tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post3911343391066342264..comments2023-10-25T08:44:46.963-07:00Comments on Two Friars and A Fool: 10 Explanations of the TrinityAric Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-20903162683404424112010-06-15T17:53:10.533-07:002010-06-15T17:53:10.533-07:00Hey Nick,
Thanks for that. I, too, use the poeti...Hey Nick,<br /><br />Thanks for that. I, too, use the poetics and art of Christianity (and other philosophies) to help make sense of my experiences. <br /><br />That includes (Jodie) the resurrection of Jesus Christ. <br /><br />That isn't an elsewhere for me either. That is meaning-making with the help of my ancestors, by using symbols I have inherited.<br /><br />Good point about the mouse, although, I don't think that 100,000 years from now, either of us will be remembered, nor will we exist in any form. I do grant that my life, because I have consciousness has more value than the mouse (at least it does for me).<br /><br />The claim that we might exist in some form after death has been part of the classical Christian tradition. In fact, a central part. I say classical because some modern forms of Christianity reject life after death. The life after death, the reality of a being called God that gives us meaning (ie. "the chief end of man is to love God and enjoy him forever") that is the "elsewhere" that I personally don't find helpful or real. <br /><br />Now if all of that is just poetry, that we don't really mean that my conscience will survive my death when I talk about life after death, or if I define God so poetically and loosely that it is a synonym for Earth or goodness or whatever, then that is one thing. <br />I get by with that. <br /> <br />At the end of the day, my life appears to have no external or eternal meaning. I am as Kansas sings, "dust in the wind." <br /><br />It is a void into which I can only shout, "I am." Until, one day, I am not. <br /><br />I have decided for myself that I only can have integrity if I can face that void, laugh, and live anyway. <br /><br />"O Death, where is thy sting?" That is resurrection.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-47993451340780947722010-06-15T17:00:00.379-07:002010-06-15T17:00:00.379-07:00First let me say at least for my part I'm not ...First let me say at least for my part I'm not trying to insult you and as I read Doug I don't think he is either. I'll let doug define his two terms for you. But I did want to comment on one of your statements:<br /><br />" I cannot go elsewhere for meaning, because I don't think elsewhere exists, except in the mind of someone else.<br /><br />If I want meaning, I will have to create it from what I see really existing. "<br /><br />This is partially where the problem is taking place. When I refer to going elsewhere for meaning, I'm not talking about another life or existential reality (such as "heaven" or "hell") but instead are talking about the difference between things like physics and art. I find myself being drawn into the language of Christianity to make sense of the world around me. I find it to be useful way to describe what's going on in my local, national, and global context. When I see a patient come into my hospital after suffering a stroke and watch her fight back from being bed bound to walking again, I call that redemption. I call that salvation. When I see someone come in from suffering at the hands of another (physical abuse, etc)I call that sin. I don't want to take a real fatalistic approach to life. <br /><br />I won't believe you when you tell me when you die the same thing happens to you that happened to the mouse that you killed last week. As far as I can tell (maybe a mice expert would disagree I don't know) that mouse won't be missed in the same way you will be. When I see a family mourn the death of their matriarch grandmother I see a world that is fundamentally different for us than before she was born. For me I see that as real, to compare her life to a mouse does not.Nick Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03265851893310000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-52466033325287637542010-06-15T16:44:32.591-07:002010-06-15T16:44:32.591-07:00John,
I don't see why you need the resurrecti...John,<br /><br />I don't see why you need the resurrection to be a myth. <br /><br />The whole linchpin of Christianity is that it is NOT a myth. <br /><br />I think the Apostle Paul could tell the difference between myth and reality. As did the author of Luke and those who preserved the memory of Peter's first sermon. <br /><br />The story of the resurrection is taken so seriously precisely because of its presumed impossibility. It is at the very root of philosophy that when that which is assumed to be impossible is discovered to be true, old paradigms crumble and new paradigms arise. By all accounts, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth remains just such a "black swan". <br /><br />Obviously one can not (today) prove or disprove the resurrection (in spite of a long list of Fundamentalists who try). At the end of the day, we either accept it on the basis of our living experience or not. <br /><br />But for those who have concluded it to be true, the paradigm shifts have had the power to re-write their lives, sometimes starting from scratch. Its a good thing.<br /><br />Likewise, it does not have to be a myth in order for the rest of the natural world to exist with all its wonders (even though the Fundamentalists again would have it otherwise).