Don Cupitt’s After God: The FutureOf Religion is a remarkable work of postmodern theology of interest both to theists and atheists. This short book (approx 120 pages) covers in accesibly and general language 2 main themes and 3 corresponding premisses. The first half of the book is concerned with the origins of religions and God, and the second half with the future of religions without God.

His three key premises are:

1- Belief in God(s) and all supernaturalism is redundant.

2- Supernatural belief systems are only one facet of the complex phenomenon we know as religion and not its whole purpose and function.

3- Religion is existentially useful.

Before I comment on these premisses first lets identify the author. Don Cupitt has been described as a radical theologian. He is even considered in some quarters the first atheist-theologion (although a seeming contradiction in terms.) He was ordained an Anglican priest in the 1950′s and although he no longer believes in God he remains a minister. He personally describes himself as a Christian non-Realist. Which is to say that he follows certain spiritual practises and ethical maxims traditionally associated with Christianity but does not believe in underlying metaphysical entities such as God or Christ (Jesus was only a man). Others categorise his philosophy and theology as being nihilist textualism which I will explain more of later. Cupitt is an academic, broadcaster and prolific author, and one of the founder members of the “Sea of Faith” network, an organisation that explores spiritual values in the postmodern condition.

In this book ‘After God’, which refers heavily to Nietzsche’s death of God, he opens with a deconstruction of the origins of religions and metaphysical beliefs. This is one of the most fascinating sections of the book with some incredibly good ideas, unfortunately it is also not the least verifiable. As he admits his account of the origins of religions and metaphsyical entities is an entirely subjective account, albeit drawn from a variety of scholars and methods – including existential philosophy, postmodern deconstruction, freudian psychoanalysis and anthropology. As interesting as it is to read one gets the feeling that many people, believers and unbelievers alike, would be sceptical about his theories. However, in my opinion this is not a crippling problem, as the central thesis throughout the book (the death of God) is not dependent upon any particular theory of origin. His is merely one possible account of many – and he is prepared to admit this.

His account very simply states that belief in God, gods, spirits and the supernatural served a functional purpose in pre-rational and pre-scientific times. Animal spirits and totemic cults functioned to develop archetypal images of prey or hunter, animals whose hunting of, or fear of was central to the survival of hunter-gatherer societies. Similarly whole metaphysical belief systems were ‘created’ in order to explain, understand and work in accordance with the seasons, vital for agricultural knowledge. The Iban of Sarawak are an example that come to mind, whose entire metaphysical system is orientated around the cultivation of their staple crop rice. Finally he says monotheism developed at the same time as society became urbanised. Gods became singular, similarly law, culture and governance became centralised.

As I stated earlier Cupitt is a textualist, in his philosophy words and symbols operate at the level of the spirits, and metaphsyical beings are simply reified words or ideas. This is certainly an interesting notion, and one that perhaps owes much to analytical philosophy and Wittgenstein. Of real interest is the deconstruction he gives to certain terms, that in English we take for granted, but which in Greek or Hebrew have greater meaning, and betray signs of their interrelationship with non-religious words and ideas. For example ‘Spirit’ in Greek is ‘pneuma’ a word that means breath. Thus the idea of spirits being invisible, just as the air we breathe is, becomes rather obvious.

The origin of the idea of the soul is excellent, and rather convincing for me. The latin for soul is anima, from which we get the word animation. Thus we can begin to understand that soul originally meant ‘life’. A person who was living was animated. And from this we get the idea that the un-animated body, the dead body is somehow seperated from its soul. Furthermore though the soul became associated not only with the idea of living but with the reality of living. Thus in Hebrew (and to this day in Judaism and other religions) the soul is closely associated with blood. Hence ritual regulations for kosher food, blood-drained flesh. But further to this through this deconstruction we also get some idea of the origin of the geophysical notion that hell is the ‘underworld’ and that hell is a bad place. The archetypal image of spilt blood draining from the body into the ground and under-the-world, is often associated with violent, accidental and unnatural death thus giving rise to notions of horror.

By such processes of deconstruction Cupitt aims to present rational explanations for the origins and functions that metaphysical belief systems held for believers. And although subjectively flawed it serves the desired purpose of preparing the reader for his first major premise. Belief in God, gods, spirits and so on is now redundant. For metaphysics was useful only in the pre-rational and pre-scientific world. Now he says, the rational existence of God is denied and the supernatural account for the origins and workings of the world have been superceded by those provided by the physical sciences.

