The ‘God’ word

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
01 May 2011 09:17
 

The concept of Pantheism can be agreed with or opposed, no doubt, but many great thinkers throughout human history have written about the idea, including people such as Spinoza, Einstein and this man, Stuart A Kauffman, one of the great Scientist/Philosophers of our age. Some eloquent commentary here from his wonderful book, ‘Reinventing The Sacred’

“God’s hand, finger outstretched, reaches towards Adam’s finger on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, an image of the Creator passing the breath of life to humanity. central to most creation myths is the view that life is a gift from God or the gods. The Pueblo speak of sipapu-sacred holes in the land that stretches from Mexico City to North of Santa Fe. According to the legend, the first people passed through sipapu from the underworld and populated this world. Interestingly, the Spaniards, after conquering the Pueblo, erected the famous Santuario de Chimayo directly over the northernmost sipapu, where a sacred hole is said to be the source of holy land. I have filtered this soft earth through my fingers in the Santuario, amid abandon crutches hanging on the walls. We build our churches on the holy sites of other cultures and install our own gods. Notre Dame sits on a holy druid site. ‘Ours is the true God’, we say by doing so. But this usurpation is also a kind of acknowledgement, a perverse honoring of the more ancient culture: a holy site is a holy site, just as a holy day is a holy day. In the same way, our scientific view of the origins of life overlies ancient creation myths. That is why I feel we must use the God word, for my hope is to honorably steal it’s aura to authorize the sacredness of the creativity in nature. may we find the creativity in nature sacred whether we are atheists or believers in a God who breathed life into this universe of ceaseless creativity.”

The first paragraph of Chapter 5, ‘The Origin of Life’

 
 
saralynn
 
Avatar
 
 
saralynn
Total Posts:  9140
Joined  29-01-2010
 
 
 
01 May 2011 13:15
 

If I had my druthers, I’d prefer to be a panentheist rather than simply a pantheist, but, both are statements of faith in something that can’t be proved, so it’s just one choice among many.  It’s a nice choice, however.

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  4391
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
09 May 2011 00:40
 

There are statements of faith and then there are statements of faith. Meaning that, yes, a theological claim is not subject to empirical investigation but we can make a distinction between a claim that trespasses on the domain of science and one that does not.

So far as I can discern non-interventionist beliefs are compatible with naturalism as neither really overlaps on the other. Theistic, supernatural dogmas, on the other, simply cannot be reconciled with serious scientific investigation because of their presumptions. At least not in the areas of cosmological or biological origins. The very definitions are poisoned from the start.

On the original article, I’m becoming less and less reactive to religious language when used metaphorically to describe the quality of human experience. Although I retain all my convictions that ancient scriptures are not a source of any revealed truth.