The Center for Progressive Christianity

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
39 messages Options
12
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The Center for Progressive Christianity

This post was updated on .
http://www.ProgressiveChristianity.org 

The Center for Progressive Christianity provides guiding ideas, networking opportunities, and resources for progressive churches, organizations, individuals and others with connections to Christianity.

We promote an understanding of Christian practice and teaching that leads to a greater concern for the way people treat each other than for the way people express their beliefs, the acceptance of all people, and a respect for other religious traditions.

We affirm the variety and depth of human experience and the richness of each person's search for meaning, and we encourage the use of sound scholarship, critical inquiry, and all intellectual powers to understand the presence of God in human life.

We are opposed to any exclusive dogma that limits the search for truth and free inquiry, and we encourage work that eases the pain, suffering and degradation inherent in many of the structures of society, as well as work that keeps central to the Christian life fair, open, peaceful, and loving treatment of all human beings.
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Biblical Christianity is Bankrupt (by Rev Dowd)

This post was updated on .
Biblical Christianity is Bankrupt
By Rev Michael Dowd
The Center for Progressive Christianity
http://www.tcpc.org/library/article.cfm?library_id=843
http://inewp.com/?p=4699

...Biblical Christianity that does not integrate our best evidential understanding of the universe and human nature is doomed precisely because it is wedded to unchanging scripture. It suffers from what I call "idolatry of the written word." No longer does it link together what young people learn in church and what they learn in their science and history classes at school—and on the Discovery and History channels at home.  ...

...As Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith, Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann, and other 20th century scholars of mythology and world religions remind us, we simply cannot understand religion and religious differences if we ignore the human propensity to relationalize—that is, personify—anything important or mysterious. Evidence from a wide range of disciplines, from cognitive neuroscience to anthropology to cross-cultural study of the world’s myths and religions, all support the claim that God is a personification not a person, and that we instinctually forget this. More, there is no counter-evidence! This fact alone makes sense of the thousands of competing stories around the world as to what God supposedly said or did. "God" is a mythic name for Reality in all its sublime fullness. Any so-called God that is imagined as less than this is unworthy of our devotion and deserves to be mocked, as the New Atheists so readily do.  

Poseidon was not the god of the oceans, as if some supernatural entity separate from water were looking down from on high or rising from the deep. Poseidon was the personification of the incomprehensibly powerful and capricious seas.

Sol was not the spirit of the sun, as if there were a separation between the two. Sol was a sacred name for that seemingly eternal, life-giving source of heat and light—and occasionally life-taking source in times of desperate drought. By saying “Sol,” “Helios,” or some other proper name, our ancestors experienced that reality as a “Thou” to be related to.

Today most of us have a starkly different subjective experience. We look up and say “the sun” and think of “it” in a depersonalized way: not as the God “Helios” but as the generator of the element helium through stellar nucleosynthesis. Such an intellectual gain need not, however, come at an emotional loss. Again, my relationship with the Sun, as with all of reality, is personal.

Whenever any story or any scriptural passage claims, "God said this" or "God did that," what follows is always, necessarily, an interpretation. It's an interpretation of what some person or group of people thought or felt or sensed or wished Reality was saying or doing, and almost always as justification after the fact or to make a theological point.

There is no compelling evidence that such subjectively meaningful claims are ever objective, measurable truth. In other words, had CNN or ABC News been there to record the moment of "divine revelation," there most likely would have been nothing out of the ordinary (nothing miraculous) to report on the evening news—nothing other than what was coming out of someone's mouth, or pen, or whatever folks wrote with back then.

If we fail to grasp this not only will we trivialize the divine, but also, even more tragically, we will miss what Reality, or God, is up to today.

My own transformation from biblical Christianity to evolutionary Christianity—and from religious un-naturalist to religious naturalist—demonstrates the profound difference between believing in a personal God and relating to Reality personally, that is, communing with Life As It Really Is. For example, prayer from my now-evolutionary perspective is a far more intimate process, and does not require me to believe in anything otherworldly.

