"To accommodate" has a number of meanings. The positive ones include reconcile and cooperate; in a more pejorative context, it could mean to surrender or capitulate. In a diverse and civil society, there is clearly a need to accommodate in a positive way and to honestly distinguish between cooperation and capitulation. In the ongoing debate on religion and science, let me strive towards the positive meaning of "accommodation."
In the sense that I believe in God, I am religious. However, I empathize with skeptics who, once they hear a believer begin with a phrase like "God's love" or "religious truth," dismiss the claims on history that often follow, like a human virgin 2000 years ago who supposedly had a son. I can understand why some anti-theists shake their heads at religious apologists who start with The Big Bang and end up with The Empty Tomb, as if this could legitimize belief in literal, bodily resurrection. Skeptics know of plenty of authors who try to use a deity behind the laws of nature to justify absurd incursions into our Earth's daily routine, not to mention demands regarding the geographic, dietary and sexual. Now that I've just "accommodated" the anti-theists by agreeing that institutionalized superstition has a bad track record, what's left for religion?
For many theists, even if they would phrase it differently, "religion" requires a deity who leaves behind evidence in a similar fashion as a human being might do, like Santa Claus not finishing his cookies or a toga-clad Charlton Heston dispensing rules on stone tablets, capriciously ignoring his own natural laws. Many anti-theists agree: if God exists, "he" has to leave behind evidence in a human-like fashion. Notably, such a perspective is at the core of the so-called "intelligent design" movement, which claims to find evidence for clever intervention in biology, relegating what its adherents call "natural" and "random" to the profane. But why can't a "designer" act through nature? In describing the natural mechanisms behind the evolution of the eye, Charles Darwin similarly asked "have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" (Origin 1st edition, p. 188). The idea that divine agency has to resemble human agency, and that it is somehow deviant from nature, has been challenged for many years. For recent examples, see publications by (among others) my HuffPost blog-neighbors Ken Miller, Karl Giberson, and John Shelby Spong. Here is where we can identify the overlap between the secular "numinous" and religion, and try to answer the question "what's left" posed above, hopefully turning a shouting match into a discussion.
Such a discussion should consider what drives the majority of humans who are religious, many of whom are now giving Rick Santorum a running shot at the Republican nomination for US president. Santorum's views on certain issues (particularly scientific) are odious, and an "accommodationist" like me is just as capable of recognizing this as the most fervid anti-theist. Yet I also recognize that Santorum supporters are not idiots; they just have different ideals that are worth considering on their own merits. One such belief is that a science like evolution implies atheism, a falsehood promoted by anti-theists, and which (tragically) provides a convenient recruitment tool for reactionary political candidates like Rick Santorum.
The concept of "God" is debated by every generation, and the arguments are familiar: our cosmos had a beginning, and the behavior of matter (at least on a macro-scale) is generally predictable. Western science has its roots among individuals who believed that such natural laws reflected divinity, and who furthermore recognized that deciphering a mechanism (or proximate cause) does not rule out an agency behind it (or ultimate cause). These arguments neither justify claims about walking on water or the saints leaving their tombs, nor are they weakened by such claims. I believe in an agency behind the laws of nature, one which pervades but does not replace the mechanisms expressed in those laws. I understand that skeptics are reluctant to give credence to apologists who use such arguments as a prelude to more specific demands for superstition. Anti-theists can choose to reject the whole thing, to regard accommodation as surrender, but in so doing they're throwing the blastula out with the bathwater. There is too much at stake in our (still) civil society to insist on the same anthropomorphic "god" who can only act like a giant Charlton Heston, prized by anti-theists and fundamentalists alike. But you don't have to "insist". You can leave dogmatism to talk radio and intransigence to the 112th US Congress, and consider what motivates those with whom you disagree. Accommodate, and society will be better for it.
I believe that too, I just don't believe that agency to be a conscious self aware being that thinks I'm a snowflake. I think that agency IS the laws of nature, and physical matter
I have no problem with the concept of a god.
I would have ZERO problem in believing a god exists if presented with evidence they do.
I think that if a God-like being exists, then there is the possibility more of those beings exist.
