Does or Body influences our visualisations of God?

[Vik.Marquet]

Hey guys,

I've always been fascinated by the image of God. More specific with the question why he always seems to be visualised as a human, although he/she/it is described as so much more than that. Than humans.

Could it be that our body forms our reference from where we shape God? And could that also mean that (hypothetically speaking) if we are able to leave our body, we could create a new reference for the visualisations of God?

(If attached an image which shows what I mean)

What do you guys think about this?

 

[DrKrettin]

 

Hey guys,

I've always been fascinated by the image of God. More specific with the question why he always seems to be visualised as a human, although he/she/it is described as so much more than that.

 

 

 

 

Because that's what it says in the bible, written by people in a highly male-dominated society. I'm not sure what point there is in trying to discuss this on a science forum, because here one usually operates on evidence-based phenomena. For childish and unsupported claims, you need a religion forum.

[Prometheus]

Because that's what it says in the bible, written by people in a highly male-dominated society. I'm not sure what point there is in trying to discuss this on a science forum, because here one usually operates on evidence-based phenomena. For childish and unsupported claims, you need a religion forum.

 

Surely it's an interesting question in anthropology.

 

There are plenty of other religions, what about their image of god? Does the Islamic aniconism lead to different visualisations of god? Do they have any common visualisations of Allah? The Hindu pantheon has many different images of humanoids, some male, some female, some both/neither. But not so the Brahman, sometimes depicted as a drop of water in a pool. The Confucian pantheon is full of human shaped gods - but then many of them were historical figures, such as Guan Yu.

 

See, interesting - if you like that kind of thing.

[TheBeardedDude]

 

Hey guys,

I've always been fascinated by the image of God. More specific with the question why he always seems to be visualised as a human, although he/she/it is described as so much more than that. Than humans.

 

Could it be that our body forms our reference from where we shape God? And could that also mean that (hypothetically speaking) if we are able to leave our body, we could create a new reference for the visualisations of God?

 

(If attached an image which shows what I mean)

 

What do you guys think about this?

 

 

 

 

 

I think it is a good piece of evidence to show that gods are human inventions.

[Sriman Dutta]

Yes, man thinks that his God looks like him. Although in Hindu mythology we have a god in the form of creatures like cow and ape.

[DrP]

QUOTE: "..Hindu mythology we have god in form of .... cow and ape."

 

Yes - in the Christian mythology it states that we are in God's image, so they picture god as a man.

[Phi for All]

And could that also mean that (hypothetically speaking) if we are able to leave our body, we could create a new reference for the visualisations of God?

 

The key is that we don't need to leave our bodies to do this. We can create a new reference for the visualization of God anytime we want. He can become a pillar of fiery lamb & dove-filled bushes if you want.

 

Just use your imagination. That's probably how religion started in the first place, wondering about our bodies and if anything was left when they stopped moving.

[DrKrettin]

 

That's probably how religion started in the first place, wondering about our bodies and if anything was left when they stopped moving.

 

I doubt that - I suspect that they were an explanation for what causes natural phenomena - Greek religion is a prime example. Having said that, there is probably no one single root.

 

Edit: with "they" I mean the Gods.

Edited December 13, 2016 by DrKrettin

[Sriman Dutta]

The origin of God dates back from the Stone Age of early humans. It began because early men feared the forces of nature and started to worship them in order to appease them. And he then personified the forces of nature.

[Itoero]

Scientific curiosity can be considered to be a reason for the origin of religion.

People want to know the cause for certain phenomena in nature.If science is not capable of giving answers then people look for supernatural causes. Science evolved far enough to make the need for religious beliefs unnecessary.

[dimreepr]

Just use your imagination. That's probably how religion started in the first place, wondering about our bodies and if anything was left when they stopped moving.

 

I think religions start when the consensus, of people, agree's a truth from their current understanding and through the process of Chinese whispers, that agreed truth becomes belief, of god (or science); how certain are you that atheism/secularism/humanism won't fall foul of this process?

Edited December 13, 2016 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

I think religions start when the consensus, of people, agree's a truth from their current understanding and through the process of Chinese whispers, that agreed truth becomes belief, of god (or science); how certain are you that atheism/secularism/humanism won't fall foul of this process?

 

Mainly because we're concerned about it, unlike the religious.

[Itoero]

Also, our idea of truth can evolve, the 'truth' in religion can't evolve.

[dimreepr]

 

Mainly because we're concerned about it, unlike the religious.

 

Now maybe, what about a century/millennium from now?

 

Could we really differentiate the two, if our understanding stops now?

[Phi for All]

 

Now maybe, what about a century/millennium from now?

 

Could we really differentiate the two, if our understanding stops now?

 

Sure, if we continue to demand more trust than faith from our belief in science.

[dimreepr]

 

Sure, if we continue to demand more trust than faith from our belief in science.

 

Our, continued understanding of science depends on that demand, but faith? whether in science or religion, faith/belief is always corruptible

Edited December 13, 2016 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

Our, continued understanding of science depends on that demand, but faith? whether in science or religion, faith/belief is always corruptible

 

Faith-belief is absolutely corruptible. Hope-belief is often corruptible. Trust-belief is far less corruptible, based simply on the sheer numbers of distrusting skeptics. Our continued understanding of science requires we constantly satisfy true skeptics.

[Prometheus]

 

Faith-belief is absolutely corruptible. Hope-belief is often corruptible. Trust-belief is far less corruptible, based simply on the sheer numbers of distrusting skeptics. Our continued understanding of science requires we constantly satisfy true skeptics.

 

The corruption of science has thoroughly begun. We have creationism, anti-climate science, anti-vaccines, etc. With Trump and Pence maybe we'll start to see creationism taught alongside science. The public are starting to distrust experts in general (one of the pro-Brexit arguments), including scientists.