tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10881824.post3688455030440352125..comments2024-02-17T07:44:05.334-08:00Comments on Sinning Boldly: Richard Dawkins and a Personal GodAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17835278970174444409noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10881824.post-59923018719380915242007-09-28T09:41:00.000-07:002007-09-28T09:41:00.000-07:00Hi Bo. Feel free to reuse my graph.You're right t...Hi Bo. Feel free to reuse my graph.<BR/><BR/>You're right that the Incarnation throws a whole different twist on all of this discussion, but if that were the only way God were truly present "in" the Universe, it would be more of a footnote on a deistic/supernatural-theistic view. As you also note, the Holy Spirit gives us something further to consider.<BR/><BR/>And maybe that's the key. Typical analytic views that try to compare and contrast the Christian view of God with other religion's views on a transcendent/immanent scale fail for the simple reason that they are compressing the Christian God into something that looks like the God of other religions. To grasp what Christianity says about God's presence we must have a Trinitarian God.Andy Kaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01863052203418450397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10881824.post-6262464275408754522007-09-25T12:01:00.000-07:002007-09-25T12:01:00.000-07:00Sorry - probably me reading into your words someth...Sorry - probably me reading into your words something that wasn't there. I do worry that sometimes language like that could make us think that "God" and "the world" are both parts of a system and as such are essentially ontologically on the same "level" as it were. Denying this is what I take Tillich to be up to when he says that God is not <I>a</I> being but <I>being itself</I> (Thomas Aquinas says something remarkably similar). <BR/><BR/>Definitely agree with your second para.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02047956333181611381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10881824.post-60636194614921877022007-09-25T10:32:00.000-07:002007-09-25T10:32:00.000-07:00I'm not sure I've quite processed what you're sayi...I'm not sure I've quite processed what you're saying, Lee. Specifically, I don't see why God being part of the system makes the system greater than God. If God is <I>not</I> part of the system then the universe has existence apart from God. If the universe does not have existence apart from God, then God is part of the system. By "system" I don't mean anything more than the whole of things that are interrelated.<BR/><BR/>I <I>would</I> say that God and creation are inextricably bound together, but I would say that they are bound together precisely because of the free act of God in creation, and even more so as a result of the free act of God in the Incarnation.Andy Kaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01863052203418450397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10881824.post-79303470386965233332007-09-25T06:34:00.000-07:002007-09-25T06:34:00.000-07:00Also, on the schema you've proposed, my one hesita...Also, on the schema you've proposed, my one hesitation would be that in making God "part of the system" we'd actually be posting something greater than God ("the system") and perhaps suggesting that God and creation are inextricably bound together rather than creation being the result of a free act of God. I see process theology tending in this direction (sometimes explicitly).<BR/><BR/>I sometimes wonder if, rather than being opposites, transcendence and immanence don't actually go together. Perhaps God can only be "present" to all of creation <I>because</I> he is radically transcendent and ontologically distinct?Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02047956333181611381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10881824.post-47383225524233812502007-09-24T16:59:00.000-07:002007-09-24T16:59:00.000-07:00Fair enough. I suppose Dawkins would claim that a ...Fair enough. I suppose Dawkins would claim that a whole lot of people don't seem to see the old man in the sky as a metaphor, and I don't know if I can disagree.<BR/><BR/>That said, one of the things that really bothered me in reading Paul Tillich's <I>Dynamics of Faith</I> (for example) was the idea that you could just replace an old mythology with a new one and keep the meaning. The mythology itself does seem to be inseparable from the message.<BR/><BR/>We could try to sort out the language and be clear about what the metaphor means, but I'm not sure that any of us really agree what sort of God we're talking about. Then again, for matters of praxis, we don't need to know. As Robert Jenson puts it in his book on the Trinity, God is whoever raised Jesus from the dead. <BR/><BR/>But, circling back to previous comments, I think all of us do have many ideas about what sort of god we're <I>not</I> talking about.Andy Kaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01863052203418450397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10881824.post-47491590343956434432007-09-24T06:33:00.000-07:002007-09-24T06:33:00.000-07:00To make a counterpoint, however, C.S. Lewis once p...To make a counterpoint, however, C.S. Lewis once pointed out that when you try to replace the metaphor of the old man in the sky with a metaphor of a "cosmic force" or somesuch you end up with something that is no less metaphorical but a lot less like the God of the Bible.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02047956333181611381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10881824.post-11625020913302956102007-09-22T18:27:00.000-07:002007-09-22T18:27:00.000-07:00That's a good perspective.I once heard something s...That's a good perspective.<BR/><BR/>I once heard something similar in an interview with Thomas Keating. Fr. Keating said as you progress in the spiritual life you're constantly coming up against these places where you realize that God isn't what you thought he was, and you have to let the old god go. And it feels like you're turning you're back on God, but you're really just leaving behind a god that didn't exist anyway.<BR/><BR/>Some people get stuck, refusing to let their god go. You may be right. Dawkins may be refusing to let go this god he wants to argue against. But it's also possible that he sees himself in a sort of Bodhisattva role where he's trying to get the bulk of Christians who <I>do</I> believe in this god to let go of him.Andy Kaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01863052203418450397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10881824.post-73199786211313476382007-09-22T14:03:00.000-07:002007-09-22T14:03:00.000-07:00In one of her books, Madeleine L'Engle writes abou...In one of her books, Madeleine L'Engle writes about the "God is dead" movement from the 1960s. She talks about how she felt perfectly fine with them saying that this old white man with a beard was dead, but that this had no perceivable relation to the God of love in Jesus Christ with whom she had a relationship. It seems like Dawkins is still caught in the 1960s. He doesn't realize that that god is already dead.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.com