From the standpoint of Christian doctrine, a Jungian analysis in of the Pentateuch that does not invoke the name of Christ and the revelation of Christ in Scripture, is perhaps interesting, but hardly helpful for the "Lost." Nor is "cultural Christianity" much of a step in the right direction. Far from it, it's to lean on the clay leg of human pride; if anything it is better that people be brought low that they might rise higher. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You're absolutely right from the standpoint of Christian doctrine. But what about outside of doctrine; could cultural Christianity (the default setting of the West, we might say) still be useful? And isn’t it also true that many people who think in terms of Christian doctrine and saving the “lost” can still be bigoted and even morally compromised? It seems like neither the secular nor the religious path is any guarantee of quality, right?

I think this is actually the sort of critique liberalism is easily aware of. It moves "too fast," and "change needs to be managed." You know, "the people aren't ready," or "the system isn't ready for advances in technology." And so there is self-reflection in liberal terms about the threat of expanding wealth inequality under AI, or cultural tensions derailing the benefits of replacement migration, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's not what I'm saying. My point is that liberalism is fundamentally driven by dissatisfaction, with an underlying tendency toward dismantling existing structures, seeking to overturn privilege. This forensic mode of deconstruction perhaps becomes so reflexive and self-perpetuating that it ultimately turns inward, subjecting liberalism itself to the same critical scrutiny it once directed outward, gradually hollowing out its own foundations in the process.

Perhaps, but you could consider Schiller's view where the moral and appetitive are aligned in the aesthetic and our actions are over-determined in desire and duty. On the view, the aesthetic and "spiritual" is precisely what helps us overcome egoism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But is this correct? What is the contemporary evidence that the aesthetic and the spiritual overcome egoism?

I've watched about 30 of those lectures, but quite a while ago now, and I agree with you that they are kind of nebulous and they do become repetitive. — Janus

:up:

It seemed to me that he is saying we should trust our experiences of the numinous, not in that they give us any actual knowledge about anything, but in that they can be personally transformational, they can change the way we feel about life. — Janus

I suspect that this would appeal to some people, but many would struggle to make this work. If the numinous is not tied to the transcendent, but is essentially an emotional reaction, then I suppose it's tantamount to enjoying music or a painting. But at least with art, there is a tangible artifact that serves as the source of the experience. Bathing in one's subjective sense of the numinous might also be somewhat indulgent and narcissistic. You may be more receptive to this, how do you see it working?

I’d say Vervaeke’s “meaning crisis”, for instance, is a bit vague
— Tom Storm

His 52 one-hour lectures do, however, define it with a pretty high degree of depth and precision. — Wayfarer

Is it not more like a one hour lecture repeated 52 times? I probably should have said nebulous. And perhaps I should have watched more than the 15 hours I've seen. It comes off as tendentious. But I'm sure that people who already share his values like it. I understand he is an atheist, is that right?

Heh, I'm certainly not worried about trying to understand others. — Dawnstorm

Not trying to understand others. Trying to understand where they are coming from. It's less ambitious.

Things that sound ridiculous to me aren't ridiculous to others; but it's hard to cut out the ridicule, if you know what I mean. — Dawnstorm

We are all ridiculous to someone.

I remember someone online saying something like "atheists often don't have no strong father figures". This happens to be true for me. My inner response to that was something like "so you folks want the universe to take care of you?" — Dawnstorm

Yes, this kind of point-scoring is what happens when we bypass attempting to understand and simply project our values onto others.

So the problems of modernity would stem from the collapse of older institutions a century ago and a surfeit of income and lesiure, not from any positive constructions within modernity itself? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not saying that, there's more to it and one might go on for many thousands of words, but I am not a theorist and my thoughts, like most of us, are not worth more than a few paragraphs. But I do beleive this is important. I think increasing freedom and choice have probably been catastrophic when combined with marketing and constant social change. Our ability for sense making is consistently thwarted. Stability isn't merely about god and transcendence, it is about employment, identity and the capacity to live in a predictable world.

