From the root worth "worth": weorþ "significant, valuable, of value; valued, appreciated, highly thought-of, deserving, meriting; honorable, noble, of high rank.
What do you hold in highest regard in your life? Family? Truth/honesty? Happiness? Other? (Saint) Thomas Aquinas said that the four typical substitutes for God are wealth, pleasure, power, and honor.
None of those things are necessarily bad in themselves—some amount are often necessary for life, and can be be used to achieve good things—but chasing them for the sake of themselves without a higher principle to guide you once acquire them has probably caused many people problems over the course of history.
Asking yourself "what is the highest good in my life? what is the thing/princple that I hold in highest esteem? what do I 'worship'?" can be a good spiritual/moral exercise.
Concepts shouldn't be dependent on the language they're conveyed in, though. Try translating the passage to a language without the word "worship", or with 100 sub-distinctions, or introduce a concept like "zen" and his point falls apart.
He also introduces a false dichotomy which equates "worship" with "theism". If I "worship" money or sex, no one would seriously say that makes me a "theist". So even if we accept his warped use of the term "worship", his claim that atheism doesn't exist still doesn't hold up.
> Thomas Aquinas said that the four typical substitutes for God are wealth, pleasure, power, and honor.
The most typical substitute for Catholic god throughout human history is probably some other god (or group of gods), followed by non-theistic religion, followed by non-religious pragmatic ethics of some sort. I really don't think the quote is relevant outside Thomas' church culture. That's especially true for modern Protestants who might be tempted to think this quote applies to them; you probably don't even know God in Thomas' opinion. I was raised Mormon, personally, and I'm sure the once-human God worshiped by my close ancestors would be an abomination to a Catholic like St. Aquinas.
> you probably don't even know God in Thomas' opinion.
Deus autem est ipsum esse. God is being itself. See Summa contra Gentiles for details.
Or, if you prefer Boethius, see De Trinitate: quod divina substantia est ipsum esse et ab ea est esse. The divine substance is being itself, and from it comes being.
The God I was taught was an entity that actually spoke, or otherwise communicated. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all spoke to him, as did Jesus. He said certain things, which means he necessarily did not say other things. If he said all possible things, he did not say anything at all (see Claude Shannon's work).
I don't see the utility of a God (or the belief in a God) that is everything, or "being itself". I already have words or phrases for those concepts ("everything" and "being itself", respectively). God, to me, was a supremely good entity who created people and who communicated particular ideas to us directly or through prophets. That describes a subset of "everything". For example, I am not God, and my cat is not God. The stories that the ancient Greeks tell about Hades or Zeus or Dionysus are not true of God. Would you say that they are?
For day-to-day operations, believing in such an entity is 'fine', as carrying around some more complicated idea can bog one down. Most of us don't have degrees in philosophy and metaphysics. Newtonian physics and gravity is fine for most of us as well; no need to get into Einstein.
But one shouldn't confuse mental shortcuts with actual reality.
As Aquinas explains it, God could not be a being, even the supreme being, or any other kind of "entity". This is because if he/He is one kind of entity he is not another kind of entity. And there would have to be a reason for Him being one kind and not another kind. But that reason would be external to God, and thus God's nature would thus be contingent on something other than Himself.
But then wouldn't that external reason be greater than God?
Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, I.22.8-9:
> [8] Moreover, if something can exist only when several elements come together, it is composite. But no thing in which the essence is other than the being can exist unless several elements come together, namely, the essence and the being. Hence, every thing in which the essence is other than the being is composite. But, as we have shown, God is not composite. Therefore, God's being is His essence.
> [9] Every thing, furthermore, exists because it has being. A thing whose essence is not its being, consequently, is not through its essence but by participation in something, namely, being itself. But that which is through participation in something cannot be the first being, because prior to it is the being in which it participates in order to be. But God is the first being, with nothing prior to Him. His essence is, therefore, His being.
> The stories that the ancient Greeks tell about Hades or Zeus or Dionysus are not true of God. Would you say that they are?
The entities of the Greek pantheon are creatures. Perhaps powerful ones, but creatures not the less. That fact we use the term "god(s)" for them as well as the Christian God is an artefact of language.
See Edward Feser's book Aquinas for a good treatment of this subject in more modern language. Trying to follow translated Latin can be slow going, and isn't really necessary unless you really want to go to primary sources—but one has to be mindful of terminology and ascribing modern interpretations to certain words used.
> For day-to-day operations, believing in such an entity is 'fine', as carrying around some more complicated idea can bog one down. Most of us don't have degrees in philosophy and metaphysics. Newtonian physics and gravity is fine for most of us as well; no need to get into Einstein.
The only thing I'd say about this is that the omni-God which is everything and being itself is actually less complicated than the God in the bible or any other holy book, who said and did certain things and did not say or do certain other things. A God who's nature is constrained for some reason, even if that reason is beyond our understanding. That God, which I think I'm safe in guessing is the God that most theistic people believe in, is much more complicated than the "superlative" God.