Prayer is no longer an act of petitioning a far-off, invisible, unnatural entity to miraculously intervene in the world according to my wishes or desires. With an understanding of God as no less than a personification of Reality, through prayer I experience myself as a cell in deep communion with the larger body of which I am part.  ...
mfb mfb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Biblical Christianity is Bankrupt (Rev Dowd, TCPC)

請問cognitive neuroscience怎樣support the claim that God is a personification not a person?
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

God: A brief history with a cognitive explanation of the concept

This article might be able to help:


God: A brief history with a cognitive explanation of the concept
Ilkka Pyysiäinen
Temenos. Nordic Journal of Comparative Religion. Volume 41, issue 1.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/God.pdf

"What unites the various discourses on God is the natural human propensity to take recourse to agentive explanations whenever possible." (p20)
mfb mfb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: God: A brief history with a cognitive explanation of the concept

你所quote 的並不是neuroscience。
neuroscience 並不能證明 God is a personification ,not a person.
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

neural processes that underlie the human capacity to postulate counterintuitive agents

This post was updated on .
建議試試 p19 這兩段:

It is such cognitive operations and neural processes that also underlie the human capacity to postulate counterintuitive agents. Although agency is not an ontological category and spontaneous attribution of agency to physically unidentified sources is not counterintuitive (Atran 2002, 64-65), we have strong intuitions about personal agents. A humanlike agent that is not human is counterintuitive in the sense that some of its characteristic features violate panhuman intuitive expectations concerning personal agents, solid objects, and living things. A counterintuitive agent is anything that has (some of) the defining characteristics of a personal agent but yet somehow violates our intuitive expectations regarding agents. A person without a physical body is a counterintuitive agent; so is an artifact or a natural object that has agentive properties (see Boyer 2001, 51-93; Pyysiäinen 2001, 9-23; 2004b, 39-45; Pyysiäinen, Lindeman, and Honkela 2003).

According to Boyer (1994; 2003a,b), counterintuitive agent representations are formed by adding a minor “tweak” to an intuitive agent representation. Such agent representations as ghosts, children’s imaginary companions, fictional agents such as Mickey Mouse, and so forth, all are agents with some non-standard elements. It thus is not likely that we have separate mental mechanisms for the construction of each type of agent representation. If this is so with ghosts and imaginary companions, then it is very likely that the same holds for gods. They are counterintuitive agents in the sense that their representation is carried out by the ordinary cognitive mechanisms, although some of their characteristics violate against panhuman intuitive expectations concerning persons. Yet the believers may find it quite natural that gods exist (cf. Barrett 2003).
mfb mfb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Biblical Christianity is Bankrupt (by Rev Dowd)

In reply to this post by Alex
這裡所討論的只是hypothesis,是不能證實的hypothesis ,亦不能算是neuroscience。

把hypothesis等同真理是自自由派常犯的錯誤。

  你不覺得把所有和intuition 違背的(counterintuitive)當作錯誤是有問題的嗎?很多大自然的現象不是出人意料的嗎。
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

biblical hypotheses

把比 scientific hypotheses 荒謬百倍的 biblical hypotheses 和神話故事等同真理便是保守派犯的更大錯誤。
mfb mfb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: biblical hypotheses

scientific hypothesis 是基於人的 intuition。 是基於人的智慧。
自由派認為scientific hypothesis比其他的真理都較超越,背後的理由是人的驕傲,是認為人比一切更聰明,不能接受有比他更聰明的創造主。
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: biblical hypotheses

This post was updated on .
保守派認為《聖經》比其他的真理都較超越,背後的理由是人的驕傲,以為人可以將創造主的「話語」規限於一本書之內,不能接受創造主可以在那本書以外向人更清楚地啟示真理。(假設有「創造主」,作為討論之共同基礎。)
mfb mfb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: biblical hypotheses

你幾時開始相信有創造主?
mfb mfb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: biblical hypotheses

In reply to this post by Alex
你既然相信有創造主,聖經所記載的神蹟又怎會是荒謬呢。
mfb mfb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Biblical Christianity is Bankrupt (by Rev Dowd)

In reply to this post by Alex
請問anthropology怎樣support the claim that God is a personification not a person?
mfb mfb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: biblical hypotheses

In reply to this post by Alex
請問 cross-cultural study of the world’s myths and religions怎樣support the claim that God is a personification not a person?
mfb mfb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: biblical hypotheses

