Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

In both East and West, we may trace a journey which has led humanity down the centuries to meet and engage truth more and more deeply. It is a journey which has unfolded—as it must—within the horizon of personal self-consciousness: the more human beings know reality and the world, the more they know themselves in their uniqueness, with the question of the meaning of things and of their very existence becoming ever more pressing. This is why all that is the object of our knowledge becomes a part of our life. The admonition Know yourself was carved on the temple portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings”, that is as those who “know themselves”.

Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives.

Excellent text, profound, at the heart of philosophy.

Agreed. All of these discussions, all of science, philosophy and religion are basically asking the same question: "What is going on and what might we do about it?".

'Faith' is always troublesome in a discussion of religion. As you say, it is usually understood as 'I have decided to be irrational; I will say something is true even though I have no reason to'. So when somebody with little interest in religion encounters the word they shrug their shoulders, thinking there is no point in trying to discuss this further.

In some cases. Emotional ploys are a standard rhetorical tactic in all areas, not just religious belief. Yesterday I saw a person online's comment coming out strongly against lab-grown, death-free meat. When pushed on this attitude she said: "I seem to have been triggered by the animal rights protesters. For many, myself included, it is a highly emotional topic which supercedes rational thought". In other words, she chose to encourage the slaughter of innocent animals so as to harm people she doesn't like. Thankfully, on philosophy forums, things are usually a little more grown up.

Is there nothing, no issue, that is contentious where you have a strong sense that one option is most correct? At times I need to muster discipline to add qualifiers in disputed issues where I feel confident. I suspect that in many cases pantheists and panentheists simply dispense with qualifiers, figuring life is too short to keep carrying doubt in an area that seems so promising. I can sympathise with that view, especially since faith can be highly efficacious in real life.

[Steve3007]

...Even in normal use, 'faith' still has the meaning of 'trust' and 'commitment', without the implication that this is irrational. In the form 'faithful' it doesn't imply the person described has any supernatural beliefs.

If we don't see the word "irrational" (or perhaps "non-rational") as pejorative, but simply as descriptive, then I see nothing wrong with regarding faith as being non-rational. Lots of things are non-rational (i.e. they are not derived using reason or logic). Such things as trust and commitment are surely examples?

In some cases. Emotional ploys are a standard rhetorical tactic in all areas, not just religious belief. Yesterday I saw a person online's comment coming out strongly against lab-grown, death-free meat. When pushed on this attitude she said: "I seem to have been triggered by the animal rights protesters. For many, myself included, it is a highly emotional topic which supersedes rational thought". In other words, she chose to encourage the slaughter of innocent animals so as to harm people she doesn't like. Thankfully, on philosophy forums, things are usually a little more grown up.

By "grown up", do you mean "based on rational arguments stemming from empirical evidence" or something like that? On a philosophy forum we do naturally tend to assume that the discussions should be a set of opposing rational arguments. But it's difficult to maintain that. We're all emotional creatures. Maybe we should be emotional. Maybe sometimes we should simply react, with a visceral gut reaction.

[Eduk]

What irks me is that many here seem to think ideas are not "philosophical" unless they are empirically verifiable, and that's simply absurd.[\quote]
Well I more or less agree but I'm not sure anyone said exactly that? And if they did I wouldn't think it absurd as empirical verification is a significant thing.
For example if you take relativity, at the time it couldn't be verified, but it did have a number of things going for it, one of the key things being it didn't contradict empirical evidence and did predict things.
Now of course a scientific theory and a philosophical theory are not the same thing and I think it is to be expected that with philosophy there is less in the way of demands for empirical evidence but there are still demands on logic and rules of non contradiction and the like.
By the way I think science should be guided by philosophy. As in what to study. How to go about doing it. And so on. I think Sam Harris mentions perhaps science could tell good from bad but I don't see how without axioms and I don't see why you want to tell good from bad without philosophy.

[Sy Borg]

In some cases. Emotional ploys are a standard rhetorical tactic in all areas, not just religious belief. Yesterday I saw a person online's comment coming out strongly against lab-grown, death-free meat. When pushed on this attitude she said: "I seem to have been triggered by the animal rights protesters. For many, myself included, it is a highly emotional topic which supersedes rational thought". In other words, she chose to encourage the slaughter of innocent animals so as to harm people she doesn't like. Thankfully, on philosophy forums, things are usually a little more grown up.

