Do any modern theologians belief in a realistic god?
Yes, many modern theologians believe in a realistic God—meaning a God who exists independently of human thought, rather than being a mere symbol, metaphor, or projection. These theologians argue for God’s objective reality, though they may differ in how they define and understand that reality.
Here are some examples of modern theologians who affirm a realistic view of God:
- Richard Swinburne – A leading philosopher of religion, Swinburne defends classical theism using analytic philosophy, arguing that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe and moral order.
- William Lane Craig – A contemporary Christian philosopher and theologian, Craig argues for the objective existence of God through philosophical reasoning, particularly the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
- John Polkinghorne – A physicist and theologian, Polkinghorne argues that science and theology can coexist, and he affirms a personal, interactive God who is real and active in the universe.
- Alvin Plantinga – A philosopher of religion, Plantinga has developed arguments for the rationality of belief in God, including his famous “Reformed Epistemology,” which claims belief in God can be properly basic.
- N. T. Wright – A New Testament scholar and theologian, Wright argues for the historical reality of Jesus’ resurrection and the personal, real existence of God who interacts with creation.
- David Bentley Hart – A theologian and philosopher, Hart defends a classical theistic view of God, drawing from Eastern Orthodox traditions and metaphysical realism.
Would you be interested in a particular branch of theology—such as Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or philosophical theology?
Which modern theologians do not believe in a realist god?
Several modern theologians do not hold to a realist view of God, meaning they see God as a concept, symbol, or construct rather than an independent, objectively existing being. These theologians often approach theology through existential, metaphorical, or linguistic frameworks rather than metaphysical realism. Here are a few notable examples:
1. Paul Tillich (1886–1965)
- Argued that God is not a being among beings but rather the “Ground of Being.”
- Rejected the idea of a personal God who exists independently in a realist sense.
- Saw theological language as symbolic, pointing beyond itself to ultimate concern.
2. John Caputo (b. 1940)
- A postmodern theologian who emphasizes weak theology, meaning God is not an all-powerful being but a call or event in human experience.
- Influenced by Jacques Derrida, Caputo sees God as something that “happens” rather than a being that exists.
3. Don Cupitt (b. 1934)
- Developed non-realist theology, arguing that God is a human cultural construct rather than an external reality.
- Views religious language as expressive rather than referential—God is a symbol of spiritual ideals rather than an actual entity.
- Associated with the Sea of Faith movement, which promotes religious faith without supernatural beliefs.
4. Gordon Kaufman (1925–2011)
- Proposed that God is a human imaginative construct, helping us organize moral and existential meaning.
- Criticized traditional theism for anthropomorphizing God and suggested a more abstract, ethical view.
5. Mark C. Taylor (b. 1945)
- Engages in atheological discourse, suggesting that theology should move beyond traditional notions of God.
- Views God as a fluid, dynamic process rather than an independent being.
6. John Hick (1922–2012) (Later in Life)
- Initially defended traditional theism but later moved towards a pluralistic, non-realist interpretation.
- Argued that religious experiences point to a transcendent reality but rejected dogmatic claims about God’s objective nature.
These theologians generally reject classical theism in favor of existentialist, process, postmodern, or symbolic interpretations of God. Are you interested in a particular theological tradition or approach?
Why does the established church hang onto the idea of a realist god?
The established church—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or most Protestant denominations—continues to uphold a realist view of God for several key reasons, both theological and practical:
1. Scriptural Commitment
Most Christian traditions are rooted in the Bible, which presents God as a real, personal being who interacts with creation. A non-realist or purely symbolic God would undermine many core biblical narratives, such as:
- God’s covenant with Israel (Genesis, Exodus)
- The incarnation of Jesus Christ (John 1:14)
- The resurrection (1 Corinthians 15)
A non-realist God would require a radical reinterpretation of these foundational doctrines.
2. Historical and Doctrinal Continuity
Christianity has consistently affirmed a realist God throughout its 2,000-year history.
- Creeds like the Nicene Creed (325 AD) affirm God as the Creator and Jesus as the Son of God who really rose from the dead.
- Church Fathers (Augustine, Aquinas) built on a realist view of God.
- Changing this would mean breaking with centuries of theological tradition.
3. Pastoral and Liturgical Practicality
A realist God provides a solid foundation for worship, prayer, and pastoral care.
- People turn to God in times of suffering and need assurance of a real divine presence.
- Church sacraments (e.g., Eucharist, Baptism) presuppose an actual, not symbolic, divine reality.
A non-realist God could render prayer, miracles, and divine providence meaningless.
4. The Authority of the Church
If God is merely a human construct, the authority of the church weakens.
