The Relevance of the Concept of God

[wynn]

No need to pretend anything. Being able to abstract the omnipotent, ideal observer to pattern one's own view of oneself should be sufficient.

On principle, one could do that simply from reading literature too, as much literature is narrated from a perspective assuming itself to be omniscient. This could help one develop self-reflexive faculties and according practices. In fact, this is one of the arguments given for why especially youths should read literature (esp. fiction).

But, to connect again to what Bhikkhu Bodhi has been saying - unless there is a conviction in some kind of "higher power", in some kind of objective reality that contextualizes the individual, some recognition that ethics aren't simply subjective, personal, individual, private, but that there is an objective right and wrong, an objective "how things should be" (or at least an objective "how things should be if a particular goal is to be attained"), consequent individualism simply leads to what is in effect solipsism.

 

[wynn]

Conscience is a psychological calculation in response to existential conditions; it’s what we do regardless of how you want to dress it up. Ideally all of the relevant options would be considered in a well developed conscience, including getting caught. You don’t need to imagine an observer that already exists by design.

Meet the concept of self.

... and solipsism.

 

[Yazata]

I am not sure what issue you may be taking with the title of this thread

I wasn't taking issue with it, I was drawing people's attention back to it. The point was that a great deal of the subsequent discussion in this thread either has little relevance to the ostensible subject of the thread or else suggests that the concept of "G/god" isn't all that relevant.

But I have not posited that the concept of god need have no correspondence.

You've written in multiple posts that you aren't assuming that a G/god exists. For example, "Who said it was necessarily monotheist, or theist at all considering I specifically assumed a god does not exist?" That suggests that you have assumed that no supernatural being exists in reality that corresponds to the concept 'G/god'.

If it doesn't matter whether or not somebody believes in the actual existence of whatever corresponds to this hypothetical 'G/god' concept, then it doesn't seem to matter whether or not somebody is an atheist. You even claim that you have taken an atheist stance yourself.

Quite the opposite, as the perspective defined by the concept of god should have a strong correspondence to conscience, to further develop conscience.

Right. You seem to be arguing that even if 'G/god' doesn't exist in reality, and even if people don't believe that "he" does, you still believe that possession of the concept of 'G/god' is nevertheless necessary for the full and proper development of conscience.

The obvious counterexamples to that idea are the non-theistic philosophies and religions out there, and all the people who aren't theists. That's where the topic of Buddhism originally entered into this discussion, I guess. Compared to adherents of theistic religions, adherents of Buddhism don't seem to be at any disadvantage in the conscience development department. That fact constitutes empirical evidence against the thesis that the concept of 'G/god' is somehow necessary for proper conscience development.

I suppose that somebody could still argue that even if the concept of 'G/god' plays little or no religious role in their own tradition, that most Buddhists are at least aware of the theistic concepts, and that's why their consciences develop. In other words, that Buddhism itself has little value in the development of conscience (because it isn't theistic) and that Buddhists are basically just free-riding on the concepts of the theists around them. In my opinion that idea isn't very plausible and will need a great deal of argument. It sounds like special pleading to me.

Whether an atheist is capable of utilizing the concept of god to further refine conscience, they still live in societies which largely know its value. When ~80% of the population believes in a god, it would be a very obtuse atheist who denies that it effects their life...hence relevant.

You certainly seem to be using that kind of argument in the case of the atheists. But even if by chance it was true, it still doesn't seem to matter whether or not somebody is an atheist in your theory, it doesn't matter whether they actually believe in the existence of 'G/god'. All that seems to matter is that they are aware of the concept. (Whatever that is.)

I have said, as well as given examples and links, that its primary attribute, here, is omniscience.

Not every 'god' concept includes the attribute of omniscience. I don't think that most of the ancients thought of their gods as omniscient. Their gods often worked at cross-purposes in their dealings with humans and even tricked and deceived each other.

The "excursion into Buddhism" was only meant as an attempt to get Capracus to differentiate terms. Buddhists still have karma as something to aspire to.

Karma is an ancient Indian ethical theory, sure enough, but it doesn't have anything to do with 'G/gods' or with omniscience. It's basically an ancient idea of causation in which physical and ethical causation weren't distinguished. In modern ethical terms, karma theories are probably most akin to consequentialism, I guess, to the idea that whether particular actions are right or wrong right now is a function of their future consequences.

Again, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether or not the person performing the action possesses a concept of an omniscient 'G/god'.

 

[wynn]

Karma is an ancient Indian ethical theory, sure enough, but it doesn't have anything to do with 'G/gods' or with omniscience.

In one sense, it certainly does. Karma operates 24/7, in this sense, karma is "omniscient" - it always "sees" you.

In the OP, the question was whether there are any alternatives to developing conscience other than the concept of God, and early on, Syne already accepted karma as such an alternative -

I never specified a "monotheistic" concept of god, and actually included "human-like gods, nature spirits, devils and angels, karma, ancestors or a universal consciousness".

 

[Syne]

On principle, one could do that simply from reading literature too, as much literature is narrated from a perspective assuming itself to be omniscient. This could help one develop self-reflexive faculties and according practices. In fact, this is one of the arguments given for why especially youths should read literature (esp. fiction).

