Benevolent Creator God?

[Mister Agenda]

Even if there were something contacting certain people telepathically, humans have no capacity whatsoever to distinguish between a telepathic creator of the universe and a telepathic prankster that isn't the creator of the universe. Nothing near omnipotence is required to be able to convince a human you're sending mental signals to that you're the god or God they were raised to worship, especially if you can induce feelings as well.

Any conviction someone has that they can't be fooled by whatever you think you're in contact with (maybe especially if it's part of your own brain) is misplaced.

The main way we distinguish hallucinations from reality is evidence and people with no reason to be biased confirming that they are experiencing the same things we are experiencing. It's still not certain, but at the end of the day, that's really all we've got.

[tackattack]

@vulcanlogician that seems a reasonable position as well. cheers

@LadyForCamus to answer how can you differentiate between your own mind in action and a god acting upon you: Speaking of my inner self,
If a situation outside of myself happens, I look for a cause. I look for natural causes within reason, and if I can't find one, look for unnatural ones within reason. Both of those reasons are tainted by my biases and knowledge limits.
I typically operate with a heavy internal locus of control mentality. If it's a thought inside of myself, I look for a cause. I look for experiential, knowledge or external sources for that idea at it's root, if I can't find one I trust my intuition on it after evaluating it against my personal conscience. Then I usually switch focus fairly quickly to its effect rather than the cause. I acknowledge that this is also influenced by biases, familiarity bias, and habits.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@LadyForCamus to answer how can you differentiate between your own mind in action and a god acting upon you[?]

And what would be the practical effect of intentionally not making that distinction? I actually don't think it would be all that important. The same process of interpretation and disambiguation would have to be undertaken in order to make sense of what it being evocated, regardless of whether the source is imaginal or inspired.

[vulcanlogician]

@LadyForCamus to answer how can you differentiate between your own mind in action and a god acting upon you[?]

And what would be the practical effect of intentionally not making that distinction? I actually don't think it would be all that important. The same process of interpretation and disambiguation would have to be undertaken in order to make sense of what it being evocated, regardless of whether the source is imaginal or inspired.

But it IS important, Neo. An interpretation of an experience as "from God" (rather than just mundane activity of the mind) can suggest certain realities or produce biases. I'm reminded of a YouTube series where a deconverted atheist described being in a relationship and feeling that God wanted her to be with this person. In the end, the relationship didn't work out.

From the woman's perspective, the feeling (or inner experience) of God "blessing" the relationship urged her to pursue it. Had she interpreted the inner experience differently, she might have said "I'm just having feelings about the relationship. They aren't from God. There is no divine influence urging me to pursue the relationship."

All I'm saying is, in principle, there is a "practical effect" in interpreting inner experiences as being "from God."

[Neo-Scholastic]

And what would be the practical effect of intentionally not making that distinction? I actually don't think it would be all that important. The same process of interpretation and disambiguation would have to be undertaken in order to make sense of what it being evocated, regardless of whether the source is imaginal or inspired.

But it IS important, Neo. An interpretation of an experience as "from God" (rather than just mundane activity of the mind) can suggest certain realities or produce biases. I'm reminded of a YouTube series where a deconverted atheist described being in a relationship and feeling that God wanted her to be with this person. In the end, the relationship didn't work out.

From the woman's perspective, the feeling (or inner experience) of God "blessing" the relationship urged her to pursue it. Had she interpreted the inner experience differently, she might have said "I'm just having feelings about the relationship. They aren't from God. There is no divine influence urging me to pursue the relationship."

All I'm saying is, in principle, there is a "practical effect" in interpreting inner experiences as being "from God."

For someone engaged in rationalizing a strong impulse, I would think saying "from God" and "from my innermost being" are functionally equivalent. They would do what they would do anyway, for any reason that sounded convincing. On the otherhand, for someone trying to make sense of uncanny and ineffable experiences, which is where I often find myself, I am not convinced that such a distinction matters - why wouldn't the voice of my innermost being seem in some sense divine and if God exists it seems right and proper that he would speak to me from my innermost being instead trying to reach me through the same perceptual path SKY News uses.

[vulcanlogician]

But it IS important, Neo. An interpretation of an experience as "from God" (rather than just mundane activity of the mind) can suggest certain realities or produce biases. I'm reminded of a YouTube series where a deconverted atheist described being in a relationship and feeling that God wanted her to be with this person. In the end, the relationship didn't work out.

From the woman's perspective, the feeling (or inner experience) of God "blessing" the relationship urged her to pursue it. Had she interpreted the inner experience differently, she might have said "I'm just having feelings about the relationship. They aren't from God. There is no divine influence urging me to pursue the relationship."

All I'm saying is, in principle, there is a "practical effect" in interpreting inner experiences as being "from God."

For someone engaged in rationalizing a strong impulse, I would think saying "from God" and "from my innermost being" are functionally equivalent. They would do what they would do anyway, for any reason that sounded convincing. On the otherhand, for someone trying to make sense of uncanny and ineffable experiences, which is where I often find myself, I am not convinced that such a distinction matters - why wouldn't the voice of my innermost being seem in some sense divine and if God exists it seems right and proper that he would speak to me from my innermost being instead trying to reach me through the same perceptual path SKY News uses.

