God did it! What's the point?

[wesmorris]

If one is curious as to why something is some way, how is the answer "god" in any way usefull toward satisfaction of that curiosity. It simply abates it.

The answer "god did it" does absolutely nothing to increase knowledge or comprehension regarding whatever question is in question. How can 'god did it' be utilitarian in other than an emotional short circuit that allows the question to be lumped into this non-answer of emotional security? That said, if the question regards "objective reality" or a factual event, how can emotional security or gratification aid in comprehension of the issue in question?

Actually the function of the answer "god did it" is really to allow one to remove their focus from the issue that arrived at the answer, and focus on something else. In the evolutionary perspective on the issue, it seems to me that this is highly advantageous in a number of ways. For instance "fred died. why?" (it was a heart attack). Answer: "god did it". Now you can move on. You're off the hook. You don't have to understand anything new, don't have to grapple with the workings of the heart, don't have to exert any effort at all. You only need be subservient to the catch all solution that you must accept as your master for it to be effective.

All that offers an excellent tool by the flexibility of the mental focus of the individual is increased. Of course the opportunity cost is truth, but as long as your subservience persists, one's subjective truth is tied directly to it. So to the sheep, "truth" as in "why did fred die" has nothing to do with the function of bill's heart, which if stinted would not have failed ... but it is by the definition of the subservience to the answer, usurped in favor of it. "god did it".

"god did it".

Well fuck you could say that about anything.

Yet if you've accepted the answer, you are bound by that fact to spew it.

Logic bounces right off.

I think of this in terms of some bullshit I made up called "conceptual geometry". The strength of the circle in this schema is its rigidity. It's the strongest sheild in the world. Its shape rebounds inquisition, it's strength is the depth of the related faith (dedication to the premise, ultimately a funciton of the sheer will available to the individual).

Functionally, the scope of idea of god is emotionally utilitarian. It however, offers no intellectual value whatsoever, as any ongoing investigation is immediately derailed by the obligatory retort "god did it".

What erks me about it is that generally one who indulges in this activity cannot admit it and instead feigns to themselves and others that their investigation reached the one and only logical conclusion... yes, "god did it", when in fact by the nature of their faith they are bound to offer nothing of substance toward the investigation. To them the answer is clear before the question arises.

The side effects are annoying if you aren't one of the faithful, since your concern is with comprehending an objective system. Dogma is worthless in your schema, yet of the highest value in the other. Dogma is a mechanism of faith to re-enforce itself. A tool I suppose, born of commitment.

Shit I'm rambling. Sorry it's not very organized. Please understand it's not spite. Either side must by the nature of having taken that side, find a lesser personal value in the other... but I don't diminish that the god folks do indeed value their position. That must be respected.

Thoughts?

 

[wesmorris]

Ah, so I see the point in my own terms. It's dogma, reenforcing the premise, strengthening the faith and offloading obligation to investigate further than the premise.

 

[Simonbubly]

we live in a time when noone wants to have open ended questions, the idea that " god did it" is soothing for alot of people who need that kind of strict structure in thier lives.

 

[wesmorris]

we live in a time when noone wants to have open ended questions,

Given humanity's apparent penchant for religious expression, it seems that rather than "a time", it's actually an expression of the function of our minds. Open ended questions are create mental discontinuity if you don't have the motivation or ability to pursue their resolution. Emotional attachment to the curiosity that leads to the question in the first place can have a strong impact. In the case of the fundamental quest for self-justification, If people have no

People garner purpose from self-justification. If in the case of seeking that justification, they come up with "indeterminant"... that's a threat to their mental stability if they are really expecting that some objective answer must be there.

Usually though, people believe in god to begin with because they are indoctrinated by people they love, accepting their authority because they're people they care about and respect.

the idea that " god did it" is soothing for alot of people who need that kind of strict structure in thier lives.

Indeed.

 

[wesmorris]

All the above is from the invidual perspective.

