Explainer
Belief
Creed
9 min read

What does the word ‘God’ mean anyway?

After asking why belief matters, Barnabas Aspray turns to transcendence as a way of defining God. The second in a series exploring the Nicene Creed.

Barnabas Aspray is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at St Mary’s Seminary and University.

A cloud-dappled s blue sky is viewed through a large circular opening, from below.
The view from a modern cave.
Shelter on Unsplash.

God’ is one of those words we think we understand, but many of us really don’t. Both believers and unbelievers often fall prey to a misguided idea of what the writers of the Nicene Creed meant by the word ‘God’.  

Consider this description of God as an example: 

God is an immensely powerful spiritual being, more powerful than anyone else in the Universe. He is invisible; he lives in heaven, but he can also be everywhere at once. He created the world a long time ago, and sometimes intervenes in the world today to perform miracles or answer prayers. His arch-enemy is another powerful spirit called Satan, but God is more powerful than Satan and will one day defeat him. 

Almost everything about the above paragraph is either misleading or false from a traditional Christian point of view, yet it is not far off from the way many people today think about God. If we want to come up with a better definition, we need to understand, first that there are different kinds of reality, and second, that God belongs to his own unique kind of reality. Let’s use analogies to make each of these points.  

God is like the number 2  

Let’s have a look and a laugh at this XKCD webcomic.

A cartoon strip of a maths teacher explaining a proof.

What makes this comic funny is that the maths teacher is confusing two types of reality: 

  1. Physical, contingent realities whose existence is contingent (might or might not have existed), that exist in a particular place and time, and that can be destroyed. 

  1. Non-physical, non-contingent realities whose existence is necessary (cannot not exist), that are not in space or time at all, and that cannot be destroyed. 

The maths teacher is treating a number as if it had the first kind of reality when in fact it has the second. It doesn’t make sense to ‘find and destroy’ a number. If the number 2 ceased to exist, what would 1+1 then be equal to? What would it mean if you saw more than 1 but less than 3 objects together, or would that no longer happen? Numbers are not the kind of things that you can remove, leaving the rest of the Universe unchanged. They are part of the fabric of reality, and we can’t really conceive a Universe without them.  

Now, when we’re talking about God, this is the crucial thing to understand: the kind of reality that God has is more like the reality of numbers than the reality of physical objects. Like numbers, God is intrinsic to the way reality works. Like numbers, God can’t be located anywhere, yet without his presence reality would not make any sense. Like numbers, God can’t be seen, only represented through signs and symbols.

Compared to God, we are like two-dimensional beings 

Let me introduce you to Flatty. 

A line drawing of a flat round bug with six legs and two eyes.

Flatty is an entirely two-dimensional creature, living in a two-dimensional world called Flatland. In this world, there is no up and down, only left, right, forward, and backward. There are no spheres, only circles. There are no cubes, only squares. If I draw a square around flatty, it imprisons him. He cannot go over it or under it, because there is no such thing as ‘over’ or ‘under’ in Flatland. If I draw an object in front of Flatty, it looks to him as if it appeared out of nowhere. 

Now, imagine you could talk to Flatty. Your voice would seem to be coming from nowhere, since he can’t see anything in three dimensions. How could you persuade him that you exist and he’s not going crazy? Perhaps you could press your finger on the surface of flatland. The fingerprint would appear like a strange oval shape, but that would only be the tiniest hint of what you look like. You could try to explain that you’re above him, but the word ‘above’ is meaningless for him so he would not understand. 

Suppose Flatty was persuaded that you existed. How could he prove to other flatties that you existed? He has no words to describe you with except the ones you’ve given him, which have no meaning in a two-dimensional Universe. He can’t point to you, and he can’t offer any evidence. All evidence he might have would be two-dimensional, which misses the kind of reality he wants to prove.  

Now the point of this analogy is that we are like Flatty in relation to God. We lack the language to describe God because his reality is so much greater than ours that our minds are not equipped to conceive or describe it. God can speak to us – he can even make strange appearances in the physical world sometimes, but those appearances only convey the tiniest hint of who he is.  

