When Facts Don’t Matter

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

A god that listens to your prayers would not be big enough to be God of this universe. Sorry.

.

maybe - if there is a God tho, by definition it'll be one of those things that can do whatever the hell it wants including listening to our prayers and creating this universe and a few others too.

Not that i have an opinion on it, but lets face it, claiming to know what god (if it exists) is capable of is a bit like claiming you know what happens in a singularity.

[Simulist]

A god that listens to your prayers would not be big enough to be God of this universe. Sorry.

A god that can fit itself comfortably inside any human conception of it would not be big-enough to be the God of this universe, no — but there is no reason to conclude that a God big-enough to be the God of this universe couldn't also be big-enough to listen to your prayers.

[JackRiddler]

.

A god that listens to your prayers would not be big enough to be God of this universe. Sorry.

.

maybe - if there is a God tho, by definition it'll be one of those things that can do whatever the hell it wants including listening to our prayers and creating this universe and a few others too.

Not that i have an opinion on it, but lets face it, claiming to know what god (if it exists) is capable of is a bit like claiming you know what happens in a singularity.

Sort of my point. Such a being would presumably hear my prayers, but I don't imagine it would respond to them! Those who do -- the majority of religious followers on this planet -- are, in fact, claiming to know what it does. (What is it capable of? Everything, sure. So?)

Whereas I am merely pointing out how incredibly unlikely and wishful the concept is that it would take a side or wish to intervene in the affairs and fates of creatures that constitute one-googolth-squared of its overall view and live for about one-googolth-squared of its average day. If you dispense with anthropocentrism in conceiving a creature big enough to be God in this Universe, you have to acknowledge the absurdity of assigning good odds to the chance it responds to your prayers, as opposed to the chance that it's rather indifferent and might at best hear these as a curiosity or diversion. (Or, in the Cthulhuian universe, a data point in whatever sick experiment it's running. The fucker.) Granted that it's all just Bayesian speculation in the absence of any empirical test that's ever going to be available to us!

Let me give you my psychogram of at least some, if not most, conventional God believers: They have trouble dealing with certain natural drives they imagine would cause them to engage in rapine, murder and other sins if there wasn't a big God as Moral Deterrent. I don't think that's actually the case; if they let go of their God they'd remain just as morally deterred. But not having cleared up their unconscious issues (uh oh, it's Freud-God again!) they tend to be worried about it. They're even more worried about all the rapine, murder and other sins they imagine everyone else would engage in, if there wasn't a big God as Moral Deterrent. Along the same lines, they're also worried about how their lives might turn extremely unlucky and nasty and full of sudden misfortunes if they don't keep paying whatever tribute their particular religious tradition says they should pay. And this worry is about this life, for the most part, not the promised afterlife. They still think the crops won't grow and the supermarket shelves won't be stocked if they don't enact the magic ritual.

Anyway, you bastards are skipping all that stuff I wrote as tl:dr and jumping to the bon-mot at the end. Fuckers.

.

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

A god that listens to your prayers would not be big enough to be God of this universe. Sorry.

.

maybe - if there is a God tho, by definition it'll be one of those things that can do whatever the hell it wants including listening to our prayers and creating this universe and a few others too.

Not that i have an opinion on it, but lets face it, claiming to know what god (if it exists) is capable of is a bit like claiming you know what happens in a singularity.

Sort of my point. Such a being would presumably hear my prayers, but I don't imagine it would respond to them! Those who do -- the majority of religious followers on this planet -- are, in fact, claiming to know what it does. (What is it capable of? Everything, sure. So?)

.

Actually I do agree almost 100% with that. Thanks very much for clarifying.

[Simulist]

Whereas I am merely pointing out how incredibly unlikely and wishful the concept is that it would take a side or wish to intervene in the affairs and fates of creatures that constitute one-googolth-squared of its overall view and live for about one-googolth-squared of its average day.

