I reckon this "shower thought" could use some workshopping. Religious / metaphysical / supernatural figures almost by definition don't represent the typical opinions of adherents, they being supernatural and all. Perhaps there is a case to be made that they are manifestations of moral aspirations or 'superego' commonalities but it might be hard to make a case that those are the same as mean opinion. Further, concepts of god are conserved concepts passed down from previous generations, so if they represent mean anything they are a lagged moving average mean with a lot of smoothing applied. In even simple societies there are typically some people closer to the god than others, and who interpret or get a greater say (i.e. priest or shaman) on what the nature of god is, so the mean would also be strongly weighted.
Insofar as it is true as written in that you are a dissident if you are in the minority in religious belief, I suppose that's self evident.
> Given a person, define “God” to be the mean opinion vector, taken over the members of this person’s tribe.
Most people on the planet would have an opinion that “having more money” is a good thing. Does this mean money is god for most people? Money has the ability to bring power, happiness, peace of mind. It also has the ability to bring suffering, anxiety, worry. All these are things that happen to people who believe in a god or multiple gods.
Instead of looking for shared opinions, it may be better to look at the human condition and the sheer uncertainty of bad events and good events. That things can be, and frequently are, out of our control is what makes people create gods as a support system.
Most people on the planet would have an opinion that “having more money” is a good thing.
With lots and lots of caveats. Other people having more money isn't necessarily a good thing, having too much money isn't necessarily a good thing, getting that money in a 'wrong' way isn't necessarily a good thing, having more money only to spend it 'wrong' isn't necessarily a good thing etc. etc. Once you encode and average out all those caveats you start getting close to a system of morality that can underpin a religion.
>All these are things that happen to people who believe in a god or multiple gods.
And many religions consider the pursuit of wealth and material happiness beyond the basics of subsistence to be sinful. The Bible says one cannot serve both God and Mammon (capitalism). Buddhism might say money can only buy suffering.
>That things can be, and frequently are, out of our control is what makes people create gods as a support system.
You may be confusing cause and effect. "Money" is a response to uncertainty just as "Zeus" and "Poseidon" were millennia ago. The need to create order from chaos and give morality and purpose to the blind amorality of nature leads cultures to collectively develop these opinions. They just happen not to be primarily supernatural in the modern context.
The beliefs around "Money" are equivalent to those around gods - that the free market determines the true value of human life, that work ennobles the soul, that poverty is the result of moral fault and wealth of moral virtue. Money mediates the uncertainties of life in the same way people once believed rituals and prayers did. Money in many ways represents the animating spirit of modern civilization the way gods once represented the anthropomorphization of the natural world, in both its benevolence and cruelty. People trust the word of millionaires and billionaires implicitly, regardless of what they're talking about, as if they were prophets and possessed some divine insight into reality that mere mortals didn't.
I think God represents the unknown instead of a specific person. God is what is beyond the universe, and no one has any idea what that is or where the universe came from. So we supplant that absence with a named deity.
God is not "beyond the universe", He is Creator of the Universe, and as such, intimately connected and involved with it. In fact our understanding of the universe has been quite advanced for millennia; religion didn't "supplant" any "absence" but religion is a science of the supernatural. It is the synthesis of our knowledge about how God has manifested Himself to us.
God is, of course, beyond all our understanding, and we can never fully know Him or His ways, but we can approach that understanding, and hear His voice, and see Him in one another. If you take a look at the universe and study it, you will see how God is manifested in that universe; His fingerprints are all over it; His very breath gives it life.
The Holy Trinity is indeed three specific Persons. It is possible to be very specific and precise and know God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and we draw closer to a specific person. We do not draw closer to "the unknown" or an "absence" in the universe. That would be horrific. In fact that is the definition of Hell.
I said we can never fully know His essence and nature. He has revealed much about Himself to us that we can know. That was the whole point of my comment, wasn't it.
It is of course specifically a Christian viewpoint. The article suggests you would have to find another tribe if you were living in a Hindu dominated place.
Which is only your belief, you have no scientific proof whatsoever. It's just your faith and obedience to that faith. In my opinion, God was invented because people did not know what else to call it, and they had no proof, so they wrapped it in a religion.
No matter how much you might believe in God, never forget that man wrote the book.
Of course I have proof. I have more proof than you'll ever find for the universe. What an outrageous falsehood and strawman to tell people we don't have proof of God or faith. You have no idea, you have no experience, you have no basis for sniping at faith like that. You should be ashamed of yourself. I hope that your life is not so empty and miserable that you never find out who God is.
Of course I have proof. I have more proof than you'll ever find for the universe.
What is it? I think there's a lot of proof for the universe.
What an outrageous falsehood and strawman to tell people we don't have proof of God or faith.
Then where is it?
You should be ashamed of yourself. I hope that your life is not so empty and miserable that you never find out who God is.
When you believe something, say you have evidence, never show it, then try to shame people for asking and insult them, that's usually called a detachment from reality.
Insofar as it is true as written in that you are a dissident if you are in the minority in religious belief, I suppose that's self evident.