A man convinced against his will

is of the same opinion still.

So what is this impulse to believe in an anthropocentric, anthropomorphic god, anyway?

I think is has to do with adversity, or at least the usual response to adversity. There are no atheists in a foxhole, the old saying goes, and that's true. I've never been in a foxhole, mind you, so I have no direct experience of war and its terrors. But I have had some pretty difficult experiences, many of them self-induced, in the sense that my actions brought on the consequences that I then had to suffer through.

Actions and consequences. When we feel as though our fate is out of our control, (we, being members of the human species, that is) we tend to seek comfort and assistance to reassure ourselves. When our actions seem futile, and the consequences dire, we get religion. It's not really much more complicated than that. Of course it IS more complicated, but the process of faith seems to stem from this feeling of being not in control of what's happening to us.

The reality of this proposition is highly questionable. That is to say, there are far too many instances where such faith is not rewarded with anything but making us feel better. Feeling better about giving up control and letting what will happen, happen. The "concrete" evidence of the efficacy of prayer (at least at our normal scale, more on that in later posts) is sorely lacking.

Far more erudite observers than me have noted that an omniscient and loving god "allows" many things to happen than such a god ought be allowing. Yet, there does seem to be some kind of a structure to the schema. And the intimation of structure implies a "structurer." So we are back to the old-time religion.

Especially when the bullets are flying.