Does some people need God?

[Belacqua]

I need music.

I've been reading a lot about needs vs. wants lately. Mostly I've been reading philosophers who, if I mention the names, will be instantly rejected on this forum. So I'll paraphrase in my own words.

Human beings have built-in dispositions and aims. Some of these are more obvious than others. Some come earlier on a list of hierarchies. 

One way of ordering the hierarchy is to deprive a person of something, and see how long he lasts. There are lots of things we need at every second that we don't even think about, like gravity, the continued existence of the laws of physics, etc. We need all those things to go on as they are. 

Among the things normally listed as needs, I guess air comes first, then water, then food. We could build a pyramid similar to Maslow's Hierarchy. Shelter, safety, community are low on the pyramid because they are more immediately necessary. Mutual family love, is higher. Maslow puts "self-fulfillment" at the top. 

I think we can agree that nobody NEEDS to be self-fulfilled to live to be 70 years old. So the question arises, how much do we need a need? Does "I need it" only refer to the bottom rungs of the pyramid, as AtheistChick seems to be saying, or are there less tangible needs that are necessary for a good human life? 

In the Philebus, Socrates says that all happiness comes from the relief of discomfort. The easiest case is that of hunger -- being hungry is uncomfortable, and eating relieves that. So eating gives pleasure. 

At first it seems ridiculous to say that ALL happiness is this way. When I look at a great painting, or you listen to music, is this the relief of some discomfort? 

Following Aristotle (oh god, I'm mentioning these people after all) people posited that all human beings, because of the way they're made, do have different kinds of desires, which are analogous to hunger. Being higher on the pyramid of needs, they don't seem so immediate or obvious. But they are built-in, nonetheless. 

One of these hungers is the desire for beauty. We hunger for it, we miss it when it's lacking (though we may not be as aware of this as we are of a rumbling tummy) and when we find it we experience the relief of that hunger. This makes us happy, and it's necessary -- it's a need -- if what we want is a fulfilled human life. You can live a LONG life without it, but possibly not a GOOD life. Where "good," here, means one in which the natural built-in desires are somewhat satisfied.

A lot of people today will oppose this way of thinking, because it might sound too much like teleology. Life AIMS AT certain general outcomes. And of course if we eliminate the idea that humans have built-in needs we can justify a society which doesn't do anything to fulfill them. If beauty is just a personal choice, a non-necessary want, then the people who run society don't have to worry if their actions work against beauty.

---

If they "need" to believe in god to get through the day, then they are weakminded people with a lower survival rate. Powerful politicians have made the people believe that they need to believe in god to get through the day because religion makes money to exploit the weakminded slaves who are exploited by politicians and religion. God is not a need. The people lie to themselves to make themselves believe that they "need" god because they are weakminded slaves. Religion and god were used to enslave people with weakminded beliefs. In the end, we only have ourselves to help us get us through the day. God is only a manmade idea that only exists in books, the entertainment world, and words. There is no scientific evidence that proves god is not fictitious.

You are repeating a number of unoriginal ideas here. A lot of people will agree with you on this forum, but that's not the same as having proof. 

Your own ideology is useful for the powerful to control weak-minded people, but I expect you don't see how that's so.