Is mankind best served by cutting off the head of God?

[lifegazer]

A comment I've just made in another thread has fueled this thread. I'm wondering - as the title suggests - whether some people think that humanity is best served by the death of God. But more importantly, I want to to know why they would say "yay".

I don't believe that this discussion should be had in the philosophy of religion forum, because I am not asking whether humanity would be best served with the death of religion. Please note that. From my own perspective, God does not stand upon a pedestal built from religious rock. The death of religion is one thing... the death of God, another.

So, with this in mind, why (or how) could humanity ever be best-served with the definitive knowledge in God's death (God's non-existence)?

Thanks.

Btw, I voted "no".

[Bluemist]

Are you suggesting that God has a pragmatic purpose or that we have a need for God? That would completely cast aside religion, dogma, and all social implications that come with religion as custom and religion as a community.

[PrivateVoid]

It's not clear which god you mean.

Which kind of god's death would best serve humanity and who decides what's best?

The kind of god who's non-existence would serve humanity best (in my opinion) is the one usually tied to or is the basis of a religion so your differentiation between death-of-religion and death-of-god makes the question difficult to answer with a yes/no. I think answering yes to this question also means yes to the death-of-religion.

The actual, real god, if any, might be completely unknown to us and it doesn't make sense to wish death to something we don't know.

If by "god" you mean any kind of blind allegiance (even by non-religious people) to what appears to be omnipotence, then yes. Such a god is not good for us.

It's the same god/thinking that prevents the advancement of knowledge and prosperity for all.

I don't think any god worthy of the title would want to be worshipped in any case.

[Scott]

Please elaborate further on what you believe the difference is between "the death of religion" and "the death of god." Also, wouldn't "the death of god" entail the "death of religion?"

Semantically speaking, wouldn't it make more sense to say "the death of the belief in god?"

Would the people of our society benefit from the eradication of the belief in god(s) (i.e. theism)? I think that most people's answer to the question would depend almost entirely on whether or not they believe in god(s). If you believed there was really a god or gods, then wouldn't you almost surely think it is in people's best interest to believe that god exists. If you believed that god did not exist--that alien abductions, telekinesis, and Miss Cleo have more evidence supporting them--wouldn't you almost surely believe that it is in people's best interest to disbelieve in god?

A few people might argue that delusion would be beneficial due to some extenuating circumstance, but the vast majority of people would answer based on whether or not they themselves believe.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[lifegazer]

[Belinda]

[OTavern]

[ape]

[Juice]

I would like to elaborate on what OT and meleager have submitted. I believe it disingenuous to correlate the selfishness inherent in some individuals, in respect to any attributable ideology, who would seek to be exploitative for personal satisfaction by any means as mere opportunists.

We must be able to distinguish between "peaceful" intent from "wise" intent from "evil" intent.

Peaceful intent is a charge to all members of the human race to treat eachother, in any interaction, with the intent towards peace. How this is accomplished is a through a myriad of convoluted constructs by each party to achieve an outcome which is satisfactorily acceptable to each party. Simply saying that one should treat his neighbor as he would want to be treated is not enough since an individual may expect and exhibit distrust.

Wise intent is realizing that any action should be based on the best outcome achievable to secure peaceful intentions. Simply criminalizing war, justice and defensive/offensive language and action does little for the entitlement of thought as Belinda demonstrates.

Evil intent are those intentions which confound rational human experience. Those actions which are deliberately meant to corrupt the wise and peaceful processes of the human endevour. When evil becomes institutionalized it is so done out in the open and not behind closed doors. It also must be disguised in altruistic intentions to have a mass effectiveness and acceptance. Institutionalization of any idea is evil and must be cloaked in altruism since good to be good is done sacrificially, privately and effortlessly. This question becomes are religions institutions? Not when those religions accept the responsibilities of the individual to foster a relationship with a personal God and the individual acts in concordance with that will.

Any institutional attempt to kill God is an evil entreaty since such a design must control, subject and dehumanize the individual.

Killing God is a sure way to an authoritarian society and the dehumanization of humanity.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[Belinda]

[Scott]

The topic of, "does god exist," is different than the topic of "Is mankind better off if they do not believe in god?"

I'm not evens sure what is mean by "the death of god" if it does not meant 'the death of belief in god.' Regardless of whether or not people believe in god, what does it mean for god to die? How can god actually exist but then die? If 'the death of god' doesn't mean 'all people stop believing that god exists," then what does it mean?

[ape]

Re. the evil individual in any larger group:


Since it is the Evil of Hate for evil that makes people really evil, then any organizations that also hate the evil individual is also as evil as the individual they hate since the evil of self-hate-ishness is in both the group and the indivdual.


This is why the only organizations which do NOT share the guilt of any individual who is a part of that organization are those who espouse The Goodness of Love for the good and the evil, the enemy and the friend, etc and non-etc.


These innocent organizations include all Religions epitomised by Unconditional Love and summarised by their Golden Rules...so that any individual in any of those religions who hates himself and others as any words are auto-wrong and auto-evil for their selfhatishness and other-hatishness from before first gear and from the get-go!


Guilty organizations are any which have good rules but base those good rules on the Hate of rule-breakers, which organizations then hate and condemn and punish the individual rulebreakers in Hate.


Example:
If any religious group has rules against stealing and lying, which rules are based on Hatred of thieves and liars who steal money and then lie about both the stealing and the lieing, which Hatred of thieves and liars is the equivalent of stealing Love from others and lying about Love to others in the first place, which organization then condemns any individual thief and liar in the group, which individual's first stealing and lying were also stealing Love from himself and from others when he hated himself and any others as a thief and liar, which Spirit of stealing and lieing led him to steal and lie, then both the individual and church are guilty of the sin of selfhatishness, with the organization being more guilty of the evil of stealing and lieing since it was the organization who promulgated and promulgates the very attitude of self-hatishness which is the first stealing and the first lie and leads to physical stealing in Hate and to telling lies in Hate, which, because of that Hate, in effect are double-steals and double-lies.

[Juice]

Belinda-I grew up under the auspices of the Catholic church and have experiences that are both objectionable and uplifting. The culmination of which came to me by part of a graduation requirement for high school in my diocese to spend a two week retreat at seminary. Naturally we all thought it just a recruitment attempt for the priesthood. And we were wrong.

What I was immediately struck by was the absolute love and devotion of these priests. While my experiences in school had the objective of preparing boys for the rigors and responsibilities of men, the retreat had the effect of framing ones spirituality, communing with God and fellowship. For a moment I was almost compelled to join the priesthood and even now I sometimes regret the decision not to, I just could not wrap my mind around the celibacy thing. Each night before evening prayers a priest told a story. Sometimes it was about our Lord, Jesus, but more often just about ordinary people living through and by the spirit of God. I learned about the exceptionalism of the human spirit and its capacity for love and self sacrifice.

Granted some priests have fallen to despicable disgrace of body and spirit, but I understand the attraction to such devotion displayed by many priests who join the priesthood for love of God and for the love of humanity, and the willing sacrifices they make.

I am sorry that your experiences and interpretations have left you so adverse to organized Abrahamic religion but I will tell you that my experiences have led me to a different view. While I no longer attend Mass regularly since I now consider myself a Christian first under the direct personal administrations of God I still very much love all those people who feel that the kind of service to Christ requires some level of organization for themselves. I do not think I would be the person I am today if not for the organization and authority of the military, I know to be grateful for any entity available which provides purpose towards building strength and goodwill.

After all we are all lost sheep!!!
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[OTavern]

[Belinda]

From OTavern