Do you want God to exist?
God, whether He exists or not, is an all-pervasive influence in our lives. From sex to science, there isn't any domain of human experience that is exempt from the divine - call it benevolent regulation or vexing interference.
It's then amazing and bizarre to realize, if only given a moment of reflection, that God's existence is yet to be conclusively established. The situation can be likened to quarreling over what Santa would like us to wear for Christmas - the point being Santa's existence is still an unaswered question.
How do we explain this oddity?
There's something about God that impels us to abandon our rationality - it becomes an exception to the rule of evidence based worldviews. What is that something?
Arguments, refutations, counterarguments on God are aplenty. So much so that I suspect God is a boring topic for philosophers.
I don't want to start a debate on God. What I want is to explore another aspect of the God issue. Perhaps it has more to do with psychology than philosophy, I don't know but hear me out.
My question is:
Do you want God to exist? Why?
P.S. The God I'm referrig to is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God
It's then amazing and bizarre to realize, if only given a moment of reflection, that God's existence is yet to be conclusively established. The situation can be likened to quarreling over what Santa would like us to wear for Christmas - the point being Santa's existence is still an unaswered question.
How do we explain this oddity?
There's something about God that impels us to abandon our rationality - it becomes an exception to the rule of evidence based worldviews. What is that something?
Arguments, refutations, counterarguments on God are aplenty. So much so that I suspect God is a boring topic for philosophers.
I don't want to start a debate on God. What I want is to explore another aspect of the God issue. Perhaps it has more to do with psychology than philosophy, I don't know but hear me out.
My question is:
Do you want God to exist? Why?
P.S. The God I'm referrig to is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God
Comments (113)
Because, as you are no doubt aware, religionists keep bringing God up to back up whatever views they have with respect to some particular "domain of human experience". We might want god to exist (in whatever form we like) but, as far as we can tell, he does not exist.
Since God doesn't exist, and therefore plays no real role, his influence remains very plastic -- god can be shaped to any form needed--hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin.
Humans are the creators of the gods. Our gods have been given the necessary characteristics which keep them from showing up at inconvenient times in incontrovertible physical form to intervene in our wretched affairs. Like, they never show their face. They never come and chat with us face to face. They don't send e-mails. It is necessary for priests to interpret them (because otherwise, the gods would be complete non-entities.
We want god around to back us up. So, come on god, I need support on global warming, pollution, plastic in the oceans, over population, and the anti-religion program. I'd also like you to do away with postmodernists. I'm sure you'll get right on it.
That is debatable, especially the more specific and complex the particular conception of god that is being used. Theists may have evidence and reasons to back them up, and their opponents will have reasons to back their position up. Certain god concepts are just less likely to be true than others because they are less coherent, conflict with reality, and have no supporting evidence. Some god concepts are actually much better than others. The issue of "conclusion" in regards to god concepts is twofold: one, we cannot even agree what "God" is, and two, we are talking about a being who draws criticism by being so incomprehensible that is next to impossible even discuss in any meaningful way.
The reason that most people get irrational when discussing god concepts and related topics is that the parties involved have a lot of psychological baggage and investment into the subject. People who are ignostic, apathetic to the discussion, or possess a conception of god that really has no impact on their lives really do not really participate that much beyond fleeting curiosity. Most theists have belief systems that go beyond just the philosophical notion of the god of classical theism; people's whose entire lives are built around a particular god. Atheists (at least the ones who are active in the discussion) are usually ex-theists or people who have to deal with theists regularly: they have made specific life claims relating to certain gods, often in direct contest to their ex-god. As such, we have a recipe for a lot of angry and shouting people. The only thing that even compares is possibly politics. Though, I'm sure that some people have philosophical topics that they love or hate just as much as some people love or hate the philosophy of religion.
In Western culture, however, the situation is different. Because of the seminal influence of the Christian religion on Western history, the traditional wisdom of the various cultures from which it was formed - for example, Greek philosophy - was absorbed into Christian theology and philosophy. Christian belief became the catch-all for all kinds of ethical and cosmological ideas. For most of Western history, belief in God, along with all of the associated virtues and principles, was simply assumed to be the foundation of both nature and man.
That is why the so-called 'death of God' announced by Nietszche was such a profoundly revolutionary idea at the time. It was deeply shocking, even unthinkable, to many people, who felt that the world had been in some sense torn from its mooring by this development. As David Bentley Hart mused in his analysis (or post-mortem) of the 'new atheist' movement:
I think it is difficult to understand how deep that sense was, for many born in a secular age. For us, it's simply a matter of belief - the religious have beliefs, which we don't share, so the only real difference between the religious and us, is that they have beliefs, which we're unencumbered by.
However, from their viewpoint, that is a rather asymmetrical analysis. According to them, we're not unencumbered - we see things from a different kind of perspective, namely, that of scientific secularism, which functions as religion does for them, as a guide to what right-thinking folks ought to believe. However,
David Loy, Terror in the God-Shaped Hole: A Buddhist Perspective on Modernity's Identity Crisis.
So, whereas, for the religious, their worlview, conduct, outlook, attitudes and way of life are all part of what they see as a coherent whole, which is related to the very 'author of the Universe', for the scientific secularist, there is no such narrative or meaning, all of which can only ever be human or social projections on the backdrop of an essentially meaningless universe. If we are to find meaning in that, it is up to us, as Camus said in his novels, to devise it.
The reason why my whimsical want is irrelevant is that I am in a position of ignorance, ignorance of the form a universe with, or a universe without a God would take, etc etc. Also any choice someone makes in this pole is likely to on irrelevant, or naive premises.
Regarding philosophy, the existence of God is perhaps given to much weight due to the historical link between philosophy and theology. This is not because there is in some way less likelihood that a God exists than is suggested in philosophy, but rather in the accepted and engrained conceptual framework of a Christian God.
Personally I follow a mystical approach to philosophy, in which the existence of God is irrelevant. Although I suppose I would say on balance that I do regard that there is a spiritual reality with beings equating to gods present. But even here this is irrelevant for me as I am concerned with practice, service and living a fulling life in the world.
Decide, even if only in play-mode.
What I want to know is if you want God to exist and also your reason why you want God to exist or not.
This is relevant because the logic you offer may have implications on why some are theists and others theists.