But, to connect again to what Bhikkhu Bodhi has been saying - unless there is a conviction in some kind of "higher power", in some kind of objective reality that contextualizes the individual, some recognition that ethics aren't simply subjective, personal, individual, private, but that there is an objective right and wrong, an objective "how things should be" (or at least an objective "how things should be if a particular goal is to be attained"), consequent individualism simply leads to what is in effect solipsism.

Yes, I would probably agree that a third person perspective in literature could be useful in the development of conscience, but I would probably specify those that included omniscience of the thoughts of the characters as well. I believe this would be called the Subjective and Omniscient Third-Person view. The abstract notion of an author, so to speak, of one's own life could be considered an ideal observer.

I would also tend to agree with Bodhi about the solipsism inherent in not realizing the perspective of such an ideal observer.

 

[Syne]

But the difference is that I am talking about internalizing this perspective instead of continuing to think of it as external. Conscience is the "wrongdoer" evaluating their own actions for themselves. "Getting caught" is not even factored into a well-developed conscience.

Conscience is a psychological calculation in response to existential conditions; it’s what we do regardless of how you want to dress it up. Ideally all of the relevant options would be considered in a well developed conscience, including getting caught. You don’t need to imagine an observer that already exists by design. Meet the concept of self.

"Getting caught" does not change the moral implications of an action, so factoring it in can only be self-serving, which seems to be your point in preferring a solipsistic concept of self. That is the whole point. Well-developed conscience is objectively selfless enough to accurately assess the moral implications without any undue subjective cajoling or justification. (And people wonder why moral relativism is untrustworthy.)

You do not seem to see the hole you are digging for yourself here. So far you have only seemed to verify my point about the relation of a concept of god and the development of conscience.

So all that was just a non sequitur. No one has made any argument of proof of a god I specifically assumed does not exist.

No, it was going down the path you decided to take.

What, the path that deism was an example of theism differentiated from religion? Seems much more likely that your digression into the "proof of God" is only you evading this fact. But I see you have quickly resumed your next justifying conflation (mysticism) below.

When deist presumes god as an entity in any sense they trade their precious reason for mysticism.

That is wholly your subjective opinion, which you have yet to support to justify your conflation of terms. And making the generalization of "in any sense" only further illustrates your unwillingness to differentiate much of anything that may conflict with your worldview (everything else is all "them"). If you cannot engage a discussion on its own widely accepted terms then you are not addressing the subject at hand. At best, you are simply trying to shout-down a differing worldview.

In other words you’re unable to dispute my assertion.

All I see is a bare assertion of opinion without any supporting argument that would warrant any refute at all. Here you are only making a proclamation, which has no more inherent merit than any conflicting proclamation.

So where is your argument? You know...

ar·gu·ment

2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.​

Who brought up deism and its associated qualities?

Deism is without any of the reasons you have given for conflating the concept of god with "God", "religion", or the "mystical".

I did, with the express purpose of addressing your conflation of terms. But instead of making any argument (remember what an argument is, above) to justify your conflation, in light of deism, you chose to digress into arguing about some "proof of God" strawman argument that no one in this thread ever made.

This seems to be describing subsets of deism, like pandeism, spiritual deism, etc.. You conveniently skipped right over the "tenets", which is the part that specifically does attempt to define deism.
http://moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html

Seems you conveniently skipped right over the disclaimer for the "tenets.",

While there are no “official” tenets of Deism, many of the following “unofficial” tenets might be the best way to introduce generally accepted beliefs within Deism. The unofficial tenets of Deism are:
- http://moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html

I specifically used scare quotes on the word tenet and even gave you the link to the quote (which you provided first). Do you really think this nit-picking is going to justify you having "skipped right over" the most definitive description of deism in that link? Are you even aware of the subsets of deism, that you seem to rely on to make your continued conflation of terms? That is called cherry-picking, and is widely panned an intellectually dishonest.

Hell, you even quoted the statement that these are "generally accepted beliefs within Deism".

te·net

: a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenet​

But keep up all the evasions, as they only further illustrate the weakness of your position.

Way to poison the well in lieu of addressing the facts. It is a demonstrable fact that we have no verifiable evidence for an ultimate cause of the BB. Intellectually honest scientists everywhere freely admit this. No verifiable evidence is just that, no matter if science or religion does not find it.

No, you were obviously equating the value of a reasonable process of analysis (science) with the less reasonable processes of “anything else.” While science can't presently perceive conditions prior to the Big Bang, speculation regarding such conditions that is consistent with science has more value than that which isn’t.

Really? Even though what I said was this:

And the BBT offers no more verifiable evidence for an ultimate cause of the universe than anything else. You take it on your faith of the accumulated "reason and the observation of nature".

I explicitly said "verifiable evidence", so if you have any for an "ultimate cause of the universe" do tell. If not, this is just another evasion. You cannot refute the fact that the BBT offers no more verifiable evidence for an ultimate cause, so you digress into the strawman of science versus "anything else". I have not debated the value of science, but speculation without evidence is still just speculation without evidence. There is no way to differentiate the two results, aside from what subjectively comforts you (which is no argument).

