The Post-Religion "God" Dilemma
Is walking away from religion walking away from God?
Philosopher William James wrote:
“All the great single-word answers to the world’s riddle, such as God, the One, Reason, Law, Spirit, Matter, Nature, Polarity, the Dialectic Process, the Idea, the Self, the Oversoul, draw the admiration that men have lavished on them from this oracular role. By amateurs in philosophy and professionals alike, the universe is represented as a queer sort of petrified sphinx whose appeal to man consists in a monotonous challenge to his divining powers. THE Truth: what a perfect idol of the rationalistic mind!”
William James refers to the “world riddle”, which is associated with the term Die Welträthsel, originating in the writings of German philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Ernst Haeckel. The “world riddle” pertains to the existential conundrum of determining answers to life’s biggest questions about ourselves, existence and the universe.
James points out that there is no greater ego-idol than to claim the riddle can be answered with a single-word answer such as “God”. He further calls into question the whole endeavor of taking the universe as a mystery for the human mind to explicate into “THE Truth”, which James describes as the “perfect idol of the rationalistic mind.”
Later this week I will be continuing my series “The Great Reconstruction”. In that series I speak of the “world riddle” in terms of the three defects of human existence:
Human mortality - we all die (inevitability of death)
Human groundlessness - we don’t know why we are here (lack of absolutes like the meaning of human existence)
Human insatiability - we are never satisfied (unabating desire for fulfillment)
I refer to these as “defects”, not because they identify things that are actually wrong about existence, but because they are not as we wish them to be. In an effort to assert definitive answers to these dilemmas we prevent people from truly accepting and meaningfully integrating them into their outlook and approach to life. To explore these issues further, consider investigating my new series, which has so far been presented in these parts:
Part One: Everything is not okay... but life is the greatest good
Part Four: In Search of Existential Health in a Defective World
The “God” Answer
Perhaps the simplest single-word answer to the world riddle is, “God”. If one is inventive enough, they can resolve the riddle and the defects of existence in one coherent arrangement and call it “THE Truth”. For the religious person this is the “perfect idol of the rationalistic mind.”
Of course we have learned that our human conception that we call “God” is flawed and, despite our best efforts, doesn’t resolve the world riddle. For every problem it appears to solve, five more problems are born. As we learn from the pharmaceutical drug commercials, it’s not that difficult to adequately address one particular ailment, but the side-effects could kill you.
In a nutshell, the human mind is not capable of fully grasping existence nor positing an answer to explain it. Let me give you an example.
A common answer to the world riddle is the “God” of traditional Christian theism. But in my view, here are a few problems that this view of “God” creates:
Christian Theism conceives of God as a supernatural supreme being who is separate from the universe and humankind, fostering dependency upon an external referent for human life, development and well-being.
Christian Theism operates on the false narrative that God and humankind are estranged and that this is a catastrophic problem to be fixed.
Christian Theism casts God with maleness, which lays the foundation for the dominance of patriarchy.
Christian Theism creates an inescapable cognitive dissonance of a God who is all-good, all-powerful, and who oversees, intervenes and intimately involved in human affairs… but then doesn’t.
Christian Theism requires the blood sacrifice of Jesus as atonement for humankind’s sins, which establishes salvific and scapegoating violence as central to God’s plan of redemption.
Christian Theism undermines the shared scientific, philosophical and spiritual understanding that existence, the universe, and ultimate reality are one thing of which everything else finds its being.
Christian Theism anthropomorphizes God, evil, and afterlife narratives, which prevents or limits more expansive, meaningful, and consequential understandings of these realities.
Christian Theism asserts its authority is based upon a literalist interpretation of an ancient writing that predates modern science.
Christian Theism’s theological edifice is built upon fantastical doctrines that cannot be verified or reasonably believed such as: the fall and original sin, virgin birth of Jesus, trinitarian view of God, and eternal conscious torment (Hell).
Christian Theism propagates the notion of separation from God, and promotes a transactional and performance-based “relationship with God”, whereby a person shoulders the burden of doing this relationship correctly in order to curry God’s acceptance, favor and blessing.
The above conception of “God” relates to traditional Christian theism, which is common in American Evangelical or Southern Baptist Christianity. You are likely to find some of these elements in Mainstream and Catholic Christianity. Traditional Christian theism is not the only way of understanding “God” or even the only “Christian” or biblical way.
“Progressive/liberal Christianity” and what I’ll call “philosophical Christianity” conceives of “God” on different terms, which might include some or none of the above ten understandings. For example, last week I participated in the online Open and Relational Theology Conference. Open and Relational Theology (ORT) offers a theological framework that retains some of its Christian roots but anchors them in process philosophy and a panentheistic view of “God”. I have also written quite a bit about “Christian Atheism”, which is a radical reinterpretation of the Christian narrative and the significance of Jesus.
I previously wrote an article on Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza and his philosophical view (monism), which he called “God”. I also published a five-part series on science and religion, and how each of them approaches the world riddle differently and what they can learn from each other. My article, The Either/Or Problem with God, explores the trap most people, both religious and irreligious, fall into when approaching the topic of the existence of “God”.
The reality is that there is no understanding of “God” that works perfectly or entirely. When it comes to “God”, the best we will ever have is what the human mind is capable of conceiving. It might be useful to think of the word “God” as a placeholder-term for discussions about ultimate reality. It would be a mistake to think that the term “God” directly corresponds to an objective reality in the universe, as defined by the ideas in your head.
Even the term “God” is problematic. As a noun, it implies that God is a thing. One of the great contributions of feminist theologian and philosopher Mary Daly is the idea that God is not a thing, not a man, not a person, not a father. Mary Daly wrote:
“Why indeed must ‘God’ be a noun? Why not a verb - the most active and dynamic of all.”