[I]Obvisouly[/i] theism and atheism can't be explained in terms of rationality. It's like two people put in the exact same environment (our world) and one sees God and the other doesn't. Clearly the fault is not in logic. I want to know if perhaps desire has a role in this.
Additionally, the idea of there being no God can be quite confronting, particularly considering its implications - that there is no purpose in life, that there is nothing after death, that 'good' and 'evil' are only social contracts which serve no purpose other than to continue the survival of our species. That there is nothing that we can ever do in life which has any effect on anything rather than the physical world, which, ultimately, is meaningless.
This is why theism is such a ubiquitous and prevailing belief, and why it is so hotly contested. People who believe in a God don't want the security of its belief to be questioned and/or taken away, because it casts everything they value beyond the material world into doubt. Hence, to answer your question, the idea of a God can be considered of fundamental psychological importance to Humans.
Quoting TheMadFool
I agree with you 100%. Neither theism nor atheism can be considered more 'rational' than each other.
Linking to my previous post, you can say that both theists and atheists alike fiercely debate their beliefs as they provide the security from which they perceive the world. Psychologically and sociologically, everything we do is influenced by our beliefs and stigmas, including whether or not the existence of a God is included in our worldview.
In other words, belief in a God helps us determine our actions, as it is part of the inherent societal attitudes influencing our decisions.
God could not be 'something that exists' - because everything that exists has the possibility of not existing. Everything you can name has a beginning and an end in time, is composed of parts, and might not exist. So to say that the First Cause is something that exists, is already to misidentify what is being discussed; it is to reduce the First Cause to the 'flying spaghetti monster' or 'orbiting teapot' of atheist polemics. That is why the first step in any real contemplation of the question has to be the 'great unknowing'. It is something we really, deeply don't know.
Second, I certainly would like to think that existence is animated by purpose. I have never seriously entertained the idea that life is a fluke, a happenstance, but there are many who do; actually it is an important theme in 20th century literature, and the belief of many educated people. So, if 'believing that existence is animated by a purpose' means belief in God, then the answer is yes. But I remain agnostic, it's something that I know that I don't know.
Quoting Javants
Question for you - if you believe that is the case, why bother saying anything? Whatever you say must be like everything else - meaningless.
Since God is supposed to be immaterial, theists don't actually "see" God with their eyes. So I think the discretionary difference must be the result of some form of logic. Of course there must be some type of desire involved, as all choice requires motivating factors.
I don't think it's a question of logic. Why? Because, one thing we do know is that evidence for and against god is unavailable. The simple reason for this, upon even a superficial analysis, is that if the evidence was there, either for or against, one of the warring factions (theists, atheists) wouldn't exist. So, the issue isn't logic at all. What I suspect is that there's a desire/hope/abhorrence that determines which side you choose.
While I understand and sympathize with your viewpoint of two people disagreeing about a given topic is odd (one of my interests is the philosophy of peer disagreement), two people disagreeing, in and of itself, is not a problem. Think of the number of conspiracy theories, science denialism, and other positions that are clearly false. People who are otherwise rational and capable believe these things. You can be talking with someone who appears completely rational and who has track record of giving out good advice and judgement, and suddenly it turns out that they believe vaccines cause autism and such. Just because there are people who believe the world is run by the Illuminati or space lizards does not mean the positions on those topics are without logic, or that the positions are of equal epistemic value. Disagreement is par for the course.
As I said, religion is like politics: it is a deeply pervasive aspect of our reality and most people's lives. Because people have a lot of investment into their position, beliefs related to religion are they most prone to psychological barriers. Most people do not actually look into the subject with any intellectual rigor or even attempt to make an effort to question their ideas beyond the most basic and bare way, the intellectual equivalent of Google's old "I'm feeling lucky" button. Furthermore, both sides have reasons to doubt the other. Within the Christian perspective, there are Bible verses that indicate that people who deny God after understanding the topic are lying to themselves. I am sure you can find similiar passages in the Quran. On the flip side, some theists indicate that their faith takes precedence over reason; that when a philosophical line of thought conflicts with their already held positions, the line of thought must be in error.
Even if there is valid peer (two equals with the same evidence and capabilities) disagreement and we assume that it is not rationally possible to have one peer be justified while his disagreeing equal is wrong, the correct response would be for both sides to suspend judgement. In other words, if the theist-atheist divide cannot be resolved by known and valid epistemic means, the correct response is agnosticism on all parties involved.
And yet they ignore this perfectly reasonable option and become theists and atheists. What is the cause of this? Are theists a cowardly bunch afraid of death or are they idealistic dreamers with a poor grasp on reality? Are atheists fiercely independent thinkers or do they hate what god has to say about their, say, sexual preferences?
What is the root cause of atheism/theism?
But do you want God to exist? Why?
I don't believe in Santa yet, for the sake of children around the world who think he's real, I'd want him to exist.
Theists may believe in Satan but, for the sake of all who may be harmed by Satan, don't want the devil to exist.
Logic doesn't operate on evidence though, it operates on rules. Adhering to rules produces a logical conclusion. Logical conclusions may be used as evidence.
Quoting TheMadFool
Whether a given occurrence is evidence for, or evidence against, a particular proposition depends on how one interprets the occurrence. We interpret according to rules, and this is a use of logic. So whether a given occurrence is evidence for, or evidence against, depends on what logic one uses. There is lots of evidence for both sides, but that is because each interprets existence in different ways. Therefore each side is supported by different logic.
Quoting TheMadFool
Of course it is true that our logic is greatly influenced by what we desire, because we use logic to determine the means for obtaining what we desire. But the thing desired is often far removed from the logical conclusion, the decision. So for example, if I decide to take the bus to work instead of driving, this could be for many different reasons, perhaps I want to do some reading on the bus. The reason why I decide to take the bus represents the desire (to read), but the choice (to take the bus), is not very closely related to the desire. Likewise there would be a reason why one would choose to be theist or atheist, and this would be related to some desire, but it's probably not very closely related to that choice itself. Therefore I think the question of whether or not one desires for God to exists is a rather irrelevant question, for the purposes you've expressed.
So you are referring to the Laws of Nature?
I have no idea how one does this.
