Godot

Now that's just begging the question. Two of them in fact:
1)how do you define our "nature"?
2)why is it our nature to do so?




RW:
The smartarse in me wants to answer "why not?" And also, what do you propose we use to explore the question other than our minds?
Seriously though, I see it as an attempted explanation of the perceived causality of the world (sorry for the poor wording). People see causal explanations for nearly everything; it is predictable that they may want to fit themselves into this same framework. This may help to explain the archetypal mythology of Campbell that Mageth was suggesting, at least as I read Campbell.
Another important point to make is that while I may not necessarily seek a resolution to the question, it is not a given that I will be in agreement with whatever conclusion you reach either.

Dr. Retard

I have no idea if it's important. I do a lot of things that aren't important. I once played Grand Theft Auto for about 2 months straight. I went to the first Pokémon movie. I spent years learning thrash metal songs.

Now, maybe arguing this issue is more important than my other frivolous pastimes. After all, we seem to have a fundie nutter in the White House. But the bottom line for me is that it's fun.

rainbow walking

O'kay...all good answers, (which makes me wonder if a bad answer exists) but let's consider where we are thusfar, with this one simple question. The only way I know to proceed is on the basis of my own experience first, and then as objectively as possible, to consider the relative merits of each response in context with my own experience. (Does this negate objectivity?)

Koy's response is true in that the god concept has been thrust upon us all. It was here long before we were and demands our attention if, and or when, we are confronted by it.

Darth concurs with Koy and 111111 scribes the question to be a result of our inherent nature to ask "why" questions.

Diana concurs with Koy in her own words, that the concept exists and requires consideration.

Mageth ascribes to a speculative perhaps, that appeals to some other, as yet un-defined, inherent natural cause residing within man himself.

Godot seems to agree with 111111 that the importance of the question resides in our inherent inquisitiveness, though he approaches it from a how more than a why.

And Doc says, for him, it's just an intellectual pursuit that many of us enjoy as a challenge.

Now what do I say?

Well, I can't deny that I enjoy the challenge.

I can't say for sure that the god concept originated from a question of how or why and I can't say for sure that the how or why originated from the god concept. This, to me, would probably have to be part of an argument for or against the existence of such a being.

I also have to concur with Koy and diana that the concept has been thrust upon us and demands our response. My initial response was to embrace it and so I was a dedicated passionate theist for many years and argued my position in such forums as this one.

Now that I am no longer such a person I still can't seem to extricate myself from the question. A part of it is, like Doc says, the enjoyment derived from the challenge. But is that all there is to it?

I see a difference in the way the question is approached. I see the majority of arguments based on a set position. In other words, people invariably have an assumed position before they launch their arguments both pro and con. Perhpas this is inescapable.

Is it possible to launch an investigation from a neutral position?

Is it possible to say, "Hi, I'm rw" and for another to say, "Hi, I'm Koy", and for the two of us to say, "Hey, have you heard about that god concept?" and to agree we have and then to say, "Well, what do you make of it?" and for the other to respond, "I'm not sure, what do you make of it?" and then to proceed to discuss the merits of the concept in this fashion?

Is that logically possible? If so, how do you get beyond the baggage of what you've already decided and what you already know?

Or is that even necessary?

I'm just exploring the significance of the question itself here, not trying to force any particular method of exploration, but it does seem like a reasonable thing to mention.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, there's one other even more simple explanation; inflicted suffering of like creature to like creature (and not just the "natural" suffering as a part of survival).

We all know how hard it is to survive alone and even as a tribe. Life is tough enough as it is without one from our own tribe unnecessarily inflicting suffering of some kind on another.

Seeing one person victimize another for no apparent reason would naturally lead one to question why this victimization is taking place. If there is no immediate answer, then one is axiomatically "bounced" into a regressive contemplation of possible causes; "bounced" necessarily into more abstract thought on the matter.

So, one might not be able to answer why a particular person inflicted so much pain onto another, but one might be able to theorize as to a possible "meta" reason, i.e., "evil." "They are just plain evil."

Well, what does that mean and what is "evil?" Etc. No tangible explanation is forthcoming, so this forces one into an even more abstract mode of contemplation.

