Earlier this week, I was watching one of the Christian-content religious channels on television (there are two such ‘church channels’ in my city) and I was listening to the televangelist say that “even if you have no friends in this world, God will be your friend.” Immediately after hearing these words, I was struck by how much “God” sounds like the imaginary friends that children sometimes invent to keep themselves company. If your child were to tell you that she played with “Magna” all afternoon, and you know she was alone in her bedroom the whole time, you might worry about your child’s emotional well-being. What, then, should we think when adults say they talk with “God” (or “Jesus”)? Given that there is no more tangible proof for the existence of “God” (or “Jesus”) than there is for “Magna,” are we not justified in asking if “God” (or “Jesus”) is merely an imaginary friend for adults? Indeed, “God” appears to serve the same purpose for adults that “Magna” serves for little children: providing comfort and companionship when no actual human is available.
Indeed, the one unquestionable difference between “God” and “Magna” is the social cost: “God” provides adults with an imaginary friend at a much lower social cost that “Magna” would incur. By naming their imaginary friend “God,” adults can gain the same sort of internal emotional comfort that children gain from their imaginary friends, but without the social stigma that would otherwise arise from talking to invisible people. Indeed, “God” provides even more emotional comfort than “Magna,” because “God” opens the door to fellowship with other adults who declare their own belief in “God.” Perhaps this is why so many adults strongly defend their belief in “God:” because to do otherwise would risk depriving themselves of a socially-acceptable imaginary* friend.
* Please note that I have referred to “God” herein as “imaginary” merely because there is no physical proof that “God” exists. Thus, it is logically correct to refer to “God” as imaginary.
Postscript: After thinking further about Erich’s comment, and watching the “What is God?” video on this website http://meaningoflife.tv/, I’ve decided to change the subject of this post from “Jesus” to “God.” Readers are encouraged to watch the video, because it illustrates the core message of this post.
Believers would point out that there are a couple of cryptic references to Jesus in non-Christian literature. I refer to jesuspuzzle.com, a site written by Earl Doherty:
"[T]he Jewish historian Flavius Josephus exhibits two contentious passages referring to a human Jesus. One is a Christian composition as it now stands, and the other is problematic in certain respects. Did this Flavius Josephus really record anything about the Christian founder? Was he perhaps unfamiliar with him? The difference between this universe and the other one is that here much more hangs in the balance. For in the absence of any other supporting evidence from the first century that in fact the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels clearly existed, Josephus becomes the slender thread by which such an assumption hangs. And the sound and fury and desperate maneuverings which surround the dissection of those two little passages becomes a din of astonishing proportions."
The above is from an article entitled: JOSEPHUS UNBOUND: Reopening the Josephus Question.
Although I don't have any confidence in the existence in any sort of sentient creator of the universe, one who cares about people, I do suspect that there was a fellow name Jesus who existed.
We certainly have a vast infrastructure set up to validate the existence of a God and to prod people into believing in Him (Daniel Dennett would say they encourage believe in belief in Him).
If you set aside the inner "feelings" of those who do believe, there is really very little evidence upon which they base this belief. Yes, there are ancient scriptures, but those old writings are similar to the religious writings justifying belief in the many Gods of other religions too. I think your point, though potentially insulting to many professed and sincere believers, is worth raising–upon what evidence can people distinguish a belief in a God compared to a the justification one can give for a child's belief in an imaginary friend?
Maybe a more intriguing question would be who could sit impartially on a jury to decide this issue? Why is it so very hard to get everyone to agree on who could serve as a "neutral" abitrator of this issue?
As regards Erich's comment, I considered omitting Jesus from my post, and just focusing on God as a socially-acceptable imaginary friend for adults, but many Christian denominations refer to God and Jesus interchangeably, so I decided to do the same.
In any case, even if Jesus were an actual historical person, as demonstrated by his name appearing in non-Christian literature, he's still been dead for almost two millenia, so he would still qualify as an imaginary friend.
I have got to agree. Most people, I suppose believe god, out of 'need', rather than anything else. This god, also does not have the shortcomings of most humans too. i.e. You can speak to him anytime, and he is always benevolently listening to you. After he listens to you, he can also perform a few miracles to set thing right for you. The most powerful entity in the universe, sharing such a personal bond with you, and always looking out for you. How could this idea not be a hit? No wonder religion has such appeal!
I think you make a great point. Humans don't like to think that when we die that is just it. We want to believe that we will go on forever. Religion gives humans that need.
It makes sense and it fits with what religion is meant to do when you look at it from a psychological perspective. Religion is a coping mechanism; one of the strongest for many people. So having a friend that is always around would relieve lonliness, fear, anxiety, and slew of other emotions that might be triggered by being alone. So ya, it fits nicely.
