The Experience of God

[honorentheos]

Didn't you forget Jesus's option, MG? One road leads to heaven?

Obviously, I don't believe there is a heaven. Just like I don't believe there is a particle with spin 7/2.

Personally I suspect some people from all walks find peace and joy in life, are celebrated and mourned when they pass, and life goes on. If someone wanted to fight over that not being heaven I'd let them have their definition and claim victory if that's their need. It doesn't diminish mine.

[huckelberry]

dasterdly stem, I find the phrase demanding worship a bit odd. I checked the ten commandments and did not find this demand. I checked the sermon on the mount and somehow this demand is missing.In terms of common speech about church services, worship services are about communion and thankfulness.

Does god require one to worship him as god? Or can one not worship him as god and be saved? I certainly don’t want to misspeak. I’m just not sure why the messages I’ve gotten over the years tend to sound like god demands it.

stem, I was wondering what you meant by worship and wondering why you think it is something God requires? I mean both you and I realize it could not be something that adds any value to god. Being unsure of what you are considering I pointed out that in two primary versions of what is traditionally understood as explaining what god demands it is not mentioned. Is it possible that you are stepping to an assumption and then noticing the assumption is not entirely sensible?

[dastardly stem]

stem, I was wondering what you meant by worship and wondering why you think it is something God requires? I mean both you and I realize it could not be something that adds any value to god. Being unsure of what you are considering I pointed out that in two primary versions of what is traditionally understood as explaining what god demands it is not mentioned. Is it possible that you are stepping to an assumption and then noticing the assumption is not entirely sensible?

Hi Huckelberry. I was giving you my impression as I've anecdotally picked it up having interacted with many people of various faiths and backgrounds over the years., and having been a believer for most of my life. Most religionists, I've seen, diverge from the teachings of scripture in a few ways, as we all carry plenty of assumptions.

But to be clear, my impression, as mistaken as it may be, is that most of our western world religions seem to suggest a believer ought to worship god. If so, I take that to mean it is required--whether God or scripture says it is required isn't what I'm going for. If I am mistaken I am mistaken. But I'm not so sure that's the case. For instance, I ask you whether you think one who believes ought to worship God, but you didn't answer. I'm trying to learn how or why my impression might be considered wrong.

On your view do you think a believer ought to worship God?

As far as the word worship goes? It's true many people likely use it differently. I have nothing more in mind then something like revering God as God. If God doesn't want to be worshipped and yet believers tend to think He ought to be worshipped, it sounds like they are disrespecting him. I hope that's not the case.

[dastardly stem]

God as the "ground of being" is just so weird I don't even know where to begin. Hart is aping Martin Heidegger. In Heidegger, on the one hand, you have the ontic world. That's the unknown real reality that we have no access to. Kant had a similar world called the noumena. In that unknowable reality, was God. But "Being" or the "ground of being", in Heidegger, isn't in the ontic world. If we interrogate a being that is thrown-into-the-world (this world of the present), dasein, the presencing of that being tells us something about what it means to be, and therefore, what I gather is a general case called Being. And I think that Being is the "ground of being". So that is God? Caring most certainly is a part of being-in-the-world, but to say Being is God is like saying God is an idealized form of caring, which sounds poetic, but "caring" doesn't "care", if that makes sense. Beings care.

Again, a philosopher proposes a model of the world, a Christian comes along, likes the model, and proclaims the model to be God. Somehow, Martin Heidegger wrote that entire intractable thought storm without ever realizing he was talking about the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the whole time, even though he knew what Christianity was and what the Bible was. If there needed to be a connection, seems like he would have made it.

I didn't realize Tillich and Heidegger lived at essentially the same time--late 1880s through the 1960s. Tillich's ground of being is essentially what Hart ascribes to, it seems to me. And yes, Tillich was aware of Heidegger's philosophy and saw himself drawing from it--as he seemed to promote Heidegger's philosophy to argue for this God of nothing, as I've been thinking of him. Anyway, if you know of any interactions Heidegger and Tillich might have had, I'd be interested. I don't think Hart took the leap from Heidegger to God. I think that was Tillich.

For "being" remains the content, the mystery, and the eternal aporia of thinking. No theology can suppress the notion of being as the power of being. One cannot separate them. In the moment in which one says that God is or that he has being, the question arises as to how his relation to being is understood. The only possible answer seems to be that God is being-itself, in the sense of the power of being or the power to conquer nonbeing.

This really feels to me like there was a desperate need to find God somehow and that resulted in him getting stuffed into the mystery of being. Tillich stuffed God in there because there didn't seem any other place God could fit, that's why it was the only possible place for God.

