Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread

I didn't say you said either way, that's why I asked what you thought. It matters because that's leads in two different discussions on the subject.

I apologize then, I thought it was pretty clear that I wanted to keep that belief of mine out of the discussion The reason for this is exactly its lack of reasonable basis. Thinking about it this way because it 'feels' this way tends to make a bad matter for a logical dialogue.

I apologize then, I thought it was pretty clear that I wanted to keep that belief of mine out of the discussion The reason for this is exactly its lack of reasonable basis. Thinking about it this way because it 'feels' this way tends to make a bad matter for a logical dialogue.

Perhaps that's a good reason to discuss it? It will give you a chance to really examine your beliefs. A belief that you maybe haven't really examined before?

Perhaps that's a good reason to discuss it? It will give you a chance to really examine your beliefs. A belief that you maybe haven't really examined before?

I have examined it, but not in the logical sense. It tends to exceed the bounds of reasoning and as such, most possible reasonable examinations, it is more of a spiritual/emotional matter. I 'built' this belief based on several occasions in my life where although nothing extraordinary seemingly happened, the way I felt was unique. The 'logical' examination of this afterwards led to me adopting the agnostic view on the matter. So, since I believe that we cannot obviously know, and that it could be very well that there is no god or even any superior being, passive or not, I try to tone down my approach and the way I talk to people on the matter. Basically, I may believe that something exists but that's just a belief. The two things I most certainly know are 1) I cannot possibly know if something exists and 2) I am most probably not meant to know during my earthly life. Humans may not even be able to fathom the real answer.

There is an interesting question I came across recently, which is why I took the opportunity to revive this. It is not entirely related to religion but to what constitutes a deity.
As we all know the universe is massive, with countless trillions of galaxies, each with billions of stars. The question is, if in that massive universe exists another sentient life form and that life form is superior to humans in intelligence, survival skills, capabilities, knowledge, literally everything...does that make it a god?

To put it differently, will our inherent limitations as humans make that life form's capabilities appear to be divine? Since it is a matter of perspective, who is to say that it won't appear to be omniscient or omnipotent to us? Can we really tell the difference between a naturally superior sentient organism and a "god"?

This concept also exists in the Bible, angels are not gods but perfect beings. But angels in the Bible only appear to deliver God's word. The concept of the angels and their capabilities is vague, some may say purposefully.

Did this thought wave come about because of W40K?

Depends, alot of religions set out rather rigid guidelines on God, such as the creation myth. So that would rule out such sentient beings.

Did this thought wave come about because of W40K

Honestly no. It was a thought that came in mind someday out of the blue.

alot of religions set out rather rigid guidelines on God, such as the creation myth. So that would rule out such sentient beings.

Religions were made by humans for humans. Charismatic, wise men in many cases, but still just men. Our perspective can be easily fooled. I think to answer that question we need to look to what exactly constitutes a deity. A god's definitive properties are not properly described. Typically we consider god to be a supernatural immortal being with appropriate powers but in that situation and since what we perceive as natural depends on our surroundings and environment, any superior new life form will appear to be supernatural.

Well, the very concept of 'divinity' is a human invention, is it not? Something that is inherently better, or 'higher', than us. Apart from that, there really is no one definition that fits all deities; not even immortality. So defining a god is a matter of perspective rather than of the being's actual nature.

The more widely known type of god, as nicho said, is the creator deity, like in most monotheistic religions. It's the being that created everything and hence is god. Polytheistic religions often also have gods directly involved in the creation of the world, but more often than not there are also deities only indirectly involved, or not at all; offspring of the first deities for instance, who are also deities by 'birth right' so to say.

Then there is another kind of deity, which is simply the personification of an object or concept. See for example the ancient Greeks; they had gods for almost anything. Or how many sun deities can you count? This kind of god is not necessarily a creator god, rather it is actually an integral part of the cosmos.

Then there are the humans that were seen as gods or god-like. In many civilizations (e.g. Egyptian, Inka, Chinese...) the head or heads of the people were often 'divine' beings, even though they were actually plain regular humans. Still they acted and were treated like gods, so in a way they were gods, in the minds of their people at least.

Can we really tell the difference between a naturally superior sentient organism and a "god"?

