Convo with David Marshak et al…
David Marshak:
People have had many things to be upset about. No one likes the way things are now. We can’t agree about what to change and how to change it.
Kenneth Fersht:
The human race has always been a bit of a shit show David :P
Frances Caslin Rothstien:
but we were expected to evolve at some point
Kenneth Fersht:
Frances Caslin Rothstein we are in a constant state of evolution and sometimes devolution also but it’s a gradual process and we are not necessarily going to ‘evolve’ away from the shit shows that we co-create for our selves. Not any time soon based upon my observations of the world of humanity at large. Shite appears to be a part of our nature.
Frances Caslin Rothstien:
Kenneth Fersht o god! I wish I had a counter argument…
I’ll try to be more patient
Kenneth Fersht:
Frances Caslin Rothstein no need to be patient Frances. Act now for a limited time only!
Earl A. Turner:
to mr fersht: if we leverage the vedanta concept of the three gunas viz sattvas, rajas, tamas — where tamas is viewed as a kind of ‘oxidation product’ — and in fact matter itself is viewed as a product of the evolution of mind (sattvas) and energy(rajas) — the agents of consciousness. such that the evolution of material form is a consequence of this evolution — and not the other way around as in the materialist assumption — that consciousness has ‘evolved’ from the mechanical evolution of material form as in the darwinist world view.
the Hindus additionally have the view that the evolution driven by sattvas, rajas and tamas goes through recurrent four age patterns — golden, silver, bronze and iron — where things start off good and then ‘decay’ gradually until things are pretty bad in the iron age– we are supposed to be in the iron age now — but it is ‘prophesied’ that we are nearing a time of cosmic renewal — and eventually return to a golden age — sooner or later — in the hindu view the time durations are in the thousands and millions of years for these things — so they caution their western brothers and sisters to have patience.
there is some irony in the hindu view that from the point of view of spiritual attainment, THE KALI YUGA is BEST because things are most adverse. THE GOLDEN AGE etc — because times are GOOD ‘lull’ the souls into complacency where the incentive to seek to get out of the ILLUSION is not there.
there seems to be some correlation between the jewish notion of the yetzer ha tov and the yetzer ha ra and the two gunas — sattvas and rajas.
also the greek notion of the war between the rational faculty and the irrational biological drives seems to correlate with sattvas and rajas.
what is missing in these correlations is that matter (the tamasic guna) is a ‘product’ of the interaction of mind and energy.
recapping: in the materialist assumption, matter drives consciousness. in the traditional view which is found in all times and places is that consciousness drives material evolution.
and this evolution goes through ‘seasons’ — and we are said to be in winter right now. but the GOOD NEWS is we are incentivized to get out of the whole circus.
Kenneth Fersht:
Earl A. Turner I appreciate you taking the time to share your world view Earl :) Wow, what a slew of religiously inspired nonsense predicated on superstition alone. Hinduism being a set of superstitious myths, legends, and obviously predicated on evident and demonstrable falsehoods and literally 1000s of imagined archetypal deities that do not and never did exist in reality. ( All religions are based upon demonstrably and evidently false precepts so don’t take it personally ) However i do appreciate your depth of knowledge in Hindu systems of belief because i have a long standing interest in the study of comparative religion as it is so revealing when it comes to studying human psychology, as are all of the religious mythologies, perhaps some more than others. Allow me to ask you a question Earl. Given that we agree that consciousness evolved and is in a constant state of evolution and devolution; what do you think the purpose of consciousness is? What is the raison d’être of consciousness? What purpose does it serve? I believe i know the answer but i would like to hear your answer to that question if you have considered it. sincerely, Mr. Fersht, a.k.a. Captain Sardonicus the Improbable.
Earl A. Turner:
since I am in the mood to leverage the ‘eastern’ point of view — I say: the purpose of CONSCIOUSNESS is for the ONE INFINITE SELF to know HIM/HER/ITSELF.
this view rests on the presumption that it is ontological truth that ONLY ONE INFINITE BEING EXISTS in REALITY — and the worlds are ILLUSION that come into being in order to facilitate the EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS — which necessitates the apparent evolution of MATERIAL FORMS.
in my interaction with David recently I remembered a precept I had forgotten viz ATMAN = PARAMATMAN viz the TRUE SELF within us is none other than the GOD we might consider to be ‘outside’ ourselves.
so — what is the purpose of CONSCIOUSNESS? for us to KNOW the fact that ATMAN = PARAMATMAN.