Hardly surprising that people differ on what the problem is and what the solutions might be. I’d say Vervaeke’s “meaning crisis”, for instance, is a bit vague, and we could also attribute most of the symptoms he describes to capitalism and socio-political changes, like industrialization, secularization, and globalization—rather than cognitive evolution, which seems to be his go to to. But Vervaeke is just another guy on the speaker circuit, making a living by identifying a problem and offering solutions and I sometimes wonder about his affiliation with a certain Jordan B Peterson, who is also (when framed less kindly) in the business of identifying problems, capitalising on insecurity and selling "cures" to modernity.

is itself definitive of a certain sort of myopia affecting liberalism — Count Timothy von Icarus

Liberalism has always had the potential to become a victim of its own impulse to dismantle institutions and expand the definition of citizenship - especially in the context of capitalism. Conservatism, of course, has its own problems, which tend to run in the opposite direction. But this kind of discussion is inherently messy; it deals in values and inferences that are rooted in disagreement.

That's actually me, too; otherwise I wouldn't be in these sort of threads at all. But it's a second-hand interest: I'm interested in believers, not God. I guess there's a derived intellectual curiosity that does make me interested in God, too, but not in a practically relevant way.

I sort of have misgivings about this: as if I'm putting myself above others and play arm-chair psychiatrist. I don't think that's quite it, but I do worry from time to time. In any case, even if I do, it's a two-way road: I look back at myself, too. — Dawnstorm

I think we not only have every right but perhaps even a responsibility to try to understand where others are coming from. This isn't the same as psychiatry, which tends to focus on diagnosis, disorders and treatment. What we're talking about is different—it's about trying to understand other's perspective as charitably and clearly as possible. We can try to "steelman" people’s positions on issues like Trump, God, or race - to present their views in the strongest, most coherent form and genuinely try to grasp how they see the truth. Even if we ultimately disagree, that kind of effort is probably essential for serious conversation. And it's true that this is not an exact artform, one can get things wrong. That's life.

However, at the very least, the phenomenon of a "crisis of meaning" seems to cause many people very real mental anguish (and to motivate self-centered hedonism in at least some cases). I think Charles Taylor is correct in saying that this particular sort of crisis is distinctly modern; I have never seen it in older works of fiction, whereas it is almost the definitive issue in much literature from the 19th century onwards. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think we know enough to come to definitive conclusions about an alleged "crisis of meaning." We also didn't really see working class literature emerge until the 19th century. The fact that old certainties had been crumbling in modernity - including things like slavery, rigid class structures, the roles of women—meant that people often felt unmoored. And technological change never stopped coming. So it's hardly surprising that people have often felt anxious about their purpose and future. Some of this may well have come from the decline of Christianity's hold on culture. But I’d say that a crisis of meaning comes less from the collapse of belief, and more from too many choices, too much change, and from having leisure time and disposable income to explore identity.

But no doubt some will argue that the word of disenchanted rationalism and modernity has allowed us to retreat into crude things like money in place of spiritual riches.

The two aren't unrelated though, right? — Count Timothy von Icarus

My take on this. Humans have always had a tendency to retreat into crass materialism - even in times when there was "certainty" about nation, religion, and social order. It's not something unique to modernity. The difference is that in earlier eras, access to material indulgence was largely confined to the aristocracy and the institutional church. The class system restricted who could participate in that kind of worldly excess. Now that those old structures have weakened, and consumerism has become democratised, it just appears more widespread. But the impulse itself isn’t new - it’s just more visible.

I didn't find it convincing, but I started reading on Acquinas, Aristotle, Augustine, Plato, and the like on classical theism and found the argumentation for and metaphysics of God vastly different than mainstream theology. In short, I ended up convincing myself, somewhere along that journey, of the classic theism tradition. — Bob Ross

Now this interests me and it is central to what I have been saying. Different conceptions of God carry with them fundamentally different meanings, implications, and theological commitments.

