Science and Religion cannot overlap.

[The Grand Nudger]

C.S. "lunatic, liar, or lord" Lewis? Meh, you can have him. Wouldn't god as a sense making exercise be more like god as a useful concept, and not an actual being? Does this really mesh with the current popular perception of god-as-a-being, or your own concept of what "god" is?

[Michael]

Rhythm. No, I don't see a conflict there (between sense-making and the existence of God as a being). I think it simply reflects how our understanding of God is frequently more existential than abstract or a priori.

But that might reflect my own bias ☺

[ManMachine]

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

[Michael]

Hi MM

Well, not surprisingly, I take a bit of a different view :-)

I think the different views of God in the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures have been far from unremarked over the years. For example we notably have Marcion of Sinope in the 2nd century who struggled with this and argued that the Christian Church should disown the Hebrew scriptures as they did not portray the God of mercy known to the Christians through Jesus Christ, but instead portray a God of cold and brutal justice. 'Marcionism' was declared a heresy, but the discussion of how to view the two canons of scriptures have continued over the centuries. It has inspired much literature I would say as well, such as Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice where cold justice (demanded by Shylock) is set against a call for mercy (on behalf of Antonio). This gives rise to perhaps the most beautiful of all explorations of this topic, and so succinctly captured in Portia's monologue in defence of Antonio against the call of justice from Shylock.If I were in charge I would add Portia's speech as an appendix to the Bible :-)

The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven,
Upon the place beneath.
It is twice blessed.
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
It is mightiest in the mightiest,
It becomes the throned monarch better than his crown.
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
An attribute to awe and majesty.
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself.
And earthly power dost the become likest God's,
Where mercy seasons justice.
Therefore Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That in the course of justice we all must see salvation,
We all do pray for mercy
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render the deeds of mercy.
I have spoke thus much to mittgate the justice of thy plea,
Which if thou dost follow,
This strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentance gainst the merchant there.

"And earthly power dost the become likest God's, where mercy seasons justice". What a beautiful call, where mercy is seen as a layer on top of justice (without justice one cannot have mercy).

Or, another wonderful exploration of this same theme is in Victor Hugo's Les Misérables. This is not a classic story of good vs. evil, but a story of the conflict between two goods. We have Javer's desire for justice and order in society set against Valjean's mercy. Javer is the voice of the Hebrew scriptures, Valjean is the voice of the New Testament. But ultimately we need both.

And so in scripture we see, through the histories of people and races, those themes of justice and mercy explored repeatedly. But justice must come first, because mercy cannot be understood without justice. Even within the Hebrew scriptures we have that layering. We first have the law, and then we have the prophets calling for merciful application of that law. The prophet Hosea, for example says, on behalf of his God, "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.". And the psalmist recognises his own need for mercy, "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions".

Your second theme is one of different biblical interpretations. Yes, that certainly has occurred and does occur. The bible is not a systematic theology textbook; it is almost all narrative of people. I think it's not surprising then that we find developing and different interpretations. I'm one who is quite comfortable with that; that the exploration of the themes in scripture should be contextual to each of our times and places. John Henry Newman also made the point that doctrine develops and deepens over time. I'd say we also take wrong turns along the way; I'm not a great fan of ideas of infallible interpretations and pronouncements (nor was JHN particularly; his most famous quote is "I will toast the Pope, but to conscience first") . But in these different explorations I can see great value. I can see, for example, how the Methodists discovered a renewed and deepened understanding of the need to serve the poor (re-igniting a flame that Francis of Assissi had burned so brightly in his day, inspired by a simple but profound understanding of Jesus's teachings). I can see how St. Benedict saw the benefit of setting up peaceful communities. centred on prayer and work, in a world wracked by violence and warfare. I can see how Moltmann delved into the terrible realities of war and found a Jesus, 'the Crucified God', who suffered in communion with people. I can see how Calvin and Luther found a faith that was much simpler than the complexities and bargaining of the medieval Catholic Church. I can see how Aquinas wanted to explore how Christian teachings could relate to the wisdom of the Greek philosophers, not treating those that from other times and cultures with disdain, but recognising the wisdom that had already been found and expounded upon. And so on .... We can only find and explore the person of God from where we are, I believe.

But yes, we see as if through a glass darkly. Maybe the struggle to understand is part of the growth.

