Do you believe in God?

[Jopsy Pendragon]

I think the general ideas about god are so contradictory that no such entity could possibly exist given the evidence we have around us.

Any deity that designed us to behave in opposition to our urges, who then relied on a system of corrupted gossip to disseminate their notion of 'ultimate morality' is just too ridiculous to contemplate as anything other than terrible fiction.

Even removing the moral authority aspect of "god", and just looking at only the "ultimate creator" concept.... The general notion of "god" is still too anthropomorphic and limiting. Designing, planning, creating, intent, desire, ... Everything associated with the idea that the universe was created by something outside time and space is undermines by concepts that imply that that Divinity was operating within time and space.

The idea of "original nothingness" is irrational... in the "divide by zero" sense of the word. We project finite models onto the infinite and come up with garbage nonsense that seems reasonable, until you start picking at it. Which few do.

If there is something immeasurable and intangible around us with any interest in our wellbeing or fate, how can it be anything but irrelevant?

 

[Kara Spengler]

Our former priest has a masters degree in applied physics. He was a teacher before he became a priest. He's still a priest - just not at our parish.

Oh, I know there are people that mix science and religion. I just found it hilarious that the church I was at was encouraging someone already a philosophy geek to study physics. It was sort of like 'did nobody seriously not think this might happen'.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I was looking for something else but I found this, and thought people might find it interesting. I certainly did, not least because I could almost hear my sometime father-in-law saying much the same things:

What is Your Notion of God?

The author presents the idea and the illusion of God according to Hinduism and the diversity of opinion regarding his existence or nonexistence

www.hinduwebsite.com

This is possibly of interest, too -- atheism in C6th BCE India

Atheism and Materialism in Ancient India

Carvakas and Lokayatas were the atheists and materialists of ancient India who relived upon direct experience.

www.hinduwebsite.com

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

I don't know whether there is or ever was a conscious agent behind the origin or management of the universe. That's what people mean by "god" right?

I do know that absolutely zero (zilch, none, nada) of the gods postulated by organized religions are anything but pre-technological science fantasy.

 

[Tigar]

Which one?

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Any of them.

 

[Ishina]

I think we're maybe at cross purposes here.

Yeah, I do tend to rant. I'm not necessarily even disagreeing with anything in particular. If your point is that Hitler was not a devout man, it's the most plausible interpretation of what we have available to speculate on. I'd say the megalomania and narcissism and other strains of perversion that drive men like Hitler towards absolute power and dominance usually precludes things like devotion to a higher power anyway. They tend to be the MVP in their own quasi-religious narrative one way or another, and grow more and more hostile to any other unless they can exploit it in some way.

My point really was that he's not an atheist, and that doesn't really say much I suppose. There's a wide spectrum of things in between lack of belief in gods and devout practice of any specific religious tradition. Plenty of room for complicated and contradictory creatures like Hitler.

A more important point might be that, whether he was believer or not, he certainly used religion to get his way and it is an inextricable part of who he was, his rise to power and his legacy.

With regards to nihilism, I tend to lose patience when talking to nihilists because value is not well defined. And I fundamentally do not understand the attraction with teleology. It simply does not seem to be a factor in the formula of my worldview or mental process, and nobody has ever been able to convince me to despair of its absence or explain what is lacking without it. Maybe I just have that bit of my brain missing. But the idea of the necessity of eternal cosmic meaning seems to me to be a crude by-product of a religious universe model, and so post-religious answers to that are answers to questions I never asked. For me, purpose is in the doing, not what the doing amounts to. I suppose that's some sort of hedonism.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

I don't know whether there is or ever was a conscious agent behind the origin or management of the universe. That's what people mean by "god" right?

I do know that absolutely zero (zilch, none, nada) of the gods postulated by organized religions are anything but pre-technological science fantasy.

Dawkins had a great explanation for why people create gods I think. We are extremely social beings, and it therefore feels natural to personify all kinds of things. An example is the idea of beating you car with an iron to teach it a lesson after it breaks down on you. We know this makes no sense, but it feels natural. When you do this to storm, the ocean or the universe as a whole, you get gods.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Yeah, I do tend to rant. I'm not necessarily even disagreeing with anything in particular. If your point is that Hitler was not a devout man, it's the most plausible interpretation of what we have available to speculate on. I'd say the megalomania and narcissism and other strains of perversion that drive men like Hitler towards absolute power and dominance usually precludes things like devotion to a higher power anyway. They tend to be the MVP in their own quasi-religious narrative one way or another, and grow more and more hostile to any other unless they can exploit it in some way.

My point really was that he's not an atheist, and that doesn't really say much I suppose. There's a wide spectrum of things in between lack of belief in gods and devout practice of any specific religious tradition. Plenty of room for complicated and contradictory creatures like Hitler.

A more important point might be that, whether he was believer or not, he certainly used religion to get his way and it is an inextricable part of who he was, his rise to power and his legacy.

With regards to nihilism, I tend to lose patience when talking to nihilists because value is not well defined. And I fundamentally do not understand the attraction with teleology. It simply does not seem to be a factor in the formula of my worldview or mental process, and nobody has ever been able to convince me to despair of its absence or explain what is lacking without it. Maybe I just have that bit of my brain missing. But the idea of the necessity of eternal cosmic meaning seems to me to be a crude by-product of a religious universe model, and so post-religious answers to that are answers to questions I never asked. For me, purpose is in the doing, not what the doing amounts to. I suppose that's some sort of hedonism.

I may be many things, but I do try not to be hypocritical, so far be it from me to condemn anyone for ranting in PSR.

My problem with all discussions about God or gods is that, in the intellectual tradition of which I'm part -- that is, serious European and American thought since the mid C19th -- no one other than theologians and (more recently, "new Atheists") has been particularly bothered about whether or not God or gods exist. It's not a matter that particularly concerned Marx, or John Stuart Mill, or Nietzsche, or Freud, or anyone else I find interesting.

So, because I'm a materialist, I can't really divorce the divine or supernatural from the beliefs and practices of people who self-identify as belonging to a particular faith community, of which worship of a particular deity or deities is an integral part.

Once you start looking at the social and psychological needs organised religions help fulfill, and the particular sociological function of particular organised faith communities in specific times and circumstances, and the role a shared belief in that divinity and the practice of ritual worship, whether communal or personal, and other shared activities, then you begin to explore questions I find far more satisfying and informative than endlessly sterile debates that haven't advanced much since the days of Charles Bradlaugh.

As to teleology, I stopped worrying about it when I read the observation (somewhere in Freud, I think, but I can't think where after all these years) that the question contains the strange assumption that a meaning is something you would expect a form a life to have. "No one," I think he wrote (I paraphrase my memory, obviously) "ever feels the need to wonder 'What is the meaning of the tree's life?' It doesn't require a meaning or purpose. It just is."

I worry about teleology only to the extent that, at least to my mind, it's one of the many unexamined assumptions that the Enlightenment inherited, unquestioned, from religion, only the ultimate goal of history was for humanity to progress towards a particular form of social organisation in this world. That's had catastrophic effects in all too many cases.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Dawkins had a great explanation for why people create gods I think. We are extremely social beings, and it therefore feels natural to personify all kinds of things. An example is the idea of beating you car with an iron to teach it a lesson after it breaks down on you. We know this makes no sense, but it feels natural. When you do this to storm, the ocean or the universe as a whole, you get gods.

Anthropomorphic fallacy is stronger than The Force.

Once you start looking at the social and psychological needs organised religions help fulfill,

Unfortunately one of those needs is to have ones beliefs be given more legal and social power than the beliefs of people who don't engage in similar delusions. So if Jim Scienceguy is being attacked by Sam Trollface he just has to sit and take it, but Joe Godbotherer gets Sam Trollface banned or even legally sanctioned for the same actions.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Unfortunately one of those needs is to have ones beliefs be given more legal and social power than the beliefs of people who don't engage in similar delusions. So if Jim Scienceguy is being attacked by Sam Trollface he just has to sit and take it, but Joe Godbotherer gets Sam Trollface banned or even legally sanctioned for the same actions.

That, though, is a particular political problem involving adherent of particular denominations of one particular religion in one particular country at one particular time, is it not?

I'm trying to make a more general point that if you stop asking whether a particular religion is true or not -- do the deity or deities worshipped by that religion exist in the same way that Donald Trump or Barack Obama exist and, if so, do the doctrines and practices of any particular group of adherents properly represent the divine will and preferences? -- and start asking why people follow it, and what social and psychological benefits they gain from it, then you start to learn something about them and about society in general.

When you then ask the same questions about all manner of other apparently diverse social activities --asking what people get out of following particular sports teams, for example, or being a Goth or a furry or attending raves or the opera or the last night of the Proms, or being an active member or supporter of a particular political party -- then you start to get some interesting answers both about people's needs and about society in general.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

That, though, is a particular political problem involving adherent of particular denominations of one particular religion in one particular country at one particular time, is it not?

In the US, legally, and practically, adherents of pretty much every belief that claims to be religious gets preferential treatment over those who claim non-religious beliefs, including the right to take otherwise illegal drugs, protective restrictions on holy sites, religious exemptions to laws and regulations, and so on.

I'm trying to make a more general point that if you stop asking whether a particular religion is true or not -- do the deity or deities worshipped by that religion exist in the same way that Donald Trump or Barack Obama exist and, if so, do the doctrines and practices of any particular group of adherents properly represent the divine will and preferences?

I'm not asking any such thing. I'm stating as a fact that they don't, and yet these beliefs get special treatment over other sets of beliefs many of which have the advantage of being less dangerous and more true.

and start asking why people follow it

That's also obvious. Just a couple of reasons (out of many)... religions pump up the dopamine level, and collective action amplifies individual power. And yes, there's other factions, groups, and fandoms that do the same thing... but there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to claim the same privileges other than the fact that they don't pretend to supernatural origins.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

In the US, legally, and practically, adherents of pretty much every belief that claims to be religious gets preferential treatment over those who claim non-religious beliefs, including the right to take otherwise illegal drugs, protective restrictions on holy sites, religious exemptions to laws and regulations, and so on.