But now it seems you wish to conflate "belief" with "delusion". Should I be making a list?

Cross this one off.

Delusion:

1. False belief

a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric condition.

Encarta Dictionary

What "strong contradictory evidence"? So yep, I will add "belief/delusion" to your running list of conflated terms.

 

[Syne]

I wasn't taking issue with it, I was drawing people's attention back to it. The point was that a great deal of the subsequent discussion in this thread either has little relevance to the ostensible subject of the thread or else suggests that the concept of "G/god" isn't all that relevant.

Not at all. You just seem to be unaware of just how broad the concept of god is (which I already explained and you failed to quote).

Whether you wish to view this as the higher self of AA, the non-theistic "symbol of human values and aspirations", or the Abrahamic God makes no real difference. This only illustrates how available/accessible the concept of god is to a wide variety of people.

Even with Wynn's example of third-person literature, the author is the ultimate creator and ideal observer (omniscient), both traits typically associated with a concept of god. While some of the things discussed in this thread may not be as clearly indicative of a concept of god, like a higher-self or a surveillance-state, these do display those same traits (albeit perhaps to a lessor degree, with an associated lessor utility*).

* For example, karma or a higher-self may only be aspirational without directly providing the objective perspective associated with a concept of god. This does illustrate the lessor utility to the development of conscience of merely aspiring to some human realizable ideal, rather than internalizing an objective perspective.​

But I have not posited that the concept of god need have no correspondence.

You've written in multiple posts that you aren't assuming that a G/god exists. For example, "Who said it was necessarily monotheist, or theist at all considering I specifically assumed a god does not exist?" That suggests that you have assumed that no supernatural being exists in reality that corresponds to the concept 'G/god'.

If it doesn't matter whether or not somebody believes in the actual existence of whatever corresponds to this hypothetical 'G/god' concept, then it doesn't seem to matter whether or not somebody is an atheist. You even claim that you have taken an atheist stance yourself.

Just because it is assumed that "no supernatural being exists in reality that corresponds to the concept 'G/god'" does not mean that "nothing corresponds to it" (which you quote my answer to below).

I have assumed an agnostic stance, for the sake of argument. Atheists seem particularly unfamiliar with those traits of a concept of god that are useful in developing conscience. As Magical Realist's thread that inspired this one illustrates, atheists seem to typically have a very rudimentary and child-like notion of god. A notion they only deem worth understanding to the extent that it lends fuel to the fire of arguing theists, which is highly unlikely to be a notion that they can internalize in any way.

This may illustrate the difference between an atheist and a non-theist. And Capracus is a prime example, as he rejects anything even remotely conflicting with his worldview, while a Buddhist can be both non-theist and religious or a deist theist but non-religious.

BTW, you seem to have completely ignored my argument about deism. Is it just too inconvenient to your argument that a theist cannot be non-religious?

Quite the opposite, as the perspective defined by the concept of god should have a strong correspondence to conscience, to further develop conscience.

Right. You seem to be arguing that even if 'G/god' doesn't exist in reality, and even if people don't believe that "he" does, you still believe that possession of the concept of 'G/god' is nevertheless necessary for the full and proper development of conscience.

The obvious counterexamples to that idea are the non-theistic philosophies and religions out there, and all the people who aren't theists. That's where the topic of Buddhism originally entered into this discussion, I guess. Compared to adherents of theistic religions, adherents of Buddhism don't seem to be at any disadvantage in the conscience development department. That fact constitutes empirical evidence against the thesis that the concept of 'G/god' is somehow necessary for proper conscience development.

I was the one who introduced the topic of Buddhism in this thread, and I have already said that karma could be useful, as it does exemplify a sort of omniscience. Also, Buddhism espouses an objective morality that is not as subject to self-justification. Even your average Christian (who does believe in a god) may not have the abstract thinking skills to internalize that perspective, but an objective morality upheld by their social peers will always have some outward effect (just as the law and other human institutions do).

Moral/ethical social display is not a one-for-one indicator of conscience. As someone has rightfully pointed out, even psychopaths appear normal. So it seems you have once again conflated conscience with the social regulation of morality.

Whether an atheist is capable of utilizing the concept of god to further refine conscience, they still live in societies which largely know its value. When ~80% of the population believes in a god, it would be a very obtuse atheist who denies that it effects their life...hence relevant.

You certainly seem to be using that kind of argument in the case of the atheists. But even if by chance it was true, it still doesn't seem to matter whether or not somebody is an atheist in your theory, it doesn't matter whether they actually believe in the existence of 'G/god'. All that seems to matter is that they are aware of the concept. (Whatever that is.)

By chance? If it were not true that the concept of god was relevant to atheists, we would not have the "New Atheists" and the like so vocally opposing theism. People do not tend to so vehemently fight the irrelevant.

Who said they only need be "aware of the concept"? You are certainly aware of the general concept, but your confusion about what it entails stems from your refusal to honestly entertain the notion enough to understand it. This is demonstrated in the fact that you keep insisting on the actual belief in a god or a specific conception of "God" well after I have cleared this up (hence the repetition in this thread).

