An Article, in Which the Author Fails to Resolve Whether He is an Atheist

What concept am I referencing when I refer to G‑d?

Before I can answer the question of whether I believe in G‑d  I must know what conception of G‑d I am talking about. I personally speak of G‑d in three basic contexts.

1.      By “G‑d” I may mean, the Universe personified. If it rains, I might say that G‑d has sent rain. When a child is born, I may celebrate G‑d's gift of life. When a loved one dies, I may sadly accept the will of G‑d  By “G‑d” in this context, I mean “the Power behind whatever happens,” or more precisely, “Whatever happens, Personified.” I don’t believe that such an entity “really” exists apart from Its effects. The personification of reality is a vivid and useful way of thinking, sometimes. It is not “true.”

2.      By “G‑d” I may mean, the main character of the Bible [as eloquently described by Jack Miles]. The personal traits which would explain Its words and actions would be the traits I would ascribe to G‑d as a literary character. The relationship of Conception #1 to Conception #2 is perhaps the main problem for theologians in the Jewish tradition and related traditions. “G‑d” of the Bible is to “G‑d” of the Universe as “Hamlet” of Shakespeare is to “Hamlet” of history. Any connection is interesting but really unimportant. The main character of the Bible is a fascinating literary figure, but any resemblance to reality is entirely coincidental.

3.      By “G‑d” I may mean, the figure addressed in the Jewish Prayer Book. It is a fascinating synthesis of views 1 and 2. In prayer, I seek to find my place in the scheme of the Universe, so that I give importance to that which is important, and gain perspective on what is unimportant. It so happens that many of the prayers address G‑d the traditional literary character, especially those drawn from the Psalms and other parts of Scripture. I shamelessly recite such passages and completely transpose them in my mind. I sing the praises of G‑d #2 as if It were really G‑d #1 (which, as far as I know, does not particularly desire or enjoy praise). I recite the biblical words while discounting the over-personifications inherent in them.

To our ancestors, it was very important to believe that G‑d #2 is the only G‑d  and all others are idols. I do not believe that G‑d #2 is real. I don’t think that G‑d #2 is, in essence, any different than any other imagined G‑d.  The lack of visible physical representation is very important to Jewish culture, but is not philosophically significant. The Main Character of the Bible has psychological traits and may be analyzed like any other literary character. It is, in that sense, finite.

When someone asks, “Do you believe in G‑d ” I think that they are usually referencing version #2, as they understand It. The G‑d of the Ten Commandments, the seven day Creation, and the Exodus. No, I do not believe in that G‑d  but I do cherish It. It represents the way my people understood Ultimate Reality for thousands of years. It has become, for me and my tribe, a symbol of Ultimate Reality – but not an accurate portrayal of It.

[I should also entertain the figure of G‑d as portrayed by various world religions and philosophies. On a day to day basis, though, they do not come into my mind and this is a personal “blog.”]

Do I believe in the natural G‑d which I designated version #1? “Believe” is just not the right word. I often view things from that perspective. A perspective is not a belief. I don’t think the natural G‑d exists apart from the Universe of which It is a personification. There is ultimately no practical significance to whether It exists or not, except for a measure of personal inspiration that I derive from the imagery. Certainly the World exists, Life exists; however we make sense of it is up to us.