Is needing or wanting to worshiping a God a human defect or benefit?

[GreatestIam]

J J

I have seen some information on Gobekli Tepe but have seen nothing about religious artifacts.
Do you have a link for me?

Regards
DL

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

J J

I have seen some information on Gobekli Tepe but have seen nothing about religious artifacts.
Do you have a link for me?

Regards
DL

The wikipedia article is sufficient to illustrate that the site is widely interpreted as being of religious meaning.

Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is little or nothing to indicate that the site is anything but one of profound spiritual significance.

 

[GreatestIam]

J J

I have seen some information on Gobekli Tepe but have seen nothing about religious artifacts.
Do you have a link for me?

Regards
DL

The wikipedia article is sufficient to illustrate that the site is widely interpreted as being of religious meaning.

Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is little or nothing to indicate that the site is anything but one of profound spiritual significance.

Interpretations and assumptions are two word they are frequently using in that report.

I did not see any of the other iconic shapes that were used in religious settings before that time so I will reserve the notion that it was built for religious reasons until they qualify it more.

Thanks for the link.

Regards
DL

 

[oldfart]

We disagree on Jung's premise. That's fair.

Ultimately we cannot prove outright that the spiritual drive is an inherent part of the human condition or the result of socialization. Our best tool in this case is conjecture. But conjecture can be done well or bungled horribly. I don't think either of us are guilty of the latter.

Agreed that it is hard in our society to do an experiment which might shed more light on the inherent drive/socialization issue. My position is really two points. First, while a "spiritual drive" may be very common, I don't think it is as universal as, say, parent-infant bonding. Infants don't die if they are not nurtured to satisfy the "spiritual drive". Second, many of the people who make the argument for a biologically determined need for religion (and I exclude you from this group) make a great leap from a generalized religious instinct to a very specific theology. In fact, medieval theologians made this one of the "Proofs of God"!

Consider this as well. Perhaps religious belief is symptomatic of the inherent need to socialize. I am open to this idea. Be that as it may, whether the spiritual drive is as primal as fear or the result of socialization, it is very, very ancient, and I don't know that something has to be inherent or primal to necessarily be an integral part of the human condition. Simply having been a defining part of humanity since before antiquity might be enough.

Clearly humans are social animals and do not survive without effective socialization. As this is biologically driven, religious belief could be considered one of the primary methods of achieving that socialization, which would make it a very common institutional adaptation.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

We disagree on Jung's premise. That's fair.

Ultimately we cannot prove outright that the spiritual drive is an inherent part of the human condition or the result of socialization. Our best tool in this case is conjecture. But conjecture can be done well or bungled horribly. I don't think either of us are guilty of the latter.

Agreed that it is hard in our society to do an experiment which might shed more light on the inherent drive/socialization issue. My position is really two points. First, while a "spiritual drive" may be very common, I don't think it is as universal as, say, parent-infant bonding. Infants don't die if they are not nurtured to satisfy the "spiritual drive". Second, many of the people who make the argument for a biologically determined need for religion (and I exclude you from this group) make a great leap from a generalized religious instinct to a very specific theology. In fact, medieval theologians made this one of the "Proofs of God"!

Consider this as well. Perhaps religious belief is symptomatic of the inherent need to socialize. I am open to this idea. Be that as it may, whether the spiritual drive is as primal as fear or the result of socialization, it is very, very ancient, and I don't know that something has to be inherent or primal to necessarily be an integral part of the human condition. Simply having been a defining part of humanity since before antiquity might be enough.

Clearly humans are social animals and do not survive without effective socialization. As this is biologically driven, religious belief could be considered one of the primary methods of achieving that socialization, which would make it a very common institutional adaptation.

No problems for the most part with your observations. However, I am not making the argument that spiritual belief is biologically determined. It may be, but I am not making that case. I am simply saying that it is a defining part of the human condition.

Another example of the human condition that is not necessarily biologically determined is the tendency to embellish. It is virtually universal. Even the most honest people in the world cannot resist the tendency to embellish, even if it is a tiny bit, a recollection of events. Even if a person tells a story as it happened, no person's recollection is 100% perfect, because we are fallible and we suffer memory loss to varying degrees and over time. The human tendency is to fill in the gaps to the best of their ability. Even the most honest person will fill in those gaps with information that is favorable to themselves or their position. This is because we all possess an ego. Some people may embellish more than others, and some may outright lie. This is why, in trials, there can be variations in what three different people testify to who saw the same thing. Each are applying their own biases and self-protection mechanisms to their recollection of events. Is that tendency biologically determined, or socially developed? It's all part of the nature/nurture argument and one that is extremely difficult to solve.