You might be familiar with SATCHITANANDA — existence/consciousness/bliss — this is one of traditional labels for GOD in the indian tradition,
so the teaching of ATMAN = PARAMATMAN tells us that we are in fact SATCHITANANDA
David Marshak:
Kenneth Fersht We have no way to know how very wise people thousands of years ago in India and the Middle East viewed existence. What is written was intended to be useful to ordinary people. They also taught a few chosen people deeper things that are more abstract and hard to understand.
Earl A. Turner:
David Marshak one of the artifacts of the eastern perspective is that there are always a few folks who have completely escaped the realm of shadows — leveraging the analogy of cave. these folks actually do experience INFINITE GNOSIS — so they do know. they share with us ordinary slobovians only what we can receive — which is not much to be sure.
and as the cave analogy teaches, we shadow dwellers routinely abuse folks who descend from the REALM OF LIGHT trying to help us out — because we think we are smarter and wiser than them.
but the objective reality is something different.
But — the GOOD NEWS is that we can get out of the cave when we are thirsty enough for the REALITY ITSELF — if you are JEWISH you have the MITZVOT — obedience to which lead you to the GOAL — as the RABBI YESHUA LIT attests to — as in OBEY THE COMMANDMENTS; attain ETERNAL LIFE.
but HE amplified that affirmation by saying that if we want to get out faster, then renounce all of our attachments and follow HIM — since HE embodies the GOAL.
My point about the BUDDHA is that the teaching is in fact identical — though the language differs. in Buddhism we are taught: you wanna become a BUDDHA? RENOUNCE YOUR ATTACHMENT TO THE SHADOWS ON THE WALL.
it is very hard to do. but the first step is realizing that we are staring at SHADOWS ON A WALL. until we realize that we are just sending ourselves hannukah cards at the bottom of the cave. we are not working to climb out.
Kenneth Fersht:
Ok, thx for that spiritually based view of the raison d’être of consciousness Earl. Here is my take on the issue of how and why consciousness evolved for you to consider that requires no intervention by any gods or supernatural beings of any kind and which makes far more sense and is substantiated by observation of nature.
Here is my take on the issue of how and why consciousness evolved for you to consider.
Consciousness appears to have evolved along with various creatures as an aid to survival. The mechanism of consciousness appears to be electro-chemical in nature. The primary purpose and raison d’être of consciousness is SURVIVAL; Consciousness evolved as organisms became more complex and had the need to survive and reproduce in often challenging and competitive environments. Consciousness helps conscious organisms to find food and water, clean air or water to breath, avoid dangers such as falling off a cliff, fire and predation, and also to find a suitable mate in order to reproduce which is also aided and facilitated by instinctual and subconscious drives.
The primary drive behind the development of consciousness was survival and adaptation. By enabling organisms to perceive, process information, and respond to their environment, consciousness conferred a significant advantage in the struggle for existence.
Consciousness helps organisms to:
• Acquire essential resources (food, water, air)
• Avoid hazards (predators, cliffs, fire, etc etc)
• Find a suitable mate for reproduction
• Compete with other organisms for resources and mates
This survival-oriented function of consciousness is widely accepted in the scientific community, and it’s evident in the way our brains are wired to respond to threats or opportunities.
As consciousness evolved and became more complex, it also enabled other aspects like self-awareness, social cognition, creativity, and spirituality. These emergent properties have contributed to the rich and multifaceted nature of human consciousness.
Earl A. Turner:
You appear to operate from the materialist assumption. I’m not a materialist as should be self-evident.
as long as we are confident that our world views are correct — and they are polar opposite — I am convinced that sooner or later further discussion becomes useless. the best we can do is seek to co-exist benevolently.
not easy for me because I lose my temper and resort to AD HOMINEM name calling frequently. but I have done just a little bit better with David lately but not much.
Years ago when I was in classes with him, on more than one occasion I lost my temper completely and called him names. one of my many ‘finest hours.’
in the jewish system, the operation of the yetzer ha tov was overcome by the yetzer ha ra within me.
true religion in my view involves keeping to make the yetzer ha tov always prevail. for the greeks this would be seeking to make rationality prevail over irrationality — because the TRUE BEING of the SOUL is RATIONAL.
David Marshak:
Earl Are you an idealist?
Earl A. Turner:
David Marshak that’s a convenient shorthand to decribe my view of REALITY I think. certainly not a materialist.
