tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480207999294007243.post1204687134513967166..comments2024-03-28T04:18:16.323-04:00Comments on The Liberal Pulpit: What Are You Saying When You Say "God"?Rev. Meredith Garmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09600609816550758194noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480207999294007243.post-77324100333550063992016-12-12T15:40:02.150-05:002016-12-12T15:40:02.150-05:00I think in communicating with people, you always h...I think in communicating with people, you always have to take into account how they understand a word. <br /><br />For example, someone who is an arch conservative in terms of U.S. politics can say that they are a "liberal" in the classical sense, but they risk being misunderstood. <br /><br />Similarly, someone who says that they believe in God risks being misunderstood if they do not believe in a personal God, as 99% of people will understand this as believing in a personal God. <br /><br />Now, you can always accompany your language with lots of caveats. But that makes it harder to communicate. Certainly it makes it harder to communicate briefly or with poetry and beauty. <br /><br />Let me reverse this: what are the ADVANTAGES of using the term God for a non-personal God, given the disadvantages that many people will misunderstand what you mean? What case can you make that these advantages outweigh the disadvantages?<br /><br />I personally see few advantages for using the term God to referring to non-personal versions of God (the nature of the universe, etc. ). Using the term God perhaps makes UUs less distinctive from other religions in our Judaeo Christian society, but I'm not sure this is a plus. <br /><br />Now, some people think this IS an advantage, of being able to communicate with liberal Christians and liberal Jews. Mark Morrison-Reed a few years ago gave a well-known sermon at many UU churches. (You can find a version here, http://dmuuc.org/aboutworship/lay-guest-minister-sermons/dragged-kicking-screaming-heaven/ ), in which he explicitly argued for UUs using God-language as a way of being more attuned with mainstream America:<br /><br />"Theism offers religious liberals a language to carry into the world. It is a useful language because it is the vernacular of ordinary people, 96% of the American people. [Pew Research Center] Say, “God is Love and God loves you and every member of the human family” and people will at least have an inkling of what we mean."<br /><br />I disagree with this. If you say "God loves you" and you DON'T mean a personal God, but 96% of your listeners think you do, then your listeners really DON'T know what you mean. They merely think that they know what you mean, and that your beliefs are similar to theirs. So I don't think that you've moved forward with religious understanding. <br /><br />And of course using God language when one means a non-personal God does not move forward understanding with many Buddhists, who might not stress the concept of God, or with many "nones". <br /><br />I think we should say what we mean, as clearly and poetically as possible, even if what we say seems strange to some of our fellow Americans. <br /><br />Tim Bartikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03442235828766013186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480207999294007243.post-72262566559236859472016-12-12T15:25:26.006-05:002016-12-12T15:25:26.006-05:00The Abrahamic tradition bequeaths us a boatload of...The Abrahamic tradition bequeaths us a boatload of qualities and attributes of God. If we're going to use the word in a sensible way, then our use must overlap with a substantial chunk of those qualities and attributes. This chunk need not, I think, include "person-like, having beliefs and desires," as long as the chunk of qualities and attributes included is significant. I think such qualities and attributes as a source of beauty and mystery; a power inspiring gratitude, humility, wonder, and awe; an ultimate context and basis for meaning and value; the widest reality to which our loyalty is owed; a basis of ethics; or the Cosmos; are a substantial enough overlap with Abrahamic conceptions to warrant using the word "God." No single person or tradition gets to define "God" (that is, declare the words "God" must refer to all and only the items on an authorized list of qualities and attributes), but each person and tradition that uses the term must, on pain of being justly charged with misusing the English language, overlap with some substantial chunk of other more-or-less sensible uses of the word.Rev. Meredith Garmonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09600609816550758194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480207999294007243.post-36550281858498037682016-12-12T15:08:46.329-05:002016-12-12T15:08:46.329-05:00when we are a minority religion in a culture domin...when we are a minority religion in a culture dominates by Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity, do we allow them to define what God is for us?Jeff Tomlinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480207999294007243.post-64256900364448543712016-12-06T13:04:13.326-05:002016-12-06T13:04:13.326-05:00You ask "Why not call that feeling a feeling ...You ask "Why not call that feeling a feeling of God?"<br /><br />I guess my response is, "Because of all the baggage that almost surely goes with the term God, whether you like it or not."<br /><br />In particular, it is natural, based on our Judaeo-Christian tradition, and probably Islamic tradition as well, to imagine that God, unlike "Nature" or the "Natural Order" or the "Universe" may have some sort of personal relationship or attitude towards individuals. <br /><br />As for your example of feelings that might point to God: I don't think any of the feelings of awe, or unity, or that there is natural order, necessarily are accompanied by the feeling that this awe, this unity, and this natural order has a personality that cares in some personal way for me and my well-being. It CAN BE accompanied by that feeling, but it NEED NOT be accompanied by that feeling. <br /><br />Now, if you don't want that baggage of a personal God, you can define God however you want. But it seems to me that this is likely to be misunderstood by many listeners and readers, perhaps most. In fact I would go further and say that this will be misunderstood by over 90% of the listeners and readers. <br /><br />So I would pose the question to you, "Why not call that feeling a feeling that there is a Natural Order, and our life will be more meaningful if we act in accord with that Natural Order"?<br /><br />I would submit that calling this "Natural Order" is less confusing than calling this "God". Nature or Natural Order avoids the implication that this Nature or Natural Order has some sort of personality that cares about individuals and their fates. <br /><br />Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence referred to "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". It is an interesting question whether this phrasing would be better if you : (1) dropped "Nature's God"; (2) dropped "Nature"; OR (3) dropped both and substituted God.<br /><br />IT is interesting that Jefferson found it preferable to include both phrasings. Is that better, given that SOME want to attach personality to Nature and the Universe, and others do not? Perhaps it is better for a diverse audience. <br /><br />As for "process theology": of the number of people who believe in God in the U.S., what percentage believe in the God of process theology, versus a personal God? I have to think that "personal God" beats "process God" by 99 to 1. <br /><br />William James once wrote that "Were one asked to characterize the life of religion in the broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that it consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.This belief and this adjustment are the religious attitude in the soul. " I want to note that James does NOT say that this "unseen order" should be called God, or that this "unseen order" has a personality or personally cares for us. So, I would submit that the "religious attitude in the soul" may or may not be described by the word God, in its normal definition. Given that there is this diversity in the religious attitude, calling this religious feeling by the word "God" is likely to lead to much misunderstanding. <br />Tim Bartikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03442235828766013186noreply@blogger.com