Starting from Here

Roy Jimenez

Roy Jimenez
Location
Sonoma, California, USA
Birthday
July 01

MY RECENT POSTS

JUNE 21, 2009 3:35PM

Little-g god(s)

Rate: 34 Flag

In New York state during the '50s and '60s, every ninth grader took a class called "Citizenship Education".  My Cit Ed teacher at Holland Patent Central High School was Mr Kuchler, a decent guy and good teacher who had the unfortunate habit of using his extended middle finger rather than his index finger to point out things on the board, which caused a lot of snickering in class.  The standard Cit Ed curriculum included the structure of our government, the rights and responsibilities of citizens, and a fair amount of anti-Russian material including a set of weekly magazines, each issue dedicated to the history and culture of one of the Warsaw Pact countries complete with jokes and cartoons, all emphasizing the misery of the people under godless socialism.

I think Mr Kuchler took seriously his responsibility to nurture good citizenship in his charges.  I don't recall that we spent much class time on the mandated McCarthyist propaganda, but when it came time to talk about freedom of religion, he devoted a couple of weeks to an overview of the major world religions.  I'm pretty sure this was on his own initiative, because we didn't have printed class materials to support this unit, just mimeographed pages of Mr K's notes with a recommended reading list for more information.

That's when I first learned that the Muslims' Allah is simply the Arabic name for the same God of Abraham and Moses venerated by Jews and Christians, when I was introduced to the basic principles of Buddhism, and when I heard the astonishing factoid that there were more Hindu gods than Hindu worshippers, which even at that credulous age and from the mouth of a trusted teacher I found impossible to believe.

I've since learned enough to convince me that Mr K didn't just pull that claim out of his ass.  To Hindus 330 million is a number endowed with great mystical significance, and in ancient tradition it's the precise count of the gods.  Although there are about 850 million Hindus living now, in 1959 that population was probably not much over 300 million, so he wasn't out of line to pass it to us students as a simple statement of fact.  It was actually a pretty effective pedagogical device, having grabbed my attention strongly enough to be remembered half a century later after just about every other detail of that class has faded.  But I'm sure that no believer living or dead could have enumerated 330 million deities, and that no list of their names has ever existed.  I'd say it's just one of those magic numbers meant to evoke a feeling of unimaginable size, like "gazillion".

Gazillion is probably as good an estimate of the actual number of gods venerated by humans as anyone's likely to come up with.  Consider another article of Hindu belief, that every being is an avatar of Brahman, that is, an aspect of the supreme divinity that underlies and incorporates all reality.  By this standard, to count the divine beings you'd have to count every human living or dead, every caterpillar, every tree, every organism that has lived or will live.  Even if we assume that each divine spark is recycled in an endless round of reincarnations and that our planet Earth is the only living world in the history of space and time, even if we draw an arbitrary line to distinguish between sentient and non-sentient beings and grant divinity only to those to whom we're willing to concede the quality of self-awareness, we're talking about a very large number.

Of course, most people would reserve the word "god" to designate those beings that Hindus would call devas, immortal beings with superhuman, even supernatural, abilities.  These gods may or may not take an interest in human affairs.  If not indifferent, they may be either protective or threatening or both in turns.  They may have wide-ranging powers or act only within prescribed spheres of influence.  They may be organized in hierarchies, and may form alliances and rivalries.

And there are gazillions of them.

Every human culture has had its gods, every isolated tribe its own mythos to explain whatever mysteries are hidden from simple understanding.  Every force of nature -- the sea and sky, wind, fire, vegetation, animals preying and preyed upon -- falls under the dominion of one or more gods.  Each river, waterfall, mountain, forest or lake may have a resident deity.  Every aspect of human life -- love, death, war, each art and craft -- is overseen by its own divine patron.

Over the course of human history, scattered cultures and civilizations have met, clashed, intermingled and coalesced into ever larger and more cohesive groupings, to the point that in our own lifetimes we're witnessing the emergence of the first global monoculture and the rapid extinction of microcultures by the thousands.  The gods themselves haven't been immune from this process, as reflected in the mytho-historical records of many traditions -- the Aesir absorbing the Vanir of the Norse pantheon, the Olympians superseding their chthonic predecessors in ancient Greece, the Hebrews waging a war of extermination against the Philistine sects, local dieties in the Himalayan kingdoms becoming assimilated into Buddhism as bodhisattvas, Christianity adopting pagan rituals and customs and renaming local gods into saints as it expanded from the Levant into northern Europe.