I understand the line of reasoning that makes "God" into a word that refers to everything. I get where Aquinas is coming from. As somebody who no longer believes in any god or gods, I even agree with him to a far greater extent than I agree with most theists. However, I think that what Aquinas describes is different enough from what "God" means to most theists to merit a different term. Christians are relatively new to the game of God-making; they can't just say that everybody else has got it wrong.
> That fact we use the term "god(s)" for them as well as the Christian God is an artefact of language.
I disagree; I think it's an artifact of history. The Christian God is the Jewish God, and the Jewish God was comparable to the gods of other cultures. Specific entity, specific communiques, specific intent.
The "artifact of language" arises much, much later: It is Aquinas and others attempting to use the word "God", which has an ancient meaning, to describe a totally abstract metaphysical concept.
> The only thing I'd say about this is that the omni-God which is everything and being itself is actually less complicated than the God in the bible [...]
The (Catholic) Christian God is not everything. That God is being itself. And that God is the God of the Old and New Testament.
> However, I think that what Aquinas describes is different enough from what "God" means to most theists to merit a different term.
Most believers are not theologians and philosophers, so the day-to-day mental of a Bearded Dude in the Sky may be good enough.
> It is Aquinas and others attempting to use the word "God", which has an ancient meaning, to describe a totally abstract metaphysical concept.
Which is why we get into things like Unmoved Mover, First Cause, etc:
Aristotle, whom Aquinas draws inspiration from, may view the Unmoved Mover as more of a concept. But the Christian God is not a concept, but a person (or persons, given the Trinity), which is seeking a personal relationship with each of us.
the wikipedia hole that begins with "Yaweh" will probably be interesting to you. I found it enlightening - the progression of a monotheism from a polytheist pantheon reads much like a sort of narrative branch-then-retcon.
I'm also tempted to draw a parallel with the hard sciences, though. As the thinking matures and evolves on the shape of a theology, you reduce the fluff and get rid of ideas that no longer fit your concept of reality. Part of the trend we might be seeing with church numbers is that christianity as we know it may have written themselves into a corner.
I'm a particular fan of buddhist concepts of the divine for their ability to be abstracted into many different contexts. they tend not to touch things that can be disproven (yet), and by dealing with only the absolutely intangible, stay relevant. the problem space is limited to the utility of the thought. Stick to the metaphysical and you don't risk dissolution when you do things like make unqualified statements about what makes "God" angry.
>It is etymologically correct though: condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown.
The etymology is not even close to being relevant. Conflating two different meanings of the word "worship" and implying their equivalence is dishonest and deeply unsound. That is true even if it is the definition of worship fits in both cases.
> The etymology is not even close to being relevant. Conflating two different meanings of the word "worship" and implying their equivalence is dishonest and deeply unsound. That is true even if it is the definition of worship fits in both cases.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it seems to me that Wallace is actually arguing the point: that these two senses are in fact an artificial distinction, that people are inherently religious, that they are inherently worshipers, at least of a sort. It seems like he is saying that wherever we find our identity is a god that we worship.
Now one can argue, of course, that idols only exist if God exists, and if (or since) God does not, Wallace is ipso facto wrong.
On the other hand, one might also make the argument that the polytheistic impulse is really a transfer of worship of a particular thing to a properly-named deity with some window dressing, and that all moderns have really done is to disown the deities and ritual while maintaining an attachment to their blessings.
Is that fair? I don't know. But I would wager that Wallace isn't being disingenuous here, even if he's being provocative. I was under the impression he was at least nominally an atheist.
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it seems to me that Wallace is actually arguing the point: that these two senses are in fact an artificial distinction, that people are inherently religious, that they are inherently worshipers, at least of a sort. It seems like he is saying that wherever we find our identity is a god that we worship.
It is perfectly fine for him to argue that they are equivalent (though I disagree). The issue is relying on the etymology of the word worship to argue that point.
I'd also like to clarify that while I disagree with Wallace, the accusation of dishonestly was directed at throw0101a, who made an absurd etymology based argument after it had already been pointed out that such arguments are flawed.
It is etymologically correct though: condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown.
* https://www.etymonline.com/word/worship
From the root worth "worth": weorþ "significant, valuable, of value; valued, appreciated, highly thought-of, deserving, meriting; honorable, noble, of high rank.
* https://www.etymonline.com/word/worth
What do you hold in highest regard in your life? Family? Truth/honesty? Happiness? Other? (Saint) Thomas Aquinas said that the four typical substitutes for God are wealth, pleasure, power, and honor.
None of those things are necessarily bad in themselves—some amount are often necessary for life, and can be be used to achieve good things—but chasing them for the sake of themselves without a higher principle to guide you once acquire them has probably caused many people problems over the course of history.
Asking yourself "what is the highest good in my life? what is the thing/princple that I hold in highest esteem? what do I 'worship'?" can be a good spiritual/moral exercise.