Atheists/Agnostics: How Much Sense Does God Make?

[Received]

Oh, it definitely makes sense. And one doesn't have to be outside religion to see such projections. Call it intrareligious anti-anthropomorphism, you know. But making a claim like that -- that other people in my religion project onto God but I by reflection don't -- means there must be something about God that I haven't projected onto him but still find appealing or fitting with truth. And when we're talking about the projections that really make the most sense, God as mother and father, then I don't think there's a problem at all with projection; you might just as easily say that mother and father are reflections of God's nature, exactly how Eckhart would put it when he says that God is the great father because he creates things, but the great mother also because he sustains all things.

So I don't know about the projection thing, except when it's clear in an individual believer's case that he's buying into something that is clearly a value he has and wouldn't want to part ways with. But if this is the only relevant application of projection with religion, then what do we make of all those people who really live their lives in contrast with the things they believe about God? I.e., they aren't living up to the perfection they aspire for, or they know God holds rules and ideals for behavior that aren't convenient for them?

Then we're back at "authorities, holy men, must be the projectors." Well, how do we know that this is the case, that the people who gave us certain books projected like we're talking about? That's unsubstantiated. And even further than this, who is to say that we should exclusively follow the holy text in coming to conclusions about God? We can use our own reasoning about certain metaphysical possibilities about God to create our own. So now we're back at particular persons and projection.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So you don't think people learn about God, whether or not he exists, by authority. Or that if they do, the authorities (other people) merely project themselves onto God, and these projections become godlike and acceptable to groups of people?

No, I don't doubt that god concepts can be taught. People naturally gravitate toward others with similar beliefs - liberals with liberal beliefs have liberal god concepts and form liberal communities, conservatives with conservative beliefs have conservative god concepts and form conservative communities. If you're raised in one of these communities, it's likely you'll end up the same way.

Beliefs can evolve over time of course, and god concepts always follow. For instance, you may start off with a hardline conservative concept of god, but as soon as you discover you're ok with gay marriage, for example, god will be ok with it too.

 

[Received]

These results are very fascinating. They tell me that a barrier against theism could be lack of a coherent God concept. And that's all the church's fault for making God into either intelligible and cold/mean, not intelligible and nice, or both.

I'm sure I would have answered the most popular response if I didn't have the good fortune of finding smart theists whose deity conception isn't jerklike.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

These results are very fascinating. They tell me that a barrier against theism could be lack of a coherent God concept. And that's all the church's fault for making God into either intelligible and cold/mean, not intelligible and nice, or both.

I'm sure I would have answered the most popular response if I didn't have the good fortune of finding smart theists whose deity conception isn't jerklike.

But your reply even glosses over a key issue. Which church? Though they agree on the 3 main properties of God, they attribute a slightly different set of personalities or directives.

 

[quatona]

These results are very fascinating. They tell me that a barrier against theism could be lack of a coherent God concept. And that's all the church's fault for making God into either intelligible and cold/mean, not intelligible and nice, or both.

Yeah, attribute it to poor PR strategies.

 

[keith99]

Well generally the priest or shamans pushing God put forth a version subject to this criticism.

The most preposterous notion that H. Sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all of history.

Much of Christendom adds this

The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Yeah, attribute it to poor PR strategies.

We don't know this. According to the "His Plan" concept it could just be that the improved PR is scheduled for years or centuries from now in the same way that organized religion started centuries or more (depending on when you believe humanity began) after the first humans roamed the earth.

 

[Received]

But your reply even glosses over a key issue. Which church? Though they agree on the 3 main properties of God, they attribute a slightly different set of personalities or directives.

Which church is irrelevant for two reasons: 1) the overlap among the vast number of denominational differences can still be reduced to basic monotheistic conceptualizations about the God behind these differences; 2) it's more about the lack of a *single* representation that's satisfying, hence "any" church will do.

 

[Received]

I'll say something very, I don't know, shocking here. God is a coherent concept once you get down to it, or at least isn't nonsensical or even moderately puzzling. Yeah, that's my opinion, and has to be such given the nature of argumentation, but with every single attempt to dismantle at least the more philosophical basics related to God (transcending space and time, interventionist, etc.), there hasn't been a successful argument which has made these basics nonsense; all I've seen are philosophical biases or hidden "it just can't be this God stuff" presuppositions which *make* God nonsensical, or (and here's the popular one) theists who have no idea how to present him, almost always a reflection of swallowing dogma without thinking about it properly. So a lot of it is all the overpersonalized religious imagery and contradictions with metaphysical principles which wipe off any possibility for God off the plate that are the problem: e.g., a God who "is love", which in itself sounds insane (but actually could make a lot of sense given the nature of consciousness), but who also sends people to Hell (which is, at the end of the day, bad dogma), or holding to scientism, which negates the possibility of any truth outside of fact.

