on discussing god and religion

A Change of Mind for Antony Flew
Peter S. Williams
at the bethinking web site

Or, more to the point, until the existence of living matter culminating [so far] in the human brain is unequivocally explained by science with no need to include a God, the God, my God, then a God, the God, my God is still one possible explanation. And it’s not for nothing that, for some, the deeper we go into grappling with the astounding complexities involved in the creation of biological life – not to mention the staggering mysteries embedded in the universe itself – that an omniscient Creator isn’t ruled out entirely.

On the other hand, given the sheer complexities involved, why would God be bound by them? Is God Himself necessarily anchored to the laws of nature? Was He not able to create a simpler, less “vast” cosmological reality for mere mortals like us?

On the other hand, suppose science does provide “a satisfactory naturalistic explanation for [all] facets of biological reality”. Won’t the religionists merely rationalize that? Just think back to the time when the church stopped persecuting those astronomers who were pointing out things about the Earth going around the Sun or the orbits of the other planets that were not consistent with Earth being the center of God’s universe. Or those who squared the existence of dinosaur bones with Creationism: thoughtco.com/how-do-creati … rs-1092129

So what if science is successful yet again in accomplishing something thought to be solely within the purview of God? Or of something described as consistent with “intelligent design”.

Besides, how intelligent can the design of biological life be when there are hundreds and hundreds of different afflictions we can come into the world with; and hundreds and hundreds of afflictions that can impale us all the way from the cradle to the grave.

Nope, as long as God is seen to be the only viable access to immortality and salvation, all the scientific accomplishments in the world will merely be subsumed in His mysterious ways. Religion isn’t about being rational; instead it’s the mother of all psychological defense mechanisms. With oblivion itself on the horizon.

A Change of Mind for Antony Flew
Peter S. Williams
at the bethinking web site

Okay, it’s not the God of Moses and Abraham, but there must exist a God, the God? Even if someone is not able to say with any degree of exactitude what it means to them as my God?

Suppose hypothetically science was somehow able to pin down that there must be a God, the God? But were not able to really go much further?

Would that work for you?

Because it certainly would not do much for me. Yes, it is established that up there/out there somewhere there is a God. But how does that in and of itself help me to pin down the behaviors I am obligated to eschew on this side of the grave in assuming that this newly discovered God actually is the gateway to immortality and salvation.

That’s really what religion is all about in the end, right? The font for distinguishing vice from virtue so as to enable you to avoid oblivion. Or damnation.

Sure, it would be fascinating to discuss and debate this existing God. But basically all the denominations that exist now would stay the same: God does in fact exist so it must be our God.

One possible alternative however: “minimal deism”.

God created us but now we are basically on our own to sink or swim? No Scripture to divine objective morality here and now? No immortality and salvation awaiting us there and then?

That kind of God?

Maybe. But still no less a God that is defined or thought up into existence.

And for those Christians who point to Flew and say, “what about him, Mr. Atheist?”, he’s still a long, long way from their God.

So Flew ties himself to Jefferson and his 18th century deist conception of God based on a Newtonian conception of the universe. Oh well.

Duplicate post

Oh well? In what sense? Given the manner in which you connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

A Change of Mind for Antony Flew
Peter S. Williams
at the bethinking web site

Again, the deist God [much like the pantheist God], ever and always brings me back to this: Where’s the beef?

If these Gods are not involved in laying down the foundation for morality on this side of the grave, bringing about a Judgment Day and then, depending on whether you pass or fail, being immortal up or down, what’s the point of them existing at all?

After all, it’s not for nothing that the preponderance of religious denominations that most are familiar with, are very much intent on connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then.

When it comes to religion, THAT IS THE BEEF!!

Spinoza’s God.

Given that He – It? – has no “preferences either about or any intentions concerning human behavior or about the eternal destinies of human beings” what on earth did he imagine awaited him on the other side of the grave.

Spinoza and God…now.

It seems to me that the Gods of the deists and pantheists are basically just the Gods that intellectuals think up. The philosopher’s God. For the preponderance of humanity however that God just doesn’t cut it. They can’t appeal to this God when their life is in the toilet. Or when they need to be absolutely certain they are doing the right thing. Or if they need to believe that in doing the right things, they get to see all their dead loved loves again on the other side.

The real God in other words.

A Change of Mind for Antony Flew
Peter S. Williams
at the bethinking web site

And, for someone like me, that is a crucial distinction. When I look around me at the world we live in, the planet we reside on, all of the many, many ways in which terrible things can happen to us that are more or less completely “beyond our control”, it’s not the existence of God that fascinates me nearly as much as theodicy. Sure, a God, the God can never be completely ruled out as an explanation for existence. In fact, for many, that’s the first thing that will pop into their head.

But when, over and over and over again, you hear this God described as both “loving, just and merciful” and “omniscient/omnipotent” how can you not sit back and think, “What the fuck?!!!”

