socratease,
I just wanted to expand on your reference to Hans Küng, but apparently I took you too seriously when you wrote that

“in any mature discussion one should never have recourse to invective when dealing with counter propositions. I remind you that respect for the other perspective is the mark of integrity and maturity!”.

So I apologise for having outlined to you my “other perspective” that made you react in a way that you yourself so succinctly described in the above quote.

pelican,
The book by Hart is one of many responses to Dawkins’ book about his God Delusion. The author is an (Orthodox) theologian, apparently also with qualifications as a historian, though I do not think also of those of a (natural) scientist, the position Dawkins is writing from. Nevertheless, I am looking forward to read your comments about the book before I decide to eventually buy it myself.

Hart might or might not convincingly defend his view of “the positive impact of Christianity and its role in shaping the world as we know and understand it”; if he does he certainly would not be the first or only one. However, even without reading the book I am pretty sure he does not offer a “proof of the existence of God”- no reasonable person in 21st century will offer that. And as far as compatibility of a belief in God with the findings of contemporary e.g. physics and cosmology are concerned, I would rather recommend e.g. the other book advertised on the same webside: John Polkinghorne’s “Faith, Science & Understanding“, SPCK 2000, since the author is both an accomplished quantum physicist, a theologian and prolific writer on these matters.

Or, if you want to read specialist counter-arguments to Dawkins’ evolutionary theory of religion, I would recommend David Sloan Wilson (c.f. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04), a fellow evolutionary biologist and fellow atheist, the author of Darwin’s Cathedral - Evolution, Religion and the Nature of Society, UCP 2002.

George
No one can offer proof of God's existence.If this were to happen it would reduce God to something equal to or less than the human intellect. God remains inscrutable because we are all part of God and the part can never subsume the whole. Language is a human invention culturally derived.Words may well form the narrative by pointing the way to the Reality that hovers in our consciousness covertly.
I deplore statements like "Creator" of "God created" or God's creation"
These are expressions of theism that are still to be found in the works of even Polkinghorne and Spong and liberated thinkers like them. Hart to a lesser degree. We have to look to Westar for the closest we can get to non-theistic post-modern constructions of God talk.'No matter how progressive and liberal they may like to think they are. There is a latent residue of theistic undertones lurking below their level of consciousness.

Surely it is time to recoignise the value of evolutionary or process theology that tells us that God is.Everything that was, is or will be does so in God.There is only God who is in all of us and we are part of God. Someone once said (can't recall exactly who!) "It is at it is but it is not all as it is."

socratease

George wrote: “However, even without reading the book I am pretty sure he [Hart] does not offer a “proof of the existence of God”- no reasonable person in 21st century will offer that.”

If David Bentley Hart has written a book in response the Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”, that doesn’t try to prove the existence of God, then I would be interested in reading it.

Many Christians (even those who accept evolution) try to prove God by using the fallacious Ontological argument - which no matter how deeply one goes into, or how convoluted and lengthy they make their explanation - ends up essentially saying: “I can conceive God, therefore he exists”. I was pleasantly surprised to see that George doesn’t buy into this nonsense.

Speaking of the Ontological argument though, there is an excellent televised debate at the following two links between Matt Dillahunty (President of the Atheist’s Community of Austin, and the main host of the show The Atheist Experience on a cable channel in the US) and Matt Slick (from http://www.carm.org/ - Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry).

I think many here on this thread would be fascinated to watch the debate. Needless to say, Matt Dillahunty completely wipes-out the Christian apologist and his Ontological argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v02HM_-Dz2g (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do7DHRswzJ0&feature=response_watch (Part 2)

George,

If you were to read The God Delusion, I think you would be pleasantly surprised by how much you agree with Dawkins. You don’t go very deep into what you believe God to be, but from what I gather, and in my experience, you are in a small minority when it comes to the question of what God is. So I don’t think it’s very necessary to mention what you refer to as Dawkins’ own God Delusion, as this “delusion” that Dawkins’ speaks of refers to not just his own idea of God, but the idea of what the majority of Theists consider God to be.

As far as I can tell, the only comment I could imagine Dawkins making about the God you believe in is that it’s a pretty benign God.

