the condition for existence itself — Tom Storm

The gob (ground of being) has no alternative/opposite, for 'nothing' cannot have being or even be meant, for 'it' has no it.

There is no option for gob not to be, so it doesn't need a 'condition'. If one puts a 'condition' on it, then a further 'Condition' must be put on the 'condition', etc., in an infinite regress.

Besides, what is Eternal can't have a 'come from' or design put into it.

The biggest myth-take in the whole world when referencing the word 'God' is thinking that a lesser something, like human life and mind, has to have a Greater Life and mind behind it, the same infinite regress as always, also known as begging the question. Rather, we see the greater becoming from the lesser.

Westerners worship "the God of Abraham", for instance, rather than a "more sophisticated" god of the philosophers (e.g. "the ground of being", or "being itself", or "the one", or "the unmoved mover"). Arguments against the latter "god" (absolute) are far less consequential culturally and existentially, it seems to me, than arguments against the former "God" (creator).

Arguments against the latter "god" (absolute) are far less consequential culturally and existentially, it seems to me, than arguments against the former "God" (creator). — 180 Proof

Yes, I think this is probably accurate. I'd be interested how others see this.

In contrast, more nuanced conceptions of God, such as Paul Tillich’s idea of God as the "Ground of Being" or David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself - represent attempts to have this conversation in metaphysical terms rather than anthropomorphic ones. — Tom Storm

Abstracting god away from being a conscious being, and into something like "being itself" are... fine, I guess, but they have nothing to do with what Atheists think. When an atheist says "I don't believe in god", they're not saying "I don't believe in Being itself." It's so far removed from what everyone's talking about that bringing it up in a context where atheism is relevant is a complete red herring, an unwelcome equivocation.

but they have nothing to do with what Atheists think. — flannel jesus

I doubt that, I'm an atheist, and this is an area of interest for me. Many atheists I know have wrestled with the ideas of Jung, Tillich or Robert Sokolowski and getting more comprehensive and philosophical notions of what is meant by the idea of God seems important. When someone says they don't believe in God, the reasonable next question is: "What do you mean by God?"

I have a good friend who is a Catholic priest. He agrees with Christopher Hitchens on most matters of religion, but he's not an atheist. He just thinks that the cartoonish depictions of God offered by literalists are refutable and dumb.

When someone says they don't believe in God, the reasonable next question is: "What do you mean by God?" — Tom Storm

and the answer is never "being itself"

and the answer is never "being itself" — flannel jesus

Perhaps not immediately. But I’ve certainly heard these discussions over the past 30 years, and they sometimes do explore this concept. But even if they didn’t, perhaps they should, and that’s another aspect of my point: is it the case that atheism should evolve its thinking about the notion of God beyond the cartoon versions?

can atheism evolve its thinking about the notion of God beyond the cartoon version? — Tom Storm

What would be the reason? What would that evolution look like?

Isn't it obvious that ideas develop? If you're going to say you don't believe in God, you'd better be sure what you mean by 'God,' right?

The development happens when someone quotes Tillich, Hart, Gregory of Nyssa, or some Thomist, and the atheist may find themselves recognising that belief in God could be more complex than Richard Dawkins would have us think

Are you an atheist?

If you're going to say you don't believe in God, you'd better be sure what you mean by 'God,' right? — Tom Storm

Yeah, and so changing the definition to "being itself" is... not what's meant. That's my point. Atheists are sure what they mean, and they're sure they don't mean that.

That's why it's a red herring, a useless equivocation.

i'm not sure I'm following you. Take a paragraph or two to articulate your point.

Do you believe in Zombies? Maybe you do, but let's assume not for the time being. Tom Storm doesn't believe in Zombies.

Does your disbelief in Zombies need to evolve? Does it need to evolve into disbelief in Being Itself?

How about ghosts, or ghouls?

If someone says "i'm an atheist", and by that they mean "I don't believe in odin or zeus or ra or krishna or yahweh, or anything like those guys", then why does that disbelief need to "evolve", but disbelief in zombies doesn't?

I have known atheists who have become theists after reading more sophisticated writing on the notion of God. Many atheists are interested in enlargening their view of what is meant by the concept of God.