Kenneth Fersht:
I did not identify as a ‘materialist’ Earl. I dislike the term as it has derogatory connotations, i.e. ‘materialistic’ meaning that one cares more about wealth and material things more than about people, relationships and nature. It’s a word often thrown out by ‘spiritualists’ and theists when they cannot prevail in a debate by honest means, such as by using a well reasoned and substantiated argument as i just did. So rather than address any of the valid points i made re the nature of consciousness, rather than actually considering what i said and considering it with an open mind and/or contraditing it with a well reasoned argument, you default to name calling, i.e. ‘materialist’. This is not lost on me, i’ve seen it many times, i was not born tomorrow Earl. I will say that i am a critical thinker, a rational sceptic, a free thinker and, at times, an original thinker, a compassionate and thoughtful man. I will also identify as artist, musician, dancer, naturalist, lover, as those are all important aspects of who i am as a person. You also use the word ‘soul’, also bandied about by the religious, though there is zero evidence to support the proposition of animals (humans are animals, mammals, primates) having immortal souls or that the consciousness survives the death of the body that is it’s vehicle while alive. You ask if i’m an idealist. I will say that i am a realist, pragmatic, i like that which works, which is evidenced to work as opposed to that which does not. I tend to go with the solution that is most probable. Hinduism is highly improbable at best, same with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Cargo Cult or any other of the literally 1000s of religions and sects of which humanity has conceived over the years. Many of these religions, your own favourite Hinduism included, were birthed at a time of profound ignorance on the part of humanity, espouse laughably impossible creation stories and characters and attribute aspect of nature that we now understand well to supernatural causes, entities, agents, devils and demons, what have you. The all espouse questionable and outmoded moral codes also BECAUSE they are wholly based upon false precepts and misconceptions. Additionally all disagree with one another so at best only one can be right but i think it far more probable that they are all mistaken, the imaginings and contortions of wishful thinking, frightened primates. The are all mechanisms of death denial, mechanisms of social control, manipulation and domination of the illiterate,fearful & gullible masses. it’s all bullshit, in other words.
Earl A. Turner:
lets cut to the chase. do you take MATTER to be REAL?
Kenneth Fersht:
Yes, matter is real, so is energy, matter is a form of congealed energy. We are composed of both matter and energy, as is the universe at large. Interesting and revealing that you still do not address a single point i made re consciousness however.
David Mershak:
Kenneth, It may be that energy is a property of space/time and is all that exists in a material sense.
We have no way to know how much very wise people in ancient times understood about existence and humanity.
Earl A. Turner:
so — you are a materialist. this is an objectively false view which vitiates any need for me to address any of your many points — because they flow from a false premise.
given this polarity, discussing is a waste of our time and energy — in my opinion.
You are satisfied I am sure that you are right.
and I am CERTAIN — which drives David crazy, that I have CERTAINTY– that THE REAL is NOT MATERIAL. material is an outcome or shadow of the REAL.
Kenneth Fersht:
to Earl A. Turner, hey man, have a good night, sleep well. Be careful not to fall through your immaterial bed this evening or to fly up and hit the ceiling in a freak gravity inversion or something :P
Earl A. Turner:
…and you accuse me of resorting to ad hominems? you just demonstrated that you are unable to conduct rational discourse — which requires you to detach from your irrational drives.
but.. if you rest on a false premise, what else can be expected.
Kenneth Fersht:
to Earl A. Turner. …be sure to forward those videos of you walking through those immaterial and wholly illusory walls and shit Earl. Watch you don’t bump your head on a shadow! Looking forward to you demonstrating just how ‘objective’ your point of view is Everything i have put forward to you has been rational and substantiated by observation of nature. Your Hinduism, on the other hand, is highly improbable and implausible. Very unlikely to be true, just some pretty delusions to make you feel all warm and smug and cozy inside and give you the illusion of knowing that which you evidently do not know.
Earl A. Turner:
Kenneth you are revealing yourself unable to engage in serious discourse. you’ve descended into irrationality because I hold a different view of REALITY than you do. you are validating my choice to abstain from wasting time responding to you. go in peace to love and serve THE LORD.. but of course, you reject the REALITY OF THE LORD.
Kenneth Fersht:
there are probably no gods in reality Earl. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that any exist and a ton of compelling evidence that humans have psychological predisposition towards creating god concepts. As long as you don’t kill or maim anyone for the sake of your god(s) or try to impose your world view upon others i don’t really care, however.
Earl A. Turner:
I am glad that you are generous in your tolerance Kenneth. I am fine with cultivating peaceful coexistence since trying to resolve dialectic differences is a low probability of success endeavour.