It could be argued that from a societal perspective, religion in general is better than not because it promotes similar values amongst its participants. If values like "love thy neighbor" align, strife is theoretically minimized. Plus if I'm a manipulator and in power, sheep are much easier to control than independant thinkers.... that is unless those manipulative values were exposed, then power would diminish.

Ultimatley though, I suppose life is really just a series of rationalizations... some more aligned with reality than others. Fundamentally, we're all at least a little bit full of shit.

 

[duendy]

i agree with you about the empty category of 'God did it'....but as well as that i also fear the self-assurance of mechanistic science that only THEy know what's what, and poo poo any hint of possible spirituality

By 'spirituality' i don't mean it in the terms patriarchal religion means it. i mean it more in the way animistic peoples would mean it, where the proposed split between 'spirit' and 'matter' hasn't been conceptualized

The other night i was watching a documentary about Michael Jackson. it was going on about his interest in children and the allegations against him. out of all the flack there was a jewel. it was the info that THe present lad who has accused Jackson had orignally had a large cancerous tumour. He had been a devoted fan of Michael and when Michael befriended him his tumour disappeared...!

now, as we know, some religious pople would assume 'God did it'...but as you say, If we leave it at that we stop exploring so i am askin you. how would you explain that...?

 

[wesmorris]

I don't think you want to know my explanation. It's kooky and imprecise. I have a vague theory as to an explanation for that kind of shit, but it's not accepted science. It's part of my theory of everythingishness. Something about extra spatial dimensions, consciousness and evolution as the resultant of force in those extra dimensions.

Regardless, I hypothesize that in terms of a rational answer to any question, "god did it" is a pointless answer. That answer is utilitarian only in emotional gratification/stability. By its very nature as a catch-all explanation, it cannot offer opportunity to further one's comprehension of anything.

 

[duendy]

I don't think you want to know my explanation.

d__Believe me i DO.

It's kooky and imprecise.

d__If there was one thing i would have on the rules of intercourse if i ran a forum it's be to encourage people to expriment with all kinds of stuff so as to explore reality. many people who have come up with radical ideas were thought of as 'kooky' and downright mad at the time. it doesn't matter

I have a vague theory as to an explanation for that kind of shit, but it's not accepted science.

d___Don't be inhibited, i am not a scientist

It's part of my theory of everythingishness. Something about extra spatial dimensions, consciousness and evolution as the resultant of force in those extra dimensions.

d__Sounds interesting. Can you elaborate more?


Regardless, I hypothesize that in terms of a rational answer to any question, "god did it" is a pointless answer. That answer is utilitarian only in emotional gratification/stability. By its very nature as a catch-all explanation, it cannot offer opportunity to further one's comprehension of anything.

i agree with that

 

[Sicksixix]

god could be thought of as everythingness or whatever

therefore everything that has ever happened and will is because of god, since we exist inside it

all of us are merely functions within this programmed manifestation of matter

what created the domain for manifestation to be capable?

 

[water]

"God did it."


It all depends on who you think God is and the relationship yu have with God.

If one thinks that God is that Nobodaddy, then "God did it" is indeed pointless.

But if one thinks of God as the highest, all-overarching organisational principle, then "God did it." has a lot of meaning for one.


The only problem with God is that faith in God cannot be exercised as a thought experiment. One either lives one's faith in God, or one doesn't. But it makes sense only if one actually lives it, Pascal's Wager never renders a meaningful relationship with God.


I think that those who have a true faith in God don't talk about it -- as it is something that can only be lived, not told, analyzed, rationalized.

 

[Sarkus]

The other night i was watching a documentary about Michael Jackson. it was going on about his interest in children and the allegations against him. out of all the flack there was a jewel. it was the info that THe present lad who has accused Jackson had orignally had a large cancerous tumour. He had been a devoted fan of Michael and when Michael befriended him his tumour disappeared...!

now, as we know, some religious pople would assume 'God did it'...but as you say, If we leave it at that we stop exploring so i am askin you. how would you explain that...?

Several answers spring to mind - none provable - although some more acceptable than others:

• Coincidence.
• The chemical balance within the boy altered due to his happier state of mind, with the new chemical balance aiding the curing process.
• The other treatment the boy was having finally kicked in.
• Mixture of some/all of the above.

