The Top Ten Definitions of God - 3

3. God is love

—St. John the apostle, 4:8, 4:16

This may be the most generally accepted definition in the top ten. Plus, it finally got a saint on the list. But, why is it so acceptable? Love, i.e. agapao (compassion, kindness, charity), is a very human trait and applying it to God seems suspicious. "God is love" makes little sense for a monotheistic God. How can a monad be selfless love? Christianity cleverly addressed the issue by positing "three persons in one God." It is that communion of three persons in one that allows love. But that strikes me as a bit of trickery at best. On the other hand, we probably should take a closer look, since any definition that makes perfect human sense inevitably makes a perfectly nonsensical God.

One reason it is accepted is that every major religion embraces love in its center. Sure there are plenty of instances in the various scriptures of violence, racism, bigotry, contemptuousness of women, and hostility toward free inquiry—and that's just from God. But the big picture, at least compared to what else was going at the time, is remarkable in its promotion of love—for one's neighbor and often even for one's enemy. Where does this come from? Currently all things seek a Darwinian explanation, but if we turn to On the Origin of Species we find, on the contrary, an emphasis on competition and natural selection. Darwin himself doubted an "omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." Well, most of us would choose different examples of pain and suffering in our world, but Darwin's example works just as well.

But even Darwin states in The Descent of Man: “Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of our nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced either directly or indirectly much more through the efforts of habit, by our reasoning powers, by instruction, by religion, etc., than through natural selection.”

And though it might surprise us that Darwin thought love and morality were more important than natural selection for advancing our species, if we look at our lives, we realize that astonishingly we see love everywhere. Lack of love as witnessed on nightly news is the aberrant exception from our daily associations with family, friends and colleagues.  In fact more than any other idea or concept, our lives could be said to be driven by the love of others and our need to be loved. This obsession with love seems pretty strange in a cold, uncaring universe. Or put another way, our universe appears quite different than the observable universe.

French philosopher Michel Henry recognized this duality of viewing the world. There were two modes of manifestation, he said: 'exteriority', the visible world; and phenomenological 'interiority', which is the mode by which we manifest life. He defines God in a phenomenological point of view similarly to Tillich: "Life loves itself with an infinite love and never ceases to engender itself; . . . Life is nothing but this absolute love that religion calls God."

If primitive man projected an omnipotent and all powerful masque beyond the planets, then today we project the God-dance of love. And nowhere is this expressed as well as in the truly remarkable 14th century anonymous mystic text, The Cloud of Unknowing:

You will ask me, 'How am I to think of God himself, and what is he?' and I cannot answer you except to say 'I do not know!' for with this question you have brought me into the same darkness, the same cloud of unknowing where I want you to be! For though we through the grace of God can know fully about all other matters, and think about them - yes, even the very works of God himself - yet of God himself can no one think. Therefore I will leave on one side everything I can think, and choose for my love that thing which I cannot think! Why? 

For He can well be loved, but he cannot be thought. By love he can be grasped and held, but by thought, neither grasped nor held. And therefore, though it may be good at times to think specifically of the kindness and excellence of God, and though this may be a light and a part of contemplation, all the same, in the work of contemplation itself, it must be cast down and covered with a cloud of forgetting. And you must step above it stoutly but deftly, with a devout and delightful stirring of love, and struggle to pierce that darkness above you; and beat on that thick cloud of unknowing with a sharp dart of longing love, and do not give up, whatever happens.

[Link to beginning of article]                    [Link to next part]

One sentence to rule them all

Today's The Daily Dish had a comment by Ron Fournier who saw, in a NYT article about papal politics, a universality among our institutions. Fournier points out that this sentence in the NYT article could be used for almost any organization:

“The next pontiff must unite an increasingly globalized church paralyzed by scandal and mismanagement under the spotlight in a fast-moving media age.”

For example:
“The next governor must unite an increasingly globalized state paralyzed by scandal and mismanagement under the spotlight in a fast-moving media age.”

Fournier's noble purpose was to criticize institutions in all walks of life, from governments to businesses to charitable organizations, in their failure promote their purpose rather than the power of the organization. He is losing hope in our big organizations.

I have a more modest interest: to save time and effort on the part of the reading and writing public. Can we make one sentence that we can just re-use for every news story? Think of the time savings in this age where time savings is our mantra. I modified the NYT's sentence a bit:

The next [noun] must unite an increasingly contentious [noun] paralyzed by mismanagement and misinformation under the spotlight in a fast-moving media age.

Let's give it an ultimate test of sorts right away:
"The next sentence must unite an increasingly contentious readership paralyzed by mismanagement and misinformation under the spotlight in a fast-moving media age."

The Top Ten Definitions of God - 4

4. God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that. 

—Joseph Campbell (1904-1987) writer of comparative mythology and religion

Well, not quite that simple. I think he meant to add:
Everything else is a metaphor for that which does not.












