Great stuff. Thanks! — BC

:up:

They—Adam and Eve—showed that we can't repress our emotions like greed, lust, ambition, disobedience, etc. — javi2541997

Adam and Eve also showed that they were courageous, capable, nurturing, and persistent since they survived the expulsion from the paradisiacal Eden and managed to produce successful (flawed, for sure) children from which we all figuratively descended. Of course, there was that later genetic bottleneck of Noah and his wife who were presumably the only human survivors of the flood. So we are simultaneously sons of Adam and sons of Noah.

I might be completely wrong, but it's possible that the editors of Genesis weren't concerned with the problem of genetic bottlenecks.

On the one hand, we created God so we can know everything about God. — BC

Which "we" is that? I had no part in the creation of any gods. My only sources of information are documents written by men, long dead, about gods they may or may not have had some part in creating. All I know about their gods is what they tell me, and that's far from everything.

Thus we can have it both ways: When it is convenient, we know what God wants, doesn't want, what God likes, what God hates, etc. Or, when it is convenient, God can be an unknowable mystery. — BC

That "we" not only excludes myself, but the majority of people. Who has it every way they want are the manipulators of faith and credulity; the manipulated have no such power.

The millennia-long dead authors of god-tales were likely in great earnest. They lived in a pre-scientific world where there was a lot of unexplained, unexplainable events that needed some sort of explanation. — BC

I very much doubt that was their motivation. I allow that as part of the motivation of people who made up stories of origin and causation in the unrecorded eras before writing. But by the time of clay tablets, papyrus and alphabets, civilizations were hierarchical and stratified; there was rulership and obedience, law and punishment.
Scripture was purposeful. Obviously, the authors incorporated all the elements of myth, legend and traditional folklore as an institutional religion would carry - and they themselves may even have believed some or most of it. That didn't prevent them depicting the hierarchy of their pantheons as a reflection of their own realms, or identifying the deities with their own ruling class, or setting out divine laws that serves the good order of their own social system.
I don't call that cynical, exactly, but neither is it the kind of organic belief system that evolves along with the people who operate in it. Organized religion, with a king-god on top and expediters, enforcers and interpreters below is imposed on a people from above.

Scripture was purposeful. Obviously, the authors incorporated all the elements of myth, legend and traditional folklore as an institutional religion would carry - and they themselves may even have believed some or most of it. That didn't prevent them depicting the hierarchy of their pantheons as a reflection of their own realms, or identifying the deities with their own ruling class, or setting out divine laws that serves the good order of their own social system. — Vera Mont

@BC

Indeed the purpose was to maintain a people without a king/kingdom.
Thus you have to work backwards and forwards in time from the Kingdoms of Judah an Israel for you to get the gist of what the authors/scribes/redactors of the texts (that became the Torah, Prophets, and Writings) were doing...

The Kingdom Narrative would be the first strata.. That would be various histories as represented in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. These would be more about the wars, conflicts, successions, of kings. It would have been compiled by Judah with the help of Israelite scribes around the 700s BCE.

Israel was destroyed by Assyria in 722 BCE. At exactly the same time, the Kingdom of Judah doubled in size. This isn't a coincidence. The story is of the "Lost 10 tribes of Israel". Some were indeed taken. But many fled as refugees to their southern brethren. These scribes, priests, and artisans from cities like Samaria to the north (which was much more educated and powerful than the rinky dink Judah to the south) could be employed in the service to the kings of Judah now.

Here you have an interesting addition by Judhaite scribes to the Kingdom Narrative. Now you get Judah's semi-mythical kings of David and Solomon as not just Kings of Judah, but Kings of a UNITED Israel and Judah. Why would they want this? It would be easier to welcome the incoming Northerners to the kingdom and have them incorporated as ALWAYS being in someway united in some mythological past. The reason they were similar but different was the wayward ways of Solomon's descendants. It also squarely puts JERUSALEM (not Samaria) as the center of BOTH Israel AND Judah (not just Judah).

Also, the Israelite scribes that fled to Judah started creating the Family Narrative. That is to say piecing together the separate stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob into a cohesive story of the creation of Israel WITHOUT a kingdom as the start (the real story) but rather a much more distant start in the Bronze Age.

