God and Needs

[Received]

I think the biggest mistake conventional apologetics makes is neglecting any talk of the need or use for God in addition arguments for him. Clifford Williams distinguishes these by calling the first arguments from need and the latter evidentialist arguments.

And I think anyone without a palpable sense of the usefulness of God, including how he satisfies certain needs (such as meaning or metameaning, comfort, etc.), will have no use for even considering evidentialist arguments seriously. There's just no need to, as there's no cash value at the end of the deal. You might as well be arguing on how many angels dance on a pinhead: if we knew a number here it wouldn't change anything at all, so for the vast majority of people it just doesn't matter.

And it's much worse than it looks here: for lots of atheists and agnostics, I'd bet that it's not just a lack of a realization of needs or uses for God, but that if God exists he creates more problems than he provides. I'm speaking pretty specifically of one thing: the doctrine of hell. It's like there's a sort of fundamentalist presupposition happening with many atheists, where if God exists then he would be a mean Hell-loving deity; therefore God can't possibly exist, and nowhere in this thinking are considerations that are more moderate conceptions of him, which basically what philosophy of religion is all about.

This doesn't just apply with thinking about God, but thinking about anything: unless we're incredibly disciplined (and few of us are to this point), we're going to have psychological biases which determine which arguments are (as William James said) alive or dead to us.

God is to most atheists a dead argument because he has no seen usefulness or satisfies any needs, and with many conceptions even creates more psychological problems than he resolves, notably an eternal Hell.

Response: "well, for me it's all about argument." Response to response: the only person for whom it's just about arguments is a person without a pulse; you have a pulse, ergo, you have other motivations than just evidentialist arguments.

 

[Davian]

God who?

 

[Received]

God Williams. Lives down the street, right next to Flippant Lane.

 

[variant]

I think the biggest mistake conventional apologetics makes is neglecting any talk of the need or use for God in addition arguments for him. Clifford Williams distinguishes these by calling the first arguments from need and the latter evidentialist arguments.

I don't thing things objectively exist based upon how psychologically satisfying their existence may or may not be.

It's not a question of need, it's a question of why I should think peoples psychological needs definitely have objective solutions. Or whether I believe (as I do) that the religious are making things up for this reason.

Hell isn't the only problem here, there is the problem of becoming committed to other peoples wishful thinking or my own.

 

[Belk]

I think the biggest mistake conventional apologetics makes is neglecting any talk of the need or use for God in addition arguments for him. Clifford Williams distinguishes these by calling the first arguments from need and the latter evidentialist arguments.

And I think anyone without a palpable sense of the usefulness of God, including how he satisfies certain needs (such as meaning or metameaning, comfort, etc.), will have no use for even considering evidentialist arguments seriously. There's just no need to, as there's no cash value at the end of the deal. You might as well be arguing on how many angels dance on a pinhead: if we knew a number here it wouldn't change anything at all, so for the vast majority of people it just doesn't matter.

And it's much worse than it looks here: for lots of atheists and agnostics, I'd bet that it's not just a lack of a realization of needs or uses for God, but that if God exists he creates more problems than he provides. I'm speaking pretty specifically of one thing: the doctrine of hell. It's like there's a sort of fundamentalist presupposition happening with many atheists, where if God exists then he would be a mean Hell-loving deity; therefore God can't possibly exist, and nowhere in this thinking are considerations that are more moderate conceptions of him, which basically what philosophy of religion is all about.

This doesn't just apply with thinking about God, but thinking about anything: unless we're incredibly disciplined (and few of us are to this point), we're going to have psychological biases which determine which arguments are (as William James said) alive or dead to us.

God is to most atheists a dead argument because he has no seen usefulness or satisfies any needs, and with many conceptions even creates more psychological problems than he resolves, notably an eternal Hell.

Response: "well, for me it's all about argument." Response to response: the only person for whom it's just about arguments is a person without a pulse; you have a pulse, ergo, you have other motivations than just evidentialist arguments.

I disagree with this. I have seen multiple lines of evidence for there being an advantage to having religion. That does not, however, equate to my thinking that gods are real.

 

[bhsmte]

I disagree with this. I have seen multiple lines of evidence for their being an advantage to having religion. That does not, however, equate to my thinking that gods are real.

Agree. Some need to believe in a God and some don't. As the world evolves, it would appear this need is waning.

Religion can be the best thing for some people and for others, they abuse religious beliefs.

 

[Received]

I disagree with this. I have seen multiple lines of evidence for their being an advantage to having religion. That does not, however, equate to my thinking that gods are real.

But the question is whether this makes you more open to considering arguments for God compared to if you didn't have this realization of religion being advantageous.

 

[Belk]

But the question is whether this makes you more open to considering arguments for God compared to if you didn't have this realization of religion being advantageous.

I would say that I do consider it as a piece of positive evidence for the possibility of a god, so yes it makes me more receptive.

 

[variant]

But the question is whether this makes you more open to considering arguments for God compared to if you didn't have this realization of religion being advantageous.

