A word about words:
In discussing theistic systems, it is common for individuals to conceptualize the same term quite differently. The use of the word "GOD" is problematic, as some people view this as a singular and unique proper noun (that is, as the name of a definitive figure), while others use it as a mere common-noun description of a being or force that may or may not be singular but is conceived in a specific manner. Whether GOD is used as proper name or generic title, there are great divergences of conceptualization within the framework of "belief" systems. Jehovah, for example, conjures different images and attributes than El, Elohim, Adonai, Jesus, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesh, Amaterasu, Fujin, Amitaba, Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun, Yu Huang, Ma'at, Isfet, or any other designation for GOD.
In similar manner, people bring different conceptions to the table when speaking about the overall theistic systems. With that in mind, I am offering these basic definitions of terms to facilitate communication on a slippery conceptual spectrum.
For the purposes of our discussion then:
I refer to all conceptions of GOD — no matter how diverse, and whether or not they are "religious" in practice — as Theos. I have attempted to assemble a variety of writings (mostly non-fictional) to describe the many approaches to Theos in philosophical thought throughout history.
The quotes below run the gamut of religious thought from non-theistic to anti-theistic and come from a wide variety of sources. These are not meant to be the focus of our discussion but the catalyst. Any participant is encouraged to bring their own perspective (and additional references) to the dialogue.
I am the Lord thy God, who has brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me For I, the Lord, your God am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation., but showing mercy down to the thousandth generation on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Leviticus 20:2, 5-6)
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send he Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through him. (John 3:16-17)
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12: 28-31)
God: there is no God but Him, the Living, the Eternal One (2:255)
Do not knowingly set up other gods besides God. (2:21)
God is One, the Eternal God. He begot none, nor was he begotten. None is equal to him (112:1-4)
Be charitable; God loves the charitable. (2:195)
To the unbelievers say, "I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship You have your own religion and I have mine." (109:1-2, 6)
Man transgresses in thinking himself his own master, for to your Lord all things return (96:6-7)
Here endeth Chapter XII. of the
Bhagavad-Gîtâ,
entitled "Bhakityôgô," or
"The Book of the Religion of Faith"
"Not peering about," — anapeksha.
[reprintd from ]
I will extol the most heroic Indra [Thunder God] who with his might forced earth and sky asunder; who hath filled all with width as man's Upholder, surpassing floods and rivers in his greatness. (Hymn 89)
I magnify Agni [God of Fire], the divine ministrant of the sacrifice, the Hotr priest, the greatest bestower of treasures. Agni, worthy to be magnified by the ancient rishis and by the present ones — may he conduct the gods hither.
I will proclaim the mighty deeds of Vishnu [The All-Pervader], of him who measured out the earthly spaces;
As sparks from a well-blazing fire issue forth by the thousand of like form so from the Imperishable, my friend, beings manifold are produce and thither also go.
Heavenly, formless is the Person. He is without and within, unborn, breathless, mindless, pure, Higher than the high Imperishable. From him is produced breath, mind, and all the senses, space, wind, light, water and earth, the supporter of all
From him too, gods are manifoldly produced, the celestials, men, cattle, birds, the in-breath and the out-breath, rice and barley, austerity, faith, truth, chastity, and the law.
The Person himself is everything here.
The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
Nameless, it is the origin of Heaven and Earth.
Nameable, it is the mother of all things. (Chapter 1)
The Tao is like a well: used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void: filled with infinite possibilities.
It is hidden but always present.
I do not know who gave birth to it. It is older than God. (Chapter
4)
A Brahman cosmologist went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One,
"Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything exist?"
"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, Brahman."
"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"
"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, Brahman."
"Then is everything a Oneness?"
"'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, Brahman."
"Then is everything a Many-ness?"
"'Everything is a Many-ness' is the fourth form of cosmology, Brahman.
Wang Sun Jia asked: "What is the meaning of the saying 'It is better to pay court to the god of the Hearth than to the god of the Hall [family shrine].'?" Confucius said, "Not so. If you offend Heaven, there is no one you can pray to." (Book III, chapter 13)
He who does not know the divine law cannot become a noble man.