If you're going to say you don't believe in God, you'd better be sure what you mean by 'God,' right?
— Tom Storm

I've been reading this thread since there was only one page, but I've never quite known what to say. This line stood out, and I have to ask: why? — Dawnstorm

If someone tells me they believe in the God of Moses, the burning bush, and the ark with all the animals, that's a very different conception compared to someone who talks about the God of classical theism. The former, most priests and vicars don't believe in.

Hart's definition - and it's a word that should be treated with extreme caution in this matter - is that God is 'the one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.'

Rather hard to make a cartoon out of, I agree. — Wayfarer

it. I'm literally a Godless person; beyond the cartoon God there is nothing I can talk about. — Dawnstorm

I don’t doubt you. But there’s a long and complex tradition of writing behind classical theism - a view of God as immutable, impassible, and necessary - that spans centuries. There’s much to engage with if you’re immersed in the tradition. That said, I totally understand if you or others have no interest in it. I’m simply interested in what others believe and why. This thread isn’t so much an attempt by me to articulate a more complex view of God, but rather to hear from others for whom this matters.

How can life be more significant than it already is? — Janus

I think the point is that life can alwasy be imbued with more meaning based on change subject to one's experience - changes in thinking, in belief, in situation. For instance, having children might enhance the significance. For some God makes life more bearable, meaningful, attractive. But I suspect this only works if you think God is real, not if you think it is merely a charming fiction.

Also living is not wholly a tragedy in my view. — Janus

Sure. I think where you sit on this depends on what you go through and how your experince makes you feel.

There are parts of religion I admire—mindfulness, stillness, equanimity, acceptance, love, compassion—you don't need all the superstitious stuff for those. — Janus

Me too. I even appreciate the little I understand of mysticism and spirituality.

They might argue that and in my view they would be wrong. The world of consumer culture is disenchanted to be sure. But the world of science is anything but disenchanted. And we still have all the old worlds of music, poetry, literature, painting, architecture, the crafts, the natural world. We lack nothing the ancients had except their superstition. And when I say we lack their superstition I do not mean to refer to the multitude. That said, I would say the multitude are far less miserable today than they were in ancient times. — Janus

This may well be correct.

I think we both agree that if you're looking for vulgar, shallow displays of status and materialism; gaudy expressions of soulless wealth - you'll find no shortage of examples in religion, spiritual traditions, and cults alike. Even the ostentatious wealth of the Vatican shows us how Mammon and spiritual traditions are not necessarily incompatible.

Some people confuse materialism as a philosophical view with materialism in the sense of consumerism—a sad conflation! — Janus

But no doubt some will argue that the word of disenchanted rationalism and modernity has allowed us to retreat into crude things like money in place of spiritual riches.

It seems to me the only motivation for believing in god is the wish to be cared for. The wish of the child. — Janus

For me it seems more aesthetic or about meaning making - the wish for life to be significant - as a bulwark against the tragedy of living. But no doubt it is differnt things for differnt folk.

What does 'god as the ground of being' give us? Is that god different than Spinoza's? If so, how? For that matter what does any account of anything that cannot be seen, heard, felt, touched etc., give us? — Janus

Yes, why even use the word God?

Were they not Christians? Why not just return to Spinoza? I think his theology is more sophisticated than any Christian theology, including ideas such as identifying God with "being itself". — Janus

Could be.

Very crudely Spinoza seems to argue (and I have no deep reading of his work) that God is infinite substance: In Ethics, Spinoza seems to argue that there is only one substance in the universe, and that is God. Everything else (you, me, trees, ideas) is a mode or expression of that substance.

He also maintains that God is impersonal who doesn’t think, plan, love, or intervene in the world. "It" doesn’t make choices or have a will. It's more like a set of necessary laws or the structure of being itself.

I'm not sure what this gives us - god as immanence - what is a human to do with such an account? Any thoughts?

