God is completely inadequate to explain anything whatsoever

[Whateverist]

In the article "Brains Wide Shut" published in a collection of them appearing in the book The Brain, Patricia Churchland disparages Daniel Dennet's book Consciousness Explained for adequately explaining nothing about consciousness.  She argues there are four criteria for pronouncing a theory of consciousness as adequate.  Such a theory must explain the main properties in sufficient detail to satisfy four conditions:

1)  we understand how macro events emerge from the properties and the organization of the micro events;

2)  novel phenomena can be predicted;

3)  the system can be manipulated;

4)  and it is clear at what level of brain organization the phenomenon resides.

So it occurred to me that of all the things God has been alleged to explain, I wonder how nearly adequate Churchland would find any such explanation.  Regarding the creation of the cosmos, what level of God's properties and organization are thought to account for it?  Regarding supernatural manipulation reported in miracles, can this God theory predict when new instances will occur?  Regarding the vouchsafing of objective moral values, what aspect precisely of God's organization explains such a thing?

Consciousness has the reputation of being the "hard problem", but compared to Christian god theory it is simple.  Leastwise the way forward to an adequate theory is not problematic.  Neuroscience will simply continue to unravel the brains complexity until something satisfying emerges.  No pathway toward an adequate God theory seems possible where its advocates start out assuming the ways of God are beyond their powers.  In place of theory, Christians just advocate compliance with the organizing principles of religion.  But then the ends of religion never were to explain origins or morality or the supernatural.  The ends of religion have always been appeasement.

[LadyForCamus]

What?! Microscopic jesus-particles flowing across your synapses and sprinkling soul-dust into your brain stem is not a satisfying enough explanation? You, and your impossible standards, Whateverist. 😉

[brewer]

Thank Odin I was vaccinated relatively early.

[Whateverist]

Oh well, must be God's will that we accept our puny inadequacy. At least we can lord it over the atheists who lack the gods to explain anything!

[vorlon13]

A wonky and multi-self-contradictory God theory seems entirely adequate to explain tens of thousands of schisms in His preferred church.

[Amarok]

In the article "Brains Wide Shut" published in a collection of them appearing in the book The Brain, Patricia Churchland disparages Daniel Dennet's book Consciousness Explained for adequately explaining nothing about consciousness.  She argues there are four criteria for pronouncing a theory of consciousness as adequate.  Such a theory must explain the main properties in sufficient detail to satisfy four conditions:

1)  we understand how macro events emerge from the properties and the organization of the micro events;

2)  novel phenomena can be predicted;

3)  the system can be manipulated;

4)  and it is clear at what level of brain organization the phenomenon resides.

So it occurred to me that of all the things God has been alleged to explain, I wonder how nearly adequate Churchland would find any such explanation.  Regarding the creation of the cosmos, what level of God's properties and organization are thought to account for it?  Regarding supernatural manipulation reported in miracles, can this God theory predict when new instances will occur?  Regarding the vouchsafing of objective moral values, what aspect precisely of God's organization explains such a thing?

Consciousness has the reputation of being the "hard problem", but compared to Christian god theory it is simple.  Leastwise the way forward to an adequate theory is not problematic.  Neuroscience will simply continue to unravel the brains complexity until something satisfying emerges.  No pathway toward an adequate God theory seems possible where its advocates start out assuming the ways of God are beyond their powers.  In place of theory, Christians just advocate compliance with the organizing principles of religion.  But then the ends of religion never were to explain origins or morality or the supernatural.  The ends of religion have always been appeasement.

Here here 

God is non explanation

[Minimalist]

[brewer]

Lets face it, some people need god mentally. Fear, care taker, father figure, eternal existence promise, judge, manipulation, tribe/herd urge, ...................

If they didn't, religion would have died out ages ago.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Lets face it, some people need god mentally. Fear, care taker, father figure, eternal existence promise, judge, manipulation, tribe/herd urge, ...................

If they didn't, religion would have died out ages ago.

People demand Gods even if they aren't religious.  They want someone to control them and to tell them what to do and what to think and how to act.  So they will eagerly elevate one of their group to be their God.  They will follow him to the bitter end, even if it means their own destruction.  

You see that behavior all the time in movies and in real life.  A criminal tells his buddies that they need to go lynch someone and they get all worked up and eagerly do his bidding.  A politician tells his sheep that they should oppress another group and they jump at the opportunity to please him.  

Religious con men use the idea that there's some celestial deity in charge but it's just them who are pulling the strings.  They are no different than the leader of a lynch mob or criminal gang.  In the Bible the character Moses is a perfect example of this.  He used religion and force to enrich himself and his gang of thieves.

[GrandizerII]

INB4 "You don't know what you're talking about! God is a necessary being! Bla, bla, bla!"