The Israelite scribes also probably created the Exodus-Conquest Narrative which also conferred authority NOT to kings (theirs were destroyed), but also to Bronze Age heroes (Moses, Joshua, various Judges). Thus the intent here is to bypass Kingly authority for various other ones, generally between the "people in general" or "priests" to the deity.

Once the Kingdom of Judah itself was destroyed, this time by the Babylonians, it too had an identity crisis. Just as the Northern Kingdom had to reconfigure its mythical origins, Judah too had to do this as they were now a people in exile without a king. They incorporated the northern stories of the Family Narrative and Exodus-Conquest narrative and tacked that at the beginning of the story. These group of scribes were starting to form an identity without a king. They saw in the cards that Babylonia was itself going to be conquered by Persia and the possibility of reestablishing a new order with a second Temple in Jerusalem, now firmly under the rule of priests.

And that brings us to the final redaction/layer, the Priestly Scribal one. In this one, not only do we have the story begin at the start of the Israelite/Judahite tribal history (Abraham et al), but we have it start at the beginning of creation itself. Here, there are remnants of the Sumerian/Assyrian/Babylonian myths transformed. And along with these additions in Genesis you have the Priestly Code (mainly Leviticus, some of Exodus and Numbers, and much of Deuteronomy).

At this point, this stratified document, starting from pre-exilic time, and working of myths and accounts and writings from even earlier, was redacted in much of the final form. This version was the one probably referenced in Ezra-Nehemiah when it depicts Ezra presenting the books to the Judeans, teaching (or "reteaching in the orthodox account") them the Laws (as if they were there but lost). That was in the 400s BCE. However, as the archaeological evidence shows, this event, if it happened at all was still very small, probably amongst a group of priests/prophets that returned to Jerusalem from Babylonia to reform the institutions there under the graces of the Darius II. Either way, this still wasn't when the "Bible became holy".. That was more an idealized goal of the scribes written into the story. Rather, more likely, as I was saying, it was around the time of the Greeks, and specifically the rise of the Hasmonean rulers, that once and for all a formalized "Judaism" took shape. That didn't mean there weren't priests sacrificing to the national deity in the Second Temple throughout the Persian and early Greek period. It's just that, they weren't necessarily formalized along the exact confines of a written Torah as we know it. Again, some of the priests surely had early versions of it, some possibly had very different notions, even henotheistic ones.. But the faction with the Torah as the basis "won out" amongst the other variations (like the one perhaps exemplified in Elephantine Island). We can call this strand that won out "Ezra's Vision", because it seems he was around the time that that version was compiled (the last books of the Bible basically explain this through its own lens of how it happened).

We could probably trace a similar history for the pantheons of all civilizations.
They didn't all need the series of prophets predicting a very predictable conquest by a much bigger power and blaming the disobedience by their king to of god's edicts. So, the god is secure, and the nation will be okay under the guidance of the priesthood ... nothing self-serving there!

We could probably trace a similar history for the pantheons of all civilizations.
They didn't all need the series of prophets predicting a very predictable conquest by a much bigger power and blaming the disobedience by their king to of god's edicts. So, the god is secure, and the nation will be okay under the guidance of the priesthood ... nothing self-serving there! — Vera Mont

I never said it wasn't :D! But you mentioned a purpose, and I gave you some purpose(s) from the many layers. Those purposes certainly had the intent of keeping authority in the hands of certain people (the priests.. as envisioned by Ezra-Nehemiah). However, they were along the way creating an identity outside the original context of a kingdom-state. It was also creating from the ashes of destruction a way of uniting a nation without state, or without a king at least.

But you mentioned a purpose, and I gave you some purpose(s) from the many layers. — schopenhauer1

Yes, you supplied some specifics that I hadn't known, and I appreciate it.

However, they were along the way creating an identity outside the original context of a kingdom-state. It was also creating from the ashes of destruction a way of uniting a nation without state, or without a king at least. — schopenhauer1

In that instance. Which supplied a nice underpinning for the eventual king-making power of the RCC, and the theocracies of Islam.

