I’ve been diverting another thread with some rambles on this topic…
I think the claim by atheists that the Christian God is wish fulfillment is weak for 2 reasons.
(i) Athiests freely admit that they would NEVER wish for such a God.
(ii) Christians are continually striving to obey this “wish fulfillment” God. It would seem easier to change the “wish” than obey this God.
Any thoughts on the topic??
I think there is a lot of truth to what you’ve said, but I think the entire context needs to be fleshed out.
Given the ubiquity of gods, spirits, and other supernatural phenomena in human history, I think it is fair to say that such phenomena are (rightly or wrongly) rooted in the human psyche. Given that, I think it is fair to argue (as I have elsewhere) that theism is the default status of man, it is merely a question of “which god”.
So now we have to ask ourselves what sort of god would make seek out? I could either quote the Buddha or the dude from The Matrix (paraphrasing the Buddha), but the point is that “life is unsatisfactory”. Right? If I sold you rainbows with lollipops for sunshine, your mind would reject it as untrue because you intuitively know that life isn’t that way. So it follows that God has to be somewhat unsatisfactory for the human mind to accept him. Having liberated one’s self from the restrictions of reality, it becomes possible to imagine a God that is all sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows.
It deals more with the assumptions that go into it. The atheist assumes God isn’t true and as such, can imagine an utterly unreal god. Theists, on the other hand, assume a real God, so it invariably has certain elements they find unsatisfactory and must conform themselves to.
They are both, I think, expressions of the same though process with respect to God and reality, they merely differ with respect to one’s assumptions regarding the issue.
Ned, you claim that Christians would not wish for the Christian god either. What is it about the Christian god that you would prefer not be the case?
Xunzian: very insightful post. I see the Christian narrative as saying “life is really supposed to be satisfactory – and if people would just act morally then it would be. But people can’t be trusted to act morally on their own; they need to submit their own judgment to a central authority.” This narrative is a robust combination of realism and idealism which can serve as a strong social foundation.
In god language it becomes “life was perfect at the beginning, but the fall corrupted man so that he is not able to be good on his own. Now he has to trust in the grace of god to be redeemed and bring in the new kingdom of god on earth.” The theist projects our observations about the world and our hopes for it into archetypal agents – god (the source of life’s goodness and the moral authority) and fallen man (the one who screwed it up and must trust in moral authority to be redeemed).
Is that wish fulfillment? Not exactly. Such theists are not fantasizing a perfect god anymore than they are fantasizing a perfect world. Instead they are saying: “given this imperfect world, let’s figure out how to make the best of it, and then we’ll say that our plan is god’s plan.” That last part might be considered wish fulfillment, but it’s not a purely idealistic wish. It’s both idealistic and realistic. God is a wishful solution to the world’s real problems, not just a way of wishing the problems away.
This is why atheists should not dismiss god, as Dawkins/Dennett/et al have done. God is an imperfect product of man’s earnest desire to make the world a better place. When atheists dismiss that, it sounds like a denial of the underlying aesthetic and moral vision, and this is unacceptable to the theist. We need to figure out a way to affirm what god stands for without necessarily affirming god as a scientific objective reality. As Karen Armstrong says, we need to understand the difference between mythos and logos.
Well, quite a lot of things really.
I’d prefer to be able to sin whenever the notion takes me.
I’d prefer to be able to hate my neighbor instead of loving him.
I’d prefer to not have to follow the disciplines of the Christian faith.
Being a reasonable sort of guy, I’d prefer if everyone could just go to heaven and we’ll all have a party.
I’d prefer not to have to give money away to the needy, I’d rather just keep it for myself.
I’d prefer not to have to interact with people in church that I don’t like.
Now, obviously there are advantages to all these things, and I’m not advocating I run headlong into a hedonistic spree for the upcoming weekend.
But, basically Christianity like any other faith system with disciplines, theology, and spiritual authority is hard work at times. It’s not just wish fulfillment.
