Does money exist?
I figured money can be a great metaphor for the God concept. Especially since I draw a blank every time I tell someone they must believe in God to be able to see proof of his existence.
How does one go about proving that money exists? You can show me a currency note, but it’s just a piece of paper — not worth anything without you and me accepting it as worth something. That acceptance is faith. The willingness to see the piece of paper as something more than what it is.
Money exists because we believe it does. It wouldn’t work if we didn’t see currency notes as something more than just pieces of paper.
The world around us may appear to be just people and ground and trees and sky, but to be able to see God’s presence in it all, you need to believe that the world is more than just what it appears to be.
As much as I hate referring to Ayn Rand for anything, she answered the question of money quite well in Atlas Shrugged in a speech where she maintains money has no intrinsic value in itself, only in the value it translates into when used as a medium of exchange. This value is not completely rooted in faith however. There are many needs are critical to human survival: food, shelter, etc. whose value is unquestionable. It is this value that money represents. I do not see any such need for the God concept however. You do not need God’s presence to validate the presence of the things around us. So while God is an optional illusion you may choose to believe in, money is a necessary illusion in any society.
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 26th, 2009 at 4:59 am
I used money as a metaphor to try and explain the God concept. You may not see the need for it, but many people do.
As for the need for the God concept, we can keep on debating it and never reach a conclusion. Suffice it to say that the how important any need is (or how necessary any illusion is), varies from person to person.
Kk Reply:
August 26th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
“You may not see the need for it, but many people do.”
I’m not disputing the need for God people have. Just that while we may disagree on the necessity of God, we’re definitely not going to disagree on the necessity of money as a common measure of value. I was just drawing a distinction about the idea of money being more essential to society than God.
“The first time some bright fellow came up with the idea of representative currency, people must have taken him up on faith.”
Have you read Terry Pratchett’s Making Money where paper money is introduced to Discworld? Pratchett weaves in a lot of stuff about the role faith plays in people’s lives most times without their knowing it in his Discworld novels.
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Pratchett eh? Been meaning to. Will do so as soon as possible.
Kk
26 Aug 09 at 12:20 am
So the fact that the *theory* that money exists is *tested* trillions a time a day, is irrelevant. And such highly tested theory is as good as bullshit like unicorns exists?
You seem to lack some basic understanding of logic.
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 26th, 2009 at 5:05 am
Ah but you forget that there was a time when money wasn’t *tested* trillions of times a day. The first time some bright fellow came up with the idea of representative currency, people must have taken him up on faith.
I have used money as a metaphor for God here. Try and wrap your logical mind around that. If you fail to see it, then you lack some basic imagination.
Amit Upadhyay
26 Aug 09 at 12:38 am
I think sometimes it’s enough to be open to the concept of God to see proof of His existence. But sadly, less people have open minds than they’d admit or even know.
Nice analogy. Are you fimiliar with C. S. Lewis? I think you’d love to read the best selling “Mere Christianity”.
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 26th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Open minds? Tell me about it.
Added Lewis’ book to my list. Thanks for the pointer.
Melody
26 Aug 09 at 4:20 am
Thanks dude. We need to read stories like this. What I believe that whenever there is an argument over the existence of God, somewhere down the line we feel his presence. But the concept of God is so big that we keep wondering! Probably thats why we try to find answers in the form of argument, questions and many any things. Keep writing.:)
manoj
27 Aug 09 at 4:56 am
First, the font sizes and their proportions are awful in your latest theme. Your earlier blog theme was better.
I can dispute this post at several levels. I’ll start with the logical level.
You have used money as a metaphor or analogy for god. Then I ask you what the analogue of your statement “Money exists because we believe it does.” is in the god case? I feel it should be – God exists because we believe it does. If that is your interpretation of god, which I doubt, I am in agreement with you.
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Yo P! Welcome back. Great doubts. I will do my best to address them.