I was referring to the general purpose common to all organized religions - which, of course, began as state religions - which was to reinforce the authority of whoever was already in power, and ensure the continuity of the regime.
E.g., as noted above, the divine right of kings as a doctrine, and then the custom of archbishops anointing kings - lest they forget which side their power is buttered. Without the clergy and its revenue-generating carrot, they would have to rely on expensive the military stick alone.

In that instance. Which supplied a nice underpinning for the eventual king-making power of the RCC, and the theocracies of Islam.

I was referring to the general purpose common to all organized religions - which, of course, began as state religions - which was to reinforce the authority of whoever was already in power, and ensure the continuity of the regime.
E.g., as noted above, the divine right of kings as a doctrine, and then the custom of archbishops anointing kings - lest they forget which side their power is buttered. Without the clergy and its revenue-generating carrot, they would have to rely on expensive the military stick alone. — Vera Mont

Yep, but there is a crucial difference here. Your theory in essence is saying that "The state is in search of a way to legitimize power". However, the Bible itself in the context of why/when it was written, contradicts some of that. Rather, it distinctly chastises kings, and then promotes covenants of the deity with "the people" (and the priests for sure). The Bible was written when Israel and Judah were defeated, and Judah was reconstituted as a small province under the satraps of the Persian Empire. Nehemiah himself was a governor. Before him was Zerubbabel (actually a descendent from the original Judean/Davidic lineage) and Joshua ben Johazadek. These figures could not officially claim "kingship" however, lest they become enemies of the mostly tolerant Persian Empire. So the Bible in a way was a group of writings that were redacted and strung together to present the case that the national deity could be made sans Kingship.. However, I will agree, that Second Temple Judaism did revolve around one official place for Yahweh to be worshipped with one official set of priesthood (that became contested over time). The Levites and Koheins were certainly the main authority during this period.

When the Maccabees took up the cause against Antiochus IV Hellenizing efforts (they made the Judeans sacrifice pigs on the alter in Jerusalem and worship Zeus instead!), they probably sided with the most monotheistic variant (as I said "Ezra's Vision" as evinced in Ezra-Nehemiah), and this one, that included the writings of the Torah, now well-known in those circles since the 400s BCE when it was compiled, was the one that became the "state religion". It legitimized their role, giving the Sadducean party (the Priestly elites from which they themselves descended), the most authority (and were opposed by the Pharisees who saw this as an usurpation of their authority). Anyways, in this way, religion might be said to legitimize their rule.

However, one can view the apocalyptic writings during this period, like Daniel as threatening to the Hasmonean dynasty as they were priests, and the Daniel prophecies were about a future king (messiah) who would restore order.. That would be the type of literature they would downplay. I would speculate this makes sense if we look at the fact that the Sadducees ONLY viewed the Torah as legitimate, and not the later Prophets... Why? Perhaps because later prophetic writings like Daniel speak against the current (priestly) authority for an immanent "return of the king" to reestablish a better way of life.

I think it's like a preschooler asking if her parents also hate the monster in her closet tormententing her. For some it goes further; asking why her supposedly loving parents allow monsters to occupy her closet

For an omnipotent God, there can be no evil, because nothing can be against God's will. And evil just is that which is against will.

Very informative, educational posts on this subject as always. I must provide a little pushback.

The Kingdom Narrative would be the first strata.. That would be various histories as represented in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. These would be more about the wars, conflicts, successions, of kings. It would have been compiled by Judah with the help of Israelite scribes around the 700s BCE.

Ok, but there is clearly material that pre-dates this. Some of the poems like Song of the Sea and Song of Moses are very ancient and I've seen these dated to the ~11th/12th century BC. Scholarship traditionally places the Y and E sources at around the 10th and 9th century BC respectively. Y and E have always been the most interesting to me. IMHO they write without a clear political agenda. They two have their theological perspectives, but one portrays God as immanent while the other portrays his as transcendent.