Campbell's definition, I admit, lacks a certain je ne sais quoi to achieve the number 4 spot. However, after Tillich, it became fashionable to argue the merits of a metaphorical vs. an ontological God. It's hard to say whether Tillich's God was not ontological, but Campbell's is definitely metaphorical. So I place it after Tillich where it gains some depth and diversity. 

What is important is not that God is metaphorical, but what that means. And here (Renée, are you reading?), we need to dip into epistemology. 

From Language, Mind and Culture, linguist Zoltan Kovecses writes, “External reality does exist, but we have access to it only in our particularly human ways. We see categories in the world only as a result of our uniquely human experiences. . . . The world, for us, is a ‘projected’ reality that human beings ‘imaginatively’ create.”  Kovecses goes on to say that "The  processes by which we 'create' the world include “categorization based on prototypes, organizing knowledge in terms of frames, and understanding experience through metaphors.”

Rabbi Toba Spitzer tells us in "God & Metaphor" that the challenge for the early Torah writers was how to represent "the impossible contraction of the verb 'to be' . . . Y-H-W-H . . . in words, in stories, in prayers?. . . . Our ancestors' answer was: with lots and lots of different images—with metaphors, that is."

However, unlike science which readily replaces old metaphors, such as ether, with new ones like fields, religion stumbled. "Through the influence of Greek ideas that made their way into both Jewish and Christian philosophy, we got the notion that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, unchanging and perfect. This sadly was not a God of many metaphors, but a philosophical abstraction that has caused a lot of trouble." writes Rabi Spitzer. 

Campbell was not a theologian, but his study of religions led him to the same conclusion. He felt that any idea of God is not God. "Catholic nuns do not have visions of the Buddha, nor do Buddhist nuns have visions of Christ." Any such God must therefore be a metaphor. "For any god who is not transparent to transcendence is an idol, and its worship is idolatry", he writes. Curiously, this is a recognized statement of truth for all the major religions from Hinduism to Sufi Islam to the Christianity of Saint Thomas Aquinas to Judaism. Yet, sadly, it is not much emphasized today. 

Many would consider Campbell a humanist rather than religious, but while he loved the humanities, he did not embrace Dewey or the many varieties of humanism. On the other hand, it certainly was not the supernatural that inspired him, but rather "the supernatural wonder of being which is for me the richest gift . . . of human experience." Humanism seemed a "stilted tradition . . . not open to the winds of mystery and rapture that are synonymous with the breath of life. For nature is to me supernatural in its mystery, and absolutely so." 

I'm intrigued by his phrase, "the supernatural wonder of being" so in an attempt to spiff up his definition, I'd like to suggest the more memorable:

4.1 God is the mother of all metaphors

[Link to beginning of article]                    [Link to next part]

Short Poems

About 10 days ago, I heard an installment of NPR's "Talk of the Nation" which focused on short poems.  The guest on the show was Brad Leithauser, a novelist and poet, who had recently written a piece for The New Yorker's Page-Turner blog entitled In Praise of Concision, where he discussed how profound short poems can be.  

Reportedly, Marilyn Monroe once remarked that she enjoyed reading poetry “because it saves time.”  If poetry is "the chiseled marble of language," these poems have been chiseled more than most.

One of the poems mentioned on the show was The Red Wheelbarrow by William Carlos Williams:  

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

I remember from my childhood Bill drilling into me the significance of this poem:  how in just a few spare lines it evoked the entire panorama of farmlife.

Leithauser also discussed a poem I hadn't heard before.  I guess that I'm just an old softy, but I really liked it. It sort of had the defiance of John Donne's "Death Be Not Proud."

Jenny kiss'd Me by Leigh Hunt

Jenny kiss'd me when we met,
Jumping from the chair she sat in;
Time, you thief, who love to get
Sweets into your list, put that in!
Say I'm weary, say I'm sad,
Say that health and wealth have miss'd me,
Say I'm growing old, but add,
Jenny kiss'd me.

Leithauser also mentioned Dorothy Parker, but failed to point out her best short poem, "Resumé."

Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren’t lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.

Finally, one from the Greek poet Sapphos not mentioned:

Death is an evil; the gods have so judged; had it been good, they would die.

The Top Ten Definitions of God - 5

5. God does not exist. 

—Paul Tillich (1886-1965) Lutheran minister, philosopher and theologian

Also from Tillich:

"The God of theism is dead" 

"God is the symbol for God."


The idea of a rationally constructed theistic God, a being with attributes, was repugnant to Paul Tillich. It's as if Christopher Hitchens got his ideas from the minister's lectures: "God appears as the invincible tyrant, the being in contrast with whom all other beings are without freedom and subjectivity. . . . This is the God Nietzsche said had to be killed. . . . This is the deepest root of atheism. It is an atheism which is justified as the reaction against theological theism and its disturbing implications."