According to Daly, God is a process of evolving and becoming. In other words, God is not a static thing. God is a verb. A process. A way of being. This idea is a challenge to the Christian doctrine of God’s immutability - that God never changes. But God-as-process is God experiencing itself through evolution, through consciousness, through general becoming.
In other words, we happen with God. Sometimes the process of becoming involves un-becoming - unlearning or letting go of those beliefs, mindsets, attitudes, and behaviors that hold us back from actualizing our fullest potentialities and possibilities. If God is process, God is our unbecoming, our deconstruction, our reconstruction, our healing and recovery.
If God is not a noun, but a verb, then we are also. We are verbs. Human existence is perpetual becoming and an evolutionary process. The goal of the lived human experience is not to “arrive” but ceaseless becoming.
You also find these ideas about God in “process theology”, a theological perspective that views God as creative and relational, and asserts that reality consists of events rather than substances. It emphasizes that God works with people to help them realize their potential.
God and Post-Religion Spirituality
It’s not my aim to sway you into any particular understanding of God. On the one hand, it’s true that I see the view of traditional Christian theism as highly problematic. On the other hand, a central tenet of liberation theology, which tends to be theistic, is that “God” is always on the side of the oppressed. Far be it from me to make an issue of Gustavo Gutiérrez’s theistic liberation theology.
As a reminder, the positions related to God are endless, including, but not limited to:
God as inculcated in the traditional isms - polytheism, deism, monotheism, pantheism, panentheism
The absence of belief in God (atheism)
The belief that it’s impossible to know whether a god or gods exist (agnosticism)
An Eastern understanding of God such as the “ground of all being”
A philosophical construct of God such as panpsychism
A more scientifically-worded view of God such as quantum God theory
A more earth-based view of God such as the Gaia hypothesis
As you think through your approach or views of “God” in your religious deconstruction/reconstruction process or in the cultivation of a non-religious or post-religion spirituality, I offer a few questions to explore this for yourself.
But before the questions, let me say that it is not mandatory that you figure out “God” or even have a belief identified as “God” in order to cultivate a deeply meaningful spirituality or approach to life. Our species survived and thrived for hundreds of thousand of years without a cogent belief-system about God. It wasn’t until 2,500 years ago in the Axial Age that beliefs about God were codified in the world’s primary religions and philosophies. The English word “God” comes from the Proto-Germanic word gudą, which was first used in the 6th century.
Furthermore, given the earlier words of William James and our human fallibility in attempting to conceive God, it might be absurd to base one’s spirituality on any so-called definitive explanation or belief-system about God. Keep in mind, it’s not just that your understanding of God is flawed, EVERY PERSON’s understanding of God is.
In the end, the critical factor may not be if one’s view of God is “right” but whether that view engenders wisdom, virtue, well-being, love, peace, beauty, goodness, compassion, and human solidarity. It should be pointed out that these values don’t necessitate a belief in God. We all know of religious people who don’t exemplify these and irreligious people who do. The idea of “God” has often evoked hatred, hostility, violence, oppression and a long list of atrocities. It would be a step forward for humankind to equate the word “God” with the preeminence of love and the practice of the Golden Rule.
What follows are 10 questions that could be useful as you think through the idea of “God” in your spirituality:
How important is it for you to have a workable understanding of a reality you call “God” for your spirituality? (Something to clarify.)
When you hear or read the word “God”, what thoughts and feelings does it evoke? (Something to be curious about.)
How would you describe your current belief about “God”? (Something to be aware of.)
What religious, societal, cultural, family influences and life experiences have most shaped your understanding and views of “God”? (Something to investigate.)
In the past or currently, what did/does your belief in “God” offer you or represent for you? (Something to acknowledge.)
In what ways does your view of “God” create angst, discomfort, cognitive dissonance or doubt? (Something to reflect upon.)
How important is it that you have an air-tight or absolute explanation about “God” that you must defend or be “right” about? (Something to evaluate.)
How vital is it that you maintain the term “God” as a centerpiece to your spirituality or is there language that would be more meaningful for you? (Something to probe.)
Are there view(s) of “God” that you feel do harm and you cannot accept? (Something to consider.)
What understanding of “God” most inspires for you a deep spirituality, profound humanity and greater love for yourself, others and the world? (Something to ponder.)
Deconstruction Resources
Here are 13 articles I've recently written to help you in your religious deconstruction and spiritual reconstruction process:
Also, if you are interested in participating in my Culture and Religion videocast series in March, check out all the details here.
In Summary
There’s a world riddle that may not be answerable with the word “God”.
It could be a mistake to think that the term “God” directly corresponds to an objective reality in the universe, according to your understanding of it.
It is not mandatory that you figure out “God” or even have a belief identified as “God” in order to cultivate a deeply meaningful spirituality or approach to life.
In the end, the critical factor may not be if one’s view of God is “right” but whether that view engenders wisdom, virtue, well-being, love, peace, beauty, goodness, compassion, and human solidarity.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
- Epicurus
I don’t see the idea of God as the “All-Inclusive-Whole” discussed here. I’ve read quite a bit of Ken Wilbur’s ideas in the past, and appreciate his concept of a “holonic universe” or a universe consisting of holons that are both wholes and included as parts within a whole, emerging from a hierarchy of transcending and including wholes. At least that’s what I remember. 🤔 I think this concept also makes sense of the idea that “God is love” where love is defined as the inclusion of the other in one’s self.
Thanks for this good essay, Jim!