I have considered this problem for a long time, having observed the intrusion of irrationality into the lives of friends and strangers.

Godless Geeks is just one of dozens of places to view the holes in religious theories. I prefer talkorigins, though, for its authors' command of the individual issues, which I consider better-written.

There are three core issues to address. The first is the term, "belief". People do not realize that a belief is merely a mental summary to allow further action; it is never the whole story about any issue or question. Second, people do not realize the impact of ego. I am not talking about the boastful brachiation of the alpha personality, but the natural first-person view - which unfortunately obscures tremendous detail. When a person habitually assigns value to everything based on themselves, it is difficult to show them, "No, what you think does not affect the real world in any manner". Third: stemming from issues one and two is a house of cards, religion itself, whose faithful never notice is about men and what they did and should do.

The plain fact is that Bible fans worship the Bible, and then only part of it; a few quick questions will establish for you that professed piety is proportional to ignorance about the Bible itself.

As to the issue of God, I point out that although instrumentation can push back the edge of the unknown, it cannot eliminate it; when the Big Bang is postulated, there is the question, "What caused it?" I am personally satisfied to say that I don't know, and that nobody else does, either.

There is a fine reference at Adherents.com to let you know who believes what. The mere existence of this site shows that no one group has the answer to life's persistent questions. (Try not to be disappointed that they don't mention the Great Green Arkleseizure.)

Here's my question: So far as we can tell, animals do not believe in God. So, evolutionarily speaking, why did we evolve the capacity to imagine one?

I would also note that a lot of the people who are vehement atheists seem to hate only the idea of a literalistic God of the Bible. A conception of the transcendent need not be so reduced. What if "God" is simply a word for the collective consciousness? Or a name for the forces of nature? Or simply a one-word-fits-all description of the better impulses in every human?

Most truly thinking Christians allow for such possibilities, I've found. It's just that the unthinking ones seem to control the discourse.

Answer to LYT: Because we also evolved the capacity imagine our own death and thus, fear it. Belief in God is comforting in the face of the prospect of nonexistence. In fact it may be a survival mechanism. Unrelieved denial would drive us all insane. Have a look at Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death sometime.

Correction:

Unrelieved lack of denial would drive us all insane.

I've always felt that a great many people who consider themselves spiritual really just want to feel a part of something larger than themselves. As long as it doesn't evolve into an overweening desire to control the way others think and act, it seems like a harmless way to live one's life.

"Here's my question: So far as we can tell, animals do not believe in God. So, evolutionarily speaking, why did we evolve the capacity to imagine one?" -LYT

I don't see how we can be sure animals don't have an idea of God - it's hard to get them to fill out questionnaires. But people have commented on the similarity of God to a sort of idealized alpha male or father figure, so the idea may arise from primitive thought processes that we share with other primates. We look for patterns in nature and try to make sense of them based on our past experiences, and early childhood experiences with our parents have a profound effect on our psyches. (But I should note that I have an utter lack of expertise in this subject.)

There is also a fascinating theory that the concept of God is derived from a quirk in our reasoning processes. In a nutshell, our most fundamental reasoning processes take place at a subconscious level, and the brain is incapable of directly conceptualizing an unending process. So, on a subconscious level, we combine the concept of a continuing, or _endless_ process with that of _the end of_ a process. "The end of an endless process" is nonsense, and does not correspond to anything in reality. But by using this shortcut, our brains can process ideas that they otherwise could not.

But we cannot tell that this is just a cognitive shortcut. Instead, we perceive it as something that exists outside of our minds - infinity. And when this synthetic concept is extended to religion and combined with the idea of an alpha male/father figure, we get an infinite, personal entity - God.

I may not have explained that very well, but it is a rather technical thing that I would rather not try to elaborate on further. I came across the theory in chapter 8 of "Where Mathematics Comes From" by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Nunez. It is a very slow read, but fascinating. The authors look at what scientists have discovered about how we think (which is actually quite a lot) and try to tie it all together into a theory of mathematics. The details of their theory are tentative, but (in my non-expert opinion) they make an excellent case that math can _only_ be understood as a cognitive process.

"What if "God" is simply a word for the collective consciousness? Or a name for the forces of nature? Or simply a one-word-fits-all description of the better impulses in every human?" -LYT

Such conceptions of "God" are so different from the normal use of the term that I think they are really just poetic expressions of atheism. Many atheists have deep, even "spiritual" feelings about one or more of the concepts you mention. Atheists with a sense of reverence for the forces of nature can be called either natural pantheists or scientific pantheists, for instance. And the pursuit of moral excellence is deeply important in humanist thought. It just doesn't make sense to me to call nature or ethics God.