There again Mr. Jackson may indeed be a tool of God and cured the boy himself.

Whatever the "cause" you want to attribute to the curing of the tumour, there would have to be some chemical / biological / physical reaction going on. It would NOT merely disappear - unless you want to ignore the laws of physics?
As a scientist you would want to understand the details of what went on - and by doing so reach the initial "cause" of that particular chain of events.

 

[duendy]

Several answers spring to mind - none provable - although some more acceptable than others:

• Coincidence.
• The chemical balance within the boy altered due to his happier state of mind, with the new chemical balance aiding the curing process.
• The other treatment the boy was having finally kicked in.
• Mixture of some/all of the above.

There again Mr. Jackson may indeed be a tool of God and cured the boy himself.

d__errrno i wasn't suggesting that

Whatever the "cause" you want to attribute to the curing of the tumour, there would have to be some chemical / biological / physical reaction going on. It would NOT merely disappear - unless you want to ignore the laws of physics?
As a scientist you would want to understand the details of what went on - and by doing so reach the initial "cause" of that particular chain of events.

I dont particularly deny the 'laws' of physics, nor discount chemicals. but what i find with many promoters of science, particularly those who are materiastically-inclined, is that they insist it has to be ONLY chemicals.

what that dogma does is dimiss spirituality from their data. spirituality INCLUDEs good feeling, and good lifstyles, etc. so holding to a mechansitc science with its mechanistic society makes for a spiritless existence, where dis-eases are more prone to occur

 

[wesmorris]

"God did it."

It all depends on who you think God is and the relationship yu have with God.

So what? It's still pointless in the manner I specified above. No, it's not pointless to the individual who thinks they know about god.. but it is of absolutely no use to someone who doesn't. It does nothing to further a comprehension of whatever scenario that more than one person can agree upon.

If one thinks that God is that Nobodaddy, then "God did it" is indeed pointless.

I assert that it is indeed necessarily pointless as to enhancing understanding of the world external to the individual who says it. The point is that a catch-all answer short circuits the process of learning, feeding it back into some nebulous relief of curiousity.

You may think "god did it", but that in and of itself is completely useless to anyone but you. You may have a number of other thoughts past that, but if you stop at "god did it" or even if it's just a passing thought on the road to further understanding, then still, that portion of the road is useless to anyone but you. Even if you think others believe as you do, they really can't, as you said "god is personal". Well, whatever... god is an emotional thing, great for those in the circle, but pointless to those who aren't. It's cannot offer expanding comprehension to those outside the circle, those who wish to understand that which is outside of themselves. What peeves me is the obligatory existence that something that is inherently emotional/personal like god is projected outside of themselves. IMO, that's pure narcicissm.

But if one thinks of God as the highest, all-overarching organisational principle, then "God did it." has a lot of meaning for one.

Meaning yes, but what good is it outside of that individual? Sure, great for them... but would communicating that meaning to a person who didn't make the same assumption provide any utility for that person?

The only problem with God is that faith in God cannot be exercised as a thought experiment.

That's not the only problem, but whatever.

One either lives one's faith in God, or one doesn't. But it makes sense only if one actually lives it, Pascal's Wager never renders a meaningful relationship with God.

Have you considered my point about the safety of the circle?

I think that those who have a true faith in God don't talk about it -- as it is something that can only be lived, not told, analyzed, rationalized.

Not only that but they should not talk about it unless asked, as the subjective validity of their conviction... lemme try another way.

If we're standing together and see a comet, we can agree about that. If one of us concludes that god sent that comet there, that is subjectively valid but if the other doesn't reach the same conclusion.. there's no point in arguing since there's no common experience to validate it. God guy saw god as far as he's concerned, and I didn't. We must agree we both saw a comet, but our rationalle as to how it got there shares no common ground. I think "well, rock from space" and dude thinks "hand of god".

