I'D LIKE TO KNOW
WHETHER GOD EXISTS.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT GOD.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW GOD.
I'VE GONE THROUGH
MANY WAYS OF KNOWING -
AND STILL I DO NOT KNOW.
PERHAPS MY SEARCH
HAS BEEN LIMITED.
PERHAPS MY WESTERN,
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VISION OF A
PERSONAL, PERFECT
BEING IS MISGUIDED?
WHAT ABOUT DIFFERENT
CONCEPTS OF GOD?
NOVEL IDEAS ABOUT GOD?
ALTERNATIVE GODS?
IF THERE IS A GOD, CAN EXPLORING
'ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS OF GOD'
PROVIDE FRESH INSIGHTS INTO
THE MYSTERIOUS ENIGMATIC
NATURE OF DIVINITY?
WHAT CAN WE LEARN
FROM ALTERNATIVE GODS?
I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY
TO FIND OUT.
SOME MAY CALL IT 'HERESY' -
OR 'BLASPHEMY' - MY SEEKING
AFTER 'STRANGE GODS'.
BUT IT IS BECAUSE I DESIRE
TO KNOW GOD - DOES GOD EXIST?
WHAT GOD MAY BE LIKE?
THAT I STRIVE TO EXPAND
POSSIBILITIES, PUSH BOUNDARIES.
I GO TO ENGLAND, TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM.
I ATTEND A CONFERENCE ON
"ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS OF GOD."
WHERE PHILOSOPHERS OF RELIGION
OFFER EXOTIC, STARTLING IDEAS.
BIZARRE KINDS OF
GODS ARE FLYING AROUND.
I'D NEVER DREAMT OF SUCH.
I GET A LITTLE DIZZY.
I MEET WILLEM DREES, A
PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION FROM THE
NETHERLANDS - THE EDITOR IN
CHIEF OF ZYGON, THE JOURNAL OF
SCIENCE AND RELIGION.
WILLEM'S THEOLOGY STARTS
WITH SCIENCE, NATURALISM.
WIM, YOUR VIEW AS I UNDERSTAND
IT, TAKES THE TRADITION
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN GOD, BUT MOLDS
IT OR CONSTRICTS IT INTO A
MORE NATURALISTIC WORLD.
HOW DOES THAT WORK AND DOES
THAT GIVE US MORE CONFIDENCE
THAT SUCH A GOD
MAY IN FACT EXIST?
YEAH, MY THEORY BEGINS
I THINK WITH ACCEPTING
THE SCIENTIFIC STORY.
WE HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND
REALITY FAR DEEPER THAN WE DID
CENTURIES AGO AS HUMANS.
AND PART OF IT IS THAT IT SHOWS
ENORMOUS INTEGRITY OF REALITY.
AND A PART - ALSO
IN SPACE AND TIME.
SO AN IMAGE OF GOD UP THERE IN
A VERY SPATIAL SENSE, WE DON'T
HAVE A PLACE FOR THAT.
IF YOU APPRECIATE THE SCIENTIFIC
UNDERSTANDING, STILL YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS REMAINING,
KIND OF LIMIT QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING.
THOSE MAY BE THE ULTIMATE ORIGIN
OF EVERYTHING, OR THE ULTIMATE
ORIGIN OF THE LAWS OF NATURE;
OF THE FACT THAT THE WORLD
IS SO WELL ORGANIZED.
AND I THINK PART OF THAT KIND
OF ULTIMATE - LIMIT QUESTIONS
RAISES AT LEAST AN
OPEN-ENDEDNESS TO THE SCIENTIFIC
UNDERSTANDING WHERE YOU MIGHT
SAY WELL, THAT THERE'S A MYSTERY
BEHIND IT ALL.
IT'S NOT EVIDENCE
FOR A PARTICULAR ANSWER.
SURE.
BUT IT IS AN OPENING
WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE A
MORE THEISTIC ANSWER.
THAT'S MOVING MORE TOWARDS SOME
OF THE PANTHEISTIC, IMAGES WHERE
GOD IS THE WORLD AND THE WORLD
IS GOD OR PANENTHEISTIC IMAGES
WHERE - THE WORLD IS IN GOD, BUT
GOD IS BIGGER THAN THE WORLD.
DO THOSE IMAGES FIT MORE CLOSELY
WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF A
NATURALISTIC KIND OF GOD?
WELL PART OF IT FOR ME IS THE
CHALLENGE ABOUT, THINK ABOUT
PANTHEISM, ABOUT THE WORLD AS
GOD, ARE ISSUES NOT SO MUCH OF
EXPLANATION BUT OF VALUE -
THAT YOU SOMEHOW SEEM TO ENDORSE
EVERYTHING AS GOOD.