Maybe someone will say that I’m subconsciously enjoying the discipline because I feel the need to punish my inner child or expunge some deep seated guilt. Whatever dude! At a very basic level I think Christianity, it’s practices and beliefs are plain hard. It’s too easy for atheists to call the Christian God wish fulfillment. Most Christians follow Christ because they believe it to be the truth, not because it’s fun.
[I re-read this post and maybe I’m not answering your question which was more directed to the nature of God. I think it would be easier all round if God wasn’t holy. It’s the holiness of God that causes problems for us. If God was good but unholy then he’d be like a great big sugar-daddy in the sky, giving us stuff but expecting nothing in return.]
I think there is some truth in this and certainly there are those who want even the Christian God to be more severe than he is in the bible, but do you really think theists are all that different from atheists? One group needing a little more structure and conformation? I don’t believe that to be true in a general sense, it might be true for some.
Anyway, it seems strange that groups of theists agree on the elements that they must conform to. Or maybe you just think that humans are pretty simple and have a limited number of things they feel they must stop or start doing. And the structure of theism gives them the opportunity to do so.
Ned,
I’m not quite convinced that a notion of God must carry superimposed morals or ethics with it. I think it is quite possible for humans to arrive at the same moral or ethical conventions without any reference to a God.
As a hard agnostic, I find the religious God question moot, but from a social perspective, that leaves a blank spot if there are no “God given” mandates about how we should live.
I approached the issue long ago and simply decided that for lack of any convincing belief, that I was on my own. The morals or ethics I adopted came from many sources, including much wisdom from the bible, but whatever they may be is a choice. Oddly, most of those beliefs would make me a good religious person viewed from the outside, but I’m not. I simply try to express the best of what is a human being. The problems I encounter are no different than any religious person. I live by principle. It ain’t easy and the temptations are always there, but I am responsible for the choices I make, not God, me.
A perspective: I assume that since God hasn’t spoken to me, that it is quite likely there isn’t a God there, but given that there are just a few places I can’t go, it remains an unlikely possibility. But if there were a creator with a plan for we humans, it seems plausible that as a good manager, he would give us all the tools we need to do our jobs (as humans) whether he were present or not. We don’t need to ask, we don’t need an operator’s manual, we already intuitively know, we just need to be aware and then do what is best for ourselves and those around us. In this sense, non-theists take both the freedom and the responsibility for themselves.
Ned,
Really? But then wouldn’t everyone else be free to sin too? The consequences of sin often make life unpleasant for entirely naturalistic reasons. Murder, theft, adultery, hating your neighbor, coveting his property and the like have all caused a great deal of suffering throughout human history. Would you really prefer to be able to sin when those consequences return to you?
But then there would be nasty people there causing all sorts of trouble. It would be even worse than in this world, because the nasty people could prey on the good without any fear of reprisal. Heaven would quickly turn into Hell – or at least Earth, if the good got wise and started fighting evil as they do in this world.
What about the compassion you feel for them? Don’t you feel bad when you see others suffering, and want to help? Certainly that instinct is compromised by our selfish instincts, but still the preference is not as cut-and-dried as you suggest. And don’t go claiming that you only feel compassion because Jesus taught you to; even animals who know nothing of Jesus show compassion. Compassion and morality are in our blood (along with a lot of other, less savory things unfortunately).
If we don’t have to show love towards others, they don’t have to show love towards us, and we all grow a bit more lonely. Is that an unqualified good? Isn’t it nice to have a community that accepts and loves you for who you are, for richer and poorer, sickness and health? I miss the church community myself at times.
I see religion as a very wise, but imperfect and purely human, way of creating a better society given the very mixed hand life has dealt humanity. There is much wisdom in religion, but it’s not divine wisdom (at least not literally), it’s human wisdom. God hasn’t really told us anything that we couldn’t have figured out for ourselves, as far as living a good life is concerned.