I believe what you are saying is that you disagree with a point of view and in order to gain some perceived advantage (among those who perceive some superiority of the so-called rational whatever that might be) for your perspective you label the opposing view as irrational. Would this be a valid way at looking at your statement?
There are two antagonistic views on God, to wit theism and atheism. Why? Each contradicts the other. That there's such a situation can only mean the arguments from both sides aren't conclusive. The rational thing is then to be agnostic. However, there are theists and atheists engaging in endless debates. Surely, it isn't logic that drives them to hold such strong views. I think there's something else and that is what I want to find out.
If you are saying that there are outside forces that are entirely deciding our direction in life (i.e.we have no say in what the direction we would like to take), whether they be called God or Laws of Nature,
then you are asking the question:
"Do you want God or Laws of Nature to exist? Would that be your question?
First, I never said that the only rational option was to embrace agnosticism. There are different positions within peer disagreement, and only some of the stronger conciliatory views (when faced with peer disagreement, the correction option is to suspend judgement or somehow meet in the middle, so to speak) require us to abandon our beliefs. Everyone has a different life, and from the viewpoint of specific person, it may be epistemically justified to hold a position. People can be justified in believing false ideas, depending on their circumstances. Even when it comes to equal peers who have studied the issue, there is one notion to keep in mind: good epistemic reasons may not be convincing epistemic reasons. Telling the conspiracy theorist who thinks the world is run by space lizards that their ideas have no good evidence behind them will probably not convince the person, but the criticism is still valid. People, even the best of us, make mistakes in their judgement. As such, there may be situations where one peer is right and knows the opposing peer is in error, but the evidence against the opposing peer will not convince them. Telling a person that their argument for or against the existence of a particular god is based more in psychological and emotional appeal, and not so much in logic, evidence, and reason, will probably not be very convincing to the person, even if that person is highly intelligent and otherwise might be good at philosophy.
Second, you are effectively asking the question: "why do certain people believe what they believe?" We would be broadbrushing atheists and theists if we said their reasons for belief were x,y, and z. People hold various beliefs for a variety of reasons. The reasoning of one theist can be vastly different from another theist. One atheist may put stock into the problem of evil, while another atheist thinks the problem of evil is not a problem at all, but thinks of god concepts as being empty and without actual support. Some might believe on purely psychological reasons, while others may have arguments that have convinced them to believe their position. To me, the question is like asking: why do some people support Republican policies while others support Democratic policies? The reasons are so varied that the answer is: the same reasons people believe a bunch of different things.
Yes, I want God to exist, but with a lot of ambivalence about which God. The omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-everything-else God? God without one, two, three, or more omni-features? God the Son? A suffering God? A questing God? God coterminous with the universe, or a limited God? A powerless God? God the Holy Ghost? God who exists in all things or a God who doesn't exist in all things? Like that supernova over there?
The God I find most believable is the one who is not all-controlling, everywhere, all the time; the God that is appalled by our appalling actions, but does not -- may not be able to -- intervene; the God who may, perhaps, perceive us, but is not--perhaps can not--be perceived. God as witness, not God as the ultimate actor. I prefer a God without Heaven in which to reside--a perpetually itinerate God; homeless, as it were.
All this is, of course, in reaction to the hyper-active God I was introduced to a long time ago, and took as granted for quite a long time--like most people do. The God who was/is infinitely opinionated, extremely judgmental, has no boundaries, no limitations, and no ambiguity. The God who is involved in absolutely everything all the time everywhere. The Great and Powerful Oz God. Immortal, Invincible, First and and Last Mover, etc.
To your question on whether I would like God to exist or not (and I'm sure that some other agnostic/atheist might agree as well), I would have to say that it would be dependent on whether his/her/it's existence would be of any use to us.
I know that WE are supposed to serve him or some 'higher' calling but since we have been left in a deterministic/Machiavellian world where sometimes might seems to makes right and living beings often have to consume each other to survive, I hope that this 'God' would understand our questioning on whether his existence would be of any use.
Don't get me wrong in that if he is Mr. Super nice guy and is willing and able to shower us all with kittens and puppies and such (as some people say he is) then of course it is unlikely that his existence to be a problem. However we are also talking about a being that is supposedly willing to kill people (and possibly destroy entire worlds) at the drop of a hat. And although 'God' is supposedly good, the bible talks about he being good because he is all powerful and the creator of things, but on the other hand the creator/owner of all things can use and abuse his creation and subjects as he pleases. I may be wrong but being ruled by a God that is a tyrant may not be any better than ruled by human tyrants and could possibly be worse.
I think the problem isn't whether there is a 'God' but more if there is even a 'good' anywhere in the entire process of everything. We have a society that demands that we sacrifice the better part of ourselves so that very few of us can live in comfort and possibly sometime in the distant future 'humanity' can afford a better life for the rest of us; along with the opportunity for us to have a better understanding of our world as well. But is there any really anything 'good' beyond that?
The human race doesn't necessarily need 'God' to save us, but we need the proper tools to get us beyond the current limitations we are stuck in and beyond being condemn to spending our brief existence pushing rocks up hills and eggs with our nose. Maybe certain religions are right in that we deserve no better because of our 'sin' but then again maybe religion merely exists as a means for some people to find a way for them to find a a way to accept that their entire existence is merely meant as a way to provide more meat for the machine. And if 'God' can't understand or empathize with this predicament we are in (whether by his will or some other), then he/she it isn't a 'God' at all.
Quoting Wayfarer
I believe in a God, and am not an atheist. In that scenario, I was trying to point out that, for a theist, discovering that there is actually no God would be confronting - we would be forced to realise that nothing has meaning (if that were the case, which I don't believe it to be). The same would be true for Atheists, although to a lesser extent, because it would mean things that they would realise certain things they have done in their life may be detrimental to them in the afterlife (depending on the God that is revealed to be real).
I personally want there to be a God, one which is benevolent and allows for semi-determinism. By this, I mean that God dictates certain key events which are to happen in my life no matter what (they are determined), however, all other actions, minor events, and my responses to those actions are made by free will. In other words, I exist in a world of semi-free will.