Ok, but there is clearly material that pre-dates this. Some of the poems like Song of the Sea and Song of Moses are very ancient and I've seen these dated to the ~11th/12th century BC. Scholarship traditionally places the Y and E sources at around the 10th and 9th century BC respectively. Y and E have always been the most interesting to me. IMHO they write without a clear political agenda. They two have their theological perspectives, but one portrays God as immanent while the other portrays his as transcendent. — BitconnectCarlos

I wouldn't trace them that far back, but yes the Song of Miriam (Song of the Sea) and the Song of Moses and the Song of Deborah- basically small poems embedded in the text are probably the oldest substrata, as I noted here (though not clearly enough):

At this point, this stratified document, starting from pre-exilic time, and working of myths and accounts and writings from even earlier, was redacted in much of the final form. — schopenhauer1

So this would represent some of the very first layers of collections of poems. As a side note, and much more speculative, I am willing to entertain the notion that the earliest strata of the Moses story came from a tribe (such as the Shasu) that were a Midianite tribe and were associated or alternatively known to by their nickname Levi (a variant on the Hebrew "to join").. The theory goes that the Levites coming up from Midian (possibly actually escaping Egypt in some manner), brought Yahweh with them and even some rituals (nothing like the full blown Torah), and that when they encountered the tribes in Canaan, they "joined" them becoming their priestly class.. One evidence for this is the obvious emphasis on Levites (especially Moses.. an Egyptian name), and if you look at almost all the Levites names in the Torah, they are all Egyptian while the other tribes are usual Canaanite/Israelite names. Anyways, that is just speculation, but even if only part of that is true (the Midianite origins), that makes some sense based on the archaeological evidence.

Edit: Also the burning bush, Jethro in land of Midian.. Even depictions not redacted smoothly where Moses seems like he had nothing to do with the people he's rescuing.. etc.).

However, the Bible itself in the context of why/when it was written, contradicts some of that. — schopenhauer1

Every religion differs in some respects from all the others. And every state religion nevertheless supports the hierarchy. Chastising a king is not the same as advocating for a republic; they just want a new and stronger king, once they've had time to recover and regroup. That happens in most nations from time to time.

The Bible was written when Israel and Judah were defeated, and Judah was reconstituted as a small province under the satraps of the Persian Empire. — schopenhauer1

Parts of it were written then.
The main difference between the religion of Judah/Israel and all the others is that no other nation's scribe-recorded chronicles ended up as the Holy Book of a very different, much more powerful nation.
That was a fluke, which also influenced the evolution of Jehovah, from tribal deity to Lord Of the Universe. But his most powerful churches never stopped supporting the earthly power structure.

The main difference between the religion of Judah/Israel and all the others is that no other nation's scribe-recorded chronicles ended up as the Holy Book of a very different, much more powerful nation. — Vera Mont

Why would you use the singular here? First off, it was the Roman Empire a huge empire, not just a "nation", unless you're being real liberal with that word. And yes, one can say that Constantine saw it as a way to unify an empire in fracture. He himself didn't seem to really believe in it as much as endorsed it. The original cultic network of the Roman Republic/Empire was not as useful. Vestal Virgins and Roman oracles and priests weren't cutting it. With the rise of Near Eastern religions, Christianity was the best contender for an already-existent infrastructure. It just took him to coopt it. And it wasn't until Theodosius I that it actually became the "official" religion (thus starting the official banning of pagan ones, until the final pagan academy was destroyed in Athens in 529 CE).

Edit: But mind you I come from the school of thought whereby historical context DOES matter. The Bible was meant for a time and place (basically Persian Period Judah, perhaps into the Hellenistic and Roman Era). The minute Pauline Christianity infused a Platonized, mystery cult-based religion into an apocalyptic Jewish sect (the John the Baptist/Jesus one), it became something different. So when Rome was coopting that infrastructure of bishops and various church communities, he was coopting something that was divorced from the the context of the Bible (the Hebrew Scriptures at least).

[...] Augustine's 'evil as a privation of the good'. To put it another way, evil has the kind of existence that holes, fractures, shadows and illness has. — Wayfarer

I find it artificial, though it is kind of...neat.
Absence of love isn't hate, absence of hate isn't love.

Absence of love isn't hate, absence of hate isn't love. — jorndoe

However, one would be unable to hate in the presence of love. Holes, shadows, illnesses. I find it a compelling metaphor, at the very least.

