Why it is silly to look for evidence of God

[aaqucnaona]

Not at all.
A good explanation or theory is one that sets your mind at ease. That's why we seek such that set our minds at ease.

To believe otherwise - namely, to believe that the truth, the ultimate truth, is inherently uncomfortable - is to believe that the true nature of all existence is suffering, in its miriad forms. And to believe that the true nature of all existence is suffering, one has either not thought consistently about the matter; or one is projecting the temporary and external (which abounds with suffering) onto the eternal and inherent.

The ultimate truth, whatever it maybe, is likely to be inherently uncomfortable. We are, after all, just one species on one planet in a tiny corner of the universe. Most of the universe, the earth and even other life-forms are inherently selfishly hostile to us. Nature is suffering and pain, tragedy and death - we have managed to civilise our social environment, but the rest of the biosphere remains very, very uncomfortable indeed. Why should one project the exact OPPOSITE of what is observed? Because it is special, eternal and inherent? How do you substaintiate such a massive and balant contradiction of everything we actually observe in the world when that contradiction is based on "self comfort and good feel" of a single species on 'a dustmote in a sunbeam'?

You really, really must be joking or have very, very good reasons to believe in this contradiction.

 

[wynn]

I doubt if any of these people ever encountered philosophical theology's modern term "classical theist". The phrase may or may not capture some commonality in the thinking of these individuals (I have doubts about Plotinus). But why must we assume that whatever's common to their thinking uniquely captures God essence, or whatever it is? There still seems to be an implicit demand in all this that we accept a particular brand of theology.

The ideas of God that you're likely going to encounter dealing with actual theists in your life - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and some "philosophical/natural theists" - all indeed have in common some points about God, quoting Techne:

1) If God exists, God exists necessarily, in other words, God could not have not existed.
2) If God exists then He has no limitations, God is not limited in perfection, in power, in goodness and in knowledge.
3) If God exists then nothing can come into being or continue to happen without God creating it and sustaining it in existence.

Or, in some other terms: they all believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent, the source/origin of all existence, the Supreme, everything that happen happens under God's supervision ...


I do not believe that these overlaps indicate some higher truth or that they indicate what is essential about God.
Focusing on what actual individual religions have in common and downplaying where they differ may be very misleading; because the things they have in common may bear very different relevance in each of the compared religions, and forcibly focusing on the commonalities can grossly distort the message of each of the compared religions. For example both in Christianity as well as in Hindusim, there is the practice of vegetarianism; but Christianity and Hinduism differ immensely on the importance of vegetarianism.

But why must we assume that whatever's common to their thinking uniquely captures God essence, or whatever it is? There still seems to be an implicit demand in all this that we accept a particular brand of theology.

Not at all. I've been trying to understand how come you repeatedly focus on this demand so much.

That's problematic in my mind. It takes a list of philosophical ideas like necessary being, unboundedness and so on, and then kind of slaps the word "God" onto them.

But isn't 'God' a lot more than that?

Sure.

Isn't God, well... a god? A being worthy of our worship and devotion?

But God can hardly be talked about in that way in the usual interactions between theists and non-theists.

Where does all that religious stuff ccme from? And what justifies us in using the same word "God" to refer to hypothetical philosophical speculations about stuff like necessary or unbounded being, and to Judaism's, Christianity's and Islam's very specific and highly religious content alike? What justifies our somehow equating all of it as one and the same?

Indeed, this equating is a religiological/philosophical/anthropological/culturological abstraction or construct to which the actual individual religions do not subscribe.

Compulsory education on "world religions" tends to lead us to believe that all religions basically teach the same, or have the same goal, or are an expression of the same need or the same truth, but actual individual religions do not think that way (for example, Islam has no tenet according to which Christianity would be equal to Islam, etc.).
So it is questionable to accept the term "world religions" to begin with.

To me, the word "God" looks like a storeroom filled by history's pack-rat, crammed with dusty concepts from many different places and times, that aren't always even consistent with one another.

Indeed, but I do believe it is possible to approach the discussion of the topic "God" more productively.

