PDA

View Full Version : What is God/god?



Tsuyoiko
26-09-05, 13:02
I don't know whether or not I am an atheist, because I don't know what a god is. If God is an entity that created the universe, then I am an atheist. But if God is whatever set the universe in motion (call it Nature), then I'm not so sure.

Here are some definitions of god (http://koti.mbnet.fi/neptunia/godxx.htm). Looking at these definitions, if God is

A supernatural being or power, the object of worship
then I am an atheist, but if

God is the experience of looking at a tree and saying, Ah!
then I am not.

Which properties does God have to have? The link above suggests omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. YHWH isn't a god by that definition, as he doesn't have omnibenevolence - he was often cruel. Nature isn't omnibenevolent either - Nature is ambivalent. Nature is omnipotent - Nature can do anything that is possible. Is Nature omniscient though? Does something have to be sentient to have knowledge?

Can we even define God in terms of its properties? Is it possible to define a god at all? Perhaps God is that which cannot be defined.

Thoughts?

Duo
26-09-05, 14:50
as some functonalist sociologs have sad, god is just a metaphor for society. Meaning god serves the same purpose as society does, something greater to abide to for stability. The feeling of god being present i think is as freud put it "that oceanic feeling of eternity", something that deep inside us connects us to the universe and the earth, the feeling that we are part of something greater in scheme..........

just my humble view

Disembodied Spirit
28-09-05, 17:58
as some functonalist sociologs have sad, god is just a metaphor for society. Meaning god serves the same purpose as society does, something greater to abide to for stability. The feeling of god being present i think is as freud put it "that oceanic feeling of eternity", something that deep inside us connects us to the universe and the earth, the feeling that we are part of something greater in scheme..........

just my humble view


I agree with Duo, nice said :blush:

Mycernius
28-09-05, 18:52
I think God is whatever you wish it/him/her to be and be comfortable with.

Tsuyoiko
29-09-05, 11:48
But you're an atheist right Mike? So for you God doesn't exist. What I can't decide is whether Nature is my god. I don't worship it or believe that it intentionally created the universe, but I respect it and believe that everything can be explained by the laws of Nature - some of which we haven't discovered yet. Is worship and belief in creation necessary for something to be a god, or is respect enough?

Jack
29-09-05, 11:56
I think God is whatever you wish it/him/her to be and be comfortable with.

if you tell yourself your god it makes you feel good, :cool:

Maciamo
07-11-05, 16:16
Tsuyoiko, I also love and respect Nature, but I consider myself as an atheist, because I do not worship any god or do not think that the whole universe is united by a supernatural power with a sort of "consciousness".

Maciamo
07-11-05, 16:20
if you tell yourself your god it makes you feel good, :cool:

Does it ? I only feel cheated - and by myself with that !

Tsuyoiko
07-11-05, 16:27
Tsuyoiko, I also love and respect Nature, but I consider myself as an atheist, because I do not worship any god or do not think that the whole universe is united by a supernatural power with a sort of "consciousness".Maybe that's the key that unites all the different concepts of god - whatever god is, it is a separate consciousness. In which case, I'm an atheist.

Maciamo
07-11-05, 16:30
Maybe that's the key that unites all the different concepts of god - whatever god is, it is a separate consciousness. In which case, I'm an atheist.

And whatever we call ourselves, I think we have pretty much the same conception of the universe/nature/god. :-)

Sensuikan San
08-11-05, 06:17
If there was a 'God' - where would he be ... without human beings to believe in him/her ...?

ジョン

lastmagi
08-11-05, 06:37
If there was a 'God' - where would he be ... without human beings to believe in him/her ...?

ジョン

Such was one of the premises of Neil Gaiman's American Gods, I believe. A very nice read, if I may say so myself :p

Sorry for the aside. Carry on! (I'll add my 2 cents when I'm not working on some **** paper.)

Maciamo
08-11-05, 07:20
If there was a 'God' - where would he be ... without human beings to believe in him/her ...?


