Dystheism: what would you do?

[lewisnotmiller]

Worship can refer to attitude or to praxis or both.

Yes, that is a good point for me to remember. I tend to think of it more in terms of attitude.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That might explain Trump!

Ha! Made me laugh. But don't go suggesting to Trump he's Zeus, please.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That or turn God into a being who chooses what is evil or good, and you have a Greek god with all the petty politics, malevolence, favoritism and occasional sexual trysts.

I don't think the Greek Gods really dealt with clear cut concepts of 'good' and 'evil' in a simple, binary fashion, though. That's much more a monotheistic viewpoint (commonly).

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I got into a debate elsewhere earlier today with a group of Calvinists that were making fun of some meme that depicted a person saying that even if God existed, they would not worship God.

Several people pointed out that this was likely because of things like the Problem of Evil: the meme-maker was basically saying that God would be unworthy of worship even if one existed. That’s all beside the point, just background.

What caught my attention was one poster (one of the Calvinists I presume) that was saying such people were fools: that even if dystheism were true, they should worship the god to avoid infinite suffering in Hell.

Now, I disagree with this, of course. I don’t act on behalf of my values to gain anything, and I don’t avoid causing harm in order to avoid punishment. I act on behalf of my values because they are my values.

This person just kept saying that it would be foolish not to worship the god, and praise it, and do what the god commanded, and so on: even if the god commanded to harm people, or wanted praise for causing harm. I said I would never do this willingly. He again said this was foolish (and trust me, by this point I do not trust this man’s ethics/morality, because this seems like exactly the line of argument I imagine some Nazis gave: “I better follow orders for my own safety.” I would rather die than be a Nazi.)

So anyway, this got me to thinking of a horrible hypothetical. In the case of dystheism, where there is just an awful god, but said god is omnipotent and can cause you to suffer a lot for an infinite amount of time unless you followed its harmful commands or praised it for harming people or any number of nasty things: am I alone in saying that while my mind and will are my own (before I go too crazy from whatever tortures would be put upon me), I’d choose Hell over going against my values of not harming people and not praising monsters?

I don't know about this - it sounds good on the surface - but when I think about it it comes out as, "I know better than an omnipotent (and I'm assuming omniscient) Being."

You don't think that it is possible that what we think is harm - is actually not harmful at all?

I mean - there are loads of foods that my son does not want to eat - and he claims they are "yucky" and will even pretend to choke on it or be poisoned by it - but they are actually good for him.

He is judging the nutritional value of the food based on how it tastes to him in the moment - and we all know that tastes change.

So - basically - we are not equipped to judge if this omnipotent and omniscient Being is actually a monster and not worthy of worship.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't know about this - it sounds good on the surface - but when I think about it it comes out as, "I know better than an omnipotent (and I'm assuming omniscient) Being."

You don't think that it is possible that what we think is harm - is actually not harmful at all?

I mean - there are loads of foods that my son does not want to eat - and he claims they are "yucky" and will even pretend to choke on it or be poisoned by it - but they are actually good for him.

He is judging the nutritional value of the food based on how it tastes to him in the moment - and we all know that tastes change.

So - basically - we are not equipped to judge if this omnipotent and omniscient Being is actually a monster and not worthy of worship.

I have an entire thread running on this elsewhere right now. The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it's an epistemic trap: it leads to special pleading (calling things we would normally call malevolent to be benevolent in an unknowable way), and there is no escape from the epistemic trap (we can excuse literally anything, forever: God could melt people's faces for sheer fun and we could still use the reasoning that maybe it's good for an unknowable reason).

We should avoid epistemic traps like this that can't be reasoned out of. So we should at least consider it reasonable to count obvious signs of malevolence without an explicit explanation for how they might not be malevolent as actual malevolence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not in the least, if you understand what the phrase "organisms are algorithms" really means -- and the recognition that algorithms can be interrupted (life itself can be interrupted by a random bullet, for example), and that in the case of intelligent organisms, the algorithms themselves can be overridden by that other aspect of our nature -- intelligence.

Even such mysterious things as "what makes that person a sexual turn-on, and that one not" are driven by a multitude of biochemical inputs that make one more likely to provide superior offspring (based on your self). The output (from that complex algorithm) is expressed in many ways in humans, and yet we have little or no idea what "data" those algorithms are "considering."

Sounds like we're moving from Calvin to Kepler here (determinism to sacred geometry). "Where there is matter, there is geometry" - and now, algebra.

