You are correct in your observation and even your suggested behaviours but you’re not yet dug down deeply enough into root causes. Ignore root causes and the problem never goes away - you’re only ever playing whack-a-mole forever. Do you weed your garden by ripping the tops off, or digging each one out by the root?
I’d like to understand better what you see as the “root” that I might not have addressed. I’m exploring the significance of building objectivity and clarifying the definition of God as the way to step outside perceived dominance, but I’d love to hear how you’re framing it. Could you expand on what you think I might be overlooking? Thank you for engaging with me!
Well here’s one take. You say there are those who do and those who don’t crave the god-figure, whatever form that takes. So….what’s the fundamental difference between these two? The answer to that is what the phenomenon emerges from. It’s no use addressing the outcome - the outcome is supposed to lead us to the underlying cause. Even when you answer that question, again we need to ask, “am I addressing the root cause or is there something yet more fundamental?
I see what you mean about outcomes pointing us deeper, which is why I’m emphasizing whether one has recognized the ultimate anchor of objectivity, allowing them to navigate the algorithm to attain the next root, or whether they remain caught in relational dominance. One can’t stay indefinitely at a single “root,” because reality has no final intelligible end; the goal is to move from one root to the next as our understanding of the universe expands.
From my perspective, the difference between craving or not craving a god figure isn’t just personality or preference, but an active decision: orienting oneself toward reality itself, either calibrated to what is, or dependent on inherited or constructed powers. Anyone with the capacity to make decisions can choose which orientation, but there is no option to decline from choosing an orientation.
I’d love to hear how you frame it, when you say there’s something “more fundamental,” what are you referring to?
Here’s a different perspective to try out; that some resist to grow out of a replacement parent figure and that’s where the desire for a god figure originates. To a child their parents are omnipotent, all-knowing and perfect which is very emotionally soothing albeit unrealistic. We grow out of it but some (many) people drag this otherwise legitimate feature into adulthood where it doesn’t belong. We have a tendency to see everyone as adults, some just more messed up. The reality is that there are those who made it and those who didn’t. These are literally children in adult bodies. A god is a simply a replacement parent. Emotional maturity solves this issue so that’s even more fundamental. Ignore emotional maturity and more people crave a replacement parent figure in a god, a government, a union, even a country.
Sure, some people treat God like a parental figure, but my focus is ontological: God is the Necessary Reality, the anchor of the logical framework we call objectivity. I’m describing the completion of the same algorithm we all use in society every day. Projecting personal needs onto God doesn’t change that, God exists independently and provides stability without requiring dependence. God persists whether or not anyone believes, and that persistence grants humans the potential to always attain coherence. To maximize one’s own free agency while respecting that of others, one must acknowledge God as the grounding of reality itself in order to guarantee the ability to always reach the “root”/coherence, since God ontologically constitutes the basis of existence’s inherent worth. Anything that exists possesses equal inherent value, so long as it does not violate the conditions of anything else’s existence.
I’ve fully expressed my perspective in my other essays. You are welcome to read and provide comments, so I’ll leave it at this. Thank you for taking the time to engage.
I prefer to refer to this BEING as Great Mystery... Most, if not all, gods are creations of mankind or ancients who needed us to believe in "their" gods. "Think, Don't Believe" - John Trudell (Santee poet)
“Great Mystery” definitely captures the awe we all feel when facing the unknown. That sense of wonder matters.
But it’s also worth recognizing how much we rely on objectivity in everything that matters, in science, justice, innovation, even conversation. Without coherence, humanity couldn’t have discovered, invented, or progressed the way it has.
That’s why the idea of an objective God isn’t something we invented, it’s something uncovered. Not a creation of belief, but the recognition of a true constant. It’s a reference that exists whether or not people believe, upon which we can build a sane outlook of reality and apply meaning across the universe.
This constant doesn’t disappear the moment belief fades, because objective logic and truth remain intact, and we benefit from it every day in our sciences. The real danger is humanity losing coherence and, without this anchor, destroying the world through an inability to remain sane. Therefore, we need this constant more than it needs us.