IN THE PANTHEISTIC
VIEW, IT SEEMS ALL DEIFIED.
THERE ARE TWO CONCERNS
FOR ME IN DEIFYING REALITY.
ONE IS WHAT DOES IT ADD.
IT SEEMS PRETTY SUPERFLUOUS IN
JUST GIVING IT ANOTHER LABEL BUT
SAYING WELL ALL OF REALITY.
AND THE OTHER IS ALSO WELL, IN
OUR REALITY AS HUMANS, WE SEE
THINGS EVIL OR HUMAN
SIN, HUMAN FAILURES.
AND SO WE ALSO NEED THE GOD
LANGUAGE I THINK TO EXPRESS
AND DIFFERENTIATE MORALLY
BETWEEN THE POSITIVE AND THAT
WHICH WE WANT TO CRITICIZE IN
THE LIGHT OF SOME HIGHER IDEAL.
WHAT KIND OF GOD DOES
THAT LEAD YOU TO SEE?
I MEAN HOW DOES IT CHANGE
YOUR VIEW OF WHAT THAT GOD
MAY BE LIKE?
I THINK IT HAS FOR ME IMPROVED
THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
GREATNESS OF IT ALL.
THIS CONCEPT OF THE ORIGIN OF IT
ALL, NOT IN A PARTICULAR TIME,
BUT IT'S MUCH MORE THAN
JUST AN ENGINEER MAKING IT.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THE MORE
THAT YOU HAVE EMBEDDED YOURSELF
WITHIN A NATURALISTIC VIEW -
WHICH TO SOME PEOPLE WOULD MAKE
YOU MORE ATHEISTIC AND AWAY FROM
THEISM - YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT
VIEW IS GIVING YOU A DEEPER AND
RICHER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT GOD
MAY BE LIKE.
YES, NOT AS A CLAIM THAT
I NOW UNDERSTAND IT, GOD...
YEAH, SURE.
...BUT AS A WAY OF THINKING
ABOUT THE GREATNESS OF IT ALL.
WILLEM'S RELIGIOUS NATURALISM
CENTERS ON SCIENCE - HE ESCHEWS
THE TRADITIONAL PERSONAL GOD.
STILL, TO EXPLAIN EXISTENCE -
HE MUST GO BEYOND SCIENCE -
HE NEEDS AN ULTIMATE
'GROUND OF BEING.'
BUT IF THIS BE 'GOD,' IT IS A
SLIMMED-DOWN GOD - A GOD OF
BARE ESSENTIALS - A
BASELINE-BEGINNING KIND OF GOD.
I'D BE DISAPPOINTED - THOUGH
I RESPECT THE HONESTY AND
TREASURE THE CLARITY.
FRANKLY, I ADMONISH MYSELF,
I SHOULD FEAR CONSTRUCTING A
DIVINE EDIFICE
WITHOUT FOUNDATION.
CAN PROGRESS BE MADE?
WHAT ABOUT AN
OPPOSITION GOD-CANDIDATE?
PANTHEISM - WHERE GOD IS
THE WORLD AND THE WORLD IS GOD.
WILLEM IS NOT IMPRESSED, BUT
OTHERS TAKE PANTHEISM SERIOUSLY.
I SPEAK TO THE CO-ORGANIZER OF
THE ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS OF GOD
CONFERENCE - PHILOSOPHER
OF RELIGION YUJIN NAGASAWA.
SO PANTHEISM SAYS THAT GOD IS
IDENTICAL TO THE UNIVERSE AND
PANENTHEISM SAYS THAT
THE UNIVERSE IS A PROPER
PART OF GOD.
NOW THIS IS THESE VIEWS ARE VERY
DIFFERENT FROM THE CLASSICAL
CONCEPT OF GOD, WHICH SAYS THAT
THERE IS OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT
AND MORALLY PERFECT CREATOR.
THAT IS A PERSONAL GOD.
THAT'S RIGHT.
AND ALMOST ALL ARGUMENTS AGAINST
THE CLASSICAL CONCEPT TRY TO
SHOW THAT THERE CANNOT BE
AN OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT AND
MORALLY PERFECT BEING.
AND PANTHEISM AND PANENTHEISM
REJECT THIS KIND OF IDEA SO THEY
DON'T FACE THESE ARGUMENTS
AGAINST THE CLASSICAL
CONCEPT OF GOD.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME PANTHEISM
AND PANENTHEISM THEY FACE ALL
SORTS OF PROBLEMS AS WELL.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THEM?
