The Universe

Around the time I was in high school I started noticing people using the term "the Universe" as a non-specific way to refer to whatever ultimate power or principle people believed in. I guess the idea was to be more inclusive. "The Universe" must contain whatever it was you believed in, whether it was the divine, the sublime, or the scientific, and so we could all presumably agree that saying it this way would allow us to share ideas without running afoul of our differences about the specifics. At the time, it made sense.

Over the years, I've soured on that idea for a few reasons. First of all, it seems to divorce the subjects being spoken of from the motive for their expression. The language we use when saying "the universe" is the language of science, not of faith, but it's generally when discussing things pertaining to faith that we feel compelled to use this phrasing. If I'm not a person of faith, then this is fine for me. But since I am a person of faith, I struggle to feel that I'm saying what I really mean if I have to say "the Universe" instead of "God" or "Jesus Christ," or something along those lines. Worse, I sometimes feel that I'm betraying that faith by refusing to acknowledge of my worship of God for the sake of not offending. I feel that I'm acting ashamed of my beliefs.  

Which leads me to my second reason: there is a difference between the divine and "the Universe." The universe may (or may not) contain what I believe in, but that doesn't make it the same thing. At best, it's a lousy euphemism. At worst, it's wildly inaccurate and arguably dishonest. The nation contains the executive branch of the government, but it also contains many other things. If I want to talk about the U.S. President, then saying "the nation" or even "the government" probably isn't very useful. Words can be specific for a reason. I know that languages evolve and meanings change, and of course language is as much art as science, but generally speaking, words mean something, here and now. Synonyms are often only close in meaning, not precisely equal. Part of the fun is appreciating the nuances of words and exploring the richness of expression that is possible because of those fine distinctions. I want to say what I mean, and mean what I say. Otherwise, how can I stand by my words?

Finally, and perhaps least persuasively because it's an emotional reason, it feels unequal. I'm not one to see phantom attacks on religious liberty every time non-religious people try to exercise their rights, but insisting on "the Universe" still sometimes seems like it's saying to religious people "you can't talk about this in ways that are consistent with your beliefs because someone might not like it." It seems like people with one worldview dictating how conversations have to happen just because they don't want to hear about other worldviews. But freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. The goal is to protect everyone's right to be openly true to the things they believe in, not to act like nobody believes in anything so we don't have to be uncomfortable. 

I get that there may be times when this isn't straightforward. I'm a public employee in a position of authority over children. I am legally constrained not to promote one set of beliefs over any other. But I still have a right to my own beliefs, and so the question becomes, who am I speaking for? This can get complex and thorny. There's always nuance. But for me personally, "the Universe" just doesn't cut it as a way to talk about God, even with people who don't share my faith.