Again, of what actual use is that God given the primary function of religion: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

It just allows you to use Him to explain why there is something instead of nothing, and why this something and not something else. He does exist “up there” or “out there” somewhere, but that need not concern you.

Of course. Why else would the faithful have to include His “mysterious ways” in the script? Or figure that somehow this infinitely good Creator was not infinitely powerful. The universe got away from Him and He is just as pained by the consequences for His creations [us] as we are.

Either that or another alternative: God is basically a sadistic monster.

God and logic.

Cue pood?

A Change of Mind for Antony Flew
Peter S. Williams
at the bethinking web site

This is how the “analytic” God can shift back and forth depending on the definitions you use. But in the end you are always defining something that is basically just “thought up” in your head in the first place.

Primary cause/secondary cause. And “within creation”. Try to factor that into your day to day interactions with others.

Okay, but science has only been at it now for that proverbial blink of an eye given how long the species has been around. Prompting us to raise questions like this. And now that Flew is dead of course there is no way in which he will be around when, a hundred or a thousand years from now, we may well be creating or own rendition of life. Besides, does the deist God have any particular reason to care that non-living matter evolved into living matter evolved into us?

Life evolved out of matter containing no life at all. God set it all into motion. Perhaps as the primary cause, perhaps as the secondary cause. But what’s that got to do with us? If, from His point of view, nothing at all then I suspect that some will insist there may well have been no God at all once He got the ball rolling.

So, okay, if this “deist” account of God works for you such that you are willing and able to take your own existential leap away from atheism, take that all the way to the grave. For me though a God of this sort is more or less completely irrelevant regarding what I construe to be the whole point of religion insofar as it is able to “comfort and console” me. Does the existence of this ghost-like God allow me to feel less fractured and fragmented? Does it make it any more likely that death does not equal oblivion?

And, again, that’s before we get to the part where this God is still just defined or “thought up” into existence.

For me, what you think or believe about oblivion and eternal punishment is of less interest than what you are actually able to demonstrate to me that all reasonable men and women are obligated to think and believe about them.

In the interim, I’ll stick with the conjecture that what you do believe about them is derived existentially from dasein; and that it revolves largely aroud the manner in which, psychologically, it continues to comfort and console you.

And I do have my own thread. This one: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=186929

Drop in anytime you’d like to connect the existential dots between “morality here and now and immortality there and then”.

We might even touch on my own main interest in God: theodicy.

A debate perhaps.

Resolved: God is a sadistic monster

Still, you can always count on me to thump the likes of Sculptor. :wink:

Are you kidding me?!!

One of the most crucial leaps of faith among the religious is that those who defy God will be punished for all of eternity. That’s everywhere. All around the globe.

Indeed, imagine a religious faith that did not provide the flock with that satisfaction.

Yes, you’ve thought up your own God to make all that go away. But who here doubts that your God is worshipped and adored by only a teeny tiny minority of religious folks out there. Or in here for that matter.

A Change of Mind for Antony Flew
Peter S. Williams
at the bethinking web site

The worst of both worlds perhaps. Not only is it not at all clear where we mere mortals fit into all of this, but even if, instead, it were crystal clear that this God does in fact exist it appears that for all practical purposes we mean squat to Him. He’s up there doing His thing and we’re down here doing our thing…creating hopelessly conflicting moral narratives that, even if they prevail, we still end up tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Ah, but at least the atheists can’t say that God does not exist!

In other words, he didn’t tap himself on the shoulder in order to remind himself that science has barely begun to scratch the surface in regard to all of this. That in, say, a thousand years, what science may or may not know about the evolution of matter into human minds would no doubt astound us today. Indeed, imagine folks who lived a thousand years in the past being around today and gasping at what science has discovered about the world around us [and inside us] in just the past millennium.

It may even be able to pin down whether brain matter itself has entirely compelled me to post and you to read this.

THE STONE at the NYT
Morals Without God?
BY FRANS DE WAAL

In the absence of any definitive evidence for the existence of a God/the God, this discussion and debate would seem to be ultimately futile. And that revolves around the gap between an omniscient God and mere mortals that, after thousands of years since philosophers came on the scene, we are no closer to all concurring on a Humanist facsimile.

Go ahead, chose a moral firestorm and note one where the Humanist come the closest? Or even the optimal philosophical argument that completely debunks the perspective of the sociopath who concludes that in a No God world, it is reasonable to predicate morality on “me, myself and I”.

Sure, it can result in any number of calamities for any number of people. But not for those who are able to get away with it. Show them where such a point of view is inherently, necessarily wrong.

Bottom line [for many]: with God you get a moral script to default to on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it. And all the evidence in the world from those hell bent on yanking God out from under you isn’t likely to sway you. After all, it is not exactly irrational to conclude that sans God morality really does become an abyss.

Even I am preprepared to suspend disbelief if someone can even nudge me in the general vicinity of all the things I used to believe about God. Any God in fact…just offer me a scintilla of hope.

