk down the hall when the doors are locked and only the 2 volunteers are finishing counting the money and putting away the unsold candy bars.

Or did you mean to distinguish between actual ghosts and "wishfulness" ghosts?

Not unusual for a person to learn a loved one has died by the appearance of the ghost saying "goodbye". To "see" a loved one after the burial could be wishfulness, but to see a ghost when the see-er believed the loved one alive, the "visit" is what informed of the death, wouldn't be superstitious wishfulness.

Reality may be much bigger, broader - and spookier - than whatever science can measure.

The secular supernatural, real events (as opposed to fraud so common) is reason to respect the possibility of religious supernatural.

quote:
"Two themes run through [sociologist]Andrew M. Greeley’s The Sociology of the Paranormal: First, paranormal experiences are frequent and therefore normal experiences; Secondly, people who have had paranormal types of experiences are not “kooks,” but “more emotionally healthy than those who do not have such experiences”

web page

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I simply don't believe in ghosts of any sort. If they existed we would surely have good evidence in this over-photographed world.

Posted by PeteB (# 2357) on :

Not surprising (to the extent it's stating the bl-in' obvious) but faith or belief seems to be the sine qua non of being legitimately - in the eyes of both society and oneself - religious. Why? and has it always been so? Why faith/belief rather than praxis, say? And why belief in 'God' especially? Isn't there more to religion than that?
I suspect, for instance, that many who claim not to believe in a god (or God) do believe very strongly in Jesus' teachings about forgiveness, loving one's neighbour, charity, the dangers of possessions and money and so on. But they have 'abandoned' (or feel abandoned by) religion because of their loss of faith or lack of belief. Others who in their lives seem to pay lip-service at best to what Christ said can nevertheless be first-class Christians because they 'believe'.
Personally, I'm beginning to think that my problem is that I don't believe in belief.

Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on :

To what extent was Marx right in the perception that religion is a opiate to the people. Is it just a pain reliever, or treated as such ? Is there a source of goodness greater than the deepest pain ? Able to show empathy and compassion ? Is it always depicted in humanity ? How long do you wait for resonance ?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DOEPUBLIC:
To what extent was Marx right in the perception that religion is a opiate to the people.

I suspect for some opiate is it, and is that bad? Sometimes life hurts, if it's OK to take aspirin for pain why not OK to take religion for pain? Pain relief is not something to scorn.

But I doubt pain relief is the primary interest. Religion is too much work, a whole morning per week (minimum), putting up with politics of church, demands for money, etc, if the only issue is pain relief that could be faster or cheaper via pills or alcohol.

Someone outside may well think religion makes no sense and from that conclude that Marx was right, even while those inside see a whole different picture.

For any of us, finding a picture that makes sense is different from finding a picture that makes sense to everyone.

Posted by PeteB (# 2357) on :

quote:
To what extent was Marx right in the perception that religion is a opiate to the people.

Can't remember the source, but I have seen it stated that this wasn't a put-down by Marx, but rather saying 'religion eases the pain - but we need to address the source of that pain which is capitalism'. If you're in a wrecked car with broken bones or on a cancer ward, opiates are a Good Thing and no mistake. Similarly, some atheists still use 'seeking solace in religion' as a taunt. After the death of someone close, when seriously ill, or at the breakdown of a relationship, seeking solace is a very deep human reaction to which atheism has (I think) no response.
Why would human beings even 'reach out for help' if there's nothing there to provide that help? If it's a delusion - how has it persisted? Hard to imagine how making an unanswerable call for help would convey evolutionary advantage for example.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteB:
After the death of someone close, when seriously ill, or at the breakdown of a relationship, seeking solace is a very deep human reaction to which atheism has (I think) no response.
Why would human beings even 'reach out for help' if there's nothing there to provide that help? If it's a delusion - how has it persisted? Hard to imagine how making an unanswerable call for help would convey evolutionary advantage for example.

Leaving aside the 'delusion' question (I remember getting my fingers burnt here some years ago).

