Why would a reasonable person believe in God?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In addition it would need to be shown that the alleged chemical imbalance is "undesirable". It is assumed by atheists that this alleged chemical imbalance makes religious persons behave "undesirably". What if the boot is on the other foot and it is the atheists who are chemically imbalanced?

What do you mean by "chemical imbalance?" Who said anything about that?

 

[lostone]

Who defines what is undesireable? On what basis.

Religion and belief in supernaturalism generally, and the behavior that accompanies it, is simply an undesirable legacy of our bipolar condition.

I don't see much reason to believe that a chemical imbalance in the brain has anything at all to do with why people believe in spirits and the special type of spirits they refer to as gods. Moreover, to support your position, you would need to show that the alleged chemical imbalance is greater in people of religious faith than in those of little or no religious persuasion. At this point, I don't think you have any evidence at all to support you.

In addition it would need to be shown that the alleged chemical imbalance is "undesirable". It is assumed by atheists that this alleged chemical imbalance makes religious persons behave "undesirably". What if the boot is on the other foot and it is the atheists who are chemically imbalanc

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Who defines what is undesireable? On what basis.

I am assuming that in modern society we view bipolar manic behavior as an impediment to productive life.

 

[Copernicus]

In addition it would need to be shown that the alleged chemical imbalance is "undesirable". It is assumed by atheists that this alleged chemical imbalance makes religious persons behave "undesirably". What if the boot is on the other foot and it is the atheists who are chemically imbalanced?

What do you mean by "chemical imbalance?" Who said anything about that?

I did. That's because bipolar (manic depressive) behavior is usually associated with a chemical imbalance in the brain. Drugs can be used to mitigate it. I doubt that taking drugs would turn religious people into atheists, but you never know.

 

[Tigers!]

Who defines what is undesireable? On what basis.

Religion and belief in supernaturalism generally, and the behavior that accompanies it, is simply an undesirable legacy of our bipolar condition.

I don't see much reason to believe that a chemical imbalance in the brain has anything at all to do with why people believe in spirits and the special type of spirits they refer to as gods. Moreover, to support your position, you would need to show that the alleged chemical imbalance is greater in people of religious faith than in those of little or no religious persuasion. At this point, I don't think you have any evidence at all to support you.

In addition it would need to be shown that the alleged chemical imbalance is "undesirable". It is assumed by atheists that this alleged chemical imbalance makes religious persons behave "undesirably". What if the boot is on the other foot and it is the atheists who are chemically imbalanc

TGG mentioned undesirable in post 618. I was merely continuing their phrasing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I did. That's because bipolar (manic depressive) behavior is usually associated with a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Correct, but only as viewed in today's environment. Likely not so hundreds of thousands of years ago when there were far less humans. It's a condition which a different environment has selected against. Given that old environment it is a condition very much in demand if our species is to survive. That's why I refer to it as a condition, not an illness or some kind of imbalance. And I am talking primarily about bipolar mania. Not all bipolar includes depressive.

 

[Copernicus]

I did. That's because bipolar (manic depressive) behavior is usually associated with a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Correct, but only as viewed in today's environment. Likely not so hundreds of thousands of years ago when there were far less humans. It's a condition which a different environment has selected against. Given that old environment it is a condition very much in demand if our species is to survive. That's why I refer to it as a condition, not an illness or some kind of imbalance. And I am talking primarily about bipolar mania. Not all bipolar includes depressive.

OK, but I don't see a basis for concluding that religious faith has anything at all to do with bipolar mania. I would agree that it is a natural way to interpret reality from a human perspective. After all, gods are obvious reflections of human characteristics. We see ourselves everywhere in nature because we ground our interpretation of reality in the way our bodies interact with it physically. Thought processes control our physical behavior, so it is natural to jump to the conclusion that similar processes drive external forces and outcomes. Gods can literally manipulate reality with volition. They don't need magic words or other forms of mediation to make things happen. It's all divine mind over matter.

 

[bilby]

Gods can literally manipulate reality with volition. They don't need magic words

So what's all that Fiat Lux palaver in aid of then?