Centuries after the rapid expansion of Islam as far as Spain to the West and across central Asia to the borders of China, and the subsequent spread of Christianity to every continent in the wake of European exploration and conquest, about half the world's believers still adhere to some form of animist or polytheistic belief, such as Hinduism, Shinto, Wicca or other forms of neo-paganism, and surviving native traditions in the Americas, Asia, Africa, Australia and the Pacific island cultures.  Even under the ostensible monotheism of the Abrahamic traditions, Yahweh/Allah is surrounded by seraphim and jinni, and opposed by demons, all of whom would be indistinguishable from gods to an outsider.  The Christian pantheon includes a trinity of distinct aspects of the prime god, a god of evil, hosts of good and evil angels each with its own name and attributes, and, depending on the denomination, a semi-divine mother of god and thousands of saints capable of answering prayers and facilitating miracles.

Still gazillions after all these years.

And though they both profess to follow the same god that commanded Abraham to offer his son as a human sacrifice, I'm pretty sure that Pat Robertson and Osama bin Laden would each deny that the god to whom he prays has anything in common with the other, and I'd bet my soul that any god that would answer the prayers of Fred Phelps isn't even on speaking terms with the god worshipped by Desmond Tutu or Mother Teresa.  The idea of a god is held in the minds of his or her believers, so in any assembly that's not a mind control cult you'll find perhaps as many different conceptions of the god being worshipped as there are congregants.

All of these gods, every one of them, are expressions of human imagination and creativity, subject to the limits of human conception, which is probably why just about all of them are created in something very like our own image.  Some may have arisen from the legendary exploits of ancestor heros, growing in wonder with each retelling over countless generations, or just sprung from the heads of master storytellers whiling away long winter nights.  Most of the important gods, though, probably originated in the need for answers to questions that had no answers except in stories -- how did the world begin?  what is fire?  how high is the sky? -- or to pass on important teachings and cautionary tales when word of mouth was the only way to transmit knowledge.

Because we now have tools and methods that can give us answers to so many questions, and media capable of storing and transmitting more knowledge than an individual could absorb in 330 million lifetimes, some think that we could easily do away with gods.  But there are still questions our tools can't help us answer -- is there a purpose to existence?  are consciousness and free will illusions?  are we part of something much bigger than we can perceive? 

Gods are metaphors, personifications of human passions, forces of nature, timeless wisdom, and they provide a means to give simple and poetic expression to complex ideas and realities.  If a mythmaker were to tell the tale of a sky god offended by pollution-spewing factories who takes revenge with plagues of floods, tornados and droughts, there's a symbolic truth in that story that resonates more powerfully with common human experience than all the climate change data and analyses that predict the same outcome.  On the other hand, the same story could be spun, has been spun, to say that the offense against the god is in acknowledging the human rights of women and gays.  The first version is a metaphor for demonstrable truth, the second is merely the propagation of a lie.  We're responsible for the gods we create and for the evils that we allow to be done in their names.

Because gods are not merely metaphors.  They are real in themselves, the same way that a symphony by Mozart or Beethoven is real.  A symphony has no fixed form, though it can be represented by scratchmarks on paper.  Sure, a physical recording of a performance can be made, but that's not the symphony.  It's an artifact that can be used to reproduce a single instance of that symphony, as interpreted by a particular conductor and executed by a particular assembly of musicians at a particular place and moment in time.  Does that mean the symphony isn't real?  A complex ordered pattern of interacting compression waves is generated by the vibrations of reeds, strung catgut, shaped brass, and taut membranes and propagated through oscillating molecules of air to effect sympathetic vibrations in the membranes and bones of an ear, thereby exciting patterned waves of electrical discharges among neurons to create the subjective experience of transcendant emotional states in the mind of a listener, all according to an idea conceived in the finest detail by the mind of a composer.  That's real.  Mind-to-mind communication of ineffable experience unbounded by distance in space or time.  That's the power of a god, even if the god's objective existence is only as an idea.

