Atheists should redefine "God" as all that exists

The word "God" has a strong hold on people. So strong, even atheists sometimes use it, as in "God damn it!" Or "God bless you" after a sneeze. 

So I've come to believe that we atheists need to appropriate "God" for our own purpose -- living without superstition, supernatural fantasy, and blind faith. 

There's nothing wrong with that word, just as there's nothing wrong with any word.

A word is simply made up of letters. The meaning those letters represent is entirely in the hands of humans. Unlike "gravity," say, there is no objective reality that the usual meaning of "God" points to: a divine being who created our universe and takes an interest in what people do.

Given that thousands of religions exist, each with a different understanding of what "God" refers to, it makes sense for atheists to define that word in a fashion that makes sense to us.

More specifically, me, since naturally I don't claim to speak for all atheists. 

My preference is to view "God" as referring to all that exists. Yes, this is close to pantheism. However, I reject the theism part of pantheism. My notion is both simpler and more radical. 

In addition to referring to the universe, or the cosmos, as all that exists, I like the idea of being able to use God as shorthand for the same concept. God is reality. The reality that we know now, plus whatever additions to reality become known in the future.

Obviously this includes the laws of nature. 

Thus "God willing" is equivalent to saying "if the laws of nature bring this about;" "I pray to God that..." is the same as saying "I hope that..."; "Thank you, God" becomes "Thank you, reality"; "God is good" means "I see goodness in what exists."

Now, I realize that most people would see no point in repurposing "God" in this fashion. I agree in large part. But not entirely. 

Like I said, the word "God" is impossible to ignore. From an early age children are exposed to the various meanings of this word. As we grow older, we choose whether to embrace a traditional religious view of God or some other view. Yet just as pantheism includes the term "theism," so does "atheism." 

Not believing in God still brings up the notion of God, in much the same way someone who dislikes country music has to cite what is abhorred in saying "I hate country music." 

This is one reason I've become fond of the idea that there is a God atheists can embrace. When God means everything that exists, I can say, "Yes, I believe in God." 

True, this is the same as saying "I believe in reality." But that goes without saying, really. Who doesn't? Even psychotic people believe in the reality of their own deluded thoughts. 

I just don't want religious believers to be the only ones who decide what "God" means. For several weeks I've enjoyed playing around with using this word in the sense I've described. It's working for me.

When something goes well in my life, at times I say to myself "Thank you, God." I'm affirming that reality, or existence, has brought about a condition that is pleasing to me. I don't expect any response from reality, since the God I'm thanking isn't a conscious being.

Instead, I'm redefining a familiar word in a way that fits with how I've come to understand life and the world: as a vastly complex interconnected web of causes and effects that extend back to the big bang and forward into a possibly infinite future. 

Here I am, a very small cog in the machinery of the cosmos. Or, of God. My actions have some small effect on the rest of reality, but mostly I'm under the sway of causes and conditions that are hugely vaster and more powerful.

Calling all that "God" feels good to me. And like Janis Joplin sang, feeling good is good enough for me.

Comments

[albert]

Thanks, Brian, for the brilliant post.

What if there exists, in Reality, only ONE ENTITY? What if, in the beginning of all beginnings, that ONE ENTITY willed a diverse creation, filled with individual entities who are bound by "cause and effect"?

Let's not consider the "why" of such an act or will...only the possibility of an Absolute Single Entity that has always been, is now and will always be and from which all diversity has emerged.

[Spence Tepper]

There is God, and there is the host of conceptions about God.

Like a holographic image, what we see is different based on our viewing perspective. But the actual image contains them all.

And each one is a truthful image, yet all are different.

Our concept of God is from our one dimensional viewpoint of where we are in space, time and conditioning.

God is reality. The reality we see and understand, and the reality invisible to us that exists and yet we have not yet seen and don't understand.

God is One because there is only one reality. The whole of reality.

