The "Use" For God

[Received]

When I work with clients, I (surprise surprise!) focus on cognitions, which are directly and indirectly responsible for emotions and behavior. But I've found that, generally speaking, people care much less about how true or not something is than they do how much a certain belief or behavior is affecting their life (for better but usually for worse).

So for example, take someone who has depression, and they struggle with a long-held schema of, "I'm a failure," which gets activated basically whenever they do something challenging and don't clearly succeed at it, and in proportion to how much and how heavily this trigger gets activated they feel sad, depressed, down, potentially suicidal. Here the pivot point for therapy isn't when they realize, "hey, saying 'I'm a failure' is a magnification and an example of labeling, both of which are cognitive distortions'," although this does help to some degree. The real change happens when they realize, "hey, when I use self-talk that basically is really hard on myself when I don't get something down perfectly, I feel really bad," after which it's "easy" (with some time) to let go of this self-critical and hard way of relating to themselves.

And we talk a lot about God for pure reasons, not at all for practical ones. Same with everything, really. I think it's impossible to begin psychologically to believe in God unless you really have at least opened up a "use" for him in your life. For a lot of people (here most particularly), the "use" for God (practicality) overlaps with the reasons for God (pure reason). But I still think (not just with God but with everything), there's a lot of unaccounted for *lack of use* for believing in God.

So let's try this. On a 1-10 scale (10 highest, 1 nonexistent), how "useful" would God be if he existed? You can put in whatever details you'd like as to how he would be useful, etc. Just explain your answer.

 

[Received]

Here, I'll start.

8/10. I believe, but I don't think (only in a sense) that God is "necessary" for me being happy or the universe being a good place (now, this is a complicated response, given that if God exists and created the universe, you can't not have God and a universe, much less being happy, but you get it).

 

[Paradoxum]

I'd think that most people would see God as very useful if he provides an after life. He could also provide comfort, guidance, and healing. The belief could give you the feeling of more meaning. God could compensate people for the unfairness of life in some way.

If God gives you eternal happiness, then God's usefulness approaches 100%. So you could say God's usefulness is approaching 10 on that thinking.

It's pretty hard to give a number. It depends how you think about the question.

 

[variant]

So let's try this. On a 1-10 scale (10 highest, 1 nonexistent), how "useful" would God be if he existed? You can put in whatever details you'd like as to how he would be useful, etc. Just explain your answer.

As per your argument, the existence of God is irrelevant. You've described God as being a useful idea.

I disagree psychologically though, because in my younger life trying to force myself to believe in God because I was "supposed to" caused me serious problems that disappeared when I stopped trying to do that.

To me it's not a useful idea. It doesn't "help".

 

[Davian]

Can we open up the scale to rate other things that people find useful (if they think them real), such as rabbits feet, amulets, talismans, etc?

 

[bhsmte]

To me, I believed God was real for the vast majority of my life and since I discovered I was only fooling myself, I don't see why it would be useful in any sense.

And, looking at the reality of the world we live in, if God did exist, it would not be the God described in the bible.

 

[Eudaimonist]

When I work with clients, I (surprise surprise!) focus on cognitions, which are directly and indirectly responsible for emotions and behavior. But I've found that, generally speaking, people care much less about how true or not something is than they do how much a certain belief or behavior is affecting their life (for better but usually for worse).

Is it that they don't have a strong concern for what is true, or is it that what is true doesn't affect them as deeply as what is useful in an emotional sense?

I think it's impossible to begin psychologically to believe in God unless you really have at least opened up a "use" for him in your life.

That's an interesting observation. You may be right about that.

On a 1-10 scale (10 highest, 1 nonexistent), how "useful" would God be if he existed? You can put in whatever details you'd like as to how he would be useful, etc. Just explain your answer.

...1...

I'm going to add the qualifier "all other things being equal".

The problem here is that, if God actually did exist, he would presumably be the explanation for the existence of the Universe, and that would give God a "use". However, if all other things are equal, let's say that God is not an explanation for the Universe. He didn't create it. He just found it. Perhaps he had created some other Universes.