OKAY THE FIRST ONE
IS A PROBLEM OF UNITY.
SO PANTHEISM AGAIN SAYS THAT THE
UNIVERSE IS IDENTICAL TO GOD,
THAT THE UNIVERSE CONTAINS A LOT
OF DIFFERENT THINGS, SO HOW CAN
WE SAY THAT GOD IS
IDENTICAL TO THE UNIVERSE?
HOW CAN WE TREAT THE
UNIVERSE AS A SINGLE ENTITY?
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE DEFINITIONS
OF GOD LIKE TO SHOW THAT
GOD IS SIMPLE.
YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT, IF PANTHEISM
IS TRUE THEN THE UNIVERSE IS GOD
WHICH INCLUDES A LOT OF COMPLEX
PROPERTIES AND OBJECTS AND SO
ON, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT STRANGE
TO THINK THAT THE UNIVERSE IS
THE GREATEST POSSIBLE BEING.
ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT PANTHEISM
AND PANENTHEISM FACE IS THE
ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE.
ACCORDING TO COSMOLOGY THE
UNIVERSE BEGAN TO EXIST 15
BILLION YEARS AGO AND IF THAT'S
TRUE THAT MEANS THAT GOD BEGAN
TO EXIST 15 BILLION YEARS AGO.
AND SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT IT'S
IMPLAUSIBLE TO THINK THAT GOD
BEGAN TO EXIST.
PANTHEISM AND PANANTHEISM ALSO
FACES ANOTHER PROBLEM WHICH SAYS
THAT MAYBE THESE ARE
JUST ATHEISM IN DISGUISE.
SO MANY SCIENTISTS LIKE
PANTHEISM OR PANENTHEISM BECAUSE
IT'S QUITE NATURALISTIC.
WE SAY THAT THE UNIVERSE IS
ALL THERE IS AND WE JUST CALL
THE UNIVERSE GOD.
SO YOU MIGHT THINK THAT THERE
IS NO ONTOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN WHAT THE
PANTHEISTS BELIEVE AND
WHAT ATHEISTS BELIEVE.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT?
NO I THINK A PANTHEIST AND
PANENTHEIST CAN CLAIM THAT THEIR
VIEWS ARE
DIFFERENT FROM ATHEISM.
THERE IS SOMETHING
SPECIAL ABOUT THE UNIVERSE.
IT'S NOT JUST A UNIVERSE IS A
PURE PHYSICAL THING WITHOUT ANY
ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES THAT CAN
ATTRIBUTE TO THE DIVINITY OR
WORSHIP WORTHINESS
OF THE UNIVERSE.
PERSONALLY, I'M NOT FEELING
MUCH ENTHUSIASM FOR PANTHEISM
AND ITS PROGENY.
TO AFFIX TO THE UNIVERSE THE
TITLE OF 'GOD' SEEMS A DESPERATE
AND FUTILE MOVE TO FIND MEANING.
STILL, I SHOULD LEARN
FROM ALTERNATIVE GODS.
I SEEK HELP FROM A PHILOSOPHER
OF RELIGION WHO HAS NO USE FOR A
PERSONAL GOD, ERIC STEINHART.
ERIC, I LIKE THE IDEA OF
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS OF GOD
BECAUSE IT GIVES ME A BIGGER
POSSIBILITY SPACE TO SEE WHAT
MIGHT BE REAL.
THE PROBLEM IS WHEN I GET
INTO IT, I FEEL LIKE I'M IN A
BLIZZARD, AND THE SNOW IS SO
THICK THAT I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING.
PANTHEISM, PANENTHEISM,
VALUE, THEISM AND EACH ONE HAS
ITS OWN VARIETIES.
RIGHT, YEAH, IT CAN
FEEL LIKE A BLIZZARD.
AND IF YOU'RE A THEOLOGICAL
REALIST, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE
YOU ARE, YOU'RE THINKING
THAT THERE'S SOME
DIVINE REALITY, EXISTENCE.
NO I'M NOT.
I'D LIKE TO SEE IF THERE IS.
OKAY, ALL RIGHT.
I'D LIKE TO BE A THEOLOGICAL
REALIST, I'D LIKE TO BE,
BUT I'M NOT.
WELL BUT MAYBE THIS'LL HELP
WITH - 'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE
MAYBE YOU ARE.
SO YOU THINK OF, THERE'S SOME
DIVINE REALITY AND WE TAKE A
MORE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH WHERE
WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT.
RIGHT?
AND NOW WE'VE GOT DIFFERENT
THEORIES ABOUT WHAT IT MIGHT BE.
YEAH, OKAY.