 

[Copernicus]

Gods can literally manipulate reality with volition. They don't need magic words

So what's all that Fiat Lux palaver in aid of then?

I'm not familiar with this. What are you referring to?

 

[bilby]

Gods can literally manipulate reality with volition. They don't need magic words

So what's all that Fiat Lux palaver in aid of then?

I'm not familiar with this. What are you referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_there_be_light

 

[Copernicus]

Gods can literally manipulate reality with volition. They don't need magic words

So what's all that Fiat Lux palaver in aid of then?

I'm not familiar with this. What are you referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_there_be_light

Thanks. I had already seen that page. Fiat Lux is just a religious symbol that means nothing in particular to me. I still don't know how to respond to your question, so I can't comment further on it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

OK, but I don't see a basis for concluding that religious faith has anything at all to do with bipolar mania.

And I respect that. Most people have no experience with bipolar individuals and have not witnessed the behavior. When a person is manic their judgement is gone. Their rational perspective is gone. They do things that you and I would not do, see things that you and I do not see, imagine they are experiencing things that you and I see no reason to take seriously. About half of those people have no awareness of their condition and therefore cannot reflect on how irrational is their behavior. To them they are just fine and everyone else has the issue.

If you think about religion and the fact that people claim to believe all manner of strange irrational things it is exactly the same behavior minus the crazy. It's bipolar lite if you will. And it makes sense that we are still this way to some degree across organisms because the condition was so common not so long ago. As I like to say, we are all a little bit crazy. The only dangerous ones are those who think they are totally sane all the time, who don't appreciate or are unaware of their inheritance.

Interpreting reality in religious, supernatural terms is bipolar behavior 101 minus the crazy, minus the diagnosis of a pathology. The individual is still able to function in the society and still has a rational perspective sufficient to carry on within the community, unlike a person with untreated bipolar mania, but still retains that otherworldly, self-centered take on their surroundings.

 

[Copernicus]

FTR, I do have experience with bipolar individuals, but I have nothing further to contribute on the subject.

 

[bilby]

Gods can literally manipulate reality with volition. They don't need magic words

So what's all that Fiat Lux palaver in aid of then?

I'm not familiar with this. What are you referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_there_be_light

Thanks. I had already seen that page. Fiat Lux is just a religious symbol that means nothing in particular to me. I still don't know how to respond to your question, so I can't comment further on it.

I'm just pointing out that gods apparently do need something more than volition - For example, the Abrahamic god speaks the universe into existence, and then moulds humans from clay or dust before breathing life into their creation.

None of this describes pure volition; The gods are apparently dependent on a physical, or at the very least verbal, process in order to get things done.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm just pointing out that gods apparently do need something more than volition - For example, the Abrahamic god speaks the universe into existence, and then moulds humans from clay or dust before breathing life into their creation.

None of this describes pure volition; The gods are apparently dependent on a physical, or at the very least verbal, process in order to get things done.

Thanks for explaining it. I couldn't infer all of that from just the reference. I'm not going to insist on my generalization applying to every concept of a god that has ever been dreamed up, and it is reasonable to suppose that God was not necessarily required to utter words. It makes for a better  just-so story to have Yahweh actually speaking the words. After all, scripture is written so as to be understood in a language spoken by humans.

 

[dbz]

• YouTube’s “best” argument for God: Ben Shapiro’s, which tops the YouTube “influence” list with six million views:

1. You have free will.​
2. You can comprehend an external reality.​
3. Therefore, God exists.​

There is no “radical relativism” plaguing modern knowledge fields, and certainly none plaguing atheists or physicalists or scientists—we are to a clear super-plurality all realists, not relativists, regarding knowledge of ourselves and the world. And secular science has provided extensive justifications for belief in the reliability of the human mind—to the extent that it actually is reliable. Remember, without those installed software fixes, of formal logics and mathematics and critical thinking and the scientific method, it’s actually pretty un-reliable. So there is no reason to believe that any of this comes from God—to the contrary, that inborn human reasoning is so terrible proves it cannot come from God. … God would want to send us that software fix! So the fact that no book purported to be God’s communications contains that crucial information means no such book actually contains God’s communications.

