Does this match what we "know" about God?
well, Theology and Philosophy were joined at the hip for most of the last 1600 years, with St. Thomas Aquinas putting the finishing touches on it such that Thomistic theology became applied Aristotelian philosophy (one thing about the Dominicans, whether you're talking about Aquinas, Albertus Magnus or Toquemada, these guys do what they do bigtime and with supreme confidence in the rightness of their actions: The reasoning is valid, it's the factuality of the premises that is in doubt here). In fact much of what is modern theology, even Protestant, has been influenced by Aristotelianism since the Graeco-Roman period, when the Romans turned to the culture of, especially pre-Imperial Greece for intellectual stimulation, which was dominated by Aristotelian thinking. Whe Rome collapsed, what remained was a "snapshot" of the culture of it's last century and a half which was then carried through the Dark and Middle Ages as an ideal that would lead to recovery. Consider those two eras as a 50 generation long case of Post-traumatic Stress Syndrome with the Western world having gone into a fetal position desparately clutching the tattered "security blanket " of the last remnants of the civilzed way of life: At least they chose well.
Now, let's see if my idea holds water
Given the psychological goings-on that I've described and the over-arching, universe-wide scope of all of this, it all fits, doesn't it? It is normal to experience our principles and ideas as some sort of entity since they have a "shell" meaning they have attributes and specific ways they function, meaning act, so it is not hard to image them as things that do things. This is psychological, more precisely psycho-epistemological since concepts are epistemological tools like software that are the products of physio-psychological processes. Now epistemoligy rests on metaphysics. It is metaphysics applied to the unique attribute of Man; the volitional rational consciousness or alternatively. the intellect and the will aka the soul. So, internally, meaning psychologically, these concepts will take on metaphysical attributes and be experienced as things. Since they operate by fixed laws based on physio-psychological processes. the do kind of acquire a life of their own outside the will or control and run themselves. To the pre-philosophical peoples either in hisoty or by not being trained iin the rudiments of the subject, they would be thought of as seperate entities. Just how strontg can this be? Well, if you've ever heard Coast to Coast talk about "shadow people". Here's the dirty little secret. When persons enter a room, it's through a doorway so that when you look at a doorway under the right lighting conditions (usually into a brighter area) it's natural for a person to be there so your mind puts a person-shape there, in my case, translucent dark brwon. I've been aware of that since I was 13. There is a syndrome that occurs as a person loses eyesigt where images of familiar things are super-imposed on or even appear to replace what is actually in the visual field. So this is powerful stuff. and the untrained could indeed experience it as a god or gods. If a kid is doing this in a culture that gives creedence to the "supernatural" and the grownups get invloved, well, you can see where that can go. At the Carroll Center fro the Blind, noewly blind persons are taught to take what they have and turn them into pictures, at least in 1975. It's called "videation". So we know that psychological things can have input into the sensory area: "Hey turn it down, willya: I can't hear myself think!". This is not ntutso, this in normal but if it is not controlled, it becomes nutso. This does not mean that we are hardwired to believe in hocus-pocus: What it means is that we have an excellent set of facilities that if not learned how to use, get finagled into hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo and googly-moogly.
So what?
Well it does what religion only promises but cannot deliver. Two concepts that religion borrowed from the Greeks are "spirutuality" or what Aristotle called purely human function, and "enoblement", that the develpment of these functions to a higher level makes a person better. To the extent that they practice them, they stand head and shoulders above the Nihilists and why I am friendly toward the ordinary religious person. Relidgion is a primative form of philosophy attempting to answer the same question but limited to the range, depth and scope of the tenth century B.C. or the seventh before Aristotle. It is sort of like looking at the world through a keyhole. It relies on rite and show and therefore, a strong esthetic component: I've said for years that if the Catholic Church wanted to tempt me back, all they had to do was re-institute the Latin Mass and get rid of the phoney "peace" things. That'd be an offer I'd find hard to refuse. It was a glorious thing and by the time I was 15 I didn't mind the rules. They marked me as person of worth and substance and I have said repeatedly that if I weren't an atheist, I'd be a Roman Catholic. There is a sense of grandeur and a thread of Aristotelianism that gives it both style and substance which it is fast tossing aside to appeal to the self-absorbes jerks that Americans are turning into; having inherited paradise on earth they get stressed out if they can't get a new car every two years and are eternal debtors. Although I've heard a couple of bits of advanced theological thinking out of the Protestants, but they are still too early in their development for the rich heritage that the Roman and Orthodox churches have. Of Judaism and Islam I know too little to pass judgement.
However this comes at a price. First there's so much mumbo-jumbo to their idea of spirituality that it becomes useless in the real world and overshadows the true and good that they have. Do you think that it's an accident that the same bunch who are fighting to the last man to keep "In God We Trust" on the coinage are the saem ones that are shovelling gold by the ton in trhough the back door? It strikes me that they do not believe that their God will give the fairy-dust crowd their come-uppance or if they do, wish to use secular means to insulate themselves from the disaster that they hope will befall the rest of us. "in God We Trust But In Gold We Deal" huh? They'd best hope there is no God whom they say is not mocked. Nothing like having it both ways; Rush and Shaun did not get their fortunes by praying, did they? Second the enoblement process starts by totally disrespecting the person by demonizing and denegrating him to a worthless, innately evil creature that one would not touch with a 39-1/2 foot poll, to the level of a 3-decker sourkraut and toadstool sandwich with arsenic sauce and they're sooo surprised when the liberals take them up on it: 'SCUSE Me!! Isn't there some part of a credit report commercial that goes "I could'a seen this comin'at me like an atom bobm"? We don't need to do that. We also don't need to brainwash children: First, this kind of thing is inappropriate for children who can not understand this. So why bedevil the poor things with it as well as frustrate ourselves to pieces? Second, to us, the idea of a coerced or manipulated acceptance, and the mental problems it can create is repugnant. That does not mean that children aren't to be controlled, only that this is to be done in a manner appropriate to that level, for instance, you're not going to reason with a 5-year-old so a simple system of explicit, clear, rudimentary rules reinforced by consequences using reward and punishment will do. The uncle who raised my operated by a "three strikes' system; The first was to tell you this is wrong, the second ws to make sure you heard and understood and the third time, the boom got lowered; I pretty much felt that I got a fair shake. I can count on my two hands the number of times he raised his hand to me in 17 years. An 8-year-old is a different matter (If I started to get out of line I'd get "What would Commander Corry say?" or "Hey: Baccaratti!") as is a 16-year-old. It is a known fact that those who, as children, given strong religions training are more vulnerable to falling into cults. especially left-wing cults as late adolescents and young adutls. These cults appeal to the strong moral fire that is part of the "born again of the spirit" process.
Not only does the supreme principle rather than the supreme being approach deliver, but it does it better. Religion presumes that there is some percieved or even actual benefit(s) to evil actions of sufficient value. I and my like have no such delusions. Also, I don't brag about that, it's the least one ought to expect and doesn't make me "holier" or more "pious" or one whit better than the next person. It does, however, make me better off: I'm fairly easy to deal with, my moral vision is clear, not having been compromised by having to deal with wrongdoing on my own part and I am sure-footed and adaptable in the real world. On the other hand, when provoked, such as by duress or coercion. we feel perfectly free to do what it takes. If it takes "lying" then the moral onus is on the person who apllies the strongarm or other manipulative tactics. There are persons to whome I would lie regularly and without compunction (on the order of "Gran, does your dog bite", "No chile", five minutes later "WWAAHHHHH!. You said he didn't bite", "Yes, I did, but you didn't tell me you were going to try to pull his tail off, now did you?"). Aristotelian philosphy enables one to decide what is provocation and by what set of rules. If the longevity of the existence of the system is a value, we trace our roots and lineage back 2300 years to a race of the most civilized people of the time and not to constantly warring tribes and brutal rulers.
So we have the good stuff and don't have to reduce you to the moral level of a turd to start out with and we have it better and stronger and we have better ways to make it stick. Works for me.
There's one more attribute of God here. You may think to yourself that acquiring the power and or happiness that this brings is worth the efflrt. You will be wrong. There's only one reason good enough to do all of this and that is because it is true, therefore useful and therefore a valuable tool. Otherwise it just won't happen. If you try to fake or force it, it will not connect with the outside world. In and of itself, it is purely psychological and is part of that system in a certain place and way. Are we not told that "You cannot bargain with the Lord" and "God is not mocked". So Pascal's money is no good here. Once you know it and get it. It no longer is under conscious control. It becomes a part of you to append to every statement you make "and this is true [I better check to be sure]". This is automatic and triggers the choice to think or not to think, to get in touch with the world or not to. To make the effort to know, understand and be certain or to deliberately evade. This makes explicit (albeit subconsciously) the defining attribute of the adult mentality whether one knows it or not. And as for the evader; there is another apt Biblical quote. "...and God will give them over to strong delusion that they will believe a lie" and too many of those evaders claim the mantle of Objectivism.
Now let us get back to the title "Supreme Being or Supreme Principle". "Being" implies a physical existence. "Principle" means abstraction, usually of action (having a verb), read psychological. Such a being can not and therefore does not exist. It would violate rules even theists agree to; then violate. Even if such a being were to exist, whether being or principle, the validity would be the same as would the net result. Now, in fact, that is, the real world, we have4 had 6,000 years of prayer and 400 years of science. When would you rather get a heart attack or stroke (look up the origin of that word), 1610 or 2010?, or cancer or need to go to London from Paris quickly or be on trial for your life or which life expectancy would you rather have and why? So which has conferred more power? "Existence Exists", both the stated axiom of Objectivism and the unstated underpinnings of Aristotelianism , is the beginning of science. Even in Theology, God is also called the 'First Principle" and a "sustaining principle [keeps the universe in existence over time]".
Why I chose the "theme song" I did ought now be clear. It is an ultimate Psychedelic piece by the ultimate Psychedelic band and illustrates the promise of the Psychedelic. That promise, because of the "Tune in, turn on, drop out" slogan of the drug-infested hippies has remained mostly unkept. Please notice that the drugs which were supposed to open the mind and failed are now used just to get a cheap thrill; quite a comedown from the New Messiah. after 40 years I am keeping that promise.
This leaves us with the "born again of the spirit" phenomenon. I've heard many young adult Randians (18 to 25) described as acting like members of a religious cult. Not hard to explain.
So it does pass theological muster in enough areas to have it nailed. But then, it was Rand who, rather than lebelling religion as occult drivel and dismissing it, corectly identified it as "a primitive form of philosphy". This raised the level of both proto-psychohistory and Psychological Anthropology. It explained in rational terms something that had had psychologists stumped since Freude tried to deal with a common human emotional experience expressed as an "oceanic feeling" by one of his patients which he labelled as incomprehensible rubbish.