Did God Create Man in His Own Image, Research Paper Example

John Stuart Mill(1806 -1873) was considered the most influential 19th century English philosopher. His contributions to social and political theory along with political economics have been remarkable. Mill’s (1806 -1873) philosophy on liberty has designed profound concepts and thoughts within the science. Mill (1803-1873) theory of liberty addresses the extent to which power can be exercised upon individuals. Power in itself could be considered from a philosophical paradigm since it is a weapon used in many societies to contain and control certain groups or individuals. However, Mill (1803-1873) continues to contend that such power must not be executed indiscriminately on persons who have the intelligence, wisdom and competence to make sound decisions for themselves. Further, the philosopher argues anyone has the power to harm the self (him/her) once it does no harm to the other person. Society should not have any jurisdiction regarding one’s personal liberty when acting in accordance to one’s innate desires(Mill, 1803).

Insidiously, in asking the question did God create man in his own image or man created Godin his own image according to Mill’s (1803) perception of liberty related to the execution of power it is deciphering from where the liberty to execute such creative power emerged. Mill (1803) continues to advocate that there is a perpetual struggle between liberty and authority. So the subsequent question is who has the authority to execute power? Who has the authority to take responsibility for actions deliberately or unconsciously performed by the self or others? Who has the authority to say God created man in his own image or man created God in his own image?Precisely, Mill relates that there is a “contest… between subjects, or some classes of subjects, and the government” (Mill, 1803, p. 24). Subjects and government could be interpreted as concepts pertaining to the powerfuland defined powerless within society, which are all emerging states of consciousness (Mill, 1803).

For example, Mill (1803) pointed out that social liberty emanates from the desire to protect oneself from political, rulers’ tyranny. As such, it is a wrestling match between the created (powerless) and the creator (powerful). Tyranny actually describes the extent to which the powerful executes authority over the defined powerless. Mill (1803) was profound in his arguments regarding various levels of tyranny executed in society by one group over the other for the purposes of political, economic at many levels of subjugation (Mill, 1803).

Importantly, Mill (1803) considered social liberty as placing power limits on established rulers (creators) so that the process could be contained within the parameters of social justice. In such a way decisionsthat can harm society would be prevented or limited. Essentially, individuals must execute their right to question a government’s decision and if they cause harm rebel against them without due punishment. Precisely, it was confirmed thatsocial liberty describes power according to the nature and limits through which it can be legitimatelyexecuted within a society(Mill, 1803).

Mil (1803) explanation of the utilization of power stemmed from two distinct philosophical perspectives. First,Mill (1803) recognized a number of immunities existing in the society. They were classified political liberties or rights. In the second instance he described how a system of constitutional checks was established. Limiting government power even though essential for mill it was not enough to protect the powerless from exploitation. Further, he addressed inequitable execution of power by highlighting how society often designs its own power mandates, which in many instances does not protect the powerless from severe exploitation (Mill, 1803).

In essence Mill(1803) advances that while political aggression is fierce regarding execution of power social structures existing in the form of the justice system; department of labor education health care polices; immigration laws gender biases in the work environment, religion have all social institutions, which exercise power over people, deemed powerless. Religion for example demoralize individuals into thinking that as politicians exercise power over them with tyranny in the same way God who is said to have created all humans pours out blessings when people are obedient and curse penalties when they are disobedient. Then one wonders who made upon this philosophical thinking about a God standing as government over the human race. It could be a philosophy developed by the powerful to subdue the powerless in society (Mill, 1803).

These philosophical assumptions became prominent because humans have the liberty of authority to execute power within society through social structure organizations or political institutions. Ultimately, whether it is individually or collectively the human race is progressively using whatever liberty is available to protect itself from exploitation of man by man. Hence, the development of God as a protector/ creator from other human exercise of inappropriate selfish designs to harm others under the guise of taking control of unusual conduct. The point is who has the authority to demonstrate such power to minimize the liberty of another in the sense of designing this power of authority?(Capaldi, 2004).

