Classical Understanding of God as per David B. Hart
David B. Hart introduces a profound perspective on the understanding of God. According to the philosopher, the classical understanding of God should be revisited in order to reinforce traditional Christian values (Hart, 2013). As a result, Hart insists that theologians should return to the classical definition of God as a “Spirit, incorporeal, not an object located somewhere in space, not subject to the limitations of time” (Hart, 2013, p. 9). Therefore, Hart’s perspective on the understanding of God implies returning to the roots of the notion.
How Hart’s Perspective Shapes a Theological Understanding of God
The idea of considering the traditional definition of God as the being that cannot be comprehended allows altering the theological understanding of the Creator. Specifically, the author’s definition of God helps to combine present reality and the primordial one, thus allowing multiple opponents to reconcile and embrace a single concept of God as the notion that is “more inward to me than my inmost depths” (Hart, 2013, p. 10). Thus, the perception of God that Hart provides offers to introduce the idea of unity into Christianity and allow opponents supporting different ideas of God to agree upon the crucial definition.
Challenging the Criticisms of the New Atheists and Forming a Church in a World of Atheism
The argument that Hart introduces to the realm of theology also allows challenging the theory of New Atheism suggested by Richard Dawkins. For instance, Hart outlines that the statements made by New Atheists dramatically lack intellectual curiosity, which betrays their theory in itself (Hart, 2013). In addition, the philosopher posits that the claims of scientists, such as Victor Strenger, contain fundamental logical flaws in their assumptions. As a result, Hart has managed to form a new church in the world of atheism.
Helping the Church Evangelize and Address an Increasingly Atheist World
Due to the meticulous analysis of the problems in the contemporary atheistic discourse, Hart (2013) has created the platform for the Church to evangelize and unite in the face of an evident threat that the atheist world poses. With the help of profoundly philosophical criticism of the most famous atheist works, Hart (2013) has provided the chance to convince people that Christianity offers a substantial philosophy that will help them to develop introspect into the world and themselves. Thus, the philosopher has made it possible for people to consider Christian thought as an important philosophy.
Reflection Journal: How David B. Hart’s Description of God Has Challenged or Enhanced My Personal Understanding of the Being of God
The concept of God as the almighty being that created the universe is often taken for granted, especially by general audiences. As a Minister, I have to pay close attention to how I understand the idea of God and how my perception of Him changes throughout my development as a person and a spiritual leader. By scrutinizing different sources that address the question at hand, I gain new insights into how God can be represented. However, of all the resources that I have considered so far in order to shape my understanding of God, I have found David B. Hart’s ideas particularly interesting.
It is noteworthy that, apart from challenging the traditional concept of an almighty being in the Christian philosophy, Hart’s definition of God also helps to understand the specifics of the discourse about the problem at hand. Specifically, by examining the existing opinions on the idea of God and the definition thereof, one will realize that there is a surprising lack of coordination in the analysis and the very subject of discussion.
Put differently, there are indications that there is a substantial lack of what one would call a meaningful disagreement on the subject under scrutiny (Simpson, 2016). Thus, the reading of Hart allowed me to understand the core of the problem that theologians need to resolve in order to approach the process of defining God. Specifically, the philosophical foundation for the definition of God.
Therefore, the analysis provided by Hart showed me that there are numerous complications even at the stage of approaching the process of defining God. Introducing a lexicographical perspective on the problem, Hart offers to simplify the process, yet he also discovers concealed layers of complexity. While one might argue that, since “the existence of God is not something that can be proven,” defining God is pointless, yet the search for the definition of the Creator is one of the approaches to exploring one’s own spirituality (McGrath, 2018, p. 7). Herein lies the importance of Hart’s work for me as a Christian and a minister.
The notion of unity that Hart introduces to Christianity by offering a chance at a homogenous, even if somewhat simplistic, definition of God, is also worth mentioning as one of the key notions that shaped my perception of God. The disparities between different congregations in their discussions of the subject matter and the search for the correct way of envisioning God seem to introduce a significant amount of disruption into their communication. As a result, the very existence of Christian unity as a notion is jeopardized, with people of the same faith debating about the foundational idea of their theological beliefs.
Therefore, the focus on a homogenous concept of God with which every Christian could agree and that could potentially imply the basis for reconciliation and unity is a doubtless advantage. Thus, Hart should be credited for purporting the message of unity and togetherness as the principles using which Christians could collaborate and communicate freely.
Moreover, the perspective that Hart offers by addressing the limitations of language in regard to the task of defining God needs to be mentioned as one of the ideas that have affected my spiritual development. There is a criticism of Hart’s approach toward defining God as the method that is rooted purely in the linguistic complexities is quite common and, to the credit of its proponents, rather substantial (Hart, 2013). Indeed, Hart does tend to focus on the language-related specifics that limit the opportunity to understand the notion of God and define it without any inherent biases involved (Hart, 2013).
For instance, Hart delineates the specifics of defining God through the prism of modern languages, including English (Hart, 2013). In addition, the philosopher compares his discoveries of the current linguistic analysis to the ones of the time when the Scriptures were written: “All things that exist receive their being continuously from him, who is the infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom (to use the language of the Christian scriptures” (Hart, 2013, p. 30). As a result, Hart shapes his readers’ understanding of God through linguistic analysis, which ostensibly introduces only one perspective.
However, I would argue that the use of the linguistic assessment that Hart performs does not narrow the analytical perspective but, instead, broadens it. Personally, I managed to incorporate the cultural interpretation of the perception of God into the rest of the definitions that I have discovered so far. As a result, Hart’s interpretation of God did not reduce my understanding of the nature of Jehovah but also expanded it by showing how the subject matter has been affected by changes in the language and alterations that the Biblical text has experienced after multiple translations. Overall, my perception of God and the understanding of Him has been broadened significantly after reading Hart’s argument concerning the search for a simpler definition.
References
Hart, D. B. (2013). The experience of God: Being, God, bliss. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
McGrath, A. (2018). Theology: The basics (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Simpson, C. (2016). Modern Christian theology. New York, NY: T&T Clark.