God is not a being, says Tillich. "Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him." In other words by saying God exists you must mean something exists. However, God, insists Tillich, is not a something. God does not participate in existence as we or any something does. God is also not Being or existence for "existence refers to what is finite . . . and cut off from its true being."

However, the human situation reveals that "an awareness of the infinite is included in man's awareness of finitude." We can sense that existence hints at a reality upon which all else is based.  He maintains that we should "transcend the theistic idea of God" to a conception he calls the "God above the God of theism." Everything is a metaphor for God except, in Tillich's cherished phrase, "the ground of all being." God is not the fact of existence but the basis, the ground, upon which things exist.

He continually insisted that the existence of God is not open to argument, neither can it be proved or disproved. In fact Tillich felt the words "God" and "existence" should never appear together, except to say "God does not exist." So this is no parlor trick where God vanishes, but is brought back in the final reel. Well . . . God sort of comes back, but not as you would expect. God does not exist—period.

Once you understand that God does not exist, then, he says, "The name of the infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of our being is God. That depth is what the word God means. And if that word has not much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern. . . . If one could say "life has no depth! Life itself is shallow. Being itself is surface only", then, "if you could say this in complete seriousness, you would be an atheist; but otherwise you are not."

The depth and ground of life points to "ultimate concern". Thus our notion of God is tied to our notion of what we have faith in that concerns us unconditionally. What is life's ultimate concern or meaning? (Obviously, this could be knowledge, or power, or nationalism, or even wealth.) As Tillich says, "It is obvious that such an understanding of the meaning of God make the discussions about the existence or nonexistence of God meaningless. It is meaningless to question the ultimacy of an ultimate concern. . . ." He also says, “Man's ultimate concern must be expressed symbolically, because symbolic language alone is able to express the ultimate.”

Religion, felt Tillich, is both important in the practice of ritual—reminding us in our pursuit of "ultimate concern", but also one of the greatest dangers to religious life because of its rigidity and tendency to suppress the inquiry.

Karen Armstrong has a pertinent line in A History of God: “The only way to show a true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God’s existence.”

[Link to beginning of article]                    [Link to next part]

Where's Robin Hood When You Need Him

The Top Ten Definitions of God - 6

6. God is that which calls us into being

— Bob Ulanowicz (University of Maryland Ecologist)

In a religious discussion group participants were asked to write down on a 3x5 card their view of God. Bob Ulanowicz's response makes it into the top ten—with an assist from St. Paul who in his letter to the Romans 4:17, writes of God who ". . . calls into being what does not exist." (I'm still looking for a saint.)

If we strip away thousands of years of western thought concerning the transcendent nature of God and reality, and Eastern thought about the immanent nature of God and reality, aren't we left with just one big elephant in the room—existence? Science is trying its darnedest to rationally explain essence, i.e. what exists, and does not feel it has the tools to deal with existence itself. Yet it is the one compelling fact that won't go away. Why not just start and end with that?

Existence is persistent and pervasive; pondered by every one of us as we take stock of our lives before falling asleep at night. Even if we do not have a poetic bone in our bodies; if we believe that all is as rational as billiard balls; even if we stubbornly hold to a completely understandable, finite world, we still run up against the ponderous problem of existence. What calls us or anything into existence? Isn't that why this word was invented in the first place?

Now I won't pretend this is any sort of validation of God. Yes, we have a very basic, intuitive understanding of existence in which we participate through no fault of our own, but, as we know, intuition is often faulty. And, who knows, we yet may find that science unwittingly has something to say about our notion of existence. Of course, it's possible that science may yet say something about our notion of science.

However, beyond this speculation, there is an even greater objection to any philosophically fashioned idea of God. In this case God is that which calls us into being is an intuitive active presence leaving open the rhyme and reason of the calling. Additionally, it is not some metaphysical being. But any rational attempt to construct God has a problem.

The objection is that any philosophical God is itself idolatry. 'Onto-theology' is a term originated by Immanuel Kant, but made famous by Martin Heidegger. It simply means the western tradition of metaphysics in developing a philosophical, rational theology and a humanly understandable God, e. g. the God of Aristotle or St. Anselm or Dewey.

I'll turn to Fordham professor emeritus Merold Westphal to explain Heidegger's objection:

First, it deprives the world of its mystery. Second, it gives us a God not worthy of worship. . . . no one would be tempted to pray or to sacrifice and that this God evokes neither awe nor music and dance. Onto-theology is hostile to piety. 

Third, having deprived the world of both its mystery and of a God worthy of worship, onto-theology opens the way for the unfettered self-assertion of the will to power in the form of modernity, namely the quest of science and technology to have everything at human disposal. This is the ultimate hubris of western humanity. . . .