Mill (1806) further contents that the purpose of such activities issatisfy the desires of a few. Rightfully such power should only be executed if the person intends to create harm upon another person. Again who defines this harm? Could harm be defined from a personal perspective in the effort of designing opportunitiesto execute power? A twenty-first century example is when countries decide to begin war with other nations under the guise that these nations or leaders have weapons that will destroy the world.Mill (1803) explains that is not morally correct to interrupt one’s liberty without just cause. The harm must be proven as being dangerous to others or the world. If in the process of detaining one’s liberty to live free and exercise his/her choices it is found that power was not fairly used than political forces ought to recompense then accused and not punish them regardless (Mill, 1803).

Alternatively, despotism is considered legitimate strategy for interruptingbarbarians’ execution of power once it is aimed at improving them personally and the world. The means must be justified by showing how ultimately it is worthwhile in the end. Therefore, liberty in principle is may not be applicable to events occurring after humans become social being beings understanding acceptable and unacceptable practicesforging them into making wise decisions(Raeder, 2002).

Consequently, using authority and liberty to execute power in killing world leaders accused of using weapons of mass destruction without any sound evidence of these occurrences is violating an individual’s liberty to exercise power over the self. Actually no harm was committed to others neither the world based on that accusation. Herein lays the confrontation among God, science and politics. Mill (1803) continues to advocate profoundly that the liberty and authority to execute power must be tempered with some degree of Godly morality as projected by religion. Also, there must be a measure of scientific application even though they conflict in interpreting the extent to which this liberty and authority is executed. Finally, political will must be sandwiched by both science and God for legitimate decisions in the interest of individuals as well as collectively (Capaldi, 2004).

Arguments have, however, been projected by Albert Einstein (1930) contending that all accomplishments of the human species are mainly concerned with satisfying innermost desires and amplifying pain. Can this then be the human religion? Precisely, this philosopher advances that in examining any conflict between science and religion these two elements of human nature must be constantly held in mind. It is important because this assumption tends to explain human spiritual transformation though the ages from one stage to the next executing liberty, authority and power over self, the world and others (Einstein, 1930).

As such, fundamentally feelings as well as longing are the motiving forces underlying every human pursuit and creativity. Interestingly, when lifted into higher planes of expressions these pursuits and creations are filtered to the non -alert human spectators as the gospel science, religion or politics. The question now is asked what constitutes the feelings and needs which initiate religious thinking. What needs and feelings initiate men to think scientifically? From observation the philosopher admitted that religion can produce little evidence suggestive of the varying emotions implicit in the emergence of religious thought and experience (Einstein, 1930).

This philosopher seemed to have concluded that in primitive man clearly there is no doubt of fear being the underlying feeling evoking religious thinking and execution of political power. Hunger fears, attacks by wild beasts, death, sickness, and the lists can become very extensive are the underlying forces that produce inappropriate execution of power creating exploitation of man by man even when religion is practiced in the name of God’s love. It could be that since there is poor scientific reasoning regarding cause effect relationship among fears, outcomes of events and emotions the human mind develops illusory objects and beings with which it can easily identify and hold responsible for occurrences in the world and personal life. For example, if a sudden death occurs in the family the blame goes to the gods or God. The action is in response to disobedience or merely revenge from the holy one as a test. Hence, this is the way religion reasons the activities of humanlife and humans can create Gods in their own image(Einstein, 1930).

Ultimately, it can be concluded that religion forces its devotees to follow the orders of a being to either eliminate personal fears of being judged for wrong doing or gather favor from Supreme Beings who have the power to distribute them. In perpetuating this religion of fear Einstein (1930) further advances that traditionally humans often practice offering sacrifices to these beings, which are expected to protect them from harm for generations and allow them victory over enemies. Consequently, Charles Darwin posits thatman created God in his ownimage in an effort to relieve personal fears. The political consequence is a power retaliation mechanism whereby society supersedes individual liberty, takes authority to subdue others (Einstein, 1930). .

Importantly, a priestly castle is established according to Einstein (1930) in the spiritual power execution realm which acts as a mediator between the supernatural beings and human entity since it is believed that often humans and entities are so far removed from the Supreme Being. As such, a gap so wide is created as in the case of the powerful and powerless so wide that someone or organization must fill it as a mediator. Hence, advocates for human right as in society to protect liberties, freedoms. Insidiously, thecreation of gods functioning at various levels emerged to either execute power or protect vulnerable humans (Einstein, 1930).

