In what capacity did God exist before religion came about, if at all? How do we know this?
Regardless of whether God(s) of any religion do exist or have always existed, their existence has never been considered substantial for whatever reason until their respective religion was developed. There was no Allah to speak of, for example, until the advent of the Islamic religion, regardless of whether He existed prior to that, and in fact there have been hundreds or thousands of other religious breakthroughs that have come and gone over the years, along with their respective God(s). This alone should put some perspective on the credibility of the Gods of even current major theistic religions, but that is another discussion. The actual purpose of this post is to determine if any given God(s) had a presence prior to thee advent of their respective religions, and if so in what capacity. This is probably difficult if not impossible to say since much of what we now consider to be "God's work" was not and effectively could not have been said to be such until it was thought that God existed, but the main point is that one cannot say with any level of certainty that God even does exist as anything more than a matter of religion without having existed or having been identified prior to the advent of any given religion. Since this was clearly not the case, it can be argued that God(s) came about and had an identity only in light of their respective religion, and the implications of this are anyone's guess, although I would argue that it is a definite sign that God is a pure matter of religion. Of course there is nothing wrong with this, but I'm sure other people will think differently if they have a different belief about God.
Comments (41)
considering all the money hungry pastors out there i can see why some people dismiss all the coincidences this world displays. That being said some believe organized religion came about when populations got concentrated in city states such as ancient sumer/mesopotamia. I believe religiousness and religions predate humans and actually goes back to Apes and chimpanzees and even monkeys.
The problem with this is that it is effectively saying that religion is a man-made creation, which I believe is possible since it has taken thousands of years to develop to the point where it is now and also the average human will probably live less than 100 years, which isn't nearly enough time to see evolution occur on a large scale. However, my problem is that people such as pastors are getting paid and money is being made in the face of religion even in spite of what it is or what it supposedly is. It would be like if someone was being paid to tell stories and told everyone who heard the stories that they are true, although (obviously) there is no way to know if they are actually true. But the person is getting paid regardless, and in my opinion it is immoral to be paid when there is even the possibility that something might not be authentic, or when it is being presented as unmistakably authentic to those who are funding the payment. If people were not getting paid millions of dollars then it might be different, but a million dollars isn't exactly chump change, especially if it is based on a sham.
i see too many "coincidences" to deny some form of a supernatural or extra natural as just started calling it. I might just be an idiot that isn't good at making good observations and there is in fact no real extra natural entity/creature out there.
Islam emerged out of Messianistic Judaism, i.e. Ebionite Christianity.
That is why Hans Joachim Schoeps wrote:
Thus we have a paradox of world-historical proportions, viz., the fact that Jewish Christianity indeed disappeared within the Christian church, but was preserved in Islam and thereby extended some of its basic ideas even to our own day. According to Islamic doctrine, the Ebionite combination of Moses and Jesus found its fulfillment in Muhammad.
In fact, Ebionite Christianity split off from Second-Temple Judaism before even Rabbinic Judaism did. The name "Allah" refers to the God of Second-Temple Judaism, i.e. the God of Moses.
Second-Temple Judaism itself disappeared after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D during the first Jewish-Roman War.
This doesn't make any sense to me. If any gods exist, their existence didn't hinge on whether we were aware of this.
It's just like Pluto existed long before any animals existed on Earth. It's existence doesn't hinge on us being aware of it.
So if I understand your point correctly, you are questioning what god was up to before the advent of religion? The fact that the religions and “god” showed up together might mean that religion made god and if that is not the case then what sorts of things or what kind of existence if any god had before that?
Religions, in that sense, have always been around and as far as I know, our tribes, for about 75,000 years have has shaman and chiefs and the shaman was seen ar representing god or mostly gods.
I would say a lot of naturalistic religions as that 75,000 year reference is to a serpent worshiping tribe in Africa.
25,000 years back, in Eastern Europe we see mostly female worship and peaceful coexistence. 5,000 years ago we developed our gods of war and have been gifted with almost constant war since.
We need to have female gods come back to save our lousy male asses.
The best man for almost all jobs is a woman.
I am a man and know that truth.
Regards
DL
Perhaps. As nations, I can agree, but not as individuals. It seems that we are born with a mental itch to scratch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IqYHiejTVM
In at least the Jewish era on up, religions did not really believe in a literal god. The intelligentsia were more like what Gnostic Christians developed into and before Christianity stupidly began to read their myths literally.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D
Regards
DL
We are the most week and insecure animal on the planet.