[Ron Elloway]

I'm happy with your concept of God Brian, though I'm quite happy to leave the word God for those who believe God to be a supernatural being that created and is responsible for everything. From my perspective, there is no need to name this life, this reality as you call it, anything at all.

Okay, I see the need and the interest in categorising things, we must do it to live and communicate in our environment, but perhaps we should bear in mind that to name something, including its parts and function, is not to understand it. I would be happy to have the Chinese attitude of referring to life, the universe and everything as The Way or Tao and is to live in harmony with life and nature, including, of course, our own natures - which is perhaps what we are all after!

But we are not used to that. We have to fight and struggle, question everything, solve everything, and generally worry and get anxious about it. It all seems to stem from the ego/mind/self structures we have created for ourselves. We sometimes (perhaps often) just need to relax and let go!

[Spence Tepper]

What about an intelligent God?
Of course. Who can look anywhere and not see the intelligence of reality at work?

But it isn't quite the way biological creatures have developed "intelligence" and "thinking".

The intelligence of reality is beyond genius. Every part of the design of this creation has been perfectly honed and tested on the lathe of reality. Everything that exists has come through that process perfectly.

That there is so much variety, designed to the exacting requirements of physical law, and yet a range of variety and design beyond human imagination and conception that is in continuing development speaks to that ultimate intelligence that gives us life, nurtures all life, and yet without a single thought.

It is human to personalize God. That is also a mirror of God. The tiny mirror made by our tiny minds for our limited use, limited understanding. Yet it contains truth also.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Thus "God willing" is equivalent to saying "if the laws of nature bring this about;" "I pray to God that..." is the same as saying "I hope that..."; "Thank you, God" becomes "Thank you, reality"; "God is good" means "I see goodness in what exists."

..........I use terms like "God willing", and "Thank God" too, if less frequently than I used to. At one time I would use those words literally and entirely without irony; these days it is a combination of two things, on one hand I suppose the sense you allude to, and on the other simply as an unthinking figure of speech.

----------

"Atheists should redefine "God" as all that exists"

..........Whatever works for you, obviously.

However, if taken literally --- and I suppose if taken far more seriously than I expect you'd intended this proposal --- I'm not sure that's a good idea. Because it would make for incoherence. Sure, "God" means different things to different people, which already incorporates a great deal of incoherence. But still, extending it even further would compound that incoherence and render the term practically meaningless, which, as things stand, is probably not such a great idea. While atheists can very easily communicate with one another while using this sense of the word, but we'd run into a great deal of avolidable confusion when it comes to communicating with theists (who still number in many billions)

That "as things stand" is key, though. It is entirely possible that, going forward, one day, perhaps within this century itself --- unless of course the world comes increasingly under the sway of ignoramuses like Trump (and others like him that are increasingly infesting different parts of the globe) and his/their acolytes, and also provided we don't, in any case, blow ourselves back into the stone age or into extinction --- humanity will have outgrown religious superstitions, and regular people who aren't history buffs will look blankly at one another if God is invoked literally. In such a time, absolutely, the kind of usage you suggest here would make perfect sense, and indeed this usage --- as well as using the word simply as a figure of speech, whose etymology and past meanings only the linguist would worry about --- might become the primary sense in which that word is used.

(And before Spence interjects with this entirely justified protest, let me hasten to add this qualification: Always provided, of course, that fresh evidence does not make us change our mind about this in future.)

----------

That said, this kind of reservation, this aversion to creating incoherence, is, I realize, at bottom an argument for maintaining the status quo, no matter the issue. In as much as with issues like sex/gender, for instance, language itself is brought into play with the explicit agenda of hastening social change (rather than having language organically reflect social reality as it stands), even knowing that that might, for the present, make for some amount of incoherence and miscommunication, to that extent I suppose there is an argument to be made, in political terms, for this kind of usage.

[Ron Krumpos]

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Nobel astrophysicist at the University of Chicago, was an atheist. He once wrote:
"God is man's greatest invention."

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
Some people don't need a definition of God.

Others do.

I don't think there needs to be one definition. There are already many.

