People create their Gods in their own image and likeness. This is not an argument that God does or does not exist. It’s merely an observation that what people claim to know about God is always a projection.
This thought that God is a projection occurred to me when looking at numerous delightful manger scenes crafted by artists from around the world at a store called Plowsharing Crafts in University City Missouri. “Plowshares,” a non-profit store that promotes “fair trade” is run by the Mennonite Church.
Here is a sampling of the creche scenes I viewed. They clearly can’t all be physiologically accurate.
For a related post, see “What did Jesus Look Like?”
As Emile Durkheim is credited with having said….."God is society, writ large".
In essence, God is nothing more than the apotheosis of the particular culture in which that god is worshiped.
Make that a little "g" as in "gods" and I fully agree with you. The human mind as you well know prefers to work with the concrete. But the nature of the one true God is Spirit which is why evrything discussed here at DI falls far short of understanding the basics about God.
God did not make man in his physical image, As God's nature is spirit, so is that part of man that is made in the image of God.
Love, joy peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control are aspects of the Spirit of the one true God that have no laws against them.
These all humans have a God given right (by possessing God's image) to display in ever higher degrees. Their opposites are what we are all aware cause direct human conflicts and wars.
God doesn't look like a specific person or image, humanly, God looks like someone who possesses these spiritual characteristics.
Karl: I think of the willingness to give one's savior one's own skin color and physical features as the first step on a long slippery slope.
Of course it is!
The same kind of a slippery slope that any trust in human or animal nature sets us on.
People need high ideals and values to hope in, none of which can be seen in the animal kingdom apart from man's addition to it. You may believe man has nothing up on the rest of the animal kingdom and physically we don't.
However, if people are no more than animals than I believe most people would sense a purposeless existence which would indeed cause them question much about themselves as well as the rest of the people around them. I could live with it, but would probably find someother virtue or purpose in living that I thought was important to me.
Karl, God made our spirits in his image? Either God is severely limited compared to his P.R, or else we are a very poor copy. After all, the aspects you call "opposites" are as necessary to survival as the traits you cite as godly. All were supposedly installed by this one creator, working alone in the wilderness, like the Unabomber.
Anyway, "in his own image" more likely means "from his unique imagination" than "like him". We are as a toy, to be nurtured or stomped on at will. Mostly the latter, according to the Old Testament.
Karl writes:—"However, if people are no more than animals than I believe most people would sense a purposeless existence which would indeed cause them question much about themselves as well as the rest of the people around them."
Well, duh. What is it you think most of us who have moved away from religious explanations for existence do? You know, secularists often get accused of hubris because we seek human solutions for human problems and assume that those are the only solutions likely to be found, but the assumption of being "made special" by a divine entity is one of the most hubristic ideas in history and has led people to lead from the arrogance of being god's pet rather than finding any genuine humility.
Purpose is what you make it—either in your own name or projected onto an iconographic ideal. I do not sweat at night from a sense of having no purpose. I find purpose in what I mean to others and in what fascinates me. People who assume they already have it by virtue of being specially created….well, I was about to say something immoderate and too general. In my experience, they end up making their own purpose, too, they just don't realize it.
Dan says:
"Anyway, “in his own image” more likely means “from his unique imagination” than “like him”. We are as a toy, to be nurtured or stomped on at will. Mostly the latter, according to the Old Testament."
If you take a little more time to really read the Bible you will easily note that God is not flesh and blood. God is Spirit and those who worship Him do so in Spirit and Truth. You may be able to crush the flesh and blood of your enemy but that accomplishes nearly nothing of any significance in your favor, it usually actually works against you in public opinion.
Animals as well as everything you call living needs to have flesh and the juices of life flowing through it. I dare say there is a very good possibility even scientifically that life can exist in forms other then the animalistic form of the physical human body. Actually the life we know may very well only be a mirror image of the true plane of existence that is purely spiritual and not physical.
The subjugation of the physical world to futility may also very well be the result of the instability of the our true nature that can not survive in the physical world without salvation in the spiritual realm.
It is possible even scientifically to have a noncorporal existence whether you believe it or not.
This is where the animal in you has won the struggle.
