Are religions biologically based and natural or supernaturally based?

[Greatest I am]

Are religions biologically based and natural or supernaturally based?

All religions are manmade and all God’s are projections of man’s desires for supremacy and to be the Alpha male of the human race. Survival of the fittest and our desire to be the fittest human is what drives us and keeps mankind progressing and evolving.

I offer the following to prove my case.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-father-complex.htm

This last shows the Gnostic Christian understanding of seeking the ideal human and Jesus archetype that we call Jesus the good.

The choice people have is to believe that religions are ultimately products of a supernatural God who dictates policy to humans, who then pen them into holy books, and we have many Gods who are of this ilk, or to recognize that all these Gods are products of man’s imagination.

Proof for manmade Gods is obvious. Men have created the documentation of what they think.

Proof for a supernatural God has yet to be shown other than humans who say they wrote what was dictated by a God. Some do not see that as proof.

I think the proof we have of God’s being manmade is that no real supernatural God has ever bothered to correct any of the contradicting information about him, her or it. No God has ever corrected us.

Do you think Gods are manmade or do you believe in a supernatural God?

Why do you think that way?

Regards
DL

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

you start by titling the thread "are RELIGIONS biologically based..." and then end up asking are "Gods manmade or..."

biologically based is not necessarily the same thing as manmade, and religion is not necessarily synonymous with God or gods, and the nature of natural or supernatural can be debated. Neither is biologically based going to exclude the possibility of the supernatural...In short, I think you need to reconstruct your post a bit more clearly.

Here's what I believe:
1) there is a biological basis for humans having religious beliefs and behaviors (because belief is not the only criteria for religion or God/gods).
2) there are only things that are real (as in we can experience them, even if only indirectly and/or infrequently/not in a reliable manner) and not real (we can conceive of them, but we do not actually experience them)
3) as I conceive of it, if something exists, it is natural (even our conceptions are natural, given that they must be rooted in our experiences). That is, there can be real things that we don't experience or don't experience in a reliable, replicable manner, and there can be unreal things that we create to explain our experiences, but have no actual existence outside our minds. What falls in which category can be debated.
4) my experience, as I conceive of it, includes a property/thing that can loosely be called "spirit," which all things are/have. Some of those spirits may be larger/more powerful than humans, and therefore may be considered gods by some (I don't, personally)
5) Humans experience these phenomena (things and spirits) and create stories about them, based in their own culture and experience, as a way of understanding their lived experience. Individuals and their cultures may thus recognize a storm god, but the details will differ between cultures, because the cultures and their environment/experiences differ.

It might be easier to create a 2x2 rubric, with natural and supernatural on one axis, and human-invented and human-not invented (or biologically based and not biologically based, or something...) to separate out these different concepts...

 

[Greatest I am]

you start by titling the thread "are RELIGIONS biologically based..." and then end up asking are "Gods manmade or..."

biologically based is not necessarily the same thing as manmade, and religion is not necessarily synonymous with God or gods, and the nature of natural or supernatural can be debated. Neither is biologically based going to exclude the possibility of the supernatural...In short, I think you need to reconstruct your post a bit more clearly.

Here's what I believe:
1) there is a biological basis for humans having religious beliefs and behaviors (because belief is not the only criteria for religion or God/gods).
2) there are only things that are real (as in we can experience them, even if only indirectly and/or infrequently/not in a reliable manner) and not real (we can conceive of them, but we do not actually experience them)
3) as I conceive of it, if something exists, it is natural (even our conceptions are natural, given that they must be rooted in our experiences). That is, there can be real things that we don't experience or don't experience in a reliable, replicable manner, and there can be unreal things that we create to explain our experiences, but have no actual existence outside our minds. What falls in which category can be debated.
4) my experience, as I conceive of it, includes a property/thing that can loosely be called "spirit," which all things are/have. Some of those spirits may be larger/more powerful than humans, and therefore may be considered gods by some (I don't, personally)
5) Humans experience these phenomena (things and spirits) and create stories about them, based in their own culture and experience, as a way of understanding their lived experience. Individuals and their cultures may thus recognize a storm god, but the details will differ between cultures, because the cultures and their environment/experiences differ.

It might be easier to create a 2x2 rubric, with natural and supernatural on one axis, and human-invented and human-not invented (or biologically based and not biologically based, or something...) to separate out these different concepts...

Thanks for this.

I knew that this O.P. was going to be a tough one and could have put more into the editing but so many have short attention spans that I went with what I had. I did not want a bunch of TLDR.

-------

"religion is not necessarily synonymous with God or gods,"

What religion do you see that has no God?

--------

"because belief is not the only criteria for religion or God/gods)."

