> To digress slightly...
>
> The basis of intelligence (and perception) is the creation of patterns from chaos.
> We see a random universe and distill a sense of order from it, this then is incorporated into our 'understanding' of experience, with cause and effect.
> From this we naturally form a impulse to see 'justice' playing a part in our interactions.
> Where 'justice' is not apparent we seek an external force to explain away discrepancies.
> God or gods are invoked to fill the void.
> And thus we have religion. We feel comfortable. Religion is a natural corollary of intelligence.
> But this is a poor stop-gap bound at some point to fail, by the chaotic nature of the 'processes' it is meant to explain.
>
> Please feel free to interrupt at any point...

Hoo-boy. Yep, this is a slight digression, alright. I'd say that your premises regarding the tendency of the human psyche to seek order in a chaotic environment are pretty accurate; this is more or less the view that has prevailed since Immanuel Kant proposed that we do not actually experience reality as it is in itself, but only through a grid of mental constructs. We experience reality indirectly, through our own interpretive veil, as it were, which includes the desire for the security that comes from order and justice.

I would also admit the proposition that frequently in history, societies and individuals have invented deities according to their felt need for order, or at least for comprehension of the existence of disorder. Marx was not entirely mistaken when he referred to religion as "the opiate of the masses" (although Calvin and Hobbes' transferral of that title to the television set seems even more appropriate). "Religion", at least in part, may well be a natural corollary of intelligence.

Is God a natural corollary of intelligence? By God, of course, I don't mean the idea of God, but God's actual being. The psychological/evolutionary approach might be capable of assailing the ideas that we have of God or of gods, but it cannot really address the question whether God "is". It can only suggest that *if* God is not, then a possible explanation for our continued religious belief in the face of God's non-existence is our natural tendency to seek order.

I've more or less given up on the philosophical approach to "proving" the existence of God, partly because it does not succeed, and partly because the God I serve does not take philosophical corollaries as a preferred means of self-revelation. The God of the Bible, rather, breaks into history as a person, involved in human affairs, acting in power to bring about justice, and in mercy and self-sacrifice to bring about salvation. I'm no longer much interested in the static, abstract philosophical idea of God as the Supreme Being, because God's actions demonstrate a will to be known personally rather than as an hypothesis.

If it must be proven that God is, then I prefer not to take such a responsibility upon my own shoulders, especially since God has already done more than is required as a self-demonstration in history, and those actions should speak for God better than my arguments. The objections then devolve onto the verifiability of the Biblical record, and although an historical record cannot be "proven" according to the laboratory standards for proof on which we unreasonably insist in the modern period--although it cannot be proven in this sense, the Scriptural record fares very well when held to the standards of historical research. Much in the Old Testament that was once assumed to be inaccurate history, for example, has since been corroborated by accounts from other cultures outside Israel. It is rash to charge the Bible with "inaccuracies" and "contradictions" without having investigated the matter thoroughly and with a disposition to be fair-minded, yet many people spout the "inaccurate and contradictory" objection like parrots, and with as little understanding of what they say.

So, there are my initial thoughts on the subject raised in this post. Darien and others are definitely right when they say that this kind of conversation just couldn't take place in a chat room; it takes time and forethought. Lemme have some of the same in return; I'd like to hear more responses!

Iss "scrupulously avoiding gender-specific God-language this time around" achar