Thus, again, we create God in our own image: God is what we reason God to be. Heidegger's objections to such a rational explanation of God caused some mighty peculiar repercussions that we will see as we breach the top five.

[Link to beginning of article]                    [Link to next part]

The Top Ten Definitions of God - 7

7. Tao that can be tao'd is not constant tao

—Tao Te Ching, traditionally attributed to Lao Tzu, 6th-4th century B.C.

I'm kidding, slightly. The real, full definition is Tao Te Ching, chapter 1:

The tao that can be told

is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named

is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.

Naming is the origin

of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.

Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations

arise from the same source.

This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.

The gateway to all understanding.                              

Translated by Stephen Mitchell (1988)

Luckily we have expunged all previous ideas of God because we now take inscrutability to a new level. In fact one could argue that there is no God in Taoism; others insist there is; and still others say the question is pointless or only answerable by practicing Taoism. Yes, tao means 'way' but that is a translation. It may be thought of as a mass noun 'the way' as in a collection of ways. Secondly, western thought focuses on metaphysical or epistemological terms such as 'being' or 'truth' or 'meaning' while Taoism centers on the scarcely salient 'way', referencing ethics, politics, education, and psychology. Thirdly, tao or 'way' may be used as a verb. So the famous first line of the Tao Te Ching above can be, and has been, translated, "tao that can be tao'd is not constant tao".

This is just one of hundreds of translations of the Tao Te Ching—all different, often significantly. The ancient Chinese language in which the text was written does not lend itself to abstraction or logical structure. Each word is less a concrete idea than suggestive associations. This makes perfect sense in defining God, but "perfectly impossible" for a satisfactory translation, according to fantasy writer Ursula K. Le Guin, who has studied the Tao Te Ching for forty years and published her own translation. Notice the last word has been translated as both understanding and mystery—completely contradictory ideas in English. This could be the top definition if you learned ancient Chinese.

That you haven't is part of the reason it's here: we are reminded that God is a translation. That from ancient Chinese to English is impossible enough. That from God to language and the modality of thought is beyond impossible.

Of course any self respecting Taoist would laugh at this list since we are wanting a definition of God, and according to Le Guin's translation, "the ever-wanting soul sees only what it wants." Finally, in accord with the laughing Taoist, I'd like to share another passage from Tao Te Ching:

When the lofty hear of Way they devote themselves.

When the common hear of Way they wonder if it's real or not.

When the lowly hear of Way they laugh out loud.

Without that laughter, it wouldn't be Way

[Note concerning tao as a verb: More and more as we proceed through this list, we will find that God seems less a noun than a verb. However, even in this age of google and friend, though many write about God as a verb, they don't mean it nor practice it. Whether through lack of commitment,  intelligence, or proof-reading, how curious is it to read article after article arguing that God is a verb and seeing it used only as a noun! Here might be the first time: "There is no reason to believe the universe was created, and neither was it Godded. On the contrary, it Gods." or "God that thought." or "The sign read 'No frisbee playing or disrobing on the beach'. Thank goodness it said nothing about Godding." or, finally, "After throwing the winning touchdown pass, any thought of supernatural assistance or personal blessing was Godded from him immediately."]

[Link to beginning of article]                    [Link to next part]

The Top Ten Definitions of God - 8

8. There is No God but God 

—The Qur'an, 610-632 A.D. 

Islam in many ways remains the least complicated of the major religions. Central to Islam is the oneness of God—no human attributes, no dimensions in time or space, no personalities, no images—Islam still emphasizes what God is not, not what God is. It could be argued that no definition better expresses God. As Reza Aslan says in his book titled the same as the definition, "Even the Quran . . . lacks the capacity to shed light upon God's essence. As one Sufi master has argued, why spend time reading a love letter . . . in the presence of the Beloved who wrote it?"

Islam may say it best, but I suspect (without studying every one) all religions contain this denial of knowing or understanding God. Buddhism even takes this a step further to the point where it is unclear if there is a God. For all other religions which profess the fundamental inscrutability of God, that's an enviable goal to follow. Religion is contradictory. What could be more so than Hinduism with its panoply of gods, and yet in Hindu writings one of the most common phrases is "neti, neti", not this, not this. In Christianity a central statement is the Apostles' Creed which begins "I believe" followed by a whole litany of objective truths about God. This completely contradicts practically all church leaders including Thomas Aquinas who said things like "We cannot know in what consists the essence of God". "There is no God but God" tries to counteract all the idolatries which inevitably keep popping up when you are trying to defined the undefinable.

In the spirit of Lent, the time when we interrupt our normal routine, this definition invites us to apostatize all our images and ideas of God, both from childhood and later study. A person—out; a being—out; creator—out; perfect—out; omniscient—out; omnipresent—out; great—out; vast tapioca pudding—out. And why not? We know for certain that our image of God is wrong. Once we can truly grasp this Islamic definition, then others will come easier and make more sense.

