by VorJack
There’s a story that comes down to us from ancient Rome, during the period in which Hannibal Barca was ravaging Italy. Legend has it that the Roman dictator Fabius Cunctator (“Fabius the Delayer”) built a number of temples to beseech the Gods for aid. These included a temple to what we would translate as “common sense.”
To the Romans, this was reasonable. A person would enter the temple and “pray” to common sense, which would focus their thoughts on the virtue. Having been reminded of the importance of the virtue, they were likely to put it into practice at their next opportunity. Their actions would be changed, and this would change the state of the world. What else do you want from a “God”?
If you can grasp this, then you can understand what Edward Correia is doing in his new book, The Uncertain Believer: Reconciling God and Science. He wants to build a (metaphorical) temple to compassion and proclaim that the virtue itself is a God. But while the Romans could be persuaded to find room in their pantheon, most of the West is now monotheistic. Are we ready to give up the traditional personal God for a God that is nothing more — or less — than an idea?
Gods: A Builder’s Manual
Pullquote: “On one hand, the doctrines of organized religion seem unpersuasive or downright silly. On the other, the prospect of a universe without God seems meaningless.” (6)
Correia is writing to those who already have grave doubts about the traditional understanding God, but still find a need for some overarching purpose to their lives. The book attempts to guide these “uncertain believers” through the process of creating their own conception of God that will fill those needs without falling pray to the problems of the traditional model. Correia is forthright about this; humans have always unconsciously created their Gods to fulfill their own needs, now it is time to do so consciously.
He begins this process by considering the classic proofs for the existence of a creator God: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, ID and so forth. He considers the typical arguments for and against, coming to the conclusion that none of the proofs are particularly persuasive. Unfortunately the book is a scant 170 pages, and you could fill up volumes about any of the philosophical proofs. His approach to each is solid, but cursory. Each argument he gives has a counter argument, and Correia doesn’t have the space to deal with them. This isn’t a problem for the person already doubting the existence of a personal deity, but it limits the appeal of his arguments against those theists who already know the pat answers.
Correia then picks through some of the West’s great thinkers looking for insight into the nature of God, from Aristotle to Hegel and especially Tillich. He takes a bit from each, building an understanding of what he wants God to be. The end result of this is a definition of God that survives all of Correia’s objections, but utilizing what he considers best from each individual thinker:
God is the shared ideal of genuine unqualified love for others. To put it more simply, God is love. (115)
Theology is All About Timing
Pullquote: “Acknowledging that we are developing a conception of God does not diminish the importance of God in our lives.” (16)
It is unfortunate that this book should come out now. We’ve seen the New Atheists, we’ve seen the immediate backlash against them, and now we’re seeing a great deal of writing from the middle ground. Karen Armstrong, H.E. Baber, Robert Wright and others have written books and editorials that try to explain God in a way that the modern religious skeptic can accept. The market is probably saturated, and it seems possible that this book will simply vanish into that pool of ink without a ripple.
That would be a shame, since Correia has a remarkably frank and clear-eyed approach to the issue. Many authors writing along the same lines can get bogged down by the poetry or become overly precious with their turn of phrase, like Wrights’s “evolving God.” Metaphor and paradox may be the language within religion, but when talking about religion some clarity is appreciated.
Correia is upfront about the fact that this God is a cultural construction that exists in our collective minds rather than outside the universe, and he’s equally clear that we’re creating it rather than discovering it. I have to wonder if this won’t kill the book’s chances among moderate Christians. Correia may be happy focusing his love on an idea of his own creation, but I’ve always gotten the impression that most moderates would prefer for God to have an independent existence. Watching reactions from the quarter will be interesting.
Among atheists, I suspect that the common response will be bafflement. We can see what he’s doing, but not why he’s doing it. Many of us feel the need for purpose in our lives (and many don’t), but few feel the need to deify this purpose. Using the language of theism simply confuses the issue. It’s useless at best, disingenuous at worst.
But for those people in the middle who have given up on traditional religion but not the experience of traditional religion, Correia has provided a lucid and useful book.
Vorjack is a librarian/archivist and a public historian, living with his wife in history-soaked Albany, New York.
“On the other, the prospect of a universe without God seems meaningless.”
You’re right, Vorjack. I find statements like this truly baffling. What gives me pause, though, is that there was a time when I wouldn’t have. Try as I might, I can’t place myself back into the mindset of a believer again. In a few short years it has become completely alien to me.
“Among atheists, I suspect that the common response will be bafflement. We can see what he’s doing, but not why he’s doing it.”
Why? The answer you’re looking for is: anthropomorphism. One of the best books I’ve ever read on Religion is Stewart Guthrie’s “Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion.” Guthrie explains Religion as systematic anthropomorphism, and I think he has it right. We humans have an inherited tendency to see human-like qualities and motives in everything, and we respond well to anthropomorphic characters. Advertisers know this, which is why you see personifications of so many products – even toilet bowl cleaner bubbles, toe fungus and now warts. Correia is just doing what we/they all do – seeing the world in our own image.
The term emotional masturbation comes to mind. It’s like saying there’s an undefinable God who does not interfere in detectable ways but at least there is still some order in the Universe. We just don’t know what order. But there’s order damn it!
Any serious logician would quickly dismiss this God concept as irrelevant to human life. The God offers no laws, and can’t stop evil? Why call it God? Because we want to feel good and pretend our problems will be fixed for us, even though we have no evidence of that nor could describe it’s purpose. I don’t see that as particularly helpful in the large scheme of things, especially when those who do help are seen as some karmic reaction and not for the true humble beings they are.
That said, I would take one of these believers over a dogmatic one any day, so I do acknowledge it may have some use.
Vorjack,
Have you ever read Gordon Kaufman at all? If this book was at all interesting to you, I suspect Kaufman would be as well. And frankly, his books are pretty short, and I would love to hear a review from you :)
“Among atheists, I suspect that the common response will be bafflement…. But for those people in the middle who have given up on traditional religion but not the experience of traditional religion, Correia has provided a lucid and useful book.”
Perhaps also those who do not see the need for the language of traditional religion in seeking meaning for life, but who are in dialog with those in the middle or more religions. Something to provide a footprint of common ground for discussion here and there.
Steve and J. Allen pretty much have it nailed! :)
Turgid mental masturbation such as this book serves only to further shield and support the dangerous lunatics who fly ‘planes into buildings, start massively destructive wars, steal our taxes, molest infants, compulsorily mutilate babies, kill millions of Africans with lies, subject the female portion of humanity to abject slavery, etc etc.
The list of atrocities and crimes against humanity is endless.
Apologists are directly responsible for explicit tacit support of these religiously motivated crimes.
god is “unqualified love for others”? beautiful. lovely. feels good. seems right. right? god is love! yes! god is the love we feel between us little human beings. how nice… how obscurely direct. might be tough if you’re born extremely retarded, blind, deaf etc. and can’t even feed yourself. but then again this is no different than saying everyone has a personal god, because everyone’s definition of love is completely different. It should read:
“God is the shared ideal of MY IDEA OF WHAT genuine unqualified love for others IS. To put it more simply, God is love. “
Yup^
“God” is the mental and abstract projection of what people perceive as “good”. God is slowly evolving along with human morals, though definitely not up to par with secularists (which is why fundamentalists are aghast to certain orders of God in Leviticus; like murdering unbelievers and disobedient children, but have no problem using it to mask their bigotry towards gays). Everything humans now see as immoral has got to be the work of the devil/satan.
It is a childish, fantasy-like view of the world.
Marx was right…..
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.”