George.
Thanks for the quotation. My reading of the scientists turned theologians of Polkinghorne's and Peacocke's genre is that they have not shaken off the influence of natural theology and that the God that they arrive at is really a version of the intelligent supernatural being that set the planets in their orbits. Of course they update the activity of God to fit in with recent scientific discoveries, but the pattern in the same. If you look closely you will find that Polkinghorne may concede that God is involved in history and as such is not a deus absconditus but his transcendence is the same matter/spirit duality that continues to trouble scientists. I may be wrong about this as I have not made a detailed study of these men, but I suspect my suspicions are correct.

In the 20th C only Karl Barth has escaped from an initial decision about the existence of God based on philosophy and nature and has arrived at a truly biblical understanding of God. Other theologians have walked in the path that he took and I think that these really hold the key to the controversy about God in modernity.
There has been an unfortunate tradition in theology, beginning with Aquinas, to establish the existence of God and only then say how this god relates to the triune god of the bible. The result is always agonized. Barth relied on Anselm to tell him that the God who is the Father of Jesus Christ reveals himself to us and this revelation can only come to those who have faith (knowledge seeking understanding). This means that there is no road from our side to God, only God’s gracious path to us. So building constructs from nature to God is worthless.
I realize that I have gone on a bit and much of what I say is beside the point, please excuse.

Bushbasher.
True Christian theology is not based entirely on the subjective, it has its own object that requires its own langage.

Peter Sellick

Peter

I think I understand how deeply your theology is influenced by Barth, but to me his flat refusal to allow any human capability – reason, empirical observation or subjective experience – as a basis for knowledge of God is exasperating and unfruitful.

Karen Armstrong said this of Barth’s theology, and I mostly agree with her on this (though I guess Barth would say that Jesus Christ, not the bible, is the ultimate revelation):

[Karl Barth] … set his face against the Liberal Protestantism of Schleiermacher with its emphasis on religious experience. Barth was also a leading opponent of natural theology. It was, he thought a radical error to seek to explain God in rational terms not simply because of the limitations of the human mind but also because humanity has been corrupted by the Fall. Any rational idea we form about God is bound to be flawed, therefore, to worship such a God was idolatry. The only valid source of God-knowledge was the Bible. This seems to have been the worst of all worlds: experience is out; natural reason is out; the human mind is corrupt and untrustworthy; and there is no possibility of learning from other faiths, since the Bible is the only valid revelation. It seems unhealthy to combine such radical scepticism in the powers of the intellect with such an uncritical acceptance of the truths of scripture.

(History of God, p.380)

Sells,

Muslims would have difficulty in accepting a “reciprocal” loving relationship between God and Man because of God’s transcendental omnipotence. The parties’ ranks are not bi-lateral and equal as in human friendships, between a Man and Women or in familial relationships.

Likewise, in the OT, the Archaic Judeo-Christian god declares, “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14), predating “Nothing is like Him” (Surah, 42:11). In both instances, God is removed and mysterious.

Later, in the Christian faith, God was made Man (Jesus). As such, the presence of this Actor was not merely to replace the old covenants, but to have God present as Man. While, a transcendental god could not die as substitutionary ransom, Jesus the Man could. Here, The Christian crucifixion binds Human-kind and God-kind in a new way. In a sense the alleged events allows for a special relationship between non-equivalents.

But don’t sell the Islamic god short. Al-lah is alleged to be “compassionate” and “merciful” (Surah, 7:156).

The Islamic concept of God is Eastern in that amplifies the distance between God and Man (power distance). What you have missed is Islam does offer a relationship only said relationship is more deferential than with the Christian NT God. As the Academic Director of a university, I had occasion to do business in Indonesia and clearly recall a Muslim with whom I was meeting excusing himself, saying he needed to leave, “to commune with my God”. Those words would signify a (perceived) relationship, methinks. An Islamic call to prayer is a call to a (perceived) relationship.

p.s. A god changing Its mind would have all sorts of epistemological, theological and ontological implications.

p.p.s. In philosophy, the Unmoved Mover as the (ongoing) Prime Mover can be untidy, as the Unmoved Mover exists only as the motionless first cause and the goal for rest for (created) motion.

sellick, a few points:

i) "true christian theology" is for christians to fight about, but it looks to me like you're leading with your chin.

ii) whatever TCT might be, and whatever its worth, dawkins' point is that you're in the minority. christianity as a political and social force seems overwhelmingly wrapped up with an objective god, from whose existence spring objective truths.

iii) nonetheless, you have every right and maybe good reason to promote TCT.

iv) in this promotion, you should avoid being precious. it is probably true that general discussion of religion "simplifies and smooths over the gaping differences". but given your own habit of making sweeping, usually insulting, generalizations, i'm not sure you're the Mr. Clean to whine about this.

v) finally, i'll just say that i can't make head nor tails of your god. i read and reread your posts, and all i can think is "where's the beef"?

if it amounts to simply a message of love, the golden rule, then fine, but it would suggest that you'd be better of without the religious and god-guy baggage.

but then you actually do seem to wish to extract some finer social and moral messages. these concretizations are always poorly argued: viz, your bizarre discussion of abortion.

sellick, i think you're caught. i think you want to escape real evaluation and criticism, by dealing with a semi-subjective "god", you want to claim this "god" has meaning for the real world, and still have this purported meaning free of criticism, free of the charge of making objective claims.

you want your cake and to eat it, too. seems to me, you get neither.

"That this idea has currency today is born out by Christians, who, no doubt in the peacemaking mode, declare that we all believe in the one God. This assumption also allows the persecutors of “religion” to drop them all in the same rubbish bin."

There is probably some truth in that comment in terms of lumping religion into the same basket. To a non-believer the foundations, origins and purpose of religion is much the same although there is usually some distinction between sects and mainstream religion.

I would not argue, however, that Atheists or Agnostics are persecutors. Unless one defines persecution as disagreeing.

Peter's use of the word 'persecutors' in the context of his article diminishes real persecution which involves systemic mistreatment of an individual or group based on their religious affiliation (Wikipedia). Using 'persecution' in this context is very much to portray a matyr stance - the poor misunderstood. I am sure the Christians being truly persecuted in Iraq or Pakistan would find the intent offensive.

The real persecutors of religion, monotheistic or otherwise, are usually the religious - those of opposing faiths in the continued uponemanship demonstrated even in our more tolerant modern world.

Jews persecuting Muslims, Muslims persecuting Jews and Christians, Christians persecuting Muslims, Christians persecuting other Christians of a different ilk and so it goes on.

Oliver,

Al-lah is “alleged” to be compassionate and merciful (oh yes, the Koran seems to be full of inconsistencies). Please look at the life Mohammad lead, will you?

NT God? You’re getting obscure again. Yes, it seems some Muslims will suddenly excuse themselves to pray to Allah – was it something you said at the meeting? If only they could be more modest/private about their ideology, oops, religion. I recall one Muslim guy in my workplace who interrupted my work when he had a habit of using a filing room on various occasions for his place of prayer, with no warnings and to my embarrassment upon entering. I don’t think he cared. It’s no wonder that Muslim countries are not operating as well as they could be.

Oliver, you cannot see the forest from the trees.