My position is that the spiritual drive is a part of the human condition in a similar way, whether socially or biologically determined, or a combination thereof.

 

[daws101]

We disagree on Jung's premise. That's fair.

Ultimately we cannot prove outright that the spiritual drive is an inherent part of the human condition or the result of socialization. Our best tool in this case is conjecture. But conjecture can be done well or bungled horribly. I don't think either of us are guilty of the latter.

Agreed that it is hard in our society to do an experiment which might shed more light on the inherent drive/socialization issue. My position is really two points. First, while a "spiritual drive" may be very common, I don't think it is as universal as, say, parent-infant bonding. Infants don't die if they are not nurtured to satisfy the "spiritual drive". Second, many of the people who make the argument for a biologically determined need for religion (and I exclude you from this group) make a great leap from a generalized religious instinct to a very specific theology. In fact, medieval theologians made this one of the "Proofs of God"!

Consider this as well. Perhaps religious belief is symptomatic of the inherent need to socialize. I am open to this idea. Be that as it may, whether the spiritual drive is as primal as fear or the result of socialization, it is very, very ancient, and I don't know that something has to be inherent or primal to necessarily be an integral part of the human condition. Simply having been a defining part of humanity since before antiquity might be enough.

Clearly humans are social animals and do not survive without effective socialization. As this is biologically driven, religious belief could be considered one of the primary methods of achieving that socialization, which would make it a very common institutional adaptation.

No problems for the most part with your observations. However, I am not making the argument that spiritual belief is biologically determined. It may be, but I am not making that case. I am simply saying that it is a defining part of the human condition.

Another example of the human condition that is not necessarily biologically determined is the tendency to embellish. It is virtually universal. Even the most honest people in the world cannot resist the tendency to embellish, even if it is a tiny bit, a recollection of events. Even if a person tells a story as it happened, no person's recollection is 100% perfect, because we are fallible and we suffer memory loss to varying degrees and over time. The human tendency is to fill in the gaps to the best of their ability. Even the most honest person will fill in those gaps with information that is favorable to themselves or their position. This is because we all possess an ego. Some people may embellish more than others, and some may outright lie. This is why, in trials, there can be variations in what three different people testify to who saw the same thing. Each are applying their own biases and self-protection mechanisms to their recollection of events. Is that tendency biologically determined, or socially developed? It's all part of the nature/nurture argument and one that is extremely difficult to solve.

My position is that the spiritual drive is a part of the human condition in a similar way, whether socially or biologically determined, or a combination thereof.

stop embellishing!....
just couldn't resist ,,

 

[Surfer]

Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity in heaven watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.Only a sick mind like you have shown yours to be would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone or gain pleasure from it. That is why God would not do such because then, heaven would be hell.If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once been human or good.You should think of hell just a bit and recognize that God would not create such an immoral construct...

There is no shoveling coal in Hell: there is only frying in the eternal lake of fire. You don't watch friends/neighbors/kids from Heaven. You worship God/Jesus. I didn't conceive of it; God did. Take it up with Him.

This is what I don't get about God. He loves us so much that he'll torture us for eternity if we don't love him back...

You have a choice.

 

[daws101]

Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity in heaven watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.Only a sick mind like you have shown yours to be would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone or gain pleasure from it. That is why God would not do such because then, heaven would be hell.If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once been human or good.You should think of hell just a bit and recognize that God would not create such an immoral construct...

There is no shoveling coal in Hell: there is only frying in the eternal lake of fire. You don't watch friends/neighbors/kids from Heaven. You worship God/Jesus. I didn't conceive of it; God did. Take it up with Him.

This is what I don't get about God. He loves us so much that he'll torture us for eternity if we don't love him back...

You have a choice.

my way or the highway is no choice.

 

[Steven_R]

Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity in heaven watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.Only a sick mind like you have shown yours to be would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone or gain pleasure from it. That is why God would not do such because then, heaven would be hell.If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once been human or good.You should think of hell just a bit and recognize that God would not create such an immoral construct...

There is no shoveling coal in Hell: there is only frying in the eternal lake of fire. You don't watch friends/neighbors/kids from Heaven. You worship God/Jesus. I didn't conceive of it; God did. Take it up with Him.

This is what I don't get about God. He loves us so much that he'll torture us for eternity if we don't love him back...

You have a choice.

So it really is "baby, I love you. Why do you make me hit you?"

I'll pass, thanks.

 

[Surfer]

my way or the highway is no choice.

It is if you want Heaven. If you want to fry in the Lake of Fire for eternity it's your choice. Just remember you had the opportunity to spend eternity in Heaven with Jesus Christ/God but you spit in His face. Bad decision. Bad...