Would you prefer if a benevolent god existed?

[skepticalbip]

That is how I feel after the years of debate here, relived I managed to avoid it.

"Belief in God" isn't really a thing except for a tiny fraction of religious believers. Beyond that, theism is nothing more than tribalism, cultural conditioning, identity. A lot of people can realize their lack of belief but still remain religious in terms of defending religious culture and ignoring what makes religion so insidious and detrimental to human well being in the first place.

You haven't actually had conversations with religious people have you?

 

[Angry Floof]

That is how I feel after the years of debate here, relived I managed to avoid it.

"Belief in God" isn't really a thing except for a tiny fraction of religious believers. Beyond that, theism is nothing more than tribalism, cultural conditioning, identity. A lot of people can realize their lack of belief but still remain religious in terms of defending religious culture and ignoring what makes religion so insidious and detrimental to human well being in the first place.

You haven't actually had conversations with religious people have you?

This view is based on nothing but conversations with religious people. In fact, I recommend to anyone interested that they also converse with believers and ask them about that belief.

Ask them what the experience of God is like. What does it feel like? How does it affect you? You'll find they don't actually describe experiences at all, and that's because they've never had experiences of God, just experiences of other people telling them what they're supposed to believe about God.

Ask them if it's really the group identity they worship. Of course, they'll say, no, it's God I believe in. But it's the group identity they defend without fail. It shouldn't matter what you call yourself if you truly believe in a God that is real to you.

I've said for years now that if I were a religious believer, knowing how tribalistic and human-constructed religion actually is, that I would tell everyone to please make fun of my religion. Attack my tribal identity. Pick it apart, make fun, hold me accountable for tribalistic stupidity. My belief can take it. My belief in something divine and supernatural cannot be affected by what I call myself or whether you attack that label or the human-made stories about that label and claim to belief.

Every now and then you'll get someone who will claim that the experience of God is something like a peaceful calm feeling of love or whatever, and I'm sure some people do experience such things (whether they attribute them to the religion they were taught or not), but you'll mostly see people who are not in the least bit calm or peaceful or loving until you point out that they are not peaceful or calm or loving, and they will try to pretend, or more likely, get pissed and storm off.

You would think that a first hand experience of an almighty, all knowing, all powerful spirit would have the power to fundamentally change how a person sees the world, how they regard their fellow human beings, how defensive they would become when questioned about it. But no, you don't. That's a very rare thing, and to be honest, I see those transcendent experiences a lot more among religions and philosophies that Christians would view as heretical or even under the influence of Satan.

Trying to get to the truth of God belief rarely ever leads to anything but a defense of "us," our ordinary human tribe as distinct from other human identity tribes that are not like us.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I think Floof is referring to the social Christians, those who are in it for the perks of conformity. Those perks are real and, in certain social settings, substantial indeed. I think there's a ton of them. My definition of social Christians is the group that takes part in the basic faith rituals without any profound sense of spiritual transport. And even then, they'd react strongly if someone questioned their belief in God. In essence, they believe that they believe. It's like identifying as a patriot. It's core to the self-concept. My mother was a social Christian -- very little articulation of distinctive Christian dogma, but a sense that "good people" went to church, etc. She was weirded-out that I was atheist and for a long time would say that she didn't really believe I was "one of them." Because without self-identifying as religious, she couldn't see what was left. (I showed her enough of the insane passages in the Bible to let her know what I was on about -- but she was impervious to any such thing as taking the Bible's nuttiness and deciding to leave it behind. Her favorite pastor made it all sound glowing and precious. And he didn't go on about Biblical genocide, etc., etc., etc.)

 

[skepticalbip]

You haven't actually had conversations with religious people have you?

This view is based on nothing but conversations with religious people. In fact, I recommend to anyone interested that they also converse with believers and ask them about that belief.

Ask them what the experience of God is like. What does it feel like? How does it affect you? You'll find they don't actually describe experiences at all, and that's because they've never had experiences of God, just experiences of other people telling them what they're supposed to believe about God.

Your statement was ""Belief in God" isn't really a thing except for a tiny fraction of religious believers." You are confusing whether the religious believe all the tenets and credos of their professed church with whether they believe in god. I would generally call them Deists (belief in a god but not the god as described by churches) I haven't yet run into anyone who claims to be religious who doesn't believe in god even though they may think much of church doctrine is rather silly. I have even run into those who claim to not be religious who still believe in a god... they call themselves 'spiritual" rather than religious.

 

[Angry Floof]

You haven't actually had conversations with religious people have you?

This view is based on nothing but conversations with religious people. In fact, I recommend to anyone interested that they also converse with believers and ask them about that belief.

