Super-science, the Singularity, and Post-humanism

With the amazing advances in science, mathematics, computers, communications, genetics, medicine, biology, cognitive science and many other sciences and technologies, some optimists project that in the future - possibly the near future - humans will be able to transcend their physical limitations by extending life indefinitely, even "uploading" their consciousnesses into some future form of a computer network. I must strongly emphasize that scientists, doctors, and philosophers don't currently even agree on what is meant by the concept of "consciousness", so to jump forward to "uploading" this vaguely understood thing into a computer strikes me as putting the cart way ahead of the horse. Putting that difficulty aside, either of these would grant us a form of "god-like" immortality. The idea behind this is at some point in the future a technological "singularity" will occur, radically changing what it even means to be human. "Trans-humanists" speculate that these technological advances will begin an exponential growth phase, intersecting the lives of some people alive today, enabling them to live with extraordinary powers, and to live forever. The singularity is the moment when this intersection occurs.

The singularity, the conversion of human beings into trans-humans, and finally our arrival at a "post-human" future has become a near religion to those who embrace its predictions - thus the inclusion of the Singularity into this discussion of god. In this utopian age of super-science, medical advances will allow indefinite life extension, enabling some people to live decades longer, if not forever. It will be possible to create artificial life, grow new organs or entire new bodies, cure all disease (including aging), explain and recreate consciousness, understand the origin of the universe, spread our influence throughout the galaxy, and know how the universe will end. In this view, mankind, itself will have the potential to become a race of gods. In fact, the very definition of what it means to be human may be altered. A race of post-humans would emerge - the product of targeted genetic modification, biological enhancements, and integration with man-made technology. This hypothetical future being will be one "whose basic capacities so radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer unambiguously human by our current standards." In fact, such beings might appear as gods by some definitions of the word - they would possess immortality, utilize vast amounts of energy, be able to create life, create and manipulate matter, and have access to immense amounts of information. A "post-human god" would no longer be confined to the parameters of human nature. He might grow physically and mentally so powerful as to appear god-like by current human standards.

Not all who expect the singularity to arrive do so with optimism and hope. Some regard it in just the opposite way - as an existential threat to humanity, as armageddon. Instead of a leap forward in what it means to be human, it might instead extinguish humanity by initiating a "hard takeoff" of a strong artificial intelligence in the form of a so-called "paperclip maximizer" (a superintelligent AI so powerful that the outcome for the world overwhelmingly depends on its goals, and little else. A paperclip maximizer efficiently converts the universe into something that is, from a human perspective, completely arbitrary and worthless, i.e., paperclips). This concept illustrates how AIs that haven't been specifically programmed to be benevolent to humans are basically as dangerous as if they were explicitly malicious. So, one of the conceptual problems people are working on is this -- if you accept that a technological singularity is inevitable, can we pre-empt the process in such a way to ensure that the AI is "friendly" and values life, in particular, our lives?

The origin of concept of the Singularity came from many scientists and futurists - John Von Neumann, Alan Turing, Werner Vinge, and Ray Kurzweil, among them. Either directly or indirectly, they each anticipated the coming singularity - the point at which machine intelligence outstrips human intelligence, and/or computer networks become intelligent, and/or humans and machines merge, and/or humans bioengineer themselves to be super intelligent. The versions of this event that involve machine or network intelligence are premised on the assumptions that consciousness and intelligence are not mystical things, and that they can be created and reproduced outside of human brains. Vinge thought, along with Kurtzweil, that within just a few decades machines will achieve super-intelligence, far surpassing that of humans and become self-replicating and self-improving - each machine generation capable of producing even more capable and intelligent machines as did the "Computer Tyrants of Colu" when they created the humanoid super-computer called Brainiac (Superman #167, 1964). Yes, it can happen in comics - but that is not necessarily a prediction for our own future.

Uploading the mind

A concept that is integral to the singularity is the envisioned future ability to "upload the mind" to some sort of supercomputer. The assumption is that once we understand the brain well enough, we will be able to scan the contents of the brain / mind / consciousness and transfer it into a machine where the individual's sense of its continuity will be preserved, and possibly be able to create an artificial body to house this new representation of consciousness. Another variant of this is that we learn how to create an elaborate "Matrix-like" virtual paradise where we sleep in suspended animation while a program generates a virtual reality for us. These predictions are not generally accepted as realistic by people involved in developing the technologies that one assumes would be required for this science fiction future (computer science, medicine, microelectronics, neuroscience, etc). At best it is science fiction. We are very far from understanding the brain and the mind, having just scratched the surface in neuro/cognitive science. However, many people confidently compare the human cognitive apparatus to a very advanced computer and/or software system. Although the brain does process information, it does much, much more. To conceive of it as a super-complex computer system, or as being reducible to a computer system is an enormous, and unjustified, leap. It is a leap that owes much to where we happen to find ourselves today, in the microprocessor-dominated 21st century. It reflects the technical biases we have grown accustomed to in the last half century.

This is not the first time that futurists have sought technological metaphors to describe the brain. Aristotle, and later Avicenna, conceived of the mind as a "tabula rasa" (blank slate) on which education and experience were written. Galen, and later Descartes compared the brain to a pneumatic or hydraulic system, inspired by the advanced plumbing systems coming into being during their respective lifetimes. Later, during the industrial revolution, machine-based metaphors came into vogue. The human brain was compared to a complex machine, or an extrapolation of clockwork mechanisms composed of gears, pulleys, gimbals, springs, and cogs. During the early 20th century, complex telephone switching systems, representing the apex of electro-mechanical technology, served as the new model of the brain. Today, with our advanced information processing and telecommunication technologies, we tend to envision the brain / mind as a computer / software / communications system, because that set of technologies represents several of our current peak technical achievements. But the brain / body and the mind they generate, are almost certainly not the equivalent of a computer / software system, any more than a human leg is the same as an automobile wheel, or the human digestive system is a chemical plant. They are analogous, and may solve similar problems but are not one-for-one substitutable - all of the metaphors eventually break down. No doubt the future will hold new and interesting metaphors we will use to make sense of the mind.

Consciousness, the thing that makes life meaningful for us, probably arises in the brain and the brain's interaction with the body, and the body's interaction with the environment. The whole brain / body / mind / environment system contributes to the sense of consciousness. The belief that consciousness will arise spontaneously in machines and that it will eventually emerge in them through a spontaneous runaway positive feedback loop is really pure speculation. There is no precedent for it, and no evidence that it is even possible. A popular notion in science fiction is that intelligence self-organizes and consciousness spontaneously emerges out of a sufficiently powerful computer, as it did in SkyNet in the movie, Terminator. But this scenario is highly unlikely. The most recent findings in neuroscience indicate that consciousness is a specific function of "thinking" systems, not just a natural outcome of overall systemic complexity - we don't see incipient consciousness in highly complex systems today such as the internet, or electric power grids, or the Internal Revenue tax code. Complexity and consciousness are not necessarily always correlated, nor causally related.

The idea that the mind, and its connection to the brain, is all that matters for the generation of consciousness is an assertion for which there is no evidence. The nervous system which permeates the entire body certainly contributes much to the experience we think of as consciousness. A disconnected brain (a "brain in a jar") without a body would experience the ultimate in sensory deprivation, and would likely go mad quite rapidly. There is no mind / body split. This Cartesian bias is a lovely philosophical speculation for which no empirical evidence exists - in fact, all the evidence goes against it. The brain / body / mind is a continuous, inter-related, and intimately connected system. The idea that you can upload the contents of your brain into some sort of artificial body or a computer system implicitly reflects a Cartesian philosophical outlook - that there is a mind, and separate from that is the (disposable) physical body and brain. All of modern biological and neurological science is in the process of refuting this philosophy, and is establishing that both the body and the brain are integral to consciousness. The brain and the sensory/motor nervous system are a single, but distributed, system. Amputating the brain, and further, extracting the mind from the brain and storing its contents somewhere leaves the entire sensory and motor apparatus out. We are our bodies as much as we are our brains.

However, if we expand the meaning of "upload the mind" to incorporate any upward transfer of information from a human mind to a permanent medium, storage area, or processing system, well, we have been doing that since the invention of cave painting. The technologies available today for the upload and transfer of human knowledge to non-human destinations have expanded greatly and now include regular conversation, writing, digital video cameras, email, MRI's, twitter and facebook. But no real progress has been made in terms of recreating or reflecting an existing sentient being inside a machine.

Brain as computer

A popular view in the last few decades is that the brain is some sort of digital computer and the mind is a software program that runs on that machine. The idea that we will be able to upload consciousness into another type of machine, extracting the software from our three pound, flesh-and-blood brain, and "porting" it to another type of computer makes a tremendous assumption that we really have no basis for believing. It assumes a "backward compatible" computer system can be built that will run the software of our minds. Even granting that the mind is software or software-like, it may be that it can only run in the machine called the brain in which it evolved. Certainly they are highly interdependent, the brain and mind. And that extra element - consciousness - undoubtedly relies on the brain structure, and on the mind housed in the brain, in countless ways. Consciousness and brain / mind structure evolved together ever since creatures with brains came into existence. The brain may be a machine, but whether the brain is a computer is a completely different issue. It almost certainly is not a computer in the sense that we think of computers.

