posted
I was in a dangerous situation earlier today (car engine dying...highway...etc etc) and afterwards sort of found myself thanking god I was alive even though I profess to be an agnostic. Never mind how rational we think ourselves to be...are our minds simply inclined to believe in higher powers?
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like a Chicken and Egg arguement, near as I can tell more people have believed in some sort of supreme being/God than not, and that shows throughout all of history.
In fact I have trouble thinking up a single culture (we know of) that adopted a policy of general atheism, (outside of post revolutionary France.)
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely understand where your coming from. I often find myself begging 'god' for things that I really need (or think I need). I don't believe in the kind of god who would grant prayers (or wishes) like that, so it is completely illogical to do that.
What makes us pray to or thank a god that we don't believe is there? Does that mean we really do believe in that kind of god and are just decieving ourselves?
I don't think that is it, but I have to grant it the possibility. Maybe it is because we need to feel like we aren't alone, either in the world or in our heads. We need to feel like when we think something that is very important to us, like a heartfelt gratitude that things turned out all right or a urgent need for something to happen, there is someone that hears those thoughts and is paying attention, maybe even able to help us.
I don't think that this means that agnostics or athiests that "thank god" sometimes really do believe in god, just that deep down, they don't want to be alone. Who does?
Whenever I find myself 'praying to god' I recognize it as the metaphore that I believe it to be. I believe that everyone and everything is connected by their subconscious minds, and at certain times, and on certain wavelengths, access information from the worldwide human subconscious. When I am expressing gratitude or wishing for something I need, it is simply my mind communicating with the rest of the hive mind of mankind.
Alrighty, that probably didn't come close to addressing the question you were trying to raise, but I tried anyway.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people search for some sort of higher guidance that can control more than themselves, and knows more than themselves. This "guidance" usually means a God or pantheon of Gods of some kind... as vonk illustrates though, there a other ways to percieve this 'guidance'.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think sometimes a belief in God creates meaning out of otherwise random, meaningless, or maybe tragic events.
It's kind of like the way dreams are processed. A bunch of random things happen and our brains try to make a story or meaning out of it.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Freud had some very interesting things to say about this topic. He said that supernatural belief is motivated by humanity's desire to answer un-answerable questions, and to appeal to a higher authority for those answers. Since we have always had unanswerable questions, it makes perfect sense that so many different religions and ideologies explaning the unknown have evolved over the years.
Freud believed it all started when tribe leaders and shamen were looked upon as superior beings, and worshiped by their followers. This slowly then evolved into religion as we know it today (deity worship), since the former system wasn't able to cope with all the new questions and knowledge humanity was acquiring (plus the leaders were human after all, and an omnipotent diety makes much more sense to worship).
What is most interesting (and controversial) about Freud's analysis is that he said that today we are in the process of another paradigm shift in regards to our beliefs. He saw the rise of science and rationalism as the system that will supplant religion as we know it today, much like religion usurped tribal worship a long time ago. He saw religious faith being replaced with faith in the scientific method. Science and religion are, after all, similar in that they both seek to answer the unknown, and explain nature.
So are people naturally inclined to believe in God(s)? I think that's the wrong question. I think the better question would be to ask "Are people naturally inclined to seek truth and knowledge?", and the answer is most surely yes. Religion was and is a means to attain this understanding. Is it the best mean, and will it continue to be the primary mean (if you think it still is)? That remains to be seen.
EDIT: on a side note, there is some evidence that there is a specific area in the brain which deals with spiritual experiences. There has been research (I'm too lazy to source, if you're interested, the book "the rise of spiritual machines" by Kurtzweil has some info on it) where volunteers had this region of their brain stimulated, and they all then claimed to have spiritual experiences (visions, etc), and each one was tailored to their individual beliefs.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That edit is excellent. Now all we need is to have some cool new designer drug that stimulates that part of the brain for fun.