Of course, this says absolutely nothing about whether or not he exists.

Or there's quantonaism, the superphilosophical position where nothing is ever good enough, probably a reflection of the limitation of language in general at every explaining *anything*, hence we ain't got time for God.

 

[quatona]

Or there's quantonaism, the superphilosophical position where nothing is ever good enough, probably a reflection of the limitation of language in general at every explaining *anything*, hence we ain't got time for God.

How about writing a Wikipedia entry about "quantonaism" - being the expert that you are?

 

[Received]

How about writing a Wikipedia entry about "quantonaism" - being the expert that you are?

lol

I could! But I'd need a picture with a guitar and a really grouchy face!

 

[quatona]

lol
Icould! But I'd need a picture with a guitar and a really grouchy face!

 

[Received]

Perfect!

I knew you had enough sense for a strat!

 

[variant]

These results are very fascinating. They tell me that a barrier against theism could be lack of a coherent God concept. And that's all the church's fault for making God into either intelligible and cold/mean, not intelligible and nice, or both.

The problem is probably more fundamental. The problem is thinking that a church can or should define God.

La religione deve lasciare che dio parli per se stesso

Religion must let God speak for himself

 

[Received]

The problem is probably more fundamental. The problem is thinking that a church can or should define God.

La religione deve lasciare che dio parli per se stesso

Religion must let God speak for himself

That would make a great thread: what prevents people from letting God speak for himself/why can't he speak for himself/ why is religion needed?

My sense is religion is the most violent precisely when it has the least faith that God can take care of himself. Which is probably always attended with a sting of hurt or fear when someone sees the glimmer of despair at his ideas (his religion) being incorrect.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Indeed, Joash (not the famous one) had something to say about that. Judges 6:31

 

[variant]

That would make a great thread: what prevents people from letting God speak for himself/why can't he speak for himself/ why is religion needed?

I feel like the answer is obvious.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Which church is irrelevant for two reasons: 1) the overlap among the vast number of denominational differences can still be reduced to basic monotheistic conceptualizations about the God behind these differences; 2) it's more about the lack of a *single* representation that's satisfying, hence "any" church will do.

In that case a "personal God" doesn't make sense as a God with the 3 main properties would cause spectacular miracles every few hundred years. The OT is filled with groups straying until reminded. By not provided these miracles God would no longer be good because he would be settings us up for failure on purpose.

A "watchmaker God" is possible I'm not convinced we can ever get definitive evidence as such a being would exist beyond what we understand to be the universe. But a watchmaker by definition wouldn't be always good and always present, so would not be the Christian God.

 

[Davian]

I'll say something very, I don't know, shocking here. God is a coherent concept once you get down to it, or at least isn't nonsensical or even moderately puzzling. Yeah, that's my opinion,

Indeed. It is incoherent to me.

and has to be such given the nature of argumentation, but with every single attempt to dismantle at least the more philosophical basics related to God (transcending space and time, interventionist, etc.), there hasn't been a successful argument which has made these basics nonsense;

How does one argue against the unfalsifiable?

all I've seen are philosophical biases or hidden "it just can't be this God stuff" presuppositions which *make* God nonsensical, or (and here's the popular one) theists who have no idea how to present him, almost always a reflection of swallowing dogma without thinking about it properly. So a lot of it is all the overpersonalized religious imagery and contradictions with metaphysical principles which wipe off any possibility for God off the plate that are the problem: e.g., a God who "is love", which in itself sounds insane (but actually could make a lot of sense given the nature of consciousness),

In what possible way could this make "sense"?

but who also sends people to Hell (which is, at the end of the day, bad dogma), or holding to scientism, which negates the possibility of any truth outside of fact.

What truth are you alluding to? Religious "Truth"?

Of course, this says absolutely nothing about whether or not he exists.

Or there's quantonaism, the superphilosophical position where nothing is ever good enough, probably a reflection of the limitation of language in general at every explaining *anything*, hence we ain't got time for God.

God who?

 

[Received]

Bump