This is what the Christian tradition has always meant when it says that God is ‘transcendent’. The word ‘transcendence’ is an attempt to give a name to something we have no concept of and no ability to fully comprehend: the idea that there is a reality beyond the three-dimensional reality that we can see and experience, and that God inhabits that reality. 

Let’s return to the misleading definition of God we quoted above and correct some of the points: 

  • It is true to say that God is invisible, but this is not an accident, as if God could have been visible. It’s part of the very nature of God that he cannot be seen, because the only things that can be seen are things that belong to the three-dimensional world. (If you think about it, numbers can’t really be ‘seen’ either. The way we write the number 2 is just as symbol to represent something that has no visible form. Even if we see two objects together, we are not seeing the number 2 itself, merely an instance of its use in one particular place and time.)   

  • God does not ‘live’ in heaven as if he were an object that could be located somewhere. ‘Heaven’ is itself a name for the transcendent reality that we cannot fully conceive (this is more obvious in the biblical languages, and in French, German, and Spanish, where the word for ‘heaven’ and the word for ‘sky’ are the same, yet nobody is confused and thinks you’re talking about the sky). When we say that God is in heaven, we mean that God’s reality is more tangible and present there than it is here on earth, although that will not always be the case.  

The other misleading aspects of that initial quotation will be addressed in the next article on the doctrine of creation. 

Why this is not apologetics 

None of this counts as an argument for the existence of God, even if it makes a difference to how such arguments would go. The above should not be taken as evidence that God exists, but as providing a definition of God that we need before any productive argument can begin. The reason so many atheists and theists seem to be talking past each other is that they so often start with different definitions of God without realising it. David Bentley Hart puts it this way: 

The most pervasive error one encounters in contemporary arguments about belief in God … is the habit of conceiving of God simply as some very large object or agency within the universe, or perhaps alongside the universe, a being among other beings, who differs from all other beings in magnitude, power, and duration, but not ontologically. 

One example of this mistake is what Richard Dawkins says in the following: 

I have found it an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further. 

Dawkins has cleverly turned the tables, making it look as if all the religions disagreed with each other, when in fact most of them agree against atheism on the question of God, and only disagree much further down the line. It is as if someone were to count English accents as different languages, and then propose making Flemish the international language because more people speak it than any of the varieties of English. 

More specifically, Dawkins’ mistake is to confuse capital ‘G’ God and lowercase ‘g’ gods which is not the plural of ‘God’ in any major religion. Lowercase ‘gods’, whether they exist or not, still live inside the Universe and are part of it like you and me. The Bible itself, even though it is a monotheistic book, uses the term ‘gods’ in this way (see e.g., Psalm 82, 86, 98).  

FAQs 

Is this really a biblical conception of God? Why are there so few Bible quotes in this article? 

The point of this article is to explain what the writers of the Nicene Creed meant when they used the word ‘God’. They believed that their conception of God was derived from the Bible and accurately reflected the biblical view. Their conception of God has come to be called ‘Classical Theism’, which is the mainstream position taken by the majority of theologians and denominations throughout Christian history. In recent years, some academic theologians called ‘open theists’ have argued that Classical Theism did not come from the Bible but from ancient Greek philosophy, and is therefore not properly Christian. If they are correct, it means that they have understood the Bible better than almost every theologian in the first fifteen centuries of the Church, including the writers of the Nicene Creed. Their argument has not been accepted by most churches and denominations, and it depends on a not-universally agreed understanding of how Christians ought to interpret the Bible. To explain why I think the Bible supports Classical Theism would be to write a completely different, and much longer, article. There are many resources already out there that show how the classical conception of God is not only derived from the Bible, but rejects a lot of Greek philosophy in favour of the Bible. If you are interested in this debate, you might consider the following resources to start with: Paul Tyson, Returning to Reality: Christian Platonism for Our Times (Wipf & Stock, 2014); Andrew Davison, Participation in God: A Study in Christian Doctrine and Metaphysics (CUP, 2019); Simon Oliver, Creation: A Guide for the Perplexed (Bloomsbury, 2017); Paul L. Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God (OUP, 2004). 

What about Jesus? Doesn’t this conception of God leave out the most central Christian tenet, that Jesus is God?  