Hmm. I poked my finger with a safety pin last night, and it hurt.

Now I really don't know just how many of my nerve-endings "cried out" to me in that moment, but I know I "heard" them.

[wallflower]

I've been silent, but have been following the discussion as it's proceeded with interest.

I often present low self-esteem and the tricky part of that is sometimes the line between low self-esteem and self-absorbed seems pretty thin.

At the Agonist yesterday http://agonist.org/ I got accused of trolling--I would link to the particular thread, except that I generally comment using my real name and I haven't gotten my head around the strong precaution against revealing personally identifiable information at this forum. Anyhow once again on the Internet I really rubbed somebody the wrong way and it took me by surprise once again.

When I linked to the essay about atheism and the accusation of accommodationism my attention was focused on the authors' points about rhetoric and not their position in re atheism. I'm happy that Canadian_Watcher reported that the rhetorical style seemed condescend to them; rather than to accuse me of being condescending to them. But very often such a distinction is not made: The argument presented seems condescending therefore the person conveying the argument is condescending. In short I get seen as a troll online because people don't like what I link to or the arguments I present. Because I want everyone to like me, I'm too often butthurt.

The issue of self-esteem and the relationship to our beliefs seems very important and also somewhat neglected. I'm very much for reasoned discussions. I also think that phatic speech, that is, speech for a social purpose, is crucial. I'm socially awkward, I too often don't anticipate how what I write and say will set people off. I'm not sure what it is that I need to learn to do?

I ought to say now, and probably say more often, how much I value the many contributors to these threads. Rigorous Intuition attracts some of the best writers and thinkers online. And, and, I love how people reveal their personalities here, even when guarding personally identifiable information. RI seems an exception to the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

[Burnt Hill]

Hmm. I poked my finger with a safety pin last night, and it hurt.

Now I really don't know just how many of my nerve-endings "cried out" to me in that moment, but I know I "heard" them.

By this logic, "God" must be withstanding unbearable agony.
No wonder we havent heard from "Him".

[23]

The issue of self-esteem and the relationship to our beliefs seems very important and also somewhat neglected. I'm very much for reasoned discussions. I also think that phatic speech, that is, speech for a social purpose, is crucial. I'm socially awkward, I too often don't anticipate how what I write and say will set people off. I'm not sure what it is that I need to learn to do?

You raise an interesting issue here. My daughter and I discussed it just the other day.

I suggest that you not be too willing to accept too much responsibility for other people's reactions. That can often lay the foundation for guilt and shame, the building blocks of low self-esteem.

Better to learn how to handle them (i.e. not take it personally) than refrain from being yourself because of the fear of incurring a negative response.

Others people's mileage, re. this issue, may vary, of course. But that's, in part, what makes RI a gem of a virtual oasis.

[Canadian_watcher]

How do you define "intelligence"? Isn't it inherent in the order of things? An order obviously exists, whether we understand it or not. Generally, we don't, so we might not be very intelligent.

We agree.

Maybe there are living energy fields surrounding us that we have yet to see, or may never see. We can consider extraterrestrials, hidden beings or demons on this planet.

We diverge. To me, if there are demons, there are gods. Nature wouldn't create such an imbalance. But, there may be no demons, just that 'bad' which is inside of each of us, and thus there would not have to be any 'god' separate from that which is inside of each of us. But to me it's one or the other of those, and not just demons and no gods/angels. and there can't be extraterrestrials on this planet, or they'd be terrestrials.

None of that is an argument for God unless you don't define God, except as Some Thing that can always elude definition... but belief in which (and here is the key) gives YOU a kind of specialness, a "gift" that the non-believers don't have, or even a moral sense that the non-believers lack (puh-leaze!).

no no, you've misunderstood me and I apologize for that. I didn't mean that faith in God was a gift, just faith itself. The ability to believe that which can't be proven. I think some people are incapable of that.