I think that if a God being does exist, that there's no reason to believe that that being isn't a PRODUCT of the universe, just as we are, simply not biological.
I think if a God being(s) exist, it's just as in the dark as to where the universe came from as we are.
What I think is ridiculous, is the claim of the worlds religions to have a clearly defined god, with a PERSONALITY, an entire narrative, familial heirs, "chosen people" that it likes best, a script for how it wants us to behave, who it wants us to follow, a script for our diets, where we go where we die based on a defined reward and punishment system.
It sounds like a case of wanting the cake and eating too! You can't have the cake if you eat it, and there's no point in wanting the cake if you can't eat it. I think Asher has substituted the word "God" for "agency". It's just an accomodating way of not offending either side, (i.e., atheist or theist).
You know things are regardless of how we think they are or might be. And, I guess there's a great awakening when people discover that being ego-centric doesn't produce any revelation. In other words, God doesn't need us or how we might want to conceptulize His existence.
It seems as though, you would be content to think that the universe spawned God, and that God is just as unknowledgeable about the whole of things as man. That would, in essence, make the universe the real "god". And, since the universe makes no requirement of you - then, you are content. Your last paragraph leads me to believe that you really don't want a "god" because a god would encroach upon your short-lived freedom. In what manner would you like God to reveal Himself to you?
Being content about those "ideas", doesn't factor, I don't hold them as personal beliefs, it's why I used terms like, "I think it's possible" instead of "I believe". I was brainstorming creative imaginative ideas, not referencing actual things I believe to be true.
Basically I have no vested interest in whether those ideas are true or not.
"Since the universe makes no requirement of you - then, you are content."
The Universe makes no requirement of me, and thats why I have a sense of real freedom, it's where my free will comes from. Not having beliefs "required", I'm free to be a creative person, free to create meaning and purpose for myself, without being bound to work within a required system that threatens to punish me or my loved ones for not complying to those requirements.
I'm content because I feel fulfilled by my life with my wife and son, and life that I lead, not because of the thoughts on the concept of deistic beings.
So to a degree you're right, certain definitions of Gods would encroach upon that freedom to be who I choose to be. But also, I don't have any feelings of "not wanting a god" or "wanting a god", or have any desire for a God to reveal itself, if it does it does, if it doesn't it doesn't.
www.tombofjesus.com
It also lists all the documentaries on Jesus on this topic. Truth is interesting.
No Jack the unicorn on guard, either.
So, this seems to be working. I see absolutely no evidence for the existence of a God. I see no real world effects of the belief is a God other that the election of a never ending stream of incompetent politicians who claim their greatest strength is their ability to being the real world benefits of God to the American people; which I now learn are.....nothing (at least nothing that can be measured or quantified).
This actually isn't accurate. Evolution is virtually never used as an argument against god in the skeptic community. It is an argument against a literal interpretation of any number of creation myths, most importantly for us, the biblical one. But I almost never hear it as an argument against god itself.
It is the fundamentalist Christians who insist that evolution implies god, because they can't conceive of a god that isn't exactly what the bible says it is.
Also I didn't say the concept couldn't be grasped by humans.
The contradictions of the existing religious paradigm are so great, the 'theodicy' question unresolved, sectarian divisions increasing, it is becoming more and more obvious that whatever vision religion offers, it offers no path, with the authority to realize that ideal via doctrine, it has been reduced by history to little more than institutional wishful thinking. Past it's sell by date, and slowly rotting on the shelves, it is over do for replacement! The only questions are with what, how and when? We may have those answers sooner than anyone ever expected! http://www.energon.org.uk
Well, Mr. Asher that "new god" is an impossibility for man to achieve. Atheists don't want a god period...new or otherwise. And, theists don't want the job of re-creating a new god...they're happy with the one they have. Agnostics, certainly, don't want the job because it would compromise their position.
I think it ignores that a lot of religious people are raised in a cultural bubble. The cultural traditions and social pressures are huge. Most religious people haven't even read the bible, but do know the nutshell outlines to some of the stories, thats it, typically treating it like a Software License Agreement, they just scroll to the bottom and click I agree.
It seems you are willing to compromise truth to avoid hurting feelings, which means, you don't care about what is true.
That makes you know different than the theist.