Man created "God" in the beginning
In the beginning man created "God". As far as ancient historians can go back into history they find indications of man being "religious" in some way or another. The only expanation for this phenomenon which makes sense to me is a psychological one. There must have been this overwhelmimg need in man, right from the "beginning" to find a Superior / Transcendental / Cosmic Being to enable him/her to bear the pain / suffering of being alive and to give meaning to their lives and also a sense of morality. Without finding such a Being the "inner chaos of human experience" would have destroyed everything with no survivors left to give continuity to the human race. Therefore, human beings created the concept of "God" which eventually led to many different conceptions of this concept which is today still in a process of evolution.
Comments (51)
In the beginning was the nerd... :nerd:
Apologies to Daniel but I couldn't resist. Bad of me, I know :yikes:
Quoting Daniel C
Not sure that it would be right from the 'beginning'...whenever that was...
There is another possibility, of course, i.e. that God exists. It is at least worth a mention. We don't have to get into a discussion on the existence of God. There are dozens, hundreds of them here on the forum with new ones starting all the time.
Here's a quote from the Tao Te Ching that I think is relevant to your position:
The Tao ...is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities. It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.
The Tao is what exists as an undivided whole. People break it up into the 10,000 things, which are the objects and phenomena which make up the reality we live in. God is one of the 10,000 things.
And there is yet another way of thinking about God which I find satisfying and which is consistent with the Tao Te Ching but separate from your psychological explanation. If there is no objective reality, which is a reputable and defensible metaphysical position, then what we call "reality" is a fundamentally human invention. The religious impulse is just recognition of this living nature of our world.
Through what agency? If, for example, I am undivided and whole, then who breaks me up into the people who further breaks me up into the 10,000 things?
I count our 'theogenesis" as one of our more notable cultural achievements. "God" is real in that sense. The forgotten, no-longer-named gods aren't real anymore. Once they were.
That explains a lot. It’s very much like the kind of thing a patient, non-religious youth says to an elder Christian: ‘I understand your need for a father figure, but can’t you see it’s just a projection?’
Most of the atheism chat on the Internet is very uninformed about what exactly is being negated. As, I think, Noam Chomsky said, ‘I’ll tell you if I’m an atheist if you tell me what it is I’m supposed not to believe in.’
What this chatter usually assumes however is that all of the accounts in religious texts are likewise projections, illusions or wishful thinking. And surely in a mechanised modern culture such as ours it must seem like that. But I don’t believe so - it think there records of genuine epiphanies, actual ‘revelations’, such that if anyone were exposed to such visions then they likewise would be compelled to accept their veracity. Not everything in sacred texts is true, but that doesn’t mean that it’s all fallacious, either. Otherwise it would make it the mother of all conspiracies.
Does that make me ‘a believer’? I hope not, I try to resist being a believer. But I am someone with a religious or at least spiritual kind of temperament. And besides, there are many points on the spectrum other than simply believer or atheist - one can remain intellectually agnostic but still open to the spiritual.
Hi Daniel C,
According to your post,
“In the beginning man created "God". As far as ancient historians can go back into history they find indications of man being "religious" in some way or another. The only expanation for this phenomenon which makes sense to me is a psychological one. There must have been this overwhelmimg need in man, right from the "beginning" to find a Superior / Transcendental / Cosmic Being to enable him/her to bear the pain / suffering of being alive and to give meaning to their lives and also a sense of morality. Without finding such a Being the "inner chaos of human experience" would have destroyed everything with no survivors left to give continuity to the human race. Therefore, human beings created the concept of "God" which eventually led to many different conceptions of this concept which is today still in a process of evolution.” - Daniel C
it seems like your argument works out like this:
(1) If a concept related to psychological needs is ubiquitous and fundamentally diverse, then it cannot be objectively true.
(2) Humans have historically exhibited religious activity, and exhibit a psychological need to cope with questions of suffering, meaning, and morality
(3) Therefore, God is a construct of the imagination. (1,2, MP)
While I agree with you that we are faced with significant and unavoidable questions related to purpose, suffering, and morality, and that history provides us with consistent examples of religious expression, I do not think that your conclusion (3) follows based on premise (1).
The conclusion that God is a construct does not follow based on the observances of (2), and must be supported by a premise such as (1); which seems to me to be an accurate articulation of your argument.
Just because religion is a phenomenon that can be traced throughout history, and that it seems to satisfy a series of existential questions innate to the human condition does not immediately mean that it is a false construct.
For, there are many similar phenomena that, based on the criteria of (1), serve to promote the reality of a concept.