To say that ‘Jesus is God’ has no meaning unless you first have a definition of God that the word ‘Jesus’ can apply to. That is why the Bible starts by building up a conception of God in the Old Testament, before revealing in the New Testament that this same God came among us in the person of Jesus. That’s why it’s misleading to say (as some Christians do) ‘If you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus’. It’s true at the level of God’s character, but not at the level of God’s nature. If you are interested in this question, I would suggest reading Rowan Williams, Christ the Heart of Creation (Bloomsbury, 2018). 

This definition of God makes him seem impersonal. Doesn’t Christianity teach that God is personal? 

It’s true that God has chosen to relate to us as one person relates to another, and in that sense we can call God ‘personal’. But we must be careful of letting that idea run away with itself, until we imagine God to be like a human being, only bigger and more powerful. This is called the mistake of anthropomorphising God. If you’re interested in avoiding anthropomorphic conceptions of God, I would suggest starting with David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss (Yale University Press, 2014). 

 

 

Essay
Belief
Creed
Psychology
Weirdness
13 min read

There’s more to manifesting, here’s its philosophical backstory

Beyond the so-called sensible, a hidden strand of Western spiritual thought reemerges.

Daniel is an advertising strategist turned vicar-in-training.

Against a purple glittery background, a orange notelet reads: 'what you seek is seeking you.'
Maia I on Unsplash.

I’m slightly late to the party, but you may have heard that the Cambridge 2024 Word of the Year was ‘Manifest’. Essentially, ‘To Manifest’,  according to our friends at Cambridge, is  ‘to imagine achieving something you want, in the belief that doing so will make it more likely to happen’. For many people, ‘manifesting’ belongs in the eye-browraising intellectual funfair of New Age spirituality and self-help gurus and charlatans whose books belong in the second-hand boxes outside shops on the high street of dilapidated coastal towns selling crystals.

If you’re a Gen Xer and elder Millennial, you’ll probably have heard of Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret, a 2006 self-help hit. She claimed to teach readers the secret to prosperity, self-realisation, and fulfilling your heart’s desires. Visualise the object of your desire in your mind, use the innate concentrative energy of your cognition, and, through the scientific Law of Attraction, the Universe (yes, the capital ‘U’, Universe)  will deliver unto you those things which you have brought into your mind because ‘like attracts like’. It shares a very similar perspective to a book written a hundred years prior in 1910 called The Science of Getting Rich by William Wattles which, again, claimed that through ‘creative thought’ you could achieve financial success. By ‘creative thought’ Wattle didn’t mean coming up with a growth strategy for your personal finances - he meant, like Bryne, that there was a psychical force in the Universe that you could tap into with your mind which could manifest, in reality, your thoughts and desires.

Again, if you’re a child of sensible society, you probably would have dismissed all of this as pseudoscientific New Age wishful thinking intended to make bad authors rich. Or, if you were more generous, you might have said that these were helpful psychological practices like ‘focusing on your goals’ encoded in woo-hoo New Age language. It belongs in the weird corner of society. And so, you might be somewhat baffled to find it breaking through into mainstream society - so much so that a sensible institution, like Cambridge University, would highlight it as a groundswell trend in the twenty-first century. 

But is this really a surprise? What has sensible society given us? For many, it’s been the managed and catastrophic decline into societal disillusionment, a generation of broken promises, and the feeling of being feudal serfs under the dominion of national banks and billionaires while we medicate ourselves to death with algorithmically-driven AI slop in the spiritual vacuum of a fragmented and polarised society. The fact that the Oxford Dictionary's Word of the Year was ‘brainrot' makes this all the more ironic and sad. And so is it any wonder that people are looking beyond the sensible towards the magical, the mystical, and the Esoteric? And I’m using the word ‘sensible’ in both ways. People are looking beyond the status quo of what is acceptable and accepted knowledge, but they are also looking to things that are beyond their senses.

Human consciousness can manifest thoughts into reality through metaphysical practices like concentration and visualisation. For New Thought thinkers, this was connected with loftier aims than getting rich or manifesting a pay-rise at work.

