Perchance

Hi Stardust,

I'm willing to wait a few days to have questions answered or engaged with .

That said, I suppose I would ask about an assumption you seem to be making:

Why do you think humans have a need for "something greater than themselves?" What does "greater" mean in this context?

Greater in the sense of size? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Greater in the sense of morality and nobility? There, perhaps, we have the root of it. But I don't understand why deciding to serve humanity is necessarily any different from serving a deity.

That doesn't mean I'm casting aspersions on your choice! Far from it . I'm just curious about the idea that seems innate both to theist and to some non-theist arguments: that we must want to be lifted outside of ourselves.

I can't recall feeling that, myself. I would say there are moral principles I hold to, and I've felt the call of some mythologies (for example, I've read books that presented the history of feminism in a stirring way, or the history of writers, or the history of this or that group). But I can't say I've decided to put myself in the service of something "greater."

Too often, "greater" seems to conflate the "nobility" meaning and the idea of it being "outside the self," so that anything "outside the self" automatically becomes better than the self.

I wonder why?

-Perchance.

goody2shoes

Stardust,

I must be nice to be 22 (or 23 like perchance). You can both look ahead 20-25 years with great goals in mind. For me it is more the hope to not wind up in a nursing home somewhere ;-)

I don't have any problem with your philosophy. We all have to have to go by what our gut makes us feel. I would make comments as follows: What seems to be obvious to you is not obvious to many others. I know many who believe that the sun and the rest of the universe make it "obvious" that a God does exist and that science has found no replacement as of this date even with genius like Stephen Hawking. It seems as though it follows that old saying "Those who believe in God see him everywhere; those who do not see him nowhere."

You can define what God should do (e.g. be completely "obvious" to everyone) and then make a decision based on that. That is your decision to make. I would only point out that you have a-priori guaranteed what the conclusion will be. I concur with your right to choose any way that you desire and I have no desire to try to stuff ideas down anyone's throat.

Perchance:

I, liked Stardust's format over the quotes approach -- mostly because I am still coming up short. A few comments;

Yes, I do think that organized religion has hurt the notion of God in many respects. Mostly because the past (and present) is full of those who use the religions to forward evil desires and claim that God wants that. However, that is the nature of corrupt leaders - not of god or religion. Take the former Soviet Union. Should atheism be faulted because of the corrupt leaders of an atheistic nation? Many people would do so.

Deism:. I only know one personally and he seems to follow the same philosophy as Albert Einstein. Einstein's God was of interest to him only as to how it affected the material universe and he made some decisions based upon that "religion". But Einstein's God was not really interested in you or me ----- or even in Einstein as a matter of personal involvement.

Besides being somewhat sarcastic, the fact that some ancient religion burnt goatskins as part of their religion has little bearing on theism or atheism. It relates only to that particular belief system. Why not select the ones that sacrifice virgins?

I toss out a suggestion. If we are not interested in whether or not a personal God exists, then this may be the wrong forum altogether. If , however, That is the subject at hand, then there is an obvious (Why am I using that hateful word?) -- rather let's say a "possible" -- approach. Why could one not say directly to God something like: "Hi there. On the outside chance that you really do exist and really care about me, I'd like to say that I am interested in knowing that. If you could please reveal that information to me somehow, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks". If he is a personal God, he might listen and respond.


Goody

Perchance

Hi goody,

Not trying to be sarcastic, but do you see a difference between "religion" and "organized religion" then? You seem to be making a distinction between the two terms that I don't understand.

As I said, since I haven't known a Deist personally and have little experience with their philosophy, I am not certain what they believe. I do know that God in this scenario as I have heard it described would be almost anything but personal. He made the universe and walked away (again, according to what I've heard). You don't get much less personal than that.