Take the concept of morality, for example. The concept of good and evil / right and wrong has been intrinsic throughout human history, and unique and diverse throughout time and cultural context.
One might argue that these very observances are cause to refute the existence of morality - that it is also a result of pragmatism or psychological need.
However, it seems apparent that the similarities within this common sense of morality actually exceed cultural differences - at least in a normative sense.
What I mean is, loyalty, generosity, altruism, kindness, respect, etc. all seem to be acknowledged as good things across cultural divides and historical eras. Likewise, things like theft, insolence, avarice, and adultery are seen as bad.
This human tendency toward morality is often cited as evidence for the existence of an objective morality, not against it. Despite differences in expression, it is the nature of the expression itself that causes many to assert its objective reality.
Opponents of this view who take a subjective approach fall into an awkward problem of self-defeat. For example, it becomes impossible for those with a subjective view of morality to renounce such acts as genocide, infanticide, and racism as objectively wrong.
Similarly, the fact that religion has existed throughout history and satisfies intrinsic psychological proclivities can actually serve to corroborate theism.
Further, though religions do take many forms, they are all fundamental acknowledgements of metaphysical presuppositions about purpose, morality, meaning, and destiny.
This is a dichotomy between atheism (God is a human construct) and any metaphysical or spiritual explanation.
Therefore, I would object to your premise (1) with the following:
(1) If a concept related to psychological needs is ubiquitous and fundamentally similar, then it has a high probability of objective truth.
(2) Humans have historically exhibited religious activity, and exhibit a psychological need to cope with questions of suffering, meaning, and morality
(3) Therefore, theism is a reasonable explanation. (1,2, MP)
"Fitra" or "fitrah" (Arabic: ?????; ALA-LC: fi?rah), is the state of purity and innocence Muslims believe all humans to be born with. Fitra is an Arabic word that is usually translated as “original disposition,” “natural constitution,” or “innate nature.” According to Islamic theology, human beings are born with an innate inclination of tawhid (Oneness), which is encapsulated in the fitra along with compassion, intelligence, ihsan and all other attributes that embody the concept of humanity.
I disagree with your statement, but as I said in my recent post, I don't think this is the thread to have this discussion. I have no problem with assuming that there is no God, but I thought @Daniel C was a bit presumptuous in how he phrased his OP, as if it were self-evident. I realize this is off-topic. There's no need to distract from the OP any more.
It's not that you are undivided, it's that everything is undivided. There is only one essence, e.g. the Tao. Other philosophers call it something else. Many philosophers don't include it in their understanding of reality. The agent of the spit into the 10,000 things is processing by the human mind.
To be clear, this is a metaphysical view. It's not true or false, it is useful or not. I think it is a very fruitful way of looking at things.
:clap:
There's a writer called Andrew Newberg whose book The Spiritual Brain is very much about this kind of idea.
Quoting T Clark
Sorry, but I've just peeled a mandarin. And it is indeed divided. In fact almost every sensible object is divisible into parts, some of them, like mandarins, into sub-parts. So whatever the sentiment you're wanting to express here, it regrettably doesn't conform with the testimony of sense.
Quoting alcontali
By way of comparison:
[quote=Wikipedia] According to Mah?y?na Buddhists, buddha nature is the inherent nature that exists in all beings. In Mah?y?na Buddhism, enlightenment is a process of uncovering this inherent nature … The Buddha nature identical with transcendental reality and is unity of the Buddha with everything that exists.[/quote]
What a facetious trivialising of what was a very thoughtful point. Your personal incredulity does not constitute an argument. What lends you the arrogance to think that whatever makes sense to you is what sense itself is constituted of?
@Wayfarer, @Isaac, and @T. Clark, the three of you seem to be divided on the subject of unity. This actually unifies the three of you into a community of participants of a debate.
Except that there CAN'T be three of you, according to the Tao Unified Cosmos theory.
Nor do your ad homs. T. Clark said, I quote, ‘everything is undivided’. Granted, this might amount to a profound philosophical insight but I’m simply pointing out that empirically, this is not so, that on the level of phenomena, things are indeed divided and divisible.
Green goes to the rabbi with Black, to get justice done. "Black borrowed my hat and never returned it. He must pay me for the hat." The rabbi says, "That's right." Then Black says, "Yeah, but Green borrowed five bucks from me last week, and he never paid me back. So I don't have to pay him for the hat." The rabbi thinks for a second, and says, "You're right!" Then Green pipes up, "But rabbi! We can't both be right!" The rabbi looks at him in surprise, and says, "You're right!"