By "grown up", do you mean "based on rational arguments stemming from empirical evidence" or something like that? On a philosophy forum we do naturally tend to assume that the discussions should be a set of opposing rational arguments. But it's difficult to maintain that. We're all emotional creatures. Maybe we should be emotional. Maybe sometimes we should simply react, with a visceral gut reaction.

By "grown up" I mean possessing an adult's ability to rise above base emotionalism - not an Übermensch, just a regular, flawed adult who has learned a little self discipline. I gather that she probably had an argument with an animal rights person, was thoroughly pwned, and is now neurotically perseverating.

I have a memory in a high chair where I felt just like her. The nasty babysitter was trying to get me to eat and I was refusing; I was upset about something. Then she shouted and banged the bowl with the spoon, and the bowl broke. My favourite teddy bear bowl broken! I screamed! Then I noticed that she was panicking, so I refused her attempts to comfort me. The feeling was pure vengeance, within my great limitations, I did what I could to hurt her as much as I could by refusing to settle.

As I suggested, this is simply immature behaviour - I don't like you so I'll hurt you. I am also not a fan of (immature) people using their emotions as a shield - "You cannot say anything to me about this because I am emotional". Ha! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA. What to do? If they are a lost cause, leaving is best for sanity. If the outburst appears to be temporary, ignore the display and stick to the issues - which are much more interesting. Who attends philosophy forums to talk about the members' emotions? :D

So I wanted to parse serious believers from (immature) stonewallers. The former are not digging in with their belief so much as choosing a contentious option and making a decision to commit. In a sense you have done the same as an atheist. In terms of how each operates in life, for the most part there doesn't seem to be much difference; most of us usually just do usual human things, just that theists gain comfort from belief and atheists gain comfort via other means.

I would also parse those who are "believers" and those who are "religious", the former tending to lean towards pantheistic or panenthistic ideas while the latter being more likely to be literalists. Note that the OP's claim about God being impossible cannot logically apply to pantheism and panentheism. One may disagree with those interpretations, but to say these things are "impossible" is to falsely lump those more sophisticated conceptions with the simplistic anthropomorphic Santa-like God. Thus, many believers see organised religion as misguided and corrupt while many theists question the sincerity of the unaffiliated.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum, for example, has very strong opinions on the right or wrong way to think and behave. He may argue against religions, but he is fundamentally on the same page as them, in that he thinks such questions are meaningful. But you cannot draw meaning from science or maths or logic.
....

Your above view is too general and short-sighted.
Nope, I am not fundamentally on the same page with theists.
I believe everyone must have a very strong personal conviction on what they believe but these beliefs must be based on justified true knowledge and not blind/strong faith.

First I do not believe as the theists do, i.e. fundamentally in something that is illusory and impossible to exist in the empirical-rational reality.

My fundamental basis is based on the empirical evidence of SOME evil prone theists and tracing their ultimate root cause to a God [illusory] inspiring believers to commit terrible evils on non-believers. I have traced the fundamental of theism to some terrific psychology impulses, i.e. an existential crisis.

The difference in fundamental between theists and mine is,
the fundamental of the theists is psychological and the pseudo-rational while
mine is driven by morality and ethics plus philosophy proper.

One thing I noted is, theists [99%] do not want or are ignorant of their own psychological impulses [Know Thyself] that compel them to be theists.

I have strove to understand my own psychology in this issue and I noted it is driven by mirror neurons and the impulse for continuous positive progress with an understanding and compassion for theists [except the hard truth]. Note my signature below where I show empathy for theists and religionists of the present.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum, some people, when they might say "I believe in God" actually mean that they trust in God. The word 'believe' has at least two meanings.
You may say that you believe that when your tooth is extracted you may bleed, but that is not the same as saying that you believe in the dentist.

I understand in some sense theists take their "believe" as 'trust' 'have 100% confidence' and the likes.