This seems to me to be utter rubbish. There is little, if any difference, between believers reaching out and atheists (not ?) reaching out. From my perspective there is no GOD to reach out to, except the real and meaningful gods created within people's imaginations (no offence intended). That is not to say that the reaching out by believers is not efficacious or of perceived real value. The source of the value received is the same for believers as for atheists, ISTM. Atheists are as capable of reaching out to other people as religious folk - and that, for me, is what it is about. I've been there, I've done that both as a believer and an atheist.

I see that you said 'atheism' and I have responded as if you said 'atheists' but, frankly, I make no apology as it amounts to the same, doesn't it?

Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on :

Opium of the people

The context of my thoughts is actually in response to finding in reality no real resonant compassionate response(except in the virtual)to the pain I have faced through mental illness and bereavement.
In the essence of Peace, where there is no peace

Leaving the strength to believe, beyond me.(as explained on other threads)'I don't know what to say' or silence being the common response to me. Leaving the only possibility being a 'divine' or external intervention of support.An experience of spirit in place of misappropriated truths.

An expectation almost of faithfulness to me.
Though 'keep taking the tablets' appears more prominent.

More dismay and suspicion of trust and authority than scorn, considering the journey I have travelled.Many words failing to resonate.

[ 25. February 2015, 17:00: Message edited by: DOEPUBLIC ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I have two problems with the supernatural. One is that there is secular or folk supernatural as well as religious. So we have horoscopes, telepathy, ghosts, etc. I want to reject all of these as reflecting irrational human wishfulness; I think a lot of religious supernaturalism is the same.

I agree. But belief in (the possibility of) miracles doesn't imply excessive credulity in every single claim for the supernatural.

quote:
The bigger problem is that belief in the supernatural creates a compartment, a sub-domain of the world within which God can be thought to operate. But I want to talk of God operating within the normal and natural world in non-spooky ways. I want to say that the natural is all there is, and it is indeed super!

I don't think that's true at all. I can thank God that I got through a serious operation, AND I can believe in the possibility of miraculous healing. I can ask for God to provide my daily bread AND I can think that there's something special about the Eucharist. I can believe that all human beings are made in God's image, AND believe that God was incarnate in Jesus and no other. Believing in the supernatural simply does not have the consequences that you assert - not logically, not as a matter of experience, not at all.

quote:
So when you talk of either saying that 'there is a God, more than a god, more real, more immediate' or alternatively that there 'is no god ... though there might be some value in God language' I want to say yes to both!

OK - I'm still not sure I understand what you believe, though.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Eliab - is there a point where yours and Hatless position aren't that far apart.

I think it could be argued that a more deistic take on Christianity could accommodate both positions to a fair degree. Or put another way, I think a lot of people who still see some value in Christ's teaching do not believe in an interventionist God - a God of miracles.

When there is a natural disaster say an earthquake happens at 2 in the morning, which means that the death toll is maximised, most of the mainstream Christians I know suddenly become quite deistic in their outlook. For them, the natural disaster isn't something that God decided to trigger, they think of it as being just part of the world that God has set up actually works.

So although most mainstream Christians believe in the supernatural, a fair number believe miracles are so rare as to not be part of their day to day faith in any meaningful way.

I'd have thought it is worth exploring and finding out if there is some common ground away from the supernatural that has real value for both sides.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I've been thinking that for a while now, that many Christians are in effect deists. They accept that earthquakes occur, car crashes occur, people get sick and die. I suppose there is a kind of reserved space, where miracles may happen, but nobody tears their hair out, if they don't. It's as if deism is the default setting.

Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I've been thinking that for a while now, that many Christians are in effect deists. They accept that earthquakes occur, car crashes occur, people get sick and die.

Earthquakes occur, sickness occurs- but people cause car crashes.

[ 28. February 2015, 16:53: Message edited by: Signaller ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Many Christians are in effect deists. They accept that earthquakes occur, car crashes occur, people get sick and die. I suppose there is a kind of reserved space, where miracles may happen, but nobody tears their hair out, if they don't. It's as if deism is the default setting.

But the Bible doesn't propose that every tragedy will give rise to a miracle. Is the Bible deist?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Eliab - is there a point where yours and Hatless position aren't that far apart.