I like that. I imagine God feeling severely depressed about how wrong the creation of humankind went, realizing the incalculable amount of unnecessary (in addition to the necessary suffering) suffering that humans have inflicted on each other and the rest of the species. And in spite of (or maybe because of) the free will clause, God still feels profound guilt in addition to the depression for inflicting such a fucked up species on the world. If it ever comes out of the depression and guilt, perhaps it will try something more proactive than the Flood, which didn't really change anything.
I'm surprised. I always think of you as someone experienced in eastern philosophies. Certainly more experienced than I am. Maybe you have a different understanding of the ground of being, Tao, reality, existence, or being than I do.
With the exception of Kierkegaard, with his "leap of faith", which I view as an example of "creating God", all the other philosophers point out different ways in which we can "handle" our fundamental condition. One thing that all these "different ways" have in common, is they are hard / tough ways to face what we have to face - indeed very hard / tough! If this is the case, doesn't it make it so much more likely / probable than man will choose in favour of "God"? It has this one big advantage that in being able to create Him in the way want to, we can create Him in such a way that our existence can be meaningful in a very fundamental sense?
what if the soul was a being that belonged to a larger group like say, a changing (for the visuals). We are not born but rather find ourselves in these bodies, vehicles if you will. It's all we get for the duration. We are hear for a task. that task is simply to learn about life in this form and experience it. Additionally we are to safeguard all we see and help each other become better versions of ourselves. We have all said it and maybe even taught our children they need only do better than there parents and teach their kids the same. Its something I've heard parents say. And what if, as with energy which can neither created nor destroyed entirely. Life as we said it, heard it and read about for the history of mankind . Perhaps we all simply have an innate understanding of all these things but the unique trait of mankind to be born in need of education is nothing more than a mechanism to ensure we don't repeat our mistakes. Unfortunately it takes use much longer than likely hoped to learn some lessons. Now before you brand me a crackpot I'm simply arguing the what if. Consider why it couldn't be true. While you are doing that consider what we know about blackholes and dark energy. Such opposites it almost seems like a blackhole is nothing more than the garbage disposal of the cosmos. When things get sucked in they are stripped of any form of light thus being born into the area of space filled with dark matter that we can't yet see into. I'm wrong I'm sure but think about it. What can't it be true. What one fact makes it impossible? Myself I enjoy the possibilities but in the end we will all get the answers though I have to wonder, if this whole akashic field isn't as real as any fable based in some truth how is it any crazier than harvard engaging in construction on the premise of an unseen ether. Take leaps folks and disporve things before you simply disagree. so again...ultimately religion came to explain this pull to something we couldn't put our fingers on yet knew it was part of something bigger and as you'll notice most faiths are somehow tied to a creation story. We humans do love having our past and ansestors accounted for. They are wonderful stories that never seem to include the atrocities committed in their name. all of them. ironically they are or most I guess propose a core of common beliefs. It does make one question if there was a tower of babell and something did happen there resulting in the creation of languages then basically every one believes the same things as they wonder off to their respective corners of the globe. After which the names and stories changed somewhat and the dictates of each faith changed with the generations and know they fight with each other all descendants of friends and neighbors who could no longer communicate properly. are you a driver or the vehicle I wonder?
The idea of ‘the undivided’ is, you could say, a cipher for ‘the One’ - the philosophical conception of the source or ground of being. The goal of philosophy is to ‘return to the One’, so to speak. But day to day, we’re confronted by the reality of division and conflict - that’s what the reality of life is. So ‘returning to oneness’ is an analogy for merging with that ‘original state’. So I was just pointing out that we can’t overlook the realities of mundane existence even if we have awareness of ‘the undivided’. That’s the major part of the task of a spiritual path.
I think it would help you to re-frame the issue. My approach was shaped through the idea of the spiritual path; I never knew there was such a thing until realising I was on one, aged about 18. It has much more affinity with 'eastern' ways of understanding.
The view I formed is that problem we have in Western culture is that of a deep reaction against religious authority. And this has been going on for centuries. If you study the European religious wars, the Inquisition, and the role of religious authority in Western culture generally, it's not that hard to see. The European Enlightenment was formed in large part to escape from that or find an alternative to it - hence, secular humanism, formed around pragmatism and scientific theory rather than religious dogma.