Something I notice in the (generally futile) discussions of theodicy on this forum, is that God is expected to be something like a perfect hotel manager. The fact that there is suffering, inequality, disease and catastrophe is something for which God is attributed executive responsibility. But none of the religions ever promised that 'the world' would be, well, a Garden of Eden. Everything in it is by its nature subject to death, decay and misadventure. 'There is no sickness toil or danger in the place to which I go' (Poor Wayfaring Stranger, trad. hymn.) Whereas for us moderns, 'this life' is the only realm there is, and the fact that it's less than perfect provokes a sense of outrage and frustration.

I concede. All general comments on the nature of organized religions hereby withdrawn.

I concede. All general comments on the nature of organized religions hereby withdrawn. — Vera Mont

You mean this sarcastically?

Everything in it is by its nature subject to death, decay and misadventure. 'There is no sickness toil or danger in the place to which I go' (Poor Wayfaring Stranger, trad. hymn.) Whereas for us moderns, 'this life' is the only realm there is, and the fact that it's less than perfect provokes a sense of outrage and frustration. — Wayfarer

Isn’t that the point?

↪Shawn I think it's like a preschooler asking if her parents also hate the monster in her closet tormententing her. For some it goes further; asking why her supposedly loving parents allow monsters to occupy her closet — ENOAH

:smirk: :up:

You mean this sarcastically? — schopenhauer1

Not at all. I simply mean that any merit there may have been in distinguishing the purpose and function of organized, civilized religions from grass-roots, primitive religions has been lost in the Judeo-Christian history and is no longer relevant.

I had no part in the creation of any gods. — Vera Mont

Well, nothing's stopping you. The gods we care about were first created 2 or 3 millennia ago. However, every believer (and many non-believers) recreates god(s) in their own mind. We do the same thing when we read fiction: We let the characters in the story into our head, and we add details (like appearance, voice, etc.) which weren't in the text. We may create additions to the plot in our imaginations.

The biblical God is sufficiently misty that believers have plenty of room for invention, and there's nothing wrong with that (in my deviant view). Indeed, imagining God helps produce the reality that IS God for many believers. The kind of god that results depends on the personality and imagination of the believer: Hateful bastards produce a wrathful, vindictive, punishing god, while gentle, weepy souls turn out a god who is mild, lamb like, and pacifistic.

All I know about their gods is what they tell me, and that's far from everything. — Vera Mont

So, make up the rest. They made up their information; you can make up yours.

That "we" not only excludes myself, but the majority of people. Who has it every way they want? — Vera Mont

Me and thee, and most believers. A good god fits the lifestyle of the believer. What your god is most concerned about is likely what any given believer is most concerned about. What's your thing? Refugees? Then god is the rescuer, comforter, and principle advocate for refugees. Balanced budgets? Then god is prudent, looks to the future, wastes not/wants not. Gay liberation? Then god blesses whatever one and one's local gay brethren get up to. Peace? Then god is against war, against the bombing (whatever bombing wherever), against unprovoked aggression, etc. Justice? God's always up for justice! Let justice roll down like the water! But whose justice for whom?

I think it's like a preschooler asking if her parents also hate the monster in her closet tormententing her. For some it goes further; asking why her supposedly loving parents allow monsters to occupy her closet — ENOAH

Interesting.

As a child I lived with monsters at the window, under my bed, in the attic, cellar, and barn. They required darkness to exist, and I found them terrifying, well beyond pre-school age. Even as an adult I felt one of them behind me once in a great while. At some point, the monsters all went away, and darkness no longer contained their dreary presence.

I didn't blame anybody for their menaces. They were like the discomfort of very cold weather: one shivered. I didn't talk about these fears at the time. (I suspected that I would be blamed for scaring myself.)

However, one would be unable to hate in the presence of love. Holes, shadows, illnesses. I find it a compelling metaphor, at the very least. — Wayfarer

Maybe. Where it goes askew, though, is when casting it all in terms of good alone. (Or hate alone.)

[...] God is expected to be something like a perfect hotel manager [...] — Wayfarer

Isn't the sum of good bad neutral prosperity hardship humdrum indifference ... and everything in between, what you might expect without an omni* overseer?

