>EVERY DAY, I THINK ABOUT GOD. PERHAPS MY THOUGHTS SHOULD BE MORE WORSHIPFUL, BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS THICK WITH QUESTIONS. FOR DECADES, I'VE FOCUSED ON GOD'S EXISTENCE.
DOES GOD EXIST? I ACHED TO KNOW. AND THE ENDLESS ROUNDS OF DEBATES BETWEEN BELIEVERS AND SKEPTICS, WHICH MANY LAMENT, I ENJOY.
THE GOD, NO GOD QUESTION IS SO CENTRAL TO HUMAN LIFE, I WANT HONESTY, NOT PLEASANTRY. BUT HOW CAN I ASSESS WHETHER GOD EXISTS WITHOUT EXPLORING WHAT KIND OF GOD IS SUPPOSED TO EXIST? I TURN TO THE POSSIBLE BEING, THE THING IN ITSELF AND SEEK GOD'S ESSENCE IN NATURE.
WHAT IS GOD? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN, AND CLOSE TO TRUTH IS MY LONG JOURNEY TO FIND OUT. I'M READY TO ASSESS ALL KIND OF GODS, BUT I START OUT STUMPED.
THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY. I CANNOT CHECK THEM ALL. BUT NEITHER LACK OF COMPLETENESS NOR LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE SHALL UNDERMINE MY COMMITMENT OR DAMPEN MY ENTHUSIASM.
I SHALL SPEAK WITH DIVERSE SCHOLARS, PHILOSOPHERS MOSTLY, WHO THING SERIOUSLY ABOUT GOD. BUT I BEGIN WITH A SCIENTIST. A QUANTUM PHYSICIST WHO BECAME AN ANGLICAN PRIEST.
A THOUGHT LEADER IN RELATING SCIENCE AND RELIGION, JOHN POLKINGHORNE. JOHN, BECAUSE I WAS TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST AND ALWAYS HAD AN INTEREST IN THEOLOGY, A LOT OF MY SCIENTIFIC FRIENDS WOULD BE A LITTLE SUSPICIOUS OF ME, BUT THEY'D ALWAYS SAY, CONDESCENDINGLY, WHATEVER WORKS FOR YOU. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT WORKS FOR ME.
I'M REALLY NOT. I'M INTERESTED IN WHAT'S REAL. WHAT DO YOU IMAGINE THE CONCEPT OF GOD MEANS?
>>WELL, IN VERY BROAD TERMS, I THINK THE CONCEPT OF GOD APPLIES FOR ME, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THERE IS A MIND BEHIND THE ORDER OF THE WORLD, AND THERE IS A PURPOSE BEHIND ITS UNFOLDING HISTORY. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A GROUND OF ULTIMATE VALUE, SO OUR EXPERIENCES OF BEAUTY AND OF TRUTH ARE GLIMPSES OF AN ETERNAL REALITY. AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONE WHO IS THE GROUND OF HOPE, THAT THE GOD I, IN WHOM I BELIEVE, IS A ONE WHOM I CAN TRUST, WHO CARES FOR ME, A GOD WITH WHOM THE LAST WORK WILL LIE AND NOT WITH DEATH FOR EXAMPLE, SO THAT I BELIEVE IN A DESTINY BEYOND DEATH.
THEN THE QUESTION IS, WHY SHOULD ONE HAVE THOSE, THOSE SORT OF BELIEFS. AND I THINK HERE, AS A SCIENTIST, I APPROACH THIS WITH A HABERSHAM OF THOUGHT WHICH SCIENCE IMBUES IN YOU. YOU SEE, A SCIENTIST DOESN'T INSTINCTIVELY ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT'S REASONABLE, BECAUSE WE'VE FOUND TIME AND AGAIN, THE PHYSICAL WORLD IS VERY SURPRISING, I MEAN, NOBODY IN 1899 WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THE QUANTUM THEORY WAS REASONABLE.
WE ASK NOT WHAT IS IT REASONABLE, BUT WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ALWAYS SEEKING TO DO IN RELATION TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF, TO APPLY MOTIVATIONS FOR MY, MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I FIND THEM PARTLY IN GENERAL THINGS LIKE THE, THE STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE IS FRUITFUL AS I THOUGHT (?
