Can Models of God Compete?

  • Jeremy R. Hustwit


Though the very task of modeling God implies that the reality of God is to some degree unknown, there are a variety of positions one may take concerning the degree to which a model is informed by God’s reality. In this essay, I define four possible positions from which one might approach the construction of religious models: mysteriosophy, theopoetics, optimistic realism, and reticent realism. Of these four, I propose that reticent realism is the most advantageous method for constructing models of God. Reticent realism simultaneously assumes that our models are able, in principle, to refer to a divine reality, but must do so with a tentative stance. Absolute confirmation or universal consensus concerning the accuracy of the models will likely never be obtained. Reticent realism entails that models of God can and should be judged better or worse, though a single winning model must remain an eschatological hope.


Religious Experience Optimistic Realism Religious Language Universal Consensus Phenomenological Hermeneutic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Cobb, John B., Jr. 1999a. Responses to relativism: Common ground, deconstruction, and reconstruction. In Transforming Christianity and the world, ed. Paul Knitter. Maryknoll: Orbis.Google Scholar
  2. Cobb, John B., Jr. 1999b. Order out of chaos: A philosophical model of interreligious dialogue. In Transforming Christianity and the world, ed. Paul Knitter. Maryknoll: Orbis.Google Scholar
  3. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2000. Truth and method. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  4. Heidegger, Martin. 1993. Letter on humanism. In Basic writings, ed. David Farrelll Krell, 213–266. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.Google Scholar
  5. Hick, John. 1989. An interpretation of religion: Human responses to the transcendent. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Whitehead, Alfred North. 1925. Science and the modern world. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. Wilder, Amos. 1976. Theopoetic: Theology and the religious imagination. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Religion and PhilosophyMethodist UniversityFayettevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations