God and Needs

[variant]

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.

I don't consider the question trivial either.

And of course needs have objective solutions, in the sense that any need in her can be satisfied out there (in the world).

I don't think any problem can be solved just because there is a need.

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 Go851d (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 existentialist part.

The need simply doesn't show any God exists, and none of this shows that there aren't better ways to deal with such a need.

The idea of God should be grown out of if it is merely a projection of our social psychological needs.

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

God doesn't necessarily exist so what is it if the needs are simply unfulfilled?

How would you term a false idea created to fill a psychological need?

 

[variant]

Why doesn't God satisfy these needs?

That was my question. I don't know.

Your belief in the idea of God may satisfy them for you, but my needs certainly aren't satisfied by an idea.

If God exists and isn't a jerk and wants to satisfy my needs for those things why doesn't it?

 

[Davian]

Right. But you can't believe in something if you don't believe, er, it's true.

Believing it to be true does not make it 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.

You mean, "apparitions of our own brains".

It gets me through my day.

 

[Received]

I don't think you broken down my argument enough. I was expecting each letter to be analyzed. Where's the disappointed emoticon?

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

This is the heart of everything. See how easy getting to the main point of an argument can be?

Anyways, justify your statement. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is a straightforward statement.

 

[Received]

That was my question. I don't know.

Your belief in the idea of God may satisfy them for you, but my needs certainly aren't satisfied by an idea.

If God exists and isn't a jerk and wants to satisfy my needs for those things why doesn't it?

This presupposes God is supposed to come to you rather than you exerting some effort or even initiative. Maybe as Pascal said God only shows himself to those who care enough to look for him, and not looking is indicative of not caring. Logically that's a totally solid alternative than us being passive and God pandering to our needs. Another way of looking at it: why should I ask my wife for the salt shaker when she could just give it to me each meal when I want it?

 

[quatona]

dp

 

[bhsmte]

This presupposes God is supposed to come to you rather than you exerting some effort or even initiative. Maybe as Pascal said God only shows himself to those who care enough to look for him, and not looking is indicative of not caring. Logically that's a totally solid alternative than us being passive and God pandering to our needs. Another way of looking at it: why should I ask my wife for the salt shaker when she could just give it to me each meal when I want it?

I think the bigger question is; what would motivate someone to actively look for a God, that is not apparent to us?

I believe the answer lies in psychological need to look and find him, which is not a bad thing with many. Could be why, those in desperate situations, seek and find God; those in prison who find God and the countries where Christianity is growing the most, in third world countries where people need some hope.

 

[Davian]

I don't think you broken down my argument enough. I was expecting each letter to be analyzed. Where's the disappointed emoticon?

No, when you break it down further, the responder deletes your detailed response, and makes a flippant remark. The questions asked are simply evaded.

This is the heart of everything. See how easy getting to the main point of an argument can be?

Anyways, justify your statement. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is a straightforward statement.

That is not my statement.

 

[quatona]

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.

Ah, so I see you have learned in our discussion that reducing "God" to "timeless, spaceless first cause" isn´t getting you anywhere - simply because it doesn´t appeal to any of the needs or uses that people have for Gods?

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.

Does not really follow. There are a lot of things I have no need nor use for (let´s say the ebola virus) but I can´t help considering evidentialist arguments for it. The reason is, that there are evidentialist arguments.

There's just no need to, as there's no cash value at the end of the deal.

Depending on the God concept there would be "cash value at the end of the day", just like there is "cash value" in the question "Does the ebola virus exist?".

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.

Well, I think you are making progresses and you´ve got it at least half right.

Convincing people by appealing to the need for or usefulness of something, of the beauty of the idea requires one strategy: This is where you can tell your narratives, where you can bring up your intuition, where you can manipulate emotionally, where your knowledge as a shrink may come in handy. (And for whatever reason, once they have been convinced that the existence of something is desirable, many people do not even ask whether it exists or not. That´s basically the success story of every charlatan - which is not to say that everyone who uses this strategy is necessarily a charlatan.)

Convincing people of the existence of something requires quite a different strategy. It means coming up with actual evidence.

So since you seem to ask yourself why your apologetics attempts are so unsuccessful, I will tell you:
You keep mixing the two, and that weakens each of the approaches.

If you want to seduce people (and I mean that in an entirely positive way), you are not well advised to start mentioning "truths", "facts" and "evidence". It just brings people to the very doubts that make seduction unsuccessful.

Likewise, if you want to convince people rationally (evidentially), you are well advised not to appeal to your intuition, to bring up long-winded sophisms or theoretical arguments: You have created a setting in which everyone awaits your announce evidence - and everytime you evade to emotionalisms, intuitionalisms, appeals to need or usefulness, beauty of your idea even, they will be left assuming that you don´t have what you claim to have: evidence.