He who does not know the laws of right conduct cannot form his
character.
He who does not know the force of words cannot know men. (Book XX,
chap 3)
When Confucius entered the Grand Temple, he asked about everything, whereupon someone remarked, "Who said Confucius is a master of ritual? He enters the Grand Temple and asks about everything!" Confucius, hearing this, said, "This is the ritual." (Book III, chapter 15)
There are many questions in philosophy to which no satisfactory answer has yet been given. But the question of the nature of the gods is the darkest and most difficult of all So various and so contradictory are the opinions of the most learned men on this matter as to persuade one of the truth of the saying that philosophy is the child of ignorance
Learn the will of nature. Study it, pay attention to it, and then make it your own. The will of nature is revealed to us through experiences common to all people.
Self-mastery is the target that divine will wishes us to aim at. Evil does not naturally dwell in the world, in events, or in people. Evil is a by-product of forgetfulness, laziness, or distraction: it arises when we lose sight of our true aim in life. When we remember that our aim is spiritual progress, we return to striving to be our best selves. This is how happiness is won.
The essence of faithfulness lies first in holding correct opinions and attitudes toward the Ultimate. Remember that the divine order is intelligent and fundamentally good. Life is not a series of random, meaningless episodes, but an ordered, elegant whole that follows ultimately comprehensible laws. The divine will exists and directs the universe with justice and goodness. Though it is not always immediately apparent if you merely look at the surface of things, the universe we inhabit is the best possible universe
Make it your utmost goal to steer your life in accordance with the will of divine order. When you strive to conform your intentions and actions with the divine order, you don't feel persecuted, helpless, confused or resentful toward the circumstances of your life
Faithfulness is not blind belief; it consists of steadfastly practicing the principle of shunning those things which are not within your control, leaving them to be worked out according to the natural system of responsibilities.
Whatever exists must have a cause or reason of its existence; it being absolutely impossible for any thing to produce itself, or to be the cause of its own existence. In mounting up, therefore, from effects to causes, we must either go on in tracing an infinite succession, without any ultimate cause at all, or must at last have recourse to some ultimate cause, that is necessarily existent
It appears to me, that if we consider the improvement of human society, from rude beginnings to a state of greater perfection, polytheism or idolatry was, and necessarily must have been, the first and most ancient religion of mankind It is a matter of fact incontestable, that about 1,700 years ago all mankind were polytheists The farther we mount up into antiquity, the more do we find mankind plunged into polytheism. No marks, no symptoms of any more perfect religion. The most ancient records of the human race still present us with that system as the popular and established creed
Polytheism or idolatrous worship, being founded entirely on vulgar traditions, is liable to this great inconvenience: that any practice or opinion, however, barbarous or corrupted, may be authorized by it; and full scope is given for knavery to impose on credulity until morals ad humanity be expelled from the religious systems of mankind. At the same time, idolatry is attendant with this evident advantage: that by limited the powers and functions of its deities, it naturally admits the gods of other sects and nations to a share of divinity, and renders all of the various deities, rites, ceremonies or traditions compatible with each other.
Theism is opposite in both its advantages and disadvantages. As that system supposes one sole deity as the perfection of reason and goodness, it should Banish everything frivolous, unreasonable, or inhuman from religious worship and set before men the most illustrious example, as well as the most commanding motives, of justice and benevolence. These might advantages are not overbalanced, but someone diminished, by the inconveniences which arise from the vices and prejudices of mankind. While one sole object of devotion is acknowledged, the worship of other deities is regarded as absurd and impious. Nay, this Unity of object seems naturally to require unity of faith and ceremonies, and furnishes designing men with a pretense for representing their adversaries as profane and the objects of divine as well as human vengeance.
If we did a good act merely from a love of God and belief that it is pleasing to Him, when arises the morality of the Atheist? Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
— letter to Thomas Law, 1814
I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was an Atheist, which I can never be.
— letter to John Adams, 1823
As for God: "I had no need of that hypothesis" [apocryphal]
[From Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments Vol. I (1846) and other collected works]
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.
It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey.