RIGHT, AND SO, WE'RE TRYING TO
SAY LIKE WELL WE HAD THESE OLD
ONES, BUT IT WASN'T CLEAR THEY
CAME FROM A KIND OF RATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND DIVINE REALITY.
CERTAINLY THEY'RE ALL
PRE-SCIENTIFIC FOR SURE.
THEY'RE PRE-SCIENTIFIC.
SO NOW YOU'VE GOT
PEOPLE STARTING TO USE KINDS
OF IMAGES, METAPHORS.
FOR INSTANCE THE
COMPUTATIONAL METAPHOR.
BUT FOR INSTANCE
METAPHORS OF GOD'S BODY OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THINK ABOUT THE PANTHEISTS.
SO PANTHEISTS HAVE THOUGHT
THAT GOD IS THIS EVERYTHING.
NOW IF IT'S JUST THE UNIVERSE IT
SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE JUST GIVING
ANOTHER NAME FOR THE UNIVERSE.
IT'S CALLING GOD, IT'S GOD
'CAUSE I LIKE IT, OR SOMETHING.
PANTHEISM ALSO HAS THE
PROBLEM IS IT'S HARD TO RELATE
TO THE UNIVERSE.
EXCEPT TO BE IN IT.
TO SAY THE UNIVERSE IS GOD
WITH A CAPITAL G, IF YOU CAN'T
WORSHIP IT OR CAN'T MAKE
RELIGIOUS SENSE OUT OF THAT.
RIGHT?
YEAH, THEY TRY TO PUT SOME KIND
OF A UNITY OR SOME KIND OF A
SPIRITUALITY INTO IT BUT
I DON'T SEE VERY MUCH.
I WOULD AGREE AND
THAT'S BEEN A PROBLEM
FOR TRADITIONAL PANTHEISM.
SO PEOPLE TRIED TO THINK OF
STRONGER TYPES OF PANTHEISM.
SO PHYSICISTS AND PHILOSOPHERS
HAVE BOTH THOUGHT THERE MIGHT
BE MULTIPLE UNIVERSES.
MANY UNIVERSES, RIGHT IN
ONE GIGANTIC WORLD SOMEHOW.
SO MAYBE IT MAKES MORE
SENSE TO THINK OF THE DIVINE AS
THAT TOTAL STRUCTURE.
THE TOTALITY OF ALL
POSSIBLE WORLDS OR
UNIVERSES, RIGHT TOGETHER.
AND THAT SEEMS TO SUGGEST
THAT IDEA OF OKAY, SEEING THIS
ENCLOSURE OF ALL POSSIBLE
UNIVERSES SOMEHOW AS BEING IN
THIS ONE GREAT THING.
AND THROUGH ITS NECESSARY
EXISTENCE IT BRINGS THEM ALL
INTO EXISTENCE, ALL THE
POSSIBILITIES INTO EXISTENCE.
THAT'S THE KIND OF
PANTHEISM THAT COULD BE
RELIGIOUSLY VERY INTERESTING.
IT'S NOT JUST GIVING OUR
UNIVERSE ANOTHER NAME.
MAYBE THE MORE INTERESTING
QUESTION IS, CAN WE DEAL WITH
GODS THAT AREN'T LIKE US?
RIGHT, SOME PEOPLE THINK
THAT THE CHALLENGE TO THEISM,
THEISTS ARE GUILTY OF IDOLATRY.
CREATING GOD IN OUR IMAGE.
YEAH.
AND THAT'S THE PERSONAL PART.
THE PERSONAL PART.
SO MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST GET RID
OF THIS PERSONAL IDEA, AND SO
MAYBE IT'S GONNA BE AND I THINK
IT WILL BE - ONE OF THE MOST
INTERESTING THINGS TO SEE
RELIGION DEVELOPING IN THE WEST
OF US LEARNING TO THINK OF THE
DIVINE IN AN IMPERSONAL WAY.
SO YOU ASKED
ABOUT PANENTHEISM TOO.
RIGHT AND THAT'S SORT OF SAYING
THAT GOD CONTAINS THE UNIVERSE,
RIGHT, BUT IS A LITTLE BIT
MORE THAN THE UNIVERSE
THAT IT CONTAINS.
SO MY OWN VIEW OF COURSE WITH
THE LITTLE GODS THAT I SOMETIMES
TALK ABOUT, ALL THESE
LITTLE GODS THAT CONTAIN THEIR
OWN UNIVERSES, IS
PANENTHEISTIC IN THAT WAY.
SO I THINK GODS ARE LIKE
COMPUTERS THAT RUN UNIVERSES AS
PROGRAMS INSIDE THEM.
