The Feel Good God

Schuhart

I’m late in rejoining the thread, but I think I’ll actually use Fanny’s earlier post to base my response around. I’m probably substantially saying the same as the other atheists, but I’m trying to put it as neutrally as possible to see if that takes us anywhere different. (I’ll be following this up by calculating the exact square root of 2 and then, if time permits, the largest possible prime number).

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Even if all religions cannot be true, the same products of reason used to reach this conclusion do not preclude the possibility that there is an intrinsic truth to the divine aspect found in these religions.

I actually don’t think this particular comment takes us anywhere we haven’t been. At the end of the day, people don’t believe (I’d assert) because reason does not preclude the possibility of a God. They believe for some other positive motive. The fact that ‘reason does not preclude’ is just the window of opportunity that allows that positive motive to prevail.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As all accounts clearly can not be true should the police automatically conclude that none of them are?

I think the main point has already been made – that the police will conclude that something has happened to cause those accounts, but the cause is very likely something else altogether. This is very much what I feel about faith, although I still counsel a degree of caution from fellow atheists that we need to spend a little time (and a little patience) considering what that something else altogether might be. I have no mysterious end product in mind when I say that. I just think we need to be careful not to assume what we would like this to mean.

I’d suggest a better analogy might actually be UFO/ghost sightings. If only people with a history of mental illness reported UFOs, then we might easily reach the conclusion that they were pure fantasy. However, if we find that people who would in other situations be regarded as reliable witnesses reporting UFOs, then it is something that requires explanation. From what we know, there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life close enough to visit Earth. Hence, we are more likely to expect the explanation to be quite mundane. However, we cannot ‘preclude the possibility’ that an alien race has technology far beyond our understanding that lets them travel faster than light.

Now, far more people (I would guess) follow a religion than report UFOs. Hence the situation is, as I see it, we need to account for why so many otherwise perfectly reasonable people do this. And, I feel, we have to do better in explaining it than simply appealing to delusion.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Logical though your statement on the inability of all religions to be true may be, any subsequent suggestions you glean from this are definitely borne out of subjective reasoning on your part.

Well, bear in mind this is not the key point I’m making here. The key point I’m making here is that atheists tend to be in one context, where reason suggests most and possibly all religions to be false. Put another way, you cannot prove a god from first principles (and please don’t try – you know it will end in tears). Theists stand in another context, where religion provides a meaning to life not easily replaceable (perhaps not replaceable at all) if God is taken to be a false concept.

What I’m trying to do is see if it’s actually possible to link or bridge the gap between those two contexts. What might be interesting is if theists could outline what those personal meanings or benefits of religion are – and if atheists could listen to what’s been said, without scoffing about the valuing of those benefits being a sign of weakness.

CPT. SURF

Most of us have an innate sense that the Universe should make sense and that things that are true should also work better than things that are false.

The section in bold is the complete opposite of my philosophy. In fact, I consider this desire to make "sense" of the Universe to be akin to madness.

Fanny Cradock

A good and appreciated post, Schuhart.

An Fear Aniar

limerick_woody wrote: »

so Atheists share a blind belief in, well, nothing at all

No one's really an atheist - it's impossible. We're hardwired for theism.


.

Dave!

Huh? Care to elaborate on that?

Tar.Aldarion

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

No one's really an atheist - it's impossible. We're hardwired for theism.


.

No, that's bollocks, to put it succintly.

CerebralCortex

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

No one's really an atheist - it's impossible. We're hardwired for theism.


.

Bullsh!t


.

Zombrex

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

No one's really an atheist - it's impossible. We're hardwired for theism.


.

Ooooh ... provocative :pac:

An Fear Aniar

There's been some visceral reactions to my comment which sort of proves my point and indicates that you all know what I'm talking about when I say that this "God-sense" is hardwired into humans.


.

Dave!

Oh I know what you mean, but I asked you to elaborate because you don't seem to think we can overcome this, and that we are all tied to religion because of evolution.

Well we are hard-wired to propagate our genes as much as possible -- so why do we still love sex when wearing a condom?
We're hard-wired to have as many children as possible -- so why are we monogamous? Or if monogamy is hard-wired into us by evolution because it's the best scenario for producing regular offspring -- then why are so many people unfaithful?

Dades

I shifted you all here, so continue at will.

Much as we enjoy off topic discussion, "hard-wired for religion" just didn't sit right in the "all aboard the atheist bus" thread.

Dave!

pffft, damn atheists and their rules :mad: *mutter mutter mutter*

Dades

You have to admit, they're not followed religiously..!

Dave!

*cringe*

Out.

CerebralCortex

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

There's been some visceral reactions to my comment which sort of proves my point and indicates that you all know what I'm talking about when I say that this "God-sense" is hardwired into humans.


.

So reaction to blatant stupidity equates to a hardwired "God-sense", I'm not sure I agree.


.btw the dot signifies my arrogance

robindch

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

you all know what I'm talking about when I say that this "God-sense" is hardwired into humans.

Will you be staying around to elaborate, or will you be doing your usual runner?

Malari

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

There's been some visceral reactions to my comment which sort of proves my point and indicates that you all know what I'm talking about when I say that this "God-sense" is hardwired into humans.


.

Yes, I know what you mean, which is not quite what you said.

