RE: Science and Religion cannot overlap.
August 11, 2014 at 8:19 pm
(This post was last modified: August 11, 2014 at 8:21 pm by ManMachine.)
(August 11, 2014 at 11:55 am)Michael Wrote: I'm not so sure we are so far from that God, MM. I think it is that God (the god of the patriarchs) many people relate to and discover across the ages. Take, for example, the enslaved negroes. On the one hand it's amazing that they embraced so enthusiastically the religious texts of their enslavers, but on the other hand you can see how they found such great resonance and hope in the enslavement and the emancipation of the Hebrews, and that is without even the hope of ultimate freedom promised in the New Testament scriptures. I take your point (I think it was your point) that the God of the apologist often comes across as different (somewhat slippery perhaps?), but I don't think that is the God most people find. But I must admit to a rather jaded view of apologists (with the exception of C.S.Lewis) even though they are supposed to be on 'my side'.
I'm not convinced it is just apologists who seem to present the Abrahamic god in a different light, it seems to vary across denominations, this is perhaps largely due to the unremarked dynamics in god's personality across the OT and NT.
The mighty-smitey god who directly intervenes in human affairs and metes out strange and unusual punishments (such as turning people into oversized cruet sets) vanishes into the high heavens, has an uncharacteristic attack of benevolence and decides he is only going to communicate directly with his people through a human avatar.
It's all very unconvincing, or slippery, for me. What does seem evident is the Abrahamic god has no wish to direct his people anymore, he'd rather see them interpret his word and cast them down should they get it wrong, which for a Christian today would seem to be a huge risk given the tampering and mucking-about that is acknowledged to have been part of the history of the construction of the Bible.
The great Christian Theologians who wrote in the early days, St Thomas Aquinas, Clement of Alexandria, et. al. had a huge influence on Biblical interpretation, even Dante, via Milton, has gifted us with a vision of Hell that cannot be found anywhere in the Bible yet seems to pervade Christian nightmares of eternal damnation.
We know that Christian Theology was born into a Roman world where Stoicism was the pervading popular philosophy, this is clearly reflected in certain Christian core values. Christian Theology and the nature of its god are far from just the biblical word, Christian Theology and its god are carried by the media and ideologies of the day, and each of these leave their mark.
The Abrahamic god is whoever his believers need him to be at a given point in time, today, particularly in America, that means there is a conscious separation of science and god, but for me this is not a Theological matter, it is an ideological convenience in the style of American compartmentalism that god and science must be separated. I'm not suggesting this is designed by Christians or non-Christians exclusively, rather these matters are mutually acceptable conceits that shape the framing of god in the media.
Viewed by all parties concerned through a screen... perhaps darkly.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
