Why won't God go away?

[Rational Agnostic]

Perhaps. But these are all costly...it would be less burdensome for our cultures and for individuals to weed out beliefs based on fear and awe and simply say "we don't know and we don't care"...i.e. surely, if these are the reasons, by now our cultures should be saying atheism or agnosticism are "cheaper" options...shouldn't they?

I think it's the hope and sense of security that belief in God provides that will prevent it from ever going away completely. Of course that doesn't mean the belief is true. I'm not convinced that anyone knows God or gods exist.

 

[siti]

There are so many more gods that haven't "gone away" beyond the type described in the opening post. To say nothing of the odd assumption that "naturalistic" explanations somehow negate other perspectives

First of all, how do you know which type of "god" I was describing in the OP if I failed (as you claimed) to "characterize what they are and what they do"? You really seem to be objecting on the grounds that the God I did describe is not the one you would have liked me to describe...?

And how is the assumption that "naturalistic" explanations negate "other perspectives" - which phrase in this context can only mean "non-naturalistic explanations" - in any way "odd"?

I did not claim that the existence of naturalistic explanations disproves the existence of God (or any god of any description) - what I claimed was that with a naturalistic explanation for (e.g. the origins of humankind, and lots of other things that were previously unexplainable mysteries) we no longer need to appeal supernatural agency. We don't need God for that. We might still need God for some other things...and that's what I am trying to get at. Why is the idea of some kind of super-natural, super-reality required so much by humans, so deeply entrenched in human cultures, that despite the efforts of the most brilliant scientists and philosophers of the last couple of centuries or so, the idea (in any or all its multifarious guises) stubbornly refuses to "go away".

If it is because God (in at least one of its multifarious guises) actually exists, then it is appropriate to ask: which one?

If not, then it is more appropriate to ask, as I did (for the sake of discussion), why is God (in any of its multifarious guises) still there? What benefits does a non-existent super-natural "layer" of ultra-reality (which is very broadly what God means in one way or another in the any of its multifarious guises) bring that makes it so difficult for us to put it aside?

 

[Koldo]

He was obviously speaking prophetically too...when Nietzsche wrote "God is dead" in 1883, God only had a mild temperature and a slight cough...but he foresaw a time when human rationality would kill God off completely...as I recall, he wrote something along the lines of people not believing the declaration of God's death because they could not smell his rotting corpse...well perhaps we can smell it now...but I'm not so sure...

...as you say, God still seems to be in the pink in the US. But why?

Short answer: I think it can be largely attributed to American stupidity.

Can you a name a louder more influential anti-science (to the core) crowd than nutsy americans?

Climate change, evolution, vaccination, flat earth, YEC...

 

[siti]

I suspect that belief in God is largely due to human ability to sense agency. It is not a full proof instinct--we sometimes sense agency when none is there. But basically, if we hear rustling in the bushes, we get scared and run away thinking it is a wild animal or predatory person, when in fact it may simply be a broken branch finally succumbing to gravity. It is this instinct to agency that has kept us alive, since no harm is done if its only a broken branch, but NOT running away could get one eaten. So natural selection has chosen to pass on and proliferate the trait.

Now, how we INTERPRET that sense of agency can vary. The oldest form of religion was animism, the idea that everything has a soul or manna. From there, polytheism developed. And from there, monotheism. I tend to think of this instinct as sort of analogous to a primitive eye that can only see light and dark -- our ability to perceive the Divine is not very evolved yet, which is why it is interpreted differently by different people. But still you have religion in every known society.

There are of course a few individuals who so NOT sense agency in the universe. We call them atheists.

It is also true that religion plays a big part in our personal well being. People involved in religious communities are healthier, happier, longer lived, and have a buffer against anxiety and depression. Evolutionary biologist Dr David Sloan Wilson postulates that religion is an adaptation because it helps to form cooperative groups, and as we all know, a cooperative group will out compete an non-cooperative group any day.

