I do not believe religion needs the symbol “God.” There are plenty of world religions that symbolize the cosmic mystery in other ways. But I do think it is important not to lose some things the symbol refers to. The following clip comes from an article I wrote for Alternet some years back:
“If there’s hope of saving the world from the clutches of propaganda it will not be because we refute it rationally. If we save our world it will be because we learned how to speak about personal meaning in a way that is adaptive to natural processes and compatible with universal human rights. Nothing else will do. Hegel defined religion as putting philosophy into pictures. Strange and foreboding topics like hermeneutics and metaphysics can be taught to almost anyone if they are put in story form. While it is important not to accept these images literally, it is just as important not to reject them literally.
Because life is an ineffable mystery, religion speaks in pictures and symbols. To accept or reject the symbols literally is to miss the point from two different sides. Those who fight over whether God exists are like foolish pedestrians who praise or curse a red light as they step into oncoming traffic. The question isn’t whether God exists like a brick exists, but rather “what part of our experience does the symbol ‘God’ reveal and what parts does it obscure?”
Would you say that the “god” symbol is not desirable for any “good” religion? Some religions apparently find it unnecessary or undesirable, perhaps, as you point out in your opening statement, but others might find it nearly indispensable. Would you say that religions that find it nearly indispensable are not really good religions? What might you consider to be a good use of the symbol “god,” if you think that it’s not that it’s used so much as how it’s used? 2/12/14, 09:08 CST