When people pray for divine intervention they also pray that God gives them greater understanding, and the depth of strength to go through a situation with acceptance and strength, to fulfill their own responsibilities.

People find different sources of strength at different times of life. Nothing wrong with that. In fact for some it is essential.

But each of those definitions falls neatly within the scope of "all things, known and unknown."

Within us is the benevolent power that gives us life every second. That is worthy of our gratitude and can become the source of a personal relationship with reality that is very peaceful and helpful.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, Spence.

"Some people don't need a definition of God."

.......Actually I'd argue that they do. That is, whether or not they articulate it to themselves, everyone (that is, every theist) does end up with some de facto idea of God --- if only to say "some power, I don't know what kind". In as much people don't spell out to themselves what they actually mean, to that extent I'd suggest they're confused, and perhaps might hold contradictory ideas and therefore be led to contradictory actions (actions that contradict their own past actions). I don't see that confusion can have any merit.

But sure, not everyone might "need" an end to confusion arising out of unexamined assumptions and ideas, in the sense that not everyone might want to sit down and suss all of this out, no matter the consequences. To that limited extent, agreed.

-------

"Within us is the benevolent power that gives us life every second. That is worthy of our gratitude and can become the source of a personal relationship with reality that is very peaceful and helpful."

..........I don't know that that's factually true. But sure, it's a nice thought, and I can see how thinking this way might be a source of comfort and stength.

[Sonia]

What a timely post!

My niece lives with me full-time now. She just started high school and we have her in counseling and psychotherapy to help her work through the extreme abuse she suffered while living with her mom and her mom’s revolving door of men.

I’ve always been very accepting and somewhat close to the LGBTQ community because a several of my long-time best friends are gay. My niece is gender fluid (I can’t even explain what that is) and has a girlfriend. She has rebelled against traditional Christianity and the belief in God in general because she was forced, up until recently, to go to a very conservative church with her Grandmother. She’s been going to that church every Sunday since she was a little girl.

At some point she just switched off. She entertained pagan belief systems and more recently decided that she was a Satanist. She told me this one day after I picked her up from school. She attempted to explain to me how they’re not that bad, they just don’t believe in God or a devil. I was under the impression for some time that she was atheist, but the whole Satanist thing was just a bit too much for me. And I was like noooooo. I told her the only reason she chose to be a Satanist was because it was the most shocking sounding thing she could profess to believe in.

So, I thought to myself, we need to find a positive, life affirming, openly accepting spiritual community before she gets involved any deeper into an isolated and somewhat negative thought system.

I told her Grandmother that I’d like to start taking her to church and that we would try different ones until we found one that resonated with her—one that would encourage positive thinking and community involvement.

We got really lucky on our first try. We found a spiritual center that is LGBTQ welcoming, involved in the Pride community and encourages self awareness, self growth, community involvement and giving, all in the understanding that the Divine is simply the love that connects all living things.

This approach was easy for her to accept. She really likes it and is hoping to help lead the youth as soon as Covid numbers drop again.

The founders of this group were inspired by a few different New Thought leaders such as Emerson and Earnest Holmes.

All that matters to me is that she develops a positive view of herself, positive ways of coping, and understands the importance of community service involvement (which they also call seva).

I keep saying that I’m doing this for her but truthfully I’m getting just as much out of it. It’s nice to be associated with a positive and loving group of people who admit that there is pain in life, we all struggle but it’s not empowering to take on the mindset of a victim. We’re here to grow and give and acknowledge equality among all people. Through love (God if you wish to call it that) we can find a way to grow in our relationships and find the inner strength (or spirit) to get through the hard times.

[Dungeness]

@ Brian: [ So I've come to believe that we atheists need to appropriate "God" for our own purpose -- living without superstition, supernatural fantasy, and blind faith. ]

In my opinion defining God expansively as "all that exists" is especially on-point.

