Does God make sense?

Great Debates
141

[QUOTE=mswas]
That is still not value neutral. If it is pointing something ‘out’ it is not value neutral.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see why this is significant. Are you value neutral toward the battleship in your kitchen sink? How about the aircraft carrier in your kitchen sink? How about the nuclear submarine in your kitchen sink? How about the tiger in your kitchen sink? How about the bathroom sink in your kitchen sink? I could list a great many things that might be in your kitchen sink which I can reasonably expect you to be “value neutral” about (i.e. you don’t believe they exist and could point out this lack of belief). Then I could list a few hundred thousand things that might be in your fridge, similarly “value neutral”. Then I could move on to your kitchen cabinets…

I trust you can see where this is going. If you are value neutral about the battleship in your kitchen sink, and an atheist is value-neutral about God, what does that say about the concept of value neutrality?

142

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I don’t see why this is significant. Are you value neutral toward the battleship in your kitchen sink? How about the aircraft carrier in your kitchen sink? How about the nuclear submarine in your kitchen sink? How about the tiger in your kitchen sink? How about the bathroom sink in your kitchen sink? I could list a great many things that might be in your kitchen sink which I can reasonably expect you to be “value neutral” about (i.e. you don’t believe they exist and could point out this lack of belief). Then I could list a few hundred thousand things that might be in your fridge, similarly “value neutral”. Then I could move on to your kitchen cabinets…

I trust you can see where this is going. If you are value neutral about the battleship in your kitchen sink, and and atheist is value-neutral about God, what does that say about the concept of value neutrality?
[/QUOTE]
God’s just different. I’m not going to say it’s logical. But it isn’t logical to insist that humans act logically either.

It just is.

Edit: Can someone remind me why that even matters?

143

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
This is misleading. The lack of evidence FOR a god, becomes a form of accepted proof of no god. Others will disagree. Again, it’s easy enough to find god in things - right or wrong, it happens.
[/quote]
Only if you are determined to misinterpret things that way. By the standard of proof you are adopting, nothing is obvious. The point I’ve made again and again, is that religion is obvious nonsense, if you apply the same standards to it that people apply to nearly everything else.

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
So far, I don’t see too many people taking you seriously. Are you sure you are working within a successful model?
[/quote]
No, but then I never expected to succeed. I don’t think anything except the believers dying off of old age will reduce their numbers, assuming the newer generations are less fervent.

144

TWEEEEEET!

Everyone knock off the personal acrimony.

Debate or ignore what is posted. Do not comment on the style employed by other posters.

[ /Moderating ]

145

[QUOTE=mswas]

I don’t know about separating the nature vs nurture thing. I do not know enough of genetics, but the ‘what ifs’ are irrelevant. You had the upbringing you did have, so therefore, as a result, your formative years were impacted by a religious upbringing. I am not talking about defining the outcome of a religious upbringing. Not everyone will react the same way to a similar experience, I am just saying that the religious upbringing had a role. Some people react to religious inculcation by lashing out against religion for the bulk of their adult lives. Others go with it whole hog like the Hasids down the street from me. Still others pick and choose their values, with some continuing to identify themselves as religious, while other choose to define themselves as areligious.

[/quote]

I had a very mild religious upbringing. I went to Hebrew School so I could get the classy Saturday bar mitzvah so my father could throw a big party. My maternal grandfather was almost certainly an atheist, my paternal one was dead 25 years before I was born, and my father more or less mildly rebelled against his somewhat religious upbringing. My mother’s family was totally secular. I’m not sure what religiously Jewish stuff I got - culturally and probably genetically, quite a bit.

But every one of our influences has been influenced by others - Christianity by Roman paganism, for instance. I’d say the secular humanist lives by filtering the good in the religious tradition from the bad, a task made easier by not feeling that any of it is required. Some Christians do the same thing, but they have to explain why certain parts of the Bible can be rejected and others accepted. I’m talking moral directives here, not historical or pseudo-scientific parts.

146

[QUOTE=mswas]
The notion of duty to God, and devoting one’s entire effort in life to the pursuit of God’s path for you. That’s a big one.
[/QUOTE]

Right - no problem there.

Would you also agree, though, that there are values expressed in the Gita that are antithetical to those considered normative to Christianity?

147

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
God’s just different. I’m not going to say it’s logical. But it isn’t logical to insist that humans act logically either.

It just is.
[/quote]
If logic doesn’t apply to God, then we can’t say anything whatsoever meaningful or useful about him. Or to reference the thread title, in that case, God literally doesn’t make sense.