I’m definitely not alone in this diagnosis. It’s the thesis behind Rod Dreher’s new book Living in Wonder and Justin Brierley’s The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God tracks prominent thought-leaders turning to God and mysticism. Even Wunderman Thompson, a leading advertising agency, highlighted the $3.7 trillion dollar neo-spirituality and wellness industry in their ever quotable report on the ‘Age of Re-Enchantment’. To be honest, even this recent trend of authors proclaiming the ‘spiritual turn’ is a bit late to the game. Back in 1999, the sociologist Peter Berger argued forcefully that the latter decades of the twentieth century saw the radical ‘desecularization of the world’. 

Clearly, cultural trends don’t happen in a matter of years, but take place over decades, even centuries and it seems that we’re finally seeing the mainlining of a previously hidden strand of Western spiritual thought into wider society. So much so that your children and neighbours are searching for ‘manifesting’ on Google and YouTube as a genuine intellectual query. 

Where does this all come from? Ideas don’t spring up from nowhere. They have a history, and the philosophical ideas underneath manifesting weren’t just made-up in the last minute of human history. They in fact go back to an incredibly rich and developed, and once respected, tradition of thought that we’re only getting to grips with again  in recent decades. 

Historical roots of manifesting

The modern concept of ‘manifesting’ finds its root in the New Thought movement of the nineteenth century that shared many themes with the earlier American Transcendentalists. While Transcendentalism emphasised the unity of nature, humanity, and God, New Thought took this further, focusing on the mind’s power to shape reality.

Both movements emerged as a response to the perceived spiritual emptiness of Enlightenment-era materialism, seeking to reignite our connection to the metaphysical. 

Central to New Thought was the belief that the human mind is not merely a passive observer but an active force in the universe - capable of influencing both spiritual and material realms through concentration and intention. Human consciousness shapes reality in the fullest sense. In other words, Human consciousness can manifest thoughts into reality through metaphysical practices like concentration and visualisation. For New Thought thinkers, this was connected with loftier aims than getting rich or manifesting a pay-rise at work. It was about sparking a spiritual revival, attaining a unified theory of everything, and ultimately, salvation. 

“Consciousness shapes reality.” On one level, this is obviously true. You need consciousness to design buildings and cathedrals and strategic operation models to run companies. Even the placebo effect - something that continues to baffle medical professionals - shows that mental states can have tangible effects on the physical world.

For those who pray, this idea feels almost intuitive. Your silent thoughts reach into the metaphysical realm. How else does God hear your prayers? But where prayer is directed towards a personal God, manifesting envisions tapping into a universal force, drawing power through sheer concentration. It’s less about thanksgiving and more about metaphysical technique - what you might call a kind of ‘science of prayer’. (For what it’s worth, if you’ve ever seen a ‘Christian Science’ bookshop, this is what they’re getting at.) 

The New Thought movement is what the scholar Catherine Albanese calls a metaphysical religion of nineteenth century America. It went against the major Protestant revivalist movements at the time, as well as the mainstream scientific community. They rejected Christian notions about God as a sovereign being who gives salvation to the individual through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, but rather saw Him as the metaphysical font of life and universal forces. And they rejected the scientific community for ignoring the spiritual and intuitive aspects of nature. It fell somewhere in-between. Much like other disciplines that we might call ‘pseudo-scientific’ or ‘pseudo-religious’ like Astrology, Alchemy, and Magic. 

Behind the New Thought movement 

The rabbit hole goes deeper. The New Thought and Transcendental movements didn’t just spring up from nowhere either. It is a child of what recent scholars and intellectual historians have begun to call the ‘Western Esoteric Tradition’. In this bucket, you have the familiar traditions of Astrology, Alchemy, and Magic (what some people call the ‘occult sciences’) as well as lesser known ideas like Theosophy, Theurgy, Anthroposophy, Mesmerism, Animal Magnetism and Hermeticism. Western Esotericism is a philosophical and spiritual strand that draws on ideas that go as far back as early Antiquity from certain interpretations of the ideas of Plato and a mysterious Egyptian magical figure, ‘Hermes Trismegistus’, who is said to have written a book called the Corpus Hermetica which lays down many of those philosophical assumptions held by the Transcendentalists - The unity of the world, the Law of Correspondence, and the centrality of the Human Mind as a unique mediator.  The ‘‘Law of Correspondence,’ is particularly interesting. It suggests that everything in existence—from the human mind to the stars—operates in a symphony of interconnected harmony - there is a resonance, a ‘sympathy’ up and down the universe. This idea continues to underpin contemporary practices like visualization, meditation, and even astrology.

