Re-evaluating the Necessity of a Deity in Modern Religion
The Unasked Assumption
The question whether religion requires a god seems, at first glance, to be a tautology. For much of Western history, and in common parlance today, the concepts of “religion” and “belief in God” have been treated as virtually synonymous. This assumption, however, masks a profound and complex reality. As the world grapples with the forces of modernity, globalization, and an unprecedented cross-pollination of ideas, the very definitions of our most fundamental concepts are being re-examined. The central inquiry of this report is therefore to challenge this unasked assumption: Is the concept of a deity an indispensable component for a belief system to function as a religion in the 21st century, or is it a powerful, historically dominant, yet ultimately contingent feature?
To embark on this investigation requires a careful deconstruction of its core terms, as their meanings are not merely preliminary, but are central to the analysis itself. The term “religion” is notoriously difficult to define. It can be approached through a substantive lens, focusing on its content, such as Sir E.B. Tylor's minimal definition of “the belief in supernatural beings”. This approach, however, proves insufficient in a global context, as it would exclude vast and ancient traditions like Theravada Buddhism and Confucianism, which lack a central creator deity. A more robust framework for this inquiry is provided by functional definitions, which ask not what religion is, but what it does. From this perspective, pioneered by sociologists like Émile Durkheim, religion is a system that provides social cohesion, a framework for meaning, and a moral compass for a community.
Similarly, the concept of a “deity” is not monolithic. It exists on a vast spectrum, ranging from the personal, omnipotent, and transcendent Creator God of the Abrahamic faiths to the pantheons of personified natural forces in polytheism, and extending to impersonal, all-pervading principles like the Dao in Taoism or the ultimate reality of Brahman in Hindu philosophy. In its most modern iterations, divinity can even be understood as a psychological archetype or a potent symbol, where its literal existence is secondary to its function.
Finally, “modernity” must be understood not simply as the contemporary era, but as a socio-historical condition characterized by what Max Weber termed the “disenchantment of the world”—a process of rationalization and secularization that systematically challenges supernatural explanations with those of science and reason. This process, coupled with a growing emphasis on individualism and personal autonomy, has created a fertile ground for new forms of meaning-making that do not necessarily rely on traditional theistic structures.
This report argues that while theistic frameworks have historically dominated religious landscapes, the core functions of religion—providing meaning, a moral compass, and community—are increasingly and effectively being met by established non-theistic traditions and emerging post-theistic or human-centric systems. This analysis will demonstrate that a deity is a powerful and common, but not a logically or functionally necessary, component of modern religion. The locus of the sacred, a key element of any religious system, is shown to be evolving from a transcendent, supernatural God to immanent sources such as nature, humanity, or ethical principles themselves.
Defining Religion and Divinity in a Modern World
To adequately address whether modern religions need a deity, it is imperative to first establish a clear and consistent analytical framework. The definitions of “religion” and “deity” are not static; they are contested concepts whose boundaries have shifted under the pressures of cross-cultural encounter and academic scrutiny. This section will deconstruct these core terms, moving beyond simplistic, culturally bound assumptions to build a more robust and inclusive model for analysis.
The Sociological and Anthropological Lens on 'Religion'
The very framing of the central question—do modern religions need a deity?—compels a shift away from what the academic study of religion calls substantive definitions. A substantive definition, such as Sir Edward Burnett Tylor's 19th-century proposal that religion is minimally “the belief in supernatural beings,” is too narrow for a comprehensive modern analysis. While foundational to the anthropology of religion, this definition immediately excludes traditions like Theravada Buddhism, Jainism, and philosophical Taoism, which operate without a central, creator God. If religion is defined by a belief in God, then the question of its necessity becomes circular and trivial.
A more productive approach, and the one adopted for this report, is a functional one. This perspective, central to the sociology of religion, defines religion by the social and psychological functions it performs for its adherents and the wider society. The seminal figure in this tradition is Émile Durkheim, who saw religion as fundamentally a social phenomenon. He defined it as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them”.
