Why we are born to believe in God

[Lutiferre]

I guess I just don't see the fallacy in my thinking.

I don't think it's jumping to a false conclusion to say that the signs point to the supernatural being a coping mechanism.

That's not my point. The point is that any belief has complex social, empirical, personal, teleological, rational, emotional, spiritual, and existential components and factors influencing the genesis of the belief, and that all of these factors can be valid to it's truth value, according to the epistemology one subscribes to.

But whether it has a genetic, psychological or evolutionary explanation is irrelevant to the fact that the belief along with it's components and critical factors actually exists and is capable of evaluation between truth and falsity, a matter that completely disregards the genetic origin of the belief, since any belief can be explained genetically or psychologically if so desired, since no belief is exempt from human psychology and genetics - even the belief that any belief can be explained genetically or psychologically.

[Jägerstaffel]

Doesn't prove that I'm wrong either, though.

I'll admit that it's likely a bit more complex than JUST being a coping mechanism though.

[Amapola]

I suppose that the atheistic neurociencists, not admitting the existance of God nor man as a being endowed with a spiritual soul, are compelled to a particular interpretation of the facts that trascends matter: they have to explain the religious experiences and the mystic state as mere brain activity. Likewise, neurobiology created God. I wonder why admitting just matter as the only reality being the possite regarded as non-scientific while numerous facts related to evolution and brain activity (..) still need to be experimentally proven.

[Cato]

I am God and only I, of course, know what I mean. Others will see that as a statement blasphemy or of megalomania, but I know that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Jägerzen
I believe it makes it easier to cope with the harsh reality of death, for instance. It may not be something that added to human survival in antiquity, but it may have perhaps made life more bearable and less bewildering.

Belief in “supernatural” entities does not necessitate belief in an afterlife, they are two different phenomenon.

Besides evidence suggest that recognition of mortality and suffering are not exclusively human traits, as far as I know there no animal based religions, which brings us back to the point why would human consciousness develop to the point where recognition of mortality went beyond the day to day reality of it to one where humans actively developed “afterlife” scenarios?

As I wrote above, evolution doesn’t waste energy, there is no logical reason for that level of awareness to develop in the human mind for purposes of mere survival and procreation.

The same way our brains sometimes trick us into believing that there is something lurking in the darkness when we are out at night. It's not the most rational thought, but it's a left-over from a time when it was relevant in our lives to keep an eye out for big hulking animals that might dine on us. This fear did surely increase the survival rate for our ancestors, but why do we still fear it? Some things linger.

There is a difference between basic emotions conditioned by pain and pleasure, which again isn’t exclusive to humans, and higher forms of emotion that are, seemingly, linked to human reason.

At no point did I mention social organisation.

No, but the article does, that’s what we’re discussing……

It affected the individual and allowed the individual to cope. It did not encourage the individual to form a working society. I imagine this hard-wired evolutionary trait developed before we had large social structures in our lives.

Well that’s exactly the point, the level of sophistication in human society and the range of activities that society engages in, many if not most beyond mere survival and many with no bearing on survival at all, doesn’t seem explainable by evolutionary theory.

And yes, superstition and spiritualism are two very different things but they are two different answers to the same questions that plague certain folks.

Personally I disagree on that.

[Cato]

I am God and only I, of course, know what I mean. Others will see that as a statement blasphemy or of megalomania, but I know that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

[B"]If a person could be persuaded on this principle as he ought, that we are all first children of Zeus, and that Zeus is the Father of Gods and Men, I think that he would never conceive a single abject or ignoble thought about himself.

Now if the emperor were to adopt you, there would be no bearing your haughty looks: so will you not be elated on knowing yourself to be the Son of Zeus?"[/B]

Epictetus, What Should We Conclude From The Principle That God Is The Father of Mankind?

It is abject and ignoble to conceive of thoughts that deny the existence of God. It is also abject and ignoble to have a mistaken, incorrect view of God- such as the belief in the incarnation in Christianity or the belief in avatara in Hinduism (God is One, at rest and motionless, so to speak, and is not a being of flesh-and-blood).

What the Christians apply to a single man, or the Hindus to their various deities like Krishna, I apply to the entire human race- but knowing that you are God in the sense that you are God's offspring (for is the child not an image of its parent?) is what, to me, is one of the most important lessons of the old Greek phrase to know thyself. Everything else is utterly base and false and worthy only to be hated and scorned with the utmost opprobrium.

This secret teaching is not so secret, but is hated by people who want to place a dividing line between God and the human race. To Christians, it is only their Jesus who is the unique offspring of God, the logos incarnate. I say that the entire, aware human race is the word made flesh. To the Muslims, it is "submit." God doesn't want us to submit, but to arise and, so to speak, become like the demigods of the myths- and surpass them.

I possess no hateful beliefs of God. Contrarily, I have high hopes for the human race because my optimism for the one goes hand-in-hand with my belief in the other.

[Lutiferre]

This secret teaching is not so secret, but is hated by people who want to place a dividing line between God and the human race.

We Christians don't want to divide God and humanity. We want humanity to accept it's destiny in transcendence, unity with God; but we recognise that there is a dividing line, per nature and essence, between the merely profane and animal, and the transcendent. However, this dividing line is not an evil; it is the object of humanity to be the mediator between the two worlds that the line does divide. We are the intersection of the corporeal and spiritual.

To Christians, it is only their Jesus who is the unique offspring of God, the logos incarnate.

Jesus is not just the "unique offspring of God". And we do believe we, humans, are unique offspring of God.

I say that the entire, aware human race is the word made flesh.

Well, then you demonstrate your tremendous ignorance of what Christians mean with the Word. You could've said just as well, the Spirit made flesh, or the Father made flesh. But you didn't.

[Cato]

Well, then you demonstrate your tremendous ignorance of what Christians mean with the Word. You could've said just as well, the Spirit made flesh, or the Father made flesh. But you didn't.

Didn't Foxy ask you not to be so patronizing in another thread? You're not doing your religion any good with your arrogant disputations and "corrections" of the "unsaved."

[Lutiferre]

Didn't Foxy ask you not to be so patronizing in another thread? You're not doing your religion any good with your arrogant disputations and "corrections" of the "unsaved."

I don't make an assumption that you are "unsaved", since I, unlike you claim, am not God

[Cato]

I don't make an assumption that you are "unsaved", since I, unlike you claim, am not God

You fail to grasp the meaning of my statement, apparently even with the emendation of the second post with the comment by Epictetus. I commune with the God within, something that you cannot, it seems, grasp or comprehend.

Your lengthy, often sarcastic and patronizing, corrections of others, "correcting" them with Christian dogma, are only annoying other posters. This is called trolling, intentional or not. People come here to have networking exchanges: political, intellectual, philosophical, just for fun, etc. They are not to be brow-beaten and annoyed by posters with an agenda, as you seem to have since you seem to be only attracted to forums where God, Jesus and Christianity will be discussed.

Please bear this mind and respect the wishes of other posters who don't wanted to be treated like ignoramuses or simpletons. I don't like it. It's rude and, if it's done frequently, it pisses me off- quite a bit.