One of these answers is utilitarian in terms of comprehending the objective system in which they exist - as it applies to both individuals, and the other is base some emotional function accepted and required by his core beliefs.

 

[wesmorris]

Several answers spring to mind - none provable - although some more acceptable than others:

• Coincidence.
• The chemical balance within the boy altered due to his happier state of mind, with the new chemical balance aiding the curing process.
• The other treatment the boy was having finally kicked in.
• Mixture of some/all of the above.

There again Mr. Jackson may indeed be a tool of God and cured the boy himself.

Whatever the "cause" you want to attribute to the curing of the tumour, there would have to be some chemical / biological / physical reaction going on. It would NOT merely disappear - unless you want to ignore the laws of physics?
As a scientist you would want to understand the details of what went on - and by doing so reach the initial "cause" of that particular chain of events.

Yeah this.

The horsecrap I was spewing before really underlies all the above. The direct approach is as stated by Sarkus above.

 

[Prester John]

Well it removes the requirement to think about a subject.

 

[wesmorris]

Well it removes the requirement to think about a subject.

Why you gotta condense my whole rambling rant into a single sentence and stuff?

 

[water]

So what? It's still pointless in the manner I specified above. No, it's not pointless to the individual who thinks they know about god.. but it is of absolutely no use to someone who doesn't. It does nothing to further a comprehension of whatever scenario that more than one person can agree upon.

Someone who doesn't believe, doesn't believe, period. Why then does he talk about it?! If the non-believer wants to comprehend, then he has to allow for an answer, whatever that answer is. Instead, your non-believer wants an answer on *his* own terms. In other words, he doesn't want an answer at all.

You may think "god did it", but that in and of itself is completely useless to anyone but you. You may have a number of other thoughts past that, but if you stop at "god did it" or even if it's just a passing thought on the road to further understanding, then still, that portion of the road is useless to anyone but you. Even if you think others believe as you do, they really can't, as you said "god is personal". Well, whatever... god is an emotional thing, great for those in the circle, but pointless to those who aren't. It's cannot offer expanding comprehension to those outside the circle, those who wish to understand that which is outside of themselves. What peeves me is the obligatory existence that something that is inherently emotional/personal like god is projected outside of themselves. IMO, that's pure narcicissm.

No, it's not narcissism. It is the communal aspect of religion.

Individualistic psychology is speaking through you. The stream of psychology that treats an individual as something completely different and separate from other individuals, much as if each of them fell from the moon. As if everyone invents everything, every thought pattern for oneself, as if people are essentially disconnected from eachother, some abstract stand-alones. Sure, this is a common way to look at human personality, but human communality is being grossly neglected.


As for making objective arguments about God and faith:

If you read "I love you" written on the wall, will you feel loved?
It is not only the message, but also who says it and what relationship you have with this person -- all this combined makes the message meaningful and important to you.

We cannot come far with impersonal (or better: depersonalized) arguments. Surely, we can make them, but they are just that: impersonal (depersonalized) arguments. As far as, say, formal logics is concerned -- wow, that kind of arguments is the thing to go for. But faith in God is not the same as formal logics. And when faith in God is being *downscaled* to some objective depersonalized argument, that argument fails, surely.

But if one thinks of God as the highest, all-overarching organisational principle, then "God did it." has a lot of meaning for one.

Meaning yes, but what good is it outside of that individual?

Communal, interpersonal aspect again.
Religion is both personal and communal. Shaped by our modern non-tribal way of life (and individualistic psychology), we fail to bring the personal and the communal together in a meaningful way.
We can't think in that tribal way anymore, but our sense of communality is still there; only that is has become downscaled or very abstract to us. In towns, people don't actually live and work together in close groups of a tribe size -- where *all* the life's happenings would take place only within *this same* group. The Amish are probably the closest to a tribe.

Sure, great for them... but would communicating that meaning to a person who didn't make the same assumption provide any utility for that person?

If you ask a question, prepare to accept the answer. By accept I don't mean agree with it, only accept it.

One either lives one's faith in God, or one doesn't. But it makes sense only if one actually lives it, Pascal's Wager never renders a meaningful relationship with God.