We can't create worlds, but we can imagine beings that can create worlds, just as we can imagine worlds that never were and ways to change the world as it is into something maybe a little better.  Gods are with us, whether we choose to honor them or not.  They occupy a niche in the ecology of consciousness.  They channel the power to affect the thoughts and actions of believers, and the lives and fates of non-believers as well.  Kurt Vonnegut said we are what we pretend to be, so we must choose carefully what we pretend to be.  I'd say that we're also what we believe, that the only beliefs that are really ours are the ones we choose, and we need to choose wisely what we honor with our belief.  It's just one of our responsibilities as good citizens, of the country, of the world, of the cosmos.

Author tags:

belief and religion

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Wow, this was rich! Rated and Zumapick.
I love this piece. It's brilliant and original. I admire the way that you don't try to argue people out of having their gods, just ask them to be responsible for what they choose. I put it on Digg and Reddit.
The symphony analogy is so sensical: every note in itself could be godlike in its quality, every measure a new religion to discover. Bravo!

rAted!
Yes, Roy, I really enjoyed this. Thank you.

I had a couple thoughts. First, I’ll address your analogy of a symphony to a god, not to disagree with your overriding point with which I agree, but merely to share with you some thoughts that occurred to me. Now, as you are aware, I am very anti-religious, not just irreligious, so my perspective comes from that point. As a musician, I find that particular analogy a bit offensive since a symphony is a human creation of beauty that, as far as I know, has never led to human atrocity. I find it difficult to imagine anyone using or being used or manipulated by a symphony to do harm. On the other hand, gods, well, … I figure you get my point there.

The other thought I had regards choosing our beliefs. You wrote, “…we're also what we believe, that the only beliefs that are really ours are the ones we choose, and we need to choose wisely…”

Does everyone “choose” everything they believe? I am not sure they do. Some are indoctrinated into some of these religious beliefs at a very early age, and I’m not sure everyone chooses to believe everything they believe. Many of us, myself included, were indoctrinated into religious belief at a very early age, and managed to break out. Why do some break free and others not? Is it choice? It was not choice for me, I think; it was just something inherent in me that caused me to doubt what I was being told, which did not match what I saw, felt, thought.

Anyway, these were just things off the top of my head as I read this post, which is excellent and thought-provoking, obviously.

RATED.
Roy…

…this is an excellent essay…filled with good lines.

A couple of thoughts if I may.

We're responsible for the gods we create and for the evils that we allow to be done in their names.

Ahhh…if only!!! Unfortunately, humans seem perfectly capable of creating gods that demand great evils of them…and have no problem at all making the “responsibility” rest with the gods they invent.

I have often asked Christians with whom I am in debate: “If you have to guess there is a GOD…and if you guess the god is loving, kind, understanding, and forgiving…why in hell would you possibly also guess that the god of the Bible is that GOD?


And though they both profess to follow the same god that commanded Abraham to offer his son as a human sacrifice, I'm pretty sure that Pat Robertson and Osama bin Laden would each deny that the god to whom he prays has anything in common with the other,


Well…that may be…but it really is besides the point, because they are both jackasses. What is significant, Roy, is that a huge number of people in the hierarchy of both Christianity and Islam would have no problem with the notion that they both “pray” to the same god and that the god makes similar demands on all.

Which of course, raises my question again.
Roy! this was incredible! Really, really incredible - you should teach a class. I'd come. I know lots of people who would come and hear you talk about this, and form a community around it. Seriously. You're like a Messenger, this is so well written.
What a beautiful essay, combining anthropology, theology, and most importantly, meaningful pedagogy at the end. Lots to absorb here.

Some would say that the universal acknowledgment of a God or gods in nearly every culture is itself adequate proof of the existence of such. I'm not so sure, but it certainly enriches society and provides the catalyst for much of the good that exists in the world. That's not to downplay the evils that have been perpetrated in the name of religion, but what would the visual and musical arts be without the need to offer praise to the Deity?
This was a great essay--this should be published--you should teach a class.
@"Hello", I'm blushing

@zuma, thanks for the kudos

@Sirenita, thanks for the boost, I resist the impulse to argue, especially about religion, but I do try to get people to think about how, why, and what they believe