Mark says:
"I find purpose in what I mean to others and in what fascinates me. People who assume they already have it by virtue of being specially created….well, I was about to say something immoderate and too general. In my experience, they end up making their own purpose, too, they just don’t realize it."
Have you just admitted there is something more to your existence than the animal impulses and thoughts flowing through your nerves and thoughts?
People who try to create/find meaning and purpose are acting upon one of the attributes of the Spirit of God – Faith. You want to believe in something to establish meaning and purpose for your life – that is more than simply a bunch of cognitive synaptic responses.
Karl, that was never in dispute. We weren't arguing about whether there's something MORE or not, just the source of it. Of course I believe there is more to what I am than—how did you phrase it?—animal impulses and thoughts. But I believe that more comes from being part of a community and the constant feedback engendered by interchanges with other people, both alive and dead.
In my opinion, the concept of god, however you phrase it, is an emergent property of community. It's one of the net results of people trying to understand and figure things out. But it is very much a human thing. It is not something imposed from without, but something that comes from within.
Mark, I have no problems with your perspective on the Nature of God.
Those who trust their own beliefs and thought process alone to establish right and wrong, that I worry about.
Well, who doesn't want to be absolutely sure they're doing the right thing?
Trouble is, the people who believe that the right thing is what God wants people to do, have a lot of trouble agreeing what God wants people to do.
So, whether you think that morality comes from within human culture, or from Out There, people still struggle with figuring out what's the right thing to do. The limiting factor seems to be that humans can't know everything.
I happen to worry more about people justifying violence and oppression in the name of God or some other system of absolute values, like progress or historical necessity or what have you.
And I have a problem with people who justify violence in some cases, and in other cases cry bias in others when they are not willing to admit bias in themselves.
I have a problem with people who claim that physical, emotional and social health factors associated with the basic tennents of the ten commandments are non existent. These types of people are just outright anti-social and hostile in their individual perspective towards others and life in general.
Any limiting factor needs direct attention and careful consideration or other factors will tend to descend to that same level as well.
I don't think we can insist that all human animals consider that God Has to Exist, But human animals need to realize that since they aren't capable themselves of rising above their own stated limits, why must others be forced to accept the limitaions of others as their own as well?
Karl: Re your ending question, because they are human animals too. I don't feel any duty to accommodate the delusional world views of others. I understand that it must be unpleasant for you to hear non-believers following the evidence where it leads and saying "I don't know" where there isn't evidence.
Karl wrote, "If you take a little more time to really read the Bible you will easily note that God is not flesh and blood."
If Karl would take a little more time to really read the Bible, he might easily note that the god-of-the-Bible allegedly takes three forms: Father, Son and Holy Spirit — the second of whom reportedly WAS flesh and blood. Furthermore, the manger scenes that Erich photographed for this post are all directed to that flesh and blood embodiment of the god-of-the-Bible. Therefore, Erich's observations in this post are entirely valid, while Karl's comments completely miss the point.
Karl also writes, "Love, joy peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control are aspects of the Spirit of the one true God that have no laws against them."
Karl's "one true God" is also notoriously jealous, vengeful, cruel and murderous: again, Karl should take a little more time to really read the Bible.
Karl writes, "I have a problem with people who claim that physical, emotional and social health factors associated with the basic tennents of the ten commandments are non existent. These types of people are just outright anti-social and hostile in their individual perspective towards others and life in general."
Most of the Ten Commandments (actually, there are seventeen commandments in Exodus and twenty-one in Deuteronomy) deal not with physical, emotional or social health factors, but rather with procedural matters for worshipping the god-of-the-Bible. The few Commandments that do deal with physical, emotional or social health factors merely recite behaviors that would have been appreciated by ancient humans long before the Bible was written. Furthermore, not a few self-described "Christians" are no strangers to murder, adultery, coveting, bearing false witness, etc.
Grumpy,
Jesus took on flesh and blood. As a man he was not only spirit but a "hybrid" package, as God he took on the limitations of flesh blood, as man Jesus never desired or even approved of worship ascribed to him. God's spirit was present, but the limitations of the physical human body were not violated by the full unlimited nature and power of God the Father.
