God is a Metaphor

by nvrgnbk 30 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  choosing life

  Thanks for posting, interseting article. It is really difficult to undestand things we have not experienced. When we talk of heaven and God, we must use our mind's ideas or the thoughts of others to imagine what these are like.

  To me, the best way to look for the divine is through what we have experienced, not what we imagine. I seem to be able to see the divine better by being in nature and watching closely and quietly. Words do not have this same effect on me, I have noticed.

  When I get into a social situation, I lose this feeling, as I am busy thinking what others are thinking about me or how I can please others to be acceptable to them.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  Humans created the concept of god. My question is : Why?

  Evolution is about survival. Those that had the strongest desire to survive had a better chance to stay alive and spread their genes. Thus, we are the progeny of the humans that came before us that had the strongest will to survive. We are not programmed to accept death. Therefore, we as a species crave for a system of beliefs that tells us that we will continue living after death.

  The concept of god, in my opinion, surfaced as a psychological reaction to our constant struggle for survival. As the human mind developed to a higher state of consciousness, we began to realize the implication of death. Our primal urge for survival led us to develop concepts of god that allowed us to believe that survival continues, even upon death. It wasn't in our nature to just sit back and accept the end of our existence. It would go against hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution.
• 

  funkyderek

  greendawn:

  Unlike Santa Claus God is very real.

  Not at all. Like Santa Claus, God is a myth. In fact, they're almost the same myth. Santa Claus is a big bearded man who lives at the North Pole and gives toys and sweets to well-behaved children. God is a big bearded man who lives in the sky and gives prosperity and immortality to well-behaved adults.

  Human beings have a spiritual dimension they have spiritual inclinations and objectives something that primarily distinguishes them from animals

  When you say "spiritual" what you seem to mean is something like curiosity, an interest in discovering the nature of the world that is common to most humans. You're right that we are the only animals who seem to exhibit it to such a degree, but that is because that trait has co-evolved with our large brains. It is only because of the size and complexity of our brains that we are capable of imagining things about the world. That doesn't mean what we imagine is always true.

  so religion will always be there as something much more than a myth, it is a human need.

  Some people certainly seem to need it, but that doesn't necessarily make it any more than a myth. People need music and art and stories of heroes and villains (needs often satisfied by the corresponding aspects of religion) but that doesn't make music anything more than music, whatever that might mean.

  The other need religion purports to satisfy is our need to know about the world in which we live. It tells us how the world came to be and why - but it doesn't give us the real answers, it gives us answers that were made up by people who knew a lot less about the universe than we do. That is why even most religious people have abandoned religion's explanations of how we got here.
• 

  bikerchic

  Great article nvr!

  The other need religion purports to satisfy is our need to know about the world in which we live. It tells us how the world came to be and why - but it doesn't give us the real answers, it gives us answers that were made up by people who knew a lot less about the universe than we do. That is why even most religious people have abandoned religion's explanations of how we got here.

  Nailed it funkydude!
• 

  zensim

  Neverendingjourney:

  We are not programmed to accept death

  I don't believe any 'animal' is programmed to accept death - all animals have the primal urge for survival. Thus it is not this urge for survival which created concepts of god.

  Apes understand metaphors. They have a very good appreciation that an artists sketch of them is in actual fact a representation of their likeness. We don't seem to be in a position yet though to be able to tell whether conceptual understanding in itself leads to creating a concept of god.

  In my mind, human consciousness just doesn't like to 'not know'. Where there are gaps in our knowledge we seek to fill them - simply because we are fearful of a void.

  Funkyderek:

  It [religion] tells us how the world came to be and why - but it doesn't give us the real answers, it gives us answers that were made up by people who knew a lot less about the universe than we do.

  I agree with what you say - but for the sake of semantics here: The fact is that a lot of people had experiences that couldn't be explained (as to whether they made them up, well that would entail a whole other thread) and so they used metaphors to convey their experience. The issue is not just with those that conveyed their experience necessarily (eg Christ), but with all those who seized upon 'this' as the answer. Rather we can view the experience as just another experience or just another question to be explored. These experiences can be appreciated for their own simple sake, as you said - like a piece of music or art. If you deny the experience (which is unfortunately presented as an 'answer') then you are still just as caught up in the concept.

  Thus for me the answer lies in the experience itself - what is the essence of that experience. Whereas most people seize on whether (a) the experience is even true in the first place and (b) how can we break that down into a set of rules (answers) to live by.

  As to giving us "answers by people who knew a lot less about universe than we do" - well, they gave us their explanation of it subject to their experience. If they experienced 'spirit/god' as being in everything and everywhere - they were doing their best to describe their experience of what physics now explains as energy. (Mind you, science is just as conceptual also). However, we humans like to take a concept and then build concept upon concept upon it. There is life after death as such, giving that our 'energy' will be transmuted. But humans got so caught up in the concept of life after death and god that they completely skipped over the experience.

  We all need beliefs/concepts at the end of the day to function as humans. It is just how many we choose to load ourselves down with.
• 

  zensim

  Forgot to add: thanks nvr for posting a great article.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  I don't think you quite understand what I was saying. Every species does have a desire to survive. That's part of the evolutionary process. But no other species has reached the level of brain developement to be able to appreciate the consequences of death as we have. No other species is able to sit back and ponder the great mysteries of life such as how the universe originated and what happens to us after we die. If/When apes ever reach that level of brain development, I'm sure they'll develop their own set of mythology to answer those questions. The same goes for every other species alive today.
• 

  zensim

  I understand what you are saying. You just have a big presumption there that animals don't have the ability to appreciate what you consider only special to humans. What about if we are the ones limited in our ability to communicate with them - not the other way around? What if we are the ones that need to continue to evolve? What if they already appreciate the consequences of death and have come to terms with it - something most humans seem incapable of?
• 

  neverendingjourney

  You seem to imply that there's a possibility that other animals may actually be "higher" forms of life. That's an interesting concept. I acknowledge that these are subjective terms. However, if every other species is actually more advanced than our own, I would think they would rise up and prevent us from further depleting the planet of its resources. We, as a species are putting every other species, and the entire planet, in peril. If they were as evolved as I think you are implying they might be, they surely would not stand back and let us continue on our course.
  
  I simply think there is very little evidence to suggest that human beings are not the most intelligent species around. Your argument might work philosophically, but I don't think the scientific evidence supports that. If you disagree, that's fine. I'm not here to change anyone's mind or to convince people that I'm right.
• 

  zensim

  Good points : )

  I am neither here to agree or disagree, to be convinced or convince. I simply wish to explore.

  For me it is not whether we or animals are more evolved. You seem to miss my point that it has to be one or the other and that we need to prove it to be so (by science, religion or otherwise). We are all (animals included) subject to a life force that we barely grasp or understand (much as JamesThomas said). Life will naturally self-correct itself using whatever means necessary. How we are part of that equation, or animals (or anything else for that matter) remains to be seen. It is humans however who will need to create a concept to give credit to something for that self-correction.