@Mr M, "sensical", I love it!
Rick, I'm sorry to have offended you as a musician, ;~), your point occurred to me as I was formulating the analogy between the idea of a god and the idea of a piece of music, I was stretching for a metaphor (meta-metaphor?) to illustrate that creations of the mind have their own reality and power, and couldn't come up with a negative contrast using the music analogy, figured I could live without it and went ahead anyway, then you catch me, damn

re: your second point about choosing belief, that was a major theme of my "F Word" post, and as I recall we had a lively extended discussion in that comment thread, I may have more to say about that idea in another essay, but in the meantime, I'd refer anyone who stumbles across this and is interested to check out that post, your comments and my responses

thanks for checking in, Rick, I always value your feedback
JK, nice to hear from you, I fully expect someone with a less superficial acquaintance with Hindu belief to call me out and publicly shame me for my pathetic misunderstanding and slanders against the faith

And Kurt V, he's the bomb, ain't he
Wow, more posts as I was posting.

I do agree with Rick that we don't choose our gods (nor a lot of our cultural ideas). Or rather, we didn't used to choose our gods - the notion of doing so is rather novel in the modern world (or so it seems to me) and is one of the charms (and possible sillinesses) of the neo-Pagan movement, where people look up the particulars of various pantheons or various individual deities of some former time, or adopt them without even looking up the details, and then decide to 'worship' (or something) these gods. But certain human habits (or built-in tendencies) tend to take over and people end up being very serious and literal-minded, as much as any other kind of religionist. However, since it mostly works out that everyone has their own god, or idea of one, there is little contention (at least about this matter). Nobody tries to convert anyone. In the old Pagan days, people apparently were similarly cool about one's neighbor's gods, or adopted them too, and had their own household gods... Monotheism produced a lot of religious problems. (Didn't you have a post about that, Rick? And isn't it still in the Most Read column?)
Hi, Frank, I'm glad you like this one

yeah, we humans like to blame our gods for our shortcomings, but that won't wash with me, we made them, we're responsible for their mess

I agree with your point about Pat R and ObL, and I love your debate question, but tell me, have you ever changed anybody's mind with it? just curious, in my experience committed religionists are fairly impervious to that kind of reasoning

as an aside, I don't think we have to guess whether there's a god, there's a gazillion of 'em, but what's their true nature and essence, their niche in reality, if you will? As for capital-G God, I express myself on that question in my post "Here"

thanks for coming by, for not flouncing, and by the way, that is me in the avatar, I have witnesses ;~)
@sandra, you're gonna make my head swell up and I have a couple of nice hats I want to keep wearing, so settle down

@Pro, I'd say universal acknowledgment of gods is proof that they're universally acknowledged, but then I try to temper my mysticism with reason, thanks for bringing up the role of gods as inspirations for art of all kinds, I think artists have always had a healthier relationship than hierophants with the objects of their worship, maybe we should fire all the priests and replace them with poets, painters and musicians

@MJ, you and sandra organize the class and tell me when and where to show up, I'm not promising anything more than inspired bullshit, though ( maybe not even that inspired)
Well, there's the stuff, and there's the real stuff. This is clearly some of the real stuff.

It's hard to know much about people who flaunt their gods unless you spend a good deal of time with them. I yet to be done wrong, though, by anyone with a Dog is My Copilot bumpersticker on their car.
Hi, Myriad

yeah, I get your point (and Rick's) that we didn't used to choose our gods, but we don't live under those conditions any more, at least not in open societies, there's a spiritual smorgasbord out there, and its existence can't be hidden for long from anyone with a library card or a connection to the grid, what those charming and silly pagans are doing can be done by anyone, and some of them/us aren't simply replacing dogmatic Yahwehism with an equally literal-minded worship of Isis or whomever, some of us are rolling our own, as I suspect you're doing, keeping an open mind and keeping our spiritual antennae aligned with our bullshit detectors

and yes, monotheism has a lot to answer for, I had a few paragraphs leading me in that direction as I worked on this post, but decided it was taking me too far down a side track that really needs its own post

always a pleasure, my dear, hope you'll look this way from time to time when you're checking back into the os
@c & v, love that you loved it
Aaron, you just blew the realm of my mind, ;~)

seriously though, do we know there's a realm of the mind distinct from the physical realm? cogito ergo sum seemed to satisfy the question at one time, but these days a lot of neuroscientists want to convince us that the mind is an illusion, for myself I'm fairly convinced of my own existence and willing to continue operating under that assumption, don't really know that I'd have any other option if in fact my mind doesn't exist

