Religion

Is there any distinction between 'god' and 'what people say about god'?

Comments

I hope so! Lots of people have been saying quite a bit to what they believe is divine (God or god or gods) and talking about the divine for many centuries, not all of which can be correct. In the Greco-Roman world the gods were very much like us (given over to vice as well as virtue) though immortal, whereas for Jews, Christians, and Muslims there are not many gods but one, and this God (Allah) is thought of (or spoken of being) good, and the source of goodness. Most philosophers of religion today hold that religious believers are realists in the sense that when they pray or praise God or seek to be in a relationship with God, these believers are seeking a relationship with what they believe is a transcendent, real being. What sense would it make to pray that God show loving care for the creation or praise God for God's great goodness, unless one actually believed that God is loving or is great and good. I actually do adopt such a stand (as both a philosopher as well as religious believer) but there are some prominant philosophers and theologians who have maintained that when people speak of "God" they are not being referential (believe themselves to be referring to a transcendent, purposive, living reality), but expressive of values like love, justice, compassion, mercy. D.Z. Phillips took such a stance, and held that one could believe in a God of grace (and presumably live a full Christian life) without actually believing there is a transcendent reality, God. I would classify Phillips as taking what is often called a non-cognitive view of religious language (they believe it has no cognitive content referring to a being independent of themselves). Gordan Kaufman takes up such a stance. If they are right then (in a sense) "God" is a matter of what people say and do, think and act, religiously and there is no being who is the loving Creator of the cosmos apart from such religious forms of life. Don Cuppit is also an ambitious advocate of such a position.

For a challenging critique of such non-cognitive views, check out the work of Roger Trigg. He has books that not only address the question of realism in terms of religion, but he links the discussion with matters of realism in ethics, science, and culture. Maybe contrast the work of Trigg and Kaufman or Cuppit, and see what you think! Just a suggestion. Thanks for the question!

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Religion