[ManMachine]

Hi MM

---

Well, not surprisingly, I take a bit of a different view :-)

I think the different views of God in the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures have been far from unremarked over the years. For example we notably have Marcion of Sinope in the 2nd century who struggled with this and argued that the Christian Church should disown the Hebrew scriptures as they did not portray the God of mercy known to the Christians through Jesus Christ, but instead portray a God of cold and brutal justice. 'Marcionism' was declared a heresy, but the discussion of how to view the two canons of scriptures have continued over the centuries. It has inspired much literature I would say as well, such as Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice where cold justice (demanded by Shylock) is set against a call for mercy (on behalf of Antonio). This gives rise to perhaps the most beautiful of all explorations of this topic, and so succinctly captured in Portia's monologue in defence of Antonio against the call of justice from Shylock.If I were in charge I would add Portia's speech as an appendix to the Bible :-)

The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven,
Upon the place beneath.
It is twice blessed.
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
It is mightiest in the mightiest,
It becomes the throned monarch better than his crown.
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
An attribute to awe and majesty.
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself.
And earthly power dost the become likest God's,
Where mercy seasons justice.
Therefore Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That in the course of justice we all must see salvation,
We all do pray for mercy
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render the deeds of mercy.
I have spoke thus much to mittgate the justice of thy plea,
Which if thou dost follow,
This strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentance gainst the merchant there.

"And earthly power dost the become likest God's, where mercy seasons justice". What a beautiful call, where mercy is seen as a layer on top of justice (without justice one cannot have mercy).

Or, another wonderful exploration of this same theme is in Victor Hugo's Les Misérables. This is not a classic story of good vs. evil, but a story of the conflict between two goods. We have Javer's desire for justice and order in society set against Valjean's mercy. Javer is the voice of the Hebrew scriptures, Valjean is the voice of the New Testament. But ultimately we need both.

And so in scripture we see, through the histories of people and races, those themes of justice and mercy explored repeatedly. But justice must come first, because mercy cannot be understood without justice. Even within the Hebrew scriptures we have that layering. We first have the law, and then we have the prophets calling for merciful application of that law. The prophet Hosea, for example says, on behalf of his God, "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.". And the psalmist recognises his own need for mercy, "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions".

Your second theme is one of different biblical interpretations. Yes, that certainly has occurred and does occur. The bible is not a systematic theology textbook; it is almost all narrative of people. I think it's not surprising then that we find developing and different interpretations. I'm one who is quite comfortable with that; that the exploration of the themes in scripture should be contextual to each of our times and places. John Henry Newman also made the point that doctrine develops and deepens over time. I'd say we also take wrong turns along the way; I'm not a great fan of ideas of infallible interpretations and pronouncements (nor was JHN particularly; his most famous quote is "I will toast the Pope, but to conscience first") . But in these different explorations I can see great value. I can see, for example, how the Methodists discovered a renewed and deepened understanding of the need to serve the poor (re-igniting a flame that Francis of Assissi had burned so brightly in his day, inspired by a simple but profound understanding of Jesus's teachings). I can see how St. Benedict saw the benefit of setting up peaceful communities. centred on prayer and work, in a world wracked by violence and warfare. I can see how Moltmann delved into the terrible realities of war and found a Jesus, 'the Crucified God', who suffered in communion with people. I can see how Calvin and Luther found a faith that was much simpler than the complexities and bargaining of the medieval Catholic Church. I can see how Aquinas wanted to explore how Christian teachings could relate to the wisdom of the Greek philosophers, not treating those that from other times and cultures with disdain, but recognising the wisdom that had already been found and expounded upon. And so on .... We can only find and explore the person of God from where we are, I believe.

But yes, we see as if through a glass darkly. Maybe the struggle to understand is part of the growth.

---

Hi,

Shakespeare was writing in a time when Jews were viewed suspiciously. It was forbidden, by the first Council of Nicaea, for a Christian to loan money and charge interest, however, it was permissible for Jews to charge interest on loans made to non-Jews. The practical upshot of this was Jews were perceived as money-lenders in Medieval Europe. It probably comes as no surprise the Medieval Jews were viewed in much the same way we view banks today, with a certain measure of mistrust. What Shakespeare captured was not just the perceived sanctimony of Christian doctrine juxtaposed with the less forgiving Jewish doctrine but also the opportunity to support an emerging sense of unity in the face of an obvious foe.