Some christian critics have consider Tillich an atheist since he rejects the something God of Christianity, but he proclaimed his belief in Christianity. This is all very much repeated by Hart, it seems to me. I'd have to really get into this to really dig this stuff up. I don't know if I have it in me, since as you put it "a Christian comes along, likes the model, and proclaims the model to be God". That seems to explain it well enough.

[Kishkumen]

Props for reading David Bently Hart, most people don’t give that much time or expend that much effort listening to somebody they don’t agree with.

I think one of the biggest disconnects Hart struggles with is putting his own beliefs in terms that are relatable to those who share an atheistic outlook. His eastern orthodox faith and theology is grounded in a Aristotelian framework (and to lesser extent, a Platonic framework too) that really isn’t shared by most people in the West. I don’t think he is fully aware of just how much is lost in the act of communicating his beliefs, because he doesn’t seem to expend much effort in trying to mitigate it.

Take your example of the problem of interaction in Cartesian substance dualism, I don’t think Hart sees a problem because he most likely adopts a position of hylomorphism (a more modern take on Aristotle’s metaphysic) where that kind of problem doesn’t really make sense. He probably didn’t spend any time explaining that Cartesian metaphysics is an explicit rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and so, the baggage that Descartes has to deal with doesn’t always carry over to his view.

I also see it cropping up again when he sort of uses a transcendental argument against naturalism on the issue of “being”. By transcendental, I mean the strategy of taking a view held in common between both parties (i.e. things exist) and then asserts that a necessary condition for this common view to be true is that there must be a “ground” for this being and the only possible ground is God.

The problem though, is that contemporary philosophy doesn’t view ontology in this manner, when we speak of “ground” we mean something that is determinative, but not causal. This becomes important because the topic of causal relations is sort left to the topic of physics and philosophical commentary on physics.

In much the same way the problem of the interaction between the mental substance and the physical substance doesn’t make much sense to a hylomorphic view, the grounding of being doesn’t make much sense to anglophone philosophy. To us, it is obvious that there can be an infinite regress, there is an entire branch of modern mathematics that allows such a thing.

Maybe that's the lesson here? If you want to successfully convey your views to another party, it might behoove you to learn enough about that party so you can effectively communicate your beliefs in terms that are more relatable to them.

Thanks for this post, Stak. I have been waiting for commentary from someone who understands the issues, history, and discourse much better than I do. Much appreciated!

[huckelberry]

stem, I was wondering what you meant by worship and wondering why you think it is something God requires? I mean both you and I realize it could not be something that adds any value to god. Being unsure of what you are considering I pointed out that in two primary versions of what is traditionally understood as explaining what god demands it is not mentioned. Is it possible that you are stepping to an assumption and then noticing the assumption is not entirely sensible?

Hi Huckelberry. I was giving you my impression as I've anecdotally picked it up having interacted with many people of various faiths and backgrounds over the years., and having been a believer for most of my life. Most religionists, I've seen, diverge from the teachings of scripture in a few ways, as we all carry plenty of assumptions.

But to be clear, my impression, as mistaken as it may be, is that most of our western world religions seem to suggest a believer ought to worship god. If so, I take that to mean it is required--whether God or scripture says it is required isn't what I'm going for. If I am mistaken I am mistaken. But I'm not so sure that's the case. For instance, I ask you whether you think one who believes ought to worship God, but you didn't answer. I'm trying to learn how or why my impression might be considered wrong.

On your view do you think a believer ought to worship God?

As far as the word worship goes? It's true many people likely use it differently. I have nothing more in mind then something like revering God as God. If God doesn't want to be worshipped and yet believers tend to think He ought to be worshipped, it sounds like they are disrespecting him. I hope that's not the case.

Stem, You ask if a believer ought to worship God. I think there is reasonable and appropriate worship to be given to express thanks.It should flow like friendship and appreciation. If as a result of demand it may not be worth the bother.

I think the phrase god demands worship may well imply an insult to god.It sounds like a ego needing stroking.

There is a certain respect that God demands. Do not disrespect his creation and your fellow creatures who God cares about.

[Kishkumen]

This really feels to me like there was a desperate need to find God somehow and that resulted in him getting stuffed into the mystery of being. Tillich stuffed God in there because there didn't seem any other place God could fit, that's why it was the only possible place for God.

Some christian critics have consider Tillich an atheist since he rejects the something God of Christianity, but he proclaimed his belief in Christianity. This is all very much repeated by Hart, it seems to me. I'd have to really get into this to really dig this stuff up. I don't know if I have it in me, since as you put it "a Christian comes along, likes the model, and proclaims the model to be God". That seems to explain it well enough.

The book you read was a kind of case for Classical theism, and I don't think it covers everything Hart thinks about God and Christianity. For that you would probably have to go to his other works. You can also watch the abundant YouTube videos he appears in.