My contention here is 'ontological', i.e. theists [majority] believe in the sense that God is a independent real being existing ontological somewhere out there who

• 1. will listen and answers their prayers
  2. promise and will deliver them to heaven with eternal life.
  3. do other supernatural things

The minority of theists believe in God is various ontological forms, i.e. existing independently out there.

The answers I am expecting from the OP is theists must understand the fundamentally basis why they believe in a God is due to psychological impulses driven by an existential crisis.
This is not a speculation because there are Eastern non-theistic beliefs that are practiced which deal with this fundamental psychological problem without any reference to a God [illusory and impossible].

Why I am giving attention to this idea of God is, this mere illusory thing is the basis that is driving one serious category of real terrible evils and violence around the world, majority from Islam, and some from Christianity and Judaism. As a concerned citizen of humanity one must address this problem and not be an ostrich to it.

[Spectrum]

Note that the OP's claim about God being impossible cannot logically apply to pantheism and panentheism. One may disagree with those interpretations, but to say these things are "impossible" is to falsely lump those more sophisticated conceptions with the simplistic anthropomorphic Santa-like God. Thus, many believers see organised religion as misguided and corrupt while many theists question the sincerity of the unaffiliated.

I don't regard pantheism or panentheism as an issue to the main reason of why I am criticizing theism in general in the strongest sense. I have not come across any significant evils or violence from pantheism or panentheism

The critical root cause [the 80 of Pareto's 80/20] of theistic evils/violence are from the theistic beliefs of the Abrahamic religions [especially "The Religion of Peace"].

All theistic beliefs [general theism, deism, pantheism, panentheism and the likes] have the same fundamental, i.e. the same psychological impulses which is expressed in a continuum of degrees of strength. Non-theists are also subjected the same psychological impulses, the difference is they don't end up with any kind of theistic beliefs [[general theism, deism, pantheism, or panentheism ].

To effectively address theistic-based evils and violence around the World which is mainly from the Abrahamic theism, one need completeness control and thus has to rope in deism, pantheism, panentheism to deal with theism-in-general. However with reservation, the focus on theistic-based evils is not on deism, pantheism, nor panentheism.

Whilst deism, pantheism, panentheism is of no real concern to the issue of evils and violence, nevertheless their ultimate ontological existence is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality. I have explained this is various posts.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum, for example, has very strong opinions on the right or wrong way to think and behave. He may argue against religions, but he is fundamentally on the same page as them, in that he thinks such questions are meaningful. But you cannot draw meaning from science or maths or logic.

In my (somewhat prejudiced) POV, Spectrum is a cult of one whose only purpose is to promulgate his creed. If creationists have "faith," then so does Spectrum, but it's not faith in the real sense of the word.

What creed?

My sole objective of criticizing theism in the strongest term is to address and find solutions to the terrible evils and violence committed by SOME [from a pool of hundreds of million] theists who are inspired by God.

I have traced the ultimate root cause of all theistic-based evils and violence to a psychological compulsion to believe in a God.
I do not rely on blind faith but rather have argued based on empirical evidence and refined reason. Such an approach is not cultist but objective.

[Sy Borg]

Note that the OP's claim about God being impossible cannot logically apply to pantheism and panentheism. One may disagree with those interpretations, but to say these things are "impossible" is to falsely lump those more sophisticated conceptions with the simplistic anthropomorphic Santa-like God. Thus, many believers see organised religion as misguided and corrupt while many theists question the sincerity of the unaffiliated.

I don't regard pantheism or panentheism as an issue to the main reason of why I am criticizing theism in general in the strongest sense. I have not come across any significant evils or violence from pantheism or panentheism

The critical root cause [the 80 of Pareto's 80/20] of theistic evils/violence are from the theistic beliefs of the Abrahamic religions [especially "The Religion of Peace"].

I'm okay with that, but note that an increasing number of Christians have a pantheist or panentheist take on the scriptures. There's much diversity within religions.

To effectively address theistic-based evils and violence around the World which is mainly from the Abrahamic theism, one need completeness control and thus has to rope in deism, pantheism, panentheism to deal with theism-in-general. However with reservation, the focus on theistic-based evils is not on deism, pantheism, nor panentheism.