AND SO THE SORT OF COMPUTER
THAT'S RUNNING THE UNIVERSE IS A
LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN THE
UNIVERSE THAT IT'S RUNNING.
THINK OF IT THIS WAY, RIGHT.
THERE WAS THE
PROCESS THEOLOGIANS.
PROCESS THEOLOGY, THAT'S
WHERE PANENTHEISM CAME FROM.
PROCESS THEOLOGY SAID THINGS
LIKE YOU KNOW GOD STARTS OUT
SMALL AND GETS BIGGER
AND BIGGER AND BIGGER.
SO GOD IS THE SELF-SURPASSING
SURPASSER OF ALL.
YOU KNOW, I THINK MAKES MORE
SENSE IS TO SAY WELL THERE'S A
GOD, AND IT CREATES A BIGGER
GOD AND IT CREATES A BIGGER GOD.
INSTEAD OF HAVING THIS
GROWTH PROCESS GO ON FOREVER.
WITH ONE THING, YOU START OUT
WITH A LITTLE ONE AND IT MAKES A
BIGGER ONE, AND IT
MAKES A BIGGER ONE.
SO IT'S A VERY
PROCESS VIEW ALREADY.
SO TAKING THE PROCESS GOD AND
SPLITTING IT UP INTO ITS STAGE
MADE A LOT MORE SENSE TO
ME THAN JUST CONTINUING.
GODS WHO GROW?
I CAN GROW TO LIKE THAT.
NOT THE CLASSIC PERFECT-BEING
GOD - WHOSE PERFECTION IS SO
PERMANENT IT CANNOT CHANGE.
BUT A GOD WHO PROGRESSES.
I MYSELF LIKE TO PROGRESS,
SO I'D WANT A GOD
WHO PROGRESSES ALSO.
TRADITIONAL THEOLOGIANS MAY
BE APPALLED, BUT I'D LOOSE THE
RESTRAINTS OF WHAT
GOD MAY BE LIKE.
HOW ELSE COULD ALTERNATIVE GODS
UNTETHER OUR GOD-TETHERED MINDS?
AT THE CONFERENCE, I MEET A
PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION FROM
NEW ZEALAND WHO
ASSERTS A RADICAL KIND OF
DIVINE LOVE - JOHN BISHOP.
JOHN REJECTS THEISM, SO I BEGIN
BY ASKING HIM TO DEFINE IT.
WHEN YOU SAY THE CONCEPT OF
THEISM, I TAKE IT YOU HAVE IN
MIND WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE SORT
OF STANDARD OR PREVAILING VIEW.
SOMETHING LIKE GOD IS A PERSON
WITHOUT A BODY WHO CREATES
THE UNIVERSE EX NIHILO.
FROM NOTHING.
FROM NOTHING AND WHO IS
THEREFORE, I SUPPOSE SUPREMELY
POWERFUL OMNIPOTENT, HE MUST BE
SUPREMELY KNOWING, OMNISCIENT.
AND HE'S PERFECTLY GOOD.
AND THE SOURCE OF
OUR ULTIMATE SALVATION.
NOW THAT SEEMS TO BE
POSTULATING SOME KIND OF
ABSOLUTELY SUPREME ITEM.
WE TAKE THE NATURAL WORLD AND
THEN WE ARE ADDING THIS BEING TO
IT, WHO I THINK INEVITABLY, HAS
TO BE CONCEIVED OF RATHER LIKE
OURSELVES AS A
SUPREME PERSONAL AGENT.
AND THAT DOES RUN INTO
VARIOUS KINDS OF DIFFICULTIES.
I MEAN THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
IS ONE VERY OBVIOUS ONE.
BUT THERE ARE OTHER KINDS OF
WORRIES THAT PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE.
A SENSE THAT IF GOD IS
SUSTAINING EVERYTHING IN
EXISTENCE AS A PERSON THEN HOW
DOES HE FEATURE IN RELATION TO
ORDINARY HUMAN
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.
HE SEEMS TO BE CONSTANTLY AS
SOME PHILOSOPHERS HAVE THOUGHT
SPYING ON US.
I MEAN, MOST PERSONAL
RELATIONSHIPS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE
THAT ONE GETS TIMES TO
ONE'S SELVES, BUT IF GOD IS THE
SUPREME PERSON WHO IS
ALWAYS THERE YOU'LL NEVER GET
TO GET THAT.
AND THEN OF COURSE THERE ARE
ALL THE PROBLEMS ABOUT HOW GOD'S
POWER RELATES TO OUR FREEDOM.