Imaginary friend? People are remiss to dismiss what they don't understand. Prior to the discovery of the billions of galaxies in the universe, we assumed there were many, many less. There are numerous other examples i.e., humans once thought the earth was flat, that we were at the center of our solar system etc…Human arrogance results in many being led down the confines of narrowmindedness and self proclaimed superiority. Human understanding is limited yet humans believe, in their arrogance, that there could be no creator just because we don't yet see him/her. Human comprehension is laughable at best.
Hey Cynical One: Even way back when humans thought the world was flat, they were just as obsessively brainwashed with their imaginary friend as they are today. So why can't you let go? We believe in billions of galaxies because our technology has allowed us to discover them with our own eyes. Yet there still remains no proof of your imaginary friend. It has nothing to do with arrogance, it's called rational logic instead of make-believe. Our creator was a comet, not a "God." Get over it.
For anyone who is interested, there is a forum devoted to this very question. It has a theologically diverse group of members and a fun, friendly atmosphere.
http://isgodimaginary.com/forum
What a slow moving blog… Last comment, Aug. 15th this year; starting comment, 2006.
Ah, but there's now a huge mass of stuff on 'imaginary gods' throughout this marvelous electronic medium (wow – one up for science and technology it's based on). If Jesus actually existed and was what it's claimed he was, then instead of saying, 'not a sparrow falls to the ground without your father in … etc." Or, "Not a hair on your head goes uncounted…." why did he not say (in a statement that could be decypherd) "Not a single electron in the Universe goes uncounted", (adding "verily, verily I say unto you, it will all be revealed in due course," Well, having created all the darned things, or at least our minds to model them with such fantastic efficacy (turn your computer off if you don't believe…) then 'The God Of Creation' missed a golden opportunity to shock us rigid when we realised it. But as all that stuff was composed by primitive child-like early men (men notice, not rotten women – they get an awfully raw deal in the Bible, don't they?).
No, unfortunately it's all imaginary – like believing in Father Christmas – but even that's better, as there is a 'spirit of generosity – a winter solstice celebration' from old Nick which has a mythological truth in it – nothing wrong with myths, like Jehovah, Jesus, other Gods et.al. as long as you don't literally believe them (all made in seven days indeed). Well sonny boy aged six, coming up to fifty, take care of your infantilism… (I don't want to be too fascetious …. from UK, but there's a lot of dangerous muck on the subject swishing around your Southern States – glad we're more rational here…)
Very best wishes.
Jixatron
Jixatron: Thanks for the comment. You might find some of our posts are slow-moving in terms of comments, but that is likely given that our authors have posted 2,000 posts at this site in the 2 1/2 years it has been in existence.
I wish the muck were limited to the Southern states. It seems to have spread all the way up to Alaska.
Jixatron: Not "slow moving"! Just very thoughtful. We try not to blurt out half-baked opinions here.
I had this exact thought today: is God just an acceptable imaginary friend for grown-ups? I found this very refreshing to read; thank you. That's my half-baked opinion. 😛
Your article was very interesting to say the least. A quote comes to mind:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"
And the same to the invisible sky daddy.
DSingh: GREAT quote! I see that it seems to be attributed to Christopher Hitchens. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/12042
Well, it has been a year since Cynical One's post but it is so absurd that it deserves a respones even one year later. So here it goes…
'People are remiss to dismiss what they don't understand'. He then goes on to state an example of the enlargement of human understanding when Edwin Hubble identified a cepheid variable in the the gas cloud Andromeda and suddenly the universe became much, much larger. I am not sure what he was trying to prove with this example, but he actually demonstrates that people try to clarify what they don't understand with evidence, not dismiss it. We kept peering into the sky and measuring precisely because we do not understand. And as a result we learn. It is religion that states we already have the answers and to look further is useless. That is not science. Religion dismisses what they don't understand and state that god is responsible. If religion still had its way we would not have the germ theory of disease, cell theory of biology, or the Einstenien theory of Relativity. It is ironic that many of the discoveries he cites as evidence such as the sun centered theory of the solar system were vehemently opposed by the religious leaders of the day.
More fundamentally flawed, however, is the logic that agnostics, atheists and free thinkers are stating that there is no god as a matter of belief. We are not. The claim is made that we have concluded that there is no god, then states that human conclusions have been eroneous before, therefore we have no right to think our conclusion is any more valid than someone who thinks there is a god. This thinking is nonsense. We do not hold as dogma the belief that there is no god. We simply state that there is no evidence and the burden of proof lies on the believers. Substitute 'unicorns' for god and you see how asinine this argument is: Humans conclude there have never been unicorns, human conclusions have been wrong before, therefore, I am justified that thinking unicorns existed just as much as someone who thinks they didn't.