How far does the Inquisition extend? Are Spinozan pantheists to be included?

That's politics. I'm more interested in the in/validity of pan/entheist and atheist concepts, which are more enduring than the inevitable surface turmoil of power struggles, which come and go in quick succession and basically only serve as entropic rejuvenation.

[Spectrum]

How far does the Inquisition extend? Are Spinozan pantheists to be included?

That's politics. I'm more interested in the in/validity of pan/entheist and atheist concepts, which are more enduring than the inevitable surface turmoil of power struggles, which come and go in quick succession and basically only serve as entropic rejuvenation.

It is not politics but rather Morality and Ethics [a major topic of philosophy].
The concern here is how to get rid of theistic-based evils and violence totally in the future [not now].

Whilst deism, pantheism and panentheism are not serious issues at all by themselves, they are nevertheless a hindrance to the concept of completeness control. For example, when hauling up a school of fish, we must ensure 100% there are no holes [escapable] at all in the net as it encloses the school of fish.

I am optimistic in future [not possible now], humanity will be able to come up with foolproof non-theistic spiritual approaches [not exactly but Buddhism-liked] to replace deism, pantheism and panentheism in dealing with the same inherent psychological issue.

[Sy Borg]

How far does the Inquisition extend? Are Spinozan pantheists to be included?

That's politics. I'm more interested in the in/validity of pan/entheist and atheist concepts, which are more enduring than the inevitable surface turmoil of power struggles, which come and go in quick succession and basically only serve as entropic rejuvenation.

It is not politics but rather Morality and Ethics [a major topic of philosophy].
The concern here is how to get rid of theistic-based evils and violence totally in the future [not now].

Whilst deism, pantheism and panentheism are not serious issues at all by themselves, they are nevertheless a hindrance to the concept of completeness control. For example, when hauling up a school of fish, we must ensure 100% there are no holes [escapable] at all in the net as it encloses the school of fish.

I am optimistic in future [not possible now], humanity will be able to come up with foolproof non-theistic spiritual approaches [not exactly but Buddhism-liked] to replace deism, pantheism and panentheism in dealing with the same inherent psychological issue.

Not wishing to be a nitpicker (much) but you did post this in the Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology section rather than in Ethics and Morality :)

I would think that "completeness of control" was exactly what we don't want. After all, it took humanity centuries to shake off the shackles of complete control (apologies to Derek Young and Joe Strummer) enjoyed by Christianity. I would rather not replace one tyrant for another, if that is at all possible.

I am an agnostic, and my doubt has nothing to do with emotionality but my interpretations of evidence and the apparent potentials of life. I simply think that the inevitable result of evolution in a universe with billions of galaxies with many billions of worlds over what is anticipated to be another trillion years of star formation will be beings, or a collective being, that can even solve the problem of galactic destruction. Godlike. What if this is not the first universe but the billionth? What if each universe left over some extraordinary being that survives even the death of its universe, extracting energy directly from space itself?

This seems possible to me; after all, just ten thousand years ago who would have imagined humanity to be as it is today? Anyone who suggested it would be accused of overdoing the ayahuasca! Now consider how much progress could be achieved by an advanced society over a billion, or many billions, of years. Mind blowing.

However, since all this is unprovable and speculative, I am agnostic - with no emotions needed. However, it's seems extremely likely that some species, somewhere, sometime will evolve into something godlike and there is no way of knowing if this is the first or only universe or the billionth. Maybe some future findings will sway me to this modernised conception of the Omega Point. I would hardly see that as problematic to society.

If, of course, you can think of a way of showing people who cling to their anthropomorphic gods like a security blanket that such gods don't exist, good luck to you :)

[Spectrum]

It is not politics but rather Morality and Ethics [a major topic of philosophy].
The concern here is how to get rid of theistic-based evils and violence totally in the future [not now].
...

Not wishing to be a nitpicker (much) but you did post this in the Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology section rather than in Ethics and Morality

Yes, ultimately it is a Morality and Ethics issue, i.e. the good over evil.