That's brilliant thanks! I'd forgotten about David Sloan Wilson.

So essentially, we have evolved, as it were, with God. There's nothing rational/irrational about it, its just an essential part of human nature. Perhaps, given - as I mentioned - that we no longer need to assign "agency" to so many things that once so mystified and terrified us - its a kind of "vestigial organ" of human culture - like an appendix...we could, and some people do, live perfectly well without it, but its pretty much hardwired into our cultural "DNA" and will probably, like appendices and whale hip bones, not go away for a very long time to come - even if we don't really need it any more?

 

[siti]

I think it can be largely attributed to American stupidity.

I can see you're no going for endearment too!

But surely stupidity is costly...why has our cultural evolution not weeded it out?

 

[Koldo]

I can see you're no going for endearment too!

But surely stupidity is costly...

Is it?

why has our cultural evolution not weeded it out?

What would be the driving force behind it?

 

[PureX]

Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away

That verse by Hughes Mearns reminds me of "God"...

At least from the time of Darwin and then Nietzsche, we have known that "God" is either redundant or dead, in the sense that there is no longer any need, as Laplace put it, "for that hypothesis" to explain either the origins of humankind (per Darwin) or the answers to the great philosophical questions that humankind perplexes itself with (per Nietzsche)...

And yet a century and a half on, there the "God" who isn't there still is!

There are various ideas about how "God" came to be in the first place...ranging from "he" was invented to keep the hoi polloi subservient, or to enable a priestly class to fleece the flock to "he" was invented as a means of enforcing morality as the sizes of human groups grew or to enable to answer insoluble mysteries by a appealing to magical supernaturalism ...etc. etc.

As Nietzsche foresaw, that "God" is dead...killed off by our own insatiable quest for ever more plausible answers to the questions that once only "God" held the answers to.

And yet, there the "God" who isn't there still is!

Why is that? Why have almost all human cultures foisted the burden of "God" upon themselves? And why do we still, 140 years after the announcement of "God's" death, do we still find it so difficult to divest ourselves of such a costly investment?

Is "God" encoded somehow in our cultural "DNA"? Did (does?) "God" really provide such a survival or group cohesion advantage that it has become inseparable from our collective cultural psyche, such that even those who doubt or even disbelieve, still have a sneaking suspicion that there's "something" there...something "bigger" than "mere" Nature?

Why is it so difficult to make "God" go away?

Why do you want God to “go away”?

Why do you care that other humans find significance in their cognitive experience of God?

Why do you want them to choose other pathways to the various positive effects they gain from their faith in a God of their choosing?

And in answer to your question, people gain a lot of different positive effects from their faith in God depending on what they need, how they conceptualize, and how the interact with their God/gods. It’s not a simple answer.

 

[siti]

Why do you want God to “go away”?

I don't...but clearly some people do and they seem (at least sometimes, at least in some respects) to have the weight of scientific and philosophical evidence (such as it is, scant as it may be), not to mention rational argument and healthy skepticism on their side

Why do you care that other humans find significance in their cognitive experience of God?

Because I care about other humans - don't you? I care about anything that other humans find significance in...at least when I'm trying to figure out why they find significance in it.

Why do you want them to choose other pathways to the various positive effects they gain from their faith in a God of their choosing?

I don't...where did I say I wanted anyone to do that? I'm asking, why, if God is not really real, have we collectively not found other pathways...? Of course the answer might be that there are no other viable pathways to get those positive effects.

 

[LuisDantas]

Endearment wasn't the response I was after so no problem there! And if the answer is clear, maybe you could clearly expound it?

The short of it is that you are not the owner of god-concepts, and you are certainly not entitled to deciding that people ought to believe and accept in specific conceptions that you find confortable.

 

[siti]

What would be the driving force behind it?