Either take a stand and clearly define your god/gods/higher power, or admit you've got no positive argument for its/their existence, since it/they is/are everything and nothing, as long as we can't see it.

I can't do it. Why would I even try? I don't want to convince anyone of anything. I am at peace with that which I understand, and am learning more all the time.

All I see is the universe. ... and no Tyrant Jehovah anywhere you look, ...the smart theists have moved God to increasingly abstract or vague definitions.

really? I don't think that's true, but then I'm not up on the latest in the definition of deities.

The atheist in me rejects ideas that lack for logic or evidence...

is it the atheist in you or do you think you aren't as gifted at faith as some others might be? Does this only apply when God is involved or are you the type to doubt ghost stories, ufo visitation accounts & crying statues, too? I'm just curious, don't take that the wrong way, please.

The agnostic in me me allows at least philosophically for possibilities that are much bigger than we could ever know,

yes, I understand that feeling. where does the universe end? It can't end, but it must - at least in our understanding of things it must end. If it does end, though, what is beyond the end? Of course you know I'm getting at the point that our minds are not even close to being able to wrap around that. Does a computer brain know its boundaries? Does it feel itself on the desk or know how it got there?

Compare that to the hubris of someone who also knows they're not very smart in the big scheme, but at the same time imagines they know .GOD.

you talkin' 'bout me? I don't know God. I know that I'm not the designer of everything in my life and I believe that I will go on after I die. That's different.

I seriously think that every single atheist thinks that there is nothing greater 'out there' than him/herself, yes. Isn't that the point? There is no God, therefore the things in this observable world are all there is, and since man is at the top of the food chain, then it follows that atheists believe themselves to be the universe's greatest manifestation.

How could the food chain matter?The food chain is not a hierarchy of value. It is not a normative system. To think so would be a religious view, whether it was claimed by a religionist or an atheist.

you're yanking my chain, right? you know what I meant. stop being so literal.

What makes you think your cardboard atheist ...

define your atheism so that I may know the difference.

I see Canadian_watcher and in a more subtle way vanlose kid (with his ethics post) tending toward Kant's gambit, which boils down to the need for a god to establish good behavior, otherwise everything ends in riot and rapine and chaos.

from what I have seen in this thread, no one is putting forth that argument. What I was saying (and I believe vanlose was posting about, too) was that morality may or may not be external to socio-cultural practices.

Why should the all-knowing all-powerful creator and mover and first cause of all that... also be all-loving? Or care about the outcome of our petty Earth conflicts, or pass judgement on the actions of human individuals,...{snip}... infinitessimal compared to a concept of a god that actually fits the vastness of the now-observable universe as The Creator.

we agree again.

A god that listens to your prayers would not be big enough to be God of this universe. Sorry.

With respect, you don't know what prayers I make. I think of them as a magnet. I don't imagine an answer, I imagine an outcome.

[Simulist]

Hmm. I poked my finger with a safety pin last night, and it hurt.

Now I really don't know just how many of my nerve-endings "cried out" to me in that moment, but I know I "heard" them.

By this logic, "God" must be withstanding unbearable agony.

The crucifix may turn out to be more of an insightful symbol than the boundaries of my confined mind would have allowed me to consider all those many years ago, back when I repudiated my own religion.

Also, I am not now a God-believer in any traditional sense. Truth be told, I think the word, "God," more-often-than-not serves as a barrier to communication rather than as a springboard to it, but lately I've been trying to adapt myself to the verbiage of whatever conversation I happen to be in.

I freely, even happily, admit that the basis of my current thinking rests less upon "logic" than it does on a series of numinous personal experiences that words seem to have difficulty containing. But I am by no means alone in this — in fact, these sorts of peak experiences are quite common, even among some atheists.

The problem, it seems to me, comes in when people try to define these experiences to such an extent that they become entrenched and codified into dogmas. Dogmas (of belief or even disbelief, I suppose) can form barriers to continued consideration, even further discovery.

