God: No magic required

[Whateverist]

There is absolutely no downside in what I've done in this regard. I've benefited personally. My family has benefited. The only "victims" are the people on this blog who have chosen to follow this thread and who have "suffered" annoyance.

The downside is that you've stopped searching for the truth, and have instead picked up a comfortable delusion. You'll have absolutely no idea whatever else you've missed because you won't be around to see it.

I've always thought it was the complete and untarnished truth I was after. But sometimes I wonder if "the truth" is something available to beings such as ourselves. Perhaps "some truth" is enough with the added benefit of being attainable.

What do transient beings need with eternal truths? Sans an immortal soul, why should I care? Sometimes a fussy insistence on for-all-time truths just seems pedantic. Truths are banal but small .. facts devoid of any grand significance. What we really want is significance.

Perhaps significance is something you can only catch a glimpse of sidelong. Looked at directly it dissolves into stodgy platitudes. What matters to us can only be alluded to with language, but not caged by it. A general field theory of significance is a will o the wisp. An obsession with such a thing can only make us lose sight of the fact that significance is always dependent on a particular point of view, our own.

Probably if someone wanted to hang on to a belief in god they would do better to go small. Maybe, for day to day use, a good god-concept should be like a smart phone: compact and portable.

[strawdawg]

Certitude is poison.

Human consciousness is simply organized bioelectrical energy, contained in a mass of mush the size of a loaf of bread. The universe is mostly dark energy and dark matter. String theory posits 11 dimensions, of which we can perceive only 4. Our own universe may be simply one in a trillion (or infinite) number of universes in the multiverse. Other universes may have different physical laws, with different physical constants, not allowing the formation of matter, but allowing for the formation of exotic forms of energy.

If the bioelectric energy of the human brain can organize itself into consciousness, then how can we be certain that the dark energy of our universe and/or the exotic energy of other universes cannot do so, also? Imagine the power of the energy (dark or otherwise) of an entire universe, organized into sentience. It's staggering.

Why think in this way? Good peer review medical research shows that spiritual and religious people are happier and actually live longer than atheists -- an average of two years longer, which would be the population effect of curing all forms of cancer.

How could prayer work, assuming, just for sake of argument, that a universal sentience (let's call it "God") really does exist? Pretty simple; you've seen the MRI images of the human brain, when it is thinking different types of thoughts. One day, I'm sure that we'll have a machine which can translate MRI (and externally monitored EEG and who knows what other sorts of imaging) signals into language. A sentient dark energy, permeating every atom of the universe, would have no trouble doing far more.

Does "God" answer prayers? The evidence is, of course, inconclusive. God may not grant world peace or even cure medical illnesses (much less help Olympic athletes win medals), but virtually every believer has enough personal evidence to convince said believer that "God" helps in the areas of personal courage, comfort, resilience, conviction, morality, and so on.

Religion, like a 9 mm semi-automatic firearm or an SUV or even an iPad can certainly be misused. But a "good" religion, properly "applied" is an unambiguous blessing to those so blessed. This need have nothing at all to do with the Bible, heaven, hell, Satan, Mary, Muhammed, or Jesus. Religion basically comes down to rejecting smug certitude in favor of personal curiosity and finding, for oneself, whether it's possible to believe in God and to find a way to communicate with God, which is meaningful to the individual in question.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Everyone has different needs, for some people religion is just what they need. Still for others it's an irratation I think it serves a purpose as long as they don't try to cram it down your throat.

[rexbeccarox]

Did this guy really necrothread just to shit and run?

[lweisenthal]

Whenever humans exist as groups, rules evolve to prevent anarchy, which is antithetical to survival and even more so to prosperity. This applies to religion as well as to secular activities.

This is the origin of religious doctrine, which should not be considered synonymous with religion itself, which is the simple and probably instinctive inclination to believe in a higher power -- instinctive because such a belief fosters survival -- from courage to persevere to faith that one is not alone and has a higher order help mate.

When athletes pray before a competition, they do not do so for the approbation of their peers but for spiritual performance enhancement. I think that this is the most visible modern day illustration that religion arises more from innate individual longing than from forced conformity to societal norms, e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13575702.