Ned - this is crap. Just what kind of god atheists would wish for is immaterial. Either the one you belive in exists or it doesn’t. And Christians could simply wish for a god that they must obey.
I want a cigarette right now. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Or useful in the long run. Or the right thing to do. Or not self-destructive.
People wish for all manner of things. Even atheists do.
Your post is an abomination of logic. No logic exists in it.
As a structuralist I would be inclined to say that humans are, as a whole, more alike than not. More importantly, human societies are more alike than not. That feeds into what I was trying to say, which is that atheists and theists are really very alike. But since atheists assume the Christian God isn’t real, they can attribute all sorts of not-real aspects to God – make him not a person, but a sunday morning cartoon character, if you will. This image is as absurd to the atheist as the theist, it is just downright silly. Since theists think God is real, they can’t really treat him as a sunday morning cartoon character and as such he will have unsatisfactory elements to him. Both are really expressions of the same thought. Atheists = God isn’t real, ergo, God is this absurd thing that can’t exist, like such-and-such. Theists = God is real, ergo, God isn’t this absurd thing that can’t exist, like such-and-such, but rather . . .
Hi all,
I think that my contention with the Christian God (as he is portrayed) is that he is seen to be some kind of super-being that is somehow morally interested in trivial things that I do. Being in management, I have to lead people and have 50 people for whom I am directly responsible. I am expected to lead them and get them to act in a defined way towards the residents and patients. If I were to act in a way similar to the way God is portrayed in churches as acting, I wouldn’t get far. My escape from this dilemma is the person of Christ, who doesn’t act in that way.
In my view he presents way of looking at life which is intended to overcome fear – by simply accepting that the purpose of life is to live, to be, and to discover to what depths and heights “being†can take us and trusting that this life has been “fathered†and has purpose in itself. I believe that the origins of all Religion are to be found in this view, even if they may have taken on superficial religious structures or become corrupted on the way. Really religious people are awed by the fact that awareness is possible, and that we don’t just have a life like other biological entities, but have the ability to philosophise, reflect and discover the ins and outs of life. Religious people revere the Ineffable behind our “being†- in whatever way and with whatever names they refer to this indescribable whatever.
Some choose to use negations to circumscribe their experience of the “numinousâ€, some use images to describe their idea of the Holy. Some choose to describe their God with descriptions of a personality judging human life, some regard their Tao as something indifferent to human behaviour. Whatever they decide to use as a metaphor or analogy, it is not that which they seek to describe. Christ, in my mind, knew this as well, although it is difficult to argue since we don’t have the original words of Jesus, only reported speech and reminiscences. However, when scholars have delved into the presumed spoken language of Jesus, they find a great deal of evidence for this.
It is true that the Christian God answers the creation myth, but I think that there is a lot to be said for the fact that human beings come to recognise their fragility and awareness to be their weakest point and go on to find some means to hide their “nakednessâ€. The meaning of life has then been alternatively associated with some kind of material gain and the attempt to possess as much as one can, whether it is money and buildings or just the ability to overcome poverty, hunger and fear. The majority of human beings in “civilised†countries today are obsessed with possessions as something that gives purpose to an otherwise depressing outlook – death after a relatively short life – and is what amounts to idolatry. Another kind of religion and the antithesis to Abraham.
Shalom
Xunzian - I would not argue that atheists are very much like Christians, or Jews, or Muslims or Buddhists. But the whole premise of this thread is not religion, but psychology. Bob is saying as much.
But the nub of this psychology, in Ned’s post, and in most of these threads, is about intellectual superiority.
That’s it, Ned - somehow you have bought into the idea that atheists, qua atheists, are claiming intellectual superiority. And so this oft-repeated “you’re just the same as me”, "they are both beliefes, “you don’t really know that god doesn’t exist”. And so on.
