by dh 55 Replies latest jw friends
jwfacts:Mathematics and Science require placeholders, in the absence of a solution to the puzzle they are working out. Civilization has been built upon the shoulders of all who preceded us. I posit that we wouldn't be where we are today without at least the "god-of-the-gaps".
D4G:
Thanks. I'm having a feisty day
Where would we be now if there was never a concept of God?
Interesting question.
First, a concept of God is merely a mentally created fake and forgery; an untruth. Certainly our actual Source and Sustenance (what the word G-O-D points to) must be the ultimate Reality.
Obviously I can not say for certain, but it seems intuitively obvious that if we spent less time and effort with lies, we would meet more frequently with truth.
In my opinion it's our limited and grossly diminished concepts of a god -- which results in us acting like shivering little dogs.
In other words: void of illusory concepts of God, we may have more opportunity to realize the immediate truth of God.
j
I posit that we wouldn't be where we are today without at least the "god-of-the-gaps".
I agree that placeholders are necessary, and in the absence of an answer the "god-of-the-gaps" has filled an important role. As shown in the theory of cognitive dissonance, we require reference points for our mind, and without alternate explanations God has been an important reference point. Subsequently he has also been endowed with far more involvement in life than logical. That some men have been brave enough to look beyond religious superstition has been important in the development of humanity.
James:
On a scale of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, how far do you think we would have got with that attitude in the stone ages?
jwfacts:I couldn't agree more.
This is one reason that I don't promote ripping exJWs entire beliefset away from day-one. They may eventually settle into one frame of reference or another but it seems senselessly cruel, to me, to drain the water from the already rippling pond.
WHICH GOD????
The concept of a superior being telling us what is right and wrong is taught by the example of (to kids) all powerful parents keeping them alive.
it is just a part of human evolution. As the other poster said we are where we are.
as for those arguing from a particular denominational viewpoint - WHICH GOD?
I am sick of being asked "do you believe in God?" When what they really mean is CAN I BE FRIENDS WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU BELIVE IN ATHENA/MINERVA/TOOTH FAIRY/WOTAN/JEHOVAH/BAAL/ALLAH/SEX?
primitive concepts of God are products of evolving psychology. As people get cleverer, the the priests get craftier.
HB
it seems intuitively obvious that if we spent less time and effort with lies, we would meet more frequently with truth.
That's an interesting question in itself.
The other day I heard French science philosopher Michel Serres making a fascinating comment about the saying errare humanum est. What he said, in effect, is that error is not to be regarded as an exceptional "accident" or "failure" in the cognitive process, but its very essence or method. We are, actually, walking from one error to another. The uncomfort of the present error keeps us moving on to the next error. Truth, if actually attained, would be the end of man.
Of course this is almost certainly wrong.
how far do you think we would have got with that attitude in the stone ages?
I don't imagine the validity of truth over lies was any less significant and beneficial then than now.
j
We are, actually, walking from one error to another. The uncomfort of the present error keeps us moving on to the next error. Truth, if actually attained, would be the end of man.
Certainly we walk from one mistaken concept into another, as all concepts are innately untrue. But reality, truth, we never leave. We just don't see it because of our tenacious addition to concepts.
So, yes, in a way Truth is the end of man, or perhaps better said: the end of all man believes or conceptualizes itself to be. It's not a problem. Take away what is untrue, and truth remains.
j
Before you dismiss that thought, consider this: we are where we are because we have been where we have been. It couldn't have been any other way. The results would have been vastly different from what we see around us. Do you genuinely think we could have got to this level of complexity without the intermediary stages?
I agree completely with what you say here LT and that is why the crux of the question is on the 'where' (as a species). Of course there would have to be intermediary stages to get where we are now, though I also think if we would have just gone about things differently (i.e. the idea of God not even being thought of) we would be in a different place for a different set of intermediary reasons. Perhaps our advances would be less mechanical and more artistic, perhaps we would have sought space sooner, or later, or perhaps we never would have even got that far because without rocket technology we wouldn't have rockets and they came about due to a war and that war came about due in many respects to religion, so many of our advances come about from war and war is so often down to ideology and religion so often drives that, and so on, so I think the intermediary reasons are very important to where we are now, but since they are so heavily influenced, it is like imagining a 'could be' world that never existed.
I guess where I differ is that I just don't think we would be like shaking poodles if we didn't have the notion of God or a higher power, and I don't think it's a concept or feeling of God that made us venture beyond our caves anymore than I think God himself did, if there is one, I think that's just part of being human and given time we would always take that leap.
Maybe it would always be our nature to lean towards there being a supreme power, or maybe that idea was not a human creation but something someone from somewhere else gave us in an earlier stage of our development and that we in a less informed state took as true, maybe, maybe not, but it's possible, just like ill informed people takes on what JW's tell them as true when others say firmly it is not.
I dont think things would be dramatically different. You can not tell an athiest apart from a deist walking down the street. Both develop similar morals that stem from the inner conscience's ability to determine that we need to treat others with the same respect we desire to be treated. The laws of Buddhist countries (with a less formal concept of God) and athiest China do not depart dramatically from Christian countries or Muslim countries. The main difference seems to be fundamentalism leads to more laws that take away from what modern society sees as human rights.
People have a tendency to become passionate about their choices and if not fighting over whose god is best they would redirect their disagreements to which race is better or some other chosen passion.