Since I am not totally unfamiliar with what has been said and written about Christianity, I could presumably say a thing or two about it. I shall, however, not do so here but merely repeat that there is one thing I shall beware of saying about it: that it is true to a certain degree. It is indeed just possible that Christianity is the truth; it is indeed just possible that someday there will be a judgment in which the separation will hinge on the relation of inwardness to Christianity. [continued]
Suppose that someone stepped forward who had to say, "Admittedly I have not believed, but I have so honored Christianity that I have spent every hour of my life pondering it."
Or suppose that someone came forward of whom the accuser has to say, "He has persecuted the Christians," and the accused one responded, "Yes, I acknowledge it; Christianity has so inflamed my soul that, simply because I realized its terrible power, I have wanted nothing else than to root it out of the world."
Or suppose that someone came forward of whom the accuser had to say, "He has renounced Christianity," and the accused one responded, "Yes, it is true, for I perceived that Christianity was such a power that if I gave it one finger it would take all of me, and I could not belong to it completely."
But suppose now, that eventually an active assistant professor came along at a hurried and bustling pace and said something like this, "I am not like those three; I have not only believed but have even explained Christianity and have shown that what was proclaimed by the apostles and appropriated in the first centuries is true only to a certain degree. On the other hand, through speculative understanding I have shown how it is the true truth, and for that reason I must request suitable remuneration for my meritorious services to Christianity."
Of these four, which position would be the most terrible?
The agnostic does not simply say, "I do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know.
— "Reply to Dr. Lyman Abbott," 1890
God is dead.
Wherever the religious neurosis has appeared on the earth so far, we find it connected with three dangerous prescriptions as to regimen: solitude, fasting, and sexual abstinence
Why Atheism nowadays? "The father" in God is thoroughly refuted; equally so "the judge," "the rewarder." Also his "free will."
Among all mental diseases which man has systematically inoculated into his cranium, the religious pest is the most abominable.
Here we see that absurdity and nonsense are put on so thick that those who already idiotic enough to digest such stuff are susceptible to the most crazy hallucinations. Among these must be classed first and foremost the doctrine of reward and punishment of mankind in the "great hereafter." It has long ago been scientifically proved that there is no existence of a soul independent of the body. That which the religious humbuggers call soul, is nothing more or less than the seat of thought, the brain, which receives impressions by means of the living senses, and by such impressions becomes active; and consequently, at the moment of physical dissolution this action necessarily must cease
Out then with religion from the heads of the people, and down with priesthood! Every person possessing common sense in place of religious insanity, neglecting to do the utmost in his power, daily, hourly, to overthrow religion, shirks a duty. Every person, released from deistic superstition, forbearing to oppose priesthood where, when and however an opportunity presents itself, is a traitor of his cause. Therefore, war to the black hounds! implacable war to the knife! Incite against the seducers of man, enlighten the seduced!
Every thinking person must admit, that not one single proof of the existence of a God has ever been found; and besides this, there is not the least necessity for the existence of God. As we know the inherent properties and laws of nature, the presence of God, either within or beyond this nature, is really to no purpose, quite superfluous and evidently untenable. Morally the necessity for his existence is still more insignificant
God is merely a spectre, fabricated by designing scoundrels, through which mankind is tyrannized and kept in constant dread. But the phantom instantly dissolves, when examined under the glass of sober reflection
Men have addressed their eternal Thou with many names. In singing of Him who was thus named, they always had the Thou in mind; the first myths were hymns of praise. Then the names took refuge in the language of It; men were more and more strongly moved to think of and to address their eternal Thou as an It. But all God's names are hallowed,for in them He is not merely spoken about, but also spoken to.
Many men wish to reject the word God as a legitimate usage because it is so misused. It is indeed the most heavily laden of all the words used by men. For that very reason, it is the most imperishable and most indispensable.
Religion is induced insanity.
No god ever gave any man anything, nor ever answered any prayer at any time — nor ever will.
Religion is a crutch, and only the crippled need crutches. I can get around perfectly well on my own two feet, and so can everyone else with a backbone and a grain of common sense
I think this would be the best of all possible worlds if everybody were an atheist or an agnostic or a humanist — his or her own particular brand — but as for compelling people to this, absolutely not. That would be just as infamous as their imposing Christianity on me. At no time have I ever said that people should be stripped of their right to the insanity of belief in God. If they want to practice this kind of irrationality, that's their business. It won't get them anywhere; it certainly won't make them happier or more compassionate human beings; but if they want to chew that particular cud. They're welcome to it.