<br /> <br />New wonders appear every day in the World. I mean, do you realize that a mere hundred years ago people didn't even know that we live in a galaxy? They had no idea of the endless structures that lay beyond it. And just last week somebody figured out a potential explanation for why it is that sometimes people who have frozen to death can be revived even hours after they "died" with no physiological damage.<br /><br />We are just scratching the surface of knowing what is possible in the universe we live in, and to argue something is not possible requires even more solid evidence than arguing something IS possible. We don't even know what life is nor what makes something alive. We have no clue what makes up the entity we call ourselves, or its space time limitations. Where does it all go when the biological system of our bodies returns to the constituent parts from which it is made up? At the atomic level everything continues working just fine! Everything that was 'you' will continue to exist and function long after you are 'dead'. Like Lego blocks, they just go off to form other things. <br /><br />Perhaps our "souls" do the same. <br /><br />See my point? We don't even know what life and death and you and me really are. Just THAT we are. And if we do not know what life is, we also do not know what it is not.<br /><br />So why is it important to you that the resurrection be a myth?Jodiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15447125159108080797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-85465385011397980752010-06-15T11:09:10.364-07:002010-06-15T11:09:10.364-07:00You have said a couple of things about me:
1) red...You have said a couple of things about me:<br /><br />1) reductionism and<br />2) cult of the measurable<br /><br />I don't know what they mean exactly, but they don't sound nice. I could, I suppose take offense and think that you are trying to belittle my concerns. This being offended/offensive goes more ways than one. <br /><br />I do NOT put you in the camp of the folks you mentioned. That is why I bother to talk with you guys. You guys are smart and you do care about the same things I care about and you likely act upon them better than I do. <br /><br />I am not talking about watching the Discovery channel or finding meaning in mythology as opposed to facts and figures.<br /><br />I am talking about the fundamental "tragedy" of existence. For me, whatever meaning I can muster does need to be credible. <br /><br />I cannot go elsewhere for meaning, because I don't think elsewhere exists, except in the mind of someone else. <br /><br />If I want meaning, I will have to create it from what I see really existing. <br /><br />I have heard some Christians (not you) criticize pagans for worshiping trees. They should supposedly worship the creator of the trees. Now, I think, "Well, at least the trees are real." <br /><br />I can see the trees. I need the trees for the oxygen they provide and the energy they capture from the sun and return to Earth. I don't see God. I can't see that "God" does anything for me. Again, not to insult, but I see the concept of God as an invention and a layer of abstraction that isn't necessary. At least as I see it.<br /><br />But that doesn't help me with my problem. So my solution, as pale as it may seem, as reductionistic as it may seem, is to be as real as I can. <br /><br />Earth is my god. There is no life outside of it as far as I know. I will face the same fate upon my death as the mouse I killed a couple of weeks ago. <br /><br />That is real and that is stark. Now I need a philosophy, a theology, a way of life, a courage that does not give up or give in to despair. Don Cupitt calls it solar living. You burn out. Life is that you stand in the void and you burn, you live like the sun. <br /><br />I find joy and amazement in that I do have consciousness and that this world (that yes the Discovery Channel helps me see) is wild and woolly, unexpected, and surprising. Not only that, but I think the human "experiment" is amazing and wonderful as well. <br /><br />I want to sing praises to life and Earth, my "god". <br /><br />Hence the secular trinity, self-evolving universe, human species, human culture.<br /><br />I am not well spoken or well-thought out about this. I am hoping there are others with a "theology" of life with whom I can share this journey.<br /> <br />Maybe we don't have to throw out babies to do it either. The myth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be a helpful symbol, if interpreted in a way that is credible. : )<br /><br />I have bogarted your blog. Apologies again for being a nuisance.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-80305036656420987202010-06-15T10:27:33.310-07:002010-06-15T10:27:33.310-07:00I think you're throwing out a lot of babies wi...I think you're throwing out a lot of babies with the bathwater. I think that, if you limit yourself to the Cult of the Measurable as your myth...I don't know if your frustration will ever let up, or if you will ever find hope. I don't think I can. I've given up on credible hopes, and now I hope for the incredible. The beauty and meaning and truth of things like "world", "love", "justice", even "hope" have nothing to do with technically accurate descriptions of physical processes. They are another kind of knowing - one of those bathwater babies in my opinion.<br /><br />It gets back to what Aric said - I think you are confusing different ways of knowing, saying first "There is only one way of knowing" and then "I need to find some meaningful way of knowing". It's a bind, and I don't think the key is inside of it somewhere, but rather outside.