Why won't God go away?

[Twilight Hue]

And there’s nothing you can do to prove it, so on what basis are you calling your perception a fact?

I don't need to prove it. The proof is already here and well established making it plenty I can do to show it in addition to the specific location of the brain called the periaqueductal gray.

That clear hard proof additionally is the complete inability for anybody anywhere in recorded history to effectively show where God is, outside from within their minds and imaginations.

They can't and they won't because God just doesn't exist in the real world , and there's nothing that can be done about it by anybody other than accepting the hard reality of the matter.

That is how it is proved, and already that proof is well established just like the sun, wind, air, and rain has.

Of which the notion of God and all its alleged glory, power, and omnipresence can't even come anywhere close to the truth that a simple breeze brings.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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?

Religion and science, both evolved from myths. Maybe it's useful to ask why myths even evolved? I've searched for some answers.

"Myths are a part of every culture in the world and are used to explain natural phenomena, where a people came from and how their civilization developed, and why things happen as they do. At their most basic level, myths comfort by giving a sense of order and meaning to what can sometimes seem a chaotic world." (World History Encyclopedia)

"Myths are as relevant to us today as they were to the ancients. Myths answer timeless questions and serve as a compass to each generation. The myths of lost paradise, for example, give people hope that by living a virtuous life, they can earn a better life in the hereafter. The myths of a golden age give people hope that there are great leaders who will improve their lives. The hero's quest is a model for young men and women to follow, as they accept adult responsibilities. Some myths simply reassure, such as myths that explain natural phenomena as the actions of gods, rather than arbitrary events of nature." (In Search of Myths &amp Heroes . What is a Myth? | PBS)

"Joseph Campbell, a leading scholar in the fields of mythology and comparative religion, explains that myth has four basic functions: metaphysical/mystical, cosmological, sociological, and pedagogical." (https://www.appohigh.org/ourpages/auto/2013/8/29/58342709/Four Functions of Myth.docx)

"It was how they understood the great mysteries of the universe and our place in it—How did the earth come to be? How was mankind created? What is my purpose? Can I know god? Is there a life after death?

Today, we are still asking the same questions, and for many people, the answers are in their religious beliefs, many of which have their roots in the myths." (Chapter One – What is Mythology? – World Mythology)

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't need to prove it. The proof is already here and well established making it plenty I can do to show it in addition to the specific location of the brain called the periaqueductal gray.

That clear hard proof additionally is the complete inability for anybody anywhere in recorded history to effectively show where God is, outside from within their minds and imaginations.

They can't and they won't because God just doesn't exist in the real world , and there's nothing that can be done about it by anybody other than accepting the hard reality of the matter.

That is how it is proved, and already that proof is well established just like the sun, wind, air, and rain has.

Of which the notion of God and all its alleged glory, power, and omnipresence can't even come anywhere close to the truth that a simple breeze brings.

So you're saying that material phenomena account for the totality of existence, and that it must be so because that's how it seems to you? Fair enough if that's your philosophical position, but you've offered no 'clear hard proof' of anything.

What truths, by the way, do you discern from a simple breeze? Genuinely interested to hear.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Right, and this motivates many to use fantasy and illusion to cope. Stronger, more resilient, personalities can function better without the common frameworks that soothe anxiety. Atheists have a great deal more freedom in life and don't have to manage superstition and non-rational religious belief.

I suffered being forced to go to church as a kid, and having to listen to untrue claims about Jesus and God. Church and religious belief is unnecessary for rational minds who understand what these concepts are in reality.

You are referring to copng strategies. Well not every single minute of life is unbearable. In fact with modernity and science we humans can build environments and lives that are quite comfortable. Believers make it sound as if they are in a constant state of misery, and the only thing that keeps them going is belief in whatever religious framework they learned as a child.

Unless you get terribly ill or face some trauma, or have a child that is ill, the need for coping via illusory belief isn't needed. Many religious people learn emotional dependency and helplessness, and this habit of belief sets in and, ironically, creates some of the suffering they thing religion offsets. Look at extremists like creationists, they have been taught false ideas about nature, and they know they hold views that are contrary to fact, science, and reality. THAT causes cognitive dissonance, and THAT is unnecessary suffering. They are trapped, and they are willing co-conspirators with a toxic society of belief. More religion can't save them from this toxic dogma, only reason and facing reality can.

