Anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism, which is the forms of Christianity, cannot produce an adequate understanding of the nature of man and existence, because to do so one cannot place stock in the theory of teleological spontaneous creationism; one cannot assume that man was created suddenly rather than evolving. Evolution is not compatible with anthropocentric theology and therefore religions such as Christianity are theoretical risks…they are magnificent slippery-slopes.
This is not to say that metaphors cannot be made from religious vocabularies and themes, and promote culture and ethical systems, whatever they be, but religion cannot, by virtue of the absurdity of the grounding assumptions and their anthropocentric nature, be a critical model for explaining anything teleological.
I have yet to see a philosopher use the term “God” in a more appropriate manner than Spinoza. Few if any remarks are made in which there are connotations of moral concern and the “humanizing” of God. “God” is not a feature role in a story…he is not a character, he does not transcend the story. Platonic religions, such as Christianity, are where anthropocentrisms originate. The other-worldy, the esoteric, and the metaphor through art is this spiritualization process which creates archetypes that are recuring in all religious themes. Christianity is one such religion that was born into pre-established vocabularies and meanings and principles that were passed down from paradigm philosophies. In a word, Christianity is a watered-down neo-Platonism with rearranged furniture.
Still the thing lacking is the more far reaching view that evolution requires and the knowledge of the process rather than the instances of contingency. A power philosophy such as Nietzsche’s, although his polemic was a reaction, with an addition of Spinozean stoicism would produce a well rounded idea of what “God” could possibly be with all things most likely in mind; the fact of evolution, the infinite nature of the universe, and the power expressed in causal relationships. What is lasting is that power and that inertia…what is not is our story books and tales of prophets and 6,000 year old planets…where men rise spontaneously out of dust and women from a rib.
The religious thinker gets so caught up in traversing the contents of religious doctrine as a mode-of-story, its narrative, and trying to deduce general logical conclusions by merely commenting on a verse or two, that he forgets the entire envelope he is within is a giant metaphor word game.
People cannot seriously take Christianity for anything more than a fossil. If they do they don’t realize it but they are simply participating in Pascal’s wager although they have so far avoided the bite of conscience. Let’s get serious…
Bob, are you there, sir? Come here, I want to ask: are you absolutely sure that you should be spending as much time as you do with Christianity? Don’t you know that Spinoza is far more dynamic than Christianity? Have you considered that fact that you might of asked yourself subconsciously over breakfast one morning: “hey Bob, if God does exist and you don’t have faith, you’re screwed…but if you do have faith, and God does not exist, you’ve lost nothing.”
I want the truth, Bob. And don’t lie to me…I can smell the fear.