Portia's monologue is as much a political device as it is an expression of Christian forgiveness. Set against the backdrop of inter-faith strife, in the wake of the death of Catholic Queen Mary and the ascension of her Protestant sibling Queen Elizabeth who was determined to set aside the internal strife that was tearing her country in two. Following on from Elizabeth's Act of Unification in 1558 (MoV was written sometime around 1598/99), it was a reflection of the needs of the people, using the existing medieval 'bad guys' to drive home, through the most popular media of the day, a message of Christian unity.

I'm not saying it's not a beautifully written monologue, it is and I'm a huge admirer of Shakespeare's works, but I find it is another example of how external influences trade off the internal contradictions in Christian scripture (as identified by reformists) to create a new, hybrid interpretation that, in an increasingly liberal England, retroactively becomes part of accepted doctrine.

It is quite telling that the inquisition never reached the shores of England - considering it had been set up to specifically rid the Catholic church of reformist movements - meanwhile, the recently unified Christians in England were busy hunting witches to vent their collective spleen. It would be amusing to find a play of the time that expresses concern about witches plotting against a monarch... oh wait.

MM

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm. No, I don't see a conflict there (between sense-making and the existence of God as a being). I think it simply reflects how our understanding of God is frequently more existential than abstract or a priori.

But that might reflect my own bias ☺

That's an awfully convenient position though, isn't it? The notion that the sense making exercise of some group of people -just so happens to be- an actual entity that roughly conforms to said exercise. Would you allow that for other god concepts? Is Wotan both a sense making exercise -and- an actual being or entity?

[Michael]

Rhythm, my view concerning other concepts of God is pretty much like my view in science. That is there is 1) an objective reality that exists, and 2) there is our understanding (our sense-making) of that objective reality. Our understanding will have simplifications (or perhaps over-complications), incompleteness, imprecision and error. I don't see our understanding of truth as binary. I don't believe it's a simple case of saying either something is true or it's complete rubbish. Rather, there is a more continuous spectrum of understanding, between complete and accurate understanding and either complete lack of understanding or a completely wrong understanding. The understanding of 'Wotan' that conforms to reality is true, and that which doesn't is not. But without a much better understanding of what Wotan really meant to people I can't comment further.

I find I sit somewhere between realism and nominalism on questions like this. It would be convenient if I could easily identify fully with one approach, but unfortunately I don't.

[bennyboy]

I think Science and Religion can overlap just fine. However, the religion cannot be based on an obvious mythology.

There are aspects of religion that are behavioral and psychological. For example, repeating ideas over and over until they seep into the unconscious mind can affect a person's personality and mood. So can a call to make the self subservient to a greater whole.

You could repeat over and over "I am star dust. I am the soil of the Earth made fluid by the oceans and made animate by the energy of the Sun. Everything I consider my own is borrowed from the Great Universe from which all things are formed." I think there would be real benefit to doing this, as these ideas represent reality more accurately than most people's selfish egocentrism. Not only that, I think seeing yourself as a drop in the ocean is liberating-- it doesn't really matter, ultimately, if you become the top-ranked salesperson in your department, or whether your kids are all going to win Nobel Prizes. I think if you sat and thought about the universe AS WE KNOW IT, and how tiny we are, and about biology and we know it and how huge we also are, you could have a full-blown religious experience. (actually I have, thinking about QM and the near-total emptiness in everything-- cognitive meltdown ftw!)

We could teach our children that fighting is pointless. Why should startdust fight stardust? There's nothing to gain. Why be stressed? All the stress in the world won't stop my body, then the Earth, then the Solar System and galaxy from meeting their demise and being recycled into something new and yet equally wonderful.

We could go to church, where geology is taught along with metaphor: The Earth feeds us. Her life's blood emanates from valcanoes, filling the soil with the nutrients that we need to live. Her waters clean the air so that we can breathe. And in the end, the only really important thing we can do is not to destroy all the good that she has brought to us with selfishness and greed.

This religion could even ENCOURAGE science: "We must understand mother Earth as deeply as we can, so as to benefit from her gifts most greatly, and to protect her most effectively. We must understand the Great Universe as deeply as we can, so as to understand what we ourselves are."