You are correct in your observation and even your suggested behaviours but you’re not yet dug down deeply enough into root causes. Ignore root causes and the problem never goes away - you’re only ever playing whack-a-mole forever. Do you weed your garden by ripping the tops off, or digging each one out by the root?
I’d like to understand better what you see as the “root” that I might not have addressed. I’m exploring the significance of building objectivity and clarifying the definition of God as the way to step outside perceived dominance, but I’d love to hear how you’re framing it. Could you expand on what you think I might be overlooking? Thank you for engaging with me!
Well here’s one take. You say there are those who do and those who don’t crave the god-figure, whatever form that takes. So….what’s the fundamental difference between these two? The answer to that is what the phenomenon emerges from. It’s no use addressing the outcome - the outcome is supposed to lead us to the underlying cause. Even when you answer that question, again we need to ask, “am I addressing the root cause or is there something yet more fundamental?
I see what you mean about outcomes pointing us deeper, which is why I’m emphasizing whether one has recognized the ultimate anchor of objectivity, allowing them to navigate the algorithm to attain the next root, or whether they remain caught in relational dominance. One can’t stay indefinitely at a single “root,” because reality has no final intelligible end; the goal is to move from one root to the next as our understanding of the universe expands.
From my perspective, the difference between craving or not craving a god figure isn’t just personality or preference, but an active decision: orienting oneself toward reality itself, either calibrated to what is, or dependent on inherited or constructed powers. Anyone with the capacity to make decisions can choose which orientation, but there is no option to decline from choosing an orientation.
I’d love to hear how you frame it, when you say there’s something “more fundamental,” what are you referring to?
Here’s a different perspective to try out; that some resist to grow out of a replacement parent figure and that’s where the desire for a god figure originates. To a child their parents are omnipotent, all-knowing and perfect which is very emotionally soothing albeit unrealistic. We grow out of it but some (many) people drag this otherwise legitimate feature into adulthood where it doesn’t belong. We have a tendency to see everyone as adults, some just more messed up. The reality is that there are those who made it and those who didn’t. These are literally children in adult bodies. A god is a simply a replacement parent. Emotional maturity solves this issue so that’s even more fundamental. Ignore emotional maturity and more people crave a replacement parent figure in a god, a government, a union, even a country.
Sure, some people treat God like a parental figure, but my focus is ontological: God is the Necessary Reality, the anchor of the logical framework we call objectivity. I’m describing the completion of the same algorithm we all use in society every day. Projecting personal needs onto God doesn’t change that, God exists independently and provides stability without requiring dependence. God persists whether or not anyone believes, and that persistence grants humans the potential to always attain coherence. To maximize one’s own free agency while respecting that of others, one must acknowledge God as the grounding of reality itself in order to guarantee the ability to always reach the “root”/coherence, since God ontologically constitutes the basis of existence’s inherent worth. Anything that exists possesses equal inherent value, so long as it does not violate the conditions of anything else’s existence.
I’ve fully expressed my perspective in my other essays. You are welcome to read and provide comments, so I’ll leave it at this. Thank you for taking the time to engage.
At heart you are simply declaring god as foundational but not arguing it.
I prefer to refer to this BEING as Great Mystery... Most, if not all, gods are creations of mankind or ancients who needed us to believe in "their" gods. "Think, Don't Believe" - John Trudell (Santee poet)
“Great Mystery” definitely captures the awe we all feel when facing the unknown. That sense of wonder matters.
But it’s also worth recognizing how much we rely on objectivity in everything that matters, in science, justice, innovation, even conversation. Without coherence, humanity couldn’t have discovered, invented, or progressed the way it has.
That’s why the idea of an objective God isn’t something we invented, it’s something uncovered. Not a creation of belief, but the recognition of a true constant. It’s a reference that exists whether or not people believe, upon which we can build a sane outlook of reality and apply meaning across the universe.
This constant doesn’t disappear the moment belief fades, because objective logic and truth remain intact, and we benefit from it every day in our sciences. The real danger is humanity losing coherence and, without this anchor, destroying the world through an inability to remain sane. Therefore, we need this constant more than it needs us.
Thanks for sharing!
Did man create dog or did dog create man?
https://open.substack.com/pub/godobjectively/p/the-flawed-logic-behind-asking-if