I want there to be a God so that there can be meaning and purpose in my life - so that I can realise that there are things I can serve on Earth greater than society or myself, that I may meet those who I love once again after death, and that there is a grand scheme of things. I know this may be quite naïve, but then again, so are all beliefs about the existence (or non-existence) of God. After all, we don't even know if God exists, let alone what his personality would be like.
Fair enough, that's pretty close to what I said also, but it was hard to tell the intention from the way it was written.
--
I have a put in a word for Indian spirituality at this point. Like a lot of other people of my generation - grew up in the 50's and 60's - I got interested in Hindu spirituality when the Beatles discovered Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
Among other things, this story gave rise to worldwide interest in Eastern religions. The key point about their teaching was that it was about realising God - not believing in God. And they're different things.
The God-realised being - Ramana Maharishi, another Indian sage, died 1960, was the archetype - realises that only God is real, and says that the apparent world of multiplicity and strife is actually m?y?, an illusion, with which the mind has become entanged through avidya, ignorance. (Although, this is a rather different 'God' [if there can be different Gods] to the stern patriarchal figure of the Old Testament - the Hindu name is Brahman.)
It would be impossible to summarise or convey the teachings of Ramana Maharishi in forum posts, but there's an introduction here. Ramana was portrayed in W Somerset Maugham's novel The Razor's Edge and his hermitage at Arunachala in South India has since become a global pilgrimage centre on the 'guru trail'.
The 60's also saw the establishment of numerous Buddhist teaching centers in US and the rest of the Western world, partially due to the 'Tibetan diaspora' which had resulted from the Chinese invasion of Tibet.
The key point about all the Eastern teachings is about 'experiential spirituality' - it's no longer just a matter of believing, but of cultivating the capacity for spiritual experience through meditation.
First tell me exactly what you mean by "God". For example, the God of the Torah, of the Gospels, of the mystics, Spinoza's God? Or something else?
Then tell me exactly what you mean by "exist".
Ok, what about if you found out that there was no God and no afterlife and no nothing else. Do you believe such a situation would be as comforting as this other situation you are describing?
You are mere mortals, right?
I met God once, and I couldn't cope. So for the moment I prefer to manage without.
The desire for some type of god concept requires that we put some value into it. In order for us to desire the good, the good has to be desirable. I was reading Bertrand Russell a few days ago and, while discussing relationships and love, described the following scenario:
You are on a boat near the coast during a sunny day. You appreciate the beauty of the coast and enjoy the pleasure you derive out of the view. As such, you desire the coast. This is one part of love. However, if the boat hits the rock in rough waters and you find yourself in the ocean, your desire for the coast becomes something different. The coast now becomes an object of desire of an entirely different nature: safety. The previous desire and appreciation for the coast is now entirely gone, now only concerned with what the coast can offer us: relief from fear and the knowledge of safety.
When we desire certain things, like a friend or a partner, we can desire both of these aspects (practically all relationships have them), but the one built primarily on safety seems problematic. Imagine that I have no friends and I desire a friend. The question to ask is: when I am looking for a friend, am I searching for someone to "protect" (validate) me or am I finding someone whose personality and company I enjoy? In other words, do I actually want a friend, a unique individual whom I relate to, or do I want someone to entertain me, comfort me whenever I feel down, and effectively serve as an echo chamber for my thoughts and ideas?
I turn this notion to God. Do I want God to exist? I do not know. On one hand, I want certain things that a god concept traditionally offers (of course, logically speaking, most of these things do not automatically follow from the philosophical conception of the classical theistic god, but that is beside the point). So, in a sense, I want God to exist. But do I really want God to exist, or I am I just projecting a being that serves my desires? Immortality? Inner peace? Purpose on a cosmic scale? Alleviation of guilt? The notion that everything will turn out alright in the end, no matter how bad it gets? A permanent and always present being who is always there so I am never alone? I get all of this and more from theism. This is nice, but perhaps too nice- nice in the way it would be nice if everyone loved me, entertained me, knew how great I was, and had their lives revolve around my own. It is the desire to be coddled. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this desire and being coddled from time to time is probably important to us, being coddled constantly seems off to me.
My argument, if at all it is one, is that the rational thing to do is be agnostic about God. The obvious existence of theism and atheism goes to show that the arguments from both sides are not convincing enough. Yet people affirm/deny God with a certainty that isn't justified. What could cause this? I have a hunch that it has something to do with wishful thinking. That's why I made the poll to see, divesting the logical aspects of the issue, how people feel about God; what are their hopes or fears.
For the present moment all I want to know is your desire vis-a-vis god's existence. This god is the creator of the universe and all that it contains - it is the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god of religion.
Would you say the same of those who appeal to the Laws of Nature.
Agnosticism, as far as I can tell, is equivalent to doubt. Should there be equivalent doubt about the Laws of Nature? Are those who are convinced that they exist/do not exist acting irrationally?
That is my point. Some of us want God to exist. The reasons may differ from individual to individual. Isn't this the real picture of theism? Atheism too can be understood this way e.g. a gay person would dislike being divinely condemned and so s/he becomes an atheist.
Perhaps that is how you would like it to be. X-)
It's about loss, possibility and how that interacts with our own self-image.
Arguments about the fear of death, for example, don't get to the heart of the question. Many atheists are afraid of death too. No doubt many atheists would love to have an afterlife, even if they believe no such event will occur.
The difference is the atheist can accept a world where they might lose. Life doesn't become unbearable if it's possible (even likely) if they encounter loss.
For the theist, the opposite is true. To them loss is incomprehensible, to a point where they cannot function unless it's very possibly is eliminated. For life to be meaningful and worthwhile, they cannot loss (e.g. there must be an afterlife) and the world must be just (e.g. God enacts a final judgment, so good people get rewarded and bad people don't get away with it), so they form beliefs and actions which take away the possibility of such loss-- hence the must believe, for it will mean being saved from loss and meaninglessness.
I guess the salient question is not so much about God, but would be better framed as 'would you prefer the world was human-shaped through and through'? If the world is not human-shaped through and through would that make it seem meaningless to you?
Then we can ask of other religions: is the world human shaped through and through for them?
Also if God exists there is a purpose and goal towards which people are moving(as opposed to Nietzsche's vision of the death of God). If God doesn't exist that same purpose and goal is going to be constructive anyway and will result in a better life for people (and the biosphere) in the future. Although people will cease to exist upon death (perhaps), they will have had a constructive enjoyable experience before they die.