An engraving of  shows a standing mesmerist pointing to a sitting patient, with lines drawn between the,
A practitioner of mesmerism using animal magnetism on a woman who responds with convulsions. Credit: Wellcome Library, London.

We might think that all these ideas of Western Esotericism have always been fringe. Again - for non-sensible people. The reality is that these ideas have played a profoundly influential role in the history of Western thought. Isaac Newton was not only a scientist and a Christian, but he was an obsessive Alchemist. Friedrich Hegel, probably the most influential philosopher of the nineteenth century, was a keen reader of the Heterodox Christian Mystic, Jakob Boehme - a monumental figure in Western Esotericism - even calling him the First German Philosopher. His ideas about the progress of history and the self-realisation of the World Soul find their origins not in Enlightenment philosophy but in Western Esotericism mediated through the Romantics. In fact, many of the Romantic Movements that ebbed and flowed since the 1790s to the contemporary world drew deep inspiration from the Western Esoteric tradition. They represented intellectual movements that rejected Enlightenment and Orthodox Christian thought and sought to retrieve spiritual and metaphysical insights from other ancient sources. 

Esotericism has also deeply influenced modern art, shaping the work of some of the most celebrated artists in the last two centuries. Claude Debussy was deeply influenced by the late nineteenth-century Parisian esoteric revival and spent many Wednesday evenings in salons discussing sacred geometry and the Tarot, while W.B. Yeats, the famous Irish poet, was an initiate of the Theosophical society. Perhaps most notably, Kandinsky, was deeply impressed by esoteric spiritualism. His book Concerning the Spiritual in Art argues that colors and shapes are not merely aesthetic tools but bear profound metaphysical significance. For Kandinsky, abstract art was a rejection of materialism and a reawakening of humanity’s spiritual potential.

In fact, the idea that the artist plays a central role in spiritual awakening was common to some esoteric movements. Josephin Péladan, a prominent figure in the French Occult Revival, wrote: 

“Artist, thou art priest: Art is the great mystery; and if your attempt turns out to be a masterwork, a divine ray descends as on an altar. Oh real presence of the divinity resplendent under these supreme names: Vinci, Raphael, Michelangelo, Beethoven, and Wagner. Artist, thou art king; art is the real kingdom.” 

The artist is the beating spiritual heart of the human community. Again, does this sound familiar? 

You could say that Western Esotericism, particularly in the last 200 years, represents a powerful counter-movement that sincerely and powerfully raged against spiritual death, meaninglessness, and the phenomena of disenchantment. 

We often like to tell the story of Western philosophical and religious thought in the last 250 years as two sides locked in mortal combat. On one hand, you have the traditional Christian worldview. God is real, miracles exist, and the universe is alive with prayer and worship and open to the supernatural. Meanwhile, you have the new bulwark of Enlightenment secular atheism laying siege to the Christian world, stitching up the world into a closed system of pure science and evacuating society of the miraculous, the sacred, and the supernatural. 

In response, Christians developed their own response to modernity and presented a way through the meaninglessness brought about by the Nietzschian death of God - theologians demonstrated how Christianity could meet the existential hunger felt by every individual heart. Meanwhile, the Evangelicals sent out missionaries to the ends of the earth with storming success such that today, China is set to become the most populous Christian nation in the world, and the Pentecostals spread like wildfire infusing almost every Christian denomination in the world with a sense of personal miraculous encounter with the Holy Spirit of God in a mundane world. At the same time, the atheist and New Atheist philosophers continued to mock and polemicise religion as the source of all violence and dangerous superstitions. But their arguments are fading into obscurity and persuasiveness as some of the key advocates of that early twenty-first century movement are changing their minds. 

This two-strand narrative—of Secular Disenchanted Nature governed by science versus Christian Enchanted Creation under a Trinitarian God—has shaped much of Western thought. Yet this framework is now undergoing a significant renovation. A third strand has always existed, though it has often been overlooked: the strand of Enchanted Nature. This perspective holds that humans have access to the supernatural and an open-ended universe outside of any religious and Christian frame, and this access is governed by ancient philosophies and ideas that are becoming more and more plausible in contemporary society - ergo MANIFEST. 

