Would Morpheus and Optimus Prime agree with Mr. Freud?

The gospel according to Sigmund Freud:

“We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent Providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be.”

Why would we ALL have such desires or wishes?

There seems to be at least two reasons.

Either our wishing brings about this design, or our design brings about these wishes.

The former assumes certain theories about the nature of things and concludes that the wishful thinking is what we tell ourselves in order to make things seem very nice. The latter assumes certain theologies about the nature of things and concludes that the wishful thinking was hardwired into us and that tells us something of ourselves. 

Both reasons are legitimate explanations of the way things are.

Both.

That is, both explain reality by assuming other things to be true. 

If one believes that there is no God, then God is something we have designed to meet the needs of our wishful thinking.

If one believes that there is a God, then wishful thinking is something we have been designed with to reveal our need of God.

These assumptions or presuppositions will interpret the other reasons as unreasonable in as much as they consider their own reasons as reasonable enough to convince all others.

Both reasons might be consistent with their own assumptions.

But can both be true of reality?

If you think so, 
then I wish you the best bliss ever conceived of by the ignorant masses on both sides of this matter.

If you think not,
then I wish you would think deeply about whether the answers from either side really answer the questions that reside within you.

Perhaps, there is more to reality than meets the eye and we are in need of being transformed

Perhaps, there is more to life than the matrix and we are in need of being enlightened.

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

Perhaps both?!

Did the theological chicken come before the metaphysical egg?

The gospel according to Petronius:

“Fear was the god’s begetter in this world.”

This is an interesting thought. In many respects and with many examples, this could be proven to be true for many religious systems of thought.

But in the same way, one could argue that fear of justice has been the god’s executioner in this world. In effect, we live in an age where it is claimed that “God is dead” and we dance on his coffin.

But if we were to look inside, what would you imagine that we might find?

Emptiness.

The emptiness of empirical arguments from silence.

It is argued that God doesn’t exist, that fears of all kinds brought about the necessity of the God idea. This idea or concept of God was born and then evolved into the current state of religious pluralism.

This is a reasonable assertion of how religions MIGHT have come about IF the presupposition of God’s nonexistence is true. If the belief that God is dead or never existed is true, then it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of religious belief in God has been constructed. This is how it is argued.

And by argue, I mean a presentation of cause and effect that is largely based on presuppositional bias. 

The question of whether the chicken came before the egg is taken to new heights of expression. Which is the legitimate cause to the observable effect?

This would be true of both statements.

Fear was the god’s begetter
Fear of justice was the god’s executioner. 

Both statements are reasonable, if and only if the presupposition is already assumed to be true.

The existence of fear brought about the need for God?!
If one already assumes that God does not exist, then quite naturally [and logically], his explanation of God consists of some evolutionary fabrication of man in order to deal with excessive fear of the unknown, of death, and of other significant matters.

These questions don’t matter.

The existence of God brings about the need to fear?!
If one already assumes that God does exist, then quite naturally [and logically], his explanation of fear stands in relationship to a being that transcends our ability to understand but has revealed himself in limited ways so that some things might be known of the unknown, of death, and of other significant matters.

Some questions have answers.

Obviously, either statement can only convince those already convinced of certain ground beliefs.

This begs the question, “What is at the ground of your belief?”

The metaphysical egg?
The theological chicken?

The answer to this question will determine whether you will be convinced or remain unconvinced.