The Better God Question
The question "Does God exist?" is not really a particularly engaging question. The answer is too obvious. Without first defining what we mean by the word "God" the question defaults to "Does a god of ANY description exist?" and the answer to that has to be "Of course it does!" Does Mickey Mouse exist? Yes. Mickey Mouse undeniably exists as a fictional character that has moved real emotions and real dollars for several generations now. God also unquestionably exists as a character in the single most enduring piece of literature ever written. So one is then forced to ask the more interesting question "What is God's nature?" And that one isn't as quick or as easy to answer.
Aside from the notable quality of having been around longer than Mickey Mouse, gods, of some description, have been the entities that were given the highest esteem in the minds of Homo sapiens in all cultures the world over, for at least the entirety of recorded history, which is what, ten thousand years or so? And archeological evidence strongly suggests worshipful behavior stretched deep into the mists of antiquity before writing was invented and records kept.
The rule of thumb, as I understand it, that determines whether a behavioral trait is an evolutionary adaptation, is whether it occurs in all cultures and in all time periods, or whether it is only found in some places and periods but not others. So God passes that test with flying colors. We have all the evidence we need to at least strongly suspect that a belief in a god or gods is a very real and very persistent evolutionary adaptation rather than just a colossally bad idea that we can shed if we campaign diligently enough for better public education.
Anyone can see, without any scholarly research at all, that belief in gods has consistently shaped the course of human lives, and continues to do so to this very minute as we all scramble to cope with fundamentalist terrorism, contamination of school curricula, political insanity, and cultural chaos. The question has been answered. God is real. God is not just a stupid idea. God is a part of human nature that is powerful enough to destroy our species and take most of the others out with us if we don't begin soon to see it for what it is and take it very seriously.
Learning something about God's nature is within our grasp. It need not any longer dwell in the realm of mysticism and superstition. The scientific fields of psychology, sociology, neurobiology, anthropology, and evolution studies, to name a few, already know more about our gods than we atheists are generally willing to acknowledge, not to even mention the theists. If we believe in the veracity of the scientific enterprise, we cannot deny the existence of god. The only question left is whether we will humble ourselves enough to learn about its nature, or condemn our species to extinction by way of our pride, our contentiousness, and our willful ignorance.
The theists, for the most part, are caught in a childish dream. But it is not one of their own making, nor one made for them, as we are tempted to believe, by their would-be oppressors. It was made for them by four billion years of evolution, and they will not be shaken from it by our condemnation of them, any more than we will abandon our respect for reason as a response to their condemnation of us. The mature response to childishness is patience, forgiveness, and role-modeling. And that responsibility will fall to those who truly do have a more accurate grasp of reality.
If the last extant human species is to avoid the fate of the Neanderthals and Denisovans it will be through our eleventh-hour discovery of compassion for our own kind, the recognition of our competitor's childishness in ourselves, and the assumption of a potential for adulthood in all individuals. Intra-species competition has already been well demonstrated to be inadequate for the task. If we cannot find it within our human capacities to enthrone a God of Love to rule, yes, even over reason, then reason itself will soon succumb to extinction.
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.You articulated this so well and doubt I can articulate my thoughts as understandable and sensible as you have. But I will try. It makes sense that the idea of god is, and hence energy of there being a god through so many believing it - as part of being human is making sense of life and all that is around us. Hence we personify everything, our pets, plants, wild animals and especially god, since it is not completely illogical that all of this was created by something or someone, since we are superior to the rest of what is life rocks air, in our minds.
For me there is a creative force that just is, like gravity is a law with no interest, caring, judgement, or consideration of not being anything than what it is, the force that keeps us stuck to the earth. The creative force that created worlds is also a life force that fits the laws of science not yet understood but is just as perfect in it's role to create. I think all of life and possibly what we consider not life (rocks, air, water) has access or is part of this force.
I know this sounds made up because it is, is my version of the meaning of the creative power that created life, worlds and seems to be within or accessed by all life. Everything is energy including us. . We are the ones who use our power to support our own made up beliefs or gods and fight over it. To use up resources with no consideration of the ramifications and we do the same among each other. In general it is more important to be right than to be understanding. If we could allow everyone to have their view and find the commonality between us it would make the differences seem insignificant.
Science isn't perfect either. I have had experiences outside of the realm of science which were catalysts for me finding the religion I was raised in too flawed to believe. Science only can measure what is seen and measurable, so there can be no proof in either camp what is and what isn't. To me it makes no difference if god exists in how I live my life. I live it to contribute to others and at least do no harm and hopefully uplift each person I dance with whether a few minutes paying for coffee or a relatinship that lasts a lifetime. That is far meaningful to me. The divide in our country is palpable, and I see the WH and powers that be in our country and want to scream, but realize my rants is adding to the division and since we have different beliefs and sources of information no one every changes their mind and the division widens.
May the force be with you and we together create more love, unity, abundance and peace in the world.
gigihein
Level 8
Apr 29, 2018
1
WOW!! This puts into words my thoughts on the god question!! You had me at Mickey Mouse!!