So you do wish for that other something - there's a hope for a better(?) world. Perhaps this fuels the desire to wish God into existence even if it means in your very personal terms. Do you think that all theists undergo your kind of reasoning? There's that other something that makes them believe in God?
I don't think that question has much to do with it. The world is human shaped (humans are part of it) and not human shaped (other parts of it are not human). Moreover, we don't get one without the others-- I am never the whole world.
To merely be human shaped would take away everything around me that defines life, whether we are talking my current life or a future afterlife-- our lives and florush are defined by what is NOT us as much as it is by us.
The whole question of being human shaped or not and "the problem of meaning" are incohrent, red herrings introduced by ignorance of oneself and the world.
It's what happens when people try to reduce life to the infinte or eternity, to deny possibilities of the world and reduce reality or life to a single image of desire (e.g. eternal life, justice, purpose, etc. )
Regardless of religion, mystic tradition, politics or ideology, this is true. The "saviour" claim of any of them is just a comforting myth (in the case of loss) or hierarchal bullshit (to cause people to take up one idea rather than another).
The laws of nature are significantly different from the OOO god of religion. The former have been fomalized mathematically and are used to make correct predictions on a daily basis - thereby vindicating themselves. Even then scientists continue to remain watchful for that one instance that may overturn a law of nature.
Clearly the OOO god hasn't yet reached that level of veracity/falsity and so the wiser it is to doubt any positive/negative claims about the OOO God.
Yes and people differ in opinion on that. The end result? Theism for those who think god is useful and atheism for those who think otherwise.
Yes and people differ in opinion on that. The end result? Theism for those who think god is useful and atheism for those who think otherwise. This is over simplistic. I think a God is useful, but I don't believe in God. Although perhaps I think God is useful as opposed to the alternative, no God. For I don't know what a world with no God looks like.
That doesn't wash because atheists have plenty of hopes and fears too.Yet, they are not compelled to be theists. The possiblity of death and fear of loss doesn't tip the scales to theism for them.
Insofar as theism is a manifestation of hope or fear, it's more specific than the presence of such a emotion or expectation. It a sort of negatively termed approach to hope-- that there is no hope in the absence of God.
To say theism is "useful" is more the argument of an atheist-- where theistic belief is registered as a balm for the world (e.g. giving hope to those who can't find it without God, building cultures, giving a moral framework to a society, etc. ).
For the theist, their belief is more than useful. It's an insight, a form of knowledge, understanding and experience, to how existence works and why.
Yes I understand. What is most important here is the unverified nature of the god issue - we don't know if god exists or not. So, rationally, we should all be agnostic - uncommitted on the matter.
However, we have theists and atheists. They've made a decision on the god issue. What makes them take the leap from doubt (the rational position) to certainty (theism/atheism)? Just as say, fear makes a theist, hate or something else makes an atheist.
I am not claiming the world is human-shaped. I am asking whether people want the world to be human-shaped . The world is human shaped under the Judaeo-Christian conception. The world was created for humanity and when humanity fell the world fell too, according to this vision.
Your answer that the world is both human-shaped and not human-shaped is irrelevant, because the question is whether those who embrace traditional theism are doing so because they want the world to be human-shaped through and through. It would avoid a lot of wasted time and effort if you read thoroughly before responding. :-}
This is where your ideas run into some problems. With cognitive dissonance, we know that people do not like conflicting ideas and seek to somehow resolve internal mental conflicts. However, the odd thing is that people take the path of least psychological resistence, which is why cognitive dissonance is associated with people in cult-like environments clearly ignoring obvious facts that falsify their beliefs.
As such, if theism and atheism were purely about emotional reasons, you should not encounter a lot of atheists who said the once believed in a god but really wish their god exists. For example, the gay person who believes theism faces a conflict:
1) I like God, and wish to continue following God.
2) I am gay and wish to have romantic relationships.
3) God condemns being actively gay.
One of these beliefs has to go in order to eliminate cognitive dissonance. The least intrusive one is eliminating 3). There is nothing in theism that states being gay is wrong; this is just an aspect of major religions, but this can be dismissed much in the same way the treatment of gender can be dismissed, and no one has to follow these religions to be a theist. The person gets all the spiritual benefits and can express their romantic and sexual desires.
This, of course, does happen, but it is not as prevenlant as you would need in order to reduce the question of theism to pure desire and emotion. Again, the reasons for any belief are much more complex and vary from person to person. We can talk about mechanisms that people share and reasons people give, but saying, "The belief in proposition x is explained fully by reason y," is faulty.
Well, my logic is simple.
There are two parties engaged in debate - theists and atheists. As fate would have it they both inhabit the same world. Yet, they come to antipodal conclusions. In a way, pitifully, their simulataneous existence is sufficient proof that both sides have got it wrong - they simply can't convince each other even when they throw their very best arguments at each other. Am I then mistaken in concluding that there's something else that's driving people into theism and atheism?
I'm not asserting that it's only fear and hope that is this something else - that which tips the balance of judgment in favor of or against god. Whatever this something else is, it eventually translates to desire, a desire for god to exist or not, as the case may be.
As you defined God, it is exactly equivalent to the Laws of Nature, both of which are concepts and beliefs with no proof, and are used in an equivalent manner, i.e. am omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient force that is guiding everything in the Universe
.
As far as I can tell, God and Laws of Nature are used in equivalent manner by two separate groups who claim certainty. Either they are both acting rationally or they are both acting irrationally as per your question. The appeal to an outside, guiding force that is guiding everything is exactly equivalent.
There are two parties engaged in debate - believers in space lizards and disbelievers . As fate would have it they both inhabit the same world. Yet, they come to antipodal conclusions. In a way, pitifully, their simulataneous existence is sufficient proof that both sides have got it wrong - they simply can't convince each other even when they throw their very best arguments at each other. Am I then mistaken in concluding that there's something else that's driving people into pro-space lizard and anti-space lizard?
Obviously, it does not follow from mere disagreement that both sides ought to embrace agnosticism. Again, good reasons for belief may not be convincing reasons for belief. Also, I agree that there is more going on than fear and pure logic when it comes to theism and atheism. I disagree that it all comes down to desire. This clearly is not the case, as you would not find atheists who wished theism is true otherwise.