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
Edit: Can someone remind me why that even matters?
[/QUOTE]
mswas was insisting that not believing in God is a value.

148

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
If logic doesn’t apply to God, then we can’t say anything whatsoever meaningful or useful about him. Or to reference the thread title, in that case, God literally doesn’t make sense.

mswas was insisting that not believing in God is a value.
[/QUOTE]
Last part, first… I think it is. It’s one I don’t apologize for. I am atheistic enough to cross, at times, from saying I have no faith in a god to saying there ain’t a Santa in the sky dropping miracles. It is a position.

If we want to find a “neutral position” I think agnosticism is as neutral as it gets.

Can we say logical things about the differing god concepts? Sure. I do. I expect others to. I’ve found that depending on delivery it is more or less effective. A tactful, inquisitive and respectful conversation is MUCH better for understanding on both sides than is the finger pointing “you’re gonna get us all blowed up” angle taken by some (Dawkins at times).

And this bit may seem divergent to the point, but it matters to me. We’re emotional people - every last one of us. Intuitive too. It’s just part of being human. I’d argue that logical people aren’t logical because they are logical - they are logical because their intuitions lead them to it.

We all walk with a limp. That’s fundamental to my personal philosophy. And if I raise my hand to point at one person’s crutch, I do it by lifting it from mine. I’m not an addict or moron. I just KNOW that I lean on things for comfort. The occasional tumbler of crown. A good hug from one of the kids. The love of a good woman. Science. Science makes me feel intellectually safe. Like the universe is ordered. Because… underneath it all, it is. I don’t see an intelligence creating the order, but I find that math, physics, etc can explain most anything. And that brings comfort in some corner of my mind.

We lean. We limp.

And then we compare crutches. And we ought to, it’s how we learn about each other. I’m just not zealous. And I generally accept that it’s not logic that persuades people - if that be your intent. It’s almost always emotion and intuition… and having reasonable answers to things.

To sum up: We can and should discuss god logically. I just think that’s actually a much smaller part of the conversation than emotions and intuitions - moral and otherwise.

Insisting that people should be logical, doesn’t make it so. Seldom will.

149

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
And this bit may seem divergent to the point, but it matters to me. We’re emotional people - every last one of us. Intuitive too. It’s just part of being human. I’d argue that logical people aren’t logical because they are logical - they are logical because their intuitions lead them to it.

We all walk with a limp. That’s fundamental to my personal philosophy. And if I raise my hand to point at one person’s crutch, I do it by lifting it from mine. I’m not an addict or moron. I just KNOW that I lean on things for comfort. The occasional tumbler of crown. A good hug from one of the kids. The love of a good woman. Science. Science makes me feel intellectually safe. Like the universe is ordered. Because… underneath it all, it is. I don’t see an intelligence creating the order, but I find that math, physics, etc can explain most anything. And that brings comfort in some corner of my mind.

We lean. We limp.

And then we compare crutches. And we ought to, it’s how we learn about each other. I’m just not zealous. And I generally accept that it’s not logic that persuades people - if that be your intent. It’s almost always emotion and intuition… and having reasonable answers to things.

To sum up: We can and should discuss god logically. I just think that’s actually a much smaller part of the conversation than emotions and intuitions - moral and otherwise.

Insisting that people should be logical, doesn’t make it so. Seldom will.
[/QUOTE]
Oh! And therefore, imo, god does make sense - as a concept for people to have and carry and nurture. I’m not saying that God exists. Or that the concepts are logical.

But I don’t expect life to be logical.

150

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
Given the solipsistic, immoral, anarchic nihilism endemic to a world (universe?) without God, does it (would it) make sense to invent a God?

I’ve done some cursory searches and I tried to read this thread, though I couldn’t wade through the glurge. I don’t think this was brought up specifically and, since I’m not going through a six page train wreck to be sure, I’m starting a new thread.

I have three premises. They are not major and minor parts of a syllogism, just a framework for this thread.

Premise One, assume all of the negative consequences of atheism implied by the OP linked above are valid and unavoidable.

Premise Two, someone trying to invent a new window cleaner accidentally disproved the existence of God.

This premise is the most difficult for me, because I do not believe that God can be disproved. I’m sure that for others, the problem might lie in assuming the role of an atheist. What is important is that the deleterious effects of atheism should be presumed to be real for you in considering this thread

Premise Three, you have the ability to influence the religious concepts in the world around you.
Basically, the question is based on Voltaire’s quote regarding the need to create God.