Cyborgs

Related to the singularity theme is the hope of an eventual union of human and machine in what would best be described as cyborg technology - a technology which creates beings that are biological and artificial hybrids, containing biological, robotic, electronic, and mechanical parts. For several decades we have seen machine implants in human bodies - heart valves and stints, cochlear implants, insulin pumps, artificial eye lenses, advanced prosthetic limbs, titanium hip replacements, hearing aids, cosmetic implants of all sort, pace-makers, and even artificial hearts. Experimental neural implants have been developed to treat blindness, epilepsy, and Alzheimer's disease. Experimental "direct neural interfaces" exist which connect the brain's motor cortex to external robotic devices, and those devices are able to transmit tactile, proprioceptive, and temperature information back to the parts of the brain which can process that information. With future refinements and innovations in nano-technology, genetic engineering, pharmacology, neuroscience, information technology, material science, surgical techniques, and medicine, the trend is toward more complex and useful synthetic augmentation of human beings. The logical conclusion, if the trend continues, is full integration of man and machine at the physical level.

However, even without the envisioned physical integration, human society has already become totally dependent on existing man-machine collaboration. Beginning thousands of years ago with the invention of the lever, wheel, and inclined plane, moving through the development of steam engines, electrical power, telephones, and satellites, human beings and all of human culture have evolved a to a point of complete dependence and integration with our machinery. Life without our artificial creations would takes us back to a hunter / gatherer past. The next step - physical integration - is just the next logical progression, not a radical departure. It is already happening.

New Thought movement

"New Thought" is a spiritual movement which developed in the United States during the late 19th century which emphasized metaphysical and mystical/spiritual beliefs. It single-handedly helped convert the term "metaphysics" from an arcane and respected philosophical discipline to a grab-bag of feel-good and trendy concepts.

This school of thought consists of a loosely allied group of religious denominations, secular organizations, authors, philosophers, and individuals who share a set of beliefs concerning the effects of positive thinking, the "law of attraction", mystical healing, "life force", creative visualization, affirmations, karma, energy fields (not the physics kind, but the mystical kind), and the development of personal power. It promotes the ideas that "infinite intelligence", AKA "god", is ubiquitous, spirit is the totality of real things, true human selfhood is divine, divine thought is a force for good, all sickness originates in the mind, and "right thinking" has a healing effect. Prayer and meditation are thought to lead to spiritual and physical healing through a type of spiritual mechanism.

In general, modern day adherents of New Thought believe that their interpretation of "god" or "infinite intelligence" is "supreme, universal, and everlasting", that divinity dwells within each person, that all people are spiritual beings, that "the highest spiritual principle is loving one another unconditionally . . . and teaching and healing one another", and that "our mental states are carried forward into manifestation and become our experience in daily living".

The three major religious denominations within the New Thought movement are Religious Science, Unity Church and the Church of Divine Science. Some New Thought adherents also subscribe to a monistic belief that spirit or consciousness is the sole universal substance and that all physical processes and events are either illusions, or are condensations of pure intelligence and consciousness into material form. Thus sickness is just a degenerate manifestation of an unhealthy spirit, implying that if the spirit is healed, the sickness will vanish. In any case, according to their view, the material world is only a pale shadow of the spiritual one. These movements all share the common ideal that one's thoughts and your feelings create one's life.

Modern manifestations of New Thought can be found in "The Law of Attraction", "The Secret", and "A Course in Miracles".

God of the Gaps

There are aspects of life for which no explanations can be found in science, economics, history, sociology, or other areas of empirically or rationally obtained human knowledge. For many of those experiences and phenomena, the default explanatory fallback is that god is responsible. Whether the issue is the origin of life, what happened "before the big bang", the question of life after death, or how consciousness arises, when mankind has not discovered answers, the answers must be obtained from a higher power, or a more traditional, personal and anthropomorphic god. The god of the gaps argument is known as an "argument from ignorance" ("because we don't know, then we do know"). Or as Stephen Colbert reported about Bill O'Reilly on his TV show, "Like all great theologies, Bill's can be boiled down to one sentence: There must be a god, ... because I don't know how things work".

Trying to explain the unknown in terms of the incomprehensible can never increase our understanding. As Plato realized, to say that god did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation. (Plato, Cratylus, 426a). In a similar vein, the Norm Levan Panel on Intelligent Design concluded:

Invoking the supernatural is dead-end to further inquiry. Science cannot test supernatural explanations, since they are unfalsifiable, unverifiable, and can be altered to fit any situation post-hoc.

It is a common trap that is very easy to fall into. For many people it is uncomfortable to be faced with a situation for which there is no answer - a more psychologically satisfying position is to believe that there is an answer, but that answer is known only to god. For everything that we did not understand there was always a supernatural and often sentient explanation. Unfortunately for god, the number of things that he is responsible for has been shrinking for centuries, and the pace really began to pick up after the Copernican revolution, the Scientfic Revolution, the Enlightenment (thanks to thinkers such as Galileo, Locke, Newton, Hume, Spinoza, and many others). He is now seriously underemployed. The gaps of our knowledge were once very great, but many of these gaps have been closed. God no longer causes lightening to strike, stars to remain fixed in the sky, planets to move through the sky, earthquakes (or lack thereof), volcanic eruptions, good and/or bad weather, health and disease, sunrise/sunset, rainbows, tides, the change of seasons, plagues or cures for plagues, victory and defeat in battle, or the evolution of living creatures into separate species.

Science has done an incredible job explaining the previously unexplainable through impersonal, observable, and predictable forces. Evolutionary biology and anthropology indicate that morality, altruism, heroism, and other noble and subtle human virtues, as well as the less noble ones, probably have primitive correlates in other species. Behind everything we have so far observed in the external world, natural explanations have succeeded in demonstrating that previously deemed supernatural phenomena are actually the result of causes that can be reduced to space, time, material, and physical laws. The success of methodological naturalism in eliminating gaps and explaining what previously lied within them has shown beyond most doubt that Metaphysical Naturalism is almost certainly true. Humans have found naturalistic explanations for these formerly mysterious processes that used to be attributable to god. Yes, there are things that are not yet explainable.

Given the remarkable and uninterrupted success of naturalistic explanations and the miserable failure of theistic explanations, it is very likely that these remaining mysteries (dark matter, the origin of the universe, how life was created, consciousness, spontaneous order and emergent behaviors) will be be shown to be the result of natural causes, not supernatural. The trend towards taking god out of the causal chain continues with no sign of abatement. For the last few centuries those who relied on god as the explanation for physical phenomena have experienced a long and steady string of disappointments. Unfortunately for them, this is likely to continue.

God of the Gaps is a mistake that even the best of us can inadvertently fall into. Even Isaac Newton, one of the greatest minds in the last millenium did. He discovered the laws of orbital dynamics, which explained mathematically what Copernicus and Kepler first pioneered. But he just couldn't bring himself to believe that planets could go into motion by themselves - someone had to have placed them there:

"The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. […] But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. […] This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

He also thought that god's hand must occasionally readjust the orbits to get them back on track when they interfered with each other. In both of these examples — one related to the origin of the motions and the other related to the ongoing motion of the planets — Newton is employing textbook God of the gaps reasoning. Scientific theories are proposed to explain as much as possible, and then God is brought in to cover any remaining unexplained gaps in the explanation. We now know that purely naturalistic explanations can account for everything to do with orbits of planets. We must always be vigilant about making the same mistake.

God is Love, God is Good

Carl Sagan addressed this very clearly in his book, Varieties of Scientific Experience, a compendium of his 1985 Gifford lectures. When challenged by a questioner with the assertion, "in reality He is there. God is love", Sagan replied "Well, if we say that the definition of God is reality, or the definition of God is love, I have no quarrel with the existence of reality or the existence of love. In fact, I’m in favor of both of them. However, it does not follow that God defined in that way has anything to do with the creation of the world or of any events in human history. It does not follow that there’s anything that is omnipotent or omniscient and so on about God defined in such a manner. So all I’m saying is, we must look at the logical consistency of the various definitions. If you say God is love, clearly love exists in the world. But love is not the only thing that exists in the world. The idea that love dominates everything else, I deeply hope is true, but there are arguments that can very well be proposed, from a mere glance at the daily newspapers, to suggest that love is not in the ascendant in contemporary political affairs. And I don’t see that it helps to say, forgive me, that God is love, because there are all those other definitions of God, that mean quite different things. If we muddle up all the definitions of God, then it’s very confusing what’s being talked about. There is a great opportunity for error in that case. So my proposal is that we call reality “reality,” that we call love “love,” and not call either of them God, which has, while an enormous number of other meanings, not exactly those meanings."

So, to assert that "god is love" is rather arbitrary. Why not say "god is beauty" or "god is hate" or "god is pizza". There is no particular reason to equate the term "god" and "love" above any other associations.When Christians say "God is love" I know what they mean - I have read their explanation. They are saying that god's essence is synonoymous with "good". God could not issue immoral commands. His essential goodness and loving character] would keep him from issuing any unsuitable commands. This is just begging the question again - assuming that there is a good and a bad prior to god, and that god would not do bad things.

But further, "good" is an adjective. "Goodness" and "Badness" are nouns, but not physical objects, not like a ball or a cloud. They are human-generated categories, abstractions into which we place behaviors, thoughts, actions, intents. We measure things by our conceptions of good and bad, and assign those attributes to the things we judge. To say god is good, in the sense of actually equating those two concepts, is just incoherent wordplay - stringing subject and predicate together with the word "is" in between, and hoping that some kind of meaning will emerge. Lexically, "god is good" parses fine. It just doesn't happen to mean anything.

