We are all born with the idea of God

The Clown Man

Yes, this is a slightly long read and yes, I got the title from some quote from one of the Civilization games. I've probably misquoted it anyway but hey.

My better half said something today that shocked me a little. She said that she believed she had a guardian angel. Now this is from a very non-religious girl (and she'd have to be because of the disdain I have for religion in general) but it did get me thinking.

Firstly, I don't have any feeling that someone is watching over me or is there to protect me. I don't feel anything in fact. I don't know if there is a God or guardian angels not. I'm not willing to count it out but I'm also not willing to accept it as it's normally put forward through the very human medium of religion.

Religion for me is simply a business, whether the participants or even the promoters actually know it or not. There is a need for people who look beyond themselves for comfort in life and that need is fulfilled by various religious institutions which, predictably enough, often do very well for themselves and their hierarchy as a result. Successfully providing supply for a given demand has worked as a money maker or power provider since civilisation was conceived. It's human nature at it's most basic - provide for yourself. And that's not to say that some very, very good people don't get into religion with the very best of intentions and/or serve a community superbly throughout their religious designation.

However, that's only half of the answer for me.

My real issue lies with the fact that there really are so many people believing there is something beyond themselves to look to.

Fact is that every civilisation has inevitably veered towards a deity or deities as core to their civil functions at some point and to varying degrees thereafter. But all had a very consistent approach - something else is watching over me and controls the stuff I don't.

It's an odd notion to me but it's so consistent over time that it cannot be simply written off.

OK, it could be a flaw in human psychology but it's too widespread to be a flaw. Any flaw in the biological construct of the human being is usually limited to a minority, e.g. downes syndrome to physical defects to schizophrenia to anxiety/depression to glucose intolerance. This is a logical product of evolution. If anything is flawed in evolutionary terms, the flaw is gradually but inevitably lost in the process of natural selection. But in fact, in this case the minority in the world are those that ignore the "spiritual" path, like me, and do not innately feel like there is a greater knowledge and understanding out there. So, by that logic, does that mean that since I am in the minority which does not feel "God", I am flawed?

I'm starting to think so.

You could say that the process of natural selection takes longer than the time we've had civilisation exist on the planet and that is certainly arguable. But the rapid human evolution we have seen in the last 3000 years has done nothing to quash this "God" demand in humans. It's still going very strong. We've gone from simple engineering to molecular manipulation in the blink of a geological eye.

So now I'm thinking that the logical explanation to the God phenomenon is that there simply has to be something else, some other force, driving this human desire, something that is obvious probably in hindsight, something that we cannot yet comprehend, something we cannot yet quantify.

I mean, so far, evolution has managed an awful lot. It has managed to almost universally decode "stuff" to the point where an advanced life-form can interpret everything around us based on physics; waves of sub-atomic particles (sight), utterly miniscule disturbances in matter (hearing), molecular composition (taste and smell) and chemical reactions (touch) are how we decipher the world and it is very, very precise and nothing to do with chance.

So how could evolution get God so consistently wrong?

We think of ourselves as advanced because we are comparing ourselves to the other lifeforms on our planet which clearly are not as advanced as us. Same as we did when we thought the world was flat and that lightning was God's fury. But are we advanced enough yet to be able to quantify God? I'm not sure.

All I know is that to presume that we know enough to discount God as this stage is assuming we already know it all; like we did when we thought the earth was endless, the sun moved around us for our benefit and mobile phones were for ponces.

I am now starting to think that it is simply illogical to think that we are alone and that a higher and more advanced life-form is not present and somehow unknown to us. Actually, I'm jumping a little here but I think that the above should be a valid point for theorising. It's only a fraction of my thinking but I would like to hear rebuttal on this first.

So, am I just a lunatic trapped in a lunatics mind or does the above not make sense to anyone who favours logic and reason over flight and fancy? (Which is why I posted here rather than any of the Religious fora!)

TLDR: Read the fking thing before posting. TYVM.
(That and my other half has too much involuntary, indirect influence over me. )

King Mob

The Clown Man wrote: »

My real issue lies with the fact that there really are so many people believing there is something beyond themselves to look to.

