Week in Review (September 9-14)
God Wanted Dead or Alive, Why Physics Equations Make Bad Art, the 31-Thing Post-Religion Born Again List, and Cat Sandwiches
This week I was invited to be on
’s Philosophy Portal Podcast. It will be available soon. Here’s the link. It was a two-hour discussion on a range of topics, particularly “Christian Atheism” and “death of God theology”. Whenever I mention those two terms, I’m slightly uneasy about it, realizing how odd, heretical, and bizarre these terms might be to some people.I’ve written extensively about these subjects recently. In a nutshell (and in my own words), I would define these terms as follows:
Christian Atheism understands Christianity and Atheism as integrally interdependent in offering a radical re-interpretation of “God”. The “Christian” part of this equation involves understanding the overarching meaning of the Christian story, particularly the significance of Jesus, as putting to death the “God” as conceived by religion.
Death of God theology shifts the theological framework from God-as-Other to God-as-Absence. In other words, it denounces the notion of “God” as an objectified, concretized, external, transcendent, absolute referent, such as Christian theism’s supreme sky-God, and instead explores the possibilities of what the absence of that “God” offers humankind by way of a universal, innate, causal, liberative élan vital.
A couple important figures related to “Christian Atheism” and “death of God theology” include Fredrich Nietzsche (who I discussed in this article), and Thomas J.J. Altizer who wrote three useful books on the subject:
French theologian Gabriel Vahanian wrote a book you might find useful on the subject, The Death Of God The Culture Of Our Post Christian Era.
recently published the book, Christian Atheism. For my part, a few articles I’ve written on the subject are:Despite my recent exploration of this topic, I’m not a Christian Atheism or Death of God evangelist. In other words, I’m not trying to talk anyone into these ideas. I have found them useful to explore and you might as well, or not. For religion-leavers in their deconstruction process, these ways of thinking that combine philosophy and theology could be helpful.
is teaching an entire course on these subjects in October.Speaking of issues related to the religious deconstruction process, this week I wrote two articles on subjects that often come up.
The first article was about prayer. It’s titled: Will you pray for me? Re-framing “prayer” in post-religion spirituality. I am often contacted by people who are re-framing former religious beliefs and practices.
In the article I discuss:
Does “prayer” have a place in post-religion spirituality
How to answer the awkward question, “Will you pray for me?”... when you no longer believe in the theology that undergirds the practice of prayer
Deconstructing the idea of interpersonal communication and “relationship with God”
How to cultivate indiscriminate compassion as prayer
Why you need Heaven, Kansas and New Jersey to make the Christian notion of prayer work
The second article of the week is titled, Why won't God stop evil and suffering? Sex, Lies and Paratroop Deployment. It’s my attempt to address the age-old dilemma, squaring the existence of God with evil and suffering in the world. It’s a tall order, but keep in mind that I’m the guy who wrote, One-Sentence Answers to Life’s Greatest 11 Questions: Is Overthinking Existence our Biggest Problem? This would be a good time to insert the Dr. Seuss quote, “Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.”
The issue I addressed in the article (related to my previous human rights work with victimized children) is:
“If God is all-powerful and all-loving, which means God has the power to stop a 12-year-old girl from being victimized and doing so would obviously be the loving thing to do, AND if God doesn’t stop it, could it actually be that God is truly all-powerful and all-loving?”
In the article I discuss:
Why every theological explanation trying to reconcile the existence of God with evil and suffering in the world, doesn't work
The best kept secret about Jesus in never advocating the “God” that the Christian religion constructed
If “God” is not a separate supreme being in the sky, then what and where is “God”
What they never told you in science class about why we are capable of saving the world
What I wish I could unsee from my human rights work abroad
Currently Reading (and why)
These are the three books I’m currently reading:
I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas R. Hofstadter
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life by Daniel Dennett
What led me to these books was an interest in exploring the subject of teleology and evolutionary biology. Teleology comes from two Greek words: telos, meaning “end, purpose or goal”, and logos, meaning “explanation or reason”. From this, we get teleology: an explanation of something that refers to its end, purpose or goal. Evolutionary biology studies the evolutionary processes that produced life and the history of life forms on Earth.
Related to teleology and evolutionary biology, some questions that have interested me are:
Is the process of evolution random and chance, or is there an innate purpose propelling it from the very beginning?
If there is an innate purpose propelling evolution forward, does this require the belief in “God” or can it be sufficiently explained within the process of evolution itself?
If there is an innate purpose propelling a cosmic evolution forward, what exactly is that purpose and where is it taking us?
One term that has come up in my investigation is “poetic meta-naturalism” (an adaptation of Sean Carroll’s “poetic naturalism”). Here’s the standard definition of poetic meta-naturalism:
Poetic meta-naturalism a philosophy of reality that uses metaphor to explain natural phenomena. It is based on the idea that there are multiple levels of reality that share a common pattern, and that the deepest understanding of a phenomenon comes from recognizing the common abstraction across these levels.