---

--Carrier, Richard (26 June 2023). Another Two 'Best' Arguments for God?. Richard Carrier Blogs

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The better thread question is "Why would a rational, scientifically literate person believe in gods?" Of course the answer comes down to the definition of the god. Some definitions might make more sense than others.

 

[Copernicus]

• YouTube’s “best” argument for God: Ben Shapiro’s, which tops the YouTube “influence” list with six million views:

1. You have free will.​
2. You can comprehend an external reality.​
3. Therefore, God exists.​

There is no “radical relativism” plaguing modern knowledge fields, and certainly none plaguing atheists or physicalists or scientists—we are to a clear super-plurality all realists, not relativists, regarding knowledge of ourselves and the world. And secular science has provided extensive justifications for belief in the reliability of the human mind—to the extent that it actually is reliable. Remember, without those installed software fixes, of formal logics and mathematics and critical thinking and the scientific method, it’s actually pretty un-reliable. So there is no reason to believe that any of this comes from God—to the contrary, that inborn human reasoning is so terrible proves it cannot come from God. … God would want to send us that software fix! So the fact that no book purported to be God’s communications contains that crucial information means no such book actually contains God’s communications.

---

--Carrier, Richard (26 June 2023). Another Two 'Best' Arguments for God?. Richard Carrier Blogs

I love that they put this nonsense into the form of a syllogism, even though the conclusion in no way follows from the premises. That makes it seem like some kind of logical reasoning has applied to arrive at the conclusion.

The first premise assumes that one has bought into the debate over determinism and free will, and it is extremely doubtful that God's alleged omniscience allows for the "free will" side of that debate. The second premise is barely meaningful, since it doesn't explain what it means to comprehend external reality. In any case, the question is whether external reality needs a god to help us comprehend it. Since the only people who could possibly admire the brilliance of the syllogism already assume the conclusion to be true, the first and second premises are only window dressing.

Richard Carrier provides an overly intellectualized refutation that is sufficiently convoluted to lose his audience almost immediately. Would any of those contributing the the "six million views" on Youtube even get past his first sentence? They either agree of disagree with the conclusion. The premises are not relevant.

 

[dbz]

"Why would a rational, scientifically literate person believe in gods?"

• Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer.
  • If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
  • Variant translation: If there was no God, It would be necessary to invent him.
    • Épître à l'Auteur du Livre des Trois Imposteurs (10 November 1770)
    • For the background of the quote see this source: Yeh, Anthony (July 3, 2011). "What did Voltaire mean when he said that "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him"?". Quora. Archived from the original on October 27, 2017. Retrieved October 27, 2017.
• "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance.
  • "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented." But all nature cries aloud that he does exist: that there is a supreme intelligence, an immense power, an admirable order, and everything teaches us our own dependence on it.
    • Voltaire quoting himself in his Letter to Prince Frederick William of Prussia (28 November 1770), translated by S.G. Tallentyre, Voltaire in His Letters (1919)

Known by his nom de plume M. de Voltaire—Arouet, was as ridiculous as them all on the Prima Facie requirement for Theism!

But someone like Jordan B. Peterson may be able to weaponize Theism via IS XS devotees to save monkey brained humanity. And to do that one has to internalize a belief in Theism.

As bad as Stalin was for dead Russian individuals (~60x10⁶) .. the Third Reich victorious may of been worse.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why would an intelligent, capable entity of any kind make humans with such physical frailty? We're mostly water. We break easily. We injure easily. We are literally built with much defective. Tiny microorganisms cause us to cease function, to die. Miniscule amounts of certain substances cause us to cease function, to die. We drown, we suffocate. There are literally far more reasons to believe we were not purposely built by a capable entity than the opposite.

This likely explains all the attempted mileage over souls and spirits and supernature. We're supposed to believe in claims of magical, ethereal realms of perfection that somehow explain away all those flaws and weaknesses, maybe even stories about magic apples and talking serpents. This approach fails the intellectual maturity test imho.