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.

Different conceptions of God

The term, God (or "god"), is typically used by people in conversation as if there is a common understanding as to what, exactly, it means. When people ask "do you believe in god?" or "god speaks to me" or "may god be with you", it is unlikely that there is a common agreement among everyone involved in the conversation as to exactly what it denotes. Nor do I think that most individuals, in general, even know what they think it means themselves when they use it. Instead, it seems to be the case (at least in America) that the god concept is loosely tied to a vague religious sensibility, a feeling that there is something or someone who is holding the reins and is, to some degree, in charge of the events of our lives and of our destinies. Whether this is a personal god, an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent god, or some indistinct "higher power" can vary with the individual.

I thought I would try to categorize as many of the most prevalent god concepts that I could think of. In general, these will be listed from most "primitive" to most "advanced", where primitive means lacking sophistication, and advanced means most abstract, complex, and philosophically subtle. Where such a distinction doesn't apply, historically older religions and concepts will appear before more modern ideas. So, for example, the section dealing with evolutionary adaptive ideas of god will appear toward the end.

I am strictly limiting this to the various and confusing usages of the religious term, "god". This is not a discussion of religion or the meaning of life.

Regardless of the differences, some common threads unify the many conceptions described throughout this presentation:

• The primary feature of religion is the belief in/assertion that there are non-human or super-human agents operating in the world. These entities or forces lack some of the features of normal humans (like bodies), but they possess the most important characteristic - a mind, a consciousness, and a purpose. They may or may not be incorporated into some concrete form, or they may be decentralized and ethereal. They may or may not be immortal. In general they have access to more global information than we do, have more power, and are able to affect events in the natural world in ways that normal humans could not. This is the most common and fundamental characteristic of religious belief - belief in supernatural beings and causes. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it.


• There is no actual agreed-upon evidence for the factual truth of any of them. The individual adherents of each of these beliefs may consider their definitions of god to be incontrovertibly true, but the vast majority of everyone else in the world would not agree with them. Members of many of the differing sects will also argue that they, do, in fact, have hard evidence for their view. But this use of the word, evidence, is much looser than that which applies to most other aspects of life. For many, if not most, evidence and proof are beside the point, irrelevant, counter-productive, and even indicative of a wrong-headed approach to the issue. What matters for them is the personal and group experience - the feeling of believing, of achieving harmony and peace, not a hard-nosed, dry and sterile intellectual proof. Other groups deconstruct "evidence" and "reality" and "god" to redefine or undefine these terms so as to derail attempts to become specific. Some post-modernists (and many ancient religions use post-modern techniques) throw out the concepts of distinction, of separateness, and even of objective reality to subvert any serious attempt to get a handle on the god concept. In any case, the ordinary experience of reality that we associate with most everyday phenomena cannot apply to the god concept.


• The religion one professes is typically inherited from one's parents or adopted from one's neighbors. The decision to choose a particular belief in a god and a religion is driven by social, cultural, historical, and political trends, and occasionally by personal choice.


• There is a class of people who might be called "seekers", those who branch out from the traditions they grew up with to find new answers to the their questions about the "meaning of life". They generally embrace their gurus, religions, miracles, saints, and saviors to satisfy a passion, to fill an emptiness, to fulfill a desire for meaning, completeness, connectedness, or to give them peace in the face of looming meaninglessness and alienation. They seek to escape from what Kierkegaard described as "sickness unto death" by establishing some relationship with a god. According to Kierkegaard, an individual is "in despair" if he does not align himself with god or god's plan. Only by making a "leap of faith", can you escape from this desperate condition. By abandoning reason and embracing faith, they evaluate and judge their adopted philosophies based on how they feel and think afterwards rather than if it is supported by evidence - has it brought peace, certainty, answers to troubling questions? The quest is driven by a thirst for a feeling, and the beliefs are judged by how well that thirst is quenched. Any rationale, reason, analysis, or logic applied to the situation is done after the fact, ad hoc, to justify in seemingly coherent terms what the individual already wanted to happen, independent of the reasons. As Hume said, reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions. It is difficult and rare for a person to approach the metaphysical questions of life dispassionately. When the emotional drive for answers to painful questions is missing or is not the dominate motivator for the search, the religious quest becomes an academic exercise, an intellectual hobby or pastime of no more or less importance than a game of checkers. For those who approach it emotionally, there are no logical arguments that can sway them from their chosen answers. As the saying goes, and I believe it to be true, "you can't use logic to convince someone out of a position which they did not arrive at by using logic in the first place".


