How to talk about God: on why God is not an object

[Soul_of_Shu]

The ever-eloquent Mark Vernon is always worth a listen for the numinously inclined IMHO ...

[Mark Tetzner]

I like it.

[Steve Petermann]

The question of how to talk about God and what to say has been around for millennia. The first question is, why might it be important to talk about God. I think the answer is that as finite creatures we have an ingrained need to think about the ultimate. This is personal because it directly impinges on our sense of self and our place in the grand scheme of things. Is our life and the lives of others just a blip in time with no meaning or is there some deep significance to it all? If there is a significance, what might that be? And so we get innumerable attempts to put expression to that significance.

Vernon echos the sentiment found in much of modern liberal theology. Is God an object to be examined and characterized? Or is that an ill-conceived approach? For theologians and philosophers of religion, this question creates a bit of a conundrum. A large part of the theological endeavor is towards propositional content. But to what end? I think for most theologians and religious thinkers, the propositional content of a theology is not an end unto itself. Instead, it offers a framework for orienting our lives that may be helpful for us and our world. This should be obvious because in the past, certain theological formulations have led to incredibly destructive results. What we say about God, though in the realm of ideas and language, does have consequences.

Vernon says that God is not an object. If God is not an object, then what? Is God a subject? This question has also been around for millennia. As finite creatures, we tend to like clearly delineated categories. It makes for a simplicity we can readily grasp. However, within theism as well as with other religious approaches, the mystics and contemplatives suggest these rigid categories are inadequate or ill-conceived. In those traditions, the simple subject/objective delineation blurs or breaks down as they probe deeply with their practices. Still, while the mystical experiences may be ineffable and fleeting, that has not stopped mystics and contemplatives from talking about what those experiences may mean.

So, how we talk about God depends a lot on the context. Theistic sentiment within a particular time is, in large part, reactionary. The content gets shaped by the times and what is at issue in that era. Theologian Paul Tillich defined idolatry as raising the preliminary to the ultimate. Thus, part of the theological endeavor is exposing certain idolatrous sentiments. Accordingly, it seems to me, that some of Tillich's theology was formulated as a reaction to what he considered idolatrous at the time. One of those idolatries was the over personification of God, coming particularly from but not limited to fundamentalist theologies that were prominent. In this over-personification of God, God is considered a "being" alongside others, expressed vulgarly as " a bearded old man in the sky". And so Tillich talks about "The God above the god of theism", highlighting the inherent idolatry of literalistic claims in theism. In regard to the personification of God Tillich states:

God is not a person, but he is not less than personal.

Rather, God is the ground of everything personal. Remember, Tillich is a philosophically oriented theologian and so uses language like "the Ground of Being" or "Being Itself".

This may leave many interested parties wondering what the heck all this means. And so we get theologians like Martin Buber with his more accessible "I, and Thou" approach and Marcus Borg with his "The Heart of Christianity". These two emphasize the idea of relationship in talking about God and creatures over-against the elevation of propositional belief. Borg says that this idea of belief as an acceptance of certain propositions is a recent development. Before this, belief and faith were about relationship, participation, and trust, not an intellectual assent to some set of propositions or dogmas.

So, I think, Vernon is right to reject the objectification of God. It is, again, a helpful therapeutic for that overemphasis on proposition belief as a litmus test.

Still, that leaves open the question of how to talk about God. Here again, I think the context is crucial. Obviously talking to a child about God is very different from talking to a science or philosophically oriented individual or group. The context is also different for individuals with their own personal background, whether it be nonreligious, theistic, nontheistic, agnostic, or atheistic. Since, in my view, there is no definitive, unassailable position, the best we can do is see if there are approaches that seem to have some verisimilitude and enhance lives, help people embrace their divine depth, and make a difference for them and the world. The propositional content of theology may help orient people in a meaningful direction but the bottom line is how we live.

Here's the ontology of my attempt: An Aspect Monism and Divine Idealism

[Lou Gold]

I like the idea of advising a child to talk to God like talking with your best friend; the one you would trust with your secret thoughts/feelings; the one who knows what's best for you. Perhaps it would be good advice to adults as well?