Durkheim's definition is revolutionary for three reasons that are critical to this analysis. First, it shifts the focus from the object of belief (a deity) to the function of the belief system: creating social cohesion. Second, it introduces the universal dichotomy between the sacred and the profane as the essential characteristic of religious thought. The sacred is not necessarily a supernatural being; it can be a rock, a tree, an idea, or a principle that a community sets apart and treats with awe and reverence. Third, it identifies the “moral community” as the social expression of religion. For Durkheim, when people worship the sacred, they are, in effect, worshipping a symbolic representation of their society and its collective power. This functionalist lens allows for the inclusion of non-theistic systems, provided they fulfill these roles of creating a sacred order and binding a community.
This view is complemented by the symbolic anthropology of Clifford Geertz. Geertz defined religion as “(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic”. Geertz’s definition is valuable because it highlights religion's role in meaning-making. A religion provides a comprehensive worldview, a map of reality that makes sense of suffering, provides purpose, and motivates behaviour. This function can be fulfilled by a belief in a creator God, but it can equally be fulfilled by a belief in an impersonal cosmic law like karma or a philosophical principle like the Dao.
Synthesizing these perspectives, this report will consider a belief system “religious” if it provides its adherents with:
A distinction between the sacred and the profane, establishing a source of ultimate value and meaning.
A framework for a “general order of existence,” answering fundamental questions about life, suffering, and purpose.
A set of beliefs and practices (rituals) that bind individuals into a cohesive moral community.
The Spectrum of the Divine Deconstructing 'Deity'
Just as the definition of religion must be broadened, so too must the concept of “deity.” The English word derives from the Latin deus (“god”) and was used by Augustine of Hippo to denote “divine nature”. In its most common modern usage, particularly in the West, it refers to a supernatural being, conceived as sacred and worthy of worship due to its power and authority.
This classical theistic model, most articulated in the Abrahamic traditions, envisions a single, supreme being who is typically described as omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent, and eternal. This God is a personal creator who stands apart from the universe (transcendent) yet is actively involved in its affairs (immanent).
However, this is only one point on a wide spectrum of divinity. Expanding from this model, we encounter:
Polytheistic Pantheons: In many ancient and modern religions, such as Greco-Roman, Norse, and various forms of Hinduism, deities are multiple. These gods and goddesses often personify forces of nature (e.g., sun gods, sea gods) or abstract principles (e.g., wisdom, war). While a supreme deity like Zeus may exist, power is distributed, and no single being necessarily possesses all “omni” attributes.
Henotheistic Systems: These systems, found in some interpretations of Vedic Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, accept one supreme deity without denying the existence or validity of other, lesser deities. These other gods may be considered aspects or emanations of the one divine principle.
Impersonal and Abstract Divinity: Moving further from personhood, some traditions conceive of the divine as an impersonal force, power, or ultimate reality. In Taoism, the Dao is the formless, eternal source and pattern of the universe, but it is not a conscious being that issues commands or responds to worship. Similarly, in the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism, Nirguna Brahman is the attributeless, ultimate reality that is the substratum of all existence, distinct from the personal, attributed forms of God (Saguna Brahman) that are worshipped.
Psychological and Symbolic Divinity: In the context of modernity, some traditions, particularly within Modern Paganism, view deities as powerful symbols or psychological constructs. For these practitioners, the gods, and goddesses may be understood as Jungian archetypes or metaphors for natural and psychological forces. Their literal, external existence is considered less important than their function in ritual and their impact on the practitioner's consciousness.
This spectrum reveals that while a personal, commanding God is a powerful and widespread concept, the function of “divinity”—as a locus of the sacred, a source of cosmic order, and an object of reverence—can be vested in a wide array of entities, from persons to principles to symbols.
Secularization, Rationalization, and Individualism
The question whether religion needs a deity is particularly salient in the context of modernity. Modernity is not merely a time but a set of social and cultural transformations that began with the Enlightenment and fundamentally altered the relationship between humanity, reason, and faith. Max Weber described one of its core processes as the “disenchantment of the world”. This refers to the rise of rationalization, where scientific, bureaucratic, and logical systems of explanation systematically replace supernatural and magical ones. Modernity introduces a competing cosmology based on empirical evidence and natural laws, which inherently challenges the authority of religious narratives based on revelation.
This process fuels secularization. In a sociological sense, secularization is not the eradication of religion but its displacement from the centre of public life and its loss of authority as the primary source of social legitimation. Religious beliefs and practices may persist, and even thrive, but they increasingly become a matter of private conviction rather than public fact. This creates a “marketplace of meaning” where religious worldviews must compete with secular alternatives like science and humanism.