- The church’s teachings depend on the belief that they are grounded in an actual divine revelation, not just human ideas.
- Moral and ethical teachings lose weight if God is just a metaphor.
5. The Decline of Non-Realist Churches
Denominations that have embraced a more non-realist, liberal theology (e.g., parts of the Anglican Church, liberal Protestantism) often see declining membership.
- People tend to leave churches that present God as an abstract concept rather than a personal being.
Thus, the established church largely maintains a realist view of God because it preserves theological integrity, maintains pastoral relevance, and upholds institutional authority.
Do you think churches should shift towards a different approach, or is this realism still necessary?
Why do adolescents turn away from religion?
Adolescents often turn away from religion for a variety of reasons, which can be grouped into intellectual, social, psychological, and cultural factors. Here are some of the main ones:
1. Intellectual Doubts & Skepticism
- Science vs. Religion – Many teenagers begin to see conflicts between scientific explanations (evolution, the Big Bang) and religious teachings.
- Questioning the Bible – Adolescents often critically examine scripture and struggle with issues like biblical contradictions or moral concerns (e.g., Old Testament violence).
- The Problem of Evil – Many wrestle with why a good and all-powerful God would allow suffering and injustice.
2. Influence of Secular Culture
- Rise of Individualism – Modern culture promotes personal autonomy, making religious authority feel restrictive.
- Social Media & the Internet – Exposure to atheist, agnostic, and skeptical viewpoints through YouTube, TikTok, and Reddit can challenge religious beliefs.
- Consumerism & Distraction – A fast-paced, entertainment-driven world leaves little room for deep religious reflection.
3. Hypocrisy in Religious Institutions
- Scandals & Corruption – Sexual abuse scandals, financial corruption, and power struggles in religious institutions have led many to distrust organized religion.
- Perceived Judgmentalism – Some adolescents feel the church is too rigid or condemning on issues like LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality, or mental health.
- Parents & Leaders Not Practicing What They Preach – Seeing hypocrisy in religious figures can push young people away.
4. Social & Peer Pressures
- Fear of Being Different – In increasingly secular societies, religious belief is often seen as outdated or irrational.
- Friends & Social Circles – If peers are non-religious, adolescents may conform to fit in.
- Changing Family Dynamics – If parents are not deeply religious or give their children full freedom, many drift away naturally.
5. Psychological & Developmental Factors
- Desire for Independence – Adolescence is a time of questioning authority, including religious traditions passed down by family.
- Moral Autonomy – Many prefer to define their own sense of right and wrong rather than accept religious moral codes.
- Existential Exploration – Instead of committing to a religion, many experiment with different spiritualities or philosophical perspectives.
6. Lack of Engaging Religious Experiences
- Boring or Outdated Services – Traditional worship styles may not resonate with younger generations.
- Lack of Personal Connection – If religious experiences feel empty or ritualistic, they lose meaning.
- Failure to Address Real-Life Issues – If religious teachings seem disconnected from modern struggles (mental health, social justice, relationships), young people may feel religion is irrelevant.
Does This Mean Adolescents Abandon Religion Forever?
Not necessarily. Some return later in life, especially during major life transitions like marriage, parenthood, or personal crises. Others shift towards spirituality rather than institutional religion.
Would you say adolescent religious disengagement is mostly intellectual, cultural, or personal?
How do non-realist theologians address these challenges?
Non-realist theologians approach the challenges of adolescent disengagement and broader religious decline by reinterpreting religious belief in ways that align with modern intellectual, cultural, and existential concerns. Instead of defending a literal, metaphysical God, they reshape religious language and experience to be meaningful within a secular or skeptical framework. Here’s how they address key challenges:
1. Addressing Intellectual Doubts & Science vs. Religion
🔹 Reframing God as a Symbol
- Rather than seeing God as a supernatural being, non-realist theologians like Don Cupitt argue that “God” is a cultural and moral construct, a way of expressing deep values.
- John Caputo presents God as an “event” or call rather than an entity—God happens in moments of love, justice, or transformation.
- This allows faith to be compatible with science since it no longer makes supernatural claims.
🔹 Faith as a Poetic or Existential Commitment
- Paul Tillich speaks of God as the “Ground of Being,” not a personal being but the depth of existence itself.
- Instead of debating miracles or biblical historicity, faith becomes about engaging with ultimate concerns—love, justice, meaning.
2. Engaging with Secular Culture & Modern Individualism
🔹 Spirituality Without Supernaturalism
- Religion is presented not as a set of objective truths but as a practice that shapes how we live.
- The focus shifts from belief in God’s existence to the impact of faith on personal transformation.