In good Islamic tradition I must include a few sufi quotes on God:
"Silence is the language of God,
all else is poor translation."   — Rumi

"Whatever you think concerning God—know that he is different from that!"   — Ahmad Ibn Ata'Allah

"What limits God? His name."   — Hazrat Inayat Khan

[Link to beginning of article]                    [Link to next part]

The Top Ten Definitions of God - 9

9. God is the great companion—the fellow-sufferer who understands.

—Alfred North Whitehead, (1861-1947) English mathematician and philosopher

Alfred North Whitehead was first a mathematician and logician who co-authored with Bertrand Russell Principia Mathematica, a colossally ambitious attempt to derive all mathematics from a small set of axioms using logic, which later was shown to be untenable by Kurt Gödel. However, Whitehead's philosophy and religious writings hearken more toward Eastern thought with the idea of dynamic reality, called Process Philosophy, rather than a static, object centered one.

Driven first by science (as seen with Dewey), the twentieth century saw tremendous and diverse changes in thinking about God and religion, and the idea which gained the widest traction, despite formidable historical hurdles, was that God is not impassive nor immutable. Especially after WWI, the God of St. Anselm and the theological notion of impassibility, were widely rejected by theologians and the laity alike. After the war an immovable mover made little sense; after democracy, a supreme being, likewise. And no one more ingeniously or reasonably initiated these changes in the west than Alfred North Whitehead.

For Whitehead, God does not stand impassively outside the system and remain independent of it—a last resort deus ex machina to hold it all together. Rather, God is an integral element in the whole and participates actively in its struggles and concerns.

Whitehead proposed a metaphysics which many theologians adopted. God and existence itself, are described as processes, activity. We find this echoed by many of today's physicists and cosmologists who prefer events to particles. Dividing the world into substances and qualities (particles and properties) is the commonsense way to cope with everyday life and individual scientific problems, but when looking at the ultimate nature of reality, Whitehead insisted "We must start with the event as the ultimate unity of natural occurrence."—particles are but instantaneous manifestations of the process.

So, what is meaningful is not attributes, but how God acts or relates to the rest of reality. Actualities (including ourselves) arrive from interaction with God in a primordial sense which is "the unlimited conceptual realization . . . of potentiality." But we (via each actual occasion) also relate in a consequent sense which is how God relates to physical reality. God prehends all actual occasions of the physical world as they emerge. Each occasion or event impacts God through this prehension (i.e. the non-sensory sympathetic perception of antecedent experiences). God is not impassive but actively changes. In this way God is not a concept apart from our temporal reality—the nature of God requires there be realities other than God. While God's existence is neither uncertain nor dependent on the actions of others, Whitehead poetically says, “It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.” God is essentially in a give-and-take relationship with the world.

God affects us; and we, God—through God's understanding (prehension). As Whitehead imaginatively says, God is "the poet of the world." God suffers as we suffer. The description calls to mind J. D. Salinger's (son of) God as Seymour's "Fat Lady".

Obviously, the metaphysics is difficult to quickly summarize and I've omitted major portions, but it is built, not from a need for God, but from a rational view of reality. I think you can see that Whitehead's metaphysics leaves no room for the supernatural. Indeed, God is defined by what experientially is. Per Whitehead, apart from experiences "there is nothing, nothing, nothing, bare nothingness." I started thinking that Whitehead was the first quantum philosopher, and then recently discovered there are a number of books and lectures on quantum mechanics and Whitehead philosophy. The crazy thing about his work is that it appeals to hardcore scientists as well as Christian theologians who use it in an attempt to rescue Christianity from the blows received during the twentieth century.

Here are a few other prescient quotes by Whitehead on religion:
"Religion will not regain its old power until it can face change in the same spirit as does science."
"Idolatry is the necessary product of static dogmas"
And a favorite, remember this is a mathematician:
"The worship of God is not a rule of safety — it is an adventure of the spirit, a flight after the unattainable. The death of religion comes with the repression of the high hope of adventure."

[Link to beginning of article]                    [Link to next part]

The Top Ten Definitions of God - 10

10. The active relation between ideal and actual 

—John Dewey, (1859-1952) twentieth century American philosopher in A Common Faith

It's not sexy, but it's by a pragmatic atheist. John Dewey's writings and influence spanned education, psychology, philosophy, and social reform. He has been called the father of modern American education (when that was seen as a good thing), a founder of Pragmatism (a term he eschewed), an atheist, and a humanist. Like the 'New Atheists' of today, he felt "Never before in history has mankind been so much of two minds, so divided into two camps as it is today."—the extreme religious, crusading for the supernatural and the anti-religious crusading for science against religion and the supernatural. Unlike the 'New Atheists', he reasoned that both groups failed to see that the supernatural was not core to the practice of religion.

