tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post7340443439704429772..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Rev Sam pulls on Wittgenstein's mantleStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-9818356829726509772008-06-18T06:48:00.000+00:002008-06-18T06:48:00.000+00:00Sally - I've continued the conversation here. I'm ...Sally - I've continued the conversation <A HREF="http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2008/06/meaning-suffering-and-integrity.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. I'm sure it'll still be a frustrating read for y'all here.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-69269791821902457962008-06-11T08:44:00.000+00:002008-06-11T08:44:00.000+00:00P.S. I am now continuing this discussion with a ne...P.S. I am now continuing this discussion with a new post...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-78191215881352093182008-06-11T08:21:00.000+00:002008-06-11T08:21:00.000+00:00As a matter of fact I was raised in a religious ho...As a matter of fact I was raised in a religious household, and my father trained to be a minister, though never took it up. I also attended a church school. So as a teenager I read lots of e.g. C.S. Lewis, Tillich, etc. So it's irritating, and really rather unjustified, to have my criticisms of religious belief swept aside on the assumption that I can't understand what the religious mean when they talk about God.<BR/><BR/>In any case, the onus is really on Sam to explain why, given how he, at least, uses "god", the problem of evil ain't really so much of a problem.<BR/><BR/>Having spent ages trying to figure out what Sam does mean, and ploughing through his allusions to Wittgenstein and "forms of life", we finally discover he never actually had any such explanation.<BR/><BR/>It's all been smoke and mirrors.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I don't think Sam's a terrible person, and I don't think he is intending deliberately to dupe us. I suspect this sort of strategy - of obfuscation and smokescreen delivered with an air of intellectual and spiritual superiority - is just a habit of thought he has rather uncritically adopted having spent too much time hanging out with a certain sort of theist.<BR/><BR/>Patronizing of me to say so, I know. But it's what I think...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-59742627673444461812008-06-11T07:55:00.000+00:002008-06-11T07:55:00.000+00:00"Within the church we use the language of God on a..."Within the church we use the language of God on a daily basis, and we understand what is meant by it."<BR/><BR/>Anticant's "egg theory" aside there seems to be a good deal of evidence this is not the case. <BR/><BR/>At one end of the spectrum we have those who claim that God intervenes in the world on a regular basis, sends visions etc. and provides a stark choice of alternatives in the afterlife. At the other end we have the more ethereal "words can't describe Him" school and the "I just have this feeling..." people. When believers at different points on the this continuum meet and discuss religious matters are they really talking about the same God?<BR/><BR/>When Sam sings hymns and recites the liturgy does it mean the same to him as it does to another priest or a lay member? Do the words even mean the same as they did to author? <BR/> <BR/>This is even before we consider affiliation with different sects within a Church or even different Churches within the same religion. <BR/><BR/>Or even different religions within monotheism!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2444302023812638462008-06-11T04:48:00.000+00:002008-06-11T04:48:00.000+00:00"Within the church we use the language of God on a..."Within the church we use the language of God on a daily basis, and we understand what is meant by it."<BR/><BR/>Sounds like a lunatic asylum where all the inmates are convinced that they are poached eggs. So they use a private language and egg each other on!anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-74522154464810525072008-06-10T23:47:00.000+00:002008-06-10T23:47:00.000+00:00Sam says:"Within the church we use the language of...Sam says:<BR/><BR/>"Within the church we use the language of God on a daily basis, and we understand what is meant by it, the difficulty arises in trying to explain what the word 'God' means apart from that life."<BR/><BR/>The problem is that most people do not carry the understanding of 'god' that you do. For that the intervention of a certain infamous philosopher is required. <BR/><BR/>How many out of a 100 Christians do you think have the kind of non-realist religious stance that you have (or have a non-realist religious stance at all, even)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32216909444181536132008-06-10T18:06:00.000+00:002008-06-10T18:06:00.000+00:00Hi anticantYou're right, fiath wasn't the right wo...Hi anticant<BR/><BR/>You're right, fiath wasn't the right word to use there. I was referring to his religious perspective in general. But I was intending to question it's rationality, because he seemed to compare his theology-based beliefs as separate to the "stupid beliefs" of some US fundamentalists, and by debating on this forum has shown some interest in rationality and truth, rather than blind belief for the sake of pleasantness. I'm guessing he's still going to claim to hold a reasonable belief worth taking "intellectually" seriously...