Linda Reader (2002) exploring Mill’s (1803) religion of humanity contends that within the past century a political revolution occurred whereby liberal politics has been transformed from commitment to limited government into more extensive government involvement in the social process. This was the essence ofMill’s (1803) contribution to liberal politics. His ambition was to replace the Western tradition orientedtheology practice in society with one exclusively founded on the premise of improving the opportunities forhumanity to engage in a prosperous life. It meant moving away from classical liberalism(Raeder, 2002).

Collaboratively, Mill (1803) like Einstein (1930) recognized that individual liberty-under-law was interpreted in the West to mean allegiancetowards a higher law for which humans had no control. It involved rituals. Emile Durkheim (1912) confirmed that the notion of religion pertained to a belief in things defined sacred by a group or section of society. Therefore, the belief in attempting to please God through rituals meddling with the sacred concept has been the source of liberty, authority and power humans in seeking alignment tom this supernatural source (Mill, 1803) (Durkheim,1912)(Einstein, 1930).

Precisely, Mill (1803) deliberately tried to replace this belief of God with humanity removing the higher-law traditional concept which was in fact crucial topreservation of individual liberty and limited government in that context. The truth thereafter advanced by this astute philosopher is that these beliefs are essential pillars to human spirituality because it collaborates with a human spiritual purpose both historically and existentially. This faculty of mindcan engender as well as offer continued resistance to the execution of political power. The philosophical assumption emanating from this paradigm argues form humanity’s elevation into harmony with its ultimate source and end of value. Consequently, the political rulers emerge in nature as earthly Gods. Man creating God in his own image.

As this author continues to explore the notion of whether God created man in his own image or man created God in his own image reflecting on Stuart Mill’s (1803) notion of liberty many arguments have been that that Mill’s (1803) quest at liberating humanity from political subjugation was in fact a movement towards humans realizing who and what they are from a spiritual perspective. It was in fact a call to helping humans realize that they have created Godsin their own image by surrendering their power to political leaders under the guise that they cannot effectively execute authority over the self. Mill (18030 continues to advance that the only way society inclusive of politicians ought to take away an individual’s power is if they are creating harm to society/others. It does not matter if he/she harms the self (Mill, 1803).

Consequently, it is imperative at this point of the discussion to reflect on this notion or perception of God, religion and human spirituality. Precisely, God is a concept used by humans when relating to a part of the human personality which is indescribable. God is culturally understood and interpreted. Consequently, there are various names given to the concept based on the cultural belief attachment. From these attachments the notion of religion, denominations and human spirituality emerge to the extent that some faiths mingle the three into one form of God (Raeder, 2002).

However, God, religion and human spirituality are distinct philosophies with specific relevance through the ages. Therefore, God is relative and its meaning is different among peoples and changes with time. The contemporary twenty-first century God concept differs from the medial God concept. The word is used to identify with a supreme being. As such, when humans express attributes of God as a supreme being they actually take on the God personality if God were to become personalized. Importantly, scriptures emphasize that God is spirit, but some religions as well as people try to personalize God in human consciousness. Therefore, the relationship between humans and God becomes a spiritual one (Barton, 2006).

Religiondescribed from a contemporary perspectiveis known to be elements of one’s life that links one to its existence. This existence could be human or spiritual. Linking elementsare culture, beliefs along with world views. Sociologically religion is a social institution just as law, government, education, social services, family, politics and others. The difference between religion and other social institutions is that it attempts to offer explanations for the non-humanness of humans(Barton, 2006).

Psychologists explore boundaries beyond the body and mind. Consequently, they have developed ‘The Human Consciousness Project’ which is an international consortium inclusive of multidisciplinary scientists and physicians. They collaborated to research the nature of consciousness with the aim of establishing a linkage with the brain as well as interrelated neuronal processes that affect various conscious responses.This project ultimately is expected to extensively study how death occurs leading to a profound understanding into the relationship between mind and brain in clinical death (McGrath, 2005).

