This article was written as a guest submission by Matthew Lowe, a Jewish educator in Boston, MA, and an lay leader at the Moishe Kavod Social Justice House in Brookline, MA. He blogs about the possibilities for a secular spirituality at The Empty Throne.
Some people who don’t believe in God still want to believe in “God.” The result is a modified type of God-idea. Call the new kinds God2.
God1s are characterized by “classic” God attributes, most notably will and power, or put more simply, agency. Without agency, there is no God1—no Creator, no Judge, no Redeemer, etc. The advance of the scientific, naturalistic world-view has driven God1s back into the far-reaching “gaps” in our knowledge. In the ancient near east a God1 could send or withhold rain, and even cause localized earthquakes (Num. 16:30-33). With modern meteorology and plate tectonic theory, those who attribute natural disasters to an angry God1 are challenged to explain at what point in the natural chain of cause-and-effect God1 intervened.
Before we move on to God2s, let’s first take into account options for modifying a God1 belief in the modern world.
1) A deistic approach forces God1 into the gaps at the extreme edges; for example, when someone claims that God is responsible for the Big Bang. God1’s agency is here limited to the ultimate first action—quite the honor, but also a far-cry from the natural and historical interventions previously allowed.
2) While not a modern move, one also can witness a profound limitation placed on God1 in the move from Deuteronomic to Christian theology, that is, the move from this-worldly to next-worldly reward and punishment. A God1 whose justice reigns over heaven and hell is powerful, but certainly nothing like the God1 whose justice reigns on Earth. However, the mystery of life-after-death still keeps a large, inviting space open for belief in God1.
3) The God1 of limited theism (found in books like Harold Kushner’s When Bad Things Happen to Good People) has greater agency than a Deistic God1, but is still severely limited. Frankly, I find the limited God1’s agency very confusing. What does it mean if God1 can’t put out a fire, but can inspire courage in the heart of a firefighter? (Kushner 139-142) How does that work? What exactly are the dynamics and boundaries of God1’s psycho-emotional powers, and do they move atoms at all?
Regardless, these modified God1 beliefs express the desire to harmonize an agential God with a mostly-naturalistic world-view.
God2 is any “God” that lacks agency, that is, will and power. Here are some kinds:
1) Mordecai Kaplan’s God2 is a power without will—a force. Also known as “the power that makes for salvation,” adherents of Kaplan’s theology relate to this God2 by identifying in nature and history the developments that foster human flourishing. Kaplan’s God2 is not just a symbol—in calling his God2 “God” he is attempting to point out the existence of an objective force in the world—but his God2 clearly lacks the distinct agency of a God1.
2) The God2 of pantheism is identical with the world. Being all things, pantheistic God2 doesn’t choose sides or make a plan, so It doesn’t have much of a will. Being all things, this God2 is powerful, but only in the sense of being like Tillich’s “power of being” (aka ground of being aka being-itself). This is not the kind of power that God1 seekers care about. A siddur will not get you far if you are looking to pray to the God-that-is-all-things. Anyhow, it’s an awkward God to worship. Sure there’s probably a lot of good poetry about God2 (Rumi?), but the popular praise-request-thank model of prayer doesn’t seem to fit with such an amorphous God.
3) Another God2 borders on the symbolic—the God2 of definitive metaphors like “God is love” or Gordon’s Kaufman’s “God is serendipitous creativity.” As an out atheist, it’s hard for me not to read those phrases as anything other than closeted atheism. That’s “God” used as an exclamation point, not as a proposition. All of the meaningful content is in the second half of the sentence; all “God” does to the idea is give it a name, and affirm its utmost importance.