), PARTLY ALSO IN THE MUCH MORE PERSONAL REALM OF, UM, ACCOUNTED WITH THE SACRED AND, AND RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND OBEDIENCE AND AWE AND SO ON. ALL THEOLOGISTS I THINK WOULD SAY THAT HUMAN LANGUAGE, FINITE HUMAN LANGUAGE RUNS OUT WHEN YOU TRY TO TALK ABOUT THE INFINITE REALITY OF GOD. SO IN SOME SENSE WE'RE STRETCHING HUMAN LANGUAGE, TRYING TO PUSH IT IN AN APPROPRIATE DIRECTION.
I MEAN WE'VE USED PERSONAL TERMS ABOUT GOD IN MANY OF OUR RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS, CERTAINLY MY CHRISTIAN TRADITION, NOT BECAUSE WE THINK GOD IS A SORT OF BE-INVISIBLE PERSON, BUT, BUT IT IS LESS MISLEADING TO USE PERSONAL LANGUAGE THAN IMPERSONAL LANGUAGE. CLEARLY, IF GOD IS GOD, GOD IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ANYTHING ELSE. GOD IS NOT BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE IN THE WAY THE UNIVERSE IS BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE AND WHICH YOU AND I ARE BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE.
THERE MUST BE AN ETERNAL, A TIMELESS ELEMENT TO GOD, THAT GOD IS ALWAYS THERE, SO TO SPEAK. BUT ALSO, I BELIEVE, THAT IF GOD BRINGS INTO BEING A WORLD OF UNFOLDING TEMPORALITY, GOD INTERACTS WITH THAT UNFOLDING PROCESS, AND THAT MEANS TO ME THAT GOD DOESN'T JUST KNOW THAT EVENTS SUCCEED EACH OTHER, BUT GOD KNOWS EVENTS IN THEIR SUCCESSION. I BELIEVE THAT MEANS THAT GOD DOES NOT YET KNOW THE FUTURE.
>WOULD THAT MAKE YOUR GOD A LITTLE BUT VULNERABLE? >>WELL I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. >DOES THAT MEAN THAT GOD IS, IS LESS OF A PERSON THAN TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE HAS SAID?
>>SOMETIMES IT MAKES GOD MORE OF A PERSON, BECAUSE PART OF PERSONALITY IS TO BE, IS TO BE VULNERABLE. IT'S NOT TO BE TOTALLY IN CONTROL. IF I'M A, A MANIPULATIVE PERSON, A TOTALLY MANIPULATIVE PERSON, IS IN SOME SENSE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.
IT'S AN OXYMORON. SOME CRITICS OF THAT WOULD SAY THAT IT'S TOO ANTHROPICAL FOR ME JUST PREDICTING IMAGES OF OUR OWN FINITE, THERE'S NOT AN INFINITE GOD. BUT I, I THINK THAT IT'S A, IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT INSIGHT.
>GOD IS GROUND OF BEING, OF ULTIMATE VALUE AND OF HOPE. BUT GOD WAS VULNERABLE, NOT A MASTER MANIPULATOR, BUT A CONCERNED CREATOR. ELEGANT, NOT UNEXPECTED.
I LOVE THE GRANDEUR, I MISS THE SURPRISE. HOW TO EXPAND MY INQUIRY, WHAT IS GOD? SEE A DIFFERENT VISION, GET A DIFFERENT TAKE?
I EXPLORE CHRISTENDOM'S SECOND LARGEST SYSTEM. I MEET AN EASTERN ORTHODOX PRIEST AND PATRISTICS SCHOLAR, THE DEAN OF SAINT VLADIMIR'S ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, JOHN BEHR. >>I THINK THE QUESTION REALLY SHOULD BE, NOT WHAT IS GOD, BUT WHO IS GOD.
MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, WE THINK ABOUT WHAT IS GOD, AND WE THINK OF HIM, USUALLY IN TERMS OF SUPER HUMAN PROJECTIONS. HE IS INFINITELY WISE, HE'S INFINITELY GREAT, HE'S INFINITELY STRONG, HE CAN CONTROL ALL THINGS, IN A SENSE, DOESN'T REALLY KNOW MORE THAN OUR PROJECTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE THINK A GOOD VITLAGE, THAT WE NEED TO BE REALLY QUITE CONCRETE, BECAUSE IN A SENSE, THAT CAN BE NOTHING MORE THAN A FANTASY. YOU PROJECT ALL OF THAT AND THEN YOU ASK, WELL DOES THAT EXIST ANYWAY, AND IF SO WHY IS THE WORLD LIKE THIS, AND YOU GET INTO AN ENDLESS CYCLE OF QUESTIONS.
UM, FOR CHRISTIANS, FOR AN EASTERN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN AND FOR A SCHOLAR OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY, THE QUESTION REALLY IS, WHO IS GOD? AND THAT QUESTION, WE, WE TAKE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL, AND IT'S ANSWERED SIMPLY BY THE PERSON OF CHRIST. NOT JUST BY THE PERSON OF CHRIST AS KIND OF ABSTRACT NOTION, BUT BY WHAT HE SHOWS US.
THE APOSTLE PAUL DESCRIBES CHRIST AS BEING THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD. WE LOOK HERE TO SEE GOD. THE PARADIGMATIC MOMENT THAT WOULD BE HIS PASSION.
THE DISCIPLES DON'T UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE THAT, SAVE ON THE WAY THEY COME TO THE EMPTY TOMB, WHICH WE PROBABLY THINK WOULD BE THE DEFINING MOMENT THAT THEY DON'T GET IT, THEY SEE THE RISEN LORD, THEY DON'T GET IT, OPEN THE SCRIPTURES, THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD ON THE ROAD TO MERCY, FINALLY REALIZE WHO HE IS, AND THAT THEY REALIZE THEN THAT HE, BY HIS DEATH, HAS CONQUERED DEATH. NOW, THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT. HERE, THIS IS WHAT IT IS TO BE GOD, IT'S NOT A WAY GOD CHOSE TO REVEAL HIMSELF WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.
THIS IS WHAT IT IS TO BE GOD, HE'S COSUBSTANTIAL WITH GOD. HE SHOWS US WHAT IT IS TO BE GOD, AND WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN IN ONE, BY THE WAY THAT HE DIES AS A HUMAN BEING. IF HE'S OMNIPOTENT, HIS OMNIPOTENCE IS WORKED THROUGH HUMILITY, THROUGH WEAKNESS, THROUGH BROKENNESS, THROUGH DEATH ON THE CROSS.
YEAH? IF HE'S OMNISCIENT, IT'S ALSO EXERCISED IN THAT WAY, THE WISDOM OF GOD EXPRESSED WITH HIS BODY ON THE CROSS. ALL THE TERMS WE STARTED OFF WITH WHEN WE ASKED A QUESTION, WHAT IS GOD, ARE NOW INVERTED.
IN THIS WAY, WE'RE ABLE TO TAKE PART IN IT AS WELL. IF IT'S SHOWN US WHAT IT IS TO BE GOD BY THROWING LIGHTNING BOLTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOUR TYPICAL MYTHOLOGICAL IMAGINATION, WELL I CAN'T DO THAT, YEAH? BUT THE ONE THING THAT ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE GOT IN COMMON IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DIE.
FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD ONWARDS. THEY'RE ALL TIME SPACE CULTURE, THEY'RE GOING TO DIE. AND WHAT HE'S SHOWN IS A WAY OF USING DEATH IN A WAY THAT'S DIVINE.
>BY STARTING WITH WHO IS GOD RATHER THAN WHAT IS GOD, ARE YOU NOT PRESUPPOSING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD ALREADY, AND TAKING US DOWN A PATH THAT SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT BE WILLING TO BEGIN TO WALK? >>YOU CAN'T PRESUPPOSE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHICH GOD IT IS YOU PRESUPPOSE EXISTS. WELL, THIS IS THE ONE I CONFESS TO BE GOD.