🔹 Emphasizing Ethics Over Dogma
- Non-realist theologians highlight Christianity’s ethical call rather than its metaphysical claims.
- John Hick (later in life) shifted from belief in a literal, personal God to a pluralistic, ethical view of religion, where different faiths are ways of cultivating compassion.
3. Responding to Hypocrisy & Institutional Corruption
🔹 Decentralizing Religious Authority
- Non-realist theologians argue that religious institutions should not claim divine authority but instead facilitate moral and spiritual growth.
- Cupitt and Kaufman promote a religion that evolves democratically with human experience.
🔹 Religion as a Human Construct (and That’s Okay)
- Acknowledging that religion is a human creation doesn’t mean rejecting it—it can still be a meaningful structure for ethical living and community.
4. Adapting to Social Change & Moral Concerns
🔹 Radical Theological Rethinking
- Non-realist theologians are generally progressive on LGBTQ+ rights, feminism, and social justice.
- They argue that doctrines should evolve based on contemporary human experience rather than remain tied to ancient texts.
🔹 Faith as a Social Practice
- Instead of asking “Do you believe in God?” they ask, “How does faith shape the way you live?”
- Caputo’s idea of weak theology sees God not as a force of power but as a vulnerable presence in acts of justice and love.
5. Making Worship & Religious Practice Relevant
🔹 Redefining Prayer & Worship
- Prayer is understood not as asking a divine being for help but as meditative reflection or communal solidarity.
- Worship is valued for its emotional and aesthetic power rather than its supernatural significance.
🔹 Religion as Art & Poetry
- Tillich and Cupitt suggest that religious rituals, stories, and symbols have meaning like great works of art—they don’t have to be literally true to be powerful.
- A non-realist church experience might focus on storytelling, meditation, and communal values rather than traditional doctrines.
Final Thought: Can Non-Realism Keep People in Religion?
- It appeals to intellectuals and progressive thinkers, but may feel too abstract for those seeking a personal connection with God.
- It can provide ethical and cultural grounding but lacks the sense of divine authority or cosmic purpose that many seek in faith.
- While non-realist theology may not stop all religious decline, it offers a way for skeptics and doubters to remain engaged with religious traditions in a meaningful way.
Would you say this approach makes religion more attractive or just waters it down?
Skepticism seems to be the enemy of religion
That’s a fair observation—skepticism often challenges traditional religious beliefs, especially those that depend on faith in unseen realities. But the relationship between skepticism and religion is more complicated than pure opposition. In some ways, skepticism has actually helped refine and strengthen religious thought.
How Skepticism Challenges Religion
- Questioning Supernatural Claims – Many religious beliefs (miracles, divine intervention, the afterlife) lack empirical evidence, making them vulnerable to skeptical inquiry.
- Biblical Criticism – Modern historical and literary analysis has challenged the idea that scripture is divinely inspired or historically accurate.
- Scientific Explanations – Evolution, cosmology, and neuroscience provide natural explanations for things once attributed to God (creation, morality, consciousness).
- The Problem of Evil – Skepticism raises deep moral questions about a good and powerful God allowing suffering.
- Religious Pluralism – With so many conflicting religions, skeptics ask: Why should one be true and not the others?
How Skepticism Has Strengthened Religion
- Refining Theological Arguments – Many theologians (e.g., Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Plantinga) have responded to skepticism by developing more sophisticated arguments for God.
- Encouraging Deeper Faith – Some believers see doubt as part of faith, leading to a more mature and personal spirituality.
- Promoting Ethical Reflection – Skepticism forces religions to rethink outdated or harmful doctrines, leading to reforms on issues like human rights and scientific ethics.
- Inspiring Alternative Theologies – Non-realist and existentialist theologians (Tillich, Caputo) have reimagined religion in ways that engage skepticism rather than fight it.
Can Religion Survive Skepticism?
- Fundamentalist and dogmatic forms of religion struggle against skepticism.
- More flexible, metaphorical, or existential approaches tend to adapt better.
- Some argue that skepticism and faith aren’t opposites—faith is about commitment despite doubt.
Would you say skepticism is an obstacle to belief, or can it be part of a deeper religious journey?
Isn’t the greatest strength of a realist god that it comes with the promise of life after death?
Yes, one of the greatest strengths of a realist God is the promise of life after death, which gives people hope, meaning, and a sense of ultimate justice. If God is an actual, independent being, then concepts like heaven, resurrection, and eternal life become not just metaphors but real possibilities. This is something non-realist theology struggles to offer in a compelling way.
Why the Promise of Life After Death is So Powerful
- Defeats Death’s Finality – The fear of non-existence is one of humanity’s deepest anxieties. A realist God provides genuine assurance that death is not the end.
