Skip to main content

The Games Theologians Play

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) --

I’ve recently been reading up on a couple of modern theological writers, Karen Armstrong and David B. Hart. It’s been fun, but not particularly enlightening. Armstrong is a former Catholic nun who wrote “A History of God” and several other books.
Il cielo è un puzzle da smontare pezzo per pezzoImage by _strawberryfields_ via Flickr
Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian, philosopher, and author of “Atheist Delusions” and more.

These writers (especially Hart) have criticized the so-called New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, et. al.) for being superficial, irrelevant, a passing fad, and nearly everything else but right. The gist of their thinking on the existence of god can be found in a N.Y. Times essay by Armstrong (1), and Hart’s essay, “Believe It or Not” (2), on the First Things web site. Hart’s essay is particularly corrosive as he chides the New Atheists with all the warmth and charm of battery acid.

These writers are so confoundingly abstract that understanding what they call god is a lot like trying to catch fog in a butterfly net, or likening the taste of a mushroom to a C-sharp chord. Their main skill appears to be obfuscation, which, of course, may work quite well with the intellectually insecure. Most of the rest of us, however, will legitimately wonder if they know what they’re talking about any more than we do.

Doubtless, part (and parcel?) of the game here is to define their god in such a way that it bears no resemblance to the god of the Bible, and is so ethereal and ineffable as to make it virtually impossible to argue against its existence (yet their arguments sometimes make their gods look an awful lot like nature). It makes me think of a rainbow, where much can be said about the colors in it, their order of appearance top to bottom, the degrees of arc they transit, the existence of double rainbows, etc., when, in fact, a rainbow is merely an illusion. It is composed of nothing but water droplets and light which make an image that appears slightly different to each observer. What is often lost sight of (if you’ll pardon the pun) is the fact that there really is no object out there in the sky; if no observer, no rainbow. Now, in some ways, that sounds to me a lot like god; there’s lots of talk, but no observer, and no god.

Here’s David Hart’s god:
“The most venerable metaphysical claims about God… start, rather, from the fairly elementary observation that nothing contingent, composite, finite, temporal, complex, and mutable can account for its own existence, and that even an infinite series of such things can never be the source or ground of its own being, but must depend on some source of actuality beyond itself. Thus, abstracting from the universal conditions of contingency, one very well may (and perhaps must) conclude that all things are sustained in being by an absolute plenitude of actuality, whose very essence is being as such: not a “supreme being,” not another thing within or alongside the universe, but the infinite act of being itself, the one eternal and transcendent source of all existence and knowledge, in which all finite being participates.”(2)

Now, I could be wrong, because there are a lot of very slippery words there, but it appears to me that he is saying that god is “being;” not “a being,” just “being.” How this definition is of any use to anyone, however, escapes me. Well, there is this, if I believed god is being, then I would have to agree that god exists, because I surely be. Can’t you just picture Mr. Hart praying? “Dear Absolute Plenitude of Actuality, give us this day…”

Ah, but perhaps I’m being unfair. Maybe this will help clear things up. “But such reasoning is also certainly not subject to the objection from infinite regress. It is not logically requisite for anyone, on observing that contingent reality must depend on absolute reality, to say then what the absolute depends on or, on asserting the participation of finite beings in infinite being, further to explain what it is that makes being to be.” Or maybe not…

A question which occurs to me is this: if god is “being,” the whole of being and nothing but being, then why do we even need the word “god?” What’s wrong with simply using the word “being” to describe being? And, can “being” really have any meaning by itself, without reference to a particular thing? I mean, how can “being” just be, without being anything – if you catch my drift. Am I unfair in suggesting that perhaps Mr. Hart has fallen back to a position of defining god as “being” just so he has something to call god? Could it be that Mr. Hart doesn’t believe in supernatural gods any more than I do?

What good does this god do anyone if all it does is be? There is no hint in Hart’s explanation that this god interacts with humans at all. Of course, Hart’s god would have no more meaning to the average Christian than a third derivative or a charmed quark.

And yet, it seems Hart may be a fairly traditional Christian. In a recent interview (3), Hart says:
"For Christians, one must look to the cross of Christ to take the measure of God’s love, and of its worth in comparison to the sufferings of a fallen world. And one must look to the risen Christ to grasp the glory for which we are intended, and take one’s understanding of the majesty and tragedy of creation’s freedom from that."
So, this god which in one place is merely “being,” in another place is capable of love. And he clearly believes in the resurrection. From my perspective, this guy is seriously confused. He doesn’t appear to know what he believes.

It is no wonder Hart is unimpressed by the “New Atheists.” They aren’t talking about his god, and I suspect very few people are, except him. Can you spell sophistry?

Now, here’s Karen Armstrong’s god:
“Despite our scientific and technological brilliance, our understanding of God is often remarkably undeveloped - even primitive. In the past, many of the most influential Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers understood that what we call "God" is merely a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence, whose existence cannot be proved but is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enable us to cultivate new capacities of mind and heart.” (1) (Well isn’t that what you thought when you read the Bible?)

Notice the key phrase here, “God …whose existence cannot be proved but is only intuited.” Well that’s it then. Roll up the tents and saddle the camels, we rationalists are out of the game, by fiat. The Four Horsemen have wasted their time. God, then, is merely a symbol which points to something else which is intuited by means of spiritual exercises. Could “spiritual exercises” be something like “wishing,” do you think? Again, there can be precious few other Christians in the world (who haven’t read Armstrong) who would define their god this way. Can you spell sophistry yet?

As far as I can tell, Hart’s god is “the absolute plenitude of actuality,” or simply “being,” while Armstrong’s god is a symbol that points (to an “indescribable transcendence”). Now, think about this: are they talking about the same god? Is there any overlap at all? Don’t worry; those questions won’t be on the exam, because I don’t know either.

Is it any wonder the New Atheists are found wanting by theologians like Armstrong and Hart? Their definitions of god bear absolutely no resemblance to the god of the Bible, the one preached about in churches, and the one 99% of today’s Christians say they worship (there’s no resemblance to Allah either, or any other god with a name). Why on earth would Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens bother with these conceptions of god (if they were even aware of them) which hardly anyone but their authors recognize? It appears to me that Armstrong, Hart and their compatriots are merely self-important, fringe elements who deserve no more attention than Pat Robertson, but for different reasons. Can you spell irrelevant?



Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two