The problem is, in my view, that religious literature and myth really do address the deepest existential dilemmas - as you're aware, through those quotes you've provided from the existentialists. And at least with Camus and Sartre, they showed some understanding of what the 'death of God' meant - Sartre wrote of the 'god-shaped hole' that it leaves in man and culture. They at least were conscientious atheists, atheists that really wrestled with the implication of atheism, rather than just gloating over 'how great science is', like modern atheists do, with zero conception of what it means, what really might have been lost.
I think we have to re-trace our steps in some sense. That's what I attempted to do by enrolling in comparative religion (and anthropology, among other things.) I believe there was a universal insight that was depicted in the different religious traditions. In the Western tradition, that gnostic element became subordinated to the requirements of popular religion and then rigidified into the dogma of 'thou shalt believe!' (This is well documented - I think the suppression of the gnostic element has had enormous long-term consequences in Western culture.)
Anyway, through my search, I came to the view that the original core of that insight has been preserved in many forms and cultures. That was the kind of Joseph Campbell/Huston Smith approach to religions - that they represent archetypes and 'myths', but in the positive sense of telling the story of the human condition in mythical ways (as it's a story that can't be told literally.) And the other important point about these approaches, is that they're hands-on - they're concerned with learning to see, learning to understand in a particular way. That has completely gone missing in modern Western culture, it's not even taught although it's been preserved in (for example) Buddhism (hence the ever-growing presence of Western Buddhism and other various permutations of traditional spiritual movements in modernist guise.)
The alternative seems to me to be a kind of never-ending argument about whether God 'exists' or not, mainly based on the cultural confusion that the West has generated about this whole question.
For a useful analysis of theism from a philosophy of religion perspective, have a glance at Who or What is God, John Hick. Also this review.
“doesn't it make it so much more likely / probable than man will choose in favour of "God"? It has this one big advantage that in being able to create Him in the way want to, we can create Him in such a way that our existence can be meaningful in a very fundamental sense?” - Daniel C
Hi Daniel C,
I think your reasoning makes sense based on the philosophical stage you’ve set.
In the context of the existential crises you mentioned - the “cold indifference” of the external world; the “freedom imposition” of the seemingly endless burden of choice; and the “inevitable angst” of the unchosen birth and death we all face - it does seem that the most comfortable respite is a form of religion that supplies a relevant sense of hope and meaning.
This brings to mind Pascal’s Wager; a sort of formula that weighs the pros and cons of theism versus non-theism as a chosen lifestyle. Pascal argues that committing to theism - taking this “leap of faith” - always results in the greatest benefit.
Of course, in this sense, committing to theism and taking this step of faith entails a choice of assent to its truth claims (i.e. believing that said form of theism is true and not simply a construct of the imagination).
All that to say, I do want to respond to the paradigm of reality that you established above, and see if I can submit a different angle on these existential experiences.
It seems to me, the general sense of the world described above is one where atheism is the default paradigm. That is to say, humans are thrust into these existential realities, and - precisely because these realities are the way that they are (absurd, nullified, doomed, etc) - we assume the only logical starting place is atheism. In other words, if God truly existed, the world would look differently. Thus, God is a fabrication of man to deal with the chaos of the real world.
This paradigm that I’ve described, an atheistic default, is what I’d like to challenge; I think there are some very interesting interpretations of these existential crises from the Christian point of view.
To start, I will present Alvin Plantinga’s idea of Properly Basic Belief and Warranted Belief in God.
According to Plantinga, Properly Basic Beliefs are beliefs that are accepted as foundational - not on the basis of over beliefs. Although these beliefs are not inferred from other beliefs or accepted on the basis of other beliefs, they are not therefore, groundless. For, these beliefs follow from foundational experiences informed by reality. For example, the following claims:
(a) I see a tree
(b) that person is angry
(c) I had breakfast this morning
represent a basic sort of experience related to a reliable sense of perception, memory, and understanding.
Plantinga supports the idea of a Sensus divinitatis - an intrinsic sense of the transcendent nature of things, naturally activated by certain existential realities.
In other words, this human tendency to attribute parts of our experience to the divine is intrinsic, not extrinsic (i.e. man does not “create” God, man “finds” God).
For example, the natural sense of awe or gratitude at the sight of a beautiful sunset, a delicious and satisfying meal, or even the humbling experience of an illness or suffering. Even among non-theists, this experience is often exclaimed in terms of, “the universe”, or a generalized sense of “karma”. According to the Sensus divinitatis, these hints of the divine come from within as a predisposed understanding of a transcendent reality.