His second premise is that supernatural beliefs are not essential or integral to religion. Remove the supernatural, and though religion is no longer the same, it still is religious. This is a premise that many people will find hard to swallow. After all atheism and secularism are often concieved of as being mutually contingent systems. But that is of course bunkum. From his functional account of the origins of religion Cupitt adopts the theories of anthropology, that religion (ignoring the supernatural aspects) is a toolkit, a way of life, independently relevent to specific cultures and their unique concerns. The more one studies various religions the more plausible this thesis is. Religious ethics is simply the mythical representation of social values. Origin myths are pre-science. Ritual is dramatic presentation and affirmation of a particular way of life. And of course religion is an existential philosophy, for every religion is concerned with the questions of death and mortality.

It is worth noting, to those who still remain unconvinced of this account that a great number of religions and religous sects do not rely upon supernatural systems. Buddhism is non-theist, some people dispute its religious nature, but this is to adopt a very narrow intepretation of what constitutes religion, and Cupitt settles for the broad ‘way of life’ description. Native Inuit religion posits no Gods and is simply a precautionary cosmology orientated around the dangers of arctic life. Non-theist beliefs can also be found in various postmodern Christian and Reform Judasim movements, whose adherents are numerous. Not to mention Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism and Falun Gong. Also within certain religious groups there is a reduced or even undefined supernaturalism, Jehovah’s Witnesses describe themselves as Christian but reject the divinity of Jesus. And of course mystical traditions including Sufism within Islam (not that it is ever publicised in the Islamophobic culture of today) reject the metaphysical belief in God and talk in terms of a divine spark resident within personal being.

We could argue perenially about what constitutes a religion and what is simply a philosophical school of thought. But such argumentation is futile nonsense and betrays only personal prejudice. A religion is subjectively defined by its own adherents and not by taxonomic classification imposed by an objective observer.

Cupitts third and final premiss then is that religion without supernatural belief can still be vital and useful. And the second major theme of his book is given over to describing what such a religion might be like. The key points of Cupitts analysis is that religion is not essentially institutional, and to many readers it will be evident that Cupitt equates spirituality as synonymous with a religious outlook. So any future religion must be voluntarily assumed and practised (not preached or prescribed). But ultimately future religion will be a therapeutic existential toolkit, of which he provides four major examples.

1) The Eye of God: This practise is the introspective analysis of ones life, through the eyes of our idealisation of God. What is our ideal in life, and how do we measure up to it. Prayer could be included as a technique in this category, the idea of a dialogue with the self.

2) The Blissful Void: This technique borrowed from eastern mysticism is the meditation of the finite within the infinite and the reconciliation of the self with mortality. The aim of this meditation is to put the self within perspective, to accept that I am an individual, but only one of many. I’m not that important in the great scheme of things, but to myself I am, therefore I have duty to live my life to the full.

3) Solar Living: In other words intersubjective ethics. The way in which we behave towards others. Cupitt prefers a simple golden rule morality, and it is hard to disagree with him. He calls it solar living, because like the suns rays, a golden rule mentality radiates outwards to others.

4) Poetical Theology: This final category says lets not destroy religion for the sake of it. But lets maintain those myths and practices that are useful. This includes rituals, let them remain as dramatic re-enactments, as artistic retelling of certain cultural values or cherished ideals. For example like the passion plays, or the teachings of the parables of Jesus. But, he reminds us, never let us forget that they are mythic drama and not metaphysical statements.

In conclusion I have to confess I found this book suprisingly enjoyable. As a theist, who unrepentantly maintains certain mystical intepretations of metaphysical beliefs I thought i’d be bored or overcome with disagreement. Quite the contrary. I found his account for the origins of religions and supernatural beings interesting and in some cases viable. I respected his submission to subjective analysis, which is contrary say to Freud who believed that his account was how it really happened (thus reifying his own myths). I felt uncomfortable that he should be so dependent upon Nietzsche, but that says more about my attitude to his philosophy than anything else. And I am also sceptical about being such a slave to rationalism, which in my opinion is just as much a myth as that which it tries to dispose of. However I respect his consistancy. Finally his suggestions for the future of religion made sense, and it is hard to disagree with any of them. My only query is how can you ever prevent supernatural accounts from arising again, without resorting to intellectual tyranny? Or alternatively how can you prevent these tools from being absorbed into an institutional school of thought, reified from being a self-help technique into the means of existential salvation?

I wholeheartedly reccomend this book to anybody who is even remotely interested in religion, whether they be a believer or not. The book is short, concise, the theories written in accessible language that requires no previous knowledge of theology. From beginning to end an enjoyable and thought provoking read. And crucially a balanced contrast to the Dawkins era thesis that religion is inherently bad for you.