On Saturday, February 2, 2013 1:29:50 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013  Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net <javascript:>>wrote:
>  > There are no reasons to believe in God
> That is incorrect, it's not random, there is a reason you believe in God. 
> Humans are genetically programed by Evolution so that when they are very 
> young they tend to believe whatever adults tell them, and usually this 
> belief persists into adulthood and they tell their children the same thing 
> who also believe it. You believe in God because mommy and daddy told you 
> something and you swallowed every word of it, they told you, to quote 
> George Carlin: 
> "there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, 
> every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten 
> things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, 
> he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and 
> anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and 
> scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
> But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! 
> He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just 
> can't handle money!"
>  > any more than there were reasons, as an infant, to trust your mother.
> Infants usually trust their mother and the reason they do so is induction, 
> however if the mother is psychotic then young children do not trust their 
> mother and reason is the same, induction, that is to say the useful rule of 
> thumb that things usually continue.   

While I agree with your view, and Carlin's view on the toxic absurdity of 
organized religion, I don't see the connection between a child's tendency 
to accept the beliefs of their parents with the assumption of evolutionary 
origin of the God concept itself. I think Roger has a point in the sense 
that there are no obvious practical reasons why the idea of belief in God 
should appear in the first place. It seems like whatever practical function 
such an idea could serve would be served just as well with something 
impersonal, like 'fate' or 'power' (juju, mana).

This doesn't lend credibility to the idea per se, but it does point toward 
something other than evolution to explain it. As I have said, I suggest 
that the God concept is a projection of consciousness itself - of private 
physics onto the outside word. God is the image or universalized reflection 
of the ultimate Self. This is why the God idea appears in many cultures all 
over the world, and doesn't trace back to a single vector. That's why it is 
so easy to spread from culture to culture; because we instinctively and 
intuitively identify with the image, and images like that (archetypes, 
personified super-signifiers).


>   John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to