And so, according to Plantinga, there are existential realities that conform to a properly basic belief in God. He calls this, warranted belief in God; and these beliefs are “warranted” when produced by a sound mind, in an environment supportive of proper thought, and in accordance with a design plan successfully aimed at truth.
Now, I will try to sum this up. I explain all of these propositions from Alvin Plantinga to present the philosophical notion that existential realities can also validly promote theism; atheism is not the only option for a default understanding of our existence.
I will add a couple of small thoughts to this basic paradigm shift.
Consider C.S. Lewis’s observation about our existential reality:
“The Christian says, 'Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or to be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that country and to help others to do the same.” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Alvin Plantinga’s description of Warranted Christian Belief strikes a similar chord; according to this argument, the Sensus divinitatis (or, innate sense of the divine) logically follows if Christianity is indeed true.
A proverb from the Bible itself seems to hint of an intentional design to the apparent contrarieties of life:
“It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.”
Proverbs 25:2 (ESV).
It seems from this proverb that the struggles of life are - at least to some degree - part of a benevolent and purposeful process of identity fulfilment.
Now, these thoughts I’ve pulled together mainly describe a Christian point of view, but I think the ideas presented above support the broader claim to theism’s validity.
It seems to me that this theistic paradigm, if indeed valid, shifts the entire foundation of existential perspective. Instead of entering into a cold and indifferent world where one must contrive one’s own meaning, morality, and destiny - to the absurdity of a hopeless mortality - one enters into a world with all of these metaphysical concepts pre-established in the fabric of reality. It is, indeed, the idea that “essence precedes existence”, rather than “existence precedes essence.”
Instead of straining toward a feigned delusion as a mode of subsistence, one is settling into benevolent design as a mode of true fulfillment.
This concept is intriguing, and even exhilarating. Not as wishful thinking or blissful ignorance, but as a philosophical and logical validity. Apparently, it is just as reasonable to presume theism as it is atheism. And, it seems to me, starting with theism can infuse significant hope into our perplexing existential realities.
Hi Wayfarer, thanks for the book recommendation!
Humanity is a herd. A herd, of course, is prey-species and 'spooked' by seen, day-lit, up-wind, close/familiar, while-we're-awake predators as well as, more sinisterly, unseen moonless down-wind distant/unfamiliar while-we-sleep predators.
Contagion of anxiety drives just as it confabulates the herd. Some are lost by sundown or go missing at sunrise; and some turn up bloodied or much worse. Anxiety becomes restless panic. The herd runs from they know not what towards they know not what! On and on forever it seems. Until, once-upon-the-living-can't-remember-when, the herd conjures a Shepherd, stronger, so they dreamtime, than any predator from their nightmares, seen or unseen.
The Shepherd protects the herd, consoles its restless anxieties, guides them through hungered howling desolations towards deliverance - some 'promised' grazing pasture free of all predators where the herd will be safe forever and ever. The herd obeys their Shepherd and ordains its own proxy-shepherds - sheepdogs! - from the herd itself tasked with reminding and guiding the rest of the herd to scrupulously obey and gratify the Shepherd - by any and all means necessary! - in order to induce (bribe) Him never to abandon them.
They remind themselves of the cycles of pleasing & displeasing the Shepherd - consequently (well, way back in the day, 'correlation = causation' :roll: ), they prevailed against & too-often betrayed themselves to predators - with fairytales hymns & epics. The herd reminds itself of The Shepherd's mercy & generosity & love of protecting the herd (or is that 'love of the herd He's Chosen to protect'?); and they re-bind themselves daily via myths & rituals to The Shepherd's providence (extorting largesse). They feel safe - blessed by The Protector Who Shepherds The Herd through valleys of death and over fields of lilies ever and ever on and on towards ... Elysium (or ... until Ragnarok? :yikes: ).
In the beginning was the herd. And the herd was go_d.
Thus Spoke 180 Proof! :joke:
We are just three of the 10,000 things. Or maybe three of one of the 10,000 things.
As for the "Tao Unified Cosmos theory," - it's not really a theory, it's a metaphysical approach. As the Tao Te Ching says - "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao," or, to paraphrase, the Truth that can be theorized about is not the eternal Truth. It is undivided because it is unspoken. The minute you speak, you bring the 10,000 things into existence.
It's not abstract, it's the most concrete thing there is. It isn't a theory. I call it "metaphysical" so it will be clear I'm not saying it's the right way to see the world, it's just one of our choices. It isn't right or wrong, true or false. As I've said many times, like all metaphysical concepts, it's useful or not. You might compare it and contrast it to the concept of objective reality. I come from science and engineering. I find the Tao a much more useful concept than objective reality, which is often misleading.