Last - it is obvious that we have our own conception of good and bad prior to anything having to do with god or the bible. When we read the numerous atrocities in the bible, we are appalled. Our innate sense of good and bad causes Christians to (1) deny that those things actually happened, or (2) claim that it is just a misreading of the bible, or (3) argue that god had a good reason for doing horrible things that we just don't understand, or (4) say that with the New Testament, all that torture and murder in the Old Testament doesn't matter anymore. None of those arguments can deal with the simple fact of recognition - that we, as humans using our innate sense of "reflective equilibrium" can tell right from wrong. We know that there is no way to justify the genocide of entire races of people, as god commands more than once. We already know that is wrong - it is bad. Anything god has to say about it in the bible is just an afterthought.

Spiritual but not religious

Even less god-focused than the "higher power" mindset I covered in the previous section is a new set of "spiritual but not religious" belief systems. These are just as generic and non-specific, but differ in that they don't have a god-centered basis. As such, they don't even qualify as "conceptions of god", which is what this blog is about. They can range from vaguely deistic to completely atheistic. They carry the belief that something divine or sacred is out there, some universal organizing force, but it's difficult to say exactly what that is.

This "un-doctrine" may be gaining popularity as an anti-clerical response to the unsavory reputations that many Christian religious denominations have earned in recent years resulting from sex scandals, child molestation, rape of nuns, general disrespect for women, financial fraud, blatant pandering, crazy rituals, laughable televised faith healing, crooked or perverted pastors, revelations of shocking inner circle practices, transparent scams, unbelievable claims, conspiracy, and outright crimes. A large number in this growing "un-churched" demographic are former members of traditional Christian denominations (Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Evangelicals, generic Christians, etc) who no longer identify themselves as belonging to those denominations, but still want to retain a sense of the mystical and basic spirituality without the burden of heavy tradition, out-of-fashion concepts, antiquated gender mores, and hidebound orthodoxy.

Polls in the US during the last few decades show a growing number of people in the "no religion" camp who still are uncomfortable adopting atheism. They have an aversion to the religious establishment and "organized religion". The "spiritual but not religious" individual wants to have contact with the mystical and spiritual, but without committing to any specific beliefs or actual doctrines. "Spiritual but not religious" is a philosophical destination for some, and for others it is a mid-way point on the transition from the religiousness of their youth to agnosticism or unabashed atheism. This type of belief breaks downs along several lines:

Mystical variety

The mystical version is frequently associated with reports of out of body and near death experiences, visitation by angels, ghost encounters, ESP, precognition, astral projection, non-traditional healing modalities, homeopathy, synchronicity, UFOs, vague notions of karma and reincarnation, and ancient but forgotten wisdom. People who are part of this group have substituted one kind of unsupportable faith (traditional religion) with another (new age fads). In decades past the types of beliefs that were popular for these people were mediums who could communicate with the dead (as with Madame Blavatsky), seances, fairies, trolls, mind reading, levitation, and more.

Naturalistic variety

The naturalistic type of spirituality is very much like "Einstein's God", described earlier. People who adopt this world view substitute awe and wonder for religiosity. They value individual human encounters with the world, and the experiences and emotions those can inspire. All humans share the capacity to experience awe, wonder, inspiration, reverence, and a deeply moving sense of the "transcendent". This kind of spirituality requires no belief in a specific divinity figure or doctrine. What is valued here is the personal experience of a subjective emotion elicited by interactions with nature, contemplation of the wonders of life, personal relationships, and the magnificence of the universe. Einstein described himself as "a deeply religious nonbeliever". This may capture this kind of secular spirituality. Unfortunately, the word, "spiritual" carries such weighty baggage that it has practically been ruined for describing this phenomena - maybe a better way to describe it is a feeling of awe or wonder at the wonderful scheme that is manifested in unfolding of the physical universe. The modern usage of "spiritual" may be gradually transforming into a less religious form, a form that involves no deities or supernatural entities, but instead emphasizes the personal, possibly mystical, experience. Those who have these experiences (and there is no doubt that many do) are, of course, free to interpret them however they want. Some people will respond to these experiences with a strengthened belief in a deity, and others will see them as natural, wonderful, emergent artifacts of our human cognitive apparatus. Nature, science, loving relationships, images of deep space, meditative contemplation, what might be called "deep environmentalism", or even mind altering drugs can call up the more profound aspects of human experience, which in this context we would call "spiritual".

Pantheistic variety

Pantheism is a relatively modern concept. Although for millenia, people have ascribed divinity and spirituality to many aspects of nature, the modern Pantheist philosophy is only a few centuries old. The word literally means "all god", or "everything is god". Pantheists see all of nature and reality as a manifestation of god, or even as the embodiment of god, or that god and the universe are identical. As with other god-philosophies, there is no single, well defined type of pantheist. Many people who might be regarded as having pantheist views would not see each other as sharing a single worldview. It is really a very fuzzy concept, and has no specific doctrine. Although some religions have strong elements of pantheism (Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, Kabbalistic Judaism, ancient Celtic spirituality, Sufi mysticism), none of them encompass all of the others. Probably most people are not even aware of what pantheism is, unless they have actually researched it. Because pantheism is really just a very weak form of religion, I am classifying it in this "spiritual but not religious" camp.

Personal Power variety

This branch focuses on accessing personal power and untapped inner resources. It utilizes Westernized versions of meditation and a Buddhist-like reduction in focus on desire, on the self, and on "ego" (as Eckhart Tolle conceives it). It distills some elements of Hinduism, Zen, Taoism, and Buddhism into a form palatable to Western tastes by, among other things, jettisoning the mind-numbing pantheons of unpronounceable Asian deities, avatars, gurus, and other characters. With a steady avoidance of issues surrounding god and ethereal concepts, it emphasizes personal growth and achievement of inner peace by helping people attend to elements of life that are less superficial and more meaningful.

It sort of makes sense...

Every generation does creative myth interpretation, and redefines those myths in the context of current personal and cultural experiences. As a modern 21st century society, we are trying to find an appropriate language to speak to the new meanings that we find in our experiences. We are trying to recover and build a new language for the evolving understanding that is generated through advances in science and technology of the last century. The unarguable diminution of god as the author of nature (he no longer "makes the sun to rise and ascend in the skies") has left a spiritual void that needs to be filled. The new sense of "spiritual" in this language is not necessarily supernatural, but instead connotes the immaterial, indefinable, non-rational aspect of being human. Instead of referring to immaterial spirits or souls, it refers instead to the ineffable, more fundamental aspects of human experience. In our new society it is losing its overt religious meaning and is becoming secularized.

Traditional religion is declining, while "spirituality" is on the rise in the millennial culture of young people in the 21st century. Since the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century, we were being told by intellects like Rousseau, Emerson, Thoreau, Ingersoll and others that we were moving towards a new secular society. But instead what has happened is an increase in both secularism and fundamentalism both in the US and abroad. A middle ground has emerged, which is a deity-free spirituality that will probably be end up being more effective than either in dealing with the new set of environmental, ecological, and social challenges we are facing in our high-tech society. It has the logical power of secularism, and the motivational, emotional force of belief.

Except for the generous helpings of psycho-babble, pseudo-science, unfounded conclusions, flawed logic, unsupportable factual claims, appeals to alternative medicine, broken history, and false analogies there is actually some useful stuff here. Especially in the West, I think most of us can admit to being too wrapped up in the temporal, acquisitive, and neurotic obsessions inherent in living in a fast paced materialistic, high-tech, post-industrial world. A way of being that helps you break free from surface perceptions and what used to be called the rat-race, to take time to smell the roses, without resorting to navel-gazing has got to be an overall positive thing.

A "Higher Power"

Many Americans have a fuzzy, ill-defined concept of god as a "higher power". It is "higher" in the sense of existing outside and above the scope of the causal agents that we normally see operating in the physical world, and a "power" in that it is able to effect change in our world, typically in ways that mortal agents would be unable to. This vague entity is commonly pictured as an ever-present, intentional agency, though not necessarily anthropomorphic or even conscious (in the sense that we are). It is responsible for the some or all of the workings of fate, destiny, good and bad luck, and the major events of our lives. It may respond to prayers and intervene in major life events.

This belief provides comfort and refuge when life brings the pain of disappointment, misfortune, suffering, loss, unfairness, fear, broken relationships, failure, or death of loved ones. It sustains hope for an afterlife, helps establish a connection to the mystical and mysterious, between like-minded believers, and to the sense of wonder and awe that comes with being human. Those who would say, "I couldn't live in a world without god", "life would be pointless without god", "there would be no right and wrong without god", "what goes around comes around", or "everything happens for a reason" might think of god in these indistinct terms. For them, life would be far too uncomfortable and psychologically painful without this faith. This "appeal to consequences" argument convinces them that, therefore, he or it must exist - if it were untrue then what would be the point of going on? Life would just be too awful otherwise.

There is evidence from the fields of Cognitive Science and Neuroscience that humans have hard-wired "agency detection" centers in the brain that ascribe intention and "agency" to events in the world. The natural human tendency to believe that a higher power somehow directs otherwise random-seeming events may be facilitated by this hard-wiring.

There are "cognitive biases" that may predispose one to come into this belief. "Confirmation bias" is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. This cognitive mistake can cause one to filter negative, disconfirming evidence while over-emphasizing positive, corroborating evidence. For example, one may clearly recall times when prayers were answered, accidents narrowly avoided, or good luck encountered and use these occasions as evidence for god's intervention. However, the opposite (and potentially far more numerous) experiences of unanswered prayers, accidents that were experienced, and bad fortune are explained away by other means.

