In whose image?
 

I recently read somewhere something along the lines of "if cows had religion their god(s) would have horns".
amoosing concept?

Gareth (AKA) RECOGT.

Interesting (yes, amoosing) concept, sure.

Moving this into a slightly more philosophical and less punny light, what does religion reflect in it's believers? Are people of a type gravitated towards a religion that reflects them in some way, and if so how? And what does that mean for athiests?

I think it means that the concept of "God" is so awesome that as simple creatures we need to bring it down to our level. The only way we can do that is to imagine a diety that looks like us.

God doesn't look too much like us:

http://dshoffman.com/SouthParkGod.jpg

It doesn't mean anything, as we do not believe in a "supreme deity"...horned or otherwise. But then, I do not view atheism as a "religion". Subsequently, I see no cause to conjur up a "god", that takes a form remarkably similar to my own.

"Atheist" means without a belief in god, right? Except that we do so, what's the purpose in conjuring up pictures of something one doesn't believe in?

Image! It sounds like something offensive on a cliff, that needs rockets...
:confused: Kill the offensive picture:confused:

"Image" needn't necessarily mean a visual image, but rather a conceptual one. In a Christian sense, the idea that God made man in his image is a metaphorical one that often gets interpreted far too literally; it refers to the essense of the human soul as being God like rather than anything physical.

From a Christian standpoint, it's likely that, assuming such existence, God's true nature is such that we can't comprehend it with our senses, so it's necessary for God to conceptualize things for us in such a way that we're capable of understanding it. Because we're designed for communication with other humans, taking human form would be one way of connecting that would make the people more comfortable. Humans like physical representations, particularly visual or aural, to help them understand things. In other words, when we encounter spiritual entities (God, angels, etc.), they take a form similar to ours to comfort us, rather than our being a copy of their physical form, which they likely do not posses in the first place. It is our essence, our soul, that is "in God's image," not some physical manifestation. As C. S. Lewis put it in Mere Christianity (paraphrased), you don't have a soul, you are a soul; you have a body.

From an anthropological perspective, it works the other way. We conceptualize supernatural beings to explain things we don't understand. The physical form that those concepts take is going to reflect that which is familiar to the culture in which the concepts form, and are going to reflect the value those cultures place on various physical aspects of their environment. Humans also tend to see themselves as higher than other animals, so when giving physical form to those abstract concepts, they're going to tend to use an extension of what is seen as the highest form. This is often human, so gods are seen in human form. In cultures where other things are often seen as superior to humans, the gods might take the form of animals, trees, idols, natural forces.

So, getting back to the question in the OP, lets assume for a moment that a supreme being goes to some cattle. To communicate with the cattle, this entity might take a form familiar to them, in the form of a cattle like god, or might take the form of a symbol of something that has power of them, such as a human.

Similarly, if cows were conceptualizing a deity to explain something they didn't understand, they might choose a physical concept close to themselves, one that has power, or even a combination. A minotaur would work well, combining the physical power of a bull with upright stance of a human.

In simplest terms, gods have the form they do because that form makes them easier to understand in physical forms. Whether that form is chosen by the gods themselves or by the worshippers, the principle remains the same.

It does lead to some distortions, such as to what degree we should be free to interpret historical figures that are of religious significance, both in terms of historical representations and artistic ones, but that's a different issue.

deity
 

hagatha
the only deity that we can imagine is the one that most closely conforms to the garbage that we had bashed into our heads between birth and 6 years of age.

The only difference between a moslem and a bhuddist (or the adherents to any other belief system) is the degree to which they are unable (or unwilling or afraid) to exercise true independant and critical analysis of the dogmatic crap that have learned.

with respect

gareth

If cows could conceptualize they wouldn't be letting us eat them, or even milk them.
The sparkling thing that exists inside our tiny minds is incomplete.
Maybe we'll do better later.

Authoritatively stated, but based on what observable facts?

Perhaps in a dairy cow (Bos taurus), we are dealing with a highly intelligent, emotionally sophisticated and "religiously pious" (how is this to be refuted???) creature whose sole purpose and life's devotion is to be devoured by others. You might be aware, for example, that the sole purpose in the life cycle of the male black widow spider (Latrodectus mactans) is to be mated with a female black widow spider, after which she eats his head off; whether under duress or willingly, we as observers might never know, but it happens every time. While this in itself might not be definitive proof of "divinely preprogrammed intentions", can it really be accurately dismissed?