Ask them what the experience of God is like. What does it feel like? How does it affect you? You'll find they don't actually describe experiences at all, and that's because they've never had experiences of God, just experiences of other people telling them what they're supposed to believe about God.

Your statement was ""Belief in God" isn't really a thing except for a tiny fraction of religious believers." You are confusing whether the religious believe all the tenets and credos of their professed church with whether they believe in god. I would generally call them Deists (belief in a god but not the god as described by churches) I haven't yet run into anyone who claims to be religious who doesn't believe in god even though they may think much of church doctrine is rather silly. I have even run into those who claim to not be religious who still believe in a god... they call themselves 'spiritual" rather than religious.

To truly believe something, you have to experience something. Anything else is belief in belief, belief in a story about whatever they're supposed to believe, or as is clearly observed, belief in an all-too-human group identity.

 

[skepticalbip]

Your statement was ""Belief in God" isn't really a thing except for a tiny fraction of religious believers." You are confusing whether the religious believe all the tenets and credos of their professed church with whether they believe in god. I would generally call them Deists (belief in a god but not the god as described by churches) I haven't yet run into anyone who claims to be religious who doesn't believe in god even though they may think much of church doctrine is rather silly. I have even run into those who claim to not be religious who still believe in a god... they call themselves 'spiritual" rather than religious.

To truly believe something, you have to experience something. Anything else is belief in belief,

Bull shit. Now you presume to tell people what they believe or can believe?

belief in a story about whatever they're supposed to believe, or as is clearly observed, belief in an all-too-human group identity.

People's belief in a god has nothing to do with 'group identity'. Acceptance of a specific god as described by a specific church would be.

 

[Angry Floof]

Bull shit. Now you assume to tell people what they believe or can believe?

No. I assume with no evidence of their belief that there is no belief there. Everything the religious do and say regarding god belief is ordinary human behavior. There's only claims with no evidence. They're just not used to being questioned about their personal belief and come back with "you can't tell me what I believe or not!" Well, I would assume you could talk about your belief in any credible way if you actually held such beliefs. Claims of belief in God are as unsubstantiated as claims of God.

belief in a story about whatever they're supposed to believe, or as is clearly observed, belief in an all-too-human group identity.

People's belief in a god has nothing to do with 'group identity'. Acceptance of a specific god as described by a specific church would be.

It has everything to do with group identity. There is no person who has come to belief in God without religion telling them to believe, whether they have since rejected that particular church or not. Do you know of anyone who has ever spontaneously come to believe in God without ever having been told by another human that they should believe in God and have that God described to them?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It was gun nut who first made the argument that people don't really believe in a god because if they did they would act quite differently. I find that a curiously persuasive argument. So how do we quantify the difference between a person actually believing in a god and a person merely saying he believes in a god? Do we just ask them? Obviously not. Rather we have to observe their behavior. After having done so with numerous individuals, it's abundantly clear to me that the social identity is far more operative than any actual belief.

It's no different than arriving at any other conclusion about a person. We don't put defendants under oath and then simply ask them if they committed the crime. We scrutinize the facts and then come to a conclusion. If we're going to assume that a person believes in a god simply because he is a member of the local catholic church I think we've made a mistake.

 

[skepticalbip]

It was gun nut who first made the argument that people don't really believe in a god because if they did they would act quite differently. I find that a curiously persuasive argument. So how do we quantify the difference between a person actually believing in a god and a person merely saying he believes in a god? Do we just ask them? Obviously not. Rather we have to observe their behavior. After having done so with numerous individuals, it's abundantly clear to me that the social identity is far more operative than any actual belief.

The problem I see with this is that, to be true, the assumption has to be made that anyone who believes in a god has to believe in the same 'understanding' of god. For example, Deists believe in god, but a god that doesn't give a shit about us - he only wound the clock, started it running, then went on to tend to other concerns. Deists believe in a creator god but that he moved on and there is no afterlife. There are many other ideas of god that people believe.

It's no different than arriving at any other conclusion about a person. We don't put defendants under oath and then simply ask them if they committed the crime. We scrutinize the facts and then come to a conclusion. If we're going to assume that a person believes in a god simply because he is a member of the local catholic church I think we've made a mistake.

You are right. Membership in a church doesn't mean that a person believes all the dogma of the church. They could well reject the church's description of god and believe in a their own idea of god. They could also be atheists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It was gun nut who first made the argument that people don't really believe in a god because if they did they would act quite differently. I find that a curiously persuasive argument. So how do we quantify the difference between a person actually believing in a god and a person merely saying he believes in a god? Do we just ask them? Obviously not. Rather we have to observe their behavior. After having done so with numerous individuals, it's abundantly clear to me that the social identity is far more operative than any actual belief.

