Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other natural physical laws, like electromagnetism or the speed of light?
As such, would it not amount to a 'governing principle' describing and limiting the extent of our freedom of thought and action, much like, say, gravity or heat limit what our physical bodies can do, beyond which it encounters resistance?
If so, did men and women then give human thoughts, feelings, and motives to something which is purely impersonal?
Many scientists now believe something like this could be true.[mindmatters.ai]
God isn't. It does not exist, but a false human conception.
If you define 'god' as consciousness, it exists. If everything has consciousness, from the very tiniest particle, to you (very big IFs), everything is 'god.'
So, the line of thought goes, the people who created these religions (and god) were really trying to describe, explain, and understand consciousness, their own and everyone elses'.
That they projected THEIR and everybody else's consciousness into a separate "entity" or "entities" may have been simply a result of their inferior understanding of the nature of the physical universe and what are it's constituent parts.
As our understanding of it--and consciousness--increases, it stands to reason, the closer we get to understanding "reality" itself.
@Now that you have said that, please elucidate. Please clarify and provide the intellectual or evidence basis for such a statement,.
That seems to me to be a contrived, needlessly complex explanation for the rise of religious thought among early people who grappled with things like where the sun went at night and why diseases struck down some people and not others. I don't think these folks who lacked an understanding of heliocentrism and germ theory had developed a framework for natural limits of the universe, a constant speed of light, or some convoluted notion of universal consciousness and applied the "god" label to any of that.