As for the question, where do you draw the line between "naturally inclined to seek truth and knowledge" and "seek[ing] to answer the unknown"? I think that these two are not necessarily the same. A person can seek truth and knowledge and be perfectly content to let many unknowns remain unknown.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humans are naturally inclined to try to control things around them. Prior to science and real technology, the best way was to invent a god that could be manipulated into doing the big stuff for you, like changing the weather.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point. I think that everyone wants to seek truth and knowledge, but I think that there are those of us who would be content with unknowns, and those of us who wouldn't be (like you said).
That is actually interesting, because it highlights a difference between science and religion. Religion claims to have all the answers (in God), while post quantum-mechanics science (at least so far) acknowledges that some things must remain unknown.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's a slightly distorted version of QM. It is not that we cannot know the momentum of a particle whose position is known; that momentum doesn't exist. I think there's a difference between saying "The colours of the feathers of Quetzalcoatl are not to be known by mortal man" and "Quetzalcoatl doesn't exist". An omnipotent god still wouldn't know the momentum, if it knew the position, just as it couldn't know the real colour of Quetzalcoatl's feathers.
Now, had you said 'chaos theory', that would be something else again. But even so, this only applies to numerical analysis; in principle someone might come up with an analytic solution to, say, the Navier-Stokes equations, and then we could predict with confidence.
Also, to object to the other side for a moment, if you press a theist on this board, they are quite likely to say "Well, I don't know, but I have faith it will work out". Which is not exactly the same as claiming to have all the answers, being a rather weak cop-out, instead.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by vonk: I don't think that this means that agnostics or athiests that "thank god" sometimes really do believe in god, just that deep down, they don't want to be alone. Who does?
Your quite valid point aside, it really is just a handy expression for a general feeling of gratitude.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you missed my point. I was just trying to point out that since QM, scientific determinism is not as credible as it used to be.
And I'm not so sure of your explanation of it either, could you clarify? I was under the impression that you cannot know the precise momentum of a particle if you know its position (and vice versa) because of the uncertainty principle, which states that at that size, you are actually changing the momentum of a particle by observing its position (since we don't have a particle free method of observation), or vice versa. It's not that it doesn't exist (how can a particle not have momentum?), it's that we dont know it with any certainty, and the closer we get to knowing it, the higher our uncertainty becomes about knowing position (and vice versa). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last year, one of the Time Magazine issues had a discussion based on a book "The God Gene" by Dean Hamer. He claims to have shown that the human brain is "hard wired" for a belief in a god. Thats about as "naturally inclined" as it gets.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
just like all genes, this one isn't necessarily expressed in all humans, so even if this theory is correct, it doesn't mean that humanity as a whole has a natural inclination towards god, just those people who express this gene
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Angio, you have the principle right wrt QM. the momentum certainly DOES exist. it's just that assuming perfect knowledge of position implies that we have no knowledge of the momentum. And KoM, I would argue that an omniscient deity would in fact be able to know both position and momentum with absolute certainty, being that they would not be bound by physical measuring devices etc...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I attribute the fact I still pray, despite being an atheist, to my christian upbringing.
But before you say "ah-HA!" I should let you know that I also knock on wood when someone says something that tempts fate... (Irene, Goddess of Irony, is always waiting for us to say something stupid.)
posted
Um, no. All information about the particle is contained in the wave function. A wave function with a perfectly determined position doesn't have a momentum, or if you prefer, is in a superposition of all possible momenta. The bit about measuring devices is an old bit of popular explanation from the thirties; how the wave function got to be in the state of perfectly determined position is not relevant, it could happen just by the natural evolution.
quote:t's not that it doesn't exist (how can a particle not have momentum?),
It can not have a momentum by having a wave function such that, if you try to measure the momentum, all answers are equally likely. And that doesn't just apply to you, it applies to the universe too.
quote:And KoM, I would argue that an omniscient deity would in fact be able to know both position and momentum with absolute certainty, being that they would not be bound by physical measuring devices etc...
