The lack of capacity is on the part of those
who must invent some " god " to fill some
strange need (lack of something )
in their lives.
I've no such need nor do very many of today's
educated Chinese.
As noted before, this praise and thanks yiu find so important is directed inward at your own
imagination and shows a distinct lack of
appreciation for the the things themselves, for what they are.
Not that you will take ten seconds to try to
grasp why I said that.
Hi, you raise some interesting points about the nature of belief, and while I disagree with your conclusions or start-point, it does go to the heart of the question, if we take the journey to its end
"The lack of capacity is on the part of those
who must invent some " god " to fill some
strange need (lack of something )
in their lives."
I agree that belief in God does fulfill a need. Otherwise, people wouldn't have such belief. Question is what is that need? Is belief in God its natural fulfillment, or does such belief represent a distortion of the fulfillment?
If we begin from the position that the human being has certain needs - that can tell us about who the human being is - the truth of him/ her - and in this need, and its appropriate satisfaction, we would find the truths of reality. Why? Because the human being has faculties of reason, imagination, consciousness which, along with his earthy material condition, makes him this connection between the earth and the heavens, the visible and the hidden - ie his self-consciousness allows the universe to "know itself" and thereby fulfill its destiny.
So, what need does belief in (God) answer?
I say, one primary need it answers the need for true relation.
What? Why do I need to believe in an imaginary entity to relate to the world or to myself or to my neighbour? I can have perfectly good relations with people without recourse to belief in another entity.
What do I mean by true relation?
One of the features of relation is knowing - when I have a relation with another person, I am sharing their consciousness in some way. By this way, the person feels less lonely than if there was no such person there to relate to. Some aspects of their being is being
seen and
known about, and the same with me. We share in one another. And, depending on the situation, this can make a person feel vulnerable and cause them to reject the relation, if not trusting the other person or fearing a judgement. Some people prefer to relate to animals than human beings, and find this type of relation easier. As a solitary type myself, I can understand this impulse. So what's the difference between the relation with an animal than another human being?
It is one rung down the ladder on having a capacity for full relation. We can relate to the pure being of an animal, and this also has its own reward and can alleviate loneliness. But an animal cannot relate to us as human beings with the additional complexities entailed. So what?
This tells us that implcit in our understanding of relation, is this aspect of knowing and the capacity to know.
"I can't relate" - it means, doesn't it?, I've never experienced that so I don't know how it feels. I don't know.
What's the point?
Behind all of this is a
need to be known, and in turn, to
know the one who knows me.
I can't be known by a tree. I can relate as an organic being in some way, but that's it.
I can't be known by a horse.
Can I be known by another human?
Yes - to an extent. Why only an extent?
Because another human being is unable to know
all of me. They cannot know my thoughts. They cannot know the whole span of my life, all my actions and experiences, all my feelings, hopes, fears. I can communicate this, sure, but it will always be limited - both by the limitations of what I can communicate, and the limitations of what they can relate to and understand. And thrown into the mix of all this is the fact that human beings are flawed - we have our own interests, our own view, our own faults, which prevents us from being just "always there" for someone else or even "100% devoted" to the other person.
For all of these reasons, if all we had were the beings we see, we would never be able to satisfy the need to be fully known.
Can we know ourselves?
Because of our nature to self-delusion and limitations, this may be even harder than knowing others! It is impossible that we can know ourselves, just by ourselves.
So... to satisfy the need, requires an All Knowing Being. He would know every thought you have, every intention in your heart - even those you are unaware of! - and every action. Only such a being would be able to truly judge you also. So satisfying another need we have, which is true judgement. What do we do when we aren't conscious of such a being? We distort this need. We do one of two things:
We see, no-one can judge anyone else, and judgement is wrong, and basically anyone can do what they like, and that's okay for them. I.e. relativity.
In some ways, that seems liberating. But, it doesn't fit with the human being's innate need for judgement. They will judge others, and they will still themselves want to be judged. You find for instance that amongst people who say that we should never judge the life choices of others, they will be the most judgemental towards people who don't agree with their world view! They may call them fascist, backward, or any such name. I.e. all they've done is subverted their need for judgement and switched it to some other target.
Or, we make ourselves the All Knowing Judge and trust in our own capacity to judge the truth of another person. Religion says, hate the sin, love the sinner - because you cannot stand in judgement of them personally.
What else?
Giving thanks and praise is innate to the human being as a relational creature.
