Bad Chihuahua! (An Inability To Separate God From Religion)

[Heyo]

OK - so is it fundamental to reality or does it appear by magic at a certain level of physical complexity? I mean it has to be one or the other - right? Fundamental or radically emergent?

That's the question, and the answer depends on the definition of consciousness you're using. (Which nobody has.) Consciousness would still be a phenomenon if it turns out that consciousness is just an illusion, like Free Will.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

On another thread someone asked atheists why and how they became atheists. And nearly every response sited some unresolvable issue with religion, and/or with how some religion was defining God. The idea being that as the atheist rejected the God as it was defined by that religion, they rejected the idea of God all together.

And for some reason the irrationality of this thought process never seems to have crossed anyone's mind. As to a person, some religion or other was being allowed to define God, without doubt or exception, so that in rejecting that religion's 'God', the entire concept of and gamut of alternative possibilities was being dismissed, en total.

"A chihuahua bit me once as a kid so I reject and despise all dogs to this day."

It seems to me that there is a strong prejudice being served, here. As evidenced by a blanket dismissal prior to any honest exploration or investigation into the many possible ways we humans might choose to define or conceptualize "God".

Are you saying that before I get to call myself an atheist, I have to "explore and investigate" every possible god-concept that any person ever has or can come up with?

That would take multiple lifetimes. And I see it as a waste of time because I don't see anything that points in a direction of any god or gods or anything supernatural or what-have-you.

But I'm open to anyone who thinks they can properly support whatever god-concept they believe in.


btw: as a sidenote, this OP doesn't describe me. I have always been an atheist. Reason being that throughout my childhood, nobody ever indoctrinated me into any god beliefs. I had a secular upbringing and gods were simply non-issues / not present.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But how do any of us know what "evidence" to look for?

From the hypothesis that is being put forward. A testable hypothesis makes testable predictions. There's your description of evidence right there.
Without such, data is just data and not evidence of anything.

Data only becomes evidence once you have a testable idea that makes predictions (about what data you should and should not find, if the hypothesis is accurate).

I had a "God experience" as a small child. It was amazing and inexplicable.

If it was inexplicable, then why are you explaining it by calling it a "god experience".

Think about it before you answer.

Very positive and uplifting. And yet to this day I don't know what to make of it.

And yet you don't mind calling it "god".

And in fact if it were to recur, right now, I still wouldn't know what to make of it. Because I have no possible way to "verify it". And that's with DIRECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

Sure. But if you don't know what to make of it and find it "inexplicable", perhaps you should be saying "i don't know what it was" instead of saying it was some god?

What does it mean to "believe in" God? I have no idea what or even if God is. So what is there for me to "believe in" except someone else's proclamations about what they think God is. And why would I believe them?

So you don't believe in gods?

Yet I can still choose to hope that a God of my preferred understanding exists.

Sure. And I can hope that suddenly a million dollars will appear on my bank account.

And I can still choose to live as if that hope will turn out to be true. After all, I have no evidence that this God I prefer to hope exists DOESN'T exist.

Wauw. You also don't have evidence that there are no extra-dimensional fairies.

You know what things that don't exist all have in common? No evidence.

And neither does anyone else. And not only that, but I have gained ample evidence that my choosing to hope in this God's existence, and by living as if it exists, makes my experience of living life far better than before I made this choice. So that the choice then produces its own evidence.

You have a weird definition of the word "evidence". Or, at best, an extremely low standard for what is and is not evidence.

Misfortunes befall is all, big fish or small. I hope they can rally. And hope is a good thing.

False hope is a bad thing, imo.

 

[PureX]

I was thinking more of an argument that you support, one that is fully developed I mean, in the public domain. That would be better for the purpose of discussion as otherwise a whole load of random tangents are likely.

I'm an agnostic theist so I'm not really a proponent of theism as an "argument". The reason for this thread was not to promote theism, but to clarify what it is, and that it is NOT RELIGION. Because a lot of people around here seem to think it is. Both religious theists and anti-religious atheists. And as a result everyone talks past each other constantly with no one ever really even understanding the actual content they're supposedly debating.

But what you seem to be saying is that the fact we’re all here means there might be a god.

More the fact that "here" is here and we didn't do that. So something else, did. Also, the fact that, by design, what is here (us) wonders why, and how, and what for.

