(You may add comments by clicking the 'comments' link at the foot of each 'post')

Friday 7 September 2007

Monkseaton discussion paper 1

God - A discussion paper
1. If we accept that all that we have read about God has been written by man it is not too blasphemous to discuss a subject of such purely human origin.
2. Karen Armstrong[1] takes a very pragmatic approach to the word `God´; i.e. when men say that God is jealous and vengeful, then he is jealous and vengeful. If they say that God does not exist but that he is in all things, or that his nature combines aspects of father, spirit and human, then God has these properties. God is accepted as a product of man´s understanding, but a genuine product with a certain objectivity. I suggest we follow, and assume honesty in the reporting.
3. God therefore evolves. Man´s understanding evolves, his society grows more complex, his knowledge of science expands, and his vocabulary develops; so also does his description of God change. That is objective fact. And so (pragmatically) the meaning of the word God evolves, and so therefore does the nature of God itself.
3.1 God for Abraham was the creator of the universe, receiver of human sacrifices, jealous, destructive, vengeful.
3.2 God for Aristotle was the un-moved mover, a theoretical creation without feature, personality, or emotion; remote and unconcerned with detail.
3.3 God for Jesus was a Father, an object of love; a judge but also a forgiver, a carer.
3.4 God for Paul was a place in which to "live, move and have our being"[2].
3.5 God for George Fox was a `light´, a consciousness of right (and wrong), a quality inside ourselves.
4. Remember George Fox [3]: "Christ saith this, and the apostles say this (about God); but what canst thou say?" So let us ask what is my (i.e. your) experience of God.
4.1 Perhaps we can understand and echo St. Augustine "Thou hast prompted (man) that he should delight to praise thee, for thou hast made us for thyself and restless is our heart until it comes to rest in thee." [4]
4.2 Perhaps we can turn Katherine Tait upside-down. Bertrand Russell´s daughter suggested that "human affection was for him (Russell), at bottom, an attempt to escape from the vain search for God"[5]. I would like to try it reversed: God may be, in essence, the product of our vain search for human affection. I understand (and share) a desire for human company, but am brought up too often against the imperfections of the real world. I can see God as a substitute for the inadequacies of human relationships. I can also see aspects in most people (if not quite all) that I desire and love -- kindness, justice, love, support, giving me a sense of worth -- and I can see God as an abstraction of these things. (I take it to be objectively true that: "There is a spirit ....... that delights to do no evil"[6]
5. Does God exist `out there´? Let us not ask "Does God Exist?" for we do not at this stage understand existence. But let us ask "Is God outside ourselves?" Fear is inside ourselves; as is hope. Is it sufficient for us to `worship´ a God that is a figment of our imagination? Probably not. Beware therefore of creating an imaginary God, by supposing he has the properties that we wish. (C.f. Augustine: "It may be that we should invoke thee in order that we may find thee....for `those who seek shall find´."[4]) It is possible to fear a bogey, and to love an imaginary figment.
5.1 It has been argued[1] that it is possible and indeed creative to imagine that which does not exist; God (like perfection or infinity) might not exist, but might be a genuine product of man´s creative imagination. But how useful is such a God? There seems something false about supposing justice where there is none, or perfection where there is only imperfection. I would rather seek some small aspect of kindness where there is indeed some kindness to be found.
6. If we want a transcendent, powerful, God capable of, and actually responsible for the creation of all things we probably have to be content to know nothing of him, and understand nothing of him; and say nothing of him. It is futile to look there for comfort.
7. To define God as the totality of existent things (including ourselves) comforts us, for it gives us a certain dignity; but it lacks human features, and does not raise up the `good´ in us and weaken the `evil´.
8. If we want a God we can love with all our heart and with all our soul, in which we can live and have our being, a God to love us and forgive us, then we probably shall find that God dwells in us, in each other, in our community.

References:
[1] Karen Armstrong (1993) "A History of God", William Heinemeann Ltd.
[2] Acts 17:28
[3] Quaker Faith & Practice,19.07
[4] St. Augustine of Hippo "Confessions"
[5] Katherine Tait (1975), "My Father Bertrand Russell", Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
[6] Quaker Faith & Practice,19.12

Morpeth, September 2007.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work.