We don't see animals praising one another, but humans do it all the time. We don't see animals saying thank you, but we see it with human beings. (I know that sometimes animals indicate their gratitude for food, but it is not giving thanks in the greater sense of having consciousness of what has been done, rather a reflex.)
Why do human beings do these things unique to them?
I propose it answers the need for
connection.
When we say thanks or praise another we are acknowledging them and their attributes. So it is another way to the
knowing and
being known, that is at the heart of relation.
The capacity to be known, therefore, can only be true through the existence of the All Knowing.
And as such, a person's deepest need cannot be fulfilled.
Now, does that provide proof of the truth of (God)?
I say that to deny (God) is, in effect, to deny the truth of oneself.
Of course, I appreciate that modern people say that the need is a "developed trait" which may have provided "individual and group benefits", and therefore its satisfaction is a type of delusion also.
I make two responses to this:
Firstly, this modern outlook can't be the basis for knowledge only doubt-on-doubt. According to the same theory, the explanation for why the God-need should be rejected could also be rejected on the same terms: that disbelief is a delusional outlook developed because it benefits certain humans to propagate this outlook.
We need to breathe, therefore oxygen. Oxygen, therefore the need to breathe.
We need to sleep, therefore we sleep.
This is the basics of human fulfillment beyond which all is speculation and creating complexities where they don't exist.
And secondly, if we are victims of "developed convenient illusions" then the theory we reach this understanding through is itself in doubt, because it is a product of the human being and his self-interested "conveniant illusion" creative tendency. I.e. it is circular - and the only escape from all such circularity when it comes to human understanding, in the end, has to be revelation - but that is another point!
Put another way, "you're saying the human intuition can't be trusted - you human, who is telling me the human can't be trusted!"
"As noted before, this praise and thanks yiu find so important is directed inward at your own
imagination and shows a distinct lack of
appreciation for the the things themselves, for what they are."
Hm, I agree that one should appreciate something in itself for what it is, and that this is a higher good than appreciating it for some instrumental purpose. However, I disagree that that is what happens when we do appreciate with sincerity, because I posit that appreciation is always a relational act, beit explicitly or implicitly. People who don't believe in a Higher Creator may think they escape this in the appreciation of nature, but when we look at how they use language we see that's not true (see below). Why might they think this? Because appreciating nature is an escape from our worldly relations, which always involve an element of instrumental (purpose-directed) thinking, and in this way bring us an avenue to the transcendent and (God).
In doing so, and in wanting to affirm appreciation for "the thing in itself", I believe you are expressing a need for (God) and appreciation of (Him). How so?
Relation with (God) is the relation which frees us from the insufficiency and self-interest inherent to our relations in everyday life, and into the Eternal (pure) relation.
When we praise a work of art, we are implicitly praising the creator of that work. The one follows from the other. If you were asked, and do you praise the creator of this for their work, of course you say yes. If you analysed it, you'd want to know the meaning, and through the work you would have some relation to "what is being said" by the artist.
Now, if that artist happens to be nearby and we say the praise out loud, of course, it is inevitable that the sincerity of our words may be compromised by a desire to please them.
When we observe the beauty of some woodland trees, there is no such danger is there? (Except to impress someone else with our appreciation.)
The difference between praise and thanks in all our human interactions and with the All Knowing, is that only (He) can know what is truly in your heart, and only (He) can appreciate the depth and sincerity of your own appreciation.
And what is behind the need for appreciation? Why do we appreciate beauty?
I say it is another way of
connection, and thereby, again, it answers our deepest need for
relation. Appreciation of beauty happens through something or someone affecting us, and thereby we are brought close to that thing or someone, ie. brought closer to true relation.
A person doesn't need any complex leaps of imagination or faith to realise this truth - it is implicit in the words which we use.
connection and
relation happens between subjects.
That's why we don't talk about connecting to a computer, except in a technical sense. Or connecting to a robot. Or connecting to a bottle of water. Or a tap.
But people do talk about nature in that way. Why? Because intuitively they appreciate it as a subject-subject experience.
And if the logic of atheism was taken to its conclusion people wouldn't accept its consequences. They wouldn't accept that you shouldn't talk about "connecting with nature" because nature is not a subject to be connected with - it doesn't have will or a consciousness of its own. They would think you strange - "of course you can connect with nature! I feel that and experience that all the time!"
So what is the truth of this feeling?