<BR/><BR/>But I'm glad you were "surprised" at me. Shows you don't know me TOO well! :-)Sally_bmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581010343971175339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-74193989360215070702008-06-10T17:36:00.000+00:002008-06-10T17:36:00.000+00:00Sam - Don't forget with Improved Christianity the...Sam - Don't forget with Improved Christianity the problem of evil really does go away!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-46645411184946644292008-06-10T17:19:00.000+00:002008-06-10T17:19:00.000+00:00Sally, I'm surprised that you, as a rational perso...Sally, I'm surprised that you, as a rational person, ask Sam what are the rational grounds for his faith? All religious faith is irrational. There are no rational grounds for any of it. Religions all demand a "leap of faith" - and the bigger and more incredible the leap is, the more meritorious it is in the eyes of believers. That is why such people are so dangerous when they get their hands on the levers of power. Their decisions are dictated by faith - not reason.<BR/><BR/>The meaning of life is that there is no esoteric meaning, and no mystery. The fact that we do not know everything about the universe, and probably never will, does not logically lead to the conclusion that there must be a "mystery", still less that the hypothetical mystery is deserving of worship.<BR/><BR/>I would have much more respect for the Sams of this world if they did not lay so much stress on the role of their faith in impelling them to do good. My own view is that those who do good simply because they see the need for it, without any religious prompting, are on a morally higher plane than the religious busybodies.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85908882617395149872008-06-10T17:11:00.000+00:002008-06-10T17:11:00.000+00:00Sam - you said "you need to find another one bette...Sam - you said "you need to find another one better, more attractive in some way. So the challenge is to describe the better alternatives, not just poke holes in the Christian model"<BR/><BR/>Leaving aside the obvious point that it is possible to have a really poor set of alternatives none of which hold water. the scientists find themselves faced with that one far too often. I feel I can offer you an improved model. Like Christianity but minus at least some of the fluff. <BR/><BR/>First off you can pretty much scrap the Bible. Dreadful muddle of disparate texts. I think you agree that the first bit is way wide of the mark. <BR/>Do you feel a pang of guilt every time you eat an oyster or a bacon sandwich? <BR/>The second half isn't much better is it?<BR/>Lets just keep the bits about how we should behave towards our fellows as a guide to how to live and lose the factually dubious. Each step of the way is an improvement on stock Christianity.<BR/>Even better by simplifying things we reduce the scope for ambiguity and nasty schism-ey things. Now the big one. Get rid of the stuff about God. It really does nothing positive and it rather discredits the whole enterprise. <BR/><BR/>So there you go - improved Christianity - act like a Christian toward your fellows, think and reason like an atheist and follow the diet your doctor recommends. Try it you'll feel pretty much the same. Only you wont have to keep up the lies and delusions, and that will be a weight off your mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-6102719015374985302008-06-10T16:29:00.000+00:002008-06-10T16:29:00.000+00:00As we’re all getting a bit frustrated and accusati...As we’re all getting a bit frustrated and accusations are flying, I’ve made a lil summary of Rev Sam’s moves so far, from my perspective:<BR/><BR/>“when Christian theologians treat [the problem of suffering] as something that calls into question the existence of God, they are giving it more importance than it deserves”.<BR/><BR/>This assertion suggested to most of us that the Rev Sam had a REASON to believe the problem of evil wasn’t such a problem after all, rather than blind faith in the fact. Birth of the problem.<BR/><BR/>“I'm not sure I'd say quite so baldly that "the problem of suffering just isn't something that calls into question the existence of God" - what's at stake is what is meant or understood by 'God'”.<BR/><BR/>This is where he seemed to accept that the PoE is a genuine hurdle to faith, but that it could be overcome by fully understanding his concept of God. Hence us talking about what he meant by God, in search of his answer to the PoE. So when Sam now writes, “One problem that we have is that the discussion has veered between answering the problem of evil and explaining what it means to believe in God at all.” I feel inclined to remind him that it was him who suggested this would help answer the overall problem.<BR/><BR/>Then a few confusing assertions were made that we had to clarify (though I don’t think we ever did clarify them):<BR/>“When I worship God I'm not worshipping one who causes suffering”<BR/>“some suffering caused by God isn't incompatible with his being worshipped.” (Again, suggests Sam has an answer to the PoE, if the logical one)<BR/>“I think the biggest difference is that you see religious beliefs as abstract and propositional, whereas I see them as gaining sense from what they do in the context of a life (ie Christians do things with the words). That would be worth pursuing further....” (The biggest difference was in fact, perhaps, that we were trying to SOLVE the problem of evil, with Sam’s help, while Sam had reverted back to simply not letting the problem obstruct his faith. But we thought the answer lay in Sam’s concept of God still so…)<BR/><BR/>We got these depictions of Sam’s belief in God<BR/>“I would deny that the statement 'God exists' is expressing a claim about a matter of fact in the world. I think that it is describing something about the nature of the world taken as a whole, ie that the world is meaningful and that meaning can be understood personally.”