Your premises are unfortunately flawed.
First all of those people all have different beliefs in entirely different gods and mythologies. A person who believes in a god like Zeus cannot be talking about the same entity that a modern christian believes.
If there is only one true being or something, we would get less and less of these entirely different versions of god and be getting closer to the truth.
The opposite is true.

Second you say that civilisation tends towards religion, but then provide a simpler explanation for this in the same post.

Religion for me is simply a business, whether the participants or even the promoters actually know it or not. There is a need for people who look beyond themselves for comfort in life and that need is fulfilled by various religious institutions which, predictably enough, often do very well for themselves and their hierarchy as a result. Successfully providing supply for a given demand has worked as a money maker or power provider since civilisation was conceived. It's human nature at it's most basic - provide for yourself.

Third you assume that religious belief is a flaw, but then also detail a way it could be evolutionarily advantageous. It can function as a core of a civil system.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Your premises are unfortunately flawed.
First all of those people all have different beliefs in entirely different gods and mythologies.

Actually yours I believe is the flawed argument. All religions have a common source, based on the ability of humans to reflect on themselves i.e. the self awareness of their own being. Once humans have the thought "who am I, why am I here, and what is here anyway", they automatically start looking for answers. It is the pondering of what we are and why we are here that leads humans eventually to the conclusion that something caused this thing they observe including themselves. All religions are an effort to describe what this cause is, and all are likely futile because if there is an intelligence that caused our universe there is no way we could understand it, it would be physics beyond our wildest imagination.

The second factor I think is that humans have spent most of their time immersed in nature for almost all their existance. Humans were hunter gatherers and then farmers for tens of thousands of years, and industrialization, living in cities, etc, is very recent. Observation of nature was a big factor in the development of religion, especially the cycles of nature. If you spend enough time in nature it is spellbinding how literally every day this time of year a new species of plant starts to bud anew for the season. What is the trigger for them to start budding?

There is recent research that a non coding RNA molecule in plants has a memory effect, and after a specific number of days (20 - 30 on average) of near freezing temperatures the molecule activates a gene that initiates budding. The more we uncover about the mechanisms of nature the more fascinating they become. I think humans got the idea of God from seeing effects like this, they would not have understood the mechanism behind it, but they were so immersed in nature they knew instinctively there was mind like behavior involved.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

It is the pondering of what we are and why we are here that leads humans eventually to the conclusion that something caused this thing they observe including themselves.

Yup, which was what lead us to our current understand of lightning, which as we all know is Thor being angry.

First none of your waffle addresses any of the points I made.
Second it assumes that all people reach the same conclusion you did, which is not true. Especially since the empty, vapid, non-explanation version of god you hold is an entirely modern western invention created as the gaps h could close in started to close.

Kidchameleon

Their could well be "guardian angels". OP, do you have children? Well suppose you do and you die. You realize that their is life after death. Now imagine one of your kids is having a very hard time in their life, would you be watching over them? If you could then you probably would, thus making you a guardian angel of sorts?

I say all the above as an atheist btw...

fitz0

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Their could well be "guardian angels". OP, do you have children? Well suppose you do and you die. You realize that their is life after death. Now imagine one of your kids is having a very hard time in their life, would you be watching over them? If you could then you probably would, thus making you a guardian angel of sorts?

I say all the above as an atheist btw...

That is one of the silliest things I've seen posted as a serious comment here. How does that in any way suggest that there is such a thing as a guardian angel? Is it because you like the idea? I can't see any other reason why anybody would make such huge leaps of assumtion. That scenario doesn't even describe a guardian angel, it describes some sort of observational angel.

Also, there.

King Mob

fitz0 wrote: »

That is one of the silliest things I've seen posted as a serious comment here. How does that in any way suggest that there is such a thing as a guardian angel? Is it because you like the idea? I can't see any other reason why anybody would make such huge leaps of assumtion. That scenario doesn't even describe a guardian angel, it describes some sort of observational angel.

Also, there.

And what kind of sick twisted being would force a person to watch their family in their times of pain and need, but not allow them to help, or even communicate with them.

It would take a lot of imagination to think up of a worse hell.

fitz0

King Mob wrote: »

And what kind of sick twisted being would force a person to watch their family in their times of pain and need, but not allow them to help, or even communicate with them.

