I like the idea that God is love, but I struggle with the reality that there is so much not love in the world. So I have concluded that God is a polarity with two hands and that no matter how much we evolve, the indifference of the universe is fundamental unless there is a vector, a telos toward love that remains hidden within the evolution of the universe.
i hear you... And honestly, me too. And also, what if that vector itself is love? (this would, roughly speaking, be an Alfred North Whitehead-influenced open and relational theology position)
To be clear, I have no agenda; no need need to get people to believe this. i just think that love might be at work in this way.
And if so, a)its pretty interesting and b)it could never really be co-opted by the special interest groups so enamored with dogmatism and certitude.
Hard not to write something approaching War and Peace after that! I would echo TTB's comment about the polarity or duality inherent in the universe and the fundamental asymmetry that preferences one over the other. This seems essential to the dynamism of the universe that would otherwise be static and lifeless.
I am also acutely aware of m own tendency to get lost in the weeds of these philosophical questions and how for many this level of discussion is meaningless so your reference to accessibility is really important. I say that, not from any lofty position but from a suspicion that too much philosophising leads us away from our lived reality and ultimately this is where we need to spend the majority of our time to live our lives and connect with others.
Having never bought into religion but always lived with this spark of belief in something more than the material I have not gone through the sort of crisis of cognitive dissonance that those fundamentally questioning their faith have. Nor have I, until my retirement a few years ago, had the time to explore this spark. It of course coincides with this End of Times era we are living in and has therefore acquired an even greater significance as the question of how else could we organise our human world becomes louder.
So perhaps the accessible approach is that Love and Hate or Good and Evil are necessary to allow us the choice and through our agency that that choice allows us we can create a flow towards the one that expands our world and permits the creativity that reflects the wonder of our world. The kicker is that the choice of love is not always the easy one!
RE: "how for many this level of discussion is meaningless, so your reference to accessibility is really important." I love how Tori brought us back to this in the conversation not once, but twice. Doing this stuff without any connection to lived reality would really miss the point, as much christianity (my tradition) does. (Not that I'm above missing the point.)
RE: The polarity or duality idea ... hmm, yes, I think so. Something about the way reality oscilates back and forth creates the tension needed for something new to happen. Lots of thoughts.
The first thing that came to mind ... Alfred North Whitehead said, "God’s initial aim is not fundamentally moral; but aesthetic." I want to say that something like beauty needs this oscilating tension, and if the function of religion is to keep us tethered to beauty, and it's ability to create new worlds, then there's a chance we could re-organize our world in ways that are, well, not only more beautiful, but in ways that are actually sustainable.
Beauty's not possible away from the tension though, and sigh, that's so much a part of our problem (imo) ... we have to incorporate the antagonism of the other, of our problems, of ourselves to engage with beauty. No way around; only through. 🤔
I’m relatively new to the philosophical literature and my primer has been Iain McGilchrist for whom Whitehead is a major influence. I am guessing that this is what Jim referred to as Process Philosophy as Iain’s view emphasises connection or relationship as the constant with the things related as the temporary manifestation of flow. Or existence as the continual experience of life that is in constant flux. On the duality front for beauty to exist there also has to be ugliness and often they coexist in the same form. Crazy stuff but it does make sense somewhere in the depths of me!
The purpose of the god concept is the cultivation of the "good world belief" or the idea that the universe is inherently a nice place to live. This why omnibenevolence is usually key feature of god. At least this is the case with "good" religions, so to speak. Check out myprimals.com for the theoretical framework behind Primal World Beliefs developed by UPenn Positive Psychology department, and to take their awesome quiz that measures how positively you view 26 different fundamental aspects of reality like trust, interconnectedness, safety, justice, and meaningfulness. My Substack may have a few things on this perspective, too!
I have listened to the entire podcast now and it was all great. Good job Tori and Jonathan and Jim!
I really want to hear or read sometime about the topic that could not be squeezed into 30 seconds, Christian atheism. And I would assume there's also Christian agnosticism which is very close to where I would locate myself, just a hair on the Christian side. With some Buddhism mixed in. Jim, tell us more sometime about Christian atheism. You probably already have somewhere in your set of massive (and fabulous) posts.
Jim, I have a question for you, a request for some quick advice or feedback. I am spending a fair amount of time further developing an issue I brought up at the end of my book, that God has evolved morally over the ages. That God was not always completely good but has become so watching the suffering of beings who arise through evolution. Where I'm further developing that idea is in my Substack series (Our Evolving God). In the end, I want to push it toward a Christian/Buddhist fusion that sees no God like the traditional Christian God but a being who evolved first and now we are evolving with the original "big brother" or "big sister" being lovingly urging us on toward a love-based enlightenment which it has achieved.
So my question is this: is that sort of theological project sensible to pursue, given Deconstructionism? Should we, in your opinion, be spending our time thinking about moving into more practical things like helping people deconstruct from abusive religious traditions, or is there also a place for people to explore way out there spiritual ideas?