Exactly ! As far as we know, only humans can imagine the concept of god on Earth, and we have no proof of the existence of other life beings possessing an at least equal intelligence in this regard somewhere else in the universe (though I do not doubt that there is an infinity of them, if the universe is infinite).

For Jews, Christians and Muslims, god cares more about humans than any other living creature. The earth is the only thing these religions know and mention. So, either they are completely mistaken in their belief, or they must admit that only humans on planet Earth can understand god. So that means that for billions of years, when our solar system already existed, when the Earth formed itself, and for the hundreds of millions of years that it has supported life, god has had creatures that could understand its existence only for the last few thousands years, and nobody would know about god once humans have disappeared (which could very well happen in less than a thousand years) for the remaining eternity. Very sad prospect for a "thinking and feeling" god.

I think that epitomises well the utter narrow-mindedness and stupidity of most human beings throughout history, who believed that they were indeed chosen creatures of god, the only life beings in the immensity of the universe to go to heaven or hell, or to be able to get a particular attention or affection from god. And of course, men were made in god's image. Was that the first men, like the Austrapolithecus ? Or one of the hundreds of racial groups existing today ? I am quite disgusted at the idea that some fellow human beings should really believe in such bullshit as a personal god or that humans were created to god's image or whatever. I refuse to be categorised in the same species as such people.

Maybe another step in the evolution of humans is being crossed. We are all Homo sapiens, but different from the Cro-magnons who were also Homo sapiens. The difference may not be clearly distinguishable genetically. It's more a matter of knowledge, environment and nutrition than genes. Food has become more abudant from the 18th century in Europe (an era known as the Enlightenment, when people harshly criticised religion). The quality, quantity and variety of nutriments has yet increased during all the 20th century, improving the functioning of our brains. This has startled a incredible soar in the fields of sciences, technologies and other intellectual fields. In a few decades, we have invented colour TV's, audio and video tapes, computers, mobile phones, digital cameras and more. The world has never changed so fast. Why ? Better nutrition, and thus more intellectual power. The political, social and educational system have been the ones to lag behind, as not everybody has enjoyed that increased wealth and nutrition.

Scientists already distinguish between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens. We may have reached the era of the Homo sapiens sapiens sapiens, i.e. those that have surpassed the primitive belief in human-like god(s), or in any god at all. I wouldn't be surprised that this is just a matter of time before the rest of society follows. IQ averages have been shown to increase steadily over time, so that the theoretical average of 100 has constantly been moved upwards, from generation to generation. An IQ of 100 in 2000 may equal an IQ of 115 in 1900. People are indeed becoming more intelligent. The correlation between nourishment and scientific, technological and societal progress is undeniable, and it also matches the evolution of IQ's. We are in average more intelligent than our forefathers. After a few generattions of stupendous growth (since the 18th century), this has created as much (and maybe more) change in society, human knowledge and achievments than between prehistoric ages and the civilisations of the Antiquity, or between the Antiquity to 18th century and now. In other words, we are as different from our forefathers from a few generations ago, than they were from Cromagnons. Of course "we" is just an average, as about half of the humans have been shown to be lequally or ess intelligent than the brightest chimpanzees or gorillas (see this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20260)). Such gaps in human intelligence probably explain why some people are still fanatically religious, whilst others can't understand how it is possible to believe in so primitive ideas as those advocated by these religions.

Tsuyoiko
08-11-05, 13:03
Such gaps in human intelligence probably explain why some people are still fanatically religious, whilst others can't understand how it is possible to believe in so primitive ideas as those advocated by these religions.I don't think it's that simple. I think intelligence is only one of many factors that make someone religious or not. I think family background and personality are also important. Although I do agree that if someone is highly intelligent they are less likely to be religious, and I find it hard to understand how the intelligent people I know can believe in such things. Perhaps if someone is raised in a religion that makes their family happy and gives them comfort they don't want to give it up, so they decide not to question it. I can sort of understand how someone would choose comfort. But I do find it hard to understand how an intelligent person could actively believe in religious doctrine - when I started to question it it seemed obvious to me that it wasn't true. Perhaps Sabro-san (PhD) could enlighten us?