The problem I see with this is that, to be true, the assumption has to be made that anyone who believes in a god has to believe in the same 'understanding' of god. For example, Deists believe in god, but a god that doesn't give a shit about us - he only wound the clock, started it running, then went on to tend to other concerns. Deists believe in a creator god but that he moved on and there is no afterlife. There are many other ideas of god that people believe.

I've never had any personal interaction with persons who identified as deists and so was not considering them. I was only talking about your typical church goer. My take on them is that the vast majority are more interested in the social identity, based on their behavior.

 

[skepticalbip]

It was gun nut who first made the argument that people don't really believe in a god because if they did they would act quite differently. I find that a curiously persuasive argument. So how do we quantify the difference between a person actually believing in a god and a person merely saying he believes in a god? Do we just ask them? Obviously not. Rather we have to observe their behavior. After having done so with numerous individuals, it's abundantly clear to me that the social identity is far more operative than any actual belief.

The problem I see with this is that, to be true, the assumption has to be made that anyone who believes in a god has to believe in the same 'understanding' of god. For example, Deists believe in god, but a god that doesn't give a shit about us - he only wound the clock, started it running, then went on to tend to other concerns. Deists believe in a creator god but that he moved on and there is no afterlife. There are many other ideas of god that people believe.

I've never had any personal interaction with persons who identified as deists and so was not considering them. I was only talking about your typical church goer. My take on them is that the vast majority are more interested in the social identity, based on their behavior.

I would agree that, except maybe for the evangelicals, most church goers attend church more for the social interaction. That they don't really buy the church dogma. However, they generally believe in their own idea of a god (not the personal god the church describes). I get the impression that they do believe in an afterlife and a hell but, rather than a god that condemns them to hell for any "sin", they more imagine only someone purely evil ends up there.

 

[Brian63]

Each perspective has relative advantages described earlier in the thread:

Benevolent god does exist: Needless suffering (or all suffering) would be minimized or eliminated.

Benevolent god does not exist: This is more sensible and reasonable to believe. That the world can be better understood provides satisfaction.


It seems to me that the best of both worlds would be a scenario where a benevolent god does actually exist, but we are just unaware of it. Maybe in the afterlife or in some other type of existence we will become aware of it. Or we will always be unaware of it. But in the here and now the universe appears to function as if no caring god exists.

Best outcome: A benevolent god exists, though it ensures that we never have any good reason to believe that it exists. It keeps itself hidden from us. Like an anonymous stranger who does good deeds, and without selfish motives like wanting worship or praise.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Each perspective has relative advantages described earlier in the thread:

Benevolent god does exist: Needless suffering (or all suffering) would be minimized or eliminated.

Benevolent god does not exist: This is more sensible and reasonable to believe. That the world can be better understood provides satisfaction.


It seems to me that the best of both worlds would be a scenario where a benevolent god does actually exist, but we are just unaware of it. Maybe in the afterlife or in some other type of existence we will become aware of it. Or we will always be unaware of it. But in the here and now the universe appears to function as if no caring god exists.

Best outcome: A benevolent god exists, though it ensures that we never have any good reason to believe that it exists. It keeps itself hidden from us. Like an anonymous stranger who does good deeds, and without selfish motives like wanting worship or praise.

Were that so the human condition would have to be very different. It seems our curiosity and intellect would need to be more childlike, that we would have to function on the level of an intelligent four-year-old. Or maybe it would need to be like the Men in Black movie where they bring out this little device and erase memory.

On the other hand, if such a creature were real what would be it's rationale for hiding itself? How would anything change if it were known to people? If it has the ability to do the things implied it would have no reason to remain hidden. It could solve all problems as they arise, amicably and to everyone's satisfaction. It would solve problems between and within people, between people and their environments. It would solve all problems between itself and people, all people, all cultures, all inequalities. Existence would be ideal for itself and all things, living and not living, sentient and not sentient. There would be no need for secrecy and absolutely no sound reason of any kind for it to remain hidden or unknown. Simply put, it would want to be known.

So the secrecy and covert nature of its existence seems to me to be a failing. What is it about the human condition that it cannot fix and so needs to remain mysterious? What is it hiding? It would obviously be something much more capable than a Gort or a Superman and have no need for a covert existence.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Same reason that Harvey was invisible.

 

[James Brown]

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From a practical standpoint, omniscience and omnipotence are the same thing so that drawing makes sense. The section lower left says a being that is omnibenevolent is not going to make a difference to the human condition. It would have to be all three, making it incompatible with a non-matrix reality.

It's interesting to think about the heaven fable where angels made war on each other. Some angels were curious, just as humans would be curious in the same situation. This led to conflict that could not be peacefully resolved demonstrating that an omnibeing can't take the heat, even in a perfect environment that it makes itself.

Wish in one hand, crap in the other...