It would take a lot of imagination to think up of a worse hell.

Exactly. Wait, maybe God is the Devil.



Supposing for a second that KC's scenario is true. Does that mean that everyone who has a hard life is so unloved by their dead family that nobody is watching out for them? Seems kind of harsh.

Kidchameleon

Im not suggesting "god" would force you to watch over people. What I suggested has feck all got to do with god or religion

fitz0

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What I suggested has feck all got to do with god or religion

Or much else. If it doesn't even have the flimsy theist base, what generates the idea of a conscious afterlife?

Kidchameleon

fitz0 wrote: »

Or much else. If it doesn't even have the flimsy theist base, what generates the idea of a conscious afterlife?

Consious life without a physical body is scientifically plausible

fitz0

Is our consciousness dependant on our physical bodies? Perhaps some other lifeform somewhere in the universe has evolved to some wishy washy energy state but all available evidence that I've seen points to us being stuck within our meatsacks.

Please point me to some evidence that shows humans existing without our physical systems to sustain us.

The Clown Man

King Mob wrote: »

Your premises are unfortunately flawed.
First all of those people all have different beliefs in entirely different gods and mythologies. A person who believes in a god like Zeus cannot be talking about the same entity that a modern christian believes.
If there is only one true being or something, we would get less and less of these entirely different versions of god and be getting closer to the truth.
The opposite is true.

The point is that humans have always created manifestations of the same thing; a higher consciousness. It's extremely consistent, to the point that it cannot be chance.

King Mob wrote: »

Second you say that civilisation tends towards religion, but then provide a simpler explanation for this in the same post.

No, my explanation for religion is as a solution to a human need. It's the cause of the human need that I'm not sure of at all.

King Mob wrote: »

Third you assume that religious belief is a flaw, but then also detail a way it could be evolutionarily advantageous. It can function as a core of a civil system.

Again, religion functions as an advantage to society, but the fact that it is such a powerful tool in bringing people together is my issue. The fact that it appeals to almost every human being is astounding to me.

Let's put religion aside as a human solution to a human problem and let's focus on the problem itself.

nagirrac wrote: »

Actually yours I believe is the flawed argument. All religions have a common source, based on the ability of humans to reflect on themselves i.e. the self awareness of their own being. Once humans have the thought "who am I, why am I here, and what is here anyway", they automatically start looking for answers. It is the pondering of what we are and why we are here that leads humans eventually to the conclusion that something caused this thing they observe including themselves. All religions are an effort to describe what this cause is, and all are likely futile because if there is an intelligence that caused our universe there is no way we could understand it, it would be physics beyond our wildest imagination.

The second factor I think is that humans have spent most of their time immersed in nature for almost all their existance. Humans were hunter gatherers and then farmers for tens of thousands of years, and industrialization, living in cities, etc, is very recent. Observation of nature was a big factor in the development of religion, especially the cycles of nature. If you spend enough time in nature it is spellbinding how literally every day this time of year a new species of plant starts to bud anew for the season. What is the trigger for them to start budding?

I agree. But I'm not yet sure that rationalising nature is the root of the cause.

I think it's safe to say that very little in our universe is random, if anything at all. Everything follows a set of rules, everything is relative and balanced. If something happens it happens for a reason, whether we can explain or understand the reason is irrelevant. We are very, very simple life-forms after all and so the argument that because we cannot explain it, it doesn't exist, is a nonsense.

Humans do try to reason and rationalise everything around them. I can't explain dark matter but I know it has a reason to exist. I'm sure someone can explain it, probably not many. However, in my personal ignorance, taking the leap to assume that the reason it exists is because someone or something else put it there is just so far fetched it seems almost random. Yet it is so consistent that it can only be logically assumed that there is a reason.

What we can do is look at the evidence known to us, and, looking at the almost universal human need for spiritual satisfaction, is that not evidence enough to at least consider that there might be something else to this need that we simply cannot explain at this point in our evolution.

Maybe down the line we might. We are clearly evolving very quickly even over the past few generations and advancing as a species exponentially. Maybe when we reach a point where we are no longer unique and basic biological individuals and more functioning members of a higher collective consciousness we might have a better chance of understanding.