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.

And that´s another point where you actually immediately lose me: You are saying "God" as though you had already told everyone what exactly you are talking about - whereas there are countless different god concepts in store. If you even only want to find out whether I have use and need for God, you would at first have to tell me what God is, for purposes of your seduction attempt. I certainly have no need nor use for a mere term.

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,

Well, that would be a terrible argument (it´s a non-sequitur if there ever was one) - and while there certainly are some atheists who make it occasionally, I must say I am a bit frustrated to see you summarizing your many discussions here with various atheists to the worst argument that can possibly presented.

and nowhere in this thinking are considerations that are more moderate conceptions of him, which basically what philosophy of religion is all about.

Again:

This is completely irrelevant once you try to argue rationally (evidentially). Hardly anybody is so stupid to deny the existence of something just because its existence would be undesirable. If you have evidence, present it. Everything else will make you appear evasive.

Whereas on the seduction route, I think you can easily acquire believers by modeling your god concept after their psychological needs. The entire NewAgeist and Universalist movements are living proof of that.

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.

Again, you have that half right. If you go down the seduction route, this is an entirely accurate observation. Whereas if you go down the evidentialist route, all that counts is your evidence. The problem on this route is that you don´t have any, and you keep beating around the bush and finally try the seduction route, which has already been burnt by your announcement that you are going to talk about evidence, "truth" and such things.

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.

First off: God isn´t an argument at all. There are certain requirements for something to be an argument.
Secondly (and I am afraid I am repeating myself here): If you want to appeal to people´s needs etc., don´t even use the word "argument". Because doing so isn´t an argument, and by using this word you make them expect an argument that you aren´t even intending to present.

God, as far as I am concerned, is a projection of people´s needs on an external entity. If there is anything that creates a psychological problem with me, it is that there are people who feel good about the concept of hell.
I am familiar with quite some god concepts that don´t involve a hell, and yet I don´t believe in them. So no.

Received, I for one will openly tell you that I am open to adopt the most beautiful and appealing metaphysical concept I am presented - provided it isn´t too self-contradicting or clashing with observable facts. Simply because that´s what metaphysics (due to lack of evidence) can be about at best.
So everybody go ahead and seduce me. But: as soon as you bring up "evidence" or "truth" or "reality" you will have lost me immediately. Just like a lady you want to seduce will start switching on her brain once you mention "pregnancy", "STDs", "contraception" or "your husband" on the way.

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.

Are you talking to yourself now?

 

[Received]

I never said apologetics is unhelpful, or that spaceless, timeless, etc. are ideas that I don't think have value.

Does not really follow. There are a lot of things I have no need nor use for (let´s say the ebola virus) but I can´t help considering evidentialist arguments for it. The reason is, that there are evidentialist arguments.

I'm not following.

Likewise, if you want to convince people rationally (evidentially), you do are well advised not to appeal to your intuition, to bring up long-winded sophisms or theoretical arguments: You have created a setting in which everyone awaits your announce evidence - and everytime you evade to emotionalisms, intuitionalisms, appeals to need or usefulness, beauty of your idea even, they will be left assuming that you don´t have what you claim to have: evidence.

You really have an axe to grind, eh?

I never evaded anything to emotionalism, but I still strongly insist that intuition is the basis of knowledge in upholding our axiomatic ideas and instinctive beliefs about things. So?

And again, let's make is simple: I think there's motivation to consider an idea as true, and there's the argument related to the thing claimed to be true. Usefulness motivates the attention with which one directs toward considering evidence. And unlike you, I'd sure as heck be motivated to consider the truth of ebola because inherent to ebola existing is the possibility that I might get it -- motivation city.

Are you saying that you think about things you consider to be useless, or that there is some degree of usefulness (even if it means the dopamine response in your brain in the process of considering something otherwise useless) that motivates you to consider things? Because if you think the former, I don't know why you think about things. On a neurological level you are quite simply a sadist if you continue to do things that you aren't getting some type of reward from immediately or you believe will be there in the long run. That's why I don't read tax records in my free time.

 

[Received]

No, when you break it down further, the responder deletes your detailed response, and makes a flippant remark. The questions asked are simply evaded.

Never deleted. You think I'm under an obligation to respond to every remark you made rather than the most pertinent? Justify that.

That is not my statement.

That's true! That was mine. I.e., my statement has its own justification by just stating it, given that I'm pointing out how one thing (absence of evidence) isn't another (evidence of absence), like how a person says "a tree isn't an orange and an orange isn't a tree." Where's your justification?