In my view, in order to attain true insight, we have to live out our convictions fully. we are both doing that I think — so we are fulfilling our spiritual destinies.
but if I am right, the end game is self-realization where we make permanently conscious the truth that our true self and GOD are one and the same.
Kenneth Fersht:
that’s a big ‘if’ Earl but you are probably dead wrong about almost everything. That’s fine, confusion and delusion is the default state of the majority of humanity so why should you be different. I myself prefer to adhere to no preset system of beliefs and remain a free thinker and a rational sceptic. Peace.
Earl A. Turner:
Kenneth of course. you are confident that you have come to truth. since I am just waiting around to die, and have had my convictions at least since 1967, I am set in my ways — experience very little uncertainty about what is true.
from the analogy of the cave, this world is the realm of shadows and the endgame is to leave the shadows behind and unite with the LIGHT.
______________________________
Addendum: paraphrased to some extent
David Marshak: People can talk and to some extent act as if they believe in a religion for practical reasons even though they don’t believe in anything.
Kenneth Fersht: extremely common in the priesthood apparently. They just keep going through the motions even though they have lost their faith because their income depends upon pretending to believe. All religions are a con in my opinion. A big phoney con job.
David Marshak: Kenneth Fersht That is quite a generalization. Do you believe intelligent people all of over the world for thousands of years have been telling lies which many people have accepted?
Kenneth Fersht: David Marshak superstitions and subsequently religions which are closely related originally started because we humans wanted to know the answers to questions such as what thunder and lightning are, what causes rain, what happened to grandpa when he died, what was the aurora borealis, what are stars and shooting stars, volcanoes and earthquakes, diseases, etc etc. Humans have psychologal traits that have evolved for reasons of survival, such as agency detection. Standard example of that is; you’re walking through some tall grass and the wind blows the grass in a certain way and you go to hyper alert, thinking it might be a snake. There may be no snake, it may just be the wind or a mouse but those who always react survived to breeding age because one of those days it just may well be a venomous snake. It’s called hyperactive agency detection. Here is a little text about it.
Hyperactive Agency Detection (HAD) is a cognitive bias and a concept in evolutionary psychology
What is Hyperactive Agency Detection?
HAD refers to the tendency for humans to overdetect agency or intentionality in the world around them, often in situations where there is no actual agency or intentional action. This means that people are prone to attribute events or phenomena to the actions of an agent (e.g., a person, animal, or supernatural being) even when they are actually the result of natural processes or chance.
Examples of Hyperactive Agency Detection
1. Seeing shapes in clouds: You look at a cloud and see a face or an animal. Your brain is detecting agency or pattern where there isn’t any.
2. Hearing voices in random noise: You hear a voice or a message in static or white noise. Again, your brain is overdetecting agency.
3. Attributing natural events to supernatural forces: For example, believing that a natural disaster like an earthquake or hurricane is a punishment from God.
4. Seeing conspiracies: Overdetecting agency in the actions of others, assuming that events are the result of secret plots or intentional actions.
Why Does Hyperactive Agency Detection Exist?
HAD is thought to be an evolutionary byproduct of our brain’s ability to detect agency and intentionality in the world. This ability was beneficial for our ancestors, as it helped them to detect potential threats or allies. However, this ability can be overactive, leading to false positives and the detection of agency where none exists.
So combine that psychological factor, a common denominator in the human condition with other factors, such as our urge to console our children when they are afraid or sad about grandpas death or scare them into behaving, like the santa and the satan stories, for example.
I surprised that aspect is not obvious to more people actually. Humans are not comfortable with open ended questions and so we invent answers, the gods of the gaps in our knowledge. The denial of death plays a role, we are not comfortable with the harsh and frightening realities of nature, it’s cruelty and seeming futility/finality of death and so we invent stories that explain natural phenomenon in super-natural terms and that are psychologically pacifying. Humans are very creative, inventive and love to tell stories. It seems that ‘gods’ are projections of the human psyche upon the vast and largely mysterious canvas of the universe. Astrology with all of the constelations are great examples that illustrate what i’m saying here. There are no bulls in space, and yet we have Taurus constellation and weave a lot of stories around that, there are no archers in space, those are distant stars and galaxies. Bulls and archers are aspects of the human condition, most especially in traditional cultures.