Likewise for ethics. Let's say that Divine Command Theory is wrong, and that we have an ethics that is fully explained by our nature as human beings. We've evolved here, but God happens to have taken an interest in us as a species.

So, how "useful" would God be? Not useful at all. I don't require a deity in order to flourish as a human individual. My life is not incomplete without God, despite what some Christians may believe.

Since I don't need God to explain the universe, to explain ethics, or to "live long and prosper", God's usefulness for me is slim. The usefulness of God could only emerge after accepting a Christian view of existence, which I don't find particularly useful because I don't find it particularly true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

When I work with clients, I (surprise surprise!) focus on cognitions, which are directly and indirectly responsible for emotions and behavior. But I've found that, generally speaking, people care much less about how true or not something is than they do how much a certain belief or behavior is affecting their life (for better but usually for worse).

So for example, take someone who has depression, and they struggle with a long-held schema of, "I'm a failure," which gets activated basically whenever they do something challenging and don't clearly succeed at it, and in proportion to how much and how heavily this trigger gets activated they feel sad, depressed, down, potentially suicidal. Here the pivot point for therapy isn't when they realize, "hey, saying 'I'm a failure' is a magnification and an example of labeling, both of which are cognitive distortions'," although this does help to some degree. The real change happens when they realize, "hey, when I use self-talk that basically is really hard on myself when I don't get something down perfectly, I feel really bad," after which it's "easy" (with some time) to let go of this self-critical and hard way of relating to themselves.

And we talk a lot about God for pure reasons, not at all for practical ones. Same with everything, really. I think it's impossible to begin psychologically to believe in God unless you really have at least opened up a "use" for him in your life. For a lot of people (here most particularly), the "use" for God (practicality) overlaps with the reasons for God (pure reason). But I still think (not just with God but with everything), there's a lot of unaccounted for *lack of use* for believing in God.

So let's try this. On a 1-10 scale (10 highest, 1 nonexistent), how "useful" would God be if he existed? You can put in whatever details you'd like as to how he would be useful, etc. Just explain your answer.

First, spontaneous, thought: Depends entirely on what you mean when you say "God".
Second thought: No, it doesn´t. Right from the top of my head I can´t think of any god concept that would get more than a 1 from me. I don´t seem to have any use whatsoever for anything that´s been presented as "God" to me.

And just for clarification: Just like I would take placebos (if only it works), I would believe in a God (if only it works).

I suspect that apologists had greater success rate if they´d focus on telling people (and even moreso: being a living example) what believing in the god of their concept can do for people, rather than focussing on proving his existence.

 

[Paradoxum]

First, spontaneous, thought: Depends entirely on what you mean when you say "God".
Second thought: No, it doesn´t. Right from the top of my head I can´t think of any god concept that would get more than a 1 from me. I don´t seem to have any use whatsoever for anything that´s been presented as "God" to me.

You don't consider heaven, healings, or guidance to be useful?

And just for clarification: Just like I would take placebos (if only it works), I would believe in a God (if only it works).

You would believe in God if you knew it lacked evidence, but it would make you feel better?

I suspect that apologists had greater success rate if they´d focus on telling people (and even moreso: being a living example) what believing in the god of their concept can do for people, rather than focussing on proving his existence.

Perhaps that would make people more interested, and more willing to take it seriously, but that isn't good enough for people who care about truth. I'd think at least some apologists care about truth, not just conversion.

 

[quatona]

You don't consider heaven, healings, or guidance to be useful?

These would be linked to other concepts, to begin with. The whole package would have to be useful.

You would believe in God if you knew it lacked evidence, but it would make you feel better?

Yes (well, the operational term was "it is useful", not: "it makes you feel better", though).
I care about truth because it can be useful to know the truth - not the other way round. Truth is a means, usefulness is the end.

Perhaps that would make people more interested, and more willing to take it seriously, but that isn't good enough for people who care about truth.

People who care about truth don´t even start making claims about the supposedly unknowable.

I'd think at least some apologists care about truth, not just conversion.