Again, the physical measuring devices are not relevant. If QM is an accurate description of reality, then you might as well argue that your omniscient deity can calculate Omega, or solve the halting problem for arbitrary programs; what you are suggesting is the approximate equivalent of creating a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last time that I was in a truly dangerous and potentially life-threatening situation, I did not pray or think of a god in any way. I very distinctly recall realizing that I could be in a very serious accident and maybe killed or maimed. Then I said to myself "$%*& that!" and calmly regained control of my car and avoided hitting the guardrails or other vehicles.
I actually think I was less afraid of death than I was of the inconvenience of a serious but non-fatal accident.
posted
"if you try to measure the momentum, all answers are equally likely"
says that there could be an infinite number of answers, but there could also be just one.
I'll admit that I am only briefly versed in QM, but my understanding is that any parameter can never cease to exist, even if our certainty of that parameter goes to 0. by definition of the universe everything has a momentum, and position and energy, and heat and...
by assuming the existance of this deity I assume that it is somehow "outside" the known/knowable universe, and is thus not hampered by the limitations of any branch of physics (this is just kinda implied in my definition of omniscient) and therefor it is "reasonable" to say that it would be capable of knowing both position and momentum with absolute certainty. I would argue that in fact this deity would also be able to calculate Omega etc... it's all tied in with the definition of "omniscient"
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh well, if you are postulating a deity capable of breaking the laws of logic, sure. Mind you, said deity is also capable of proving 2+2=5, so I don't know how useful it is. Again, can your deity create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?
Let me put it another way : The momentum is ill-defined. It 'exists' in the same sense that the inverse of zero exists; you can look for the quantity, but the answers do not make sense.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:can your deity create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?
I prefer the Homerism: "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he can't eat it?"
But I think that these types of questions are kind of pointless. No, scratch that, they serve a point: to make athiests feel smart. But I don't think they have ever made a believer question their faith.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even know if they make us feel so smart. I think there's an easy enough answer, that am omnipotent God doesn't follow the laws of logic as we know them, so he can make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, and at the same time, can lift it.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh well, if you are postulating a deity capable of breaking the laws of logic, sure. Mind you, said deity is also capable of proving 2+2=5, so I don't know how useful it is. Again, can your deity create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?
Questions like that seem a mite pointless, seeing as how the only thing making the stone heavy is gravity, and you are assuming that God is unable to manipulate gravity. It also ignores the possibility, that perhaps, gravity only exists because God willed it so, (I admit there is NO logic that can prove this, but you would be hard pressed to prove it false.)
I do believe that God is bound by certain laws, both moral and physical. But I have almost NO comprehension exactly what those laws are, especially the latter. An example would be when Joseph Smith, (again my own beliefs) said, "The elements are eternal, neither can they be made or unmade," or something to that effect.
Therefore, I believe God is incapable of creating, (there is much speculation that when the bible says "created" the hebrew word means "to organize" not "create out of nothingness",) or destroying matter, because God admitted as much.
I've heard the idea that people created God as a means of comfort, control, etc. How likely is that to be true, as much as there is in fact a God, and he designed us be inclined to believe, thus making him able to manifest himself to us?
Ill be honest I think both are equally likely.
Edited for clarity and grammar
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, come on, BlackBlade. The point is not whether your god can manipulate some trifling physical law, the question is whether he can manipulate logic. Let's put it another way : Can your god cause something to exist, and not exist, at the same time?
And vonk, while I realise I have a bit of a reputation, I wasn't trying to make anyone question their faith, nor is that question intended to do so. It is rather a theological question about the meaning of the word 'omnipotent', which should be of greater interest to believers than to atheists. To the atheist, it is no more than a logic game, worthy perhaps of some intellectual curiosity, like 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'? But the theist, presmably, really believes in the existence of an omnipotent being, and should therefore take some interest in just what that being can do.
The point I was trying to illustrate is that Heisenberg is not some minor physical law, like the gravity that BlackBlade rightly dismisses; it is a mathematical consequence of certain axioms. Breaking these really is equivalent to making a burrito too hot for an omnipotent being too eat.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To reiterate KOM, I already said that I believe God is bound by laws both moral and physical. His omnipotence to me is "He can do all that CAN be done." As for things that "ought NOT to be done." I think God has reached a state where he simply does not do those things.
