Do we actually think that God loves us because we are an egocentric species?
- Status
M
MPat
Guest
I think you have not given any argument to support any of those claims.
And that they seem to be wrong.
So, how many religions have you created?
Seriously, if you haven’t shown your self a good creator of religions, you do not get to have your claims accepted just because of everyone else not being an authority on that. After all, you are not an authority either.
So, you think that we “created gods on our image to serve our purposes, needs and goals”? Then can you explain why religion considers sins and hell? Are you relieved by a thought that you might go to hell whenever you hear the relevant version of Pascal’s Wager?
Could it be that you do not know quite as much about religions, as you think you know…?
As St. Thomas Aquinas tells us in “Summa Theologica” first part, question 20 (dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP020.html), “Since to love a thing is to will it good, in a twofold way anything may be loved more, or less.”. In one sense God loves all things equally (as He loves all things “by an act of the will that is one, simple, and always the same”), in another sense “God’s loving one thing more than another is nothing else than His willing for that thing a greater good: because God’s will is the cause of goodness in things; and the reason why some things are better than others, is that God wills for them a greater good”.
Well, we are the only species known to us that both can be saved and needs saving.
Snakes and dogs and horses and amoebas can’t sin and thus need no salvation. Neither do angels. Demons can’t be saved. And we do not know if any aliens exist.
As St. Thomas Aquinas tells us in the same question, “God therefore did not assume human nature because He loved man, absolutely speaking, more [than He loved angels]; but because the needs of man were greater;”.
Is there any reason why He shouldn’t care?
Go to a pet shop, a flower shop, watch TV… We care about dogs and cats, mice and rabbits, roses and oaks, sea and volcanoes, stars and planets, galaxies and neutrinos. If we care about all those things that are not “the center of the Universe”, why shouldn’t the creator of them all care about them? And likewise, why shouldn’t He care about us, since He created us as well?
M
MaryT777
Guest
Because he said so as noted by another poster in the Bible.
John 3:16New International Version (NIV)
**16*For God so loved the world **that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
also check out:
Romans 5:8New International Version (NIV)
8*But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
Because he said so as noted by another poster in the Bible.
John 3:16New International Version (NIV)
**16*For God so loved the world **that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
also check out:
Romans 5:8New International Version (NIV)
8*But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
But this is just a form of begging the question. The only reason you would believe what God said (e.g. through the bible) is if you *already *thought he was good and cared about us.
Its like saying “If I assume God always tells the truth, God always tells the truth!” or “If I assume God loves us, then God loves us!”
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Weird.
It’s almost like all premises eventually boil down to axiom…
It’s almost like all premises eventually boil down to axiom…
T
Tarquin
Guest
I am curious where you have gotten some of your ideas from. I would guess that you have not thought very deeply about some of the things you have written. “Humans like to feel they are at the centre of the universe” - I don’t know what that even means - that humans are in the geographical centre of the universe? Or the gravitational centre? - that humans believe they are the most important part of the universe? Some do, many do not. Certainly cats do. Ants and bees seem not to so believe, putting the welfare of the hive above their own personal welfare. As for being afraid and weak, speak for yourself. There are many fearless people and many strong people - muscular, strong-willed, determined, persevering - whatever kind of “strong” you mean. “We want and need to feel protected and loved” - well of course we do! Everyone wants love. And everyone wants someone to give their love to. That’s one thing that obviously sets humans apart from animals, plants, minerals, and non-physical things like platonic ideals, imaginary numbers, horizons of intelligibility, etc. But I sure do disagree, and even take offense, that someone would say that my desire to love and be loved, and presumably my very ability to love and be loved, is because I’m afraid of something or because I’m weak. That’s just plain silly. And insulting to my humanity.
“when in fact the universe doesn’t seem to put us into consideration” - totally without one drop of substantiation, and completely contrary to evidence. We aren’t put into consideration? How do we even exist then? Something or someone took us into consideration enough for their to be an environment we can not only survive in, but live, love, and thrive in. That’s very considerate. What would the universe be like which did not put us into consideration - a boiling cauldron of deadly radiation, waterless, airless, constantly explosive, colliding, unstable, without gravity, hydrogen, heavy metals, etc. etc. The universe was absolutely and totally considerate in providing for our needs.
T
Tarquin
Guest
Yes, we need love, we need protection. That’s part of the nature of the physical universe. Sun screen lotion, scuba gear, hats, umbrellas, all serve to protect us from extremes of nature. You return to “afraid” but I still don’t know what you are alluding to. There are some things to be cautious about, But I don’t believe fear drives most people as much as it seems to drive you.
“fill our curiosities regarding what we don’t have the answers to including our egocentrism that plays a big role “ A god invented to satisfy a curiosity must be a rare fabrication indeed. I know of not a single one. If there are any, I suspect they are too few to matter in the study of comparative religion and origin of religion. Don’t you find it odd that, given the tremendous egocentrism you assign to yourself and others, that anyone would make up ideas about “gods” rather than merely say things were done by their own inherent human power but we just haven’t yet figured out how we are doing it – like making it rain by thinking about it, winning the heart of someone we love by saying that person’s name over and over? If I were such a big egocentric egotist, I would give myself credit for all the good things that happen to me, and for all the bad things that happen to my enemies. I wouldn’t share that with some fiction I don’t believe in to begin with, a fiction that would replace my precious egocentrism with distastefully unselfish allocentrism – as is *encouraged *in most religions!