Identifying blind faith, superstition, fantasy though seemingly adds a judgmental
layer atop it. Unless it's our own belief/acts we're critiquing, who can otherwise
definitively say how blind the faith, uninformed the superstition, or how really
"supernatural" it is? Through mindfulness, we intuitively see our own defects
but, attributing them to others, means only that I've lost focus for a moment.

[Manoj]

Atheists should redefine "God" as all that exists"

God exists to believe

But God doesn't exist to believe as a God who is defined to a Cult like Radha Soami and a Little Man who thinks he is a God, like Gurinder Singh Dhillion.
Who is a shameful character in every sense of the world we live in and who misleads the masses with his carefully weaved words of deception.
And a hell created in the ways of a Dera where he can carry out his underworld activities behind closed walls. Rings a bell like the infamous "Ram Rahim MSG Baba"

The world is in Maya (illusion) a state of the wicked ways of Satan and his merry men Gurinder Singh Dhillion.

They can turn us all in to Atheists if we're not careful.
But God always deserves our love and undivided attention, in the end thats all that matters!

[Super Natural]

My God Mother Nature

I feel that I have heard enough of talk of World strife
And what I need is joy and love and peace back in my life
And I must refrain from listening to the radio news and watching T.V.
For rumours of revenge and war is worrying to me.

My God is of the female kind and she is dressed in green
And she is very beautiful the finest I have seen
And in these times of tension where the seed of hatred grow
I turn to Mother Nature the only God I know.

In the scrub patch across the way in the cool evening breeze
The honeyeaters and wattlebirds on the banksia trees
Are chirping and singing and at this time of year
The voices of the male birds all day long you hear.

The children of Mother Nature my God's family
In Nature's wild garden living wild and free
They live on the nectar of tree blossoms and flowers
And their worries are little when compared to ours.

On the news on the radio and the T.V.
These rumours of war seem all too much for me
So I turn to my God Mother Nature in moments like these
And in her green garden I find peace and ease.

~ Francis Duggan

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative:
You wrote:
"In as much people don't spell out to themselves what they actually mean, to that extent I'd suggest they're confused, and perhaps might hold contradictory ideas and therefore be led to contradictory actions (actions that contradict their own past actions). I don't see that confusion can have any merit."

I suggest confusion is progress. Living in peace with confusion is the highest attainable state of the human mind. Inability to accept this state is the cause of dogmatism, war, conflict, use of force on innocent people.

OK, a test for you:

Three different perspectives, where do you fall (you can add other perspectives, or pick a range..:)

1) Reality is everything I know, and what I don't know isn't real to me, so I presume it isn't real, doesn't exist.
2) Reality includes some things I think I know, but many I don't know. It's a mystery, and some of it confusing.
3) I know this much, that I know nothing.

"Know" as in understand with the human mind (there may be other ways of understanding accessible to the human brain, just not the thinking mind).

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Sonia!
I like the schools of "Divine Science" and "Science of Mind " (Earnest Holmes and Co...)..
The idea that we live where our thoughts are, as Aurelius once wrote. And we have some control over that. And this control, this focus affects our thinking, what we actually see, and helps align and guide our actions to successfully achieving our goals, a little like the Napoleon Hill school of "think and grow rich".

Life doesn't always work out that way. But generally speaking, what does work is usually the result of a lot of effort over many years towards a goal we have held sacred for ourselves. Sacred in the sense that we try to stay focused on our progress towards it; that we hold it above other distracting thoughts, returning to that goal again and again, finding happiness in contemplating it, and in taking action to support it.

Mind is very powerful. It is a nuclear engine, under proper control, to achieve amazing things that can be for good; and nuclear disaster when it is out of control, affecting others who affect others we don't even know. It is the finest sculptor's chisel, and our life, a block of marble.

If your goal is Love, the kind of Love that can be shared universally, and through acts of kindness, including kind words, that can and has changed the world.

[Tendzin]

"extend back to the big bang"

Who or what initiated the big bang?

It just initiated itself?

