Is god necessary any more?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Genesis
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
And god said, Let there be light: and there was light.

He created heaven, earth, waters, land, light, and darkness. He made fish, fowl, animal, and man. Then he rested. He intervened a few times throughout history according to more than three different religious texts. But has anyone seen him lately?

Is the person who created everything and controls everything needed anymore?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,785 • Replies: 18

No top replies

God as "mythology" isn't needed and was needed to be less destructive in the past. It did, to be fair, have a restraining influence in the past. Now, I think a kind of Native-american nature=spiritualism is the only "religion" that has a future. Globally, people are increasingly becoming under the influence of free thought, free will and education and so are finding how ridiculous it is to turn your mind over to religion that presumes to tell them what is right and wrong. The humanitarian philosophies of the past will have a great contribution to global religions in the coming centuries. People are and will abandon levels of angels and saints of heaven, whatever that religion happens to be. The religions of the future will be out=growths of groups like Baha'i, Ethical Culture, Reform Judaism, Quakerism and the Unitarian=Universalism. Buddhism will have a very short path to this future global religion. Or not.

0 Replies

I took the liberty of posting your entry on this same topic in religion and spirituality, go there to see more

0 Replies

Definitions and interpretations of "god" [or fill " " with another word] still exist in every person just like everybody might have her own best pizza place. It is a matter of necessity that we use "god" in lower case until somebody tells us what it really is.

Someone said your god is too small, before which another wrote it's dead; as a philosopher of ethics, I understand both propositions as the same in essence - anyone's definition of " " [denoted as (god)'] can be either small, non-existent, or else. But whoever wrote it's small or dead, there was knowledge to believe. Whether that's in science or faith, or for a believer or non-believer, the necessity in concern is about a belief in the existence of certain knowledge [denoted as " "], and your personal quest or whatever begins there as (god)' [or ("truth")'].

Necessary is it? Yes, just a matter of necessity it is.

0 Replies

Then there's the "God of the Gaps".

0 Replies

definitions

Heliotrope wrote:

Then there's the "God of the Gaps".

If you worship what is supposed to be "God of the Gaps" that must be your ultimate concern, even if you're speaking lightly.

0 Replies

Regardless of whether religion has any objective validity, possessing faith is healthy. People who follow any religion faithfully and zealously have longer life expectancy. It gives people a sense of purpose and belonging, and helps allay fears about death.

Countless wars have also been fought in the name of religion. However, this negative aspect of religion is likely to become less common as people learn to tolerate other's differences. Many wars fought in the name of god have directly conflicted with the beliefs they claim to be defending. Religion tends to be used as a form of propaganda rather than the actual cause of a war. Ignorance in any form can cause conflict.

0 Replies

Eccles wrote:

People who follow any religion faithfully and zealously have longer life expectancy

I would really like to know where you found that information.

Eccles wrote:

Countless wars have also been fought in the name of religion. However, this negative aspect of religion...

Does that mean that you think that god isn't necessary?

0 Replies

Fundamentalists and nuns live longer. I've read that in a number of psychology textbooks and reputable magazines. Smile

I'll hunt down a reference that you should be able to find in a decent sized library (or on the internet) and post it here.

I was trying to present a possible objection (and make my discussion a little more balanced). The gist of the argument was that even though religion has caused many wars, the psychological construct of a godlike figure can be positive.

Laughing

Anyhow, my second paragraph deserved questioning the most, as I tried to be brief rather than present a detailed discussion of the matter.

My point was that I believe that the psychological concept of God is (while not exactly "necessary") very useful. I had four hours sleep last night (bet you can tell) and am almost an athiest so I don't feel like discussing a theological matter in detail. I only posted in order to give a different perspective.

0 Replies

Eccles, welcome to A2K.
You haven't pissed me off any. I just naturally secrete that vibe, it's a defense mechanism. :wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

Regardless of whether religion has any objective validity, possessing faith is healthy. People who follow any religion faithfully and zealously have longer life expectancy. It gives people a sense of purpose and belonging, and helps allay fears about death.

I agree. And if it turns out there is no "God" or higher power, they won't be in any position to object, they'll be dead. No harm done. Laughing

And on whether "God" is actually needed, I don't believe that "God" or whatever you may worship is actually needed as a physical presence/ active presence in our world, but he/it/she does give people something to believe in, gives them hope for the future, yadda yadda it's been said before. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

Regardless of whether religion has any objective validity, possessing faith is healthy. People who follow any religion faithfully and zealously have longer life expectancy. It gives people a sense of purpose and belonging, and helps allay fears about death.

I am not so sure that it is the faith, per se, that is creating the longer life expectancy. From what I have read, older people who have an intricate social network, many activities, and a sense of purpose, are more likely to remain healthier, both physically and mentally. It is isolation, lack of interaction and stimulation from other people, that is related to depression, sickness, and a shorter life span.

So I could conclude, that if a person has a large social support network, many interesting activities, and a sense of purpose, the end effect would be similar to those who live their lives through faith.

0 Replies

Live longer 'because' we have faith?

Eccles wrote:

People who follow any religion faithfully and zealously have longer life expectancy.

We don't have to justify our faith in God by adding such a statement like the above one, which we don't know is true. Nevertheless the statement itself is not logically valid or sound, while it needs to be logical as it tries to give proof to the necessity of faith and religion.

I would go for social interaction and sense of purposes with some scientific data that simply make sense.

Otherwise, I just need what is "God" because I have faith in the existence and knowledge of "God;" I don't need to justify or prove my faith to others but to what is "God" by searching that truth, and that proves necessity of having God, whether I could live longer and healthier in return.

0 Replies

One has to wonder why people convinced there is a God -- and for whom a reward of unexcelled proportions awaits...

...would want a longer life.

Isn't that a form of punishment?

0 Replies

It could be a curse or a form of punishment that there's the limit to one's imagination as well as corporeity; merely the benefit of a longer (or shorter) life cannot be anyone's ultimate concern, nor it entails the necessity of having faith in God.

On the other hand, even if a fair amount of generalization may turn out to be accurate, that's more or less about a fair amount of work and interactions that may keep us healthy - not that good faith makes us live longer.

I assume people sometimes rush to make a point, and hope they have a chance to come back with better rational, or some heartsome conviction.

0 Replies

I believe that god is necessary for the following reasons. First, most people are not ready to accept the idea that god does not and has never existed. Second, many religious fundamentalists would have nothing to base their wars on. Third, religion is a needed classification for people. Fourth, it would kill a lot of hope for the future of mankind. Fifth, there would be no other point of view than science's.

Perhaps there are more and I may have got some wrong but the main idea is there. God isn't necessary to the world as a physical force, just a guiding father figure for humans. We need him to fill in the gaps of our lives and those of us who don't are atheist.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

One has to wonder why people convinced there is a God -- and for whom a reward of unexcelled proportions awaits...

...would want a longer life.

Isn't that a form of punishment?

Perhaps longer life means "I don't want to be turned off." It would be nice to be free from a body, to wander back and forth through time and do cool things like "seeing" a black hole up close.

0 Replies

OK Frank, I misread you post and my response is nonsense in context.
I'm still asleep.

0 Replies

Individual wrote:

I believe ... First, most people are not ready to accept the idea that god does not and has never existed. Second, ... Third, ... Fourth, ... Fifth, there would be no other point of view than science's. "

Straight out in all five dimensions.

Among those ideas that 'god does not and has never existed,' there wouldn't be any ideas other than just combatting and overcoming the concepts of "god," therefore the whole idea and its entire logic still presuppose the existence of something (such as "god").

0 Replies

Is god necessary any more?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know