Kind of the Dawkins "rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators" idea? That doesn't make being an athiest impossible, though. Maybe a god-sense would have some preservation effect and that's why most people evolved to think that way. Simply believing what your parents and elders say is helpful in most situations. This is by no means a definite though.

Can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

An Fear Aniar

robindch wrote: »

Will you be staying around to elaborate, or will you be doing your usual runner?

What's there to say? There's not a lot I can add.


.

An Fear Aniar

Malari wrote: »

Can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

You think I worked it out with a pencil?

It's not about thinking, it's about feeling.


.

Malari

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You think I worked it out with a pencil?

It's not about thinking, it's about feeling.


.

No, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt of having at least had a thought process. I don't think you can go from thinking that a god-sense exists to stating atheism is impossible?

robindch

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

What's there to say?

What you actually mean, and why you think that. Things like that.

Tar.Aldarion

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You think I worked it out with a pencil?

It's not about thinking, it's about feeling.


.

You are definitely a turtle, it's what I feel.


.

CerebralCortex

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You think I worked it out with a pencil?

It's not about thinking, it's about feeling.


.

:rolleyes:

An Fear Aniar

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

You are definitely a turtle, it's what I feel.


.

That's not bad.:)


.

An Fear Aniar

CerebralCortex wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The exact same expression on my face as I watch you all trying to disprove the existence of God.

(or scoffing at religious nuts as if this was some sort of proof).

.

cavedave

It seems fair to say that we have certain neural circuitry designed to believe in god. The 'god helmet' story from a while back goes into this

We also have a vestigial sense of light polarization. Most people go through their lives having no idea they have this sense. Just because we have certain natural abilities does not mean we have to use them.

Sorry i am rambling here but the question seems to be is god belief something like attempting to have as many children as possible like a pillaging Mongol horseman *in the time of Genghis Khan* or something we have but can just ignore like Haidinger's brush.

CerebralCortex

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

The exact same expression on my face as I watch you all trying to disprove the existence of God.

(or scoffing at religious nuts as if this was some sort of proof).

.

You might not have that expression on your face if you realised we're not actually trying to disprove the existence of God. Its a forum where people who do not believe in God(s) come together to express their feelings on how useless the evidence there is for any form of God (the reason I'm an atheist). God being defined as the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions link

An Fear Aniar

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You might not have that expression on your face if you realised we're not actually trying to disprove the existence of God. Its a forum where people who do not believe in God(s) come together to express their feelings on how useless the evidence there is for any form of God (the reason I'm an atheist).

But that's the thing - evidence, empiricism, scientific method, logic. All useless to resolve this question (satisfactorily).

When I see people using these tools I feel like saying

"lol n00b".:)


.

PDN

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You think I worked it out with a pencil?

It's not about thinking, it's about feeling.


.

Are we still talking about atheism or has the subject changed to constipation?

Tar.Aldarion

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

But that's the thing - evidence, empiricism, scientific method, logic. All useless to resolve this question (satisfactorily).

When I see people using these tools I feel like saying

"lol n00b".:)


.

I can logically prove there is no god, for myself. It depends on your definition of a god. I find the term god to be a paradox, and as such, a god could not exist to me. It is not possible for something to be a god rather than just a powerful alien, at the most.

This thing that might have created the universe etc, why would that be a "god" to you as opposed to simply an alien, even if that alien exists outside of your universe?
What makes something a god for you and something not a god? How powerful would it have to be?
Since it would have to have infinity power I imagine, it can not exist. I think 'god' is not tenable, for me. How and ever, what may be a god to you, is not a god to me, so a 'god' could exist to you. I contend that the distinctions between atheism and agnosticism have everything to do with the definition of 'god' in part, rather than the words themselves. As what constitutes a 'god' is very subjective - so must your pigeonhole be.

I think there is a contradiction in the way that the more advanced a 'god' is, the more it is worthy of an aul grovel, yet the more advanced it is, surely the less it will think that it deserves one... worship being an inane human idea. The abrahamic god/s may want worship indeed, most people view that as a picture of a 'god' around these parts, but that god is rather undeserving.
If something was a supreme being, would it have a desire to be worshipped, or would it not need it and not yearn for it?

As for disproving a god for most people... As has been discussed before by others:
Lets take vampires. I don't believe vampires exist.
Can I prove it - in a technical 'philosophical sense' - No. So what do I mean when I say "I don't believe that vampires exist"? To me it means I'm going to behave as if the statement is true. So I'm taking no precautions against vampires in my daily life. No garlic, no holy water. I don't spend time trying to find them, I don't look for the latest developments in vampire news.

There are a lot of things we are technically agnostic on, but functionally atheist. A god is just another, just as you would not believe in any Earthly religion without evidence for or against.
There is a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities, and the ridiculous things mentioned above. Why entertain a belief in one, and not another? If someone uses the 'can't disprove' argument (for god) then it seems reasonable to point out the same argument can be applied in defence of any silly belief.
Why abandon common sense for scientific imperialism?
Solipsism is pointless. If you had been brought up in a world of atheists you would find the idea of a god as ridiculous as a dragon falling on your head right now, yet both have very little evidence against them.
However you seem to define god as something which is just powerful, so I will discuss that below. If that is so, a god could certainly exist to you, but it would just be a powerful being to other people.

Most atheistic philosophers and groups define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities. I do not strongly disbelieve in a vampire, I have a lack of belief in him, such as with a god.
As is commonly said, atheism is a belief if not collecting stamps is a hobby.