Does your disbelief in Zombies need to evolve? Does it need to evolve into disbelief in Being Itself? — flannel jesus

Well, since you've brought this up, my disbelief in zombies could change if there were a more compelling narrative and reasoning that convincingly explained how they might exist. If I'd only ever understood zombies as part of comic book fiction, but then encountered a serious scientific case for their possibility, I might come to believe that zombies could, in fact, exist.

Similarly, I might come to accept the idea of ghosts if they were understood as something other than the spirits of deceased people. For example, what if what we perceive as ghosts are actually echoes or residual events from the past, repeating in a way that some people are able to sense due to time anomalies or unusual conditions?

I have known atheists who have become theists after reading more sophisticated writing on the notion of God. — Tom Storm

But they're still atheists in the normal sense. In the sense that pertains to zeus and odin. They're only not atheists when you define god in such a loosey-goosey way that it could mean just about anything.

And if you redefine zombie to mean "a fruit that grows from the branch of a tree", well, hell, I believe in zombies too in that case! But why would I do that? Why would I redefine zombie in that way?

I don't see the point in redefining god to "being itself", when there's already a perfectly cromulent phrase for that, and that phrase is simply "being itself". I just don't see the point.

I just don't see the point. — flannel jesus

That's fine. Thanks for stopping by.

I would be real curious to understand the desire there, the desire to take the word "god", which for many means "a being like odin or zeus or ra or krishna or yahweh", and then turn it into "being itself". Where does that come from? Why do people do that?

To me, it seems like if you want to talk about being itself, you could always use the phrase "being itself", and you could leave god meaning "a being like odin or ..."

But they're still atheists in the normal sense. In the sense that pertains to zeus and odin. They're only not atheists when you define god in such a loosey-goosey way that it could mean just about anything. — flannel jesus

The idea of a more sophisticated theology is not "loosey-goosey." It has deep roots, going back to the early Church Fathers who wrote extensively about the nature of God. The literalist accounts of God that have emerged in modernity are more likely the "loosey-goosey" ones. There is a deeper, richer tradition of theism explored in writings that span centuries and continue to this day. We need someone who is deeply read in this material to contribute to this discussion.

I would be real curious to understand the desire there, the desire to take the word "god", which for many means "a being like odin or zeus or ra or krishna or yahweh", and then turn it into "being itself". Where does that come from? Why do people do that? — flannel jesus

Because this is how God has traditionally been understood in classical theism. It's not an evolution; it's a return to earlier thinkers like Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor.

The idea of Being needs to be set aside from that of being. Bentley Hart writes:

God so understood is not something posed over against the universe, in addition to it, nor is he the universe itself. He is not a “being,” at least not in the way that a tree, a shoemaker, or a god is a being; he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are, or any sort of discrete object at all. Rather, all things that exist receive their being continuously from him, who is the infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom (to use the language of the Christian scriptures) all things live and move and have their being.

Here is a taste of that these ideas look like when gently elaborated.

https://firstthings.com/god-gods-and-fairies/

Because this is how God has traditionally been understood in classical theism. — Tom Storm

Do you have evidence for that?

So that means, if someone says "I believe in God", that would by synonymous with saying "I believe existence exists"?

Your thread topic seems a worthy area of discussion. I come from the perspective of having been raised as a strong believer in God, which I questioned so much. My current position is more of a non-dualist, seeing theism and atheism as deficient and that doesn't mean agnosticism necessarily.

I do have some sympathy with Tillich's idea of 'ground of Being' and see it as compatible with Eastern metaphysics, especially Buddhism. There is so much black and white, definitive attempts to answer the issue of God in a clear cut way,. In particular, atheists often attack the most crude arguments for theism as opposed to being open to more in depth analysis. Tillich's idea of God as 'ground of being' has more depth than anthromorphism, because it goes beyond the idea of God as a Being as disembodied. His thinking may also be compatible with the thinking of Schopenhauer and Spinoza. It goes beyond the neat boxes of labelling as theist/ atheism of tick box culture.

So that means, if someone says "I believe in God", that would by synonymous with saying "I believe existence exists"? — flannel jesus

No. You need some familiarity with the literature to understand the concepts. Bear in mind this is not my area of expertise. The arguments are nuanced. The point of my OP is to get input from folk who are across this literature.

For Maximus the Confessor (a church father writing in the 7th century), being is foundational: it starts with God, and everything that exists participates in God's Being. But God is also beyond being in a way we can’t fully comprehend. Hence my OP around mysticism and the lack of certainty.

In particular, atheists often attack the most crude arguments for theism as opposed to being open to more in depth analysis. — Jack Cummins

Indeed.

Tillich's idea of God as 'ground of being' has more depth than anthromorphism, because it goes beyond the idea of God as a Being as disembodied. His thinking may also be compatible with the thinking of Schopenhauer and Spinoza. — Jack Cummins

Could be. In the writings of some of the early Church Fathers, the notion that we are participating in the Being of God and that all we know ultimately owes its existence to God reminds me of a type of idealism, wherein God is more like cosmic consciousness or a great mind from which we are all expressions.

God is the One who is, and all things that exist owe their existence to Him. For He is the true Being, and all things are in Him, through Him, and for Him."


— Maximus the Confessor, "Ambigua," 7

The idea of cosmic consciousness is also compatible with Taoism. It was during Christendom, that a firm definitive idea of believers vs non-believers grew, with an emphasis on outlawing heretics. Then, this definitive division was stepped into by science, especially the debate between materialism and idealism. Those who see beyond these, whether they call themselves atheists, theists, or whatever, may have a more expansive approach to the questions of 'truth'.

In particular, atheists often attack the most crude arguments for theism as opposed to being open to more in depth analysis. — Jack Cummins

Givrn that the overwhelming majority of the religious worship "the most crude" forms of theism, we atheists (or, in my case, antitheists) don't bother wasting our efforts on arguing against a "God" so devoid of distinctions by this "in-depth analysis" that no one (including theologians and philosophers) persecutes or kills or martyrs themselves in the name of ... "the ground of being".

When someone says they don't believe in God, the reasonable next question is: "What do you mean by God?" — Tom Storm

Well, I don't believe in magic, and what I mean by magic is "God" (i.e. whatever is impossible magic=god "makes" possible :sparkle:).

a return to earlier thinkers — Tom Storm

Maybe, but not a return to earlier believers ... who are still the vast majority of God-worshippers (e.g. Abrahamic theists who believe in "miracles", etc). After all, nobody prays to "being itself" – what would be the point of that?

... deep roots, going back to the early Church Fathers who wrote extensively about the nature of God

You have to go back a millennia or more before the derivative logos of "God" to the ancient Hebrews, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc (just in the West) for the existential mythos of "God". The Church Fathers were apologists-come-lately even in the recorded history (of histories) theist religion.

What does this mean for the problem of suffering?

For one, that evil is a privation, an absence. It is the slide towards multiplicity and materiality (i.e., mere potency, God being pure actuality). For instance, this metaphysics undergirds Dante's image of Satan as completely impotent, frozen in ice, forever flailing his legs at the "center of the cosmos" in vain. At the climax of the Commedia, Dante the Pilgrim's understanding will undergo a radical inversion as he realizes that the Mind of God that is "out beyond" the last Heaven (the "furthest out") is actually a dimensionless point with no location that "contains" the material cosmos, and that the material cosmos is nothing more than created being reflecting the light of this point. The image is like a candle diffusing light into mist, with darkness at the edges. The darkest area with any light at all, the area furthest from the point, is Hell.

In this image, the sin is the Augustinian "curvatus in se," a curving inward on the self and towards finite goods, which is a failure to fully reflect the divine light, which all things reflect to varying degrees to the degree they are at all. To be ruled over by the passions and appetites' drive towards finite things is to be oriented away from God, towards finite things, and ultimately towards nothing, since they are nothing of themselves.

This is an old idea though, you can see it in Socrates's admonition that the Athenians should chastise his sons if they act poorly, so they they will not "think themselves something when they are truly nothing" (St. Paul makes a similar point in Ephesians).

I don't know if that will clear much up. My description is probably only going to be so helpful because the area you are asking about is incredibly broad, since in the "classical metaphysical" tradition all of ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, physics, and even the philosophy of history hang together quite tightly, while the Doctrine of Transcendentals and the Analogia Entis run throughout them. It'd be like trying to explain the whole of "Continental Philosophy" in a post, although the classical tradition does have a good deal more unity (but also spans 2,000+ years).

One book I like here is Robert M. Wallace's Philosophical Mysticism in Plato, Hegel, and the Present. It's pretty accessible and I feel like starting with Plato is easier because he is more focused simply on how the Good is what makes man psychologically one and "like God." The book does get into the weeds with Hegel and a recap of contemporary thinkers, but those sections are skippable. But then it's Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics where the relationship between the Good and Unity (the way in which anything is 'one' and this 'is' at all) gets extended out to the entire cosmos of beings (plural). And the Metaphysics also has the initial consideration of Truth as a transcendental.

I have not found a good accessible book on this next move in the development unfortunately, but I do think Wallace captures something of the idea. David Bentley Hart's "Ye Are Gods" recounts some of the phenomenological arguments for the Good as the only possible target of all rational thought. The problem is that he is litigating theological ideas and assumes you already know the Transcendentals well, and I don't think it is very accessible. D.C. Schindler's Love and the Postmodern Predicament is one of the more accessible works, but he's a bit polemical in it vis-á-vis the issues he finds in contemporary thought and I think this will be an insurmountable distraction for many audiences unfortunately.



Neither Hart nor Tillich are working with new ideas. What they are expressing has been Christian orthodoxy for pretty much all of (well-recorded) Church history. It's the official theology of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, encompassing a pretty large majority of all current and historical Christians (and many Protestants hold to this tradition to).

It is, for instance, what you will find if you open the works of pretty much any theologically minded Church Father or Scholastic: St. Augustine, St. Bonaventure, St. Maximos, St. Thomas Aquinas, either of the Gregorys, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Gregory Palamas, etc.

It even shows up in materials for the catechumenate, although often to a far lesser degree because it's difficult to understand and also unnecessary to fully understand. Indeed, on the Orthodox view, one can only understand it properly through the life of praktikos and asceticism.

I hardly see how it can be some sort of "trick of equivocation" for traditional Christians to insist on 2,000 years of theological precedent laying out what they believe in response to atheist criticisms of "Christianity." And this seems particularly true because a good deal of these concepts also apply to considerations of the "golden age" of Islamic thought, and any fair consideration of Stoicism and Neoplatonism, which have not been immune from atheist critiques. Assertions that the real "God of Abraham" has to leave behind orthodox theology in the largest, oldest churches, as well as the Patristics, the Scholastics, the mystics, etc. just seems to me like demands that "Christians take ownership of the strawman we have constructed for them."

It also seems wholly unnecessary. Surely one can make positive apologetic arguments for athiesm without having to claim to engage with (and vanquish) the vast edifice of pre-modern theistic thought, just as surely one can offer social/political criticism of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism without having to argue if the Analogia Entis makes sense.

But there is also a weird standard here of "Christianity must be judged by the defense given of it by any random church-goer." I suppose this perhaps comes out of a certain sort of Protestant theology as well (one athiesm has inherited), and the idea of the "buffered self" who simply applies reason to commonly accessible "sense data" (as opposed to notions of "wisdom"). Yet I would hardly think this standard should be applied generally, and so would question if it is fair as applied to the faithful.

Does Nietzsche's philosophy stand or fall based on the description the average Nietzsche fan on the internet would produce for it? Given my experiences, this would be grossly unfair to Nietzsche. Nor would I expect the average person who embraces any given interpretation of quantum mechanics to necessarily understand it very well. It's a bit like making the assumption that every US citizen has become a Constitutional law expert by osmosis and is prepared to give an interpretation and defense of the Constitution and relevant jurisprudence. Or it is like demanding that your random hooligan in a black bloc be able to explain communism or anarchism—Marx and Proudhon—or any supporter of the Democratic party be able to articulate a cogent policy defense of Obamacare?

