Why God?

[Pharaoh Cat]

Finally, I think people believe in God so as to gain an imagined increase in power.  An atheist faces the world with nothing but the muscular, intellectual, and emotional strength inherent in the self and one's allies.  A believer imagines being able to transcend these limitations.  What our muscles cannot lift, pull, or push, God can.  What our intellects cannot answer, solve, or outsmart, God can.  What our emotions cannot bear, God can.  We need only believe and pray, and we will have omnipotence and omniscience augmenting our efforts, or even our lack of efforts.

This is precisely the area where faith and atheism contend most often and most robustly.  The believer prays, and nothing happens.  No outside force swoops in and alters the situation to the believer's advantage.  Everything stays the same or gets worse.  No factors emerge but those which already were present or latent in the situation all along.  The believer's power turns out to be what an atheist would always have assumed it was.  The believer can lift, pull and push with human efficacy; answer, solve, and outsmart within human cognitive limits; bear pressure with human courage.  The believer's power can transcend self, but only in this: a little help from one's friends.  As the believer comes to terms with this, the possibility of honesty arises, honesty with the self, and perhaps, if fear doesn't win, the illusion of invisible aid is shed, and another atheist walks the earth, self-reliant, tribe-reliant, world-defiant.

[Twentythree]

I think another reason people subscribe to the God concept would be the rationale it provides for trusting in progress.  If some intelligent force is in control of events, we have reason to hope for an inexorable rising and advancing.  Without God, life can and very well may descend or retreat. 

In the wild, if shedding complexity yields sufficient advantage in terms of needing fewer calories, or being less vulnerable to germ or poison, or being smaller and thus able to adventure in some niche or hide in some refuge previously too small for you, then reduced complexity may proliferate, and the species that might otherwise have continued to rise and advance all the way to technology might instead descend and retreat into a life not unlike that of a squirrel's. 

As with creatures in the wild, so too with human civilization.  In our cities and towns, catering or submitting to stupidity may enable economic or political safety or gain.  If so, stupidity will proliferate, not only naturally, but also by design, as those who benefit push society at bottom, middle, and top, in the direction of imbecility, and a civilization that might otherwise have built cities on Mars might instead sink down into the bread and circuses of an imploding empire.

If retrogression wins, retrogression proliferates.  But God wouldn't let that happen, right?

Not necessarily. History has been punctuated with sever backslides in intellect and technological progress. If you look at the reformation, or the Spanish inquisition or the dark ages all of these periods of time were marked by religious extremism. Even today in some of the most religious regions of the world, technological progress and civil liberties grind to a halt. On the other had the renaissance, counterreformation or the enlightenment period that followed the inquisition were all intellectual revolts against religiously dominated monarchies. So I think that god or at least extremist religious adherence has a hugely negative impact on society. That is why Christian fundamentalism is so frightening in the US today. These fundamentalists are against everything from gay marriage to birth control and those are things that anyone with an intellectual perspective will tell you are not only basic human rights but necessary for the further success of our civilization on this planet. I have a feeling that the united states is dangerously close to a regression if not a full blown collapse. In light of our economic problems and the rise of religious fundamentalism we may be in store for some rough times ahead.

I digress. I really think that as I stated before god is a primitive concept based on hegemony and reciprocal altruism. However religious tendencies seem to be evolved as sort of a hyper tribalism. In tribes the most important people are family. And the further removed from the nucleus of the family you are the less likely it will be that you will reap any of the familial benefits of evolved kin altruism. This ultimately leads to small disparate tribes.  As populations grew success of these tribes hinged on their ability to coalesce into a single unified tribe. There is no better way for this to happen then for natural selection to favor those who will unwittingly follow their leader, creating a type of family super cell or a deeper tribalism based on following the alpha, as soon as the alpha concept evolved to encompass the idea of the supernatural then the necessary reinforcement for both: belief in the false and unwavering devotion, were destined to follow. However, as Dawkins describes as part of his hawks and doves analogy, a population of all believers will suffer from sinister infiltration of even one non believer so in order to reach an ESS there has to be a sufficient number of faithers (made up term) and a sufficient number of non faithers in order to stabilize the population in an environment. If this pendulum swings too greatly in either direction the population suffers until it reaches a new equilibrium. All of the examples above are of times when the population of believers at least those with significant societal influence became the majority. Hence an eventual revolution of intellect to restore the balance of faith based tribalism and intellectual individualism within human populations restoring it to a state of equilibrium.

As a side note I have found that equilibrium is probably one of the most difficult concepts for people to understand about evolution. A majority of the people I talk to have the impression that evolution means "to make better". But that's not the case, evolution will never make the "best" lifeform but it will always make the most stable life form. And just as you stated in your post sometimes that means unevolving (if that is a real thing) eyes, as is the case with cave dwelling animals like salamanders or bats. Or unevolving movable digits as is the case with water dwelling mammals. Evolution does not look to make anything better it only looks to make things stable in regard to their environment.