What all of these God2 share is that they are descendants, once-removed, of God1. In order to read God2 into any part of the western religious canon, a lot of ironic reading (aka allegorical interpretation) is necessary. A God2 is likely to be factored into a scenario of salvation, but one can never say literally that “God2 saves,” as if God2 were a specific agent that could identify problems, have motivation to act on them, and act on them. In all of these God2 examples, God2 will save you, but only at the pace and power of human progress. And a God stripped of supernatural power loses a lot of appeal for most people. Think of all the images of “God” that are dependent on the God1 model: Creator. Father. King. Judge, Shepherd, Friend. Redeemer. Savior. Can the word “God” be cleansed of all these personalistic images? Please—“God” is a name! It’s a proper noun—that’s instinctually (because grammatically) personalizing. And so to say that God2 “speaks,” “wants,” or “loves,” is to speak very equivocally.
Indeed, the phenomenon of belief in God2 is founded on a desire to equivocate. The term “God” gathers a variety of significations, and many people want to hold on to some while letting go of others. Insofar as “God” functions to tie together rhetoric about ultimate meaning, cosmic explanation, and ethical direction, it is an unacceptable loss for some people to lose “God” when they begin to doubt the existence and power of a God1. They still desire an ultimate point of reference, on account of the orientation and instruction such a point of reference provides. The need for sense and order backs the desire for monotheism, and so “God” simply holds a central place in the individual and communal psyche. And so, modern-minded folks still seek out a one-principle to hang their hope on, to call “God.”
But should God2 be called “God”? What is a God without will and power? Yes, the word “God” carries many significations—but are certain significations essential? Does God2’s lack of agency disqualify it from deserving the label “God”? Think of what the mass of people right now, and throughout history, mean and meant by “God.” To them, God is a conscious over-being with the power to save and the right to judge and kill. That’s God1 aka God. What can you do with a God2?
(**An addended love-note to God2 lovers: Sorry! Also here’s where we agree—(1) the world is interconnected; (2) self-conscious life is the closest thing there is to “the Universe contemplating itself”; (3) transcendence is still available even without the supernatural; (4) people are indeed capable of great good.)
Great article, Matt!
Thanks! As an atheist, I’m often at a loss for what to say when (for example) I’m relieved. Now I can say, “Thank God2”, which is quicker and easier to say than “Thank the past and the laws of nature.”
I’ll have to explain it at first, but I imagine my friends and family will adjust.
Thanks for your post! Your distinction between God1 and God2 is really helpful in thinking about the different things people mean when they say “God,” and I think you’re right that using the term “God” in a God2 context can be a way to signify that you are dealing with a matter of ultimate concern, even when you are dropping some of the qualities that are traditionally associated with God1.
What I do want to push back on is your judgment of what deserves to be called God. You’re calling out God2 lovers for holding onto a word that they may have found significant when they believed in God1–but I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing. As our beliefs and values evolve, the meanings that we attach to the language we use may evolve too. I can say I’m Catholic or Jewish at one point in my life, and then five years later I may still identify with the same term, but it may have a different meaning for me that can only be elaborated with further description….and I don’t think that the term then loses all meaning or relevance. If we are limited to saying “I believe in God” or “I don’t believe in God,” then perhaps it is not useful to call God2 “God,” given the way the term has been used historically. But fortunately we’re not usually limited to that, and we can say “I believe in God, which I interpret as [insert God2 description here].”
I’d be interested to hear more about why you identify will and power as the essential attributes of God–and what, for you, qualifies as will and power.
Thanks!
I’m glad you found my article helpful. This one word “God” has so many meanings that I hoped providing a simple taxonomy could clear up theological conversations. Now concerning my judgment about what deserves to be called God…
For me, there is a principal issue, which I express both grammatically and personally. Grammatically, the word “God” is a name, more like “Matthew” or “Christopher” than like “Truth” or “Love.” To identify God as an ultimate principle (rather than as a living presence) is to remove a lot of the syntactical potential of the word. Unless God is a living presence, it is much harder to ascribe any actions to that God—that is, put God in the same sentence as a verb. God2 believers can only say “I believe in God, which I interpret as…” or simply “God is…” Beyond that, it’s harder for God2 proponents to construct a sentence with “God.”