If you start contemplating on that which you have defined as unknowable you have to leave the concept of "truth" at the door, anyway.
That´s the particular beauty of it, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Paradoxum]

These would be linked to other concepts, to begin with. The whole package would have to be useful.

I assumed it meant the God idea came with the other concepts. If you just mean a deist God who has never, and never will, do anything, well yeah that is quite useless.

It might be useful in understanding the nature of reality.

Yes (well, the operational term was "it is useful", not: "it makes you feel better", though).
I care about truth because it can be useful to know the truth - not the other way round. Truth is a means, usefulness is the end.

I'd think knowing important truths is good in itself. Though I suppose you could say that I value truth because it makes me happy or feel more meaningful, and those tend to trump any unhappiness found in the truth.

I don't like the idea of caring about important truths only if they benefit you. It seems fake.

Perhaps values always go back to happiness (or something like happiness). Caring about things like truth and meaning are about long term stable happiness. Valuing abstract things might give you something to cling to if you life falls apart. You might be poor, sick and alone, but at least you stood for something that can't be destroyed by bad circumstances.

People who care about truth don´t even start making claims about the supposedly unknowable.
If you start contemplating on that which you have defined as unknowable you have to leave the concept of "truth" at the door, anyway.
That´s the particular beauty of it, as far as I am concerned.

Some don't think that the existence of God, or his qualities, are unknowable.

 

[quatona]

I assumed it meant the God idea came with the other concepts.

What I meant to say was: heaven, divine guidance etc. (even if I found believing in them useful - which actually I don´t) don´t come in isolation. They come with other implications necessary to the god-concept in question that I would have to believe, as well.

If you just mean a deist God who has never, and never will, do anything, well yeah that is quite useless.

Well, you mentioned a God that is conceptualized as providing guidance etc - so I was assuming you were talking about some sort of personal god, and I meant to respond accordingly.

Some don't think that the existence of God, or his qualities, are unknowable.

Yes, some people think a lot of stuff. However, if there were a personal God whose existence could be known we wouldn´t have to think about the usefulness of believing in such, in the first place (I mean, I don´t contemplate on the usefulness of believing in gravity) - we would have inescapable evidence (or they would, and could present it to us).

 

[Paradoxum]

What I meant to say was: heaven, divine guidance etc. (even if I found believing in them useful - which actually I don´t) don´t come in isolation. They come with other implications necessary to the god-concept in question that I would have to believe, as well.

Well, you mentioned a God that is conceptualized as providing guidance etc - so I was assuming you were talking about some sort of personal god, and I meant to respond accordingly.

If I take the question narrowly, then I'd probably agree with you. Belief in God, without any other beliefs, probably isn't very useful.

I suppose I was considering God within the Christian system. Belief in a God that will send everyone to heaven could give you hope.

Yes, some people think a lot of stuff. However, if there were a personal God whose existence could be known we wouldn´t have to think about the usefulness of believing in such, in the first place (I mean, I don´t contemplate on the usefulness of believing in gravity) - we would have inescapable evidence (or they would, and could present it to us).

I agree, but then I don't think we should believe things because they are useful. When I was a Christian I thought there was good reasons to believe in God. I thought people should believe because of these reasons, not because belief felt good.

I don't really know what point I'm trying to make.

 

[quatona]

If I take the question narrowly, then I'd probably agree with you. Belief in God, without any other beliefs, probably isn't very useful.

I´m afraid I still haven´t communicated clearly: I did refer to a particular god concept (which, then, necessarily comes with other beliefs), but then again I can´t seem to manage to take those other beliefs out of their logical context.

I suppose I was considering God within the Christian system. Belief in a God that will send everyone to heaven could give you hope.

Maybe the hope that would come in handy for me wouldn´t be a hope for an eternal life in heaven?
Or maybe accepting this view would prompt me to ask questions like "So why would God even create a state which requires us to hope for something better, in the first place?" (A question that might depress me to a degree that it would level out the positive effect of hope)

I agree, but then I don't think we should believe things because they are useful.

Actually: because the belief is useful.
Anyway, if you feel like it and if you feel it´s possible, I would like you to try to answer the question: Why do you think we shouldn´t do this?