Another cognitive bias or error in thinking is Apophenia, also called "patternicity" (a term coined by the skeptic, Michael Shermer). Shermer defined it as "the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise". In his book, The Believing Brain he describes how humans impute agency and meaning into otherwise random events. This trait can cause people to see meaning and intent behind events that are actually happening for impersonal and random reasons.

Belief in "higher power" can satisfy the natural religious sense without the encumbrance of complex and possibly irrelevant formal religious doctrine, the need to attend church, to tithe, or engage in other inconvenient activities. It can be a source of great comfort and peace, which alone may justify adopting the belief if having those feelings outweighs the need for a theology that has strong backing evidence and makes clear logical sense. For those who simply don't want to bother coming up with a well-formed theology, study the scripture of their childhood faith, or learn about attractive competing faiths, this is a convenient and practical (although somewhat lazy) way to delegate all things spiritual to the higher power and call the job done.

Oprah's God

When I happened to catch a sound byte of the Dr Oz show where he was interviewing Oprah Winfrey, I just had to include this astute theologian's thoughts into my collection of god-conceptions. Here is a frequently repeated report of the interview:

In his introduction of Winfrey, Oz told excited audience members: “Oprah has transformed the lives of millions, and now faces a transformation of her own. Today she says that you have the power to transform your life…she says the answers are all inside of you.”

Asked by Oz, during the Dec. 7 airing of “The Dr. Oz Show,” what her “big plan” was and how she remains inspired throughout her career, Winfrey responded:

“For me at this particular time in my life I recognize that everything is about moving closer to that which is God. And without a full, spiritual center — and I’m not talking about religion — I’m talking about without understanding the fullness from which you’ve come, you can’t really fulfill your supreme moment of destiny. And I think everybody has a supreme moment of destiny.”

“I think being connected to that which is greater than yourself, for me, at this particular time in my life, is the most important thing,” she added.

I hope this clears up any confusion you might have previously had about just what god is :)

Atheist, Agnostic, Ignostic, and "None"

There is no commonly agreed upon definition of atheist. Just as there are thousands of definitions of "god", there are many (probably not thousands, though) types of atheists. The word, literally means "non-theist" or "anti-theist". Depending on the context, it can range from an active and vocal denial of god and rejection of religions to a simple disinterest in the whole topic. It can imply an active disbelief in deities or simple lack of a belief in them due to their improbability and lack of evidence. Atheists claim there are two main reasons for their denial of the existence of gods and/or disbelief in gods: "Strong Atheists" claim that there is positive evidence that gods do not exist (also called "positive atheism"), while "Weak Atheists" claim that theists bear the burden of proof to show that god(s) exist, that they have failed to do so, and that belief is therefore unwarranted.

Some atheists are casually non-theistic about the dominant god or gods of their culture in the same sense as we all are about Thor, Mithra, Zeus, Marduk, or Isis. They are just apathetic about gods, without distinction. Others (the "new atheists") take an activist stance against religion, asserting they have proof that god doesn't exist.

The word, "atheist" has strong negative connotations. Many atheists are not comfortable identifying publicly as atheists because of that stigma. As a sub-group, polls show that they are one of the most despised. In America, self-proclaimed atheists have practically no chance of election to high public office (there is one recent exception to this in the US Congress). Because of this, and because "atheism" is a negative descriptor (it defines what they are not, but says nothing about what they are) many atheists may prefer being called secular humanists, philosophical naturalists, philosophical materialists, non-religious, or skeptics.

Atheism can be the endpoint of a long transition from religious to deist to "spiritual but not religious", maybe a quick stop at pantheism, to agnostic, and finally to atheist. Many on the de-conversion journey are not comfortable making the leap in one fell swoop, but take time to transition. It can take a while to unlearn what accrued over a lifetime.

Up until about the time of the Enlightenment in Western Europe, a label of atheism didn't necessarily indicate lack of belief, but more a lack of willingness to accept God's rule. Descartes, who is famous for basing his philosophy on a proof of God's existence and benevolence, was accused of being an atheist by some of his contemporaries, mostly because he didn't believe in god the way you were supposed to. It was not until relatively modern times that Westerners actually started to commonly think about rejecting the actual existence of a god or gods. Prior to this, Protestants called Catholics atheists, and vice versa, and both called the Hindus, Moslems, and other "heathens" atheists. Theists considered deists to be atheists. It was thrown about much as the epithet, "communist", was used as a general purpose ad-hominem attack during the second half of the 20th century, and how "bigot" and "racist" is frequently used in the 21st century. It used to have more of a connotation of "incorrect belief" rather than "no belief", as it does now. There were early schools of atheist philosophy in ancient Hindu and Greek teachings, but only in the last couple of centuries has the movement gained momentum.

With the coming of the Enlightenment, or Age of Reason, began an era in Western civilization which emphasized logic, reason, and empiricism as the primary sources of legitimate knowledge. The enlightenment was a movement toward science, knowledge, and reason, and away from religion, ignorance, superstition, and dogmatic acceptance of "established" philosophical "facts" from the Greek philosophers (particularly Aristotle). The Enlightenment embodied a desire for human affairs to be guided by rationality and evidence rather than by faith, superstition, or revelation; a belief in the power of human reason to change society and liberate the individual from the restraints of custom or arbitrary authority; all backed up by a world view increasingly validated by science rather than by religion or tradition. The Scientific Revolution, which roughly coincided in time with the Enlightenment, amplified this trend.

Related to atheism is non-theism, which is the belief that the universe can be explained without any reference to the supernatural, or to a supernatural being. This is similar to metaphysical naturalism. Some non-theists avoid the concept of God, while accepting that it is significant to many; other non-theists understand God as a symbol of human values and aspirations. Many schools of Buddhism may be considered non-theistic.

Some atheists contend that there is no compelling evidence for god, and insufficient reason to believe. On top of that, there is insufficient "prior probability" to continue to suspend judgment on the issue (as agnostics do) due to its inherent implausibility. Their reasoning goes something like this: For all past generations no clear evidence has been presented (short of personal testimony, questionable documentation, and muddled reports of miracles). We have no reason to anticipate any new compelling evidence is forthcoming anytime soon. Therefore, we are justified in inferring that god probably doesn't exist. This line of thought brings in the concept of reliable knowledge vs. certain knowledge. Although we don't have absolute and certain knowledge that a god doesn't exist, we have reliable knowledge that this is the case. In other words, we can be as certain of this as we can of most things we encounter in life. Just as we cannot say with 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow or that a real world exists outside our front doors, we can (with a high degree of confidence) make these assertions. The same can be said of a confident lack of belief in the existence of a god. To paraphrase from Stephen Jay Gould's description of scientific facts, atheists can't have "absolute certainty" of god's non-existence. They can only say that it is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

So, does "absence of evidence mean evidence of absence"? It can, if the evidence was strenuously and diligently sought after, but was not found. However, an omnipotent god is outside the bounds of experiment. He can always befuddle, outsmart, and outmaneuver any experiment designed to detect his presence. This type of "special pleading" (god is there, but you just can't see him) is very convenient for god's defenders, and is used in other contexts to support belief in ghosts, ESP, UFOs, hollow earth, and other fringe entities and belief systems.

Agnostics haven't gone as far as atheists in their declaration of the non-existence of gods. They claim that there is not enough evidence either way to make a decision. Agnostics are frequently criticized for being wishy-washy for refusing to take a stand. Some agnostics are really atheists who are not ready to "come out" in public. Some honestly think that there is not enough evidence to reach a conclusion one way or the other.

Ignostics (a lesser known term, synonymous with Theological Noncognitivism) object to the vocabulary, terminology, questions, and concepts used in religious discussions. They claim that there really is no coherent definition of God, and that there are too many contradictory and irreconcilable definitions to make sense of. They assert that, without a clear definition of what is meant by "god" in "does god exist?", we are putting the cart ahead of the horse and probably asking the wrong questions. Without knowing what we are asking, we will end up almost certainly just confusing ourselves with misleading terminology that seems to make sense, but really doesn't. As Wittgenstein recommended, they prefer to "pass over in silence" this topic because it really can't be discussed reasonably, and the propositions that are made about it one way or the other have no "truth value", neither being capable of proof nor disproof. In other words, it is a useless exercise to speculate on the ontological status of a "god". In this they echo Buddha when he outlined his "unanswerable questions" - a set of questions that can't be answered, may not even make sense to ask, that waste our effort, and whose pursuit misdirects our energy and focus from more important things.

None is a relatively new term that belongs in this chapter. It has been described, tongue-in-cheek, as the fastest growing "religion" in the West. It mostly shows up in younger people living in First World countries in the West. It describes people who, when answering a questionnaire on religious belief fill in the box marked "None" or "No religion" instead of Christian / Hindu / Moslem / Buddhist / etc. They don't identify with any of these groups, and would not affiliate themselves with these or any other groups that might show up on such a list (including Atheist and Agnostic). They resist being categorized and labelled in this manner, and see no reason to submit to the process. Because of this, it is difficult to make general statements about what they are "like" or what the believe or disbelieve. I think it is fair to say that they don't really want to participate in a discussion or debate about the topic of spirituality, salvation, praying, or any other religious topics. They don't want to be thought of in religious terms, and they don't use religion as a framework for how they approach life. They don't attend church very much, if at all. Thoughts about god just don't play a significant role in how they move through their lives. Many do confess to believing that a god or "higher power" may exist, and may even technically belong to a church (that is, they never officially separated from whatever church they were brought up in). Some admit that they occasionally pray. But for the "Nones" god and religion play only a small role. It it indicative of the lessening relevance of religion among many younger Europeans and Americans. Looking forward, the "Nones" are unlikely to join churches, buy bibles, give money to churches, have their children attend church, get their children baptized, or raise them in a particular religion.