Philosophical accounts of theism are not necessarily more sophisticated, so I'd start by pushing back at that built in bias. — Hanover

Sure. I understand that some people might hold a view like this. I am asking for the more philosophical and the more sophisticated versions to see what people think and why. Given (and this is my experience) that most critical discussion of theism tend to involve Christian or Muslim literalism.

That is, to suggest that theism that aims to be philosophical is superior to theism that doesn't, is to implicitely reject theism in its own right. — Hanover

I guess whether one would agree or disagree with this would depend upon the theist or school.

From my perspective, a theism founded in philosophical thinking may be superior to a theism rooted in biblical literalism because it allows the concept of God to engage with the depth and complexity of human experience, rather than reducing it to a fixed narrative or comic book account. Literalism tends to confine the divine to specific events, texts, and cultural assumptions, often locking faith into outdated cosmologies or morality. Philosophical theism, by contrast, might be held to invite a continual process of reflection, integration, and reinterpretation, allowing the idea of God to evolve alongside our evolving understanding of reality. It doesn’t dismiss scripture, but reads it through a broader lens, seeing it as one expression of a deeper metaphysical truth rather than the only one. In this way, God is no longer just a figure in a narrative, but the deeper source from which meaning and existence arise.

Or something like this.

The question of reason is an interesting one. I don’t think I was necessarily thinking of reason as a marker of sophistication, though I can see why many people would. My sense of a more sophisticated theism might actually align more closely with phenomenological or mystical traditions - ones that aren’t strictly rooted in reasoning, but instead emphasize depth of experience, intuition, and presence.

But you've made me think a bit differently about this, so thanks.

the population has been taught that it is not the rich that are responsible for their misery but gays and foreigners, and that a state that supports the poor and the sick is undesirable and cost them too much. — unenlightened

:up:

I'm a bit skeptical of narratives that try to pin all these problems on just the (mis)rule of leaders on one side of the political spectrum — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed, Blair's neoliberal all stars, New Labour, were active contributors to the problem.

I don't know... Given the current state of politics, I believe a lack of interest in politics is understandable. — javi2541997

The argument works the other way too. Given what's at stake and how bad some leaders are, this should radicalise the voters. Arguably people's votes have never been more important.

Most interest in politics is little more than team sport, point scoring and empty wins.

I vote most elections and it's either vote Labor or for the most left-wing independent going. I still subscribe to the view that the rich rule the world (badly) and need to be opposed as far as practicable.

Arguably the biggest asset to the Murdochs and Musks of this world is voter apathy. It really helps the fascists if people think all candidates are hopeless and all are corrupt.

:up: Yes, looks that way to me too. Tony Judt wrote a good book on this called, Ill Fares The Land.

Don't you just love election season? — kazan

Not really. I generally avoid the news and I'm not on social media. The cant and mawkish promises are nauseating, and political journalism just feels like a smug version of sports reporting. I generally know how I’m going to vote, regardless of the year or the state of the campaign. Usually, I just hold my nose and vote Labor.

This seems to me to still be a problem of lack of ethical education though. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, that’s my conclusion. It ties into a point I often make: just because someone professes morality or is a strong member of a church doesn’t necessarily mean they behave morally. There's often an assumption that we need to “go back” to Christianity to improve the world, but my question is always, which kind? And how do we determine whether a given church is faithful to the Gospels? As David Bentley Hart often quips there are many atheists he prefers to Christians.

It would be like rejecting diets because one grew up around crash dieters who followed off short morning fasts by binging candy bars; that something is done poorly does not mean it is impossible to do well. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Fair point. I wasn't intending a rejection. I'm simply suggesting that there needs to be more exploration of what it actually means to be a Christian, or a member of a given religion. What are the practices and behaviours and how do we know they are faithful? Being religious, or even a believer, is not, in itself, necessarily good or true.

Great quote you provided by Spinoza -

...But some people think the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus rests on the assumption that God is one and the same as ‘Nature’ understood as a mass of corporeal matter. This is a complete mistake.
— Spinoza, from letter (73) to Henry Oldenburg

I think Hart is pretty great, although I think he sometimes writes at a level that is probably going to be overly abstruse for general audiences, which is fine for some contexts, but he does so in books he publishes for general audiences. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, he is a prodigious scholar and "superbrain" so I can imagine it must be challenging for him to write for the general reader.