I do not think God can ignore logic, but I hesitate to use my intelect or anybody elses as a means to spell out what God can or cannot do. I feel his understanding of science is very advanced compared to our own. But then again if I found out he was not as FAR ahead as I had supposed, that would not bother me THAT much.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you're old enough to drive, then you're old enough to have suffered the social/cultural indoctrination that a God or God-Like being(s) exists, even though (to paraphrase BB) there is in fact no God.
Also, a few years ago, I saw the 3/4" thick, 4' x 8' sheet of A/C plywood tear itself off the roof of the SUV in front of me and take off into the air (at least 40 to 50 feet high). My thoughts were typically, "Oh, shit," followed immediately by, "I know I cannot predict this inherently chaotic motion of this large, airborne sheet, but MAN does that sucker have a lot of potential and kinetic energy. If it hits me, I'm screwed (scenes from The Omen came to mind). What's the best course of action?"
I slowed the car, and the sheet missed me by about 6 feet as is skidded to a stop in the greensward to my right.
I will admit to, later, thinking about God, namely, "God, you had your chance! Who would have known it was you if that sheet of plywood tore through my window and took me out?"
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
If you're old enough to drive, then you're old enough to have suffered the social/cultural indoctrination that a God or God-Like being(s) exists, even though (to paraphrase BB) there is in fact no God.
Also, a few years ago, I saw the 3/4" thick, 4' x 8' sheet of A/C plywood tear itself off the roof of the SUV in front of me and take off into the air (at least 40 to 50 feet high). My thoughts were typically, "Oh, shit," followed immediately by, "I know I cannot predict this inherently chaotic motion of this large, airborne sheet, but MAN does that sucker have a lot of potential and kinetic energy. If it hits me, I'm screwed (scenes from The Omen came to mind). What's the best course of action?"
I slowed the car, and the sheet missed me by about 6 feet as is skidded to a stop in the greensward to my right.
I will admit to, later, thinking about God, namely, "God, you had your chance! Who would have known it was you if that sheet of plywood tore through my window and took me out?"
I am wary of using life and death situations to indicate the existance of God because I personally think life in the eternal scheme of things is merely a blink of an eye. As far as God and eternity are concerned, death is as natural as birth and both by themselves are relatively unimportant. There are people constantly being born, and people constantly dying. I feel God knows each of these moments perfectly, and when you die there is plenty more to do.
I guess to paraphrase "We are not humans having a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings having a human experience"
And when that human experience is over that is like passing the 3rd grade and going on to 4th grade, was that such a big deal?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) I can't see any way to separate "naturally inclined to believe in God" from "culturally conditioned to believe in God." And neither of these seem to me a valid argument for or against God's actualy existence anyway.
2) My reaction in "possibly about to encounter death or serious injury" situations is pretty much like Enigmatic's. I do believe in God, but when I'm in danger of losing control of the car my mind goes to what I should be doing, not worrying about what God is or isn't doing.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the question is if a person was raised with absolutely no knowledge of a pre-existing, God or religion, would they fill a hole with another figure of influence?
I think some people would be more inclined to than others, but I think certain people would develop very strong superstitions beyond what they see, or perhaps even treat a figure (alive or dead) they respect with great reverence.
Along the same lines, if you introduced stories into this person's life and treated them all with exactly the same level of reality (or lack thereof), he or she might become attached to a story so much that that it does become their guiding narrative. Again, other people would not be so inclined.
Let's speculate then that we created a seperate community of people, all brought up in a God-free environment, but with the same moral, behavior, educational etc. instruction you would give to anyone. Some of them would not require, I should think, this "guiding figure" to fill a hole. Others would attach themselves to something (superstition, story or a real figure) that has the strength of religion.
Now imagine that the person with this belief is also the most charismatic of the group, a leader of our little Godless community. His or her authority and understanding, I should imagine, would be enough to win a majority of the group over to believing in the same manner. Say, for example that if you go outside when it rains, you will get sick and will progressively become sicker until you die.