<br /><br />If you told me what love was in the same way you tell me what the universe is, in nothing but the most material/functional terms, I would be left utterly cold, and also would no understand of why this thing was valuable in the slightest. The myth of Jesus' resurrection, on the other hand, gives me something about love that I can plumb for meaning for the rest of my life, and participate with 2 billion people who are doing the same thing. I can live into that, in fact, and hopefully live a better life than I would otherwise. Why would I bother if that was not the case? And I can still watch Discover Channel shows on the origins of the universe and enjoy them.<br /><br />I think you are throwing out the meaning-making aspects of our human life - at least the Christian ones - and replacing them with reductionism. If that's what you're doing, then I don't know where you will find something to hold onto. I'm honestly stumped. If you want meaning, I have no idea how to find it in reductionism. I failed to do so, and here I am talking about myths instead.<br /><br />"If it is a given (and no one needs to be a scientist to know this) that human beings are biologically evolved as are all living things from a common ancestor via natural selection, then what does that mean for our value? If Earth has been spinning for 4 billion years and will continue to do so, long after any living form may be around to remember that humans ever existed, what does that mean for our value?"<br /><br />Those appear to be given, yes, and my personal answer to your question is "nothing". That's my experience, anyway. It's just a cold, ticking existence and we're all destined to be motes of dust in the heat-death of the universe. Period.<br /><br />To find meaning, I had to go elsewhere.<br /><br />Do I strike you as a very classical Christian? Ask Chris Larimer or Toby Brown or Viola or Jim Berkeley. There's a lot in that bathwater that would raise the ire of the orthodoxy-police of yestercentury but which still has great value.<br /><br />I'm not trying to sell classical Christian theology to you. I'm trying to point out that in my experience, if you throw out everything but reductionism, meaning is one of the things you lose.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-42571902457257124842010-06-15T09:43:59.270-07:002010-06-15T09:43:59.270-07:00Theologians and church are me too.
Obviously, I...Theologians and church are me too. <br /><br />Obviously, I am pissing you all off left and right. Sorry, sorry, sorry. <br /><br />I don't think I am a great scientist. I am not. <br /><br />I don't think I am smart and others are dumb.<br /><br />All I am saying is that we have a very different view of the universe than we had when the creeds were formed (including trinity among others) and that matters to theology. If it doesn't, then theology doesn't really matter at least to me.<br /><br />Actually, it is a matter of existential angst on my part. I am trying to find a reason to live and to care, seriously. I am not alone. I think theology should serve that task. <br /><br />If it is a given (and no one needs to be a scientist to know this) that human beings are biologically evolved as are all living things from a common ancestor via natural selection, then what does that mean for our value? If Earth has been spinning for 4 billion years and will continue to do so, long after any living form may be around to remember that humans ever existed, what does that mean for our value? <br /><br />Further, are human beings destined by our biological and cultural evolution to self-destruct? Is the human "experiment" really over within the next few decades? One could make a case, yes. <br /><br />I want somebody (theologians?--I am in that number) to give me something to hang on to--something to believe in and hope for that is a credible hope. <br /><br />This is my frustration. I don't know how to say this without insulting you even as I don't mean to do that, but I don't find classical Christian teaching to be relevant to these questions.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-86343194829122283042010-06-15T08:20:34.893-07:002010-06-15T08:20:34.893-07:00Nope. If I'm throwing a tantrum it's time...Nope. If I'm throwing a tantrum it's time for a nap. Just bear in mind that when you talk about "theologians or "the church", you are talking about the people you are talking to.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-57021538408309962312010-06-15T06:17:18.553-07:002010-06-15T06:17:18.553-07:00Damn, you are over sensitive. I was not implying ...Damn, you are over sensitive. I was not implying anything about you. "Checked out" referred to me taking my own life, checking out. Why should I bother to live in a universe in which this life is it, etc.<br /><br />Classical Christianity supplied people with a meaning and a purpose. Now instead, if I think the universe has no external meaning what gives me impetus to live? It can be pretty overwhelming, depressing even. It would be easy for me to check out. However, I choose to be conscious<br /><br />I am going to ignore the rest of that because it didn't relate to anything I said.<br /><br />Do you want to start again?John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-43333130430847887742010-06-14T20:33:19.055-07:002010-06-14T20:33:19.055-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-83461733195672104952010-06-14T16:47:41.838-07:002010-06-14T16:47:41.838-07:00Absolutely! I agree with you!
