Jung's idea of God is virtually indistinguishable from the "collective unconscious," which he saw as shaping both the world around us and our inner world (what wells up from within us as dreams, myths, various impulses, etc.). In short, not the interactive God revealed to us partially before the Incarnation and fully in Christ. Obviously, when I pray it's to and through the latter, and not to a "collective unconscious" or to an "impersonal" entity (If "entity" is even the right term for something so conceptually amorphous).
Bernardo Kastrup's "Decoding Jung's Metaphysics" is worth a look and an easy read. Having said that, I need to reiterate that I do not endorse Jung's concept of God in the least (even if one can nail him down to a single concept -- at times, he's all over the map).
One further clarification. In Jung's case, one can rightly refer to his "God" as a concept. I'm not sure he would have argued that it wasn't. My own view is that -- even though one certainly has concepts about God, as one must -- God is not a concept. If anything, related to him, we're the "concepts" and he is perfect reality.
Thanks!! Your brother DBH has, if I can say, somehow an opposite sensitivity towards Jung than you but I couldn't pin the exact reason, is Jung's idea of God could be the reason? And unlike your brother you seem to be more positive towards Jung why do think is the reason?
We're actually closer in our estimation of Jung than some might think. Jung has a lot to say in his vast oeuvre that we both find useful, but we are both extremely cautious where his metaphysics comes into play. He's a mixed bag, to put it succinctly. One example: while finding his notion of the "collective unconscious" (which, as he says, we can never fully comprehend -- we can only work with our "personal unconscious") helpful, neither David nor I would equate it with God. For one thing, whereas the unconscious includes "the dark," God dwells in "inapproachable light" and "in him there is no darkness at all."
"things or entities" we couldn't fully comprehend can be mistaken for God. So a question arises how can we make sure that we are worshiping the truly incomprehensible personal God rather than our concepts or things or entities that seem for us incomprehensible and closely identified with God ? Or In short how can we be saved from spiritual delusion or idolatry?
By immersing ourselves in word, sacrament, liturgy and trusting that God enlightens us by his statutes. We begin with practice, through which we gain "diakrisis" -- discernment/discrimination. We don't begin with trying to figure it out by the light of our own rationalizing. We let our minds be shaped -- "discipled" -- through the perennial tradition of the apostles and elders.
I'm sure there is in his lectures (which one can find on YouTube aplenty) and his books. Unfortunately, I couldn't specify which ones. But searching for it should prove a pleasure.
I related more to John Millbanks testimony than I did to yours, so I guess I’m not a Mystic, but it doesn’t matter at some level
As I define "mystic," you probably are.
Thanks you for sharing!! What was Jung thinking when he said I don't believe in God's existence i know he exists?
Jung's idea of God is virtually indistinguishable from the "collective unconscious," which he saw as shaping both the world around us and our inner world (what wells up from within us as dreams, myths, various impulses, etc.). In short, not the interactive God revealed to us partially before the Incarnation and fully in Christ. Obviously, when I pray it's to and through the latter, and not to a "collective unconscious" or to an "impersonal" entity (If "entity" is even the right term for something so conceptually amorphous).
Illuminating!! Can you suggest a book or sth that can comprehensively describe Jung's idea of God?
Bernardo Kastrup's "Decoding Jung's Metaphysics" is worth a look and an easy read. Having said that, I need to reiterate that I do not endorse Jung's concept of God in the least (even if one can nail him down to a single concept -- at times, he's all over the map).
One further clarification. In Jung's case, one can rightly refer to his "God" as a concept. I'm not sure he would have argued that it wasn't. My own view is that -- even though one certainly has concepts about God, as one must -- God is not a concept. If anything, related to him, we're the "concepts" and he is perfect reality.
Thanks!! Your brother DBH has, if I can say, somehow an opposite sensitivity towards Jung than you but I couldn't pin the exact reason, is Jung's idea of God could be the reason? And unlike your brother you seem to be more positive towards Jung why do think is the reason?
We're actually closer in our estimation of Jung than some might think. Jung has a lot to say in his vast oeuvre that we both find useful, but we are both extremely cautious where his metaphysics comes into play. He's a mixed bag, to put it succinctly. One example: while finding his notion of the "collective unconscious" (which, as he says, we can never fully comprehend -- we can only work with our "personal unconscious") helpful, neither David nor I would equate it with God. For one thing, whereas the unconscious includes "the dark," God dwells in "inapproachable light" and "in him there is no darkness at all."
The light analogy is perfect!!
"things or entities" we couldn't fully comprehend can be mistaken for God. So a question arises how can we make sure that we are worshiping the truly incomprehensible personal God rather than our concepts or things or entities that seem for us incomprehensible and closely identified with God ? Or In short how can we be saved from spiritual delusion or idolatry?
By immersing ourselves in word, sacrament, liturgy and trusting that God enlightens us by his statutes. We begin with practice, through which we gain "diakrisis" -- discernment/discrimination. We don't begin with trying to figure it out by the light of our own rationalizing. We let our minds be shaped -- "discipled" -- through the perennial tradition of the apostles and elders.
Thank you above all for Fr Behr's contribution. Is there someplace where he says more about how he discerns the process of salvation in history?
I'm sure there is in his lectures (which one can find on YouTube aplenty) and his books. Unfortunately, I couldn't specify which ones. But searching for it should prove a pleasure.
Thank you