Behind cultural evolution? The same force that made our cultures abandon the wearing of bustle dresses, whalebone corsets, top hats and shirts with enormous frills at the front...they were excessive, expensive and brought very little genuine benefit that couldn't be got by simpler and less costly styles.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then perhaps you could balance the scales by providing an unpretentious explanation as to why God is alive and well in your parish!

Parish? I'm a Jew.

 

[siti]

The short of it is that you are not the owner of god-concepts

Of course I am! And so are you. And so is everyone else who has one. Am I really expected to delineate so precisely that I either include every possible god-concept or somehow clinically demarcate a precise division between the ones I'm referring to and the ones I'm not. Its a discussion for goodness sake, not a comprehensive treatise on god-concepts.

and you are certainly not entitled to deciding that people ought to believe and accept in specific conceptions that you find confortable.

Where on earth did you get the idea I wanted to do that? I have no intention of telling anyone what I think they ought to believe. I can barely express what I think I believe myself! But I hope I can start a discussion about a topic without the topic descending into an argument about whether I should have started it or not. The mods can decide that.

[Hint: if I don't like they way a question for debate is set up, I don't answer it - if I think the question is wrong, I'll start a new thread with what I think is a better question...if I think the premises are wrong, I will by all means challenge the premises, but if I think a question is not a valid one, then I just don't answer it]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The short of it is that you are not the owner of god-concepts, ...

Of course I am! And so are you. And so is everyone else who has one.

^ It's almost as if Humpty Dumpty and Kellyanne Conway spawned an offspring, and ...

 

[Rival]

^ It's almost as if Humpty Dumpty and Kellyanne Conway spawned an offspring, and ...

Didn't know how to do perspective?

 

[siti]

Parish? I'm a Jew.

Oh dear! You said "pretentious" I said "unpretentious", you said "parochial" is said "your parish"...it was a linguistic play on words...parochial relates to parish...parish can also mean (in a general, informal sense), where you live, but I meant it figuratively to mean where you are on the "God" thing...it doesn't really work so well when you have to explain it!

You indicated that my OP was "pretentious" and "parochial" because I mentioned Nietzsche's declaration of God's death, which, you stated referred to the God of Christianity (who clearly also is not dead - at least yet)...but are you seriously suggesting that Nietzsche did not mean to include the God of Judaism? If that's right, I wish he'd been a bit clearer about it, that could have saved us a hell of a lot of trouble!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

but are you seriously suggesting that Nietzsche did not mean to include the God of Judaism?

No, I'm suggesting that the OP is pretentious and parochial.

 

[blü 2]

Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away

That verse by Hughes Mearns reminds me of "God"...

At least from the time of Darwin and then Nietzsche, we have known that "God" is either redundant or dead, in the sense that there is no longer any need, as Laplace put it, "for that hypothesis" to explain either the origins of humankind (per Darwin) or the answers to the great philosophical questions that humankind perplexes itself with (per Nietzsche)...

And yet a century and a half on, there the "God" who isn't there still is!

There are various ideas about how "God" came to be in the first place...ranging from "he" was invented to keep the hoi polloi subservient, or to enable a priestly class to fleece the flock to "he" was invented as a means of enforcing morality as the sizes of human groups grew or to enable to answer insoluble mysteries by a appealing to magical supernaturalism ...etc. etc.

As Nietzsche foresaw, that "God" is dead...killed off by our own insatiable quest for ever more plausible answers to the questions that once only "God" held the answers to.

And yet, there the "God" who isn't there still is!

Why is that? Why have almost all human cultures foisted the burden of "God" upon themselves? And why do we still, 140 years after the announcement of "God's" death, do we still find it so difficult to divest ourselves of such a costly investment?

Is "God" encoded somehow in our cultural "DNA"? Did (does?) "God" really provide such a survival or group cohesion advantage that it has become inseparable from our collective cultural psyche, such that even those who doubt or even disbelieve, still have a sneaking suspicion that there's "something" there...something "bigger" than "mere" Nature?

