What does Stephen Colbert and Bill Moyers have in common?
They are Homebrewed Bootleggers.
Well not exactly, but they have been busy listening to the HBC podcast to get freshest stuff in the field of religion. Back in June we interviewed Robert Wright on his new book the Evolution of God. Then what happens? Three weeks later he ends up on Bill Moyers’ program and then last night he was the guest on the Colbert Report. What did we learn? Two things….Moyers is better at keeping up with his podcast listening and neither of them let their listeners send in questions and get free copies. Why? This is clearly due to the HBC audience having a superior intelligence and a larger network of influence. None the less we do appreciate being imitated. It is kind of like being Oprah, but not.
| The Colbert Report | Mon, Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Robert Wright | ||||
|
||||
I listened to the original homebrewed version and also watched the two imitators. I enjoyed all three, but there is nothing like being first to market! I'm still working my way through his book. It's a little dry and long, but I find his overall approach to the concept of God to be helpful for Christians and for their critics. I've come to think of God as a symbol for the history, values and goals of each particular culture. I think this book points toward that kind of God. When I talk about God in this way, the common reaction I hear most is something similar to the Colbert reaction (though we all know this was a choreographed and exaggerated reaction by Colbert). People often react by assuming this abstract view of God is a down grade or less "real". They may say, "so you think God is JUST a concept". I think Hegel is helpful here. He had the ability to turn our ideas of concrete vs. abstract upside down. What is more "real", an omnipotent God that lives beyond the confines of the universe visiting the earth with some kind of shape shifting mechanism, or a God that is the collective will, values, memories, and goals of a community? Which has more real power to make real changes? What is more real, a God that requires the suspension of the laws of nature, or a God that fits perfectly into what we have come to know about the universe and the human mind. Hegel might suggest that we reconsider the traditional answer and think about how things we normally label as "abstract" concepts in our minds like memories, values, and hopes are more "real" than things we think we can touch and see. This "abstract" God that consists of our history, values, and hopes seems so much more concrete than a "being" that may or may not intervene if we perform the right tricks or obey the right rules. I tend to think Colbert's concrete God is an illusion, and Wright's abstract evolving God is so much more real. Peace, Deacon Mike
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like