Yes, but the USA isn't the only country in the world, any more than is Christianity the only religion.

This is like arguing that democracy is a bad idea because you can end up with leaders like Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell.

I'm not asking any such thing. I'm stating as a fact that they don't, and yet these beliefs get special treatment over other sets of beliefs many of which have the advantage of being less dangerous and more true.

and start asking why people follow it

That's also obvious. Just a couple of reasons (out of many)... religions pump up the dopamine level, and collective action amplifies individual power. And yes, there's other factions, groups, and fandoms that do the same thing... but there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to claim the same privileges other than the fact that they don't pretend to supernatural origins.

In the USA.

What benefits do Muslims in the USA (or China) derive from following their particular religious traditions? Seems to me it brings them huge disadvantages.

Why are they so unwilling, do you think, to follow what would appear to be the path of enlightened self-interest and abandon their religious practices in favour of something less disadvantageous to them?

Is it simply because they're stupid, or brainwashed fanatics, or is it for some other reason?

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

I'm not claiming that they follow these religions because they get special treatment. I'm saying that the fact that faith-based beliefs get special treatment is a problem. They should not get any more privileges than Steelers, Harry Potter, or Apple fans. If Sam Trollface can get a ban for attacking religious beliefs then Sam Trollface should get a ban for throwing shade on Tesla owners.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I'm not claiming that they follow these religions because they get special treatment. I'm saying that the fact that faith-based beliefs get special treatment is a problem. They should not get any more privileges than Steelers, Harry Potter, or Apple fans. If Sam Trollface can get a ban for attacking religious beliefs then Sam Trollface should get a ban for throwing shade on Tesla owners.

I wholly agree. But that's a political question, and in many ways peculiar to the USA (or Facebook or Twitter or whatever).

To take an example from another area, the fact that I think allowing the general public almost uncontrolled access to semi-automatic firearms and ammunition isn't a particularly good idea doesn't stop me from wanting to know what benefits some people in the USA think they derive from spending huge amounts of money amassing their own private arsenals, and what benefits they actually do gain, whether they're conscious of it or not.

That's partly out general intellectual curiosity, since Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto (I am human, and nothing human is alien to me), partly because I'm interested in social policy and how best to maintain a liberal social order, and, frequently, because I find it pays to know my enemies, whether it be because I want to persuade them to agree with me or because I may find such information useful for rather different reasons.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Other countries provide greater or lesser privileges to at least some religions. Western liberal democracies all provide at least some privileges to pretty much all "mainstream" religions.

My objection to religion is utterly practical. While it does not hurt me if you believe in one god or ten, the fact that you get extra privileges anywhere because you believe in one god, or ten, or this god or that... and can use that to get laws passed that do effect me... is a problem more important than whether some dead philosopher was concerned with it or not.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Other countries provide greater or lesser privileges to at least some religions. Western liberal democracies all provide at least some privileges to pretty much all "mainstream" religions.

My objection to religion is utterly practical. While it does not hurt me if you believe in one god or ten, the fact that you get extra privileges anywhere because you believe in one god, or ten, or this god or that... and can use that to get laws passed that do effect me... is a problem more important than whether some dead philosopher was concerned with it or not.

Yes, but that's an objection to a particular laws in a particular country.

It may or may not be that it's desirable to exempt Sikh men from particular legislation concerning wearing motorcycle crash helmets or protective headgear on construction sites, as we do in the UK, but that tells me nothing very useful about Sikhism in general or why some people in Britain choose to follow that religion or what they gain from it.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

I don't care why people follow a religion. I care that religion is treated as sacred.

 

[Kara Spengler]

In the US, legally, and practically, adherents of pretty much every belief that claims to be religious gets preferential treatment over those who claim non-religious beliefs, including the right to take otherwise illegal drugs, protective restrictions on holy sites, religious exemptions to laws and regulations, and so on.

I'm not asking any such thing. I'm stating as a fact that they don't, and yet these beliefs get special treatment over other sets of beliefs many of which have the advantage of being less dangerous and more true.

That's also obvious. Just a couple of reasons (out of many)... religions pump up the dopamine level, and collective action amplifies individual power. And yes, there's other factions, groups, and fandoms that do the same thing... but there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to claim the same privileges other than the fact that they don't pretend to supernatural origins.

By the reference to illegal drugs I assume you are referring to native americans using substances that are illegal for nonnatives to use?

I do not view that as a matter of religion but part of trying not to step on their culture.

 

[TycheShepherd]

I once wrote a long post on SLU explaining how I came to not believe , but still had a nagging faith in anti-prayer (pray for the things you don't want to happen)
But i guess that's lost now ... the post that is , my non-belief is still strong