Book review "God's Mechanics"
Nov. 24th, 2010 08:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rhuI recently read God's Mechanics by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
brotherguy Consolmagno. In this book, Brother Guy attempts to explain why it is no contradiction for a "techie" (his word) to subscribe to religion in general and Catholicism in particular. It is a memoir of sorts, expressing his personal experiences and viewpoints as well as those he collected in discussions with other "techies."
[I feel funny posting this review here, sincebrotherguy and I are "mutual LJ-friends", and some of what I'm about to write is negative. But one of the central themes of "God's Mechanics" is the way that "techies" talk to each other about God, and so if this posting ends up sparking a fruitful conversation in the comments thread, that seems fitting.]
On some levels, the book succeeds. It got me thinking about my own framework (about which I've posted before under the taglist "What I Believe"). It explains Brother Guy's framework. And for some readers, it may help them to understand that science/engineering and religion don't need to be reconciled because they are not necessarily antagonists.
But on other levels, the book disappoints. When Brother Guy constructs a taxonomy of "techie" approaches to the problem posed by the existence of multiple religions, I didn't find myself in any of his categories. He makes some assertions about religion in general and the three Abrahamic religions in particular that I think are actually specifically Christian (such as that the world needs salvation)[1] or so general as to be anodyne (such as that a sin is an action that causes one to fail to be "the best you that you can be").[2]
More seriously, when (in a section clearly labeled as personal reflections) he repeats the canard that Judaism lacks a central expression of God's love, I don't recognize my religion in his book. (The Shema, the twice-daily essential declaration of faith, is immediately preceded in the morning by the blessing "With love abounding you love us...." and in the evening by the blessing "With eternal love you love your people Israel....")
Brother Guy has done a fine job of setting out how at least one techie relates to his religion. (We're all techies here; I have to restrict myself to the case of n=1 because that's all I can prove, although I'm sure the value of n is actually larger. :-) And, to be fair, he explicitly claims that this is all he is doing, although he blurs that a little bit by waiting until about two-thirds of the way through the book before narrowing his focus from religion in general to Christianity and then Catholicism.
Yet his real audience are the spiritual yearners who have so far rejected religion because they think it's incompatible with their scientific/engineering/techie weltanschauung. And I fear he may do them a disservice, because some of them will read this book and, not finding the answer that would speak to them, will conclude that the schism is real and unsurmountable. (For an excellent Jewish view on why science and religion don't require compromising either set of beliefs, I recommend Rabbi Natan Slifkin's excellent book The Challenge of Creation, which is largely based on the writings of Maimonides.)
In sum, I think that this is a book that needed to be written; Brother Guy did a fine job writing it; but I wish it had included more viewpoints.
----
Notes
1 - Judaism teaches that the world needs repair, which is a task that God has assigned to humanity. The term salvation rarely occurs, and it usually is in regard to asking to be saved from a physical danger in this world, such as drought and famine. That isn't to say that Judaism lacks a concept of an afterlife; it's just that for the most part the afterlife is an afterthought.
2 - My understanding of the Jewish concept of "sin" is that a sin is an action by which one rejects God's immanence. The Talmud's expression is "kicking at the footstool of God" and "causing the Shekhina to withdraw." By choosing to disobey God's commands, we cause God to diminish God's omnipresence; "free will" is a way of saying that God has granted us this otherwise inconceivable power.
brotherguy Consolmagno. In this book, Brother Guy attempts to explain why it is no contradiction for a "techie" (his word) to subscribe to religion in general and Catholicism in particular. It is a memoir of sorts, expressing his personal experiences and viewpoints as well as those he collected in discussions with other "techies."[I feel funny posting this review here, since
brotherguy and I are "mutual LJ-friends", and some of what I'm about to write is negative. But one of the central themes of "God's Mechanics" is the way that "techies" talk to each other about God, and so if this posting ends up sparking a fruitful conversation in the comments thread, that seems fitting.]On some levels, the book succeeds. It got me thinking about my own framework (about which I've posted before under the taglist "What I Believe"). It explains Brother Guy's framework. And for some readers, it may help them to understand that science/engineering and religion don't need to be reconciled because they are not necessarily antagonists.
But on other levels, the book disappoints. When Brother Guy constructs a taxonomy of "techie" approaches to the problem posed by the existence of multiple religions, I didn't find myself in any of his categories. He makes some assertions about religion in general and the three Abrahamic religions in particular that I think are actually specifically Christian (such as that the world needs salvation)[1] or so general as to be anodyne (such as that a sin is an action that causes one to fail to be "the best you that you can be").[2]
More seriously, when (in a section clearly labeled as personal reflections) he repeats the canard that Judaism lacks a central expression of God's love, I don't recognize my religion in his book. (The Shema, the twice-daily essential declaration of faith, is immediately preceded in the morning by the blessing "With love abounding you love us...." and in the evening by the blessing "With eternal love you love your people Israel....")