People are very prone to forming associations and groups with specific beliefs, especially if the group is a somewhat desirable thing to belong to, which, since it is run by the most charismatic person, it is. As more people join, others begin to be interested, and they join to. A religion is born, complete with its own quasi-Prophet.
Not everyone would join the Rain Religion, of course. The second most charismatic person, may possibly have his or her own beliefs- perhaps he or she is interested in trees and believes that trees are people in their own right. He or she has her own followers, a smaller group, the Tree Religion, who, because of their beliefs, are frequently outside in the rain.
Others do not subscribe to either the Rain or Tree religions and simply do their own thing.
The religions threaten each other and tension builds. People switch sides. A rift emerges between the two. The Rain people become terrified for the Tree people (since they have been out in the rain so much) and try to talk to them, which really annoys the Tree leader. One of his apostles retaliates violently.
Voila! Religious war. Of course, the Tree people win, kill the charismatic Rain prophet thus winning over most people back. The remaining Rain people are kindly persecuted until their extinction a couple of generations later. The Tree people's religion grows and grows.
Give it a couple of hundred or thousand years and the initial and fairly simple beliefs will have become complicated stories, written and rewritten in ancient books, the original foundation forgotten or twisted out of proportion.
(This is probably way faster than the process would actually occur, but you get the idea.)
Yes, I do believe that humans tend towards belief in a guiding figure/narrative.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I couldn't help but think of Lord of The Flies while reading that Teshi. Though there are differences
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, perhaps, you are underestimating the influence of the skeptical-scientific method of thought. Not everyone can do it, sure, but the ones who can are strongly influential in today's societies.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Along the same lines, if you introduced stories into this person's life and treated them all with exactly the same level of reality (or lack thereof), he or she might become attached to a story so much that that it does become their guiding narrative. Again, other people would not be so inclined.
I've actually seen many atheists do this, as a matter of fact.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that there is a tendency to forget that the ways we find to think about God are not God. We can only think about God by using analogies and metaphors to describe aspects of God. God is not a father, but nurtures and cares and creates and guides so "Father" is one way to think of God. Because, in order to relate to God, we attribute personality to God, we think of God as some sort of super-human. We have to shrink God so God can fit inside our heads enough that we can think about God at all. And we forget that God is bigger than that. As (I think) Augustine said, "if you could understand it, it would not be God."
Now that could be called by some a "cop out". But it is a reality in trying to define what is by nature undefinable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We can only think about God by using analogies and metaphors to describe aspects of God.
And therefore can never be sure He exists, because we have completely constructed our awareness of God out of metaphor.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But "faith" must be grounded in something. And as far as God is concerned, that something is by and large a product of the subjective experiences of other people. I can have faith in the nebulous "God is everything and everything is God", but that is nothing more than saying I have faith in "The universe" which in itself is also essentially meaningless.
The bottom line is that if God is so unknowable that the only way we can even think of him is to diminish him into a metaphor (which we, ourselves have created) then how can we ever distinguish the true God from our own constructs we call "God"? What is it that gives your brain-contained metaphor any more validity than a God carved out of a rock or placed on a totem? Are not both metaphors for the unknown?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, where I disagree is that the statements in your first paragraph are "essentially meaningless". Faith is in part a certainty that we are part of something larger, that we are connected and that, "God is all in all and I am one with everything." That is full of meaning - it gives everything meaning.
Not just one metaphor - lots of metaphors. Lots of ways to describe that good/moral/love thingy. We distinguish the true ones from the ones that aren't by what works. And we use different metaphors for different purposes depending on how we need to relate to God. And we hope that our understanding matures.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Aztecs seemed to do quite nicely with their sacrifices. Was that a 'true metaphor', then? Recall that the nobles, at least, who were sacrificed, were to some extent willing victims.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do quite nicely? How? Not sure what you mean? I don't imagine all Aztecs used the same metaphors for God all the time. And to what extent do you mean "true"?
We need to remember that the the ways that we think about God, useful and good or not, are not God.