Religions are created to appease our tribal natures, fellowship needs and insecurity.
Money is not much of a consideration and perhaps that is why theist pay to be lied to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU
Regards
DL
As we should, if we are following our genes that push us to be the fittest of our species.
Regards
DL
all ancient religions pointed to The tree of Eternal Life as the true God. It extends a branch into everyone & plants a soul in them by opening a crescent shape flower inside them & bringing out a new soul from within itself. It then leads the soul through the earth to experience good & evil & learn how to be good. That was the foundation of all religions. The Bible on the first pages & the last says only the tree of life can save your soul ultimately, even though you may obey Jesus & Father along the way etc. Hindus say their main God Brahma was born from a flower, & they put most all their deities on flowers because ultimately The tree of Life produces us all from its flowers at soul level. The Islam flag is the ancient symbol of the crescent flower of the tree of life holding the soul; although they changed the orb usually depicted to a star instead. It was sometimes depicted as a star to emphasise its brightness. It comes from within the tree & is held by the crescent flower of the tree inside each human temple.
So to answer your question about what came first 'the religion or the god' I am saying that knowledge of The tree of Life came before all known religions. All the gods work for the tree & came from it. Still there is no proof for its existence except people's experiences. I saw someone's post recently where God gave the person a dream explaining that The tree of Life is in the centre of creation & is responsible for all things. I could understand the dream clearly but no amount of explaining could help the person understand what the dream meant. The person needs to learn by experience & that entails 'meeting God in person & being taken to see The tree of Life. Then one will understand what God & religion is talking about. So the real issue is how to get people to open their minds to God in a world that is shaped by atheism & the dreaded fear of the unknown
How did our selfish gene that drives us to be the fittest in your conception allow this to happen?
Sham shpam!
Maureen, dear, of course we pay people to tell us lies that are convincing. What do you think The News is? Or the history that we learn? It's stories we pay people to tell us and that we like to think are true.
Pastors get paid for telling stories successfully. Some pastors are much better at it than others.
Man invented the gods. It is one of our several remarkable creations, like the lever; double entry bookkeeping; horse shoes; credit cards. The gods, and religion, have come in handy for numerous purposes, so it has paid off. During the dark days of WWII the Soviets made the highly distasteful and most un-soviet of decisions to let the Russian Orthodox Church do its thing on behalf of the war effort. In the Land of Church and State Separation we have prayers before congressional sessions, prayer breakfasts at the White House (which obviously aren't doing any good), and swear in lying Supreme Court justices on a stack of Bibles.
I don't think that's true. I can speak for the Ancient Egyptian Religion, which is my personal area of study. There are some elements: tree goddesses (Nut, Hathor), gods of vegetation as symbols of rebirth and virility (Osiris, Min), the young sun being born from a Lotus flower(Creation Myth of Neith). But this coherent, universal story about the tree of life and its flowers? I can't see that anywhere in Egyptian mythology, least of all at its core.
Did God exist before religion?
Interesting question. In my personal belief: Yes. My gods were born when this universe was born, and some of them may be older even. (yes, plural form. I'm a polytheist) They are neither truly eternal nor are they all-powerful, but they are far older than humanity.
However, I think that organized religion is surely a human invention and the images and concepts we have of the gods are partly made by humans.
My explanation goes like this: A god or goddess is a vast, powerful and strange creature. As a human, I am unable to understand the true nature and form of a god - I simply don't have the necessary sense perceptions and brain structure. Thus, I can only communicate with gods and speak about gods by using metaphor. And if a god wants to get in contact with a human (and I believe that they sometimes do that), they need to use concepts and images that the human can understand. Therefore, we have a multitude of images, symbols, names and mythology to describe the gods. All of them are true in the sense that they capture a certain aspect or facet of the divine, and false in the sense that they are never fully accurate or complete.
Is there only One True God(tm) as the source and core of all religions? I don't know. But I don't think so, the universe is far to chaotic and colorful.
But well, I don't claim that my beliefs are universally true, they're simply what makes the most sense to both my heart and my brain.
this is an ancient piece of art from Egypt or thereabouts. It shows the two angels each person has with them & they are holding branches which are holding soul orbs in their grip, & the person the angels are watching over is seated on top of the same type of flower branch that the soul orbs are seated on the other branches. It all means that the tree produces souls that are the humans' souls & the angels of God work with the tree to protect & guide the souls. A lot of Egyptian & ancient art referring to the tree of life is misinterpreted, but this piece is pretty straight forward & points to the tree of life as the centre of creation from which all souls come, & also that the angels of God work with the tree as it is producing & growing eternal souls. I could show you thousands of ancient art works that point to the tree of life as the primary deity whom all other deities stem from & work for.
