Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!daemon
From: bloch%mandrill@ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: feminist spiritualty
Keywords: manufacturing theology
Message-ID: <12471@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 4 Jul 89 08:30:26 GMT
References: <8907011558.AA19050@cattell.psych.upenn.edu> <5725@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: ambar@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: bloch%mandrill.UUCP@ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch)
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 50
Approved: ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu

gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.EDU (Gretchen Chapman) writes:
>The figure of Sophia developed in Judiasm several centuries BCE
>because the current image of Yahweh the protector of Israel was not
>working.  The image of Sophia, the God/dess of all people (not just
>Israel) was developed to explain why Israel was getting womped on by
>other nations.  The idea that we can change images of God to suit our
>current needs is disconcerting, but we wouldn't be the first to do it.

and turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) responds (apparently without
noticing the last sentence above):

>Frequently I read writers who, it seems to me, are blatantly involved
>in the business of creating a new theology.  What surprises me is that
>they, and so many of their readers, take their attempts seriously.
>
>If gods or goddesses exists, perhaps the one thing that is certain
>about them is that their characteristics are not determined by
>people's imaginings.
>... how can
>one possibly take seriously a religion that one knows is pure fantasy
>because one is making it up as one goes along?

We've just had this discussion in rec.music.gaffa (don't ask me how it
got started there!)  We were talking about absolute right and wrong
ethics, and somebody quoted Allan Bloom's charge that modern society is
so relativist that it has no roots, that the only thing we accept as an
absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths.  Somebody else
quoted Hubert Dreyfus's response to Bloom that even complaining about
relativism can only be done by a relativist, for the complaint is
against people's belief that they can choose their ethics (their
theology, whatever), and one does not complain about something that was
writ in the stars.  In short, once the cat's out of the bag, it won't go
back in.

With regard to Russell's final question, the fact that people choose and
change religions with reasonable frequency already makes it impossible
to take ANY religion seriously, if "take seriously" means "accept as
Absolute Truth".  At least a religion you're making up as you go along
doesn't kid you or claim to be Absolute Truth; it only claims to be a
view of the world that works for the person involved.

Oh, and by the way, IS it inconceivable that god(desse)s could "really
exist", yet be plastic in form, significantly affected by people's
imaginings about them?  Or if you don't like that one, is it possible
that the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Deity, are out there, but are too
complex for a human mind to grasp, so we just decide what limited view
of them to take?

"The above opinions are my own.  But that's just my opinion."
Stephen Bloch