Showing posts with label theism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theism. Show all posts

Saturday, July 25, 2020

The Domestication of God

The sixth chapter of my book The Limits of Liberalism, which I am currently revising, slightly, and updating for re-publication at the end of this year, is titled “Limits of Liberal Views of God.” This blog post is based on parts of that chapter. 
Is God’s Transcendence a Problem?
Among theological liberals, there has been rather strongly stated opposition to what some label as “supernatural theism.” For example, the noted British scholar Karen Armstrong has publicly rejected what she calls “the God of supernatural theism.”
This opposition is, in other words, a rejection of the transcendence of God, the idea/belief that God is “above” and “beyond” the natural world that we humans can know by science.
Since there is a tendency to think that all knowledge of the physical world (nature) can be obtained by modern scientific means, whatever is considered not a part of nature is, therefore, supernatural.
Consequently, belief in a “supernatural” Creator of heaven and earth, the concept of God who is somehow not completely an integral part of the natural world, is rejected.
For modern people, for whom liberal thinkers seek to speak, the transcendence or “otherness” of God—or the “infinite qualitative distinction” between God and human beings that Kierkegaard emphasized—is seen as a problem to be overcome by a newer, more enlightened, view of God.
Is God’s “Domestication” the Answer?
Over the last seventy years especially, many liberal theologians and philosophers have rejected the concept of God’s transcendence by emphasizing the complete immanence of God.
William C. Placher was a leading postliberal theologian in the United States. Back in 1996, he published a book titled The Domestication of Transcendence: How Modern Thinking about God Went Wrong.
In his book, Placher (1948~2008) contended that the shift from a transcendental theism to an immanental pantheism led to what he calls (and titles his fifth chapter) “the domestication of God”—a pregnant phrase that indicates a significant aspect of the limits of liberal thinking about God.
That is part of the reason that Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre quipped in 1966, “Theists are offering atheists less and less in which to disbelieve.”
What about Experience of God?
In the fall of 1957, I began my final two years of college as a transfer student at William Jewell College in Liberty, Missouri. One of my courses that fall was Philosophy of Religion.
Professor Murray Hunt chose Philosophy of Religion as our textbook. It was authored by the Quaker scholar D. Elton Trueblood, Professor of Philosophy at Earlham College, and published earlier that year.
Because of that course and Trueblood’s book, the philosophy of religion became my main academic interest, and it remained so for decades.
Part II, the heart of Trueblood’s book, is titled “Theistic Realism,” which, although he doesn’t use those words, is a rebuttal/rejection of the movement toward the domestication of God.
Trueblood begins “The Theistic Hypothesis,” the first chapter of Part II, with these words: “God, when carefully defined, either is or is not.” He then goes on to explain,
To say that God “is” means to give assent to the proposition that the idea of God is not merely an idea in the minds of men, but actually refers to what is objectively the case—something which was before we came to be aware of it and which now is, independent of our awareness or lack of awareness (p. 79).
Those who have sought to domesticate God have often spoken of the “God within” human beings. Thus, God is understood as a subjective experience of individual persons. This stands in contrast to the theistic realism Trueblood expounds, and his position, I believe, is far more coherent.
The last chapter of Part II is “The Evidence of Religious Experience.” I was studying philosophy of religion because I was preparing to become a Christian pastor—and I was preparing for that vocation (literally) because of what I firmly believed, and still believe, was a definite “call” by God.
My experience was not highly ecstatic or “otherworldly.” It was much more like the “still small voice” that the prophet Elijah heard (according to 1 Kings 19:12, KJV). But it was unquestionably real.
Those who wish to domesticate God would explain my, and Elijah’s, experience as only a subjective one. But I am convinced that making everything related to God subjective, or immanent, is one of the debilitating limits of liberalism.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

The Bleakness of "Radical Theology"

Richard Grigg was recently a guest lecturer at William Jewell College (WJC). Although I heard only one of his two lectures, I found it quite engaging and thought-provoking.

Grigg (b. 1955), who has an M.Div. degree from Drew University and a Ph.D. from the University of Iowa, has been teaching in the Religious Studies Program at Sacred Heart University in Connecticut since 1985. He is the author of several books, the most recent being Beyond the God Delusion: How Radical Theology Harmonizes Science and Religion (2008).

Grigg’s lectures at WJC were quite closely related to his latest book, in which he rejects traditional theism in the first chapter. He writes about the God of traditional theism as being “the God who can answer prayer, guide history, and provide eternal life” (p. 37). In place of theism, Grigg forwards “radical theology” in his second chapter. That leads to the next chapter,  "Beyond Theism: A Scientifically Informed Pantheism.” That kind of pantheism is what Grigg presents as his radical theology.

I was impressed by Grigg’s humility and candor. No one could accuse him of holding to a position that was the result of some kind of wish fulfillment. Nevertheless, I couldn’t help but think that the theology he presented was very bleak. And I had the feeling that Grigg himself was sad because now he finds himself unable to maintain the theistic faith that he, most likely, embraced in the past.

In his lecture, Grigg compared the “big claims” of traditional theism with the little claims of his radical theology. In all five areas considered, it seemed clear that the claims of theism were much more attractive. But because of his scientific worldview, he was unable to affirm that theistic position, as he probably once did.

My previous post was about the rejection of an eternal hell. Grigg not only rejects that concept but also the idea of an eternal heaven. He declared that there can be no eternal life apart from God. For a scientifically informed pantheism, though, there is no room for the idea of a personal life in heaven after death. For humans and all other forms of life, death is simply a part of the natural cycle and has to be accepted as such. There is just no place for a concept of eternal life (seen as conscious existence) in the scientific worldview.

At the close of his lecture, Grigg recommended serious consideration of Anselm’s well-known words about “faith seeking understanding.” And he ended by encouraging his listeners to “believe boldly,” and then adding, “Make sure you plumb your faith with your intellect.”

I have long been an advocate of faith seeking understanding. That stance has been a basic part of my intellectual endeavors for decades. But I am also fond of another phrase used by Anselm, credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I may understand).

There is a problem with appeals to autonomous human reason. Our intellects are shaped by our basic beliefs, our presuppositions. So do we plumb claims about God with our intellect shaped by belief in the scientific world view, or do we plumb the claims of science by belief in the Creator God?