And how do you not know that cows don't take some form of pleasure - some form of pleasure - from having their milk glands fondled? Does not both the male and female human being derive pleasure from the manipulation (oral, manual, genital, electrical, culinary, etc) of their own mammary glands?

Thinking aloud here. Feel free to fill in with factual or even semifactual information. (I agree with you about the sparkling mind thing btw.)

powerclown: allow (Out of Africa):

"God is great, Sabu, He plays with us."
or, "You had better get up, mem-sab, I think that GOD is coming."

I milked cows once upon a time, and I KNOW they only "needed" it based upon what we had done to them - meaning they probably would rather nurse their calves, and not wander back to the milking shed to have their ache taken away twice a day?
& powerclown, that tickled. Thank you!

Fear.
Theistic based, poly/mono, religions are based on fear.
Fear motivates. Fear regulates.
Like a thermostat, constantly adjusting.
Bringing the unknown into the known,
By artificially organic means.
To lessen...fear.

Once upon a time, we, homo sapien, were hunted by 600 lb. sabretooth tigers and 12 foot tall, 1800 lb. bears.
Scientists have proven this as factual.
At this time, there is no known record of organized religious thought while we were being thus hunted.
So here we have our genesis of the "feeling tone" fear.

I think part of theistic religion, what were talking about here, is basically narcissistic in nature.
That is, there is a failure to distinguish reality from self.
Extreme fear, unabated and relentless, has been known to cause serious mental disorder.
So say modern and semi-modern psychiatrists, psychologists and anthropologists.
Religion has been referred to as organized insanity.
But to me, it is hard to justify this, because fear of death, fear of being eaten alive, seems warranted.

Yet it is this ancient fear that compels us to make familiar that which isn't.
It is this ancient fear that causes instinctual fear of the dark for example.
It is this ancient, narcissisticly based fear that compels us in the west to assign a human form to divinity.

I am agnostic.
I see no proof of the existence of magic.
I believe in an underlying order on the level of mathematics.
I could be completely wrong here.
I can live with that.

I agree with you entirely. How can communication be so difficult?

I didn't understand you before and I apologize.

Yo bro, but have you considered the "reality" of the relationship between time and space? For when truly considered this alone is the refutation of all religion.

The image of how God would appear is mostly irrelevant, I think. We're supposedly modeled after God and so God must look like us. And so if cows had gods, they would be cowlike. I can see that. But I still see it as irrelevant. It is a tool, perhaps, used to reinforce a belief in a greater being.

I think what is more important is the image of the good life. The function of religion is as a system of beliefs and values, ways of acting, whether it be restraining from wrongdoing or working hard at good works and goodwill.

As for cows, if they had a deity, I think they'd be mostly concerned about what they can do to please them: what is involved in being a good cow?

Even atheists have values and principles.

I myself am an agnostic atheist.

Or its validation. :eek:

While there seem to be many ways to address the question(s) posed above, it does appear we can do nothing more than describe what we see in the mirror.

Speaking of religion: Jesus, the OP is old.

...

ART: Maybe it's not describing what we see in the mirror... but what we want to see in the mirror.

I do not dispute that man and god are in the same image.

However as a scientist, I would point out that correlation does not prove causation.

In the sentence "God created man in his own image", the names can be swapped and the observation (that man and god have matching images) is still valid.

If Baraka was a cow... would you drink his milk?

And we have a winner.


/thread

BarakaMilk.
...

I'm not a religious man myself, but I do see it as important to have the values that accompany someone of actual religious faith. Golly gosh, them values is a part of a well-ordered society regardless of whether or not one believes in ancient undead mythical outerspace superheroes. For someone like me... the purpose of believing that god made us in his image is to encourage us to achieve those values-related goals. If "He" can do, we can do it.

I'm surprised so many people take that "in his own image" bit literally.

Finally . . . I found my voice
 

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kx...pwi0o1_500.jpg
"image problems" ; via WTTF

Created in the image
 

I think that there was definitely a creation in the image, but that the traditional statement is backwards, it correctly is, "Man created god in his image." Consider Intelligence, personality, emotions, are not the characteristics of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, direct reflections of the trinity of the human mind. I realize that this could be circularized but, not if considered within a view of god as an evolutionary development.