WHEN I MEET ATHEISTS, WHEN I GO TO TALK WITH STUDENTS AND THEY ASK ME ABOUT THE QUESTION OF ATHEISM, SAY, I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, MY QUESTION IS WELL, WHAT GOD IS IT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN, BECAUSE THE CHANCES ARE, I WOULDN'T BELIEVE IN A GOD EITHER. IF YOU'VE BEEN BROUGHT UP TO THINK THAT GOD IS AN OMNISCIENT BEING OUT THERE CONTROLLING EVERYTHING, WELL THERE'S NO CONTENT TO THOSE. YOU NEED ACTUAL CONTENT TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND CHRIST SHOWS US THIS PARTICULAR VISION OF GOD.
>EXPRESSED HERE, IN CHRISTIAN FORM, JOHN'S INSIGHT IS POWERFUL. A GOD WHOSE STRENGTH COMES THROUGH WEAKNESS, WHO USES DEATH TO GIVE LIFE. BUT IS SUCH A GOD MORE REAL?
I CANNOT TELL. ON THE ONE HAND, THE CONTRASTING TRAITS ARE PROVOCATIVE AND PROFOUND. ON THE OTHER HAND, COULD THE REAL CREATOR EVER REALLY BE WEAK?
I'M IMPRINTED BY THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF GOD. IF GOD EXISTS, MY CONCEPT OF GOD MUST BE RIGHT. BUT THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
I NEED TO BREAK FREE, TO SEE MORE AND FEEL FURTHER OF WHAT GOD MIGHT BE. SO I GO TO BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND, TO MEET A DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR WHO TRANSFORMED HIMSELF DRAMATICALLY FROM A CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST INTO PERHAPS THE GREATEST LIVING PHILOSOPHER OF GLOBAL RELIGION, JOHN HICK. JOHN, HOW DO YOU LOOK AT GOD?
>>WELL, IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY GOD. IF MOST PEOPLE MEAN AN INFINITE, ALL POWERFUL, PERSONAL BEING, THEN I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY SUCH BEING FOR SEVERAL REASONS. ONE IS THAT, UM, PERSONALITY IS INHERENTLY FINITE, YOU SEE, IF YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE TALKING AS WE ARE, WE HAVE TO BE SEPARATE.
WE HAVE, THERE HAS TO BE A BOUNDARY BETWEEN US, AND IF THERE WAS AN INFINITE PERSON, THERE COULD ONLY BE ONE PERSON. THERE'D BE NO ROOM FOR OTHER PEOPLE, SO THE IDEA OF AN INFINITE PERSON IS, I THINK, CONTRADICTORY, SELF CONTRADICTORY. ANOTHER REASON IS THE VERY OBVIOUS ONE OF THE AMOUNT OF SUFFERING AND PAIN AND DISASTER IN THE WORLD.
UH, IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL, WHY DOES HE NOT REMOVE ALL EVIL, UM, IF HE'S NOT ALL POWERFUL THEN, THEN THERE IS NO ALL POWERFUL GOD. AND, UM, MY OWN PERSONAL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE IS NOT OF A PERSONAL GOD, IT IS OF A TRANSCENDENT REALITY THAT IS, UH, BEYOND, UH, PAUL TILLICH'S FAMOUS PHRASE, IT'S THE GOD BEYOND THE GOD OF THEISM. >SO, YOU REJECT THE TRADITIONAL ABRAHAMIC GOD OF JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM - >>YES.
>BUT YOU DON'T JUMP ALL THE WAY TO NATURALISM AND MATERIALISM AND SAYING THERE'S NOTHING BEYOND THE PHYSICAL. >>NO, AND CERTAINLY. >SO, HOW CAN YOU DEFINE THIS TRANSCENDENCE THAT'S NOT A PERSONAL GOD?
>>WELL, THERE'S CERTAIN DATA THAT NEED TO BE EXPLAINED. ONE IS THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD. ANOTHER IS THAT THEY, IN THEIR DOCTRINES, THEY OFTEN CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER.
