Sources For Religious Views
What are the things that I have read that influenced me in my religious views?
Well, not much, at least directly. I heard Bishop Spong on the radio 5 or 6 years back and it is was liberating to hear him say that the idea of crucifixion/human sacrifice that is key in the conventional Christian doctrine was barbaric. It is, of course, barbaric. But I have never read anything that
There are a number of writers -- Hitchens, Dawkins, and so on -- who have attacked religion and, of course, they are right. Almost all religions, and all of the big ones, are based on the little-old-man-on-the-cloud version of God. That is, a God who for reasons understandable in human terms, intervenes in the world. Whether you worship this chap or not seems to influence whether or not he will intervene on your behalf or not.
Of course, this type of theism is rubbish. But, for the god-deniers to point this out is rather easy: it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Of course, there is no "personal" intervening God.
And then there are the religious counter-attackers trying, by standard types of arguments, to defend the personal god by pointing out flaws or weak points in the arguments of the god-deniers. This is not very productive. It is always possible to point out the weaknesses of another argument, but what is the point if you are, in the end, trying to defend an even weaker one?
My point of view is that there is no personal god (that is, no little-old-man-in-the-cloud god) and that, therefore, theism is a dead-end. But I think the concept of god is still useful. Or rather, the god shape, is a useful tool. To me, the god shape is what we do not know and perhaps can never know about existence, life, and the ultimate nature of the universe, recognizing that humanity seems to be only the smallest bit of the universe. I have used the metaphor that the god shape is like an onion. As the relative human ignorance about the universe declines, the onion gets smaller (so the ancient Greeks with Zeus and all that stuff, had a pretty big onion). But as the onion gets smaller, it gets more beautiful and more like itself. In a thousand years, perhaps, the god-shape will be a perfect tiny point of understanding. I don't know and it doesn't really matter. I mean, it will matter then, I suppose, but it doesn't matter now. That is to say, there is no use fighting or worrying about the final core of the god-shape because it is here already, has always been here ("in the beginning was the word"), and will always be here. As long is here is here.
My personal view of it is that the final, tiny point of the god-shape is about beauty, or at least can only be understood or approached in terms of beauty. Of course, it is impossible to prove such a thing. But the key, in my view, is to relax about the whole god enterprise and let science, music, art, the advancements in human understanding, and all that, carry us along towards the final form of the god-shape. In my view, no learning can be contrary to God. Because the god-shape is what we don't know about the universe, and as we approach full knowledge (and thus the tiny, final point of the god-shape) of the universe, the idea of an intervening personal god seems so puny as to be laughable. God may be the final small point of the beauty of existence, but there is no compassion in that cold beauty as we would normally understand it.
Where Does Jesus Christ Fit In?
Well, there are bits of the god-shape in all religions -- or, rather, in each religion there are bits that are nearer the core of the God shape. The death and resurrection of Jesus is not one of those bits. Indeed, the doctrine of salvation through the resurrected Christ is a rather legalistic gloss onto the basic narrative of the life of Jesus done by the church that was done long after Jesus was dead, and for reasons related to the needs of the Church in its earliest days. The basic sayings and arc of the life of Jesus do not support it all. Jesus didn't need this silly story; the Church needed it to get people to pray to it.
However, the basic story of Jesus in the bible -- which the Church must ignore -- is the battle that Jesus had with religious authorities and religious zealots (Pharisees) all through his life. That is a good example to follow. We need to free the image of Jesus from the repulsive barbarity of the crucifixion. That is, we should be much more concerned about what he actually said and did (battling religious orthodoxy!!), and much less interested in the resurrection gloss or perversion that the Church has applied to his life for its own needs.
Well, not much, at least directly. I heard Bishop Spong on the radio 5 or 6 years back and it is was liberating to hear him say that the idea of crucifixion/human sacrifice that is key in the conventional Christian doctrine was barbaric. It is, of course, barbaric. But I have never read anything that
There are a number of writers -- Hitchens, Dawkins, and so on -- who have attacked religion and, of course, they are right. Almost all religions, and all of the big ones, are based on the little-old-man-on-the-cloud version of God. That is, a God who for reasons understandable in human terms, intervenes in the world. Whether you worship this chap or not seems to influence whether or not he will intervene on your behalf or not.
Of course, this type of theism is rubbish. But, for the god-deniers to point this out is rather easy: it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Of course, there is no "personal" intervening God.
And then there are the religious counter-attackers trying, by standard types of arguments, to defend the personal god by pointing out flaws or weak points in the arguments of the god-deniers. This is not very productive. It is always possible to point out the weaknesses of another argument, but what is the point if you are, in the end, trying to defend an even weaker one?
My point of view is that there is no personal god (that is, no little-old-man-in-the-cloud god) and that, therefore, theism is a dead-end. But I think the concept of god is still useful. Or rather, the god shape, is a useful tool. To me, the god shape is what we do not know and perhaps can never know about existence, life, and the ultimate nature of the universe, recognizing that humanity seems to be only the smallest bit of the universe. I have used the metaphor that the god shape is like an onion. As the relative human ignorance about the universe declines, the onion gets smaller (so the ancient Greeks with Zeus and all that stuff, had a pretty big onion). But as the onion gets smaller, it gets more beautiful and more like itself. In a thousand years, perhaps, the god-shape will be a perfect tiny point of understanding. I don't know and it doesn't really matter. I mean, it will matter then, I suppose, but it doesn't matter now. That is to say, there is no use fighting or worrying about the final core of the god-shape because it is here already, has always been here ("in the beginning was the word"), and will always be here. As long is here is here.
My personal view of it is that the final, tiny point of the god-shape is about beauty, or at least can only be understood or approached in terms of beauty. Of course, it is impossible to prove such a thing. But the key, in my view, is to relax about the whole god enterprise and let science, music, art, the advancements in human understanding, and all that, carry us along towards the final form of the god-shape. In my view, no learning can be contrary to God. Because the god-shape is what we don't know about the universe, and as we approach full knowledge (and thus the tiny, final point of the god-shape) of the universe, the idea of an intervening personal god seems so puny as to be laughable. God may be the final small point of the beauty of existence, but there is no compassion in that cold beauty as we would normally understand it.
Where Does Jesus Christ Fit In?
Well, there are bits of the god-shape in all religions -- or, rather, in each religion there are bits that are nearer the core of the God shape. The death and resurrection of Jesus is not one of those bits. Indeed, the doctrine of salvation through the resurrected Christ is a rather legalistic gloss onto the basic narrative of the life of Jesus done by the church that was done long after Jesus was dead, and for reasons related to the needs of the Church in its earliest days. The basic sayings and arc of the life of Jesus do not support it all. Jesus didn't need this silly story; the Church needed it to get people to pray to it.
However, the basic story of Jesus in the bible -- which the Church must ignore -- is the battle that Jesus had with religious authorities and religious zealots (Pharisees) all through his life. That is a good example to follow. We need to free the image of Jesus from the repulsive barbarity of the crucifixion. That is, we should be much more concerned about what he actually said and did (battling religious orthodoxy!!), and much less interested in the resurrection gloss or perversion that the Church has applied to his life for its own needs.