I am a person of...Absolutely! I agree with you! <br /><br />I am a person of deep faith! Hear that, rest of the PCUSA?<br /><br />We do not know what happened before the Big Bang. After it, there appears to be no need for a creator. Maybe that is a statement of faith. Great. Whatever the case, I still see nothing in the universe that is best explained by a creator. <br /><br />As far as I understand Christian theology the point of a redeemer was because of the sin of Adam and Eve that resulted in the expulsion from paradise. Creation was great, then Fallen. As far as I know, that seems to be how the creators of the theology saw the universe. Their theology was based on the universe as they saw it.<br /><br />I am not necessarily saying substitute the universe for theology. I am saying update theology (if possible) so it fits our current understanding of the universe. In our current understanding, the universe nor humanity never were perfect. <br /><br />Our "sin" didn't screw it up. Natural selection brought us to where we are today. We are collections of genes that survived. All of our traits are a product of natural or cultural evolution. <br /><br />As far as perfect worlds are concerned, I know of no other than this one. The world is what it is and we are who we are. Now we need to figure out how we want to live in this universe and on Earth. <br /><br />Is it a matter of faith to praise natural selection? Yes. Why should we sing praises to life and to living things? <br /><br />I trust that if we did that--if we saw Earth and life as sacred--as God--maybe we would be less likely to abuse it. I don't know. That is a long shot. There are days when I am very pessimistic. <br /><br />But this is what is. I have a choice to check out or to be conscious. I also have faith that it might be neat if generations after me have a chance to live as well.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-57988915098390251002010-06-14T15:56:48.960-07:002010-06-14T15:56:48.960-07:00@ John: These are good examples of your mythology ...@ John: These are good examples of your mythology coming through, entirely apart from what physical science can tell you.<br /><br />"We don't need a creator. The universe appears to be self-creating."<br /><br />This is a statement of faith, the part about the self-creating universe. No one can account for how this self-creating supposedly came about. We can dial things back to a big bang and that is it. As to what caused the big bang, what was there before the big bang, how all that stuff came from nothing, there is no answer that science has yet provided. So your mythology says "we need no creator", but it is a statement of faith.<br /><br />"We don't need a redeemer. There is nothing that is fallen. Life just is."<br /><br />This is a statement of value, to say that life exactly as it is is the best possible life and needs to redemption. This is once again far beyond the purview of physical science. It is part of the mythology that John Shuck ascribes to (among many others of course)<br /><br />"We need to sing praises to evolution and to our universe and to all the winged, finned, and multi-legged ones, and to the human ones. To life. It is in this life, in this dirt, in these oceans, that we live and move and have our being."<br /><br />This is, again, your mythology, beyond what physical science can ever account for. There is no reason, based on evolution, to praise evolution, or any other living creature. None. Only if we value them, because of something outside of the account of how they came to diverge as species from a theoretical common ancestor.<br /><br />This is what I'm getting at. What you are describing and what you are doing are two different things. You are drawing on meaning that goes far beyond physical science - and thank God! Otherwise talking to you would be no more interesting than talking to an instruction manual.<br /><br />Now, what I want is for you to account for your myths. *Why* should we sing praises to evolution and to other living things?Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-19988338103749539202010-06-14T15:13:24.743-07:002010-06-14T15:13:24.743-07:00Hey Aric,
The trinity is not the language of math...Hey Aric,<br /><br /><i>The trinity is not the language of mathematics or science. It tells us very little about the concrete shape of things, but much about their inward meaning.</i><br /><br />I think that is what I have been saying. The Trinity does not describe an outward reality, but has, as you say, <b>inward</b> meaning.