I can't help but be a litle annoyed by the reviews featured under the book. Not because what they're saying is wrong, but because it's so disheartening to see that we've apparently made no progress in challenging the "science vs. religion" narrative even among people who fancy themselves educated enough to review books for major newspapers.
I mean, think about it: Every serious historian who's written on Galileo in the past few decades points out that his theories went beyond the evidence and had problems of their own (theoretical annd empirical). Recent biographies of Newton have finally come to terms with the fact that he was a theologian, not just (or even primarily) a scientist. And even many popular accounts of the Scopes Trial have started to notice that it was a contrived media circus in which Social Darwinism, not just evolution, was on trial. And that's not even to mention the poor medievalists, who have been loudly challenging the myth of the Dark Ages in word and in print since the mid-1900s.
And yet every time a new book comes along restating the same things that Ronald Numbers and Peter Harrison and other historians of science and religion have been saying for decades, we get the Economist and the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal expressing bemused surprise at its conclusions... then promptly forgetting them until the next book in the same vein comes out.
I am glad this interview happened. It seems that now TASBS and the book on Tradition are, in many senses, all the rage, but The Experience of God is fantastic. Easily my favorite (except for perhaps some of the fiction) so I am glad to see it has not been forgotten.
It also seems that a sort of Heideggerian inspired hermeneutic of religion that seeks to distance the God of faith from the God of the philosophers presupposes that the average religious person is not actually concerned with (even if just implicitly) the truth of what they believe. Which is absurd. It also sets religion at odds with reason and so shows itself actually to be distinctly modern.
Yeah, same here. I read that book when I was just discovering philosophy and classical theism and still have not found a better treatment of who God is and is not.
I will challenge any man to a duel who speaks ill of that book in my presence.
I like this. I wrote about Spencer's Atheists for Slate—& resolved it would be the last time I wrote for that site, whose commentariat is just as dumb as can be—which led Steven Pinker to say something nasty about me on twitter. These people are so dreadfully ignorant, one longs for a truly informed atheism.
If I remember correctly, he thinks that western, secular narratives of progress owe much to Christianity, and that since Christianity is false, so are they. That’s just my hazy memory of the general shape though. I also remember him engaging with some good authors-- Heinrich von Kleist, more than one of the Powys brothers, Bruno Schulz, others.
The titanomachia has concluded — the titans won (Zeus has been deposed). The victors have grown as feeble as eloi: it was only a proper adversary could provide them with pith. Most of the titans are now specialists with no appetite for a cosmos-bestriding conflict, nor do they know the true lineaments of the fight. Who today writes in the spirit of Nietzsche? Serious question. Bonus points for a tolerable style.
I haven’t read Gray for quite some time, but I think I owe him for some good book recommendations, which is more than I can say for most of his confreres.
Nice, David. NIck Spencer blurbs the back of a truly amazing book I'm reading right now: Mark Vernon's _The Secret History of Christianity_ which gives Owen Barfield is full due (a long overdue task). BTW, the title of Spencer's book is not _Magisterium_; it's _Magisteria_.
I entirely agree with the prescription at the end of the interview — mechanized man needs to feel his own heart, not have his ear ministered to by theological propositions. Poetry is the way — that and a decent sense of human dignity. I imagine this is why you react with such antipathy to bad children’s literature: it cheapens and sells short our native inheritance of wonder. Children are resilient of course and will find it everywhere, even in the crassest commercial product: but we ought to do better, really, since Abraham, in whose bosom we are told the young daily rest, is surely listening in.
Thanks for sharing. I am currently re-reading The Experience of God very slowly to fully absorb the first chapters as I found them particularly helpful a year ago when I was re-engaging with the Christian tradition. Regarding the final question - what do you recommend to re-awaken the culture to the treasures of classical theism? - your book stirred me from my disinterested agnosticism.
I am wondering if you can recommend any reading on two subjects you broached in the interview:
- First, do you have anyone you particularly recommend on the mythical nature of the OT and its development/incorporation into more modern forms of monotheistic thought?
- Second, do you have any books or authors who are particularly adept at "inspired reading" perhaps with some examples of reading texts in each of the four senses?
For the second question: The Life of Moses by Gregory of Nyssa. It's the classic example of a literal reading (in the ancient sense) and a spiritual reading laid side by side. It's before the full articulation of a "four senses", but it's a clear demonstration, again, of the properly literal and the spiritual treatment of Scripture.
Thought the same, yes - the first part of your comment, that is, not the bit the about dancing, which I'm tempted to treat as a gauntlet thrown down... Within the first five minutes I was already compiling a mental list of all the people I intend to share it with.
I can't help but be a litle annoyed by the reviews featured under the book. Not because what they're saying is wrong, but because it's so disheartening to see that we've apparently made no progress in challenging the "science vs. religion" narrative even among people who fancy themselves educated enough to review books for major newspapers.
I mean, think about it: Every serious historian who's written on Galileo in the past few decades points out that his theories went beyond the evidence and had problems of their own (theoretical annd empirical). Recent biographies of Newton have finally come to terms with the fact that he was a theologian, not just (or even primarily) a scientist. And even many popular accounts of the Scopes Trial have started to notice that it was a contrived media circus in which Social Darwinism, not just evolution, was on trial. And that's not even to mention the poor medievalists, who have been loudly challenging the myth of the Dark Ages in word and in print since the mid-1900s.