In any case, I don't see Hart's view as the God of nothing. I find Hart's view as laid out in this book to be a lot more plausible than the common view one gets in the pews of churches these days. On the whole, Hart's view is actually very optimistic, handling some of the problems that Joseph Smith was attempting to address within a historical and theological framework very much rooted in Orthodox Christianity and Greek philosophy.

In any case, God as the ground of being is not so bad either. At the end of the day, I don't know that anyone so badly needs for there to be or not to be a God. If they do, that is probably their own "cross to bear." People change their views over the course of a life. Some grow in a tradition. Some grow out of it. Sometimes tragic events can greatly alter a person's perspective. Sometimes one wakes up one day having small, almost imperceptible but cumulative changes guide them into a different view.

What I do see in many people is a great need to justify themselves in their choices regarding questions that are ultimately beyond our ability to reckon with fully. They are intent on seeing others reach their same conclusions, seemingly unaware of the great mystery which is the individual consciousness's struggle with meaning, purpose, and understanding of a vast cosmos. It would be great if more of us could appreciate our common struggle and common journey, without feeling the urge, let alone succumbing to it, of judging other people harshly for being in a different place.

[dastardly stem]

Stem, You ask if a believer ought to worship God. I think there is reasonable and appropriate worship to be given to express thanks.It should flow like friendship and appreciation. If as a result of demand it may not be worth the bother.

I think the phrase god demands worship may well imply an insult to god.It sounds like a ego needing stroking.

There is a certain respect that God demands. Do not disrespect his creation and your fellow creatures who God cares about.

If there is a God I would hope to see him care about something other than himself. That'd be nice to know. I also do not see why god would care about people more than say viruses, as I mentioned earlier. Its all his creation, according to many--even if Hart sees calling god a creator a big ol mistake. To Hart a Creator is not God. God, on his view, doesn't have creations for us to respect. For those who think God's a creator, is it worshipful for us to respect his creations like COVID 19? Or ALS? or sticker bushes? If we disrespect those how do we satisfy God's demand to respect him?

As per what God demands...I don't know. Its the way it comes off to me--God demands people worship him, according to religion as I've heard it. I still don't know how else to frame it. Why would it be reasonable and appropriate to worship him? Does he want or not want people to worship him? I honestly still can't tell how you view it.

[Marcus]

...What I do see in many people is a great need to justify themselves in their choices regarding questions that are ultimately beyond our ability to reckon with fully. They are intent on seeing others reach their same conclusions, seemingly unaware of the great mystery which is the individual consciousness's struggle with meaning, purpose, and understanding of a vast cosmos. It would be great if more of us could appreciate our common struggle and common journey, without feeling the urge, let alone succumbing to it, of judging other people harshly for being in a different place.

agreed, and it's a two-way street.

I think the phrase god demands worship may well imply an insult to god.It sounds like a ego needing stroking.

There is a certain respect that God demands. Do not disrespect his creation and your fellow creatures who God cares about.

that expression of a personal belief and an insistence that others (who may not believe) behave in a certain way toward it may have come across harsher than it was intended, i would imagine.

[dastardly stem]

The book you read was a kind of case for Classical theism, and I don't think it covers everything Hart thinks about God and Christianity. For that you would probably have to go to his other works. You can also watch the abundant YouTube videos he appears in.

In any case, I don't see Hart's view as the God of nothing. I find Hart's view as laid out in this book to be a lot more plausible than the common view one gets in the pews of churches these days. On the whole, Hart's view is actually very optimistic, handling some of the problems that Joseph Smith was attempting to address within a historical and theological framework very much rooted in Orthodox Christianity and Greek philosophy.

In any case, God as the ground of being is not so bad either. At the end of the day, I don't know that anyone so badly needs for there to be or not to be a God. If they do, that is probably their own "cross to bear." People change their views over the course of a life. Some grow in a tradition. Some grow out of it. Sometimes tragic events can greatly alter a person's perspective. Sometimes one wakes up one day having small, almost imperceptible but cumulative changes guide them into a different view.

What I do see in many people is a great need to justify themselves in their choices regarding questions that are ultimately beyond our ability to reckon with fully. They are intent on seeing others reach their same conclusions, seemingly unaware of the great mystery which is the individual consciousness's struggle with meaning, purpose, and understanding of a vast cosmos. It would be great if more of us could appreciate our common struggle and common journey, without feeling the urge, let alone succumbing to it, of judging other people harshly for being in a different place.

If Hart has a better explanation then great. I'm not concerned about judging him as a person, but am interested in judging ideas. I feel like I have to do that to fulfill my desire to learn something. And sure, people ought not feel so heavily judged by others for the space they occupy, per se. I have nothing against the man. I just think he doesn't have as good as ideas as he thinks.