I recently read the Geering book mentioned in the title which indicated that the definition of God was made possible by the evolution of human language. He asserts that God became the” craetive source of all that exists”. Without putting all Geerings’s arguments forward, my understanding of his conclusion is that the God definition needs to be updated to reflect the many ways that science has secularized that which was previously considered holy. I came away with the notion that the Geering’s current definition of God is nature itself. Nature operates according to the rules of nature and there is no concern for man any more than any other of nature’s creations. The notion of the personal caring God is replaced with a more modern definition. This certainly gives an answer to the problem of Theodicy ( in my understanding. ) Is the notion that nature is the God force a widespread notion or is it confined to Geering?
Mike
I think sometimes scholars make simple ideas way too complicated. If he’s talking from a philosophical or metaphysical view then I can’t say anything against that, but from a purely historical view “God” / “Allah” are merely the deities that won out in the majority of the world today. I don’t think there has ever been a society going back to some point distant past that was purely secular. All societies have needed their petty and superior gods and goddesses to explain the natural world around them. Even in today’s modern society the majority of people (and I was once one of them) still need to cling to some father figure higher power who is ultimately responsible for letting bad things happen to them when they’re naughty and letting simple pleasures reward them when they’ve been good.
I don’t see what the evolution of language has to do with any of that.
What does “creative source of all that exists” mean?
The only reason to call nature “God” would be if you could detect some sort of intention or objective in it. Since none can be demonstrated why isn’t “nature” a perfectly acceptable word? Why drag all that “God” baggage along with us into the future where it is almost certain to be misunderstood?
Nature IS the rules. And we are part of it. Certainly a creation without a creator is absurd. But what if the universe is not a creation?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)