I certainly see problematic aspects of theism, especially the whole emphasis on 'sin', including original sin and sexuality. I come from a background of being troubled by fundamentalist Christians preaching to me.

As for the idea of 'magic' and metaphysics that is a little different. As you and probably others on the forum are aware, I navigated a lot of my angst over religion, not by atheism or theism but by the writing of Carl Jung. Some have criticised Jung for being an atheist and others, for him being too sympathetic with the idea of 'God'. The problem which I see with Jung is something ambiguity between an emphasis on the 'supernatural' and 'nature'.

Of course, Jung's ideas were developed in the last century when the dialogue between science, religion and science were in need of so much reconciliation. This may be what is happening and still needed in 21st Century thinking. One book which I found to be important was Lyall Watson's 'Supernature', which was written in the 20th Century, because it looks at the concept of the supernatural, demystying it. The supernatural, and magic, is often seen as being separate from nature. This may be the problem and that magic is about patterns and connections, and there being more to sensory (or extrasensory) perception than Cartesian-Newtonian thinkers have acknowledged.

Neither Hart nor Tillich are working with new ideas. What they are expressing has been Christian orthodoxy for pretty much all of (well-recorded) Church history. It's the official theology of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, encompassing a pretty large majority of all current and historical Christians (and many Protestants hold to this tradition to). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not convinced that "being itself" is the complete idea of god in these conceptions. I believe it's PART of how God is conceived, but it must have additional stuff to it, in order for god to be the god of the bible. God is being itself, AND did this or that in history (including incarnating himself / his son at a human), AND has future plans on what he will do.

So just defining god as being itself probably isn't the whole truth for these people, just a (very important) part of the truth. He is being itself, AND a whole bunch of other things (some of which more closely resemble the naive view of gods)

As an example, Aquinas clearly thought Jesus was truly divine, and not just a man or just a myth. So if God is defined simply as "being itself", then what the fuck is Jesus? A human being, and "being itself" at the same time? There's clearly got to be a whole lot more to God than just being itself, in order to account for many of the important literal truths that Aquinas believes in. When he says he believes in the Christian god, he's clearly not just saying "I believe in being itself", he's saying a whole lot more than that.

Where I think this becomes particularly interesting is that questions like the problem of evil take on a different character. — Tom Storm

As a point of reference, Philip Goff moved from atheism to theistic personalism rather than classical theism because he thinks the problem of evil excludes classical theism (link). I think he's fairly ignorant of both theological traditions, but that sort of move is not uncommon nowadays. In fact a good portion of theistic personalism seems to be a response to critiques of (classical) theism. While theistic personalism is more readily given to caricature, there is an open debate as to whether it is inferior with respect to, say, the problem of evil.

Indeed, you are correct. St. Thomas' theology is no more wholly summed up by "God is being itself," than is the case for Aristotle ("pure act"), Plotinus, St. Maximos, or Al Farabi. Even those with the strictest commitment to apophatic theology and the Via Negativa go further than this, since this would be not to say much of anything (I think we can agree here). "God is the ground of being" is not meant to be an exhaustive theology, and certainly not a definition.

Those of an apophatic bent might put it differently though. To paraphrase Dionysius the Areopagite: to say "God is" is false. And to say "God is not" is false. But it is more incorrect to say "God is not."

A key difference in this sort of "classical" theology is whether or not thinkers thought an analogy of proper proportion existed between God and creatures, such that analogous predication vis-á-vis the Divine was possible. Likewise the question of if God is only known through God's energies, never His essence.

But aside from the fruits of discursive reason and "natural theology" there is the issue of revelation and illumination, but also the ascetical and spiritual life as a means of "knowing by becoming." Growth in virtue is growth towards "becoming like God." Virtue is ultimately love, and so it is conformity to God who "is love" (I John). Knowledge is attained through contemplation, through union, and this is a reflexive knowledge that cannot be shared directly though discursive means since the knowing is the being.

Plato says something not entirely dissimilar about the limits of discourse in Letter VII.

