Should god-claims be taken seriously?

[74x12]

We've had a few threads lately asking for opinions on whether God exists. To me, this is putting the cart before the horse a bit.

It seems to me that getting to the conclusion that the monotheistic god-concept of one particular religion exists needs a few other prior steps:

1. God-claims should be taken seriously.
2. Gods (as a category of thing) are possible.
3. Gods (as a category of thing) exist.
4. A particular god exists.
5. (For monotheistic religions) no other gods exist.

Personally, I'm back before step 1: I haven't accepted the idea that god-concepts are something that ought to be taken seriously. In fact, I lean toward the conclusion that they aren't something that warrants serious attention.

For those of you who have gotten past step 1: why? How did you do it?

And please note that I'm not asking why we should take theism and its effects seriously. Theism - especially religious theism - has all sorts of real effects on the world. I'm asking why we should take claims like "God exists" as serious and reasonable propositions about reality that merit investigation to see whether they're true or false.

So... what do you think? Why are god-claims something that should be taken seriously? Or are they?

I would advise that it should be taken seriously but of course I already believe in God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see, I think I understand. But to answer the first question, don't you have to examine the evidence/arguments in favor of the thing?

Do I?

There are 24 hours in the day and I'm filling them all with something right now. It doesn't seem obvious at all to me that devoting time to investigate some random god-claim is necessarily a good trade for whatever other activity I'd have to give up in order to do that... especially before I've seen any indication that there's any merit to the god-claim.

I don't know how to assess the chances of any and all God claims being true at first blush.

But it would be physically impossible to investigate all of them, so you must be dismissing some of them right away now.

Regarding the second question, I think I can see where this might be relevant if it was clear someone was lying, or hallucinating, or some other circumstance where the person originating the claim shouldn't be trusted. I don't see that to be the case with any and all God claims though.

I was also thinking of the case where someone believes a claim because they were taught from birth to believe it. That's what I was getting at... though re-reading my post, I'm not sure if I expressed this clearly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that's up to you. If you don't care about why things are the way they are, or if there is any purpose to existence, or why you exist as you do, or if there is any purpose to that, of if the things you value most in life have any value beyond yourself, then I guess there would be no point in bothering to consider these possibilities. Seems a very dull way to live, to me, but it's not my call to make for anyone but myself.

Why would exploring "why things are the way they are" necessarily involve investigating god-claims?

If anything, it seems like focusing on gods would be a distraction if that's what a person cares about. Why not start with that wider question and follow the results where they lead instead of going through an endless list of gods and asking yourself "is this god the reason why things are the way they are? How about this slightly different variant? How about this other slightly different variant?", etc., etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I was also thinking of the case where someone believes a claim because they were taught from birth to believe it. That's what I was getting at... though re-reading my post, I'm not sure if I expressed this clearly.

Like, that reality is real?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why would exploring "why things are the way they are" necessarily involve investigating god-claims?
...

Or ask if things are everything there is?

 

[Wandering Monk]

We've had a few threads lately asking for opinions on whether God exists. To me, this is putting the cart before the horse a bit.

It seems to me that getting to the conclusion that the monotheistic god-concept of one particular religion exists needs a few other prior steps:

1. God-claims should be taken seriously.
2. Gods (as a category of thing) are possible.
3. Gods (as a category of thing) exist.
4. A particular god exists.
5. (For monotheistic religions) no other gods exist.

Personally, I'm back before step 1: I haven't accepted the idea that god-concepts are something that ought to be taken seriously. In fact, I lean toward the conclusion that they aren't something that warrants serious attention.

For those of you who have gotten past step 1: why? How did you do it?

And please note that I'm not asking why we should take theism and its effects seriously. Theism - especially religious theism - has all sorts of real effects on the world. I'm asking why we should take claims like "God exists" as serious and reasonable propositions about reality that merit investigation to see whether they're true or false.

So... what do you think? Why are god-claims something that should be taken seriously? Or are they?

They should not be taken seriously because they are not falsifiable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They should not be taken seriously because they are not falsifiable.

So how do you falsify if something should be taken seriously? In effect you are making a normative claim, which is subjective and without evidence.

 

[Wandering Monk]

So how do you falsify if something should be taken seriously? In effect you are making a normative claim, which is subjective and without evidence.

Can God's existence be disproven? Or Odin's, or Zeus's?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can God's existence be disproven? Or Odin's, or Zeus's?

No, nor that reality is real. Metaphysical claims are all unfalsifiable. So is what is morally good or useful. There is a host of human behaviour, where you can't use evidence as per science.

 

[Quintessence]

They should not be taken seriously because they are not falsifiable.

If our standard for taking something seriously is "must be falsifiable" that is... most of our day-to-day experiences fall into the category of NOT falsifiable. I do not think this standard is at all wise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If our standard for taking something seriously is "must be falsifiable" that is... most of our day-to-day experiences fall into the category of NOT falsifiable. I do not think this standard is at all wise.

Yeah, most if not all human social activity wouldn't be possible.

 

[Quintessence]

Also, my brain utterly cannot comprehend not taking cultural narratives that orient a people's worldview seriously. That's a level of apathy and indifference to one's fellow humans is... I just... it's incredibly cringe. And I say that as someone who frequently waxes misanthropic.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Irrelevant to whom? You? Because it's certainly not irrelevant to the person making the claim.

