Is Religion Human in Origin?

[The following objection, in those very words I include below, comes from a dialogue I had with an atheist friend many years ago. However, for the purposes of this piece, I have revised my response so as to make it more generally applicable to other people’s objections as well. Thus, when I say “the objector” below in my response, it does not necessarily refer to my friend specifically! I wished to make that clear in case he ever reads this.

What I am afraid I do not make clear, however, is my answer below. So let me state the substance of it here. It is simply that in Christianity, there are obviously human elements to be found, as is no surprise, but that such is not incompatible with it nevertheless being a divine revelation. Noting human elements that are inevitably there does not thereby prove it to be “human” in origin. I believe God can use various elements of societies (or “society” as often I term it below as a kind of shorthand) as vehicles for conveying His own inspired message. Thus, He used the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew languages in conveying His word in Scripture. During the great Trinitarian controversies in the early church, divine Providence arranged that Greek philosophical language (such as the terms “person” and “substance”), though clearly human in origin, were instruments for explaining doctrines that were not human in origin, but part of divine revelation. Other examples can also be given. In other words, I argue that Christianity, though a lot of human elements are to be found in it (for instance, in its philosophy, literature, arts, etc.) is nevertheless divine in its origin.]

Objection: The origin of the religious institution can be found within society rather than in the divine. In other words, I find religion to be wholly human, containing nothing of the supernatural.

I don't believe religion to be "wholly human, containing nothing of the supernatural." I believe that the presence of the supernatural in religion (certainly the Christian religion) on the level of fact has been established for a long time to any objective, adequately informed inquirer. To be honest, it seems that usually only a priori philosophical prejudices are responsible for a person thinking otherwise (albeit there are certainly exceptions to that rule, I hasten to add!) But that’s another debate.

At the moment, however, I would observe that the objector seems to perhaps have misunderstandings on the deeper level of principle (and not simply that of fact) concerning the relationship between a divine revelation and any given society that receives it. But in order to explain what I mean, I think perhaps it would be best for me to simply explain my own religion, and its views on the relations between the divine and the human aspects of religion.

First of all, I do believe Catholicism to have been founded by God. Specifically, I believe nearly two thousand years ago Jesus of Nazareth (the second Person of the Trinity made man), building on the foundation of the religion of the Old Testament, presented new revelation to mankind and established a new and everlasting covenant between God and man, made possible by His death, resurrection, and ascension into Heaven. I believe that He started a divine society to which all men are called. I believe that society has continued throughout the ages to this day, and is guided by the Holy Spirit, being protected from error in what it teaches (under certain circumstances). I believe its sacraments to be channels of God's grace. So in that sense and in those aspects, I do not believe Catholicism to be simply and solely a product of human society in the least (no matter what anyone else may think). It is by its very nature divine in origin.

With those qualifications stated, I also recognize the obvious, however, that Catholicism contains human aspects. God made such revelation within a particular historical society. It is also of necessity (in non-essentials) affected by any particular society in which it it is to be found. Different societies have affected it in diverse ways throughout history, whether in its philosophies or art or institutions, and so forth. It has absorbed elements of those various societies. (Some examples include Aristotelian philosophy, Gothic architecture, Roman organization such as dioceses, etc.) In that sense, it clearly is a product of society, if one wishes to put it that way. That is not exactly (pardon the pun) a revelation to anybody, least of all Christians.

My natural question then is this: why do people try to pit the two against each other? That is to say, why do they try to present a scenario in which human and supernatural aspects in a religion are mutually exclusive. Why is one considered incompatible with the other? On what basis does one come to that conclusion? Why can't God act through the human elements of a society? Cannot divine Providence do so? Why can't grace perfect nature? Why shouldn't true religion be influenced by both the human and the divine? To be honest, it appears to be a false dichotomy. It seems many maintain that if there are human elements contributed from the society in which the religion exists (and naturally there will be quite many of those, of course, by necessity), therefore the whole thing is human in origin. I don't understand that. In religion, the divine and the human are not in any sort of competition. Of course, a distinction needs to be made between the divine and the human elements; the former are by their very nature essential, while the latter can be added or eliminated as circumstances dictate. (It is impossible for there to be none, however, such as, for instance, the language that a revelation was received in.) But it should cause no surprise that there would be human elements as well as divine in true religion.