I have not really struggled wth my thoughts on this, it's more of a trying to get something to come out of my mouth that makes sense. THANK YOU!!
In today's world, to some, god is no longer relevant, to others god is very real. Respect for each view will go further than bashing and living ones own life and not someone elses would make a big difference. IMO
silverotter11
Level 9
Apr 29, 2018
2
Yes!
Mmm; do you distinguish, make a distinction twixt "something real" as a mental notion (i.e. belief) and physical reality? I do. Gods, the tooth fairy, elves and such I put in the first box/category.
As to accepting other humans on the basis of their belief systems or not, I "blame" the act, not the person.
For me, I'd (much) rather champion the idea that gods are man-made conventions that have long lost their utility; rather than acquiesce to a belief system of nonsense. Better to "go down" utilizing reason, science and (here's that word) true science, than kissing up to make believe.
BobFenner
Level 7
Apr 29, 2018
1
Of course there is a clear distinction between physical reality and imagined reality, and I am in no way recommending "kissing up to make believe". What I am recommending is not cherry-picking science. Science recognizes that some mental phenomena are optional (such as assuming mythology to be accurate accounts of historical fact) and some are the products of evolutionary adaptation (such as the emergence of mythological stories to begin with, or dreams, fear of spiders, etc.) This distinction is as important (though perhaps less obvious) as the distinction between physical and mental. Even though all mental processes apparently emerge from a biological substrate, and are therefore "real" in the sense that they do occur, they of course do not all bear an equal resemblance to objective, physical phenomena. But within the "real" phenomena called cognition, there is a further useful distinction to be made between purely voluntary, transitory, and optional ideation on the one hand, and the persistent ideation which is predisposed by natural selection, on the other. This latter group can arguably be said to possess a somewhat tighter relationship to "reality" by virtue of its genesis in evolutionary forces. This of course doesn't mean that it produces literal descriptions of material reality any better than the mechanisms of transitory thought; just that its stories are more likely to have useful, adaptive function for the survival and reproduction of Homo sapiens, whether we choose to unravel their meanings scientifically or prefer to dismiss them as "primitive imaginings".
@skado Mmm; I don't know/agree w/ "science" doing cherry picking (have a couple science degrees, and taught H.S. sciences for a few years, and write essays...). Perhaps what you refer to as optional and adaptive evolutionarily I term nature/nurture... the latter patterns of learned behavior mostly though some may well be innate. That is, it does seem that humans (other species too) are inquisitive... that some behaviors have potential individual and species survival value that are "natural". As you more elegantly describe.
@BobFenner Apologies for my muddy construction. I didn't mean to suggest that science cherry-picks. I was talking about our human tendency to cherry-pick which science we include in our worldview. I'm saying that if we respect science, as you and I do, we should be open to all that it reveals; not just the parts we like. And yes, nature/nurture works reasonably well as a description there. Just the idea that evolution shapes not only physical traits, but gives us strong behavioral tendencies as well. I probably do go farther out on the evo-psych, or as Ed Wilson would prefer, sociobiology, limb than most do, but it seems a pretty sturdy limb to me.
@skado Ahh, thank you for the clarification; and I do agree w/ your stmt. re being receptive to all. And If you'd permit, I have a fave anecdote to relate re Dr. Wilson. About a decade back I was out in Boston w/ a petfish conference and we had a tour of the public aquarium on the outer harbor. In line someone mentioned "Isn't this the town where E. O. Wilson teaches?" Another responded, "I think he's passed on". A few folks back came a retort, "Not quite yet". Cheers Skado.
We needed a god when we didn't understand the complexities and randomness of nature. Then, when societies developed to the point were they could release a few people from constant toil, we allowed them to study the nature of this entity. These individuals created this capricious god in order to fit their needs. Things changed in the NT and again in the Q'oran but god would still come and smite you if you didn't do what the priest chaps told you. (Which meant usually feed them and let them wear gold and give them a tithe of your money...yeah sounds legit). This god was never benevolent and kind. It was never about love or goodness it was about POWER and CONTROL. In fact there is tons of evidence that Neanderthals and Denisovans were perfectly kind to each other without any evidence of supernatural intervention. One cannot say god must exist because there has always been one. Humans like their biological cousins are hardwired to care for each other. Thats how we manage to rear such demanding, squishy infants. God is irrelevant
Amisja
Level 8
Apr 29, 2018
3
I do hope nothing I said made you believe I was supporting any claims of anything resembling supernatural intervention. And I don't disagree in any way that we are biologically predisposed to care for each other. But psychology is an integral part of that system. What's irrelevant is what we call it, but plenty of science indicates that the functions we used to attribute to gods are alive and well in modern humans, and will be for millennia. Check out John Wathey's The Illusion of the Presence of God. Talk about hardwired! 
@skado I would agree that their likely to be a sort of collective consciousness, genetic reason we do good. I strongly believe that removing it from ourselves and giving it supernatural qualities, should be actively discouraged. It appears to be something of a tautology to say a thing exists because it exists. If this were actually true, there would be no dissenting voices.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
World Music
1359 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.