Actual Divinity or a Survival Concept?
 

Since God is considered to be completely objective, I feel it is imperative that we try to find out, according to humans, what objectivity really is and whether or not "God" plays a part in it in the first place.

Objective morality, I believe, can best be described as the combination of each individual view of morality. Each individual’s view of morality can be found when observing each individual’s own self-interest. Consequently, the self-interest of a social animal is in maintaining a group of social animals for the individual to survive in. So objective morality would be the perfect thought process to promote the survival of the group, which would in turn promote the survival of the individuals. These interests, on a very basic level, are focused on survival. They are not focused on a divine being that makes up all the rules but doesn’t adhere to them itself. How does following a divine being equate to being our own self interest for survival? We create divine beings in our minds to explain what we cannot yet explain. Our morals may be spread by the religions that promote these divine beings. Therefore, it would make sense that the divine beings we claim exist also support the objective morality that humans answer to, however this does not in any way mean the divine being exists or that the divine being created it even if it did exist.

Now, each individual’s views on what survival of the group can entail is considered completely subjective. I, myself, promote depopulating the human race to a smaller number as I believe that our altruism and promotion of individual life is guaranteeing our death of our species over all through the consequences of being overpopulated and having to compensate for it through the environment. Others would argue that altruism is the key to survival and that as a perfect, harmonious team we can be capable of overcoming any problems that we create and thus don’t need to worry about our overpopulation. Even though both of these views differ, it does not mean that either would be wrong. They are both created to promote the existence of our species in different ways, and thus ensuring the survival of the individual whose objectively moral thoughts revolve around keeping the species surviving.

Further evidence showing my belief is below.

The source is as follows: God spot


I think this is quite an interesting read and quite possibly a way to say that a belief in God may actually be a legitimate creation in our minds to ensure our survival. Fascinating!

What do you think? Does a higher power indeed exist in your opinion or is it something evolution has put into our brains to ensure we keep our species surviving?

I've never thought of anything like that. I don't really believe in a God as of late. I mostly see it as someone for very religious people to blame when humans do actually end the world. Because people see it as an "all powerful" figure God may be blamed for "not giving us signs about our mistakes".

Maybe I'm missing the part in my brain or my brain is different like they said. O.O

I guess that explains maybe how God came to be then P:

It's not that you are missing it (though that is possible,) it could be just that your brain doesn't utilize it. Much like an autistic child may not be able to utilize the part of the brain that uses motor skills.

I don't believe in God, but I think it's possible that he (or she, for that matter) exists.
It's nice to think that there's an almighty being who loves us and will grant us a place in heaven after we die, but I really feel that this was just mankind's desperation to escape death which created this theory. We are so terrified of dying, and of course we'd rather believe there's an afterlife.
Although I accept that God may exist, I do not think we should worship him. A lot of people I've talked to say we should worship him because he's all powerful. Some loving God he is, if he rules us with fear like a tyrant.

Good Question. I think the rise of atheists may in part be to all the scientific knowledge we have that is pointing to reasons of why we have religion in the first place. However, there still is no explanation to how the universe began...lol...so as far as I know, there could be a deity out there :)

I do not know the answer, I was just giving a suggestion as to why there may be a rise in atheists and how it may not be negating survival of the fittest in any way.

Upon first glance this seems to be Genomania at its finest. We have a theory attempting to explain something as extremely complex as religion with what they label as the 'God module'. Not only is there such incredible diversity among religions as raised, but there is also the issue of whether it truly is a case of the brain being the cause and the religion the reaction. It has been observed for sometime that our social and cultural experiences can impact our brains. As supported by this quote.

i prefer not to refer to labels...but i like your theory on the matter...-.-

Media interpretation of medical case studies should never be trusted.

