Do you believe reality must conform to your desires?

[poolerboy0077]

I used to think this line of reasoning was found only in religious moderates, and that fundamentalists rejected this.

Essentially the reasoning I'm talking about goes like this:

Religious moderate version:

"How can you fundamentalists believe in a God who condones horrific atrocities?! I want there to be a loving God, so He must be loving (or actually be love)!"


Fundamentalist version I recently stumbled upon:

"How can you religious moderates/atheists possibly believe in evolution?! The theory promotes a random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless and directionless creation."


​

To see the absurdity in this line of reasoning, consider these examples:



Person X: I like the color pink. Therefore, there are probably pink cats in the world.

OR​

Person Y: I believe there is a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard. I know some people see this as absurd but...I just couldn't live in a universe that didn't have a diamond of that size buried in my backyard. It gives my life meaning and purpose.

OR​

Person Z: Oh my goodness! How can you believe that people actually get raped in real life?! What a horrible belief to hold! Why don't you just believe what I believe instead: that people are all nice to each other and just hold hands to sing Kumbayah all day?



Do you recognize these arguments as absurd? Perhaps you don't. If you don't, why don't you? Do you feel reality has to conform to a rosy picture you have in your mind?

 

[True Scotsman]

I used to think this line of reasoning was found only in religious moderates, and that fundamentalists rejected this.

Essentially the reasoning I'm talking about goes like this:

Religious moderate version:

"How can you fundamentalists believe in a God who condones horrific atrocities?! I want there to be a loving God, so He must be loving (or actually be love)!"


Fundamentalist version I recently stumbled upon:

"How can you religious moderates/atheists possibly believe in evolution?! The theory promotes a random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless and directionless creation."


​

To see the absurdity in this line of reasoning, consider these examples:



Person X: I like the color pink. Therefore, there are probably pink cats in the world.

OR​

Person Y: I believe there is a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard. I know some people see this as absurd but...I just couldn't live in a universe that didn't have a diamond of that size buried in my backyard. It gives my life meaning and purpose.

OR​

Person Z: Oh my goodness! How can you believe that people actually get raped in real life?! What a horrible belief to hold! Why don't you just believe what I believe instead: that people are all nice to each other and just hold hands to sing Kumbayah all day?



Do you recognize these arguments as absurd? Perhaps you don't. If you don't, why don't you? Do you feel reality has to conform to a rosy picture you have in your mind?

What you are talking about is the principle of the primacy of consciousness and it is rampant. This is the view that reality will conform to conscious desires. I hold strictly to the opposite view that existence holds primacy and things are what they are and do what they do regardless of anyone's likes or dislikes. Religion is the primary promoter of the primacy of consciousness view of the world and it is one of the main reasons that I reject religion.

Usually it is just implied in statements like "you just have to have faith", "things will work out if you just believe", and "mind over matter". But religion makes the principle explicit with prayer and stories about mountains moving from here to there with the faith of a mustard seed and water turning into wine. These things are taught to children from the earliest age.

Let's work for the day when the vast majority hold to the primacy of existence. It will be a much better world.

 

[St_Worm2]

Do you believe that reality must conform to your desires?

Nope!

 

[Paradoxum]

Essentially the reasoning I'm talking about goes like this:

Religious moderate version:

"How can you fundamentalists believe in a God who condones horrific atrocities?! I want there to be a loving God, so He must be loving (or actually be love)!"​

I'm not sure that is the reasoning. People probably think that it doesn't make as much sense for God to be immoral. If God is immoral, why does he also try to give good morals, like the golden rule?​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Poolerboy,

Do you believe reality must conform to your desires?

Not really. That's why I'm a Christian.

 

[Smidlee]

"How can you religious moderates/atheists possibly believe in evolution?! The theory promotes a random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless and directionless creation."

I would say the theory of evolution is a random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless and directionless creation of man.

 

[Aldebaran]

Poolerboy,



Not really. That's why I'm a Christian.

^This^

 

[Golden Yak]

I'm not sure that is the reasoning. People probably think that it doesn't make as much sense for God to be immoral. If God is immoral, why does he also try to give good morals, like the golden rule?

I've heard many times from some theists who believe we only have an innate sense of right and wrong because God has directly written it into our hearts, our very 'being'. We can only know things like empathy, altruism, the golden rule, etc. are 'good' because God infuses knowledge of what is 'good' into us.

But if God's writing them onto our hearts, how do we know they're really good? He could make us feel whatever he wanted to in that case - maybe he writes a bunch of bad ones. Accoridng to the theists, we can't tell - we can't know something is good even if it gives obvious benefits and promotes well-being, not without God magically making us know.

It sounds goofy to me, but that must mean that they believe it's possible that something that does only good could really be bad and we can't be sure unless God magically makes us sure.

 

[Paradoxum]

I've heard many times from some theists who believe we only have an innate sense of right and wrong because God has directly written it into our hearts, our very 'being'. We can only know things like empathy, altruism, the golden rule, etc. are 'good' because God infuses knowledge of what is 'good' into us.

But if God's writing them onto our hearts, how do we know they're really good? He could make us feel whatever he wanted to in that case - maybe he writes a bunch of bad ones. Accoridng to the theists, we can't tell - we can't know something is good even if it gives obvious benefits and promotes well-being, not without God magically making us know.