There are similarities for sure. I sometimes think "Platonism" and "Neoplatonism" are unhelpful labels, even though I still find myself using them. Often, they get used for things that are only in Plato in embryonic form, or obliquely, and which are then not unique to, or even originating in the proper "Neoplatonists." — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up:

Christian Moevs - The Metaphysics of Dante's Comedy - Introduction: Non-Duality and Self-Knowledge - pg. 5-6

That's a great overview.


I'm also curious: if God is Being itself, what are the implications for divine action? A God who acts throughout history would seem unlikely in that case. I'm assuming that God can’t or doesn’t act like a being in this world, but instead provides the conditions that make action possible. But what exactly does that look like, beyond the obvious?

Do you have any initial thoughts on my original post? This seems like it's right in your wheelhouse. I can't help but feel that the idea of a "ground of being" starts to move into the territory of universal consciousness. Some people really dislike perennialist or syncretistic interpretations of spiritual traditions.

That is very interesting and looks like a lifetime of study is requited to get on top of.

David Bentley Hart, mentioned at the outset of this thread, is an Eastern Orthodox Christian and often refers to himself as an "unreformed Neoplatonist" when poking fun at post-Kantian metaphysics for instance. Hence the common terms "Christian/Jewish/Muslim Neoplatonism." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you rate Hart as a theological thinker? When he writes of God:

He may be said to be “beyond being,” if by “being” one means the totality of finite things, but also may be called “being itself,” in that he is the inexhaustible source of all reality, the absolute upon which the contingent is always utterly dependent, the unity underlying all things.

How should one understand this? It certainly has a whiff of Neoplatonism. But also aligns with Hinduism. In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is described as Nirguna (without attributes) and beyond all categories, including being and non-being. Brahman is also seen as the inexhaustible source or ground of all contingent existence.

Nice. I've never quite got my head around natura naturans, do you consider it a useful frame? I think I've heard you say Spinoza is not a pantheist but a... I forget... is it an acosmist?

Thank you.

Nicely worded. Much of this matches the reading I have done. Do you find this model resonates?

I guess some more nuanced information on what it means to say God is Being itself. What does it mean to say God is the fundamental existence or essence that underlies everything in the universe?

I’d like someone who is across the literature to outline a clearer picture. Tillich aside, the notion of Being seems intriguing. As I said earlier, I also see an overlap with idealism, although I expect this too is a superficial resemblance.

It’s superficially similar to deism. I think Tillich would say that there was no creator who, disinterested, has moved on (as in Deism) but rather we are all expressions of God as ground of being. God is the condition that makes us and all things possible. But as I say, this is not my area: I am interested in how these ideas are more fully understood.

Of course, Jung's ideas were developed in the last century when the dialogue between science, religion and science were in need of so much reconciliation. — Jack Cummins

It may be worth looking into Bernardo Kastrup's study of Jung. He sees Jung as an early form of analytic idealism. The Book is Decoding Jung's Metaphysics

Here's a taste:

I shall argue that Jung was a metaphysical idealist in the tradition of German Idealism, his system being particularly consistent with that of Arthur Schopenhauer and my own.

The consistency between Jung’s metaphysics and my own is no coincidence. Unlike Schopenhauer—whose work I’ve discovered only after having developed my system in seven different books—Jung has been a very early influencer of my thought. I first came across his work still in my early teens, during a family holiday in the mountains. Exploring on my own the village where we were staying, I chanced upon a small bookshop. There, displayed very prominently, was an intriguing book titled I Ching, edited and translated by Richard Wilhelm, with a foreword by one Carl Gustav Jung. Jung’s introduction to the book revealed the internal logic and root of plausibility of what I would otherwise have regarded as just a silly oracle. He had opened some kind of door in my mind. Little did I know, then, how far that door would eventually take me.