[Twentythree]

Finally, I think people believe in God so as to gain an imagined increase in power.  An atheist faces the world with nothing but the muscular, intellectual, and emotional strength inherent in the self and one's allies.  A believer imagines being able to transcend these limitations.  What our muscles cannot lift, pull, or push, God can.  What our intellects cannot answer, solve, or outsmart, God can.  What our emotions cannot bear, God can.  We need only believe and pray, and we will have omnipotence and omniscience augmenting our efforts, or even our lack of efforts.

This is precisely the area where faith and atheism contend most often and most robustly.  The believer prays, and nothing happens.  No outside force swoops in and alters the situation to the believer's advantage.  Everything stays the same or gets worse.  No factors emerge but those which already were present or latent in the situation all along.  The believer's power turns out to be what an atheist would always have assumed it was.  The believer can lift, pull and push with human efficacy; answer, solve, and outsmart within human cognitive limits; bear pressure with human courage.  The believer's power can transcend self, but only in this: a little help from one's friends.  As the believer comes to terms with this, the possibility of honesty arises, honesty with the self, and perhaps, if fear doesn't win, the illusion of invisible aid is shed, and another atheist walks the earth, self-reliant, tribe-reliant, world-defiant.

I'm not sure if I agree with a sense of increased personal power. I think that a majority of world religions teach modesty and humility. So I do not think believers often think that with their faith comes any sort of increase in distinctly human attributes. Where religion does come in hand is in the way in which believers view concepts such as mortality and isolation. A true believer will not fear death as they are under the impression that death is actually better or comparable to living, if you have lived in accordance to the religious laws you have been given. These same individuals through faith have no fear of isolation. They know that they can use their faith to build and fortify more networks of believers on basically that virtue alone. They do not have to be overly concerned with being particularly interesting, helpful, loyal or kind in order to build relationships. The hyper tribalism of religion will do that for them. This of course in sot saying the religious people are not kind and loyal and interesting and helpful. It's just stating that in their worldview, death and loneliness are not as debilitating or frightening as it may be for someone who believes that life is finite, and has to rely on their own personal merits for forge and sustain all their relationships. This may not increase the believers individual physical or intellectual prowess but it may give them as a group psychological edge under certain conditions. This was probably even more true in early human societies and is another reason that the propensity for religious faith could have been selected for in nature.

[Stevil]

I see religion as the tool used to bestow morals as a "way to behave" and possibly as a "way to judge". The ultimate reason for this is survival. People whom act "immorally" as judged by society risk violent retaliation or prison. Children struggle with reason and so are taught morals allowing them to avoid "immoral" actions and hence the consequences.

Thinking about the concept of Natural Law which is really just a recognition that groups or individuals within society will resort to violence if certain abilities (rights) are violated, irregardless of what the law states as legally right.
For example if it were legal to keep people as slaves, these slaves would deem their ability (right) to freedom as having been violated. They will seek to regain this ability, potentially via the use of violence.

So we live in a violent society with many individuals capable of violence. Some will act violently because of selfish reasons, some will act violently because their abilities (rights) have been unjustly violated, some will act violently in order to support other society members whose abilities (rights) have been unjustly violated.

As an amoralist a person needs to invoke reason, consideration and thought with regards to developing personal values or in order to decide how to behave within society. It is recognised by many governments that this type of thinking is easier for an adult to do and much more difficult for a child or adolescent. Proof of this is the distinction between being tried in court as an adult (with severe consequences) as opposed to be tried as a juvenile (with mild consequences).

In terms of survival, it makes sense for parents (whom have a vested interest in the survival of their dependents), to teach their children how to behave and hence avoid members of society reacting violently towards their children in response to actions performed by their children.
So parents then teach their own personal values to their children. Personal values and morals are similar in concept, they both act as a quick reference with regards to how a person chooses the actions they perform in society. Morals go a step further with regards to how one judges others within society. Personal values are subject to change via reason and thoughtful consideration as each personal value ultimately represents a reasoned and thoughtful justification. Morals are only justified in so far as what is deemed as morally wrong or morally right.
Many parent recognise that they are no authority when it comes to understanding social behavior and understanding all the actions that society might react adversely to. Hence they look towards wiser people for guidance on values for themselves and to teach to their children.
Religion fills this requirement. But because religion don't feel the need to justify the taught values, they become a moral code.

[Liar For Jesus]

'I see religion as the tool used to bestow morals as a "way to behave" and possibly as a "way to judge". '

REPLY:  What do you think about people having an absolute moral code written on their fibre especially on major issues such as murder always being wrong , cheating always being wrong, incest always being wrong, et al... in all Civilizations thruout the World ?   Isnt it intrinsic IN everyone as far as the way to behave  (exemplified by the way we EXPECT others to treat us ?).  What do you think ?