Bible and many others claim that god, saints and very often angels can take a regular human form and come to our world. That in theory means that we cannot make a difference between a human and a divine being. At least not a clear difference.
Many "normal" people are considered to be angels or even saints because of their actions and lifestyle like Patriarch Pavle.

I thought a bit about it, and I think I can resume my post above in a simple question: Can something be divine if it is not worshiped by at least one person?

An other example of a human 'divine' being is Japan's emperor. I learned about it from reports following his speech from the 8th August; the Imperial family of Japan is considered to be directly descending from the sun-goddess Amaterasu, and the emperor is consequently the highest authority of the Shinto religion. [wiki article]

I thought a bit about it, and I think I can resume my post above in a simple question: Can something be divine if it is not worshiped by at least one person?

I think it can. A god as a concept is defined by the religion built around it, but as a being it is mostly defined by its properties. While there is no clear definition of god as a being, I think that the concept and the being are two different things. The article even avoids calling the Emperor a god, using the term "Highest Authority" of a specific religion.

The Emperor didn't become divine until they started sacrificing thousands of psykers to him, and getting all of humanity to worship him.

A god as a concept is defined by the religion built around it, but as a being it is mostly defined by its properties.

The question is, if in that massive universe exists another sentient life form and that life form is superior to humans in intelligence, survival skills, capabilities, knowledge, literally everything...does that make it a god?

The article even avoids calling the Emperor a god, using the term "Highest Authority" of a specific religion.

Think the Japanese did worship the Emperor as a god, or at least held him up to be one....but only in the past when he rarely made public appearances and the propaganda press was up and running. The public only rarely heard him speak, like the surrender speech after the Americans dropped the atomic bombs. Kept up the aura of mysticism.

These days, most of them and certainly the younger generation don't view him as a god, even if officially he is a descendant of one of the goddesses in their religion. Just Google his name and out he pops. Not very divine inspiring.

Hmm, @HahiHa I will try to tie your question with my example above. In the superior sentient life form example, that life form has obviously been there (wherever that may be) even before we discovered it, even before contact was made. Now, my original question was whether we as humans will see it as a god (despite it not being actually divine) or not. So I technically stated that in my eyes, such a life form would not be divine from the way I phrased the example. But if humans DO consider it to be a god, and they do start worshiping it, its status will not change. It will still be what it was, a vastly superior sentient life form. Worshiping it has no impact on what it is (in this case, not a god). It only has an impact on our perspective, on what we perceive as a god. Its properties, its capabilities, that life form did not change in any way when humans started worshipping it.

Now to make the point, replace the life form with an actual god. A divine species. In the same example, what is there to show that worshiping the god(s) will change their status? Since it did not change the sentient life form's status, why should worshiping those gods change their status?

So unlike me, you think that a being can be inherently divine, and that being a god can be an objective property independent of the perspective of its worshipers. Is that right? That does leave you with the issue you started with, i.e. what is this divine property. I think my opinion of it being more a perspective thing solves the issue rather elegantly

Yes, I associate divinity with a being's properties, not it's status in a religion. While it is true that the issue you've described rises (i.e. what exactly being a god is), I think the definition of god is actually narrowed down by separating the concept of god from the properties of it. To explain why, I will have to answer your next point:

That's because he is only considered to be descending from a goddess, not a god himself. It still implies he is of divine origin though.
Even the Pharaohs, if I'm not wrong, were considered to be sons of Osiris, although they were also seen as gods in their own rights, I think.

That is true, same for the Romans at some point, but they were worshiped as gods like nicho pointed out. Held up to be descendants of gods but worshiped as gods as well. You asked whether something can be divine if it's not worshiped by at least one person. These are examples of people who were worshiped by the total of their underlings, yet still were not actually gods. That's why I feel the concept of god and the being has to be separated

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the end, I assume your answer to the question you posted is 'no'...that something cannot be divine if not worshiped by at least one person. And since we will most likely not meet a god, we will probably never know the answer But I am curious to see what you think of my approach into the matter.

So I technically stated that in my eyes, such a life form would not be divine from the way I phrased the example. But if humans DO consider it to be a god, and they do start worshiping it, its status will not change.