In fact, who is to say that a species out there has not already advanced to a higher collective consciousness and that they not only know all the rules but know how to bend, break or even recreate them. Maybe they are no longer limited to biological constructs and the idea of a living or dying moot. We do seem to be trending that way ourselves after all. Maybe omnipresence is actually achievable eventually, maybe something like kinetic energy can be decoded and controlled forming a massive, predictable network capable of sustaining consciousness.

That's pretty far-fetched but it could conceivably be a rational explanation. My point is that how can we know for sure? Not being able to prove something should not be a determining factor, only being able to disprove it should. Otherwise we are just fooling ourselves. And how can we disprove God?


I need to type less. Apologies for the text walls!

Brian Shanahan

The Clown Man wrote: »

The point is that humans have always created manifestations of the same thing; a higher consciousness. It's extremely consistent, to the point that it cannot be chance.

No they haven't. Zeus is a far different concept from Brahma, which itself is a very different concept to YHWH. Just because all these concepts get lumped together as gods does not make them the same thing, or even similar things.

Your point about god being manifestations of the same thing is as silly as equating Natural Selection and Quantum Mechanics as the same concept which do exactly the same thing.

When you realise that your theory begins from a faulty premise all else follows.

Kidchameleon

fitz0 wrote: »

Is our consciousness dependant on our physical bodies? Perhaps some other lifeform somewhere in the universe has evolved to some wishy washy energy state but all available evidence that I've seen points to us being stuck within our meatsacks.

Please point me to some evidence that shows humans existing without our physical systems to sustain us.

I have no evidence but it is possible. Look it up yourself

King Mob

The Clown Man wrote: »

The point is that humans have always created manifestations of the same thing; a higher consciousness. It's extremely consistent, to the point that it cannot be chance.

But they are not the same thing. They are both "higher conciousnesses" but one is described as capricious, selfish, vain, vengeful, incestuous and is described as frequently interacting with humans, up to and including impregnating mortals. And the other is Zeus
While modern less dogmatic Christians would describe the supposedly same being as being all loving, all wise and doesn't interfere with humans.

These can't be the same being.

And then there's religions who believe in things that can't be described as a "higher consciousness" such as animism and ancestor worship, which are in fact likely older than the concepts of Gods.

It is in no way consistent.

The Clown Man wrote: »

No, my explanation for religion is as a solution to a human need. It's the cause of the human need that I'm not sure of at all.

But if powerful people have a vested interest in giving power and influence to religions, it's obvious that civilisation is going to tend towards it.
No need to invoke magic for an explanation.

The Clown Man wrote: »

Again, religion functions as an advantage to society, but the fact that it is such a powerful tool in bringing people together is my issue. The fact that it appeals to almost every human being is astounding to me.

Let's put religion aside as a human solution to a human problem and let's focus on the problem itself.

And again it being a powerful tool in bringing people together doesn't make it a flaw. It makes it beneficial in helping those who tend toward such behavior survive.

The Clown Man

Hang on, are you arguing that the universal human tendency to create manifestations of beings watching over us is not consistent?

The specifics of each chosen deity is irrelevant. The fact that there is always a deity is the point.

Put it this way. To each manifestation humans are secondary and worship is always practiced. That is the consistency I am referring to. Our secondary existence under something else.

Turtwig

The Clown Man wrote: »

OK, it could be a flaw in human psychology but it's too widespread to be a flaw. Any flaw in the biological construct of the human being is usually limited to a minority, e.g. downes syndrome to physical defects to schizophrenia to anxiety/depression to glucose intolerance. This is a logical product of evolution. If anything is flawed in evolutionary terms, the flaw is gradually but inevitably lost in the process of natural selection.

I think you could do with better informing yourself on evolution and Natural Selection. To take a really simple example.
Suppose, for example, that a gene were to exist which provides immunity to a widespread disease A. However, suppose also the presence of two of these genes together would actually create another disease B entirely. But here's the thing, natural selection works on the principle of survival of the fittest to reproduce. So long as the organism carrying those genes is able to reproduce the genes will selected for. Under these conditions if disease A is wiping out the population then NS will select for the genes that provide an immunity to it even if that means providing the population with potential for another disease B.