I MEAN SURELY FOR THE BEST
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WE NEED
TO BE OPERATING FROM AUTONOMY.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT BECAUSE
OF THOSE SORTS OF WORRIES THAT
IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING
TO LOOK AT WHETHER THERE
ARE ANY ALTERNATIVES.
DO WE HAVE TO THINK OF
GOD IN THIS KIND OF WAY?
I MEAN, AN INTERESTING QUESTION
TO ASK IS ARE WE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO DO THIS AND STAY WITHIN
CHRISTIANITY OR WILL WE HAVE TO
ADMIT IN ALL INTEGRITY THAT
WE ARE MOVING INTO A KIND OF
POST CHRISTIAN THEISM?
BUT I THINK ACTUALLY IF YOU GO
BACK AND LOOK AT THE ORIGINS
OF CHRISTIANITY AND WE GO
BACK TO THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES,
YOU CAN FIND SOME
SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA THAT THE
REALITY OF GOD IS NOT SOMETHING
SUPERNATURAL BUT SOMETHING THAT
IS WHOLLY REALIZED AMONGST US.
RIGHT?
I MEAN, JESUS WAS PROCLAIMING
THAT HE KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME.
IT'S HERE, IT IS
AMONGST YOU NOW, RIGHT?
SO THE IDEA THAT WE ALWAYS
HAVE TO BE THINKING OF GOD
AS THIS SUPERNATURAL BEING,
MAY NOT BE DEFINITIVE OF
A CHRISTIAN SPIRITUALITY.
WHEN YOU HEAR THAT GOD IS MAYBE
NOT IN THE SUPERNATURAL REALM
BUT MORE IN THE
NATURAL REALM THAT SEEMS TO
RADICALLY DIMINISH GOD.
RIGHT, YES.
WELL I SUPPOSE IT DEPENDS WHAT
WE THINK THIS NATURAL THING IS
WHICH REALIZES THE DIVINE.
AND LET ME JUST REMIND YOU OF AN
EPISODE IN THE GOSPELS WHICH I
FIND REALLY QUITE ELECTRIFYING.
WHERE ONE OF THE APOSTLES PHILIP
SAYS TO JESUS, LORD SHOWS US THE
FATHER AND THAT WILL SUFFICE FOR
US, WHERE IS HE, SHOW US HIM.
AND BASICALLY JESUS
SAYS TO HIM, LOOK PHILIP,
YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE BEEN
WITH ME ALL THIS TIME AND
YOU DON'T KNOW?
IF YOU HAVE SEEN ME
YOU HAVE SEEN THE FATHER.
RIGHT.
SO, JESUS WAS SAID HE'S ALMOST
SAYING TO PHILIP, SORRY PHILIP
YOU KNOW THERE ISN'T
ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT
WE ACTUALLY HAVE.
NOW HOW COULD WE CHARACTERIZE
WHAT IT IS IN THE GOSPEL STORY
THAT JESUS HAD
WITH HIS DISCIPLES.
AND I THINK THE ONLY
WORD FOR IT IS LOVE.
NOT A SENTIMENTAL
KIND OF LOVE.
BUT A KIND OF LOVE THAT
INFINITELY VALUES EACH PERSON
FOR WHO THEY ARE.
BUT I DO WANT TO RETAIN THE IDEA
OF GOD AS TRANSCENDENT AND I
THINK ONE CAN GET THAT BY SAYING
THAT THERE'S NEVER ANY LIMIT TO
THE POSSIBILITY OF THE
REALIZATION OF LOVE WITHIN THE
UNIVERSE BECAUSE THE FACT
THAT THE UNIVERSE IS A DIVINE
CREATION IS THE VERY FACT THAT
IS THERE IN ORDER TO BRING
ABOUT THOSE MANIFESTATIONS.
BUT DOES THAT LOVE YOU SAY IT'S
IMPERSONAL, IT'S NOT A PERSONAL
BEING THAT HAS THAT
LOVE IT IS JUST THE LOVE.
DOES IT HAVE CREATIVE FORCE?
DOES IT HAVE WILL, DOES IT
HAVE INTENT, OR DID CREATION
JUST HAPPEN NATURALLY?
WELL I THINK I'M COMMITTED TO
SAYING THAT IT DOES HAVE THAT
SORT OF CREATIVE FORCE, RIGHT,
AND CERTAINLY WHEN YOU SAY COULD
SUCH CREATIVE POWER OF INTELLECT
AND WILL, WELL I MEAN THAT
SEEMS, IT JUST SEEMS TO
BE IN THE WRONG CATEGORY.
