Why Did We Evolve the Notion of God?

[GadFly]

For the simple reason that if we created God, God was not and cannot be our Creator.

If this is not true, the premises for creation came before creation. If this is true, then there was no God. If there was no God, where did universal laws of logic, math, science come form?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The point there is that if you discredit them to the point of proving there was no source other than human imagination, then why believe that any other religion would be anything more than that?

Because the evolution of religion appears to be punctuated with great leaps in conceptual understanding. For example, the difference between the New and Old Testaments is so dramatic that some in the past thought they were talking about different gods. Is it "just evolution" or is there something more involved? Why the sudden leap from Roman cruelties being the norm to being perverse? Historically speaking, these huge changes came quite suddenly and unexpectedly. There's a hellava lot more going on than meets the eye.

 

[GadFly]

There is truth in what you say, but it's a half-truth. The brain is also hard-wired in a way that it cannot perceive that what it does not believe is possible. Something not being perceived by you is not an indication that others are hallucinating

If consciousness is fundamental, irreducable, “evolution is the progressive manifestation by Nature of that which slept or worked in her, involved, it is also the overt realization of that which she secretly is. We cannot, then, bid her pause at a given stage of her evolution, nor have we the right to condemn [evolution] with the religionist as perverse and presumptuous or with the rationalist as a disease or hallucination any intention she may evince or effort she may make to go beyond. If it be true that Spirit is involved in Matter and apparent Nature is secret God, then the manifestation of the divine in himself and the realization of God within and without are the highest and most legitimate aim possible to man upon earth.”

Making things simple, did you just now agree with Plato's forms or not?

 

[Magic Man]

Because the evolution of religion appears to be punctuated with great leaps in conceptual understanding. For example, the difference between the New and Old Testaments is so dramatic that some in the past thought they were talking about different gods. Is it "just evolution" or is there something more involved? Why the sudden leap from Roman cruelties being the norm to being perverse? Historically speaking, these huge changes came quite suddenly and unexpectedly. There's a hellava lot more going on than meets the eye.

That's the problem, they didn't come suddenly. The differences between the OT and NT seem very sudden and pronounced to us, but they took place over centuries, not overnight. They were the influence of other religions in the area, and the result of taking ideas from various other sources.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Making things simple, did you just now agree with Plato's forms or not?

The answer is yes, but as in all things, I put my own spin in it. I lean toward the notion that The Intellectual, Plotinus' abode for ideal-forms derived from the One, sanctions the creative process. (This corresponds with the Father-Son relationship in Christian theology.)

 

[Rolling_Stone]

That's the problem, they didn't come suddenly. The differences between the OT and NT seem very sudden and pronounced to us, but they took place over centuries, not overnight. They were the influence of other religions in the area, and the result of taking ideas from various other sources.

There was about 800 years between the last book in the OT and the NT. This sounds like a long time, but Judaism at the time of Jesus was relatively unchanged. One man (or two if you count Paul) changed all that in far less time than that 800 years. Neither do I discount the influence of other religions.

All I'm saying is YES, evolution does play a major role in the development of religion, but all the world's religions also claim to have insight into a 'higher reality' that cannot be lightly dismissed as simply a part of that process. Rather, the process leads up to religion's only real concern--values--that permit the development of culture and society.

There is within man a spark of the Infinite. That 'spark' is the beginning of all values and without it, given the bestial nature of man, we'd still be chucking spears at each other instead of making car bombs and threatening each other with WMD's--but that's for another thread.

 

[GadFly]

There was about 800 years between the last book in the OT and the NT. This sounds like a long time, but Judaism at the time of Jesus was relatively unchanged. One man (or two if you count Paul) changed all that in far less time than that 800 years. Neither do I discount the influence of other religions.

All I'm saying is YES, evolution does play a major role in the development of religion, but all the world's religions also claim to have insight into a 'higher reality' that cannot be lightly dismissed as simply a part of that process. Rather, the process leads up to religion's only real concern--values--that permit the development of culture and society.

There is within man a spark of the Infinite. That 'spark' is the beginning of all values and without it, given the bestial nature of man, we'd still be chucking spears at each other instead of making car bombs and threatening each other with WMD's--but that's for another thread.

The confusion with this thread, in relation to each person's understand the development of the concept of God, is that the respondents start out explaining the evolution of the concept of God in one language and, in the middle of the explanation, changes language. What I am referring to is a basic problem of semantics. In one language the concept of God comes from a synthesis of man's experiences resulting in a definition of God. This is not scientific reasoning.

In another language.the language of Plato and Aristotle, where forms representing the basis of knowing what is real, are used. As you correctly point out: "There is within man a spark of the Infinite. That 'spark' is the beginning of all values and without it, given the bestial nature of man, we'd still be chucking spears at each other...."