I am posting in this Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology section because we have to understand the theistic elements thoroughly to get to its psychological fundamental, then only can we take it within Philosophy of Morality & Ethics and other fields of knowledge.
This long route is why I stated we cannot resolve the issue immediately but rather can only achieve positive results in the future [>50 >100 years or >]. But we have to start the discussion now to reap anything positive in the future.

I would think that "completeness of control" was exactly what we don't want. After all, it took humanity centuries to shake off the shackles of complete control (apologies to Derek Young and Joe Strummer) enjoyed by Christianity. I would rather not replace one tyrant for another, if that is at all possible.

I have stated many times, one of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques [related to career] and the concept of 'completeness control' is one of the most critical requirement to solve any problem effectively.
When one do not take 'completeness control' into account like getting rid of all the weeds as the root level, what is left out can continually create more problems later.
I take this concept of 'completeness control' VERY seriously in my work [employment] so that errors, omission and defects [mine and staffs] do not arise for my customers and to haunt and stress me.

Problem solving being generic [thus completeness control] is also exercised by evil people, e.g. Hitler, various fascist, communists dictators who wanted to eliminate 100% of their opposition. We cannot blame the concept of 'completeness control' but rather we should resolve the evilness within the issue.

I am an agnostic, and my doubt has nothing to do with emotionality but my interpretations of evidence and the apparent potentials of life. I simply think that the inevitable result of evolution in a universe with billions of galaxies with many billions of worlds over what is anticipated to be another trillion years of star formation will be beings, or a collective being, that can even solve the problem of galactic destruction. Godlike. What if this is not the first universe but the billionth? What if each universe left over some extraordinary being that survives even the death of its universe, extracting energy directly from space itself?

Being agnostic is 50-50 and thus way off from strict deism, pantheism or panentheism.
But that 50% of possibility of God is still driven and controlled by those existential psychological impulses but in very low intensity and degrees. If I assign the intensity of the Abrahamic believers as 90/100, then the agnostic will be 10/100.

This seems possible to me; after all, just ten thousand years ago who would have imagined humanity to be as it is today? Anyone who suggested it would be accused of overdoing the ayahuasca! Now consider how much progress could be achieved by an advanced society over a billion, or many billions, of years. Mind blowing.

However, since all this is unprovable and speculative, I am agnostic - with no emotions needed. However, it's seems extremely likely that some species, somewhere, sometime will evolve into something godlike and there is no way of knowing if this is the first or only universe or the billionth. Maybe some future findings will sway me to this modernised conception of the Omega Point. I would hardly see that as problematic to society.

If, of course, you can think of a way of showing people who cling to their anthropomorphic gods like a security blanket that such gods don't exist, good luck to you

You may think consciously there are no emotions involved.
However what control the human beings is 90% within the subconscious.
Note the research of Antonio Damasio and others who revealed the emotional basis of human behaviors at the sub-conscious levels.

If you say you are a non-theist then there is no psychological-theistic influence in you.
A non-theistic will have no psychological-theistic influence but may have other non-theistic psychological issues.

My starting point is this rough stats;

and other statistics of theistic based evils and violence.

[Sy Borg]

I would think that "completeness of control" was exactly what we don't want. After all, it took humanity centuries to shake off the shackles of complete control (apologies to Derek Young and Joe Strummer) enjoyed by Christianity. I would rather not replace one tyrant for another, if that is at all possible.

I have stated many times, one of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques [related to career] and the concept of 'completeness control' is one of the most critical requirement to solve any problem effectively.
When one do not take 'completeness control' into account like getting rid of all the weeds as the root level, what is left out can continually create more problems later.

We will have to agree to disagree, Spec. I think your "cure" of sterility and homogeneity - the inevitable results of complete control - is worse than weeds.

This seems possible to me; after all, just ten thousand years ago who would have imagined humanity to be as it is today? Anyone who suggested it would be accused of overdoing the ayahuasca! Now consider how much progress could be achieved by an advanced society over a billion, or many billions, of years. Mind blowing.

However, since all this is unprovable and speculative, I am agnostic - with no emotions needed. However, it's seems extremely likely that some species, somewhere, sometime will evolve into something godlike and there is no way of knowing if this is the first or only universe or the billionth. Maybe some future findings will sway me to this modernised conception of the Omega Point. I would hardly see that as problematic to society.