<br /><br />The Trinity is artistry. It is symbol. It is archetype. All good stuff. It is the product of human creativity. It has no, as far as I can see, any external referent that is real. <br /><br />At least as Lloyd Geering uses the symbol, it refers to something outside of itself that demonstrably exists. <br /><br />I don't see any "Father, Son, or Holy Spirit" anywhere except, perhaps within my imagination. Also there is nothing in the universe that I know about that is best explained by this Trinity. <br /><br />Is there anything that exists that the Trinity explains? <br /><br />If it is a painting, OK. If it is aesthetic, OK. If it is a song, OK. I can sing it. As a symbol for the sacred that is at once transcendent, immanent, and particular, I am OK with that. <br /><br />But what does it do? <br /><br />We don't need a creator. The universe appears to be self-creating.<br /><br />We don't need a redeemer. There is nothing that is fallen. Life just is.<br /><br />Do we need sustaining? Maybe. Of the three, Spirit as Breath is perhaps the most usable.<br /><br />It isn't technicality vs. poetry or math vs. emotions. It's a world that has changed and in this world former explanations and meanings no longer resonate.<br /><br />I love poetry and emotion and art and all of it. There is a lot of it. I am just less and less keen on classical Christian poetry, emotion, and art. <br /><br />My point, my central concern, is that I don't think we (and I mean the church by we) has tried. I think we are still fighting evolution or tolerating it rather than embracing it and sing praises to it. <br /><br />We need to sing praises to evolution and to our universe and to all the winged, finned, and multi-legged ones, and to the human ones. To life. It is in this life, in this dirt, in these oceans, that we live and move and have our being.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-69044484892905676722010-06-14T14:50:30.230-07:002010-06-14T14:50:30.230-07:00Hey Nick,
I think I can learn a lot more about my...Hey Nick,<br /><br /><i>I think I can learn a lot more about myself from Genesis than I get from evolution.</i><br /><br />OK.<br /><br />I am moving the opposite way these days. I think evolutionary science which now includes cultural evolution is still in its infancy. Even so it looks promising in regards to what we can know about ourselves that we wouldn't know even 20 years ago, let alone 2500 years ago or whenever Genesis was written. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340214" rel="nofollow">Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can the Change the Way We Think About Our Selves</a> is a great primer. David Sloan Wilson has a great <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/evolution/" rel="nofollow">blog</a> to go with it.<br /><br />On his latest post he makes a reference to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/evolution/2010/05/inspiring_naturalism.php" rel="nofollow">Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow</a>. They visited our church a couple of years ago. <br /><br />For those who don't like the intolerance of Dawkins (I find him overly aggressive as well) all of these folks are refreshing.<br /><br />I may have worn out my welcome and certainly have taken us way off topic. <br /><br />But after 20 years of ministry, I find myself going in a very different direction from my seminar education even as I think it paved the way. <br /><br />I think embracing evolution and our cosmic history is the next chapter in the Christian story. <br /><br />Again, that doesn't mean I can't learn from the literature of our ancestors, especially the Bible. It simply has (for me and I think more and more folks) lost its central place on the coffee table, lectern, and (perhaps soon) pulpit. Our grand cosmic and evolutionary saga is edging it out.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-48487164793048915292010-06-14T14:39:08.429-07:002010-06-14T14:39:08.429-07:00I think we've gotten way off track. No matter ...I think we've gotten way off track. No matter the subject of the post it seems like we always end up arguing epistemology with you, John. :P<br /><br />As modernists are wont to do, I believe you conflate, or reduce, the many different kinds of knowing down to one. Giving me a technically accurate description of a painting does absolutely nothing to tell me what it means or what its emotional value is. I can know everything there is to know about the outward form of things and still have no idea what their purpose may be or how I should feel about them. It is an entirely different language. The trinity is not the language of mathematics or science. It tells us very little about the concrete shape of things, but much about their inward meaning. Similarly physics or biology or geology can tell us a lot about what things are and nothing about what those things mean.Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-68258366459560443142010-06-14T14:35:20.635-07:002010-06-14T14:35:20.635-07:00@ John