I don't mean to make light of your questions, but I sure don't have a clue how they might be answered, let me just say that my intention with the analogy between the idea of god and the idea of music was to show that ideas are real and have real effects simply as creations of the mind, whether or not they can be demonstrated to have literal physical existence

I enjoy your responses in my comment threads, Aaron, because you always make me think really hard
so Lonnie, I guess you know about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac
I read this quickly before leaving with Geo on a bike ride & just got back & reread it again. Everyone has pretty much covered everything in the comments. I am in awe of how well you express these ideas! Your writing here is strong & thought-provoking. The sentences/thoughts never wander into dead ends, & the entire essay held my attention the whole time, no skimming here. (I am especially amazed at your description of a symphony. Wow. This should be an Editor's Pick -- it would be like a smart new coat on OS. No gossip, just eloquently presented original thought.)
@suzie, glad you liked it, thanks for coming back after your ride to leave a footprint

@token, haven't seen you in a dog's age, thanks for clearing up the question about the symphony, I suspected it was something like that
What a great post. It makes me wonder if we shouldn't think about the point when the number of living Hindus exceeds the number of Hindu deities as being a critical point in our history; the moment when when the magical number is exceeded and made mundane. I think I want to side with you on the choosing gods argument. I understand that many people do inherit their religious traditions, but within most religions there is variety and divergence, so we do in some sense accept or reject the gods of our fathers by choice.
Tonight my friend Lucia will invoke Christ in a MCC congregation,
just as Fred Phelps will invoke Christ before his followers. The fact that Jesus is so pliable to the character, interests and intent of his followers is perhaps his greatest supernatural power. Neither Jesus or his Dad made Fred an asshole but he would make assholes of them. By denying that this theology is based on choice and preference we let Fred and his minions off of the hook for their bigotry.
Hey Roy:

“I agree with your point about Pat R and ObL, and I love your debate question, but tell me, have you ever changed anybody's mind with it? just curious, in my experience committed religionists are fairly impervious to that kind of reasoning

I’m gonna answer “I do not know.” I’ve been doing it for decades now…and while I have never had anyone fall to their knees and say, “Oh you are so right!” (lol, no surprise there)…I hope the question has lingered in some minds and caused more thinking at some point on its implications.

That, by the way, is what my aim is in religious arguments. To set up conditions that may bear fruit, so to speak, at some time in the future. When I ask that particular question, I often get looks that come close to hatred…or at times, pity. They wonder how I can possibly feel so negatively toward the “god” they consider so loving, kind, understanding and forgiving. But I suspect as they continue to live their lives…and come to grips with other arguments that show that “love, kindness, understanding, and forgiveness” are hardly qualities of the god that Jesus worshipped (i.e. the god they worship)…the point has greater and greater impact.

But the bottom line is: I don’t know. And the other bottom line is: I’m gonna keep delivering it…just as I am sure you are going to keep writing these thought provoking essays.

We cannot give up!

as an aside, I don't think we have to guess whether there's a god, there's a gazillion of 'em, but what's their true nature and essence, their niche in reality, if you will? As for capital-G God, I express myself on that question in my post "Here"

Yeah…but what I tend to do when discussing this issue (more often with atheists than with theists)…is to change the question from “Is there a GOD?” to “What is the real nature of the Reality of existence…and are there any items that have to be included or excluded?” (By the way, your link to the capital “G” God comments didn’t come through.)
Wonderful post, Roy. My late husband was a rabbi and liturgist for the reform movement of Judaism. People were always asking him: "What is God?" And his answer would be unclear. Sometimes he told me "God is luck."

Your piece makes perfect sense and I will remember much of its wisdom.
Cindy, sit down, close your eyes, take a few deep breaths, and the dizziness will go away

and thanks for the support
hi, Blair

you make a fascinating point about the "Really Big Number" becoming a number that's not really so big anymore, because everything else is growing exponentially, populations, budgets, daily consumption of oil in barrels, yikes! if we have the gods outnumbered, maybe we could overpower them and, dare I say it, rule the world!

and thanks for getting my point about choice and responsibility, your take on Fred Phelps is my thesis in a nutshell
Hey, Frank, good point about asking the provocative question to let it linger and maybe bear fruit down the line, that's probably the only way minds ever get changed, the old competitive instinct gets aroused in the heat of argument, but cool reflection after the fact can you make think "hmmmm . . ."