Why is it so difficult to make "God" go away?

Humans have a demonstrated hard-wired practice of instantly fitting a tentative narrative around events and perceptions that do not have a context or explanation known to the subject. What was that noise in the night? Why is Jones late? The traffic is oddly quiet for this time of day ... Further information may explain the problem away, or cause that narrative to be replaced by another.

What, then, are we to make of lightning and thunder? Of a meteor, comet, eclipse, aurora? Of drought, plague, sepsis? Of good luck and bad luck in hunting, in war, in love?

Gods and goddesses, pixies, trolls, goblins and fairies, magicians, enchanters, wishing wells, fill those gaps in our understanding. Gods also give you something to do when you're subject to pressure from any of the problems or questions above ─ prayer, sacrifice, rituals, can be called in aid, often with a professional class on the engine.

And all cultures have stories which routinely have a creation tale of some or other degree of sophistication, meaning humans like to have an accepted explanation about such things. They also have tales of heroes and of people symbolic of their tribal culture &c, and just-so stories about why there are stars, that river, that oddly-shaped mountain, and so on.

Just talking about it makes me admire science the more.

 

[Quintessence]

First of all, how do you know which type of "god" I was describing in the OP if I failed (as you claimed) to "characterize what they are and what they do"?

I mean, you yourself mentioned you weren't (understandably) being encyclopedic and all-encompassing on various concepts of gods. The way you wrote about the gods in the OP doesn't well-characterize what the gods are and what they do in my own religious tradition. Which I know because I know the theology of my own religion, seeing as how I get to decide what that is and all. This is a bit of an odd question, isn't it?

You really seem to be objecting on the grounds that the God I did describe is not the one you would have liked me to describe...?

Yes and no. Everyone gets to decide what the gods are and aren't for them. If you find it mystifying why the myriad of god-concepts throughout human cultures aren't dead, one honestly need look no further than the spectacular diversity of theological perspectives and the different roles and character the gods have. Because I'm aware of this - and perhaps because the gods I worship are non-supernatural - I guess I find the question the opening post poses strange.

And how is the assumption that "naturalistic" explanations negate "other perspectives" - which phrase in this context can only mean "non-naturalistic explanations" - in any way "odd"?

Because it is to me. I have never been keen on false dichotomies and either-or thinking. I do not see any compelling reason to go with "this or that" as if one can only do "this or the that", and that the "this" somehow negates the value of the "that." It's nonsense to me. When, throughout my life, I have utilized different ways of knowing without issue, not trapped myself in either/or, black-or-white thinking, I find it very odd to be told by outsiders that I'm somehow not doing what I'm doing? Because... I'm clearly doing it?

I did not claim that the existence of naturalistic explanations disproves the existence of God (or any god of any description) - what I claimed was that with a naturalistic explanation for (e.g. the origins of humankind, and lots of other things that were previously unexplainable mysteries) we no longer need to appeal supernatural agency.

I know. I don't agree. It does not need to be an either/or with these ways of knowing. And for me, it is not. I'm not good at either/or thinking. Never have been. I'm very much a both/and type of person. So there's part of your answer as to why notions persist. Things need not be either/or.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God is unknowable, then belief in God is unjustifiable.

Unjustifiable for you.

"There is no empirical evidence for God" implies "in every way we can observe or measure, all evidence is consistent with the conclusion that God does not exist."

There is no empirical evidence for God because God is unobservable and unmeasurable, but that is not evidence is consistent with the conclusion that God does not exist, since there is no reason to think that God would be observable or measurable.

 

[Trailblazer]

Mystery doesn't motivate action. People don't pray to "I don't know." They don't go to their church/temple/mosque/whatever for "I don't know." They don't tithe to "I don't know." Religious theists generally "eff" their gods pretty well until they're asked for reasons for why they believe what they believe.

We do know 'some things' about God, so we are not praying to "I don't know."
The rest is a mystery and I for one like it that way.