I meant to respond to one of your interesting posts earlier but didnt find the time but now I can.It was the one posted on the 12th sept at 6.46:14 pm
You were talking about the use of language and text to express truths which,you said, in a millenis or so would be outdated and naive so "why not stick to them (language? texts?) and keep their exact wording and time-dependent interpretations inter-related but separate"

Unfortunately history shows us that we have moved into the post-modern period where serious users of language are guided by Derridean and Wittgensteinish paradigms that reveal the multifacted applicatioins of language that depend on all sorts of liberal ambivalences based on multiple contextual matrices. Languages that are imprisoned in time die.That has really always been the case. Its just that weve been brought back to a more rigid aplication of it,language. Things arent all that they are made out to be - "Oils arent oils" any more!!
Take the bible for example.Today churches interpret the NT in a way that suits their doctrines and world views forgetting that the ancient Jews didnt have English in the back of their minds when they wrote.They wrote in Aramaic using the Jewish midrash rubric. We have no idea what they understood Jesus to have meant by his teachings.They were Jews writing for Jews of the time and place. We have made up his meanings for ourselves.

socratease

socratease,
>>God remains inscrutable <<
Which does not mean people of different religions, cultures, cannot have models or images expressed in myths, sacred books etc. of the Inscrutable. Like quantum gravity (and the mathematics behind it) is “inscrutable” for many people, nevertheless they have their own notion about e.g. the Big Bang.

>> I deplore statements like "Creator" of "God created" or God's creation" <<
That is your good right (even though what you refer to are expressions/symbols, not statements). Other people might “deplore” other language, other expressions, including the ones you prefer, and that is their good right as well.

>> These are expressions of theism that are still to be found in the works of even Polkinghorne<<
Which is rather obvious since they are expressions/symbols normally used in Christian theology and he is also a Christian theologian.

As to your later excursion into hermeneutics, by the terse “their exact wording” I meant the text of the original or of the authorised (by this or that theological authority) into this or that language. Everybody is free to offer his/her own interpretation as long as it is not confused with the authorised texts. I enjoy reading sci-fi stories but treat them differently from writings by professional e.g. physicists or cosmologists, even when on a popularising level.

AJ Philips,
There is a difference between proving something, and offering an argument in support of something. I can prove that Canberra is the capital of Australia, whereas I can only offer you arguments in support of my belief that ALP (or the Coalition) is better suited to govern Australia. Anselm’s argument remains indeed just an argument, (especially after Russell debunked it), the same about Aquinas’ “five ways” (often erroneously referred to as “proofs”). - ctd

-ctd-
You are right, I have not read “The God Delusion” and probably will not, since I do not think I could learn anything from it, judging by the non sequiturs in his “Blind Watchmaker” going outside his domain of evolutionary biology (where he is a master in explaining things to non-experts).

This seems to be also Hart’s impression since his recent book - in the meantime I have looked at some reviews of the book in amazon.com - is indeed mostly a defence of “the positive impact of Christianity and its role” as pelican put it, rather than a philosophical argument. As far as I know, Dawkins in his book attacks (criticises, if you like) religion and belief in God in general, and Christianity’s role in our culture in particular. Hart seems to address only this second part.

>> you are in a small minority when it comes to the question of what God is <<
Not only that, as a mathematician I am probably also in a small minority when it comes to mathematics. Nevertheless, I do not see my understanding of mathematics in conflict with the understanding of a high school, or even primary school, student; I only had an inclination and opportunity to learn and think more about it.

Speaking of arguments, what can you offer to support your belief that I “don’t go very deep into what I believe God to be”? Yes, I believe He is “benign” (and not malignant), although Christians prefer a different adjective for this.

My understanding of quantum gravity also does not go very deep, nevertheless, I am glad it goes as far as it does. The same about my theological understanding.

The reality that God is supposed to be is much more inscrutable (to use socrateaese’s expression) than the physical reality of space, time and matter, nevertheless people try to understand them as far as they can. In case of God you need a predilection briefly called faith, in case of physical reality you need a “predilection” called mathematics.