Irrelevant when trying to establish the claims they are making as correlating with observable reality. I don't care what they get out of it. Not in the least. Good for them... whatever. It doesn't mean it is truth. It should be irrelevant to anyone who is concerned with the truth over whether or not they are hurting someone's feelings.

Tell me then, what does it accomplish questioning the claimant when neither of you have a shred of objective evidence for or against the existence of their god? What do you have to gain? What does the claimant? The only thing I've seen gained here is unnecessary drama.

Holy crap you haven't thought about this at all. I don't have a shred of objective evidence for or against someone's alien abduction, or the idea that lizard people are holding high positions in government. Should I just accept (or even just let stand) claims like those and any impact they might have on my life or sensibilities, or the life and sensibilities of any of those around me without question? Hell no I shouldn't. Nor will I. The way you feel about the way I conduct myself is noted. Now excuse me if I don't give a single shred of crap.

Help me to understand the difference between you speaking your mind and the Christians in your community speaking theirs. Do you have more of a right to do so because you perceive yours to be more correct than theirs?

No... as I stated, I am going to only bring to the table evidence, data, facts, figures, items that comport with reality. That's where I draw the line between what is and is not acceptable in the realm of compelling argumentation. Next time you walk into a court room, why not ask them the types of argumentation they feel is most appropriate? Do you think it just fine and dandy when the lawyer makes all sorts of accusatory and damning statements (in their opening statement for example) before any evidence has even been presented? Does that not, at all, give you pause to wonder whether those things are being said simply to sway your mind based on emotional response alone? Because that's what it is - and there you have the foundations for the reason that lawyers are very often presented as obstinate villains in media like movies and TV. It's easy to want to rebuke a person who is attempting to sway you into thinking bad things about a personality just based on emotional response to what they are claiming without evidence. Why is it that someone trying to get you to think positive things about a personality in the same way (without evidence) is just given a free pass? Falling for that right out of the gate is simple gullibility.

Someone proselytized to me just today in another thread. Did I think it was inconsiderate? Sure. Did I find in necessary to tell them to support their claim with well reasoned arguments? Nope. I didn't feel the need to create drama. I simply showed the member how projecting their views onto me was pointless. Did it have any impact on my day or my worldview? Most certainly not.

The "drama" is all part of making them understand that their point of view is tenuous, and to inform them that they had better go and find some actual, reasonable justification before they walk around making foolish claims off the top of their heads. It's a way to try and quell the behavior of others you find foolish, unnecessary or annoying. It's called "establishing boundaries" in other spheres of accepted psycho-babble, but when it is done in opposition to religious extroversion it is vilified. Well then I am a villain. Now... do you think I care?

In my experience, people who have such problems in the beliefs of others are entirely too wrapped up in their own.

Good for you and your experience.

 

[ppp]

If our standard for taking something seriously is "must be falsifiable" that is... most of our day-to-day experiences fall into the category of NOT falsifiable. I do not think this standard is at all wise.

You are confusing experiences for claims about the experiences. It is the non-falsifiable claims that we should avoid.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Irrelevant when trying to establish the claims they are making as correlating with observable reality. I don't care what they get out of it.

That you don't care, is not a part of observable reality.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That you don't care, is not a part of observable reality.

Who cares? Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Also, my brain utterly cannot comprehend not taking cultural narratives that orient a people's worldview seriously. That's a level of apathy and indifference to one's fellow humans is... I just... it's incredibly cringe. And I say that as someone who frequently waxes misanthropic.

Since you seem to have missed it in the OP:

And please note that I'm not asking why we should take theism and its effects seriously. Theism - especially religious theism - has all sorts of real effects on the world. I'm asking why we should take claims like "God exists" as serious and reasonable propositions about reality that merit investigation to see whether they're true or false.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would advise that it should be taken seriously but of course I already believe in God.

If you can, step outside your current belief system to imagine how an outsider would approach it.

Or imagine a god-claim from some other religion.

 

[sun rise]

1. God-claims should be taken seriously.

They should not be taken seriously because they are not falsifiable.

Of course this question involves deciding what we mean by "God". I can assert that God manifest is the consciousness that is inherent in everything (panpsychism) as discussed in this Scientific American article:

Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?
Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about “panpsychism”

So Galileo decided that we have to put consciousness outside of the domain of science; after we’d done that, everything else could be captured in mathematics.
...
physical science doesn’t actually tell us what matter is. That sounds like a bizarre claim at first; you read a physics textbook, you seem to learn all kinds of incredible things about the nature of space, time and matter. But what philosophers of science have realized is that physical science, for all its richness, is confined to telling us about the behavior of matter, what it does. Physics tells us, for example, that matter has mass and charge. These properties are completely defined in terms of behavior, things like attraction, repulsion, resistance to acceleration. Physics tells us absolutely nothing about what philosophers like to call the intrinsic nature of matter: what matter is, in and of itself.
...
Physical science describes matter “from the outside,” in terms of its behavior. But matter “from the inside”—i.e., in terms of its intrinsic nature—is constituted of forms of consciousness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Since you seem to have missed it in the OP:

And please note that I'm not asking why we should take theism and its effects seriously. Theism - especially religious theism - has all sorts of real effects on the world. I'm asking why we should take claims like "God exists" as serious and reasonable propositions about reality that merit investigation to see whether they're true or false.

You still haven't as part of reality as per observation given evidence, that we should take you seriously?