There are advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Received]

Agree. Some need to believe in a God and some don't. As the world evolves, it would appear this need is waning.

Religion can be the best thing for some people and for others, they abuse religious beliefs.

I think if God exists (and isn't a jerk), he would satisfy all sorts of needs we naturally have. The need for security, being loved, meaning, guidelines for morality, etc.

 

[variant]

I think if God exists (and isn't a jerk), he would satisfy all sorts of needs we naturally have. The need for security, being loved, meaning, guidelines for morality, etc.

Why doesn't it then?

 

[Davian]

But the question is whether this makes you more open to considering arguments for God compared to if you didn't have this realization of religion being advantageous.

It did, until I actually considered and scrutinized those arguments for gods, and found them wanting.

 

[Received]

I don't thing things objectively exist based upon how psychologically satisfying their existence may or may not be.

It's not a question of need, it's a question of why I should think peoples psychological needs definitely have objective solutions. Or whether I believe (as I do) that the religious are making things up for this reason.

Hell isn't the only problem here, there is the problem of becoming committed to other peoples wishful thinking or my own.

I don't think objective evidence is contingent on needs. I'm saying needs are another, just as or more important, part of the puzzle, the other big piece being evidence. More particularly, realizing your need for God (which depends on your conception of God) motivates you to even consider evidence. Without which God is as relevant as answering how many boyfriends Kim Kardashian has really had in her lifetime.

And of course needs have objective solutions, in the sense that any need in her can be satisfied out there (in the world). So even if religions made up God to satisfy needs, the needs are still there, and realizing this fact actually could explain how religions evolved if God doesn't exist: because we have certain big or "cosmic" needs, which religion (and God) were created to fill. Even if God doesn't exist in this sense, and especially given the ambiguity with the question of God (i.e., the furthest we can get are complicated abstract arguments which don't really prove a personal God at all even if we think they're true, as we often don't), I think a person is totally entitled for a good reason in believing in God to satisfy these needs. The "good reason" here is practical rather than pure, but just as important or more important than the evidentialist part.

So I don't think it's just reducible to wishful thinking like this.

 

[Colter]

People might fear a great and terrible God, but they will only truly Love a good God. At the end of the day, faith in God is a trust in his great goodness and a desire to surrender every wish of self for the pursuit of this glorious being.​

 

[Davian]

I think if God exists (and isn't a jerk), he would satisfy all sorts of needs we naturally have. The need for security, being loved, meaning, guidelines for morality, etc.

It does appear that individuals get the feeling of security, being loved, meaning in life, guidelines for morality, etc from their belief in a god. No *actual* gods required.

 

[Received]

It did, until I actually considered and scrutinized those arguments for gods, and found them wanting.

Yeah, because we all know what you mean by evidence and self-negating falsifiability.

And hidden in this statement is the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. When you really properly consider the question of God, you're basically down to the old question of why there's something rather than nothing: God either created stuff or he didn't. This is a purely 50/50 bet here. Even without any evidence at all, to claim that evidence is "wanting" either presupposes some complicated scientifically biased projection onto the problem (e.g., you shouldn't believe in anything unless you have evidence -- which of course is self-negating) or that you're not metaphysically considering the 50/50 chance of God existing giving the dichotomy presented above.

 

[Received]

It does appear that individuals get the feeling of security, being loved, meaning in life, guidelines for morality, etc from their belief in a god. No *actual* gods required.

Right. But you can't believe in something if you don't believe, er, it's true. And what you just said could be applied to every single thing in the universe: other selves might not exist, but we sure do get a good advantage out of believing that they do and aren't apparitions of our own minds.

 

[Received]

People might fear a great and terrible God, but they will only truly Love a good God. At the end of the day, faith in God is a trust in his great goodness and a desire to surrender every wish of self for the pursuit of this glorious being.​

And respectfully too many atheists are just calling it like it is when they say the majority of concepts of God offered by religions aren't good, or good enough to be worth being motivated to look at seriously any further.

 

[Received]

Why doesn't it then?

Why doesn't God satisfy these needs?

 

[Davian]

Yeah, because we all know what you mean by evidence and self-negating falsifiability.

I do not think you have demonstrated that you grok that word yet.

And hidden in this statement is the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence, where evidence is expected. Do you have pixies in your garden, helping the flowers grow?

When you really properly consider the question of God, you're basically down to the old question of why there's something rather than nothing: God either created stuff or he didn't.

Is that all that you are claiming that your God has done, "create stuff"?

This is a purely 50/50 bet here.

Show your math. Define "god".

Even without any evidence at all, to claim that evidence is "wanting" either presupposes some complicated scientifically biased projection onto the problem (e.g., you shouldn't believe in anything unless you have evidence -- which of course is self-negating)

Do be careful not to put words in my mouth. Thanks.

or that you're not metaphysically considering the 50/50 chance of God existing giving the dichotomy presented above.

I do not see how you got to 50/50 without some prior religious presuppositions. As an ignostic, I am not even sure what you are calculating the odds on, never mind how you came up with those numbers.