That word

[wigglieverse]

Who thinks they can explain why people believe, or don't believe, about something we call God? What does this word mean, exactly?

 

Is it referring to a sentience, some being who has ultimate power in the World, and therefore over our lives? Or some sort of guiding principle, not "out there" but already with us?

 

Or just an idea, so that belief in the ontological existence of an idea is therefore a delusion, since it must be belief without actuality?

[Queso]

We talk about this all the time.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/10238-gods-vision-reminder.html

[Boerseun]

The belief in God or any other deity is simply an expression of an ancient human urge to understand things, or, at least, to have an explanation for things. If a stone age cave-dweller saw lighting, he wants an explanation. For this cave-dweller, who has no grasp of electricity, "God did it" will do.

 

But, eventually, humans will outgrow such insufficient answers to seemingly simple questions.

[jedaisoul]

The belief in God or any other deity is simply an expression of an ancient human urge to understand things, or, at least, to have an explanation for things. If a stone age cave-dweller saw lighting, he wants an explanation. For this cave-dweller, who has no grasp of electricity, "God did it" will do.

Agreed.

 

But, eventually, humans will outgrow such insufficient answers to seemingly simple questions.

I'm not so sure. Science can tell us the "how it works" of the universe, and, hopefully, "what it is", but not "why it is". Such metaphysical questions are outside the scope of science.

 

Some people are happy with the answers "we don't know", or "it just is", but others find this insufficient. Also there are those who don't want the responsibility of working out their own answers to these questions. Therefore I believe that there will always be those who turn to religion to provide answers for the questions that science cannot answer.

[rockytriton]

I usually interpret the word in two different ways:

 

1. Literal: such as "I believe God exists", basically anything that can't be explained by science (you know, the ol' God of the Gaps) is actually believed to be the work of a god.

 

2. Pretending: When there is contrary information to what they are told that they must believe, such as the age of the earth being 6000 years. I usually interpret it more as "I pretend to believe the earth is 6000 years old".

[Pyrotex]

For some serious answers to the question, "why do people believe in god", take a look at Daniel C. Dennett's book:

 

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197311896&sr=1-1

 

I have read this book. It is an easy read, fascinating and honest. I highly recommend it.

[wigglieverse]

I have considered that this concept is, in fact a dual or symmetric relation we have with everything (after reading Zurek's ideas).

The external world is supposed to 'arrive' somehow in our experience from what is essentially chaos, It might all be packaged up in little bits, but things like photons only 'behave' if we arrange it for them to.

 

Light (a very narrow, life-tolerant, part of the spectrum), colour (frequency), and so on are "thrown" at us randomly; they "collapse" on a screen in front of us, somehow. We select those events which point in the most "available" direction. Reality is like a resonance, or a note (or music) playing all around us, sort of thing. Or our mind is like an "enclosed cathedral", kind of like the one Achille-Claude found in that wood, la cathedrale engloutie, but who is playing the organ, type of thing? Is 'god' the conductor, as it were... something inside, and outside us also?

 

this way, I look at it Luke...

[Pyrotex]

Wigglie, any high school freshman can spend hours and days dreaming up speculations of fantasies of what god is, isn't, might be, should be. After the first 7 sentences, it all becomes a waste of time and effort. Nothing useful can come out of this kind of speculation, at least, nothing useful that hasn't already been said a million times before.

 

Now, if you REALLY want to learn something about the nature of "god", the nature of people's belief in "god", then there are wonderful books out there. One (Dennett) has been mentioned. There are pro-god books, anti-god books, god-as-metaphor books.

 

Read something.

[C1ay]

Who thinks they can explain why people believe, or don't believe, about something we call God? What does this word mean, exactly?

 

The term "God" is overly broad and vague. It has 1000s of meanings in the 1000s of religions that refer to it. If you want a specific definition you'll have to be more specific...

[wigglieverse]

any high school freshman can spend hours and days dreaming up speculations of fantasies of what god is, isn't, might be, should be. After the first 7 sentences, it all becomes a waste of time and effort. Nothing useful can come out of this kind of speculation, at least, nothing useful that hasn't already been said a million times before.

 

Now, if you REALLY want to learn something about the nature of "god", the nature of people's belief in "god", then there are wonderful books out there. One (Dennett) has been mentioned. There are pro-god books, anti-god books, god-as-metaphor books.