I have said, as well as given examples and links, that its primary attribute, here, is omniscience.

Not every 'god' concept includes the attribute of omniscience. I don't think that most of the ancients thought of their gods as omniscient. Their gods often worked at cross-purposes in their dealings with humans and even tricked and deceived each other.

Omniscience is one of the common attributes among the many conceptions of god. But yes, the Greek pantheon was merely aspirational. But then we might surmise that there is a reason such conceptions have not continued, in strength, to present day, as they did not serve social cooperation as well. After all, the soap opera of gods fighting each other is hardly a useful social example, and much more of a brute force ideal. Hardly exemplary of conscience.

But I have not said all conceptions are equally useful.

Karma is an ancient Indian ethical theory, sure enough, but it doesn't have anything to do with 'G/gods' or with omniscience. It's basically an ancient idea of causation in which physical and ethical causation weren't distinguished. In modern ethical terms, karma theories are probably most akin to consequentialism, I guess, to the idea that whether particular actions are right or wrong right now is a function of their future consequences.

Again, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether or not the person performing the action possesses a concept of an omniscient 'G/god'.

If you cannot escape the consequences of your actions, then karma is effectively omniscient. There is no "if I get caught" about it. And I have already explained my thoughts on Buddhism above.

 

[Capracus]

"Getting caught" does not change the moral implications of an action, so factoring it in can only be self-serving, which seems to be your point in preferring a solipsistic concept of self. That is the whole point. Well-developed conscience is objectively selfless enough to accurately assess the moral implications without any undue subjective cajoling or justification. (And people wonder why moral relativism is untrustworthy.)

The whole purpose of morality is to associate consequence with action. No matter how well developed a conscience is perceived to be there are always accepted moral tenets that may require challenge or fortification, and getting caught is a commonly associated consequence in the processes. This is part of the process of cultural evolution. As culture changes so do its moral tenets, and accordingly our psychological responses to them.

You do not seem to see the hole you are digging for yourself here. So far you have only seemed to verify my point about the relation of a concept of god and the development of conscience.

What you advocate as a concept of god can at best only reflect the limitations associated with the individual and their culture. It could in no way approximate the perceptive and analytic qualities expected of an omniscient god.

What, the path that deism was an example of theism differentiated from religion?

No, the path that showed it wasn’t.

Modern Deism: A Primer
If I were to ask the majority of people to raise their hands if they have heard of Deism, very few hands would go up and puzzled looks would abound. Like most, you have probably never heard of Deism unless you have taken a college philosophy and/or seminary course. Deism is a natural religion that started roughly 400 years ago with roots to ancient Greece and was primarily the belief of the intellectual class. In terms of locality, it was prevalent throughout Europe and North America. In fact, many of the American Founding Fathers were Deists, or incorporated Deistic thought, including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Paine and George Washington.

http://www.moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html

Welcome to Deism!
Deism has a lot to offer you! It also has a lot to offer society! Deism is knowledge of God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer. Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a "revealed" religion. The natural religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the "revealed" religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

When deist presumes god as an entity in any sense they trade their precious reason for mysticism.

All I see is a bare assertion of opinion without any supporting argument that would warrant any refute at all. Here you are only making a proclamation, which has no more inherent merit than any conflicting proclamation.

So where is your argument? You know...

For clarity I should’ve qualified entity in the original statement, although I’m sure you’ll still need to have the obvious explained to you.

Deists claim that reason and natural law prove the existence of a god, yet no application of either has shown this to be true. If they can’t explain god or its qualities through natural law, then their only alternative is supernatural law, or to drop the claim of knowledge and call it what it is, speculation.

So as long as deists presumes god as an intentional entity in any sense they trade their precious reason for mysticism.

Do you really think this nit-picking is going to justify you having "skipped right over" the most definitive description of deism in that link? Are you even aware of the subsets of deism, that you seem to rely on to make your continued conflation of terms? That is called cherry-picking, and is widely panned an intellectually dishonest.

But narrowly focusing on a few select statements while ignoring the rest of the page is your definition of being comprehensive?

More:

Most Deists will agree with these basic tenets and regard Deism as a personal philosophy (theology) and as a religion. Many may expand on these beliefs and may also add personal touches. This is appropriate and encouraged as Reason tells us that humans are freethinkers that have different beliefs and experiences.

http://www.moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html

Really? Even though what I said was this:
And the BBT offers no more verifiable evidence for an ultimate cause of the universe than anything else. You take it on your faith of the accumulated "reason and the observation of nature".

I have not debated the value of science, but speculation without evidence is still just speculation without evidence. There is no way to differentiate the two results, aside from what subjectively comforts you (which is no argument).

But the Big Bang isn’t speculation without evidence, so why even use it as an example? All Speculation isn’t equal, like every other proposition its value is dependent on reason. It’s more reasonable to base speculation on extrapolation of the known, rather than the unknown.