Well that was a valid point before there were alternative explanations,...

There are no alternative explanations. Both random chance and perpetuity are not logically coherent. All that's left is the deliberate 'mystery source'.

... hence the invention of gods by people to try and explain the why and wherefore of us being here.

The artifice is just artifice. It's how we humans deal with uncomfortable conundrums. This isn't relevant to the philosophical question at hand, however.

Over time we’ve developed better explanations that we can test and develop further.

No, your head is being fogged up by science and religion, again. Theism is not a scientific proposition, nor a religious proposition.Science cannot investigate nor refute it. And religions only come into play after someone chooses to answer it for themselves, and wants to live accordingly.

The idea of there being a god however is a total fiction, we invented it.

All ideas are "total fiction" that we invent for ourselves. The idea of a 'tree' is a total fiction that we conjured up and hold in our minds to label, value, and rationalize a particular set of perceived information. "Reality" itself is a fictional construct that we hold onto in our minds.

It didn’t come to us from outside, but from inside.

It's both. Perception IS conception. They're indivisible.

You can easily trace how that idea developed over time, proving quite conclusively that there is nothing to it but fiction.

All ideas develop over time. The idea of a 'dog' developed over time. Does that prove that dogs are fictional?

Nothing even slightly indicates otherwise, it’s a fiction supported solely by fictional evidence. You seem to have some obsession with scientism, but this is just about the development of human thought, the current status of a long and ongoing struggle towards better understanding. One thing that can be said with confidence at this point is that an argument that is only supported by its own claims is not worth taking seriously.

I think this conversation is going to be way over your head.

 

[Alien826]

I think you'll find, if you give it a little more thought, that the universe does a hell of a lot more than mere "existing"...it does you for a start!

It was an example of a "god" concept that is at the opposite end of a spectrum that has the Judeo-Christian god at the other end. It's to do with how "personal", conscious and interactive a god is considered to be. If you don't like the example, pick another one.

 

[PureX]

Are you saying that before I get to call myself an atheist, I have to "explore and investigate" every possible god-concept that any person ever has or can come up with?

No, you just need to know what theism is, so as to know what atheism is. And you not only don't know this, you are actively fighting to remain ignorant because you want theism to be religious. Religious depictions of god not actually being god are the only argument you have. Utterly irrelevant as it is.

 

[siti]

That's the question, and the answer depends on the definition of consciousness you're using. (Which nobody has.) Consciousness would still be a phenomenon if it turns out that consciousness is just an illusion, like Free Will.

OK...never mind "just an illusion" for a minute...perfectly valid point, but as in the case of free will, we have little choice but to proceed "as if" it were real even if it is an illusion...

If consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, then the universe is, at some level, conscious...

If consciousness is a radical emergence, how do we know that it couldn't - or hasn't already - emerged at levels of reality other than the individual biological organism?

Either way, there is no logical way to rule out some kind of higher level "cosmic consciousness" and there is certainly compelling evidence for the existence of consciousness (at least as an illusion). To arbitrarily limit consciousness to the level of the individual organism would be special pleading.

And if there is some kind of perfectly natural higher level consciousness - or more likely (by the same logic) consciousnesses at multiple levels of holistic reality (ecosystems, societies - think hive mind or cultural psyche) might these not be what some people have "glimpsed" and interpreted as a "spiritual experience" of the divine? Might these not, in fact, actually be the "god" or "gods" about which our ancestors could explain only with stories?

Perhaps in the end, God is as real as the conscious experience or the free will we don't really know we have? Perhaps God is just an inadequately explained physical phenomenon.

 

[siti]

It was an example of a "god" concept that is at the opposite end of a spectrum that has the Judeo-Christian god at the other end. It's to do with how "personal", conscious and interactive a god is considered to be. If you don't like the example, pick another one.

And my point was that if the universe can "do" you and me...why can't it "do" God?

 

[Alien826]

And my point was that if the universe can "do" you and me...why can't it "do" God?

As a concept, and based on a particular definition of "god", I suppose so.

But, are those two things reasonably comparable?

You and me: Definitely existing, well defined, consisting of material substance, produced by a (now understood) non-conscious process.

