Thoughts on the Abstract, Pragmatistic Palpability of Religion

In relation to the "reality" of various deities through out the known history of mankind.

Reality concerns itself with the true or actual; that which exists. Earlier--while speaking in the catbox about Celtic Gods and Ghostbusters (in sequence)--I observed that Zool was not a "real" Sumerian god and that he was imaginary; invented specifically for the movie. The opinion/counterpoint was made that all of the Celtic Gods aren't actually real either, eluding to the not entirely invalid observation that Zool and the Celtic Gods were similar in that way (made up). For the sake of argument, the Celtic Gods may, in fact, be "real" (read corporeal, sentient, etc...). For that matter any God in history or as of yet unimagined may exist within our Universe yet I doubt I am far out of line when I observe that it is improbable that they could all exist/have existed. For the sake of ease, we will be assuming that the Celtic Gods which we used in this particular conversation, are not and never have been "real" in the most common sense of the word. If you believe in Celtic Gods, you may be more comfortable using Jesus or Zeus in their stead; it really isn't that important.

Though it is true that Zool was an imaginative construct as have been many other (perhaps even all) religious deities through history, I observed that pragmatically, Celtic Gods actually had/has followers; they, for better or worse, changed the life course of a large group of people if not all of history through faith and in deed. Zool, on the other hand, was a great bad guy in a well-liked movie that is all but forgotten except in nostalgic reminiscence.

My example was Jesus.
Possibly driven by Jesus himself, but certainly because of the existence of Jesus, man has build great cathedrals, fought religious jihad's, started charities where there were none, stolen, preached tolerance and murdered the innocent. Some things fantastic, some things horrible; many small, a few monumental and all of them, thing and deed, due to the existence of the belief in Jesus.

The question of Pragmatic Palpability is; regardless of the actual corporeal or sentient, astral existence of Jesus or the Celtic Gods; are they "more real" than Zool?

Though I know I am not the first person to ponder this sort of thing, I would still be interested to hear all of your thoughts on it.

This node has been officially sanctioned as a World Theological Mexican Style Wrestling Federation war node!

C'mon guys, no action figures from MATTEL® unless we get it in gear.

Why does being a fictional construct make Zool less real?

The Heavens Gate weirdos believed in something about as far out as Zool, something that very, very few people could hear without laughing. But in a manner of speaking, it was real. It was real to them, real enough to be castrated for.

I don't think I believe in the chair I am sitting on that much, if you know what I mean.

So to you and I, the Celtic gods may be a pretty silly bunch of stories. So are the Greek gods, the Chinese gods, and the Jewish gods, depending on who you ask.

My opinion of them does not make them less real, or more so, to the people that believe in them. Even something obviously fictional exsits as a consturct of a possible universe, as real in it as UFO cultists are in this one.

Real is subjective, tangible is not. Tangible gods don't require much faith, as Douglas Adams pointed out. Worship, belief, and evangelicising won't make a subjective god tangible, and therefore no more or less real.

You may call me:

Hermetic "The Twisted"

The believability of a god or the gullibility of its followers is not the issue. Upon examination the resurrection of Jesus is just about as goofy sounding as any other cultist belief, but it is lent credibility by thousands of years of observance and faithful belief.
moJoe, Quizro, UrbanMisfit and I tussled with the problem of Pragmatic Palpability for some time in the wacky box. Most of us eventually agreed that the deeds done in a deities name made their existence palpable. I won't rehash the paradigm that moJoe has already so clearly stated. My concern is that some people, like Hermetic are not so much disagreeing as they are becoming tangled in the definition of the word "real". Zool is not a god. Samhain is a god. The as yet unnamed deity represented by the Heavens Gate cult, may be a god.
A careful review of moJoe's original w/u will reveal his assertion that a deity, of any type, is made "real", or palpable, not by whether its origin is based on fact or fancy, but rather by the intentions and deeds of its followers.
Jesus may well have been a "real", flesh and blood man. That does not make his godhood any more "real". However, the actions committed in his name and for his faith lend credence to his godliness.
If Zool, happened to gain a faithful following who committed acts in his name, then in time he would be "real". You could no more point to Zool than you could to Jesus, but you could point to his believers and to the remains of his followers actions, just as you could to Jesus’ followers. An Oversimplified Analogy The wind has no presence other than the measure of its passing. The wind is not "real" until we witness the scattering of trailer parks in its wake.