As the Son of God, He was royalty, He could have actually replaced God as His Successor if that was the plan. That wasn't the plan. The plan was to show the extent to which God could demonstrate his love for the sinner.
Yes, because God is a just God He at times would seem to be seen as venegeful, cruel, vindictive, violent, murderous, aloof, arrogant, and jealous by those receiving discipline or correction. Grumpy, you forgot a few and I'm sure we could find some more.
These actions ascribed to a man could probably 9 out of ten times be reasons to indite them by a grand jury.
In the Bible there is actually only one of these that God uses to describe himself and that is jealous. God and people can both be jealous but yet refrain from doing what is evil. The actions you ascribe to God with evil intent are why you do not trust or believe in God. This is a projection of how society would judge men who act as they do. It is possible to be angry and yet not sin. It is possible from God perspective to carry out a plan or directive that seems evil to others but which is clearly not evil to God.
Cain the first murderer was actually given protection from the rest of society so that no one would take any actions against him. Funny how that indication of love and concern for him just made him resent God more and more. You are probably saying what an inconsistent ignoramous God must be to not Judge Cain as a murderer and sentence him to death as well. Cain wasn't the first prodigal, that was Adam. Cain was the son of the prodigal who hadn't experienced a relationship with God unmarred by sin.
This was to show mankind that God always has the best interest of people in mind even though people don't think so.
By the time the Old Testament was finished being written it contained images of both a just and loving God but also a cruel and abusive tyrrant because of the poor leadership of the rulers of the nations.
This lopsided image of God from the Old Testament that had to be reversed and that was why Jesus Christ came in the fulness of time for His sacrificial life and death to have meant anything of lasting proportions.
Secondly,
Grumpy,
The ten commandments are 10 not 17 or 21, do the math. You will have to call them the 17 commandments or the 21 commandments if that is how you read them. These ten commandments have four directives that deal with who God is and our relationship to him. The other six deal with our relationships with other people. If you want to add the Jewish ceremonial laws you are many hunded laws short in your quantification.
Actually the matter is summarized as only two in the New Testament.
Erich:
I understand that it must be unpleasant for you to hear non-believers following the evidence where it leads and saying “I don’t know” where there isn’t evidence.
"I don't know" is distinctly different from, "I believe I know better."
Someone who is really agnostic shouldn't be hostile towards the possibility of something actually being true. The atheist has decided before hand how he will deal with any type of evidence. The agnostic if truly agnostic will consider if something is possibly true or false with an open mind and spirit.
If you approach your point of view as being only a human animal then I would reckon you do not want to admit that you are indeed more than agnostic – you are hostile towards the idea that you might not only be an animal. In this you are not agnostic.
Karl: I never claimed that non-believers in God lack values. Quite the opposite. In fact, they believe many things they can't prove. http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/01/21/i-wis…
I admit, though, that they don't believe in a Big Daddy in the sky. I'm not going to rehash the many reasons for not believing this, but it is based on both evidence and the lack of evidence, not on un-anchored hostility to that idea.
Erich:
If you have evidence both for and against something, why do I only hear you discuss the against, and why do you seem unable to reconsider evidence as if your mind is already made up. You do write as though you believe you will continue to remain an agnostic by an act of your will?
Agnostic's either waffle as they are constantly considering the evidence for or against specific types of knowledge, or they are resolute in ceasing to consider if they could ever really know something to begin with.
If one is resolute about being agnostic is that not the same thing as being atheistic?
Erich:
Where did I state that you said non-believers in God lack values?
I quoted directly from you a few blogs back
Erich said: "I understand that it must be unpleasant for you to hear non-believers following the evidence where it leads and saying “I don’t know” where there isn’t evidence."
I took that to mean that you think I (Karl) can't face the truth that some human animals follow the evidence (which would actually have to be a lack of physical evidence in favor of how I think and believe) versus other interpretations of evidence for aspects of cognition and conscoiusness which leads them to have all sorts of questions which they don't seem capable of coming to reasonably answerable knowledge from their point of view.
I certainly beleive all people possess values and beliefs even if they think they don't.
Karl: I'm agnostic (but also ignostic) about God in much the same way you are agnostic about Zeus.