Why do I critique the way God2 limits our abilities to construct sentences about God? Because, when I was religious, the word “God” had value specifically by naming a being with whom I was in an active relationship. I want a Living God, not some ultimate principle. I want a Thou to my I, but God2’s, by lacking will and/or power, cannot provide a subject-subject relationship. As a very verbal person, I naturally seek a God-idea that generates language rather than stifles it.
I’ve somewhat covered this already, but to address your questions about will and power: Divine Will means that God takes an interest in the world, and has certain preferences concerning its fate. Divine Power means that God has an active (if subtle) influence on the world and its fate. To me, religion is based on these ideas about God. They are the reason that deism, while constituting a theology, is a poor basis for religion. I chose ‘will’ and ‘power’ as essential attributes because they are key elements of a Divine Personality—my commitment to which I have explained above.
How’s that sound?
Thanks for your reply! I can definitely appreciate how valuing the Divine Personality of God1 could make it seem nonsensical to refer to anything without personality as “God,” but I still do see the potential usefulness of using “God” in God2 contexts as well for people for whom other aspects of God are viewed as most essential. There might be a tension between language as a sign mostly likely to be generally understood and language as something that shapes and is shaped by our individual experiences of the sacred.
Perhaps retaining the use of “God” for both God1 and God2 contexts would also allow for those who find themselves in a place of un-knowing to articulate an openness to the ultimate, whether that ultimate has personality or not. Or is that a different God category?
Regardless, your God1/God2 distinction has great potential for adding clarity to theological conversations. Thanks for writing!
Right– if people want to maintain an openness towards the ultimate, they should stop using the word “God” as it already expresses/assumes far too much about the ultimate.
@Jon– Thanks!
@Virginia– that is totally great! I’d been wondering how to work my disbelief into this lingering phenomenon of God-as-exclamation (which can sometimes be God-as-explicit).
typo: God-as-expletive
The bigger question, as we’ve discussed and you allude to in the article, is whether “God2” should even be called god, or bothered with at all. Why not focus on what we can know and do in the world, and just stop using words to which we may be emotionally attached but which no longer have significant factual meaning? This is the “bold” step taken by Humanistic Judaism and its liturgy, which to my mind is just being honest and clear – not really that revolutionary at all.
Rabbi Adam Chalom
International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism
I rather agree that the question is not so much what to CALL “God2” but rather whether the concept has any explanatory value whatsoever. It seems to me a term of very dubious utility.
Aw, James, that’s all I get it!? Don’t you realize the skeptical power of “God2”? So many people do the ‘reconstruction dance’ in order to maintain a belief in God after they lose faith in God1. Telling someone that their belief in God is really a God2, calls them out on using the word “God” in a radically different (and, indeed, institutionally unsettling) way. Any adherent of God2 has major problems claiming faithfulness to traditional western religion, and their use of God masks these problems from themselves. Separating God2 from more traditional belief can help these people see that they have moved, that they have begun a transition away from the faith that they believe they are still holding onto.
I do see that as very valuable, actually – it can serve as a tool to demonstrate that what is being believed in is not really a “God” in any traditional sense. But do you think people who use the term “God” in a God2 way are unaware of the fact that they’ve moved on from a traditional conception? My suspicion is that such people tend to be more sophisticated in their understanding of theology already and are well aware of how the term is being used…
I’m hoping that they might, just might, start thinking that “God” is not the right term for what they believe in.
Well this raises a very interesting question of why many very smart people seem so wedded to the term when it really isn’t being used in a coherent way. Perhaps some of the trendy theologians on SoF can help: what’s the attraction of the term, people?
Somehow I doubt that they will be very interested in engaging with you if you start by addressing them as ‘trendy theologians’
I think perhaps we can give people a little more credit than that. I hope that no one would be so thin-skinned as to take offense at a word like “trendy”. How milquetoast do you think the commentators here are? I would be more offended at the implication I was unable to endure a minor jocularism than being impugned by the word “trendy”!
