Mass Media

    When you come to a discussion board like this one where people are from very different backgrounds, types of education, levels of education and even distant parts of the English speaking world you're going to encounter differences in their usage of words. It can be rife with miscommunication. What people mean by "religion" and "god" can be especially problematic.

    Differences between theists and atheists over the "existence" of a god often turn out on close inspection to be about the definition of one. Atheists and a few novice Christians tend toward a more anthropomorphic definition of a god, the old man in the clouds with long white hair and a beard, or perhaps a younger looking Jesus. Atheists and a few novice Christians tend toward a definition of a god that is instantly and everywhere interactive with individual humans and their daily concerns and will give people by magic whatever they need or want simply because they ask for it. Most people who attend religious services do not however define their god that way. Before you conclude that the definition of a god that most people use is meaningless consider the following.


    Before there were newspapers, radio and television there were only "religion" and government. The Greek "gods" were remarkably like modern day movies are they not? They probably did serve much the same function in ancient Greek society as they serve in modern society.

    It's easy for people these days to consider the possibility of living without religion and without attending religious services. Can you imagine going without newspapers, radio, television and movies? Notice also that the complaints you have with religion are similar to the complaints many people have with the media. You might think, and you might be right, that a huge problem with religion and media is that humans are in charge of them. It seems obvious that humans do take charge of a lot of both often with much less qualification than others.

    It will be expedient and practical to think of "religion" as a social function that is as unavoidable as mass communication media. At this point many atheists will say of course we can have the media, it just doesn't need to have any god in it. Speaking of "meaningless" or "unproductive," that is. It makes no difference what you call it or whether you don't call it religion. Humans do take charge, often without qualifications. With atheism humans are only more likely to take charge without qualification.

   There is a social function that is not only practical but necessary. It has to deal with things that science is totally unequipped to handle. If science could solve all human disputes it would be different. Science only solves things that are not disputes because they are obvious to everyone. Issues in society only develop because the answer is not obvious or provable in a lab.

    One meaning of the word "god" then is whatever it is that draws people to the social function of religion or similar mass media. That "god" obviously exists as much as baseball, tennis, or political parties. It is not a meaningless definition because it cannot be replaced by science. It is abstract. It is not anthropomorphic. It will not give you a million dollars simply because you ask for it. It doesn't necessarily have any psychic abilities and tends to avoid depending on them. It is every bit as logical as any science.

    Perhaps the easiest and best way to understand the Bible is to notice that it is the story of the development of a religion with a strong focus and purpose that is not an anthropomorphic deity, rather a moral code. It was obviously a slow development in wider society and many "Christians" today have a disturbingly anthropomorphic concept of their god.

    Thus do many arguments arise on this board. Thus do atheists often lose the argument unless they count their victories against straw men.

    It's not over yet. There are many other things complicating the story. Something else people mean by "religion" or associated with a "god" is a category of phenomena often called "psychic." There is actually a "science" of it with experiments and proofs. Psychic phenomena are elusive. Few people have experiences they are absolutely certain are psychic. Many of the experiences are likely mistaken, stories told to gain attention, or second hand stories. Many atheists tend to dismiss all such experiences out of hand. They think "science" justifies their attitude.

   Even though quite many of the experiences are not proofs of psychic or spiritual phenomena it is not "scientific" to dismiss them all. If a child is suddenly and without training is able to speak a foreign language, its mother will likely have proof of a somewhat "psychic" event, knowing full well what training her child has or not. The wide world however is not likely to believe it. Notice the problem of too few witnesses can also occur with victims of sexual abuse. Most people avoid scenarios where abuse without witnesses might occur, but it is not always possible. It can be helpful to understand and apply forensic science. It can be difficult to measure how many people who attend religious services accept the modern day occurrence of psychic phenomena. The expression "born again" often implies some degree of acceptance of some sorts of spiritual phenomena.

    Yet a third topic of debate that should be kept separate is the "intelligent designer." Notice that is not using the word "god." In fact is has little to do with either of the other meanings. It is simply the scientific observation that the agency of the original formation of life on a previously molten Earth is not found in nature. Technically the term "supernatural" should therefore apply and in some manner it does. However those "spiritual" experiences that were otherwise not proved, where they were not proved, are still not proved there. It remains every bit as necessary to apply forensic science as ever, if not more, on a case by case basis.

    That covers most of it, but the rotund lady has yet to sing. Not all, but many atheists, "evangelical" Christians, and Trump supporters have something significant in common. They are poor (!) and attended inferior schools, or failed to pay enough attention in better schools. They have not attempted to overturn Kitzmiller v Dover because they are too ignorant of science to understand it's necessary, and too ignorant of religion to understand the benefits of fearing an entity with a system of rewards and punishments so remote. What will they do in the midterms? It's not like they're going to graduate college between now and then.

    The internet is a new opportunity for people to meet with others outside their ordinarily limited circles of associates. Many people have never had to argue their opinions. They don't know any rules and make up wrong ones. Many have never encountered people whose definitions are different from their own. They don't understand that their definitions have no existence outside the fact they use them that way, and other people can have different usage.