Kinsao
08-11-05, 13:59
Although I do agree that if someone is highly intelligent they are less likely to be religious, and I find it hard to understand how the intelligent people I know can believe in such things... I do find it hard to understand how an intelligent person could actively believe in religious doctrine

Please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Einstein religious? :?

And, yeah, I know that doesn't "prove" anything... but, let's bear in mind that in past times, religion was more popular/common (it was less acceptable to have no religious belief), more of people held to some kind of religious belief especially as science was less advanced and there was less knowledge about how things work... what I am trying inarticulately to say, is, there were many "intelligent" things like inventions, scientific discoveries, great art/literature, etc. etc., made, by people who had a religious belief, and these are a good part of the things our society and "civilisation" is founded on today. So in a sense, it is their "intelligence" that has enabled us to get where we are today.

In conclusion, I don't believe that religiousness or non-religiousness plays any part in a person's intelligence. You can get stupid, sheep-like following religious believers, and you can also get atheists who are as thick as ****. It depends on the capacity and abilities of the person's brain.

To me, if someone is "religious" it means they have a belief that an intelligence was behind the creation of the universe... i.e. something with consciousness... (above and beyond that are all the nuances and complexities of the different religions, some of which are indeed characterised by a lack of intelligence in some behaviours... :mad: ) That doesn't seem to me to preclude an intelligent and also scientific understanding of the world. It is just their opinion of the way things came into being and of things beyond our comprehension, and since no-one can prove absence of a supreme "intelligence" any more than they can prove its existence, I don't think it can be said to be an unintelligent standpoint.

Tsuyoiko
08-11-05, 14:56
Here I am again not explaining myself well, for the second day running :sorry: :p

When I say I find it hard to understand how intelligent people can believe these things I mean I find it hard to put myself in their shoes, and imagine what thought processes led to the acceptance of those beliefs, because as I said, as soon as I started to question it seemed obvious that those things weren't true. It's probably a limitation of my mind that I can't imagine any other conclusions to the questions I asked.

Also, when I say I can't see why intelligent people accept religious doctrine, I mean just that - the dogma and practices of organised religions. I don't understand how a scientist could believe in miracles, for example. I understand they can be spiritually-minded though - like Einstein. As far as I know, Einstein didn't practise any organised religion - he was more-or-less a pantheist, but I think his beliefs were closer than atheism than to any organised religion:
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after deathI think the idea that Einstein was religious comes from a quote that was is often cited, but has been taken out of context, i.e.
science without religion is lame What he actually said was
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

Anyway, I still don't understand why intelligent people accept the dogma of organised religions, but I want to understand - I hate not understanding stuff! So if anyone out there can explain it to me (go slow!) I would be very grateful! :relief:

Maciamo
08-11-05, 15:05
I don't think it's that simple. I think intelligence is only one of many factors that make someone religious or not. I think family background and personality are also important. Although I do agree that if someone is highly intelligent they are less likely to be religious, and I find it hard to understand how the intelligent people I know can believe in such things.

Intelligence (as commonly understood) depends a lot on knowledge and reasoning skills. Someone with enough knowledge about sciences and history (of religions) can easily understand how absurd many religious ideas are.

As for "naturally intelligent" people (high IQ type), they are also naturally independent-minded, more critical of received ideas (i.e. they question everything) and less reliant on other people's opinions. This "cocktail" means that it is very difficult for them to accept ideas that conflict with reason, even to integrate into a social group (in that case they would just be faking for the sake of relationships).

Tsuyoiko
08-11-05, 15:13
(in that case they would just be faking for the sake of relationships).I bet a lot of people do that - sometimes for the sake of their relationship with themselves - and I bet some don't even realise it.