Still we face the problem of free will. If intelligence can override these algorithms, then presumably intelligence is where free will resides? But if intelligence is itself a function of that human organism the brain (as I have heard some atheists say), then it's activity is subject to the same algorithmic programming governing all other aspects of our existence. Free will is an illusion - everything is ordained by nature; which brings us back to Calvin, the determinist.

What this talk of biological algorithms seems to suggest, is that all of nature is governed by an infinitely complex tapestry of precise and immutable laws? A Grand Design, as it were?

 

[firedragon]

I got into a debate elsewhere earlier today with a group of Calvinists that were making fun of some meme that depicted a person saying that even if God existed, they would not worship God.

Several people pointed out that this was likely because of things like the Problem of Evil: the meme-maker was basically saying that God would be unworthy of worship even if one existed. That’s all beside the point, just background.

What caught my attention was one poster (one of the Calvinists I presume) that was saying such people were fools: that even if dystheism were true, they should worship the god to avoid infinite suffering in Hell.

Now, I disagree with this, of course. I don’t act on behalf of my values to gain anything, and I don’t avoid causing harm in order to avoid punishment. I act on behalf of my values because they are my values.

This person just kept saying that it would be foolish not to worship the god, and praise it, and do what the god commanded, and so on: even if the god commanded to harm people, or wanted praise for causing harm. I said I would never do this willingly. He again said this was foolish (and trust me, by this point I do not trust this man’s ethics/morality, because this seems like exactly the line of argument I imagine some Nazis gave: “I better follow orders for my own safety.” I would rather die than be a Nazi.)

So anyway, this got me to thinking of a horrible hypothetical. In the case of dystheism, where there is just an awful god, but said god is omnipotent and can cause you to suffer a lot for an infinite amount of time unless you followed its harmful commands or praised it for harming people or any number of nasty things: am I alone in saying that while my mind and will are my own (before I go too crazy from whatever tortures would be put upon me), I’d choose Hell over going against my values of not harming people and not praising monsters?

Well. This is a fallacy of some people. It doesn't really matter if they are calvinists or not. The reason I think you mentioned calvinists specifically, and them being themselves I believe is because of some of the fundamentals in the calvinist theology but the theology in this concern is practically universal. Its nothing new, and was not really invented by Calvin. But the fact remains this theology was used by some to hold people to ransom and that's exactly what you are speaking of.

The thing is, this is appealing to danger to a non-believer which is a stupid, logical fallacy. Its also hypocrisy and against calvinism itself to ignore the argument of dystheism, surpass it and say "even if God is some evil thing, you still have to follow him for salvation" which is exactly as you said what a Hitler would do. But the problem is, lets say hitler threatens one of his germans to adhere by his laws or techniques or die, you adhere for the time being to escape his wrath, its for the time being, but the threat that this calvinist has spoken of is worse. It is to worship an evil forever because he will give you good stuff one day. Thats making you a dirty hypocrite and dirty crook. Even in these two evils, there is a huge difference. The latter is much worse.

This is not calvinist theology anyway, although there maybe some aspects that could be questioned as foundational to this stupid outcome of this particular individual or group. The rapture theology maybe used to instigate certain thoughts of this nature.

The outcome of this seems to be that you have conflated Dystheism and the theism of Christianity and made one God who is omnipotent and evil. Thats almost as if you are looking for the worst attributes you could find to provide a good enough problem to dismiss this God.

I have to go now, but I will be back to speak to this awesome person. Hokkay. Ciao.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well. This is a fallacy of some people. It doesn't really matter if they are calvinists or not. The reason I think you mentioned calvinists specifically, and them being themselves I believe is because of some of the fundamentals in the calvinist theology but the theology in this concern is practically universal. Its nothing new, and was not really invented by Calvin. But the fact remains this theology was used by some to hold people to ransom and that's exactly what you are speaking of.

The thing is, this is appealing to danger to a non-believer which is a stupid, logical fallacy. Its also hypocrisy and against calvinism itself to ignore the argument of dystheism, surpass it and say "even if God is some evil thing, you still have to follow him for salvation" which is exactly as you said what a Hitler would do. But the problem is, lets say hitler threatens one of his germans to adhere by his laws or techniques or die, you adhere for the time being to escape his wrath, its for the time being, but the threat that this calvinist has spoken of is worse. It is to worship an evil forever because he will give you good stuff one day. Thats making you a dirty hypocrite and dirty crook. Even in these two evils, there is a huge difference. The latter is much worse.