<BR/>“I definitely do not think that all religious language is expressive.”<BR/>“what is the use of the word 'God', "what is that use? How is it being used? Is it being used to make claims, to express emotional attitudes, to express linguistic rules, or what?" and the answer is: lots of different ways.”<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, Sam did continue to assert that he had a position on God’s existence “worth taking intellectually seriously”:<BR/>“If you want to argue that there are, eg, some US fundamentalists who believe stupid things then I'm not going to disagree with you!! But that conversation isn't interesting. The interesting thing, surely, is whether there is anything in the Christian tradition that is worth taking intellectually seriously. To find that out, you need to engage seriously with the most intellectually serious arguments, don't you?“<BR/><BR/>…We waited in eager anticipation…<BR/><BR/>…for this:<BR/><BR/>“'it's a mystery that will one day be revealed”<BR/><BR/>So, Sam. Do you have a belief worth taking more “intellectually seriously” than the “US fundamentalists who believe stupid things”? Why do you think there is a solution to the problem or evil, when you can see no way into it, and there has been no satisfactory answer from the wealth of intelligent Christians who’ve considered it over thousands of years? Where are the rational grounds for your faith and your hope in God?Sally_bmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581010343971175339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-34807670695464673502008-06-10T14:42:00.000+00:002008-06-10T14:42:00.000+00:00"The post you quote from is at least a year old"Ye..."The post you quote from is at least a year old"<BR/><BR/>Yes, but you gave a link to it in THIS thread, accompanied with the words "I'm not sure I'd say anything fresh compared to what I said originally here."<BR/><BR/>I don't think Stephen's being unfair at all. You have been giving the impression you had a decent, reasonable response to the problem of evil. 'It's the easiest thing to believe' is quite clearly not such a response.Sally_bmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581010343971175339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-4230580602400288622008-06-10T14:39:00.001+00:002008-06-10T14:39:00.001+00:00"it shows I'm not on my own in my perspectives!!"O..."it shows I'm not on my own in my perspectives!!"<BR/><BR/>Oh, well in that case, I take back all my criticism and challenges...<BR/><BR/>*slow clapSally_bmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581010343971175339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-17691395952356191802008-06-10T14:39:00.000+00:002008-06-10T14:39:00.000+00:00Sally_bm - I'm a long term fan of Bill Hicks.Sally_bm - I'm a long term fan of Bill Hicks.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-71227113067817272922008-06-10T14:38:00.000+00:002008-06-10T14:38:00.000+00:00Stephen you're being more than a little unfair. Th...Stephen you're being more than a little unfair. The discussion over the last week or so has moved between the problem of suffering and the problem of God as such - I've been responding to questions as we've gone along - and, frankly, much more fully than you've engaged with. The post you quote from is at least a year old and you have interacted with the contents before, so it seems more than a little dishonest that you are now acting with such shock at what I said in that post, as if it came as news to you.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-90859594735007288242008-06-10T14:35:00.000+00:002008-06-10T14:35:00.000+00:00You're right- life does demand a response to suffe...You're right- life does demand a response to suffering. But that response should be an intellectually honest one, not just the one that's easiest and nicest to give.<BR/><BR/>Non-believers have a better EXPLANATION for suffering, in that there's no reason it SHOULDN'T logically exist. So already we've got a more HONEST response to it.<BR/><BR/>But in terms of how we ACT in response to suffering in life, the most intellectually honest belief may well not be the easiest one to live with. We have to accept that suffering most definitely IS bad, and that goodness probably could never counteract/ justify it. Like Dostoevsky said (though in a slightly different context) "It's not worth the tears of one tortured child... too high a price is asked for harmony". <BR/><BR/>However, that doesn't mean we should all commit suicide/ be miserable 24/7. We choose, in general, to take the gamble that we can squeeze enough happiness out of our lives to make the suffering worthwhile. To me, we have to apply this externally, to ensure we do more good by sticking around than we would do by shuffling off our mortal coils.