.

(Continued …)

.
Having invented the supernatural, we elaborated a strategy for survival based on this concept. The strategy consisted in contacting whichever god we had attributed to a particular natural phenomenon and begging him to spare us from his wrath and protect us from harm. If prayers, worship and acts of submission failed to produce the desired result, we offered animal and human sacrifice.
This strategy for survival is what we call religion today. The person or animal we offered to the gods in exchange for the salvation of the rest of the community is now reputed to be a scapegoat. The Christian religions integrated the concept into their dogma »
.

This is an extract from an article I wrote seven years ago.

.

Dear George,

.

Many thanks for your clarifications.

I just have one remark I should like to make about the revised version of your phrase :

« a good example of what happens if a culture sees God, who was the raison d’être of its religious roots as merely a figment of imagination » :
.

I don’t wish to quibble, but, as we have no way of knowing if there is a “God” or not, if you don’t mind, I should prefer the following formula :

« a good example of what happens if a culture sees the concept of God, which was the raison d’être of its religious roots, as merely a figment of imagination” »

“God” or no “God”, believer, agnostic, atheist or just plain, ordinary person (such as myself), we all have religious roots imbedded in our culture.

Conclusion :

“God” may never have existed but the concept of deity lives on into the 21st century and the practice of religion will probably continue long after the concept has been discarded.

.

Dear Banjo,

>> a good example of what happens if a culture sees the concept of God, which was the raison d’être of its religious roots, as merely a figment of imagination” <<

I could live with this revised version. It is a deeper philosophical (semantic) question, whether God or concept of God (electricity or concept of electricity, even horse or concept of horse, etc) can or cannot be a figment of imagination. Is it a unicorn or the concept of a unicorn that we all agree is merely a figment of imagination?

>>“God” may never have existed <<

This is like saying "God may not be green". God, as the concept is thought of today, is independent of time, colour and other attributes that belong to the physical world.

[As for time-independence, allso, mathematics (and mathematical physics) deal with entities where it does not make sense to say they may or may not have existed: The Mandelbrot set exists, a perpetuum mobile does not exist - in both case no reference to time.]

Dear Banjo,

«“God” may never have existed but the concept of deity lives on into the 21st century and the practice of religion will probably continue long after the concept has been discarded.»

Here are some things that we can indeed agree on.

1. God never existed and cannot exist, because if He did, then He would be reduced to just another object and many logical paradoxes would ensue. Existence itself is only conceivable within God, including Time, the laws of physics and even the rules of logic. God cannot be subject to any of those petty things.

2. I do hope that the concept of deity continues to live well into the 21st century and beyond, because though God is not a deity, belief in deities is still a great religious technique.

3. The practice of religion is a feature of Time itself and thus indeed does not depend on concepts. "Whenever" time flows, whenever anyone or anything is under the illusion of time, in their struggle to awake and shake up that illusion they gravitate to return to God - and that constitutes religion, be it conscious or otherwise.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« It is a deeper philosophical (semantic) question, whether God or concept of God (electricity or concept of electricity, even horse or concept of horse, etc) can or cannot be a figment of imagination. Is it a unicorn or the concept of a unicorn that we all agree is merely a figment of imagination? »
.

My understanding is that anything which may be detected, identified and evidenced by scientific observation and submitted to detailed scientific analysis is real. This is the case of electricity and horses. They are therefore not considered “merely figments of the imagination”.

To the best of my knowledge, “God” and unicorns have never been detected, identified and evidenced by scientific observation and submitted to detailed scientific analysis. Until such time as they are, they are to be considered concepts only, i.e., “merely figments of the imagination”.

There have been countless reports in the past, of people around the world having observed UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects), in some cases backed-up by photographs, videos and radar detection etc. A notable incident occurred in 1978 near Turin in Italy when two young hikers saw a bright light, one of the hikers temporarily disappeared and, after a while, was found in a state of shock and with a noticeable scald on one leg. After regaining consciousness, he reported having seen an elongated vehicle and that some strangely shaped beings descended from it. Both the young hikers suffered from conjunctivitis for some time.

Most UFOs are later identified as conventional objects or phenomena (e.g., aircraft, weather balloons, clouds). Some of them are not identified, either because of lack of evidence or because no conventional explanation can be found despite extensive evidence. Some people consider the latter cases as possible observations of extra-terrestrial space craft.

I do not. As I have frequently stated in the past, I am only prepared to accord my belief (or faith) - in the absence of material evidence - when I consider that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence or a credible (independent) eye-witness, or both.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Although I try to keep an open mind on everything, I do my best to keep my beliefs to a strict minimum as they tend to cloud my vision. In any event, I consider that my beliefs are not eternal and that there is no absolute truth.
.

You also wrote :

« As for time-independence … »
.

I’m afraid you’ve lost me there, George. I do not know any life form capable of living outside the present. As I see it, we are all prisoners of the present, incapable of moving back to the past or forward to the future. We spend our whole lives in the present, from the cradle to the grave. Living in the past or the future only seems possible in science fiction, which, again, is “a figment of the imagination”.

Should I understand that the Mandelbrot is also a figment of the imagination, or simply not a life form ?

Perhaps I should not have asked that question, because I shall probably not understand the answer.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Here are some things that we can indeed agree on … »
.

Nothing would give me more pleasure than to be able to agree with you on something, Yuytsu, but, unfortunately, I’m afraid I do not have the key to the understanding of your esoteric mysticism.

Please excuse my ignorance. I am just an ordinary person who has never ventured beyond the vast realm of reality, which, in itself, is more than I can ever hope to explore completely, let alone comprehend.

.