Money here is used as a metaphor for God. It isn’t meant to be an exact analogy, it can never be that. I can say that someone looks like a horse. It doesn’t think that I think he is a horse or that all horse qualities apply to them. It’s just a way of expression.
Having said that, think about this. You have disagreements with my post. Would the disagreements existed if you did not disagree with me? I think your disagreements exist because you disagree. That is the point I am trying to make.
Look at it this way. Money ‘works’ because we believe in it. God will work if you believe in the concept. How that may turn out for you will depend on you. It’s different for everyone.
P Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Your post title is “Does money exist?”, which I assume was a proxy for the question “Does god exist?”. So it seems you are trying to answer this latter question from the insights gained by answering the first question. So one would assume money and god to be at least similar as far as their existence and the nature of existence is concerned.
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I have already answered your question P.
P
27 Aug 09 at 1:18 pm
On some of your assumptions and misleading statements:
“You can show me a currency note, but it’s just a piece of paper — not worth anything without you and me accepting it as worth something. That acceptance is faith.”
I think That acceptance is trust and not faith – the trust in others that they consider a piece of paper just as worthy or valuable as everyone else in the society. The society has mechanisms to maintain the trust among people. If that acceptance were faith, instead of trust, it wouldn’t have required mechanisms to maintain the faith.
This particular statement was the basis for your assumption that money is a metaphor for god. So, I guess you need to give additional arguments to strengthen your assumption and gain something definite and useful from the comparison between money and god.
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Aren’t trust and faith one and the same thing? I trust you. I have faith in you.
You trust someone when you believe in them. Faith or trust or belief are just different words for saying the same. It is imagining something you have not experienced yet. People believe in a being higher than themselves without there being tangible proof of his existence. People believe that fellow humans will act according to law to keep order in society.
It is one and the same.
There was a time when money didn’t exist in the same ways it does now. The first time people were shown representative currency, they must have placed their faith in it. To see if it works or not.
P Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
It is true faith and trust are synonymous in many cases. But there is a distinction. Trust can be based on rationality while faith, by definition, is not rational. While the acceptance of the god concept requires faith, acceptance of the concept of money only requires trust based on rationality.
As I said in the original comment, treating the acceptance of the concept or the existence of money as faith is the key link in justifying money as a metaphor for god. But since the acceptance of money is based on only rational trust the link looks rather weak.
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Faith is very rational too. One believes 90% of the things he encounters in everyday life (see my post titled ‘how to believe’). You don’t mean we are irrational all the time, do you?
Go to dictionary.com and look up faith and trust. That ought to clear up many doubts.
P
27 Aug 09 at 1:37 pm
On inconsistencies with your earlier thoughts/posts:
The implication from your use of money as a metaphor for god is that god, just as money, can exist only if it is commonly accepted by everyone. And similarly, the properties and characteristics of god can only be what are commonly or mutually accepted. This is in contradiction to your “a god” opinion that the idea of god is subjective, that is it need not be based on mutual acceptance.
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
As I have already said, don’t take the metaphor to heart. Try and gather the sense behind it. It takes imagination. There is no inconsistency there. Both ideas are one and the same.
Money is a concept. Just like God is. Their being tangible depends on how each and every one of us sees them. Even money is not the same to everyone. Some treat it as the be all and end all of life. To some others, it is just a way to get by. To others yet, it is an evil.
Same goes for God. The idea is still subjective.
P Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 8:23 am
“Even money is not the same to everyone.” The differences you mention have largely to do with the value (how important) people place in their lives. But I guess people do not differ as far as the nature of the tangibility of money.
Since you said “Same goes for God”, I’ll assume your metaphor holds (and will continue to hold
) in this respect. Now, according to your “Is there a god?” post there can be differences even in what each one of us perceive god to be.
For valid and meaningful analysis we may limit the scope of applicability of our assumptions but we need to carry them through at least along the depth of an argument.
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 8:25 am
You have repeatedly proven yourself incapable (or unwilling) to see the sense of a post. I will therefore just let this go here and save a lot of time, both yours and mine.