Theism and Deism

Theists believe in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers (and even appears to crave them), forgives or punishes sins, intervenes in the world by performing miracles, concerns himself about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them, or even when we think of doing them. He is fully informed at all times.

Deism also involves belief in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place and got the ball rolling. The deist god never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no particular interest in human affairs. Deist differ from theist in that their god does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles.

God experienced as awakening and enlightenment

There is some overlap here with the "mystical god" described earlier. Various religious experiences entail an "awakening" through revelation or mystical experience. After this awakening, the "scales are lifted" from the eyes as famously happened to Saul of Tarsus, or the Grinch Who Stole Christmas. Nothing seems the same after this - everything is filtered through the new spiritual perspective. The recollection of life before this experience is one of a dullness or lack of awareness, as if one were previously sleepwalking. It sounds similar to the way someone feels when they are freshly in love. How long this honeymoon period lasts probably varies. For some it is a short-term infatuation, and for others, it can and does mature into a lifelong relationship.

Advaita proponents talk in terms of awakening - of realizing everything is connected and that there are no distinctions or divisions or "self". This is a very subjective and personal psychological experience, and this new set of realizations come from the same mind that had the previous "erroneous" understandings. It is a transition from one perspective to another, and the latter seems to be preferable to the former to the person undergoing the transformation.

Spiritual awakening and enlightenment is the primary goal of almost all spiritual practices, traditions and religions and for any spiritual "seeker". It frequently involves long hours of sustained prayer, meditation, physical deprivation and exertions, fasting, and various forms of mental focus and/or defocusing. We see this in Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, animistic "primitive" religions, and many other traditions. There are many names for this awakened state of consciousness depending on what culture and tradition we belong to - nirvana, cosmic consciousness, enlightenment, etc. Whether it represents a new ability to see hitherto hidden realities, or is a personal psychological experience brought on by the practices leading up to it is open to debate.

Fideism

This is a type of belief in god that unabashedly admits of no logical justification. Fideists concede that there is no evidence that supports faith in a god or gods. They seek no empirical justification, and they make no scientific claims based on their faith. In the absence of contrary evidence, they simply prefer to have faith over no faith. That faith makes them more comfortable, allows them to engage in prayer, and to participate in a relationship with god and with a community of believers. The justification of their faith is irrelevant to them.

The attitude of Fideism towards reason and logic (with respect to religion) ranges from simple disinterest to outright hostility. Fideists of the latter sort disparage logic and reason as being weak and incapable of ascertaining the most important types of truth, which faith alone can provide. Martin Gardiner, one of the founders of American skepticism, was a Fideist of the former sort. He clearly was a master of logic and reason, but chose not to apply them to his faith. The need for evidence and external reasons for believing are of no consequence in Fideism. Faith for the sake of faith alone, the peace of mind, a sense of greater purpose, the inner strength, and the happiness it can bring is sufficient.

Born Again Christian God

This is straightforward, literal theism which portrays a god in whose literal image we are made. This type of god is thought of as a powerful, humanoid, supernatural being much like us, but infinitely more powerful in each of our positive attributes and totally lacking our negative attributes. When he does display cruelty, sadism, pettiness, commits genocide, approves of rape, murder, and torture, it is because we have shown improper faith, violated his laws, or it is otherwise for our own good. He is infinitely powerful, intelligent, creative, kind, aware, caring, capable, etc. He takes taking a personal interest in us and all that we do, hears all prayers, and observes each of us 24 hours a day. This god is able to be everywhere present, aware, involved, and in control. As songwriter, Marty Robbins wrote of another minor deity, "He knows if you've been good or bad, so be good for goodness sake".

He is a master supervisor who knows when a sparrow falls. He watches our activities and thoughts with extreme interest. He craves our worship and our prayers. He rewards and punishes like a supernatural parent. The intense faith that god is always there to provide sustenance, support, and strength is one of the strongest selling points for the personal-god philosophy. Practically everyone feels emotionally or physically stranded or isolated from time to time. Having an imaginary friend who is always there can be very uplifting and encouraging in life's worst moments.

The evangelical/fundamentalist version of this goes further - every word of the bible is considered to be literally and factually true. In no way is it considered to be allegorical or metaphorical. When the bible says that mankind was created in god's image, this can be interpreted in exactly one way: we look like him, and by "we" this means that god probably looks a lot like the white, male, members of the local pentecostal congregation. This preference for literalism is not shared by most Christians, and is not required, or even thought to be relevant, by most Christian believers. In fact, it was not until the last few hundred years that the literal factuality of the bible even became a major issue. Some historians of religion trace the emphasis on literal interpretation to the Enlightenment, and see it as a reaction to the hyper-rational non-supernatural forces coming into prominence. As the factual inaccuracy of the bible was pointed out time and again by prominent Enlightenment figures, religious apologists dug in their heels and pulled in exactly the opposite direction, asserting the exact factual correctness of the bible. Prior to that, there was no strong debate on this subject. As biblical stories about Noah's flood, creation of the universe in six days, the virgin birth of Jesus, stopping the sun, parting the Red Sea, and creation of Eve from Adam's rib began to be seen as myths, a school of biblical inerrancy emerged as a counter-reaction.

And of course, in addition to the literal interpretation of the bible, the main thrust of the born again movement is that Jesus Christ, god's only son, is the sole path to god. Only through baptism in Jesus can one achieve salvation and eternal connection to god.

Some Evangelical sects practice a form of prayer that, over a period of months, allows the participants to begin to believe that god is actually present, for example, sitting on a couch with them or at the kitchen table, advising them. After a long path of group and individual prayer sessions focusing on sharpening the imaginary experience, Evangelical members convert what start out as conversations with an imaginary entity into real conversations - sort of an induced cultural schizophrenia. They consult this god on all matters, small and large, from how much salt to put on a salad to career choices. He becomes that person's "best friend".

Mystical God

Each of the major religions has its mystical sub-group. Mysticism, in the context of belief in God, frequently involves the experience of union or direct communion with "ultimate reality", and the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience as intuition, revelation, or insight.

Judaism

Kabbalists believe that God is neither matter nor spirit, but is the creator of both. In their study of Divine nature Kabbalists envision two aspects of God: God Himself, who is ultimately unknowable and beyond perception, and the revealed aspect of God that created the universe, preserves the universe, acts on the universe, and interacts with mankind. Kabbalists speak of the first aspect of God as "the infinite", "endless", or "that which has no limits". In this view, nothing can be said about the essence of God. This aspect of God is impersonal. God's second aspect, however, is at least partially accessible to human thought. Kabbalists believe that these two aspects are not contradictory but complement one another.

Kabbalists believe that all of creation and existence is a part of God - the part that we humans can see, but that there is much more invisible and imperceptible to us. Similarly, Hasidic Jews believe that God contains creation, but not vise- versa. They are not synonymous. In this, it seems to be panentheistic.

Islam

The history of Islam has its mystics, but in modern Islam, Sufi encompasses most of Islamic mysticism. Sufism, a centuries old tradition within Islam, sprang up largely in reaction to the worldliness that infected Islam when its leaders became the powerful and wealthy rulers of multitudes of people and were infected by the influences of foreign cultures. Sufism is a mystical, ascetic approach to Islam that attempts to provide direct personal experience of God by making use of "intuitive and emotional faculties" that one must be trained to use. Sufis believe that it is possible to draw closer to God and to more fully embrace the Divine Presence in this life, and not have to wait for the afterlife for this to happen.

Sufi practitioners engage in several important rituals involving meditation, chanting, and rhythmic dancing movements. During meditation, disciples repeats the attributes of God until they become saturated with god. This ritual supposedly shatters and transforms them. As they spin and whirl around for hours, they reach a state of ecstasy, purity, and probably dizziness where the heart is only conscious of god. The seeker surrenders his or herself to total abandonment -- a total emptying of self.

Christianity

Whereas traditional Christian doctrine maintains that God dwells in all Christians and that they can experience God directly through belief in Jesus, Christian mysticism aspires to apprehend spiritual truths by emulation of Christ. It is traditionally practiced through the disciplines of prayer, meditation, fasting, asceticism, and service to others.

A book written in the middle ages, The Cloud of the Unknowing, advises that one should seek God, not through knowledge and intellect, but through contemplation, motivated by love, and stripped of all thought - in other words, prolonged meditation.

Modern Christian mystics seek direct, non-intellectual communion with God. They may honor the scriptures, the traditional teachings, and the community of worship, but primarily seek to know God directly through their own mystical experience, much as Paul did on the road to Damascus.

Immanent God

God's immanence is usually contrasted with god's transcendence. Immanence is the spiritual and philosophical tradition which declares that god is present in everything we are and do and see - he is omnipresent, literally, not only everywhere, but in everything. God manifests himself in and by the existence of the material world. Immanence is compatible with pantheism, panentheism, and many traditional monotheistic religions (including Christianity) which put value in the idea that god is always there, that his presence is felt throughout the universe and permeates our everyday experience of the physical world.

In Christianity, the primary way immanence is employed is with Jesus representing god incarnate, and through the holy spirit (two of the three entities of the holy trinity).