I'm not sure if I catch your drift. [I]Laws of Nature[/i] per se lack that essential feature of a god-being to wit consciousness.
Anyway - God or no God - faced with the prospect of being buried once, I personally want dug up again! :) - Do I want it to be the case that consciousness is not ultimately material in origin and that the brain is merely the agent by which we presently experience this three dimensional time-continuom such that thereby, at least in principle, there exists the possibility that we could succeed further to experience a constructive existence? Unappoligetically - Yes absolutely!
In practice, I like personally the idea that we are all individually part of some, 'Universal soup' - ultimately destined to evolve into this 'God-thingy' of which then we will each be an indivisible element!
Answer me this:
1. If you believe in god what evidence do you have?
2. If you don't believe in god what evidence do you have?
I'm near certain your argument will fall to pieces under scrutiny - simply submit it to the opposing party.
What are we to make of this? Surely it must mean that god has neither been proved nor disproved. This path naturally leads to agnosticism, which I affirm is the most reasonable position on god.
Quoting Chany
Well, if rational inquiry fails to establish god's existence/nonexistence then that, at the risk of repetition, precludes any form or shape of reason playing a part in the minds of theism and atheism. What else is there other than simple desire that makes the theist believe and the atheist disbelieve?
This is true if "man was made in the image of God'. But then if the image of the human is the image of God, then in a symmetrical sense the image of God is the image of the human. And if the world is the expression of God, and God is the image of the human, the world is also human-shaped. In Heidegger's quite different sense the world is human-shaped, because without the human there is no world (animals are "world-poor" according to Heidegger). At the very least we might feel justified in saying that the world appears in its most comprehensive expression in human experience.
Spinoza's view of God is like the Buddhist vision, non-teleological; in both there is no ultimate overarching purpose; no culmination in an "end of days" or "end of history". I think what you suggest about the human imagination is on the right track. Even Spinoza, for all his rationalism, allows that the human imagination can "feign" in order to gain a richer understanding. Fiction has a profoundly important place in human life. There can be no rigid demarcation between human faculties.
"Rational enquiry" is the exercise, practiced consistently, of teasing out the concomitants of the premises that are implicit in our understanding of our own experience. Of course there are alternative understandings. They have evolved out of the range of what it is possible for us to imagine. The fundamental set of alternative understandings are bedrock; they are the assumptions upon which rational enquiry is enabled to proceed. No rational enquiry can exist without its foundation of presuppositions. The presuppositions cannot themselves be justified by rational enquiry. They are justified only insofar as they are what we can consistently, that is without contradiction, imagine. It really does come down to a matter of taste or need.
I do not need to discuss my views on the question of theism, as my ideas on the subject are irrelevant to the truth of yours.
I have presented an analogy to explain why disagreement that cannot be resolved does not automatically entail that one side of the party is unjustified in their belief. I have explained that not all good reasons for belief are convincing reasons. I have explained why the idea of desire is not sufficient to explain the theist-atheist divide. The notion of atheists who desire some type of god seems to fly in the face of this idea, especially given the known psychological mechanisms would seek to eliminate the weakest and least important belief to psychological coherence- in this case, whatever irks them about God. This does not discuss intuition, faith, religious experience, being justified in false beliefs, believing things for bad reasons, and a bunch of other factors. Desire alone does not cut it; a detailed explanation of the psychological nature of belief formation would do it, but that is pretty much true of any belief formation. Simply put, the reasons for belief in God or lack thereof need to be taken are extremely varied; any attempt to put it down to a single issue or cause will be as faulty as trying to put down a single cause for the responses to, "Why do I like or not like New York City."
That is the point. For those who use the term to explain the outside force thanks governs everything it exactly equivalent, in every way that you describe.
Do you think calling it a Law vs. God changes anything other than spelling? Do you think someone believing in Genesis is any more irrational or rational than someone believing in the Big Bang?
Remember I'm speaking of the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent (OOO-god). The OOO-god is conscious while the laws of nature is not.
Quoting Rich
I don't see the relevance.
Well, at least, it boils down to personal preference.
Exactly
As does everything. That is called 'relativism'. There are some people who really like it, and others who don't, of course. Who's to say? Seems to have been a long road to a trivial conclusion.
Actually I was thinking of the cosmogenesis when there is no God. Is it turtles all the way down? It appears to be entirely without foundation. If there is no God, where is meaning, is everything meaningless, purposeless?
At least when I think of a cosmogenesis with God it is all explained and makes perfect sense.
So, we should all shake hands and become agnostics.
That's why I mentioned Buddhism in my first response. As you no doubt are aware, the Buddha 'put to one side' such questions about whether the Universe has a beginning or not (there were 10 such 'undecided' questions, in all.) So in that sense Buddhism has stayed outside the whole argument about whether or not the Universe has a supernatural origin. The Buddha starts with 'the fact of suffering and its causes', and proceeds to show the causes of that, in non-theistic terms. In other words, Buddhism doesn't tie the question of meaning to the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods.
But as I said, in the West it's different, because so much of the traditional wisdom of the culture has become bound up with belief in God. So the effect of that has been that the 'secularisation of culture' has undermined traditional belief systems, insofar as they're based on premisses which the scientifically-educated are now expected not to believe.
(Or so they say. I think overall, some of the Catholic philosophers of science - I'm thinking of Robert J Spitzer, Stanley Jaki, and others of that ilk - actually make a very compelling case for the harmonising of science and religious beliefs. But then, as I'm not atheist, I'm inclined to be sympathetic to such arguments.)
Yes I agree about fiction. An example I use is regarding belief in magic, if everyone believes in it, it will happen. I have heard opinions that in ancient India, when it was fully accepted and believed that magic was real. That it did happen and was a part of life. Indeed, I suspect it does still happen, in places where the tradition is still alive. I think I have been a witness to such things myself.
Do you honestly think that people's religious beliefs are motivated by reason?
I think there are actually (at least) three conceptions of 'God' vis a vis human experience and thought.
First there is the God of organized popular religions. God is represented differently in different religions, and belief in God is not in this context, I would argue, generally determined by reason.