I like the idea that God is love, but I struggle with the reality that there is so much not love in the world. So I have concluded that God is a polarity with two hands and that no matter how much we evolve, the indifference of the universe is fundamental unless there is a vector, a telos toward love that remains hidden within the evolution of the universe.
i hear you... And honestly, me too. And also, what if that vector itself is love? (this would, roughly speaking, be an Alfred North Whitehead-influenced open and relational theology position)
To be clear, I have no agenda; no need need to get people to believe this. i just think that love might be at work in this way.
And if so, a)its pretty interesting and b)it could never really be co-opted by the special interest groups so enamored with dogmatism and certitude.
Wonderful discussion!
Thank you, Tim!
Hard not to write something approaching War and Peace after that! I would echo TTB's comment about the polarity or duality inherent in the universe and the fundamental asymmetry that preferences one over the other. This seems essential to the dynamism of the universe that would otherwise be static and lifeless.
I am also acutely aware of m own tendency to get lost in the weeds of these philosophical questions and how for many this level of discussion is meaningless so your reference to accessibility is really important. I say that, not from any lofty position but from a suspicion that too much philosophising leads us away from our lived reality and ultimately this is where we need to spend the majority of our time to live our lives and connect with others.
Having never bought into religion but always lived with this spark of belief in something more than the material I have not gone through the sort of crisis of cognitive dissonance that those fundamentally questioning their faith have. Nor have I, until my retirement a few years ago, had the time to explore this spark. It of course coincides with this End of Times era we are living in and has therefore acquired an even greater significance as the question of how else could we organise our human world becomes louder.
So perhaps the accessible approach is that Love and Hate or Good and Evil are necessary to allow us the choice and through our agency that that choice allows us we can create a flow towards the one that expands our world and permits the creativity that reflects the wonder of our world. The kicker is that the choice of love is not always the easy one!
Thanks for a thought-provoking podcast.
Great comment ... yes ...
RE: "how for many this level of discussion is meaningless, so your reference to accessibility is really important." I love how Tori brought us back to this in the conversation not once, but twice. Doing this stuff without any connection to lived reality would really miss the point, as much christianity (my tradition) does. (Not that I'm above missing the point.)
RE: The polarity or duality idea ... hmm, yes, I think so. Something about the way reality oscilates back and forth creates the tension needed for something new to happen. Lots of thoughts.
The first thing that came to mind ... Alfred North Whitehead said, "God’s initial aim is not fundamentally moral; but aesthetic." I want to say that something like beauty needs this oscilating tension, and if the function of religion is to keep us tethered to beauty, and it's ability to create new worlds, then there's a chance we could re-organize our world in ways that are, well, not only more beautiful, but in ways that are actually sustainable.
Beauty's not possible away from the tension though, and sigh, that's so much a part of our problem (imo) ... we have to incorporate the antagonism of the other, of our problems, of ourselves to engage with beauty. No way around; only through. 🤔
Thanks, Richard
I’m relatively new to the philosophical literature and my primer has been Iain McGilchrist for whom Whitehead is a major influence. I am guessing that this is what Jim referred to as Process Philosophy as Iain’s view emphasises connection or relationship as the constant with the things related as the temporary manifestation of flow. Or existence as the continual experience of life that is in constant flux. On the duality front for beauty to exist there also has to be ugliness and often they coexist in the same form. Crazy stuff but it does make sense somewhere in the depths of me!
that's right .. mcgilchrist .. whitehead .. process .. relationship
ha, yes, somewhere in the depths, something rings true.
The purpose of the god concept is the cultivation of the "good world belief" or the idea that the universe is inherently a nice place to live. This why omnibenevolence is usually key feature of god. At least this is the case with "good" religions, so to speak. Check out myprimals.com for the theoretical framework behind Primal World Beliefs developed by UPenn Positive Psychology department, and to take their awesome quiz that measures how positively you view 26 different fundamental aspects of reality like trust, interconnectedness, safety, justice, and meaningfulness. My Substack may have a few things on this perspective, too!
I have listened to the entire podcast now and it was all great. Good job Tori and Jonathan and Jim!
I really want to hear or read sometime about the topic that could not be squeezed into 30 seconds, Christian atheism. And I would assume there's also Christian agnosticism which is very close to where I would locate myself, just a hair on the Christian side. With some Buddhism mixed in. Jim, tell us more sometime about Christian atheism. You probably already have somewhere in your set of massive (and fabulous) posts.
Jim, I have a question for you, a request for some quick advice or feedback. I am spending a fair amount of time further developing an issue I brought up at the end of my book, that God has evolved morally over the ages. That God was not always completely good but has become so watching the suffering of beings who arise through evolution. Where I'm further developing that idea is in my Substack series (Our Evolving God). In the end, I want to push it toward a Christian/Buddhist fusion that sees no God like the traditional Christian God but a being who evolved first and now we are evolving with the original "big brother" or "big sister" being lovingly urging us on toward a love-based enlightenment which it has achieved.
So my question is this: is that sort of theological project sensible to pursue, given Deconstructionism? Should we, in your opinion, be spending our time thinking about moving into more practical things like helping people deconstruct from abusive religious traditions, or is there also a place for people to explore way out there spiritual ideas?
Thank you for this conversation. Jim always provides valuable insight for me. ❤️