This observation alludes to the fact that man is born with knowledge and that learning is remembering what he already knew. That spark of the infinite is the beginning of all values which the Western World has used as the premises of all the achievements in science, medicine, art, reasoning, and religion. Correct science and reasoning can be trusted because eternal premises do not change. All physical and mental change is only an appearance and can be explained by other principles of scientific laws. For example, ice represents the form of solidarity. When ice melts and turns to water, there is no conflict in the idea that values do or do not change. Ice and water is still H20. In explaining life with changing principles is as dangerous as trying to send a man to the moon with changing the premises of science. When ice changes to liquid, it is doing so by another eternal law of science. By knowing all the scientific laws, which do not change, enabled man to go to the moon. Science did not change. It was only an appearance. Western Civilization has always depended on the ideas whose premises do not change. Evolution in the concept of God is also an appearance. God dose not change.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Post Script:

The pursuit of values is the religious impulse that all cultures share. The notion of God derived therefrom is an attempt to expound, clarify, justify and define the experiential claims. Some feel the impulse more strongly than others and interpret it in a variety of ways; some, like me, assign the experience to the influence of personal God. In my view, without a personal God being central, expressed values are little more than sentiment in the pattern of inherited traditions. Other than that, they are indeterminate and arbitrary.

Though, influenced by many sources, my description-interpretation of the Ultimate Ground or God is entirely personal. It’s one waterfall, my waterfall, and irrelevant to this discussion. Suffice to say that as far as I can tell, all the bases are covered. Rather than wasting time chasing after waterfalls, it would be wiser to follow the water to its source.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The confusion with this thread, in relation to each person's understand the development of the concept of God, is that the respondents start out explaining the evolution of the concept of God in one language and, in the middle of the explanation, changes language. What I am referring to is a basic problem of semantics. In one language the concept of God comes from a synthesis of man's experiences resulting in a definition of God. This is not scientific reasoning.

In another language.the language of Plato and Aristotle, where forms representing the basis of knowing what is real, are used. As you correctly point out: "There is within man a spark of the Infinite. That 'spark' is the beginning of all values and without it, given the bestial nature of man, we'd still be chucking spears at each other...."

This observation alludes to the fact that man is born with knowledge and that learning is remembering what he already knew. That spark of the infinite is the beginning of all values which the Western World has used as the premises of all the achievements in science, medicine, art, reasoning, and religion. Correct science and reasoning can be trusted because eternal premises do not change. All physical and mental change is only an appearance and can be explained by other principles of scientific laws. For example, ice represents the form of solidarity. When ice melts and turns to water, there is no conflict in the idea that values do or do not change. Ice and water is still H20. In explaining life with changing principles is as dangerous as trying to send a man to the moon with changing the premises of science. When ice changes to liquid, it is doing so by another eternal law of science. By knowing all the scientific laws, which do not change, enabled man to go to the moon. Science did not change. It was only an appearance. Western Civilization has always depended on the ideas whose premises do not change. Evolution in the concept of God is also an appearance. God dose not change.

Frubals for this post!

I find that many of my posts are in the language of those who do not see that the unchanging principles underlying the changeable surface of things applies also to religion. Many assume that a Divine presence implies some kind of superman having something directly to do with temporal processes rather than a reference to atemporal ontological (did I say that right?) dependence.

 

[GadFly]

Frubals for this post!

I find that many of my posts are in the language of those who do not see that the unchanging principles underlying the changeable surface of things applies also to religion. Many assume that a Divine presence implies some kind of superman having something directly to do with temporal processes rather than a reference to atemporal ontological (did I say that right?) dependence.

Your use of ontology is correct in every way. Your belief in an eternal being is supported by everything we call science and really is what theist call faith. which actually uses the same premises that supports science. What this thread attempts in saying and asserting the concept of God evolves, is an attempt to subtly avoid the premises for the existence o f God.

This the number one problem atheist have in explaining that God does not exist and only evolves.But like you say, if you follow the evidence, rather than making up new premises for God, which are not eternal at all, you ultimately arrive at the truth that the concept of God is always the same, the concept does not change, and what is called evolution is simply learning more about the eternal one.

Faulty reasoning, which can be defined as reasoning without premises or with unstable premises that change, leads ultimately to error in science and religion. Western Civilization in innately well aware of this and is why they instinctively reject changing laws based on relativity and evolution of values in favor of democracy and eternal self evident truths. I will stop here before the discussion leads to politics.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

:tribal2:Many torches, one light. Peace.

 

[Escéptico]

This the number one problem atheist have in explaining that God does not exist and only evolves.But like you say, if you follow the evidence, rather than making up new premises for God, which are not eternal at all, you ultimately arrive at the truth that the concept of God is always the same, the concept does not change, and what is called evolution is simply learning more about the eternal one.

But what we've pointed out is that the concept has indeed changed.

Religion was once a proto-inquiry program intended to show the human population how to act in order to ensure appropriate reactions from the powers that be. All human behavior was thought to have concrete consequences, and the religious program had to be followed to the letter or bad things would happen here on Earth. Now, religion is a self-perpetuating social construct that merely instructs believers to act and profess a certain way for the benefit of the religion itself.

Likewise, God was once an active being who claimed (as in Isaiah 45) that He was responsible for all phenomena, good and bad. Nowadays, God is more likely to be defined as a vague spiritual force or (as your cohort described it) "a reference to atemporal ontological dependence". God isn't responsible for wars or harvests or birth defects, only (maybe) the beginning of biotic life or the universe itself.