Regardless of Mr. Croft’s choice of words, it is a good question: If you are an adherent of God2, what am I missing when I suggest that you are stretching the term “God” too far?
A tangent perhaps. All words are human constructs. We copy other people’s words without necessarily meaning the same thing. Since we are describing a mystery. We are in all probability describing something different. Nevertheless we usually have aspirations to speak the same language. To reverse the process of Babel.
We go further when we suggest that that earlier God who created the conflict at Babel, was not the real God who wants us all to understand one another as well as herself. Keep talking and perhaps a revelation will come to you.
Hi David
I have to admit I cannot make a lot of sense out of your reply, although I am trying. What is your point in bringing up Babel? You mention an ‘earlier God’ and a ‘real God’– is this some kind of Gnostic theological scenario? And how are you connecting Babel to revelation?
Anyhow, yes, clearly it reads like a tangent. If you would like to connect your thoughts more directly (or at least more extensively, and with fewer sentence fragments) to my piece, I’d be glad to respond.
Thanks, peace
I think that Matthew should have also made mention of the fact that the philosopher John Dewey presented a conception of God in his book, “A Common Faith”, that clearly falls under his God2 category. Also, it should be noted that Dewey was one of Mordecai Kaplan’s teachers at Columbia University, and was undoubtedly one of the inspirations behind Kaplan’s own views concerning God.
BTW Mordecai Kaplan started out originally as an Orthodox rabbi (albeit one who even then had very liberal views). He was one of the founders of the Young Judea movement, which has long been one of the leading movements within Modern Orthodoxy in the United States. Later on, Kaplan left Orthodox Judaism and found a (sometimes uncomfortable) home within Conservative Judaism, with a professorship at the Jewish Theological Seminary, the flagship of Conservative Judaism. It is also interesting to note that when Kaplan published his Reconstructionist prayer book, a group of Orthodox rabbis found him guilty of heresy and atheism, and they publicly burned copies of the book.
BTW it is my understanding that to this day, Young Judea refuses to acknowledge that Rabbi Kaplan was one of their founders.
Hi Jim
Thanks for adding Dewey to the conversation. As embarrassing as it is, I’ll let you know that I didn’t include him because I have never studied him. I have heard about his connection to Kaplan– some joke about Kaplan’s philosophy being the three D’s: Dewey, Durkheim, and Davenning (Jewish prayer). Anyhow, I should check out A Common Faith. As for Kaplan, I’ve never really been a Reconstructionist, but I certainly respect how far the man traveled to achieve his heresy. I personally think that religious folk make the best heretics. Thanks for writing.
Hi Matthew, thanks for coming back at me. I hope to write this off line so that it more considered than my somewhat throw away remarks. I will try and unwrap briefly.
To me the God debate is universal. Maybe when I read your paper I was approaching it too simplistically. Do you see God 1 as a revealed God (despite all the arguments that go on about interpretation)? God 2 has as many meanings as people using the word. I am in my seventies and have been interested most of that time including some years involved in interfaith relations.
Quickly the story of Babel suggests God deliberately caused us to have different languages. I do not believe that of God. (That does not make it a useless story, it is a myth. The truth can not be put unambiguously into language.) In that story God is a human construct that was used to suggest that God stopped humans from using a single language as established by Adam and his descendants. For a longer exploratioin can I commend John Hick’s The Fifth Dimension (2004 edition). He is an international emeritus professor of Religious Philosophy. This is one of his simpler books.
I do not put myself in his league. When I used the ‘earlier God’, I was referring to the older concepts of the Hebrew Bible. When I suggested a ‘real God’ I was referring to that reality that is a mystery that we will never comprehend in any fullness other than in the Hindu understanding of ‘not that’.