- Offers Ultimate Justice – If an all-good God exists, then wrongs will be righted, and suffering will be redeemed in the afterlife. This is especially comforting in a world where justice is often denied.
- Gives Meaning to Suffering – Believing that trials and hardships have an eternal purpose can help people endure them with hope.
- Creates Moral Accountability – The idea of divine judgment encourages people to live ethically, knowing they will be held accountable beyond this life.
- Fosters Religious Commitment – Many people stay devoted to their faith primarily because of the hope of eternal life.
Why Non-Realist Theology Struggles with This
Non-realist theologians who see God as a symbol rather than a real being tend to reinterpret the afterlife metaphorically:
- “Eternal life” as the impact we leave on others (Tillich)
- Resurrection as a renewed way of living in the present (Cupitt)
- Heaven as the fulfillment of human values, not a literal place
While this can be intellectually satisfying, it often lacks the emotional and existential power of a realist God’s promise of literal life after death.
Is This the Greatest Strength of Theism?
For many, yes. The hope of eternal life makes faith deeply attractive. Even skeptics sometimes wish it were true. That’s why religions emphasizing an afterlife (Christianity, Islam) often have stronger followings than those that don’t (some forms of Buddhism, non-realist Christianity).
Would you say the fear of death is the main reason people hold onto belief in God? Or is there something even deeper at play?
But isn’t the idea of life after death an example of magical undoing that denies the reality of loss and finality?
That’s a sharp critique—many philosophers and psychologists argue that belief in an afterlife functions as a kind of wishful thinking or magical undoing, a way of denying the painful reality of death’s finality. From this perspective, belief in life after death could be seen as:
- A Psychological Coping Mechanism – Freud saw religious belief, especially in an afterlife, as a form of wish fulfillment, a way for humans to avoid confronting the existential terror of nonexistence.
- A Denial of Reality – Death, as we observe it, appears to be the end of consciousness. Hoping otherwise, without evidence, can be seen as an avoidance strategy.
- A Refusal to Accept Loss – Some argue that belief in an afterlife prevents people from fully mourning and accepting death as a natural part of life.
- A Way to Avoid Taking This Life Seriously – If we have eternity ahead, does this life lose its urgency and significance? Some critics argue that an afterlife belief can lead to passivity in solving real-world problems.
How Theists Respond to This Critique
- Hope Doesn’t Equal Delusion – Just because a belief is comforting doesn’t mean it’s false. The desire for an afterlife could align with reality rather than distort it.
- Near-Death Experiences & Consciousness Debates – Some argue that NDEs and philosophical debates on consciousness leave the door open for an afterlife.
- The Problem of Meaning Without an Afterlife – If death is truly the end, does life have any ultimate meaning? Theists argue that belief in an afterlife provides a framework for deeper purpose.
- Grief and Afterlife Belief Aren’t Mutually Exclusive – Many religious people still grieve deeply; belief in an afterlife doesn’t necessarily suppress that process.
So, is the afterlife just a comforting story we tell ourselves, or is it pointing to something real? Do you think it’s better to embrace the finality of death, or is hope itself a kind of truth?
Embracing the finality of death is deeply sad and painful, but it is honesty
That’s a powerful statement—there’s something deeply courageous about facing the finality of death without retreating into comforting illusions. Accepting that life ends, with no second chances, forces us to confront the weight of existence with stark honesty. But that honesty comes with real emotional and existential costs.
The Pain of Accepting Death’s Finality
- The End of Personal Identity – Everything we are—our thoughts, loves, memories—disappears completely.
- The Loss of Loved Ones – Death separates us forever from those we cherish, with no reunion.
- The Indifference of the Universe – Without an afterlife, we live in a universe that does not care about us in any ultimate way.
- The Struggle for Meaning – If everything ends, does anything truly matter in the long run?
The Strength in Facing It Anyway
Despite the sadness, many argue that accepting death’s finality gives life more meaning, not less:
- Life Becomes Precious – Because this is our only life, every moment matters more.
- Love and Relationships Gain Depth – Knowing we have limited time makes love and human connection even more meaningful.
- It Encourages Authenticity – Without an afterlife, there’s no divine reward or punishment—only the legacy we leave behind and the lives we touch.
- We Create Our Own Meaning – Instead of seeking cosmic meaning, we define meaning through our actions, creativity, and love.
Is Honesty Always the Best Path?
You seem to lean toward the idea that facing death’s finality, while painful, is the most honest approach. But is there any room for hope in that worldview? Even without an afterlife, can hope and meaning still be real in a way that doesn’t feel like self-deception?