[Sonia]

@Tendzin

Yeah, something like spontaneous combustion. ;)

C.S. Lewis said, “No one can teach riding so well as a horse.” (This is relevant because I went horseback riding at my friend’s farm this evening). The quote may seem out of context here but it popped into my mind in relation to this topic for a few reasons. Firstly, I’ve spent several visits getting to know the particular horse I rode this evening. Then I rode her this evening for the first time (and bareback at that) now that she and I have had a good amount of time to get to know each other. I live in the horse capital of the world and, believe it or not, this is the first time I’ve ever ridden bareback. This horse had a rough start with previous owners and pretty much refuses tack.

Anyway, we went up and down hills (their is no flat land on that acreage). I keep feeling like I was going to slide off and she could totally sense that. She’d stop immediately and wait for me to get situated. It was pretty cool. We were in sync.

Anyway, she was teaching me. Which brings me to my main point; how did “God” get in touch with the very first human? Do you think humans were like, hey is anybody out there? As they stared at the stars??

Seriously, I’m just trying to imagine the first man and/or woman (which came first??)

Anyway, the mare was teaching me how to ride her tonight (that sounds weird) because she was here waaaay before me. The earliest known horses evolved 55 million years ago. They might as well be gods compared to humans.

So, again, unless you believe in the Creation Theory, it seems we humans created God in our image. At least the God most religions describe today.

[Tendzin]

@Sonia

Actually, Creation isn't a theory, because the existence of the universe absolutely indicates that what is, was created by something or someone. Even if that creation was sparked by the Big Bang, the question still persists: something or someone created the Big Bang. Science has no answer for this primal origin.

[Appreciative Reader]

"the existence of the universe absolutely indicates that what is, was created by something or someone."

..........Nope, it doesn't.

"Even if that creation was sparked by the Big Bang, the question still persists: something or someone created the Big Bang. Science has no answer for this primal origin."

..........Science does have some speculations about this, none of which, I agree, there is either consensus on or any kind of evidence for. So yes, I agree, science has no answer, as yet, to this question.

Which is not to say it won't, one day. It well might.

Even if it doesn't, that's no reason or excuse to shoehorn in some random unsupported fantasy. The God of the Gaps is no more than a fallacy.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, Spence.

"I suggest confusion is progress. Living in peace with confusion is the highest attainable state of the human mind. Inability to accept this state is the cause of dogmatism, war, conflict, use of force on innocent people."

..........Living in peace is good, forcing conflict is bad. Agreed with that much. But that has nothing at all to do with whether confusion is good or bad.

What you've just done --- whether deliberately or inadvertently --- is said something like this: "Living without knowing how to read but loving and cherishing your wife and behaving respectfully towards all women is far far better than being well-read but a wife beater and a misogynist", the intended implication being that, therefore, not knowing how to read is better than being literate and well-read. You're tagging in something entirely unrelated, for no reason at all, in order to make up a spurious appearance of an argument.

My point was straightforward. If you're a theist, and if you aren't entirely cavalier about your theism, then clearly you do have some conception of God, if only implicit, that you live by. In as much as this conception is implicit, or otherwise unexamined, to that extent there is confusion (as far as your conception of God); and to that extent both your beliefs and your actions are likely to be self-contradictory.

This isn't to say anything about whether that conception is right or wrong. (You know that my view is that that conception is wrong; but that isn't part of what I said there.) Whether right or wrong, whether intuitively correct or entirely misguided, I think being clear about your ideas is always preferable to being confused about them. This seems so entirely straightforward I'm surprised you should think otherwise.

.

"OK, a test for you:

Three different perspectives, where do you fall (you can add other perspectives, or pick a range..:)

1) Reality is everything I know, and what I don't know isn't real to me, so I presume it isn't real, doesn't exist.
2) Reality includes some things I think I know, but many I don't know. It's a mystery, and some of it confusing.
3) I know this much, that I know nothing.

"Know" as in understand with the human mind (there may be other ways of understanding accessible to the human brain, just not the thinking mind)."

..........I'll go with #2. Clearly that's the reasonable option.