Deities are substitutes for our parents

[Flickering]

This is a thought I had a while ago on acid. I'll keep it simple.

As we're growing up, our parents provide everything. From the literal life support of the womb to constant care, love and attention during infancy, to being helped along each step of the way through childhood and on to independence, they're more or less God. But, inevitably, they become less and less so as we get older, and heading into adolescence there's always a process of disillusionment as things swing the other way.

That's assuming you had a healthy childhood. If not, the disillusionment comes even faster and is even more painful.

It may sound Freudian. But I posit that, subconsciously, we're inclined to cling to the idea of an all-powerful being, like our parents, whose authority we can respect and who tells us what to do in this uncertain world, and who loves us.

Some deities are wise and maternal, reassuring us tenderly, and some deities are masculine and powerful, guiding us into our own strength. The perfect mother and father.

Other deities have been truly fearsome, alike many parents to their children.

And of course, today, there's the One and Only God who personifies all of these things at once.

I'm not saying that this is the ONLY reason people turn to religion. But I think it helps explain why so many of us are so willing to believe in the absurd. It fills a deep hole in our lives, makes a substitute for a deep security we used to have.

 

[max_]

No. Humans are able to think about the world in an abstract manner. For example when a dog sees a mountain the dog will assume that the mountain has always been there. It will never occur the dog that the mountain may have come from tectonic plates. The same with life. The dog will never wonder where he came from, he is here and that's all it needs to know. Humans on the other hand are able to see the mountain and say "hey, who put that stack of rocks up there?". Some thought about giants, some thought about gods, some thought about aliens, some thought about evolution.

To make a long story short, Gods are not parent figures. Gods are a way of explaining the universe. When you are a kid you see that mightiness in your parents, then you learn otherwise (whether you learn Darwin or Jesus that's a different story).

 

[qwe]

i think there is value in this lens. the world a person lives in is largely determined by how he was raised during early "critical imprinting" periods.

the lens that our religious deities are inspired by our parents is supported by the fact that there are different kinds of "god" (in the same religion) (authoritarian, benevolent, critical, distant)

Highlights of Baylor's analysis:

• The Authoritarian God (31.4% of Americans overall, 43.3% in the South) is angry at humanity's sins and engaged in every creature's life and world affairs. He is ready to throw the thunderbolt of judgment down on "the unfaithful or ungodly," Bader says.

Those who envision God this way "are religiously and politically conservative people, more often black Protestants and white evangelicals," Bader says.

"(They) want an active, Christian-values-based government with federal funding for faith-based social services and prayer in the schools."

They're also the most inclined to say God favors the USA in world affairs (32.1% vs. 18.6% overall).

•The Benevolent God (23% overall, 28.7% in the Midwest) still sets absolute standards for mankind in the Bible. More than half (54.8% ) want the government to advocate Christian values.

But this group, which draws more from mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews, sees primarily a forgiving God, more like the father who embraces his repentant prodigal son in the Bible, Froese says.

They're inclined (68.1% ) to say caring for the sick and needy ranks highest on the list of what it means to be a good person.

•The Critical God (16% overall, 21.3% in the East) has his judgmental eye on the world, but he's not going to intervene, either to punish or to comfort.

"This group is more paradoxical," Bader says. "They have very traditional beliefs, picturing God as the classic bearded old man on high. Yet they're less inclined to go to church or affiliate seriously with religious groups. They are less inclined to see God as active in the world. Their politics are definitely not liberal, but they're not quite conservative, either."

Those who picture a critical God are significantly less likely to draw absolute moral lines on hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research.

•The Distant God (24.4% overall, 30.3% in the West) is "no bearded old man in the sky raining down his opinions on us," Bader says. Followers of this God see a cosmic force that launched the world, then left it spinning on its own.

This has strongest appeal for Catholics, mainline Protestants and Jews. It's also strong among "moral relativists," those least likely to say any moral choice is always wrong, and among those who don't attend church, Bader says.

article

To make a long story short, Gods are not parent figures. Gods are a way of explaining the universe.

why not both? they are connected, emotionally, as you imply in your next sentence:

When you are a kid you see that mightiness in your parents, then you learn otherwise

 

[Flickering]

Yeah Max, I'm wondering the same thing - how does any of what you said contradict my theory? Saying it's one or the other is very rigid thinking, the human mind isn't that robotic.

 

[ebola?]

It may sound Freudian.

Very. Freud himself argued explicitly that as parental authority imprints the super-ego, conscious engagement with super-egoic influences casts this authority on a wider basis, codified and anthropomorphized as deities. Yet deities still fulfill alternate functions, principally answering the unanswerable. Where did we come from? What happens when we die? How did existence begin? It is perhaps from this blend of functions that personal gods emerge...

ebola

 

[Flickering]

Wow, didn't realise he said that. Well, I hate to say it but... I guess Freud wasn't wrong about everything.

 

[max_]

You might as well be right. I do believe that explaining the world is the basic reason why religion started in the first place. However, there is no reason to think that this other aspect has nothing to do with people accepting faith and also sticking to it. Even scientists believe in God. Everyone needs a religion no matter what their beliefs are. Some people devote themselves to Christianity, some to Buddhism and some to the Stock Exchange. Wherever you deposit that energy is irrelevant, we need a power that is above us and we cannot control (like what they talk about in 12 step programs). The human mind works in that way, and our parents fulfill that role when we are little, then we need stronger figures.
So yeah, I agree that Gods (in whatever form you choose to experience them/him/it) are in some way filling the gap that our parents left when we grew up. Although the primary reason why they ever came to be is to explain the universe.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

I can definitely see an overlap. That's an awesome revelation. Children seem to believe in their parents more than any god from what I've experienced too.

 

[Portillo]

So where does leave atheists? I assume they had a perfect childhood.

 

[B9]

I think the OP is pretty much correct

 

[Flickering]

So yeah, I agree that Gods (in whatever form you choose to experience them/him/it) are in some way filling the gap that our parents left when we grew up. Although the primary reason why they ever came to be is to explain the universe.

Agreed. (And because they were a fantastic little tool to control people with.)

So where does leave atheists? I assume they had a perfect childhood.

The human mind is capable of thinking for itself. I'm just identifying some subconscious thought patterns that strongly influence what we believe.