I would call what you present as a myth a ...@ John<br /><br />I would call what you present as a myth a "description". To me, there is no meaning in it, and there is no invitation, any more than there is meaning or invitation in a description of any other physical process. It is a story, but I find it to be non-myth, and not even a fairy tale, though there I use the Tolkienian definition of fairy tale, and don't assume you are doing the same.<br /><br />My point was that even Richard Dawkins goes beyond this story in finding meaning. His writings and speeches have a lot more in them about right and wrong, and ethics, and all sorts of things that are part of his mythology, and are not part of the description of the physical universe.<br /><br />I am definitely not up to the task of turning the description of the physical universe into liturgy or sermon. I'm also not really motivated to do so. I wouldn't know where to start, and I'd probably be unable to avoid splicing in my myths and fairy tales into whatever I ended up doing. Otherwise I'd feel like I was giving a science lecture, which would feel out of place to me in worship.<br /><br />I could probably come up with a clever curriculum for teaching this scientific description, and I've explained aspects of it to a lot of people in the past because I also find it fascinating, but I don't know how to apply liturgy or sermon to this story.<br /><br />Do you have any example sermons that are simply about describing the physical universe? If so, I'd be curious what about it would be a sermon, aside from it being told during church. I'd need to see that in action, but as I am thinking of it now, I definitely couldn't do it.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-20708113979259010012010-06-14T14:22:36.078-07:002010-06-14T14:22:36.078-07:00Thanks for all your comments John, I've found ...Thanks for all your comments John, I've found them insightful and interesting to read. <br /><br />I do want to comment on this developing idea of myth/story (whatever we are gonna call it). I can honestly say that most "better" or "modern" stories are dwarfed in comparison to some of these archaic myths like Genesis. Maybe that's just the way that I choose to arrange my thinking (why we choose myths is probably another interesting conversation). I have found most modern myth's as stating "truth" with a boldness that most other stories don't do. If you read Genesis it truly is myth that began to make sense of the universe from an ancient perspective. But what fascinates me to no end is how much have humanity has changed and yet how much of it has not. I still find myself tempted by those very things that I know are not for me, that have been set apart from my life. I find myself searching for companionship both with others (eve) and God. <br /><br />So while I can agree that we are more likely decedents of some ooze or single cell organism than from a man created from the dust of the ground, I can't actually prove either. What I can do is choose the myth that teaches me about myself and the world around me. I think I can learn a lot more about myself from Genesis than I get from evolution.Nick Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03265851893310000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-48039777566540053582010-06-14T13:40:33.505-07:002010-06-14T13:40:33.505-07:00I think that presented with the mythology of a red...<i>I think that presented with the mythology of a reductionist universe, we are left with radical meaninglessness.</i><br /><br />Meaning is an invention of human beings. So the universe with the advent of human beings is no longer meaningless. We have a variety of meanings.<br /><br />As far as natural and supernatural are concerned, I guess we need to agree on how to define terms. <br /><br />I affirm the story, mythology, fairy tale (whatever you want to call it) that says that the Universe is about 14 billion years old (that figure could change) that Earth is about 4 and a half billion years old, that life has evolved on Earth from a common ancestor. Humans are of course included in this evolutionary mythology. That is the most true story that we have available to us. It is better than any myth of origins of any culture because it transcends all of them and dwarfs all of them. It is a fairly recent story. We might call it a naturalist myth. Before this story we had in the west at least a 6,000 year old universe whose origins were told in Genesis 1 and 2. My hunch is that our modern story explains a lot more, is far more interesting, and frankly, more accurate on every level that I can imagine. <br /><br />The beauty of this story is that none of it requires a supernatural agent where this agent is in the form of a Trinity or any other combination. With this story there is no need to fear any deity. There is not likely any existence after death for any living thing including human beings.