Crucially, modernity also fosters a profound sense of individualism and personal autonomy. Traditional sources of authority—the church, the clan, the village—are weakened, and the individual is increasingly considered the primary locus of meaning and moral decision-making. This cultural shift encourages a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning”, which can lead individuals away from dogmatic, creed-based religions toward more eclectic, personal, or non-theistic spiritual paths.
Therefore, modernity acts not simply as an antagonist to religion, but as a catalyst for its transformation. By challenging the plausibility of a supernatural, interventionist deity and empowering the individual to construct their worldview, modernity creates the cultural space in which non-theistic or post-theistic religions can emerge and flourish. Systems like Secular Humanism, which grounds ethics in human reason, and Unitarian Universalism, which grounds community in a shared covenant rather than a creed, are direct products of this modern condition. They represent conscious attempts to fulfill the enduring human needs for meaning, morality, and community in a disenchanted world.
The Theistic Imperative: Systems Built Around a Central Deity
While the previous section established a framework for analyzing religion beyond theism, it is undeniable that for billions of people, a deity is not merely an optional feature but the absolute foundation of their worldview. In these systems, the deity serves as the ontological anchor of reality, the ultimate source of moral law, and the primary object of devotion. Examining these traditions reveals precisely what functions a deity performs, thereby clarifying what any non-theistic alternative must accomplish to be considered functionally religious.
The Abrahamic God and the Foundation of Moral and Cosmic Order
The monotheistic traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam represent the most unambiguous model of a deity-centric religion. In these faiths, the single, transcendent God is not just a part of reality; He is its very precondition.
God as Creator, Sustainer, and Lawgiver The Abrahamic God is, first and foremost, the Creator of the universe. This is not a one-time act, but an ongoing process of sustaining all existence. Genesis opens with God creating the world ex nihilo (out of nothing), and the Qur'an repeatedly identifies Allah as the creator and sustainer of all worlds. This role establishes God as the ultimate ontological reality, the “First Cause” and “Primary Being” from whom all other existence derives.
Crucially, this God is also the ultimate Lawgiver. Morality is not a human invention or a discovery of natural reason alone; it is a revealed truth originating from the divine will. This principle is formalized in what philosophers call
Divine Command Theory (DCT), which, in its strongest form, asserts that an action is morally right if and only if and because God commands it. The Ten Commandments in Judaism and Christianity, and the Sharia in Islam, are paramount examples of moral and legal systems grounded directly in divine revelation. In this framework, the deity is indispensable for ethics; without God's commands, concepts of “right” and “wrong” would lack an objective foundation.
The Euthyphro Dilemma’s absolute dependence on divine will creates a profound philosophical challenge, famously articulated by Plato in his dialogue, Euthyphro. The dilemma, modernized for a monotheistic context, asks: Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? Each horn of this dilemma poses a significant problem for theistic morality.
The First Horn (The Arbitrariness Problem): If an action is good solely because God commands it, then morality becomes arbitrary. God's will is the only standard, meaning that if God were to command what we perceive as senseless cruelty—such as torturing children for fun—that act would, by definition, become morally obligatory. This renders morality contingent on what appears to be divine whim and makes the statement “God is good” a meaningless tautology, equivalent to saying “God does what God wills”.
The Second Horn (The Redundancy Problem): If God commands an action because it is already good, then goodness is a standard that exists independently of God. This would mean that God is not the ultimate author of morality, but rather a supremely knowledgeable guide who recognizes and communicates a pre-existing moral law. While this preserves the objectivity of morality, it compromises God's sovereignty and makes the deity technically redundant for the foundation of ethics. A non-believer could, in principle, access this same moral standard through reason alone.
Theistic traditions have developed sophisticated responses to this challenge. The most prominent is a Modified Divine Command Theory, often associated with philosopher Robert Adams. This view argues that moral obligations are indeed based on God's commands, but these commands are not arbitrary. Instead, they are a necessary expression of God's unchanging and essentially good nature. God commands us to be loving because God is love; He commands justice because He is just. This attempts to ground morality in God's eternal character, making His nature—not just His will—the ultimate standard. In this view, God could not command cruelty for its own sake because it would violate His own perfect being. This response seeks to escape both horns by wedding God's will to His nature, thus making the specific character of the deity absolutely essential to the entire moral framework.