Here are some god concepts from various Aboriginal and Indigenous tribes:
Australian Aboriginal
1. Baiame (NSW): A sky god and creator deity.
2. Daramulum (NSW): A sky god associated with thunder and lightning.
3. Julunggul(NT): A rainbow serpent deity associated with fertility and water.
Native American
1. Great Spirit (Wakan Tanka) (Lakota): A supreme deity associated with the universe and all living things.
2. Coyote (Southwestern tribes): A trickster god associated with mischief and transformation.
3. Thunderbird (Various tribes): A legendary bird associated with thunder, lightning, and storms.
Inuit
1. Sedna (Inuit): A sea goddess associated with marine life, fertility, and the underworld.
2. Nanuk (Inuit): A polar bear god associated with strength, protection, and hunting.
Maori (New Zealand)
1. Tangaroa (Maori): A sea god associated with the ocean, fishing, and the tides.
2. Tane (Maori): A forest god associated with the natural world, fertility, and the cycles of life.
Hawaiian
1. Kanaloa (Hawaiian): A sea god associated with the ocean, navigation, and fertility.
2. Pele (Hawaiian): A volcano goddess associated with fire, lightning, and volcanic activity.
These are just a few examples of the diverse and rich spiritual traditions of Aboriginal and Indigenous cultures.
In the context of constellations, the archer refers to the constellation Sagittarius.
In ancient Greek mythology, Sagittarius represents a centaur (half-man, half-horse) archer named Chiron. However, the constellation is often depicted as a more generic archer, with the star Sigma Sagittarii marking the tip of the arrow.
Sagittarius is one of the 88 officially recognized constellations and is easily visible in the southern hemisphere during the summer months.
So all of the above explains why humans have created 1000’s of god concepts over the years and the many varieties of lore to go with them. It also explains why the peoples of the world weave regional creatures into the symbolism of these god concepts and their associated religions.
So i could go on about this and it’s pretty common knowledge in some circles which is why i say it’s obvious. It really is obvious and i’m not sure why i should have to be telling you this frankly.
I would recommend that you read Ernest Becker’s amazing books which are a synthesis of cultural anthropology, philosophy and psychology. The Denial of Death and Escape from Evil; both can be downloaded for free from the Internet Archives, archive.org i think is the url. He won a pulitzer prize for the Denial of Death which is a fairly academic work and then Escape from Evil is more written in layman’s terms.
David Marshak: Kenneth Fersht That is a theory about something we know nothing about.
People ten thousand years ago were like us and had some of the same relationship issues, mental issues, and physical issues we have. So there must have been some people who helped them with those. Some religious ideas are based on that clinical experience.
There are religious people today who still help people with those things.
We know nothing about how intelligent Greeks understood stories about gods.
Kenneth Fersht:
David Marshak Here is another psychological phenomenon that you might find helpful to digest and understand: Cognitive Dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance, in the context of religious beliefs, occurs when an individual’s deeply held religious convictions conflict with empirical evidence or scientific discoveries that challenge or contradict those beliefs.
This dissonance can arise when:
1. Scientific findings and logic contradict religious teachings: For example, the theory of evolution vs the biblical account of creation.
2. Religious doctrines are disproven by empirical evidence: Such as the lack of evidence for miracles or supernatural events.
3. Personal experiences or observations contradict religious dogma: For instance, witnessing natural disasters or suffering, which can challenge beliefs about an all-powerful, benevolent deity.
To reduce this dissonance, individuals may employ various strategies, such as:
1. Denial: Refusing to accept the scientific evidence or dismissing it as flawed or biased.
2. Rationalization: Creating logical explanations to reconcile the conflict, such as “God works in mysterious ways” or “The Bible is allegorical, not literal.”
3. Compartmentalization: Separating their religious beliefs from their acceptance of scientific facts, effectively creating a mental divide between the two.
4. Reinterpretation: Reexamining their religious beliefs in light of new scientific information, potentially leading to a revised understanding of their faith.
5. Rejection: Abandoning their religious beliefs in favor of a more scientific worldview.
Cognitive dissonance in this context can lead to a range of outcomes, from a strengthening of faith to a crisis of faith or even a transition to atheism or agnosticism.
David Marshak: We have been talking about the ancient origins of religious ideas. I have never been attached to any ideas. There are many things most people are sure they understand even though there is much more to study than they study and there isn’t enough information for certainty.