Given the solipsistic, immoral, anarchic nihilism endemic to a world (universe?) without God, does it (would it) make sense to invent a God?

What if the negative consequences implied by mswas OP were not endemic, but still influenced a majority of people?

Would it make any difference if you were a President, Prime Minister or State leader?

What if you had been a religious leader until your conversion to atheism or realization that God’s existence had been disproved?

Would you be able to fabricate a God that you yourself did not believe in or knew did not exist?
[/QUOTE]

God makes perfect sense… God keeps things simple: He is love; he gave us his laws to follow; he saraficed his only son’s life for our salvation. it’s man’s interpretation of God that is sometimes screwey.

I’m having a difficult time right now with the Book of Mormon. Apparently this Smith guy wrote a book based on non-truths, calling it the most true book ever written. Yet when the Mormons were faced with scientific DNA evidence that their beliefs were all wrong, they wouldn’t acknowledge it. Its like their living in denial, and they’re still believing in this fake book that has no signs of reality within it; the names and places are not like anything on this earth. At least with the bible, they name people, places and times in history that actually happened. We know that Babylon is now Iraq and so forth…

151

[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
God makes perfect sense… God keeps things simple: He is love; he gave us his laws to follow; he saraficed his only son’s life for our salvation. it’s man’s interpretation of God that is sometimes screwey.

I’m having a difficult time right now with the Book of Mormon. Apparently this Smith guy wrote a book based on non-truths, calling it the most true book ever written. Yet when the Mormons were faced with scientific DNA evidence that their beliefs were all wrong, they wouldn’t acknowledge it. Its like their living in denial, and they’re still believing in this fake book that has no signs of reality within it; the names and places are not like anything on this earth. At least with the bible, they name people, places and times in history that actually happened. We know that Babylon is now Iraq and so forth…
[/QUOTE]
You skipped premise two - I think.

152

[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
God makes perfect sense… God keeps things simple: He is love; he gave us his laws to follow; he saraficed his only son’s life for our salvation. it’s man’s interpretation of God that is sometimes screwey.
[/QUOTE]

How could you ever know your interpretation was the correct one, then? For that matter, how do you reconcile your interpretation with others that are radically different? Or with members of your own religion/sect/denomination/whatever who lived a century ago and had different interpretations than you, in your comfortable 21st-century existence, disagree with? Heck, you could ahve two people who both fervently believe in the sacrifice of a meek and loving Jesus, who will still come to violence over differing interpretations of him.

If God exists and has some sort of interest in being understood by humans, why is there no effort to sort out this tangled mess? Compared to other miracles described in scripture, how hard could it be?

153

[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
God makes perfect sense… God keeps things simple: He is love; he gave us his laws to follow; he saraficed his only son’s life for our salvation.
[/quote]
Except “God is love” is a concept that makes zero sense, and sacrificing his son for our salvation ALSO makes no sense ( he could have just decreed, “You are all saved”, after all ). As for making laws, he doesn’t have the right.

[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
I’m having a difficult time right now with the Book of Mormon. Apparently this Smith guy wrote a book based on non-truths, calling it the most true book ever written. Yet when the Mormons were faced with scientific DNA evidence that their beliefs were all wrong, they wouldn’t acknowledge it. Its like their living in denial, and they’re still believing in this fake book that has no signs of reality within it; the names and places are not like anything on this earth. At least with the bible, they name people, places and times in history that actually happened. We know that Babylon is now Iraq and so forth…
[/QUOTE]
Faith is all about denial of reality. And the Bible names places and people that either didn’t exist, or were different enough that they might as well not have. Mormonism isn’t any more or less silly than any other religion.

154

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
Last part, first… I think it is. It’s one I don’t apologize for. I am atheistic enough to cross, at times, from saying I have no faith in a god to saying there ain’t a Santa in the sky dropping miracles. It is a position.

If we want to find a “neutral position” I think agnosticism is as neutral as it gets.

[/QUOTE]
It may be worth noting that this “value” stuff came from conversation about the values that leech in one direction or another between societies and the ideologies that are present in it. Yes, atheism is a position, an assertion about one single issue. But what values does it impart to its ‘adherents’ or society? In my thinking, the answer is “none”.

When it comes to having values, I’d say that atheism and agnosticism are precisely tied; neither have values.

As a side note, atheism and agnosticism are also tied regarding the number of assertions they make about reality! Remember - simple indecision is only soft agnosticism; equivalent to the ‘soft’ atheist. (In fact, all soft atheists are also soft agnostics, by the definitions as I understand them.) Hard agnosticism asserts that it is not possible to reach a decision from the available data - an equally strong assertion as that of the hard atheist, and in equal disagreement with both the hard atheist and the theist positions.