ANOTHER IS THAT THEY EACH SEEM TO BE, SO FAR AS WE CAN TELL, MORE OR LESS EQUALLY PRODUCTIVE, GOOD PEOPLE, AND OF SAINTLINESS. NOW, HOW ARE WE TO EXPLAIN ALL THIS, FROM A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW? I THINK WE HAVE TO POSTULATE A REALITY BEYOND AND SO TO SPEAK, BEHIND THE GODS AND THE, UH, THE ULTIMATES OF THE, OF THE NON-THEISTIC RELIGIONS, SOMETHING THAT IS BEYOND HUMAN, UM, KNOWLEDGE, TRANSCATEGORIAL , BEYOND THE CATEGORIES OF THE HUMAN MIND, UNABLE TO BE DESCRIBED IN HUMAN TERMS, BUT WHICH NEVERTHELESS IS EXPERIENCED AND THOUGHT BY HUMAN BEINGS IN HUMAN TERMS AS A PERSONAL GOD, OR AS THE DHARMA OR NIRVANA, DOMAKAIR, THE DAO, ET CETERA.
THESE ARE HUMAN FORMS IN WHICH THE ULTIMATE IS HUMANLY THOUGHT AND THEREFORE HUMANLY EXPERIENCED WITHIN THE DIFFERENT TRADITIONS. >YOU'VE CALLED THIS THE REAL. >>YES.
WITH A CAPITAL R. >HOW IS IT THAT ALL DIFFERENT RELIGIONS, UH, HAVE THEIR OWN SPECIFIC KIND OF GOD OR RELATIONSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO SEEING THE REAL AS THE REAL? >>WELL, BECAUSE WE ALL LIVE WITHIN AND CREATED BY A CULTURE.
WE INHERIT A VAST QUANTITY OF IDEAS AND BELIEFS AND ASSUMPTIONS, ABOVE ALL, ASSUMPTIONS. NOT THINGS THAT WE SEE, BUT THINGS THROUGH WHICH WE SEE EVERYTHING. AND, UM, THESE ASSUMPTIONS TODAY, ARE NATURALISTIC FOR MOST PEOPLE.
BUT THE VERY IMPORTANT DATUM WHICH THE NATURALISTS DO NOT TAKE ACCOUNT, IS WHAT I WOULD CALL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. NOW, I'VE HAD ONE OF THESE, VERY BRIEF VIVID EXPERIENCES ONCE MYSELF, BUT A GREAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE. >WHAT CAN WE INFER FROM THAT REGARDING THE REALITY OF THE REAL?
>>THERE IS SOMETHING BEYOND THE PHYSICAL, AND THEN YOU SEE WE'RE CONFRONTED WITH THE RELIGIONS AND THEIR VERY DIFFERENT IDEAS OF WHAT THIS IS. I THINK WE HAVE TO POSTULATE A REALITY THAT IS, UH, NOT IDENTICAL WITH ANY ONE OF THEM, IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THEIR BEING, TRANSCENDENT REALITY OF SOME KIND. >JOHN'S THE REAL, WHICH IS IMPERSONAL AND INDESCRIBABLE, OTHER THAN BEING TRANSCENDENT AND TRANSCATEGORIAL, IS NOT GOD IN ANY TRADITIONAL SENSE.
BUT IF ONE REJECTS BOTH MATERIALISM AND A PERSONAL GOD, JOHN'S THE REAL IS A PLACE TO PONDER ULTIMATE REALITY. ME, I'M NOT READY TO REJECT EITHER. MATERIALISM SEEMS THE PURE OUTPUT OF SCIENCE, AND A PERSONAL GOD IS WHAT I WISH TO EXIST.
NOR SHOULD I IGNORE THE REAL, WHICH IN A WAY, SITS SQUARELY IN THE MIDDLE, OFFERING NON-PHYSICAL REALITY TO PUT THE LIE TO MATERIALISM AND IMPERSONAL TRANSCENDENCE TO PUT PAID TO A PERSONAL GOD. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO ULTIMATE REALITY, I DON'T LIKE THE MIDDLE. TRUTH IS TRUTH WHEREVER IT SITS, INCLUDING AT EITHER EXTREME.