So you consider yourself a stronger, more resilient, high functioning personality, who therefore has no need of God, religion, or spirituality? Well, good luck with that, but it's not an approach to life that works for me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So you're saying that material phenomena account for the totality of existence, and that it must be so because that's how it seems to you? Fair enough if that's your philosophical position, but you've offered no 'clear hard proof' of anything.

What truths, by the way, do you discern from a simple breeze? Genuinely interested to hear.

Yes and if it wasn't for material phenomena also known as animated matter you wouldn't even be here to argue any kind of a point made or against God.

What I mean by the latter part is people know firsthand what the sun is, the wind is, the rain and whatever else naturally occurs so much so that argument is not even on the table as to whether those things exist or not.

God even though continually touted as being omnipresent, all powerful, almighty, or whatever it is that a person can think of, still doesn't even come remotely close to matching the kind of self establishing truths that the sun, wind , rain, and other natural phenomena brings to the table so the argument of its existence is a givin right at the start.

The fact that people even have to argue about a god existing is a solid testament to the extreme futility of proving that it is even there at all.

You don't have that issue with natural phenomena.

People do have it however in trying to prove what has essentially been proven to be a non-existent God in the waking realm apart from one's fantasy and Imagination.

 

[Starise]

Hi @Twilight Hue

And I agree for as long as it's in the proper context , that God is only present and alive in your mind , and it's entirely personal and none of it is applicable to anybody else but you alone.

Yes me and millions of others who make the same exact 'claim' although for me it isn't a claim.

Hello @9-10ths_Penguin .

My mental model of the universe includes no gods and agrees with experience very well.

It sounds like your mental model of the universe includes a god as a central feature. I'll assume you also think that your model agrees with experience very well.

This suggests that the difference between our mental models - i.e. the god you believe in - is irrelevant to what we experience. It doesn't improve the quality or predictive power of your mental model.

I suppose anyone can construct a mental model for themselves. If my model is irrelevant nothing matters. If what you are calling a mental model for me isn't real then you have a point. You paint this as almost imaginary. I sincerely know it's real. I predict you will make a demand of evidence, yet one doesn't try it never has personal evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suppose anyone can construct a mental model for themselves. If my model is irrelevant nothing matters.

Not the whole mental model; just the God part.

If what you are calling a mental model for me isn't real then you have a point.

I'm not sure if you know what I mean by the term "mental model."

Everyone has an idea of how the world works, informed by their preconceptions and tested by experience. This is a person's mental model.

Hopefully a person's mental model is based on a sound understanding; maybe it isn't. Either way, a person's predictions about the world will be tested by their experience, then tweaked to make it better based on that experience.

You paint this as almost imaginary.

Yes, I think your God is imaginary.

I sincerely know it's real.

How do you know?

I predict you will make a demand of evidence, yet one doesn't try it never has personal evidence.

That's kind of my point: if your God has no evidence for it, this would mean that your God has no implications for the real world... i.e. your God is irrelevant. However, at the same time, this also means that the "God" part of your mental model is never being tested: you don't ever have situations where you would think "because God exists, I would expect X to happen, but Y happened instead."

Does that make sense?

 

[siti]

Because none of those images and stories and beliefs and behaviors associated with God, are God. So negating them is not negating God.

Ah! So the "God" that "died" (if anything like that did happen) was not God...just some conception(s) of God based on images, stories and beliefs etc.

The only way you will ever understand it is as an act of faith. Faith, rightly applied, works. And that is why people engage in it. It's that simple.

And the reason "God" doesn't go away is faith...and...

Because God is "really real". But to understand this, you have to understand that reality is more than molecules and magnets (so to speak). Reality is our experience of being. It's physical, but it's also metaphysical.

...the fact that God is, in fact, really real...just not physical (and obviously, therefore, not amenable to scientific investigation).

So by reckoning you have given three reasons (why God doesn't go away), any or all of which could be true (for all I know at least).