[McQ]

'I see religion as the tool used to bestow morals as a "way to behave" and possibly as a "way to judge". '

REPLY:  What do you think about people having an absolute moral code written on their fibre especially on major issues such as murder always being wrong , cheating always being wrong, incest always being wrong, et al... in all Civilizations thruout the World ?   Isnt it intrinsic IN everyone as far as the way to behave  (exemplified by the way we EXPECT others to treat us ?).  What do you think ?

Really? Evidence that this is true? Can you point to something that specifically says that all civilizations throughout all time having all of these things as being wrong?

[Too Few Lions]

'I see religion as the tool used to bestow morals as a "way to behave" and possibly as a "way to judge". '

REPLY:  What do you think about people having an absolute moral code written on their fibre especially on major issues such as murder always being wrong , cheating always being wrong, incest always being wrong, et al... in all Civilizations thruout the World ?   Isnt it intrinsic IN everyone as far as the way to behave  (exemplified by the way we EXPECT others to treat us ?).  What do you think ?

I disagree that those things are hardwired absolute moral codes

1: murder always being wrong. 'Murder' may be considered wrong, but killing someone isn't necessarily considered wrong in a lot of societies throughout history eg war, assassination, human sacrifice, gladiatorial contests, capital punishment. Murder is by definition the name given to the act of killing someone when society doesn't sapprove of the killing, therefore it would be considered wrong by definition.

2: cheating always being wrong. Really? It's not a crime anywhere in the western world, so it's not considered that serious an issue, plus plenty of people do it. A lot of societies have been far more liberal about their sexuality than we are, plus there are and have been polyamorous and polygamous societies throughout history, as well as hareems, communes, open relationships, sacred prostitute priestesses etc etc. sometimes the same sort of behaviour is accepted where there are different interpretations of what constitutes a relationship.

3: incest always being wrong. Tell that to the pharaohs and many other royal families throughout history. Royal blood was considered special, and often sacred as the king was sometimes seen as being the son of the god(s), and couldn't be mixed with commoner blood. Given that we began living in small societies/tribes or family units, incest must have happened at times in our distant past.

But all of these are fairly obvious laws that help maintain society and civilization, you clearly can't have a society function when everyone's going around screwing everyone else over, and killing, raping and thieving all the time. They're also clearly not inbuilt morals as plenty of people break these laws. If everyone was hardwired with these moral codes there'd be no need for the laws as no-one would murder, rape, steal or cheat in the first place.

As an aside, I'm considering joing a Christian forum under the username 'Wavering Christian'...

[Asmodean]

'Wavering Christian'...

Yes, that same thought, it crossed The Asmo's mind as well.

[Tank]

Bump for n00bs 

[belfastlc]

God post Tank. Well presented, good points.

I'm a big fan of well-reasoned attacks on God. I usually have to endure such halh-assed attacks on God that it's a treat to read a good one.

I imagine you'd rather not read a critique from me on this so I'll hold off. But if you would (like to hear what would be the basic Christian defense) I think I could work one up for you -- if for only to practice knocking that down as well....

Let me know if you are up for it....

Best,
James

[therealgimp]

Tank thanks for posting. Well, thought and clear. Stevil, up the dosage, man. Really.

[Stevil]

Tank thanks for posting. Well, thought and clear. Stevil, up the dosage, man. Really.

He he he. Bwaa harr har
Bahaha.

[therealgimp]

Tank thanks for posting. Well, thought and clear. Stevil, up the dosage, man. Really.

He he he. Bwaa harr har
Bahaha.

Stevil, you laughed at me. You laughed at me, man. I'm not sure whether this indicates genuine humor or is a side-effect of whatever it is afflicts you at the moment. 

[Stevil]

Tank thanks for posting. Well, thought and clear. Stevil, up the dosage, man. Really.

He he he. Bwaa harr har
Bahaha.

Stevil, you laughed at me. You laughed at me, man. I'm not sure whether this indicates genuine humor or is a side-effect of whatever it is afflicts you at the moment. 

Mwarrrr haarrrrr harrr, Coherent thoughts evade me, mwarrr harrr.
Teee, heee,   ho ho ho. Merry anti Christ mass.

[Sweetdeath]

Tank thanks for posting. Well, thought and clear. Stevil, up the dosage, man. Really.

He he he. Bwaa harr har
Bahaha.

Stevil, you laughed at me. You laughed at me, man. I'm not sure whether this indicates genuine humor or is a side-effect of whatever it is afflicts you at the moment. 

Mwarrrr haarrrrr harrr, Coherent thoughts evade me, mwarrr harrr.
Teee, heee,   ho ho ho. Merry anti Christ mass.

???