Basic HTML Version
15
the result of the opposition to the idea of the “Absolute” in philosophy, and of the desire to
exclude all metaphysics from theology. Bradley regarded the God of the Christian religion as a
part of the Absolute, and James pleaded for a conception of God that was more in harmony
with human experience than the idea of an infinite God. He eliminates from God the
metaphysical attributes of self-existence, infinity, and immutability, and makes the moral
attributes supreme. God has an environment, exists in time, and works out a history just like
ourselves. Because of the evil that is in the world, He must be thought of as limited in
knowledge or power, or in both. The condition of the world makes it impossible to believe in a
good God infinite in knowledge and power. The existence of a larger power which is friendly to
man and with which he can commune meets all the practical needs and experiences of religion.
James conceived of this power as personal, but was not willing to express himself as to whether
he believed in one finite God or a number of them. Bergson added to this conception of James
the idea of a struggling and growing God, constantly drawing upon his environment. Others
who defended the idea of a finite God, though in different ways, are Hobhouse, Schiller, James
Ward, Rashdall, and H. G. Wells.
c. God as the personification of a mere abstract idea.
It has become quite the vogue in modern
liberal theology to regard the name “God” as a mere symbol, standing for some cosmic process,
some universal will or power, or some lofty and comprehensive ideal. The statement is
repeatedly made that, if God once created man in His image, man is now returning the
compliment by creating God in his (man’s) image. It is said of Harry Elmer Barnes that he once
said in one of his laboratory classes: “Gentlemen, we shall now proceed to create God.” That
was a very blunt expression of a rather common idea. Most of those who reject the theistic
view of God still profess faith in God, but He is a God of their own imagination. The form which
He assumes at any particular time depends, according to Shailer Mathews, on the thought
patterns of that day. If in pre-war times the controlling pattern was that of an autocratic
sovereign, demanding absolute obedience, now it is that of a democratic ruler eager to serve all
his subjects. Since the days of Comte there has been a tendency to personify the social order of
humanity as a whole and to worship this personification. The so-called Meliorists or Social
Theologians reveal a tendency to identify God in some way with the social order. And the New
Psychologists inform us that the idea of God is a projection of the human mind, which in its
early stages is inclined to make images of its experiences and to clothe them with quasi-
personality. Leuba is of the opinion that this illusion of God has served a useful purpose, but
that the time is coming when the idea of God will be no more needed. A few definitions will
serve to show the present day trend. “God is the immanent spirit of the community” (Royce).
He is “that quality in human society which supports and enriches humanity in its spiritual quest”
(Gerald Birney Smith). “God is the totality of relations constituting the whole social order of
growing humanity” (E. S. Ames). “The word ‘god’ is a symbol to designate the universe in its