 

[quatona]

And just one other hint, Received:
Your favourite evasion of pointing to your idea that scientific findings are just as unevidenced as metaphysical ideas doesn´t make your seduction attempts any more successful. Rather, they also are suited to make people use their brains and say to themselves: Now that´s wild. He was speaking so beautifully about metaphysics and it gave me such a warm and fuzzy feeling, but now that he talks about real things he seems to lose it altogether. I better watch out.

There´s a reason why scientist never discuss whether their finding are palatable enough, and whether they should alter them because a different finding would be more attractive, and why that´s basically the question you want to discuss here concerning religions.

 

[Received]

Go jump in the lake, quatona.

I mean, you're probably hot from all that venting, so I want the best for you.

 

[Davian]

Never deleted. You think I'm under an obligation to respond to every remark you made rather than the most pertinent? Justify that.

Responding to sentences ending with questions marks is conducive to the discussion.

How can we calculate the odds on your "God" if we have yet to establish and agree upon what you mean by "God"?

That's true! That was mine. I.e., my statement has its own justification by just stating it, given that I'm pointing out how one thing (absence of evidence) isn't another (evidence of absence), like how a person says "a tree isn't an orange and an orange isn't a tree." Where's your justification?

By "That is not my statement" I meant that you misquoted me.

I said, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, where evidence is expected.

It may be that you have a god that leaves no evidence for its existence. That does beg the question, why do *you* think it exists?

 

[quatona]

Go jump in the lake, quatona.

I mean, you're probably hot from all that venting, so I want the best for you.

So much for your idea that we know what´s good [what was the virtualists´ choice of word here, again? I forgot.] for everyone.
I have fever, cold, coughing, headache, limb-aches and all other sorts of symptoms. It´s 10°C outside, and the nearest lake is 30km from here.

So, while I would usually have offered you the deal: You seriously consider my advice, and I will consider yours - this is out of the question at this point. For obvious reasons I wouldn´t be willing to do my part.
Risking that my efforts to put together helpful coherent thoughts were in vain.

 

[Received]

So much for your idea that we know what´s good [what was the virtualists´ choice of word here, again? I forgot.] for everyone.
I have fever, cold, coughing, headache, limb-aches and all other sorts of symptoms. It´s 10°C outside, and the nearest lake is 30km from here.

So, while I would usually have offered you the deal: You seriously consider my advice, and I will consider yours - this is out of the question at this point. For obvious reasons I wouldn´t be willing to do my part.
Risking that my efforts to put together helpful coherent thoughts were in vain.

quatona, you remind me of a rule I'd like to make much more well known in society. Goes like this:

Thou shalt not take something ostensibly intended as a joke arbitrarily seriously.

That said, I hope you feel better, take my jokes as jokes, and we'll continue our discussion on all the things you don't like later.

 

[variant]

This presupposes God is supposed to come to you rather than you exerting some effort or even initiative. Maybe as Pascal said God only shows himself to those who care enough to look for him, and not looking is indicative of not caring.

You are simply presupposing a lack of effort on my part to cover the hole in your argument.

I come from a religious background. You don't think my former Catholicism was a sincere effort?

No, I simply don't think you can force a belief in God no matter how much you might like to.

I came to this conclusion after failing to force the beliefs I wanted to believe.

Logically that's a totally solid alternative than us being passive and God pandering to our needs. Another way of looking at it: why should I ask my wife for the salt shaker when she could just give it to me each meal when I want it?

Obviously I remain unconvinced regardless any effort on my part, so obviously I require some hand holding.

So, since God obviously has the power (he is the bigger person in your thought experiment) and isn't a jerk, why hasn't God fulfilled my needs?

The question seems simple enough. You can simply admit you don't have an answer, or talk down to me some more, your choice.

 

[quatona]

quatona, you remind me of a rule I'd like to make much more well known in society. Goes like this:

Thou shalt not take something ostensibly intended as a joke arbitrarily seriously.

Cool rule!

Now how about this rule:
Thou shalt not ask a question and then respond to someone who has been putting much time and effort in answering seriously by merely making a joke that´s completely unrelated to what he´s been talking about.

That said, I hope you feel better, take my jokes as jokes, and we'll continue our discussion on all the things you don't like later.

Well, I guess you are not familiar with my kind of humour, so you missed it in my response. Should I explain it to you?

As for delaying the conversation: Not because of me - I don´t have anything better to do in my current condition, anyway. Plus, I feel I can still think clearly.

Thanks for the good wishes!

 

[quatona]

So what could be an unmet need you could possibly appeal to in your upcoming attempts at seduction, Received?

The thing is: I can´t think of any (or at least not any that God concepts of whatever provenience typically try to fulfill).

