What is God?
I distrust the question “Do you believe in God?” because I believe that God is such a nebulous concept that no firm definition has yet been attained. I think the two most prevalent definitions for God I have encountered in discussions with others are the following.
-
A (or The) Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent Creator
-
Some unseen force that one “knows” or “feels” is out there, whether it created the universe or not
One claims to know the nature of God, and the other claims to know only of God’s existence. However, I would like to propose a more cultural definition of God, and look at the development of the concept of God over time.
A modern theory of the emergence of monotheism in small tribes is that good qualities of good individuals are recognized and assimilated into one ideal being (King, Lord, God, etc.), which serves as a marker for other individuals to strive towards. Then, as tribes interacted the different deities were mingled, with more positive qualities added. In this way, a form of meta-deity was formed, a deity that even among deities could be considered more exemplary and outstanding (King of Kings, Lord of Lords, God of Gods, etc.). In this way, a cultural phenomenon was created that gave individuals a marker to strive for, and later this being could be given fantastical powers of creation or destruction that would suit such an immaculate deity.
With this idea of God as a cultural ideal in mind, I would like to move to a set of definitions for God put forward by Jungian psychologist, author, and professor Jordan B. Peterson. In a set of debates with famed Four Horsemen atheist Sam Harris, put on by Pangburn Philosophy and held in Vancouver, Dublin, and London, Peterson poses these tenets as a possible definition for God:
-
God is how we imaginatively and collectively represent the existence and action of consciousness across time, as the most real aspects of existence manifest themselves across the longest of timeframes, but are not necessarily apprehendable as objects in the here and now.
-
God is that which eternally dies and is reborn in the pursuit of higher being and truth.
-
God is the highest value in the hierarchy of values.
-
God is what calls and responds in the eternal call to adventure.
-
God is the voice of conscience.
-
God is the source of judgement and mercy and guilt.
-
God is the future to which we make sacrifices, and something akin to the transcendental repository of reputation.
I’ve been writing a paper on this topic for about 6 months now, and this blog post only serves as a small summary of my extensive work, but I worked to redefine each of those tenets in as simple a concept as possible. Here are my translated definitions for each tenet.
-
God as Consciousness
-
God as Truth
-
God as Value
-
God as Motivation
-
God as Humanity
-
God as Ideal
-
God as Possibility
When understood in these terms, it’s a little easier to see how God could be a cultural collection of positive traits that serve as an ideal for individuals to strive towards. But I wanna go one step further. My attempt was to try and reduce this list to as few tenets as possible without losing any of the valuable ideals that Peterson set forth in his definition.
The first step was to condense Tenet 3 and Tenet 6. The Ideal, which serves as a judge both for yourself and others, and allows you to accept your imperfections as human, is the same concept of the pinnacle of Value in the hierarchy of values. The most valuable thing in life is to reach your best Self, which is a Jungian concept called circumambulation (I’ll spare you the psychology of it all). If you are reaching that pinnacle Value, becoming your Ideal Self, then you have already seen the Ideal and realized your shortcomings.
However, the synthesis of these two Tenets can also be combined with Tenet 4. God serves not only as the Value to strive for and the Ideal to judge your progress by, but also the Motivation to start you on your journey. The very existence of a better you, an Ideal you, should make you want to move towards it, by any understandable thinking. Why wouldn’t you attempt to be better than you are?
Everyone knows that there is a way they could be better, or a way they could make the world better. We know that there are human truths buried deep within us, older than any one of us, that tie us all together. We call that concept Consciousness (or as Carl Jung put it, the Collective Consciousness), and that’s Tenet 1. Consciousness is what gives you the power to move towards your Ideal, and allows you to make the world a better place. This is the idea posed by minds like Carl Jung, Viktor Frankl, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Jordan Peterson.
Tenet 5 was probably the hardest for me to unpack because Peterson didn’t exactly give me a lot to work with. However, from understanding Carl Jung’s concepts of Self and Shadow, and hearing Peterson explain the story of Socrates’ daemon during his trial, I believe the idea of the Conscience here is to serve as the guiding force on the journey to Self-actualization. Jung believed that integrating all the parts of the Psyche, the good and the bad, would provide you with a mind that you could trust. In Man and His Symbols, Jung talks about how an integrated Psyche will provide dreams, symbols, thoughts, even visions that lead an individual in the proper direction. Peterson related this idea to the Jiminy Cricket from Pinocchio, the voice of Conscience and the source of all direction. By Peterson’s definition, God is not only the Motivation that starts your journey or the Ideal at the end, but also the guiding force which leads you on a path to your best Self.
So, 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are down. Two more to go.
Now, Peterson often talks about how growth is a phoenix transformation, in which a little part of you must burn off or “die” in order for a new and better part of you to grow in its stead. If we view the struggle to realize the optimal Self as a search for Truth, as Carl Jung did, we see that this process of death and rebirth is continuous as we seek out Truth, or the Ideal Self. Tenet 2 establishes that God is also a dying and rebirthing phenomenon, just like we are, and means that the definitions for a complex cultural phenomenon like God can’t be rigid because humanity isn’t rigid.