Kinsao
08-11-05, 15:29
Ah, I see what you mean now, Tsuyoiko. :relief:


I can't see why intelligent people accept religious doctrine, I mean just that - the dogma and practices of organised religions

There was me, confusing "religion" with "belief in the existence of 'god'"... which is of course not the same thing at all. :bluush:


in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist

I think this is important (and not forgetting his qualifier! :p )... It is too simple to think that religion and science conflict.

I'd like to post about doctrines of organised religion, but there are too many... it would take too long to research it all, and then make a post... I think that could be my doctorate thesis, maybe! :mad:

Maciamo
08-11-05, 15:42
Please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Einstein religious? :?

Not religious, in the sense that he did not believe in any religion and certainly not Judaism or Christianity. Just read a few of his quotations (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=271407&postcount=4) to understand. Of course, he lived at a time when religion was still strong in the West, then moved to the very religious USA, so he could not easily claim that he was an atheist. Yet, from his remarks, we can feel that he was either an atheist or more likely a pantheist (which is why he saw Buddhism positively).


And, yeah, I know that doesn't "prove" anything... but, let's bear in mind that in past times, religion was more popular/common (it was less acceptable to have no religious belief), more of people held to some kind of religious belief especially as science was less advanced and there was less knowledge about how things work...

That is my main argument. People were more religious in the past, and the more human knowledge increases and the better educated people become, the less religious society becomes. The 20th century has seen more human progress than maybe the whole combined human history before that. This is especially true after WWII. And the decrease in religious convictions have been closely correlated to this evolution.



what I am trying inarticulately to say, is, there were many "intelligent" things like inventions, scientific discoveries, great art/literature, etc. etc., made, by people who had a religious belief, and these are a good part of the things our society and "civilisation" is founded on today. So in a sense, it is their "intelligence" that has enabled us to get where we are today.

Note that the greatest scientists or philosophers have usually had troubles with the Church. In the middle ages, anyone who dare disagree with the Bible was burnt at the stake. Result : dark ages. From the Renaissance, some have rediscovered ancient Greek philosophers, understood the mistaken beliefs of Christian ideas, and carefully tried to express them. Some were burnt at the stake (e.g. Giordano Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno) for saying that the earth revolves around the sun), and others ended up in jail (e.g. Galileo Galilei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo) for insinuating the same, yet without ever affirming it publicly). The greatest intellectual development of Europe came in the 18th century Enlightenment when French, German or British philosophers enjoyed more freedom of speech (mainly because the government had become much stronger than the Church). The Reformation certainly helped a lot reduce religious persecutions once the wars of religions of the 16th and 17th centuries had ended. Protestant countries like the Netherlands and England encouraged intellectual development, as they were enemies of the Catholic Church.



In conclusion, I don't believe that religiousness or non-religiousness plays any part in a person's intelligence. You can get stupid, sheep-like following religious believers, and you can also get atheists who are as thick as ****. It depends on the capacity and abilities of the person's brain.

I see your point about some "stupid atheists". This is because there are different kinds of atheism. Some people are atheist because they don't care about god and religion. They are insensitive to it or philosophical questions in general. They just don't care. These are called weak atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism). Some weak atheists can be intelligent, but most are just insensitive to spiritual or intellectual issues. They contrast sharply with strong atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism), who are philosophically convinced that religions are the invention of men, cannot therefore be divine or contain any truth, and by analysing the undrlying psychology of the human mind and its representation to god, have concluded that there is no such thing as a personal god or one that cares about or judge humans. Weak atheist are close to animists and polytheists, while strong atheists are very close to pantheists (almost the same) and agnostics, and also quite close to deists. (see graph of religious beliefs (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19404))



To me, if someone is "religious" it means they have a belief that an intelligence was behind the creation of the universe... i.e. something with consciousness... (above and beyond that are all the nuances and complexities of the different religions, some of which are indeed characterised by a lack of intelligence in some behaviours... :mad: )

No, just believing in god is called spirituality. For example, all deists and many pantheists are not religious, but believe in god. Religiousness is believing in a religion, like Christianity, with an organisation, a dogma, priests, worshipping places, etc. If you don't follow any religion (you are free to take moral values from anywhere you want, though) and believe in god, you are a deist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). I have nothing against deists. I don't agree that god exist, but I respect their belief. Yet, I don't respect people who follow an exclusive monotheistic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam...). Other religions (e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Shintoism) are "passable" for those who need something to believe in.