THE STONE at the NYT
Morals Without God?
BY FRANS DE WAAL

In fact, over the years, I’ve collected reactions to that from the God world folks and it always comes down to one or another rendition of this: “if God doesn’t exist, we still have to invent Him”.

No God and nothing cannot be rationalized. Not only that but absent an omniscient God, you might even get away with it. And, even if you do get caught, it’s not like you will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Morality always comes down to God. And the Humanists with their “thought up” secular renditions never really even come close to closing the deal in regard to morality here and now and immortality there and then. They just fool a lot of people eager to find something – anything – to take His place.

What I call the Urwrongx1000 If You’re Not In My Coalition Of Truth Syndrome.

Got a few of them here in fact.

Nature.

Maia’s? Satyr’s? Your own? Call it, say, humanity and the genes you came in on?

But then all those pesky memes, right?

Exactly my point. Of course we are hard wired biologically to embody “social norms”. We are, after all, social beings. Or, rather, most of us are.

Anytime men and women interact in a community, “rules of behaviors”/“rewards and punishments” are also built into the “human condition”.

A God, the God, my God has of late become a crucial and wide-spread manifestation of this. But it is not absolutely requisite that He/They be around in order to have whatever any particular community calls morality.

Or what those surplus labor philosophers came to call Ethics.

I’m one of Franz DeWaal’s biggest Facebook fans, and have consumed some of his research. But the fact that he has documented that other species than humans have recognizable moral behavior doesn’t support the moral nihilist’s view that humans invented morality.

Please. Over and again I acknowledge that we come into the world hard-wired by the matter we call brains to concoct whatever any particular individual wants to construe morality to be. And, if we do so with some measure of actual autonomy, what we invent instead are particular historical, cultural and experiential “rules of behavior”/“rewards and punishments”.

What I believe Richard Dawkins called “memes”. The bane of all intellectual pinheads like Satyr.

Now, maybe these critters – businessinsider.com/the-sma … rld-2014-4 – practice recognizable moral behavior. On the other hand, they are not in here defending their behaviors philosophically.

Now back to the actual point of this thread…

You describing the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave…as this may or may not relate to what you imagine the fate of “I” to be on the other side.

Given a particular context.

Now that Bob has dropped out of the picture. :wink:

If you think Franz de Waal is somehow projecting his moral categories on the chimps and bonobos he claims demonstrate moral behavior in controlled studies that he conducts, take it up with him. I simply note that’s what he is claiming.

If you can show that memes cause moral behavior in chimps and bonobos, do it. If moral behavior is hardwired in them then it has objective survival value for the species or it wouldn’t be there according to Darwin’s theory. That would weigh against your subjectivist theory wouldn’t it?

You brought him here to ILP, not me. Biologically, primate brains are like ours in some respect. After all, unless you’re into “Intelligent Design”, our brains are just the end result [so far] of the evolution of life on Earth. And primate brains come closest to ours. So, to the extent they have some semblance of morality, that’s nature’s thing when it comes to evolution. Take it up with her. On the other hand, to what extent do they have access to historical, cultural and experiential memes? And to what extent is the manner in which I link human morality to dasein applicable to them?

I must be missing your point. And his. My point is to note that in regard to human morality, memes abound. And it’s around this that I root dasein. No doubt that in any number of living creatures – mammals in particular – brains are hard-wired such that among each other there is some semblance of “this is good for us, this is bad for us”. But even within certain species they will savage each other. For breeding rights. Or male bears and lions slaughtering the cubs from females they did not mate with.

And then this part: sciencealert.com/scientists … first-time

But, again, it’s not like they sit around and discuss ethics philosophically. Making refences to other historical eras and other cultural communities and other unique sets of individual experiences.

Nothing at all like us, right?

[size=85]

[/size]

So, when you say “You brought him here to ILP, not me”, you’re denying that you posted the above? :confusion-confused: Because I mentioned him in a post once upon a time? You’re a funny guy!

Mimetic behavior has been observed in non-human species too as for instance chimps, bonobos and crows, parrots and corvids. Sorry if this fact doen’t get you back to your old belief system.

Maybe, but my own interest in distinguishing God from No God moral narratives [in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then] is not likely to come up much among chimps, bonobos and crows, parrots and corvids.

Evidence of morality evolving in non-human species points to the possibility that Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche were wrong when they argued that in a God-is- dead world there was no basis for morality. Which is more likely that we evolved from primates that exhibit primitive moral behavior and then we forgot all that moral behavior and then turned around and reinvented it out of nothing or that our moralities are more elaborated versions of the structures that we see in species that share most of our DNA?

From the standpoint of a reductive mode of analysis it makes more sense to look at whatever people think about what you call “there and then” as a projection of “here and now” values. The ones that are species-wide probably have evolutionary basis.

Debate: Does God Exist? | Matt Dillahunty vs Michael Egnor:
youtube.com/watch?v=yahf0t5mK5g&t=7750s

Why is the linking and embedding system on ILP so crap?
KTS has an easy system. You need some code interventions.

Whatever.