Most contemporary scientists are intrigued by thetraditionally monist perspectives related to mind-brain issues. Arguments have been that the human mind, consciousness, and self are actually by-products of electrochemical activity within the brain. This assumption emerges in the absence of scientific proof or sound biological explanationof how the brain as a biological organ couldcontribute towards development of mind and consciousness. Prominent researchers have been so baffled by this phenomenon and were ignited towards exploring the relationship of brain to consciousness, body, mind and human spirituality. Consequently, the late Nobel-winning neuroscientist Sir John Eccles (1903-1997),proposed a dualist point of view in an attempt of interpreting the problem. He argued that perhaps, human mind, brain and consciousness are distinct actually constituting separate, unexplored entities unrelated to the brain(McGrath, 2005)

Presently, through psychoanalysis psychologists are making attempts to explain human spirituality from this perspective. People worship God, live a Godly life and hope to enjoy a great beyond somewhere in heaven according to the various religious beliefs, which are being practiced. However, perceptions of mind, body, soul, consciousness and brain are still inexplicable from religious theology. Human consciousness is known to go beyond simply being aware of one’s environment. As such, through the ages philosophers and scientists alike have struggled with understanding human consciousness outside of conscious awareness. Hence, psychoanalytical interpretations of human spiritualty have been offered(McGrath, 2005).

There are six assumptions psychoanalysis make concerning human spirituality. First, apart from a one’s personality past life experiences influence a person’s present behavior. Secondly,attitudes of humans; their experiences, mannerisms, and thoughts to a great extent are influenced by irrational drives. Thirdly, these drives emerge from the unconscious mind. Fourthly, often attempts at bringing these drives into conscious awareness arepsychologicallyresistant through defense mechanisms. Fifthly, conflicts between conscious and unconscious minds are unexpressed human spirituality which later manifests as emotional disturbances such as psychosis, depression among many psychiatric disorders (McGrath, 2005).

Fifth and finally liberation from unconscious material which creates dysfunctions is bringing such material into the conscious mind. Herein lays some attempts at explaining human consciousness in relation to human spirituality and the execution of power as espoused by John Stuart Mill (1803) interpretation of liberty. Basically, relating these subconscious philosophies to politics, which is interpreted as the practice and theory of influencing other people on the level of a civic or individual paradigm, it can be posited that liberty, authority and execution of power are influenced by concepts pertaining to God the practice of religion and human spirituality (McGrath, 2005).

In fact Mill’s (1803) contribution toreligion, God, humanity, human spirituality, power, authority and liberty can be summarized in hisnotions of self-conscious eclecticism; spiritual despotism and classical liberalism. Beginning with classical liberalism Mill (1803) espoused a political philosophy/ideology that forged limiting the power of government through securing individual freedoms. This was unpopular in the British/ English political context. Alternatively, Mill (1803) aligned himself with French, German and Italian philosophers in his quest to express his sentiments pertaining to injustices exerted by governments towards the powerless and poor in his society(Mill,1803).

Consequently, Mill’s (1803) expositions of self-conscious eclecticism were closely linked to the English working class, which he perceived was a distinct political force in itself exerting its own power being consciously endowed with fear. Similar to Einstein’s (1930) philosophy of mankind’s fear resulting in creation ofGods in their own image Mill (1803) highlighted this fear in his self-conscious eclecticism philosophical assumption. Essentially, he was very concerned about the self-conscious choices individuals made in society and a movement towards consensus through eclecticism which seemed to be inconsistent thinking (Mill, 1803).

While Mill(1803) supported governments’ intervention regarding creation of social order through despotism in explaining religion of humanity inevitable Mill (1803)n took a stand on spiritual despotism reflected in the way religion executed power over the masses, which could be interpreted as submerging liberties in the guise of pleasing God who is supposed to be spirit and supernatural. This in itself Mill (1803) perceived as fallacious since it was another means society used through social institutions to control or restrict execution of power by the masses. This was the profoundly unpopular Mill (1803) philosophy for protecting liberties of vulnerable individuals in then society (Mill, 1803).

Therefore, in summarizing this exposition, which was embraced by asking whether God created man in his own image or man created God in his own image; there have been profound philosophical arguments citing John Stuart Mill’s (1803) liberty assumptions that man seems incapable of taking credit for his/her enlightened consciousness and often surrenders power to a force considered supreme out of mere fear of the self and future. In explaining the legitimate use of power Mill (1803)argues thatanyone has the powerprivilege to harm the self (him/her) once it does no harm to the other person. Society should not have any jurisdiction regarding one’s personal liberty when acting in accordance to one’s innate desires (Mill, 1803).