He criticized militant atheism for failing to recognize expressive nature, and militant religion for failing to recognize empirical nature. In order to find commonality between the two, he retained the term God, but "would not insist that the name must be given." Though he reached out to the religious he did not favor religion. He separated the two: the religious engages us to transform the world; religion instructs us how to act in resignation to the state of the world. God, if one chose to use the term, was not transcendent, not supernatural, and not revealed through scripture, but immanent.

"What I have been criticizing is the identification of the ideal with a particular Being, especially when that identification makes necessary the conclusion that this Being is outside of nature, and what I have tried to show is that the ideal itself has its roots in natural conditions; it emerges when the imagination idealizes existence by laying hold of the possibilities offered to thought and action."

"For there are forces in nature and society that generate and support the ideals. They are further unified by the action that gives them coherence and solidity. It is this active relation between ideal and actual to which I would give the name God."

Science had undermined the credibility of western religion. For Dewey, what is important is not a body of doctrine, but the method of search. We should use the methods of science in finding our collective ideals. He starts out with Hegelian terminology, which later becomes increasingly Darwinian, and then uses the idiom of organic growth in describing the search for ideals. However, "The actual religious quality in the experience described is the effect produced, the better adjustment in life and its conditions, not the manner and cause of its production."

What the definition lacks in poetry it tries to make up in universal appeal. Perhaps it's the nature of the debate, but neither side felt a strong attachment. As we know today, his conciliatory efforts were, at least thus far, a spectacular failure.

I can't resist the temptation to share a couple of passages from my book The Angst of Atheism written about the same time as The Death of Determinism. Near the beginning of chapter 3, we find, "Is Dewey still to be considered an atheist after expressing his thoughts on God and religion in A Common Faith?", and in the next chapter, "Surely we cannot burden the atheist with the task of denying every possible view of God—that seems to invoke a double standard."

[Link to beginning of article]                    [Link to next part]

The Top Ten Definitions of God - Honorable Mention 3

The Mysterium Tremendum

—Rudolf Otto (1869-1937), German Lutheran theologian, in The Idea of the Holy

I wept when I pulled this one from the top ten, but I felt many of its concepts were found in other definitions. Indeed, Otto had a great influence over theologians and others, including Martin Heidegger, Carl Jung, and C. S. Lewis. “God is the mysterium tremendum that appears and overthrows, but he is also the mystery of the self-evident, nearer to me than my I.” wrote Jewish philosopher Martin Buber (1878-1965).

Otto coined the term 'numinous' to describe the "non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self". Ironically the four horsemen of 'New Atheism' embraced the term without realizing it was fashioned by a Lutheran theologian. (I have long suspected those four were religious, but they insist religion must be unchangeable, repressive rules and beliefs.)


 
Otto calls the numinous reality "Wholly Other"—totally different from anything in this world. The experience of the numinous is the mysterium tremendum.

Here's a favorite Otto quote: "The feeling of it may at times come sweeping like a gentle tide . . . It may burst in sudden eruption up from the depths of the soul with spasms and convulsions, or lead to the strangest excitements, to intoxicated frenzy, to transport, and to ecstasy. It has its wild and demonic forms and can sink to an almost grisly horror and shuddering."

Other terms used to describe the mysterium tremendum are: beyond rational and ethical conceptions, non-empirical, non-utilitarian, simultaneously attractive and repugnant, monstrous and sublime, creative, urging humility and simultaneously exaltation, outside space and time, bi-polar, terror and attraction, horror and fascination, daemonic dread, awe, absolute unapproachability, creature-consciousness and the simultaneous experiencing of the self as nothing, a need for covering.

This is not God for the aloof or the timid. Many definitions of God are comforting; the mysterium tremendum confesses to the paroxysm as we peer over the existential abyss. Dominican Meister Eckhart, a fascinating German medieval philosopher, theologian and mystic captured the feeling long before Otto when he wrote, "Let us pray to God to be free of 'God'." Among the many implications of the mysterium tremendum, I get the feeling that the truly religious should make great sexual partners.

[Link to beginning of article]                    [Link to next part]

The Top Ten Definitions of God - Honorable Mention 2

The greatest conceivable being 

—St. Anselm (of Canterbury, 1033-1109)

Noted philosopher, abbot, and Archbishop of Canterbury, St. Anselm produced, perhaps, the most famous definition of God. At one time I placed it tenth—no doubt seduced by the gravitas of a saint. Unfortunately, Anselm's description and subsequent work, including his famous 'ontological proof' for God, grew into a fantastic divine-attribute-generating machine spewing surreal sticky notes onto God which were later codified by the church. 

Much of the blame can be placed on the Roman and Greek intellectual tradition—both in the early Church and its revival in the Middle Ages—which tried to incorporate philosophical ideals onto something which originated as unknowable. Speaking of God became, as theologian Karl Barth wrote, "speaking of man in a loud voice"—no longer totally different, but just more intelligent, more powerful, and in more places.

