While
reading Paul Tillich’s “The Courage to Be,” and doing some follow-up reading on the internet, I learned a new word: Transtheism. I don’t think I
will adopt it for myself just yet (“atheist” is more generally understood, and
more accurate at the moment), but I want to share what it means to me.
Transtheism refers to a state which is neither
theistic nor atheistic. This appeals to me because it attempts to avoid some of
the limitations of either position. In Tillich’s philosophy, transtheism is
described in various terms, like “the God beyond the God of theism” and “Being-Itself.”
For my own purposes, I interpret Tillich as wanting to establish a relationship
with something transcendent, something infinite, something that surrounds and
includes him, without reducing it to the supernatural/ mythological/ all-too-human
character “God.” So, it’s not theistic (since he’s going beyond God) and not
exactly atheistic (too worshipful for that, I think). “Being-Itself” is no God,
but it’s more than no-God.
Of
course, Tillich’s transtheism has its limitations. I think he wants “Being-Itself”
to serve some godly functions, but it can’t, given its lack of agency and
personality. And despite his book, I have trouble understanding how “Being-Itself”
can provide an individual with courage (or morality, for that matter).
But
I share Tillich’s inclination towards the infinite, and his sensitivity towards
Being-as-a-whole. While I am a non-believer, I want to continue to have a
relationship (of some sort) with the Whole and the Transcendent, even if none
of those will be god. I also recently finished reading Mitchell Silver’s
very excellent book A
Plausible God: Secular Reflections on Liberal Jewish Theology*, in which
Silver considers the relative strengths and weaknesses of the naturalistic
God-concepts of Mordecai Kaplan, Michael Lerner, and Art Green. Overall, Silver
expresses skepticism at the usefulness of such a God-concept, until he
discusses it alongside the limits of (certain conceptions of) humanism:
The theism is
justified not by its humanism, but rather by its suggestion that humanism may
not be all there is to value and meaning. Although God is immanent and most
found in humans, God's separate name allows us to avoid a too quick
identification between the divine and the human. We need God to avoid humanism.
(94)
This is what I’ve meant by the empty
throne. Humanistic values are utterly important, but humanism itself can
run the risk of forgetting the relative smallness of humanity and its
abilities. Perhaps something like a transtheism is necessary, just to remind us
of our relativity.
Of
course, transtheism does just feel like a variation on atheism. I doubt a
transtheist would pray, or religious texts (beyond negative theology) that
speak to their faith. But it retains a love of the Whole and the Transcendent,
which are not necessarily retained by either atheism or humanism.
