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

[LuckyR]

Well if deity means a god and a god originally (before monotheism) meant an entity which is worshipped and has superhuman powers, then they almost certainly exist. Though essentially no one currently worships them.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, the sun is more powerful than humans. Life on Earth depends on it. That's why it was worshipped. And the earth and its ecosystems and animals, which provided for all our needs, were also more powerful than humans and so they were also worshiped. So, yes, those powerful natural entities were worshiped. But then humans started inventing imaginary, non-natural, invisible, supernatural deities on some of which today's global, organized religions are based.

The difference between the ancient, visible, natural gods and the gods of present day organized religions is that the natural gods really existed whereas the more modern, non-natural, imaginary gods do not exist. At least, given their purported status as omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent, I find it difficult to see how they could possibly exist in a world of evil and suffering and given what we now know about the earth and the greater universe. These more recent, problematic, supernatural deities are ineffectual and long passed their use-by date.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well if deity means a god and a god originally (before monotheism) meant an entity which is worshipped and has superhuman powers, then they almost certainly exist. Though essentially no one currently worships them.

Gods have been venerated since there have been humans. Religion is not uncommon, even today. If you are saying that religious observance is fading, I would have to agree. But I don't think it's gone already...?

[LuckyR]

Well if deity means a god and a god originally (before monotheism) meant an entity which is worshipped and has superhuman powers, then they almost certainly exist. Though essentially no one currently worships them.

Gods have been venerated since there have been humans. Religion is not uncommon, even today. If you are saying that religious observance is fading, I would have to agree. But I don't think it's gone already...?

Sorry for being obtuse. My point is that if the original criteria for gods (of being of superhuman power, instead of the Modern definition of having omnipotent power) is used, then any spacefaring race would qualify as having more power than the humans around when the concept of gods was invented. Thus such races certainly exist, thus gods (from this archaic human perspective) must also exist. However, almost no humans currently follow those religions anymore, Modern religions require omnipotence, which brings up a whole other set of logical inconsistencies that have been discussed elsewhere. Omnipotent gods (under the lay definition of the term) almost certainly can't exist, though that is more of a description of lazy human thinking than a description of the presence or absence of superior beings.

[Gee]

Well if deity means a god and a god originally (before monotheism) meant an entity which is worshipped and has superhuman powers, then they almost certainly exist. Though essentially no one currently worships them.

Gods have been venerated since there have been humans. Religion is not uncommon, even today. If you are saying that religious observance is fading, I would have to agree. But I don't think it's gone already...?

Sorry for being obtuse. My point is that if the original criteria for gods (of being of superhuman power, instead of the Modern definition of having omnipotent power) is used, then any spacefaring race would qualify as having more power than the humans around when the concept of gods was invented. Thus such races certainly exist, thus gods (from this archaic human perspective) must also exist. However, almost no humans currently follow those religions anymore, Modern religions require omnipotence, which brings up a whole other set of logical inconsistencies that have been discussed elsewhere. Omnipotent gods (under the lay definition of the term) almost certainly can't exist, though that is more of a description of lazy human thinking than a description of the presence or absence of superior beings.

LuckyR, you make some very good points, and I am in agreement with most of them. The only thing that I would dispute is the statement that I underlined and bolded in your post, which states that the concept of gods was invented. I don't think that it was invented; I think that it was recognized long long ago, way before any of the things that you mentioned, and what was recognized was power as PC noted. We don't invent power, but we do recognize it when it affects us, we also use it when we come to understand how to work it. If we don't know how to work it, we tend to worship it (science or religion).

So when we run into a power that we don't understand, such as the sun or a "spacefaring race", we tend to make a story that tries to explain it. This is where the invention comes in as we invent, reinvent, and reinvent as each new recognized concept is presented. But now we are worshipping a power that has no form, so recognizing the concept and inventing it's story is very difficult. I know that most people do not accept my explanation, but religion (at this time) actually studies emotion. We call it spirituality, but it is actually emotion, and emotion is difficult to study, maybe the most difficult thing to study because it not only does not have form, it also does not lend itself to digital knowledge. If I asked 50 people what love is, I could well get 50 different answers, the same for fear, hate, and jealousy. Anyone who has experienced any of these things, knows what they are (recognizes them), but will identify them as different things or different people or different experiences. A god that is recognized as emotion (love) is going to be extremely difficult to invent a believable story about. But emotion is a valid example of power and a god, as it is the mover and shaker of our lives.

The reason I stated that god was recognized long, long ago is because I accept psychology's explanation. Psychology states that we identify the omnipotent power of "God" with the omnipotent power of our parents (and we all had parents), so when we grow up and realize that our parents are not omnipotent, some tend to think that they have outgrown religion and "God". Psychology also states that people, who have had a good relationship with their parents usually have a good relationship with their religion, but people, who have had a bad relationship with their parents often have a bad relationship with religion, as they see their "God" as being mean for no reason. If there is a situation where the religion was abusive, then everything gets worse because the person sees the parents as abetting the religion ("God") in the abuse. This becomes quite horrible on a personal level.

Religions around the world try to give us a story that is acceptable and true, but it is a very difficult task and some fail. But if anyone believes that they can skip this training, think again, because we can not escape emotion.

Gee

[Pattern-chaser]

LuckyR, you make some very good points, and I am in agreement with most of them. The only thing that I would dispute is the statement that I underlined and bolded in your post, which states that the concept of gods was invented. I don't think that it was invented; I think that it was recognized long long ago, way before any of the things that you mentioned, and what was recognized was power as PC noted. We don't invent power, but we do recognize it when it affects us, we also use it when we come to understand how to work it. If we don't know how to work it, we tend to worship it (science or religion).

So when we run into a power that we don't understand, such as the sun or a "spacefaring race", we tend to make a story that tries to explain it. This is where the invention comes in as we invent, reinvent, and reinvent as each new recognized concept is presented. But now we are worshipping a power that has no form, so recognizing the concept and inventing it's story is very difficult. I know that most people do not accept my explanation, but religion (at this time) actually studies emotion. We call it spirituality, but it is actually emotion, and emotion is difficult to study, maybe the most difficult thing to study because it not only does not have form, it also does not lend itself to digital knowledge. If I asked 50 people what love is, I could well get 50 different answers, the same for fear, hate, and jealousy. Anyone who has experienced any of these things, knows what they are (recognizes them), but will identify them as different things or different people or different experiences. A god that is recognized as emotion (love) is going to be extremely difficult to invent a believable story about. But emotion is a valid example of power and a god, as it is the mover and shaker of our lives.

The reason I stated that god was recognized long, long ago is because I accept psychology's explanation. Psychology states that we identify the omnipotent power of "God" with the omnipotent power of our parents (and we all had parents), so when we grow up and realize that our parents are not omnipotent, some tend to think that they have outgrown religion and "God". Psychology also states that people, who have had a good relationship with their parents usually have a good relationship with their religion, but people, who have had a bad relationship with their parents often have a bad relationship with religion, as they see their "God" as being mean for no reason. If there is a situation where the religion was abusive, then everything gets worse because the person sees the parents as abetting the religion ("God") in the abuse. This becomes quite horrible on a personal level.

Religions around the world try to give us a story that is acceptable and true, but it is a very difficult task and some fail. But if anyone believes that they can skip this training, think again, because we can not escape emotion.

I don't think spirituality and emotion are one and the same, but I do think they are closely related, especially in this discussion. Other discussions that miss this point are incomplete for that reason, I think. Yes, emotion is an important and central part of it all.

[Sy Borg]

As PC notes, there is a relation but not one-for-one equivalence. Emotion is the key factor of sentience per se. Thus, all subjectivity is based on emotion, not just spirituality. Why do we say AI is not sentient? Because they lack emotions. They are Chalmers's philosophical zombies, doing stuff without caring what they do .

[Fanisa Ndhabambi]

What makes you believe that the God of your religion exists? This is a question of faith rather than belief. My faith is saying so but my belief also wants proof that God exists. Some unexplained phenomena.

[LuckyR]

What makes you believe that the God of your religion exists? This is a question of faith rather than belief. My faith is saying so but my belief also wants proof that God exists. Some unexplained phenomena.

Why are you seeking physical proof of a metaphysical entity ?

[Sy Borg]

What makes you believe that the God of your religion exists? This is a question of faith rather than belief. My faith is saying so but my belief also wants proof that God exists. Some unexplained phenomena.

Why are you seeking physical proof of a metaphysical entity ?

If God exists, then oblivion is not our only possible fate. Not everyone fancies the idea of oblivion. The pat response is that we didn't exist before birth and that was no problem, so not existing after death is, by definition, not going to hurt. We might even point to the fact that we experience "the little death" every night.

Still, being alive means being infused with the survival drive of countless ancestors who made our existence possible, thanks to a fierce will to live. It's only natural that we seek ways out. We can choose to disregard the mountains of subjective evidence via NDEs and peak experiences that there is a sense of being after death. It's often reported that this "other reality" feels more real, more fundamental, than this one.

While eye witnesses testimony is famously unreliable, when there are literally have thousands of examples, that adds weight to the cause in my mind. It's easy to pass just about anything off as "brain chemicals", but I have no more reason to believe that our apparent reality is the only possible one, than to believe in other realms.

[LuckyR]

What makes you believe that the God of your religion exists? This is a question of faith rather than belief. My faith is saying so but my belief also wants proof that God exists. Some unexplained phenomena.

Why are you seeking physical proof of a metaphysical entity ?

If God exists, then oblivion is not our only possible fate. Not everyone fancies the idea of oblivion. The pat response is that we didn't exist before birth and that was no problem, so not existing after death is, by definition, not going to hurt. We might even point to the fact that we experience "the little death" every night.

Still, being alive means being infused with the survival drive of countless ancestors who made our existence possible, thanks to a fierce will to live. It's only natural that we seek ways out. We can choose to disregard the mountains of subjective evidence via NDEs and peak experiences that there is a sense of being after death. It's often reported that this "other reality" feels more real, more fundamental, than this one.

While eye witnesses testimony is famously unreliable, when there are literally have thousands of examples, that adds weight to the cause in my mind. It's easy to pass just about anything off as "brain chemicals", but I have no more reason to believe that our apparent reality is the only possible one, than to believe in other realms.

A nice review of the psychological reasons to believe in the metaphysical. To my mind that is reason enough. No need to go on a fool's errand and look for further "proof" where there is none to be found.

[Sy Borg]

Sorry, I just realised that I screwed up my above post. I was trying to say that there is a ton of evidence that "something more" exists (vie NDEs and the like), just that it's all just eyewitness testimony. However, when there's enough eyewitness testimony, it doesn't strike me as rational to dismiss it all out of hand. Something interesting seems to be going on, beyond survival instincts and brain chemicals.

[Gee]

LuckyR, you make some very good points, and I am in agreement with most of them. The only thing that I would dispute is the statement that I underlined and bolded in your post, which states that the concept of gods was invented. I don't think that it was invented; I think that it was recognized long long ago, way before any of the things that you mentioned, and what was recognized was power as PC noted. We don't invent power, but we do recognize it when it affects us, we also use it when we come to understand how to work it. If we don't know how to work it, we tend to worship it (science or religion).

So when we run into a power that we don't understand, such as the sun or a "spacefaring race", we tend to make a story that tries to explain it. This is where the invention comes in as we invent, reinvent, and reinvent as each new recognized concept is presented. But now we are worshipping a power that has no form, so recognizing the concept and inventing it's story is very difficult. I know that most people do not accept my explanation, but religion (at this time) actually studies emotion. We call it spirituality, but it is actually emotion, and emotion is difficult to study, maybe the most difficult thing to study because it not only does not have form, it also does not lend itself to digital knowledge. If I asked 50 people what love is, I could well get 50 different answers, the same for fear, hate, and jealousy. Anyone who has experienced any of these things, knows what they are (recognizes them), but will identify them as different things or different people or different experiences. A god that is recognized as emotion (love) is going to be extremely difficult to invent a believable story about. But emotion is a valid example of power and a god, as it is the mover and shaker of our lives.

The reason I stated that god was recognized long, long ago is because I accept psychology's explanation. Psychology states that we identify the omnipotent power of "God" with the omnipotent power of our parents (and we all had parents), so when we grow up and realize that our parents are not omnipotent, some tend to think that they have outgrown religion and "God". Psychology also states that people, who have had a good relationship with their parents usually have a good relationship with their religion, but people, who have had a bad relationship with their parents often have a bad relationship with religion, as they see their "God" as being mean for no reason. If there is a situation where the religion was abusive, then everything gets worse because the person sees the parents as abetting the religion ("God") in the abuse. This becomes quite horrible on a personal level.

Religions around the world try to give us a story that is acceptable and true, but it is a very difficult task and some fail. But if anyone believes that they can skip this training, think again, because we can not escape emotion.

I don't think spirituality and emotion are one and the same, but I do think they are closely related, especially in this discussion. Other discussions that miss this point are incomplete for that reason, I think. Yes, emotion is an important and central part of it all.

I did not mean to imply that spirituality and emotion are one and the same, but they are related in the same way that 'father' and 'man' are related. A person can be a 'man' without being a 'father', but he can not be a 'father' without being a 'man'. Emotion does not have to have an association with spirituality, but spirituality can not exist without emotion. The reasons for this are both, very simple and profound. The simple reason is that spirituality is not recognized without emotion. The profound reasons are because of the way we understand and dismiss emotion and it's role in consciousness.

Although many would dispute this idea, philosophy and science do not actually study emotion in itself, as they tend to see it as a by-product of consciousness, the brain/body, or some other thing, so nobody talks about the properties of emotion and many people do not even see emotion as having properties. Emotion is a force -- forces are physical. You could think of it like wind, when wind is not moving it seems as though it does not exist, as if it is nothing, but when it moves it can be extremely powerful causing tornados, hurricanes, typhoons, etc. Wind can be gentle and caressing, it can be violent and deadly, and it can be nonexistent; emotion is much the same.

Religion actually does study emotion, but they call it spirit or "God". Is there evidence that religions study emotion? I believe so. Religion has been called the "glue that holds a society together" because it bonds people and accomplishes this through meetings, rituals, ceremonies, etc. All religions promote bonding. Religions also are the keepers of morality, no matter the society, their morality can be traced back to their religion. Bonding is caused by emotion and morality is just laws and rules guided by emotion.

If you look at the work that religions accomplish, you will find them heavily invested in charities, as in feeding, housing, caring for the sick, and grief counseling. They care for the emotional wellbeing of their people.

If you look at their rituals and sacraments, etc., you will find that many of them celebrate the hormonal changes in life, from birth, coming of age, marriage, and even the elderly or crones. This was celebrated and the changes ritualized way before we realized that these hormonal changes also reflected emotional changes in people.

I think there are more, but this is all I can think of at the moment. Religions study emotion.

So when does emotion turn into spirituality? When we can not find the source that causes the emotion, we call it spirituality. If we have an emotional reaction to a person, we attribute it to that person. When we have an emotional reaction to some thing, we attribute it to that thing, i.e., a beautiful landscape, a horrifying picture. But when we can not find the source, when the emotion seems to have no cause, that is when we attribute it to the mystical.

Gee

[Gertie]

Well if deity means a god and a god originally (before monotheism) meant an entity which is worshipped and has superhuman powers, then they almost certainly exist. Though essentially no one currently worships them.

Gods have been venerated since there have been humans. Religion is not uncommon, even today. If you are saying that religious observance is fading, I would have to agree. But I don't think it's gone already...?

Sorry for being obtuse. My point is that if the original criteria for gods (of being of superhuman power, instead of the Modern definition of having omnipotent power) is used, then any spacefaring race would qualify as having more power than the humans around when the concept of gods was invented. Thus such races certainly exist, thus gods (from this archaic human perspective) must also exist. However, almost no humans currently follow those religions anymore, Modern religions require omnipotence, which brings up a whole other set of logical inconsistencies that have been discussed elsewhere. Omnipotent gods (under the lay definition of the term) almost certainly can't exist, though that is more of a description of lazy human thinking than a description of the presence or absence of superior beings.

LuckyR, you make some very good points, and I am in agreement with most of them. The only thing that I would dispute is the statement that I underlined and bolded in your post, which states that the concept of gods was invented. I don't think that it was invented; I think that it was recognized long long ago, way before any of the things that you mentioned, and what was recognized was power as PC noted. We don't invent power, but we do recognize it when it affects us, we also use it when we come to understand how to work it. If we don't know how to work it, we tend to worship it (science or religion).