Transcendent God

All of the major world religions have explored the area of divine transcendence - that the human view of god is limited and finite, that god is so much larger in both scope and dimension that we have no hope of comprehending him. Our conception of him encompasses no more than a fraction of his essence, which transcends the mere physical. Or even more, we see nothing of his essence but can only perceive him indirectly through his actions in the physical world, because he exists outside and beyond it.

As Karen Armstrong put it when describing the Spanish philosopher, Ibn Saddiq,

"God was not simply another being - one of the things that exist in our usual sense of the word. If we claimed to understand God, that would mean that he was finite and imperfect. The most exact statement that we could make about God was that he was incomprehensible, utterly transcending our natural intellectual powers. We could speak about God's activity in the world in positive terms, but not about God's essence, which would always elude us.

Similarly Erigena argued that God is more than existence. God does not exist like the things he has created and is not just another being existing alongside them. What that is which is more than being it does not reveal. In fact, God is nothing. God is not an object; he does not possess a being in any sense that we can comprehend. His mode of existence is as different from ours as our being is from an animal's, and an animal's from a rock. But if God is nothing he is also everything. Because this super-existence means that God alone has true being, he is the essence of everything that partakes of this. Everyone of his creatures, therefore, is a theophany (a sign of God's presence).

In this view, he is the Ultimate, the absolute infinite, beyond being, but the essence of being itself. What a statement like that actually means is debatable, and I would say that anyone who claims to understand it is confusing their opinion and emotions with fact. The quotes Armstrong provides fall short of expressing anything very specific or even comprehensible. There is a sort of internal consistency in Ibn Saddiq's and Erigena's commentaries. But one comes away from their writings thinking they have experienced some clever sophistry rather than a real explanation, having a similar affect on me as when I contemplate Anselm's ontological proof of god.

The school of "negative theology" in the middle ages dealt with this inability to describe god in positive terms by instead describing what he was not. For example, we should not say "god is wise" because wisdom is a human attribute that falls short of describing any attribute of god. Instead we would say, "god is not unwise". Similarly it should not be said that "god exists", but that "god is not non-existent". This was somehow supposed to help, though I am not sure how.

Clearly, this is beyond logic, and is intentionally so. If it doesn't make rational sense, well, that is by conscious design. It would be futile to attempt to use reason to try to either prove it or to overturn it because it's defenders have already conceded that it is fundamentally beyond logic and is, by definition, unreasonable. The transcendent god transcends, among other things, logic, consistency, and reason. If this type of god doesn't make sense, that is not a problem. That is the essence of transcendence - it is beyond explanation and concrete description. There can be no debate or even real discussion about this type of god. There is no middle ground - one either participates in the subjective experience of his wonder and awesomeness, or one does not.

Einstein's god

Albert Einstein disclosed his views on religion, morality, ethics, war, and numerous other topics unrelated to his special area of expertise (physics) in his autobiography, The World As I See It. His view of religiousness and God are best captured in a few key quotes:

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. "

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."

All of these are expressions of a sort of pantheistic concept of godliness - that what we call god is present in the "logos", wisdom, and emergent order of the universe. He does not ascribe its origin or operation to any sort of willful being or anthropomorphic intelligence. He stands in rapt awe of that which cannot be expressed in words or thought of by our limited human capacity.

Spinoza's God

Another monist, Baruch Spinoza defined "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, and that matter and thought were the attributes of this thing that human beings could experience. Spinoza claimed that the third kind of knowledge, intuition, is the highest kind attainable (after the first and second kinds of knowledge, random experience and reason).

In Spinozism, the concept of a personal relationship with God comes from the position that we are all part of an infinite interdependent cosmic "organism". Spinoza used the analogy of waves in an endless ocean, and that what happens to one wave will affect other waves. Additionally, a core doctrine of Spinozism is that the universe is essentially deterministic. All that happens or will happen could not have unfolded in any other way.

For Spinoza, the universe was a manifestation of two attributes: Thought and Extension (i.e., the material aspect of reality). God has these two attributes, and infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. The most common interpretation of Spinoza is that he did not mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather that God's transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes, and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension, signified God's immanence or constant and divine presence in the world. In this sense, it could be argued that Spinoza was a Panentheist (God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond it as well).

Pantheism and Panentheism

Pantheism, a type of monism, is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical - that everything is Nature. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator-god. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: "pan" meaning ‘all’ and "theos" meaning ‘God’. As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that god is best seen as a way of relating to the universe. Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions involve the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.

As Richard Dawkins wrote, "Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural god at all, but use the word, god, as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature or for the universe or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist god is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheists' metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism, and Deism is watered down theism."

If Pantheism means nature, it seems as if it would be simpler to call nature "nature" and not confuse the issue by calling it god. It adds no new information to use god in this sense. On the contrary, it muddies the water. Besides, a god who is nothing but the laws of nature and is synonymous with "reality" is not the kind of god that most people develop any sort of passion for - you can't pray to it, it won't watch you as you live your life, it doesn't care about you, it can't intervene on your behalf, and it doesn't do miracles.

Panentheism, on the other hand, holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe. God contains attributes that are not visible to humans in the universe, but that a portion of his presence pervades the universe. See the Spinoza reference next in this document.

Monism

Monism is the metaphysical and/or religious belief that the entire universe is composed of a single "substance" and that everything we see and experience is a manifestation of one or more attributes of that substance. Because this is purely a philosophical preference, there is no empirical evidence that this is, indeed, the case. But it has an attractive simplicity that appeals to many people, and it seems to coincide with a particular religious feeling, apparently experienced by many mystics, that is sometimes described as a transcendental feeling of unity, removal of all separation between the "self" and the rest of the universe, elimination of distinctions, if not the outright dissolution of the "self". This psychological experience of oneness is compatible with a monist philosophy. However, a distinction that is completely lost on monists (such as followers of the Advaita belief system) is that there is a difference between a personal subjective experience and what is going on outside of that experience in the world. Any argument that introduces distinctions, differences, gradations, or separations has already committed philosophical suicide when debating some monists.

There are many different instances of monism that have occurred in modern history. Advaita Hinduism is Monist. On the other hand, Metaphysical materialism is also monist (but in an utterly non-spiritual way). Western philosophies have espoused monism as well from the ancient Greeks (Thales and Anaxamander) to modern times (neutral monism as described by William James and Bertrand Russell).

Not all forms of monism are religious or attempts to get at the essence of God, but they frequently find themselves nosing around that question. It only stands to reason - if there is a god, and if there is also only one thing, then god must be intrinsically tied up with that one thing.

The mystical monistic systems (e.g., Advaita, A Course in Miracles) assert that the world we believe we live in is an illusion, that all "selves" are illusions, and that the distinctions and sense of individuality and separateness that we perceive do not really exist.

The Eastern versions of God

Since a few paragraphs were devoted to the god of the religions that sprang out of the Middle East (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), we should give equal time to others of the major religions to inventory their god concepts.

Obviously there have many many millions of pages written about the ancient religions of the Far East. As with the other sections of this paper, I will not try to summarize or analyze them. This section only highlights them in how they relate to god.

Taoism

God is not the dominant theme of Taoism. Instead, the focus is on other concepts such as naturalness, vitality, peace, alignment with cosmic forces, effortlessness, emptiness, detachment, flexibility, receptiveness, spontaneity, ritual, proper ways of speaking, and proper behavior. Tao can be roughly stated to be the flow of the universe, or the force behind the natural order, equating it with the influence that keeps the universe balanced and ordered.

To the degree that god figures into Taoism, it reflects the tradition of polytheism prevalent throughout China. The pantheon is composed of a hierarchy of mortals who have been elevated to godly status. The composition of this group of exalted individuals varies by region, though it typically reflects the some aspect of the political history of the region. Popular Taoism usually presents the "Jade Emperor" as the official head deity. Intellectual Taoists, such as the Celestial Masters sect, usually present Laozi and the "Three Pure Ones" at the top of the pantheon of deities.

Taoism utilizes the tool of inscrutability that so many religions employ. It parades its impenetrability with pride. For example, the opening lines of the major book of Taoist scripture, the Tao Te Ching, are:

The Way (Tao) that can be described is not the true Way.
The Name that can be named is not the constant Name.

In other words, if you think you have Taoism figured out, you don't. If you don't think you have it figured out, you also don't.

Buddhism

Buddhism is sometimes characterized as less of a religion, and more of a spiritual philosophy. Buddhists do not subscribe to the idea of a creator-god, a personal savior, the fall of humanity through sin, an immortal soul (in the Christian sense), or a final judgment and an end of the world. In fact, most branches of Buddhism would claim that focusing on personal salvation, the creation and end of the universe, the nature of god, and life-after-death are distractions from what is really important. What is important to Buddhists is the attainment of nirvana - the escape from suffering and desire, and the endless cycle of death and rebirth. The Buddhist path is about learning to accept the painful aspects of life, and not suffering through them.

The Buddha, himself, was silent on questions relating to the universe, space and time, life after death, and the self. When asked about these types of things, he refused to be drawn into discussions of them, considering them to be speculations, and dogmas. Focusing on these questions would cause anxiety, unease, bewilderment, and suffering. By freeing oneself of them that one can achieve liberation.

