God: No magic required

[lweisenthal]

Hi, Esquilax,

You object:

Sorry, but "sentience existing in another universe," no matter how powerful, does not read as any meaningful concept of god, because it contains none of the other attributes of god.

By invoking God's "attributes," you are needlessly introducing dogma and doctrine. God's "attributes" are much less definable than God's simple existence. For the present purposes, God is simply a higher order of sentience, capable of communicating with lower orders of sentience, the latter of which benefit in terms of comfort, solace, inspiration, courage, escape from addictive behaviors, perseverance, happiness, and even longevity -- all of which have been documented in the peer review medical literature to be benefits of religion, including "spirituality."

There is a debate among physicists regarding the reality of the multiverse theory, although there is now a critical mass of truly esteemed physicists supporting it. But even skeptical physicists don't flatly foreclose the possibility. The concept of the Boltzmann Brain (organized, sentient wireless energy) is likewise deemed to be plausible, again, even among skeptics.

I think that theoretical physics offers a role model for the discipline of theoretical theology, including atheism, regarding the intellectual poison of certitude.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[Esquilax]

By invoking God's "attributes," you are needlessly introducing dogma and doctrine. God's "attributes" are much less definable than God's simple existence. For the present purposes, God is simply a higher order of sentience, capable of communicating with lower orders of sentience, the latter of which benefit in terms of comfort, solace, inspiration, courage, escape from addictive behaviors, perseverance, happiness, and even longevity -- all of which have been documented in the peer review medical literature to be benefits of religion, including "spirituality."

Which means that the only way you can prove god- in the most hypothetical, navel-gazing way possible, I might add- is to strip away most all the defining characteristics of one, until you're left with "a higher mind." But you could do that with anything; if you no longer have to work within the parameters of what a thing is in order to prove it, then proving anything becomes both trivial and meaningless.

Hey look, I just proved the existence of the philosopher's stone! But only if I define the philosopher's stone to mean this ordinary rock here!

Besides, you're going to run into trouble right off the bat by the simple contention that not all higher orders of sentience are gods. You're just slapping an impressive sounding label onto something that doesn't warrant it; why god and not, say, satan? Both are higher orders of sentience, and if that's your only qualifier for what a god is then you have no good reason to avoid the same kind of definitional stripping back with other concepts.

Or hey, why not give it a new name, since it doesn't do the sorts of things we commonly understand gods to do, like create universes or life, or perform miracles? Why not just call it Jimbob the space weasel?

Words have meanings. It might be ideologically favorable for you to ignore whatever fragments of those meanings you like to define whatever thing you please into existence, but that doesn't obligate anyone else to play by the definitions you're using in this one single scenario alone.

[robvalue]

I haven't read through all the pages, but the opening section seems to be saying there is an advantage in being a theist. The thing is, this is assuming that being theist or atheist is a choice. I would be very surprised if anyone could change themselves between atheist and theist just by the desire to do so. I would say that a belief, or non belief, is a state of mind. It's the state of being convinced or not convinced, by whatever standard you use.

So even if there are benefits to being theist (and I would think these are only placebo and social advantages) I couldn't choose to be one if I wanted. I can't make myself believe in something that I am convinced has no basis.

[Angrboda]

Oh look what the cat dragged in....

[Whateverist]

Hello again Mr. W. To what do we owe the pleasure of your visit?

Please tell me whether you view your most recent post as offering evidence that the existence of a god is compatible with the world as we know it -or- are you in fact arguing that belief in god is the most reasonable response for any fair and neutral observer?

[lweisenthal]

Thanks to those who replied.

Here's an executive summary:

1. There are objective, personal benefits associated with being a theist.

2. Certitude is poison, among both theists and atheists. Theistic certitude leads to sharia law type thinking. Atheistic certitude leads to intolerance of theists (e.g. the Soviet Union) and loss of potential personal benefits associated with theism.

3. Cosmological physics is perhaps the scientific discipline most closely related to theology. I find it most interesting that cosmological physicists accept the plausibility of concepts not only rejected but actually derided by atheists.

4. For a skeptic, the possibility for theistic belief begins with rejection of certitude and an open minded consideration of plausibility.

5. Once plausibility is accepted, the next step is self exploration. I have found -- personally -- that it's entirely possible to separate formal religious doctrine from belief in a higher level of sentience. Based on this principle, I entered into a process of self exploration which has become of great personal benefit. I don't require proof beyond reasonable doubt. I don't even require preponderance of evidence. All I required was a real universe, physical plausibility and the personal experience of self exploration.

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.

My conscience is entirely clear. I haven't hurt anyone. Atheism isn't an evil, but certitude is an evil. I hope to have struck a blow against certitude.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[Esquilax]

Thanks to those who replied.

