A vital proposition
So there logically is a God but he might not share too much in common with us. He may not even be alive biologically as Nilo shows.
What happens next is that the idea of God ceases to have consequence--e.g. judgment, redemption, punishment, will, compassion, &c.
A
comparative point. An analogy of sorts:
- There is a viable argument that there is no true polytheism. We might look to the Greek and Roman pantheons in which many gods performed certain tasks and duties. Apollo could only do so much. Specific rites for Ceres did not work for Diana at Nemi. The argument against polytheism comes when you consider the idea of
why the gods could only do so much, and required specific methods for communion.
What is the force or authority that limits the actions of the many gods? This authority, which binds the gods of Greece or Rome or any other polytheistic society, is the source of the monotheistic idea. In Eastern cultures the idea seems to be already recognized; Basham notes Muller regarding henotheism, which manifested itself in India, apparently, as a tendency by the people to not get riled over theological switches; God was God was God, no matter what it was named this year or next. An element of this might actually be evident in the Ten Commandments;
Thou shall have no other gods before me. The Lord, knowing the trials of the Jews past, present, and future, understood something that people don't necessarily grasp. It can be reasonably asserted that God, knowing the Hebrews would be subject to various authorities and the customary rituals thereof, simply sought to remind the Hebrews, "Whatever else happens, remember that God is God is God, and there is no two ways about it." Or, to approximate Marge Simpson, "Does that mean you're just going to pay lip-service at church?" Do what you have to in order to avoid the executioner's star, but remember that God is God is God.
- Likewise, comparatively, analogously ... we might look at Nilo-as-God, or, more entertainingly, God-Not-God. If, for instance, science is correct in presuming there to be a natural law to understand in the first place--e.g. so long as science isn't an incredibly coincidental stack of meaningless correlations--we might look to that theoretic law or set of laws describing natural behavior in the Universe and call that "God". We might also look to the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang occurred; the nature of the explosion determined the possible diversity of the elements and the energies. If one could represent mathematically the processes of the Big Bang which lead to the present reality, that equation could be said to be the Name of God. The prevailing order in the Universe--the seemingly undiscoverable mystery--is all that God is or ever was; everything else is a human-sponsored accretion, extra baggage picked up along the way.
You're closer than you think,
Okinrus; I would dare suggest at this point that it's a matter of focus. You have the tools to defy the illusions of God and begin pursuit of the real deal. On the one hand, you'll be surprised at where the pure essences of the God idea cluster; to the other, it all looks different when there is no pretense of consequence to shadow your every thought.
The idea of God is merely a recognition of a knowledge that exists in potential, the knowledge that allows us to understand what humanity is and what it does in the Universe. Everything else people tell you about God ... nothing but a nest of illusions.
Imagine a hellish moment from human development: a slouching organism moving through the trees, primitive, unarmed, unarmored, generally instinctive. But imagine that, unlike other animals, it not only fears something, but for the first time in living history an organism is capable of
thinking about the fact that it is afraid.
Feel the back of your skull, where the spinal cord meets the brain. There's a soft spot there in your skull, and you can be killed easily if struck there. But this seeming weakness is actually of huge value: it allows you to
look up. Think about that, you lift your head, look at the sky, and
what the hell are all those shiny things?!
Or a new reformulation of a few older ideas of mine:
- The creature sits atop the rock, afraid of the predator below.
- The creature sits atop the rock, afraid of the predator below, and distracted because it is
thinking about the fact that it is afraid.
- The creature sits atop the rock in order to enjoy the warmth of the sun and think about the nature of the rock beneath it and the sky above it and whether or not these things are of any significance.
Humanity, abridged I admit, but presented in three separate phases.
But these moments are also part of the evolution of what would become the religious idea. I'll spare you the bit about fire gods.
:m:,
Tiassa
P.S. for Cris: Why is it that it's always your topics that I muck up like this? Actually, there might be a reason. But I did want to apologize for putting another of your topics through this phase, which you've witnessed probably three times before at least. However, I also wanted to thank you. Yours are among the few topics that can progress to such a point as I can make this argument relevant.