So have we really learned more about the eternal one? Or have we just learned to adjust our expectations to keep religion relevant in the twenty-first century?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

But what we've pointed out is that the concept has indeed changed.

Religion was once a proto-inquiry program intended to show the human population how to act in order to ensure appropriate reactions from the powers that be. All human behavior was thought to have concrete consequences, and the religious program had to be followed to the letter or bad things would happen here on Earth. Now, religion is a self-perpetuating social construct that merely instructs believers to act and profess a certain way for the benefit of the religion itself.

Likewise, God was once an active being who claimed (as in Isaiah 45) that He was responsible for all phenomena, good and bad. Nowadays, God is more likely to be defined as a vague spiritual force or (as your cohort described it) "a reference to atemporal ontological dependence". God isn't responsible for wars or harvests or birth defects, only (maybe) the beginning of biotic life or the universe itself.

So have we really learned more about the eternal one? Or have we just learned to adjust our expectations to keep religion relevant in the twenty-first century?

Phew! Talk about missing the boat!

 

[tomspug]

Phew! Talk about missing the boat!

You know, the point of the forum is to provoke discussion. If you're not interested in understanding other people's POV, maybe you shouldn't be posting at all.

 

[Kungfuzed]

It seems to me, that since ideas do not have to wait around for a mutation in DNA or for generations to be born and die, that ideas can "evolve" at the speed of socialization. That is, they can change as quickly as they are adopted.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You know, the point of the forum is to provoke discussion. If you're not interested in understanding other people's POV, maybe you shouldn't be posting at all.

Fine. What do you want me to say? Do you want me to "cast pearls before swine"? Should I say he's chasing after waterfalls instead of following the water to its source (an illustration I used), confusing the finger for the moon it's pointing to, or the map is not the territory? I could say something like, "Religion is the attempt to imitate the Ideal-Form; the (human) concept to bring it about in material form" or "we awaken to the Concept" or "the religious impulse is a principle of primary existence," but that would simply be offering up another waterfall to chase after to someone whose only interest is chasing after them. One should not make the mistake of trying to prove God to someone interested only in playing in the sandbox of ideas (please excuse the mixed metaphors) because real valid proof cannot be consciously produced.

What Gadfly said is correct: "What this thread attempts in saying and asserting the concept of God evolves, is an attempt to subtly avoid the premises for the existence of God."

 

[Escéptico]

It seems to me, that since ideas do not have to wait around for a mutation in DNA or for generations to be born and die, that ideas can "evolve" at the speed of socialization. That is, they can change as quickly as they are adopted.

That's the meme theory in a nutshell. Instead of genetic replication, these cultural replicators are passed through social networks and media. But there's a Darwinist basis to this process: memes are competing for social attention, so their adaptability and efficiency of transmission are crucial to their survival.

 

[GadFly]

That's the meme theory in a nutshell. Instead of genetic replication, these cultural replicators are passed through social networks and media. But there's a Darwinist basis to this process: memes are competing for social attention, so their adaptability and efficiency of transmission are crucial to their survival.

When it comes to the finale and most basic level of discussion, it is clear that the atheist has no premise whatsoever on which to base his conclusions about what is real. Although there is not empirical evidence that a thing called science exist, atheist are too smart to claim math is not real Why does he strongly claim the infinite one does not exist based on the same evidence that says math and science does exist? The evidence for science is the same as for God.

Again, the rules for reasoning and logic come from the eternal sphere. Man did not make them up. These rules of logic are just here to be used by scientist who could not practice medicine or send a man into space unless these rules could not be trusted to be stable and unchanging. When it comes to believing in God, the atheist alters the premises by which reality is measured. The atheist can not use real and eternal laws of logic to explain their reasoning when it comes to God. They are too proud of their intellect which they imagine is greater than the myth of a god. In the modern world, this faulty logic that says there is no god, is the base for communism and humanism. The civilized world does see this and rejects Hegelian logic. I know you see this clearly but you clearly reject this Christian view out of your need to reject pure logic so as to save face in front of intellectual honesty. I mean no insult here. I am only explaining my view. Atheist often say that the concept of God is a projection of the religious person's ego. The truth is that it is the humanists ego that rejects logic and God. I know of nothing that angers atheist more than to have it pointed out to them the flaws in their thinking process, especially because they are helpless to defend intellectually their reasoning.
God bless

 

[Yerda]

When it comes to the finale and most basic level of discussion, it is clear that the atheist has no premise whatsoever on which to base his conclusions about what is real.

Sorry, can you explain that. I'm not sure what you mean about premises and conclusions about what is real.

 

[GadFly]

When I am attacked and called a meme, whatever that is, I go to the root of their illness and attack their logic. Where there is an attack on the eternal one,there is always fault in the attacker's interpretation of reality and reasoning. You can not reveal this to them through their strong ego for they have committed a long process and time in building their intellectual frame of reference, which they are certainly entitled to do. They have every right to their opinion as we have to ours.
Thank you for support