The Hindu Pantheon and Deities as Access Points to Ultimate Reality
Hinduism offers a more fluid and multifaceted approach to divinity, one that can appear as polytheistic, henotheistic, or monistic, depending on the school of thought and the practitioner. This complexity reveals a different function for deities than that found in the Abrahamic faiths. While a vast pantheon of gods and goddesses exists, each governing different aspects of life and the cosmos, they are often understood not as independent, ultimate beings but as manifestations or access points to a single, ultimate reality.
The Trimurti and a Universe of Deities At a high level, the Hindu cosmos is governed by the Trimurti: Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer and transformer. These three deities personify the eternal cosmic cycles of creation, maintenance, and dissolution. Below them exists a vast pantheon, including goddesses like Lakshmi (prosperity) and Saraswati (knowledge), and gods like Ganesha (remover of obstacles). For many Hindus, daily life involves devotion (bhakti) to one or more of these deities, who serve as role models, provide guidance, and offer blessings.
Saguna and Nirguna Brahman: The Personal and the Impersonal Divine This seemingly polytheistic structure is reconciled within many Hindu philosophical traditions through the crucial distinction between Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman.
Nirguna Brahman is the ultimate, transcendent reality. It is formless, attributeless, impersonal, and beyond all human conception. It is the pure, unchanging ground of all being—Sat-Chit-Ananda (existence, consciousness, bliss). From a purely philosophical standpoint, this is the one true reality.
Saguna Brahman is the same ultimate reality, but conceived of with attributes (gunas). It is the immanent, personal, and manifest form of the divine, the creator, and lord of the universe, often identified as Ishvara. The various gods and goddesses of the Hindu pantheon, such as Vishnu, Shiva, and Devi, are understood as forms of Saguna Brahman.
In this framework, the function of the deity becomes clear. Nirguna Brahman, being formless and abstract, is exceptionally difficult to relate to or worship directly. The personal deities of Saguna Brahman serve as tangible, relatable conduits through which a practitioner can connect with the ultimate reality. Worshipping a chosen personal deity (Ishta-devata) is a valid and effective path toward realizing the divine. The deity is thus a functionally necessary intermediary, a personification of the impersonal absolute that allows for devotion, ritual, and a personal relationship with the sacred.
The function of a deity in these highly theistic systems, whether Abrahamic or Hindu, is to render the abstract concrete. In the Abrahamic faiths, the abstract concept of objective morality is made tangible through the specific commands of a divine Lawgiver. In devotional Hinduism, the abstract concept of an ultimate, formless reality (Nirguna Brahman) is made accessible through the worship of personal, relatable deities (Saguna Brahman). In both cases, the deity acts as a crucial bridge between the human, experiential world and a transcendent order of meaning and morality. This suggests that any functional equivalent to a deity in a non-theistic system must also be capable of performing this vital bridging function, translating abstract principles into a lived reality for its community.
Furthermore, the very structure of the moral system influences the conception of the deity. The Euthyphro dilemma is most potent against the Abrahamic model of a God who is a volitional commander, creating a separation between the law and the lawgiver. In many Hindu traditions, however, dharma (moral and cosmic order) is not a set of commands from Brahman but is an intrinsic quality of Brahman. Deities like Vishnu do not arbitrarily decide what Dharma is; they embody and uphold it as part of their essential nature. Asking whether Vishnu upholds Dharma because it is good, or if Dharma is good because Vishnu upholds it, becomes a category error, as the two are inextricably linked. This illustrates that the perceived “necessity” of a deity is intimately tied to the type of moral and cosmic order a religion proposes. A system based on command requires a commander; a system based on harmony requires exemplars of that harmony.
Life Without a Creator: Established Non-Theistic Religions
The existence of ancient, complex, and enduring religious traditions that function without a central creator deity provides the most direct evidence that such a being is not a prerequisite for a belief system to be considered a religion. These systems, primarily originating in Asia, successfully fulfill the core religious functions of providing a moral framework, a path to liberation, and a comprehensive worldview through alternative mechanisms. They replace the figure of a divine lawgiver with impersonal cosmic laws and shift the locus of the sacred from a transcendent person to an immanent principle or an achievable state of being.