And yet every time a new book comes along restating the same things that Ronald Numbers and Peter Harrison and other historians of science and religion have been saying for decades, we get the Economist and the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal expressing bemused surprise at its conclusions... then promptly forgetting them until the next book in the same vein comes out.
I am glad this interview happened. It seems that now TASBS and the book on Tradition are, in many senses, all the rage, but The Experience of God is fantastic. Easily my favorite (except for perhaps some of the fiction) so I am glad to see it has not been forgotten.
It also seems that a sort of Heideggerian inspired hermeneutic of religion that seeks to distance the God of faith from the God of the philosophers presupposes that the average religious person is not actually concerned with (even if just implicitly) the truth of what they believe. Which is absurd. It also sets religion at odds with reason and so shows itself actually to be distinctly modern.
The Experience of God is also my favoriite. That book genuinely changed my life.
Yeah, same here. I read that book when I was just discovering philosophy and classical theism and still have not found a better treatment of who God is and is not.
I will challenge any man to a duel who speaks ill of that book in my presence.
Meh. It could be better.
When will your seconds call on mine? And do you see the paradox here?
Perhaps Tim James will be my second....
I guess I need to read it. I listened to it on audible and I guess I couldn't look at enough definitions to absorb what he was saying.
I like this. I wrote about Spencer's Atheists for Slate—& resolved it would be the last time I wrote for that site, whose commentariat is just as dumb as can be—which led Steven Pinker to say something nasty about me on twitter. These people are so dreadfully ignorant, one longs for a truly informed atheism.
Pinker… Is there anyone who thinks in cruder or more simplistic terms?
Donald Trump?
I’m not sure the word “thinks” still applies in that case.
I enjoyed your article; I'll have to read Gray at some point.
If I remember correctly, he thinks that western, secular narratives of progress owe much to Christianity, and that since Christianity is false, so are they. That’s just my hazy memory of the general shape though. I also remember him engaging with some good authors-- Heinrich von Kleist, more than one of the Powys brothers, Bruno Schulz, others.
J A Baker too. But somehow he reduces them all to prophets of petulant nihilism.
Reminds me -- I read an amusing comment once that accused a certain brand of Straussian of treating Socrates as though he were Nietzsche in a toga.
That would be all Straussians.
Thank you; I can't really recommend Gray, I have to admit ...
The titanomachia has concluded — the titans won (Zeus has been deposed). The victors have grown as feeble as eloi: it was only a proper adversary could provide them with pith. Most of the titans are now specialists with no appetite for a cosmos-bestriding conflict, nor do they know the true lineaments of the fight. Who today writes in the spirit of Nietzsche? Serious question. Bonus points for a tolerable style.
John Gray thinks he does, anyway.
I haven’t read Gray for quite some time, but I think I owe him for some good book recommendations, which is more than I can say for most of his confreres.
Nice, David. NIck Spencer blurbs the back of a truly amazing book I'm reading right now: Mark Vernon's _The Secret History of Christianity_ which gives Owen Barfield is full due (a long overdue task). BTW, the title of Spencer's book is not _Magisterium_; it's _Magisteria_.
So it is. And once again Substack's autocorrect function leaps into the breach.,
Looking at the reviews, I'm seeing all the right names—I may have to add it to my never-ending reading list.
Peter Harrison is always a good sport about endorsing stuff that popularizes sane science-religion discourse.
I entirely agree with the prescription at the end of the interview — mechanized man needs to feel his own heart, not have his ear ministered to by theological propositions. Poetry is the way — that and a decent sense of human dignity. I imagine this is why you react with such antipathy to bad children’s literature: it cheapens and sells short our native inheritance of wonder. Children are resilient of course and will find it everywhere, even in the crassest commercial product: but we ought to do better, really, since Abraham, in whose bosom we are told the young daily rest, is surely listening in.
Looking forward to checking it out thanks
Thanks for sharing. I am currently re-reading The Experience of God very slowly to fully absorb the first chapters as I found them particularly helpful a year ago when I was re-engaging with the Christian tradition. Regarding the final question - what do you recommend to re-awaken the culture to the treasures of classical theism? - your book stirred me from my disinterested agnosticism.
I am wondering if you can recommend any reading on two subjects you broached in the interview:
- First, do you have anyone you particularly recommend on the mythical nature of the OT and its development/incorporation into more modern forms of monotheistic thought?
- Second, do you have any books or authors who are particularly adept at "inspired reading" perhaps with some examples of reading texts in each of the four senses?
For the second question: The Life of Moses by Gregory of Nyssa. It's the classic example of a literal reading (in the ancient sense) and a spiritual reading laid side by side. It's before the full articulation of a "four senses", but it's a clear demonstration, again, of the properly literal and the spiritual treatment of Scripture.
This is good on the first question:
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674504974
Thanks
That's the best short intro to the topic for adults that I've come across in 40 years. I've shared the link with several friends.
It wasn't bad, was it?
It was tight, clear, concise, accessible, good-natured, authoritative and credible. Other than that...one can't dance to it. Only due to it.
Thought the same, yes - the first part of your comment, that is, not the bit the about dancing, which I'm tempted to treat as a gauntlet thrown down... Within the first five minutes I was already compiling a mental list of all the people I intend to share it with.
What are you referring to here? Can't seem to follow the substack conversation properly.