[AshvinP]

And so Tillich talks about "The God above the god of theism", highlighting the inherent idolatry of literalistic claims in theism. In regard to the personification of God Tillich states:

God is not a person, but he is not less than personal.

Rather, God is the ground of everything personal. Remember, Tillich is a philosophically oriented theologian and so uses language like "the Ground of Being" or "Being Itself".

This may leave many interested parties wondering what the heck all this means. And so we get theologians like Martin Buber with his more accessible "I, and Thou" approach and Marcus Borg with his "The Heart of Christianity". These two emphasize the idea of relationship in talking about God and creatures over-against the elevation of propositional belief. Borg says that this idea of belief as an acceptance of certain propositions is a recent development. Before this, belief and faith were about relationship, participation, and trust, not an intellectual assent to some set of propositions or dogmas.

So, I think, Vernon is right to reject the objectification of God. It is, again, a helpful therapeutic for that overemphasis on proposition belief as a litmus test.

Still, that leaves open the question of how to talk about God. Here again, I think the context is crucial. Obviously talking to a child about God is very different from talking to a science or philosophically oriented individual or group. The context is also different for individuals with their own personal background, whether it be nonreligious, theistic, nontheistic, agnostic, or atheistic. Since, in my view, there is no definitive, unassailable position, the best we can do is see if there are approaches that seem to have some verisimilitude and enhance lives, help people embrace their divine depth, and make a difference for them and the world. The propositional content of theology may help orient people in a meaningful direction but the bottom line is how we live.

Here's the ontology of my attempt: An Aspect Monism and Divine Idealism

Steve,

This is very well said above. I think that, in additional to all you said above, we should also keep in mind that reasoning through our personal relationship with God, which in my view is as personal and as immanent as one can imagine, is not the same as objectifying him. Perhaps the greatest flash of inspiration I have had is the realization that all we call love, beauty, goodness, and truth, i.e. all of our most supreme ideals, has a deep and immanent inner logic. Hegel also realized this in his Phenomenology of Spirit and Science of Logic, but it was mostly reduced to an abstract concept (at least from a first pass of those writings). Nietzsche also realized this when contemplating his admiration of Wagner and his Christian ideals which were informed by a deep mythological and philosophical understanding, but, unlike Hegel, could not incorporate it into his thoroughly anti-Christian thought.

I cannot fault him, because it does feel like a very strange marriage. It is like rediscovering that all the spiritual narratives experienced concretely by our ancestors are literally true, but then also discovering that there is a deep and rather impersonal (or transpersonal) and logical element which makes them literally true. There is an inner lawfulness which is so deep and rich that every mythic, spiritual, aesthetic, philosphical, and scientifc development in human evolution could be anticipated by a being who had discovered and understood it. It is a very fine line between discovering this logic exists and deluding oneself into thinking one understands the logic in its fullness, so we must be very careful walking it. Nevertheless, it was and still remains a very powerful experience for me every time I contemplate it.

[Lou Gold]

And so Tillich talks about "The God above the god of theism", highlighting the inherent idolatry of literalistic claims in theism. In regard to the personification of God Tillich states:

God is not a person, but he is not less than personal.

Rather, God is the ground of everything personal. Remember, Tillich is a philosophically oriented theologian and so uses language like "the Ground of Being" or "Being Itself".

This may leave many interested parties wondering what the heck all this means. And so we get theologians like Martin Buber with his more accessible "I, and Thou" approach and Marcus Borg with his "The Heart of Christianity". These two emphasize the idea of relationship in talking about God and creatures over-against the elevation of propositional belief. Borg says that this idea of belief as an acceptance of certain propositions is a recent development. Before this, belief and faith were about relationship, participation, and trust, not an intellectual assent to some set of propositions or dogmas.

So, I think, Vernon is right to reject the objectification of God. It is, again, a helpful therapeutic for that overemphasis on proposition belief as a litmus test.