Morality and Liberation in Buddhism and Jainism
Both Buddhism and Jainism emerged from the spiritual landscape of ancient India, and both explicitly reject the concept of a creator god as necessary for understanding the universe or achieving spiritual liberation. The Buddha, when questioned about metaphysical issues like the world's origin, famously maintained a “noble silence,” deeming such speculation irrelevant to the urgent task of ending suffering (dukkha). The universe, in these traditions, is viewed as eternal, uncreated, and operating according to its own inherent laws.
Karma as Impersonal Moral Law In place of a divine judge who dispenses rewards and punishments, these traditions posit the impersonal, natural law of karma. This principle of moral causation serves the same function as a deity in ensuring cosmic justice, but it does so automatically and without a conscious administrator.
In Buddhism, karma is defined by intention (cetanā). Actions, words, and thoughts driven by wholesome roots—such as compassion, generosity, and wisdom—lead to positive future experiences and favourable rebirths. Conversely, actions driven by unwholesome roots—greed, hatred, and delusion—lead to suffering and unfavourable rebirths. The moral framework is thus consequentialist and psychological. The goal is not to please a deity, but to purify the mind of these negative roots, thereby breaking the cycle of rebirth (samsara) and attaining the ultimate liberation of Nirvana.
In Jainism, the concept of karma is even more distinct, understood as a form of subtle, physical matter (pudgala) that adheres to the soul (jiva) as a result of actions. This karmic dust obscures the soul's inherent qualities of infinite knowledge, perception, and bliss. The ethical path, centred on the rigorous practice of ahimsa (non-violence) in thought, word, and deed, is designed to prevent the influx of new karma (samvara) and to burn away existing karma (nirjarā) through asceticism. Liberation (moksha) is the complete purification of the soul from all karmic particles, a state achieved entirely through self-effort. The Jain framework places absolute responsibility on the individual; the soul alone is the master of its destiny, with no divine grace or intervention possible.
The law of karma in these systems functions as a perfect, decentralized mechanism of divine judgment. It provides a comprehensive explanation for suffering and inequality, thus resolving the problem of theodicy without needing a theos (god). It establishes a clear and direct link between morality and an individual's fate, providing a powerful incentive for ethical behaviour. This demonstrates that a core function of a judging God—ensuring moral accountability—can be fully satisfied by an impersonal, natural law.
Enlightened Beings as Guides, Not Saviours While rejecting a creator god, both traditions venerate enlightened human beings who have achieved the ultimate spiritual goal. In Buddhism, this is the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas; in Jainism, these are the Tirthankaras (“ford-makers”). However, their role is fundamentally different from that of a saviour deity. They are not worshipped for salvation or divine intervention. Instead, they are revered as supreme teachers and role models who, through their efforts, discovered and laid out the path to liberation. They can show the way, but each individual must walk the path themselves. Their veneration provides a focus for devotion and inspiration, but the responsibility for spiritual progress remains squarely with the practitioner.
The Way of Harmony: Social and Natural Order in Taoism and Confucianism
The philosophical traditions of Taoism and Confucianism, which have profoundly shaped East Asian culture, offer another model for a non-theistic religious framework. They ground meaning, morality, and ritual not in a personal deity, but in impersonal, transcendent principles that govern the cosmos and human society. Here, the locus of the sacred shifts from a divine person to a cosmic or social principle.
Taoism and the Dao: At the heart of Taoism lies the Dao (Tao), often translated as “the Way”. The Dao is the ineffable, primordial source and underlying pattern of the universe. It is formless, nameless, and eternal, existing before heaven and earth. However, the Dao is not a conscious, personal creator who issues commands. The goal of a Taoist is not to worship the Dao, but to live harmonizing with it through wu wei—spontaneous, effortless action that aligns with the natural flow of things. While religious Taoism later developed a complex pantheon of deities and immortals, these figures are understood as manifestations or administrators of the Dao, not its ultimate source. The ultimate sacred reality remains the impersonal Dao itself.
Confucianism and Social Order: Confucianism is often described as a system of social and ethical philosophy rather than a religion in the Western sense. Its primary concern is not with the supernatural or an afterlife, but with establishing a harmonious and just society on Earth. Morality is derived from Tian (Heaven), which is understood not as a personal god but as a transcendent moral order and the source of virtue. This moral order is made manifest through the cultivation of key virtues like ren (benevolence, humaneness), yi (righteousness), and, crucially, li (propriety, ritual).
