Skip to main content
Humanities LibreTexts

1.1: Philosophy of Religion, God, and Theology (Noah Levin)

  • Page ID
    30039
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    Philosophy of Religion, God, and Theology
    Noah Levin1

    Western religions are dominated by the belief in one central being: God. With a capital G. The proper way to refer to this God is as the “Abrahamic God,” meaning the God of Abraham, the founder of the Jewish religion. This God, in Western traditions, has often been referred to as the “Judeo-Christian” God, but this is a slight misnomer since there are more religions that believe in the existence of that God, most notably Islam. This God, the singular all-powerful being, is the focus of most philosophical discussions on Western religions.

    The field of Philosophy of Religion is not the same as Theology, nor is it the same as Religious Studies. There is a lot of overlap between these fields, but it is important to appreciate what Philosophy of Religion is and what makes something a problem for this specific area. Theology generally covers the study of a religion from within. For example, the classic question in Christianity about the metaphysical nature (the actual reality) of the Holy Trinity of the father (God), the son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit, is one for theology. Philosophical jargon and analyses will be heavily employed, but there will be no criticism of the concept in the first place: the Trinity is accepted as true, and the issue becomes a matter of understanding how it works, not if it exists. Thus, the analysis itself belongs under the umbrella of theology because it assumes a particular religious framework in which to do its analysis. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to ask about the value of the Holy Trinity for a Taoist, and while a Taoist viewpoint can help to understand the Holy Trinity, the basis for answers comes from within the religion itself. Theology, then, is the branch that deals with religious questions in the context of that religion.

    Religious Studies is what it sounds like: the study of religions. There are many aspects of religions and religious beliefs that can be looked at: whether they are theistic/atheistic/pantheistic/agnostic/etc., what their texts are (and which ones are canon or not), the history of the religion, the practices of the religion, the culture of the religion, its philosophy, etc. Religious Studies is not limited to just philosophical questions, but contains an ample amount of them, just as theology does. Both disciplines also heavily employ philosophical methodologies, which is part of the reason scholars of both are found quite frequently in philosophy departments teaching philosophy courses.

    Philosophy of Religion, in a fashion similar to Theology and Religious Studies, incorporates elements of both to aid in understanding the ideas, concepts, and beliefs utilized by religions. There is great overlap between all three, and while there might not be a single question that is uniquely for only one of the disciplines, there are areas where each is best employed. For philosophy, that’s in answering questions like: What type of God is it rational to believe in? What does it mean to be a theist? What type of non-religious arguments are there for God’s existence? Do they work? All of these questions about religion, and most issues for the Philosophy of Religion, tend to come from a non-religious (in terms of not being based within a specific religious viewpoint) context. It is easy to prove the existence of God within the context of a religion, but how does that work? Should these reasons for belief be important to adherents of other religions? What makes a religious belief religious? Should we hold religious beliefs? Which religion is more rational than another? What is the nature of faith? Should we have it? All of these are questions for Philosophy of Religion.

    What makes a religion a religion? In Western Religions, it is almost exclusively tied to the belief and worship of a higher being: God. Eastern Religions, to the contrary, are not usually monotheistic. But, they are all considered religions since they require some acceptance of a metaphysical view of the world which often requires the acceptance of some truths to be accepted on “faith,” where our normal rational critiques might be suspended. There are many criteria people could give for a religion, and it is almost a guarantee that we could find something that we would want to call a religion that lacks one or more of our chosen traits (and some things that would meet the definition that we might not want to call a religion). So, while it may be unfulfilling, I don’t think we can offer any clear definition of what makes something a religion, despite the fact that we have a clear idea of which sets of beliefs and practices qualify as religions. I’ll leave it at that, since we can still discuss religions and their beliefs even if we can’t define what makes something a religion or a religious belief. For the task at hand, there is one concept that we can focus on: God.

    arguments emerge. These arguments look to the world and our experiences to try to show that God exists. They can try to prove God’s existence by showing that elements of existence can only exist if God does or make the case that God is the most rational explanation for certain facts of existence. Cosmological Arguments focus on the origins of the universe and ask how anything came about in the first place, with the implication that a divine entity is the best explanation. Teleological Arguments maintain that God exists because there appears to be a purpose that everything is aimed toward. Similarly, Arguments from Design say that the complexities of existence are evidence that God exists since natural processes cannot explain the intricacies of things like planets and human life.