That wasn't actually a link, "Here" is the title of the essay, my first on OS, and you have to hit the "Back to Posts" link and scroll to the bottom to find it

or past this url into your browser: http://open.salon.com/blog/roy_jimenez/2008/08/17/here

thanks for keeping the conversation going
thanks, Lea, I'm glad you liked the piece, and yes, Lady Luck is one of my favorite avatars of God, especially when she deals me a wheel in a hand of lowball

as an aside, I see that you've now left me the only member of the face-obscured-by-hand-in-avatar club (though your lovely face wasn't really obscured, no matter what cartouche said)
Gorgeously written, thoughtful piece.
I am always happy to find you have posted something new, you are always so thoughtful with your words. This one seems to add more fuel to my never ending quest to answer my own burning faith questions. I am beginning to understand that, atleast for me, it's most likely all about the journey, the questions, and the conversations.
This was a very thought-provoking post. Thank you.
Roy, thanks for such a fascinating and informative post! (For one thing, I never knew how many Hindu gods there were.) What a great teacher you had. I wish I and other people (in this country and others) had gotten that kind of comparative religious overview at a young age. I was in woeful ignorance and still remain so to a large degree. Yet it's such an important part of human life to understand, and one that obviously underlies so much of how we organize our societies and relate to other societies.

I also agree with your conclusion that we're what we believe. After traveling thru a few religious turnstiles, I've ended up believing in one basic thing: Love. I strive to love others, in word and deed, which isn't always easy (in fact, is damned hard!) but seems the best and safest course for both my happiness and theirs. And if there is some sort of God/gods, I think s/he/they would be cool with that.
@emma, thank you, gorgeous

@mamoore, I agree that it's about the journey, or at least it should be, I certainly wouldn't want to stop before I get to the end

@renlady, thanks for reading
glad you liked it, silkstone

actually there are 33 principal gods in the Hindu pantheon, along with lots of lesser devas, of course all are avatars of Brahman, as I said in the essay the 330 million number is not so much a literal count of gods as a symbolic Really Big Number, probably arrived at by adding a bunch of zeros to the big 33

Mr K was a great teacher, humane, never talked down, insisted on the best from us, he was a thin wiry balding guy with specs, not all physically imposing, but I'll never forget the day he lost his temper with a burly wise-cracking footballer, hauled the guy out of his seat, took him by the collar and belt and physically threw him out of the class to help him get started on the way to the principal's office, way impressive

Love's a worthy god, I'm personally partial to the Earth Mother, it's always hard to live up to our ideals, that's part of what makes them gods
330 million deities...that's pretty staggering. funny that wherever there are gods they seem to pop up with some of the same faults that we humans do...including misogyny and homophobia....odd how that works. great post.
Beautiful. It reminded me of my mother's impulse to see a deity in everything that lived.
rated and now i have to go read it again!
Tremendous post, Roy. I mean, really, really tremendous. I have lots of thoughts rumbling around in my head right now, but am finding it difficult to sort through them all at work. Back later...
Why Roy I think you might be part deva yourself. Thanks. And thanks for the PM telling me about it to.
Really enriching post, Roy! Want to reread it again to be sure I get all the wonderful nuggets of wisdom you share here. Highly rated.
@dolores, yes, our gods do learn some of their worst behaviors from us, sigh

@vu, your ma was a wise woman

@bah, thanks for the rating, I hope your second pass through doesn't make you change your mind

@shivaun, finish your work and then we'll talk
You just made it into my highest catagory---the "worth reading twice". You are so on target here. I don't use the word lightly---but man, this is brilliant.
Roy, after reading this, I think I am right in assuming you were inspired for those moments:

"Because gods are not merely metaphors. They are real in themselves, the same way that a symphony by Mozart or Beethoven is real. A symphony has no fixed form, though it can be represented by scratchmarks on paper. Sure, a physical recording of a performance can be made, but that's not the symphony. It's an artifact that can be used to reproduce a single instance of that symphony, as interpreted by a particular conductor and executed by a particular assembly of musicians at a particular place and moment in time. "

I have to say I had not thought about it in this way, but it makes a great deal of sense. We assign names and identities to abstractions all the time, and we have proof they are real.......
Deep and wide, my compliments on a veritable feast of ideas.