Religious doctrine can be the enemy of religion. Atheism arises from an examination and intellectual rejection of religious doctrines, rather than from an innate instinct to disbelieve in the possibility of a higher power. But focusing on the doctrines is simply missing out on the possibility of perceiving the forest because of an obsession with the trees.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[Mudhammam]

Did this guy really necrothread just to shit and run?

Yep.

[lweisenthal]

Did this guy really necrothread just to shit and run?

Hi Rexbecca,

If you go over the previous 16 pages of this thread, you'll see that this wasn't a random dump and run. I have extensively engaged and responded to the many thoughtful replies. I also sign my own name (and I'm a real person, with a real family, and a real reputation), which is something not typically done by electronic graffiti scribblers. Like most people, I can't devote my life to servicing an Internet discussion thread. Also, it isn't helpful to waste everyone's time spinning wheels, going around and around -- saying the same things.

If/when I have something new to offer, and the time to offer it, then I offer it. People who don't care for my offerings can either ignore me or add their own rejoinders.

Sorry for not replying to your own brief rejoinder previously; I only just now stumbled across it.

P.S. The reason for "necrothreading" is that my new comments are offered in the context of my prior comments. I don't want to have to waste time and bandwidth repeating all of the prior material, to provide this context.

Cheers! - Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[The Reality Salesman01]

When athletes pray before a competition, they do not do so for the approbation of their peers but for spiritual performance enhancement. I think that this is the most visible modern day illustration that religion arises more from innate individual longing than from forced conformity to societal norms, e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13575702.

It would be a bit presumptuous to infer that all players are praying for "spiritual" performance enhancement, wouldn't it? If someone is running late to a meeting, and pray for a parking space close to the door along the way, I think you'd agree that their motive was to get an advantage afforded to them by God and that they do this because the are under the impression that they stand in Gods good favor. Before the Super Bowl, both teams pray, and whatever words they choose to construct their prayer, such as "God give us the strength of spirit", that part of the request doesn't explain the motive for asking. They're asking for God to give them an advantage. If they win, that's who they'll thank. And every post-game interview will have someone who attributes their win to God. The other team will just assume it wasn't Gods will, and start praying for the next season. But surely they are in no position to impose their human desires on such petty things as football games. If Gods will is all that matters, and the desire for spiritual strength is all that's being desired, what other motive is there to ask but for a selfish advantage? But with regards to why so many of them think this way, nothing about this suggests that they suddenly began doing it one day as a way of answering an internal desire. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of them, if not all of them were brought up in families who practice the same rituals. Perhaps the only thing that can be reasonably extracted from this example is that competitors will always look to exploit any possible advantage that they believe to be freely available to them. They also wear lucky socks, carry good luck charms, and some of them attribute success to a pattern of eating the same meal before each game. However, their belief that these things work and the truth about whether or not they actually work are two completely different things.

But focusing on the doctrines is simply missing out on the possibility of perceiving the forest because of an obsession with the trees.

I can appreciate the sentiment behind what you've just said, but I question your sincerity. I found it interesting that you expressed these two thoughts because I think you've overlooked a detail that is common to both the Athletes motive and your own. The doctrines are what separates you from a Hindu, or a Muslim. If it weren't for the doctrine written in what you believe to be the holy gospel, you would have no basis for using the title "Christian". Let's say I go along with this idea and agree that being a Christian is really something entirely apart from the gospel. I'm sure that we could agree on a lot of things that have nothing to do with reading the bible. We could agree on the value of human life, charity, goodwill, the beauty of everything around us and the importance of preserving it for as many others as we could. If this were the case, then you could consider me to be a Christian Right now too. But I want you to acknowledge that while we could in fact share all of these values, there's a reason I'm an Atheist and you're a Christian and not a one of these values are what makes the distinction. Note that I can value all of these things without any doctrinal encouragement but there are still layers that need to be pulled back. Some people have tuned out all of the details that make up the fabric of their respective religion. The focus is only on the values and virtues that connect across aisles of all religious or secular boundaries and find their position to be perfectly lucid through this perspective. But from where Im looking, as a former devout Christian, all you see are the trees. You are not only standing in a giant diverse forest, but it is one of many forests that makeup the entirety of human existence, and that landscape is but a smudge on a map compared to the vastness of the universe that is filled with mystery and questions worthy of pursuit. I agree, the doctrines don't matter. What makes me question your sincerity is this: Why are you still clinging to it? If I can believe that the preservation of life, goodness, charity and all other values ought to be pursued without a doctrine, why is it that you do not jettison this book that we both agree to be unnecessary? I suspect motives are at play again. The football player does not pray for the virtue of praying and spiritual connection. He does it because he thinks it's an advantage. If being good for the sake of being good isn't enough to do it, could you appeal to something else that perhaps motivates them? Blessings from a God in their life, perhaps? And afterlife in eternal bliss as a reward, maybe? Could you appeal to their fears? In much the same way a prisoner on death row might be persuaded to seek out a possible advantage they believe to be available, could you motivate them to comply by convincing them that a harsh consequence awaits them if they do not? Absolutely. What separates us are what we believe not only about doctrines, but what we believe about ourselves. I believe I should do good because I am empathetically connected to the world through my own experience. I feel virtues rather than believe them. That is what motivates me. I do it for the sake of doing it. When I am charitable, I do it in private. When I am generous I don't seek retribution. There's nothing in my life to wrongly interpret as a divine gift because the acts and virtues are gifts in and of themselves. I gave up the doctrine when I no longer felt the need to seek out an advantage that I could not provide for myself. I take responsibility for my actions rather than carrying around a sack of artificial guilt. If I do wrong I try to right the wrong with those effected by it, the belief that my actions are in some way virtuous if they are validated by a higher power no longer motivates me. You may want to consider your motives because I don't think you can say that you're a Christian for the sake of being Christian alone. That would imply some very serious weaknesses toward your ethical IQ. If you're not a football player, what's your motive?

[Faith No More]

Religious doctrine can be the enemy of religion. Atheism arises from an examination and intellectual rejection of religious doctrines, rather than from an innate instinct to disbelieve in the possibility of a higher power. But focusing on the doctrines is simply missing out on the possibility of perceiving the forest because of an obsession with the trees.

What basis do you have for saying how atheism arises? Given what atheists state as their reason, your statement appears extremely presumptous.

The absurdity of religious doctrine is actually just icing on the cake of failure that is the theist claim. The rejection of god and religion is because you can't even come close to demonstrating your claim, not because of the harm and ridiculousness of the doctrine that arose from that claim. You think we're missing the forest for the trees, but you have even demonstrated there is any plant life in front of us.

[IATIA]

If the bioelectric energy of the human brain can organize itself into consciousness, then how can we be certain that the dark energy of our universe and/or the exotic energy of other universes cannot do so, also?

Because of the lack of synapses, pathways and structure.

[Whateverist]

But focusing on the doctrines is simply missing out on the possibility of perceiving the forest because of an obsession with the trees.

I can appreciate the sentiment behind what you've just said, but I question your sincerity. I found it interesting that you expressed these two thoughts because I think you've overlooked a detail that is common to both the Athletes motive and your own. The doctrines are what separates you from a Hindu, or a Muslim. If it weren't for the doctrine written in what you believe to be the holy gospel, you would have no basis for using the title "Christian".

I too appreciate the (bolded) sentiment.

Do you remember this guy? He is a cancer doctor and I think he comes at this not from the authority of any doctrine but from what he perceives to be the practical advantage of belief where healing is concerned.

I'm not so sure he isn't right about that. I think it is possible to some degree. I don't have conclusive evidence and he probably knows better what studies may show. But I believe placebo effect is well established and what is that if not mind over body?

Beyond that, consider any creative or sports activity. Beyond what talent you may have is the issue of your access to it. Rationality is probably as superfluous to healing as it is to peak athletic performance or inspired artistic achievement. There are plenty of activities where reason is neither relevant nor efficacious. Where such activities are concerned it can be advantageous to have the capacity to 'get out of the way'. When a xtian talks about "turning it all over to god" it may at least give him a way to let go of misapplying reason.

LW may speak for himself of course but I think there is at least something to what he says. Of course, belief isn't something you can force on yourself. I personally feel no desire to try because I think there are equally good ways to accomplish the same thing, ways which cost me less cognitive dissonance.