What would you think, then, about people who keep coming up and insisting (based on no good evidence) that Zeus loves you and that Zeus doesn't want you to have heterosexual sex and that Zeus insists that you need to eat more dark chocolate?
The question is if you consider yourself in anyway atheistic because of the bias of your will to interprete any evidence anyway you choose?
As usual this discussion will go nowhere quickly because you only discount the exoerience of others both presently and historically to be of no importance to you.
It is the "no good evidence" which establishes a qualitative prejudgment bias because even good evidence can be discounted because ones mind is already made up.
Do you know what "good evidence" for a Supreme being would look like?
Karl: Great question: "Do you know what 'good evidence' for a Supreme being would look like?"
For you, I assume that the answer is "Almost anything I encounter."
For me, I would refer to Carl Sagan's: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
If the clouds part and a vision of someone Godlike appears to me and to many other people (so that we can be more confident that we're not hallucinating) and that Godlike person predicts something extraordinary with absolutely clarity (green toasters will appear on the kitchen table of every person on earth tomorrow at 9:30), my agnosticism will be shaken.
First of all, you wouldn't recognize Godlike because of your relativistic attitude, you would choose an alien apparition over God everyday of the week.
Secondly, why must you be the one to decide the true extarordinary nature of the prediction? If I was to say that in three days Obama's hopes of the presidency will be dashed, would that be extraordinary or just a slim political unlikelihood?
Both the things you have suggested have happened to numerous other people in the past and even recent history. For some it happens more regularly than they would want to dare admit.
If you really want this to happen to you as well as everyone else on the planet at the same time then you have to be prepared to expect the outcome and then not ignore it when it happens.
Karl,
Everyone is biased in one way or another. It's impossible to be human and not have it. So continually beating Erich about the diatribe over his "bias" is pointless. Like anyone intellectually engaged (including you, of course) we all do our best to minimize the bias. You have elected to discount—or at least undervalue—the evidence someone like me takes as demonstrative of certain claims. Now, the odds are good that most of us started out seeing the world much as you claim it is. I think it's fair to say that for the majority of people in this country, exposure to Jesus predated any—ANY—expoosure to either science or critical thinking. Ergo, religious claims ought to have had a head start, so to speak, in gaining our attention.
And at least in my case they did. Two things happened. First, the internal logic of the religious claims began to come unglued. THEN the scientific worldview began to matter and offered the possibility of an alternative picture that made more sense.
But bias is always there. And rightly so. One of the benefits of bias is to keep us from wasting time going back over nonsense we've long since disposed of to our satisfaction. I certainly don't feel compelled to reinvent the wheel every time a new piece of religious flotsam floats by clamoring for my attention. Been there, seen that (or something very like it), don't feel the need to go over it again.
What would I feel would be evidence in favor of the existence of an Interventionist Creator? Well, if they finally prove that there is NO Higgs Boson. I'd take that as strong evidence that this whole lash-up is a concocted toy. What else? Well, if someone came back from the dead. I mean really dead, passed on and been in the ground for a year or two or ten. Anything else? If an entire strain of some annoying, persistent, non-life-threatening disease disappear inexplicably and no environmental cause could be found to explain.
What we have now, instead, is a world that looks the way it would look whether it came about by natural (unguided) processes or was built with all the evidence for such an origin designed into it. I'll dispense with the creator, then.
Which really is the ultimate bias, you know. The fact that we humans find that in order to affect anything we have to manipulate things—matter, energy, etc—and consciously alter our environment in order to build something leads us to conceive of the entire universe as necessarily being the product of such a conscious manipulation. It's called the Strong Anthropic Principle (at least, it's one variant of it) and it is profoundly biased.
But ultimately, I left all that behind because, no matter how much praying and begging and suffering and faith gets directed toward the so-called Almighty, people end up having to solve all the problems. God himself was a solution to a set of conceptual problems that we still haven't quite gotten over. When I said that I thought "God" was an emergent property of community, you said you have no problem with that view. But you do. Because to me that means god is a human invention. Exclusively. Perhaps unconsciously, but nevertheless our conceptualization.
Unless what you meant is that as long as there IS a concept of god, it doesn't matter what the source is….
Well, that's bias.