But there is also a weird standard here of "Christianity must be judged by the defense given of it by any random church-goer." I suppose this perhaps comes out of a certain sort of Protestant theology as well (one athiesm has inherited), and the idea of the "buffered self" who simply applies reason to commonly accessible "sense data" (as opposed to notions of "wisdom"). Yet I would hardly think this standard should be applied generally, and so would question if it is fair as applied to the faithful.

Does Nietzsche's philosophy stand or fall based on the description the average Nietzsche fan on the internet would produce for it? Given my experiences, this would be grossly unfair to Nietzsche. Nor would I expect the average person who embraces any given interpretation of quantum mechanics to necessarily understand it very well. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. Very nicely put. And funny.

I don't know if that will clear much up. My description is probably only going to be so helpful because the area you are asking about is incredibly broad, since in the "classical metaphysical" tradition all of ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, physics, and even the philosophy of history hang together quite tightly, while the Doctrine of Transcendentals and the Analogia Entis run throughout them. It'd be like trying to explain the whole of "Continental Philosophy" in a post, although the classical tradition does have a good deal more unity (but also spans 2,000+ years). — Count Timothy von Icarus

In understand completely. It's a big subject. I'm not really trying to clear anything up personally, I am more interested in promoting nuanced discussion of the notion of God - a more philosophical account, let's say.

I come from a Baptist background. We were taught that the Bible is allegory and literalists are problematic creatures who reduce the notion of God to a petulant authoritarian. I guess we were taught that literalism was a disenchanted view of scripture. God remains ineffable.

Is Neoplatonism central to this notion of God as Being itself? The world emanates from The One.

Neither Hart nor Tillich are working with new ideas. What they are expressing has been Christian orthodoxy for pretty much all of (well-recorded) Church history. It's the official theology of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, encompassing a pretty large majority of all current and historical Christians (and many Protestants hold to this tradition to).

It is, for instance, what you will find if you open the works of pretty much any theologically minded Church Father or Scholastic: St. Augustine, St. Bonaventure, St. Maximos, St. Thomas Aquinas, either of the Gregorys, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, that's pretty much what I thought, based on my rudimentary reading.

All I'm really trying to do here is generate more interesting discussions about God.

As a point of reference, Philip Goff moved from atheism to theistic personalism rather than classical theism because he thinks the problem of evil excludes classical theism — Leontiskos

Very interesting and I can see how this could make sense to someone.

While theistic personalism is more readily given to caricature, there is an open debate as to whether it is inferior with respect to, say, the problem of evil. — Leontiskos

Yes, and I am interested in how these accounts might shape people's thinking.

First - does it make metaphysical sense, can it be useful, to see the universe as having human characteristics - a personality, a purpose, goals. Second - is it factually true that there is a conscious, aware, powerful entity who, perhaps, created and has control of the world. To the first question I would answer a strong "yes." To the second I would give a shrug. — T Clark

I tend to find that any set of ideas is going to be useful to someone (even if not to me). But the question is always could you not swap one set of useful ideas for a set even more useful?

So that means, if someone says "I believe in God", that would by synonymous with saying "I believe existence exists"? — flannel jesus

No. You need some familiarity with the literature to understand the concepts. Bear in mind this is not my area of expertise. The arguments are nuanced. The point of my OP is to get input from folk who are across this literature.

For Maximus the Confessor (a church father writing in the 7th century), being is foundational: it starts with God, and everything that exists participates in God's Being. But God is also beyond being in a way we can’t fully comprehend. Hence my OP around mysticism and the lack of certainty.

In particular, atheists often attack the most crude arguments for theism as opposed to being open to more in depth analysis. — Jack Cummins

Indeed.