My Gnosticism is possibly that I believe that Jesus of Nazareth did show God to us in his life. One can come to that through a process that might be called gnosticism but which I do not associate with Jesus. The showing was by living. Unfortunately much of that is hidden by the way his later disciples presented him in the written word. The mystification continues in the way that modern disciples fail to understand and in turn what they teach.
Years ago at Cambridge a professor gave a lecture on why he did not believe in God. My response then was that I did not believe in that God either. Many have followed in his footsteps. I hope that this generation will take God seriously. They may even find that she has a sense of humour.
Best wishes. Shalom.
Hi David, thanks for the more extensive explanation! To address some of your questions/comments:
1) I think both God1 and God2, to the people who adhere to them, could be seen as revealed, although with a difference. Only God1 reveals himself. In God2, there is no ‘self’ to be revealed– rather, human wisdom over the course of history begins to discern an ultimate unifying principle, and so human discovery of the divine serves as revelation. But to say that a God2 reveals “itself” is to give it far more agency than is appropriate for something lacking will and power.
2) I don’t have much of a response to your remarks on Babel, but I really appreciate the book recommendation– I’ve encountered John Hick here and there, and was always left wondering and inspired.
3) The rest of your remarks repeatedly raise a common dichotomy, between God-in-itself (which, to us on the outside, is completely mysterious and best approached via negation) and God-as-presented-in-scripture-and-etc. For a long time I held on very strongly to a kind of religious agnosticism, during which I fiercely protected God’s mysteriousness. I was greatly inspired and emboldened at that time by the negative theological traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism. It made me very resentful of those who said too much about God, people who were too presumptuous. “God is in heaven, and you are in Earth; therefore let your words be few,” Kohelet says somewhere.
In that vein, I’ll take a little jab at your last few lines… if God is a mystery (and to me, revelation is very uncertain, especially since, as you say, people rarely teach the true Christ), then we really can’t say much about God. Thus your attribution of “she” and “sense of humor” to God is presumptuous.
Of course, if you’ve had some personal experience of “her” “sense of humor,” then I really can’t tell you otherwise.
Sorry to take so long to reply. I plead guilty to treating the topic too lightly Before I forget I will just mention a website that I hope will have an opening article in its June newsletter coming up maybe in a few months as it is this months lead article “God as Being…God as Becoming http://www.pcnbritain.org.uk/
This does relate to my personal experience of God and to our dificulties in clarity about God. The author shares what some are saying: God, for me, is a verb rather than a noun.
If God is a verb, please conjugate it and use it in a sentence. For example, “God godded all over the place.” “I hate it when people god me.” “All this godding makes me nervous.”
I’m not just being snarky; this is a serious discussion of whether using the word “God” at all makes sense given a “god2” belief (at most), so it is a question of language and meaning. If you say “god is a verb”, and the word “verb” has a meaning for concepts like “run” or “sing,” what does it mean “to god”?
This is the same as mechanical substitutions, like “God is Love” – ok, use it in a sentence: I should be able to say “I feel god for you” or “I enjoy making god in the morning.”
At some point, the emperor truly has no clothes, and we have to accept it.
Rabbi Adam Chalom
International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism
Thanks Rabbi Chalom! I have been enjoying making this point since you first provided me with it a few months ago. Something tragic has happened to the word “God” when people can only use it in formal definitions (“God is…”) rather than everyday statements.
Sorry. Literalness seems to be one of the rocks of earnest religion. Rather than stumbling and falling we may need to learn to float. We may need to learn to take ourselves lightly in order to do so. If we cannot say who God is, perhaps we can allow ourselves to say that God dances, and makes jokes as well as loves and inspires. Shalom, David
“If we cannot say who God is, perhaps we can allow ourselves to say that God dances, and makes jokes as well as loves and inspires.”
Why? What evidence do you have for this (ludicrous) claim? And why dancing? Why isn’t God doing cosmic Tae-bo in the sky? If you don’t have reasons to believe that God dances, jokes, and loves, you shouldn’t say it.