Do you have evidence that “all over history we created gods on our image to serve our purposes, needs and goals, fill our curiosities…”? Certainly there have been megalomaniacs, some who declare themselves to be virtual gods and demand worship, like some Roman emperors, Communist dictators, and others who have placed themselves above God in order to deny the existence of God, declare themselves to be godless and demand that someone “prove” to them that God exists. The only proofs some of them seem willing to except is either a face to face visit by God in which he performs required miracles, or evidence that the atheist is himself god.
Some so-called gods have been created not to explain things at all, but to grant divinity (falsely), dignity (unworthily), and admiration (forced) from populations for Roman, Chinese, Japanese, and Mesoamerican emperors, atheist dictators, and others.
As I study the origin of religions - and of gods - I see that people investigate things they are curious about in order to understand how they work, seek practical solutions to their needs, strive to reach their goals, regardless of their religious beliefs. I find no one making up a religion or a god in order to accomplish these things. Religions is like science. Science is like religion. Religions create the basis of a civilization and its culture, provide coherent moral standards, establish a sense of and respect for a society of objective rather than capricious laws and predictable rather than arbitrary order. Religion also provides the spur for science – telling us that the universe is orderly, predictable, beneficial, and intelligible. Science provides information and procedures for the development of technology. When our understanding (scientific “knowledge”) is discovered to be faulty, we change our understanding; when our procedures fail to keep up with knowledge and technology, we change our procedures. When our religious beliefs fall short of our experiences, we make course corrections. Religions are no less “self-correcting” that the sciences are. Actually, however, neither religion nor science is “self-correcting.” Each is an abstract. Only people can correct the understanding, beliefs and malpractices of science and religion.
“What makes you think that God if he exists cares for you or for humanity.”
Existence! God cared enough to create you and humanity, therefore he cares for you and for humanity. It doesn’t matter whether you call That creation thing “God,” “the primal atom,” “the Big Bang,” “the First Cause,” “Nature,” “Physics,” “Logic,” “Mind,” or a tree, the net result is the same – the universe exists. And therefore that creation thing is in the position of God – first cause, creator, etc.
A better question than “does he care” (you assume masculinity for God; not all religious people see God as “masculine”), would be “how much does he care?” That would be a worthy discussion. Otherwise, it’s too obvious that he does care. We just aren’t confident as to how much he cares, especially atheists aren’t.
T
Tarquin
Guest
That assumes that you personally know far more about another person’s thought processes than anyone other than a God could possess. It’s not insulting exactly, but it is pretty, well, for now let’s just say, thoughtless. Why do you see everything in black and white? May I assume you do, in the same spirit that you assume a person’s belief is based on whether or not he made a religion, black or white, made it or didn’t make it? Is it only possible to believe religions started in one of two ways? Your way (the correct way) and another way (everyone else in the world believing the same)?
You have not thought - I will say you have not even read very much in the way of the origin of religions. Were some religions fabricated? Of course! Heaven’s Gate comes to mind. Were some developed without an initial “fabrication”? Likewise, of course! Confucianism was a codification of social relationships; Taoism was a poetic expression of natural relationships; Buddhism was a compassionate suggestion for the alleviation of suffering. These three became religions: they were not “made up”; they were expounded. Are there other ways that religions have initiated?
Visions and journeys into spirit world. Whether we believe the journeys were genuine, or whether the person experiencing them interpreted them correctly or incorrectly, they happened. Swedenborg and Arthur Ford are two examples. There are also people who have had veridical near-death experiences. Although none of these began a new religion, as far as I am aware, they have initiated a new religious view embraced by many. Men declared themselves God for self-glory, not to “explain” anything, and not even to “control” people. Being the type of emperors they were, in the cultures in which they were, they already controlled people!
“There are more things in heaven and earth, ANV,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
You are not talking now about “GOD”. You are talking about a particular “God”. There are many beliefs or philosophies about God that do not stipulate that he sent himself, or that he sent himself to save only one species. It is possible to be anti-Christian without being atheist. Soteriology depends on Theology. When your theology is cleared up, then you will be better armed to argue soteriology, Jesus, resurrection, etc. But first you need to understand what “God” means, and why.
Egocentric means centered on the self, not on one’s species.
“Humancentric” presumably means centered on the species, not on one’s self.
One cannot be both!
So this may be one of the first confusions you need to clear up for yourself.
If you do genuinely want to understand, don’t use words so loosely and flippantly.
If you ask questions using self-contradictory terms, then naturally you will never get satisfactory answers. Assuming you want satisfactory (persuasive) answers.
The issues you raise are worthy of discussion, and thus they are worthy of word choices that accurately represent what you mean.
- Status