As we see today, it is but a short step (of about a thousand years) from this to God as the greatest conceivable American football fan whose divine mind in execution (i.e. through the actual bestowal of grace and glory) wins the super bowl. What chance does humanism (or religion, for that matter) have against the Immaculate Reception?

It's not all bad, however. Any definition, embraced as strongly as Anselm's was, is bound to lead to idolatry. We all have a hard time not conceiving some image of God, try as we might. In the top ten we will discover some pretty abstract notions which also can lead to problems. C. S. Lewis tells of a girl he knew who was brought up by "higher thinking" parents. God was not anthropomorphized in her household. However, "in later life she realized that this had actually led her to think of Him as something like a vast tapioca pudding. (To make matters worse, she disliked tapioca.)"

Doesn't it make sense to use the finest model we have? Using a chair, for example, we could talk of perfect stability, infinite support or everlasting comfort. But by choosing a human model we can infer divine compassion, intelligence or love (and, yes, heaven forbid, the anthropomorphic 'intelligent design'). So while Anselm's definition has practical use, it contains failures also. But even the very best definitions of God, no matter how compelling, fall short—by definition.

In St. Anselm's defense, he always said at the end of his arguments, "this thing we call God", as a means of keeping the idea open ended.

[Link to beginning of article]                    [Link to next part]

The Top Ten Definitions of God - Honorable Mention 1

In variance with the portrayals of some church bureaucrats and unimaginative atheists, the number of different definitions of God are ginormous. There are two principal reasons for this, and both are dogmatically insisted upon by every major religion (that I know):

1. God refers to that which is beyond our understanding, so naturally it will be difficult to define. 
2. God implies a relationship, so naturally it will be personal.

Thus, we have many, many definitions—possibly one for every person on the planet. Therefore, I feel justified in presenting a few honorable mentions, which did not make the top ten, but are nevertheless noteworthy.

What’s “God”? Well, you know, when you want something really bad and you close your eyes and you wish for it? God’s the guy that ignores you. 

— Steve Buscemi/James McCord from the movie “The Island”

[Picture goes here but for copyright privileges]

This definition is soon to be a classic, if not already. It echoes The Doors' Jim Morrison's decree:

And there's plenty of theology behind it. Of course, there's theology, on the other side, supporting petition prayer. (Just to be clear, theology is not necessarily esoteric; it simply means thinking about God.) The greatness of this operational definition is that it addresses our earliest childhood and teen notions that the world resolves around ourselves, and that God is, or should be, our own personal magic currant bun (i.e. wish dispenser). 

The idea here is not that God is a bungling manager, who needs to be roused and cajoled into correcting numerous godawful mistakes, but rather God is a bungling manager, who needs our concerted efforts in correcting those mistakes.

[Link to beginning of article]                    [Link to next part]

The Top Ten Definitions of God

It's oddly appropriate that the word God is an etymological mystery. The best linguistic guess is that it comes from the Sanskrit hu or the Gothic gheu "to invoke or to sacrifice to". In any case the word seems to have been invented to express the feeling when we no longer have any idea or control over what's going on. Basically, it is a term used to capture what is beyond the limit of our understanding. 

In this light, atheism seems supremely arrogant. However, no honest atheist, believes himself omniscient. He denies, rather, the attempts to redefine God into "the one Supreme Being" or "the creator and ruler of the universe" or "the source of all moral authority"—our current culture's dictionary definitions—or, even more so, the detailed descriptions designed by organized churches. In this light, atheism is seen as an escape from idolatry. 

Compiled here, for atheists, idolators, and all non-omniscient people alike, is a list of the top ten definitions of God. They come from a variety of religious people including atheists, but may vary wildly from the official catechisms of their respective religions. For despite what we may think, we find that adherence to dogma is not much practiced in religion, especially among the clergy and theologians. Apparently, religion is not about belief. 

There is a common ground, however. As German theologian Rudolf Bultmann says, "Why call this dark power ‘God'? Why give the enigma, the mystery that drives us this way and that and hedges us in, any other name but ‘the enigma', or ‘fate'? Or, if there must be a name, why not equally well ‘the devil'? Doesn't this power play a cruel game with us, destroying and annihilating? Is not unfulfillment the distinguishing mark of every life? Is not death and nothingness the end?"

The answer, the common ground, and the reason the word God is used here and not another, is because these definitions come from people who all say, again in Bultmann's words: "And is it not the point, in face of the enigma and the darkness, to insist on the meaning of life with a cry of 'Nevertheless!'?"

So, lighten the coming dreary days of Lenten deprival with an intriguing exploration into unknowable realms. I promise you some surprises—with minimal theology. Think quantum physics without the math. For why would one irrevocably embrace or deny a single definition of God, and miss out on a lifetime of adventure—up until, of course, the final "death and nothingness"?