I don't know, because I don't know what his position actually is.

There are two issues raised in the OP: The first is whether we believe in a God who is the source of all existence, in a god who is big and powerful but basically us scaled up, or in the idea of a God who in fact does not exist? The second is whether we believe in miracles.

I know what hatless thinks about miracles - he disbelieves in them. I don't know what he thinks about God.

It seems to me that if you believe is no-god-at-all, or merely the idea-of-God, you'll probably deny that there can be any miracles. There's no one to do them.

Also likely (though not, I think logically necessary) is that if you believe in a god, in the sense hatless denies, you also believe he does miracles, because what hatless means by a god is something powerful within the created order, and 'powerful' suggests (though it does not absolutely require) some level of actual activity.

But it seems to me that if you believe in God, the creator, the source of all things, the question of miracles is genuinely open. You could believe in that God and be a deist, or a charismatic. It's not inherent in the idea of that sort of God that everything he causes to be must fall into the categories we call natural, nor that he has to allow the exceptions that we call miracles.

So I don't actually know whether hatless believes in God in the same sense that I do, but thinks that miracles are unlikely, because they seem to him unworthy and unnecessary given such a God, or if he believes in the idea of God only, and excludes miracles because he doesn't believe in a being that I'd call God at all.

quote:
So although most mainstream Christians believe in the supernatural, a fair number believe miracles are so rare as to not be part of their day to day faith in any meaningful way.

I wouldn't describe that as functional deism. It's an assessment of the frequency of special acts of God that might be right or wrong, but is in principle open to the supernatural. It would be rational for a Christian who thinks miracles rare to pray on the way to see the doctor, or to ask for divine guidance while making a list of pros and cons - to be ready for an answer to prayer if it comes, but also to get on with life as best she can if it doesn't.

It is quite unnecessary, and also, in my view, quite irrational, for a Christian who thinks miracles possible but rare, to join hatless in rejecting belief in the supernatural altogether. Only if you think that there is no God at all, or that the only God there could be is somehow committed to a purely naturalistic cosmos as a matter of principle, does it seem to me to be at all sensible to dismiss the possibility of miracles out of hand. Mainstream Christianity does not take either view, as far as I can see.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

You've got three versions of God or god there Eliab. There is a god that is a scaled up version of us, powerful, knowing everything, and very definitely existing.

Then you've got God the source of all existence, which I take it is your preferred option, and the idea of God, which I take it isn't.

I believe in a God who is not a thing, and can't therefore exist in the usual sense, whose truth must have a different basis. An elusive God whose presence is best described as breath or wind, as intangible as you like, and whose being is probably most faithfully likened to the relations between persons, and the loving and self-renouncing of persons.

I also think that we humans don't exist as discrete and immortal selves, acting out of an inner sovereign territory, but that we come into being in the interactions between ourselves and others. I want to talk of God in relation to the interpersonal, in particular when our relationships move towards truth, justice and beauty. God is there where we become more real and alive.

I believe this is the classical Christian God. I believe that the struggle to free ourselves from the super-being god will, ultimately, be worthwhile, indeed necessary. But letting go of 'existence' may be too much for some.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I agree very much with hatless.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Many Christians are in effect deists. They accept that earthquakes occur, car crashes occur, people get sick and die. I suppose there is a kind of reserved space, where miracles may happen, but nobody tears their hair out, if they don't. It's as if deism is the default setting.
But the Bible doesn't propose that every tragedy will give rise to a miracle. Is the Bible deist?

Do you think that there is such a thing as 'the Bible', involving a common approach? I don't know enough about ancient Judaism, to say.

I was thinking more about English Christianity - I have the impression that up to about 1800, divine providence was commonly cited as an explanation for many events, but this slowly diminished.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
You've got three versions of God or god there Eliab. There is a god that is a scaled up version of us, powerful, knowing everything, and very definitely existing.

Then you've got God the source of all existence, which I take it is your preferred option, and the idea of God, which I take it isn't.