True but it would be the main one to a believer would it not?

---------

"Some of those spirits may be larger/more powerful than humans, and therefore may be considered gods by some (I don't, personally)"

Can you name of describe such a spirit and would it not be supernatural even if you do not think it a God?

Are all Gods human constructs? I think you indicated they are but your wording was not as clear as I like.

Regards
DL

 

[George-ananda]

Do you think Gods are manmade or do you believe in a supernatural God?

I think there are so called supernatural things (meaning beyond the physical) and they are real. Religion is man's attempt to best understand things.

I am a pantheist so I think the dualistic (God an creation are two) that you are asking about is a less sophisticated way of understanding the universe. My problem with what you are saying is that you are trying to make the choices 'God' or 'Atheism' when I think the best answer might be neither of the above and a more sophisticated understanding is needed.

 

[Greatest I am]

I think there are so called supernatural things (meaning beyond the physical) and they are real. Religion is man's attempt to best understand things.

I am a pantheist so I think the dualistic (God an creation are two) that you are asking about is a less sophisticated way of understanding the universe. My problem with what you are saying is that you are trying to make the choices 'God' or 'Atheism' when I think the best answer might be neither of the above and a more sophisticated understanding is needed.

True that I like to KIS. Keep it simple.

What has convinced you that there are supernatural beings?

Religions are forever telling us of the morals those supernatural beings demand on pain of torture, in the Christian case.

This is quite an important point. Why are the supernatural creatures threatening us without showing they are real to any but a few who also demand money from us?

Regards
DL

 

[George-ananda]

True that I like to KIS. Keep it simple.

What has convinced you that there are supernatural beings?

When I say 'supernatural beings' I mean any being that is not physical. I have been convinced by my study of the paranormal and the teachings of the eastern/Indian religious tradition. There are many planes/levels to reality and beings on all of the planes

Religions are forever telling us of the morals those supernatural beings demand on pain of torture, in the Christian case.

Maybe we should be considering a more sophisticated religious view then. Love is the force in the universe.

This is quite an important point. Why are the supernatural creatures threatening us without showing they are real to any but a few who also demand money from us?

Why would you believe in a 'supernatural creatures threatening us without showing they are real to any but a few who also demand money from us'? My point is there are views to consider beyond believing in such a creature and atheism. How about the return to love and oneness?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Thanks for this.

I knew that this O.P. was going to be a tough one and could have put more into the editing but so many have short attention spans that I went with what I had. I did not want a bunch of TLDR.

-------

"religion is not necessarily synonymous with God or gods,"

What religion do you see that has no God?

--------

"because belief is not the only criteria for religion or God/gods)."

True but it would be the main one to a believer would it not?

---------

"Some of those spirits may be larger/more powerful than humans, and therefore may be considered gods by some (I don't, personally)"

Can you name of describe such a spirit and would it not be supernatural even if you do not think it a God?

Are all Gods human constructs? I think you indicated they are but your wording was not as clear as I like.

Regards
DL

No worries; I understand the need for "speed" when you've got a thought you want to get out. I'm not immune....

Buddhism comes to mind as a "religion" with no gods; but using a sociological definition of religion (such as Clifford Geertz's), such modern ideologies as captialism, communism, humanism, etc., could be offered as examples of religions without God/gods; there are a number of indigenous cultures who apparently have no "gods" per se; in my own belief structure I recognize the possibility of God/gods, but I do not currently have anything in that category. Sociological theories tend to view the important aspects of "religion" as not being natural or supernatural (those are Western constructs), but what is held to be mundane and/or profane, and what is held to be sacred. Sociology also looks at religion not as a set of individual beliefs, but as a set of social practices in a community, oriented toward the sacred.

Yes, if "belief" is an important criterion for someone, yes, belief would be important. However, many if not most non-Western religions don't have a primary focus on belief per se, but upon action--carrying out the appropriate rituals, etc. In my own life, while belief is important to me, it is far more important to the relationships that I have with human persons and other-than-human persons that I interact with that I engage in the proper rituals, ceremonies, offerings, etc.

Under modern ideas about the world, we would not consider wind or storms to be deities--they are structured in our thoughts as the visible portion of various natural phenomena. While I see them as both physical phenomena as well as temporary amalgamations of various spirits that have a very visible but short-lived existence ( a few days at most), others construct wind and storm as deities in their own rights, with personalities, etc. Most every traditional pantheon has some deity or deities that oversee the winds and/or the storms.

