I labeled this as an aside because it does not directly address the impact of religion on equality & tolerance, but I think it is of interest to Matt.
In the first post I presented three questions, one of which was: Is God real? And I have pointed out from time to time that when I say yes to that, I mean something that is objectively true. So, answering that God is real to some people, just like saying Santa Claus lives in the hearts of all generous people, would mean the answer to my question is "no." (Both for God and Santa Claus.)
While reading Spinoza's chapter "On God" in his work, "Ethics," it occurred to me that what Spinoza is doing with talking about substance, attribute, mode, etc. is similar to what people like to do now when they talk about subjective truths. That is, he's applying the fashionable topic of his day to God.
Qualifier: I believe that God is in the hearts of people, and I believe God works through you. I also think it is possible that Spinoza and Anselm were on to something, some aspect of the existence, in their writing. But in both cases, I believe God is much more than that.
If you read the Bible you will see and evolution of the vision of God professed by the Hebrews. In Genesis, God is walking around with them. In Exodus, God is the best of all Gods, and not human like at all, to see his face would kill you. By the time of Jesus, God is the only true God. My time line may be off, and if there is someone reading who can correct it please do. Nonetheless, this evolution happened, and more directly points me to an understanding of what I'm talking about that the work Spinoza does, or, for lack of a better term, the current trend to create a subjective God.
* * *
One thing this does to further the direct discussion is that to the extent Spinoza adds to the Western Civilization's development of equality & tolerance, he is moving outside of and separate from the church.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Jim: Reading through the book of Jeremiah I came across a reference to other gods not even being gods at all. So, looks like even before Israel & Judah were taken away by Babylon & Asyria into exile, toward the end of the First Testament, the notion that YHWH was the only god was coming along.
to see his face would kill you
This is a tangent on your aside :-) I stared reading a book called "The Idea of the Holy." It's a very academic book, but the marketing copy on the back puts it pretty plainly. It says something like, "Before religion was ethics overlaid with emotion, it was just the emotion."
The point of the author appears to be that while an evolution from experiences of awe and fear into something that contains a lot of rational ethics is a good thing, maybe that's been carried too far.
It's the difference between religion and philosophy. That lack of emotional experience is why, in the immortal words of Eddie Brickell, "philosophy is walk on slippery rocks religion."
Jim: At NU, Matt & I had a conversation about another line: "Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box; religion is a smile on a dog." I love Eddie Brickell.
It sounds like an interesting book. As a thinking Christian I do need to constantly ask if I've become an atheist. So far, I haven't, but if you leave the marvel, wonder and emotion behind, it is hard to say you believe in God.
Matt: Yes Jim, this is definitely of interest personally to me. I agree that the question of God's reality is disserved by the notion that His reality can be said to derive from people's belief, that evades the central question.
Your God is not Spinoza's God. This is actually a tangent, but informs the rest of the debate. We (participants and audience) need to know this as a position statement.
Post a Comment