Religion Without God

Just from the title this sounds like a very tired idea: most religious questions have been debated hundreds of times already. In fact it probably is a very tired idea, but I would like to present it in I think a meaningful way.

I am reading Faith and Practice, and am noticing how superfluous most references to God are. Here is an example:

"The impetus for service is often a concern, which, as Friends use the word, is a quickening sense of the need to do something or to demonstrate sympathetic interest in an individual or group, as a result of what is felt to be a direct intimation of God's will. A concern as an impetus to action arises out of Friends' belief that the realm of God can be realized here and now, not just in another place or time"
-- Faith and Practice, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, revised 1997

I very much like the spirit of this passage. It claims that good things can happen, good changes can happen, humans are not powerless to improve their own condition. However the introduction of God to this idea is puzzling. The 'realm of God' is being used to stand for something good. This is a very reasonable thing for the realm of god to stand for, but isn't 'good' a broader sense? Atheists have a sense of good. You could say the good in an atheist still comes from a God in which they do not believe, but aren't we overcomplicating things?

Essentially, I think the overall intent of the passage is hardly enhanced by the reference to God, and the cost is taking a very universal idea - that the human condition can be improved - and restricting it to a religious one. The cost is losing the very real connection that an atheist, or a polytheist, should feel with this passage.

The passage could easily be rewritten:
The impetus for service is often a concern, which, as Friends use the word, is a quickening sense of the need to do something or to demonstrate sympathetic interest in an individual or group. A concern as an impetus to action arises out of Friends' belief that good things can be realized here and now, not just in another place or time.

This problem presented itself to me a few months ago as I was discussing Quakerism with a friend. He was going to attend a meeting for worship with me, and I was explaining how you know whether you should share your thoughts with the meeting during worship. I explained that you speak if you are led by the spirit, light, etc to do so. He naturally asked how he, as an atheist, could apply this. I believe that the thoughts experienced by a Christian and an atheist during silent worship are fundamentally similar - the real impetus to speak is not so narrow as coming from God. By using monotheistic language we cloud a universal understanding. There is much potential for unity and inspiration that is being ignored here.

I think that this is an opportunity for all faiths. The vast majority of religious understanding has a strong universal element. It is the universal element that makes religion appealing. Religious language no doubt has added an aesthetic quality to these ideas. However, if we are willing to give a little on aesthetics, there is great benefit to be gained in restating, reinterpreting, perhaps even rethinking religious ideas through secular language.

I have heard it argued that the beauty of religion is just what I have criticized; it is a powerful language for expressing a broad range of ideas. Indeed there is something inspiring about tying our mortal feelings to a timeless, universal entity such as God. I am not asking for God to be dissected and extracted from religion. Rather I am asking people to consider and be cautious of the extent to which God is not universal. God is not universally loved or respected by the world's population.

Every Thought begins as intimately personal, and then must be carefully collected, shaped, and made less personal as it is communicated. So must be done with God. For the most part, God stands for something personal and internal.

This is not the case with all references to God. In the following from Katrina Clap by Mos Def, I believe the use of the word God serves a fairly universal purpose:

Lord have mercy,
Lord God God save our souls,
A-God save our souls, A-God,
A-God save our souls,
Lord God God save our souls,
A-God save our soul soul soul,
Soul Survivor,

The appeal to a divine being represents desperation, lack of faith in existing leaders, and the sense that the injustice played out in New Orleans runs far deeper than appears on the surface. This passage is not really about God; the appeal to God is a way of saying that there is nothing else to appeal to.