Most of the time I get promised abstractions of the kind that don´t have a place in my personal reality anyway, like e.g. justice, forgiveness. So forget those.

Afterlife? I can´t imagine how an eternal existence could possibly be attractive. In my experience the attraction of stuff depends on their finiteness. So nope.

Comfort for fear of death? I don´t fear death. In my experience people who fear death haven´t grasped what "death" means. It´s not a state of being. Btw I just made a song out the poem "Do not stand at my grave and weep" which talks about the impossibility of "being dead". I´m hoping to seduce some persons with it in order to give them comfort in their fear of death. So I guess you and I are competitors when it comes to that particular target group. So thanks, no.

Confidence? I think I have told you already in another thread that the God I was introduced to was a very good tool to equip me with confidence. Just like the saying of my mother "You are born on a Sunday - Sunday children are always on the bright side of life" did. Interestingly, the confidence stayed with me even after learning that these were but metaphores, but very powerful ones.

Anything I hadn´t thought of?

So your designated target group are people with unfulfilled needs whom you can convince there´s "cash value at the end of the deal" (your words!), and you are disappointed that certain people appear to be flourishing (yes! THAT was the word!!) without metaphysical promises. Is that really such a bad thing?

Different question: Does promising "cash value at the end of the deal" coming from metaphysical entities play a part of your professional efforts? I imagine that it is easier to spot unmet needs in persons who are suffering psychically.

 

[quatona]

So there is a group of comedians in Germany called "Studio Braun", who do telephone pranks. Actually, that aren´t pranks in the strict sense. Very intelligent and highly funny stuff, for the most part.
Here they advertised used power saw for sale in the local paper, with a telephone number, and this is the conversation with the first (female) customer who calls (Well, it´s about the first half of the conversation, but it goes on in the same way, getting ever absurder).

I transcribed and translated it for you. Have fun.

He: Power saw?
She: Yes?
He: Yehes.
She: Ahm, I wanted to ask: Is it an electrical one? Or...is it still available at all?
He: That´s a...that´s a real...such a quite small one...
She: Yes?
He: It has a neat shape...there´s a silver chain on it...
She: Yes?
He: And it, ahm, I used to wear it until the day before yesterday.
She: I see. And is that an electrical one or with fuel?
He: Fuel! I mean electric fuel.
She: Electric fuel?
He: Pardon?
She: Electricity or fuel?
He: Yes. Either or. (Pause) To be honest: I don´t know. It isn´t mine.
She: I see.
He: I have it here in my attic, I wrapped it into an old cloth, it lies there, up there.
She: I see. And ahm...
He: That beast stinks like, ahm, like, ahm, like an, like an old, ahm, like a...hammer.
She: I see. Haha. And it is still there?
He: Sure it is!
She: And where is it – in case you want to have it?
He: It´s here at my home, I have it here in my attic, there. I have stuck it firmly there. (Pause) And it´s supposed to remain there. It´s stuck firmly there. It fell into a honey pot.
She: I see! So it needs to be cleaned first?
He: No, it´s mint condition, it´s shining, it´s new.
She: I see!
He: I used to wear it until, until three days ago. It is such a, such a...if you go to the tennis court you can easily wear it around your neck.
She: A power saw??
He: Yes, a very small one.
She: Ah, I see: it´s juwelry!
He: No, no, it works...it...I have used it, it is really...I took down an owk with it.
She: I see.
He: That thing is about 30, 40 cm long,
She:Mhm...
He: up to a meter,
She: I see.
He: and it has a long wooden linkage on it, which you place yourself upon...with a hammer.
She: I see. (Pause) Ehe? (Pause) Can I come to look at it?
He: YES, SURE...that...but...that´s totally impossible currently.
She: No. Then tell me a when to come.
He: PARDON?
She: Then tell me when to come.
He: Yes, ok, I happen to be working abroad this entire year.
She: I see.
He: Tomorrow would be easily possible for me.
She: Yes!
He: Or today.
She: Yes, you tell me when. I´ve got plenty of time.
He: So, I need to explain it to you once more: That thing is very heavy. There´s, there´s such a thick sheet of lead welded to its bottom...
She: Mhm...
He: ...and there are four grips attached to it, with such small, with such...how to say...such, such, such.,. there´s such jungle stuff..
She: I see.
He: ...is on it. How to describe it? It looks like curly hair.
She: I see.
He: I´m sure you know it, what is it, from the realm of craftmanship? Such a curly... curly jungle stuff there...
She: I see. No. I know nothing about that.
He: Why not?
She: I thought it was a normal power saw, with a motor to power up...
He: Yes, yes, sure, it´s quite normal.
She: I see.
.....
​