State of formation… indeed! As long as we are, we are in a state of formation. Among those ancient sages (who remain with us in various states of formation) are Heraclitus and Siddhartha the Buddha, both of whom observed that all-that-is is in flux. In other words, everything is in a state of formation.
Socrates urged, “know thyself!” Sartre averred “choose thyself!” And here I am, sitting at the edge (eschaton) of the blogosphere, not quite knowing myself, and yet choosing my-self: my online persona thrust into a new state of formation. Whom shall I choose to be? Some binary shadow of whom I know myself (or think I know myself) to be.
I am religious, but not spiritual. So often today do I hear some version of the phrase, “I don’t go to church. I’m spiritual, but not religious.” I do go to church. I am religious, but not spiritual. I shift uneasily in the pew when things get too touchy-feely. What, then, does it mean to be “religious,” particularly when this is held in tension with “spirituality”? Rather than shift uneasily in my desk chair struggling to discuss “spirituality,” I’ll instead shift the discussion towards Joshua Oxley’s very interesting post on The Shifting Language of God and hope to build upon some of the points made by Michael Altman in his post Formations of Religionand Allana Taylor’s To be, or not to be… an atheist. (One goal here is to encourage you to read these three excellent reflections.)
If all is in flux, if everything is in a state of becoming, then it would seem that this must also be true for God(s) and religion(s). As a theologian perpetually wrestling with God (Isra-el), constantly scribbling language to de-scribe the un-inscribable God, and laboriously struggling to de-fine the in-finite, I am often perplexed when I hear folks characterizing themselves as atheist.
How can one reject an indefinable? The Tao that is named is not the Tao (Tao Te Ching). He by whom it is not thought, by him it is thought; he by whom it is thought, knows it not (Kena Upaniṣad 2.3). There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it (Pseudo-Dionysius, MT 1048A). Inasmuch as one’s language of God does not shift, then I, too, would claim the title of atheist. However, inasmuch as I am a theologian, I am not content permitting others to de-fine (i.e., make finite) God. Hence, language of God must shift, and shift, and shift – deconstructing its (de)constructions. God-talk that ceases to shift, that finds its limit/eschaton/end becomes finite and, thus, no longer pertains to the infinite. God-talk is never formed, it is not in-formation, it is always already in a state of formation.
In his post, Joshua Oxley suggests that “God language can outlast its usefulness.” I am quite sympathetic to this. If such language has lost its currency with a person, I see no reason for that person to use it. Just as we should be mindful that others use terms like “God” differently and not always in ways that we may expect, we should also be mindful that others use the term “atheist” in ways that we may not anticipate. The god that can be de-scribed or de-fined is not God for me (nor for the rather orthodox Hindu and Christian theologians that I study).
Why then speak about God at all? Why theology? That, I suppose, is a topic for future posts. Is Lao-tzu’s unnamable Tao different from the Kena’s unthinkable Brahman or Pseudo-Dionysius’ unspeakable, unnameable, unknowable God? Here, also, it seems that more needs to be said about the unsayable. Like Allana Taylor, I too am a stranded poetand I find her apophatic religious atheism refreshing and encouraging. If being an atheist means not being a theist, and if being a theist means believing in onto-theology, then I suppose I might fit the description, as do so many of the ancient Christian and Hindu theologians I read. I don’t know. What I do know is that I am a theologian, and as a theologian I continue to talk about God, but only insofar as this God-talk is always in a state of formation.
And yet you reject the term “atheist” because of YOUR definition of God, even as you admit that you have to allow the other to use the word God in their own way. This is where you’re getting caught up. You take the moniker of atheism as a personal attack against your theism when it isn’t your brand of theism that’s being rejected by the term atheism, at least not in the case of your darling, fabulous, understated and brilliant wife.
I’m not sure whether or not I take it as a personal attack (though, I suppose my darling, fabulous, understated and brilliant wife would know!). However, I do think that words have tremendous power (as is partially shown in Michael Altman’s post on Formations of Religion http://stateofformation.org/2010/11/formations-of-religion/). More than this, though, the word “God” has a long, complex, rich, and constantly evolving history. To reduce it to a narrow caricature and subsequently reject that narrow caricature seems at best careless and at worst deleterious. Would you agree that the narrow de-finition of God so prevelant in atheist discourse fails to capture the rich (and orthodox) Christian theology of the last 2,000 years? (Or, at least, those theologians that your loving husband prattles on about over dinner!)
