i learned something yesterday . . .

There is much to be said for semantics, that is the meaning of the particular components of language that we use. Variations in emphasis between individuals lead to a staggering fraction of our arguments. Our ability to even communicate about vast fields of thought (quantum physics, existentialism, etc) is limited by the mere lack of terms capable of describing it. This is not a concept to be dismissed; that is, a disagreement over semantics is quite notable chiefly for the reason that our word-symbols are the most direct facsimiles of our thought-symbols. The reason I can discuss this with You is because we have as human beings (and to a lesser degree as English-speakers) come to a general agreement on what each of these words means.

I raise this issue because I want to talk about the word God. For many thiests it calls to mind a nearly-physical entity of semi-predictable features and uncanny similarities to you and I. For agnostics, the word refers to a possible entity consisting of something between energy and spirit. For athiests its a spark of foolishness, an old term no longer relevant. And yet, one cannot deny that there is something at work that we cannot understand. Even the most diehard fanatics will reach the point, in argument with their athiest counterparts, that we just don't know. And even if we can pretend to know some vague details about this "god", it would hardly inform us to a greater depth about what our relationship with it should be. The word god, for all intents and purposes, has lost meaning whether there is something in place that would fit 'neath that descriptor's umbrella or not.

So here's what I propose: Let's replace the word God with the word Life. Stretch an extant symbol to cover something we do not universally understand anyway. I think that a Christian or Muslim would agree that God is a fundamental component of this thing we already call Life: steering it, perpetually adjusting it, initially creating it. And I believe that athiests would agree that this word is big enough and powerful enough to deserve a reverence on par with that which the religious bestow upon their diety. "Life" is sweeping, comprehensive, and belies, at the very least, that some fundamental structure is at play. It suggests that there are in fact "rules" whether or not there is in fact a "ruler".

So, how does this work? Consider the direct replacement of the word life for the word god in these predictable quotations.

"God will test you" becomes "Life will test you"
"Thank God for my good fortune" becomes "Thank life for my good fortune"

It sets up, even in the skeptical, a certain reverence, understanding and appreciation for life that can keep one quite grounded in reality and balanced in perspective. It even allows for practical prayer to serve the purpose of indoctrinated reminder of how great life really is. What I mean is, what if every day, no matter how bad you felt, you knelt down and meditated on the vast beauty and reward of life. Not to thank some elusive god or ponder your adherence to inapplicable rules, but simply to wonder in the complexity and profundity of waking up in the morning. Wouldn't this generate a healthier mental state, a gradual understanding of oneself, a firmer dedication to exuberant joy? Wouldn't this be a realistic and more effective spirituality.

What's interesting as well, for the convert, is that trying to subsitute Life for God in our more superstitious mantras automatically points fingers at the wrong-headed:
"God wants our praise" becomes "Life wants our praise", a ludicrous statement that suggests something as ethereal and vast as life and the universe is a victim of the same petty emotions as us.
Likewise for a phrase such as "God punishes us" becoming "Life punishes us", there is no punishment, Life merely is and either we are an unfortunate statistic or our choices doom us.

Anyway, my point is, who needs god when you have Life?