They were like the discomfort of very cold weather: one shivered. — BC

Not to be a stickler, but shivering in the cold: if there is a God, It might stand responsible for that, and for the cold. But if I imagined the cold to be anything beyond the temperature and a potentially painful experience; if I imagined it to be, for example, a curse, or a sign, then I'm to "blame" for that.

Evil is not an intrinsic feature of God, but it exists anyway. I think evil people are necessary to see the blessing of God, or put it into practice at least. What we consider 'evil' and 'goodness' is another business. Either we lead to interpret those to a celestial judge, or we interpret it on our own.

The gods we care about were first created 2 or 3 millennia ago. — BC

But not for the purpose of explaining thunder and lightning because they didn't know science.
I don't actually care what each believer believes or pretends to; only about how they treat other people. I don't actually care whether they think their god created evil, condones evil or is evil; I only care whether they do evil. Because I don't think evil has anything to do with gods or faiths: it's a human concept, a human attribute.

Not at all. I simply mean that any merit there may have been in distinguishing the purpose and function of organized, civilized religions from grass-roots, primitive religions has been lost in the Judeo-Christian history and is no longer relevant. — Vera Mont

:up:

But not for the purpose of explaining thunder and lightning because they didn't know science.
I don't actually care what each believer believes or pretends to; only about how they treat other people. I don't actually care whether they think their god created evil, condones evil or is evil; I only care whether they do evil. Because I don't think evil has anything to do with gods or faiths: it's a human concept, a human attribute. — Vera Mont

Me and thee, and most believers. A good god fits the lifestyle of the believer. What your god is most concerned about is likely what any given believer is most concerned about. What's your thing? Refugees? Then god is the rescuer, comforter, and principle advocate for refugees. Balanced budgets? Then god is prudent, looks to the future, wastes not/wants not. Gay liberation? Then god blesses whatever one and one's local gay brethren get up to. Peace? Then god is against war, against the bombing (whatever bombing wherever), against unprovoked aggression, etc. Justice? God's always up for justice! Let justice roll down like the water! But whose justice for whom? — BC

@Wayfarer

I think this is why Schopenhauer is one of the best synthesizers of a non-theistic understanding of a Ground of Being (I won't go as far to say "God" here). The world has something going on here. There is a will in each of us that propels us forward. There is some dissatisfaction as marked by our own needs of survival and entertainment. There are external factors of harm that befall us. There are frustrations.

Questioning this situation, its necessity, is the most paramount of philosophical pursuits.

Demopheles. How often must I repeat that religion is anything but a pack of lies? It is truth itself, only in a mythical, allegorical vesture. But when you spoke of your plan of everyone being his own founder of religion, I wanted to say that a particularism like this is totally opposed to human nature, and would consequently destroy all social order. Man is a metaphysical animal,—that is to say, he has paramount metaphysical necessities; accordingly, he conceives life above all in its metaphysical signification, and wishes to bring everything into line with that. Consequently, however strange it may sound in view of the uncertainty of all dogmas, agreement in the fundamentals of metaphysics is the chief thing, because a genuine and lasting bond of union is only possible among those who are of one opinion on these points. As a result of this, the main point of likeness and of contrast between nations is rather religion than government, or even language; and so the fabric of society, the State, will stand firm only when founded on a system of metaphysics which is acknowledged by all. This, of course, can only be a popular system,—that is, a religion: it becomes part and parcel of the constitution of the State, of all the public manifestations of the national life, and also of all solemn acts of individuals. This was the case in ancient India, among the Persians, Egyptians, Jews, Greeks and Romans; it is still the case in the Brahman, Buddhist and Mohammedan nations. In China there are three faiths, it is true, of which the most prevalent—Buddhism—is precisely the one which is not protected by the State; still, there is a saying in China, universally acknowledged, and of daily application, that "the three faiths are only one,"—that is to say, they agree in essentials. The Emperor confesses all three together at the same time. And Europe is the union of Christian States: Christianity is the basis of every one of the members, and the common bond of all. Hence Turkey, though geographically in Europe, is not properly to be reckoned as belonging to it. In the same way, the European princes hold their place "by the grace of God:" and the Pope is the vicegerent of God. Accordingly, as his throne was the highest, he used to wish all thrones to be regarded as held in fee from him. In the same way, too, Archbishops and Bishops, as such, possessed temporal power; and in England they still have seats and votes in the Upper House. Protestant princes, as such, are heads of their churches: in England, a few years ago, this was a girl eighteen years old. By the revolt from the Pope, the Reformation shattered the European fabric, and in a special degree dissolved the true unity of Germany by destroying its common religious faith. This union, which had practically come to an end, had, accordingly, to be restored later on by artificial and purely political means. You see, then, how closely connected a common faith is with the social order and the constitution of every State. Faith is everywhere the support of the laws and the constitution, the foundation, therefore, of the social fabric, which could hardly hold together at all if religion did not lend weight to the authority of government and the dignity of the ruler.

