lunamoth
Will to love
Hi All,
Not sure where to put it, and maybe it won't generate any discussion, but that's never stopped me before!
The more I think about it, the more it seems that theology and philosophy and science and psychology really are all just facets of one interation with being. Our models are called different things in the different disciplines, doctrines for theology, hypotheses in science, etc., and these models change over time as our perspective on the world changes.
The problem with a model is that it can be misused and end up being a trap for our thinking, resulting in a dead end if we view the model as the final say on 'how things are.' Excuse my fuzzy terminology here...I am admittedly a novice in philosophy.
Anyway, I am responding at least in part to the charge that any positive assertions about God create an idol. The God of the Philosophers remains absolutely ineffable and therefore, IMO, irrelevant. And yet, the history of philosophy has been almost completely concerned with the question of God, like a pendulum swinging back and forth between 'is' and 'is not.' So we know that philosophy itself is not prohibitive of models about God.
So, here is my diagram about doctrines/models and interation with God/Being.
The river represents transcendent God. It has tremendous potential for 'work,' having an impact on our being.
An abuse of doctrine, and the way religions are mostly criticized about dogma, is when the models or doctrines are used as a box to contain God, to pin God down so God can be described. Putting such barriers around God makes God static, rather than a process and so while we may then attempt to describe some aspect of God, we at the same time kill it, remove the potential for 'work.'
Another way to use a model, and I suggest that this is the same way models are actually used in scientific endeavor, is to view them as a mechanism of engagment with reality. The doctrine/model (let's say the Trinity), is not the reality (God). It is a mind-created appartus that lets us engage with reality in a meaningful way, capable of leading to 'work' growth/enlightenment, in short, something useful to us.
Just like a wheel, some doctrines are so foundational they remain useful for engaging the ineffable no matter how much subsequent change has come about in perspective. Other models, not so much. Eventually perhaps even the foundational models are replaced, not because they are incorrect but because they served their purpose as a stepping stone and are outgrown.
Anyway, these are just some of my recent thoughts about this and maybe they will be interesting to others who can help me think about it more.
Not sure where to put it, and maybe it won't generate any discussion, but that's never stopped me before!
The more I think about it, the more it seems that theology and philosophy and science and psychology really are all just facets of one interation with being. Our models are called different things in the different disciplines, doctrines for theology, hypotheses in science, etc., and these models change over time as our perspective on the world changes.
The problem with a model is that it can be misused and end up being a trap for our thinking, resulting in a dead end if we view the model as the final say on 'how things are.' Excuse my fuzzy terminology here...I am admittedly a novice in philosophy.
Anyway, I am responding at least in part to the charge that any positive assertions about God create an idol. The God of the Philosophers remains absolutely ineffable and therefore, IMO, irrelevant. And yet, the history of philosophy has been almost completely concerned with the question of God, like a pendulum swinging back and forth between 'is' and 'is not.' So we know that philosophy itself is not prohibitive of models about God.
So, here is my diagram about doctrines/models and interation with God/Being.
The river represents transcendent God. It has tremendous potential for 'work,' having an impact on our being.
An abuse of doctrine, and the way religions are mostly criticized about dogma, is when the models or doctrines are used as a box to contain God, to pin God down so God can be described. Putting such barriers around God makes God static, rather than a process and so while we may then attempt to describe some aspect of God, we at the same time kill it, remove the potential for 'work.'
Another way to use a model, and I suggest that this is the same way models are actually used in scientific endeavor, is to view them as a mechanism of engagment with reality. The doctrine/model (let's say the Trinity), is not the reality (God). It is a mind-created appartus that lets us engage with reality in a meaningful way, capable of leading to 'work' growth/enlightenment, in short, something useful to us.
Just like a wheel, some doctrines are so foundational they remain useful for engaging the ineffable no matter how much subsequent change has come about in perspective. Other models, not so much. Eventually perhaps even the foundational models are replaced, not because they are incorrect but because they served their purpose as a stepping stone and are outgrown.
Anyway, these are just some of my recent thoughts about this and maybe they will be interesting to others who can help me think about it more.
