Karen Armstrong, And Paul Tillich's Analysis

In the discussion concerning the nature of religion in philosophy, the most prominent names include John Hick, Michael Goulder, John Herman Randall, Karen Armstrong, and Paul Tillich. Two primary vantage points exist in this discussion: the theistic view, in which the individual believes in an ultimate, transcendent being called “God,” and the non-theistic view, in which the individual sees “God” as a hypothesis rather than another Holy Being. To draw focus toward three particular names-- John Herman Randall, Karen Armstrong, and Paul Tillich-- is to draw specific attention to a compelling perspective regarding religion.
To begin, John Herman Randall champions a point about religious symbols: “All ideas of God… are religious symbols… Such
symbols do not ‘tell’ us anything that is verifiably so; they rather make us ‘see’ something about our experience and our experienced world.” Karen Armstrong, another proponent of a non-theistic view of God, says, “The reality that we call God is transcendent-- that is, it goes beyond any human orthodoxy-- and yet God is also the ground of all being and can be experienced almost as a presence in the depths of the psyche.” Furthermore, Paul Tillich succinctly expresses his view with reference to religion: “The name of the infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of all being is God.”
Particular attention comes to Randall’s claim that religious symbols “do not tell us anything that is verifiably so...
“ but rather they urge an individual to see “something about our experience.” Similarly, Armstrong affirms that “God” is “transcendent” and “beyond human orthodoxy;” Tillich asserts that he sees “God” as an “infinite and inexhaustible depth.” Evidently, all three quotes, which ultimately summarize the views of the speakers, suggest and even encourage a non-theistic view concerning “God.” Randall, Armstrong, and Tillich propose that something more exists beyond the surface level idea of “God” for humanity. Theistic religions such as Christianity should not be scrutinized in a fundamentalist or literal sense, lest the individual loses the spirituality that ought to come with living a life filled with
“God.”
Regarding the first quote by John Herman Randall, that is, “All ideas of God… are religious symbols,” I agree completely with his notion-- that the ideas of God, at least through the Bible, are not meant to be taken in an objective and literal sense.
Symbols, by nature, represent something more, something else, something other than itself. Randall believes that symbols are “instruments of insight and revelation” and therefore, religious symbols reveal important ideas of God when seen in an abstract light. Typically, the religious symbols are narratives and myths, and myths often divulge imperative truths that help an individual become more ware and attentive to abstract ideas, as in the case of symbolism in poetry. Additionally, religious symbols, according to Randall, possess several functions-- not only do they represent the literal functions of objects themselves, but they also encourage individuals to act with the “holy” values such as compassion, urge others to communicate “shared” experiences, and disclose something about the world. For example, take the analogy of the Wheel of Dharma in Buddhism. Literally, it is an image of a wheel with eight spokes; while there is not much to do with this information in an objective sense, by analyzing the wheel abstractly, a lesson lies in its midst. The eight spokes on the Wheel of Dharma represents the Noble Eightfold Path outlined in the teachings of Buddha and additionally refers to the endless cycle of rebirth which can only
be broken through the aforementioned teachings. By analyzing the religious symbol, this wheel, one finds an abstract, non-theistic idea which “makes us ‘see’ something about our experience and our experienced world.” In the example of the wheel, an individual sees a lifestyle that includes livelihood, mindfulness, concentration, and intention.
Furthermore, to discuss the significance of Paul Tillich’s quote with respect to “the infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of all being,” God, I mostly agree with his statement; however, one may misunderstand it. The idea of the “infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground” cannot necessarily be applied to the term “God” itself. By ascribing the name “God” to the idea is to personify the “depth and ground.” Yet, as Tillich claims, to believe in a personified God is to deny his existence altogether. Consequently, several contradictions exist that oppose the notion of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God as an individual, including the “problem of evil--” if God were truly all of the above, it is illogical that evil and suffering exist in the world. Thus, He cannot be an individual, but rather a symbol which represents a life lived with compassion and depth. Furthermore, Tillich advocates the idea that if God is love, then love-- a life filled with love-- is God. Thus, to achieve such compassion, one must look to the “Lost Dimension” and find the meaning of life. In reflection and meditation, one goes beyond the monotony of the everyday horizontal dimension to find and incorporate a sense of fulfillment typical of the “dimension of depth.” As a result, one experiences “God” as the “infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of all being,” but solely as a persuasive notion rather than a holy individual. With this mindset, Paul Tillich’s quote is quite agreeable. Finally, with regard to Karen Armstrong’s quote, the idea that “God is transcendent” and goes “beyond any human orthodoxy” while also being “the ground of all being,” I agree completely with her musings. The foundation of all religion advocates living a compassionate life and doing good unto others and unto oneself-- this is experienced “in the depths of the psyche” if one takes the time to find depth and meaning in life. Thus, the same logic behind Paul Tillich’s idea additionally applies with Karen Armstrong. Her idea of “ekstasis,” standing outside of oneself, allows an individual to put his or her ego aside and observe the world in a completely selfless lens. Only then may he or she experience a “self-less” love-- the same love Jesus exemplifies for his followers. Needless to say, Jesus Christ is the symbol for compassion and holiness themselves. To follow the idea of “God” is to transcend beyond human understanding in the psyche. Armstrong refers to this particular notion as “pistis:” loyalty to compassion and selflessness versus the propositional belief that God exists theistically. To transcend the horizontal dimension and reach the lost dimension of depth, one must believe in the notion of God, not believe that God exists in a literal sense. Therefore, I agree that God is beyond human orthodoxy; if God is love and love is God, one can reach the simultaneously transcendent and grounded experience, “God,” by transcending one’s ego to find compassion.
In conclusion, John Herman Randall, Paul Tillich, and Karen Armstrong all raise a compelling argument for seeing religion in a non-theistic light-- while there is not an orthodox God to believe in as an almighty individual, He exists symbolically in a dimension of depth as a theory of compassion, reflection, and selflessness. God, along with the myths and religious symbols, urges followers to transcend the simplicity of the horizontal plane in order to reach a type of enlightenment where one feels fulfilled and wholesome. As a whole, all three suggest that the term “God” is a religious symbol which represents the infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of all being only experienced when one transcends human orthodoxy by putting his or her ego aside.