In considering individuals to be social beingsinteracting with the environment as society this philosopher contends that social liberty is a strategy emerging out the desire to protect oneself from political, rulers’ tyranny. As such, it is a wrestling match between the created (powerless) and the creator (powerful). Tyranny actually describes the extent to which the powerful executes authority over the defined powerless. Mill (1803) was profound in his arguments regarding various levels of tyranny executed in society by one group over the other for the purposes of political, economic at many levels of subjugation (Mill, 1803).

Further, in exploring the role of God, religion and human spirituality regarding the use of power through forces in society Mill (1803) developed the theory of religion of humanity incorporating concepts such as spiritual despotism whereby a new God of humanity was created in modern day politicians. There by humans actually created God in their own image. He marveled at the function of self-conscious eclecticism in producing fear amongworking class populations in England and across the globe. This he considered a remarkableattribute pertaining to the religion of humanity(Mill, 1803).

With reference to Einstein (1930) it can be concluded that religion forces its devotees to follow the orders of a being to either eliminate personal fears of being judged for wrong doing or gather favor from Supreme Beings who have the power to distribute them. In perpetuating this religion of fear Einstein (1930) further advanced that traditionally humans often practice offering sacrifices to these beings, which are expected to protect them from harm for generations and allow them victory over enemies(Einstein, 1930).

Linking this philosophy to Mill’s (1803) liberty assumptions and religion of humanity propositions it is quite clear that human consciousness has a difficulty absorbing that everyone has authority, liberty and power over the self. In reality when past experiences could be expressed through confrontation the accusation of being too powerful for one ’s self submerges and a fearless being surfaces to make the world a better place(Mil, 1803).

Why is it that humans have to be ruled by other humans exercising power/ dominion over them regarding choices they make in a free world? Why has there been slavery in a free world? Why are there laws restricting movement from one territory of the world to the other? What harm is being created to another or society when there is liberty to trade freely every nations in the world? Why are there embargos preventing these practices? How does this harm society or another? Why man has to create God in his own image when there are so many capabilities within the individual soul? Who has the authority to dictate for another if he/she does not conduct any practice that harms society or a neighbor?

Precisely while there may be no answers to these rhetorical questions neither explanations for the existence of these conditions in our world it must be understood that attitudes of humans; their experiences, mannerisms, and thoughts to a great extent are influenced by irrational drives. These drives emerge from the unconscious mind. Attempts at bringing these drives into conscious awareness are psychologically resistant through defense mechanisms. Conflicts between conscious and unconscious minds are unexpressed segments of human spirituality, which later manifests as emotional disturbances such as psychosis, depression among many psychiatric disorders (McGrath, 2005).

Could it be that world leaders, who dictate even the food individuals eat, are experiencing unexpressed segments of human spirituality manifesting as emotional dysfunction through inappropriate execution of power. History relates Adolf Hitler’s conquest of the world; stories of the holocaust; Cuban political system under Fidel Castro and many other countries in the world where individual liberties are violated as man is being exploited by man through misuse of power. Out of fear social justice organizations have arisen to protect freedoms of vulnerable populations and individuals (McGrath, 2005).

Still twenty-first century world populations are enslaved politicallythrough structured inequitable distribution of resources. Unemployment rates are increasing in developed nations and people are starving. There are fewer jobs, but reduction in welfare benefits. Health care is catastrophic and individuals are compelled to pay taxes or face jail in the presence of poor quality social services. Developing and underdeveloped countries never get a chance to develop because many are still paying loans burrowed from IMF. Why does a developed country keep 11 million people undocumented in the country? Just think of how Mill’s liberty philosophy is applicable as this twenty-first century financial/poverty dilemma escalates? Really it is summarized asman creating God in his own image.

Works cited

Barton, G.A. A Sketch of Semitic Origins: Social and Religious. Kessinger Publishing.2006. Print.

Capaldi, Nicholas. John Stuart Mill: A Biography. Cambridge, 2004. Print

Einstein, A. (November, 1930). Religion and Science. New York Times

Mill StuartJohn (1806–1873) The Contest in America. Harper’s New Monthly Magazine

McGrath, K. A. John C. Eccles, Sir World of Anatomy and Physiology. Gale.2005. Print.

Raeder, Linda .Spirit of the Age.John Stuart Mill and the Religion of Humanity. University of Missouri Press. 2002. Print.