Brad,
I appreciate your thoughtful approach to this topic. There’s a lot of give-and-take in this language, and you do a great job grasping those nuances.
I am, however, not quite sure about “rejecting the indefinable.” Those of us who are atheists–even ones like myself, who have a deep appreciation for spiritual reflection– often don’t recognize an “indefinable” or “ineffable” reality that God-language describes. I’m a naturalist: what we see is, largely, what we get.
Of course there’s always an edge to knowledge, and depth to the human being we scarcely can fathom. But just because I cannot fully define an ineffable God makes that God-reality no more real to me than if I could. My piece was partially to highlight the need to honesty in language, because we all bring certain God-concepts to the table, religious and non-religious.
I have no particular issue rejecting 2,000 years of Christian theology (I’ve studied quite a bit of it!). I don’t find theism particularly compelling, since I don’t see a correlation to God-concepts and objective reality. But that’s my own take.
So I would ask: be sure to not equate my rejection of a static deity with yours. Your rejection leads to an embrace of the ineffable, while I reject any sort of recognizable ineffable as a concept itself. We at least perceive of our positions from two different perspectives, and there’s generosity in keeping that in mind.
Again, I appreciate your take on this, and hope this helps further the conversation.
Joshua,
Many thanks for your considered response, and I do feel hopefully that we can use this forum to advance the conversation.
I certainly agree that we see things from different perspectives and appreciate the effort to find some level of understanding.
I do want to push back on at least one thing, though. In hindsight, perhaps the Kena and Dionysius quotes were misleading, but I intended to discuss language, not epistemology and not faith or belief. There is a difference between saying that god is in-de-finable or in-de-scribe-able and saying that god is ineffable – no?
Maybe the problem is the “theos” in atheism and theology. I don’t think that my usages of those terms use the root in the same way. I reject “Theo”, God, as understood by MOST Christians in the past 2000 years: a supernatural being who has the ability to change reality to suit his/her whim. But why does that necessarily mean that I reject 2000 years of philosophical conclusion to considering that God. Do I need to believe that Jesus or Mohammad lived in order to agree that I should help take care of orphans? Can I not find value in the Vedas without subscribing to Hinduism? Must a real man named Job have suffered in order for me to understand that sometimes life isn’t fair? What then is the purpose of the fairy tales that we tell our children? The mythology and conclusions from that mythology are worthwhile, which is why I’m not a-religious. And isn’t that what theology longs to do in the end? Make a larger statement about how we should conduct ourselves?
While the definition of God that many atheists use is not all-encompassing as you seem to want, I find it to be belittling that you say it is merely “a narrow caricature”. It’s incredibly unfair to reduce my sense of the word “God” to something mockable. It’s completely valid to define God as a supernatural power and then reject the supernatural.
And on a practical note, you guys should get your admin to include an option for users to receive notice of more comments after they’ve commented on a thread. It makes it easier for dear reader to know when a response has been submitted.
Brad,
Thank you for you kind words and I sincerely hope that we can continue this conversation. I have been reading recently about a reaction among atheists against explaining their disbelief. They vehemently argue that the onus of explanation should rest on the shoulders of the religious. A paraphrase is: Why I don’t believe isn’t the question! Why do you BELIEVE?
I understand their frustration, but disagree. Like you, I think that atheists should take responsibility to define – even if only for themselves – what “God” exactly they don’t believe in. I am ashamed sometimes to count myself among atheists when they attack “Sunday School Religion” – immature and superficial conceptions of God – as though it is the only form of religion.
I should confess that I was responsible of this at one point in my life as well – while I was recovering from the brand of Christianity that scarred me – but my studies and personal journey have assured me that believers have amazingly varied and complex conceptions of God.
So, I would like to lend you my support in your theological quest. To reiterate, I feel that as an atheist I am as responsible for outlining, or trying to work out (if not define) the God that I ‘reject’.
Thanks Allana,
Once again I appreciate your words! Indeed, attacking immature and superficial conceptions of god is kind of too easy to spend much time on. On the other hand, there are many, many among us who have been scarred by such notions and the people who espouse them. I think we are in that struggle together and will be for time and time to come.
@E(Liz)a(Beth) —
“And on a practical note, you guys should get your admin to include an option for users to receive notice of more comments after they’ve commented on a thread. It makes it easier for dear reader to know when a response has been submitted.”
We’ll see what we can do!
Thank you,
Chris Stedman
Managing Director, State of Formation