 

[francescakat]

I will begin by assuming god does not exist and that we are merely examining the concept of god. As such, the concept must have been selected for in the evolutionary process, and if so, it must possess some survival value. Now people will be fairly justified to point out that its survival value may have initially been one of promoting group cooperation but that we now have other institutions that serve that purpose. So why does religion persist? The selection of the evolutionary process is ongoing, so it would not be consistent to assume it persists for any other reason than ongoing survival value. But what value beyond that provided by other institutions of group cooperation?

There is one fairly glaring lack in all other such institutions. None offer a means to exercise (work to strengthen) the faculty of conscience. Only the concept of god provides a postulated observer whereby individuals can further develop an objective view of themselves. A postulated view that does not have the shortcoming inherent in all other human institutions that lead people to believe that something is only wrong if you get caught. Now we could imagine that 100% surveillance could serve the same purpose (someone watching you when you think no one else is looking), but we would also consider that an abhorrent breach of personal privacy. We could also be tempted to at least tell children fairy tales about such surveillance, but children tend to see through lies earlier that expected. Just like a doctor's delivery of a placebo can alter its efficacy, it would seem that belief in the concept of god (or an equivalent ever-watching observer) might effect its ability to strengthen conscience.

Now I am open to any alternate suggestions of means to cultivating conscience. There may well be others, and I would be very interested if anyone can describe some. Obviously, our empathy for others can curtail behavior when in the presence of those others (knowing they will be aware of our misdeeds), but in perceived isolation only conscience suffices.

So even if god does not exist but the concept of god may have a survival value selected for through evolution in the form of the faculty for conscience, this is very relevant, even to atheists. Atheists often complain about feeling isolated, ostracized, etc.. Others are evolutionarily justified in maintaining a mistrust of those who do not have any readily apparent means of developing their own conscience. So while developed social behaviors may well curtail behavior in public, others may have no reason to trust atheists to remain upstanding when unobserved.

I believe that it all started with a certain blood line. The Bible shows that Adam and Eve was the beginning of the bloodline and Jesus Christ was the ending of the bloodline.

 

[Yazata]

In one sense, it certainly does. Karma operates 24/7, in this sense, karma is "omniscient" - it always "sees" you.

So does causality. Karma seems to me to be an early species of ethical consequentialism.

In karma there's no omniscient observer. There's just a causal sort of process that connects acts now with the generation of consequences in the future. Ethical action in the karma theories is simply performance of actions right now that it's believed will produce desirable consequences later on, and refraining from acts that produce undesirable future consequences.

Some varieties of belief in 'G/gods' personalize that idea, imagining it in the form of a conscious and aware supernatural agent who sees all of our actions and will inevitably judge us for those actions after our deaths. The whole idea of moral consequences is reconceived in personal terms (I'd call it 'mythical' terms I guess) as some kind of heavenly law-court. But yeah, the underlying consequentialistic dynamic isn't dissimilar.

One of the thrusts in this thread seems to be to expand the meaning of the word 'G/gods' so that anyone who believes that morally relevant actions undertaken now will have future consequences, and that the moral value of the present actions is a function of the desirability of those later consequences, must be employing theistic concepts and must therefore be at least a crypto-theist.

My own view is that expanding of the meaning of the word 'G/gods' in that way renders it meaningless.

I'm much more inclined to think that the evidence of non-theistic ethical systems shows that theistic concepts aren't necessary for the existence of ethical systems, than I am to believe that all these examples must somehow be conceptually theistic, simply because they are ethical systems.

 

[cslewis]

Urantia:
(page.paragraph) Paper:section.paragraph

(29.1) 1:5.11 Primitive religion had many personal gods, and they were fashioned in the image of man. Revelation affirms the validity of the personality concept of God which is merely possible in the scientific postulate of a First Cause and is only provisionally suggested in the philosophic idea of Universal Unity. Only by personality approach can any person begin to comprehend the unity of God. To deny the personality of the First Source and Center leaves one only the choice of two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism.

(29.2) 1:5.12 In the contemplation of Deity, the concept of personality must be divested of the idea of corporeality. A material body is not indispensable to personality in either man or God. The corporeality error is shown in both extremes of human philosophy. In materialism, since man loses his body at death, he ceases to exist as a personality; in pantheism, since God has no body, he is not, therefore, a person. The superhuman type of progressing personality functions in a union of mind and spirit.

(29.3) 1:5.13 Personality is not simply an attribute of God; it rather stands for the totality of the co-ordinated infinite nature and the unified divine will which is exhibited in eternity and universality of perfect expression. Personality, in the supreme sense, is the revelation of God to the universe of universes.

(29.4) 1:5.14 God, being eternal, universal, absolute, and infinite, does not grow in knowledge nor increase in wisdom. God does not acquire experience, as finite man might conjecture or comprehend, but he does, within the realms of his own eternal personality, enjoy those continuous expansions of self-realization which are in certain ways comparable to, and analogous with, the acquirement of new experience by the finite creatures of the evolutionary worlds.

 

[Syne]

In one sense, it certainly does. Karma operates 24/7, in this sense, karma is "omniscient" - it always "sees" you.

So does causality. Karma seems to me to be an early species of ethical consequentialism.