For instance (and to add yet another imperfect analogy), to me KoM manifests as marks on my computer screen. I can feel safe in assuming that KoM is actually more than marks on my computer screen. I can interpret those marks as words with meaning, but KoM is even more than words with meaning. I can believe that KoM is a being that makes marks on my computer screen that I can interpret as words with meaning. Someone else could related to KoM as someone who cooks. None of those ways of describing or relating to KoM is KoM.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Do quite nicely' and 'true' in the sense of your previous post :
quote:We distinguish the true ones from the ones that aren't by what works.
If that is your only standard of truth, how do you reject the Aztec cosmology and theology? After all, it worked for them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Faith is in part a certainty that we are part of something larger, that we are connected and that
I know that I am part of "The Universe" and connected to it and that it is infinitely larger than myself. I can only express or indeed even conceive of "The Universe" by metaphor and by vastly inferior models of it. However, I think the phrase "I have faith in The Universe" is very close to meaningless.
I suppose since many here will say that we can never really "know" anything, my "knowledge" of The Universe is a kind of faith, but it's no more faith than I have faith in my chair or in my keyboard. I strongly suspect when you say you have faith in God, to you at least, it means something more. But to me it sounds like you are equating "God" to "That which is, but which I cannot fully know or express" which is nebulous enough to also apply to "The Universe". Now if you want to define God that way, and nothing more, then call me a theist. But none of that in any way implies "Honor thy father and thy mother" or "Though shalt not commit adultry" or "Pay your tithes" or "Don't eat pork" or any other point of anyone's doctrine that they point to as the result of a person's "faith" in God. This, to me, implies a definition of God much more specific than "the universe". To date I see no compelling evidence to believe that this more specific being exists. I've certainly never communed with him in any identifiable way.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not just one metaphor - lots of metaphors. Lots of ways to describe that good/moral/love thingy. We distinguish the true ones from the ones that aren't by what works. And we use different metaphors for different purposes depending on how we need to relate to God. And we hope that our understanding matures.
This again perfectly fits with the "God=Universe" definition. We (humans) have a concept of The Universe and find out what is true and what is not by what works. We modify our metaphors depending on how we, personally, relate to the universe. We hope our understanding of the universe matures. What you are describing is also a rudimentary definition of science.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that if you believed that the universe had sentience and that sentience was ultimately good...
The commandments and so forth are ways that it works to live in relationship with God. Just as "don't step off cliffs 'cuz of the gravity thing" and "must be careful with fire" are ways that it works to be in relationship with the universe.
KoM, I think that we have different ideas of what is useful. As for the Aztecs, did their metaphors make them happier, more loving, kinder, better people? Insofar as they did they were good metaphors, insofar as they didn't, they weren't. Some of the things, some of them thought about God were likely true; some likely weren't. I think that the human sacrifice thing wasn't. I'm glad we've moved past that one. I'm hoping we can get rid of the God wants us to kill people thing altogether.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Despite the vast number of religions, nearly everyone in the world believes in the same things: the existence of a soul, an afterlife, miracles, and the divine creation of the universe. Recently psychologists doing research on the minds of infants have discovered two related facts that may account for this phenomenon. One: human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena. And two: this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry. Which leads to the question ...
So we basically are born and our brains are made in such a way that we must believe in a God? But the details of it all is where it gets groggy.
Seems just as logical that if there was a God he would create us in such a way that we would be inclined to believe in him. Why he allows so much confusion to exist in regards to his nature is not something I care to argue in this post.
I am happy that the author of that pice "Is God an Accident" is civil enough to take both sides seriously, rather then present a stark crazy religionist and a calculating, calm, happy scientist.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the first is a quotation (don't know the source). I parse it to mean that God is in everything, including me so I am connected to everything. And may the Force be with me. So what I do has a larger purpose. I effect things or people in ways I don't expect - for good or ill. What I do matters. That what happens to others effects me, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And this is different from a universe in which there is no god, in what way? And how do you tell the difference between a 'god which is in everything' and a god that just plain doesn't exist?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