Unlike many atheists, I think there is some value in using symbols and concepts to bring one's inner life into order or create meaning. Even symbols like God or Christ. I feel like meditating on such symbols can bring benefit

But (as an atheist) I'm reminded that a plethora of symbols and concepts can achieve this end. Theravada Buddhists use "emptiness" and it gets the job done. It doesn't have to be Jesus. It can be wholly mundane.

What concerns me is the baggage that often accompanies these symbols. But in the final analysis, a reasonable person who reflects on things and approaches mysticism carefully, can avoid these pitfalls.

I really liked Belequa's perspective on mysticism. I've often wondered if atheism is antipodal to mysticism. I think maybe not. In any case, it's an interesting thing to consider.

[Neo-Scholastic]

For someone engaged in rationalizing a strong impulse, I would think saying "from God" and "from my innermost being" are functionally equivalent. They would do what they would do anyway, for any reason that sounded convincing. On the otherhand, for someone trying to make sense of uncanny and ineffable experiences, which is where I often find myself, I am not convinced that such a distinction matters - why wouldn't the voice of my innermost being seem in some sense divine and if God exists it seems right and proper that he would speak to me from my innermost being instead trying to reach me through the same perceptual path SKY News uses.

Unlike many atheists, I think there is some value in using symbols and concepts to bring one's inner life into order or create meaning. Even symbols like God or Christ. I feel like meditating on such symbols can bring benefit

But (as an atheist) I'm reminded that a plethora of symbols and concepts can achieve this end. Theravada Buddhists use "emptiness" and it gets the job done. It doesn't have to be Jesus. It can be wholly mundane.

What concerns me is the baggage that often accompanies these symbols. But in the final analysis, a reasonable person who reflects on things and approaches mysticism carefully, can avoid these pitfalls.

I really liked Belequa's perspective on mysticism. I've often wondered if atheism is antipodal to mysticism. I think maybe not. In any case, it's an interesting thing to consider.

The so-called negative way to the mystical fits nicely with a skeptical mindset. While in a mindful state I notice all the ways god seems to be absent. Sometimes the outline of that negative space, the boundry around where god should be but isn't has the counter-intuitive effect of filling me with an intimate sense of God's presence. Perhaps divine hiddeness is not a bug but rather a feature of any relationship between the finite and the infinite. YMMV

[LadyForCamus]

@LadyForCamus to answer how can you differentiate between your own mind in action and a god acting upon you[?]

And what would be the practical effect of intentionally not making that distinction? I actually don't think it would be all that important.

Importance is a value judgement. If holding rationally justified beliefs is important to an individual, then making that distinction absolutely matters. And if acting in accordance with rationally held beliefs matters to an individual, then the distinction matters on that front as well. As @vulcanlogician pointed out above, our beliefs inform our actions.

Interacted with an an individual on FB recently who was telling her friend that under no circumstances should she return to her ex, who was a serial sexual and physical abuser, unless he had truly given himself to Christ and repented.

[LadyForCamus]

@vulcanlogician that seems a reasonable position as well. cheers

@LadyForCamus to answer how can you differentiate between your own mind in action and a god acting upon you: Speaking of my inner self,
If a situation outside of myself happens, I look for a cause. I look for natural causes within reason, and if I can't find one, look for unnatural ones within reason.

A few follow-up questions, if you would be so kind to oblige:

1. How do you rule out all possible natural causes, including potential natural causes that you aren’t aware of yet? And, what is the difference between an unnatural cause “within reason” versus an unreasonable unnatural cause? How do you make that distinction?

2. Is there a reason you don’t stop at “I don’t know the cause at this time,” when you have an experience you can’t think of a natural explanation for? I hope that doesn’t come across as condescending, btw. I don’t mean it as such. I have had several experiences in my life that I similarly have no natural explanation for, and back when I was far less skeptical about that sort of thing I attributed the cause to some force or “spirit.” Twenty years later, I’ve realized that I don’t actually have any evidence of such a thing as “the supernatural” (or even a clear definition of it for that matter), so I say, “I don’t know what that was and I probably never will.” It is annoying as fuck, not having an explanation, don’t get me wrong. But I know I can’t make a rational inference without supporting evidence, and being rational is very important to me.

Both of those reasons are tainted by my biases and knowledge limits.

Yours and everyone else’s, atheist and theist alike. I appreciate your awareness and willingness to admit it.

[LadyForCamus]

But it IS important, Neo. An interpretation of an experience as "from God" (rather than just mundane activity of the mind) can suggest certain realities or produce biases. I'm reminded of a YouTube series where a deconverted atheist described being in a relationship and feeling that God wanted her to be with this person. In the end, the relationship didn't work out.

From the woman's perspective, the feeling (or inner experience) of God "blessing" the relationship urged her to pursue it. Had she interpreted the inner experience differently, she might have said "I'm just having feelings about the relationship. They aren't from God. There is no divine influence urging me to pursue the relationship."

All I'm saying is, in principle, there is a "practical effect" in interpreting inner experiences as being "from God."

If God exists it seems right and proper that he would speak to me from my innermost being instead trying to reach me through the same perceptual path SKY News uses.

Does it? I’m not so sure I’m sold on that notion.