Again, the notion that all major theistic religions do have some things in common, as mentioned in the beginning of this post, can be used to one's own advantage when feeling pressured by theists.
Namely, the common ideas about God - that God is omniscient, omnipotent, the source/origin of all existence, the Supreme, everything that happen happens under God's supervision - can be used as a quick heuristic against any aversive exclusivism that someone who claims to be a theist may be exerting over oneself.

Instead of getting bogged down by the particularities of Calvinist doctrine, for example, one can quickly restore oneself by reminding oneself of the usual definitions of God (which the Calvinist agrees to as well), and that thus the Calvinist exclusivism is not an actual threat.

 

[wynn]

The ultimate truth, whatever it maybe, is likely to be inherently uncomfortable. We are, after all, just one species on one planet in a tiny corner of the universe. Most of the universe, the earth and even other life-forms are inherently selfishly hostile to us. Nature is suffering and pain, tragedy and death - we have managed to civilise our social environment, but the rest of the biosphere remains very, very uncomfortable indeed. Why should one project the exact OPPOSITE of what is observed? Because it is special, eternal and inherent? How do you substaintiate such a massive and balant contradiction of everything we actually observe in the world when that contradiction is based on "self comfort and good feel" of a single species on 'a dustmote in a sunbeam'?

You really, really must be joking or have very, very good reasons to believe in this contradiction.

The only explanation or theory worth pursuing is one according to which everyone is eventually happy.

All others are just recipes for misery.

 

[gmilam]

The only explanation or theory worth pursuing is one according to which everyone is eventually happy.

All others are just recipes for misery.

IF you really believe this ludicrous idea, then nothing is worth pursuing - because there is nothing which will make everyone happy.

 

[aaqucnaona]

The only explanation or theory worth pursuing is one according to which everyone is eventually happy.

All others are just recipes for misery.

That is the single most powerful individual statement that can be successfully submitted for a darwin or crocoduck award. Wynn, science doesn't care about you or me, it cares about facts. The only theory worth having is one that is predictive and explanatory. It must explain facts and observation, be falsifiable but not be falsified [a very harsh process] and predict future events with enough applicability to be of practical use. You definition of a good theory explains why the new age movement never fails to provide an amazing [but false] explaination of almost everything. What you are suggesting is simply not scientific, it may be not even be considered rational, given that happiness is subjective and everyone cannot be happy at the same time - it is not even a sensible justification for any psuedo-scientific claim.

Dont get me wrong, your intention is good, but the world simply doesn't work that way. It is not a case of the best ideal, often you have to chose the least compromising option - an explaination as one you suggest in not only impractical, it may not even to correct, even if it did make everyone happy.

 

[Enmos]

Not at all.
A good explanation or theory is one that sets your mind at ease.

No. A good theory is one that describes reality closely enough so that it explains certain facts, is testable, and can make predictions.

That's why we seek such that set our minds at ease.

Speak for yourself.

To believe otherwise - namely, to believe that the truth, the ultimate truth, is inherently uncomfortable - is to believe that the true nature of all existence is suffering, in its miriad forms. And to believe that the true nature of all existence is suffering, one has either not thought consistently about the matter; or one is projecting the temporary and external (which abounds with suffering) onto the eternal and inherent.

Black and white much?

 

[C C]

The only explanation or theory worth pursuing is one according to which everyone is eventually happy.

The prescriptive enterprise will always be a continuing passion and necessity of society, regardless of how deep and far the descriptive process goes.

Steven Weinberg ... I must admit science isn't everything. It certainly isn't. There are things that are outside the scope of science and which are still terribly important to human beings. There is metaphysics of a sort that goes beyond the kind of learning processes I mentioned. But there is also aesthetics and morality. It seems to me that there's an unbridgeable gulf between statements with the word "is" and statements with the word "ought." There is no way a scientist [science] can ever tell you how you ought to behave. It may tell you, if you have some fundamental moral principles, how you can satisfy them, how you can bring about what you take as a desired goal. But it can never tell you what your goals ought to be.

There is a moral order. It is wrong to torture children. And the reason it is wrong to torture children is because I say so. And I don't mean much more than that. I mean that not only I say so, John [Polkinghorne] says so, probably most of us say so but it is not a moral order out there. It is something we impose and bully for us. And in this respect I think religion is no better. . . . I think that even those who believe in a god still have the responsibility to answer the question, "What is right?" And they have to answer it for themselves and, if they accept the morality provided by god, that is their choice, so that they, like the atheist scientist, have to make a free choice of moral behavior which is not dictated by a theory of the universe religious or scientific.