Tillich's idea of God as 'ground of being' has more depth than anthromorphism, because it goes beyond the idea of God as a Being as disembodied. His thinking may also be compatible with the thinking of Schopenhauer and Spinoza. — Jack Cummins

Could be. In the writings of some of the early Church Fathers, the notion that we are participating in the Being of God and that all we know ultimately owes its existence to God reminds me of a type of idealism, wherein God is more like cosmic consciousness or a great mind from which we are all expressions.

God is the One who is, and all things that exist owe their existence to Him. For He is the true Being, and all things are in Him, through Him, and for Him."


— Maximus the Confessor, "Ambigua," 7

But they're still atheists in the normal sense. In the sense that pertains to zeus and odin. They're only not atheists when you define god in such a loosey-goosey way that it could mean just about anything. — flannel jesus

The idea of a more sophisticated theology is not "loosey-goosey." It has deep roots, going back to the early Church Fathers who wrote extensively about the nature of God. The literalist accounts of God that have emerged in modernity are more likely the "loosey-goosey" ones. There is a deeper, richer tradition of theism explored in writings that span centuries and continue to this day. We need someone who is deeply read in this material to contribute to this discussion.

I would be real curious to understand the desire there, the desire to take the word "god", which for many means "a being like odin or zeus or ra or krishna or yahweh", and then turn it into "being itself". Where does that come from? Why do people do that? — flannel jesus

Because this is how God has traditionally been understood in classical theism. It's not an evolution; it's a return to earlier thinkers like Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor.

The idea of Being needs to be set aside from that of being. Bentley Hart writes:

God so understood is not something posed over against the universe, in addition to it, nor is he the universe itself. He is not a “being,” at least not in the way that a tree, a shoemaker, or a god is a being; he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are, or any sort of discrete object at all. Rather, all things that exist receive their being continuously from him, who is the infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom (to use the language of the Christian scriptures) all things live and move and have their being.

Here is a taste of that these ideas look like when gently elaborated.

https://firstthings.com/god-gods-and-fairies/

I just don't see the point. — flannel jesus

That's fine. Thanks for stopping by.

I have known atheists who have become theists after reading more sophisticated writing on the notion of God. Many atheists are interested in enlargening their view of what is meant by the concept of God.

Does your disbelief in Zombies need to evolve? Does it need to evolve into disbelief in Being Itself? — flannel jesus

Well, since you've brought this up, my disbelief in zombies could change if there were a more compelling narrative and reasoning that convincingly explained how they might exist. If I'd only ever understood zombies as part of comic book fiction, but then encountered a serious scientific case for their possibility, I might come to believe that zombies could, in fact, exist.

Similarly, I might come to accept the idea of ghosts if they were understood as something other than the spirits of deceased people. For example, what if what we perceive as ghosts are actually echoes or residual events from the past, repeating in a way that some people are able to sense due to time anomalies or unusual conditions?

i'm not sure I'm following you. Take a paragraph or two to articulate your point.

Isn't it obvious that ideas develop? If you're going to say you don't believe in God, you'd better be sure what you mean by 'God,' right?

The development happens when someone quotes Tillich, Hart, Gregory of Nyssa, or some Thomist, and the atheist may find themselves recognising that belief in God could be more complex than Richard Dawkins would have us think

Are you an atheist?

and the answer is never "being itself" — flannel jesus

Perhaps not immediately. But I’ve certainly heard these discussions over the past 30 years, and they sometimes do explore this concept. But even if they didn’t, perhaps they should, and that’s another aspect of my point: is it the case that atheism should evolve its thinking about the notion of God beyond the cartoon versions?

but they have nothing to do with what Atheists think. — flannel jesus

I doubt that, I'm an atheist, and this is an area of interest for me. Many atheists I know have wrestled with the ideas of Jung, Tillich or Robert Sokolowski and getting more comprehensive and philosophical notions of what is meant by the idea of God seems important. When someone says they don't believe in God, the reasonable next question is: "What do you mean by God?"

I have a good friend who is a Catholic priest. He agrees with Christopher Hitchens on most matters of religion, but he's not an atheist. He just thinks that the cartoonish depictions of God offered by literalists are refutable and dumb.