In summary, the arrogance lies on the part of the believer who assert bold claims without a shred of evidence. They argue that since science and reason have been wrong before that they are therefore justified in substituting their own belief and insist that be respected. It should not. Science has been wrong before but that is the point. It learns and revises its models of understanding based on new evidence. That is why the very least educated of our species knows more about the history and structure of the Universe than Aristotle.
does a thought 'exist'? if you had your thought, was it 'real'? yes, right? you had your thought, you know because you thought it, it was real and existed in your mind. so, where is it? did anyone else 'see' it?
Are we ready to expand our ideas of 'exist' and 'real' as we expand our consciousness? probably still too big of a jump for most people, they have to be able to physically sense or empirically measure something to consider it 'real'
well, I saw Jane Goodall speak tonight, and as I listened, I was thinking (there is no empirical evidence that I was thinking, and nobody saw it) about how inspired I was by her (I have no measurement of this inspiration, and again, no witness to it), and I was overwhelmed with gratitude for what she's done (again, absolutely NO evidence to show that I had this 'gratitude') and I believe that my experience tonight in relation to her will affect how I conduct myself in the future, and I have no proof. was it real? or imagination?
Some people may think of God as an old man hovering in the sky, some say 'God is love'. Few of us would argue that 'love' is imaginary. Some think of God as the subtle permeating power that runs through all of life, uniting all that is. These debates usually tend to be arguing against the most simplistic notion of God, and therefore are typically pointless, and narrow minded on both sides.
C wrote: "These debates usually tend to be arguing against the most simplistic notion of God, and therefore are typically pointless, and narrow minded on both sides."
Very true, that's why I find them mind-numbing most of the time. However, when un-empirical notions about God are used to oppress people is when I stand up and take notice, as in this recent DI post…
http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/09/25/tradi…
I would argue that thoughts are real, and the evidence for them is the fact that we can express them in language.
But more importantly, it is because we cannot directly know the thoughts and perceptions of others that we need science. Science is the process through which we reach consensus about our world. By insisting on repeatable, observable results science enables us to all agree on what is real.
Hey! God is real. The proof is in the bible. God is the heavenly Father and his So,n Jesus is the Savior. I can;t believe you said that God is imaginary friend
I agree with Vix. Jeez, all the way back from May 2006. God does seem like a coping mechanism for a lot of people, especially in an unfair society where people need to compete for livelihood, ie. Money. If you haven't already, please Google: 'Venus Project'. Some really good idea!
Cheers.
Thank you for putting this up because I was just thinking about putting this on a T shirt! Sounds like something that Dr. House would say LOL.
I think this is a very valid statement i feel God may be used as a coping strategy for guilt people feel from hiding the truth or concealing tragedy.
It gives them a out from accepting the truth, professing your sins to god will save you yet in reality it serves only as a quick solution to a festering wound but will only serve as a band-aid and will not rid you of your troubles.
I hope people use God as a contributing factor in a long and hard recovery process instead of relying on something non-existent as help doesn't come from heaven and praying it comes from community and other human beings who have "God" given qualities.
God is not imaginary, mor is Jesus Christ the saviour of the world: if you are so sure they are imaginary, "PROVE IT!" I will believe they are real even if I can't see them; it's a little thing, called FAITH, which you nay sayer obviously have none of. But ot each their own, the truth will come out in the wash in the very end…
In this age of world-wide communication, it baffles me that religion still cripples humans. Look at the earth, and the different people that inhabit it and you’ll see that they ALL think THEIR god (imaginary friend) is the right one to believe.
Here’s a brief example. Assume you have five people together all with their favorite color in front of them. And all picked a different color. They’re asked to explain why their color is the best through their logic and reasoning. And then they all argue with each other as to holding the right or best color. And will defend, even die for their color. That scenario would seem ridiculous right?
That’s the shocking thing about religious people. They all think their god is right and everybody else goes to hell who don’t believe. Is anybody right? Is everybody wrong?
And the faith card is a funny one too. Believers claim non believers don’t have faith in anything, so why would they believe in a god. One question. Why not drive a car without your seatbelt, you should have faith that you won’t get in a car accident. Why not have faith in a tumor healing itself instead of surgery. (And many of gods children have surgery’s everyday.) They argue against science but run to it at first sign of sickness. Why not pray the cancer away?
Religion only divides. Look at it, it’s right in your face.
We are a struggling species trying to find a grip on this world that we’ve been thrusted into by clinging to faith and material possessions. With this direction we will surely destroy our earth and each other. But maybe a meteor will save us from ourselves.
My two cents – as if it matters…… My thought aren’t real 😉
My reply to this thread is a simple, but I think it says a lot. If “God” says that all the people on Earth are his children WHY does he let them suffer in poverty and diseases and natural disasters instead of just preventing them in the first place?