Still, that leaves open the question of how to talk about God. Here again, I think the context is crucial. Obviously talking to a child about God is very different from talking to a science or philosophically oriented individual or group. The context is also different for individuals with their own personal background, whether it be nonreligious, theistic, nontheistic, agnostic, or atheistic. Since, in my view, there is no definitive, unassailable position, the best we can do is see if there are approaches that seem to have some verisimilitude and enhance lives, help people embrace their divine depth, and make a difference for them and the world. The propositional content of theology may help orient people in a meaningful direction but the bottom line is how we live.

Here's the ontology of my attempt: An Aspect Monism and Divine Idealism

Steve,

This is very well said above. I think that, in additional to all you said above, we should also keep in mind that reasoning through our personal relationship with God, which in my view is as personal and as immanent as one can imagine, is not the same as objectifying him. Perhaps the greatest flash of inspiration I have had is the realization that all we call love, beauty, goodness, and truth, i.e. all of our most supreme ideals, has a deep and immanent inner logic. Hegel also realized this in his Phenomenology of Spirit and Science of Logic, but it was mostly reduced to an abstract concept (at least from a first pass of those writings). Nietzsche also realized this when contemplating his admiration of Wagner and his Christian ideals which were informed by a deep mythological and philosophical understanding, but, unlike Hegel, could not incorporate it into his thoroughly anti-Christian thought.

I cannot fault him, because it does feel like a very strange marriage. It is like rediscovering that all the spiritual narratives experienced concretely by our ancestors are literally true, but then also discovering that there is a deep and rather impersonal (or transpersonal) and logical element which makes them literally true. There is an inner lawfulness which is so deep and rich that every mythic, spiritual, aesthetic, philosophical, and scientific development in human evolution could be anticipated by a being who had discovered and understood it. It is a very fine line between discovering this logic exists and deluding oneself into thinking one understands the logic in its fullness, so we must be very careful walking it. Nevertheless, it was and still remains a very powerful experience for me every time I contemplate it.

Very well-stated, Ashvin. I thoroughly agree with the bolded. Thank you.
The way I put it personally is that I trust my intuitions and am skeptical of my interpretations of them.

[Steve Petermann]

I think that, in additional to all you said above, we should also keep in mind that reasoning through our personal relationship with God, which in my view is as personal and as immanent as one can imagine, is not the same as objectifying him.

Yes, I agree.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Was John Wheeler quoting God, when he said: There is no 'out there' out there.

And then God said: 'Let there be an out there' ... Well sort of

[Steve Petermann]

Was John Wheeler quoting God, when he said: There is no 'out there' out there.

And then God said: 'Let there be an out there' ... Well sort of

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." It could be said that a large portion of religious adherents are "people of the Word". This is certainly true of the Abrahamic traditions as well as many stemming from the Vedic traditions and others. While "the Words" may contain propositional content, they are more than that. They contain power -- "and there was light". Words and language are not just sterile, dry propositional content. They are evocative. They draw forth something deep within the psyche. While words (language) offer concrete primitives strung together, they can also evoke gestalts or supra-rational intuitions that form a basis for how we perceive ourselves within the cosmos and beyond and inform how we should live.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Was John Wheeler quoting God, when he said: There is no 'out there' out there.

And then God said: 'Let there be an out there' ... Well sort of

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." It could be said that a large portion of religious adherents are "people of the Word". This is certainly true of the Abrahamic traditions as well as many stemming from the Vedic traditions and others. While "the Words" may contain propositional content, they are more than that. They contain power -- "and there was light". Words and language are not just sterile, dry propositional content. They are evocative. They draw forth something deep within the psyche. While words (language) offer concrete primitives strung together, they can also evoke gestalts or supra-rational intuitions that form a basis for how we perceive ourselves within the cosmos and beyond and inform how we should live.

Nicely put ... Incidentally, my rather frivolous comment above, riffing on the 'Genesis' narrative, came to me while listening to a percipient lecture, with Q&A, titled 'The Symbolic World' by Jonathan Pageau—with a brief intro from the other JP—offering his own interpretation of the symbolism contained in the Genesis cosmology, which, with the usual synchronicity, relates to your insightful comment, and which is well worth a listen, IMHO ...