So: soft atheism/agnosticism make no assertions about objective reality, and hard atheism/agnosticism are tied with one each.

155

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Faith is all about denial of reality. And the Bible names places and people that either didn’t exist, or were different enough that they might as well not have. Mormonism isn’t any more or less silly than any other religion.
[/QUOTE]
Come now, let’s not get carried away. There is a continuum of silliness here despite the race being pretty close in most cases - I think that scientology, with it’s planes in space, is currently in the lead.

156

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Except “God is love” is a concept that makes zero sense, and sacrificing his son for our salvation ALSO makes no sense ( he could have just decreed, “You are all saved”, after all ). As for making laws, he doesn’t have the right.
[/QUOTE]
That’s amusing how you think God, the author of life, creater of the universe, doesn’t have the ‘right’ to make laws. :slight_smile:

157

[QUOTE=mswas]
No I am pointing out that it is in direct conflict with Abrahamic values, and as such cannot be neutral, because if it were neutral it wouldn’t conflict with other belief systems from which people derive their values.

[/QUOTE]

Rewinding to before the shouting. :slight_smile:

By values I assume you mean ethics and morals. Atheism has none, but atheists necessarily do have ethics and morals. If an Abrahamic value is “thou shalt not kill,” and an atheist has this same value, if for different reasons, is it in conflict or not? Except for the first commandment, it is possible that an atheist can hold to all the 10 commandments - how much of a conflict is that? I reject God belief as a moral or ethical belief, since it has no direct impact on others. It is possible that god belief inspires someone to hold an ethical belief - but so can other reasons, just as absurd.

So atheism conflicts with belief systems (in rejecting them) but not with value systems

158

[QUOTE=begbert2]
So: soft atheism/agnosticism make no assertions about objective reality, and hard atheism/agnosticism are tied with one each.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed.

It is hard to not find similarity among atheists on certain values… given that what lands us in this category is usually a somewhat scientific/philosophical bent, often more schooling, or just being mad at god or the church.

Either group will find similarities within itself, imo.

If nothing else, that generally atheists tend to land on the same side of the argument on same sex marriages, abortion, and other gov’t meddling gives it an appearance of an assertion outside of god’s existence. In other words, there’s spill over.

159

[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
God makes perfect sense… God keeps things simple: He is love; he gave us his laws to follow; he saraficed his only son’s life for our salvation. it’s man’s interpretation of God that is sometimes screwey.

I’m having a difficult time right now with the Book of Mormon. Apparently this Smith guy wrote a book based on non-truths, calling it the most true book ever written. Yet when the Mormons were faced with scientific DNA evidence that their beliefs were all wrong, they wouldn’t acknowledge it. Its like their living in denial, and they’re still believing in this fake book that has no signs of reality within it; the names and places are not like anything on this earth. At least with the bible, they name people, places and times in history that actually happened. We know that Babylon is now Iraq and so forth…
[/QUOTE]

What’s that verse about the beam in your own eye again?

Your view of simplicity is a function of your early upbringing. I was raised free of Christian values, and I think the entire salvation thing is nutty. However I find saying blessings on wine, cheese, fish and blowing my nose perfectly reasonable.

160

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
How could you ever know your interpretation was the correct one, then? For that matter, how do you reconcile your interpretation with others that are radically different? Or with members of your own religion/sect/denomination/whatever who lived a century ago and had different interpretations than you, in your comfortable 21st-century existence, disagree with? Heck, you could ahve two people who both fervently believe in the sacrifice of a meek and loving Jesus, who will still come to violence over differing interpretations of him.

If God exists and has some sort of interest in being understood by humans, why is there no effort to sort out this tangled mess? Compared to other miracles described in scripture, how hard could it be?
[/QUOTE]

My interpretation is from the Universal Church…it’s not really an opinion, it’s a belief based on the Catholic Universal Church. As a Catholic, we have teachings. Of course most Catholics believe these teachings. I’m sure Protestants believe in Christ as their redeemer, but interpret things differently. Whatever. The fact that people interpret God, or religion, or chrisitanity differently is kind of irrelevant to me.

What are you asking, that all people believe as one? That’s not realistic. People view God differently. He’s still one God, and maybe we’ve all got him all wrong. I suppose we’ll find out in the end (that Catholics were right). :eek:

:wink: