Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Probably spend your life sheiting yourself in a cave.
========================

filtered

I know it is not directly related but "Language Instinct" and "Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker both skirt around similar premise. The "Language Instinct" is incredibly inaccessible and dull readingwise, not an enjoyable book.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

JPB, I think the critical factor is fear of the unknown (thunder, the sea, death etc, etc) and the insecurity that it produces. Is it a coincidence that various cultures had thunder gods, sun gods etc? Today we have a greater understanding of nature so we have no need for a sun god or a thunder god but we will always have a natural need for something to give us hope of eternal life

it is the fact that almost all of mans' societies have done this that is the mystery, and it remains unresolved by a reference to the fact that societies engage in warfare.
------------------------------------
JPB, I agree with Reggie, god is not the only universal creation of man. Language/communication is another example of something that all humans have hit upon even in isolation. Either it just fulfills a basic need I don't there is any deep mystery to it.

or as ever, the alternative is that it is imbued in all humans by 'the creator'.

there's another aalternative which is that early man was visited by God.

so the 3 alternatives we've developed are :

1. early man was visited by God

2. our brains are wired (possibly by god) to believe in god

3. we believe in god because it is the only logical reaction to a combination of uncertainty and fear, and because such a belief is a basic human need (with no realistic alternatives).*


As previously mentioned, I believe that a weakness in the third option, as advocated by FSB, is that there are alternatives, yet the vast majority of human cultures have selected the same alternative (or a very similar one). I also think that it is - at best - a stretch to think that a need to believe in God, is as fundamental to human existence as a need to eat, a need to sleep, or even a need to reproduce or a need to communicate. Whilst man could simply not exist, or could not exist or survive without the other "needs" (including communication), man could readily survive without a belief in a God.

So what you're saying FSB is that life finds a way, regardless of colour, creed, location, religion.

Eventually we all seem to come to the same conclusions - the only difference being the interpretation of those conclusions

my initial analysis of that though, is that this is 'the exception which proves the rule'. i
---------------------------
Shinto is another exception to the rule. Maybe its not a rule after all

my initial analysis of that though, is that this is 'the exception which proves the rule'. i
---------------------------
Shinto is another exception to the rule. Maybe its not a rule after all
==================

You appeared to express the view a few minutes ago that the answe to the question of why belief in a supreme being which governs our creation, the world creation, our lives and our afterlife, exists in a number of socities which are too great to explain by virtue of probability, is that it is because such a basic as a basic human "need" woth no viable alternatives.

Are you now saying that this is not the case and that the numbers of societies which develop such a belief can be explained simply by the rules of probability, and that it is not a human need at all ?

Metro, all creeds and colours are subjected to the same forces of nature and all would have the same inability to master these forces (we still can't today, although we may understand them better). Therefore a similar response might be expected.

JPB, I was not stating that ALL cultures develop a belief in god. I was arguing against your suggestion that they do, by providing reasons why different cultures could independently develop a common response (eg language or religion) to a basic need. Providing examples of cultures that do not have a deity also casts doubt on your argument.

Can you expand on your point that their are other ways of overcoming fear of the power of nature and providing an afterlife of eternal bliss.

Cause and effect: Is causality a function of consanguinity or vice versa?

Hitherto, it cant be thus.

Can you expand on your point that their are other ways of overcoming fear of the power of nature and providing an afterlife of eternal bliss.
=====================

Ive been dreading someone asking that

maybe, if ive got time (ive got time. if i can be bothered)

Therefore a similar response might be expected.
======================

similar reposnse in so far as they all respond (in some way). but it's not expected that they should all respond in the same way with the same results.

i note your other comment though as refered to in my previous post, which i do need to develop in order to press the argument further.

Can you expand on your point that their are other ways of overcoming fear of the power of nature and providing an afterlife of eternal bliss.
______________

LSD overdose?

I didn't know you could overdose on LSD. I thought you just turned into a cartoon and entered the 7th dimension.

ok, sigh, so i'll use the same scenario then, im an early human (but dnot necessarily know im an early human). i might live on the coast. it's cold (or hot). there are animals out there who could eat me. ive seen other people or animals die. i get bullied by the guy in the next cave. i start to think about how i got here, and what is happening with my life.

i can see that it is very likely that a large number of people in all communities will get to this same point in their thought process.

what staggers me though is that they all conclude that there is asupreme being who made me, made the world, made all the animals, and who is watching after me and will take care of me when i die.

the alternative conclusions could include (drumroll) :

- life's a bittch
- i will be reincarnated
- i can continue to think after i die
- the world has always been here
- we were created through some natural occurance
-we were put here by spacemen
-we were put here by a god who will have nothing else to do with us
- there's a supreme being but he doesnt look just like me but with a beard or some wings or something
- we used to be rocks but were hit by lightning and woke up
- we have just always been here
-when i die i just start over again
-it's all just a dream
-im on my own here, and need to sort my shiiit out

(this list is not exhaustive)

similar reposnse in so far as they all respond (in some way). but it's not expected that they should all respond in the same way with the same results.
-------------------------------
I don't really think people have had much choice. Ancient religions and recent belief systems such as the native americans were based on invoking the support of deities to fulfill their physical hopes. They had deities who specifically 'controlled' certain aspects of their lives eg, the sea, the sun, the elements, the crops, the hunt etc

As far as I can see they had 3 possibilities of dealing with the problems they faced.

1. They could simply ignore them and get on with it.

2. They could physically overcome them, which was generally impossible given the knowledge they had.

3. They could invoke some supernatural deity who could fulfill their hopes.

Option 1 doesn't really get you anywhere. Option 2 is a good option usually feasible. Which leaves option 3 as a fairly sensible option for those factors that cannot be resolved by option 2.. It also doesn't really get you anywhere but the placebo effect will always provide adequate justification.

Because of option 2, we no longer have need for a sun god or a sea god but I don't think its entirely unexpected that ancient cultures lacking our scientific knowledge would rely on option 3. What other options did they have? Its got to be worth a try. If sacrificing a few goats leads to a successful endeavour its not hard to see how belief could quickly become established. Lack of success is easily explained by playing the 'making the gods angry' card

JPB, our view on what people take from religions is obviously different. Most current religions are based on our spiritual self, who we are and where we are going. Most ancient religions where much more grounded in the physical. Even the great greek and egyptian civilisations had gods based on the physical world who were called upon to provide succour against physical danger. In my view that is the sort of religion that ancient cultures have developed.

We no longer need that assurance in large part due to science so modern mainstream religions are more spiritual and their primary role is arguably just to provide social responsibility and security against mortality. They are certainly not called upon to avert natural disaster or if they are they seem to have a poor record of sucess.

what staggers me though is that they all conclude that there is asupreme being who made me, made the world, made all the animals, and who is watching after me and will take care of me when i die.
----------
If this is the case, then why do a huge amount of people these day not believe that a supreme being created them?

It only takes one person in a group of people who had never though of it to say, "Hey, there must be this amazing thing that created us", then all the other people believe it because they're gullible fools.

This is pretty much how religion started and became so powerful.

what staggers me though is that they all conclude that there is asupreme being who made me, made the world, made all the animals, and who is watching after me and will take care of me when i die.
--------------------------
Many religions didn't do this though. Amy wer polytheist with a number of gods each responsible for a particular part of their physical environment. Is it a valid comparison to say that our monotheist religion is the same thinkg?

Many were polytheistic.....

It's long but I urge you to read all of this.

Wow! I didn't expect to see this topic on a football forum but nice to see a really deep thought provoking article. Makes a change from all the 'Andy C's future' articles.
I can only be bothered to read a few of all the many posts but there are such a wide variety but then The Father created such a wide variety of people!

First of all, I want to say that I respect the views of anyone on this subject and like anything else we are all entitled to our opinions and similarly you respect mine. Also I'm not trying to preach to anyone here, if you agree with any of what I say or none of it that is your choice.

I may be in the minority here but I was brought up as a Christian and remain one to this day and hopefully til I die. I do not for one nanosecond claim to be perfect or better than anyone else. The Father sees us all as equals and there are many 'Christians' or 'believers' that forget this and have that 'holier-than-thou' attitude which puts off so many non-believers. As I believe and as the Bible states we are all sinners at one point or another so no-one can point the finger at another and say I am (morally) better than you; judge lest ye be judged.
Believing in God is all about having faith, faith in something that you cannot see or prove is there but if you do believe you'll know. It's about putting your trust in someone/thing else and relying on it completely. A good analogy for this is when you're on a plane, the plane is in the hands of the pilot and you have to trust that the pilot knows what he is doing and is in a fit state to fly. You have no control over what happens during the course of the flight. Life is similar to this only harder. I think it is this trusting in something you can't see that puts so many people off God. We humans like to think that we are in complete control of our own lives and the world around us. Believing that we are not in control scares us. We are rather scientific and like to rely on scientific facts; if we can physically prove it, see it, touch it we have no problem believing it is real. I like science and have no problems with it but we have much to learn yet and there are some things science can't prove and God seems to be one of them. I do believe He has made this deliberately so, He can do what He wants after all so why can He not make Himself above the laws of physics? As the Creator of all natural things in the entire Universe, I believe that He is the original and ultimate scientist.
Another thing that I have come to realise recently is that The Father (God) because he is kind and loving he gives us CHOICE. The CHOICE to obey Him or to ignore Him. Anyone that has heard about God has this choice. God wants you to obey Him but he doesn't force you to even though He could if He wanted to. If He did force us that would not be loving or kind and would be like living in a certain far off country with North in its name where people have to follow rules even if they don't want to. God wants you to obey Him because YOU want to and if you truly love Him you will, loving and obeying Him are linked.

I could go on but I will end by saying that The Father is there and that He loves each and everyone of us (John 3:16). I have seen too many miracles and things that science cannot explain to not believe. It is ultimately up to you whether you choose to acknowledge this or not.
The Messiah said the 2 greatest commandments are: loving The Father as much as you possibly can and
treating your fellow human being like you would yourself.

If everyone at least followed the second commandment, this world would be a very wonderful place!

YNWA! (because God is there with you)
Whatever your views are, PEACE!

"Believing in God is all about having faith, faith in something that you cannot see or prove is there but if you do believe you'll know. It's about putting your trust in someone/thing else and relying on it completely"

It has the greatest impact on my life, I can't see it, hear it taste it, smell it or feel it, and yet I know it is there, I have faith. I have proof.

Gravity.

Cool or what?