And, yes, Taoists recognize that, by using all these words to talk about the Tao, they are never talking about the eternal Tao, which can only be experienced and never discussed.
Some of us with no religious beliefs do not see the world as cold and indifferent or death as hopeless or absurd. Contriving our own "meaning, morality, and destiny" is what humans do. We're built for it, by whatever builds us - God, evolution, or something else. We grew up with the universe and we belong here. That's one of the things I didn't like about @Daniel C's formulation in the original post. Whether we created God or God created us, it's not because the world is a bleak place. I've come to think that at least some of our religious impulse comes from something you mention - gratitude. Gratitude for what we've been given.
If the part in bold isn't fallacious, then set out your reasoning. Surprise me.
Quoting S
You did not ask me, S, but if Jesus, Yahweh, or Beelzeboob (sp?) appeared in front of me and created 100 fish out of nothing instantly in a set of barrels, or turned 100 barrels of water into wine instantly, then I'd accept it as an act of god, not as an act of magic or trickery. Call me gullible, but it would satisfy me as a proof of truth. And you know how religious I am now.
No, that's not the problem, although that's still actually a problem, because there's still the problem of why God over magic or brain damage or drugs or any number of other possible explanations.
He was talking about "records", which he thought were genuine. The problem is why he thinks that these "records" are genuine, unless he only means by that that he accepts that they really did have a "vision" (where a "vision" is just be a funny feeling or something like that, and not anything supernatural, which would be unwarranted). That in itself isn't that big of an issue. (People do have funny feelings, and they do tell us about them, and they can be genuine in telling us about them). Nor would it be that big of an issue to suggest that that "vision", in combination with an overactive imagination and lack of critical thinking skills, can compel someone to believe that it was something more than is reasonably warranted. But the problem would be if he was suggesting that this would be anything other than fallacious, or if he was suggesting that anyone with the required critical thinking skills and self-restraint would likewise jump to the same conclusion in that situation.
Well, I took my own hypothetical experience to be an example, and instead of creating an example of an epiphany stemming from a spiritual impression or "vision", which the scriptures have some records of, and @Wayfarer said if s/he replicated, s/he would be convinced, I took a vision which is not esoteric or spiritual, but factual and in-your-face, but like you said, it's a vision nevertheless (you likened it to Quoting S).
So I simplified the process and declared that I am a gullible human, who, when encounters an experience, which indicated to people long time ago that there is a supernatural force, would also interpret the process or phenomenon as an act of a supernatural force.
There are experiences that are so strong and compelling, although not real, that we believe them.
Solipsists claim that our entire sensory life is precisely that.
I therefore agree with this kind of thinking, so I agreed with @Wayfarer that indeed there could be strong enough experiences in life -- such as Jesus appearing, and creating 100 barrels of fish in an instant -- that even I, a staunch atheist, would not be able to explain with anything but with the existence of a supernatural entity.
Then again, I never encountered anything like that yet. And I believe I never will.
(Incidentally, I also see this hypothetical scenario I described and my response to it, as a way to falsify the scientific finding that there is no evidence of god's existence.)
Aliens from other galaxies, for instance, could become invisible to us, and bring in a hundred barrels full of fish, in an instant. I, as a person, would be so impressed by the production, especially when unaware of the invisible aliens, that I would have no choice but believe the real presence of the supernatural.
There was a story that was regaled in Hungary in intellectual circles, which told of a Sorbonne professor in the early part of the nineteenth century, who was a staunch atheist. His students wanted to scare him and trick him into confession of faith in god. They dressed one of their classmates up in typical Devil gear-- hoofs, horns coming from his head, red tongue, and they created some impressive red light and noises, and burst into the professor's bedroom in the middle of the night, and the "Devil" said, "I'll take you now to the depths of Hell and eat you", and the professor looked at it with sleepy eyes, and said, "you are hoofed, and you have horns, you are obviously a herbavore, you won't eat me", and he rolled over to his other side to continue his rest.
I would say what people believe as real on the pattern of their experiences is based largely not only on what constitutes a valid inference, but also on how gullible people are.
You are right, @S, that one should not build an argument, a philosophical argument, on the strength of gullibility, and on the varying degrees thereof, but I see the issue here as an experiential/belief question, not a philosophical one.
First, the concept of a singular cosmic being is a rather late development. Much earlier are the gods, often personified, with particular powers and domains. Second, I do not think it is the result of a need but rather an assumption based on a notion of agency. The need or desire to appeal to or appease such agents is a natural outgrowth.