Philalethes. Oh, yes, princes use God as a kind of bogey to frighten grown-up children to bed with, if nothing else avails: that's why they attach so much importance to the Deity. Very well. Let me, in passing, recommend our rulers to give their serious attention, regularly twice every year, to the fifteenth chapter of the First Book of Samuel, that they may be constantly reminded of what it means to prop the throne on the altar. Besides, since the stake, that ultima ration theologorum, has gone out of fashion, this method of government has lost its efficacy. For, as you know, religions are like glow-worms; they shine only when it is dark. A certain amount of general ignorance is the condition of all religions, the element in which alone they can exist. And as soon as astronomy, natural science, geology, history, the knowledge of countries and peoples have spread their light broadcast, and philosophy finally is permitted to say a word, every faith founded on miracles and revelation must disappear; and philosophy takes its place. In Europe the day of knowledge and science dawned towards the end of the fifteenth century with the appearance of the Renaissance Platonists: its sun rose higher in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries so rich in results, and scattered the mists of the Middle Age. Church and Faith were compelled to disappear in the same proportion; and so in the eighteenth century English and French philosophers were able to take up an attitude of direct hostility; until, finally, under Frederick the Great, Kant appeared, and took away from religious belief the support it had previously enjoyed from philosophy: he emancipated the handmaid of theology, and in attacking the question with German thoroughness and patience, gave it an earnest instead of a frivolous tone. The consequence of this is that we see Christianity undermined in the nineteenth century, a serious faith in it almost completely gone; we see it fighting even for bare existence, whilst anxious princes try to set it up a little by artificial means, as a doctor uses a drug on a dying patient. In this connection there is a passage in Condorcet's "Des Progrès de l'esprit humain" which looks as if written as a warning to our age: "the religious zeal shown by philosophers and great men was only a political devotion; and every religion which allows itself to be defended as a belief that may usefully be left to the people, can only hope for an agony more or less prolonged." In the whole course of the events which I have indicated, you may always observe that faith and knowledge are related as the two scales of a balance; when the one goes up, the other goes down. So sensitive is the balance that it indicates momentary influences. When, for instance, at the beginning of this century, those inroads of French robbers under the leadership of Bonaparte, and the enormous efforts necessary for driving them out and punishing them, had brought about a temporary neglect of science and consequently a certain decline in the general increase of knowledge, the Church immediately began to raise her head again and Faith began to show fresh signs of life; which, to be sure, in keeping with the times, was partly poetical in its nature. On the other hand, in the more than thirty years of peace which followed, leisure and prosperity furthered the building up of science and the spread of knowledge in an extraordinary degree: the consequence of which is what I have indicated, the dissolution and threatened fall of religion. Perhaps the time is approaching which has so often been prophesied, when religion will take her departure from European humanity, like a nurse which the child has outgrown: the child will now be given over to the instructions of a tutor. For there is no doubt that religious doctrines which are founded merely on authority, miracles and revelations, are only suited to the childhood of humanity. Everyone will admit that a race, the past duration of which on the earth all accounts, physical and historical, agree in placing at not more than some hundred times the life of a man of sixty, is as yet only in its first childhood. — Arthur Schopenhauer- Religion: A Dialogue

I'm not sure God is in a position to like or dislike anything, because it is omnipotent. God can love, or annihilate. Perhaps only finite powers can like and dislike, We can only like and dislike things that come to us from outside that are not under our control, or that we have only partial control over. Not sure though.