Universe-god: Just an idea at this stage, not defined, not fitting the descriptions of many gods as believed in (that is, not "outside the universe" in some way), if part of the universe would be subject to physical limitations (like the speed of light), not, so far as I know, evidenced by observation.

By the way, this reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend years ago. I suggested that everything that is described as being the actions of god could be perfectly explained by a purely local god, that was confined to this planet. He replied "I wouldn't call that God".

 

[siti]

No, you just need to know what theism is, so as to know what atheism is.

No he doesn't because the word is athe-ism - without (belief in) gods, not a-theism - opposed to theism...he just needs to be without belief in gods...

I agree though, that a lot of atheist argument refutes religion not god(s)...and I agree 100% that this is a pity because there is an important and enlightening conversation to be had in this area about what it means to be human, embedded as we are in an impossibly and inextricably tangled web of reality...perhaps when we (collectively) have fully cast off the shackles of infantile credulity and passed through the age of adolescent petulant rejection to the more sage and considered age of the "slipper'd pantaloon"...?

 

[PureX]

No he doesn't because the word is athe-ism - without (belief in) gods, not a-theism - opposed to theism...he just needs to be without belief in gods...

Theism is not about who believes what. And so neither is atheism. Theism is a philosophical proposition. Not a statement of belief. It is the philosophical proposition that God/gods exist. That's it. And atheism is the philosophical antithesis of that proposition (that they do not exist).
It's really that simple. And it has nothing to do with who believes what or how much or how their religions depict their gods.

I agree though, that a lot of atheist argument refutes religion not god(s)...and I agree 100% that this is a pity because there is an important and enlightening conversation to be had in this area about what it means to be human, embedded as we are in an impossibly and inextricably tangled web of reality...perhaps when we (collectively) have fully cast off the shackles of infantile credulity and passed through the age of adolescent petulant rejection to the more sage and considered age of the "slipper'd pantaloon"...?

Sadly, it does not apear to me that we will survive that long.

 

[siti]

As a concept, and based on a particular definition of "god", I suppose so.

But, are those two things reasonably comparable?

You and me: Definitely existing, well defined, consisting of material substance, produced by a (now understood) non-conscious process.

As far as we know...bit there's actually no compelling evidence that all that isn't just a compelling illusion.

Universe-god: Just an idea at this stage, not defined, not fitting the descriptions of many gods as believed in (that is, not "outside the universe" in some way),

Inside/outside...these are just relational...and if human experience teaches us anything it teaches us that we can mistaken...just because we misinterpret time and space relationships doesn't mean something is not really there

if part of the universe would be subject to physical limitations (like the speed of light), not, so far as I know, evidenced by observation.

I don't see that as a problem...we can't physically observe thoughts either...but we know we have them

By the way, this reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend years ago. I suggested that everything that is described as being the actions of god could be perfectly explained by a purely local god, that was confined to this planet. He replied "I wouldn't call that God".

God or gods...is a forest a god...a hive of bees...an ecosystem...a planet...? I have no problem calling them gods - or not gods...it's what it is that's important, not the label we choose to stick on it.

 

[LadyJane]

Perception IS conception.

I've noticed your fondness for this phrase. If there's no difference between perception and conception what do you make of insight? How does one mull over an idea or change one's mind through the power of discernment? We can't all be solipsists. Wouldn’t a world without that distinction align humans about the nature of reality?

 

[HonestJoe]

It seems to me that there is a strong prejudice being served, here. As evidenced by a blanket dismissal prior to any honest exploration or investigation into the many possible ways we humans might choose to define or conceptualize "God".

I am an unconventional non-believer, certainly in the context of this forum, and I recognise that a lot of the people who hold themselves to the label "atheist" don't have a very strong basis to it, not unlike many "theists" (in fact, in my experience, extreme theists who loose their faith tend to become extreme atheists, and vice-versa while moderates generally remain moderate regardless of how their core beliefs evolve).

I'm not sure what you present is quite how it works though. A monotheistic religion (which will be pretty much all we're talking about here) will present the ideas that A) Some kind of god exists and B) This is what that god is like. If you loose faith in that religion, you loose faith in both assertions. It is certainly possible to consider other religions or philosophies that state the same point A but a different point B, but in the absence of any such idea being presented, weak atheism would be the default position.

