Enlightenment, the idea that God’s oneness is the source of our being and that God is unchanging actually, and not subject to our limited ideas of time, space, culture and categories, is actually a God concept enlightenment. And we have many such enlightening concepts. Some are more intellectual than others. But all of these ideas are important if we are to survive and thrive as a species. In light of God concept enlightenment, can theologies of the west survive and thrive without the institutional church as their modern equivalent?
It seems that the institutional church will never, cannot, not be replaced by any intellectually viable idea. And yet the reason is this; the institutional church was based on the ideas of a very limited category of people, the intellectual elite class of Europe and the enlightenment and rationalistic enlightenment of the period. God concept enlightenment is therefore limited and needs to appeal to a very small percentage of people to sustain itself. God concept enlightenment needs to remain a concept, not an object of faith or worship.
This is the reason religion remains what it is today. Religion has become a micro-culture, a cultural minority concept that appeals to a selected few intellectual elite to prop it up. God concept enlightenment must appeal to everyone if it is to have any chance of survival. The intellectual elite of every society needs to be educated and made smarter. In order for that to happen, the enlightenment must be accessible to them.
Now then, let’s examine two different types of religious enlightenment. There is the rationalistic type of enlightenment, which claims that God is rational and everything is thus logic and meaning. That means there is no need for God concept, which is contrary to reason religion. And in the other type of religious enlightenment, that is religion based on emotion and spirituality, that God is connected with feelings and emotions. That contradicts reason religion too.
You see, both of these theories are self-defeating. Either one reduces God to nothing more than a magician who pulls the wool over our eyes so that we can look around and see the truth. Or, both reduce God to nothing more than a connection with something that cannot be seen by the unaided human eye. The first reduces God to magic or trickery, while the second reduces God to connection to reality. But, if we use our common sense, we can see through the optical illusions, as they say, and see only what is there.
So, now we have decided that God does not play tricks, or work magic. We also know that God does not exist in a vacuum where there is no evidence of his existence at all. We therefore arrive at the conclusion that God does not exist at all. There is no such entity as God, and no reason that God exists. There is only the fact that God makes life interesting. That is all there is to God concept, at least according to theists.
This is a rather astounding statement, I must say. Theists would be quick to point out that you cannot prove God. That is, you cannot show that God does not exist. If you do prove that God does exist, then your proof is in a way that is circular. It merely shows you that you need God to make your life more interesting, and this is a reason to need God, thus fulfilling your “life’s purpose.”
However, I disagree. Theists are quick to point out that there is need for God, because without him, nothing would be created. In other words, the universe would be nothing more than a blank slate. If God did not exist, everything would be made by chance, and there would be no variety, nor there anything to choose from.