 

[siti]

Today, we are still asking the same questions, and for many people, the answers are in their religious beliefs, many of which have their roots in the myths.

So "God" hasn't died yet? I mean the idea of God persists as a mythological answer to the "big questions" and because a lot of people still rely on those answers...God remains "useful"?

 

[Koldo]

So you consider yourself a stronger, more resilient, high functioning personality, who therefore has no need of God, religion, or spirituality? Well, good luck with that, but it's not an approach to life that works for me.

This is a failure of our societies that we should work towards fixing rather than merely accepting it. We ought to work towards creating an environment where belief in unproven supernatural entities is unnecessary for proper social functioning as far as every single individual is concerned.

 

[PureX]

Ah! So the "God" that "died" (if anything like that did happen) was not God...just some conception(s) of God based on images, stories and beliefs etc.

The idea of a tree is not a tree. Your idea of me is not me. Our ideas of God are not God. Ideas are real, but they are also representational. They are cognitive representations of our experience of being here and of being human. And because we are all uniquely here, and we experience being here and being human uniquely, our ideas about it will inevitably vary. They are similar, because here is here, and human is human, but they are also unique. Because we are unique expressions of being.

If you are finding this difficult to understand, then it’s because you are trying not to. Because what I am saying is self-evident.

And the reason "God" doesn't go away is faith...and...

God doesn’t go away because human ignorance (unknowing), and the fear that unknowing generates in us, never goes away. God is the great mystery that inhabits our unknowing. And that unknowing is why we need to have faith, to live.

...the fact that God is, in fact, really real...just not physical (and obviously, therefore, not amenable to scientific investigation).

That is true. The reality of God is our unknowing, i.e., the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Including ourselves and all that we experience in life. The many names and images and stories we attach to that mystery are just representations, generally referred to as God/gods.

So by reckoning you have given three reasons (why God doesn't go away), any or all of which could be true (for all I know at least).

For all any of us knows, because we don’t know. That’s why God doesn’t “go away”. And it’s why so many people choose faith; whatever that looks like to them.

 

[siti]

The idea of a tree is not a tree. Your idea of me is not me. Our ideas of God are not God.

If you are finding this difficult to understand, then it’s because you are trying not to.

Not at all...thinking that a representation is the thing itself is called reification, I understand...

...and, "the Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao"...

Or as Alfred Korzybski put it "the map is not the territory"...

But as someone else (Bateson maybe) suggested, all we really have is maps...or rather maps of maps...IOW ideas about the world, not the actual world itself.

And what IS God if not an idea? A map (perhaps) to help us make sense/find our direction in an otherwise impossibly confusing world? And do we really still need THAT map?

 

[PureX]

Not at all...thinking that a representation is the thing itself is called reification, I understand...

...and, "the Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao"...

Or as Alfred Korzybski put it "the map is not the territory"...

But as someone else (Bateson maybe) suggested, all we really have is maps...or rather maps of maps...IOW ideas about the world, not the actual world itself.

What we also have, even more so, is the great mystery of being, that we are creating all those representations to try and understand. That's as real as real gets.

And what IS God if not an idea?

An idea representing the great mystery, itself. And how we respond to this idea defines who we are in life, and who we are becoming. That's why the God idea is different, and special. It enables us to create or to re-create ourselves. When people say that "faith works", that's how.

A map (perhaps) to help us make sense/find our direction in an otherwise impossibly confusing world? And do we really still need THAT map?

We have no choice. The unknowing remains. And our brains are wired to create imaginary representations of it that we then can think we understand.

 

[siti]

What we also have, even more so, is the great mystery of being, that we are creating all those representations to try and understand. That's as real as real gets.

So it is not any particular version of God, but the thing that God (in any and all of its multifarious guises) represents (i.e. the mystery of being, or rather the as yet unknown answer to that mystery) that is real.

...our brains are wired to create imaginary representations of it that we then can think we understand.