Personally, being someone who is not religious...in the least, I believe in what I can see and feel(if its still around). For instance, we have paintings of Jesus, yet where is there a painting, or even depiction, of God? Sure, there are depictions of a "hand coming out of the clouds", but who is to say its God? Could it not be the artists depiction of the Earth giving to, and taking from, its inhabitants? Im not saying religions are wrong for worshiping their Gods, just I cant follow something with that much devotion unless I can see, and even feel it.

i like edgar allen poes view on the matter. read my signature and it quotes him on one of my favorite ones. it means that religion is manmade which means "god" is manmade. which means hes not real.

That's like saying because a cup of coffee is man made it isn't real....Even though god is a very fragile idea I still think that it cannot be considered completely false (For the longest time man thought the world was flat and then look what happened.)

Just because something has been altered/ruined by man/religion doesn't mean it just doesn't exist anymore...I don't think the papacy just decided to make their mascot an all powerful being with winged men for sidekicks...I guess what I'm trying to say is that the idea of a god came from before anyone can really remember so there must be something more to it....

(I'm an agnostic but I still have to disagree with what you just said there.)

EDIT: And if you look at what Edgar Allan Poe said in your signature it only talks about religion...Personally I don't think god and religion are the same thing at all...

Personally i don't think god exists, i have put alot of thought into this particular question and have done a little research and have used alot of common sense, first off, i think all religions that have a "greater power" or "god" were created by the government, for a few reasons, because in different continents and countries around the world there are many different gods that people beleive in and most of the religions state that it is the only correct religion. i also think that because in all religions if you think about it, your god requests that you do things to help your country or just do common sense things like don't cheat or kill or steal and what not, other countries bend their religion to do exactly what they want, some even get their believers to kill others to get themselves favored and to serve their god. i think that after death nothing happens your brain stops receiving and sending out messages and everything ceases to happen within your body, no spirits or heaven or hell or anything. i am not against religions even though i don't beleive in them, they do help families live a structured productive life, that is better for the community, i mean who is more likely to break into your house and steal your xbox 360 a crackhead or a morman? am i right? i have to have proof of something to believe it and there is no proof of a god, so until i see proof i will not believe in a god.

I do not know of this person you are quoting, but if that quotation in your signature is an accurate representation of him then he does not seem like a person I would like very much.

My first problem with this quote arises from how he attempts to address all religions at once. After all the role and function that religion serves differs very greatly from culture to culture. Having neglected to even address this vast diversity among religions he then attempts to provide an explanation as to how they supposedly all came into existence. A big problem here is that the theory that all cultures evolve down the same path has long been disproved.

Before I became a devoted Catholic, I read the bible, but I needed more evidence. So I actually read several sudent handbooks and adult books (including A Case for Christ, The Case for a Creator, and several other books) by Lee Strobel. He interviews several people including professors, scientiests and whatnot. Some are Christians, some are Athiests, some are in between.

The most interesting thing for me is that nearly all of the people he interviewed believed the universe was formed through intelligent design. Although, many people debate against it. He even questions Darwin's theory of evolution in his journalistic search for a creator. It's pretty interesting.

While I'm not exactly making any sort of debate here, but I think that if anyone were look into some of Lee Strobel's books, they'd definitely be able to make a better decision as to wheather they think God exists, as well as if Jesus ever truely existed and if all his claims were real (or was he just mentally sick).

Don't you think that maybe he was being selective in who he chose to include in his books so that it looks like he didn't know that he was interviewing people who believed in ID?

As much as I hate to admit it, Lee Strobel is an amazing writer and researcher. He has interviewed well renowned people/scientists/theists/atheists who support all kinds of views. I was quite enthralled by his three original books "Case for Creator, Case for Christ, and Case for Faith." They address some very legitimate points in a very professional and explanatory manner. Quite interesting reads. Most of the theories aren't necessarily insinuating the Christian God, but rather an Intelligent Designer. I would highly recommend reading it if you wish to find theistic beliefs defended extremely well. My arguments with theists who have read those books and can use them as a source are quite intriguing and interesting and in-depth.

I completely understand, and I believe in ID to an extent, but I still think that the notion that "all of the sources from this one text believe in the same thing so it must have merit" should be challenged :)