Reflections on the Schema

Reflections on the Schema

of interpretations

about God, the world, mankind, and religion

Fourth Part

Note. I emphasize that the following thoughts are mostly on the theistic view and the Judeo-Christian tradition; some of it is not my view, but I mention them because these pages are about "Christianity reformed from its roots." Please see the essay Faith, Grace and Supernatural in a World of Science.

10. Religious attitudes toward God

Religious attitudes of men toward God, or relationship with God, suppose that God is personal and also that there is a supernatural order. If God is impersonal, or if the Universe is god, then there is no room for human relations or attitudes toward him.

10.1. Religious attitudes in general

Religious attitudes toward God may exist, since there is no factual contradiction in terms. But there are also limitations in these relationships, and not what some people think they are.

10.1.1. Religious assumptions and reason

It seems to me that a natural communication men-God is possible; even the experience of God may be naturally possible. Some religious attitudes of awe, reverence and others, as we see in the writings of Einstein, could be just human actions and natural acts, and therefore there is no need of grace or of an "elevation" to a supernatural order to have such religious attitudes.

The God of the Bible is an anthropomorphous God; and, to some extent, Christian tradition shares this interpretation. It seems unreasonable that God would act like a man.

One of the consequences of this anthropomorphic concept of God is that it is possible for human beings "to do" things for God or "to give" something to God. The rites and prayers of Christianity, for instance, express this kind of belief, which implies that God might receive something from his creatures. This is not reasonable.

The real fact is that, by nature, nobody can do things for God or give him anything; he can not receive anything either. By the same token, God can not be offended by anybody. God is somehow "untouchable;" he doesn't need anything from his creatures. What human beings do for God affects them rather than God.

I still think that God cannot receive anything from his creatures; although, paradoxically, God might accept some human deeds.

Everything depends on the way we see God. For Spinoza for instance, this kind of "anthropomorphism" is "the greatest absurdity." Einstein didn't say that, but he repeatedly expressed his disagreement with a personal God.