And also in this ancient Egyptian art work we can see a human seated on a flower & on the far right there is a soul orb seated on the flower. This is all standard Ancient Egyptian lessons about how peoples souls come from The tree of Life & grow on its flowers that hold them.
And here we see The tree of life symbolised as an ancient goddess with flowers growing out the top of her head. And she is holding an Ankh symbol to represent that the tree holds the human soul as it is growing on her branch She is also pointing an ankh toward a person to symbolise that she puts all souls into people & holds them there. It is all just the knowledge of The tree of Eternal Life. The original religion from Which most all religions branched from
In my humble opinion, before religions' appearance on Earth, god existed either as a cobbler, or as some sort of dinosaur. Or maybe a trilobite. Amino-acid.
To live with the words of the great Ralph Waldo Emerson (my god),
"The god of a carpenter is a carpenter.
The god of a cannibal is a cannibal.
The god of an atheist is an atheist.
The god of a Christian is a Jew."
I'm very sorry... If you want to impress me with interpretation of ancient Egyptian symbolism your research needs to be a lot more thorough.
Dear other readers... sorry for going off topic
this is an ancient piece of art from Egypt or thereabouts. It shows the two angels each person has with them & they are holding branches which are holding soul orbs in their grip, & the person the angels are watching over is seated on top of the same type of flower
"Or thereabouts" is correct. I'm guessing that this piece is either Roman period, or from a Levantine province, or a fake alltogether. The clothing of your "angels" looks more Assyrian to me than Egyptian. And showing winged figures in this special scene is highly untypical. Also, you would expect the flanking deities to wear different crowns, not both of them with the double crown.
This piece looks like a copy made by someone who didn't fully understand the original scene.
The source of this depiction is a very common theme in Egyptian Art: Sema Tawy, the unification of the two lands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_and_Lower_Egypt
https://images.app.goo.gl/V4KgKmvVBfo5CziM7
Do an image search form "sema tawy" online and you'll find a large number of more examples, but without wings or "soul orbs".
Classically, either the gods Horus and Set or the river god Hapi tie the two heraldic plants of upper and lower Egypt together, the lotus and the papyrus. Look at the images carefully, and you'll see that it's indeed two different types of plants being tied together. In the center, there's not another plant but a hieroglyph, this glyph is 'sma', 'to join, to unite'.
The unification of the two lands is a central symbol in the coronation rites of the pharao, that's why you'll find the pharao's name or even a figure of the pharao on top of the sema glyph.
And yes, we know that this scene is about the unification and not about soul orbs, because the Egyptians were nice enough to put texts around their images, so we can read about the meaning right there at the source.
And also in this ancient Egyptian art work we can see a human seated on a flower & on the far right there is a soul orb seated on the flower.
This second image is from a Late Period temple, I can see that much from the style of the relief. Probably the Hathor temple at Dendera, since the "human" is Ihy, son of Hathor, if I get those inscriptions correctly. He is shown as a royal child (finger to the mouth, naked, carrying flail and scepter and crowned with the double crown). Him sitting on a lotus flower is an association with the sun god being born from that flower.
He is flanked by Nekhbet and Wadjet, patron goddesses of Upper and lower Egypt, sitting on their respective heraldic plants.
So yes, there's a "born from a flower" motive in Egyptian mythology, but that lotus flower rises from Nun, the primordial ocean, not from a tree. And it brings forth the sun god, or the king in the role of the sun god. Not every human.
Your "soul orb" on the far right is probably a sun disk on a lotus flower. See above.
And here we see The tree of life symbolised as an ancient goddess with flowers growing out the top of her head. And she is holding an Ankh symbol to represent that the tree holds the human soul as it is growing on her branch
Here we see the god Hapi, father of the gods. That's what those hieroglyphs above the scene are telling me.
And the Ankh symbol can be found in the hands of all kinds of gods and goddesses, not just gods of trees and vegetation. Ankh is associated with the "breath of life" owned and given by the gods. Not with tree branches. (see Pyramid texts, where Shu, god of air, is equaled with "ankh", the fact that ankh is given "to the nose" and the common phrase "tjaw n Ankh", "wind/breath of life")
Egyptian mythology has a couple of ideas as to how humans were created. Most commonly, they're thought to spring from the tears of the sun god, or they're fashioned on the potter wheel of Khnum.