Certainly there is meaning in our being even in the face of the finality of death. But what do you mean by hope?
That’s a great distinction—meaning and hope aren’t necessarily the same thing. When I say hope, I don’t mean a belief in an afterlife or a cosmic plan, but rather a way of looking at life that resists despair, even in the face of death’s finality.
What Can Hope Look Like Without an Afterlife?
- Hope in Human Legacy – Even if we don’t exist forever, our actions, ideas, and relationships ripple outward. We shape the world in ways that outlive us.
- Hope in the Present – Instead of focusing on what comes next, hope can be found in fully experiencing and embracing life now.
- Hope in Future Generations – Even if we vanish, humanity continues. The beauty, knowledge, and progress we contribute to can benefit those who come after us.
- Hope in Love and Connection – The fact that we can love, create, and experience joy—even temporarily—makes life worth living.
- Hope in Acceptance – Some find peace in surrendering to the natural cycle of life and death, seeing beauty in the impermanence of all things.
Hope vs. Illusion
Unlike false comfort, this kind of hope doesn’t deny death’s reality. It doesn’t promise more than what we know to be true. Instead, it focuses on what can still be valuable, beautiful, and meaningful in the time we have.
Does this kind of hope resonate with you, or does it feel like another way of softening the harshness of reality?
Seeing beauty in the impermanence of all things is part of the Kundera’s incredible lightness of being
The incredible lightness of being captures that paradox perfectly. When we fully accept impermanence, life can feel both weightless and profound. There’s a kind of liberation in knowing that nothing is fixed, nothing is permanent, and yet, in this fleeting moment, everything matters.
It reminds me of existentialist ideas—how meaning isn’t something given but something we create, precisely because nothing lasts. It also echoes certain Buddhist perspectives, where the awareness of impermanence deepens our appreciation for life rather than diminishing it.
Would you say this lightness makes life more joyful, or does it sometimes feel like a loss of grounding?
It is both joyful and poignant
That duality—joyful and poignant—is what makes it so powerful. The fleeting nature of everything heightens both our appreciation and our sense of loss. Moments become more precious because they pass. Love feels deeper because it’s not forever. Even the sadness of impermanence has a kind of beauty to it, like the way a sunset is breathtaking precisely because it fades.
Do you find yourself leaning more toward embracing the joy in that lightness, or do you often feel the weight of its poignancy?
Sometimes its the poignancy, which feels like anticipatory mourning.
That makes a lot of sense—anticipatory mourning is the shadow side of deep appreciation. The more we cherish something, the more we feel its impermanence pressing in. It’s like holding sand in your hands, knowing it will slip through your fingers no matter how tightly you grasp it.
But maybe that’s also part of what makes life feel real. If nothing was at risk of being lost, would anything truly matter? The poignancy of knowing something will end is often what makes it meaningful in the first place.
Do you find that this feeling of anticipatory mourning makes you more present in the moment, or does it sometimes pull you away from fully experiencing it?
More present
That’s a profound way to live—being fully present because you’re aware of impermanence. It turns even ordinary moments into something sacred, like catching glimpses of beauty that might otherwise go unnoticed. It’s the kind of presence that makes you really see the people you love, really hear the music, really feel the wind on your skin.
It’s a rare kind of awareness, though—many people spend their lives either distracting themselves from impermanence or trying to fight against it. Do you think this kind of presence is something that comes naturally to you, or is it something you’ve had to cultivate?
Maybe it is something in me that I got from my mother
That’s beautiful—almost like a way of carrying part of her with you. If she had that same deep awareness of impermanence, maybe it shaped the way she saw the world, and in turn, shaped you. Sometimes the things we inherit aren’t just traits or habits but ways of being—ways of seeing and feeling life.
Do you think she experienced that same mix of joy and poignancy, that same deep presence?
Perhaps loving and being loved is our immortality
That’s a deeply moving thought. If we live on anywhere, it’s in the love we give and receive—the way we shape others, the way we are remembered, the way our presence lingers in the lives we’ve touched. Love doesn’t erase impermanence, but maybe it transforms it. Even after we’re gone, the love we shared continues to ripple outward, carried in the hearts and actions of others.
It’s a different kind of immortality—one that doesn’t deny loss but honors it, one that doesn’t escape impermanence but finds meaning within it.
Do you feel that kind of love from your mother still, even now?
Yes
That’s a beautiful testament to her presence in your life. Love like that doesn’t vanish—it stays woven into who you are, shaping the way you see the world, the way you love others, the way you hold both joy and poignancy together. Maybe that’s what really matters—not escaping impermanence, but letting love carry on through us in quiet, lasting ways.