Secondly there is the conception of God which is exemplified best, I think, in the philosophy of Spinoza. This is a purely rational God; God as fist cause, God as substance, God as nature, and so on. For example,when we think about the idea of existence, about what kinds of existent entities we can think of, the two possibilities are entities which are caused by others and dependent on something other than themselves for their existence and entities which are self-caused. There are entities whose essence does not logically involve existence (logically they might not have existed) and there are entities whose essence involves existence, there are finite, temporal entities and there are in-finite, eternal entities and so on. All this is thinking about God in apophatic terms, as the negation or obverse counterpart of the entities we are familiar with. Such a God is not so much believed in as it is thought.
Thirdly, there is the God of the mystics; the God of intellectual intuition and/or mystical experience. Here it is a matter of direct experience or knowing, and not of belief. But the interesting thing here is that what is intellectually intuited or directly mystically known is not pure; it is culturally mediated. Here it is not so much a matter of belief, but of culture, as to how intuitions and experiences are interpreted. And this kind of intuition and experience can exist outside the context of theism, as it does, for example in Buddhism, and forms of Shamanism.
I think the idea of God this OP is attempting to address is the first, and I think belief, in this context, is not predominately determined by purely rational thought, but rather than by convention, emotional need and in general by psychological, rather than logical, influences.
The OP stated the god concept they were discussing was the god of classical theism: your omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent variety. This definitely falls under the second category, though most of its defenders fall into the first category.
Karen Armstrong's book History of God (1), which came out in the early 80's, was really good on this.
In Christianity there is a tension between the rationalist element in religion, which arose from Greek-speaking theologians who brought together Platonism and Christianity - Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and many others. But there is also an anti-mystical strain in Christian history - I think the modern evangelicals, many Protestants, and nominalists, tend to be anti-Platonist.
But, Platonic mysticism is very much the religion of the intellectual elite, so in general terms, I agree with you.
Quoting John
I'm not sure about that. It's a topic in religious studies, called the Katz-Forman Debate (2), or the context-decontextualisation debate. Robert Katz is the proponent for 'contextualism', i.e. mystical experiences are culturally mediated, there is no 'pure experience'. His opponents, such as Robert Forman, say that a certain class of mystical experience and process are represented in diverse traditions, so is universal or perennial.
I see the 'contextualist' claim as basically reductionist, because it's trying to say that all experience is conditioned, the product of education, history, culture, and so on, which undercuts the idea of a 'realisation of the absolute'. Because of my background which was influenced by theosophy and perennialism, I tend to favour the 'de-contextualists'. But it's another of those arguments that can never be decisively concluded.
I gave up Spinoza decades ago. I read The Courtier and the Heretic, about Liebniz and Spinoza, a few years back, and I must confess that I hardly recall it. It's all too intellectually dense for me, I'm trying to relate to it on a more visceral level, if you know what I mean. (Incidentally if you're interested in that book, PM me and I'll mail it - if you like Spinoza, I'm sure you'd find it fascinating.)
That's interesting, I haven't heard of that debate before; but I guess it would be an inevitable topic in religious studies. There seems to be really two questions here: firstly, is the experience, as such, culturally mediated, and secondly, regardless of what the answer to the first question might be, is the interpretation of the experience culturally mediated.
In relation to the first I suppose I would ask whether such an experience would be possible for a human that had never been enculturated at all. And the next question might be as to what a mystical experience, or any experience for that matter, could be thought to be absent any conceptual content at all. And then what could we possibly say about a mystical experience without introducing conceptual content; that seems to be the problem.
I think the tension is between the idea of the "absolute" and being a living human. One cannot escape being culturally or environmentally mediated. It's not a question of whether any instance of experience is specifically caused by culture, but more than one is inseperable from their own history.
Even in a pure moment of inspiration, I am still a result of the states which came before me. Without them, I would not be as I am. Not because in a different set of circumstances somoeone couldn't result in a similar experience of inspiration, but rather due to the such a person would not be me.
Whatever knowledge or experience I have, it cannot help be be culturally or environmentally mediated because I cannot be without my past.
I think it is arguable that the omniscient and omnibenevolent attributes cannot be derived from pure reason. 'God as nature' seems to be perhaps the maximum purely rational derivation. I mean nature is, considered as the totality of all that is, is, by definition, all-powerful, because there are no powers that could be outside it (of course this doesn't mean that nature could 'do whatever it wants', because there is no purely rational warrant to believe that it could "want" anything). And there is no purely rational warrant for believing that nature or God, is all-knowing (at least in the sense of knowing absolutely every detail about everything) or all-good (at least in the sense of being motivated by the good).
I think the conclusion is that there is no purely rational warrant for believing that God or nature, has agency, in the sense of being able to 'make up its/his mind' about anything, being affected by anything, or desiring anything. In fact, if anything, purely rational thought about it seems to point to the opposite conclusion. But then the problem is that attempting to determine the nature of God by purely rational means may be to objectify God, just as the attempt to determine the nature of the human by purely rational means may be to objectify the human. And objectification of the human seems to inevitably leave out all that is really important in the very idea of humanity. Perhaps the same is true of God.
I noted when I did my thesis work on this subject, that 'experience' is a transitive verb - 'I experience it'. So there is an implicit dualism in that, which is part and parcel of consciousness itself. So, when mystics go into higher states, that sense of 'otherness' is precisely what is suspended - and with it, normal consciousness. That is behind the idea of the 'states of Dhyana' that are found in early Buddhist and Yoga texts. You also find that in references to the 'merging of the knower with the known'. (There were many such passages in Krishnamurti's Notebook, and there is also an explicit analysis of this in Buddhist philosophy, especially Yog?c?ra. But you don't find it in Western philosophy.)
There are many qualifications around this, however. The idea of complete 'loss of personal identity' in neoplatonist philosophy was referred to as 'henosis'. However later Christianity rejected that idea as being too 'oriental' and instead insists that the 'divine union' the person is still in some sense preserved.
I think my only point would be that the characteristic expression: 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God' (Matt 5:8) at least has a counterpart in the various other religious traditions. Whether that means that they're all the same experience is another question; I argued that in some sense, it's an impertinent question, because for an actual practitioner, they're only ever going to know one way, which is the way they have travelled.