..... If, in fact, there is out there built into the structure of the universe an objective meaning, an objective moral order, that would be really quite wonderful. And perhaps part of my passion about this arises from regret that it isn't true. But, if it isn't true, then surely it's better that we not kid ourselves into thinking that it is. It's better that we salvage what we can from at least the satisfaction of creating some meaning around us.
--Was the universe designed? Steven Weinberg and John Polkinghorne: An Exchange; American Association for the Advancement of Science

 

[wynn]

Wynn, science doesn't care about you or me, it cares about facts.

Then you'll need to explain why caring about people is mutually exclusive to caring about facts.

The only theory worth having is one that is predictive and explanatory. It must explain facts and observation, be falsifiable but not be falsified [a very harsh process] and predict future events with enough applicability to be of practical use. You definition of a good theory explains why the new age movement never fails to provide an amazing [but false] explaination of almost everything. What you are suggesting is simply not scientific, it may be not even be considered rational, given that happiness is subjective and everyone cannot be happy at the same time - it is not even a sensible justification for any psuedo-scientific claim.

Dont get me wrong, your intention is good, but the world simply doesn't work that way. It is not a case of the best ideal, often you have to chose the least compromising option - an explaination as one you suggest in not only impractical, it may not even to correct, even if it did make everyone happy.

A view like this already takes for granted that human happiness and truth can possibly be mutually exclusive.

How can they be?

 

[wynn]

No. A good theory is one that describes reality closely enough so that it explains certain facts, is testable, and can make predictions.

Let me remind you then that science, by its nature, is not a definitive, conclusive enterprise, and that its findings at any time are not to be taken as absolute.

 

[wynn]

The prescriptive enterprise will always be a continuing passion and necessity of society, regardless of how deep and far the descriptive process goes.

If there is any order in the Universe - and we take for granted that there is, or engaging in science makes no sense - then the descriptive and the prescriptive must, ideally, match.

Steven Weinberg ...

..... If, in fact, there is out there built into the structure of the universe an objective meaning, an objective moral order, that would be really quite wonderful. And perhaps part of my passion about this arises from regret that it isn't true. But, if it isn't true, then surely it's better that we not kid ourselves into thinking that it is. It's better that we salvage what we can from at least the satisfaction of creating some meaning around us.

--Was the universe designed? Steven Weinberg and John Polkinghorne: An Exchange; American Association for the Advancement of Science

Ah, the bittersweet maybes.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Let me remind you then that science, by its nature, is not a definitive, conclusive enterprise, and that its findings at any time are not to be taken as absolute.

But that's exactly why it's the best game in town.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Then you'll need to explain why caring about people is mutually exclusive to caring about facts.

What? What are you talking about.

A view like this already takes for granted that human happiness and truth can possibly be mutually exclusive.

How can they be?

Maybe the universe and its facts are NOT geocentric and anthropocentric like you?

 

[wynn]

What? What are you talking about.

Maybe the universe and its facts are NOT geocentric and anthropocentric like you?

Why take for granted that humans do not really belong to this Universe, and that they are basically irrelevant?

I'm not arguing for geocentrism or anthropocentrism, just for seeing it as normal that we live here and that our concerns matter - that we are not aliens and that our concerns reflect the reality of this Universe.
Why should atoms be considered somehow more true and more relevant than humans?

 

[wynn]

But that's exactly why it's the best game in town.

Why?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Why take for granted that humans do not really belong to this Universe, and that they are basically irrelevant?

Give me sensible, rational, objective and real evidence or reasons to believe to the contrary and I would consider that humans might have some relevance in the universe. Till then, by all we have observed, we are just a bunch of sophisticated simians on a tiny little dot is the corner of the universe.

I'm not arguing for geocentrism or anthropocentrism, just for seeing it as normal that we live here and that our concerns matter

To us and us alone - our concerns are of no importance to other life-forms on our very planet - if our evoultionary cousins dont consider our concerns to be worth anything, what gives you the idea that the entire universe would have a truth contrary to all observations?