The other aspect is that many of these religions share very similar (and sometimes literally the same) support for the existence and nature of god, and so they fall foul of the same challenges. Once a person has countered the ideas of one monotheistic religion, an alternative one would have to do something more and different to convince them.

Being bitten by one dog certainly isn't a valid reason to hate all dogs, but it'd be natural and reasonable to be more cautious around unfamiliar dogs than the average person would be, and certainly more than the average dog owner.

 

[Tomef]

There are no alternative explanations. Both random chance and perpetuity are not logically coherent. All that's left is the deliberate 'mystery source'.

Nope. Here you’re just showing that when you say the conversation is over my head, what you actually mean is that you don’t have an understanding of the basic concepts involved, hence you are resorting to random fantasy.

The artifice is just artifice. It's how we humans deal with uncomfortable conundrums. This isn't relevant to the philosophical question at hand, however.

Of course it’s relevant. Philosophy may not be a linear progression, but reference to issues which are resolved beyond any reasonable doubt already, philosophically, are always relevant benchmarks whenever the issue is brought up. Rather than flinging out random comments, you would be a little more convincing if you could provide a coherent argument that acknowledges what other well put together (but false) arguments have already dealt with. I did read your earlier posts, but simply asserting things in an excitable manner does not make for an argument. You need something a bit more coherent if you want to convince others of your genius.

No, your head is being fogged up by science and religion, again. Theism is not a scientific proposition, nor a religious proposition.Science cannot investigate nor refute it. And religions only come into play after someone chooses to answer it for themselves, and wants to live accordingly.

Human thought is not just science or religion. When I say human thought has progressed beyond the need for the god hypothesis, you should know, as the expert you appear to believe yourself to be, that this is something that is evident from all areas of human intellectual development. I can provide some examples if you really aren’t aware of that, but I’m assuming you have some familiarity with what I mean - ?

All ideas are "total fiction" that we invent for ourselves. The idea of a 'tree' is a total fiction that we conjured up and hold in our minds to label, value, and rationalize a particular set of perceived information. "Reality" itself is a fictional construct that we hold onto in our minds.

If you really don’t get the difference between a purely human creation, a religious book, a poem, or whatever it might be, the result of the intent of an individual or individuals to create a set of ideas or convey an experience in writing, and us perceiving trees, or dogs, or anything else, then it is rather silly of you to think your arguments are getting anywhere near the top of someone’s head.

 

[PearlSeeker]

On another thread someone asked atheists why and how they became atheists. And nearly every response sited some unresolvable issue with religion, and/or with how some religion was defining God. The idea being that as the atheist rejected the God as it was defined by that religion, they rejected the idea of God all together.

And for some reason the irrationality of this thought process never seems to have crossed anyone's mind. As to a person, some religion or other was being allowed to define God, without doubt or exception, so that in rejecting that religion's 'God', the entire concept of and gamut of alternative possibilities was being dismissed, en total.

"A chihuahua bit me once as a kid so I reject and despise all dogs to this day."

It seems to me that there is a strong prejudice being served, here. As evidenced by a blanket dismissal prior to any honest exploration or investigation into the many possible ways we humans might choose to define or conceptualize "God".

I reject only the God of the Bible and the gods of other myths. I am still open to some other concepts: cosmic mind (Logos), ultimate reality manifesting as nature (Brahman, Tao) ... but I'm hesitant to call it God. I am using the word "God" in conversation as a general concept only for the sake of convenience.

 

[PureX]

I've noticed your fondness for this phrase. If there's no difference between perception and conception what do you make of insight? How does one mull over an idea or change one's mind through the power of discernment? We can't all be solipsists. Wouldn’t a world without that distinction align humans about the nature of reality?

Perception and conception are simultaneous and constant. Information comes into 'us' through our body's sensory mechanisms and our brains are constantly cognating it ... comparing and contrasting and arranging and valuing. And as more information comes into us, there is more cognating. More comparing and contrasting and rearranging re-valuing. We build a conceptual "reality", and then we live in it. A landscape of the mind. A world-view. And even a "self".

It's ALL make-believe. But it's all we have. So it becomes our 'truth' even though we really have no idea how true it really is.

Perception is conception. We are metaphysical beings. Emphasis on the "meta".

 

[Alien826]

God or gods...is a forest a god...a hive of bees...an ecosystem...a planet...? I have no problem calling them gods - or not gods...it's what it is that's important, not the label we choose to stick on it.