Sorry if the quote sounded sarcastic. I was using it because the delight in the smell of burning goat is seen (in the OT) as an attribute of the Christian god, who is at the same time described by many Christians as omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, and personal. There seems to be a slight hitch in the logic here- or else a wedding of characteristics together that do not really go together, which is my personal belief. The more a worshipper tries to make God all things to all people, the less believable that version of God becomes.

I have no problem with the "notion" of a personal god per se. I actually think it less likely than something like the Deist god (a position that some others here also hold to), simply because it seems as if a personal god deeply concerned about his/her/its creation would be more obvious about his/her/its presence.

Speaking strictly in the realm of the mental and the hypothetical, I could entertain almost any god-belief. It is when someone asks me about what I think actually exists that I begin arranging the god-concepts along a spectrum of likeliness. Such a being as the Christian god is described as seems unlikely on the grounds of logic, science, and my own experience.

I do agree that a personal god might answer a true call (again, speaking in the realm of the mental and hypothetical, and muzzling my doubts for a moment about whether such a god actually exists). However, when it comes down to trying it (and I have prayed in the past, to see what would happen), two problems arise:

1) If I felt an answer, how would I know it was really God and I wasn't deluding myself- for example, wanting so much for it to be true that I convinced myself I felt it when I really didn't?

2) When I try and don't feel an answer, then the usual (believer) reply I have received is, "You didn't pray hard enough/try hard enough. God only seeks out those who want to speak to him. Keep trying." This makes me skeptical because it seems to be another way of saying, "Just keep going until you convince yourself."

None of this is meant to be sarcastic. I do find the notion of a personal god fascinating.

Do you think that God only does answer those who seek with a "sincere heart," so to speak? Is your belief something entirely different? I would be interested in hearing your opinion.

-Perchance.

goody2shoes

Perchance;

To answer the last first, I do think that God answers sincere requests and I think that it is obvious that the doubts exist. As to the when and the how it gets anw swered: it may sound like a cop-out, but I would expect that to be up to God. It could be years in the future or tomorrow morning. The only thing that I would expect to be required is an honestly open mind to the possibility. That does not mean constantly studying and trying to believe something that does not come naturally -- just the act of not closing out the possibility. It certainly is true that one generally ends up believing what he/she reads the most ------ be it the Bible or Infidel Posts. That is one reason why I try to read a variety of positions -- including Infidel posts.

Of one thing I am certain is that the decision to close one's mind generally results in a mind that is seldom changed - be that good or bad.

Deism: If you are interested, Stephen Weinberg's (an atheist) "Dreams of a final theory" spends some time critiquing Einstein's deistic view of God.

With respect your comments on Christianity.
1.) They are not relevant to our discussion of theism.
2.) You attribute characteristics and beliefs to what you call Christians and seem to expect me to respond to them when I likely don't accept then as Christian to begin with.
3.) It is a diversion that does not help.
4.) It could be a subject of another post. I could accept that butwould not like that one in an open forum. (In fact this one looks like it is mostly you and I already.)


I will make the claim that I am pretty much open minded about what I believe - for a Christian :-). but I certainly do not want to engage in a discussion of what the Jews reportedly did several thousand years ago. You are making some pretty broad assumptions about what all Christians believe, based upon what may or may not apply to some group of Christians somewhere.


I think that the best way to look at the "God is all this and that everywhere at all times" is to look at a potentially analogous situation. We humans (Check MIT's website for example.) are engaged now in attempting to make robots for our future use. We have a long way to go, but these things will need minds to occupy the bodies. One can construct an analogy wherein a programmer makes a simulated environment in which to "raise" Artificial Intelligence" minds (AIs) for use in the robots. Although the Programmer would be a very finite human being, to the AIs he would be many of the superlatives we attribute to God. And that would be so, no matter how much the AIs reasoned and argued around it. That maybe not a great analogy, but answers some questions on how such things can possibly be true.

Goody

Perchance

Hi Goody,

Okay, I'll try not to make generalizations .