<BR/><BR/>But really, I just think: We happen to have a few years of consciousness to play around with. Let's see what we can do with it.<BR/>Suffering doesn't negate that viewpoint- it just gives me something to think about when deciding how to live my life.<BR/><BR/>Again, see the link to "It's just a ride" from my last post if you really are interested.Sally_bmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581010343971175339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33547155482821156892008-06-10T14:32:00.000+00:002008-06-10T14:32:00.000+00:00BTW2 - and this really will be my final comment of...BTW2 - and this really will be my final comment of today - you may be interested to read <A HREF="http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2008/05/reasonable-atheism-19-four-questions-on.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A> on theodicy, and to chase up the links from <A HREF="http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2008/05/theodicy-meme.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A>, where other religious bloggers comment upon the problem of suffering. If nothing else it shows I'm not on my own in my perspectives!!Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77385303835530313022008-06-10T14:29:00.000+00:002008-06-10T14:29:00.000+00:00I have been asking Sam:"what is about the way "God...I have been asking Sam:<BR/><BR/>"what is about the way "God" is used by Christians in the Eucharist etc. that provides any kind of solution to or treatment of the problem of evil?"<BR/><BR/>The answer we get now is:<BR/><BR/>"although I can't answer the problem now to my own intellectual satisfaction, I believe that there is an answer. This is because I see the alternative as unliveable"<BR/><BR/>But his answer has nothing to do with Wittgenstein, forms of life, etc. at all.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, it's a nice, simple, clear explanation of belief that does not require intimate knowledge of theology, etc.<BR/><BR/>But it's no solution at all to the problem of evil. Just an admission that he can't solve it.<BR/><BR/>The reason I have become a bit cross with Sam is that he has been alluding to sophisticated Wittgensteinian solutions and profound theological insights we have not yet fathomed - he offers us the promissory note that there is, or is likely to be, a satisfactory solution to the problem of evil once we understand these things properly, like he does.<BR/><BR/>But, having finally got the door open to Sam's cupboard of intellectual delights, we find - the cupboard is entirely bare!<BR/><BR/>Sam never did have some sophisticated Wittgensteinian riposte that we were theologically too illiterate to comprehend. He actually had - well, nothing at all. Yet we have had to expend hours and hours unpicking his musings in order to find this out.<BR/><BR/>Bit frustrating.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, having finally stripped Rev Sam of this particular fig leaf (I am sure he's got lots more), I expect NOT to see him him whipping it out again the next time he finds himself in trouble with the problem of evil.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, it would be intellectually dishonest for Sam to pretend he has a solution - or even half a solution - along such Wittgensteinian lines, when clearly he hasn't got anything at all.<BR/><BR/>So I'm sure he won't be doing that in his sermons or on his blog, etc...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26819479370961157742008-06-10T14:11:00.000+00:002008-06-10T14:11:00.000+00:00By the way my request for alternative answers isn'...By the way my request for alternative answers isn't a trivial one. After all, in science you don't abandon one paradigm just because there are problems with it - you need to find another one better, more attractive in some way. So the challenge is to describe the better alternatives, not just poke holes in the Christian model. And there's even a good quote from Wittgenstein saying just that, but I'll refrain from quoting him directly :)Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-47154469503139506112008-06-10T13:59:00.000+00:002008-06-10T13:59:00.000+00:00Sally_bm: with the caveat about the adequacy of de...Sally_bm: with the caveat about the adequacy of definitions (see above) I'm happy with: <BR/><BR/>""that which is intimately involved in my life leading me forward into truth and life and integrity and with which I can communicate in a personal way" which you break down as:<BR/><BR/>"that which is calling me into balance" when you're straying down the wrong path<BR/>"an active and intentional agent drawing me forwards"<BR/>"personal; that is, I relate to it as I would to a person"<BR/>the source of your visions<BR/>"that which helps you discern the truth"<BR/>"an agent in the world"<BR/>"the precondition for all things that are held in being"<BR/><BR/>And you say he looks like [Jesus]"<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for what I said about evil, my point is that there is no philosophical (definitionally adequate) answer but that life demands a response one way or another. I live and trust that one day that answer will be revealed. That's what walking with faith means isn't it? It's how you act.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-17597139315757897932008-06-10T13:46:00.000+00:002008-06-10T13:46:00.000+00:00*groans. Sma, I can't believe you've had us all ru...