We perceive these kinds of cause and effects all the time within our social structure. Why did Dad beat me so irrationally? Because Dad was beaten so irrationally when he was child. Why was Dad beaten so irrationally as a child? Because his father beat him and so on, until one is locked in an infinite regress the goes nowhere on a tangible level.

This kind of abstract, infinite regress is what led Aquinas to the fallacy of the uncaused cause.

Although I have no evidence for this, of course, I seriously doubt early man one day out of the blue just sat on a mountaintop and wondered "why?" More likely, this evolutionary thought process of which I speculate, began in simple, tangible terms until such time as no tangible answer was forthcoming; progressing toward the wise old sage sitting on the mountaintop.

Ask a child what their "purpose" is and they'll either give you a blank stare in response or hold up their latest fingerpaint masterpiece.

Out of the actions of children...

I also concur with the others here, that the question for an atheist is not "why" but "how?"

Edtied to add: my theory would also account for why most world religions are based on anthropomorphic beings; a logical extension of like creature inflicting undue or irrational suffering on another like creature.

Indeed, I would argue the fact that our gods are merely extensions of ourselves supports my speculation of how early man first launched into this kind of abstraction. After all, no other animal on the planet (to my knowledge) tortures or inflicts the kind of unmitigated suffering on members of their own "tribes" the way we do on such a profound and incomprehensible scale.

So I think the question of "why" is really just a truncated version of the question of "why do we inflict so much suffering on one another?"

If we do it, then it makes no sense. If it is the result of some "meta" us out there manipulating us or setting things up for us so that this will result, well, then it makes at least more sense to us than the alternative.

Unfortunately, this kind of thinking only allows for it to happen more and more and more, as history amply proves.

Take for an extreme, horrific example, Adolf Hitler. To demonize him and his actions is to remove his humanity and therefore, remove any culpability in his actions for the rest of humanity (of like creatures). That the capacity to do something like what he did is within us all is a necessary lesson to learn so that it doesn't ever happen again. Pretending that Hitler was a "devil" or an aberration of some incomprehendable magnitude it to insure that similar actions continue.

Likewise on the flipside with Jesus. If Jesus were taught to be an extraordinary man (which I don't concur with, but, for the sake of argument) then his teachings might have significant meaning. Elevate him to a "perfect" god and everything he taught becomes utterly meaningless since there is no possible way any of us can ever be "perfect." The stress that induces has, likewise, been historically disastorous for humanity; more often than not the cause of inflicted suffering and not its prevention.

In other words, it provides an "easy out" for humanity, so that we never have to actually face our own culpability in the human condition. Indeed, the christian cult teaches us that we will be punished after we die, thereby offering no solutions for surcease of suffering while we live.

The bastard even (allegedly) taught his followers to rejoice in their suffering and oppression, since it means we are "blessed" after we are dead and it no longer matters.

(sorry, didn't mean to go into rant land, but I think you see my point )

Bill

The answer from evolutionary psychology would seem to be that it is a survival need of mankind to feel secure within our environment, and since many inexplicable things occur, we have a need to ascribe those occurrances to entities which we can (in some way) control (or avoid). Thus, even where the local religion amounts to "ancestor worship" (as opposed to "an omni-max being"), it is still important to the populace that they act in such a way as to prevent the ancestors (or "omni-max being") from causing grief to said populace. These joint habits seem to help humanity survive, even if there is absolutely zero efficacy to the practices themselves. (Evolutionary psycologists have documented numerous tribes who believe that "enemies" have somehow sent "evil spirits" to make people ill within their town, so the remedy may well be to go to war against those "enemies." Thus, the resulting war has no good cause, since the illnesses are caused by germs that had nothing at all to do with the "enemies" in question.)

Only as people advance into intellectual pursuits do we begin to challenge the prevailing wisdom by seeking resolution (in some form) to "ultimate questions." Atheism (and other forums of "unbelief") rises as the philosophical sophistication of the thinkers generally increases. Primitive people have the lowest percentage of atheists, while culturally sophisticated people will generally have the highest percentage.

Nonetheless, even dispensing with the old superstitions leaves a need within society for "something," and the search for "answers" to these age-old questions somehow helps fulfill that need, even for a society of atheists.

== Bill