Good exists - a Catholic comments

[Angrboda]

I'm reminded of the situation in politics. We know from psychology that once a person believes something, the odds are greater that any input will strengthen that belief. So I look at conservatives as victims of human psychology. But at the same time, I must acknowledge that I, too, must be a victim of my beliefs. I don't know exactly what I should do with that information. We seem to have incredibly strong intuitions that we make our assessments rationally, that our lives have meaning, and that we have free will. It seems to require an effort to care that all of these things may be false. And it seems unnatural that we should come to believe that they are false. Which suggests there is some overriding reward for believing that these things are false. It strongly suggests that our attitude toward these questions is determined by what we find useful and rewarding more than what might or might not be true.

As to the questions themselves, I find no strong argument to be made one way or the other.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hi all
There have been many demands that I show evidence that God exists.

Drum Roll ……..

The Universe

Cheers Barry

You'll need to show that the universe can only have come about as an act of god.

[Astreja]

Ok, I’m saying God created the world. My evidence is the universe.
You can deny my proof. Fair enough. But unless you have some other theory, where does that leave you.

Barry, I'm fine with "We don't know yet." Not knowing the exact processes that led to the existence of this universe? A huge non-issue. It does not inform my life in any meaningful way, because I deal with the universe as it is right now, not as it was in the distant past.

And from my perspective, even if your god does exist it does not exist in a way that is meaningful to me. There's a reason I don't belong to any religious groups, don't worship and don't pray: I literally don't perceive anything there, so I
don't waste my time on religious activities.

[FrustratedFool]

I'm reminded of the situation in politics. We know from psychology that once a person believes something, the odds are greater that any input will strengthen that belief. So I look at conservatives as victims of human psychology. But at the same time, I must acknowledge that I, too, must be a victim of my beliefs. I don't know exactly what I should do with that information. We seem to have incredibly strong intuitions that we make our assessments rationally, that our lives have meaning, and that we have free will. It seems to require an effort to care that all of these things may be false. And it seems unnatural that we should come to believe that they are false. Which suggests there is some overriding reward for believing that these things are false. It strongly suggests that our attitude toward these questions is determined by what we find useful and rewarding more than what might or might not be true.

As to the questions themselves, I find no strong argument to be made one way or the other.

I guess the 'reward' is that I have a natural unconscious predisposition to seek what causes the least cognitive dissonance (an unpleasant sensation) and which appears to be most accurate (maybe an evolved mechanism for survival in that correct knowledge enable correct predictions and better chance at breeding, or something like that).

So I moved from holding to freewill to not holding to freewill because other knowledge which I found to be accurate entailed it, and thus I couldn't hold to both freewill and physicalism without dissonance or going against my predilection for accuracy. Underneath were no doubt unconscious factors that led me one way or another at various points in time.

[Angrboda]

I'm reminded of the situation in politics.  We know from psychology that once a person believes something, the odds are greater that any input will strengthen that belief.  So I look at conservatives as victims of human psychology.  But at the same time, I must acknowledge that I, too, must be a victim of my beliefs.  I don't know exactly what I should do with that information.  We seem to have incredibly strong intuitions that we make our assessments rationally, that our lives have meaning, and that we have free will.  It seems to require an effort to care that all of these things may be false.  And it seems unnatural that we should come to believe that they are false.  Which suggests there is some overriding reward for believing that these things are false.  It strongly suggests that our attitude toward these questions is determined by what we find useful and rewarding more than what might or might not be true.

As to the questions themselves, I find no strong argument to be made one way or the other.

I guess the 'reward' is that I have a natural unconscious predisposition to seek what causes the least cognitive dissonance (an unpleasant sensation) and which appears to be most accurate (maybe an evolved mechanism for survival in that correct knowledge enable correct predictions and better chance at breeding, or something like that).

So I moved from holding to freewill to not holding to freewill because other knowledge which I found to be accurate entailed it, and thus I couldn't hold to both freewill and physicalism without dissonance or going against my predilection for accuracy. Underneath were no doubt unconscious factors that led me one way or another at various points in time.

I was just thinking about that. The desire to accurately assess reality is a desire to move from a position of less control into a position of greater control. Yet paradoxically, this impulse has led you from a position of greater control into a position in which, practically speaking, you are less in control.

[FrustratedFool]

Unless what I believe is actually true, in which case it made no difference.

[Angrboda]

Unless what I believe is actually true, in which case it made no difference.

It seems to have made a difference for you, even if the universe itself shrugged its shoulders.

[FrustratedFool]

If things could not have ever been otherwise than what then I'm not sure it makes sense to talk of anything making a difference.

And if freewill doesn't exist control is always illusory, regardless of my beliefs.

[Angrboda]

If things could not have ever been otherwise than what then I'm not sure it makes sense to talk of anything making a difference.

And if freewill doesn't exist control is always illusory, regardless of my beliefs.

You're equivocating.

[FrustratedFool]

I didn't notice I was, but fair enough.

Maybe a natural.outcome of language.

Ask a direct question and I'll try and give the best direct answer I can.