This is not calvinist theology anyway, although there maybe some aspects that could be questioned as foundational to this stupid outcome of this particular individual or group. The rapture theology maybe used to instigate certain thoughts of this nature.

The outcome of this seems to be that you have conflated Dystheism and the theism of Christianity and made one God who is omnipotent and evil. Thats almost as if you are looking for the worst attributes you could find to provide a good enough problem to dismiss this God.

I have to go now, but I will be back to speak to this awesome person. Hokkay. Ciao.

The OP wasn't about dismissing any gods or about Christianity, it just posited some nameless, hypothetical dystheism. The initial story about the Calvinists that were talking about a meme (and then the one hyperCalvinist that was telling me all this stuff) was just a lead in to the mindset. It wasn't about the god of Christianity.

That being said I think many Christians do posit a god that is dystheistic, but that was not the point of the OP.

 

[firedragon]

The OP wasn't about dismissing any gods or about Christianity, it just posited some nameless, hypothetical dystheism. The initial story about the Calvinists that were talking about a meme (and then the one hyperCalvinist that was telling me all this stuff) was just a lead in to the mindset. It wasn't about the god of Christianity.

That being said I think many Christians do posit a god that is dystheistic, but that was not the point of the OP.

I understand your point. Maybe I was giving too much information.

TO your last comment, I highly doubt that Christians believe in a dystheistic God. That would be an internal contradiction unless you could show that the temporal proposition contradicts with another. There were some who battled with a wrathful God and a so called "loving God" or merciful God which was the main point the heresy of Marcion was born out of, but that is not their theology. Although I suppose what you are talking about is a subjective experience with evangelism. Maybe. I dont know to make a claim.

 

[Meow Mix]

I understand your point. Maybe I was giving too much information.

TO your last comment, I highly doubt that Christians believe in a dystheistic God. That would be an internal contradiction unless you could show that the temporal proposition contradicts with another. There were some who battled with a wrathful God and a so called "loving God" or merciful God which was the main point the heresy of Marcion was born out of, but that is not their theology. Although I suppose what you are talking about is a subjective experience with evangelism. Maybe. I dont know to make a claim.

I should have specified: that I would personally find dystheistic.

I think gods that would punish people for eternity for mere failure to believe for instance is very disturbing and entails a malevolent deity. Some people believe in such deities, so from my perspective that's dystheism.

 

[firedragon]

I think gods that would punish people for eternity for mere failure to believe for instance is very disturbing and entails a malevolent deity. Some people believe in such deities, so from my perspective that's dystheism.

You mean this "some people" follow dystheism. Thats a subjective experience as I said.

But see, this is not dystheism. Your argument is like the governments of the whole world are pure evil simply because they jail people.

The problem you have is you are associating putting people in a hell to suffer simply for disbelieving is by itself is evil. I understand that. But that doesnt make it dystheism. If you lets say worship a God like Hooniyam Devi who is a God existing purely to invoke evil upon people, that is dystheism. And there are people who do.

 

[Meow Mix]

You mean this "some people" follow dystheism. Thats a subjective experience as I said.

But see, this is not dystheism. Your argument is like the governments of the whole world are pure evil simply because they jail people.

The problem you have is you are associating putting people in a hell to suffer simply for disbelieving is by itself is evil. I understand that. But that doesnt make it dystheism. If you lets say worship a God like Hooniyam Devi who is a God existing purely to invoke evil upon people, that is dystheism. And there are people who do.

Maybe I'm using the term wrong, I thought that if the deity believed in is evil, then it's dystheism -- regardless of whether the followers agree the deity is evil. (Just using the word "evil" here for brevity, despite issues defining it, hopefully that's OK).

If I'm using the term wrong then OK, at least you still get my meaning: I think the gods believed in by many people are despicable beings, whether we call that dystheism or not.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe I'm using the term wrong, I thought that if the deity believed in is evil, then it's dystheism -- regardless of whether the followers agree the deity is evil. (Just using the word "evil" here for brevity, despite issues defining it, hopefully that's OK).

If I'm using the term wrong then OK, at least you still get my meaning: I think the gods believed in by many people are despicable beings, whether we call that dystheism or not.

Dystheism simply means "Bad theos" or in usual language "Bad God" but in actual meaning "Bad Divinity". So if you think a particular deity is by nature a bad being, you can define that as dystheism.