Here you have a logical example of selection for a genetic trait which causes harm. Fair enough, except this isn't just theoretical it's the real difference between a very strong resistance to malaria and sickle cell disease. And also immunity to Cholera and Cystic Fibrosis. (It's also been speculated that people with CF have an increased resistance to TB.) Evolution often works as a series of trade-offs where there is no perfect path it can take.

King Mob

The Clown Man wrote: »

Hang on, are you arguing that the universal human tendency to create manifestations of beings watching over us is not consistent?

The specifics of each chosen deity is irrelevant. The fact that there is always a deity is the point.

Put it this way. To each manifestation humans are secondary and worship is always practiced. That is the consistency I am referring to. Our secondary existence under something else.

Yes that in precisely what I am arguing as that's what is evident.
Zeus is not the same as the Christian God on any level. And both are even more different from the supernatural entities in animism and shamanism.
And worship is likewise not universal.

If there was actually one consistent being that all people had an innate sense of, they would not be so different.

The Clown Man

King Mob wrote: »

But they are not the same thing. They are both "higher conciousnesses" but one is described as capricious, selfish, vain, vengeful, incestuous and is described as frequently interacting with humans, up to and including impregnating mortals. And the other is Zeus
While modern less dogmatic Christians would describe the supposedly same being as being all loving, all wise and doesn't interfere with humans.

These can't be the same being.

And then there's religions who believe in things that can't be described as a "higher consciousness" such as animism and ancestor worship, which are in fact likely older than the concepts of Gods.

It is in no way consistent.

See above.

King Mob wrote: »

But if powerful people have a vested interest in giving power and influence to religions, it's obvious that civilisation is going to tend towards it.
No need to invoke magic for an explanation.

So why then does it work so effectively? Why do people lap up all manner of religious nonsense, when nonsense it clearly is?

King Mob wrote: »

And again it being a powerful tool in bringing people together doesn't make it a flaw. It makes it beneficial in helping those who tend toward such behavior survive.

Again, why this particular way though? If evolutions purpose was to bring us together to work in societies then why do it by implanting a feeling of a life-form greater than us? It doesn't make sense. Evolution gave us social awareness to bring us together, not this idea of spirituality. Sure, it has been used successfully for that purpose in the past but that cannot be the sole purpose of spirituality.

Brian Shanahan

The Clown Man wrote: »

Hang on, are you arguing that the universal human tendency to create manifestations of beings watching over us is not consistent?

But your concept is not universal, for example the Greek concept of god is a bunch of capricious toddlers given power without being instructed on how to use it morally, while the Jewish concept of god is a convenient excuse to go out and butcher your neighbours (because they don't follow your religion, a war reason the Greeks never used) and a way differentiate yourself from them, and is a far different religious concept to Confuscianism which is a non-theistic religion more interested in the best way to run your life on this world and be a productive part of society.

And as you can see from my three examples, consistency within religion is non-existent.

The Clown Man

Jernal wrote: »

I think you could do with better informing yourself on evolution and Natural Selection. To take a really simple example.
Suppose, for example, that a gene were to exist which provides immunity to a widespread disease A. However, suppose also the presence of two of these genes together would actually create another disease B entirely. But here's the thing, natural selection works on the principle of survival of the fittest to reproduce. So long as the organism carrying those genes is able to reproduce the genes will selected for. Under these conditions if disease A is wiping out the population then NS will select for the genes that provide an immunity to it even if that means providing the population with potential for another disease B.

Here you have a logical example of selection for a genetic trait which causes harm. Fair enough, except this isn't just theoretical it's the real difference between a very strong resistance to malaria and sickle cell disease. And also immunity to Cholera and Cystic Fibrosis. (It's also been speculated that people with CF have an increased resistance to TB.) Evolution often works as a series of trade-offs where there is no perfect path it can take.

Totally agree. But you are looking at evolution in the shorter term. Long term, evolution has provided us with arms, legs, a brain, sight, hearing and a feeling of God.

fitz0

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have no evidence but it is possible. Look it up yourself

You're the one making the claim it is possible. How is it possible? By what mechanisms can is happen? What are the conditions needed for it to happen? Does consciousness become energy, or is it even possible for disembodied energy to be sentient?

Look it up is not and never has been a suitable response on this forum.

