God as a Word

If 'God' is just a word, do I mean by that it is only poetic? Well not quite. What I mean is that it can't be thought in terms of denotation (or even its supposed opposite connotation). An idea means something, which then has a reference to reality. Such a reference might be tortuous (which is what connotation is), but in the end it does refer to something. In Kant, for example, the idea of God has its ultimate reference in the subject. The word, however, does not denote or connote. It is not a reference, but a practice.

A Religion of Ethics

You can have a religion of ethics that is not a religion of morality, but it is really difficult to separate them out, and the closest I have come to say what it might mean is that in the religion of ethics God is a word and not an idea. The greatest difficulty is not distinguishing between a being and an idea, but between an idea and a word. Of course words and ideas are in some sense inseparable, but it depends on what one concentrates on. A word is not just an expression of something, it is also a performance, a ritual and a relation to others. It is the speaking rather than what is said that is the important thing.

The Second God

God is not a being. This is your beginning point. If this is so, then atheism rather than the opposite of theism, would be its highest expression. Or perhaps we need to speak of two kinds of atheism. One is an ontological atheism that is repeated in an age when God is dead. But the God that dies here is the God of being, a God that is no longer required by science and philosophy, and whose death, therefore, is only the end of a certain way of doing science and philosophy that famously no longer requires this hypothesis (a God that died in the pages of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and certainly did not need Dawkins et al. to kill it off). What would the other atheism be? It would be a moral atheism, atheism redoubled and intensified. It would be more than the assertion that we do not need God for science and philosophy, but that we do not need God for our values either. It is this God that is murdered for the second time by Nietzsche, and this murder is far more frightening and unsettling than the rather tame euthanasia of the God of science and philosophy. What happens when the second God dies? Do we know what this means?

Atheism of the Word

There are three ways I can see of speaking about God: as a being, an idea or a word. That there are very important distinctions and differences within and not just between these ways of speaking goes without saying. Think of what Aquinas does with Aristotle's proofs of the existence of God, for example, where he speaks of God in terms of existence rather than essence, even though He is still a being.  Moreover, there are always minor writers within them  (all the mystical traditions within the religions, to name but one type of minor writing)  that cut across these traditions both conceptually and historically. What I am particularly interested in is the third way of speaking about God, because it is closest to my problem. What if God were only a word and neither a being nor an idea? In one sense one would say that this is the sign of the disappearance of God, but in an other,  perhaps not. Hasn't religious belief, or a least a certain kind, only every related to God as a word (a mysterious magical one), and not as a being or an idea? It is only philosophy that has entertained the latter definitions and its atheism has been maintained by their destruction. Is there an atheism of the word? My supposition is maybe not.

My Own Stupidity

It is about my mistake that I want to write to you about today, but don't let that fool you. Don't think that I now have the answer I lacked previously. When it comes to God, I keep feeling that I come to a point and I can't go any further. It just drops away from me. Not because I think there is some mysterious mystical meaning I can't fathom or am unwilling to make the leap for, but quite the contrary. There is something I cannot think here, something I cannot see, and this is all because of my own personal stupidity.

Stupidity

Perhaps you should only think where you are the most stupid, for only there are the most interesting problems going to lie for you. 'Interesting', because you don't know the answer to them. Of course your stupidity is a very personal matter. One person's stupidity can be an embarrassment for another, but for them it might be their hidden strength. 'Why are you being so stupid,' they might irritatingly remark, 'can you not see the answer to the question?' But your relation to your own stupidity is a far different affair. It is not enough that you are stupid, as seen from the position of the other, you have to feel your own stupidity. This means that you know there is something missing in your response. My stupidity lies with entirely within the word 'God'. I do not understand why people believe in God, but at the same time, my absence of belief seems entirely stupid to me. I don't have the insouciance of those who quite happily call themselves atheists. I don't know what it means. I have more time for those who think the entire discussion is useless, that you shouldn't talk about God at all, whether you believe in Him or not, than those who either assert his existence or don't. For example, when Jean Luc Marion defends himself in his preface to the English translation of God without Being against the theologians that he didn't mean that God did not exist and that He certainly does, I find his ability to simply pronounce that God exists entirely baffling (I know his book explains why he can say that, but it doesn't help me). At the same time, militant atheists like Dawkins and his ilk, are entirely laughable. They haven't even read Kant or Nietzsche. It's as though we have been transported in a time machine to the 17th C, and yet the proclaim themselves to the most up to date, the most modern, knights of reason against the oncoming hoards of irrational believers, be they Christian, Muslim or whatever.

The History of God

You imagine writing a history of God. Not a history of religion, nor even a mythical person (if you can speak like that), but of a philosophical concept. You see this history as the story of a disappearance. The more philosophical, the more rational, the concept of God becomes, the more God actually vanishes to become finally nothing more than a thin vapour and then nothing. The truth of the philosophical concept of God is atheism. You think then that Nietzsche's famous 'Death of God' is not outside this history but its proper culmination. And yet, after all this, when this history comes to an end, something remains. It is this remainder that interests you. Nonetheless, it still seems absurd that anyone would write about this now. What possible reason would there be to write a philosophy of religion today? Your only reply is that it is in the face of the question of God that you feel the most stupid and inadequate. Your own atheism is a paltry thing in comparison.

God

God is not a thing, being or substance. But nor is God an idea, thought, or consciousness. God is first of all a relation. From this relation, we might then think of things and ideas, but first of all we have to think of the relation on its own terms. But what does it mean to think of the relation first of all? It means that we have to start with the relation and not the terms of the relation. Or, the terms are an effect and not the cause of the relation. The relation is a condition of the terms of the relation and not the other way around.

God is not a thing. This is what Kant teaches us. But what does it mean to say beyond Kant that God is not an idea? This is what I am trying to answer when I say that God is a relation. Neither dogmatic nor transcendental metaphysics; you have to pick your way between these two.