Our brains are "wired" by evolution, so did it have to be this way? Did we have to evolve in such a way that we were compelled to "invent God"? Is evolution directional? Is the "great mystery of being" something like Teilhard de Chardin's "Omega Point", drawing its "creation" towards ultimate unification (or reunification perhaps) with itself? Or are we destined ultimately to achieve such a close approximation to the ultimate reality that our own representations/ideas (which really means our own "selves" if you think about it) actually become "God" (as it were)? Or maybe "God" is always going to remain asymptotically beyond our reach...we get closer and closer but never quite attain it? (I suspect we might be very, very far away from that yet though).

Sorry if that's too many questions...I don't have the answers (although my OP might have given the impression to some that I thought I did)...I don't necessarily want "answers" per se in any case...it is enough (for now at least) to be able to formulate the questions and dig in to some continuing investigation of it (the great mystery) with the help of other people's ideas. Don't you think?

 

[PearlSeeker]

So "God" hasn't died yet? I mean the idea of God persists as a mythological answer to the "big questions" and because a lot of people still rely on those answers...God remains "useful"?

Big questions remain. Yes, and also God as the answer.

 

[Colt]

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?

Because in him we live, move and have our being. But life is infinitely short! It will all be over soon!

 

[PureX]

So it is not any particular version of God, but the thing that God (in any and all of its multifarious guises) represents (i.e. the mystery of being, or rather the as yet unknown answer to that mystery) that is real.

Our brains are "wired" by evolution, so did it have to be this way? Did we have to evolve in such a way that we were compelled to "invent God"? Is evolution directional? Is the "great mystery of being" something like Teilhard de Chardin's "Omega Point", drawing its "creation" towards ultimate unification (or reunification perhaps) with itself? Or are we destined ultimately to achieve such a close approximation to the ultimate reality that our own representations/ideas (which really means our own "selves" if you think about it) actually become "God" (as it were)? Or maybe "God" is always going to remain asymptotically beyond our reach...we get closer and closer but never quite attain it? (I suspect we might be very, very far away from that yet though).

Sorry if that's too many questions...I don't have the answers (although my OP might have given the impression to some that I thought I did)...I don't necessarily want "answers" per se in any case...it is enough (for now at least) to be able to formulate the questions and dig in to some continuing investigation of it (the great mystery) with the help of other people's ideas. Don't you think?

Not having those answers is what frees us up to imagine what they could be. And then through faith, we can choose to live according to the answers that we hope will prove to be so. And in doing so, we tend to make it so. At least to a degree. This is what people mean when they say that “faith works’.

 

[InChrist]

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?

I’d say because God can’t “go away”. God is eternal Spirit, Creator, ever-present everywhere holding all things together.

 

[siti]

Not having those answers is what frees us up to imagine what they could be. And then through faith, we can choose to live according to the answers that we hope will prove to be so. And in doing so, we tend to make it so. At least to a degree. This is what people mean when they say that “faith works’.

OK - I get that...but you said our brains are wired for that...so my question is, was evolution somehow destined to achieve that goal...because as far as we can tell, there is nothing in the naturalistic account of the "ascent" of humankind, that guarantees that either humans, or human brains wired for the ability to imagine "God", had to result. So the universe could, in principle have come and gone without ever having anything in it with the capacity to imagine the answer the "great mystery" of its existence. So is "God" really something we imagine to satisfy our own hardwired curiosity...or is it (are we) the universe examining its own mystery introspectively? How could we tell the difference?

 

[PureX]

OK - I get that...but you said our brains are wired for that...so my question is, was evolution somehow "designed" to achieve that goal...

You decide. I am inclined to think so. That fact that anything exists at all makes no sense to me without a purpose. Especially as everything that exists does so because it was made possible, somehow, while everything else was not.

because as far as we can tell, there is nothing in the naturalistic account of the "ascent" of humankind, that guarantees that either humans, or human brains wired for the ability to imagine "God", had to result.

It happened because it was possible, while omniscience (for example) did not happen because it was not possible. What set these possibilities against what is impossible? Because they determine the form of everything from the first instant of existence to this one.

So the universe could, in principle have come and gone without ever having anything in it with the capacity to imagine the answer the "great mystery" of its existence.

Apparently not.

So is "God" really something we imagine to satisfy our own hardwired curiosity...or is it the universe examining its own mystery introspectively? How could we tell the difference?

It’s both, of course. But that still doesn’t answer our questions.