AND SO I THINK GOD IS LITERALLY
GOOD AND LITERALLY HAS WILL AND
INTELLECT AND SO ON BUT
NOT IN THE ORDINARY SENSE.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS
A POSSIBILITY THERE THAT MIGHT
ALLOW US TO SHOW THAT THE POWER
OF LOVE WITHIN THE UNIVERSE
REALLY DOES DESERVE TO
BE REGARDED AS DIVINE.
SO, IF I UNDERSTAND JOHN
PROPERLY, LOVE IS THE ULTIMATE
GROUND OF BEING - LOVE ITSELF -
NOT THE LOVE OF A PERSONAL GOD
BECAUSE THERE IS
NO PERSONAL GOD.
LOVE ITSELF WOULD THEN BE AN
'ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT OF GOD'.
BUT HOW IN THE WORLD COULD
'LOVE' IN THE VOID DO ANYTHING?
LOVE ALONE - LOVE NOT
CONNECTED TO A SENTIENT
MIND - SEEMS IMPOTENT.
LOVE ALONE IS AN ABSTRACT OBJECT
- AND ABSTRACT OBJECTS DO NOT
CAUSE THINGS, MUST
LESS CREATE UNIVERSES.
WHILE I CAN'T IMAGINE LOVE
UNDERGIRDING REALITY, THE IDEA
OF SEEKING ULTIMATE REALITY
THROUGH SOME DEEP ORGANIZING
PRINCIPLE IS TANTALIZING.
I ASK A CRITIC OF THE PERSONAL
GOD, PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION,
JOHN SCHELLENBERG.
THE IDEA OF GOD AS I UNDERSTAND
IT IS A RELIGIOUS IDEA AND SO
YOU MIGHT ASK WHAT DOES IT TAKE
FOR SUCH AN IDEA TO, TO REALLY
BE RELIGIOUS AND THAT'S
WHERE ULTIMISM COMES IN.
THE KIND OF IDEA THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HAS THREE PARTS.
THE FIRST IS ONE THAT
NATURALISTIC SCIENTISTS
CERTAINLY COULD AGREE WITH THAT
WE'RE TALKING TO A REALITY THAT
IS METAPHYSICALLY ULTIMATE.
BY THAT I MEAN SOMETHING THAT
IS THE DEEPEST FACT ABOUT THE
NATURE OF THINGS.
BUT TO GET A RELIGIOUS IDEA WE
HAVE TO SOMETHING MORE TO THAT.
SECONDLY A POINT ABOUT VALUE.
THAT THIS IS A REALITY THAT
IS UNSURPASSABLY VALUABLE.
RELIGION IS ABOUT VALUE.
AND THIRDLY THAT THIS VALUE
CAN CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING TO US.
SO IT HAS TO BE SOTERIOLOGICALLY
ULTIMATE AS WELL.
SO THESE THREE KINDS OF...
WELL THAT MEANS KIND OF A
SAVING OPPORTUNITY OR SOMETHING.
YES THAT WOULD BE A WAY OF
TALKING ABOUT HOW OUR OWN LIVES
ARE AFFECTED BY
THIS REALITY, OKAY?.
IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS
JUST DISTANT AND DOESN'T AFFECT
US IN ANY WAY AT ALL.
IN THAT CASE IT WOULD
NOT YET BE A RELIGIOUS.
SO YOU NEED THESE THREE
CHARACTERISTICS FOR AN ULTIMATE
REALITY TO BE COUNTED AS GOD
IN THE BIGGEST SENSE OF GOD OR
SOMETHING RELIGIOUS
BEYOND THE PHYSICS.
AND THEN YOU'VE
GOT OF WHICH THERE CAN
BE ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS.
RIGHT.
IF YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT
THE NARROW TRADITIONAL THEISTIC
IDEAL, WELL YOU CAN GET
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS OF THAT
JUST BY GOING TO THE BAPTIST
CHURCH OR THE METHODIST CHURCH
OVER THERE AND SO ON.
THAT'S NOT VERY INTERESTING.
WE WANT A MUCH BROADER
FRAMEWORK IDEA FOR
ALL RELIGIOUS INVESTIGATION.
THAT'S WHAT MY IDEA OF
ULTIMISM TRIES TO PROVIDE.
AN IDEA THAT COMBINES
THOSE THREE COMPONENTS.
BUT IT'S STILL VERY GENERAL,
EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE SAID THAT
THERE IS SOMETHING IF YOU
DO THAT IS METAPHYSICALLY,
AXIOLOGICALLY, AND STEREOLOGICAL
ULTIMATE, YOU STILL HAVE
TO FIND IT.
