Since we have a thread on Real Gods up right now, I was thinking about many gods and goddesses which people don't believe in. What mental processes does one go through in order to logically determine which god is real as opposed to gods believed to be false?
How does one know that the Abrahamic God is real, while declaring gods such as Zeus or Thor to be "false"? Would an ancient Roman believe that Jupiter is real while Zeus is fake?
There are some who reject all gods due to a lack of evidence of gods (or even any coherent, usable definition of the concept). Most believers seem to pick and choose, where they believe in one god or some gods, while rejecting others. Is the process of picking and choosing just a feeling that people have, or is it simply a matter of upbringing?
Are there any people who believe in absolutely everything?
Excellent question:
What is the difference between real and fake gods?
From my experience what often follows is the failing of languages used (often subconsciously)
to obfuscate and lean on semantics.
The terms “god” when bandied about within these sort of conversations, when looked at from the outside may appear that as it is being used universally, yet in fact many participants are relating hugely different concepts and unfortunately are seemingly happy to knowingly do so…..
it enhances the obfuscation.
I often wonder, for many, how solid there internal concept of their god (or any for that matter) is.
Perhaps that may be the cognitive dissonance salve that enables them to cling to their faith.
Throw on top of that the fact that societies (humans being social species) are permeated with the ever present influence of a variety of religions, which are consciously baked into the upbringing of the children within those societies.
To the point that it becomes a essential part of their identity.
As result the terms “real”, “god”, “faith”, etc. become easy shields to appear to be in conformity with the greater whole, even when their internal understanding of these concepts are out of sync with those they want to identify with; if you’re using the same language (even when your personal understanding is different from those you are conversing with) they tend to accept you.
I’ve known several persons from the same church, who when discussing their understanding of their religion individually, each have remarkably different interpretations of their beliefs as compared to their fellow congregation members.
Yet when together as a group, they are certain they all are in unison.
Because of the relied upon vagueness of the language, they can accept that they all mean the same thing by using the same words despite the fact their individual understanding of those words are nuanced to fit their individual concepts which are different from those they are “agreeing” with.