That doesn't seem to me to preclude an intelligent and also scientific understanding of the world. It is just their opinion of the way things came into being and of things beyond our comprehension, and since no-one can prove absence of a supreme "intelligence" any more than they can prove its existence, I don't think it can be said to be an unintelligent standpoint.

It is easy to prove that religion are man-made. A bit a psychology and common sense can also disprove the existence of a personal god, or one with human attributes (thinking, feeling, judging...). The rest is believe, which is one I only accept deism, pantheism, agnosticism and atheism as intellectually valid beliefs. Others are demonstrated lies.

Tsuyoiko
08-11-05, 15:51
Ah, I see what you mean now, Tsuyoiko. :relief:Phew! :relief: Thanks for keeping me on my toes, although they are starting to ache a bit! :p

Mycernius
12-11-05, 22:53
I have always see that people idea of a God is something to be worshipped or resposible for things that we cannot explain. I don't see nature as a God. Nature is a natural process that doesn't really care if we live or die as a species. Most peoples idea of a God is something that has a vested interest in Humans. As Sensuikan san pointed out, Gods need man. Without man there are no Gods. Nothing else in nature needs to worship a higher intelligence. If apes were able to grasp such an abstract idea, would they worship man? We can do things they can't would they. We can fly, cure ills, kill things from a great distance, create lightning. To our primitive ancestors we have the powers of their Gods.
As we discover more about the universe and its mechanics I think the idea of God will fade. Just think, 500 years ago Maciamo, Sensuikan san and myself could be executed for our beliefs, or lack of them. Thanks to a greater understanding of the world around us our views are no longer seen as heretical, but are becoming more intergrated into human thought, especially in Europe and the west in general.

Tsuyoiko
13-11-05, 13:51
As Sensuikan san pointed out, Gods need man. Without man there are no Gods. Nothing else in nature needs to worship a higher intelligence. If apes were able to grasp such an abstract idea, would they worship man? We can do things they can't would they. We can fly, cure ills, kill things from a great distance, create lightning. To our primitive ancestors we have the powers of their Gods.That's the idea behind the evil aliens in Stargate SG1 - a great show that raises some interesting points on this subject.

Winter
14-11-05, 21:59
Asking 'what is g*d?' to a person is like giving a monkey a wristwatch.

And speaking of monkeys, Mycernius mentioned apes viewing humans has higher beings; on that note, did you know that apes are actually starting to show signs of evolutionary progress?

I forget where I read it, but it was a quote along the lines of apes advancing their usages for tools, and refining the tools themselves.

Makes you wonder if apes will evolve to our level; and if that happens, no doubt we are bound to make another evolutionary jump.

Actually, now that I think about it, I did read once that in a few eons, the next evolutionary jump for humans is to trancend gender and branch off into two specifically different human species. I dont remember where I read that, and I dont have any fancy schmancy links to put up here like yall with your examples, unfortunately.

toyomotor
14-05-13, 04:20
GOD can be anyone you want him/her to be. The various religious schools, such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhist etc. have a clear vision of what their God expects from them, without actually knowing who (or what) their God is. IMO God is simply something upon which one can focus in times of need. Personally, I cannot believe that a God would permit what is currently happening in the world to continue without supreme intervention. I do not believe in the concept of Gods.

American Idiot
18-11-13, 14:48
If there was a 'God' - where would he be ... without human beings to believe in him/her ...?