<br /><br />The downside of this story is that it requires radical freedom of individuals and people to decide how to live the limited years available. <br /><br />While some may take comfort in the human invention of deities and dogmas, I don't find comfort in them because I don't find them to be true. I'd rather take life as it is as best as I know and live it. <br /><br />I would be happy to believe in these things if I could and if I thought they were true. But I cannot make myself, and frankly, I don't want to, because the story I am learning from a naturalistic perspective is so cool, so marvelous, amazing, and breathtaking, that even though they make me ultimately small and meaningless, I am OK with that. This is it. This is life. <br /><br />I appreciate the stories of the ancestors. They did their best in creating meaning for them. I value all of it and give credit to them for their creations. Time moves on. Time for a new story. <br /><br />This is why I think it is time for theologians, poets, philosophers, storytellers, and songwriters, to put this new naturalistic mythology to music to liturgy to sermon. <br /><br />What do you think?John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-67332775619323575752010-06-14T12:08:56.270-07:002010-06-14T12:08:56.270-07:00I wholeheartedly disagree :). I think that presen...I wholeheartedly disagree :). I think that presented with the mythology of a reductionist universe, we are left with radical meaninglessness. I think that science, properly done, is a "structure of information-gathering and critical analysis." No meaning there.<br /><br />Thankfully, every scientist, Dawkins included, draws upon far more than their observations of the physical universe in order to make meaning in their lives. Just like no one lives their lives "according to the bible", no one I've ever heard of lives their lives "according to science"...my suspicion is that this is because both endeavors are impossible.<br /><br />I would say that there is a great deal between naturalism and supernaturalism, and that is the area in which I live most of my life, preach, and so on. I reject the (fundamentalist) idea that those are the only two options.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-76166262145340826472010-06-14T11:17:40.736-07:002010-06-14T11:17:40.736-07:00I think Richard Dawkins and science in general wit...I think Richard Dawkins and science in general with its story of cosmic history of the universe and natural history of Earth are "structures of meaning that tell us the truth about ourselves and the world and invite us to live into that truth more fully." They are far superior to the various world mythologies from Gilgamesh to Genesis, to the Gospels, and to the Bible as a whole in fulfilling that task. <br /><br />As literature, these mythologies offer great insights to how people once saw the world. Some of it in fact transcends its time. But the subjects of their stories (gods, resurrections, trinity) do not appear to have any reality outside of language. <br /><br />Since you brought up the word supernatural, I would add that I cannot think of one thing that is best explained with a supernatural explanation as opposed to a natural one. Can you?John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-61114077362442107422010-06-14T10:49:25.441-07:002010-06-14T10:49:25.441-07:00In a few hundred years, we'll have a good idea...In a few hundred years, we'll have a good idea of where The Ancestor's Tale stands among other tales. I don't think I can judge it against any ancient story at this point - it's a zygote.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-74764068087936589502010-06-14T10:46:36.162-07:002010-06-14T10:46:36.162-07:00I've never read The Ancestor's Tale - I...I've never read The Ancestor's Tale - I'm just referring to the almost undifferentiated condescension that Richard Dawkins tends to producem based on the presumption that not only are we not allowed to analyze his mythology as such, but that it is de facto superior to all others (an identical position to any other fundamentalist). The Ancestor's Tale might be a diamond in the rough, who knows?<br /><br />I would say that, as I think you define it, the trinity is not a myth, nor is Jesus' resurrection - that is, they are not only fun insights into our psychology. They are whatever word you would use for structures of meaning that tell us the truth about ourselves and the world and invite us to live into that truth more fully. I'm not sure what word you use for that. I use "myth".Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-73044651077913481722010-06-14T09:52:25.067-07:002010-06-14T09:52:25.067-07:00Really? You think that the myth, Eneuma Elish, is...Really? You think that the myth, Eneuma Elish, is more "true" than Richard Dawkins' The Ancestors's Tale? <br /><br />Myths, legends, and fairy tales are great fun. They give us insights into our psychology. They are the product of creativity and intelligence. Not "dumb" at all.<br /><br />Now I am curious. Is the Trinity a myth? If so, we are on the same page. I would even say it has a reality, that is within our own language.<br /><br />What about the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Myth, right?John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-56888449560049442502010-06-14T08:28:22.124-07:002010-06-14T08:28:22.124-07:00@ John