I suppose this might take us back to classical theism, as opposed to a more contemporary theological personalism — Tom Storm

I find this sort of discussion frustrating for some of the reasons I think you are getting at here. To me, there are two types of relevant question. First - does it make metaphysical sense, can it be useful, to see the universe as having human characteristics - a personality, a purpose, goals. Second - is it factually true that there is a conscious, aware, powerful entity who, perhaps, created and has control of the world. To the first question I would answer a strong "yes." To the second I would give a shrug.

In contrast, more nuanced conceptions of God, such as Paul Tillich’s idea of God as the "Ground of Being" or David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself - represent attempts to have this conversation in metaphysical terms rather than anthropomorphic ones. — Tom Storm

I think the approach you're describing is just a way of addressing my first, metaphysical, question while ignoring my second, factual, one. Which is ok with me. In Taoism, the Tao is not usually thought of as an anthropomorphic god but as an ineffable, impersonal, nonliving ground of being. Really, no kind of god at all. Verse 4 of the Tao Te Ching is one of my favorites. This Stephen Mitchell's translation.

The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God. — Tao Te Ching - Verse 4

So, there is the Tao, the one, undivided, which manifests as the 10,000 things, the multiplicity of the world we live in, one of which is god.

Neither Hart nor Tillich are working with new ideas. What they are expressing has been Christian orthodoxy for pretty much all of (well-recorded) Church history. It's the official theology of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, encompassing a pretty large majority of all current and historical Christians (and many Protestants hold to this tradition to).

It is, for instance, what you will find if you open the works of pretty much any theologically minded Church Father or Scholastic: St. Augustine, St. Bonaventure, St. Maximos, St. Thomas Aquinas, either of the Gregorys, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, that's pretty much what I thought, based on my rudimentary reading.

All I'm really trying to do here is generate more interesting discussions about God.

As a point of reference, Philip Goff moved from atheism to theistic personalism rather than classical theism because he thinks the problem of evil excludes classical theism — Leontiskos

Very interesting and I can see how this could make sense to someone.

While theistic personalism is more readily given to caricature, there is an open debate as to whether it is inferior with respect to, say, the problem of evil. — Leontiskos

Yes, and I am interested in how these accounts might shape people's thinking.

First - does it make metaphysical sense, can it be useful, to see the universe as having human characteristics - a personality, a purpose, goals. Second - is it factually true that there is a conscious, aware, powerful entity who, perhaps, created and has control of the world. To the first question I would answer a strong "yes." To the second I would give a shrug. — T Clark

I tend to find that any set of ideas is going to be useful to someone (even if not to me). But the question is always could you not swap one set of useful ideas for a set even more useful?

But there is also a weird standard here of "Christianity must be judged by the defense given of it by any random church-goer." I suppose this perhaps comes out of a certain sort of Protestant theology as well (one athiesm has inherited), and the idea of the "buffered self" who simply applies reason to commonly accessible "sense data" (as opposed to notions of "wisdom"). Yet I would hardly think this standard should be applied generally, and so would question if it is fair as applied to the faithful.

Does Nietzsche's philosophy stand or fall based on the description the average Nietzsche fan on the internet would produce for it? Given my experiences, this would be grossly unfair to Nietzsche. Nor would I expect the average person who embraces any given interpretation of quantum mechanics to necessarily understand it very well. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. Very nicely put. And funny.

I don't know if that will clear much up. My description is probably only going to be so helpful because the area you are asking about is incredibly broad, since in the "classical metaphysical" tradition all of ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, physics, and even the philosophy of history hang together quite tightly, while the Doctrine of Transcendentals and the Analogia Entis run throughout them. It'd be like trying to explain the whole of "Continental Philosophy" in a post, although the classical tradition does have a good deal more unity (but also spans 2,000+ years). — Count Timothy von Icarus

In understand completely. It's a big subject. I'm not really trying to clear anything up personally, I am more interested in promoting nuanced discussion of the notion of God - a more philosophical account, let's say.

I come from a Baptist background. We were taught that the Bible is allegory and literalists are problematic creatures who reduce the notion of God to a petulant authoritarian. I guess we were taught that literalism was a disenchanted view of scripture. God remains ineffable.

Is Neoplatonism central to this notion of God as Being itself? The world emanates from The One.