If there is a creator, so what?

[Whateverist]

Let's give this putative god a natural foundation as an advanced alien race.  Let's further suppose, for whatever reason, that they are just delighted with us and want nothing more than to please and dote on us.  (I'm thinking this approximates -nicient/-powerful/-benevolent god conditions without actually exceeding the sub-omni limits which pertain to all but the superdupernatural.)  What then should be our interest in said creatures? [1]

Me?  I'm thinking we might be better off if we slip through under their radar.  While there may be creatures compared to which we are but puppies, infants or even amoebas I question how healthy it would be to live under their protection.  I feel like I'm taking a captain Kirk stance here but do we really want to become some higher form's pet or, worse, infantilized by trading in our self determination for their 'divine' protection? [2] As for what they might teach us, unless they have the power to elevate us to their level of understanding wouldn't it be a little oppressive to know how incomplete and inconsequential our best efforts really are?  I think we are a sufficiently capable and interesting organism to deserve to live and continue to evolve on our own merits. [3] Besides, until we develop light speed propulsion, any advanced race would know better than to initiate first contact.

But if you're willing to allow that 'gods' might exist in the midjective realm, then I think a meaningful relationship is indeed possible. [4]

1) I'm not sure how helpful that analogy will be according to how I understand a meaningful god. Our relationship with that alien race is not immediately related to our own existence. We could theoretically, as you suggest, "slip through under their radar" with the aliens. But with god, our relationship with it is constitutive of our own being. "Slipping through under the radar" with god would be the same as ignoring a fundamental aspect of what it means to be you.

I just don't see how else to understand a 'god' in an objective sense except as a more advanced being(s).

2) I agree whole-heartedly. Trading in your freedom for divine protection seems like a strange idea. If you are fundamentally a relation with god, as I suggest, then 'divine' protection would be the thing which secures and provides your freedom and self determination.

4) Can you tell me more about what this means?

My inclination is to remove gods from the objective exterior world and put them where we feel their presence, in  interior life.  Do you follow what Jorgy was saying about the subjective/midjective distinction?  From our conscious subjective perspective, there are features of our interior life which we do not directly control.  From our conscious point of view it can be difficult to distinguish between the outer-other and the inner-other.

Really, it is better to think of the brain/mind as producing a number of consciousness phenomenon, some portion of which is what we call 'us'.  What we claim as our personal identity is really made up of both, but we tend to be most aware of that which we experience and participate in consciously.  

Anyhow, I think what makes gods so popular is the brain/mind's capacity to produce them, especially if we expect to experience them.  When gods are produced they really aren't just projections of repressed aspects of the conscious mind.  Even when gods are not produced the mind is still a cauldron of desires, meanings and concerns.  The mind has a capacity to detect and solve problems without involving the conscious mind, it's been doing it for longer than we've had one.

Most of my thinking about it is from Jungian psychology, most of it through James Hillman but other sources contribute.

3) Putting aside the analogy for this... is this to suggest that a relation with god suppresses this capacity?

This was a jokey reference to the star trek stories.