It sounds goofy to me, but that must mean that they believe it's possible that something that does only good could really be bad and we can't be sure unless God magically makes us sure.

I agree that there are problems with how some Christians imagine the source of morality.

 

[lesliedellow]

Absolutely. It has no business doing otherwise.

I suppose there are some numskull atheists who will take that seriously.

 

[JGG]

Absolutely. It has no business doing otherwise.

I suppose there are some numskull atheists who will take that seriously.

Well we're off to another smashing start I see.

 

[Aldebaran]

I've heard many times from some theists who believe we only have an innate sense of right and wrong because God has directly written it into our hearts, our very 'being'. We can only know things like empathy, altruism, the golden rule, etc. are 'good' because God infuses knowledge of what is 'good' into us.

But if God's writing them onto our hearts, how do we know they're really good? He could make us feel whatever he wanted to in that case - maybe he writes a bunch of bad ones. Accoridng to the theists, we can't tell - we can't know something is good even if it gives obvious benefits and promotes well-being, not without God magically making us know.

It sounds goofy to me, but that must mean that they believe it's possible that something that does only good could really be bad and we can't be sure unless God magically makes us sure.

In this case, if humans are so lost so as not to know what is really good or bad, how are we to trust ourselves to make any correct decisions about anything. It sounds to me like another reason we should follow our creator.

 

[Proud Parrot]

Reality is all in my head.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I would say the theory of evolution is a random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless and directionless creation of man.

So would you further hold that that's a reason to not accept it as true?

Absolutely. It has no business doing otherwise.

I suppose there are some numskull atheists who will take that seriously.

If there are those who would take that seriously it would only be because fundamentalist beliefs and sarcastic remarks and virtually indistinguishable from one another.

 

[mindlight]

Do you recognize these arguments as absurd? Perhaps you don't. If you don't, why don't you? Do you feel reality has to conform to a rosy picture you have in your mind?

There is a difference between the primacy of consciousness and the life of faith. The attempt to force reality to conform to ones own internal mental pictures sounds more like witchcraft than faith to me. Ineffectual witchcraft i might add.

The basic approach true religion equips a person with is honesty and otherness. After all faith is not in oneself but another person. The real question of faith is to do with whether we perceive and respond to this Other honestly.

Dealing with reality inside ourselves , as it is revealed in God and as it can be observed in the book of Nature is all a question of honesty. Convictions and prophecies should not be treated with contempt but shouldbe tested and are often wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

I used to think this line of reasoning was found only in religious moderates, and that fundamentalists rejected this.

Essentially the reasoning I'm talking about goes like this:

Religious moderate version:

"How can you fundamentalists believe in a God who condones horrific atrocities?! I want there to be a loving God, so He must be loving (or actually be love)!"


Fundamentalist version I recently stumbled upon:

"How can you religious moderates/atheists possibly believe in evolution?! The theory promotes a random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless and directionless creation."


​

To see the absurdity in this line of reasoning, consider these examples:



Person X: I like the color pink. Therefore, there are probably pink cats in the world.

OR​

Person Y: I believe there is a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard. I know some people see this as absurd but...I just couldn't live in a universe that didn't have a diamond of that size buried in my backyard. It gives my life meaning and purpose.

OR​

Person Z: Oh my goodness! How can you believe that people actually get raped in real life?! What a horrible belief to hold! Why don't you just believe what I believe instead: that people are all nice to each other and just hold hands to sing Kumbayah all day?



Do you recognize these arguments as absurd? Perhaps you don't. If you don't, why don't you? Do you feel reality has to conform to a rosy picture you have in your mind?

What you are referring to here, is really personal psychological needs and how they impact how we interpret reality and how we may want reality to actually be and they are specific to each person.

Some, are very good at being objective about the reality around us and are able to filter out as much bias as possible. Others, may have a deep need to have reality be something different than it actually is and they end up manufacturing their own reality to satisfy this need. The one's that do the latter, typically, need to engage in a whole bunch of; denial, confirmation bias and selective reasoning, to convince themselves, their manufactured reality, is indeed true.

 

[Deidre32]

So, perception is reality? Is that the gist of the thread topic?

 

[JGG]

So, perception is reality? Is that the gist of the thread topic?

What you believe becomes reality.

 

[Golden Yak]

In this case, if humans are so lost so as not to know what is really good or bad, how are we to trust ourselves to make any correct decisions about anything. It sounds to me like another reason we should follow our creator.

I don't think humans are that lost. The idea that we're too untrustworthy to ever recognize what brings well-being versus what damages it is, like I said, totally goofy.

Even if we were, what would make following our creator more likely to be correct, if we can't truly judge? The creator could be a bad guy - we can't know, especially if he's programming us with how to think.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you recognize these arguments as absurd? Perhaps you don't.

Your aim is slightly off. You shouldn't be asking if reality must conform to human desires, because theists are going to say that reality must conform to God's desires.

Of course, it may be psychologically a matter of theists wanting reality to conform to their desires, but they certainly aren't going to look at it that way.


eudaimonia,

Mark