No, consequentialism allows for a ends justifies the means morality that is not compatible with the objectivist morality (actions are themselves right or wrong) of Buddhism. Neither is karma merely causality, as causality allows for an "only wrong if you get caught" mentality. You know, I really did not expect karma to be as difficult to grasp by atheists (which only reinforces its relation to omniscience).

In karma there's no omniscient observer. There's just a causal sort of process that connects acts now with the generation of consequences in the future. Ethical action in the karma theories is simply performance of actions right now that it's believed will produce desirable consequences later on, and refraining from acts that produce undesirable future consequences.

No, in karma actions themselves have moral import, regardless of consequences. Karma is not about some future consequences like reward/punishment. It is an ongoing evolution where opportunities exist for ethical lessons until learned, including being on the receiving end of "ends justifies the means" morality.

In Buddhism, karma [the concept of "action" or "deed"] is strictly distinguished from vipāka, meaning "fruit" or "result". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma#Buddhism​

One of the thrusts in this thread seems to be to expand the meaning of the word 'G/gods' so that anyone who believes that morally relevant actions undertaken now will have future consequences, and that the moral value of the present actions is a function of the desirability of those later consequences, must be employing theistic concepts and must therefore be at least a crypto-theist.

My own view is that expanding of the meaning of the word 'G/gods' in that way renders it meaningless.

No, consequentialism just seems to be as close as you can manage to get in understanding a concept of god, which is the same childish notion that most atheists rely on. You seem to avoid my explanations, perhaps out of an attentional bias. I have said, repeatedly, that a concept of god does not necessarily include any significant thought of "future consequences", and that has been a very large portion of my discussion with Capracus about conflating terms. You have interjected consequences as a strawman.

Your view is that the meaning of the word 'G/gods' is de facto meaningless, and you show no signs of even making an attempt to understand it aside from a superficial, fashionable foray into Buddhism.

I'm much more inclined to think that the evidence of non-theistic ethical systems shows that theistic concepts aren't necessary for the existence of ethical systems, than I am to believe that all these examples must somehow be conceptually theistic, simply because they are ethical systems[strawman].

Not all ethical systems are equal, and those without some concept of god (as opposed to strictly theistic, i.e. belief in a god) tend to be less objectivist. Could there be some relation between thinking morals are objective and postulating a truly objective perspective?

 

[wynn]

So does causality. Karma seems to me to be an early species of ethical consequentialism.

In karma there's no omniscient observer. There's just a causal sort of process that connects acts now with the generation of consequences in the future. Ethical action in the karma theories is simply performance of actions right now that it's believed will produce desirable consequences later on, and refraining from acts that produce undesirable future consequences.

Even if one conceives of karma in that way - as a form of consequentialism - it's not automatically a bad thing. One of the main focal points of the doctrine of karma is to act on purpose, as opposed to acting without giving much thought to what one does.

You seem to take issue with the very concept of acting on purpose. All acting on purpose inherently has regard for the consequences of said actions; in that sense, all acting on purpose is some form of punishment-and-reward thinking and acting.

And you seem to take issue with that from the beginning. It appears your ideal is to act in a way that has no concern for the consequences of one's actions, but is instead inspired entirely from "deep within".

One of the thrusts in this thread seems to be to expand the meaning of the word 'G/gods' so that anyone who believes that morally relevant actions undertaken now will have future consequences, and that the moral value of the present actions is a function of the desirability of those later consequences, must be employing theistic concepts and must therefore be at least a crypto-theist.

My own view is that expanding of the meaning of the word 'G/gods' in that way renders it meaningless.

I'm much more inclined to think that the evidence of non-theistic ethical systems shows that theistic concepts aren't necessary for the existence of ethical systems, than I am to believe that all these examples must somehow be conceptually theistic, simply because they are ethical systems.

You're presenting a strawman.

 

[wynn]

Yes, I would probably agree that a third person perspective in literature could be useful in the development of conscience, but I would probably specify those that included omniscience of the thoughts of the characters as well. I believe this would be called the Subjective and Omniscient Third-Person view.

Sure, which is why classical works tend to be suggested for reading for youths more than some modernist ones.

Literature for youths is a special category; it typically operates precisely from the paradigm of an omniscient narrator who boths sees and hears everything that happens, as well as has intimate knowledge of the thoughts of the characters.

The abstract notion of an author, so to speak, of one's own life could be considered an ideal observer.

Sure. One just needs to read the popular self-help literature from around the times of Benjamin Franklin; the development of one's character - and conscience - was the focus of those works.

 

[Yazata]

My only interest is to argue against this thread's assertion that morality, certainly any moral system in which morality is believed to be objective, must necessarily be theist in nature and be based on the proper understanding of the 'G/god' concept. (Whatever that is.)

The obvious rejoinder is to point at non-theistic moral systems, such as that of the Buddhists.

The response to that was the seeming insistence that the proper range and extension of the 'G/god' concept includes non-theistic ideas like karma. In my opinion that move expands the meaning of 'G/god' to the point of being meaningless.

Alternatively, some posts seemed to insist that it's only possible for Western atheists to be ethical because they grew up in a cultural environment shaped by Christianity, and possess a theistic concept of 'G/god' even if they don't acknowledge belief in it. It isn't clear if that kind of assertion is applied to the non-Western believers in karma as well, in such a way that Buddhists can only be truly ethical because they know about other peoples' theistic concept of 'G/god', despite that concept not playing a central role in their own cultures and religious systems.