AND IN SIMPLE LANGUAGE IT MEANS
THERE IS AN ULTIMATE REALITY IN
TERMS OF ITS BEING, AN ULTIMATE
REALITY IN TERMS OF ITS VALUE
AND AN ULTIMATE REALITY IN
TERMS OF HOW IT AFFECTS US.
THOSE THREE CATEGORIES.
OKAY.
NOW ONCE YOU'VE SET THAT UP,
YOU'VE GOT THIS FRAMEWORK IDEA,
THEN YOU CAN START THINKING
ABOUT HOW VARIOUS MORE SPECIFIC
IDEAS MIGHT EXEMPLIFY IT,
MIGHT FIT INTO THAT FRAMEWORK.
GIVE IT A WHIRL.
A PANTHEISTIC PICTURE OF GOD.
DOES IT PROVIDE US WITH AN
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WHAT
IS METAPHYSICALLY ULTIMATE.
WHAT IS THE DEEPEST
FACTOR OF THE NATURE OF THINGS.
I THINK PANTHEISM AT LEST TRIES
TO DO SO AT LEAST WHEN WE'VE GOT
A RELIGIOUS NOTION A RELIGIOUS
PANTHEISM AND SIMILARLY WITH
REGARD TO VALUE A PANTHEIST WILL
THINK THAT GOD AS SHE CONCEIVES
GOD IS UNSURPASSABLY VALUABLE.
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT
ABOUT THE NATURE OF REALITY.
THAT GOD IS THE WORLD
AND THE WORLD IS GOD.
YES PANTHEISTS WILL THINK THAT
THE WORLD IS GOD AND GOD IS THE
WORLD IN SOME WAY AND THAT OF
COURSE CAN BE DEFINED VARIOUSLY
BUT BY BRINGING TO BEAR THIS
IDEA OF ULTIMISM, I'M TRYING TO
PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK FOR THINKING
ABOUT PANTHEISM AS WELL AS A
HOST OF OTHERS.
LET'S LOOK AT PANENTHEISM.
PANENTHEISM THE CLAIM THAT THE
WORLD IS IN GOD, IN SOME WAY.
GOD'S REALITY INCLUDES THE WORLD
BUT ALSO TRANSCENDS IT EXCEEDS
IT SO THERE IS NOT AN ENTIRE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOD AND THE
WORLD ON THIS
VIEW OF PANENTHEISM.
SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS YOU CAN
ASK THE PANENTHEIST IS YOU KNOW
EXACTLY HOW IS GOD
METAPHYSICALLY ULTIMATE ON OUR
SCHEME OF THINGS.
THAT WILL PROVIDE GREATER
CLARITY AS TO WHAT SORT OF THING
WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE AND
ALSO HELP US TO CONFIRM THAT IT
REALLY IS A RELIGIOUS, THAT IT
REALLY IS A CONCEPTION OF GOD.
WHAT DO I LEARN ABOUT
GOD FROM ALTERNATIVE GODS?
FIRST, EVERY KIND
OF GOD HAS PROBLEMS.
ENOUGH TO CHUCK THE
ENTIRE GOD PROJECT?
NOT ME.
NOT YET.
THEN HERE'S WHAT I LEARN.
FROM RELIGIOUS NATURALISM,
THAT IF THERE IS A GOD, GOD MUST
CONFORM TO SCIENCE.
FROM PANTHEISM, THAT WE HUMANS
YEARN TO FIND MEANING, EVEN BY
RENAMING THE UNIVERSE "GOD."
FROM PANENTHEISM, THAT EVEN
WITH A TRANSCENDENT BEING, THE
PHYSICAL UNIVERSE
COULD BE FUNDAMENTAL.
FROM A GOD WHO CAN GROW,
THAT DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS
COULD BE FUNDAMENTAL.
FROM LOVE AS ULTIMATE,
THAT PRINCIPLES OR VALUES COULD
HAVE CAUSATIVE POWERS.
FROM THE THEORY OF ULTIMISM,
I LEARN THAT DEEP EXISTENCE,
VALUE, AND IMPACT
DEFINE RELIGION.
I FIND MYSELF STILL
PREFERRING A PERSONAL GOD.
OR NO GOD AT ALL.
EITHER OF THE EXTREMES.
NOTHING IN THE MIDDLE.
NO COMPROMISES WHEN SEEKING GOD.
OVERALL, WHAT DO I LEARN?
WHEN DEALING WITH GOD,
IT'S A STRUGGLE GETTING
CLOSER TO TRUTH.
FOR COMPLETE INTERVIEWS
AND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,
PLEASE VISIT,
WWW.CLOSERTOTRUTH.COM.