In reply to this post by Alex
這樣看來
Michael Dowd說的:
[Evidence from a wide range of disciplines, from cognitive neuroscience to anthropology to cross-cultural study of the world’s myths and religions, all support the claim that God is a personification not a person,]

看來並沒事實根據。只不過是順口開河。
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Religion, Culture, and the Personification of Non-Human Entities

This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by mfb
Religion, Culture, and the Personification of Non-Human Entities
By Adam Cohen, Kathryn Johnson
Published 2009.05.27
Global Spiral
http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10797/Default.aspx

Human beings are intensely relational and the desire for pleasant interactions with others is a fundamental human motive (Baumeister and Leary).  Yet, we may ask, are human relationships limited to same species interactions, or are humans likely to have social, moral, and emotional interactions with other kinds of entities?  Do animals, plants, objects, or heavenly bodies (both material and immaterial) count as “others”?  Can non-human entities be persons?

...If humans are promiscuous in their assignment of personhood, perhaps none are more so than theistic humans.  Tertullian (160-225 CE) is credited with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity: God as three persons in One.  Diana Eck gives an account of Hindus bringing flowers and fruit to the temple, and standing in the presence of an idol, “to see and be seen by the deity” (Eck 3).  Indeed, Billy Graham has claimed that the world is filled with “powerful angels with drawn swords, set for our defense” (Graham backcover).

...In at least two separate surveys of over 1,000 college students, we have shown that God, animals, ancestors, or robots may also be thought of as “persons” by certain cultural or religious groups.  ...

...We suggest that understanding the extent to which members of various cultural and religious groups attribute personhood to different entities is key in understanding scientific, religious, and international conflicts.

The present study also suggests that alternative worldviews are more than a set of beliefs dealing with the nature of reality or the institution of moral standards.  Instead, for many religious people, the world is populated with powerful non-human agents who may include immaterial or material, animate or inanimate, human or non-human personified beings who must be acknowledged and who may be deemed to have certain rights and responsibilities.
mfb mfb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Religion, Culture, and the Personification of Non-Human Entities

Michael Dowd並不能證實 God is a personification not a person,

Michael Dowd餘下的文章是根據這statement所發展的,所以亦不可信。
 Michael Dowd的文章題目是:[Biblical Christianity is Bankrupt]
亦不可信。

Adam Cohen, Kathryn Johnson的文章亦是犯了將
Assumption當作真理的毛病

Those assumptions are  :
(…..are humans likely to have social, moral, and emotional interactions with other kinds of entities?

If humans are promiscuous in their assignment of personhood,)
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Religion, Culture, and the Personification of Non-Human Entities

This post was updated on .
1.  文章題目 "Biblical Christianity is Bankrupt" 是建基於 "Biblical Christianity that does not integrate our best evidential understanding of the universe and human nature is doomed precisely because it is wedded to unchanging scripture. It suffers from what I call "idolatry of the written word." No longer does it link together what young people learn in church and what they learn in their science and history classes at school—and on the Discovery and History channels at home."(而不是 "God is a personification not a person")

2.  Rev Michael Dowd 指出 "Sol was not the spirit of the sun, as if there were a separation between the two. Sol was a sacred name for that seemingly eternal, life-giving source of heat and light—and occasionally life-taking source in times of desperate drought. By saying 'Sol,' 'Helios,' or some other proper name, our ancestors experienced that reality as a 'Thou' to be related to."  你認為 Sol or Helios (the Sun God) is a personification (of the sun) or a person?

3.  你有沒有看過 Cohen & Johnson 研究報告的內文?你只是在亂講一通。
mfb mfb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Religion, Culture, and the Personification of Non-Human Entities

Adam Cohen, Kathryn Johnson說:

[Yet, we may ask, are human relationships limited to same species interactions, or are humans likely to have social, moral, and emotional interactions with other kinds of entities?]

Adam Cohen, Kathryn Johnson真的肯定 humans are likely to have social, moral, and emotional interactions with other kinds of entities嗎?
mfb mfb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Religion, Culture, and the Personification of Non-Human Entities

In reply to this post by Alex
Adam Cohen, Kathryn Johnson並不真的肯定 humans have social, moral, and emotional interactions with other kinds of entities.


他們連說likely也不敢說,
只是提出他有這個疑問,(…..we may ask…)

自由派實在了不起,竟然可將一個疑問變成真理。
12