I still use God-language. Sometimes it’s awkward. But I mostly like it (for some of these reasons).
When I used God-language with a friend last week, he said, “Yeah, I’m just not sure I believe there is a God.”
I said, “For sure. I don’t either, if we’re talking about a theistic God.”
He said: “I don’t know if I even believe in an a-theistic God either!”
We laughed. Because figuring out how to relate to life is fun when you have friends that can laugh about it with you.
But it got me thinking: what are deeper things we are claiming / naming when we use God language? What are the fundamental questions or stances we are talking about?
Here’s my stab at this:
When we talk about God, we are fundamentally asking…
Is Reality Conscious or Mechanical?
For some, Life is fundamentally conscious and intelligent. Consciousness is not a byproduct of materiality - it is primary. Mind, awareness, intelligence precedes matter.
This includes camps like: Theism, Panentheism, Pansychism, Mysical Christianity, Vedanta, Taoism (though in a non-personal sense).
For others, Reality is fundamentally unconsicous and mechanical. Consciousness comes out of matter. The universe is indifferent.
This includes camps like: Materialism, Hard Science / Scientism, some forms of Secular Humanism.
Is the Ground of Being Personal, Impersonal or Transpersonal?
So, even if you answer 1 by saying “Yes, reality is conscious!” do you believe it is personal?
The personal camp might say that God has will, intention, dires. God can relate and respond and judge and love.
This camp includes: Classical Theism, Evangelical Christianity, Islam, Judaism.
The Impersonal camp might say that yes reality is conscious, but it has no preferences. It is order, law, flow, emptiness.
This includes: Buddhism, Stoicism, Taoism (often), certain forms of nonduality.
Then there is Transpersonal (both and): Reality includes personality but exceeds it. God is personal AND more than personal. Relattional without anthropomorphism.
This would be: Christian mysticism, neoplatonism, panentheism, Teilhard de Chardin.
Is the Universe Going Somewhere?
Some would say yes, the universe has directionality. It is TELEOLOGICAL. Maybe it’s headed towards consciousness, or unity. Evolution is not random but has an inherent motivation or direction. And spirituality is about participation in becoming.
This camp would include: Teilhard, Hegel, Integral Theory / Spiral Dynamic, Process theology.
Other say no, change does happen, but without aim. Evolution has no real goal. History is motion without meaning.
I think a big difference between these two camps is how it changes our relationship with suffering. Growth pain vs meaningless pain. Is suffering initiating us into something? or simply accidental?
Is Reality fundamentally friendly, neutral or hostile?
Einstein said this is the main question. I tend to agree.
Some say Reality is friendly - you belong here! Existence is trustworhty at its depth. Love is the final word.
This can help produce a more relaxed nervous system, courage, risk-taking.
Others say: Reality doesn’t care. It’s not necessarily a threat, you just have to make your own way.
This is more Stoic. Self-reliance. Emotional restraint.
Then there’s the hostile camp. Reality is judgemental. You must earn belonging. Your wrongness precedes your goodness. Danger is primary.
This can produce control, perfectionism, fear-based religion, trauma-shaped spirituality.
Is Separation Real or Illusory?
Separation might be seen as real - the self is discrete, God is “out there,” and salvation is a movement across a gap.
This can produce transactional religion, moral accounting, heaven/hell frameworks.
Or separation might be seen as illusory - self is relational and participatory, God is within, among and as. Salvation is awakening, not relocation.
This can produce union, presence-based practice, nondual ethics.
And, to show my hand, as one who resonates with contemplative and mystic traditions, I view Reality as conscious, transpersonal, teleological, friends and separation is real at one level but ultimately nondual.
That’s what I’ve got for now.
I’m trying to get at what we’re talking about when we talk about God (to quote Rob Bell’s book title).
Often, when we stay at the surface level of language, we are disagreeing and arguing… and we aren’t even clear on what we’re arguing about.
So maybe this can create some distinctions for more fruitful and fun conversations about our views of God and Reality.
Another thing that might be fun to explore is the EMOTIONAL reasons we come to our different views of Reality (not logical or rational reason). Because we are not as rational as we often think :)