But how did the idea of God originate in the first place? @Fooloso4 suggests the answer above. People in primitive societies did not have our modern, scientific view of how things work, obviously. But they had something we might we call proto-scientific thinking, with faulty methods of attributing cause and whatnot. People noticed patterns and correlations and made connections between things and used this information to try to help them make their way in the world.
If I am a primitive person in the distant past, I notice that some things move and some things don't. One thing that moves is my body. And inside myself, I find my mind, my motivations, and whatnot. I will my body to do something and it happens. I command and possess this body. Then I notice that there are other shapes in the world that look very similar to my body. But I can't control the other bodies that are separated by space from me. And I see them from the outside rather than the inside. I infer, naturally, as we still do today, that inside them must be some conscious agency like what I have inside myself.
There are other things in the world that aren't exactly like me, but similar, and they also move and seem to have interests like I do. These are animals. They must have minds like I do, though lesser.
Another thing I notice is that when babies are born, the first thing they do is breathe. And when someone dies, their breath leaves them. And when the "breath is knocked from" someone, they lose consciousness and their body ceases to be normally animated. Therefore, this breath must have something to do with what animates these bodies. When it is there, they are up and moving around. When they stop breathing, they stop moving around. And the breath that enters at birth and leaves at death is invisible. A person's mind is also invisible. I know mine from the inside, but I can't see it. And I can't see the mind of anyone else. I see a correlation here. Breath and consciousness arrive together. And breath and consciousness are also both invisible. They must be the same thing. So the mind is a vaporous, invisible thing that enters and leaves bodies, and it is that which animates them.
Now let's notice the root of the word animate. It comes from the Latin anima, which means life or soul. Also notice that spirit is the root of respiration, inspiration, and expiration. These are clues. The word animal basically even means "breather". Pneuma is a
Greek word for spirit, and is also tied to air. Think of a pneumatic drill, which is air-powered.
When I, this primitive person, look around, I see other things that move. The wind moves trees, and is invisible. Ancient people often attributed agency to things like whirlwinds and would sometimes fire arrows at them, trying to injure those spirits. More importantly for our discussion here though is that almost all primitive and ancient people thought there must be some kind of agency behind storms, especially thunder and lightning. Notice that even today, we have this idea that God punishes by smiting the wicked with a bolt of lightning.
I have read about and seen footage of alpha male apes reacting to thunder by "presenting" or making as much noise as possible, as if to challenge the dominance of a threatening male. Even apes seem to imagine an agency behind those threatening rumbles in the sky. In our own direct ancestry, this probably predates our being human.
One of the most common sorts of gods in early societies was the storm god. Yahweh, early on, was not the monotheistic God we think of today. Rather, he was a warrior storm god belonging to a particular tribe. And he was a god among other gods and even had a consort named Asherah. People offered sacrifices to this tribal storm god.
Why do people offer sacrifices to gods? Primitive people lived in a world populated with many spirits, some small and some large and powerful. The smaller ones were dealt with by means of magic. People often tried to enslave these lesser spirits. Or they deceived them. Or they scared them off with masks. Or they used smoke or salt or light to be rid of them. But large, powerful spirits, the kind that could make the sky rumble and hurl destructive bolts of white fire from the sky were a different matter. You don't trifle with these great spirits! You kneel! You offer praise! You offer gifts! You can't fool the sky god who sees all! And he isn't afraid of your masks and noisy stomping around the fire!
If something bad happens, especially if the volcano threatens your village, it must be because the large spirit is angry. So you apologize for being too noisy. You do everything to avoid offending this power. You wash yourself, making your presence as clean and pleasant as possible. You approach with quiet and submissive, non-threatening gestures. Then you praise, give thanks, and offer gifts, often of things that rise to the sky, like the smoke of nice-smelling substances, including roasted flesh. Whatever you value, the gods probably also like. And to offer it up shows your serious submission and repentance. And you apologize for the wickedness of people and promise to do better.
You relate to this angry spirit in much the same way that a child relates to an abusive father. I love this Monty Python bit:
Growth and Learning
That clip is missing the part where they go on to sing songs where they implore God not to boil them in hot fat and so on.
I earlier spoke of things animated and things not animated. Notice that people attributed god-like agency to the stars that move, but not the immobile stars. Interesting, no? Thus we have Mars, Jupiter, and so on, named after the gods associated with them and their movements.