— from an interview with Playboy magazine
Just as the object of scientific enquiry is the physical world, so the object of theological enquiry is God But God is a different kind of being altogether, concerning whose character and credibility there is a great deal of disagreement Mainstream theology has never thought of God as an important but invisible actor on the stage of the world, but rather as the Author and Producer of the cosmic play. God is party to all that happens but not necessarily the immediate cause of all that happens. Part of the difficulty in discerning the divine presence is that no creature has ever experienced divine absence.
Science does not have a privileged route of access toknowledge through some superior "scientific method" uniquely its own possession. Theology does not have a privileged route of access to knowledge through some ineffable source of unquestionable "revelation" uniquely its own possession. Both are trying to grasp the significant of their encounters with manifold reality. In the case of science, the dimension of reality is that of a physical world that we transcend and that can be put to the experimental test. In the case of theology, it is the reality of God who transcends us and who can be met only in awe and obedience.
"God" is an empty term except through the revelations of all the saints, prophets, and mystics of history. They exist to plant the seeds of spirituality as a direct experience, rather than a matter of hope and faith. No one can say that God was revealed in one consistent shape delivering one consistent message — quite the contrary. Yet nearness to God is a constant. If we are connected to our souls, the connection is permanent, even if our attention falters. This journey never ends.
I was raised a Christian. My feelings about this are neither bitter nor angry — quite the opposite. I owe much of what I am, and what I try to be, to the Christian religion, and therefore to the Christian (in my case Catholic) church. My morality has scarcely changed at all since my pious years Even my way of being an atheist bears the imprint of the faith to which I subscribed throughout my childhood and adolescence. This is nothing to be ashamed of or even surprised at. It is part of my history — or rather, part of our history. What would the Western world be without Christianity? What would the world itself be without both. Being an atheist by no means entails being an amnesiac. Humanity in one; both religion and irreligion are part of it; neither are sufficient unto themselves.
Atheists have as much spirit as everyone else; why would they be less interested in spirituality?
I don't believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for His existence and from what I've heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe.
Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes humans objects in a cruel experiment whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. And a celestial dictatorship is installed over us to supervise this, a kind of divine North Korea. Greedy and exigent. Greedy for uncritical praise from dawn till dusk, and swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the first place. However, let no one say there's no cure. Salvation is offered. Redemption, indeed is offered at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties.
Now, in fairness, no one is arguing that religion should or will die out of the world. All I'm arguing is that it would be better if there was a great deal more by way of an outbreak of secularism.
We don't' require divine permission to know right from wrong. We don't need tablets administered to us, ten at a time in tablet form on pain of death, to be able to have a moral argument. No we have the reasoning and the moral suasion of Socrates and of our own abilities. We don't need dictatorship to tell us right from wrong.
people are inspired to do such good by what I would say is the true essence of faith, which is, along with the doctrine and ritual particular to each faith, a basic belief common to all faiths in serving and loving God through serving and loving your fellow human beings. As witnessed by the life of Jesus, one of love, selflessness and sacrificed. It was Rabbi Hillel who was once famously challenged by someone who said they would convert to religion if he could recite the whole of the Torah standing on one leg. He stood on one leg and said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is the Torah; the rest is commentary." Other examples are Prophet Mohammed's teachings: saving one life is as if you are saving the whole of humanity; the Hindu search for selflessness; the Buddhist concepts of karuna (compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy), and metta (loving kindness), which all subjugate selfish desires to care for others; the Sikh insistence specifically on respect for others of another faith. That, in my view is the true face of faith.
And yes, I agree that in a world without religion, the religious fanatics may be gone, but I ask you, would fanaticism be gone? And then realize that such an imagined vision of a world without religion is not, in fact, new. The 20th century was a century scarred by visions that had precisely that imagining at their heart, and gave us Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. In this vision, obedience to the will of God was for the weak. It was the will of man that should dominate.