Have you considered my point about the safety of the circle? [/quote]

I have. Surely, "the safety of the circle" is one interpretation. Someone else might say about this same thing that people are "hypocrites with double standards, and above all arbitrary". I prefer to refer to it as "system economy" -- it doesn't contain the negativism of the two other terms.

I think that those who have a true faith in God don't talk about it -- as it is something that can only be lived, not told, analyzed, rationalized.

Not only that but they should not talk about it unless asked, as the subjective validity of their conviction... lemme try another way.

SHOULD. Ah, and you think you are so much better than them, or what?

If we're standing together and see a comet, we can agree about that. If one of us concludes that god sent that comet there, that is subjectively valid but if the other doesn't reach the same conclusion.. there's no point in arguing since there's no common experience to validate it. God guy saw god as far as he's concerned, and I didn't. We must agree we both saw a comet, but our rationalle as to how it got there shares no common ground. I think "well, rock from space" and dude thinks "hand of god".

Gross simplification. Unless you are talking about religious fundamentalists.

One of these answers is utilitarian in terms of comprehending the objective system in which they exist - as it applies to both individuals, and the other is base some emotional function accepted and required by his core beliefs.

No. It is not just some "emotional function".


"Sometimes I think that the philosophers and the atheists originally got together and made themselves a partnership -- the philosophers creating a God that could not possibly exist."
(Someone said this once, here.)

I agree with this. The god of philosophy and atheism is a god that is per definition unknowable; and if they do allow for a god, it is some strawman version. And there is no way anyone could make a point to them, as they have set the terms on which they will accept an answer as valid -- the term of God being unknowable.

 

[water]

Why you gotta condense my whole rambling rant into a single sentence and stuff?

... and that condension is so general that it is useless.

 

[wesmorris]

Gnosticism is based in narcissim. It sheilds its presumed knowledge in circular logic it deems divine. It is impervious to critical thinking. This is faith.

Is it narcissistic for me to believe I exist? Yes, I think so.

Is it MORE narcissitic for me to believe I know how the universe came to be, especially when the claim cannot withstand skepticism? YES, I THINK SO.

In the case of my existence, skepticism is withstood because it doesn't matter if I think I don't exist as long as I still do. I'll just be a dumbass.

In the case of god, well that's just stupid from an intellectual angle, but justifiable within the emotional context of an individual's experience. Their experience tells them its valid and there's no stimulous to contradict it - so the belief can persist. You can't contradict something that is the reason for everything. No matter what happens, new stimulous is accounted for in the context of your presumption. That is, excepting the emotional utility - pointless.

I value emotional utility, but this thread is about accounting, comprehending, looking at the overall system with minimal presumption. I want to understand how these things relate to one another in a schematic sense. God folks don't. They can't. They already know. If they decide to not know, then they can't be god people, as their faith has changed to inquiry.

 

[cole grey]

I don't think you want to know my explanation. It's kooky and imprecise. I have a vague theory as to an explanation for that kind of shit, but it's not accepted science. It's part of my theory of everythingishness. Something about extra spatial dimensions, consciousness and evolution as the resultant of force in those extra dimensions.

Regardless, I hypothesize that in terms of a rational answer to any question, "god did it" is a pointless answer. That answer is utilitarian only in emotional gratification/stability. By its very nature as a catch-all explanation, it cannot offer opportunity to further one's comprehension of anything.

So, is your explanation useless too? Or is it valuable as an approach?
I can't say for sure, but it would seem that you find your "explanation" useful in analysis or has a use for something. Unless your "explanation" is just a knick-knack you keep around the house.

Also, Occam never said the simplest answer is the correct one. Just that it is better to investigate it first, right? But his is not the only valid method of investigation. It is just a good way to speed things up. Some processes just seem to not want to speed up, though, they just take as long as they take.

*edit*
P.S. You say "they" shouldn't talk unless asked, but haven't "they" been asked and challenged many times for having faith? Where do we stop this chain of asking and responding, and where did it start?