Well, atheists often do claim intellectual superiority, just for the fact that they are atheists. My advice is to not buy into this. Since one of my comments sparked this tired old knee-jerk reaction of yours, I will tell you that I am not claiming to be smarter than you - at least not on this score.
And Xunzian - I don’t claim that God cannot exist, but only that he doesn’t.
As long as no one is putting words in my mouth (and I realise that your comments aren’t specifically directed at me, Xun), I am a happy camper. But I believe that Ned is. Please don’t. It’s not smart. My argument is not the one you present. In fact, I don’t have an argument. I simply do not believe in anything for which I have no evidence. That’s not an argument specifically about your god.
Faust,
I don’t think I’m claiming that people are claiming that. My point was a psychological point, and how people deal with things they believe exist vs. things they don’t believe exist. It is precisely the Superman that Bob describes that people can’t think exist and will rail against in their mind. Since atheists don’t believe God exists, they can envision him as a superman in a way that Christians can’t, so both sides end up talking about a different sort of god.
Xun - all I hear about from Christians is a very man-like God. With a very human-like personality. Heck, with a personality. And not just here. I was raised a Methodist. Went every week. I hear preachers all the time on the radio. You don’t need to be a scholar to know this - the Christian God created man in his image. When Christians run out of wiggle room, and fall back on “we can’t know the mysteries of God”, it rings hollow. Either he has a human-like personality (again, a personality) or he doesn’t.
I would have a different conception if I hadn’t heard this one, form every source, for my whole life.
Yes, there is mysticism, but mystics don’t talk much, and there are none here.
I agree that the atheist assumption of superiority is tied to this discussion, I was actually going to raise this issue before. But I’m not sure it’s simply an intellectual issue. I think atheists opperate under the assumption that they are superior, period. This helps them get away with illogical statements such as those I raised up top.
There is no reason to believe that Christians are intrinsicly any different from atheists, we’re all human beings here, or at least I think I am, not sure about you yet:) The athesist assumption that they are superior is just a convenient way of patting yourself on the back, playing to the choir, and avoiding issues you don’t like. Sure, Christians do similar things, but atheists should be honest about what they are doing and what the assumptions of their position are.
And I agree, but very few atheists would say what you have just said, and I think it goes beyond intellect.
I understand that. My argument was against atheists in general, not you in particular.
I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. Your position seems fine to me. I just started with your comments and generalized to what most atheists claim. Sorry if I offended you.
I am not offended, Ned, but to “generalise” from my position to the one you describe is an error in logic itself.
Which was my point.
Maybe, but this seems to let atheism off the hook.
The issue in the other thread wasn’t about athesist creating a catoon God for fun, it was about atheists imagining the kind of God that an atheist would actually wish for. I assume that when anyone (even athesists) wish for something they are projecting the image of a God that would actually like to be real. Thus, I don’t see why he would be anymore “unreal” or cartoonish than the God a Christian might create. Whether such a God exists or not would seem to be a different issue.
Isn’t this what someone does when they freely choose a religion? Aren’t they shopping for their favorite god? They are shopping for custom as well, for morality and more. But isn’t this the responsibility of the god?
I’m not sure why an atheist would wish for a god that he didn’t wish for, but he could, i suppose.
Well, I’m not saying that there aren’t very real benefits to being a Christian. I’m just saying that people who are Christians are not “being Christians” simply to get those benefits. Obviously the ultimate benefit for a Christian is the promise of eternal life, it’s pretty hard to top that one! And most of these promises and benefits are for life after death not the here and now. So Christians (like muslims and other theists) generally make sacrifices in this life to conform to the requirements of their God. It would seem easier to project a different one would it not?
I guess I disagree with this statement. Maybe I’ll expand on this later. I don’t have time just now.
Yes, but Xun seemed to be allowing atheists an opt out where they could wish for an unreal God and thus not have to defend their “wish”.
Of course it’s an unreal God - we’re atheists!
What is to defend? It’s a daydream!
Oh, my my my my my.