The fact that it is arguable and that no one can agree on whether God exists or not is the basis of the OP's point. For example, if one of the ontological arguments work, it would show that such a being does exist.
I would also like to point out that this entire argument has a great deal to do with epistemology. For example, if Alvin Plantiga is right about his epistemology, then the common religious experience of God is properly basic belief, and, by extension, God is based in properly basic belief and is justified for the faithful. Other epistemologies would label a god concept without positive warrant to be, at best, irrelevant, and, at worst, effectively shown to be false.
What would it mean for an ontological argument to work? You seem to be saying that ontological arguments don't work. If so, on what grounds do you claim that?
Regarding what you said about Plantinga; the problem with personal religious experiences would seem to be that they cannot be intersubjectively corroborated; so I can't see how they could be "properly basic" to epistemology. If I had an experience of God that was so powerful that it left me with absolutely no doubt the He is real, then I think that would be a superlative reason for me to believe, but would my experience provide you with any justification for belief?
The same way any other argument works: the premises are all true and the conclusion follows from the premises. If one of the premises is highly questionable or the argument is invalid, then the argument fails.
There is no reason that "properly basic" beliefs have to be intersubjectively corroborated. I would say that perception is often "properly basic" to epistemology- if you cannot defend perception in any meaningful way as having any connection to reality, then the major thrust and purpose of epistemology is lost. At best, you might be able to get away with some general "armchair thinking" stuff, but that remains a dubious point. By the very nature of perception, it is subjective. This goes back to my point: not all good epistemic reasons are convincing reasons. My perceptions of me not committing a murder are good epistemic reasons for me to say, "I did not commit this murder," even if I acknowledge that, from a third-person perspective, the evidence looks like I committed the murder. Even if a jury would most likely convict me in a court of law based on the evidence, I would still be justified in believing that I did not convict the murder, all else being equal.
You can determine whether the argument is consistent but how would you determine whether the premises are true, much less prove that they are?
You appear to cut off in your post, but I think you are asking: how could we support and/or prove the premises or show the premises to be false? Well, that depends on the particular argument. Do you honestly want to go through them all?
The original point of bringing up the ontological argument is that we argue over them, but their soundness and validity would indicate the god of classical theism is real, as their entire point is to show the god of classical theism exists a priori. In other words, we can possibly use reason alone to show the god of classical theism exists.
The point is that the truth or falsity of premises cannot be demonstrated by the argument that consists of them, but must be established some other way, by some other argument for example. Since any other argument will have its own premises that will need a further argument to justify them, and so on ad infinitum, the only other way I can think of is to empirically demonstrate, but this is not applicable with the kinds of arguments we are discussing. If you want to bring in plausibility, well, that is a matter of opinion and /or fashion. So where does that leave us?
I would point out though, which is probably covered by your use of the word Shamanism, that the contextual mediation does not have to be human in nature, but can be via another kingdom of nature, some other living arena within the biosphere. This is an important avenue for me, in which I commune with animals and plants, an approach which makes it easier to step outside the psychological baggage of humanity. For example in the life of St Francis.
* I am specifically referring here to the personality of the mystic, as a distinct aspect of the self. It is the mediated self, which is socially and culturally conditioned and itself acts as mediator between the mind and the being.
For me in my mystical practice I make a clear and important distinction between the different aspects of the self and work with and between(including their synthesis) them.
There is the soul, the mind, the personality, the being and the body. These are all distinct constituent parts of the self, with a presence within their own sphere of experience and dwelling.
Thanks for your interesting explanation Punshhh. I too have always been drawn to the natural world. the world of animals and plants. You might find these two books interesting and inspiring: I certainly did:
The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World
https://www.amazon.com/Spell-Sensuous-Perception-Language-More-Than-Human/dp/0679776397/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490995258&sr=8-1&keywords=david+abrams
Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology
https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Animal-Cosmology-David-Abram/dp/0375713697/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1490995258&sr=8-2&keywords=david+abrams
Unfortunately it's not that easy because I think the "existential angst" is an inevitable part of being a human animal. Sometimes I think the more troublesome aspect of being human, and one that can (and should) be left behind is the angst about the angst; or the guilt that is felt simply in virtue of being a human interacting with other humans. I think this latter is definitely socially inculcated; it is what Sartre refers to with his "Hell is other people", and in a way getting beyond that is the very point of being a natural human, of "becoming animal".
But, becoming animal cannot be an excuse for leaving ethics and moral considerations behind, and this is a very fine and subtle line to walk; and easily misunderstood, I think.
Also within the personal development of the individual there is a crisis of maturity, in which through experience the individual becomes a mature adult, with moral and ethical principles.
Thanks for the links to the books, they do look interesting. I do already speak meow and have a close affinity with and do commune(icate) with mammals and birds in particular. My perspective tends to be a spiritual esoteric one, in which I am contemplating the spirit of the animals and plants and regarding them as members divine spiritual kingdoms.
I might have voted yes, but I don't know if you have the sort of God in mind who creates a Hell. If we are talking about my version of good God, then, sure, why not? What if all suffering down here is something like a palate cleanser, intended to heighten enjoyment by contrast. We live in the apparent absence of God and in the presence of scarcity and violence and then "die" into the "real" world. This is just a nice dream, though, in my opinion. Hell yeah I want omnipotence on my side. If I can't be God, I'll settle for being one of his beloved children, a prince if not the king. I don't really think it's better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven, not if it's a real Hell and a real Heaven.
I think that our existential angst is another aspect of whatever gave rise to the dogma of the 'original sin'. I don't necessarily subscribe to the dogma, but I think it signifies a real fact about the human condition, as does the idea of the 'fall'. The Christian view of 'conscience' is that it is the part of you that responds to the call of higher truth.
Buddhists put it differently - it's 'dukkha', the etymology of which originally is a 'squeaky wheel', i.e. a wheel that doesn't turn around its axis properly. So we intuit a sense of absence or lack which nags at us, which we can neither ignore or satiate.
I don't think it's anything like what Sartre had in mind.
Interesting titles, by the way.
Yes, as I said above I think it is the "angst about the angst" that is what Sartre had in mind, not the angst itself, which is an ineliminable part of the human condition.
Of those two books, for me the really excellent one is The Spell of the Sensuous.