On the contrary, I would expect a heavy emphasis on an interaction between the human and the divine as described above to be an absolutely essential consequence of true religion. If I were approaching the subject for the first time, and I came across a religion which did not make such an emphasis, but claimed to be “wholly other”, I would consider it likely to be false on that account alone. That is why I am confused by both the fundamentalist and sceptical objections to the truth of Catholicism based on the fact of the obvious influence of various societies on Catholicism (including pagan societies even, where there was no religious error involved ). But why should such influence call into question the truth or divine origin of Catholicism? I would be surprised if the true religion wasn't so influenced!

After all, the idea that God would work through society, and that society could influence religion by God's design is precisely what I would expect. That's one reason that I'm a Catholic. Indeed, one of the words that describes the Catholic worldview best of all is "sacramental", and I believe it to be particularly applicable in this discussion.

We Catholics believe that with the sacraments, for instance, God works through ordinary things (such as water, wheat, wine, oil, etc.) to transmit his supernatural grace. Similarly, He uses otherwise fallible human beings (such as the Pope, bishops, priests, etc.) to express His will and guide His people on earth. He uses human language in Scripture to convey divine revelation. It only stands to reason that He would use society as an instrument of His providence as well. Society will always of necessity have an intimate connection with true religion and shape it greatly (where no error is involved). I believe that to make perfect sense. God loves working through the world. Catholicism is the exact opposite of Gnosticism. In short, if God reveals himself to the human race, He naturally will reveal Himself through human means, including society. (Of course, that presupposes one accepts the sacramental worldview. But then again, I do, for the reasons that I shall explain.)

If there is a God, would you not expect Him to work through human things to interact with human beings? Would you not expect God to work through the ordinary most of the time, since it’s precisely the ordinary that affects most of humanity? Would you not expect God to work through the societies that are already in place and in which a religion finds itself? I certainly would. Indeed, how could He do otherwise (apart from a perpetual miracle)? And why would He even if He could? God loves humanity. After all, He created it. Certainly He will work through it and its institutions and cultures and so forth. That would appear obvious to me. We are social creatures; certainly society is a fit subject for being made an instrument of the divine. As a result, Catholicism takes a positive view of the world. Society, in and of itself, is good. It obviously will (and should) influence religion. We live in a fallen world, it is true. (Thus, as a Christian I must naturally not be "of the world" when it comes to the corruptions of society, I hasten to add.) But it is still an essentially good world, and society, in the abstract, is essentially good. Why resist society's influence (even that of a pagan society) on religion when no error is involved? Again, it should influence religion. It may be an example of the divine working through a human element.

In fact, the most sacramental aspect of Catholicism also happens to be the most wonderful truth of the entire religion: God became man. Think of the implications of that. Think of the consequent view such a revelation would lead to when examining the relations between the human and the divine. If one can accept that doctrine (and there are good reasons for doing so), then what has just been written follows as a natural consequence.

One may deny, of course, that there is a God, or that if there is a God one may deny that God became man. But if he grants it even possible that the first or both of those premises are true, then why wouldn't it be possible that divine Providence works through human elements in society as well in guiding us? If God worked through Man in accomplishing salvation, would He not work through men in propagating it (including by society)?

The very least that can be said is this: if God became man, certainly the whole of what Christians call "salvation history" is what you would expect as a result. The whole development of Judaism and Christianity, with all the societal influences they have had, would seem to be the obvious course of history if there is in fact a God who became man. The hypothesis of the divine origin of Judaism and Christianity certainly fits the facts accounting for their growth and development (and the inevitable influences of various societies upon them) at least as well as any other theory, if nothing else.

That is the Catholic worldview. Grace builds upon nature, and the divine works through the human. Clearly religion will be inherently human in a great many aspects, and a great deal of its non-essentials will, for very obvious reasons, have been found to have originated within society. That doesn't prevent religion from being divine as well. It just shows that it is human. Or, in other words, that it is an Incarnational religion.

So long as a distinction is made between the divine and the human, then it is kind of appropriate to have a religion that is filled with human elements when the religion is for humans, don't you think?

There is, in other words, an inherent humanity to true religion (which I believe Catholicism to be). I would simply maintain that there is no conflict between the inherent humanity on one hand, and the supernaturality on the other. Both elements are there. The "supernaturality" puts on the "inherent humanity". Or, in other words:

"The Word was made flesh." (cf. John 1:14)