Are all gods constructs of human minds? In some sense, yes, but as far as I can tell, winds and storms etc., do really exist, and people experience them in various ways, including waking state, dreaming, visions, memory, stories, etc. These different ways of experiencing them are based in our biology, our sensory apparatus, the structure and function of the mind, which have evolved to allow us these different ways of experiencing and conceptualizing our experiences. This leads to social groups of humans building up a construction of their own relationship with these things/spirits that we identify, rooted in the unique physical and social/cultural environment. So my answer is both yes and no, God and gods are human constructs, while they also appear to be biologically based, and at the same time, real objects/things/processes in our environment.

 

[Quintessence]

Are religions biologically based and natural or supernaturally based?

This sounds like a false dichotomy. The basis of religions are complex, and certainly can't be boiled down into some "either-or" scenario. Essentially, religions are a facet of culture. In particular, a facet of culture that deals with big, existential questions and frames a culture's understanding of the meaning or purpose of life, which in turn informs knowledge and understanding of the world as well as codes of conduct or expectations of behavior.

All religions are manmade and all God’s are projections of man’s desires for supremacy and to be the Alpha male of the human race.

Well, obviously all religions we know about are human made, because the only religions we know about are ones that are the products of human cultures. As for this "projection" hypothesis, the only theism for which such an argument might stand are certain varieties of monotheism. Outside of that, even an elementary examination of other theisms causes this hypothesis to fall flat on its face.

The choice people have is to believe that religions are ultimately products of a supernatural God who dictates policy to humans, who then pen them into holy books, and we have many Gods who are of this ilk, or to recognize that all these Gods are products of man’s imagination.

Another false dichotomy, it seems. You appear to be heavily biased by a narrow, Abrahamic understanding of religions and what "god" means. It is important to remember that this notion of religions being the product of some supernatural one-god is characteristic of Abrahamic monotheisms, and is generally absent in other religions (it is also, frankly, absent in various branches within the Abrahamic monotheisms). If we recall that, this dichotomy you are attempting to set up here falls apart rather quickly.

Proof for manmade Gods is obvious. Men have created the documentation of what they think.
Proof for a supernatural God has yet to be shown other than humans who say they wrote what was dictated by a God. Some do not see that as proof.

It is also important to remember that maps cannot be drawn without territory to reference. I think you're setting up a third false dichotomy here.

Do you think Gods are manmade or do you believe in a supernatural God?

Neither. I apparently do not fit in to your false dichotomies very neatly.

 

[Greatest I am]

When I say 'supernatural beings' I mean any being that is not physical. I have been convinced by my study of the paranormal and the teachings of the eastern/Indian religious tradition. There are many planes/levels to reality and beings on all of the planes


Maybe we should be considering a more sophisticated religious view then. Love is the force in the universe.



Why would you believe in a 'supernatural creatures threatening us without showing they are real to any but a few who also demand money from us'? My point is there are views to consider beyond believing in such a creature and atheism. How about the return to love and oneness?

Not a thing. Gnostic Christians are right into that.

"There are many planes/levels to reality and beings on all of the planes."

You say this with certainty. Do you have anything to show or tell to prove your case. Even an anecdotal story will do.
I myself claim to have had an apotheosis so don't be shy. I have no physical proof to show but never hide that fact that I had one.

I was told to think more demographically. That was it other than the confirmation that my paradigm and religious thinking was correct.

What have you learned?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

No worries; I understand the need for "speed" when you've got a thought you want to get out. I'm not immune....

Buddhism comes to mind as a "religion" with no gods; but using a sociological definition of religion (such as Clifford Geertz's), such modern ideologies as captialism, communism, humanism, etc., could be offered as examples of religions without God/gods; there are a number of indigenous cultures who apparently have no "gods" per se; in my own belief structure I recognize the possibility of God/gods, but I do not currently have anything in that category. Sociological theories tend to view the important aspects of "religion" as not being natural or supernatural (those are Western constructs), but what is held to be mundane and/or profane, and what is held to be sacred. Sociology also looks at religion not as a set of individual beliefs, but as a set of social practices in a community, oriented toward the sacred.

Yes, if "belief" is an important criterion for someone, yes, belief would be important. However, many if not most non-Western religions don't have a primary focus on belief per se, but upon action--carrying out the appropriate rituals, etc. In my own life, while belief is important to me, it is far more important to the relationships that I have with human persons and other-than-human persons that I interact with that I engage in the proper rituals, ceremonies, offerings, etc.

Under modern ideas about the world, we would not consider wind or storms to be deities--they are structured in our thoughts as the visible portion of various natural phenomena. While I see them as both physical phenomena as well as temporary amalgamations of various spirits that have a very visible but short-lived existence ( a few days at most), others construct wind and storm as deities in their own rights, with personalities, etc. Most every traditional pantheon has some deity or deities that oversee the winds and/or the storms.