Either way, it appears that Syne and Wynn want to conscript believers in non-theistic karma into the ranks of the theists, or at least define them as free-riders on the true theists' idea of 'G/god'.

In the process, the concept of 'G/god' seems to have been stretched to mean something along the lines of 'anything that supports and justifies an objectivist ethics'. So anyone who holds any sort of objectivist view of ethics must therefore by definition be a theist, however covert, unconscious or unacknowledged their theism might be. And once that's established, all kinds of insults and invective can be directed directed towards the atheists, who are condemned as both morally childlike and evil.

This thread appears to be getting increasingly nasty and I don't intend to get into an ego-driven back-and-forth. I'm just expressing my emphatic disagreement with the idea that a person can't be truly moral and ethically adult, unless that person possesses what somebody else believes is a proper theistic concept of 'G/god'. I interpret the existence of highly sophisticated varieties of non-theist ethics as persuasive evidence that particular idea is simply wrong.

 

[Syne]

Yazata, apparently you either missed or intentionally evaded this reply: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ncept-of-God&p=3132867&viewfull=1#post3132867
And only to continue strawman arguments already repeatedly refuted:

My only interest is to argue against this thread's assertion that morality, certainly any moral system in which morality is believed to be objective, must necessarily be theist in nature and be based on the proper understanding of the 'G/god' concept. (Whatever that is.)

The obvious rejoinder is to point at non-theistic moral systems, such as that of the Buddhists.

The response to that was the seeming insistence that the proper range and extension of the 'G/god' concept includes non-theistic ideas like karma. In my opinion that move expands the meaning of 'G/god' to the point of being meaningless.

Alternatively, some posts seemed to insist that it's only possible for Western atheists to be ethical because they grew up in a cultural environment shaped by Christianity, and possess a theistic concept of 'G/god' even if they don't acknowledge belief in it. It isn't clear if that kind of assertion is applied to the non-Western believers in karma as well, in such a way that Buddhists can only be truly ethical because they know about other peoples' theistic concept of 'G/god', despite that concept not playing a central role in their own cultures and religious systems.

Either way, it appears that Syne and Wynn want to conscript believers in non-theistic karma into the ranks of the theists, or at least define them as free-riders on the true theists' idea of 'G/god'.

In the process, the concept of 'G/god' seems to have been stretched to mean something along the lines of 'anything that supports and justifies an objectivist ethics'. So anyone who holds any sort of objectivist view of ethics must therefore by definition be a theist, however covert, unconscious or unacknowledged their theism might be. And once that's established, all kinds of insults and invective can be directed directed towards the atheists, who are condemned as both morally childlike and evil.

This thread appears to be getting increasingly nasty and I don't intend to get into an ego-driven back-and-forth. I'm just expressing my emphatic disagreement with the idea that a person can't be truly moral and ethically adult, unless that person possesses what somebody else believes is a proper theistic concept of 'G/god'. I interpret the existence of highly sophisticated varieties of non-theist ethics as persuasive evidence that particular idea is simply wrong.

1. I have consistently differentiated the social regulation of morality from the personal sense of conscience, so any supposed assertion that morality must be based on a concept of god is a strawman of your own making. Again, morality is only informed by conscience...they are not synonymous. Debating various moral systems is only a digression from the OP (albeit one I have humored you on).

2. I have repeatedly assumed that a god does not exist, so theism as a necessity is yet another strawman.

3. We get it. You do not have even a rudimentary understanding of an abstract concept of god.

4. There is a wide spectrum of things which effect the development of conscience, and I have already explained that the less concisely they demonstrate an omniscient perspective the less utility they have in that development.

5. Nowhere has anyone, except perhaps you, made any assertions about a specifically Western notion of anything, much less atheists being ethical.

6. Apparently this bears repeating, yet again (ad nauseam)...not theistic, as no god is assumed to exist.

7. Nowhere has anyone, except by your own inference, indicted atheists as "morally childlike and evil". Again, I have only said their understanding of the concept of god is childish, which this post of yours is proving in abundance.

8. Your "emphatic disagreement" is moot, as you have not made any substantial argument, other than of the strawman variety.



But since you are obviously avoiding direct responses so you can play make-believe about what has been said in this thread, I am assuming you will have no better arguments henceforth.

 

[Syne]

"Getting caught" does not change the moral implications of an action, so factoring it in can only be self-serving, which seems to be your point in preferring a solipsistic concept of self. That is the whole point. Well-developed conscience is objectively selfless enough to accurately assess the moral implications without any undue subjective cajoling or justification. (And people wonder why moral relativism is untrustworthy.)

The whole purpose of morality is to associate consequence with action. No matter how well developed a conscience is perceived to be there are always accepted moral tenets that may require challenge or fortification, and getting caught is a commonly associated consequence in the processes. This is part of the process of cultural evolution. As culture changes so do its moral tenets, and accordingly our psychological responses to them.