Here's an executive summary:

1. There are objective, personal benefits associated with being a theist.

Only insofar as a drunk man is happier than a sober one.

2. Certitude is poison, among both theists and atheists. Theistic certitude leads to sharia law type thinking. Atheistic certitude leads to intolerance of theists (e.g. the Soviet Union) and loss of potential personal benefits associated with theism.

Don't mistake the fact that your arguments haven't convinced us with some kind of stubborn, iron willed certainty on our part. Instead of attacking our character and motivations- which you have literally no knowledge of- you could try examining your own arguments from a hypothetical outsider perspective and see if you would be convinced of this god of yours based solely on how you've defined it and an assertion that maybe it's possible.

3. Cosmological physics is perhaps the scientific discipline most closely related to theology. I find it most interesting that cosmological physicists accept the plausibility of concepts not only rejected but actually derided by atheists.

A simple demonstration would be all it would take to turn this derision you see into acceptance. Perhaps you should be wondering why you're not able to surmount the kind of evidentiary support I could give for a pack of playing cards or a super ball with ease?

4. For a skeptic, the possibility for theistic belief begins with rejection of certitude and an open minded consideration of plausibility.

Plausibility and reality are very different things, and you won't convince me of the latter by appealing to the former using zero evidence.

5. Once plausibility is accepted, the next step is self exploration. I have found -- personally -- that it's entirely possible to separate formal religious doctrine from belief in a higher level of sentience. Based on this principle, I entered into a process of self exploration which has become of great personal benefit. I don't require proof beyond reasonable doubt. I don't even require preponderance of evidence. All I required was a real universe, physical plausibility and the personal experience of self exploration.

Are these benefits in any way objectively verifiable, or are they simply emotional benefits? Also, again, "higher level of sentience" is not necessarily god; you have some legwork before you get from "higher level of sentience" to "god."

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.

My conscience is entirely clear. I haven't hurt anyone. Atheism isn't an evil, but certitude is an evil. I hope to have struck a blow against certitude.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

If your best argument in favor of your beliefs is "it is not actively causing anyone else pain," you may not have super well supported beliefs, there.

[robvalue]

What this "certitude"? Atheists don't claim any kind of certainty. That is the sole claim of (many) theists. See my post here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-29499.html

There is indirect harm cause by anyone who spreads any kind of religious or "woo" ideas. I'm not saying it's something that's easily measurable, or that everyone who does this is equally accountable, but it is real.

The more people hear about this stuff, the more credibility it gets. The more validation people feel if they already hold these beliefs, and the more likely people will get sucked into it. There is a sad common misconception that the more people who hold a view, the more likely it is to be true. Although this is nonsense, a lot of people believe it. The easier it is for the conmen and parasites who benefit from it and exploit people to keep on doing it.

So my point is that any spread of religion/woo is in some way "propping up" (great term I nicked from The Atheist Experience) religion, the harm it causes, and indoctrination of children. If you take away the passive supporters, the core belief becomes much harder to defend and the harm becomes more apparent and vulnerable. The best you can say is you're causing very little harm, as such things are not immediately visible.

Also, "beliefs inform actions" (Matt Dillahunty) so you can never be sure that your actions are not more harmful, or less helpful, than they would be without more accurate beliefs.

[Whateverist]

Hello again Mr. W. To what do we owe the pleasure of your visit?

Please tell me whether you view your most recent post as offering evidence that the existence of a god is compatible with the world as we know it -or- are you in fact arguing that belief in god is the most reasonable response for any fair and neutral observer?

Seems that I have my answer then. You have argued that belief in the existence of god -at least if that belief is unhampered by any church dogma- is possible. You do not claim to have reached a fair and impartial judgement, only a state of mind whose benefits you are convinced are beneficial. Fair enough.

But I would like to know just how big this god you advocate for is supposed to be. Do you credit it with the cosmos and everything in it? Do you imagine that said god audits everyone's prayers? Then there is the matter of the soul's immortality and, perhaps, a judgement day.

Also, do you find the best gains in mental health and healing are obtained with a very big god or would a little personal god do the trick? (I do wish you'd hang around and discuss - but I do appreciate your contributions.)

[Tonus]

2. Certitude is poison, among both theists and atheists. Theistic certitude leads to sharia law type thinking. Atheistic certitude leads to intolerance of theists (e.g. the Soviet Union) and loss of potential personal benefits associated with theism.

I notice that in this paragraph you specify a specific application of certitude (regarding the existence or non-existence of god). I take it that your claim that "certitude is poison" is therefore a general view? Because the converse would appear to be that uncertainty is thus the 'correct' approach, and I don't agree with that.