The final point, Tenet 7, looks a lot like Karma on the face of it, but I think a “transcendental repository of reputation” is a bit more complex than a simple Golden Rule explanation. I believe Peterson is attempting to define the more metaphysical nature of sacrifice. Most people think of sacrifice in a physical way, but often physical sacrifices have a metaphysical reward. I believe Peterson is saying that the concept of God as we have defined it (a journey towards Self development) requires sacrifice, as all great journeys do, but perhaps the rewards can’t be understood by any one of us, or even all of us. What if the ripples of our decisions as we strive to be the best we could be benefit the world in ways that none of us could ever comprehend or measure? I think Peterson has described the indescribable impact that a meaningful life, lived in a way that best served you, your community, your state, and the world, can have.
With all that said, I came to the conclusion that the only definition of God that satisfied me was this:
God is the phenomenon which pushes all people to become their best Self in an effort to transform each human life, as well as human existence, into something approximating the Ideal.
I don’t have any quiz questions for you, but I do want to hear your thoughts.
-
What is/are your definition(s) of God?
-
What definition do you find most realistic (Theological, Cultural, Philosophical, etc)?
-
Based on my definition, do you think it matters whether the “person” of God truly exists, or is the cultural/philosophical phenomenon of God enough?
-
Anything you’d like to add?
For more information or opinions on my topic:
Pangburn Philosophy Debates
-
-
-
-
Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life,
Car Jung’s Man and His Symbols,
Blog Posts I Commented On:
Steven, A Reason to Live,
Malone, Jackie Robinson,
What is God?
I distrust the question “Do you believe in God?” because I believe that God is such a nebulous concept that no firm definition has yet been attained. I think the two most prevalent definitions for God I have encountered in discussions with others are the following.
- A (or The) Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent Creator
- Some unseen force that one “knows” or “feels” is out there, whether it created the universe or not
One claims to know the nature of God, and the other claims to know only of God’s existence. However, I would like to propose a more cultural definition of God, and look at the development of the concept of God over time.
A modern theory of the emergence of monotheism in small tribes is that good qualities of good individuals are recognized and assimilated into one ideal being (King, Lord, God, etc.), which serves as a marker for other individuals to strive towards. Then, as tribes interacted the different deities were mingled, with more positive qualities added. In this way, a form of meta-deity was formed, a deity that even among deities could be considered more exemplary and outstanding (King of Kings, Lord of Lords, God of Gods, etc.). In this way, a cultural phenomenon was created that gave individuals a marker to strive for, and later this being could be given fantastical powers of creation or destruction that would suit such an immaculate deity.
With this idea of God as a cultural ideal in mind, I would like to move to a set of definitions for God put forward by Jungian psychologist, author, and professor Jordan B. Peterson. In a set of debates with famed Four Horsemen atheist Sam Harris, put on by Pangburn Philosophy and held in Vancouver, Dublin, and London, Peterson poses these tenets as a possible definition for God:
- God is how we imaginatively and collectively represent the existence and action of consciousness across time, as the most real aspects of existence manifest themselves across the longest of timeframes, but are not necessarily apprehendable as objects in the here and now.
- God is that which eternally dies and is reborn in the pursuit of higher being and truth.
- God is the highest value in the hierarchy of values.
- God is what calls and responds in the eternal call to adventure.
- God is the voice of conscience.
- God is the source of judgement and mercy and guilt.
- God is the future to which we make sacrifices, and something akin to the transcendental repository of reputation.
I’ve been writing a paper on this topic for about 6 months now, and this blog post only serves as a small summary of my extensive work, but I worked to redefine each of those tenets in as simple a concept as possible. Here are my translated definitions for each tenet.
- God as Consciousness
- God as Truth
- God as Value
- God as Motivation
- God as Humanity
- God as Ideal
- God as Possibility
When understood in these terms, it’s a little easier to see how God could be a cultural collection of positive traits that serve as an ideal for individuals to strive towards. But I wanna go one step further. My attempt was to try and reduce this list to as few tenets as possible without losing any of the valuable ideals that Peterson set forth in his definition.
The first step was to condense Tenet 3 and Tenet 6. The Ideal, which serves as a judge both for yourself and others, and allows you to accept your imperfections as human, is the same concept of the pinnacle of Value in the hierarchy of values. The most valuable thing in life is to reach your best Self, which is a Jungian concept called circumambulation (I’ll spare you the psychology of it all). If you are reaching that pinnacle Value, becoming your Ideal Self, then you have already seen the Ideal and realized your shortcomings.
However, the synthesis of these two Tenets can also be combined with Tenet 4. God serves not only as the Value to strive for and the Ideal to judge your progress by, but also the Motivation to start you on your journey. The very existence of a better you, an Ideal you, should make you want to move towards it, by any understandable thinking. Why wouldn’t you attempt to be better than you are?
Everyone knows that there is a way they could be better, or a way they could make the world better. We know that there are human truths buried deep within us, older than any one of us, that tie us all together. We call that concept Consciousness (or as Carl Jung put it, the Collective Consciousness), and that’s Tenet 1. Consciousness is what gives you the power to move towards your Ideal, and allows you to make the world a better place. This is the idea posed by minds like Carl Jung, Viktor Frankl, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Jordan Peterson.