- that we are not aliens and that our concerns reflect the reality of this Universe.

No. Our concerns reflect our own personalities and biological heritage and the reality of the universe is not the beauty of the sunset but the atomic workings of a nuclear reactor - sure you can understand that human emotions and esthetics are a result of our pattern seeking, beauty loving social brains - where the very espect of beauty loving may be of value not to reflect the beauty of the universe but some sexual selection pressure, like in the noteny of the flat human face. Is that not more beautiful, complex and elaborate reality than some vague appeal to universal importance, especially since it has actual observed data to back it up?

Why should atoms be considered somehow more true and more relevant than humans?

Because atoms are everywhere, humans are not - surely the objectivity of atoms and thier presence and role in matter everywhere in the universe is not lost on you?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Why?

Because change makes to possible to explain new things, to improve, predict better results, understand new phenomenon, unravel new mysteries and to make progress and development of human lives, knowledge and technologies.

 

[wynn]

Give me sensible, rational, objective and real evidence or reasons to believe to the contrary and I would consider that humans might have some relevance in the universe.

Do you deem your life is relevant to you?

 

[wynn]

Because change makes to possible to explain new things, to improve, predict better results, understand new phenomenon, unravel new mysteries and to make progress and development of human lives, knowledge and technologies.

Change doesn't equal betterment.

 

[LIGHTBEING]

The only explanation or theory worth pursuing is one according to which everyone is eventually happy.

All others are just recipes for misery.

Ummmm, happy only because they worked out the theory to be true, not happy because it tickles their fancy. It's a major accomplishment to understand, predict, observe and validate a Theory based on Facts.

This is really a ludicrous point you're attempting to make. Take the expanding universe for instance. It is directly observed and verified by Hubble's law. The theory is TRUE but why would it make anyone "eventually happy". Eventually celestial objects in space could be so far away from us that we might not be able to observe them anymore. It will make us even more secluded and lonely in our corner of the universe. Why would this make anyone "eventually happy"? I suggest that it would make people "eventually" sad if anything. But of course this has no reality on the theory or Hubble's Law.

 

[Grumpy]

Excuse me...pardon me...coming thru...

wynn

The only explanation or theory worth pursuing is one according to which everyone is eventually happy.

All others are just recipes for misery.

This is pure non-sense. The Universe doesn't know or care what you think reality is or how happy you are about how reality is. And thinking happy thoughts will not ward off the real things the Universe throws at you.

A theory is best that explains all the facts and can be used to predict the future behavior of the system in question. Ex: It is raining hard but it makes you happiest to live close to the river because catching fish and getting water is very easy there and life is good. Now a theory that says the river is your friend, knows you are there and would never hurt you for you are the rivers favored people might make you happiest, but in reality relying on that will get you killed(unless you are REALLY REALLY good at swimming)but a theory that takes reality into consideration will put the pieces together(near river, hard rain=water rise)will keep you alive. Which is the better theory?

Now an apologist in your camp might say that the flood was because the River(personified)was mad at you for some slight and that if you sacrifice something(or someone)to the great River things will go back to the way it was before, thus saving your original theory, making you happy, and the next time it floods you could repeat the sacrifice, etc... Or you could decide to do the sacrifice ahead of time thinking it will prevent the next flood, but the next flood will occur anyway. Maybe you're just not doing it right, so the sacrifice is done more elaborately, with songs, drums and sermonson the greatness of the River(sure to attract the attention of the River and to please him), all good fun, much happiness. But it still doesn't stop the floods........

Or, you could put your faith in the second theory and when it rains and the river floods you will be unhappy, wet and miserable on the hill next to the river watching your house float down the river, but you will be alive. And some smart person in the tribe will suggest that the next time you build a house you build it up on the hill. It will make you somewhat less happy because trudging up and down the hill is hard work, especially carrying water and fish. But it is still the best theory of the two.

Your happiness does not affect reality, the Universe doesn't revolve around you, nor is it made to fit your needs. In fact, you are as you are BECAUSE you were made(by evolution)to fit reality, whatever your opinion about that reality is.

Sorry for the interuption...carry on.

Grumpy