What you are saying is that you find it difficult to accept a God as being good while other people are suffering on earth and all around you. You may even think you are suffering to some level. I am not saying you do, but this could be as a reason. This is the approach the Buddhist philosophy took with the chatur arya satya. The so called "four noble truth". The Buddha before he set out to become one he witnessed as a very rich prince, a sick man, an old man, a dead person, and a hermit or a priestly person. So he set out to find a solution and the solution he came up with was to look within yourself. You are the solution to it.

Anyway, I believe this is what you are talking about, not that religions are dystheisms.

 

[Meow Mix]

Dystheism simply means "Bad theos" or in usual language "Bad God" but in actual meaning "Bad Divinity". So if you think a particular deity is by nature a bad being, you can define that as dystheism.

What you are saying is that you find it difficult to accept a God as being good while other people are suffering on earth and all around you. You may even think you are suffering to some level. I am not saying you do, but this could be as a reason. This is the approach the Buddhist philosophy took with the chatur arya satya. The so called "four noble truth". The Buddha before he set out to become one he witnessed as a very rich prince, a sick man, an old man, a dead person, and a hermit or a priestly person. So he set out to find a solution and the solution he came up with was to look within yourself. You are the solution to it.

Anyway, I believe this is what you are talking about, not that religions are dystheisms.

Well my vocal folds are paralyzed and while I’m used to it by now, it is kind of sucky; and the world could have been built such that this injury would have been impossible. That hearkens back to all the PoE threads and the Toy World argument and so on.

But I don’t even have to get into that to explain why I think some conceptions of God are dystheistic. For instance I think the existence of Hell is fundamentally unjust and a problem (if someone defines Hell as infinite torture, lake of fire and suffering forever sort of thing). Humans are finite creatures that commit finite crimes, I don’t think anybody deserves infinite suffering. I also don’t agree with retributive theory of justice in the first place.

 

[firedragon]

For instance I think the existence of Hell is fundamentally unjust

what about heaven?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I have an entire thread running on this elsewhere right now. The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it's an epistemic trap: it leads to special pleading (calling things we would normally call malevolent to be benevolent in an unknowable way), and there is no escape from the epistemic trap (we can excuse literally anything, forever: God could melt people's faces for sheer fun and we could still use the reasoning that maybe it's good for an unknowable reason).

We should avoid epistemic traps like this that can't be reasoned out of. So we should at least consider it reasonable to count obvious signs of malevolence without an explicit explanation for how they might not be malevolent as actual malevolence.

That makes sense - but unless you have an example of this Being showing "obvious signs of malevolence" - I don't know how convincing this could be.

I mean - even among Mankind - I see things done that I would consider to be malevolent - that others do not - it is possible that the metrics that anyone would use to judge this Being are completely subjective.

 

[Link]

I wouldn't worship an evil God, but I have a question, if God is evil, can there be any such thing as goodness? Where would goodness come from if God is evil?

Why would God create us as good if he was evil?

 

[Link]

Well my vocal folds are paralyzed and while I’m used to it by now, it is kind of sucky; and the world could have been built such that this injury would have been impossible. That hearkens back to all the PoE threads and the Toy World argument and so on.

But I don’t even have to get into that to explain why I think some conceptions of God are dystheistic. For instance I think the existence of Hell is fundamentally unjust and a problem (if someone defines Hell as infinite torture, lake of fire and suffering forever sort of thing). Humans are finite creatures that commit finite crimes, I don’t think anybody deserves infinite suffering. I also don’t agree with retributive theory of justice in the first place.

The world would be built like that, if humanity at any point obey the kings appointed by God. Corruption in land and sea, diseases, disabilities, etc, will all go away if we humanity unites on God's rope and comes towards it's guiding leaders appointed as a favor to them.

But everyone is choosing their own leaders be they corrupt, oppressors, full of ****, etc, instead of coming to leaders appointed by God.

I suffer from mental illness, and I know, I would not if people submitted to God. I am sure of it. I embrace my suffering and bad genes, because, we all in this together and consequences of the evil actions, we all in it together.

God doesn't make afflictions just to fall on the evil and there is no such thing as karma in this world, it actually is backwards, the more good you are, the more likely you are to face afflictions and trials while God's subtle plan is to harden hearts of evil people by making them living in luxury and ease and turn apathetic to justice.

It's his trial, and it's tough, and it's not even meant to have happened in the first place; this whole world is a world not meant to be but it is what it is.

 

[Muffled]

I believe you are probably not alone but that doesn't mean that I am one of them. One can't put personal values higher than God's values.

 

[Muffled]

Why would anyone choose to believe in a God like that?

I believe I can believe in a God perceived to be like that but is not like that.