ソスWソスソスソスソス Humans created "God".....not the other way around. Any higher power is simply a projection humans make of their own sub-conscious. If you look at all the othe primates, they are social creatures, just like us. There maybe lone wolves but not lone chimps. And we humans are the most social primates of all and with our much larger frontal lobes we think and experience things on a whole new level that other primates are incapable of. So for us, being the social creatures we are, have a basic need to not feel alone, in the universe. Plus we need something to make sense or some kind of reasoning when things happen out of our control, like the death of a loved one or our own mortality. It's part of our basic drive to not want to be alone, so we invent higher powers to make us...well....not feel alone (duh!) "God" is simply in our head.

LeBrok
18-11-13, 19:01
Humans created "God".....not the other way around. Any higher power is simply a projection humans make of their own sub-conscious. If you look at all the othe primates, they are social creatures, just like us. There maybe lone wolves but not lone chimps. And we humans are the most social primates of all and with our much larger frontal lobes we think and experience things on a whole new level that other primates are incapable of. So for us, being the social creatures we are, have a basic need to not feel alone, in the universe. Plus we need something to make sense or some kind of reasoning when things happen out of our control, like the death of a loved one or our own mortality. It's part of our basic drive to not want to be alone, so we invent higher powers to make us...well....not feel alone (duh!) "God" is simply in our head.
It is a very interesting idea and I think it is a viable explanation to the origin of god. To be lonely and helpless against cruel nature creates an uneasy feeling to deal with. Certainly helping and friendly god/gods fill this void and gives us comforting feeling.

Aberdeen
18-11-13, 21:01
I think it's quite likely that energy sources such as the Earth, Moon and Sun are the physical embodiments of conscious aware entities, so our Pagan ancestors who worshipped Gods and Goddesses may have been on the right track. But I don't know how much such entities actually care about or intercede in human affairs. And these Gods and Goddesses are part of our universe. As for whether there's a transcendent god that created the universe, that's a difficult question, IMO, because if no entity created the universe, it's hard to say where it came from, and if an entity did create the universe, it's hard to say where that entity came from. And I think that to say that a creator god is eternal, had no creator and has always existed makes less sense than to say that the universe is eternal, had no creator and has always existed, since we can at least be certain that the universe exists (although I know some would argue that). But if there is a creator god that made billions of galaxies, does he/she/it watch over individuals and criticize their behaviour? I think that's extremely unlikely, so I don't find the Abrahamic religions to be very logical.

American Idiot
19-11-13, 07:26
I think it's quite likely that energy sources such as the Earth, Moon and Sun are the physical embodiments of conscious aware entities, so our Pagan ancestors who worshipped Gods and Goddesses may have been on the right track. But I don't know how much such entities actually care about or intercede in human affairs. And these Gods and Goddesses are part of our universe. As for whether there's a transcendent god that created the universe, that's a difficult question, IMO, because if no entity created the universe, it's hard to say where it came from, and if an entity did create the universe, it's hard to say where that entity came from. And I think that to say that a creator god is eternal, had no creator and has always existed makes less sense than to say that the universe is eternal, had no creator and has always existed, since we can at least be certain that the universe exists (although I know some would argue that). But if there is a creator god that made billions of galaxies, does he/she/it watch over individuals and criticize their behaviour? I think that's extremely unlikely, so I don't find the Abrahamic religions to be very logical.

I agree, and IMO religion has always had more to do with emotions, not logic.

even in a historical perspective, it can be based more on social issues than actual spirituality.
In dark-age Europe, a religion like christianity which preached about how the poor and meek will inherit the earth, sounded very attractive to most European peasants who could only hope you have a brief, hard life filled with death, disease, threat of being enslaved, and under constant subjugation from whatever powerful group/person was in control of where they lived.

religion gave them a "hope" that the man-made social issues they were having to deal with could be better and in their favor.

It's the same reason groups like African Americans were so drawn to religion during times like the civil rights movement and the abolition of slavery.

When in reality none of these have anything to do with spirituality or religion, but merely just human nature and social issues at the time.

people invented religion to make them feel not to helpless. "God" is basically just a human being talking to himself and telling himself things will be ok and there is hope.