In other words, to properly understand Darwinian evolution, one cannot simply examine any one stage or lifeform, but should pay attention to the common underlying patterns, processes or dynamics that produce the diversity of lifeforms such as cells, chimpanzees and Carl in Cleveland. And furthermore, using metaphorical language to describe these primordial patterns and dynamics is a legitimate way of thinking about and discussing them. To put it more simply, when explaining the nature of reality science is not limited to mathematical equations, scientific theorems or complex and technical language, but can and should employ metaphorical language.
Why does this even matter?
It matters because the prevailing view of science is “scientific naturalism”, which states that nothing exists beyond the natural world and that scientific forms of investigation are the only way to gain knowledge of the cosmos. This view eliminates any possibility of a supernatural world - no gods, no spirits, no transcendent meanings in the fundamental architecture of the world. This is how theoretical physicist Sean Carroll represents the nature of reality (a slide from a presentation):
Falls a little flat, right? Imaging being in the throes of existential despair and you go to a therapist and after pouring out your heart and soul about your dark struggle to find any meaning to life, they respond by handing you a sheet of paper with Sean Carroll’s equation on it. Probably wouldn’t be very comforting or inspiring, right?
The “poetic” part of this for Sean Carroll is that we are free to use aesthetic language to describe our subjective experience of our equation-explained natural world. And by doing so, we might even have a greater appreciation of it, as opposed to just framing his above slide and hanging it on our front room wall. An important point to Sean Carroll, would be as long as we don’t take our flowery explanations too seriously or literally, and know that the poetic language we might use does not actually describe anything real in the natural world.
These kinds of distinctions evoke the science versus God (religion, supernatural) schism. The danger of this schism is to whatever extent science is so spooked by even remotely implying the possibility of God or the supernatural, that is becomes blind too or prejudicial against any scientific theories that seem too existentially close for comfort.
This is where “poetic meta-naturalism” steps in, which says that scientific naturalism is too reductionist, meaning that it reduces our explanation and understanding of the cosmos or universe to chance, and physical things locked together in a mechanistic system.
“Meta” (in poetic meta-naturalism) asserts that the structure of reality has levels and that there are higher orders that emerge, which operate in ways that seem intelligent, purposeful, causal, self-organizing and self-determining. A related term is “evolutionary epistemology”, which argues that evolution is a learning process, and that the universe evolves as a result of a self-organizing/determining process.
You might see how these terms could worry Sean Carroll. “Higher order”, “intelligent”, “purposeful”, “self-determining” might feel a little too much for someone who has abandoned any explanations for natural phenomena that evoke the supernatural.
This may be a good time to mention the Hegel Dialectic, which is the tendency of a notion to pass over into its own negation as the result of conflict between its inherent contradictory aspects, and then resolve itself with a third synergistic alternative. It’s often explained as: Thesis → Antithesis → Synthesis. The way it would work in this case might be:
Thesis: God created the universe.
Antithesis: The universe is explained in natural terms without God or any supernatural component.
Synthesis: The universe is an evolutionary process that involves dynamics that transcend the natural explanation, but that are not “God” or “supernatural”.
I’ll shut up now. I plan to write a more extensive upcoming article on teleology and Quantum Darwinism.
Nobel Prize-winning Belgian cytologist and biochemist, Christian René de Duve wrote:
“If the universe is not meaningless, what is its meaning? For me, this meaning is to be found in the structure of the universe, which happens to be such as to produce thought by way of life and mind. Thought, in turn, is a faculty whereby the universe can reflect upon itself, discover its own structure, and apprehend such immanent entities as truth, beauty, goodness, and love. Such is the meaning of the universe, as I see it.”
What Subscribers are Saying
Thank you, Beverly, for your words of encouragement. I appreciate your wisdom about the need to identify and shed the “conditioning” that no longer serves our well-being, growth, and self-actualization. It involves turning away from the false beliefs, mindsets, narratives and ideologies that have been programmed into our heads through tradition, education, religion, government, mass-media, pop culture, corporatism and other societal institutions. As we do our own inner work of divesting ourselves from the false beliefs, mindsets, narratives and ideologies that have been ruling us from within, then it only stands to reason that we will no longer perpetuate and participate in the destructive ways, systems and structures of our world that are based on these false premises.
So, I say, rouse your inner anarchist!
The inner anarchist realizes that the lack of peace, freedom, harmony, and well-being in the world is a reflection of the lack of these within himself or herself.
The inner anarchist addresses the root cause of their own suffering, disharmony and oppression, and realizes that this is necessary in order to aid the liberation of others.
The inner anarchist stops and questions the beliefs, mindsets, narratives and ideologies that are ruling, governing, and determining their lives. They turn away from these powers that have been programmed into their heads, and reclaim possession of their own lives.
Inner anarchists stop externalizing the authority for their lives, and operate from the power and authority within themselves. They trust what is real in their deepest feelings, utilize their innate tools and capacities such as reason, moral intuition, critical thinking and self-reflection, and follow the highest truths they know are true in their gut.
This Week in Pictures
The word “theology” means “the study of God.” But unfortunately, what often happens look like this:
The study of God becomes an academic discipline with theological degrees.
Explanations about God become reified and accepted with religious devotion.
People believe that their particular words, concepts, explanations, views and doctrines correctly define and describe “God”.