Are all gods constructs of human minds? In some sense, yes, but as far as I can tell, winds and storms etc., do really exist, and people experience them in various ways, including waking state, dreaming, visions, memory, stories, etc. These different ways of experiencing them are based in our biology, our sensory apparatus, the structure and function of the mind, which have evolved to allow us these different ways of experiencing and conceptualizing our experiences. This leads to social groups of humans building up a construction of their own relationship with these things/spirits that we identify, rooted in the unique physical and social/cultural environment. So my answer is both yes and no, God and gods are human constructs, while they also appear to be biologically based, and at the same time, real objects/things/processes in our environment.

I think I understand your position and it is a good one as compared to many like Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers and care more about their imaginary God's than people.

You might like what this author has to say as she agrees with you on what should be focused on. It and the quotes I usually give to foolish literalists so the quotes you can ignore.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

If all my encounters in this thread are like you, this will be quite enjoyable.

Regards
DL

 

[Demonslayer]

I think the proof we have of God’s being manmade is that no real supernatural God has ever bothered to correct any of the contradicting information about him, her or it. No God has ever corrected us.

Not only has God never corrected us, religious folks are constantly changing what God supposedly said. I used the example on another thread of the concept of Limbo in Catholicism. For most of the history of Catholicism, we were told God created a place right next to Heaven called Limbo. This is where babies went when they died before being baptized, apparently because God wasn't quite mean enough to throw babies into Hell when they were too young to take responsibility for themselves.

Flash foward and one day the Pope suddenly says "just kidding, there is no such thing as Limbo."

If that's not evidence that all things religious are man made, I don't know what is. If God was real he either made Limbo, or he didn't. Either being gay is an unforgivable abomination, or it's not. Either divorce is a mortal sin or it isn't. Either there are real witches which we shall not suffer to live, or witches aren't real. Every day religious people change things that were supposedly God's Word...the Catholic Church is particularly guilty of this.

If God was making all this stuff up, how can mere humans change what He created?

 

[Demonslayer]

Sorry Limbo was supposedly located right next to Hell, not Heaven. It's Detroit basically.

 

[Greatest I am]

This sounds like a false dichotomy. The basis of religions are complex, and certainly can't be boiled down into some "either-or" scenario. Essentially, religions are a facet of culture. In particular, a facet of culture that deals with big, existential questions and frames a culture's understanding of the meaning or purpose of life, which in turn informs knowledge and understanding of the world as well as codes of conduct or expectations of behavior.



Well, obviously all religions we know about are human made, because the only religions we know about are ones that are the products of human cultures. As for this "projection" hypothesis, the only theism for which such an argument might stand are certain varieties of monotheism. Outside of that, even an elementary examination of other theisms causes this hypothesis to fall flat on its face.



Another false dichotomy, it seems. You appear to be heavily biased by a narrow, Abrahamic understanding of religions and what "god" means. It is important to remember that this notion of religions being the product of some supernatural one-god is characteristic of Abrahamic monotheisms, and is generally absent in other religions (it is also, frankly, absent in various branches within the Abrahamic monotheisms). If we recall that, this dichotomy you are attempting to set up here falls apart rather quickly.



It is also important to remember that maps cannot be drawn without territory to reference. I think you're setting up a third false dichotomy here.



Neither. I apparently do not fit in to your false dichotomies very neatly.

If so. Great.

Yes, my focus was on idol worshiping Christians and Muslims as they are almost the only ones around this place.

Even Gnostic Christians like me are rare although the non-believers are closer to my beliefs than theists.

"Outside of that, even an elementary examination of other theisms causes this hypothesis to fall flat on its face."

Could you expand on this for us please?

Are the other theisms you have in mind not concerned with moral teaching and good behavior?

Let's exclude the God is in all yet never teaches and just is theologies for the moment. That is close to Gnostic Christianity except that we have adopted a Jesus the good to help explain and show good actions.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I think the proof we have of God’s being manmade is that no real supernatural God has ever bothered to correct any of the contradicting information about him, her or it. No God has ever corrected us.

Not only has God never corrected us, religious folks are constantly changing what God supposedly said. I used the example on another thread of the concept of Limbo in Catholicism. For most of the history of Catholicism, we were told God created a place right next to Heaven called Limbo. This is where babies went when they died before being baptized, apparently because God wasn't quite mean enough to throw babies into Hell when they were too young to take responsibility for themselves.

Flash forward and one day the Pope suddenly says "just kidding, there is no such thing as Limbo."