I HEAR THE PHILOSOPHER WHO ARGUES, FROM THE FACT THAT NOT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE PRESENCE OF GOD, TO THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD. JOHN SCHELLENBERG. JOHN CLAIMS THAT WHILE THERE IS NO PERSONAL GOD, THERE MAY BE ULTIMATE REALITY BEYOND THE PHYSICAL.
JOHN, YOU'VE DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THEISM, A TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO GOD, AND WHAT YOU CALL ULTIMISM. SO, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY ULTIMISM. >>OKAY.
BY ULTIMISM, I MEAN THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS A REALITY THAT IS ULTIMATE IN THREE DIFFERENT WAYS. ONE IS METAPHYSICAL ULTIMACY. BY THAT I MEAN THAT THIS REALITY, SHOULD IT EXIST, UM WOULD BE THE DEEPEST FACT ABOUT THE NATURE OF THINGS, AND SO THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL EXPLANATION FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE GIVEN IN TERMS OF THE REALITY OF THIS, IF INDEED IT IS METAPHYSICALLY ULTIMATE.
BUT IT'S NOT JUST METAPHYSICALLY ULTIMATE, I MEAN, SCIENCE AND RELIGION MIGHT BE TOGETHER. THEY'RE BOTH LOOKING FOR SOMETHING METAPHYSICALLY ULTIMATE. BUT I THINK THAT WHAT THIS IS - >UNIVERSE, THE UNIVERSE COULD BE ULTIMATE.
>>RIGHT, RIGHT, OR SOME BASIC PHYSICAL FACT. BUT WHERE THEY START TO DIVERGE IS WHEN IT COMES TO THE SECOND SORT OF ULTIMACY, THAT I'VE CALLED AXIOLOGICAL - >VALUES. >>YEAH.
IT REFERS TO VALUE. UM, AND THE DEEPEST POSSIBLE VALUE, THE SORT OF THING THAT GIVES SENSE TO, TO WHAT YOU SEE WHEN PEOPLE ARE WORSHIPPING. >BUT YOU SAY IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A BEING, IT CAN BE JUST SOME ULTIMATE VALUES.
>>WELL THAT'S WHY I WANT TO USE THE WORD REALITY VERY GENERALLY, SO IT ALLOWS FOR MANY, MANY DIFFERENT WAYS OF BEING FILLED OUT. UM, AND THE THIRD SORT OF ULTIMACY, WHICH CONTINUES, YOU KNOW, TO MOVE RELIGION AWAY FROM ANYTHING THAT SCIENCE MIGHT BE CONCERNED WITH, IS WHAT I CALL SOTERRIOLOGICAL ULTIMACY. SOTERRIOLOGY IS THE STUDY OF SALVATION, UM, WELL, IF YOU CALL IT SALVATION, YOU KNOW, COULD CALL IT ENLIGHTENMENT, LIBERATION.
IF RELIGION IS TRUE, THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF ULTIMATE GOOD POSSIBLE FOR US, FOR HUMANITY AND THE WORLD, IN RELATION TO THIS REALITY. SO, SO BY ULTIMISM, I MEAN THE CLAIM THAT, THAT THERE IS A REALITY THAT IS METAPHYSICALLY, AXIOLOGICALLY AND SOTERIOLOGICALLY ULTIMATE. WE'RE NOT SAYING, UM, THAT IT IS A PERSON, UH, WHO IS ULTIMATE IN THIS WAY, AND YET TRADITION THEISM SAYS THAT.
TRADITIONAL THEISM IS THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS AN ULTIMATE REALITY THAT IS PERSONAL. SO IT'S NOT A SURPRISE THAT THEISM THINKS OF THIS PERSON AS HAVING ALL THESE OMNI PROPERTIES, YOU KNOW, OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, OMNIBENEVOLENT. WHY ALL THESE OMNI ATTRIBUTES, YOU MIGHT ASK?