Speaking of food for thought, I'm sometimes pinned with the label "chinese menu christian", a label intended to be derogatory, a condemnation as one who picks and chooses what to believe. I find that label a distinct honor, a condition much to be cherished compared to being one who believes as he's told.

One of my favorite quotes, the author of which is long since forgotten, is this: A man's only authority is his own experience. While believers of various stripes are fond of quoting authorities to support their beliefs, to believe something that does not comport with your own experience is at least a denial of self and probably a sign of insanity.

You say "We can't create worlds, but we can imagine beings that can create worlds", but I think we kid ourselves about that. Einstein suggested that even the brightest of human beings aren't smart enough to do any such thing, and I suspect he would know more about that than I -- but then that would be an appeal to authority wouldn't it?

You cite Kurt Vonnegut that "we are what we pretend to be, so we must choose carefully what we pretend to be". I concur, and in my rendering that thought comes out as "none of us could last a day without rationalizing."
When I write about them, they get big-Gs. I figure the demotion of ancient and native deities to lower-case status was an act of sabotage by the followers of the trinity of modern "mono"theist religions, a linguistic version of cutting down the groves. The offense has been encoded into the style manuals as proper usage. I say, damn the grammar rules to Hel. With Oghma's blessing, I press the shift key and honor the ancient Gods.
Aaron, I'm hope that I follow everything you're conveying, but I'm not sure that I do, so this comment may seem to you like a non sequitur

I'm enough of a mystic to allow the possibility that the phenomenon we refer to as mind or consciousness is more than a physical manifestation, but enough of a skeptic to believe that there's a measurable physical analog to every observable phenomenon, including ideation. As you put it, "does that make ideas physical?"
I don't think so, but I admit that I'm out of my depth here, this is one of the areas where belief and doubt intersect for me

I find your hypothesis, if I understand it well enough to restate it here, that ideas could be phenomena on the quantum side of the boundary between physical and meta-physical, fascinating, but I think beyond my competence to argue intelligently

I really appreciate your input, thanks
@tijo, there's a bit of deva nature in everybody, don't you think?

@Cathy, you're very kind, thanks

@Chi Guy, high praise indeed, thanks a lot

@Gary J, "We assign names and identities to abstractions all the time, and we have proof they are real", exactly my point, objective physical existence isn't a necessary precondition for real-ness
glad you enjoyed the feast, Tom

I like the chinese menu approach for exactly the reason you state, I never have liked being told what to believe, and I agree that experience is a yardstick against which to measure any belief, though I'd allow for logic and intuition to help fill in the blanks, and I have no problem appealing to authority that I trust and respect
you make a good point, Risa, but I reserve the capital-G for God as a proper noun, which in the case of "God" carries with it an assumption of monotheism, which baggage I didn't want complicating this essay

thanks for joining the thread
What I find really obvious, and therefore obviously sad, is that most people don't understand these truths right from the start. But what I find refreshing and hopeful is that your eloquence weaves a fabric of truth that just sits there being undeniable. Well done, Roy.
I feel honored to be in the light and the presence of your writing. One day, I hope I will have the privilege and honor to know that feeling in person.
@Coyote, thanks for your encouragement

@cartouche, aw shucks, it were nothin' ma'am
Very comprehensive, sharp and smart piece. It deserves a place in a book on this topic. I hope you move it.

"Gods are metaphors, personifications of human passions, forces of nature, timeless wisdom, and they provide a means to give simple and poetic expression to complex ideas and realities."
There's much to ponder in this. Much to ponder. The ideas are powerful and sweeping, yet gently purveyed. Thank you for this.
Don't know how I ended up back here -- maybe God or Allah sent me -- if so, I'm glad he/she/it did.

You wrote: "To Hindus 330 million is a number endowed with great mystical significance, and in ancient tradition it's the precise count of the gods ... in 1959 that population was probably not much over 300 million."

Hmmm -- I never made that connection until now. Kindergarten Kristians get lost in Jesus as the son of God, but in my Bible it says we can all become the sons and daughters of God -- so I guess the Christian pantheon should include millions of gods as well. And not just Christians:

"And not for that nation only, but for the purpose of uniting in one body the children of God all over the world." John 11:52

Of course, you could get an argument started on this in a helluva hurry -- while God looked on shaking his head in resignation, and Jesus -- in despair -- wept.