[Canadian_watcher]

When I linked to the essay about atheism and the accusation of accommodationism my attention was focused on the authors' points about rhetoric and not their position in re atheism. I'm happy that Canadian_Watcher reported that the rhetorical style seemed condescend to them; rather than to accuse me of being condescending to them. But very often such a distinction is not made:

I was not offended in the least by you or even by what you posted. It's all good for discussion and debate.

I totally agree with 23's response to you, by the way. Be confident that if your intentions are good then you've got no apologies to make, and need not hide.

[wallflower]

Thanks 23 and Canadian_watcher. Such good advice.

It's strange how for some people the very act of arguing it out presumes a level of respect. I tend to be that way. But I know that for lots of people the more someone presses an issue the more they want to retreat. For them the arguing seems a sign of disrespect. I think that such habits of mind are pretty deep seated, that people aren't going to change their preferences much. What we can do is to be aware of various temperaments and employ meta discussion sometimes to our dialog. For example to say: This conversation is getting pretty hot. There's still some issues we've brought up that are important to me. So give me a clue when you're feeling less stressed so we can talk about the issues calmly.

Once I wrote that example it became clear that would probably be enough to send some people over the edge with rage: "You patronizing bastard!" Notwithstanding that I still think meta-communication very important. I am especially concerned to find ways that ordinary people can stand together to say that regular people deserve a better shake. That sounds so uncontroversial, but seems what being to the left encapsulated. We want solidarity! When do we want it? Now!

[freemason9]

Hmm. I poked my finger with a safety pin last night, and it hurt.

Now I really don't know just how many of my nerve-endings "cried out" to me in that moment, but I know I "heard" them.

By this logic, "God" must be withstanding unbearable agony.
No wonder we havent heard from "Him".

i think we stray when we project our characteristics upon god,

thus limiting god.

i have always believed that god's character is, instead, reflected in the world,

but each piece can only hold so much.

[Burnt Hill]

Hmm. I poked my finger with a safety pin last night, and it hurt.

Now I really don't know just how many of my nerve-endings "cried out" to me in that moment, but I know I "heard" them.

By this logic, "God" must be withstanding unbearable agony.

The crucifix may turn out to be more of an insightful symbol than the boundaries of my confined mind would have allowed me to consider all those many years ago, back when I repudiated my own religion.

Also, I am not now a God-believer in any traditional sense. Truth be told, I think the word, "God," more-often-than-not serves as a barrier to communication rather than as a springboard to it, but lately I've been trying to adapt myself to the verbiage of whatever conversation I happen to be in.

I freely, even happily, admit that the basis of my current thinking rests less upon "logic" than it does on a series of numinous personal experiences that words seem to have difficulty containing. But I am by no means alone in this — in fact, these sorts of peak experiences are quite common, even among some atheists.

The problem, it seems to me, comes in when people try to define these experiences to such an extent that they become entrenched and codified into dogmas. Dogmas (of belief or even disbelief, I suppose) can form barriers to continued consideration, even further discovery.

Nicely phrased response Simulist.
I agree with you.
I originally thought your metaphor was a little over the top (my dander up d/t C_w assigning an atheistic belief system).
I realize my response was a little flip.
Between the two I think there is some truth.

[Burnt Hill]

Hmm. I poked my finger with a safety pin last night, and it hurt.

Now I really don't know just how many of my nerve-endings "cried out" to me in that moment, but I know I "heard" them.

By this logic, "God" must be withstanding unbearable agony.
No wonder we havent heard from "Him".

i think we stray when we project our characteristics upon god,

thus limiting god.

i have always believed that god's character is, instead, reflected in the world,

but each piece can only hold so much.

Yes freemason9.
Though that is assuming that "God" is less limited than humanity.
And that "God" exists as anything more than as a construct of mans unlimited capabilities of belief.
Also note how wisely Simulist reflected "God" to humanity by mentioning the crucifix.