There is another dimension to this. Our arboreal ancestors lived in a situation where being up high in the trees, closer to the sky and sun, literally meant better food and safety from predators on the dark forest floor, including cats and serpents. Higher status members of the group got to inhabit the heights. Social rejects were often forced to the ground. Do we have here part of the origins of Heaven and Hell? And you can see the same social dynamic played out on the streets of Manhattan.
Not only were sky gods powerful, being able to hurl lightning, but they also had high status. They literally lived in the sky, untouchable by the corruption on the ground. And they appeared immortal.
One can see in my sketch here how the idea of a god probably originated. Once it was there, the idea of god was also exploited by political power as a tool for social control. Maybe to some extent these political powers even feared the gods and wished for the people to act in a way that would curry favor. Whatever the case, they legitmized their power through the awe the people felt for the gods, either by claiming to be gods or to be the earthly representatives of the gods. This gets very complex. Sometimes the shaman or priestly types were actually manipulating the kings. A claim to be able to talk to the gods was a source of power, influence, profit, and even basic safety. Some very interesting bits can be found In Fraser's The Golden Bough.
Over time, one storm god among many other gods evolved with the culture into something even bigger, higher status, mightier, more fearsome, and rather more abstract. He became the creator of all. And his jurisdiction was no longer limited to the region of one tribe. This God ruled the heavens and the earth. This also served to help explain the seeming design of the world. This belief served many varied functions.
But in all this ritual, all the prayer and incense and self-abasement, and often psychoactive compounds, people discovered something else: altered states of consciousness. And this brought both insights and delusions. People will disagree as what here amounts to real insight. But I suspect in all the inner searching, the ego-restraining gestures, the ritual, and whatnot, people may have come to glimpse certain deeper truths about our own inner nature, something that connects us to the universal. They sometimes felt their own rootedness in the ground of being, which they sometimes identified with God. Some of this mystical insight, in my opinion, is valid, but really has nothing to do with the old gods, even if ancients might have thought so. Such experiences and insight then blended with all the old magic and superstition, the tradition, the political power business, the worldview and old belief system under which these experiences were interpreted, and so on. We end up with something that doesn't yield to easy, simple explanations. Religion has many facets, some superficial, some deep, some old, some new, some worthless, some of great value. And I have only touched on a few points.
There is much more to say, but I'll end it there for now. This sketch might not be exactly correct in all details, but I think it provides a pretty solid candidate for an explanation of the origin of gods.
"Gilgamesh, whereto are you going in such a hurry?
The life that you are seeking you will not find.
When the gods created man,
they determined death for man.
Life they took for themselves."
To me it is clear that one of the roots of this psychological need man developed for such a special Being can be found in his sense of own mortality.
Of course. An old philosophical maxim is that if man were just an animal, then he would be the most unfortunate, because only man is aware of his impending death. What did the Buddha say was the underlying cause of dukkha? That everything dear to you will perish, that you won’t have what you want, and that you will have what you don’t want. Therefore seek refuge in the imperishable, the deathless, Nirv??a. I think it’s dismissive to describe it in terms of an ‘obsession’; it’s more likely that we simply have no conceptual space to map such an idea against.
I think a large part of the existential issue we have is that we’ve outgrown the similes and imagery in which religious principles have been clothed. The Bible is so clearly addressed to an agrarian, pastoral culture with all of its imagery of sheep and fields. Even the sacrificial death of Jesus only makes sense in a culture which did indeed sacrifice precious animals by way of atonement to God - that is what is behind the ‘lamb of God’ imagery. The crucifiction also represents the ‘final sacrifice’, that is to say, the one sacrifice that brings to an end the need for sacrificial offerings once and for all. But without that background understanding of the meaning of sacrifice, then the whole idea has become incomprehensible to many people.
So, as Joseph Campbell sagely noted,
That describes a lot of what happens in this space.
'Being' is an abstraction, or as Aristotle might say a subtraction from some particular "this" - the sun or sea or animal or human, for example. It is not a matter of modes of existence but the power of this thing appeased or appealed.
Quoting Daniel C
The ability of the god to affect change - to help or hurt.
Quoting Daniel C
This, of course, is true. But we find a great deal of evidence in the Hebrew Bible of the belief that death is the end. The breathe of life (Hebrew: ruach) is no longer present and the body returns to dust. In other words, there is no necessary connection between gods and some kind of human immortality or life after death. That there is something that does not die is a common belief, but I do not know if it is universal.
‘God’ can’t be shown such that all would believe—
It’s all idle chatter that hopes conceive,
A blah, blah of what can’t even be preached,
Honestly, without a shred to retrieve.