--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/tlw_god.txt	Sun Apr 08 06:34:56 2018 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+> [H]ere are some areas where I would find your (and Catharine's)
+> views especially interesting:
+
+> * Does Shortt believe that Jesus actually, physically, came back to
+>   life?  He hints that he does, but then backs off a bit.  This is
+>   important in the discussion, because without that particular element
+>   of the Christ event, I think you wind up (pun intended) with a deist
+>   construction:  "God" is simply the word for the fact that there is
+>   something rather than nothing.  I think I am recalling my father's
+>   conversations correctly when I remember that he observed that the
+>   "truth" of Christianity absolutely depends upon the truth of the
+>   physical resurrection.  Without that event -- something that is by
+>   its terms contrary to the scientifically testable principles of the
+>   universe in which we live -- what is the particular reason to
+>   "believe" that Christianity (as distinct from other religious or
+>   naturalist tradition) holds any particular explanatory power?
+
+Interpreting your question about Shortt as a question about me, I'll
+try to give _my_ answer.
+
+Your quote of your father's position is certainly widely held.  I was
+surprised years ago to find the following verse by ... I'll show the
+verse first so you can try to guess its author:
+
+   Make no mistake: if he rose at all
+   it was as His body;
+   if the cell’s dissolution did not reverse,
+   the molecules reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
+   the Church will fall.
+ 
+But I think there's a useful, and reasonably well-frequented, stop on
+the way from a focus on the resurrection of the body (His, and ours)
+and all the debates that follow about predestination, election,
+justification and salvation, to say nothing of limbo, purgatory and
+hell, to a full-on deism.
+
+Many Quakers say that it's the _life_ of Jesus that they put at the
+heart of Christianity, and are happy to ignore Christ's resurrection
+and the calculus of sin and redemption.  If they have anything to say
+about the _theology_ of the crucifixion, its likely to be along the
+lines of what mainstream theology calls, I believe, an _exemplar_
+understanding of the crucifixion.  I've lost track of the place I
+first encountered this, but in the form I got it, its central thesis
+is that in his perfect non-violent acceptance of an unjust persecution
+and death, he defeated the violence of its perpetrators.  The language
+used, if I recall correctly, uses a metaphor based on electricity: by
+his acceptance he earthed (grounded) their violence and thus
+dissipated it, rendered it ineffective.  The ultimate example of
+turning the other cheek, an unanswerable alternative to the escalating
+effect of meeting violence with violence: "the revolutionary
+foolishness of the ‘lamb’ who is defeating violence with love".
+
+Whether such a position is "Christian" or not I leave to the
+professional theologians.  I've certainly seen arguments that it
+wasn't until Anselm in the 11th century that we get the
+substitutionary sacrifice story (and indeed that it was for
+propounding the exemplar view that Abelard got in trouble).  I'm
+pretty sure that some of the Dominican friars we know are in this
+camp.
+
+What I _don't_ know is how to connect this perspective on Jesus as
+Teacher with God as the ground of being...
+
+On a related note, I've never felt that Christianity has any absolute
+claim to priority, and accept that my self-identification as Christian
+is mostly owed to the fact that it at least _was_ the default
+religious context of the culture I grew up in.  Some Quakers are keen
+to adopt what is locally described as Universalism, which gives equal
+status to 'all' the 'great' religions as potential sources of
+inspiration.  I'm afraid I'm somewhat cynical about this, in that such
+people often also are likely to talk about their "spiritual journey",
+which too often seems to mean that they aren't commited to much of
+anything in particular, or at least not for very long.
+
+* Shortt does, it seems to me, also sometimes "put the rabbit into the hat."  For example, he asserts that there are "moral truths."  Really?  According to what or whom?  I happen to agree with his (essentially Thomistic) views on what is "good," but how does that make it "true?"  I think the jury is very much out on the question of whether humans "tend to the good," and I think it is equally plausible to think that the "moral truths" for humans are the result of how our brains have evolved, and no more evidence of a particular creator than the choice of wolves and dolphins to cooperate when hunting.  I have the same concern about some of his other distinctions, e.g. between "notes" and "music."  I do not find it at all hard to believe that visual and auditory responses to particular harmonies are entirely the product of natural selection.  
+
+* I don't doubt that Shortt is correct when he says, near the beginning, that the reader cannot be persuaded into belief.  (I also love the reference to Kierkegaard, though he does not mention the Great Gray Goose.)  But you can see the quandary in which that leaves someone like me:  if one can only understand Christianity by "living it," how can one decide whether to choose to live that life?  I have often said to both of you, I think, that it would be wonderful have faith -- I'm one of the people Hawking identified as being "afraid of the dark" but couldn't turn that fear into belief.  But while I have often found elements of religious belief and practice to be interesting and even comforting (in the sense of being part of a community), I have never been able to overcome my view that, at its heart, Christianity is based upon belief in a particular event that, in my firmly held view, simply did not occur.
+I have notes on virtually every page, and I look forward to future discussion (perhaps over some excellent Port which I seem to have around).
+With thanks and love,Tom
+
+ht
+
+[The verse is the first stanza of _Seven Stanzas at Easter_ by John
+ Updike, who was, apparently, raised a Lutheran]