Few words spark as much emotion, offense, ownership or outright dismissal as the word God. In modern conversation, it is arguably the most triggering word in the English language. But the real question is: why? Why does a word that points to the foundation of existence evoke more hostility and dismissal than curiosity or reflection?
In my experience, the answer begins with association. For most people in the West, “God” is synonymous with Christianity. And Christianity, for many, carries the weight of personal trauma, institutional abuse, cultural dominance, or intellectual frustration. When people leave Christianity, the word God feels like an extension of what they’ve rejected. It becomes an “all or nothing” stance: either you accept the package of Christian doctrine, or you discard the word entirely.
The Enlightenment only deepened this reflex. Modern discourse gives people an easy intellectual out: dismiss God as unnecessary, replace Him with secular rationalism, and continue as though nothing fundamental was lost. It can be a comforting cop-out: one could appear rigorous by rejecting “faith,” while quietly enjoying the fruits of coherence that faith had historically safeguarded.
But here lies the problem. To disregard God is not simply to leave behind a church or belief system. It is to disregard the very question of being itself, the necessary grounding of reality. Modern discourse assumes one can passively observe reality, like reading a map, without ever conducting a meta-analysis of the terrain. Yet the map is only useful if there is coherence; if reality holds together. And coherence does not emerge from within the system; it requires a third party, something neutral and independent, to secure it.
Drop that, and what happens? Tunnel vision, circular reasoning, and a closing of the mind’s door on the most basic question of all: Why is there coherence at all?
Ironically, the same culture that discards God appeals to coherence everywhere else. Scientists demand rigor, engineers require precision, and innovators rely on the constancy of nature to push boundaries. Objectivity is indispensable in science, yet when it comes to existence itself—the fragile participation we all share in being—objectivity is dismissed as unnecessary. Worse, it is replaced with subjective “truths,” shifting moral codes, or the arbitrary will of the powerful.
This is where the fallout shows. Without a truly neutral reference point, what dictates our right to exist? If we allow something just as fragile and contingent as ourselves—whether a government, ideology, or social majority—to hold that power, we create a world where rights are negotiable, not inalienable. And if we assume that we ourselves can dictate others’ right to exist, we fall into the very trap we claim to resist: domination disguised as freedom.
Navigating reality fairly, especially in a world as complex as ours, requires more than goodwill. Nature itself is hierarchical; the food chain is inescapable. To “live and let live” in such a world, we need more than compassion, we need coherence. And coherence, to be trustworthy at that level, must be existentially neutral: a reference point that no one controls, yet everyone depends on.
Which brings me to another point. Why is God rejected, while “spirituality” is embraced? Because spirituality, as modern culture practices it, feels good but doesn’t challenge. It offers a kind of mystical escapism without accountability. It is often more fantastical than religion, but it is safe because it demands little. In contrast, the word God is heavy—it implies judgment, calibration, and responsibility. It forces us to confront the possibility that reality is not ours to invent, but ours to align with.
That, perhaps, is the core reason why God is so triggering: because when the word is used in its true sense—not reduced to myth, or tribal religion, or personal “truths”—it points directly to the uncomfortable truth that we are not the ultimate arbiters of existence. We are players in a game we did not invent, one whose rules are impartial whether we like them or not.
And yet, most of our discussions about God never reach that point. In majority of my interactions with people from all walks of life, I’ve hardly been able to get a word in on the necessary significance coherence plays in order to attain truth. Instead, they circle around fairytales, personal grievances, the Christian deity, or mystical experiences. Everyone ends up talking past each other. No one is actually talking about God as the necessary constant that makes fairness, reason, innovation, and existence itself possible.
Meanwhile, as we argue, someone is always running the show. Power fills the vacuum. If we fail to recognize the true definition of God as the neutral ground of coherence, then those who wish to dictate reality for their own advantage will gladly step in and fill the void.
So perhaps the word God is triggering because, deep down, it unmasks the pretense: our supposed autonomy, our illusions of control, and our selective use of objectivity. It is not God that is incoherent, it is our refusal to speak of Him as He is.