If that's not evidence that all things religious are man made, I don't know what is. If God was real he either made Limbo, or he didn't. Either being gay is an unforgivable abomination, or it's not. Either divorce is a mortal sin or it isn't. Either there are real witches which we shall not suffer to live, or witches aren't real. Every day religious people change things that were supposedly God's Word...the Catholic Church is particularly guilty of this.

If God was making all this stuff up, how can mere humans change what He created?

I hear you and agree.

What I find strange is the one of the first things a priest or imam will tell you is how unknowable, unfathomable and mysterious God is. The second think they will then tell you is the reams of data that they know of the unknowable, fathom of the unfathomable and have gleaned of the ways of the God who works in mysterious ways.

And those lying priests and imams have the gullible believing those obvious lies and paying to be lied to.

What a strange people we are.

Regards
DL

 

[Demonslayer]

What I find strange is the one of the first things a priest or imam will tell you is how unknowable, unfathomable and mysterious God is. The second think they will then tell you is the reams of data that they know of the unknowable, fathom of the unfathomable and have gleaned of the ways of the God who works in mysterious ways.

LOL. "We can't know the mind of God!"

"But here are 75 things God will send you to hell for"

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, my focus was on idol worshiping Christians and Muslims as they are almost the only ones around this place.

Odd, because I can name not a single "idol worshiping" person on RF, whether Christian or Muslim or something else (FYI, I would avoid using that kind of language in the future as it can be interpreted as a troll). If anything, RF has a disproportionate number of non-theists and Pagans.

"Outside of that, even an elementary examination of other theisms causes this hypothesis to fall flat on its face."
Could you expand on this for us please?

I'd think it wouldn't be necessary because of how obviously apparent it is. If you don't have a god-concept that alleges itself as an omnimax. When your gods aren't omnimax, you have shared power, which is in direct opposition to this idea of "alpha male" and "supremacy." Any and all theisms that aren't omnimax - which basically describes anything that isn't classical monotheism - is going to negate that hypothesis. Even in the case of classical monotheism (aka, the omnimax one-god), I think it is a stretch to say it is rooted in supposed desires of being "alpha male" or "supreme." There are strong underpinnings of humility and self-depreciation in the classical monotheist religious traditions. If anything, all theisms (with the possible exception of autotheism) are fundamentally about recognizing that there are forces out there greater than you are.

Are the other theisms you have in mind not concerned with moral teaching and good behavior?

Theism in of itself is never concerned with either of these things. Theisms aren't belief systems, they're positions on the nature of the gods, which doesn't have much to do with morality, ethics, or behavior. I'm not sure how this plays in to our topic?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Are religions biologically based and natural or supernaturally based?

DL

What is the difference between natural and supernatural?
They are misunderstandings of what God is... that create false questions in the first place. There are, by the way, no contradictions. All is God.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think the proof we have of God’s being manmade is that no real supernatural God has ever bothered to correct any of the contradicting information about him, her or it. No God has ever corrected us.

Not only has God never corrected us, religious folks are constantly changing what God supposedly said. I used the example on another thread of the concept of Limbo in Catholicism. For most of the history of Catholicism, we were told God created a place right next to Heaven called Limbo. This is where babies went when they died before being baptized, apparently because God wasn't quite mean enough to throw babies into Hell when they were too young to take responsibility for themselves.

Flash foward and one day the Pope suddenly says "just kidding, there is no such thing as Limbo."

If that's not evidence that all things religious are man made, I don't know what is. If God was real he either made Limbo, or he didn't. Either being gay is an unforgivable abomination, or it's not. Either divorce is a mortal sin or it isn't. Either there are real witches which we shall not suffer to live, or witches aren't real. Every day religious people change things that were supposedly God's Word...the Catholic Church is particularly guilty of this.

If God was making all this stuff up, how can mere humans change what He created?

Or there's another answer and you haven't thought of it...which is a possiblity, right?

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

There's no such thing as an "alpha male human". btw I can't stand sweeping statements about "religion" that only cover the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[George-ananda]

"There are many planes/levels to reality and beings on all of the planes."

You say this with certainty. Do you have anything to show or tell to prove your case. Even an anecdotal story will do.
I myself claim to have had an apotheosis so don't be shy. I have no physical proof to show but never hide that fact that I had one.

Here I am not speaking from any dramatic personal experiences. My beliefs are formed from the collective analysis of the experiences of many others and from teachers aligned with the eastern/Indian and Theosophical traditions. I believe they have revealed the most believable and complete understanding of existence (surpassing materialist science). Our consciousness can experience what our physical senses can not detect.

I was told to think more demographically. That was it other than the confirmation that my paradigm and religious thinking was correct

What does 'think more demographically' mean? Please, tell us of your experience.