***Disclaimer Statement***

Unlike many other websites, especially those of large venerated organizations, this website disclaims any special knowledge or authority for discerning God's true identity other than world-disclosure (re: Being and Time, Martin Heidegger).

For any statements made herein, much to our regret and protest, we accept full responsibility, in whole or in part, for any errors, inaccuracies, gains, losses, or injuries incurred (both in this world and the next). Concurrently, the reader must also accept, despite protest, responsibility in whole or in part for any actions taken in response to such statements, including acts of God.
Furthermore, any forward-looking statements or those related to future events are based on current assumptions, and are, therefore, subject to certain risks and uncertainties. A variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control, may cause actual results or performances to be materially or spiritually different than stated.

Links to entire article:

[Honorable Mention 1]
[Honorable Mention 2]
[Honorable Mention 3]
[10]
[9]
[8]
[7]
[6]
[5]
[4]
[3]
[2]
[1]

The Battle of Hoth: The Empire's Tora Bora?

Wired's Spencer Ackerman reviews the Empire's spectacular military failure at the Battle of Hoth, concluding, "It’s a classic fiasco of overconfidence and theology masquerading as military judgment. ..."

Inside the Battle of Hoth

Will the Next Pope be from Pittsburgh?

As everyone now knows, Pope Benedict is stepping down as Pope.  This presents a unique opportunity for Pittsburgh.

Currently, Pittsburgh has produced more Cardinals eligible to vote for the next Pope than any other American city.  Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, is from Mount Washington.  Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston, grew up in Castle Shannon and attended St. Ann's.  Cardinal Adam Maida, retired Archbishop of Detroit, is a native of East Vandergrift and attended Scott Township High School.  Cardinal Sean O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston, grew up in Whitehall.

If these Cardinals decide to vote as a single Pittsburgh block,  I think we could get someone in there who could really help the city.  Only 121 Cardinals are eligible to vote, and their loyalties will be scattered across the globe.  I doubt that any other city will be able to garner as many as four votes.  If our four Cardinals could agree on one candidate and come up with some persuasive arguments, I think we'd have a good chance of getting our man in.

And here's the thing:  you don't have to be a Cardinal to be elected Pope, you don't even have to be a priest or a Bishop (although whoever gets the nod is elevated to bishop before becoming Pope).  You don't even have to be Catholic -- or Christian for that matter -- as long as you agree to get baptized before being installed as Pope.

I'm thinking either Mario Lemieux -- if he save hockey in Pittsburgh, he could certainly save the Catholic church -- or Troy Polamalu.  Lemieux clearly has mangement ability.  And, Polamalu's spirituality is well known.  He has studied Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Islam and Eastern Orthodoxy, and learned Hebrew and Greek so he could understand the texts as originally written.  His  pilgrimage to Mount Athos, a Greek Orthodox spiritual center in Greece, inspired his book, “Counsels From the Holy Mountain.”  

There may be other Pittsburghers who are worthy to be Pope.  I suggest writing to our Cardinals right away.
  

Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Whitehall.

Mount Athos

Problems with Evolution

The Law

Notwithstanding wherewithal and while, there existed a land of barbaric cruelty and chaos. All of the kingdoms in this land fought fiercely against each other and among themselves. The rulers spent all their time devising ruthless strategies to stay in power both from enemies without and enemies within. This left no time to govern, so the kingdoms remained impoverished and impuissant.

Then, in one of the kingdoms there arose a great and resourceful ruler who devised a plan greater than any that had come before. He created laws. "Law above all!" he proclaimed, and the people embraced him, his laws, and above all his motto.

And so laws were created,
Stated and dated:
For eating and meeting,
Competing and cheating,
Sinning and winning,
Selling and yelling,
Warring and whoring,
And not to be boring,
There was one, just for fun:
A law against snoring.

There were laws for ownership,
Censorship, donorship;
Laws for courting, laws for sporting;
Laws against search, God and church;
Laws of propriety when one's in society;
Laws of compliance, and, yes, laws of science.

In short there were laws for everything. The ruler no longer had to spend all his time savagely fighting, and the kingdom flourished. The people loved this new concept of law and developed a motto of their own, "No one is above the law." Of course there were punishments for breaking the law. In the case of society or science the punishment was ridicule (but sometimes reverence). In the case of governing and the rights of people, the punishment could be death. Against God, the punishment was even worse, death and then more punishment.

And then a law was discovered that allowed the great and resourceful ruler to eliminate anyone who was a threat to his rule. It was genius, and scary, but what could the people do? Some became confused and weren't sure if anything had really changed from the time of barbaric cruelty, but the law was now such an important and respected part of their lives that…well, "Law above all!" had really taken hold. And so the ruler lived happily ever after.

Cognitive Science and the Institute for Centrifugal Research

For best results view in full screen.