Soul orbs growing from tree branches are not mentioned in any surviving text that I know of.
I would not use the word allow.
We are a part of nature.
Nature demonstrably creates for the best possible end of all organisms. It can only work with what it has in terms of the DNA available to it.
Regards
DL
We instinctively know the good, in fact, we default to doing good as it is the best survival strategy. History shows us that what we are learning to do is mitigate the evil we must do as we compete for resources to survive.
Science and evolution shows we must do evil. It is mostly just not lethal anymore thanks to our l;earning well how to mitigate the harm.
Take away the harm and we go extinct.
Regards
DL
Quoting Gnostic Christian BishopAnd with us, our DNA, the selfish gene, made us the most weak and insecure animal on the planet?
As you say this gene that drives us to be the fittest.
Are you trying to say that our genes are not pushing all of us to be as fit as possible?
Let's have your argument instead of your word games.
Regards
DL
According to you we are...
.... the most weak and insecure species.
and...
Our DNA, the selfish gene, drives us to be the fittest.
and...
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
How do these ideas fit together?
Seriously, what are you talking about. I asked questions to get clarification about your ideas. That's pretty fundamental discussion behavior. I am not clear about something. It seems like some of the ideas don't fit together. I am not sure. I ask for clarification. There are no word games at all here.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Quoting Coben
Those statements give true facts and all three stand on their own merit.
We are the weakest and most insecure and nature does the best it can with what it has to work with in insuring that we work to be the fittest of our species.
If you disagree, tell us why?
Regards
DL
I don't think we are the weakest species. Not in physical strength, nor in adaptivity. We have driven a number of species extinct. We can beat up many species. If you meant weak emotionally, I don't know how you measure this and it seems we vary widely. I don't know how to compare our insecurity, those of us that are insecure, to that of various prey animals....like, say, rabbits. The slightest sound or movement, they freeze and check or dart for cover. Though, as I mentioned to measure the insecurity of animals and even us, is not an easy thing to do.
The selfish gene you mentioned, according to Dawkins, ends up memorizing traits that lead to it propagating. It is not something that is selfish in the human sense of egotistical. I can assure you that Dawkins is not attributing personality to dna. But given that we are the product of ancestors that survived and then conquered vast swathes of the earth, wiping out other species and continuing to do so, and this has been memorized, so to speak, in DNA, that you yourself say is driving us to be the fittest, how could we possibly be the weakest most insecure species?
This second part, bolded below, makes no sense to me at all....
I don't see nature making sure most people are the fittest of our species. Though I am not sure what you are referring to as nature, since earlier you contrasted nature with our dna. Nature is working with each individual to insure they are the fittest homo sapien? I don't see this. Many seem content with less than being fittest, some content with not being fit at all. And I don't know what process you are referring to where nature is ensuring they are not like this.
That's a start. There are other odd things in there, I think. Though I still find it all rather unclear.
well it all comes down to whether you believe your fellow man or not. I've watched countless people join forums to report a miracle or encounter they had with God or angels etc, & without fail 'most' all the forum members attack & insult the new poster & force them into silence. There are millions, if not billions, of people who have witnessed God &/or miracles & they all were insulted & silenced when they joined a forum &/or tried to tell the world what they saw.
So the world is generally evil & wicked & that today predominantly means the webmasters & mods are the main culprits because they have always allowed the bullying & horrendous abuse of anyone who has witnessed a manifestation of God.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Well from decades of witnessing the good people of the earth trying to report their encounters with God, only to be met/silenced on 'every site' by evil webmasters & mods & their evil dogs they call 'members' , I can say without any doubt that the world of man is evil & demonic '& has zero ability/capacity to appreciate truth & the reality of God 'as reported by their own fellow man.
So all you have is a world of closed minded devils silencing anyone who has witnessed God, & you need concrete evidence that God exists before you will believe in God.
It's the usual atheist's demand for proof before one will submit oneself to believing in God.
Personally I have always been visited by the angels of God & shown The tree of Life & other worlds etc. God shows me the future thousands of times & it always comes true. And yet I have been mocked & abused by most all Christian websites & christian people when I told them I have met God in person. So religious folk are every bit as closed minded as the atheists & devils etc.
Christ walked the earth before christianity was formed & yet all we have is stories about him that can easily be dismissed. Again we only have the word of our fellow man as proof & that is never enough.
well personally God has Always proved His Existence to me by showing me the near future & it always comes true in the following days or hours. Sometimes it is absolutely bizarre stuff which I would never imagine could happen in my life, & yet it happens just as God told me it would.