Modern Buddhism is not as pure and simple as it was in its original form. Like Christians, current day Buddhists have a belief that life (in some form) continues after death. However, the Buddhist afterlife doesn't involve heaven and hell, but rebirth in an endless cycle until full enlightenment is achieved. Although atheistic regarding the creation, Buddhism is densely populated with multiple gods and deeply supernatural. It contains protector deities, minor gods, ghosts, and spirits both good and evil. Its beliefs include karma, rebirth, nirvana, and belief in a non-physical reality.

In its early incarnation, Buddhism didn't attempt to establish a belief in god or gods. However, as Buddhism has spread and merged with other local religions, today's Buddhists, particularly in Japan where is it often merged with Shinto, do believe in a pantheon of supernatural entities. But even still, god is not at the center of Buddhism.

The Pali Canon, which contains many of the central religious texts of Buddhism, does list a large number of gods. Some of them are shared with Hinduism (Garuda, Vishnu, and others).

Hinduism

There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of gods in the Hindu tradition. Brahma, the creator, is the chief god. Vishnu, the sustainer and Shiva, the destroyer fall next in line, the three forming the Hindu trinity called "Trimurti". Following up in rank are the consorts and lesser deities. There are animal gods Ganesha (elephant), Garuda (bird) and Hanuman (ape). The chief consorts of Shiva are Kali and Parvati. Other notable gods are Rama (an incarnation of Vishnu), Lakshmi (goddes of prosperity), Durga (mother goddess), Saraswati (knowledge).

In general, though, when Hindus direct their thoughts and prayers to a god, that god is Bhagavan. He is the personal god they mostly think of as god. He is the personal aspect of God in general, and does not correspond to a particular deity. Bhagavan is in many ways analogous to the general Christian conception of God.

Sikhism

Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak in the 16th century in northern India, is a monotheistic, revealed religion of Central India. It advocates the pursuit of salvation through disciplined, personal meditation on the name and message of God. In Sikhism, God is shapeless, timeless, and sightless. God is omnipresent and infinite. Sikhs believe that before creation, all that existed was god and its will or order (similar to the "logos" of Christianity). The fundamental belief of Sikhism is that God exists, indescribable yet knowable and perceivable to anyone who is prepared to dedicate the time and energy to gaining this knowledge. While a full understanding of God is beyond human beings, god is omnipresent in all creation and visible everywhere to the spiritually awakened. Guru Nanak's teachings are founded not on a final destination of heaven or hell, but on a spiritual union with God which results in salvation. God created the spatial-temporal universe not from some pre-existing physical element, but from his / her own Self. It is not maya (illusion), but is sat (real) because, as Guru Arjan says, “True is He and true is his / her creation [because] all has emanated from God Himself”

Several Flavors of the Abrahamic God

The religions which claim Abraham as one of its founders (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) see God as a supernatural being who created the universe and rules over it. He is thought to be infinitely holy, just, wise, powerful, knowledgeable, and good. He is omnipresent and is immortal. He is also believed to be transcendent, meaning that he exists outside space and time, but can act in our physical world when he chooses to.

Christianity

The Trinity of Christianity (father, son, holy spirit) is a puzzle. Christianity, unique in the Abrahamic religions, espouses this non-unitary concept. The others conceive of God as a unitary being. According to the Trinity theory, there are three holy entities, but also clearly a single entity, sometimes called the "Godhead". Trinitarian monotheists believe in one god that exists as three interdependent persons who share the same essence. This inherent contradiction supports the idea that god is beyond reason. That it makes no sense is not a problem, but a benefit. It helps the believer cast off reason and accept based only on faith. Within Christianity there is still disagreement as to the Trinity concept. It is not clearly explained in the Bible, and was hotly debated in early Church history (Arianism, Adoptionism, Sabellianism), finally being officially sanctioned by the Council of Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople in the 4th century CE. Some Christian churches deviate from this, advocating a unitary god, or multiple gods (as in Mormonism, where the father, son, holy spirit, and in some denominations a "heavenly mother", are actually separate gods) etc.

Many Christian churches in the west (Methodists, Unitarian, generic "Christian" or "non-denomiational") have loosened their view of God and take a rather liberal view of the issue, leaving it up to the individual to decide what works for them. Fundamentalist, Pentacostals, Baptists, Mormons, and several other distinct denominations have more strict creeds and are less tolerant of deviation.

A very strong draw to many Christian churches is the "fellowship" they offer. Whether at the church on weekdays or at individuals' houses, members gather to share experiences over coffee, discuss issues of faith and morality, explore how their religion applies to current events, and otherwise provide support and encouragement to each other. For those who need or want like-minded company for social interaction, this can be very rewarding.

Judaism

The books of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) show a god undergoing tremendous transformation from primitive and vengeful to tolerant and inclusive, though that set of changes is typically denied by all the Abrahamic religions. Modern Judaism is less dogmatic than Christianity about the specific details of heaven, hell, judgment, afterlife, angels, demons, etc.

Jewish tradition teaches that the true aspect of God is ultimately unknowable, and that it is only God's revealed aspect that brought the universe into existence, and interacts with mankind and the world. In Judaism, God is conceived of as the one God of Israel who is the guide of the world, who gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, empowered Moses to lead his people out of Egypt into the promised land, and who inspired all the other prophets of the old testament. Regarding the historicity of Moses and his many accomplishments, Rationalwiki.org says,

Despite being regarded in Judaism as the primary factual historical narrative of the origin of the religion, culture and ethnicity, Exodus is now accepted by scholars as having been compiled in the 8th–7th centuries BCE from stories dating possibly as far back as the 13th century BCE, with further polishing in the 6th–5th centuries BCE, as a theological and political manifesto to unite the Israelites in the then‐current battle for territory against Egypt. Archaeologists from the 19th century onward were actually surprised not to find any evidence whatsoever for the events of Exodus. By the 1970s, archaeologists had largely given up regarding the Bible as any use at all as a field guide.

Judaism is monotheistic, though in the early books of the bible, there were clear references to other gods, not as false or imitation gods, but as gods that it would be sinful to worship. The old testament refers numerous times to Yahweh sitting at the head of a divine council of gods, or God being greater than the other gods. This probably reflects a gradual cultural transition from polytheism, to monolatry, and finally to monotheism.

Modern Judaism lacks a centralized authority that would dictate an exact religious dogma. It is not clear what their view of judgment and the afterlife is. I have asked several Jewish people about this, and I get the impression that it is not something that they spend much time considering. If there is a unifying codification of Jewish philosophy (other than the Torah), it would probably be Maimonides 13 tenets: belief in a single, unique, immaterial, immortal god; that he should be prayed to; acceptance of the teachings and the prophets of the Torah; that god is omniscient; he will reward and punish humans based on their adherence to the Jewish law; and that there will eventually be a resurrection of the dead.

Islam

Allah, the god of Islam, is much like the Jewish and Christian creator/monitor god - omnipotent, in that he knows our thoughts and intentions, etc. The prophet, Mohammed, is not considered a "son of God" or an aspect of God, as many Christians consider Jesus to be. He is the last of the line of prophets that include Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, and others. Theoretically, Islam is tolerant of other world religions (Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc). Under Islamic (Sharia) law, non Muslims are allowed to practice their religion unmolested as "dhimmis" or non-Muslims who believe in same god as the Islamic god. Originally this applied only to Christians and Jews, but was extended to other religions as the Islamic empire grew.

In practice, this so-called tolerance was really the institutionalization of second or third-class standing to non-Muslims. Persecution and forced conversion were (and are still) common in the Muslim world. It would be a great stretch to say that Islam is a religion of tolerance. Although isolated examples of it exist, the common perception (especially in the last half century) is anything but that.

From monolatry to monotheism

Josiah was killed by the Egyptians in 609 BCE. Following this were decades of Israeli submission to Egypt and later to Babylon. Yahweh's temple was burned, and the exile of the rich and privileged class to Babylon began. This exile was to last a couple of generations. The Babylonians saw this as the defeat of Yahweh at the hands of their god, Marduk. Most of the influential Israeli theologians of the time had been forcibly relocated to Babylon. They were hard pressed to make sense of the total and devastating defeat of their nation and their god. They were presented with the classic "problem of evil" (theodicy) - how could Yahweh permit this awful outcome? They had two options to reconcile this experience with their beliefs - abandon hope and admit that Yahweh was an inferior god, or devise an explanation that allowed them to claim, "Our god is omnipotent - he allowed this to happen to us to punish us for not being as faithful as we should have been". Using this tortured logic, Yahweh allowed Marduk to only appear to prevail in order to teach the faithless Jews a lesson. Jeremiah, who had relocated to Egypt, not Babylon, wrote that God was punishing the Israelites for worshipping other gods. The reasoning was that any god who could muster the greatest power on earth (Babylon) to punish wrong-worshipping Israelites, must be orders of magnitude more powerful than any other claimant to godhood. In this way Yahweh began to migrate (in the eyes of the Israelites) from one of many gods, to the super powerful, omnipotent god we recognize today. As psychologists have demonstrated countless times (see Leon Festinger), cognitive dissonance can cause us to cling even more fiercely to the beliefs that are threatened. It all happened (according to Wright) because of the rationalization that was required by the "exilic theologians" to make sense of an otherwise unexplainable disaster.

For example, a century earlier, Isaiah has god saying, "Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger", which clearly illustrates the point Wright makes. This is no ordinary god - he has to have the Assyrian god, Assur, in the palm of his hand to orchestrate such an apparent "defeat" just to make a point. Beginning about this time, Isaiah (frequently referred to as the second Isaiah, since most biblical scholars think the book of Isaiah was written by two authors) has god saying things along this theme, "I am the LORD and there is no other. Beside me there is no god".