*groans. Sma, I can't believe you've had us all running round after your solution to the problem of evil when your actual position is (drum roll):<BR/><BR/>"although I can't answer the problem now to my own intellectual satisfaction, I believe that there is an answer. This is because I see the alternative as unliveable"<BR/><BR/>I.e. You have no solution, but continue to believe in God anyway because you want to. <BR/><BR/>That is what you're saying isn't it?Sally_bmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581010343971175339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-56967568898079219182008-06-10T13:38:00.000+00:002008-06-10T13:38:00.000+00:00Evil is a problem for everyone, but it's not a cha...Evil is a problem for everyone, but it's not a challenge to belief systems for those who approach the world scientifically, I don't think; you set out with nothing to prove and everything to learn, so whatever you conclude from considering the reality of evil and suffering becomes part of your belief system.<BR/><BR/>I see all the evil in the word and think it would be better, probably, if there was no world at all. However, as there is, we're best sticking around to maximise the good-to-wonderful stuff and minimise the bad-to-terrible stuff. Enjoy life and help others to enjoy it too, until you cease to be. I put a link to Bill hicks' "It's just a Ride" on a recent post, and I'll put it here to, as he expresses a positive atheist approach to life: <BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMUiwTubYu0Sally_bmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581010343971175339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36780299613337643522008-06-10T13:35:00.000+00:002008-06-10T13:35:00.000+00:00Sally, I thought Sam said God wasn't "an agent in ...Sally, I thought Sam said God wasn't "an agent in the world," more of a "ground of being." I compiled a quick list, like yours. Mine reads thusly:<BR/><BR/>A sense of rightness accompanying acts<BR/>An illumination of the path, a guiding light<BR/>A communicator - in conversation and in vision<BR/>As a halo around the truth<BR/>A ground of being, not an agent<BR/>Jesus.<BR/><BR/>I would counter that the atheists among us seem to find a path and are able to act rightly without a guide (or do we have a guide, just are unaware of it?). I do not believe that anyone who literally has a conversation with God can be sane (sorry, Sam, if this seems harsh). For my ground of being I rely on the laws of physics.<BR/><BR/>The truth of Jesus as God relies on some sort of evidence, even if the rest of the characteristics of God do not.<BR/><BR/>To the father of the dead son, I would say "remember the happy times." To say more would be cheap without knowing either of them. It is people who offer support in time of need, whether or no they bring with them a message from His Nibs.Jithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14591821557158009912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-45099693463980995982008-06-10T13:25:00.000+00:002008-06-10T13:25:00.000+00:00OK, I'll apply what I said to the question in your...OK, I'll apply what I said to the question in your postscript a bit later. (I'm not sure I'd say anything fresh compared to what I said originally <A HREF="http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2005/08/few-thoughts-about-problem-of-evil.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.)Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24189218609401274892008-06-10T13:20:00.000+00:002008-06-10T13:20:00.000+00:00So Sam, you believe God is:"that which is intimate...So Sam, you believe God is:<br><br>"that which is intimately involved in my life leading me forward into truth and life and integrity and with which I can communicate in a personal way" which you break down as:<br><br>"that which is calling me into balance" when you're straying down the wrong path<br>"an active and intentional agent drawing me forwards"<br>"personal; that is, I relate to it as I would to a person"<br>the source of your visions<br>"that which helps you discern the truth"<br>"an agent in the world"<br>"the precondition for all things that are held in being"<br><br>And you say he looks like http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_h8lco0yxl-k/R1V33UUl4TI/AAAAAAAABhk/-UxWaFE9BjM/s1600-h/jesus-icon-sinai6c.jpg <br><br>A lot of those things, to me, say what God does, rather than what his characteristics are. Maybe that's ok... But in terms of what he IS, he's the precondition for existence, and a personal agent that guides you towards a better form of life, right? Is that the definition we can work with?<br><br>Is it possible to explain why he's the necessary precondition for all existence, or at least why you believe that to be true? And is it impossible to explain how he can be omnipresent and unchanging, while also being an active and personal agent in the world? Some of your comments suggest you are the personal and active agent, rather than God, e.g. “When I see God at work in the world what I am really saying is that here my eyesight has been clarified… for God is always present. What changes is in me.”<br><br>And is there slight irony in your claim that he looks like that picture you include at the bottom of your post? Cos that person certainly isn't omnipresent!Sally_bmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581010343971175339noreply@blogger.com