So I'm well aware that God is watching my path ahead & has eyes where I do not. So all this perpetual proof of God's very real existence denies me the capacity to be an atheist or a skeptic. And that is just the tip of the iceberg of the manifestations & other things God has shown me.
And yet when Christians knock on my door wanting to tell me about God they look at me in horror when I say I have met God. They simply don't believe it is possible to meet God & so they are even more ignorant than atheists. And when I go to any Christian website & tell them I have met the Person (God) they all worship & discuss all day & night 'they instantly mock/insult& ban me.
So all the stories about gods & Christ etc, existing before their religions came about, can either be believed or disbelieved. The choice is yours.
If you are looking for concrete evidence of God then there is none & never will be. God is an infinitely superior life form. He is like the person on the outside of the fish tank or dark cave we are all in. We can only know about God from the words of our fellow man & if we refuse to believe them then that is the end of the proof we have been given. There won't be anymore unless God manifests to you in person. And then you will become one of the people that the world does not believe.
It's like the way airforce pilots are forbidden from reporting ufo's that they see when they are up in the sky. The world of man just cannot comprehend such things & so it is dismissed as an anomaly & nothing more.
So if you are asking for proof that this god or that god existed before their religion did, then all you can receive is the words of man in return & you possibly will dismiss that as lies.
YOU have always existed? I did suspect you are a relation to Jesus the Christ.
I think you need to hone your own personal definition of what comprises a proof, and get it more in line with the way the rest of the gang here uses that word.
can't you see yourself for what you are? Take a step back & look at yourself. Repent your evil ways my brother/sister.
Quoting god must be atheist
if you are in the gang then it is the last place any civilised person would want to be. Thank you for the offer though........* backs slowly away without making eye contact
Well, if you think I am the devil, then FEAR ME, o god-worshipping cretin! I'm going to come and eat you alive, hamm-hamm.
Das schmeckt! (burp)
The Christian concept of reward and punishment
Handed out by an omnipotent, omniscient God,
Is derivative of the family experience,
The child and parent, a conception of our world.
They looked unto their calamities,
Their powerful rulers and enemies,
As in their olden family structure’s way,
Of strict father, and mother with no say.
This Father Notion they based on themselves,
As the best answer that was ever delved:
The demanding Male Mind who was called ‘God’,
An idea for some to this day, well trod.
Structure was needed for 'God' to persist:
They extended the Notion with more myths
And legends into lore layered upon,
Inventing the old scrolls of scripture on.
‘God’ brought both fear and comfort in those days,
Making people better through fearsome ways,
Although worse for some—the unchosen tribes,
Protecting their notions, as taught by scribes.
A wasteland of superstition plod,
Instantiates the meaning for ‘God’.
Emotion e’er sets up a firm blockade
As thoughts fired build more the stockade.
And now-a-days:
Myth’s performance is well over its tasks;
The artists have taken off their masks.
The illusion is fading; it couldn’t last;
The science behind is appearing fast.
They tried to undo evolution’s pace of snails,
But the stratified fossils ever told the tales
Of no special humans at once unveiled,
But of only natural selection’s weathered sails.
We definitely grow into that, sure, but look at how long it takes as compared to all other life.
You seem to begin your evaluation when we are adults but ignore how weak and dependent on others we are for so many years when we are young.
Quoting Coben
I agree with this and hope I did not indicate otherwise.
Quoting Coben
See above.Quoting Coben
Let me put best thinker in the fittest description even if that is possibly debatable.
We are not all born with the equal ability to think. Nature will not know this and thus will still push all poor thinkers to being the best thinkers and fittest. It can only work with what was born though. Nature demonstrably tries to bring all organisms to their best possible end, even though that best end might be inferior to the fittest of our species. I hope that is understandable the way I have put it.
Quoting Coben
Neither do I and don't think I suggested that. I do suggest that nature pushes us all to be the fittest and it is to us to select who those fittest are. The tribe decides that, not nature, although we are a part of nature so I might be contradicting myself with the language and could say that we guide nature and human standards of fittest. In times of peace, we might see the most peaceful as the fittest and at time of war, the strongest warrior might be seen as the fittest. The fittest will likely always be seen as the one most helpful in the survival of the many.
Quoting Coben
This is not surprising as our tribal natures insure that there is a hierarchy in our species as otherwise the tribal members would war against each other perpetually.
