Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The theist-atheist encounter

By George Virsik - posted Monday, 3 December 2018


The anthropomorphic view of God, namely that theists see God as if in their own image (ie a Person with or without the Trinitarian "structure") can be seen as the reverse side of the biblical "God created man in His own image". Thus Ludwig Feuerbach's "Man created God in his own image" - if "created" is replaced by "models" - can be seen by a theist as complementing (rather than negating) the fundamental biblical belief. An atheist, of course, will prefer Feurebach'soriginal version.

In particular, there is no Jewish, Christian, Muslim etc God, only different understandings, models, of God. Within Christian tradition one uses to distinguish between "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" and "the God of the philosophers". .Jaspers calls the belief in the latter philosophic faith (cf his Der Philosophische Glaube). These again are not different Gods only different approaches to, or models of, the same God. He who speaks of "a God", and asks for evidence to prove the existence of "a God", understands as little of what (religious) faith is, as the person who speaks of "a gravitation", and asks for evidence to prove the existence of "a gravitation", understands of physics. There is no Newton's gravitation and Einstein's gravitation only one gravitation. One can "see gravitation" only through its effect on material objects, and one can "see God" (or at least the usefulness of the concept) only through His effect on humanity, especially on the person who sincerely seeks Him, an activity that might be subjected to psychological but not philosophical analysis. This to accept requires "insider knowledge" (Michael Polanyi's indwelling)which is a byproduct only of religious faith.

Also various ancient mythologies can be seen as models or perceptions, albeit not theist, of God or transcendence. They are naive, so are naive also pre-scientific perceptions of physical reality with a blurry distinction between the spiritual (transcendent?) and physical (immanent?). Thus such mythologies as models of Reality cannot even be called pre-theist.

Advertisement

Let me conclude with the remark, that an atheist - ie a person who does not share the pre-theist (hence neither the theist) belief - might still find the concept of God (and this or that model of) a useful idea although without any reference to outer Reality. Or he/she might positively judge the role of religion, e.g Christianity, in history (more precisely, believe that its positive contributions prevail over its negative); similarly in the realms of psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. . Admittedly, with most atheists this is not the case.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

49 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

George Virsik is a retired mathematician from Monash University living in Germany since 2000. He can be contacted at gvirsik@t-online.de.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by George Virsik

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 49 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy