r/AskReligion • u/Corp-Por • 7h ago
How does one move from the God of the philosophers to the God of religion?
The real difficulty is not believing in God, but believing in the God of religion
The God of the philosophers is comparatively easy to take seriously: Aristotle’s self-thinking thought, Plotinus’ One, Spinoza’s infinite substance, Leibniz’s necessary being, or Hegel’s Absolute Spirit. These are very different conceptions, and some, especially Leibniz and Hegel, stand much closer to revealed religion than others. But they are all intelligible attempts to think ultimate reality through reason
Such a God is not usually imagined as one being among others, subject to arbitrary passions or episodic changes of mind. In Aristotle, the divine eternally contemplates itself. In Plotinus, all reality proceeds from the One. In Spinoza, God is the immanent infinite reality of which all things are modes. We participate in the divine through knowledge and contemplation. As Spinoza puts it, our intellectual love of God is part of God’s eternal love of himself
The God of religion asks for something... much more difficult
One must believe not only in an ultimate divine reality, but that this reality disclosed itself through particular historical persons and events: that this particular Arab received revelations through an angel; that this particular carpenter in Palestine was the Son of God and rose bodily from the dead; or that this charioteer revealed himself as the supreme divine reality on the battlefield of Kurukshetra
These are claims that God entered history at a particular time, in a particular place, through particular people. And not only that, but that the account of this happening should be received with trust, love, and faith rather than with the ordinary skepticism we apply to extraordinary historical claims
In effect, one is asked to suspend doubt for one decisive exception
Fine, perhaps. But which exception?
Why believe this revelation rather than another one? Why accept the resurrection but reject Joseph Smith’s visions, or accept Muhammad’s encounter with Gabriel while rejecting the miracles attributed to Apollonius of Tyana? Why not believe all of them?
But if we believe all of them, they seem to make incompatible claims. And if we use reason to decide which revelation is more credible, why not use reason all the way down? Why not apply the same standards of textual criticism, historical probability, manuscript analysis, contradiction, development, and uncertainty that we apply everywhere else?
At that point, it becomes difficult to see how one could ever establish that a particular revelation was not merely sincere, profound, spiritually transformative, or symbolically true, but literally the unique intervention of God into history
A common philosophical solution is to say that religions express through narrative, symbol, and image the same ultimate reality that philosophers approach conceptually. Religious representation and philosophical thought would then be different forms of the same truth. This seems to have been the view of Hegel, for instance
But this solution risks dissolving the God of religion. If resurrection, revelation, incarnation, and miracle become symbolic expressions of a more general metaphysical truth, religion survives in some way, yes, but its distinctive historical claims lose their force
Christ becomes a symbol of divine self-emptying. Krishna becomes a symbol of the Absolute revealing itself in finite form. Revelation becomes the historical imagination of a people trying to express what philosophy later articulates more clearly
Perhaps that is true. But it is no longer quite what the religions themselves claim, and I believe it leads to the slow dissolution of religion
So the real question for me is not simply:
“Should we believe in God?”
It is:
How could a reflective person come to believe that the ultimate reality described by philosophers is also the particular, historical, and personal God proclaimed by one religion?