Tenet 5 was probably the hardest for me to unpack because Peterson didn’t exactly give me a lot to work with. However, from understanding Carl Jung’s concepts of Self and Shadow, and hearing Peterson explain the story of Socrates’ daemon during his trial, I believe the idea of the Conscience here is to serve as the guiding force on the journey to Self-actualization. Jung believed that integrating all the parts of the Psyche, the good and the bad, would provide you with a mind that you could trust. In Man and His Symbols, Jung talks about how an integrated Psyche will provide dreams, symbols, thoughts, even visions that lead an individual in the proper direction. Peterson related this idea to the Jiminy Cricket from Pinocchio, the voice of Conscience and the source of all direction. By Peterson’s definition, God is not only the Motivation that starts your journey or the Ideal at the end, but also the guiding force which leads you on a path to your best Self.
So, 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are down. Two more to go.
Now, Peterson often talks about how growth is a phoenix transformation, in which a little part of you must burn off or “die” in order for a new and better part of you to grow in its stead. If we view the struggle to realize the optimal Self as a search for Truth, as Carl Jung did, we see that this process of death and rebirth is continuous as we seek out Truth, or the Ideal Self. Tenet 2 establishes that God is also a dying and rebirthing phenomenon, just like we are, and means that the definitions for a complex cultural phenomenon like God can’t be rigid because humanity isn’t rigid.
The final point, Tenet 7, looks a lot like Karma on the face of it, but I think a “transcendental repository of reputation” is a bit more complex than a simple Golden Rule explanation. I believe Peterson is attempting to define the more metaphysical nature of sacrifice. Most people think of sacrifice in a physical way, but often physical sacrifices have a metaphysical reward. I believe Peterson is saying that the concept of God as we have defined it (a journey towards Self development) requires sacrifice, as all great journeys do, but perhaps the rewards can’t be understood by any one of us, or even all of us. What if the ripples of our decisions as we strive to be the best we could be benefit the world in ways that none of us could ever comprehend or measure? I think Peterson has described the indescribable impact that a meaningful life, lived in a way that best served you, your community, your state, and the world, can have.
With all that said, I came to the conclusion that the only definition of God that satisfied me was this:
God is the phenomenon which pushes all people to become their best Self in an effort to transform each human life, as well as human existence, into something approximating the Ideal.
I don’t have any quiz questions for you, but I do want to hear your thoughts.
- What is/are your definition(s) of God?
- What definition do you find most realistic (Theological, Cultural, Philosophical, etc)?
- Based on my definition, do you think it matters whether the “person” of God truly exists, or is the cultural/philosophical phenomenon of God enough?
- Anything you’d like to add?
For more information or opinions on my topic:
Pangburn Philosophy Debates
Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life,
Car Jung’s Man and His Symbols,
Blog Posts I Commented On:
Steven, A Reason to Live,
Malone, Jackie Robinson,
"God is the phenomenon which pushes all people to become their best Self in an effort to transform each human life, as well as human existence, into something approximating the Ideal."
ReplyDeleteMany people manage to "become their best Self" while renouncing belief in a god of ANY definition, while many others strive to do so. Many aspire to become better persons without any notion of a fixed Ideal to strive towards. "God" does NOT "push all people..." So... why insist on defining god, or otherwise affirming the centrality of such a concept for the pursuit of a good life?
And: for those who define god as consciousness, truth, value, motivation etc. etc., what does calling those things "god" add to their meaning, substance, utility, or whatever?
Also: can you explain the cultish devotion of so many to Jordan Peterson? Why is he so hostile to Kate Manne and feminism?
I think whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant. I think a belief in ideas like human capacity, honest speech, and the pursuit of meaning are more important. However, a large number of people seem to need a "God" to build their life upon as a protection against the suffering of life. So, if we want to criticize religion (as we should be able to in a secular society) without knocking the slats out from under the feet of those individuals, its imperative to redefine God - leaving the moralistic structure of religion while distancing it from the dogmatism. That's what I'm trying to accomplish. Like I said, not everyone needs a God, but those who do need to look past the rules and traditions.
DeleteAlso, I don't know if the following of Dr. Peterson is any different than the followings of other prominent intellectuals like Slavoj Zizek. I think people with a message that resonates with people will always draw a crowd, regardless of what they have to say. Joe Rogan gets more views in a month than almost any cable TV station, so I suppose Dr. Peterson is no different than anyone else with a message to sell.
I don't know the details of the Dr. Manne situation, but if my research is correct, Dr. Manne wrote a piece for VOX which Dr. Peterson considered rather poorly-written, and in some passages possibly libelous. He says on his website that he holds professors to a higher standard than journalists when it comes to criticism, and he responded with disdain due to the quality and content of her article. That's what his written response to Dr. Manne's article says, at least, I don't know for sure.
Here is what he wrote about the situation.
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/media/response-to-vox-feminist-philosopher-dr-kate-manne-of-cornell/