Li refers to the proper conduct within social relationships (ruler-subject, father-son, husband-wife) and the correct performance of rituals, especially ancestor veneration. For Confucius, the sacred is located in these ordered human relationships and the rituals that sustain them. The goal is social fulfillment, not divine salvation.
In these systems, abstract principles—the Dao, Tian, Li—are treated with the same awe and reverence that theistic traditions reserve for a deity. They fulfill the Geertzian function of providing a “general order of existence” and the Durkheimian function of defining a sacred realm. Ritual and ethical life are oriented toward aligning oneself with this sacred principle, not supplicating a divine being. This demonstrates that the religious need for a transcendent anchor for meaning and morality can be met by an abstract principle, proving that a personal deity is not a universal requirement.
Emerging Spiritualities and Secular Frameworks
The conditions of modernity—rationalization, secularization, and individualism—have not only challenged traditional theistic religions but have also acted as a crucible for new spiritual and ethical systems. These modern movements are particularly relevant to this inquiry because many are explicitly designed to provide the functional benefits of religion—community, morality, ritual, and meaning—without recourse to a supernatural deity. They represent a conscious test of the hypothesis that religion's functions can be decoupled from a belief in God, and in doing so, they reveal a profound relocation and redefinition of the sacred.
Secular Humanism and the Rational Pursuit of the Good Life
Secular Humanism is a comprehensive life stance or philosophy that explicitly rejects supernaturalism, religious dogma, and belief in a deity as a basis for morality and decision-making. It posits that human beings are fully capable of leading ethical, moral, and fulfilling lives without religion.
Instead of divine command, Secular Humanism grounds its ethical framework in principles accessible to all through shared human experience: reason, empathy, and a concern for human flourishing. Morality is not revealed from on high but is constructed through critical thinking, scientific inquiry, and an understanding of the consequences of our actions. The goal is to create a more just, compassionate, and equitable society “here and now,” rather than focusing on an afterlife.
While rejecting the structure of traditional religion, Secular Humanism consciously provides functional equivalents for its key benefits. Humanist organizations and communities offer a sense of belonging and social support, analogous to a church or synagogue. Frameworks like the “Ten Commitments”—which include values such as Critical Thinking, Ethical Development, Service and Participation, and Empathy—provide a clear guide for a purposeful and moral life, directly substituting for religious moral codes. In this system, the sacred is relocated. Instead of a transcendent God, it is human potential, reason, and the project of collective well-being that are held as the ultimate source of value and meaning. Secular Humanism thus stands as a direct, modern answer to the question, demonstrating that a comprehensive, meaning-giving, and moral life stance can be built on a foundation that is explicitly non-theistic.
Unitarian Universalism (UU)
Unitarian Universalism (UU) represents a unique development in the modern religious landscape: a faith tradition united not by a shared creed or theology, but by a shared covenant to affirm a set of guiding principles. Originating from liberal Christian denominations that rejected the doctrine of the Trinity (Unitarianism) and eternal damnation (Universalism), modern UU has evolved into a non-creedal movement that is theologically diverse and inclusive.
Within UU congregations, belief in a deity is entirely optional and a matter of personal conscience. The community explicitly welcomes atheists, agnostics, humanists, theists from various traditions (Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Pagan), and those who are simply “seekers”. This theological pluralism is made possible because the community's cohesion is not based on shared beliefs about God, but on a commitment to shared values.
The binding force of the community is its covenant, most famously expressed in the “Seven Principles” and “Six Sources”. The Principles include affirmations such as “The inherent worth and dignity of every person” and “Respect for the interdependent web of all existence, of which we are a part”. The Sources from which UU draws wisdom are explicitly pluralistic, including “direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder,” “wisdom from the world's religions,” and “humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science”.
Unitarian Universalism demonstrates that a vibrant religious community, complete with rituals (such as chalice lighting), rites of passage, social justice work, and spiritual exploration, can thrive without a mandatory belief in a deity. The function of social cohesion, which Durkheim saw as central to religion, is achieved through a covenant of shared practice and values rather than a creed of shared theological claims. The locus of the sacred is found not in a specific god, but in the community itself, the search for truth, and the “interdependent web of existence.”
Divinity in Modern Paganism
Modern Paganism, an umbrella term for a diverse family of new religious movements including Wicca, Druidry, and Heathenry, offers a different kind of answer. These traditions are inspired by the pre-Christian religions of Europe and the Near East, but they are not simply historical reconstructions; they are modern creations that reflect contemporary values.