I suppose I do think of myself as having an open mind, just leaning more one way than the other (i.e., towards non-belief). According to some definitions I've heard non-theists use in the past, I'm "atheist agnostic"- doesn't know if God exists, doesn't think it can be logically proven, but lives his or her life as if it doesn't matter. In fact, for most of my life it hasn't really mattered one way or the other (which I have sometimes heard called "apatheism"). But recently, with a change of schools and with 9/11, I've entered a more religious environment, one where religion is discussed much more often, and one in which there seem to be a lot more deep theists- including some self-described fundies- around me than ever before. That's what's stimulated my recent interest in it.

And I hopefully will keep an open mind until I die, whether or not I ever acquire what seems to me proof of God's existence . I'm reading through books of the Bible one at a time, some good theist sites when I can find them, and trying to find my copy of "Mere Christianity" (which I know I have but which is buried in a box somewhere) to read through as well. I also regularly read Neopagan books and sites. I agree about the necessity of reading both sides.

Thanks for the book recommendation, by the way.

With regard to the AI creator/programmar analogy:

I do like it. However, I suppose I would have to ask some more questions about it before I could tell you which is my main opinion on it. For example, you said that the programmar/creator would seem like God to the AI's, and that no matter how much the AI's argued about it, it wouldn't change the fact of his actual god-like seeming to them.

Does this mean that you think (in this analogy) the creator/programmar is revealing himself to his creations, is giving them direct knowledge of his existence, and so on? Has he designed AI's that are capable of comprehending him?

If the answer to both these questions is "yes," then I would say where the analogy breaks down (for me) is that we, humans, don't seem to have such direct, unmistakable proof of God's existence. Some people seem to see him, some don't. Some see different varieties. And there is enough argument over the nature of a god/goddess/supreme being/many supreme beings as to at least raise reasonable doubts about whether we are comprehending the divine.

If we don't have direct proof of God's existence, then aren't we justified in doubting both his existence and his attributes, even if theists are right? Or, to switch it back to the analogy, if the programmar/creator doesn't make it clear to the AI's that they are the product of his brain and hands and that he is x, y, and z, then aren't they justified in doubting his existence and his personality, no matter that he exists?

-Perchance.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

philechat

Still don't get why one would "need" a personal god. Whether such a god exists or not seems almost irrelevent to me, and I think people are free to need such a god or not.

It all boils down to interpretations of experiences anyways. Perhaps one craves for that "mystical experience" where one feels completely connected to the world outside oneself. My answer to such craving would be, "so what? I had your so-called mystical experiences too, and it does not require me to even believe in a personal god!"

Strange, isn't it? When one could create meaning for one's own life then why the need to find a meaning of life outside of life itself? Could it be a wish for an afterlife (which I seem to lack)? A wish for exclusive knowledge or connection (I would wonder why again)? A wish for ultimate justice (Ahhh...action is more conducive for achieving such wish than prayer isn't it)? What else?

Why would it matter if a god exists or not ?

And what is the whole deal with intolerance against others who are also seeking meaning, except in different ways? Why are atheists and believers of other religions "wrong"?

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Perchance

Hi philechat,

I agree (well, obviously, since I don't think that one necessarily needs a personal god ). But I am interested in the experiences/explanations of people who either believe that such a need is part of everyone, or believe that they have experienced contact with such a being, or both.

The people I've met who are "certain" that they are on the "right spiritual path" often strike me as not being so certain at all. Perhaps even the strongest believer is uncertain at times, and decrying others is a way of drowning the doubts in his own head.

Of course, I'm not sure how this would work. Shouting at others + ignoring one's doubts = certainty?

The equation doesn't seem to add up.

But then, I don't think I'm on any spiritual path at all, so who knows .

