Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

UU Collective

Home
New Visions
Oh, Peugeot of Many Names: on authentically using the term “god”

Oh, Peugeot of Many Names: on authentically using the term “god”

Last updated on: May 26, 2016 at 5:54 am by David Breeden

Oh, Peugeot of Many Names: on authentically using the term “god” 2016-05-26T05:54:01-06:00 David Breeden

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It Is What It Is

Despite what many conventionally religious people appear to think, humanism does not exist to annoy the pious. As a matter of fact, some humanists are pious—in both the positive AND negative senses: righteous and self-righteous; reverent and sanctimonious. Piety comes in many guises and clings to various theistic and atheistic demeanors.

At the risk of annoying the conventionally religious, I think that the study of theology is in essence a study in employing and defining words. And, though we are currently in a period of flux in religion—a second Reformation, if you will—the traditionally religious will continue to define the language they use as they wish to define it and claim exclusivity. For example, the last time I checked, the Roman Catholic Catechism was a book large enough to serve as a good doorstop. Roman Catholic tradition has created some very definite definitions.

Take, for example, the term “god.” This term has a very specific meaning in the Roman Catholic Catechism:

#34. The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.

The Baltimore Catechism puts it this way:

2. Q. Who is God?

A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things.

13. Q. What is God?

A. God is a spirit infinitely perfect.

For a church that has had more than two thousand years to think about its definitions, these are surprisingly . . . anemic. Besides, it’s demonstrably the fact that this ISN’T what “everyone” calls god—the Hindus, for example, don’t believe that the universe has a beginning or end. What Hindus call “god” is the being that permeates and perpetuates the endless cycles of existence.

So, even within traditional religions, terms get both slippery and sticky. But doesn’t everyone actually have one definition of the term or another?

When I have tried to use the term “god” in discussion, I’ve had the feeling that I’m playing some sort of secret drinking game in which every time someone misunderstands what I mean by “god,” I get to drink a shot. It feels dishonest to me. Even a roundabout phrase such as “Oh, Mystery Called By Many Names” feels dishonest to me. A Peugeot can be called by many names as well, but it’s reasonable to assume when the need arises to speak about a Peugeot, everyone is talking about a Peugeot.

It Ain’t What It Ain’t

My go-to philosopher concerning language use is Ludwig Wittgenstein. He best sums up the communal nature of definition and language use with his “beetle in a box” analogy—Say that everyone has a box and in that box is something that each individual calls “beetle.” Others can’t see into the box. How, then, do we know what others call “beetle”? We can’t. But what we can do is listen to what others say about what they call “beetle” and share what we mean by “beetle.” And in this communal sharing, something approximating a definition of “beetle” begins to exist communally.

(For an informative and entertaining look at this concept, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x86hLtOkou8)

Wittgenstein uses as example the concept “pain,” but all words and their definitions exist in this limbo of unexpressed subjectivity. What does each of us mean by “justice,” by “democracy,” by “god”? We have not examined our own meanings until we begin to listen to the meanings that others shut away in their boxes. If we don’t talk about the words in the box, how are we going to create common understandings?

So, I listen respectfully. But I don’t feel that I can use the term “god”—or any of its, shall we say “wiggle words”—with any personal integrity or authenticity.

Which, then, leaves me with a question: How do I express my commitments to meaning and purpose in life another way? Good question!

Previous Post

May 19, 2016

#Religion: Let’s Talk About the Relationship

Next Post

June 2, 2016 Cafeteria, Smorgasbord, Grubhub: Religion Delivery Today

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category #9/11 Abortion Class community conflict Digital Life Diversity Divorce Environmental issues Evangelism Faith Development Foregiveness Garden glbt Gratitude Grief Healing health care Holidays Hospitality Interfaith LGBT Issues Military Service Mortality Orlando Parenting Peace Politics Power Prayer Racism Relationships Religion Scripture Senior citizens Sermons simplicity Social Justice Spirituality Sports Sustainability Uncategorized Unitarian Universalist Values Women's Issues World Community Worship

Select a Month August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the Christian view about material possessions?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Riches guarantee happiness Seek them after righteousness They are temporary They are the most important thing