You: There's a feather about to land on your head!
Me: (After a large rock just misses me and lands on the ground next to me) Why didn't you warn me about the rock?
You: I did, "feather" is how I refer to rocks.

Words have meanings and sometimes it's important to use the generally accepted word.

 

[PureX]

I reject only the God of the Bible and the gods of other myths. I am still open to some other concepts: cosmic mind (Logos), ultimate reality manifesting as nature (Brahman, Tao) ... but I'm hesitant to call it God. I am using the word "God" in conversation as a general concept only for the sake of convenience.

I can identify with that.

I see these various god-ideals as humans constructs, so I don't necessarily 'reject them' so much as I don't expect them to be accurate. I donlt even expect any idea I might come up with about God at any given time to be accurate. I understand that these ideas are just mind-mechanisms. Artifice. Representations of something that is beyond our ability to comprehend mentally.

But they can be useful nonetheless. So I use them as needed. I just don't "believe in" them. I am fundamentally a taoist. Meaning I make no presumptions in that regard. Yet it is the "tao of man" to invent these many various ideas and names for the great mystery. And I am a man, too.

 

[PureX]

I am an unconventional non-believer, certainly in the context of this forum, and I recognise that a lot of the people who hold themselves to the label "atheist" don't have a very strong basis to it, not unlike many "theists" (in fact, in my experience, extreme theists who loose their faith tend to become extreme atheists, and vice-versa while moderates generally remain moderate regardless of how their core beliefs evolve).

And excellent observation.

I have often noted , too, how, among theists, the gods they 'worship' tend to very much resemble themselves in spirit ad temperament. Angry men worship angry gods. Greedy men worship greedy gods. Frightened men worship abusive gods. Kind men worship benevolent gods. And so on. The lesson being that most people choose the gods that confirm their own natures and desires, not the gods that challenge their natures or desires. Ot's not always the case, but often.

I'm not sure what you present is quite how it works though. A monotheistic religion (which will be pretty much all we're talking about here) will present the ideas that A) Some kind of god exists and B) This is what that god is like. If you loose faith in that religion, you loose faith in both assertions.

Yes, that often happens. But I'm pointing out that it's not logical. And if we take a moment to consider it, we will see why.

Religions don't assert that "A" God exists. They assert that THEIR God exists. That God as God is depicted via their theological reality exists. And that's to be expected because that's the purpose of religion: to help the adherents stay their particula chosen theological course. But when one of them decides to reject that theology, and it's depiction of God, they have no logical basis upon which to be rejecting all theologies and all theological depictions of god, and even less of a logical basis to be rejecting the god proposition en total.

And yet this is nearly ALWAYS the case, and always the claim. There is no law that says humans can't be irrational. But too often these particular humans are telling us all about how exceptionally logical and rational they are, and what critical thinkers they are. And it's just not the case in this instance.

It is certainly possible to consider other religions or philosophies that state the same point A but a different point B, but in the absence of any such idea being presented, weak atheism would be the default position.

No version of atheism is a "default position" because the default position is no position. And atheism is not "no position'. It is the antithetical position. No position is the state of mind that exists prior to and/or apart from the theist proposition. Unaffected and undetermined.

The other aspect is that many of these religions share very similar (and sometimes literally the same) support for the existence and nature of god, and so they fall foul of the same challenges. Once a person has countered the ideas of one monotheistic religion, an alternative one would have to do something more and different to convince them.

It doesn't matter because religions are not theism. And theism is not religious. And atheism is a particular philosophical response to theism, not a response to religion. And until people get this strait in their minds, and stop confusing and conflating them, they will remain confused and illogical and irrational, despite their constant claims to the contrary.

Being bitten by one dog certainly isn't a valid reason to hate all dogs, but it'd be natural and reasonable to be more cautious around unfamiliar dogs than the average person would be, and certainly more than the average dog owner.

We humans are not logical beings. So what we deem to be "natural" behavior is often still not logical behavior. And that's to be expected. But let's not let this becomes and excuse to mislabel or misrepresent or disparage of be dishonest about and through our irrationality. By all means be an atheist. But please be as honest an atheist as you can be. That's all I'm really proposing. And I would certainly propose the same to theist.