-Perchance.

goody2shoes

Perchance:

I doubt that we disagree at all. Your life and my life have very similar periods of time. There was a significant period of time wherein I believed just about exactly the same as you do now. I do mean to imply that I "got over it" and now "know better". To the contrary, it is not an "event' -- It is a process and it continues for all of you life. Many cannot take it and have to retreat into a closed minded form of security. I hope to think that I have not and it is why I am on this post.

You mentioned "Mere Christianity". That was written by one of my favorite people, C. S. Lewis. In "Mere Christianity" I would only suggest the first chapter. It is a good presentation ---- somewhat compelling but not conclusive. Another interesting book by Lewis is "A Grief Observed" where this "super-Christian" describes his own loss of faith long after becoming a Christian.

For this post, I prefer that you look upon me a "fellow searcher" -- a Christian but not some type of stereotyped "Christian'

Yes the analogy I gave to you was somewhat contrived. I use it ads a model" to see if I can understand the "God view" from the "outside looking in" -- versus the "inside looking out". Sometimes it helps and sometimes it does not. You could easily make up your own analogy to view atheism or theism.

Goody

==================================

Hey Philechat,

Thanks for joining us.

You are absolutely correct about intolerance. I truly dislike my "fellow" Christians who spend their time casting blame on others instead of concentrating upon doing what Jesus implored us to do. With respect to your suggestion that we (you?) do not "need" a larger viewpoint, I can only suggest that a quest for the truth should be a lifetime experience and not an event that closes further discussion.

It terms of what "you need" - well I have no idea what you need and what you do not need. I am certain that you only meant, "what you need" from your own perception of things. I might suggest that you get independent advice - rather than telling your own opinion to yourself. But I don't know you so what you say may absolutely true.

Best

Goody

Pensee

I actually got a little free time to play tonight. So here goes.

Perchance:

By greater, I mean something that gets the focus off of their individual lives, to feel like they belong to and are important to something other than themselves, to feel that, when they die, their lives wouldn't have been lived in vain, that their ideas and beliefs and thoughts and principles will go on. It's just a continuous quest.

I base this on a few things. One is the way in which so many people worldwide cling so tightly to religious beliefs. People want to believe that they will have a lasting impact or influence on this world. People want to have a meaning, a purpose for existence. People want to believe that they are a part of some great cosmological plan. I believe there is a real need to feel a part of something, and to be around other like-minded people. I think that's why churches do so well. Look at all of us non-believers, here at ii and elsewhere on the internet. Many of us come to such places to find comfort in that we are not alone. We want to feel a part of a community. IMHO, we're all searching for something to fill a void for meaning and truth. My meaning is serving humanity. Others' meaning may be serving a deity.

"I'm just curious about the idea that seems innate both to theist and to some non-theist arguments: that we must want to be lifted outside of ourselves." (Sorry, too lazy to format!)

I would say that, for the most part, there is a common, innate need to realize our place in the world. I would never assert that this holds true for every human being. Some people are quite content with simply living their lives and not worrying about the "big scheme of things". But even many of those, will seek refuge in social structures (again, something outside of themselves) to feel a sense of belongingness.

~~~~~
Goody: I'll agree that what seems to be obvious to me may not be obvious to others. I'm familiar with the belief that nature, itself, is compelling, obvious, blatant evidence of the handiwork of God. I used to firmly believe that, myself.
Going back to the sun example, while there are several ways of believing why or how the sun exists, no one doubts its existence. The sun can be scientifically proven to exist. We've all seen the sun. We've all felt its warmth. We've all witnessed its rising and setting. Until god is this un-deniable, I will continue to disbelieve in it's existence.

goody2shoes

Hi Stardust

Nice to hear from you again.

At least there is some common ground for discussion. Have you ever looked directly at the sun to convince yourself that it really exists? If you did, then would probably have no eyes left. When the sun comes up in the morning, you do not "know" that it is there because you can actually "see" the sun -- but rather because it allows you to see everything else. There are other things that are not visible that allow you to see what you cannot otherwise observe. You are bright, so I need not give you other examples.

Goody