{"id":9018,"date":"2014-01-19T16:35:14","date_gmt":"2014-01-19T16:35:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/?p=9018"},"modified":"2014-01-19T16:35:14","modified_gmt":"2014-01-19T16:35:14","slug":"everywhere-is-nowhere","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/everywhere-is-nowhere\/","title":{"rendered":"Everywhere is Nowhere"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"God,<\/a>In an admiring review<\/a> for The Week<\/em> of theologian David Bentley Hart\u2019s new book, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss<\/em>, Damon Lineker writes that it \u201cdemolishes\u201d the \u201cstraw man Atheism\u201d of those who treat \u201cGod as if he were the biggest, most powerful object or thing in, or perhaps alongside, the universe\u201d: <\/p>\n

But, of course, the major world religions don\u2019t view God in this way at all. They treat God, instead, as the transcendent source, the ground, or the end of the natural world. And that is an enormous \u2014 actually, an infinite \u2014 difference.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And one, I suspect, that may be lost on many of their followers.<\/p>\n

Back to the review:<\/p>\n

[God] is certainly not one of the many contingent causes within the natural world. But neither is he the first contingent cause, setting off the Big Bang from some blast-resistant fallout shelter lodged, somehow, outside of and prior to the universe as we know it.
\nOn the contrary, according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality \u2014 of absolutely everything that is \u2014 from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can\u2019t even say that God “exists” in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.<\/p>\n

This can be a difficult concept to grasp [possibly because it is, at its core, a cop-out], but Hart does an exceptionally good job of explaining it \u2014 as he does the way this classical idea of God makes sense of the experience and unity of consciousness, as well as the ecstatic longing for the good and the beautiful that lies at the heart of moral experience.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It does? \u201cEcstatic\u201d? Really?<\/p>\n

Lineker:<\/p>\n

In a move sure to enrage atheists, Hart even goes so far as to argue that faith in this classical notion of God can never be “wholly and coherently rejected” \u2014 and not only because it may very well be self-contradictory to prove the nonexistence of an absolute, transcendent ground of existence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cEnrage\u201d? I doubt it. A gently raised eyebrow would suffice.<\/p>\n

And then comes the inevitable Hallmark moment, some sweetener thrown in to what looks to me like very thin gruel: <\/p>\n

The deeper reason why theism can\u2019t be rejected, according to Hart, is that every pursuit of truth, every attempt to be good, every longing for beauty presupposes the existence of some idea of truth, goodness, and beauty from which these particular instances are derived. And these transcendental ideas unite in the classical concept of God, who simply is truth, goodness, and beauty. That\u2019s why, although it isn\u2019t necessary to believe in God in some explicit way in order to be good, it certainly is the case (in Hart\u2019s words) “that to seek the good is already to believe in God, whether one wishes to do so or not.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Okey dokey<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In an admiring review for The Week of theologian David Bentley Hart\u2019s new book, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, Damon Lineker writes that it \u201cdemolishes\u201d the \u201cstraw man Atheism\u201d of those who treat \u201cGod as if he were … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":64,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[14,711],"tags":[69,821,1025],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9018"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/64"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9018"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9018\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9020,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9018\/revisions\/9020"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9018"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9018"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9018"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}