So what? 

If you’re a child of sceptical modernity and raised on the New Atheists, contemporary society must feel like a whiplash. It’s becoming more and more implausible to maintain a materialistic and rational worldview and the closed universe. Respectable thought-leaders are turning to faith and your friends, children, and colleagues are looking at you as if you're the weird one who lives in a little Reddit-atheist lock-in universe. It is becoming socially more and more difficult to maintain this without either being wilfully blind or being accused of imposing an quasi-imperialist vision of Western Scientism against the reality that most people in the world actually believe and live in. 

Christian thinkers and leaders ignore this at their peril. To dismiss the Esoteric based on books like The Secret would be like dismissing Christianity based on Instagram memes. When you walk past one of those crystal shops, or overhear a colleague comparing star charts, you’re in-fact encountering a millenia old intellectual tradition which taps into perennial human longings for cosmic connections. Sneering at this misses the point entirely. After all, Christians believe in a divine-human Messiah who reigns above angels and archangels who conquered demons and turns his ear to the whispered prayers of broken hearts on dark cold nights. What do you mean that ‘manifesting’ is ‘unscientific’? If you want to critique manifesting or astrology, you’ll need arguments rooted in your own rich tradition—not borrowed Enlightenment dismissals, the same ones once aimed at Christianity itself.

Christians should also recognise that Western Esotericism shares more-or-less common aims. Both seek to renew society, spread wisdom, and heal souls. But this doesn’t mean the two can coexist uncritically. Christianity no longer exists in a vacuum. It is in a marketplace of ideas and Christians need to discern what makes Christianity uniquely special and ensure that it doesn’t adopt ideas that can dilute its integrity. 

The word manifest reveals more than a passing trend—it taps into a deep human longing.

History reminds us that Christianity and esotericism have long had a complex and entangled history. Renaissance Catholic Christians first re-introduced Hermetic ideas and Kabbalah back into the Western mind, and it was nineteenth century Protestant Christians who tried to encode Christianity into the wider frameworks of Esoteric thought and injected society with the panoply of sects and secret societies. Would it surprise you that some of the leading Occultists back then, like Eliphas Levi, were motivated to promote Jesus Christ? Maybe you’re a Christian artist and that quote above from Péladan was disconcerting precisely because of how closely it matches your intuitions. This history is both a caution and invitation: to understand the spiritual landscape more deeply and engage more thoughtfully. 

The real challenge isn’t opening minds to the supernatural - that’s already happening. The task now is to show why the longing for cosmic connection finds its true answer in the person of Jesus Christ. And in a world captivated by openness, that’s no easy task. And it's far more attractive to tell people to be more ‘open-minded’ than to be ‘close-minded’. 

The word manifest reveals more than a passing trend—it taps into a deep human longing. Beneath the vision boards and affirmations, beyond the social media buzzwords, lies a shared ache for transcendence—a yearning to live in a world that feels alive, meaningful, and connected. It’s the search for something more.

We’re not just bystanders to this cultural moment; we’re participants in a profound shift. This is an invitation to move beyond easy skepticism or condescension. What we’re witnessing isn’t a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon but a continuation of a timeless quest to find order, purpose, and connection in a universe that so often feels fragmented. 

But let’s be honest: this is a competitive and crowded marketplace of ideas. Ancient philosophies, mystical practices, and modern interpretations are converging in a swirl of cosmic vibrations, personal empowerment, and spiritual techniques. And while that diversity is exciting, it’s also disorienting. The challenge for all of us, no matter our background or beliefs, is to discern what’s authentic, what’s helpful, and what’s merely noise.

Join with us - Behind the Seen

Seen & Unseen is free for everyone and is made possible through the generosity of our amazing community of supporters.

If you’re enjoying Seen & Unseen, would you consider making a gift towards our work?

Alongside other benefits (book discounts etc.), you’ll receive an extra fortnightly email from me sharing what I’m reading and my reflections on the ideas that are shaping our times.

Graham Tomlin

Editor-in-Chief