The Clown Man

King Mob wrote: »

Yes that in precisely what I am arguing as that's what is evident.
Zeus is not the same as the Christian God on any level. And both are even more different from the supernatural entities in animism and shamanism.
And worship is likewise not universal.

If there was actually one consistent being that all people had an innate sense of, they would not be so different.

Or maybe we have all manner of failed attempts to explain something that we cannot explain. They are all attempts though and they have all failed to find the truth. Which is understandable.

The Clown Man

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But your concept is not universal, for example the Greek concept of god is a bunch of capricious toddlers given power without being instructed on how to use it morally, while the Jewish concept of god is a convenient excuse to go out and butcher your neighbours (because they don't follow your religion, a war reason the Greeks never used) and a way differentiate yourself from them, and is a far different religious concept to Confuscianism which is a non-theistic religion more interested in the best way to run your life on this world and be a productive part of society.

And as you can see from my three examples, consistency within religion is non-existent.

I'm not sure I would band Confucianism or Taoism in with what I would label as religion, and I'm sure there are others. They are more a way of dealing with self and nature in my admittedly fairly ignorant eyes. However, the act of worship is the key for me. What makes people worship?

King Mob

The Clown Man wrote: »

Or maybe we have all manner of failed attempts to explain something that we cannot explain. They are all attempts though and they have all failed to find the truth. Which is understandable.

So if they are all different and all failed attempts, why assume they have any actual validity at all?

Plenty of cultures all believed that the Earth arose from the sea somehow or arose from the bodies of dead gods. There is far more consistency between these legends than between the gods in them.
Does this mean that people had an innate knowledge of how the world was formed, especially since we know these legends had no baring on reality?

The Clown Man

King Mob wrote: »

So if they are all different and all failed attempts, why assume they have any actual validity at all?

Plenty of cultures all believed that the Earth arose from the sea somehow or arose from the bodies of dead gods. There is far more consistency between these legends than between the gods in them.
Does this mean that people had an innate knowledge of how the world was formed, especially since we know these legends had no baring on reality?

I think our curiosity has us try to explain lots of things. Everything really.

But why the need to explain something above us? You or I might not have the same feeling or the need to explain it but we are massively outnumbered.

I'm looking logically at the evidence around me. People tend towards deities on a global scale, and have done all throughout history. Although we lack a method to prove or disprove it yet, the evidence certainly suggests at least that there is some unknown force behind this.

It is there for a reason and the reason is what I'm interested in.

the_syco

The Clown Man wrote: »

So how could evolution get God so consistently wrong?

My god has the hammer, yours was nailed to a cross :pac: The god of war would be good motivation to fight, but many have twisted the "peaceful" forgiving christian god as a reason to goto war, so it may be more true that their god is the devil in sheep clothing?

Religion is/was often used to explain what people didn't understand, by some to calm their people, by others to rule theirs.

Kidchameleon

fitz0 wrote: »

Perhaps some other lifeform somewhere in the universe has evolved to some wishy washy energy stat .

Getting back to the op fitz0, do you think that one of the lifeforms the YOU acknowledge may exist could perhaps, unbound by the physical limits of our universe, could come to earth an observe our lives? And in some way be not disimilar to a guardian angel?

Oh and by the way if you youself agree that their may be non physical life out there, it wouldnt be that much of a stretch to think that human conscience could exist beyond the physical.

The Clown Man

the_syco wrote: »

My god has the hammer, yours was nailed to a cross :pac: The god of war would be good motivation to fight, but many have twisted the "peaceful" forgiving christian god as a reason to goto war, so it may be more true that their god is the devil in sheep clothing?

Religion is/was often used to explain what people didn't understand, by some to calm their people, by others to rule theirs.

Exactly. But why should something so bonkers actually work? It's appealing to an incomprehension so specific, the idea we are secondary to a superior entity or entities.

Brian Shanahan

The Clown Man wrote: »

I'm not sure I would band Confucianism or Taoism in with what I would label as religion, and I'm sure there are others. They are more a way of dealing with self and nature in my admittedly fairly ignorant eyes.

But if you preclude Confuscianism and Taoism from being religion, then you refute your own point about the universality of religion. And from there the rest of your argument falls apart.