"Once we explain how these things com...@ John<br /><br />"Once we explain how these things come about from a human perspective (once we can explain the Trinity historically or the Bible's formation historically) then revelation fades away like the Cheshire cat and we are left with nothing but a smile, a ghost of what we used to believe."<br /><br />That was temporarily my experience, yes, but I've moved away from it since to a heightened appreciation for the power of myth and our participation in it. I find that most of the modernist project of explaining myth fails to do so in any meaningful way. That is, the "explanation" is of a thing that no one would find meaning in, and does not begin to account for the fact that the overwhelming majority of human beings find meaning in myth, myself included. <br /><br />I've found that to locate people who explain myth in a powerful and true way, who can account for myth's real influence, you have to go to the myth-makers, the storytellers, and the myth-livers who are part of the ongoing story - not the academics who stand on the outside and say "Look how dumb those supernaturalists are. I'm so glad we're so smart. Let's go read Richard Dawkins some more."Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-73399817503001283822010-06-13T18:44:25.352-07:002010-06-13T18:44:25.352-07:00@ Jodie
I disagree. There was no need to declare ...@ Jodie<br /><br />I disagree. There was no need to declare Jesus God. Jesus did that himself, if not in words, at least in deeds. He did what only God can do - forgive sins, release captives, declare jubilee, cleanse the temple, etc... <br /><br />The gospels were written primarily to grapple with the event of the resurrection - whatever that was. It is the climax of the story. The focal point. There is no gospel, and no christianity without it. The mystery was not how Jesus was God, but how God raised Jesus from the dead. The trinity is the dawning of the realization that God is at heart a relationship, and the shocking unfolding of that realization is a complete re-reading of the old testament as the history of God continually outpouring grace on a world who rejects the intimate relationship God embodies.<br /><br />The egalitarian, dynamic, other-centered trinity is profoundly anti-empire. Empire is much more comfortable with an autocrat. A single dictatorial god who demands sacrifice and obedience. Empire cannot handle the idea that the victim of the sacrifice is himself God, nor that the coming kingdom is more like a banquet, an image of mutual relationship, than like a battle.Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-33480128933123520932010-06-13T18:26:25.744-07:002010-06-13T18:26:25.744-07:00Aric,
I am going to push back again just a little...Aric,<br /><br />I am going to push back again just a little, not because I like or dislike the doctrine of the Trinity, but because I am not sure it is needed anymore. <br /><br />You said<br /><br />"It is the movement of God-Spirit-Jesus in crucifixion and resurrection that inspires the doctrine." <br /><br />I think not. I think it is the need to declare Jesus God that inspires it and requires it. A reconciliation of high Christology with radical monotheism. <br /><br />(The Holy Spirit was always there. It was, and still is, the breath of God.)<br /><br />But we still ended up with Satan playing the role of a virtual God, the god of evil. And we ended up with a creed - several creeds - that enforce the belief in the Trinity and in the deity of Jesus, but leave out the Rabbi Jesus and the Prophet Jesus. This was the price the Church paid for the Trinity, and I think it was too high. It allowed for, perhaps even led to State Christianity, which was and still is too inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. I think it is time to challenge everything that was cast in stone as part of the creation of State Christianity.<br /><br />That is where Christianity is going today.<br /><br />State Christianity is done and over with, but we are still locked in its paradigms. But I suspect the only part of Christianity that is going to survive into the 22nd century is that part which stands apart from, perhaps even against, the religion of Empire. <br /><br />I mean, how did we end up with a priesthood when Jesus put himself in the same breath with the prophets that opposed the priesthood? How did we end up with 1600 years of emperors thinking it was OK to kill the enemies of God? How did we end up with Church Fathers when Jesus said we only have one father, our Father in Heaven? And how did we end up thinking the Gospel was about being saved for the afterlife when the prayer Jesus taught was that God's Kingdom be made on Earth, here and now, in THIS life?<br /><br />These shifts are tied together. We need to rethink them all.Jodiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15447125159108080797noreply@blogger.com