From polytheism to monolatry

Summarizing the account given by Robert Wright in Evolution of God, around 700 BC, Israel (comprised by the two nations of Judea and Ephraim) was dominated and surrounded by Assyria and Egypt, both much larger and more powerful. Israel frequently was the object of humiliation and abuse by adventurous Assyrian invaders, and it lost much power and territory to them, eventually conceding all of Judea (southern Israel) to Assyrian invaders. Biblical figures Hosea, Amos, Zephaniah, and others were what we would now call populist nationalists, and opposed to foreign alliances with either one of these nations. They were basically xenophobic. Their feelings resonated with the populace because it was generally viewed that relations with these larger nations resulted in a "zero sum game". Whatever benefitted Assyria would diminish Israel. Cooperation and internationalism fell out of favor among the lower classes in Israel because they correctly perceived that they had nothing to gain, but much to lose. But many in the upper classes had accommodated to the Assyrians, and were actually living quite comfortably with this situation, enjoying imported food and other exotic luxuries.

1. Among the masses, the "Yahweh alone" movement grew strength from the resentment of all things foreign, including foreign gods. Among the dispossessed of Israel, a rejection of the many Assyrian gods took root - rejection of Milcom, Baal, and others in the divine council (i.e., the many godly inhabitants of that region - Psalm 82:1-2 "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment"). So, this "foreign policy" explanation accounts for the rejections of foreign gods - but what about the many competing domestic gods that were native to Israel (such as Asherah and El) not imported by conquerors?
2. The "domestic policy" explanation provided by the book says that competing rulers inside Israel began to try to out-do each other in their religiosity to gain popular support. In order to crush the power of nearby competitors, followers of Yahweh emerged on top at the expense of other local gods. Yahweh had always been a local favorite, and if any of the regional gods were to dominate, he already had a strong lead. Each of the competing local gods had their influential prophets and important temples. To poison the well against them, it became useful to essentially outlaw their worship (not deny their divinity), but just make it a criminal offense to serve them. "In short, supernatural pluralism was the enemy of royal power". For a king to consolidate political power, he also had to consolidate and centralize access to divine power under himself and his loyal prophets. So, this roughly summarizes Wright's account of the development of Western monolatry (worship of one god, though admitting the existence of many gods). Under King Josiah, Israel made giant leaps in this direction.

Other writers emphasize the influence of Persia, who conquered Babylon in 539 BCE, thus freeing the Jews from Babylonian control. They were Zoroastrians, worshipping a single god, Ahura Mazda. Their preference for monotheism probably influenced the Jews, who saw them as liberators, and Cyrus the Great (Persia's leader) as a Messiah.

Monolatry and Henotheism

Scholars generally accept that monolatry (accepting the existence of many gods, but believing only one to be worthy of worship) and Henotheism (similar to monolatry, but more tolerant in that it allows for the worship of any of those gods depending on personal preference) is a step on the path to monotheism (acceptance and worship of a single god). A good analogy for Henotheism is with baseball fans - A Chicago Cubs fan admits that there are other worthy teams, and that they probably have their good qualities, but certainly nothing approaching the awesomeness of the Chicago Cubs!

The pantheon of gods sitting beside Yahweh in the pre-Jewish era (probably before the Babylonian exile in 597 BCE) were::

• the Caananite deity, "El"
• the Semitic mythological mother goddess and consort of Yahweh, "Asherah"
• another Caananite/Akkadian deity, "Baal"
• a Babylonian god, "Marduk"
• ... and many others

The older books of the bible refer to some of these other gods. In the book, Genesis, god says, "Let us make man in our image". Who is "our" in this statement, why is it plural? Biblical apologists argue that he is conversing with the angels, and others stress the trinitarian view of god (father, son, holy ghost). But it may also mean he is talking to the other gods. Psalms has "There is none like you among the gods, O Lord"; "For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods"; "Our Lord is above all gods"; "Ascribe to Yahweh, you heavenly beings, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength."; "He is exalted above all gods"; "For Yahweh is a great god, and a great king above all gods". And of course the first commandment of the old testament, "You shall have no other gods before me". These and other references show that in the old testament, there are other gods, but none as worthy of worship as Yahweh.

Polytheistic Gods

This refers to the belief in multiple gods, either independent and roughly co-equal (as found in the ancient European and Middle Eastern era where different nations worshipped several local gods, each sub-group having their own protector - Baal, Yahweh, El Shaddai, Asherah, Chemosh, Ishtar, Marduk, Shamash, Aengus, etc.). This frequently occurred through cultural cross-fertilization resulting from military conquest and population migration. Nearby communities did not, in general, dispute the existence of the foreign gods, but preferred their own over their neighbors. As people and tribes from different areas intermixed, so did their deities. As the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman empires expanded, they frequently found it more pragmatic and expedient to accept and assimilate the gods of the peoples they conquered rather than abolish them. The end result was a very diverse basket of deities. Even as early Christianity encroached on the outlying regions of northern and western Europe, we see Christian saints wrestling with pagan deities (e.g., Saint Patrick eloping with the daughter of the Irish god, Aengus, or Saint George slaying the dragon).

Sometimes, after assimilation, these gods fall into a hierarchical relationship as in the Greek pantheon with Zeus at the top, or the Norse pantheon ruled by Odin. Sometimes the gods each have their own bailiwick and special area of application and expertise. The majority of the many thousands of Hindu gods follow this pattern, though there are a small finite number at the apex (i.e., Bhagavan, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu).

Prehistoric gods

Animism was (and still is) a popular god concept among primitive tribes and ancient indigenous people. Our modern understanding of this phenomenon comes from James Frazer's The Golden Bough, which communicated to wide audiences how superstition and magic influenced most aspects of life in primitive cultures. Animism encompasses the spiritual belief that everything has a spirit or soul - animals, plants, rocks, geographic features (rivers, mountains, seas), storms and other weather patterns, the sun, moon, planets, and other parts of nature. It persists in a more modern version in Shinto, some forms of Hinduism, the Sikhs, Buddhism, Pantheism, and Paganism. One of the primary goals in living in an animistic universe is appeasing these many gods and convincing them to move events into configurations that will favor our endeavors, or at least not harm us.

Fetishism is a related early form of worship in which a statuette, figurine, puppet, or other metaphoric representation was fabricated (French - "fétiche", from a latin word meaning "fabricate") and worshipped as either a god itself or a representative of a god. Modern religions have fetishes - the Christian cross, holy relics, etc. James Frazer popularized the term, "sympathetic magic", specifically the types of magic based on "similarity" and "contagion" as the basis for this type of practice. If the object of worship bore some physical resemblance to, or even contained parts of (blood, hair, bone, spit) the thing it represents, then in some mysterious way that object becomes the thing it resembles.

Some anthropologists and students of religion, such as E. B. Tylor, believe that these primitive (i.e., ancient, original, non-derivative) religions were the basis and foundation for later more "sophisticated" religions. He and others theorized that early humans conceived of the soul as being the same as the figures which would appear in dreams and visions. These early human cultures later interpreted these spirits to be present in animals, the living plant world, and even in inanimate natural objects. Eventually, these early humans grew to believe that the spirits were invested and interested in human life, and performed rituals to propitiate them. These rituals and beliefs eventually evolved over time into the vast array of “developed” religions. According to Tylor, the more scientifically advanced the society, the less that society believed in Animism. However, any remnant ideologies of souls or spirits, to Tylor, represented “survivals” of the original animism of early humanity.

Robert Wright outlines categories of "Hunter Gatherer Gods" in The Evolution of God.

Supernatural being type 1: elemental spirits

Parts of nature that modern scientists know to be inanimate appear to be alive, possessing intelligence and personality and a soul. When clouds obscure the moon, it could mean that the god of the south wind was trying to kill the moon. The flow of nature became an anthropomorphic drama being played out.

Supernatural being type 2: puppeteers

Parts of nature may be controlled by beings who themselves are distinct from nature. For example, In Greek mythology, the Anemoi were wind gods who were each ascribed a cardinal direction, from which their respective winds came, and were each associated with various seasons and weather conditions. They were sometimes represented as mere gusts of wind, at other times were personified as winged men, and at still other times were depicted as horses kept in the stables of the storm god Aeolus.

Supernatural being type 3: organic spirits

Natural phenomena that even we consider alive may have supernatural powers. The coyote, for example, may house evil spirits. A species of bird could make snow, and another make fog.

Supernatural being type 4: ancestral spirits

Hunter-gathers societies almost always feature spirits of the deceased, and typically these spirits do at least as much bad as good. They can be both objects of affection and love, or of dread and abomination. Modern-day ancestor veneration in Japan and China, for instance, descends from primitive ancestor worship. Offerings set out for the ancestors in ceremonies is an attempt to convince the deceased to intervene in behalf of the living. A social rationale for the continuation of this practice, as with most religious ceremonies, is to cement important traditions, cultivate family and tribal unity, and to reaffirm loyalty.

Supernatural being type 5: the high god

Some hunter-gatherer societies (though not all) have a "high god". This does not necessarily involve a hierarchical pantheon with a single "king god" reigning over all the lesser gods. Instead it reflects a belief that, among the various gods, one has more power and influence than the others, and may often be a "creator god". Among the Klamath indians, this would have been Kmukamtch who inhabited the sun. Among the ancient polytheistic people who became the Jews, Yahweh emerged from a small pantheon of gods to become the high god, and eventually the only god.