WELL, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S ONLY IF GOD HAS THOSE SORTS OF ATTRIBUTES, THE TRADITIONAL THEISTIC GOD, THAT IT WOULD BE WORTHY OF WORSHIP AND LOVING AS WELL, UM, MAKING AVAILABLE A KIND OF RELATIONSHIP. SO THIS IS SOTERRIOLOGICAL ULTIMACY CASHED OUT IN PERSONAL TERMS. SO THEISM REPRESENTS ONE WAY OF FILLING OUT THIS BROADER IDEA OF ULTIMISM, BUT THE TWO ARE DISTINCT, I MEAN, THEISM ENTAILS ULTIMISM, THAT IS THEISM CAN ONLY BE TRUE IF ULTIMISM IS, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
ULTIMISM CAN BE TRUE EVEN IF THEISM IS NOT. >JOHN'S ULTIMISM IS NOT THEISM. HE HAS NO PERSONAL GOD.
BUT JOHN DOES REQUIRE THREE FACTORS FOR HIS ULTIMISM TO BE RELIGIOUS. ULTIMATE FACTS, ULTIMATE VALUES, AND PROFOUND HUMAN CONNECTIONS TO THOSE FACTS AND VALUES. I LIKE THE BROAD AND INCLUSIVE FRAMEWORK, BUT FRET ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE NO LONGER ESSENTIAL.
ULTIMATE PERSONHOOD IS DISMISSED, AND ULTIMATE PERFECTION IS DEMOTED. WHAT GOOD IS A GOD THAT IS NOT A PERSON? WHAT BENEFIT OF AN ULTIMATE REALITY WITH NO THOUGHTS, NO INTENTIONS, NO FEELINGS, AND IMPERSONAL GOD IS NOT LIKELY TO HELP US MORTALS WHEN OUR MORTALITY SHALL COME TO PASS.
A LITTLE WISER, A LITTLE WARY, I RETURN TO THE TRADITIONAL GOD. I VISIT THE AUTHOR OF THEISM AND ULTIMATE EXPLANATION, PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION, TIMOTHY O'CONNOR. AGAIN I ASK, WHAT IS GOD?
>>GOD IS JUST PURE PERFECTION. GOD IS THE TRANSCENDENT CREATOR OF ALL ELSE, TOTALLY SELF -SUFFICIENT BEING, PERFECT IN POWER, KNOWLEDGE, GOODNESS. PHILOSOPHERS AND THEOLOGIANS HAVE LONG THOUGHT OF GOD IN THE WAY I'VE DESCRIBED AS A PERFECT BEING, AND THAT HAS LED THEM TO SOME VERY COUNTERINTUITIVE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF GOD, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT GOD IS UTTERLY OUTSIDE OF TIME.
THAT MIGHT SOUND LIKE A HARMLESS THING TO SAY, BUT WHEN YOU TRY TO UNPACK THAT, YOU REALIZE IT MEANS THAT THERE'S NO CHANGE OF STATE IN GOD. GOD DOESN'T FIRST THINK THIS, THEN THAT, THE SOME OTHER THING. AND SO IF GOD IS SOMEHOW INTERACTING WITH A HUMAN BEING, THE PERSON NATURALLY THINKS OF HIMSELF AS EXPRESSING SOME THOUGHT TO GOD, AND THAT GOD IN SOME MEASURE RESPONDING TO THAT, A SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THAT GOD IS BOUND UP WITH.
BUT IF GOD IS OUTSIDE OF TIME, THERE, THERE IS NO BEFORE AND AFTER. IT'S JUST ONE ETERNAL NOW, AND THAT, THAT BEGINS TO SEEM VERY IMPERSONAL. >THE OTHER PROPERTIES YOU MENTIONED, VERY QUICKLY, ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWLEDGEABLE, ALL GOOD, IS THAT THE TOTALITY OF WHAT GOD IS OR ARE THERE, IS THERE A THOUSAND DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS, OR ARE THERE ONLY FOUR?