Correct.

quote:
I believe in a God who is not a thing, and can't therefore exist in the usual sense, whose truth must have a different basis. An elusive God whose presence is best described as breath or wind, as intangible as you like, and whose being is probably most faithfully likened to the relations between persons, and the loving and self-renouncing of persons.

It’s not so much that I disagree with those words as such, it’s that I find them hopelessly imprecise when trying to work out whether you believe in anything like the God I believe in.

Obviously I agree that God isn’t a “thing” in the sense of some lump of stuff with a definite position, duration, velocity, composition, what have you, and that he therefore doesn’t “exist” in the way “things” “exist”. I agree that there must be much about God which is forever unknowable to created and finite minds, and therefore any human description of God has to be hedged with lots of uncertainties and qualifiers. And I can hardly dissent from the thoroughly scriptural metaphorical descriptions of God as being like wind, or like love.

But I also care that God is real – that he “definitely exists”. I’m not sure how to even to ask you if you think that “God exists” in the sense that I think he does, because “to exist” is a verb that you have pinned to the concept of “a god” and we are both agreed that we don’t believe in “a god”. I have no idea whether your concept of an elusive God of relationships is the same sort of entity as my Almighty source of all existence. The fact that the Almighty can be truly described (albeit in a limited sense) as an incomprehensible God of relationships doesn’t, it seems to me, mean that when you endorse the description you are acknowledging the existence of the God I believe in. I suspect you aren’t, because you don’t think he does miracles, and that is something we could not in principle ever know of the Almighty. But I’m not at all sure that I’ve understood you at all.

I’ll put it this way: I think God “exists” in the sense that, if man had never evolved, if the earth (and the cosmos) had remained lifeless, if the universe had collapsed to a mathematical point a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, if nothing whatsoever had been made at all, God would still be Real, and his being, personhood, might and mind would still have been infinite and unchanged. There would be an eternal, self-aware, Will even if there were nothing else at all. It may be true that we experience God in our relationships, but God does not depend on anything else for his own “experience”. We do not in any way add to his reality, rather our reality depends wholly on him.

I’m not sure whether or not you believe in that sort of God – what makes me think that you probably don’t is that you don’t believe in anything supernatural, and if God in that sense exists, I don’t see how that could be ruled out. It may be an Almighty God has decided to make a world with no miracles, but I don’t see how we could know that in advance.

I’m beginning to suspect that it’s as if we are in a house at night, and hear a sudden noise, which I think is a burglar, and you think is the wind. We’re both agreed that it isn’t a cat, because we’re both sure that there are no cats in the house. It seems to me that mutually disbelief in “a cat” is the least interesting and least important thing that could be said about our respective views – it’s not a common ground worth having. If either of us changed our minds and said that we thought it might be a cat, we’d actually be moving closer to agreement, not further away – cats and burglars are alike in being living creatures, cats and breezes are alike in being relatively unthreatening, but burglars and breezes have pretty much nothing in common that is significant in these circumstances.

quote:
I believe this is the classical Christian God. I believe that the struggle to free ourselves from the super-being god will, ultimately, be worthwhile, indeed necessary. But letting go of 'existence' may be too much for some.

I might agree with those statements, but not when put together. I don’t think it is remotely difficult to let go of the “exists-as-things-exist” idea in relation to God. I think you need only explain what you mean by existence in that sense, and most Christians will see immediately that God’s existence can’t be like that. I think it is remarkably easy for a believer to say “God is not a thing” and only a little harder to get to: “God does not exist in the way created things exist”. But that’s miles away from saying “There is no God” or “God does not exist” (unqualified sense of ‘exist’) – people who can readily say either of those plainly do not believe in the classical Christian God.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

The friendliest answer to give you might be to say that I don't think we do believe in the same God. I believe more in the idea of God, and I can't imagine God in a universe without us.

I call this a friendly answer because it is straightforward, or tries to be. I have a great temptation to be evasive with you. Partly this is because you seem to want to pin me down, to work out what exactly I believe, and I fear that that is so you can label me and, if it's the wrong label, dismiss me. I don't want to be dismissed, so I'm inclined to wriggle. Partly it's because words do seem to slip around here, and because slipperiness, unpindownableness is a fundamental quality of God.