Kenneth Fersht:
David Marshak i’m not talking about certainty though i’m as certain that no gods exist in reality as i am that that gravity does exist. It’s really a matter of what is most probable given the evidence; what theory has the most explanatory power and is substantiated by a rational, reasonable and well evidentially based and substantiated argument. Which beliefs/assertion has empirical evidence to support it and which do not. Here, once again, is my reasoning when it comes to wether or not gods exist in reality, beyond being just conceptual and ‘existing’ in the minds of men and possibly in the minds of some other species also. As you know i find it most probable that humans create gods and not the other way around.
It is most probable that no gods exist in reality. That includes which ever one you were brought up to believe in and also includes such imagined entities such as angels and devils, demons, evil or benevolent spirits, etc etc. So the good news in that hypothesis is that Satan is a fictional character that one need not be concerned with.
No Satans exist, no devils, no demons, no angels, no fairies, no unicorns, none of that is real. It’s all just stories you were told when you were young and gullible and impressionable. It is probable that early humans concieved of gods in a naive attempt to explain such natural phenomenon as thunder, lightning, the sky; what stars and planets and galaxies, meteors, etc are, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. In those days people didn’t know about such things as tectonic plates, electricity, where magma came from, they know nothing about biology, genetics, geology, the wider world, their knowledge was limited to their locality and what they could see with the naked eye, hear, touch, smell, sense, in other words, within the relatively narrow limitations of spectra of human sensory experience. They knew naught of DNA or genetics, microscopic cellular life, very little of what we call physics; gravity, light, and principals such as air and condensation, from whence the concept of a ‘soul’ originated, in the consideration of the breath and it’s relationship to living creatures, such as ourselves. We now know what causes many diseases, for example, and how to cure many and it turns out that it has nothing to do with angry gods and evil spirits, as our ancestors believed. Similarly we now understand what causes thunder and lighting, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and many other natural phenomena that awed, frighting and bemused our ancestors.
Our ancestors were looking for answers in a vast and largely mysterious universe and one thing about humans is that we are creative, inventive, imaginative, and love to tell stories. We also are meaning seeking creatures and so it’s natural to invent answers, some of them rather fanciful and colourful, until we come upon the correct answers.
Humans have created literally 1000’s of gods. There is no compelling evidence to support the existence of any gods. There is, however, a lot of compelling evidence that humans create god concepts.
The evidence that humans create gods rather than the other way around comes from various fields of study:
1. History of Religions: The evolution of gods and goddesses across cultures and time, with similarities and borrowings between mythologies, suggests human creation.
2. Comparative Mythology: Shared themes, motifs, and archetypes across cultures indicate a common human psychological and cultural origin.
3. Archaeology and Anthropology: The discovery of ancient religious artifacts, symbols, and rituals reveals a human-made origin.
4. Sociology and Psychology: Studies on the social and psychological functions of religion, such as group identity and comfort, suggest human creation.
5. Cognitive Science and Neuroscience: Research on the cognitive and neural basis of religious beliefs and experiences indicates a natural, human brain-based origin.
6. Linguistics and Semiotics: The analysis of religious language and symbols reveals human-made constructs and cultural influences.
7. Philosophy and Ethics: The variety of moral codes and ethical systems across cultures and religions suggests human reasoning and creation.
8. Science and Natural History: The natural world’s complexity and evolution can be explained by scientific laws and principles, reducing the need for divine intervention.
9. Religious Criticism and Scholarship: Critical examination of religious texts, histories, and practices reveals human authorship, editing, and interpretation.
10. The existence of multiple, conflicting gods and religions: If gods created humans, there would likely be a unified, coherent divine plan, rather than diverse, contradictory beliefs.
These lines of evidence collectively suggest that humans create gods and religions to fulfill various psychological, social, and cultural needs, rather than the other way around.
Based on the evidence and reasoning, it appears more likely that humans create gods rather than gods existing independently. This conclusion follows from:
1. The lack of empirical evidence for the existence of gods.
2. The abundance of evidence from various fields (cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, psychology of religion, anthropology, and developmental psychology) suggesting that humans have a natural inclination to create and believe in god concepts.
3. The explanatory power of human psychology and cognition in accounting for the origin and persistence of religious beliefs.
4. The diversity and variability of religious beliefs across cultures and throughout history, which suggests a human construct rather than a universal truth.
The rational, logical, and probable explanation and conclusion is that humans create gods as a product of our cognitive, psychological, and cultural inclinations and to assuage our fear of death, lack of comfort with open ended questions, the unknown. It appears that all of the 1000’s of gods, goddesses of which humans have conceived are projections of the human psyche upon a vast and largely mysterious universe.