The theological landscape of Paganism is exceptionally diverse, deliberately resisting dogma and centralization. It comfortably accommodates polytheism (belief in many gods and goddesses), pantheism (the belief that the divine and the universe are one), animism (the belief that all things have a spirit), and even atheism. For many Pagans, the central theological principle is the immanence of the divine: the sacred is not a remote, transcendent creator but is found within nature, the community, and the self.
This immanent focus leads to a fluid and personalized understanding of deities. A practitioner might worship specific gods and goddesses from Celtic, Norse, or Greek pantheons as distinct, real beings (“hard polytheism”). Another might view these same deities as psychological archetypes, metaphors for natural forces, or different facets of a single, overarching divine reality (“soft polytheism”). For such Pagans, the literal existence of the gods is less important than their symbolic power in ritual and their ability to facilitate personal growth and a connection to nature.
Pagan ethics are typically virtue-based and situational rather than absolutist and rule-based. The most well-known ethical guideline is the Wiccan Rede: “An it harm none, do what ye will,” which places the responsibility for moral decision-making on the individual, guided by a principle of non-harm. Ritual is central to Pagan practice, with ceremonies often timed to the cycles of the moon (Esbats) and the seasons (the eight Sabbats of the Wheel of the Year, such as Samhain and Beltane). These rituals serve to connect practitioners to the rhythms of the earth, build community, and facilitate magical work, which is often understood as a form of focused intention or prayer aimed at creating positive change.
Modern Paganism demonstrates that a rich, ritualistic, and spiritually fulfilling religious life can exist with a completely optional and radically redefined concept of deity. The “gods” are not necessarily required as external, authoritative beings but can function as personalized symbols of a sacred, interconnected, and re-enchanted natural world.
Does Modern Religion Need a Deity?
The exploration across a diverse spectrum of belief systems—from ancient theistic traditions to modern secular philosophies—reveals that the relationship between religion and divinity is far more complex and fluid than common assumptions suggest. To answer the central question of whether a modern religion needs a deity, it is essential to synthesize the findings by comparing how these different frameworks fulfill the core functions of religion. This comparative analysis demonstrates that while a deity is a powerful and historically prevalent solution to the human needs for meaning, morality, and community, it is not a necessary one.
The Enduring Functions and Evolving Forms of Religion
This comparative analysis leads to a clear and nuanced conclusion. The human need for religion—understood functionally as a system that provides meaning, morality, and community—is a persistent feature of societies across the globe. As Max Weber identified, humans are troubled by the question of theodicy—the problem of suffering and undeserved fortune—and seek soteriological answers that provide relief and meaning. As Émile Durkheim argued, humans are social creatures who require the binding force of shared rituals and sacred symbols to create a cohesive moral community. Finally, all societies require an ethical framework to guide behaviour and ensure social order, a role religion has historically filled.
A personal, commanding deity has proven to be a remarkably effective and historically dominant mechanism for fulfilling these functions. A creator God provides a definitive answer to existential questions. A divine lawgiver offers an unambiguous source of morality. A personal God who answers prayers provides immense psychological comfort and a focus for community worship. In this sense, a deity is a sufficient condition for a functioning religion.
However, the evidence from both ancient non-theistic traditions and modern spiritualities demonstrates that it is not a necessary condition. The core functions of religion can be, and are, met through powerful alternative structures. The impersonal law of karma provides a robust solution to the problem of theodicy and a compelling basis for moral action. Abstract principles like the Dao or Tian can serve as the locus of the sacred, orienting individuals toward a life of harmony and virtue. Modern frameworks consciously relocate the sacred into human reason, the covenantal community, or the natural world itself, building ethical and meaning-making systems on these immanent foundations.
Therefore, the question “Do modern religions need a deity?” must be answered in the negative. The need is not for a deity per se, but for the functions that a deity has traditionally performed. The modern religious landscape is defined by a profound diversification in how those functions are fulfilled. The future of religion is not a simple narrative of decline in the face of secularism, but a complex story of transformation and adaptation. The enduring human quest for meaning, morality, and community continues, but the forms it takes are becoming increasingly pluralistic, personalized, and, in numerous instances, post-theistic. The sacred endures, but its face is ever-changing.