 

Read something.

Indeed. So have you yourself done this? Have you read 'something'? Do you think thinking about what you've read, and maybe posing or thinking about other questions posed is a worthwhile pursuit?

Or should we just read books?

[wigglieverse]

It has 1000s of meanings in the 1000s of religions

You might say the channel is multiplexed

[Pyrotex]

Indeed. So have you yourself done this? Have you read 'something'?

Absolutely, yes, I have. In the last few years, I have read: "Breaking the Spell--Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", "Losing Faith in Faith", "Man's Search for Meaning", "Who Wrote the Gospels?", "Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy", "The Gnostics", "The Age of Reason" [by Thomas Paine], "Misquoting Jesus", and probably skimmed through the first few chapters of another dozen books on christianity, the bible or religion in general.

Do you think thinking about what you've read, and maybe posing or thinking about other questions posed is a worthwhile pursuit?...

Wiggle, this is unintelligible. Do you want to have an adult conversation or not? :)

[wigglieverse]

That could depend on what sex you think I am.

but Seriously, do you think you understand religion, say, and why it happens.

Why, for example, the ancient Egyptian Empires were ruled by mythology (a tradition). Tradition is everywhere in our anthropology and culture.

[Pyrotex]

...do you think you understand religion, say, and why it happens. Why, for example, the ancient Egyptian Empires were ruled by mythology (a tradition). Tradition is everywhere in our anthropology and culture.

I've never claimed to be an expert, but I probably know more about religion than, say, 90% of the folks out there in the world. That's because I read more.

 

For example... why pick on the Egyptians in particular? All ancient cultures big enough to have books written about them, had myths and religion. And they all had (by definition) a "culture", since culture is just whatever their lives was defined by. Please try to keep myth, religion and culture separate, as they are distinct.

 

Pick any ancient civilization. Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, etc. We see that their cultures are all dominated by highly structured religions. By and large, their government is closely tied to their religion. In some cases, like Egypt, their government and religion are almost the same.

 

Religion is an organizing process. To govern a population, you need some way of organizing their beliefs and behavior. Today, we use Law, but back then, religion was the easiest and most obvious way. It worked this way:

 

People need to feel that they "belong" to something important. Even if it's only a tribe. Give them a long, wonderful history (or a myth to that affect) and they have a sense of identity. Write that history down, and each generation get the same sense of identity, and the affect is strengthened. A leader can then use the people's identity ("we are descendents of the god, Isis, who will protect us as long as we are obedient!") to organize, manipulate and control them. ("I am the pharoah, the instrument of Isis! Obey me!")

 

Works like a charm.

[wigglieverse]

Right, its an example of groupthink.

 

But the doctrine is constructed around some demonstrable, periodic, historical (the Exodus), usually natural (eclipses, floods) events.

Often there is an instantiated, or extant 'organisation' which is hijacked, and turned to corrupt, or at least purposes other than any intended by any 'founders' (patriarchs, messianic figures, religious "heroes"; let's see: Imhotep, Guatama, JC, Mohammed, just about any 'guru' who becomes a nouveau-riche Westerner, SF writers -L. Ron., etc, and etc).

 

P.S. Although I possibly adhere to many of the things that Buddha said, and so JC (who appears to reflect much of it), even Im Hotep, seems to have been monotheistic (his mistake; he went against doctrine and his death meant it was renounced, the mythology restored to its rightful place), I don't believe the first two intended to establish an organised doctrinal, or dogmatic "following", except of what they said, not who they were; both, especially Buddha, left strictures to not worship them or any likeness, but it still happened.

[Pyrotex]

A successfull religion is power made manifest. The "priests" control the population. Such a social structure will always have a vulnerable point. Say, there is a pharoah or a priest-king who controls the priests. Knock him off, replace him, and voila! You have the power now.

 

This would have happened more and more with the growth of political sophistication of political awareness. At first, there was no general concept of "political power", and so the priests were safe. Once the concept evolved, ways of corrupting or undermining or taking over the system became obvious -- and tempting.

 

Not all religions or scriptures were triggered by an historic event. However, many historic events such as wars, droughts, plagues, invasion, local flooding, earthquakes, etc, could alter the culture and infrastructure so badly that people would have to rethink what defined them as a people. This would reasonably be mentioned in their scriptures or history. Back then, scripture & history were pretty blurred together.