In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins started out by describing what he called Einsteinian religion—the metaphorical use of religious terms to refer to the sum total of the universe or the natural laws that drive it. Einstein, and other scientists, have used the term “God” to mean things quite different from what many fundamentalist Christians mean, and as far as Dawkins is concerned, deliberately confusing the two concepts by using the same words for them is “intellectual high treason”. This gave me something of a jolt because I have committed such high treason myself from time to time, although I can certainly appreciate the point Dawkins is making.
Science writer Dennis Overbye has recently written an essay for the New York Times defending the right of scientists and science writers to use the word “God” metaphorically. (He wasn’t reacting to Dawkins, but to those who give science writers a hard time for using phrases like “the God particle”.) He says that scientists should not so readily cede the use of “God” to fundamentalists and creationists. I applaud his spirit, but I think anyone who uses religious terms metaphorically in science writing is obliged to explain quite clearly what is meant. And I know from years of producing technical documentation that even well-meaning people do not always read all that carefully (“Any text you put on the page is a waste of time”, a co-worker once memorably said) so the most careful explanations are likely to be ignored, carelessly or willfully, and so Dawkins makes a very good point about not using terminology that could be at all confusing.
Couldn’t resist. 🙂
The reason I consider my direct experience of the universe to be religious in nature is not that my faith is a metaphor for religion, but that my faith is religion. The Overbye article seemed to exert an awful lot of words without actually touching on what defines god and his role in religion.
Christians attach a lot of auxiliary crap to god, but there are a few core attributes I believe you will find in most religions. God created everything. God arbitrates all, especially life and death. God is inherently larger than man and cannot be fully known by man.
I can’t think of a better description of nature. I mean, is not evolution the process that creates through the arbitration of life and death? Overbye seems preoccupied with the unknowability and beauty of nature, but surely the acts of creation and destruction are more central to godhood.
I’ll touch on some Christian auxiliary crap. Prayer…we communicate with god differently but that is because my religion is different, not because my god is a metaphor. Miracles…is it not the Christians who are being metaphorical here? Morality…isn’t it natural to derive your morality from what you understand about the rules governing life and death? Worship…you mean the things we do to please that which decides life and death? Church and gospel…are these really necessary?
The only thing “weird” about my usage of the word “god” is that I use it in a pan-religious sense. I’m not one of those guys who is concerned that “we say God and they say Allah, we must make war!” I’m not a moron, does that mean my religion is a metaphor?