Philosophy Now Forum

I have a theory that God is nothing but a human projection, and it isn't science or intellectual advancement that will completely disprove the Bible or other religions, but simple human psychology mixed with philosophy.

Humans are a race that believes itself to be not only important as a whole, but each individual generally tends to be born with an inherent self importance. You could say the same about any animals underneath humanity in the food chain, because essentially any animal will kill something below it in order to exist. Humans will do the same. But the difference is that animals have something above them to control them and give them boundaries- something of a higher intellect, humanity. Humans however, without God or something larger in existence, can't really find humility because they have nothing to compare themselves to other than animals.
So humans create God because;
1. It gives them a governor or a law maker
2. It gives them something to live under

However, this theory creates a real philosophical and personal question for everyone-
is humanity really that important? What makes us important? And if we aren't, how to we condone human compassion but corrupt the planet and animal life like a cancer?

You make some interesting (and good) points. There's a lot to be said for the idea that a divine entity (in this case the Christian 'god') is a means of anchoring our own ethical activity and transforming it into something moral; or, to put it another way, taking the idea of 'the good life' and making it 'good' to live a 'good life'.


You wrote:

it isn't science or intellectual advancement that will completely disprove the Bible or other religions, but simple human psychology mixed with philosophy

Do you think that psychology is non-scientific? Alongside this, do you think that philosophy has no part to play in intellectual advancement? I don't want to make out that you intend to say these things but the way in which your post is phrased makes it seem as though you are. While there are many who disagree that psychology is in any way 'scientific' it is still attempting to work with evidence and interpret it through experimentation and critical analysis; the material might be different but the method is not. So perhaps it might be good to understand how you're distinguishing psychology and philosophy from 'science' in order to get a better idea of what you mean.

Also, what do you mean when you write that the Bible could be 'completely disproved'? I assume that you mean the various passages regarding the nature of a god and the ethical behaviour that is to be derived from its existence; am I right? I think that there is very little in the Bible that can be properly disproved. This is not because of it being fundamentally correct (or self-supporting) but rather because it is not expressed in such a way as to make it in any way resemble a hypothesis. Most of the claims made regarding the nature of a divine being come from those who believe that the Bible is true and want to ground it either logically or empirically. This is what we need to engage with and it is the work of scholastic thinkers such as Aquinas, or those who were influenced by them such as Descartes, Leibniz or Kant that gives us the proper material. The Bible is largely a collection of texts, written over hundreds of years, that have been translated many times depending upon the intentions and ideals of those who either translate or commission such translation.


As far as the main idea is concerned, why stop with god as a projection of humanity? Why not include humanity itself as a projection? There are those who reject the idea of divinity but retain the idea of 'humanity' and this takes the place of the divine as a ground for ethical and moral activity (where the former is concerned, broadly, with 'the good life' while the latter is more specific in its attempt to discern what is the right or wrong thing to do in any given situation). Put simply, we replace one divinity with another, even though we view this replacement as being 'worldly' rather than supernatural. Regardless of this, humanity is itself a projection as much as is any metaphysical deity. It might even be said that the extent to which so many civilisations have placed such importance on their religious beliefs shows a reluctance to engage with the question of what it means to 'be'; the meaning of existence (assuming that there is such a meaning) is deferred to a so-called 'higher being' so that we have an excuse for those times when we are not concerned with it.


I find it interesting that those who advocate the Biblical creation story as the literal description of the creation of the universe find the need to represent it as being amenable to scientific language. It is either myth or it is not; however, we are at a point in our intellectual development where the conferring upon an explanation of the status 'myth' is derogatory. As such, these advocates attempt to treat it as a hypothesis in need of justification. In doing this, they undermine their own beliefs; they treat 'science' as a set of tools that can be used to prove anything (although, in doing so, they often overlook the age old logical fallacy that just because something has not been disproved it does not follow that it has been proved). However, they inadvertently advocate the practice of scientific critical activity - something that does not include divinity as something it can investigate.

When I spoke about scientific development I used it in a very unspecified way, but I meant with regards to the formation of the planet. Obviously you know a lot more about philosophy than me so I appreciate your response and I was particularly interested in your idea about existentialism because I have heard it so many times but never really grasped it. I am reading E. M. Forster's "The Longest Journey" which features this part of philosophy and I find it interesting. How exactly can that theory hold itself up and what is the theory?
Thanks!

Corinthians 1:20

Where is the wise man?

Where is the scholar?

Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?



King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)


Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

MattCrowe wrote:I have a theory that God is nothing but a human projection, and it isn't science or intellectual advancement that will completely disprove the Bible or other religions, but simple human psychology mixed with philosophy.

Humans are a race that believes itself to be not only important as a whole, but each individual generally tends to be born with an inherent self importance. You could say the same about any animals underneath humanity in the food chain, because essentially any animal will kill something below it in order to exist. Humans will do the same. But the difference is that animals have something above them to control them and give them boundaries- something of a higher intellect, humanity. Humans however, without God or something larger in existence, can't really find humility because they have nothing to compare themselves to other than animals.
So humans create God because;
1. It gives them a governor or a law maker
2. It gives them something to live under

However, this theory creates a real philosophical and personal question for everyone-
is humanity really that important? What makes us important? And if we aren't, how to we condone human compassion but corrupt the planet and animal life like a cancer?

And how do you justify the word corrupt?

reasonemotion wrote: Where is the wise man?

That would be me, of course. I admit that only one other person on Earth understands this (a spokesman for the Spiritual Counterfeits Project), for which I will be happy to provide a link if my doing so is not considered too boring.

No, it's me.
Or are we referring to "wise guy"?