P
27 Aug 09 at 1:50 pm
Just because we can collectively believe in something doesn’t mean we have to. It should have a purpose or usefulness or should be based on indisputable observations. There may or may not be UFOs and aliens hovering around the earth. There are many individuals who believe in their existence on or near earth. But we humans as a whole do not. This is because neither are the observations not indisputable, nor is there any use or purpose in such beliefs.
In the context of this post, please tell me why we should collectively believe in god but not UFOs.
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I never said you should.
And I never said you should not believe in UFO’s either. There is no should here.
People believe what they want. You, me, everyone. Different things work for different people.
P Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 8:34 am
And I never asked whether I should or should not believe in UFOs. This was my statement “… please tell me why WE should COLLECTIVELY believe in god but not UFOs.” I have already said there are lots of individuals who believe in the existence of UFOs.
I’ll take your reply as your wish to not answer my question.
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
And where does the “but not UFOs” come from? I said there is no should not. You should definitely believe in UFOs if you want to.
P
27 Aug 09 at 2:20 pm
Hi Vijendra,
Let’s not forget the role of evolution. God, state, nationhood, money–all these are result of evolution….from amoeba to homo sapiens…and more.
These concept needs to be maintained, I mean money needs govt backing and god needs a plethora of preachers to convince “brainwash” through analogies, personal assertions, combined strength of philosophical strokes, both positive and negative ones…. Fear of divine retribution–look how powerful it is!
Evolution presupposes slow change. Old thoughts die but slowly. Despite efforts some viruses do not completely go out of existence; they resurface in mutated forms. When we were children we did not hear of “Jai Santoshi Mata”; now we have temples at every corner of the land dedicated to that goddess. Who did it? Evolution.
Thanks.
Nanda
http://ramblingnanda.blogspot.com
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Why must evolution be opposed to the idea of God?
I believe money would continue to exist without government backing. The people will find a way. And in any case, the government is people too.
Same for God. Think of a time when religion wasn’t organised. It came into being because people found a need for it.
A. N. Nanda
28 Aug 09 at 9:10 am
Evolution is the process–and an all-encompassing process at that–that creates by bits and pieces things that dovetail the needs of individuals, societies, in responses to their needs and whims and urges. Fear of unknown, the urge to explain by whatever means, the power of people to silence the non-believers–everything goes to create and maintain god. Sometimes inscrutability is the feature; the benefit of confusion goes to the one that has vested interest in creating confusion….
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
You are talking about what religion has become. I am talking about what it is, what it was meant to be originally.
A. N. Nanda
29 Aug 09 at 9:32 am
“I believe money would continue to exist without government backing. The people will find a way. And in any case, the government is people too.”
Does it not sound like state will wither away?
Thanks
Nanda
Vijayendra Mohanty Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
The state is people. People make up the state. So if people keep the concept of money going, how does the state wither away?
A. N. Nanda
29 Aug 09 at 10:04 am
No, you did not answer my first question. But if you don’t want, it’s up to you. It’s your blog after all.
As for the distinction between faith and trust, I have already said that the two are synonymous quite often, generally in informal contexts. But when you are discussing faith itself the distinction I pointed to needs to be realized. Faith is by definition not rational. In any case if you think trust and faith are one and the same, you may substitute “trust” with “rational beliefs” or “beliefs based on direct experience” in my original comment and answer my question.
I have left a rather long comment on you ‘how to believe’ post. You repeatedly mistake experiential knowledge for faith. Your mistaking everything for faith is due to the lack of depth in your analysis.
P
30 Aug 09 at 8:08 am
That’s a brilliant metaphor. Makes perfect sense to me.
“Money exists because we believe it does”. We all know money exists but we choose to believe it in the form of currency.
I love the way this relates with God.
Sue Gir
31 Aug 09 at 2:40 am
So money is God… =)
Stan
25 Dec 09 at 8:41 pm
And God (oh shi..!) is money
Stan
25 Dec 09 at 8:42 pm