>>WE ASCRIBE TO GOD, UM, CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER AND GOODNESS AND KNOWLEDGE, IN PART BECAUSE THEY SEEM TO US TO BE - >OKAY, THOSE ARE THREE, I'VE GOT THREE, OKAY. >>RIGHT, AND YOU MIGHT ADD, WE MIGHT COME UP WITH ANOTHER HANDFUL OR SO - >BUT I WON'T NEED MORE THAN TWO HANDS. >>I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
>OKAY. ALL RIGHT, IN TWO HANDS, I CAN ENCAPSULATE GOD. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME?
>>YOU CAN ENCAPSULATE THE EXTENT OF WHAT WE CAN CONCEIVE OF GOD. >THE CORE CHARACTERISTIC. >>RIGHT.
BUT IT MIGHT BE THAT THERE IS AN INFINITY OF PERFECTIONS IN GOD. >THERE'RE SOME THINGS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO GOD, OR ARE THEY ALL ESSENTIAL TO GOD? >>THE CORE IS PERFECTION ITSELF AND, UM, WE MIGHT PERSUADE OURSELVES THAT POWER IS A VERY FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE, RIGHT?
THE ABILITY TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN. SO IT SEEMS LIKE IF THAT'S TRUE OF GOD, YOU KNOW SOMETHING PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL ABOUT GOD. UH, IF GOD IS A MINDED REALITY, A BEING HAVING THOUGHTS, PURPOSES, IT'S SOMETHING ANALOGOUS TO THE WAY THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAVE THOUGHTS AND PURPOSES.
THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT, FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTIC OF GOD. UH, THERE MIGHT BE MORE ESOTERIC THOUGH, ASPECTS OF GOD THAT ARE EQUALLY ESSENTIAL TO GOD'S NATURE THAT, THAT, UM, WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT, BECAUSE NOTHING, THERE'S NOTHING CORRESPONDING TO IT IN OUR SPATIAL-TEMPORAL , FINITE, LIMITED REALITY IN THE WAY THAT THERE IS SOMETHING CORRESPONDING TO POWER AND KNOWLEDGE AND, AND WILL. >IS IT FAIR TO SAY YOU'RE DEFINING GOD AS, AS AN ULTIMATE EXPLANATION?
GOD MUST BE AN ULTIMATE EXPLANATION OR IT'S NOT GOD? >>THAT'S RIGHT. IF WE GO BACK TO OUR FUNDAMENTAL CORE CONCEPT OF PURE PERFECTION, SUCH THAT THERE'S NO DEPENDENCY ON SOMETHING ELSE THAT PLAYS SOME EXPLANATORY ROLE TO YOU, THAT ACCOUNTS FOR WHY YOU ARE AS YOU ARE OR WHY YOU EXIST, THAT'S A MORE PERFECT WAY TO BE, SO IF GOD IS PURE PERFECTION, HE WOULD HAVE TO BE THAT WAY.
>HERE'S WHAT I'VE HEARD ABOUT ULTIMATE REALITY. CALL IT GOD, OR THE REAL, OR ULTIMISM, OR ANYTHING YOU LIKE. I BEGIN WITH GOD'S MOST GENERAL FEATURES, THEN ADD THOSE MORE SPECIFIC.
THE LIST IS CUMULATIVE, BUT IT CAN STOP AT ANY POINT. SO, GOD MAY BE ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, TRANSCENDENT REALITY, GROUND OF BEING, GROUND OF ULTIMATE VALUE, PURE PERFECTION, ULTIMATE MIND, ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING, ALL GOOD, PERSONAL, CONCERNED WITH HUMANS, STRENGTH THROUGH WEAKNESS, LIFE THROUGH DEATH. NOW, DOES ANYTHING EXIST TO WHICH ONE OR MORE OF THESE DESCRIPTORS REALLY APPLY?
IF SO, WHICH, AND WHY? DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF GOD'S DESPIRIT ME, IT'S WHAT I'D EXPECT IF HUMANS CREATED GOD, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I ASK THE QUESTIONS, BUT EXPECT NO ANSWERS.
I POST THE CATEGORIES BUT DARE NOT SELECT AMONG THEM. FOR GOD, PROGRESS ENOUGH ON CLOSER TO TRUTH.