So when we run into a power that we don't understand, such as the sun or a "spacefaring race", we tend to make a story that tries to explain it. This is where the invention comes in as we invent, reinvent, and reinvent as each new recognized concept is presented. But now we are worshipping a power that has no form, so recognizing the concept and inventing it's story is very difficult. I know that most people do not accept my explanation, but religion (at this time) actually studies emotion. We call it spirituality, but it is actually emotion, and emotion is difficult to study, maybe the most difficult thing to study because it not only does not have form, it also does not lend itself to digital knowledge. If I asked 50 people what love is, I could well get 50 different answers, the same for fear, hate, and jealousy. Anyone who has experienced any of these things, knows what they are (recognizes them), but will identify them as different things or different people or different experiences. A god that is recognized as emotion (love) is going to be extremely difficult to invent a believable story about. But emotion is a valid example of power and a god, as it is the mover and shaker of our lives.

The reason I stated that god was recognized long, long ago is because I accept psychology's explanation. Psychology states that we identify the omnipotent power of "God" with the omnipotent power of our parents (and we all had parents), so when we grow up and realize that our parents are not omnipotent, some tend to think that they have outgrown religion and "God". Psychology also states that people, who have had a good relationship with their parents usually have a good relationship with their religion, but people, who have had a bad relationship with their parents often have a bad relationship with religion, as they see their "God" as being mean for no reason. If there is a situation where the religion was abusive, then everything gets worse because the person sees the parents as abetting the religion ("God") in the abuse. This becomes quite horrible on a personal level.

Religions around the world try to give us a story that is acceptable and true, but it is a very difficult task and some fail. But if anyone believes that they can skip this training, think again, because we can not escape emotion.

Gee

I agree with much of this. At least it somewhat reflects my experience with religion, looking back on it. And I do think there's something to the parent replacement idea.

I read somewhere ages ago that when we're kids we see our parents as omnipotent authorities and protectors, who have the power to make everything right.  The ultimate psychological safety net.  And as we come to realise there are some things which can't be put right, and parents aren't perfect or have the power to keep the harshness of the world and ultimate mortality at bay, we have a sort of slow psychological crisis of existential angst.  And have to take on the responsibility of living and dealing with suffering and being a responsible, decent  adult in the face of this ourselves.

That's a tough ask, well for some of us!  And the psychological pull is there to believe in a perfect replacement super parent,  who will love us no matter what, and guide us through life, comfort us and promise make good all the injustices and hurts we suffer in life, even death.  God the Father, the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.  Perfect. 

We all somewhat project from our own experience and world view when it comes to our relationship with myths and archetypes, but they can also resonate with universal human concerns - which is what makes them myths which persevere through the ages. The Genesis story reads to me as myth which grapples with this loss of childhood blissful ignorance and trust in parental perfection.  It explains all the suffering and existential angst, the having to take adult responsibility for ourselves in a harsh and unjust world, which we discover as an act of   rebellion against the perfect parent who made us.  And the ongoing  Judeo-Christian narrative  which follows can be seen as working out a way back to that perfection.

It also explains why many of us have such a struggle with the Problem of Evil/Suffering.  Why would a Perfectly loving and benevolent parent create a world filled with such injustice and suffering in the first place?  It's such an emotionally hard paradox to resolve, and an act of childish rebellion and imperfection seems too little to justify it. The making up/penance of Judaic rules for the sin of our imperfection, or simply having Pauline faith, seems facile when confronted with a world which can be so harsh. Why would my super parent who loves me perfectly, put me through this test.  How can perfect parental love be conditional like a trade, that's not what parents are for.

There are many intellectually based theodicies and apologetics which potentially answer the Problem of Suffering, but I think they're weak in the face of  the psychological emotional challenge which the Problem of Suffering has.  Just like I think religious belief is rarely   about theological arguments in the existence of God, it's about meeting our natural psychological needs. Hence the value put on Faith. It's essentially an infantile type of relationship to have with your perfect God, but a very human and understable one.

[Pattern-chaser]

I did not mean to imply that spirituality and emotion are one and the same, but they are related in the same way that 'father' and 'man' are related. A person can be a 'man' without being a 'father', but he can not be a 'father' without being a 'man'. Emotion does not have to have an association with spirituality, but spirituality can not exist without emotion. The reasons for this are both, very simple and profound. The simple reason is that spirituality is not recognized without emotion.

Ah, so faith is emotional, or at least partly so? That makes some sense to me. I believe because it *feels* right. I think that's what you're talking about, yes? But it also feels right, to me, that spirituality is emotional, but not solely emotion-based. Would you agree?