Reasons for God...

Forums: Philosophy, God
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It hit me a while ago, that if we cannot know either way if God exists or not, it comes down to a choice of what we want to believe.
And if it is a choice, wouldn't it be a good idea to make it based on what will benefit us the most?

Here is the thought that hit me: If you don't have an absolute contrast to your own self, your self will be defined by human relationships. A person who understands love strictly as a human-to-human phenomenon may feel that love has abandoned them if the person they love abandons them. Their entire understanding of love is tied up in people, and people may fail. That may lead them to conclude that love fails.
But if a person has an idea of God, they will not feel that love abandoned them when their loved ones left, because while the relationship was one of love, the relationship did not define love. As a result, a person may be stronger alone as a result of contrasting himself against God (the highest ideal).

Just a thought. It might be that some kind of belief in God can serve me better than the belief that there are no gods.
I am not talking about what is actually the case, because we cannot know that.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 4,702 • Replies: 93

[+3] - jakeo102 - 05/04/2011It's funny how you continue to call those who believe in evolution idiots, while going on a tirade which clearly shows that you do not understand even the basic tenets of evolutionary theory. You...

@Cyracuz,

The problem with general belief in"God" is not that it can be a psychological palliative, but that it can be sociologically pernicious. You are merely playing specifically with the Christian "God is Love" concept. The chauvinistic, authoritarian, and tribal aspects of more general theism tend to hold sway from the socio-historical perspective.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I am thinking more in the lines of God as a function of "absolute non-self" as a contrast to my own self. But I think I see your point.
But I would say that it isn't believing in God that can be sociologically pernicious, but speaking of God. The distinction is perhaps irrelevant considering the circumstances (we are talking about God).

0 Replies

Which God are you suggesting.

1 Reply

@tenderfoot,

Not any god that we can say anything about.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

And especially not one who decides to kill us, seemingly on a whim.

Joe(The fourteen dead on the casino bus were returning to New York City from a one day trip to Atlantic City.)Nation

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It hit me a while ago, that if we cannot know either way if God exists or not, it comes down to a choice of what we want to believe.

I don't see how this follows. If a question has no definite answer, why not withhold judgement altogether? Or why not go with what seems more likely? How is the absence of definite proof a license, a call even, for arbitrary wishful thinking?

Cyracruz wrote:

But if a person has an idea of God, they will not feel that love abandoned them

Even according to the Bible, that's not how it works. During his crucifixion, Jesus most definitely felt that his loving god had abandoned him. His own words were: "My God my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34, Matthew 27:46).

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

The reason for god(s) are many; but I believe that the prime attraction is man's ability to let a higher power take responsibility for their lives.

It provides solace when they pray. That's a powerful tool of religion.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas

Wouldn't you say that "going with what seems likely", in this context, constitutes wishful thinking? To me it seems just as likely that there is something like god as there not being anything like it.
The lack of definite proof is by no means a lisence for arbitrary wishful thinking. I agree with you there, but can it be avoided?
A good question to ask is "what do your beliefs do for you". If your belief that the world is a certain way makes you miserable, why keep believing it if there is no conclusive evidence either way?

And I remember the passage from the bible. But that is subject to interpretation, wouldn't you say? Any words are subject to interpretation, which is perhaps what fresco had in mind when he said that any concept of god can be sociologically pernicious.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Happy to give you a bit of a hug hon.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The reason for god(s) are many; but I believe that the prime attraction is man's ability to let a higher power take responsibility for their lives.

That's a cop out, isn't it? People can just as easily avoid taking responsibility by invoking capitalism or just about anything they percieve as obstacles in fulfilling their lives.

I have always thought of myself as not religious in the sense that I do not believe in anything anyone can tell me about god. But in another sense I am religious, because I have a need to feel connected to the universe, which is what religion is essentially about, as I understand it.

1 Reply

@laughoutlood,

I shall return it heartily Smile

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I think the pernicious aspect of theistic belief is related to the idea that "self" is primarily a social concept. In other words what we tend to think of as " a personal belief" is nothing of the kind. It is an aspect of social interaction which the very word "belief" involves the dichotomy "for it versus against it", which maps socially to "with me/us versus against me/us". The blinkered view that "belief" is an individual issue, involves that same danger of isolationism which can ultimately lead to local tribalism having colateral repercussions on previously disinterested neighbours.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Wouldn't you say that "going with what seems likely", in this context, constitutes wishful thinking?

No I don't, because it wouldn't. For example, some astrobiologists think there may be life on Europa, a Jupiter moon. This thought intrigues me; I would love it to be true. Nevertheless, I don't believe this moon harbors life because I judge that to be very unlikely. Probabilities have nothing to do with wishful thinking.

Cyracuz wrote:

A good question to ask is "what do your beliefs do for you". If your belief that the world is a certain way makes you miserable, why keep believing it if there is no conclusive evidence either way?

Two reasons. First, it's dishonest: When you lack good-enough evidence to answer a question, the honest reaction is to withhold your answer, not to make stuff up. Second, it doesn't work even on its own terms. A belief only makes me feel good if I'm confident it's true. And when I fudge up a belief I have no evidence for, I won't feel confident it's true.

Cyracuz wrote:

And I remember the passage from the bible.

There's no need for you to remember anything, because I gave you references to two evangelists reporting the passage. All you need to do is search the web for the references and read them.

Cyracuz wrote:

But that is subject to interpretation, wouldn't you say?

No I wouldn't. When somebody cries out, "My god my god, why have you forsaken me?", that's conclusive evidence he feels god has forsaken him. This is not a matter of interpretation.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Cyracuz, I need to apologize for the following part of my response.

Thomas wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:
And I remember the passage from the bible.

There's no need for you to remember anything, because I gave you references to two evangelists reporting the passage. All you need to do is search the web for the references and read them.

I misread the "And" in your quote for an "As", so I reacted much too harshly. I'm sorry.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

No worries Thomas.

I am aware that this is a controversial issue, and I am not at all certain that my take on it doesn't imply lots of things I hadn't thought of. Glad to hear the input from everyone.

For now I am in a bit of a rush. Sun is shining and the weather is warm, and I am so glad I have alot that needs to be done outside today. But I'll get back to the discussion when I have time.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

You're right that belief is something we have agency over. If we do not know, then we still have the option to believe or not to believe.

This is the difference between agnosticism and atheism: Knowledge and belief. People can certainly believe something in absence of knowledge, but it is as you say: Because they want to. Simply not knowing, and holding off on including god(s) amongst the things you believe in is the most logical answer given the information we have.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

People can certainly believe something in absence of knowledge, but it is as you say: Because they want to.

People can choose to decide an ambiguous question when a false decision causes less harm than none at all. For example, the standard of evidence in civil cases is merely "preponderance of the evidence"---in plain English, that something is more likely than not to be true. But even then, judges can't just arbitrarily pick the content of their belief because they like it. They can judge against the party most likely to be at fault, but not against the party they dislike the most, and whose victory would make them feel the most miserable.

1 Reply

it does make pretty good fish and chips

no wait, that's Cod

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Your point about judges is well taken, but I judges are supposed to abide by a general methodology, whereas the individual is given self agency on what method they use (if any) to justify belief. I do not think it wise to do this, I'm only stating that I belting it happens. If all people withheld judgment that would be great. I think most people cannot tolerate the state that is not absolute and so they judge with emotion and not reason. Some people just want a god to be real. To those people, it's going to be difficult to convince them their belief is premature.

A
R
T

1 Reply

Reasons for God...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know