If I say I believe in God, I'm not making any claim about God. God's existence is not additional to God's character. To believe in God, or to 'faith' in God is to believe something about the world, namely that the God of love and the stories, communities and values built around the God of love, are valid.

Is The Ugly Duckling a true story? It's fiction, but are its values true? Would you tell this story to an unhappy, misfit child? I think I might. It's a story that demonstrates the power of seeing things differently, that ugliness can simply be beauty misidentified. It's a story from a Christian culture and has parallels with many Christian stories, including stories about Jesus. It perhaps jumps to the happy end a bit quickly. There's no suggestion of a mechanism for transforming rejection into honour, no cross, no sense of any power in suffering, but then it's just one short story. I think it's helpfully, reasonably true. I give it 8/10.

That's the sort of truth I think of when I say I believe in God. It's not about the existence of God, but the validity of the Christian story (or my version of it; I'm not keen on the prosperity gospel, or the triumphalist, feel-good one). The bottom line is can you live by it? Maybe die by it?

The points where it seems we might be about to glimpse God on stage, real, existent and full of heavenly being and power are actually places where God deflects us. Some rags in a stable, a lonely and broken Messiah, an empty tomb, Paul stumbling into Damascus. This evasiveness is not accidental, it seems to me. The more we press the issue of God or divinity, the more we are redirected to our neighbours, to the future, and to our own need to change and be reborn.

So it might be more accurate to say that we do believe in the same God, but that I have come to believe his reality and power reside in the human dynamics which the story of God makes possible.

But this is metaphysics. I don't think it makes any difference to our ability to worship or serve together. I suspect, though, that I am not alone in wanting to separate the faith in the God of Jesus Christ, which I choose with all my heart, from believing in a supernatural being, which I don't even begin to know how to do.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The friendliest answer to give you might be to say that I don't think we do believe in the same God. I believe more in the idea of God, and I can't imagine God in a universe without us.

Thanks, that's much clearer.

quote:
I call this a friendly answer because it is straightforward, or tries to be. I have a great temptation to be evasive with you. Partly this is because you seem to want to pin me down, to work out what exactly I believe, and I fear that that is so you can label me and, if it's the wrong label, dismiss me. I don't want to be dismissed, so I'm inclined to wriggle. Partly it's because words do seem to slip around here, and because slipperiness, unpindownableness is a fundamental quality of God.

Well, in a sense I'm trying to pin you down, but I hope not to be dismissive. Until I know what you believe I can't say whether I disagree with it.

Which I'm now pretty sure I do. That's not to say I don't agree with you about a lot when it comes to values, but one thing that I value is a God who is real. Believing that God exists in at least as real a way as "a god" purports to exist is something I'm quite happy with, intellectually and emotionally, and it would take a lot to persuade me otherwise.

I don't think it's especially important that we both reject the idea of "a god" - we reject that concept in opposite directions. I don't share your view that many Christians believe in "a god" - if we speak or act as if we do, that suggests to me a failure to fully analyse or articulate orthodox Christian ideas. How much of a problem that is (if at all) depends on circumstances. I don't doubt that there are many Christians whose gifts do not include theological insight, but whose other virtues qualify them to stand in the first rank of the saints. Not everyone has to be able to distinguish, in words or thoughts, the philosophical differences we are discussing.

But having said that the distinctions don't matter necessarily matter to everyone, I have to add that they do matter objectively, and they do matter to me. It is wrong to say to someone who is troubled by the existence of God that the question does not matter. The fact that it is troubling proves that it matters. Your concept of God and mine are radically different. It matters whether which of us is right (if either of us are).

quote:
Is The Ugly Duckling a true story? It's fiction, but are its values true? Would you tell this story to an unhappy, misfit child? I think I might. It's a story that demonstrates the power of seeing things differently, that ugliness can simply be beauty misidentified. It's a story from a Christian culture and has parallels with many Christian stories, including stories about Jesus. It perhaps jumps to the happy end a bit quickly. There's no suggestion of a mechanism for transforming rejection into honour, no cross, no sense of any power in suffering, but then it's just one short story. I think it's helpfully, reasonably true. I give it 8/10.

