From: Charles D Hixson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The evidence in favor of an external god of any traditional form is,
frankly, a bit worse than unimpressive. It's lots worse. This doesn't
mean that gods don't exist, merely that they (probably) don't exist in
the hardware of the universe. I see them as a function of the software
of the entities that use language. Possibly they exist in a muted form
in most pack animals, or most animals that have protective adults when
they are infants.
To me it appears that people believe in gods for the same reasons that
they believe in telepathy. I.e., evidence back before they could speak
clearly indicated that the adults could transfer thoughts from one to
another. This shaped a basic layer of beliefs that was later buried
under later additions, but never refuted. When one learned language, one
learned how to transfer thoughts ... but it was never tied back into the
original belief, because what was learned didn't match closely enough to
the original model of what was happening. Analogously, when one is an
infant the adult that cares for one is seen as the all powerful
protector. Pieces of this image become detached memories within the
mind, and are not refuted when a more accurate and developed model of
the actual parents is created. These hidden memories are the basis
around which the idea of a god is created.
Naturally, this is just my model of what is happening. Other
possibilities exist. But if I am to consider them seriously, they need
to match the way the world operates as I understand it. They don't need
to predict the same mechanism, but they need to predict the same events.
E.g., I consider Big Bang cosmology a failed explanation. It's got too
many ad hoc pieces. But it successfully explains most things that are
observed, and is consistent with relativity and quantum theory.
(Naturally, as they were used in developing it...but nevertheless
important.) And relativity and quantum theory themselves are failures,
because both are needed to explain that which is observable, but they
contradict each other in certain details. But they are successful
failures! Similar commentary applies to string theory, but with
differences. (Too many ad hoc parameters!)
Any god that is proposed must be shown to be consistent with the
observed phenomena. The Deists managed to come up with one that would do
the job, but he never became very popular. Few others have even tried,
except with absurdly evident special pleading. Generally I'd be more
willing to accept "Chariots of the Gods" as a true account.
And as for moral principles... I've READ the Bible. The basic moral
principle that it pushes is "We are the chosen people. Kill the
stranger, steal his property, and enslave his servants!" It requires
selective reading to come up with anything else, though I admit that
other messages are also in there, if you read selectively. Especially
during the periods when the Jews were in one captivity or another.
(I.e., if you are weak, preach mercy, but if you are strong show none.)
During the later times the Jews were generally under the thumb of one
foreign power or another, so they started preaching mercy.