Believing you are “right” about God is typically disastrous for many reasons, including: the false assumption that “God” is the equivalent of one’s particular theology; how being “right” about God spawns division, animosity, and hostility.
The Tribute in Light memorial illuminates the New York skyline to mark the 23rd anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The September 11 attacks killed 2,977 people, making it the deadliest terrorist attack in history.
Italy’s Jannik Sinner celebrates with the trophy after winning his final match against Taylor Fritz of the U.S. at the U.S. Open in New York. At the top of the current ATP world tennis rankings are:
Jannik Sinner (Italy)
Alexander Zverev (German)
Carlos Alcaraz (Spain)
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself. This week, in addition to the Presidential debate, Taylor Swift and TikTok pet sandwiches dominated the political landscape. That’s all I have to say about that. I’ll let
, and handle it from here.Substack Roundup (Spirituality Edition)
What follows are a few articles from friends on Substack, which I hope you find meaningful today for your own spiritual journey:
Haunted by
Never Forgiving Yourself (isn't a virtue) by
How to Deal with Change (Advice from the Stoics) by
An Expanded View of Self-Actualization by
31 Things I Did After Religion
What follows are 31 things I did that were part of my rebuilding and reconstruction process after leaving religion:
Made peace with my religious past.
Took responsibility for my happiness and well-being.
Stopped dividing up the world into "sacred" and "secular.”
Began listening to and trusting my inner voice.
Started looking past the externals, and relating to the deepest reality I knew was present in every human being.
Quit making my humanness the problem.
Resisted the need to build a persona around being an enlightened person.
Opened myself to the rhythm and flow of life in nature.
Explored what the natural sciences have to say about the universe and my humanness.
Focused on addressing the root cause of my suffering.
Paid attention to my deepest desires and passions.
Cast off my fictitious self, and resolved to be an authentic and fully-expressed me.
Questioned and applied critical thinking to my default assumptions and beliefs about the world.
Expanded and diversified my relational world beyond my familiar subculture.
Resisted creating a new ism out of my latest discovery.
Operated with the assumption that every human being knew something I needed to know.
Resisted latching onto the latest guru, and began seeing all people as my teachers.
Explored new fields and areas of interest that were largely unknown to me.
Shifted my focus from the question of life after death to making the most of my life before death.
Approached my life as a reality I was free to create.
Became interested and involved in the lives of people I encountered naturally along the everyday paths of my life.
Became aware of ways I am complicit in the suffering of our world.
Determined what spirituality means to me.
Placed more emphasis on simple values such as goodness, kindness and compassion.
Incorporated daily practices of self-care.
Learned to say “no” to people, requests, expectations and situations that compromised my well-being.
Allowed myself to feel joy, happiness, serenity and contentment in my everyday human experiences.
Replaced previous religious disciplines of church attendance, bible reading and prayer with new interests that promoted my mental and spiritual well-being.
Converted my anger and disillusionment with toxic religion into deeper compassion for others who are indoctrinated and trapped in a harmful belief system as I was.
Gave up the burden of achieving some epic victory in the world for God, and embraced the significance of simply loving my neighbor.
Came to the realization that the purpose of life is to know true happiness.
In Summary
“Christian Atheism” and “death of God theology” seem like strange terms, but so does “small crowd”, “silent scream”, and “clearly misunderstood”.
Science is not fond of supernatural explanations, but that doesn’t mean the universe can be explained entirely by equations and might require metaphors.
Theology is the study of God, but that doesn’t mean that what we come up with is the gospel truth.
Taylor Swift and TikTok cat sandwich videos could swing the Presidential election, but what about Metallica fans and vegans??? :)
Thanks for subscribing to my Substack and making this possible. If you find what I write and share meaningful, consider becoming a paid subscriber and recommending my publication. Thank you! :)
“Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened.”
- Anatole France
Scientific equations are metaphors in a very precise language typically fully understood and appreciated only by those familiar with a very narrow dialect of that laguage. Excerpting one equation from a paper is similar to lucky dipping a Bible verse to prove a point, and presenting it in the original Hebrew. Bad science. Bad exegesis.
As a physicist I have written similar equations understood by some physicists and laser engineers. To others I summarize my paper as measuring how a laser beam spreads and blurs; without showing them the integral equation of a high order two-dimensional exponential.
I’ve been reading your Substack for a couple of weeks. You’ve already helped me deconstruct my indoctrination that “God” must be omniscient and omnipotent. Which helps explain something that I’ve know for a long time - I am both atheist and agnostic. Atheist in the sense that I am certain that there is no omniscient and omnipotent God. Agnostic in the sense that I am open to the possibility of a God that is sentient. Which would be quite an accomplishment for anything that BIG, right? That was week 1; and now we get this for week 2.
One thing that you alluded to that I would like to restate more firmly. The contradiction between science and spirituality is false, or at the very least exaggerated. All of us use both of them constantly, and I have concluded (teleologically) that the more we intermingle them the better the results. Scientifically speaking, aren’t we just talking about the difference between the right and left brain? In which case, I amend “all of us” to “almost all” and point out that this is a testable hypothesis.