Suppose I say, in response to that story, that while I agree its true that someone who is despised as worthless may turn out to have hidden beauty, I don't like the implication that that's the reason why it's wrong to despise people, and wouldn't choose that story as an especially insightful fiction. However if a similar anecdote was factually true, I'd be more likely to use it: I'd be saying "Look out - don't under-estimate people because they might surprise you - it actually happened that..."

There's a kick to the story that "actually happened" that works to make a point where a similar fiction invented for the purpose might fail - in this case because of all the moral lessons I want the story to contain, which aren't there.

Similarly with God and the gospel. Yes, there's beauty in the love and sacrifice of Jesus, purely as story, but believing in the resurrections as something that actually happened, that there was a day in history when death was defeated, and humanity offered an eternal life which we will consciously experience forever after our deaths, is something more.

quote:
So it might be more accurate to say that we do believe in the same God, but that I have come to believe his reality and power reside in the human dynamics which the story of God makes possible.

I think we see value in the same God, certainly. But what we believe about him is not at all the same.

I also think you are misguided in thinking that your concept of God is the God of classical Christianity. I don't mean to dismiss your views by saying that - but what you believe is simply not what any mainstream version of Christianity proclaims. I wouldn't want draw a line to exclude you, but (and I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I don't think I can be both courteous and clear here, and I prefer clarity) I strongly suspect that you will only ever be comfortable in mainstream Christian community, and especially in Christian ministry, by being evasive about what you really believe.

quote:
But this is metaphysics. I don't think it makes any difference to our ability to worship or serve together. I suspect, though, that I am not alone in wanting to separate the faith in the God of Jesus Christ, which I choose with all my heart, from believing in a supernatural being, which I don't even begin to know how to do.

It wouldn't stop me attending the same church as you, certainly, but I wouldn't say it made no difference. I care that the story is true. If I were to stop believing that it was true, I wouldn't lose all sense of the value of Christianity, but I'd lose a lot. I don't primarily value Jesus as a source of inspiration (though he is that) but as saviour. I think he genuinely hears my prayers and that by his grace I hope to live forever in indescribable bliss. That's basic to my faith. It's not an optional 'metaphysical' extra that I could put to one side and get on with the ptractical stuff - because I think it really is true and that it matters that it is true.

I think it is very much to your credit that you are following Jesus (if I have understood you correctly) without that sort of conviction. I think that if I lost my faith in the actual truth of the gospel, I ought to at least preserve that level of faith it the value-truth of it, but I very much doubt that I'm a good enough person to manage it. So I can (I hope) simultaneously respect and honour your version of faith in God, while rejecting with utter and absolute horror any prospect of agreeing with you, because it would mean losing what I value most.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

A really interesting exchange Hatless and Eliab. Both of you have been really clear about difficult concepts.

In recent years I have found myself at some sort of mid-point between the two positions. Or perhaps more accurately, I was brought up to believe in Eliab's God and subscribed to it, for many years. The question for me now is whether I can hold to something much closer to Hatless' take. (I now find quite a bit in Eliab's take to be no longer sustainable / credible.)

So thanks to both of you for valuable contributions to this thread.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Yes, I think we have expressed ourselves rather well!

Just one thing I want to add, which is that I've never had any sense of being or needing to be evasive about my beliefs. In fact, most of the time they are irrelevant. That God and God talk is true is what counts, not that God also exists.

The life after death thing can't be supported by my beliefs, though, although eternal, as in timeless, life can be.

[ 04. March 2015, 17:51: Message edited by: hatless ]

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

I think I need a God who exists, because I need someone who can do for me things I can't do for myself. The story of a God who intervenes to save us needs to be true in more than just the Ugly Duckling sense, if I'm going to rely on it.

If it's not true, if it's an inspiring story but the Saviour isn't going to turn up in actuality then I need to file it away somewhere and figure out a plan B.

I'm not trying to dismiss anyone else's faith. I just know that true-but-not-real wouldn't work for me.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0