When I was a Christian I thought there was good reasons to believe in God. I thought people should believe because of these reasons, not because belief felt good.

I don't really know what point I'm trying to make.

You needn´t make a point.
We are just comparing our priorities. I don´t even think they need to be justified.

 

[bhsmte]

Not trying to derail, but what about this hypothetical situation:

What if it was discovered (without question) that the christian God did not exist? Would christians then find it useful to explore other religions who have different Gods, or just say, if my God is not real then no God is real?

 

[Received]

Not trying to derail, but what about this hypothetical situation:

What if it was discovered (without question) that the christian God did not exist? Would christians then find it useful to explore other religions who have different Gods, or just say, if my God is not real then no God is real?

Oh, definitely. My "Christian God" (more on this below), or Christian conception of God, is actually the result at least moderately of other religious influences (Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, etc.).

But maybe you mean to say the "Christian conception of God", which is still vague (which Christian conception), but gets away from this polytheistic idea that each particular perspective of God creates its own type of deity, rather than having different conceptualizations that more or less line up with this one, Real God-Something.

 

[Received]

Is it that they don't have a strong concern for what is true, or is it that what is true doesn't affect them as deeply as what is useful in an emotional sense?



That's an interesting observation. You may be right about that.



...1...

I'm going to add the qualifier "all other things being equal".

The problem here is that, if God actually did exist, he would presumably be the explanation for the existence of the Universe, and that would give God a "use". However, if all other things are equal, let's say that God is not an explanation for the Universe. He didn't create it. He just found it. Perhaps he had created some other Universes.

Likewise for ethics. Let's say that Divine Command Theory is wrong, and that we have an ethics that is fully explained by our nature as human beings. We've evolved here, but God happens to have taken an interest in us as a species.

So, how "useful" would God be? Not useful at all. I don't require a deity in order to flourish as a human individual. My life is not incomplete without God, despite what some Christians may believe.

Since I don't need God to explain the universe, to explain ethics, or to "live long and prosper", God's usefulness for me is slim. The usefulness of God could only emerge after accepting a Christian view of existence, which I don't find particularly useful because I don't find it particularly true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Maybe you could call it "contingent usefulness"? God is useful in this universe only if He created the universe and has a play in it; just as God isn't useful if he didn't create the universe and has no play in it, or doesn't exist.

 

[Received]

First, spontaneous, thought: Depends entirely on what you mean when you say "God".
Second thought: No, it doesn´t. Right from the top of my head I can´t think of any god concept that would get more than a 1 from me. I don´t seem to have any use whatsoever for anything that´s been presented as "God" to me.

And just for clarification: Just like I would take placebos (if only it works), I would believe in a God (if only it works).

I suspect that apologists had greater success rate if they´d focus on telling people (and even moreso: being a living example) what believing in the god of their concept can do for people, rather than focussing on proving his existence.

Spot on agreement with your last paragraph: God has practical insiginificance (even repulsion) to lots of people, which is far different in terms of possible importance than whether or not God exists and his existence is articulated reasonable. Reminds me of ol' C.S. Lewis: the biggest concern isn't "there is no God," but "this is what God's really like."

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, definitely. My "Christian God" (more on this below), or Christian conception of God, is actually the result at least moderately of other religious influences (Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, etc.).

But maybe you mean to say the "Christian conception of God", which is still vague (which Christian conception), but gets away from this polytheistic idea that each particular perspective of God creates its own type of deity, rather than having different conceptualizations that more or less line up with this one, Real God-Something.

Let me put it this way. What if it was proven, that Jesus was not God (and there already is legit scholarly debate as to whether it is credible he claimed to be) and Jesus did not rise from the dead? This would basically destroy the core of christian belief and everything around it would come tumbling down.

I would be curious, as to how many christians would then abandon any concept of God and how many would seek another religion, with a different concept of God.

 

[Received]

This whole idea wouldn't really change anything so long as you don't include that would be unambiguously communicated to Christians that Christ didn't rise from the dead and Jesus isn't God.