• There are many students of religion who investigate it from the outside, as a discipline or anthropological/ neurological/psychological/sociological phenomenon. They see the sheer fact of religion's importance across all societies throughout history and pre-history as arguing for the existence of a innate human and societal need for it. Humans want answers to questions, especially those questions for which answers are not easily found - why is the sky angry? why does disease kill us? why are we afraid? what happens when we die? why has misfortune befallen us? what will make our hunt more successful? Is anyone watching out for me? Before science could answer (some of) these questions, people turned to their religions for answers. If there was no actual god to answer these questions, one was created (Voltaire - "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him"). There is some evidence of a cross-cultural tendency for humans to assign supernatural purposive "agency" as the reason for unexplainable phenomena. Anthropological, archaeological, and historical evidence shows that throughout our existence, mankind has ascribed the power to create and influence events in life to non-corporeal, supernatural beings. Whether these were conceived of as animistic, elemental, or organic spirits, deceased ancestors, multiple gods for multiple purposes, or a single monotheistic god, non-corporeal spirits have haunted human experience since the beginning of time.


• Throughout human history, and across all cultures, mankind seeks the transcendent, and attempts to ascribe causal agency to unseen, mysterious, and unknowable forces. This perception of an invisible reality, as strange as it sounds, might be a side effect of our large brains' ability to form abstractions and mental models. Having to live with unexplained mysteries is so uncomfortable for humans that we fabricate intentional incorporeal causal agents to explain the unexplainable. For better or worse, it has tagged along with our culture for millennia, possibly as a one of Stephen Jay Gould's "spandrels" - a side effect of our complex neural hardware and software.


• We humans tend to seek meaning and purpose that exist outside and/or above ourselves, driven by a "higher" necessity, whether it's origin is religion, politics, relationships, the government, professional and intellectual pursuits, or social issues. The bleakness of finding no comforting answers to the existential problems of "why am I here", "what is the purpose of my life", "what does it all mean" drive people to seek solid and reassuring answers from outside themselves. The possibility that there is no external "reason" for our existence that is any different from that which could be given for a tree's existence or an ant colony's existence is too painful and disruptive for both individuals and societies. As Kierkegaard wrote, when it comes to existential problems, reason is insufficient; "Human reason has boundaries". The thought that there must or could be a larger purpose or destiny, the mental image of the existence of such things, drives us to seek them and believe in them, regardless of whether they exist or not.

This is a new blog I am creating. I would like to mention my other blog at http://www.scirelfaith.blogspot.com/. You should check it out.

But I am finished with that one and am on to a new topic. I have become interested in all the different ways that people I know and people I hear in the mass media refer to their belief in god (or gods). Recently a friend said that he was sick of thinking about god - that the whole subject was obviously a confusing mess. After digesting what he said, I realized that is exactly what I find most interesting about it. I am intrigued by the contradictions and the accommodations people make to resolve those contradictions. I want to understand how and why they attempt to define it in a way that fits their lives, needs, and preconceptions. It's very clear that this 3 letter word is used to refer to an almost innumerable collection of beings, concepts, or forces. This blog is going to try to list and describe as many of them as I can.

By acknowledging and cataloging the most common uses of this term, an underlying theme will emerge, and it is this: if the many uses of "god" are so different, they can't all be true in the sense that things in the "real world" are true. And if this is the case, then likely none of them are true. They can't all be true in the same sense that the assertion, "my car is in the garage", is either true or it is not. In other words, for them all to be true they could only be true to the extent that it is permitted to deviate from the "classic laws of thought" where something is either true or it isn't, and if it's true, then it's opposite can't also be true. Of course they can all be "true" in the sense that everyone has their own truth (whatever that means, if it even means anything...). If we allow it to be the case that every one can have their own "equally valid" version of god, then this would make it unique in the domain of "important concepts". For example, although there are some normal personal variances in definition, we all basically agree on what is denoted by the terms life, death, love, hate, night, day, mine, yours, etc. If each person has their own definition for god, and if this is "ok", then there is really nothing to discuss. It becomes a personal matter, and a trivial one at that - no more worth talking about than the differences between your favorite song or color or soft drink and mine.

By the way, it's going to be lower case "god" from this point on, because as you will quickly see, I look at the subject from an academic and sociological perspective, not as a believer. This blog is going to have a lot of entries following this, as I finish thinking them out. So, enjoy.