You are conflating individual conscience with socially regulating morality. The two are not synonymous, even though conscience does inform morality. And no, all morality is not of the consequentialism variety.

What you advocate as a concept of god can at best only reflect the limitations associated with the individual and their culture. It could in no way approximate the perceptive and analytic qualities expected of an omniscient god.

What, so you would require any ideal to be wholly realizable to be of any use whatsoever? There goes all of mathematics.

What, the path that deism was an example of theism differentiated from religion?

No, the path that showed it wasn’t.

From your own link:

Please familiarize yourself with Deism by reading the many articles the links to the left take you to. By using this site you will learn such things as God and religion are two distinct things, that one of the many benefits Deism offers you and your family and friends is solid protection from cults, that America's Declaration of Independence is a Deistic document, that the Bible and Koran paint a very evil and insane picture of God, that the Designer of Nature is as real as the designs in Nature, plus much, much more! - http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm​

Hence "natural religion/philosophy of Deism", because some subsets of deism are more religious oriented, while others are wholly philosophical.

Deists claim that reason and natural law prove the existence of a god, yet no application of either has shown this to be true. If they can’t explain god or its qualities through natural law, then their only alternative is supernatural law, or to drop the claim of knowledge and call it what it is, speculation.

So as long as deists presumes god as an intentional entity in any sense they trade their precious reason for mysticism.

Deists claim that nature proves the existence of a god to them.

"But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes." - http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm​

Seems to be a subjective statement of "proof".

And they do call it speculation:

2. Belief that the nature of God is abstract and generally incomprehensible which puts it beyond definition for humanity at this time. Furthermore, human language is limited and inadequate to define God; however, man can use Reason to theorize and speculate on what this possible nature is. - http://www.moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html​

But narrowly focusing on a few select statements while ignoring the rest of the page is your definition of being comprehensive?

That is a false dilemma. I am taking my support from throughout the page rather than just the specific wording that superficially seems to support my position. Throughout, they distinguish between everything you have attempted to conflate with the concept of god, and now you desperately cling to the word "religion" as if the primary audience for a definition of deism would not be the religious.

But the Big Bang isn’t speculation without evidence, so why even use it as an example? All Speculation isn’t equal, like every other proposition its value is dependent on reason. It’s more reasonable to base speculation on extrapolation of the known, rather than the unknown.

I did not say the BBT was without evidence, I said an ultimate cause for it was without evidence. And yes, all we have is speculation on any such ultimate cause. Ah, you are applying science of the gaps by assuming that science will inevitably fill the gaps in all our current knowledge, so there are no other worthwhile avenues of speculation. That argument is no stronger that god of the gaps, which many atheists have freely admitted and criticized other atheists for trying to argue.

 

[wynn]

My only interest is to argue against this thread's assertion that morality, certainly any moral system in which morality is believed to be objective, must necessarily be theist in nature and be based on the proper understanding of the 'G/god' concept. (Whatever that is.)

The obvious rejoinder is to point at non-theistic moral systems, such as that of the Buddhists.

The response to that was the seeming insistence that the proper range and extension of the 'G/god' concept includes non-theistic ideas like karma. In my opinion that move expands the meaning of 'G/god' to the point of being meaningless.

Alternatively, some posts seemed to insist that it's only possible for Western atheists to be ethical because they grew up in a cultural environment shaped by Christianity, and possess a theistic concept of 'G/god' even if they don't acknowledge belief in it. It isn't clear if that kind of assertion is applied to the non-Western believers in karma as well, in such a way that Buddhists can only be truly ethical because they know about other peoples' theistic concept of 'G/god', despite that concept not playing a central role in their own cultures and religious systems.

Either way, it appears that Syne and Wynn want to conscript believers in non-theistic karma into the ranks of the theists, or at least define them as free-riders on the true theists' idea of 'G/god'.

In the process, the concept of 'G/god' seems to have been stretched to mean something along the lines of 'anything that supports and justifies an objectivist ethics'. So anyone who holds any sort of objectivist view of ethics must therefore by definition be a theist, however covert, unconscious or unacknowledged their theism might be. And once that's established, all kinds of insults and invective can be directed directed towards the atheists, who are condemned as both morally childlike and evil.

This thread appears to be getting increasingly nasty and I don't intend to get into an ego-driven back-and-forth. I'm just expressing my emphatic disagreement with the idea that a person can't be truly moral and ethically adult, unless that person possesses what somebody else believes is a proper theistic concept of 'G/god'. I interpret the existence of highly sophisticated varieties of non-theist ethics as persuasive evidence that particular idea is simply wrong.

Oh please. I expect better from you than such strawmaning!

Looks like your screen name got into your head ...

 

[Syne]

I will consider this thread as ample evidence that many atheists have serious trouble understanding a simple abstract concept of god, even just the concept of omniscience. There have been no compelling arguments to refute that this reflects on the development of conscience, just as I asserted in the OP.

 

[(Q)]

I will consider this thread as ample evidence that many atheists have serious trouble understanding a simple abstract concept of god, even just the concept of omniscience. There have been no compelling arguments to refute that this reflects on the development of conscience, just as I asserted in the OP.

Translated: No one agrees with me, I win! LOL.