If, of course, you can think of a way of showing people who cling to their anthropomorphic gods like a security blanket that such gods don't exist, good luck to you :)

You may think consciously there are no emotions involved.
However what control the human beings is 90% within the subconscious.
Note the research of Antonio Damasio and others who revealed the emotional basis of human behaviors at the sub-conscious levels.

If you say you are a non-theist then there is no psychological-theistic influence in you.
A non-theistic will have no psychological-theistic influence but may have other non-theistic psychological issues.

I suggest that your strict atheism is more emotionally driven than my agnosticism.

If you retain your atheist stance after my comment above then you 1) probably believe in the Great Filter hypothesis that intelligent life always destroys itself (which is an emotional hypothesis in itself, based mostly on disappointment with humans) and 2) you must be pretty sure this is the first and only universe. Otherwise you would have sufficient doubt to be agnostic.

[Spectrum]

I have stated many times, one of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques [related to career] and the concept of 'completeness control' is one of the most critical requirement to solve any problem effectively.
When one do not take 'completeness control' into account like getting rid of all the weeds as the root level, what is left out can continually create more problems later.

We will have to agree to disagree, Spec. I think your "cure" of sterility and homogeneity - the inevitable results of complete control - is worse than weeds.

My expected end results will be something like Buddhism [an improved neutral version] but without the religious elements.
As you can extrapolate from the current 'harmless' Buddhism proper, how can there be a problem or threat to humanity or 'worse than weeds'.

You may think consciously there are no emotions involved.
However what control the human beings is 90% within the subconscious.
Note the research of Antonio Damasio and others who revealed the emotional basis of human behaviors at the sub-conscious levels.

If you say you are a non-theist then there is no psychological-theistic influence in you.
A non-theistic will have no psychological-theistic influence but may have other non-theistic psychological issues.

I suggest that your strict atheism is more emotionally driven than my agnosticism.

If you retain your atheist stance after my comment above then you 1) probably believe in the Great Filter hypothesis that intelligent life always destroys itself (which is an emotional hypothesis in itself, based mostly on disappointment with humans) and 2) you must be pretty sure this is the first and only universe. Otherwise you would have sufficient doubt to be agnostic.

As I had stated, what I proposed is almost akin to Buddhism proper but without the religious baggage.
The basic approach [strict atheism] within Buddhism [concentration - samartha and mindfulness - vipasanna] is emotion & impulse control to ensure they do not take control of the self to the detriment of one's self and humanity.

Btw, I do believe whatever is empirical is a possibility outside the unknown. This rational certainty of empirical possibility is not agnostic.
I believe human-liked aliens and UFOs out there is a possibility.
I believe it is possible there could be a flying tea-pot somewhere in the Universe.
Anything that is empirical is a possibility anywhere anytime.
To confirm the above possibility all that is needed is to bring the empirical evidence to justify whatever the claim.

[Dark Matter]

I would also parse those who are "believers" and those who are "religious", the former tending to lean towards pantheistic or panenthistic ideas while the latter being more likely to be literalists. Note that the OP's claim about God being impossible cannot logically apply to pantheism and panentheism. One may disagree with those interpretations, but to say these things are "impossible" is to falsely lump those more sophisticated conceptions with the simplistic anthropomorphic Santa-like God. Thus, many believers see organised religion as misguided and corrupt while many theists question the sincerity of the unaffiliated.

I've always had difficulty making a distinction between "believers" and the "religious," though I certainly understand why most people do. As you parse thing out, I'm a believer. But I'm also "religious" in the sense of its popular etymological meaning: i.e., "to bind fast." I am bound or committed to a supreme and indefinableideal symbolized by panentheistc ideas.

Now, if you believe scholars like David Bentley Hart and Edward Feser, the "anthropomorphic Santa-like God" is little more than a blip on the historical radar screen and its predominance in society is a relatively recent phenomenon. It's also irrelevant. The sad fact is, people have always killed people and have used every imaginable excuse to do it. To blame man's murderous nature on religion is a just one more way to foment more bloodshed.