Brother Guy has done a fine job of setting out how at least one techie relates to his religion. (We're all techies here; I have to restrict myself to the case of n=1 because that's all I can prove, although I'm sure the value of n is actually larger. :-) And, to be fair, he explicitly claims that this is all he is doing, although he blurs that a little bit by waiting until about two-thirds of the way through the book before narrowing his focus from religion in general to Christianity and then Catholicism.
Yet his real audience are the spiritual yearners who have so far rejected religion because they think it's incompatible with their scientific/engineering/techie weltanschauung. And I fear he may do them a disservice, because some of them will read this book and, not finding the answer that would speak to them, will conclude that the schism is real and unsurmountable. (For an excellent Jewish view on why science and religion don't require compromising either set of beliefs, I recommend Rabbi Natan Slifkin's excellent book The Challenge of Creation, which is largely based on the writings of Maimonides.)
In sum, I think that this is a book that needed to be written; Brother Guy did a fine job writing it; but I wish it had included more viewpoints.
----
Notes
1 - Judaism teaches that the world needs repair, which is a task that God has assigned to humanity. The term salvation rarely occurs, and it usually is in regard to asking to be saved from a physical danger in this world, such as drought and famine. That isn't to say that Judaism lacks a concept of an afterlife; it's just that for the most part the afterlife is an afterthought.
2 - My understanding of the Jewish concept of "sin" is that a sin is an action by which one rejects God's immanence. The Talmud's expression is "kicking at the footstool of God" and "causing the Shekhina to withdraw." By choosing to disobey God's commands, we cause God to diminish God's omnipresence; "free will" is a way of saying that God has granted us this otherwise inconceivable power.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-25 03:55 am (UTC)Given the danger of further driving away the doubters, I'm also disappointed that the author chose to publish something that, if you'll pardon me, falls far from the mark.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-25 07:08 am (UTC)I think the difference you're bringing up between "repair" and "salvation" is something I didn't intend -- there, you're reading in your expectations of what you thought I would be saying, whereas I wasn't trying to be that subtle.
As for the "God of Love" bit, your point is very well taken and I'd put it very differently if I were writing it today. (We do learn.) Would it be proper, do you think, to say that the difference is between someone who is surprised at finding love where it was not expected (the Christian view) vs. one who is comfortably within a family where love can be assumed (the Jewish view)?
The book did go past a theologian (assigned by my provincial) who caught a number of egregious howlers, but obviously didn't catch them all.
And lucretia_borgia is quite right about the ignorance of many Catholics about their own theology. I am in an order that tries teaching this stuff; we see it first hand. (And we're not perfect ourselves, vide above.)
Incidentally, the Borgia family not only produced a line of famous horrible people, it also produced an early Father General of the Jesuits!
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-26 03:16 am (UTC)Thanks for your response.
If so, I'm sorry. I'll have to go back and re-check that point.
I'm not qualified to answer that completely, as I haven't really studied the Christian perspective on agape. But I'm happy to delve further into what God's love means to one particular Jew.
From my perspective, saying "God loves us" means "God wants us to be close." A friend once expressed this vis-a-vis our thrice-daily obligation to pray as (roughly), "The Creator of the Universe wants us to talk to Him. Be awed by that." In a way, this is the contrapositive of my understanding of sin. If the gift of free will means that God has given us the choice of whether to draw God near or push God away, by choosing to do mitzvot or sins, then God's love for us means that God rejoices when we choose mitzvot and sorrows when we choose sins. Note that the Hebrew word most often used for the Temple offerings is not "sacrifice" but qorban -- "that which draws one near"; qorbanot are a subset of qodshim, holy things, but that is not their purpose.
Here's what I wrote on the subject two years ago during the Days of Awe:
So I see God's love as representing a desire on God's part for us to choose to apply ourselves to our end of the relationship. God's love is unconditional; it's always there for us; but it's more than a gift of grace, it's a challenge. We are not required to earn it but we are expected to requite it.
To return to your question, then, does this mean that in the Jewish view, God's love "can be assumed"? Theologically, I'd agree, but in one's personal life journey there will always be moments when one realizes that, in the words of Jacob our father, "God was in this place," waiting for me, "but as for me --- I did not know." (The Hebrew word for "know" in this context can also have the connotation of "love".)