That would be like saying, "I'm a cat lover. But I only like the cats that bark, wag their tails, and play fetch." Today there are many conflicted people struggling to reconcile Christianity with atheism. They can neither pull free from their Christian heritage, nor fully escape the humanism that their reason leads them to. I think that is the only reason talk of an impersonal "God" is taken seriously today.

All the Best,
Charles

That was a fun read.

I'm more of an existentialist as I have enough trouble getting through the day in my own self to worry about the analogously mentally defective individuals in society who choose to delude themselves with a belief in a vengeful Old Testament God or The New Testament Santa Clause. (Isn't that "Good News" in and of itself?) I just want them to keep their beliefs to themselves just as I try to keep my mouth shut about this subject in polite conversation. Talk of religion from a stranger knocking at my door usually deprecates my estimation of their IQ to somewhere nearer room temperature. For a further example see George Bush.

lets look at science itself, how often have thing known to be true been proven otherwise?

there is nothing smaller than an atom, but wait what about sub atomic particles like protons and electrons

and what about the discoveries being made in quatum physics

the point is science demands that we keep an open mind until there is proof that something, whether it be god or anything else, exists or not

and until there is proof that god does or does not exist we must allow for the possibility

Are you also open to the possibility that you're a giant pink levitating toaster and that a giant pink bunny will kick you into outer space as you're floating to work today?

And, the need to believe in something larger than oneself, in light of the lack of evidence of any such thing, seems pathetic -- unless you take it to mean, say, a belief that maybe you can make the world a better place before you turn to dust, and put effort behind that belief to do just that. But, I know, when people say that, they're actually trying to avoid looking irrational, yet keep their believe in The Giant Pumpkin or Zeus or other such imaginary friend.

Actually, Amy, I think it's really just a desire to avoid the constant navel - gazing that's become so common among most adults these days.

If that desire is also expressed through one's religious beliefs, why call it pathetic? Should we not also describe the many charitable acts by religious groups (like Catholic charities and the Salvation Army) by disparaging their efforts?

How about the billions spent already for the Tsunami relief efforts that are still ongoing? Many of those dollars were funneled through religious charities, and you haven't seen any ministers or high priests coming ashore, ready to start their conversions. Nor have you witnessed any doctrinaire speeches or teachings being linked to these generous relief efforts.

You always bring up the religious "nutters" to prove your points regarding any and all faiths, but by picking out one segment of the huge polyglot of religions in this country as the sole example for your polemics are specious arguments at best.

Here are some links that discuss some scientist's opinions regarding whether God exists.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html

Since you have the ultimate faith in the disciplines of reason and science, maybe you should read what some of the "masters of the universe" feel about the matter. Richard Feynman (MIT/Nobel Prize winner) considered God's existence to be a distinct possibility, when the question was put to him during his final years.

Since The Guardian leans about Left of Trotsky, it's an interesting article.

not to sound like a smart ass, but until every cubic milimeter of the univese, and any alternate universes which might exist there is a possibility of a giant pink toster with a pink bunny

and while i do choose to belive in a God, if there is any concrete proof showing that there is no way such a being could exist, i will gladley veiw it

and for the longest time there was no way to veiw the air which we breath, but our tech one day evolved to the point where we could see it and manipulate it

mabey God is a supreme mystical being, maybe it is the collective gathering of whatever elevates us above mere animals, maybe god is a race of aleins who flew beyong the boundaries of our universe the last time it collapsed to reform in the big bang

and while i do agree that there is not scientific evidnce that god exists, neither is there any scientific proof that god does not exist

John, nice try, but the people with outrageous claims have the burden of proving them.

You choose to believe in god because you're a lazy thinker. I have to pull the Rand Simberg quote on that from Cathy Young's recent Reason article.

And Dmac, I don't care what other people think. I see now proof that there's a god. I've never been a follow-the-leader thinker; I'm not about to start abdicating my ability to reason now.

Here it is: from a Cathy Young column, which I'll post

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2005/08/08/god_vs_darwin_no_contest/

''Intelligent design" boils down to the claim sarcastically summed up by aerospace engineer and science consultant Rand Simberg on his blog, Transterrestrial Musings: ''I'm not smart enough to figure out how this structure could evolve, therefore there must have been a designer." Simberg, a political conservative, concludes that this argument ''doesn't belong in a science classroom, except as an example of what's not science."