s the sole field of action. Sowhy all the fuss over a word? Such a concept would surely find support among new-age thinkers, whohave borrowed heavily from the Hindu pantheistic philosophers for theirworld view of spirituality and interconnectedness. Finally, it wouldresonate most powerfully with environmentalists--atheist and theistalike--who would find that identifying God with nature encourages aprofound respect for the nature of which we are a part. To be sure, I have simplified this image of God egregiously. Mypurpose here is not to work out the philosophical and theologicaldifficulties (and there are many!) inherent in this image, but tosuggest that it is likely to be acceptable to a wide variety of futurebelievers. It seems to me that in our culture it is harder to wrap our brainaround an absolute God than a relative one; that a totally separate Godis less appealing than an immanent one; and that an eternal God is notas religiously useful as a changing, evolving one. In other words, theabsolute, transcendent, changeless image of God inherited from ourancestors may well be dead, or at least in its last throes. But mostpeople are loathe to embrace atheism. Instead, they will save God byreconceptualizing Him. In the twenty-first century, Nietzsche's madmanwill still come too early.ADDED MATERIALABOUT THE AUTHOR Robert B. Mellert, a frequent contributor to THE FUTURIST, teachesphilosophy at Brookdale Community College in New Jersey. The author oftwo books and numerous articles, he holds a doctorate from FordhamUniversity. His address is Philosophy Department, Brookdale CommunityCollege, 765 Newman Springs Road, Lincroft, New Jersey 07738. Telephone1-732-224-2918; e-mail Rmellert@brookdale.cc.nj.usGod's creation of Adam, as depicted by Michelangelo on the ceiling ofthe Sistine Chapel. ED CARLIN / ARCHIVE PHOTOSA picture of God? According to some beliefs, yes: God is all the matterand energy in the universe.Equating God with...