    To my knowledge, there are no arguments worth covering that attempt to prove that God does not exist. This is for an important logical reason: it is not possible to prove the non-existence of something that is logically possible. This might sound complex, but it’s not. If I ask you to prove to me that unicorns do not exist anywhere in the universe, could you do this? They are, after all, logically and biologically possible to exist. Proving they exist is easy: show me a unicorn. It is just as easy to prove God exists: show me God. God appears to be, by nature, quite elusive, however (unless we are looking in the wrong places, as some might argue). If there were incontrovertible proof of God’s existence, this work might be two sentences long: “God exists. Do what he says.” But there isn’t proof that everyone must accept, so there exists this important project for Philosophy: prove God exists. While proving the non-existence of God is not possible, it is certainly possible to provide evidence contrary to God’s existence and to illustrate that support for God’s existence is lacking. In other words, the arguments opposed to God’s existence attempt to illustrate that there are no rational reasons to believe God exists, just like I have no rational to reason to believe that unicorns exist on Earth.

    To turn to the traits of God and further my discussion of unicorns, you can’t prove that unicorns don’t exist anywhere, but you can prove things about their traits. Most importantly, you can show me that they can’t have certain traits (like a pouch, since they aren’t marsupials) or must have others (like having one horn). It is often said that unicorns “fart rainbows” and “poop cupcakes.” My sources on this are highly classified, so I will not risk exposing the identities of my expert panel on these traits. But, if unicorns were to exist, could they do these things? Digestive tracks are amazing and complex, but being able to expel waste gasses from an anus in the form of light and refract them into a rainbow is not physically possible. (If I am wrong about this, I invite you to contact me and illustrate how this is possible using anything short of magic.) I will grant that it might be possible to expel waste in something resembling the form of a cupcake (wombats do poop out cubes, after all – don’t take my word for it, ask the Internet), but biologically speaking it is so contrary to how organic life functions that I don’t think it is realistically possible. To move more seriously back to God now and away from unicorn farts, could God fart a rainbow?

    What is it that God can do? Is he capable of doing the impossible? Or does God have to play within rational, physical laws? If we can conceive of it (like farting rainbows, something that is not illogical), can God do it? Can God do the impossible – like make a square circle? Or can he microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat it – or could he also then eat it? Can God be: all-good, all-knowing, all-present, and all-powerful? At the same time? What would this mean for our existence?

    While there are no good arguments that show God does not exist, there are good arguments about what traits God could not have. One of the stronger arguments about God’s traits is the Problem of Evil that argues God cannot be both all-good and all-powerful because evil exists in the world. If God were all-good, bad things wouldn’t occur if God were also all-powerful since he’d be able to make sure that nothing bad ever happened. So, the argument goes, God cannot exist as the “traditional” (or “Anselmian”) all-powerful, all-good deity that most Western Religions believe he is. The goals of the field of Philosophy of Religion (with regard to Western religions) are primarily based around understanding what this God is, and analyzing evil helps to do this.

    Where does this conception of an infinite God come from? That’s complicated. We’d have to get into the foundational texts and do some theology to get started. We’d then have to do some religious studies to understand appreciate the development of the concept. However, there has developed over time a conception of the Abrahamic God that we can discuss, and understanding the nature of this being is where philosophy shines.

    For Review and Discussion

    1. What role does God play in Western religions? Can you think of any Western religion that doesn’t include the concept of God?

    2. What are the various types of God that can exist? What type(s) of God(s) do various religions, both Western and Eastern, believe in?

    3. Do you believe in God? If so, why? If not, why not? What are the reasons underlying your beliefs? Would your reasons convince other people to believe as well? How do your beliefs on God relate to your religious beliefs?


    This page titled 1.1: Philosophy of Religion, God, and Theology (Noah Levin) is shared under a CC BY 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Noah Levin (NGE Far Press) .

    • Was this article helpful?