Imagine us as a pack of dogs. One the fittest has been found, the Alpha male, the numbers of challengers or challenges to his rule tend to drop off till he shows weakness. That is when he is deposed.
Regards
DL
I have also been mocked for claiming an apotheosis. I expect it though and am surprised that you do not, especially from so called believers because the vast majority of them do not really believe the way they say they believers. Most religionists are liars and hypocrites just like their preachers.
Belief is a dead end discussion and that is why I focus on the important part of religions which is the morals they teach.
The religious know that in moral terms, their gods are rotten to the core, and always run away when moral discussions are at hand. If that were not the case, the mainstream religions would have grown by good moral tenets instead of inquisitions and jihads. For of arms is all they have while force of good morals should be their forte.
If you have had an apotheosis, I am surprised you did not know this as my apotheosis certainly taught me that. I guess that the god you found is not the same god as the one I found.
A shame as mine seems more in tune with what is important.
Regards
DL
Verification and documentation is required for others to believe as you do.
Strange that your god did not tell you to do that.
Your god seems to lack competence in communication techniques.
Regards
DL
+ 1
To not think in metaphors and analogies is foolish.
Regards
DL
+ 1
Regards
DL
So when you refer to humans as the most insecure and weak species, you mean when they are babies?
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
This was regarding the selfish gene and personality. OK, well good to hear. But the gene is driving us as individuals. IOW whatever traits are connected to parents that procreate, will be passed on. Those traits will not necessarily lead to individuals that are fittest. That word can have all sorts of false connotations, wheras when Darwin adopted it, he meant....better designed for an immediate, local environment.
in any case when you mentioned it earlier it sounded like it meant that we would each as individuals be driven by our genes to be the fittest of the species. And that's not correct. It would not necessarily at all lead us to want to be better or fitter than other individual humans.Quoting Gnostic Christian BishopI don't see nature pushing us to be the best thinkers and fittest.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
OK, i see here you were only suggetsting that nature ensures that we work to be the fittest of our species. We may not succeed, but nature ensures that we work toward that. I don't see nature doing this, nor to I see most people working toward being the fittest of our species.
I also don't see nature pushing people to be the best thinkers.
Perhaps you mean, if we lived in what gets called nature. Like say in hunter gatherer societies. I am nto sure. But I don't, for example, see nature pushing people to be the best thinkers in cities. Really, I don't see it anywhere. But I am not sure what process you see that you are referring to.
Quoting Coben
Quoting Gnostic Christian BishopNature is pushing us to be fittest and our tribal natures ensure there is a hierarchy? This is me, trying to get a handle on this.
The nature you see us as pushing us to be the fittest. what is this nature? What are you referring to?
That for sure, but also as we grow. Our insecurity makes us form and or join tribes that appease our insecurity and fellowship needs. Tribes mean safety in numbers and we continue to join or be in tribes till we die. Even religious tribes that we know have immoral tenets like Christianity and Islam, which shows the depth of our insecurity.
My favorite moral psychologist talks of some of this if you have the time to give this link a listen.
Logic and reason is likely all you need though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU
Regards
DL
I disagree and see nature always creating an organism for it's best possible end.
Remember that our selfish gene does not know if there are more fit organisms out there and is ready to compete if it has to. We default to cooperation as that is the best survival/fitness technique but will compete for resources and mating opportunities if we have to.
When born, it is counter intuitive to think nature would intentionally create a weakness in us to prevent us from reaching our full potential. It would be a waste of energy and resources and I do not think nature would waste it. Life is veracious and wants to be in as many environments as it can grow in.
Quoting Coben
Survival is based on the decisions we all make. That takes intelligence which depends on the quality of our thinking. Some think better or faster than others. To think fittest, in a thinking animal, would not include thinking fitness is counter intuitive. This is bolstered by your desire and mine to educate our children to as high a level as we can.
Quoting Coben
We all eventually accept our fate and for a less fit organism to continue to compete would only cause it harm and that is why sheeple become sheeple. In our hierarchical tribal systems, there is only room for the few at the top and the many just line up behind them for security, which is our selfish gene's reason for being, along with reproduction.
Quoting Coben
Our nature is under discussion but the traits ours has are not unique to us. They are universal. It is only because of our intelligence that we can understand the workings of it as much as we do. Then again, there is nothing that says that other animals are not aware of how their instincts work. They just can't tell us how intelligent they are. They show us that though all the time.
Regards
DL